What comes around goes around: UAE

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Handy

Moderator
Recently, many people in the US became upset because a US port contract was about to be awarded to a company based in the United Arab Emirates. This was the first upset of this type: That port contract had previously been serviced by other foreign nationals. Even worse, the Communist Chinese actually OWN some of our ports. But, for some reason, none of this bothered anyone until Arabs were involved.

A little information about UAE: This is a rapidly growing country primarily concerned with banking and shipping. It is a relatively liberal country and very modern. It is also a big supporter of the US military, being one of two countries in the Persian Gulf to allow US military vessels to come into port. Not only that, the UAE is one of the ONLY countries in the world to allow our nuclear carriers into their ports. Virtually none of our traditional allies will. These ports play a big role in keeping our troops in the region supplied in our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan.


But no good deed goes unpunished. We've treated the UAE with prejudice, and now the UAE is acknowledging that by "revamping" its diplomatic clearance procedures for US military and MSC ships, delaying or completely preventing resupply and liberty.



I think this all serves as concrete example of the mindless stupidty and prejudice that seems to rule all of our news media, congress and the public in general.

I would be very unsurprised if both the UAE and Bahrain reconsider their arrangement with us in the near future.
 
"On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it's "unstinting support." The statement said: "We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support...that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation".

The HAMAS statement continued: "the sisterly UAE had... never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the [Israeli military] ... The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies."

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200603010741.asp
 
"The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: "One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West, and was the first to use oil as a political weapon following the Yom Kippur War in 1973. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf War he branded the United States “our number two enemy” after Israel.

The multi-billionaire Sheikh Zayed, was an early patron of the PLO, and from the 1970’s until his death in 2004, contributed millions of dollars to the terror agenda of the PLO, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21413
 
"I must point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE and also there were even Hamas couriers as late as last year that were sent to the West Bank or Gaza that came in with UAE cash. So there is still a problem of terrorist supporting operations.

COSBY: In fact, you mentioned two of the hijackers were from there. Eleven actually traveled through Dubai and about 125,000 dollars, that's about half of the money spent on the 9/11 attack, was wired from banks in Dubai. Separately, also, terrorism analyst Bob Newman called me right before the show and he found some testimony- this is during the 9/11 commission, Steve, I don't know if you have heard this- but apparently there was supposed to be a strike on Bin Laden in February 1999. It was averted because apparently there were members of the UAE royal family with Bin Laden at that point, showing some pretty strong ties with Bin Laden and at least the royal family of the UAE. What do you say, Steve?

EMERSON: Well, in fact, they were one of the three of the regimes to recognize the Taliban and as you correctly noted some of the princes there had friendly relations with Osama Bin Laden himself."

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/steven_emerson_.html
 
Yes, and the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi, and SA provides more than its share of material support to both AQ and the Intifada...but our selective outrage does not go far enough to stop buying their gas, does it?
 
"While most Americans are instinctively opposed to turning over control of six major U.S. ports to a foreign, Arab-owned company, they are also blissfully unaware of the country's ties to terrorism generally and al-Qaida and the Sept. 11 hijackers specifically, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

But these links are no secret.

As far back as 1999, U.S. intelligence spotted Osama bin Laden at a desert training camp in Afghanistan for about a week. There was an opportunity to destroy the entire camp with cruise missiles. But the operation was called off because an official aircraft from the UAE was spotted, along with members of the royal family.

It turned out bin Laden was hunting with the princes of the UAE. Concerned that the princes might be collateral damage in a strike, the mission was called off. Two years later, 3,000 Americans were killed as a result.

In addition, at least two of the 19 hijackers were from the UAE. The UAE was one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. UAE banks have also been found to be a source of terrorism financing – before 9-11 and after. The UAE has proved less than cooperative with American investigators tracking that funding."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48963
 
Ignoring the question by another member will not earn you points on this board. Inane postings, are just that. Inane Posts.
 
