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 ...
I think that Sharia imposes certain restraints on the way Muslims do business such as charging interest for loans. Most big Muslim owned companies are run by Christians.
"Face it: you guys are playing the liberal race card"
In addition to the ad hominen attacks.
It's a poor substitute for confronting the opposing arguments.
I'm trying to find one single accusation against this company or the specific managers of this company.
Some evidence that this company has ever engangered port security anywhere, anytime, ever.
If you oppose the deal, then you must have some evidence to that effect, yes?
Do you have credible evidence that this specific company, these corporate managers, have any connetion to crime, terrorism, or have ever threatened port security ever, anywhere?
I assume you would need that to oppose this deal, assuming you were basing your opposition on evidence . . .
> I haven't heard Canada, Australia, Germany, China or at least 10 other countries raise any concerns. Just us...
The others aren't exactly the premier terrorism target, are they?
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.