OT: Even if UAE wasn't a terrorist hotbed, which it is ...
quibbler
ground, which he did, and even if the UAE's banking system hadn't
transferred funds to 9-11 hijackers, which they did, and even if UAE
ports hadn't shipped nuclear materials for AQ Khan, which they did, and
even if catastrophic failure michael chertoff actually had a clue about
how to protect this country, which he doesn't, we still shouldn't turn
our ports over to a state run UAE company. For one thing, even if we
could trust these folks, they might be infiltrated by agents with other
agendas hostile to ours. Even if the UAE is officially friendly to the
US, officials might be bribed, or incompetents like brownie and chertoff
could be overseeing operations in the UAE and here. Even if everyone in
Dubai Ports World was trustworthy, which is doubtful, the
detailed intelligence on the port schmatics and the procedures for how
the ports were run could provide the critical information needed to stage
a terrorist attack.
We make grandmothers take their shoes off and put them through an x-ray
machine because we're afraid that she might be an al quaeda sleeper.
Yet, we know that most of these shipping containers aren't even scanned.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
johac
quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Even if one of the 9-11 hijackers hadn't used the UAE as a staging
> ground, which he did, and even if the UAE's banking system hadn't
> transferred funds to 9-11 hijackers, which they did, and even if UAE
> ports hadn't shipped nuclear materials for AQ Khan, which they did, and
> even if catastrophic failure michael chertoff actually had a clue about
> how to protect this country, which he doesn't, we still shouldn't turn
> our ports over to a state run UAE company. For one thing, even if we
> could trust these folks, they might be infiltrated by agents with other
> agendas hostile to ours. Even if the UAE is officially friendly to the
> US, officials might be bribed, or incompetents like brownie and chertoff
> could be overseeing operations in the UAE and here. Even if everyone in
> Dubai Ports World was trustworthy, which is doubtful, the
> detailed intelligence on the port schmatics and the procedures for how
> the ports were run could provide the critical information needed to stage
> a terrorist attack.
> We make grandmothers take their shoes off and put them through an x-ray
> machine because we're afraid that she might be an al quaeda sleeper.
> Yet, we know that most of these shipping containers aren't even scanned.
Cartoon on the subject (but not that funny):
http://tinyurl.com/fr29b
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1e659aab...@news.readfreenews.net:
> Even if one of the 9-11 hijackers hadn't used the UAE as a staging
> ground, which he did, and even if the UAE's banking system hadn't
> transferred funds to 9-11 hijackers, which they did, and even if UAE
> ports hadn't shipped nuclear materials for AQ Khan, which they did,
> and even if catastrophic failure michael chertoff actually had a clue
> about how to protect this country, which he doesn't, we still
> shouldn't turn our ports over to a state run UAE company. For one
> thing, even if we could trust these folks, they might be infiltrated
> by agents with other agendas hostile to ours. Even if the UAE is
> officially friendly to the US, officials might be bribed, or
> incompetents like brownie and chertoff could be overseeing operations
> in the UAE and here. Even if everyone in Dubai Ports World was
> trustworthy, which is doubtful, the detailed intelligence on the port
> schmatics and the procedures for how the ports were run could provide
> the critical information needed to stage a terrorist attack.
> We make grandmothers take their shoes off and put them through an
> x-ray machine because we're afraid that she might be an al quaeda
> sleeper. Yet, we know that most of these shipping containers aren't
> even scanned.
>
Hey, quibbler, welcome to the Dark Side! Join the rest of the
Democrat/Hypocrites.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_22_06_MM.html
They Are All Profilers Now
By Michelle Malkin (yes, THAT Michelle Malkin!)
For the past several years, I've been condemned as an "extremist" for
advocating nationality profiling -- unapologetically applying stricter
scrutiny to terror-sponsoring and terror-sympathizing countries in our
entrance, immigration and security policies.
Now, mirabile dictu, some of the same Democrats who have routinely
lambasted such profiling are rushing to the floors of Congress and in
front of TV cameras espousing these very same policies. The impetus: the
White House's boneheaded insistence on ramming through a $7 billion deal
giving United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World control over
significant operations at six major American ports in New York, New
Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.