Well,
I don't think that the postings are inane. They make a point, and the point is,UAE are no more our "friends" than Saudi Arabia.
 
5 posts by Tactical. All were quotes with nothing of any personal content. 1 post asking a question... not answered... or ignored?

5 quoted sources, all to rebut Handy's opening remarks. Would have been just as to the point if it had been 1 post with 5 links. But without remarks by Tactical....

Inane: 1 : EMPTY, INSUBSTANTIAL
2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : SILLY

Either some actual content should appear by those wishing to rebut Handy or this thread will be closed (for lack of content) when I get back from work.
 
Our foriegn policy with regards to the middle east is two faced in my opinion. We are promoting democracy in Iraq. Which of our middle east allies are a democracy or republic and just not in name or symbolism only. We have sold weapons and given foriegn aid to other countries that have probably used them wrongly or eventually against our own soldiers and citizens. So we shouldnt be throwing rocks at the UAE. We even keep the Saudi regime in power because of national security and energy policy.Not to mention that after you leave office or politics the Saudis take care of thier friends. Even while the Saudis export Wahabism to our shores and some of thier citizens give financial aid to terrorism as Marko said we still buy thier oil.
 
Handy, You will no doubt find the company as strange as I do, but I am with you on this. They got hosed because they dress funny and eat couscous plain and simple. Regardless of what some of her citizens, even royals do, the official policy of the UAE is friendly to the west in general, and to the U.S. in particular. For cryin out loud the chicoms own the Panama canal, and no one cares. ERIC
 
Tactical's posts address the initial position. As such they are by definition NOT inane. OTOH the "question" does appear to be somewhat inane AND I am unaware of anywhere on any forum including this one where the rules demand that a person answer every question raised to him. I seriously doubt any of us manage it.

OTOH, just to "answer" the question, there is a limit to what we, any individual, can do to stop buying their gas. Personally I am toying with making my own bio-diesel. It's a long process though, at least for me and my time and budget. Meanwhile, what products could we use that do not in some way demand such fuel purchases by someone? How would we stop doing that? Exactly who would we go about lobbying to stop oil imports? Would be tough to do something in opposition as was done against the UAE, now wouldn't it? Hence the effort at comparison is a bit inane...
 
May I respectfully remind everyone of the points (as I saw them) Handy made?

1. This (the UAE contract) was the first upset of this type:

2. That port contract had previously been serviced by other foreign nationals.

3. Even worse, the Communist Chinese actually OWN some of our ports.

4. But, for some reason, none of this bothered anyone until Arabs were involved.

So far, all I've seen is a concentration upon point #1, almost to the exclusion of all else.

Marko's question, but our selective outrage does not go far enough to stop buying their gas, does it? goes straight to the heart of the posts by TA. After all, we have only those 5 posts by which to judge TA's participation in this thread. And he explicitly avoids points 2 through 4.

Tell me again, 2ndA, how the question is inane while the 5 posts by TA are not.

At least a discussion has started. Can we take it beyond point #1?
 
Tactical Arm's posts are the type of logic that presumes some sort of universal standard of behavior on the world scene. Any amount of digging will reveal sins on the part of any country. Us included.

However, in the Persian Gulf we have countries that mostly support us, and countries that we mostly oppose. We have allies that we ALREADY put enormous trust in, and we benefit greatly from their support and trust.

The UAE is the Switzerland of Gulf banking, and is just as likely to have some unfortunate accounts as the Swiss or Grand Caymans due. This does not make their very public and potentially risking pro-US stance evaporate. The UAE, more than virtually any other Middle Eastern state, defies Al Qaida and provides much of the infrastructure to support our military action in the region.

If we take Tactical Arm's posts at face value, they suggest that the UAE is our enemy, and not the country that demonstratably takes risks on our behalf. Moreover, our snub, in light of tremendous trust we demonstrate by putting our nuclear carriers in their ports, is highly duplicitous. And given that duplicitous behavior, the UAE may well decide that it is no longer worth the risk to support us.

