What comes around goes around: UAE

[Tactical Arms]

May I respectfully remind everyone of the points (as I saw them) Handy made?

The key words above being "as I saw them". Sorry, but not everybody looks at the UAE with your rose-colored glasses.

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

Please explain exactly what you mean by "first upset". Then we'll discuss further.

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

Were these "other foreign nationals" connected to a Mideast government that officially recognized the Taliban, refuses to recognize Israel, and has funded international terrorist organizations before and AFTER the 9-11 attacks?

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.

Speak for yourself. Because you don't speak for me.

I was personally involved in stopping Clinton's attempt to turn the old Long Beach, CA Naval base over to Red China. I contacted the White House in opposition to the deal, as well as my U.S. Senators and Representative. I handed out flyers at gun shows and other venues, and gave money to organizations opposed to the sell-out.

And we WON. The deal fell through, just like Bush's attempted Dubai Ports sell-out, thanks to the efforts of thousands of Americans.

I would be just as opposed to the Dubai deal if it had been the Russians or any other country of highly questionable reputation. So stop trying to play the race card.

And Red China owning some of our ports is irrelevant. Because the government has sold us out on port security before, means we should let them do it yet again?! Sorry, but I'm not buying your illogic.

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

Since I work 60+ hours per week, I do have to sleep some time. So I post on MY schedule, not yours.

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.

The question doesn't go to the heart of squat. Also, your statement that "he explicitly avoids points 2 through 4" is a blatant falsehood.

My outrage isn't selective, so once again you're only speaking for yourself. If I had my way, the USA wouldn't be buying a drop of oil from them. Unfortunately, I don't possess the power to stop the practice. If you have a viable solution to the problem, rather than just blind criticism, I'm all ears.

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

My posts, all from reliable sources, document the proven links of the UAE government to international terrorism. If you consider that inane, all I can say is I'm mighty happy you're not in charge of counter-terrorism for the U.S. government.

At least a discussion has started. Can we take it beyond point #1?

We're way beyond that now. Still waiting for you and Handy to respond.

 

[Al Norris]

I said: At least a discussion has started. Can we take it beyond point #1?

Tacitcal Arms said: We're way beyond that now. Still waiting for you and Handy to respond.

Timeline (all times are MDT as viewed by myself):

0320: Handy posted.
0347: TA responded with a quote from an article from the National Review Online. 01 March 2006.
0353: TA quoted an article from FrontPageMag. 24 February 2006.
0359: TA quotes an article from The Counterterrorism Blog. 23 February 2006.
0401: Marko Responded.
0405: TA quoted an article from Khaleej Times. 22 March 2006.
0423: TA quotes an article from WorldNetDaily. 23 February 2006.
0640: I posted my "inane" barb.
1145: hoji responded.
1159: I posted again, and threatened to close the thread.
1210: Eghad posted.
1211: Big Ruger posted.
1238: 2nd Amendment posted.
2012: My third post, in which I added "talking points" which were quoted directly from Handy's original post (in case anyone missed it).
2017: Handy posted his second post.
2353: TA responded. 6 more posts, the last of which was at 0607 this morning.

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

Actually it can and does. It comes into play by the selection of articles you chose to quote and the sources from which they originate.

Just by looking at the sources, they appear as biased (to the far right) as anything from the MSM (far left leaning).

You either didn't find this link or dismissed it: Volokh Conspiracy. Two blog entries that, along with the responses, tend to show a little more detail and a more moderate approach.

Consider this from a linked symposium by the NRO (disclosed in one of the responses from the above linked Conspiracy blog):

December 2004: Dubai was the first government in the region to sign on to the U.S. Container Security Initiative to screen all containers heading for the United States for security risks.

May 2005: Dubai signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to bar passage of nuclear material from passing through its ports, and install radiation-detecting equipment.

June 2005: The UAE joined the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

October 2005: The UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. UAE banks routinely cooperate with U.N. and international law-enforcement agencies in supplying information about suspect accounts.