Make no mistake. I stand with critics on both sides of the aisle who
want to stop the secretive deal transferring operations of our ports to
the UAE -- a Middle Eastern government with a spotty record of fighting
terrorist plots and terrorist financing. The issue is not whether day-
to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. The issues
are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to
sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S. ports,
which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether
the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.
From every angle -- political, safety and sovereignty-wise -- Dubai
Ports World's business transaction (made possible by an unprecedented
$3.5 billion Islamic financing instrument called a "sukuk" that upholds
sharia law) looks bad and smells worse.
But there is a teachable moment here that shouldn't be missed. The tone-
deafness of the White House is bad. The craven political opportunism of
the Democrats is worse.
Listen to Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat: "I think we've got to look
into this company. I think we've got to ensure ourselves that the
American people's national-security interests are going to be protected.
And frankly, I think the threshold ought to be a little higher for a
foreign firm."
And Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat: "It is ridiculous to say
you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that
had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of
our largest ports. This has to stop."
And Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat: "Our port security is too
important to place in the hands of foreign governments. I will be
working with [New Jersey] Senator [Robert] Menendez to introduce
legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign
governments."
And Sen. Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, who said the Dubai
company's involvement "is enough to raise a flag -- at least to do a
thorough review, at minimum."
I wish these politicians luck in their quest to block the UAE transfer,
shed light on the process led by the shadowy Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States, and join with congressional Republicans
to put American security interests first. But as they attempt to do
their best Pat Buchanan impressions, let's not forget:
It was Democrats who tried to block Bush administration efforts to
impose common-sense citizenship requirements on airport security workers
in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
It was Democrats who attacked the Bush Justice Department after the
September 11 attacks for fingerprinting young male temporary visa
holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations;
temporarily detaining asylum seekers from high-risk countries for
background screening; and sending undercover agents to investigate
mosques suspected of supporting terrorism.
It was Democrats who secretly attempted to remove funding for the
National Security Exit-Entry Registration System -- the Justice
Department program that helped nab at least 330 known foreign criminals,
15 illegal-alien felons and three known terrorists who attempted to
enter the country.
And just one week ago, it was failed Democratic presidential candidate
Al Gore who was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, attacking the Bush
administration's profiling and immigration enforcement against illegal
aliens from terror-friendly countries as "terrible abuses."
Perhaps the UAE will be hiring Gore to condemn the "abusive" practices
now being championed by his fire-breathing extremist Democrat
colleagues?
After all, they are all red flag-raising, threshold-hiking, thorough
review-espousing, foreign ownership-banning profilers now.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Considering 28 of the 31 Democrats have received Abramoff-affiliated
funds themselves, it appears their hypocrisy has exceeded even their
partisanship," - Tracey Schmitt, Republican National Committee.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
quibbler
fsto...@earthling.com says...
Nope, you're just such a brainless fool that you swallow tripe from hacks
like Malkin, who can barely figure out which side of her mouth she wants
to talk out of today. It's not about "profiling" because, first off,
we're talking about governments and organizations as opposed to merely
keying upon individuals with dark skin. It's not about whether they are
muslim or have a beard or wear a nappy on their heads. It is about
evidence of past failures in UAE security and infiltration of their
country by al quaeda agents. Indeed, there is greater evidence of anti-
american, jihadist operations in dubai than there was in baghdad before
our boondoggle invasion. Where individual can be singled out, it is not
being done with vague stereotypes. We're talking about catastrophically
and criminally incompetent people like Mikey "skeletor" Chertoff. When
he tells you that he's looked at it and gives his personal guarantee that
it's above board that should set off warning klaxon loud enough to wake
the fucking dead. So quit your usual partisan bullshit on this. While
you might not give a shit about the future of this country, there are
still some people like myself who care about real homeland security.
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1e66263fd...@news.readfreenews.net:
Face it, quibbler, you're a racist. England has had a worse problem with
terrorists than the UAE, but nobody complained about using a British
firm to contract the stevedoring operations at those ports.
> It's not
> about whether they are muslim or have a beard or wear a nappy on their
> heads. It is about evidence of past failures in UAE security and
> infiltration of their country by al quaeda agents. Indeed, there is
> greater evidence of anti- american, jihadist operations in dubai than
> there was in baghdad before our boondoggle invasion.
Cites, please.
> Where individual
> can be singled out, it is not being done with vague stereotypes.
Woo, two of the 9/11 hijackers were from Dubai. The UAE are an ally in
the war on terrorism.