Of all the strange bedfellows we take as allies, the UAE could be considered one of the model countries in terms of human rights and modernization. If you truly believe that US foreign policy exists to promote countries like UAE, and not places like the Shah's Iran, then the port contract situation seems to go completely against our interests, and to our detriment.


This is the key to Marko's question, and the problem with Tactical Arm's silence.
 
Ignoring the question by another member will not earn you points on this board.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to "earn points". I'm here to learn, discuss, debate and educate.

And stop being so presumptuous. It just so happens that in between my previous posts, I was googling and yahooing for information. The keywords "UAE" and "terrorism" brings up a whole lot of interesting info---that some here apparently want to sweep under the rug.

I wasn't even aware of Marko's post until this morning (Wednesday). And upon reading it, the question appeared to be rhetorical. And I don't see Marko pressing me for an answer to the question, just you. Why is it so important to you that I answer somebody elses seemingly rhetorical question?

Inane postings, are just that. Inane Posts.
Click to expand...

So stop making inane posts. You're the only one here who is off-topic.
 
Tactical Arm's posts are the type of logic that presumes some sort of universal standard of behavior on the world scene. Any amount of digging will reveal sins on the part of any country. Us included.
Click to expand...

You're the one displaying inferior logic. Since even Antipitas stated I made NO personal comments in any of my posts---then my logic couldn't have come into play.

I simply provided documented sources from numerous conservative Republican and conservative Christian sources, that carefully detailed the UAE's active links to and funding of international terrorism, both before and AFTER 9-11.

You were unable to rebut the documented expert testimony I presented, so instead you attempted to rationalize the UAE's terrorist behavior with the child-like logic---"Aw shucks, everybody's done it at one time or the other."

However, in the Persian Gulf we have countries that mostly support us, and countries that we mostly oppose. We have allies that we ALREADY put enormous trust in, and we benefit greatly from their support and trust.
Click to expand...

They let our ships and planes fuel up there, so that excuses proven links to and funding of international terrorism---BEFORE and AFTER 9-11?!

The UAE is the Switzerland of Gulf banking, and is just as likely to have some unfortunate accounts as the Swiss or Grand Caymans due. This does not make their very public and potentially risking pro-US stance evaporate. The UAE, more than virtually any other Middle Eastern state, defies Al Qaida and provides much of the infrastructure to support our military action in the region.
Click to expand...

The huge difference between the UAE banks and the banks in Switzerland, is that in the UAE the banks are STATE-OWNED and OPERATED. Switzerland's banking system is like ours, privately run. So the UAE government has the ability to monitor their banking transactions with far greater precision than we do.

About half of the money that financed the 9-11 attacks came from the state-controlled UAE banking system. The UAE didn't becoming a world banking power by having lax bank security. If about 125 GRAND came from their banking system, they know EXACTLY whose account(s) it originated from.

If we take Tactical Arm's posts at face value, they suggest that the UAE is our enemy, and not the country that demonstratably takes risks on our behalf. Moreover, our snub, in light of tremendous trust we demonstrate by putting our nuclear carriers in their ports, is highly duplicitous. And given that duplicitous behavior, the UAE may well decide that it is no longer worth the risk to support us.
Click to expand...

Well, it clearly appears you and I are going to have irreconcilable differences as to what constitutes a "friend". The only "duplicitous" behavior is being exhibited by the UAE.

The UAE has:

1. Funded international terrorist groups such as HAMAS, the PLO and Islamic Jihad---even AFTER 9-11.

2. About half the money for the 9-11 attacks was wired from the UAE's STATE-CONTROLLED banking system.

3. At least two of the 9-11 hijackers were from the UAE.

4. At least eleven of the 9-11 hijackers traveled through Dubai, enroute to their attacks on America.

5. Multiple members of the UAE royal family were on a "hunting" expedition with none other than Osama bin Laden in February of 1999. This was AFTER Osama attacked us in 1998.