November 2005: In the wake of the terror bombings in Jordan, General Shaykh Muhammad Bin-Zayid Al Nuhayyan, heir apparent of Abu Dhabi and supreme commander of the UAE armed forces, stated that Muslim scholars who live among us must adopt a stand toward this terrorism If they do not declare [terrorists] to be infidels, they should at least consider them as non-Muslims. If there are no honest stands toward these non-religious and inhumane operations, these [attacks] will continue.

December 2005: The UAE National Consultative Council [their parliament] called for declaration of an all-out war against terrorism and depriving any person who pledges allegiance to foreign extremist groups the right of UAE citizenship. The council proclaimed that it regarded links to such groups as high treason.

The UAE has also assisted the Coalition effort in Iraq, in particular training Iraqi security forces and sending material assistance to the Iraqi people.

Tends to shed a different light on this subject.

Regardless, your focus on the UAE while overlooking the ownership of many L.A. ports by China negates what you said about not speaking for you. (you may have "won" over the Port of Long Beach, but you lost, several times over with the Port of Los Angelus.

As for answering your quips to "my" points, shows you really didn't read Handy's first post. Or you would have readily seen that I simply quoted, word for word, what Handy had posted and merely added numbers to those statements.

So why would I defend what Handy wrote, when he is more than capable of defending is own thoughts?... Because I separated them into "talking points?"

I have yet to give my opinion on whether or not I agree with Handy's originating post. Can you can point to something I've written in this thread that leads you to believe that I have expressed an opinion?

 

[smooks75]

Tactical Arms

I agree with your points...not all of us in this country like to DRINK THE KOOLAID as other here do.

 

[smooks75]

don't be mad....

I have respect for all on the site and ment no disrespect to anyone. I just don't like Koolaid!

 

[Handy]

I've been in a helicopter for the last 9 hours. I apologize for my absence.


The point I was making was that the UAE, of all countries in the Middle East, is one of our biggest and most important supporters. You don't have to like them, but you do have to acknowledge their role in our regional presence.

I am far less concerned with insulting a nation that the fact that we have so severely screwed ourselves in regards to the ability to supply OUR ships.

And why did we do it? In the name of "port security", which we obviously didn't give a crap about before.


That's the bottom line.

 

[Tactical Arms]

Just by looking at the sources, they appear as biased (to the far right) as anything from the MSM (far left leaning).

Antipitas resorts to a pathetic attempt to "poison the well".

Let's take a look at some of my sources (emphasis mine):

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

"Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is an author, speaker, economist and terrorism expert who has advised banking communities, law enforcement agencies, and governments around the world, including the U.S. Defense Department's Threat Reduction Agency.

Her latest book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It was released in 2003. Previous books include Evil Money, Encounters Along the Money Trail (HarperCollins, 1992) and Narco Terrorism; How Governments around the World Used the Drug Trade to Finance and Further Terrorist Activities (Basic Books, 1990). She is currently working on a new book about the Islamist penetration of the U.S. and Western economies.

Dr. Ehrenfeld is the director of the New York based American Center for Democracy, as well as the Center for the Study of Corruption & the Rule of Law. She is also a commentator and consultant on the problems of terror financing, international terrorism, political corruption, money laundering, drug trafficking, and organized crime and the connections that binds these groups together. She testified before the European Parliament on how the Palestinian Authority uses aid money to fund its terror activities, provided evidence to the UK Parliament on the corruption of the Palestinian Authority, and testified before the U.S. Congress on terrorism related issues. She's currently advising the US Defense Department's Threat Reduction Agency on economic terrorism.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's articles appear in the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, the National Review, the Eurobserver, The Jerusalem Post, The NY SUN, and the L.A. Times. She frequently appears as an expert commentator on such news programs and networks as The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC.