> We're talking about catastrophically and criminally incompetent people
> like Mikey "skeletor" Chertoff. When he tells you that he's looked at
> it and gives his personal guarantee that it's above board that should
> set off warning klaxon loud enough to wake the fucking dead.
And we're talking about terminally stupid people like you making
irresponsible accusations like the above.
> So quit
> your usual partisan bullshit on this. While you might not give a shit
> about the future of this country, there are still some people like
> myself who care about real homeland security.
>
Really? Then why are you going on about something as irrelevant as this?
Mamamia
quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nope, you're just such a brainless fool that you swallow tripe from hacks
> like Malkin, who can barely figure out which side of her mouth she wants
> to talk out of today. It's not about "profiling" because, first off,
> we're talking about governments and organizations as opposed to merely
> keying upon individuals with dark skin. It's not about whether they are
> muslim or have a beard or wear a nappy on their heads. It is about
> evidence of past failures in UAE security and infiltration of their
> country by al quaeda agents. Indeed, there is greater evidence of anti-
> american, jihadist operations in dubai than there was in baghdad before
> our boondoggle invasion. Where individual can be singled out, it is not
> being done with vague stereotypes. We're talking about catastrophically
> and criminally incompetent people like Mikey "skeletor" Chertoff. When
> he tells you that he's looked at it and gives his personal guarantee that
> it's above board that should set off warning klaxon loud enough to wake
> the fucking dead.
It should wake the dead whether they are fucking or not! <grin>
Homeland security is nothing more than a sick joke. Borders like a sieve
on the south and north, shipping containers not checked by equipment
that could have been bought with _one_month's_worth_ of expenses in
Iraq. And while they were scanning grannies as they boarded planes, they
were also stealing my digital camera out of my luggage...what a bunch of
tripe!
This kind of nonsensical approach to security is blatantly inexcusable.
In fact, I personally think it is impeachable. But then we have that
repug congress drooling over the chimpster like he's a tenderloin...and
only caring that they get re-elected.
> So quit your usual partisan bullshit on this. While
> you might not give a shit about the future of this country, there are
> still some people like myself who care about real homeland security.
--
"It is easier to fight for your principles
than to live by them."
Mark K. Bilbo
<quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Even if one of the 9-11 hijackers hadn't used the UAE as a staging ground,
> which he did, and even if the UAE's banking system hadn't transferred
> funds to 9-11 hijackers, which they did, and even if UAE ports hadn't
> shipped nuclear materials for AQ Khan, which they did, and even if
> catastrophic failure michael chertoff actually had a clue about how to
> protect this country, which he doesn't, we still shouldn't turn our ports
> over to a state run UAE company. For one thing, even if we could trust
> these folks, they might be infiltrated by agents with other agendas
> hostile to ours. Even if the UAE is officially friendly to the US,
> officials might be bribed, or incompetents like brownie and chertoff could
> be overseeing operations in the UAE and here. Even if everyone in Dubai
> Ports World was trustworthy, which is doubtful, the detailed intelligence
> on the port schmatics and the procedures for how the ports were run could
> provide the critical information needed to stage a terrorist attack.
> We make grandmothers take their shoes off and put them through an x-ray
> machine because we're afraid that she might be an al quaeda sleeper. Yet,
> we know that most of these shipping containers aren't even scanned.
And last I heard, the UAE still (or until recently) recognizes the Taliban
as the government of Afghanistan...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Churches are closing...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M611110AC
Mardi Gras is rolling...
http://www.nola.com/mardigras/
Now, what was this about god's judgement?
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
Mark K. Bilbo
<quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<PIGGYBACKING>
> In article <Xns97725A3E2...@66.150.105.47>,
> fsto...@earthling.com says...
>
>> Hey, quibbler, welcome to the Dark Side! Join the rest of the
>> Democrat/Hypocrites.
>>
>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_22_06_MM.html
>>
>> They Are All Profilers Now
Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a pogo stick how long was Maglalang deprived of
oxygen? The UAE was one of the bases of operations from which the attack
on us was launched! Nuclear materials were smuggled to Iran and N. Korea
through the UAE. I don't care if they absolutely adore us over there,
they're security is for shit.
And the sale is to a state owned company. We're turning over control of
half a dozen of our ports to a *foreign *government.
