Anyone want to try to interpret this logo?
Posted on 03/10/2006 10:15:50 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I have this simple question that no one seems to want to answer.
Thankfully, the five-alarm debacle that was the lucrative deal to permit a company wholly owned by the United Arab Emirates to manage stevedoring operations at several U.S. ports has been averted. Backstage pressure induced the UAE to withdraw, avoiding further, immense embarrassment to President Bush, who inexplicably raised the stakes of this blunder by threatening a veto — his first, and what a bizarre cause to take that maiden voyage over.
The end has unleashed another torrent of censorious caterwauling from the “Let’s Make a Deal” Right — an amalgam of free-trade-at-any-cost business interests and starry-eyed democracy-builders who see in every apparent moderate throughout the Islamic world a James Madison waiting to happen. This morning’s latest philippic from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page is case-in-point.
Objection to the deal, we’re told, was a “political stampede” manufactured out of the worst kind of chauvinism — just because it was an “Arab-owned company buying port operations.” Yes, this was a wanton “mugging of a foreign investor.” It marks the “the re-emergence of the ‘national security’ protectionists.” (The “they’re delusional” quotes around national security are the Journal’s, not mine.)
So I’ll ask the same question I asked last week on NRO’s Corner. The same question a number of us have been asking for the last several weeks, with deafening silence the lone response: Does it matter that the UAE appears to be in violation of our fundamental antiterrorism law?
We’re told there’s a Bush Doctrine. That our national security is singularly dependent on communicating to the world — a world full of shady regimes and deadly terror networks — a simple, elegant message: If you are with the terrorists, you are not with us. If you are with the terrorists, we are going to treat you as a hostile. Period. Full stop. End of story.
The UAE was with the terrorists, big-time, before 9/11. The port-deal proponents — finding it most inconvenient to dwell on that very recent history — ignored it, preferring to libel patriotic opposition as benighted nativism, or to insist that the suicide hijackings against us were a road-to-Damascus moment for the Emirati sheikhs. It was the epiphany that put them on the right side of the Bush Doctrine’s line in the sand.
Oops. It looks like the UAE continued to underwrite terrorists long after that. Even to this day. The regime remains a booster of Hamas, an organization pledged to the destruction of Israel by violent jihad. An organization that has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law since we began officially stigmatizing such entities in the mid-1990s.
It’s very simple. Hamas is an organization that an American would be sent to jail for supporting no matter how much that support might be good for the economy. It is an organization that an American business would be put out of business for supporting.
To my knowledge, no one suggested anything so drastic for the UAE. We simply said that a country engaged in what Americans would be sent to jail for doing shouldn't be rewarded with the commercial plum of a role in the management of our ports — a role that would inexorably require them to be read into at least some of our security arrangements.
Money, the free-traders well know, is fungible. If we pay it to the UAE and we know they pay it to Hamas, the law has this crazy idea that this is the same thing as we paying it to Hamas. I imagine even the Wall Street Journal would probably not think that was a very good idea, even if Hamas used some of it to buy Uncle’s savings bonds and thus “help[ed] finance the military that keeps us safe.”
So, some of us simply said: The Bush Doctrine should be enforced.
This is not about anything so trifling as the UAE. It is not comparable, as the Journal speciously claims this morning, to the protests over Japanese acquisitions in U.S. markets during the 1980s or the failed Chinese effort to buy the Unocal oil company last year.
The Bush Doctrine is the plinth on which American national security is built. It is the monument that tells the rest of the planet that September 10th is over. It is what warns those who would threaten us that we are serious about Islamist terrorism — that we understand our enemies are not rational, are not corrigible, cannot be bargained with, and need, as circumstances dictate, to be bombed, bled or squeezed wherever we find them.
The second we flinch from that — and there is a very good argument that we have already done so — we are far less safe. It encourages our enemies everywhere that bin Laden is right when he tells his would-be recruits that we lack resolve. It tells the regimes that abet terrorists, and without which they could not threaten us on a global scale, that it’s back to business as usual.
So to all the bitter port proponents, spewing all the bile: Once you’re done with the insults, the slanders, the juvenile analogies, the constructive-engagement Kool-Aid, and the rest of your bag of tricks, can you please explain, just one time: Why doesn’t it matter if the UAE provides material support to Hamas?
Ping
ping
Here, here.
We will be waiting some time I imagine for answers.
No surprise there. They obviously can't defend this.
And now they have about $6.8 Bil of uninvested capital that they'll kick in on behalf of the cause...