Dr. Ehrenfeld worked as a research scholar at New York University School of Law, as a visiting scholar at the Columbia University Institute of War and Peace Studies, and as a fellow at Johns Hopkins's SAIS. Her Ph.D. in Criminology is from the Hebrew University School of Law.

http://www.aeispeakers.com/print.php?SpeakerID=1301

 

[Tactical Arms]

Consider this from a linked symposium by the NRO (disclosed in one of the responses from the above linked Conspiracy blog):

Well, well, well!

NRO was one of the sources I quoted in one of my original five posts.

Ol' Antipitas is using one of the allegedly "far right" sources that I used! Perhaps Anti can explain to us why NRO is "far right" when I quote them, but "reliable and reputable" when he quotes them.

Actually, overall, NRO has been a major supporter of Bush and the neocon agenda. So Anti's "poison the well" strategy isn't doing very well thus far.

Another one of my sources was Rita Cosby's program on MSNBC. Gee, I didn't know that MSNBC was considered "far right". They're been denounced in the past as "liberal MSM traitors" by some of your more rabid Bush supporters.

 

[Tactical Arms]

The Rachel Ehrenfeld article I posted appeared on frontpagemag.com.

Which of course is run by none other than David Horowitz---a staunch supporter of and frequent apologist for Bush, the alleged "war on terrorism", and the Iraq war.

Horowitz has been a personal guest of George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Jeb Bush has declared Horowitz to be a "fighter for freedom".

Gee, thanks to Antipitas, we now know that Bush is cozying up to "far right" types like Horowitz.

 

[Tactical Arms]

Consider this from a linked symposium by the NRO (disclosed in one of the responses from the above linked Conspiracy blog):

Thank you for the link. Here's a lengthy quotation from YOUR OWN source, which you very conveniently overlooked:

Alex Alexiev

"Washington claims that the United Arab Emirates is a reliable friend and ally of the United States in the war on terror. To the extent that Dubai Ports World is a UAE state-owned company, this may in fact be the key question to ask. The answer is not hard to find if you start looking at the role played by the UAE as an eager financier of the huge worldwide infrastructure of radical Islam built over the past three decades by Saudi Arabia. An infrastructure that’s the main breeding ground of extremism and terrorism.

From the very beginning in the 1970s, the UAE has been a key source of financial support for Saudi-controlled organizations like the Islamic Solidarity Fund, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), World Council of Mosques, and the Muslim World League (MWL) as documented in The Muslim World League Journal, an English-language monthly. The IDB alone, for instance, spent $10 billion between 1977 and 1990 for “Islamic activities” and at least $1 billion more recently to support terrorist activities by the Palestinian Al Aqsa and Intifada Funds.

One of the most successful Islamist operations in the U.S. early on involved the Wahhabi ideological takeover of the Nation of Islam after the death of its founder Elijah Muhammad. Of the $4.8 million “presented” to W. D. Muhammad, Elijah’s son and successor, in 1980 alone, one million came from UAE’s president Sheikh Zayad, according to the August 1980 issue of the MWL Journal. Zayad continued his “philanthropic” activities by donating $2.5 million for a Zayad Islamic Center at Harvard University’s divinity school of all places. The donation had to be returned after it became known that a similar Zayad Center in the UAE was closed because it had become a hotbed of Islamic extremism. And this is likely just the tip of the iceberg. A reliable friend and ally? Perhaps, but hardly one of ours."

— Alex Alexiev is vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/symposium/symposium200602211008.asp

 

[Al Norris]

Poison the well? Isn't that what you did to begin with?

As for the NRO business, why didn't you find this particular article? Or did you, and chose not to use it because it didn't fit with your agenda?

I brought it up because it says almost the opposite of what you claimed... From the same source, no less. Even a stopped watch is correct once a day or so....

So, let's get something new into all this rhetoric, shall we?

British based P&O Ltd., the company that is running the Port in question, was bought by DPW (Dubai Ports World) which is owned by the Dubai Government. You knew this Tactical Arms?