I bet if it was the government of France, the neostupids would be rioting
in the streets...
quibbler
The UAE isn't a race, moron and neither is Mickey Chertoff or the
department of Hopeless Insecurity, despite your pathetic spin and
playing of the "race card". Besides, by your same standard, Malkin would
have to be a "racist" for opposing the deal too, along with Frist and
Pataki and a bunch of your other repug butt-buddies. I very clearly
pointed out that the objection was based upon evidence of past problems
and had nothing to do with skin color, towel wearing habits, etc. It may
arguably be relevant to consider the fact that extremist islam is a view
that some in the UAE government are likely to hold, along with anti-
western grudges, but that isn't the primary consideration.
> England has had a worse problem with
> terrorists than the UAE
False. England suffered terrorist attacks from people already in the
country, just like the US did. Again, by your ludicrous, so-called
"standard" the fact that the UAE hasn't had a major terrorist attack
means that it's more secure than the United States. The fact is that the
UAE served as a staging area for al quaeda in the 911 attacks and has a
track record of other things just as sinister.
>, but nobody complained about using a British
> firm
Incorrect. There were concerns, but that's no excuse to make the problem
worse by handing over management operations to a bunch of folks who are
either secretly in bed with al quaeda or who might be motivated to jump
in the sack with these folks at the drop of a turban.
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1e6662309...@news.readfreenews.net:
Ah, so you *are* a racist.
quibbler
fsto...@earthling.com says...
>
> Ah, so you *are* a racist.
Nope. You've just got a particularly poor habit of not being able to pay
attention and in mercilessly hunting down any irrelevancy which you
believe you can spin to support your delusions. In that respect you're
just the standardy fundy repug, only you're fundamentalist about the
nonsensical politics of your party, rather than the nonsensical official
religion that it endorses.
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1e666e5d4...@news.readfreenews.net:
> In article <Xns9772914DA...@81.174.50.80>,
> fsto...@earthling.com says...
>>
>> Ah, so you *are* a racist.
>
> Nope. You've just got a particularly poor habit of not being able to
> pay attention and in mercilessly hunting down any irrelevancy which
> you believe you can spin to support your delusions.
Nope, I just zero in on the important points, and ignore all your
attempts at changing the subject.
> In that respect
> you're just the standardy fundy repug, only you're fundamentalist
> about the nonsensical politics of your party, rather than the
> nonsensical official religion that it endorses.
There's nothing nonsensical about approving an ordinary financial deal
with an ordinary company run out of one of our allies in the mideast.
The only thing that makes them extraordinary is that they're an *ARAB*
country. All your lame-o excuses about their relationship to terrorists
are just smoke to cover up your reflexive racist isolationism.
Mark K. Bilbo
<quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns9772914DA...@81.174.50.80>, fsto...@earthling.com
> says...
>>
>> Ah, so you *are* a racist.
>
> Nope. You've just got a particularly poor habit of not being able to pay
> attention and in mercilessly hunting down any irrelevancy which you
> believe you can spin to support your delusions. In that respect you're
> just the standardy fundy repug, only you're fundamentalist about the
> nonsensical politics of your party, rather than the nonsensical official
> religion that it endorses.
Actually, the funny thing is, it's *not the politics of the party. The
*REPUBLICANS* are running from Bush fast as they can on this one.
DeLay says if Bush tries a veto, they're going to override.
DeLay.
Said this to *Bush...
stoney
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
>In <MPG.1e666e5d4...@news.readfreenews.net>, quibbler
><quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns9772914DA...@81.174.50.80>, fsto...@earthling.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> Ah, so you *are* a racist.
>>
>> Nope. You've just got a particularly poor habit of not being able to pay
>> attention and in mercilessly hunting down any irrelevancy which you
>> believe you can spin to support your delusions. In that respect you're
>> just the standardy fundy repug, only you're fundamentalist about the
>> nonsensical politics of your party, rather than the nonsensical official
>> religion that it endorses.
>
>Actually, the funny thing is, it's *not the politics of the party. The
>*REPUBLICANS* are running from Bush fast as they can on this one.
>
>DeLay says if Bush tries a veto, they're going to override.
>
>DeLay.
>
>Said this to *Bush...
/Shrubbery
Delay isn't a Republican.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.