Posted on 02/23/2006 5:14:49 PM PST by quidnunc
HH: We begin as we do most Thursdays when we're lucky, with Mark Steyn, columnist to the world. Read all of his work at Steynonline.com. You should know that by now. Mark, welcome back. Good to have you.
MS: Good to be with you, Hugh.
HH: Let's start … I don't recall from your travels if you ever got to Samsara, where the Golden Dome was blown yesterday. Did you get up that far?
MS: No, I've never been there, and I think it's a devastating thing when you look at this fantastic, twelve hundred year old building that has stood there, to see those before and after pictures. Clearly, the strategy here is to provoke the civil war that a lot of people have been … a lot of naysayers in the West have been predicting now for three years, and which hasn't happened. And I think what we should always remember about Muslim radical groups, is that in the end, they always kill more Muslims than they do infidels. That is certainly true of what's going on in Iraq right now, where they're targeting not just … these Sunni insurgents from al Qaeda are targeting not just the Shiia Muslims, but they're actually picking off those Sunni imams who disagree with their strategy. And that's exactly what happened when you look at the bloodletting in British Palestine in the 1930's and '40's, when Yassir Arafat's uncle, the Grand Mufti, he killed far more Muslims than he ever did Jews. They're always prepared to sacrifice their own people in some insane cause or other. And that's also one reason why that argument that Iran would never nuke Jerusalem, would never nuke Israel, because they'd destroy Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam. We certainly shouldn't accept that proposition, because those crazy guys in Iran would be prepared to sacrifice quite a lot of Muslims in an insane cause, too.
HH: And they're certainly not going to stand back because of the sacredness of the site, when they've got number seven or eight on the world's most important sites to Muslims went up in smoke yesterday.
MS: Yeah.
-snip-
HH: Now Mark, I know you're a supporter of the ports deal, right?
MS: Well, I wouldn't say I was a supporter. I do think the opposition to it has, with respect to you, Hugh, has slightly gone off the rail. You know, one thing is clear. The United Arab Emirates … for example, if Emirates Airways decided to buy United and Northwest and Delta and TWA, and every other U.S. airline, I would rejoice, because they run a much better airline that any of the U.S. airlines. If the issue is they're an Arab company, well, PNO, who they're buying out, which presently has the rights to this deal, PNO, a British company, actually, more British jihadis have been involved on the wrong side of the War On Terror, in the London Tube bombing, the shoe bombing on a U.S. airplane, Zaq Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, lived on welfare in Britain. There have been British jihadis … there's actually more British involved on the wrong side of the War On Terror, more British subjects, than there are citizens of the United Arab Emirates.
HH: But Mark Steyn, do you think that the penetration of Dubai World Ports would be easier by an al Qaeda sleeper than the penetration of the British company would be?
MS: No, I don't actually think … I don't think it would be easier. I mean, I think there are national security implications for anything. But I certainly don't think that simply a change of ownership from British PNO, which is an illustrious name, admittedly. But I don't think the change from PNO to Dubai is in itself reason to doubt them. And I think at a certain level, we have to say to ourselves well, wait a minute. Are all Muslims bad? Because if even …
HH: Of course not. Right.
MS: If even a company from the United Arab Emirates is unacceptable, then basically what we're saying this is a clash of civilizations. And before I'm prepared to … and I'm as gung ho for that as most people. But before I'm prepared to ban Arab companies from doing business in the United States, I think we should ban Saudi propagandists from funding and running medrasas and think tanks in the United States.
HH: But of course, we're not suggesting, those of us opposed to the port deal, I'm not suggesting banning Arab operations in the United States, just this company in this situation, until and unless it's been thoroughly vetted. That's very different, right?
MS: Yes, I think you're right on that, Hugh. But you know, this is actually the kind of company … when we say to ourselves what's wrong with the Arab world, the problem is it can't cope … it hasn't been able to cope with modernity. Well, actually, Dubai, which is this glittering city, it's like a sort of Hong Kong of the Middle East in some ways, it's this glittering city-state, or a Singapore … it's the closest to Singapore. And if this is exactly the kind of global company you would like to see the Arab world producing, instead of just being mired in jihad. Now do some crazy people from the United Arab Emirates, and from Dubai say crazy things? Yes, they do. But I think you want to be pretty sure that there are real national security implications in the exchange of ownership …
HH: Before you kill the deal. Mark Steyn, always a pleasure. Steynonline.com.
Check and mate.
Thanks for the post!
"before I'm prepared to ban Arab companies from doing business in the United States, I think we should ban Saudi propagandists from funding and running medrasas and think tanks in the United States."
Straw man, Mark. I'm not saying we should "ban Arab companies from doing business in the U.S." We should ban Arab companies and ALL foreign companies from handling those portions of our economy crucial to national security. Electric and other utility distribution, border patrol, port and airport operation are on the short list.
You've got Steyn...and Jimmy Carter, don't forget him.
The difference being that there's no danger of our agreeing with him bolstering his image as a hawk.
If FReepers wanna legitimize Hillary's "moderate-right" image, you can celebrate with her in '08. If the has-been wants to be on my side of the argument, I couldn't care less--he's no longer in danger of being in charge of the country.
Or is that "Cheque, mate."
How is it a straw man if you agree with it and then go farther?
How French of you. ;)
Boy, this place has changed...
Thank God for Mark Steyn.
There are NO American companies doing port management or interested in doing same.
> How French of you. ;) Boy, this place has changed...
I'm insulted! ;^) The spelling "cheque" (or maybe it's checque) is a British spelling.
No French was spoken in the composition of this message.
Do you get where the straw man exists now? We don't want to ban Arab businesses. We want the U.S. national security interests to come before pure capitalist/global business theory in certain areas of American business.
You watch, either Jimmuh will change his tune to fall in lockstep with the jackboots of the dem party line, or the dems will do a 180 first. They won't stay separated on this for long. And it looks like the dems are already making the first move.
Be careful, you might find yourself all alone after all the position shifts on this one.
So we should agree with you out of fear of Hillary?
F that. I'm not voting for Rudy out of fear of Hillary, either. This silly scare tactic/guilt by assocation b.s. is not going to work. It's right or wrong, no matter who's on your side or mine, and it is WRONG to allow foreign countries into the operation of areas that are vital to our national security interests.
And Rush, too!
"Be careful, you might find yourself all alone after all the position shifts on this one."
One man who is right still shouts louder than a thousand who are wrong. I don't care who's on whose side. It's still wrong to allow any foreign nation to run operations in areas vital to our national security interests.
These facilities are already owned by foreignors, or hadn't you heard. DPW is already involved in our national security interests -- by scanning containers headed for the U.S. for contraband on the debarkation side -- in the foreign terminals they already run.
We should have worried about that when Clinton was selling everything to the Chinese, including the west coast ports. Since the cat is already out of the bag, so to speak, can we treat the Arabs and Chinese differently and hope to win the hearts and minds, and, ultimately, this war on terror? Just asking....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.