Now tell me again your reason not to have the UAE running one of our ports... Is there a difference between P&O running the port and their (now) parent DPW?

Regardless, it is Americans that are employed on the docks. It is the US Coast Guard and US Customs that run security. And after paying $6 billion for P&O, do you seriously think the UAE will lose that kind of money just to let terrorists into this country?

So there you have it. My opinion is that this deal would not have hurt anyone. It would have helped in our relations in the middle east. Bush's PR on this deal sucks wind... and that's what lost it for him.

Now I realize that you haven't posted much. But judging from the date of your membership, you have been lurking for some time now. If this is true, then you should know that I am not a friend of Bush. So don't confuse me with some apologist.

The facts are that I research what interests me, then I speak my mind, and I don't much care if anyone agrees with me or not. What I do care about in these kinds of discussion, is that you back up your opinions with good documentation. I have done that. Handy has done that. You are looking only at one side of the coin: It's a knee jerk reaction to anything Arab.

And that's precisely what Marko was trying to point out and why his question was valid.

Since we are moving on, you seemed to avoid commenting on those good Chinese that are running so many ports in L.A...

 

[Al Norris]

The Conspiracy was my source. The link from the NRO was from a respondent. Do you even comprehend what I wrote?

 

[Tactical Arms]

As for the NRO business, why didn't you find this particular article? Or did you, and chose not to use it because it didn't fit with your agenda?

I brought it up because it says almost the opposite of what you claimed... From the same source, no less. Even a stopped watch is correct once a day or so....

I've easily trumped you yet again.

See my very last post, before this one. You very conveniently overlooked the counter-arguments to your cherry-picked comments, from the very same NRO symposium.

You're obviously the "stopped watch" in this thread.

 

[Al Norris]

Tactical Arms, is that what you think this is all about? Trumping me?

In your posting frenzy, you have still failed to answer any questions put to you that don't involve the UAE. Why is that, exactly?

 

[Tactical Arms]

Posted by Handy:
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.

Iran-UAE stress expansion of relations in all areas

Islamic Republic News Agency
Abu Dhabi, 6 Mar 2006

Iran-UAE Ties

"Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Mostafavi and Deputy Emir and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Sheikh Mohammad ben Rashid al-Maktoum stressed Monday expansion of relations between Iran and UAE in all areas.

Mostafavi lauded al-Maktoum on his efforts in strengthening bilateral ties and invited him for a state visit to Tehran.

Mostafavi also briefed the Dubai's ruler on the Iranians positions on Iraq and Palestinians developments, and described the trend of Iran-Russia talks on Tehran resolve in acquiring peaceful nuclear technology.

In the meeting, which was also attended by Iranian ambassador to UAE and several UAE ministers, Sheikh Mohammad also voiced his country's resolve in strengthening bilateral relations.

He also said exchange of officials visits between the two countries is beneficial in improving political and economic relations.

Also, Deputy head of Iran Atomic Energy Organization for Technical Affairs Khalili presented a report on the quality of construction of the Bushehr nuclear powerplant under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Mostafavi, who has included the UAE in his tour to the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (PGCC) member states, will explore every avenue with Emirati officials for boosting bilateral ties.

The official started his regional tour by traveling to Qatar, where he submitted a written message from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani on Friday, inviting him to pay a visit to Tehran.

Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Mostafavi in a meeting with the Ruler of Abu Dhabi Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan on Monday submitted the written message of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to him.

In the president's message, bilateral ties, latest developments in the region and the need to strengthen cooperation among Islamic states under the present sensitive regional conditions were underlined.

He expressed satisfaction with the current level of bilateral ties and said that exchange of views among the regional Islamic states is of great importance."

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0603061213231619.htm

The UAE is real tight with their radical Islamist brothers in Iran, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency---the state-controlled official national news outlet of Iran.

Not surprisingly, some of the components for Iran's nuclear program were shipped from the UAE. More on that in a future post.