6. According to U.S. officials, the UAE has been "less than cooperative" in helping the U.S. track down the source of terrorism funding emanating from their banks. Wouldn't want to rat out the royal family, now would they?!

7. The UAE was one of only three Middle Eastern governments that officially recognized the terrorist Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The other two being Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Interestingly, George Bush has declared all three countries to be our "allies" in the "war on terrorism".

With friends like the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan--who needs enemies?

Of all the strange bedfellows we take as allies, the UAE could be considered one of the model countries in terms of human rights and modernization. If you truly believe that US foreign policy exists to promote countries like UAE, and not places like the Shah's Iran, then the port contract situation seems to go completely against our interests, and to our detriment.
Click to expand...

Quit posting hogwash. The UAE is still ruled by brutal Islamic Sha'ria law. The UAE is on the same "human rights" level as the Taliban.

This is the key to Marko's question, and the problem with Tactical Arm's silence.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. There is no "problem" with my alleged "silence". As I explained in my last post, I was googling for and reading a lot of info, and didn't even see Marko's question until this morning.

The only problem here is your affinity for governments with proven records of supporting international terrorism.
 
Of all the strange bedfellows we take as allies, the UAE could be considered one of the model countries in terms of human rights and modernization. If you truly believe that US foreign policy exists to promote countries like UAE, and not places like the Shah's Iran, then the port contract situation seems to go completely against our interests, and to our detriment.
Click to expand...

A "model" country in terms of "human rights"?!

It appears you and I will once again have an irreconcilable difference---this time on what constitutes a "model" human rights record.

The U.S. Department of State's 2005 "Trafficking in Persons Report", reports on and rates countries in regard to such things as trafficking/smuggling of women and children for sexual slavery and forced labor.

The UAE is one of only 14 countries in the world that is rated "Tier 3", which is the WORST possible rating from a human rights perspective.

According to the report, which was warmly endorsed by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her introduction (italics mine):

The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) is a destination country for women trafficked primarily from South, Southeast, and East Asia, the former Soviet Union, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, and East Africa, for the purpose of sexual exploitation. A far smaller number of men, women, and teenage children were trafficked to the U.A.E. to work as forced laborers. Some South Asian and East African boys were trafficked into the country and forced to work as camel jockeys....A large number of foreign women were lured into the U.A.E. under false pretenses and subsequently forced into sexual servitude, primarily by criminals of their own countries....Some victims trafficked for labor exploitation endured harsh living and working conditions and were subjected to debt bondage, passport withholding, and physical and sexual abuse....The Government of the U.A.E. does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so. Despite sustained engagement from the U.S. Government, NGOs, and international organizations over the last two years, the U.A.E. Government has failed to take significant action to address its trafficking problems and to protect victims.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/47255.pdf
Click to expand...

The UAE is ranked WORSE than despotisms like Afghanistan, China, Iran, Libya, Rwanda, Zimbabwe etc.
 
Yep, the UAE's "model" human rights record is just peachy keen :rolleyes: ---Idi Amin would approve!:

The [UAE] government's respect for human rights remained problematic. The following human rights problems exist or were reported:

• no citizens' right to change the government and no popularly elected representatives of any kind
• flogging as judicially sanctioned punishment
• arbitrary detention
• incommunicado detention permitted by law
• questionable independence of the judiciary
• restrictions on civil liberties--freedom of speech and of the press, and assembly
• restrictions on right of association, particularly for human rights groups
• restrictions on religious freedom
• domestic abuse of women, sometimes enabled by police
• trafficking in women and children
• legal and societal discrimination against women and noncitizens
• corruption and lack of government transparency
• abuse of foreign domestic servants
• restrictions on and abuses of workers' rights.

Source: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005 (Released 8 Mar 2006)
U.S. Department of State

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/
Click to expand...
 
Fact: To this day, the UAE government refuses to recognize Israel---yet they were one of only three Mideast governments that DID officially recognize the Taliban.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top