Wasnt this just posted. US poor ole UAE defenders are not monitering this board and all its threads every single minute
I'm not so sure about the UAE currently having a "Pledge to the Destruction of Israel", anymore. The more I read, the more it would appear that they are a very good ally, in the WOT. Granted, it is a dictatorship, but it seems pretty benevolent.
http://www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae/english/index.asp
DP World website (has a good satellite map of the port)
Concerns about Hamas may be legitimate, though...does anyone have current info on that front?
DP World website link (has a good satellite map of the port)
http://www.dpa.ae/index.html
So you agree, then: the UAE is, in fact, "pledged to the destruction of violent jihad"; as it would scarcely make any sense, otherwise, for them to "kick in" $6.8 billion of their "uninvested capital" towards said cause, unless it was one they already felt strongly towards. (It wasn't Israel who nixed the ports deal, after all.)
Interesting.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
A question I've raised on several threads, irrelevant now.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
A question I've raised on several threads, irrelevant now.
What does the term 'answers' mean? Is it an attempt to place the debate into a scientific inductive or deductive context?
This is my view. It seems with the complicated issue of Israel. UAE was making some good tenative steps. Again, during all these talk shows I hardly saw no one from the State of Israel talking. In fact I saw Israeli business interest defending it. Also as a side note was the issue of the UAE onwership of that little ole stadium in Britan. Evid they were allowing The Israeli Tourist agency to advertise. THis created a little furor among the arab extremist. I was reading about how some sort of arab campaign against the UAE was trying to be mounted. Well it appears the ads will continue. I am not a fan of Hammas, but it appears that the UAE could very well be the next country to strengthen relations with Israel. Baby steps would seem to be happening. It looks like this boycott of Israel is gotten around by numerous means in the UAE. If people are concerned about Israel they should encourage more trade with the UAE. That will open more minds. Again the fact that I wasnt hearing alot of complaints from Israli sources was big to me. THey realize the complexities of the region better than we do.
I've bookmarked this story and will gladly hand it to the pro UAE the next time they call me racist...which should be just a matter of a few seconds.
Anyone want to try to interpret this logo?
Yeah, sounds like a plan...feed the beast in order to pour more money into their terrorist strikes. Jeez bayourant, you just don't stop apologizing and being an enabler for them do you?
Place the debate wherever you would like. Bottom line is the people spoke and for a change, the politicians listened. I am very proud of them!
Outstanding! I don't think the case can be made much more clearly.
There is little to no philosophical common ground between us and any of the Arab kingdoms. Ultimately the UAE needs us more than we do them. There are simply too many wolves in their neighborhood and just as for the past 60+ years, we are the defender of last resort.
The people speak all the time and the politicians listen all the time. That is why we have such a huge Federal budget and deficit: the people demand all kinds of things and those things cost money.
You're right - we need a dictator because the people are obviously too stupid to think for themselves. All except those like you, that is.
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
February 24, 2006
[snip] There are many important differences. To begin with, a private company based in the U.K. a Western democracy with troops fighting along with U.S. soldiers in Iraq, contrasts sharply with the UAE, which supported al-Qaeda, sent 9/11 terrorists and funding, and continues to support Palestinian suicide bombers and particularly HAMAS, which President Bush calls “a terrorist organization.”
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 IOF… The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies." Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), HAMAS charitable societies,” are known as integral parts of the HAMAS infrastructure, and are outlawed by Israel and the U.S.
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.
Human Appeal International, a UAE government-operated “charitable” organization, whose board includes the UAE president, funds HAMAS as well as other Palestinian organizations, “martyrs,” Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families. The HAI’s modus operandi is to transfer money to the Palestinian Red Crescent Organization whose West Bank and Gaza branches are operated by HAMAS. They, in turn, distribute the money to HAMAS “charities.
For example, according to the Orient Research Center in Toronto, Canada, the UAE “compensation” plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shaheed, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, families of those terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000.
Also in 2001, in support of the martyr’s families in the Palestinian intifada, two telethons were organized in the UAE. “We Are All Palestinians” raised 135 million dirham, or $36.8 million, and “For Your Sake Palestine” raised 350 million dirham, or $95.3 million.
According to a detailed report on March 25, 2005, in the Palestinian daily Al Hayat al-Jadeeda, the UAE Friends Society transferred $475,000, through the UAE Red Crescent, to West Bank “charitable” organizations in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus and Tulkarem to distribute to the families of “martyrs,” orphans, imprisoned Palestinians and others.
The Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam reported on March 22, 2005, that in 2004 the UAE Red Crescent donated $2 million to HAMAS “charities” to be distributed to 3,158 terrorists’ orphans.
