Posted on 03/03/2006 5:42:53 AM PST by Dr. Thorne
One of the weirder sideshows to open alongside a main event — the proposed operational transfer of six major American ports to a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates — is the growing chorus of road-company Zolas, "J'accusing" everybody opposed to the sale of "xenophobia," "isolationist mass hysteria," "bigotry," "nativism," "panic," and "prejudice" against innocent Araby.
Such accusations are supposed to make you hang your head in shame. They make me shake mine in consternation — wondering how in tarnation a hefty chunk of the American elite has the chutzpah to castigate the American people (64 percent of whom, says a Rasmussen poll, think the deal is a Bad Thing) for "xenophobia" and "prejudice" on behalf of a culture that is the embodiment of xenophobia and prejudice. The words precisely describe the official state of normal in the Arab-Islamic world since at least 1948, when the modern state of Israel was founded.
Nonetheless, we're the "pitchfork-wielding xenophobes" en route to the "Dark Ages," says the New York Times' Thomas Friedman. I'd say we're heading in the other direction, trying to escape the Dark Ages — as represented by the spreading influence of sharia (Islamic law), which, in terms of the sharia-compliant port deal, would make deep inroads into global financial markets. I would add, as Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen have suggested in this newspaper, "It's time for the United States to limit financial transactions that involve American companies" — and the U.S. government — "to governance by secular laws."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Here's a comment for Dubai supporters: If you support this deal, you support sharia law, Islamofascism, misogyny and Anti-Semitism.
Makes as much sense as the opposite.
Typical....
Listen pal, come up with one reason OTHER THAN THEY ARE A-RABS, and you won't be called racist on your reasoning.
ITS THAT DAMNED SIMPLE.
Until then, deal with it.
....one of the reasons...this company is about more than just shipping.
Its called "the broad brush".
Surely, some of those opposing the deal are doing so because they don't trust Arabs of any kind. There can be no doubt to that statement.
Those who support the deal blindly, in their desire to persuade others to support it, or at least not to oppose it, use the broad brush to scare soft-opponents away from opposition.
It works in both directions. Those who oppose the deal are quick to call supports "Blind lemmings" and pretend that there are no good reasons to support it, which there are.
This is a tricky issue that is not black and white. < period >
I am gonna sit it out and watch.
When the Roman Emperors began to use "barbarians" to administer his borders and fill troop quotas, the Empire began to Decline.
President Bush, call your office!
These same people run the biggest port for the United States Navy. Presidents from BOTH parties do business with the UAE. They provide money and facilities for the training of Iraqi police officers.
Are they perfect? No. We also don't agree with the Chinese on their aspects and behaviors of governance. We still do business with them...even let them run port terminals.
I've failed to see anything in the evidence that separates DP from any other port operator--other than their geography and race.
i know, 15 of the 19 Saudis were involved in 9/11 and yet the Saudis have container ships that dock in NY and NJ. we need to stop that too. In a strange masochistic way I want the US to stop this deal and have the UAE kick us out of their ports and air bases and have nothing to do with us. I'd laugh so hard, then when i come to my senses I'd want to slap the SH** out of every member of congress! :)
Oh for heaven's sake. You mean concerns about handing over major US cities' port operations to a country which spawned 2 of the 9/11 terrorists and which denies the existence of Israel and backed the Taliban are racist?
Face it: you guys are playing the liberal race card.
It should be the same as Godwin's law (where those who invoke Nazis lose the argument), those who invoke hysterical cries of "racist" just plain automatically lose. Period.
The sooner we drill like crazy in the wilderness, fire up every hot American roof with solar, crank up our American nuclear industry, harness each strong wind, unleash oceans of biodiesel, and GET OFF THE M.E. OIL TIT, YEAH INCLUDING SAUDI ARABIA, the better off we will be. I'd love to give the finger to all those crazy countries who make us tap dance to their tune.
And with all that we would still need the UAE because that isn't going to make terrorism go away.
Look, it isn't port operations, it is some terminals at certain ports. And it has been repeated enough, but let me say for the trillionth time: they aren't in charge of security....secondly, Pakistan and the Saudis recognized the Taliban also--are you saying we should pull our special forces out of working w/Pakistan to stop the terrorists in Tora Bora and Pakistan villages and we should stop importing Saudi oil? Are you ready for a law to be passed invoking punitive measures against these two nations we depend on for military launching points, cooperation and petroleum?
I'm not. The UAE is an ALLY...not a perfect one, hell, they're not the British...but they ARE a friend. And I haven't heard ANYTHING in terms of EVIDENCE that Dubai Ports World is a dangerous company. They do business and have been doing business all over the world, and they've had no terrorist incidents reported at any of their terminals...believe me, if there WERE, the 'rats, press and panicked Republicans would be touting it..."UAE MANAGED PORTS ALLOWED TERRORISTS INTO HONG KONG" or something like that...instead, we've got a company that manages the biggest terminal for U.S. Naval ships outside the USA being needlessly attacked just because they're Arabs.
Down here in Florida, we've got a shipping company that is a subsidiary of the company that lost the bidding war with Dubai Ports. So even our Republican congresspeople are griping...it may not be racism, but it certainly could be economic jealousy and pandering....
That's how I see it anyway. :)
The "racism" charge is simply shorthand to indicate that the opponents have no evidence that port security will be effected by the deal, and therefore the administration had no legal authority to reject the deal.
But the opponents argue the deal should be thrown out anyway, because of "sharia law, Islamofascism, misogyny, and anti-semitism". In other words, because we do not want to deal with muslim-owned companies. That may be a valid argument, but it is still racism of a sort.
I say of a sort because there IS racism involved, some argue that ARABS should not be allowed to own ports and cannot be trusted -- Arabs are a race. But muslims are not a race, they are a religioun, so it's anti-muslimism that drives the opponents.
The liberals argue from tolerance that being "anti" anything is wrong no matter what the circumstance. I don't hold to that -- it IS ok to be "racist" if a race actually IS evil, although I don't believe any race is such by nature of their race.
Opponents of the deal argue that the muslim religion is evil by its very nature, and therefore all that practice the religion are evil.
My argument on the port deal has been limited to saying that, even if true, this would not be a justification for stopping this deal.
But I would also point out that there are some who claim MOST religiouns are evil.
I am against the above but am OK with DPW operating some terminals in some ports.
IDIOTS.
Seems to me she makes the case she argues against when she says, "as represented by the spreading influence of sharia (Islamic law), which, in terms of the sharia-compliant port deal, would make deep inroads into global financial markets." What does this have to do with sharia, anyway?
Why do both sides continue to misstate the argument?
one more for our side. By the way, we've decided to take a trick from the Dems playbook, and have stopped going to movies. Why subsidize an industry devoted to pressing the hard left Democratic agenda? Anyone agree with this?
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.