Iran and the UAE are two sides of the same coin, and represent a false choice that Handy has easily fallen for.

 

[Tactical Arms]

Bin Laden's operatives still using freewheeling Dubai

"DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Osama bin Laden's operatives still use this freewheeling city as a logistical hub three years after more than half the Sept. 11 hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the United States in the final preparatory stages for the attack.

The recent arrest of an alleged top al-Qaeda combat coach is the latest sign that suspected members of the terrorist organization are among those who take advantage of travel rules that allow easy entry. Citizens of neighboring Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia can come to Dubai without visas, which other nationalities can get at the country's ports of entry....In August, Pakistani Qari Saifullah Akhtar, suspected of training thousands of al-Qaeda fighters for combat, was arrested in the Emirates and turned over to officials in his homeland, authorities in Pakistan announced.

Emirates authorities have refused to comment on Akhtar's arrest. They were similarly tightlipped in 2002, when the United States announced the arrest of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors. It was a month before Emirates officials confirmed al-Nashiri had been arrested here....al-Qaeda isn't the only organization that has found Dubai useful. The father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has acknowledged heading a clandestine group that, with the help of a Dubai company, supplied Pakistani nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea....Shortly after the Sept. 11, attacks, U.S. authorities said the United Arab Emirates, especially the commercial hub Dubai, was a major transit and money transfer center for al-Qaeda.

A new report dated Aug. 21 by the U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks provided the most detail yet on the extent to which the hijackers used Dubai as a travel hub.

According to the U.S. government, 13 of the 19 hijackers entered the United States between April 23 and June 29, 2001. And 11 of those late-arrivers — who were Saudi citizens and primarily the "muscle" for the hijackings — went through Dubai, according to the report.

The hijackers traveled in groups of two or three, taking off from Dubai and arriving at airports in Miami, Orlando, or New York City, the report said.

As for the money trail, Bin Laden's alleged financial manager, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, received at a Dubai bank a transfer of $15,000 two days before the Sept. 11 attacks and then left the Emirates for Pakistan, where he was arrested last year.

Marwan Al-Shehhi, an Emirates citizen and one of the hijackers, received $100,000 via the United Arab Emirates. Another hijacker, Fayez Banihammad, also was from the Emirates.

About half of the $250,000 spent on the attacks was wired to al-Qaeda terrorists in the United States from Dubai banks, authorities said. al-Qaeda money in Dubai banks also has been linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-02-terror-dubai_x.htm

 

[Tactical Arms]

From Anti's own link:

Peter Brookes

"The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment’s decision to allow the United Arab Emirates’ Dubai Ports World (a government-owned company) to buy Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (a private company), to run as many as six major American ports, including New York, Baltimore, and New Orleans, is by no means a trivial national-security matter.

While it’s likely that CFIUS made a sound — at a minimum, a well-intentioned — decision in its behind-closed-doors deliberations, considering 9/11, the al Qaeda threat, not to mention this election year’s charged atmosphere, it makes heckuva lot of sense to shed some light on the decision through congressional hearings.

American ports receive nine million containers annually, and — in theory — these large metal boxes could be used to bring nukes into the U.S. for use against American cities, surface to air missiles to down civilian airliners, or, even, smuggle terrorists ashore. While advances have been made in port security, some analysts still see shipping as a big fat Achilles’ Heel for homeland security.

Moreover, while the UAE has become a war on terror partner, its history is checkered — to say the least. Critics claim that the UAE recognized the Taliban, and al Qaeda used it in 9/11 preparations. Dubai, a Middle Eastern banking “Mecca,” has long been the crossroads of money laundering and terrorist financing. In addition, the UAE has ties to Iran, and Pakistan’s Dr. Strangelove, A. Q. Khan, used the Emirates as a shipping hub for his nuke network.

