Posted on 03/16/2006 11:57:00 AM PST by WatchingInAmazement
Any country that does these thing is a potential security problem for a democracy.
You need to read the US State Dept view of the UAE and their travel advisories.
http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2005/46610.htm
U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June, 2005 (snips)
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (TIER 3)(worst of tier1,2,3)
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.
the U.A.E. made minimal efforts to prosecute traffickers. Despite the ongoing trafficking and exploitation of thousands of children as camel jockeys and women in sexual servitude, the government made insufficient efforts in 2004 to criminally prosecute and punish anyone behind these forms of trafficking.
The U.A.E. Government’s efforts to prosecute crimes relating to trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation were equally disappointing.
U.A.E. labor laws and, as such, many are vulnerable to serious exploitation that constitutes involuntary servitude, a severe form of trafficking.
_______-
As for Hamas and other terrorist organizations supported by the UAE, read on.
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
Why?
What connection is there between how they treat their people and whether or not their govt is our ally?
?
I never heard of Mac Johnson, but, DUDE, you ROCK!!
My thoughts exactly! Many points I myself have made on FR over the last month, but much more condensed, and woven into bigger arguments. The ONLY comprehensively detailed answer to the Dubai Ports "thing".Great post!
"pus icing on a turd cake"---
great imagery, thanks, and now I will have to postpone
breakfast for a few hours.
NOTE TO SELF: Do not read any posts on FR until several hours before or AFTER a meal.
Look at my tagline. What have you done to unify Americans today? What message did the President's veto threat send to Americans? And, whenever someone disagrees with your position on a given issue, are they automatically thrown into the DUmp?
Nearly all the posters on your side of this particular debate have backed themselves into a corner where they have no argument so they fling accusations at those who disagree with them.
You and everyone who supported DPW, with the exception of Cbolt, have purposely ignored the information re CFIUS. The evidence there is that the Committee did not follow the procedure as mandated by law in the Exon Florio provision.
The evidence supports that they were "rubber-stamping" the deal. That is not good enough in a POST 9/11 AMERICA. And it should not have been good enough for President Bush.
Ya'll are going on fear, and something darker.
In addition to examining the structure and procedures of CFIUS as a basis for refusing this transaction and asking for a "time out," we have every reason to be reluctant to "trust" a Middle East monarchy (Dubai) that is a member of a federation of emirates (UAE) that supported the Taliban, funneled funds for Al Qaeda, that oppposes the existence of Israel and that joins the boycott against Denmark in protest of cartoons.
All of this exists in the context of the War on Terror, which should be the most important issue for all true Americans.
I am very aware of how progressive modern day Dubai appears to be, how it is a free trade zone and entertainment destination. I am aware that women do not have to wear burkas. I am aware that Trump is building a huge sparkling development in Dubai. I am aware that, theoretically, business stands apart from politics. However, I am not willing to have a short memory and, when it comes to their government-owned company buying the operation of 6 of our ports, I say No, Thank You.
The difference in this debate, what has crossed over the line, is that we opponents are being attacked for our loyalty to America and we are being called names that are usually buzz words of the Left. I suggest that you re-consider who you are railing at and remember who the really enemy is, because soon he will come knocking at your door. How's that for "fear and something darker?"
Nations do not have friends they have interest. If it is with in a nations precieved interest to help another it will If not then no it won't. I know it iw wise to distrust andy dictatorship especially when you are bringing democray into a region. Do you think many or even most of these counries want that in the region?
"These pubs have made me remember gridlock fondly"
-------Great line---GMTA.
I have always said that I don't understand one side or
the other shaking its head in lament over gridlock, as though it never occurred to them that gridlock IS the precise way our government "does business".
They have a crime problem, yes. Not terrorist related.
And that article you posted didn't mention one single bit of evidence. But made unsubstantiated claims like, "the UAE, which supported al-Qaeda, sent 9/11 terrorists and funding, and continues to support Palestinian suicide bombers and particularly HAMAS,". With no evidence to back that up!? The Hamas press report said the UAE helped rebuild houses and gave to charities. Yet you claim without evidence that the UAE "continues to support Palestinian suicide bombers"??? And on, and on. You claim aid to families and such to be evidence that the UAE is a terrorist state, for goodness' sake!