On February 15, 2005, the HAMAS website reported on funds transferred from HAI to two HAMAS front organizations in the West Bank, IQRA and Rifdah, which Israel had outlawed. And last July, Osama Zaki Muhammad Bashiti of Khan Younis in Gaza was arrested as he returned from the UAE, for often transferring funds of as much as $200,000 at a time to the Gaza HAMAS branch. The suicide bombing and attacks, including one mortar attack on Gush Katif, caused the death of 44 Israeli civilians and dozens of injuries.
The UAE support of HAMAS is in line with the agenda promoted by the late Sheikh Zayed. His Zayed Center for International Coordination and Followup, founded in 1999 as the official Arab League think-tank, was shuttered under international pressure in 2003. It championed Holocaust deniers like Thierry Meyssan and Roger Garaudy and provided a platform for anti-Western, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish extremists like Saudi economist Dr. Yussuf Abdallah Al Zamel, who blamed the war in Iraq on "radical Zionist and right-wing Christian" influence.
Although UAE foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan stated that the Emirates have been and remain a “strong ally of the U.S. in combating terrorism,” its continuing support of HAMAS and other Islamist organizations contradict his statement. This legitimately raises concerns about trusting U.S. ports to UAE management.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21413
They've ALWAYS "been motivated." Long, looooonnnnnnnng before the Dubai Ports deal was a glimmer in anyone's eye.
Read up on it.
Argumentum ad populi and argumentum ad hominem both at once. Well done!
That's a nautical knot. Don't know the name, my dad is the sailor in the family.
I thought he made a good point. When someone says "the people are stupid," they don't come across as big supporters of democracy.
'Course there are lots of alternatives to democracy other than dictatorship. Kings, emperors, anarchy. Um, what else? I'm thinking . . . .
No def not a apologist. I very much support the State of Israel. The Hamas question is complex. Right now with them being in control of the Govt its even more complex. This is the time for some cool heads to be thinking thats all I am saying. If we can use our influence on the UAE for them to be a moderating influence on Hammas so much the better. Alot is high powered diplomacy going over there behind the scenes. Alot of intel sharing and to say I believe the complexities on this issue among even arab govts is something to consider. At the end of the day I must put my trust in whose expertise this is in. Mainly, our military, intelligence agencies, and Diplomats. I am often frustrated with Foggy bottom. However when the other 2 parts of Govt I mention are on the same page I pay attention. Israel and their security is a part of our policy. I do not believe that the military or other agencies would do something to put that at risk. Again, I am of the old school I suppose that trade leads to enlightment in the long term. It might take decades but its happens. The more UAE is engaged in the World as it is the better. The more their population deals with the International community the better. Does it sound sexy. No. But, it works.
There are three forms of constitution: monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy. Other forms such as republic can be fitted into these three. Any form can become tyrannical, which usually results in overthrow and replacement by one of the other forms. Our present form is a blend of all three with the oligarchy dominant.
Why, thank you!
I won't go any farther than to state the red crescent is symbolic of Islam.
I wonder how well a company which contained in its logo strong symbolic reference to Christianity or Judaism would be received in the UAE?
Atlas shrug blog is a blog I listen to on Jewish issues. She love the state of Israel. She is perhaps more informed about the situation of the State of Israel and Extreme Islamic movements then any other blogger. She campaigned hard for the deal. HEr blog is here http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
When this Lady isnt raising alarm bells I listen.
Yes, it is a globe with UAE flag and a marine nautical knot.
Emirs?
Nooooo!!! It must be more than that, let the conspiracy theories run wild.
Time to trade up.
Oh I view him also.
Clear as a bell to me. They support the organization that wants the utter destruction of Israel.
Alot of intel sharing and to say I believe the complexities on this issue among even arab govts is something to consider.
Intel that protects their butts as well to be sure.
I suppose that trade leads to enlightment in the long term.
Again we part company on this issue. I see it as swelling the pockets of the supporters of the terrorist group...hamas. Why give them more money...to buy bigger and better bombs?
The more their population deals with the International community the better.
Yet again. They don't assimilate, they subjugate. It's called caliphate in the making.
ping
I had to look up "oligarchy" just to see if you were actually saying what you seemed to be saying.
First you argue that the rabble are in charge, and then you argue that "the few" are in charge.
You get one more chance to make sense but right now it sounds like sour grapes to me.
That's the UAE flag
not the Palestinian Flag
if thath's what you were thinking.
bump^ thanks for the info
"Anyone want to try to interpret this logo?"
Earth with a huge, red crescent superimposed, in bondage?
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.