It’s not clear that there would be any change in management, personnel, or security procedures at the British company currently running the ports if the sale is approved, but after all we’ve been through — and don’t want to experience again — this is a decision Americans have to feel comfortable with. “Trust us,” just won’t cut it.

— Peter Brookes is senior fellow for national-security affairs and director of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation. He is author of A Devil's Triangle: Terrorism, WMD and Rogue States."

http://www.nationalreview.com/symposium/symposium200602211008.asp

 

[Tactical Arms]

From Anti's own link:

Michael Ledeen

"This is the foreign-policy equivalent of the Harriet Meiers nomination to the Supreme Court, isn’t it? Just as her wit and wisdom were beside the point, so Homeland Security’s careful negotiations with the new owners have nothing to do with the main issue, which is that only a tone-deaf bureaucrat would turn over the operation of our ports to a company from Dubai. Not only does it add new security burdens to an agency already overwhelmed by its impossible mission, but it puts one of Iran’s closest partners in a most sensitive position inside the United States. As I’ve had occasion to note over the past few years, Dubai is home to billions of mullahdollars, and the black market through which all manner of illegal arms shipments and money-being-laundered have passed. I’m sure it will have the same outcome as the Meiers fiasco. Faster, please.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute"

http://www.nationalreview.com/symposium/symposium200602211008.asp

 

[Handy]

"Fallen for?" I'm pointing out that we can't get our ships resupplied.

If Iran is the other side of the coin, maybe we can use their ports.

 

[Tactical Arms]

"Fallen for?" I'm pointing out that we can't get our ships resupplied.

Funny, but I haven't seen any reports on the intel or government sites I frequent, nor in the conservative or liberal mainstream media outlets---that claim our ships are running out of fuel and other necessary supplies.

I reject your absurd claim that we need to cozy up to a known international terrorist regime in order to get our ships refueled.

There are other ports in the region. And even if there weren't, it would be much safer simply to send our own supply ships and refueling tankers to ships patrolling the region---rather than trust an international terrorist regime. Or we could pay a trusted country to send their own tankers and supply ships to do the job.

But kissing up to a known terrorist regime with one of the worst human rights records on the planet---is out of the question.

If Iran is the other side of the coin, maybe we can use their ports.

I said that they're two sides of the SAME coin---i.e. there's virtually no difference between the two.

They're both terrorist regimes who have been real tight with each other for years. So using your illogic---what would it matter which country's port we used?

However, I oppose using the ports of EITHER country.

As the Iranian Islamist media has documented---at this very point in time, your Islamic terrorist UAE pals are seeking to build an even closer relationship with Iran on all major fronts. Such as trade, defense etc.

The UAE has been in bed with Iran for years, and now seeks even closer ties. Not surprisingly at the very same time that Iranian-USA relations are quite strained.

Intellect, common sense, logic, knowledge, reason, wisdom and human experience---tells me that you don't let an international terrorist regime control your ports. Especially when that same regime is at this very time seeking even closer ties with another international terrorist regime that is currently publicly at odds with the USA.

 

[Tactical Arms]

UAE FIRM CITED AS KEY TO NUKE BLACK MARKET

"LONDON [MENL] -- A Dubai-based company in the United Arab Emirates has been cited as the linchpin in the lucrative nuclear weapons black market that has supplied Iran, Libya and North Korea.

The United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency have determined that the UAE company served as the hub for the traffic of nuclear weapons components. Officials said the company coordinated with a range of nuclear suppliers for orders from such countries as Iran, Libya and North Korea.

The Bush administration identified the UAE firm as SMB Computers, a key element in the nuclear weapons black market operated by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The company was found to have served as a clearinghouse for nuclear components ordered by Iran, Libya and North Korea.

"Khan and his associates," a White House fact sheet said, "used a factory in Malaysia to manufacture key parts for centrifuges, and purchased other necessary parts through network operatives based in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Libya, Iran, and North Korea were customers of the Khan network, and several other countries expressed an interest in Khan's services.""

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/april/04_29_3.html