That's the point, here, to me.
None of that is evidence to suggest that the UAE govt, or the DPW management, have ever or would ever enganger our ports.
You don't like some of the politics of that country, I get it. So you're accusing them of being terrorists without proof.
It's all quite clear.
Now forgive me if I remain a conservative, and go where the evidence takes me. And the evidence we have today shows that the UAE has been a steadfast ally of the US.
You make policy decisions based on whatever criteria you want, as is your right.
I'll stick with using evidence as the basis of my opinions.
Ping to excellent article.
There are so many spot-on statements in this article.
I thought the law said that if there is any reason to believe the deal is unsafe, then a 45 day investigation is required. There was no evidence that this deal was unsafe, so no investigation was triggered. One was demanded anyway, and agreed to, then the Congress made it clear they did *not* care about the law and wanted the deal killed without an investigation.
Your side was the one flaunting this law, by freaking out about a deal with no evidence to suggest there was a problem. "It's not the evidence that matters but the nature of the allegations", so to speak.
I suggest that you re-consider who you are railing at and remember who the really enemy is, because soon he will come knocking at your door.
If you're going to insist that the UAE are enemies and not allies with absolutely no proof to that end, then I *know* who the real enemy is.
You fell for a MSM/D party trick. The same trick they *alwasy* pull -- use the MSM lies to whip people into a frenzy ("Bush to Sell US Ports to Arabs"), then use public opinion polls as an excuse for legislation allowing the govt more power, in this case to intervene in a private business deal.
All the evidence points to UAE being a steadfast ally of the US at this time. You chose to ignore that evidence, fine, that's your right. Ds have been making policy decisions based on 'feelings' for years, that is absolutely your right.
Nations have allies.
Do you agree there is ample evidence to suggest that the UAE has been, and continues to be, a steadfast ally of the US?
By stead faast you mean of=ver the past 5 or so years yes. But befoere that they played both sides against the middle. That is one of the main resons we can not trust them. And for the record allies change and that change cna happen rapidly, see France.
Wrong again, kiddo. Both the DHS and Coast Guard raised objections during review based on national security concerns.
If you're going to insist that the UAE are enemies and not allies with absolutely no proof to that end, then I *know* who the real enemy is.
Fine, continue attacking America and Americans. In fact, ARE you an American? This segment of FR that insists on attacking the majority of Americans is a disturbing phenomenon.
Great piece!
I have complained about things like those mentioned in the article for a long time. This is not just about money or cheap lettuce.
It's about culture and heritage too. The folks streaming over the border don't give a damn about that stuff.
My Gr Gr grandfather was a civil war veteran. My gr gr gr gr gr grandfather was in the revolutionary war, he was born in upstate NY when it was still a colony.
And dammit, these things mean something to me. And I shouldn't have to "Press 1" to explain it!
Why is it that it's OK for every kook culture in the world to have a "homeland" except me?
Excellent article that should be read by every FReeper.
Too much hesperophobia (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=131210) abroad, too many sell-outs at home. O' Lord, come to our aid, for we are beset on all sides.
Republican legislators were the first to oppose the deal. They were Senators Frist, Coleman and Coburn. Also speaking out against immediately were Hastert and Duncan. They were soon joined by other Republicans. Even far into the debate, Senator Warner was the only Republican supporting DPW. Hmmm...
It's irritating to the elite that elected representatives actually listened to their constituents on this, but you still have a choice. Stay in the corner where you've backed yourself or come out and move on.
Eventually, it's possible we will allow ME countries to do business in sensitive areas. In the meantime, we'd like a moratorium for time to examine the matter.
The question is, what is all the rush on your side of the debate?
It is classic literature for the ages, well worth keeping, is it not?
I have also e-mailed excerpts to the President.
president@whitehouse.gov
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.