Qaeda claim: we 'infiltrated' UAE Gov't

New York Post ^ | 25 February 2006 | Niles Lathem

[OldFriend]

Remember all the emails circulating before every holiday. I heard from a friend's friend that the shopping malls are going to be bombed.

I heard that the halloween candy is poisoned.

I heard that....you name it, the rumors are out there.

[drhogan]

i completely agree with you. it looks to me like the fed bureaucrats OK'd a really bad deal, that will compromise national security, and bush doesn't have the sense to stop it.
the bush family has always been very close, business-wise, with the "friendly" Arab governments.
it usually turns out that half the people in the "friendly" arab governments are supporting terrorists.
if it is true that our great ally, the UAE, supports Hamas, why should we criticize the Presbyterians for doing the same thing?

[Howlin]

Great post, Luna!

[varon]

Looks like Bush didn't bother to read his own intelligence reports before defending the ports deal.

Aww, c'mon now........ease up on the big fella. He's been working 24/7 on closing the border with Mexico......don't expect him to walk and chew gum at the same time......

[Howlin]

I was quite surprised and dissapointed to see him so vehemently defend the port deal that he didn't even see before hand.

Please don't insult our collective intelligence by trying to twist his words; he did NOT defend the deal before he was brought up to speed on what was going on.

I'm confused and questioning Bush for the first time regarding national security.

And Hillary and Schumer are thrilled.

[Howlin]

You really want to gamble on that with our national security?

Who do you suggest we believe, you or the entire United States government?

[Howlin]

As if they need something else...

[Howlin]

Two of the hijackers came from there

ALL of them boarded flights at United States' airports -- and ALL of the pilots learned to fly in Florida.

Shall we boycott them, too?

and funds for the training came through the government banks.

Through CitiBank; now I hope you don't shop at Sears anymore.

[F16Fighter]

"This whole ordeal is embarrassing to no end. Running the day to day operation of our ports [by Muslims] is NO threat to America. It's like saying that Daimler is going to threaten America by neo-nazis infiltrating Chrysler.

Lol, one of THE worst hyperboles I've ever seen at FR.

[Dane]

Amazing some will believe this al-queda propaganda as if it was uttered by Mother Theresa.

[drhogan]

it's a lot easier to do complete security checks on US companies than on a government company in the Middle East. I would not object to British-owned or Israeli-owned companies running US ports, but to let a "friendly" arab government run the ports is ridiculous. this is not based on racism, but on common sense. Stalin was our ally during WWII--should we have turned our ports over to him?
i am sure many of the home-office employees in the UAE will be sympathetic to hamas and al qaeda--will we be doing security checks on the home office employees? probably not. we will have to trust the UAE security forces to do this.
this is one of the worst deals i have ever heard of. it is a Clintonian deal. when some terrist incident is successfully run through a US port, what are people going to say? i guess bush will say that "No one could have predicted that turning our ports over to an undemocratic Arab regime (that has supported terrorists in the past)would compromise our security". He will then appoint a commission to study it.

[drhogan]

thanks--i'll look into it.
i'm amazed that many conservatives who are worried about our border with mexico are not taking this thing more seriously.
the bush admin has been better than the clinton admin on security, but it has made many mistakes as well (e.g., cheny not listening to gary hart about the likelihood of a terror attack on US soil; the lackadaisical enforcement of immigration laws, etc).

[drhogan]

thanks--i'll look into it.
i'm amazed that many conservatives who are worried about our border with mexico are not taking this thing more seriously.
the bush admin has been better than the clinton admin on security, but it has made many mistakes as well (e.g., cheny not listening to gary hart about the likelihood of a terror attack on US soil; the lackadaisical enforcement of immigration laws, etc).

[an amused spectator]

There are some people on this board (and other boards) who have drunk too much from the Internet Well of Information, and who are rip-roaring drunk on this issue.

You and I have been on FR long enough to know to just wait it out. The important facts will eventually come to the fore.

Thanks for the ping!

[drhogan]

apparently most of the records will be kept in the UAE, and will be harder to get ahold of.
likewise, once the UAE is running the ports, it would be very simple for some employees there to aid terrorists who want to ship weapons into the US.
sort of like turning over our border patrols to Mexico.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"What a poseur."

[LibLieSlayer]

All they can do is dig up ancient press to try to explain their wrongheadedness.

LLS

[drhogan]

but it is much easier to run security checks on sears employees in the US (who are suspected of terrorism) than to run checks on UAE employees who live over there.
also, ports, like airports, borders, and certain other parts of our infrastructure are more important to our national security than is sears.

[jwalsh07]

Why is it that so few here understand this concept?

Perhaps because America is not the only country capable of guaranteeing a UAE's security.

[Howlin]

likewise, once the UAE is running the ports

See, there is one of your problems with this issue: misinformation you keep repeating despite the facts being posted in black font on this very forum.

They are NOT going to be running the ports.