Administration: UAE 'has changed'

WorldNetDaily ^ | 24 February 2006 | Les Kinsolving

[Rokke]

"I think you're the one that needs to do a little more research."

Why? You haven't given any evidence to refute anything I've said. It is hard to refute fact.

"There is an acknowledge presence of Al Qaeda in the UAE."

I've got some bad news for you. There is an acknowledged presence of Al Qaeda in the USA too. Guess we better ban trade with ourselves.

[DoughtyOne]

60% of our populace? LOL, you're a real hoot.

Well, with you and others of your ilk, I'm sure you'll do your best to get us there.

[Rokke]

"60% of our populace? LOL, you're a real hoot."

Are you kidding me? 60% of UAE's population is Al Qaeda!? 50% of UAE's population comes from Southern Asia and isn't even Arab. Take some time and think about what you're doing. You don't really know anything about what you are talking about. You've even started to just make things up. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on this issue. Don't just listen to what other people are saying. Do your own research. Forget about the ports. Just do some reading about the UAE. I think you will find it interesting.

[DoughtyOne]

Rokke, what is the break-down of Wahabis in Saudi Arabia? It's 60% fella. There is also a significance presence of Al Qaeda in the UAE. If you want to ignore that, fine. If you want to play pretend go ahead. If you want to pass this off as me being the person ignoring the facts or making them up, go ahead. The UAE is a travel risk.

You know damned well that the US does issue travel advisories to the UAE from time to time. Australia has issued one recently, which may be active now.

Your subtrifuge on this subject isn't selling. You're just another disinformation player making up a portion of the dismal 32 percent on this forum trying to play this issue off as a non-issue.

No sale.

[Rokke]

"Rokke, what is the break-down of Wahabis in Saudi Arabia?"

Now we're back to talking about Saudi Arabia?!?! Forgive me for not being about to keep track of your random point making. I could have sworn this was an article about the UAE.

I think you've been drinking. You are normally far more coherent. I'll let the facts speak for themselves on this thread and leave you to your buzz.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't always file away the information that I read. I think this should answer some of the questions you haven't been able to answer.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/900risbm.asp

[Rokke]

First, list a specific question concerning the UAE port deal that you've asked that I haven't answered. Second, thanks for the link to the article. Did you actually read it. It proves my point in spades. Let me quote several lines from it because they are well worth repeating...

"To begin with, it is important to recognize that the UAE is not Iran and has entirely justifiable reasons for claiming that it is both one of the most moderate countries in the Arab world as well as a valuable partner in the U.S.-led war on terrorism."

"Ironically, during his defense of the UAE's record on cooperation, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld failed to mention one of their most significant achievements to date: the November 2002 capture of Abd Rahim al-Nashiri, a senior al Qaeda leader generally regarded as the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing and the head of the terror network's maritime operations. While this would indeed be a significant achievement in its own right, it is made all the more remarkable by the fact that the UAE had been directly threatened by the al Qaeda leadership several months prior to al-Nashiri's capture."

"al Qaeda explicitly threatened UAE officials with attacks if they refused to cease cooperation with the United States. Written between May and June 2002 and addressed in particular to officials in the emirates of Abu-Dhabi and Dubai (the UAE is a federation of seven emirates), the document claims that the UAE has engaged in "spying, persecution, [sic] detainments" against al Qaeda members operating on its soil at the behest of the United States, noting that, "authorities have recently detained a number of Mujahideen and handed them over to suppressive organizations in their country in addition to having a number of them still in its custody" and that "these practices bring the country into a fighting ring in which it cannot endure or escape from its consequences." These threats appear to suggest that whatever else al Qaeda thinks of the UAE, it does not regard the nation as being among its friends."

And that is all just on the first page. Yeah. Sounds like the UAE is really in bed with Al Qaeda. Thanks again for the link.

[DoughtyOne]

Sure, if you'll acknowledge that the US and other nations do issue terrorist threat warnings for the UAE from time to time. Big deal. Duh!

[DoughtyOne]

I've never claimed that the UAE leadership was the problem. The problem as I saw it was that Al-Qaeda does operate in their nation. You ran from this fact like a scalded dog.

Nice try.

[philetus]

we seem to be a little late worrying about the ports

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584235/posts

[Rokke]

"The problem as I saw it was that Al-Qaeda does operate in their nation. You ran from this fact like a scalded dog."

I take back my statement about your drinking. I'm beginning to think LSD is more likely. Here is what you said about Al-Qaeda in the UAE...

"There is an acknowledge presence of Al Qaeda in the UAE."

My response....

"I've got some bad news for you. There is an acknowledged presence of Al Qaeda in the USA too. Guess we better ban trade with ourselves."

Your response...

"60% of our populace?"

Very cryptic on your part. But I responded directly to your point. Unfortunately, my response seems to have ricocheted somewhere into the depths of your mind and forced out a random response having nothing to do with the UAE or Al Qaeda. I'm missing the scalded dog part.

[DoughtyOne]

Perhaps this won't be as cryptic you poor soul.

In a rare window into al Qaeda's strategic mindset, the author explains, "our policies are not to operate in your homeland and/or tamper with your security because we are occupied with others which we consider are enemies of this nation.

Yet the document also provides ample ammunition to those concerned over the UAE port deal, with its al Qaeda author asserting to the Abu-Dhabi and Dubai officials that "we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned" and that "we are confident that you are fully aware that your agencies will not get to the same high level of your American Lords. Furthermore, your intelligence will not be cleverer than theirs, and your censorship capabilities are not worth much against what they have reached . . . you are an easier target than them; your homeland is exposed to us."

You poor thing... you couldn't see any problem with this. Sorry about your case.

[nopardons]

bttt

[DoughtyOne]

Check this out Ace...

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/United_Arab_Emirates

[CWOJackson]

For some people no excuse to attack the President, no matter how debunked, can be passed up.

[DoughtyOne]

Here's another one...

Nope, no terrorist threat in the UAE hugh.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029390590&a=KCountryAdvice&aid=1013618386775

[nopardons]

That's quite true; sadly.

[CWOJackson]

Standard operating procedures for the dysfunctional. The War on Terror means nothing to them...the war on the President consumes them.

[CWOJackson]

Keep in mind. Why would we want to take the word of people like Colonel Ollie North and General Tommy Franks. What do they know about national security, terrorism and the middle east?