Dubai Ports to Have Played Intelligence Role for CIA

The Washington Times ^ | 07-20-2007 | Bill Gertz

[Rodney King]

It was clear to me at the time that’s why the deal was getting pushed.

Yeah right. Let's see a link.

[Rodney King]

Are we supposed to trust everything he supports without question?

Uh, yeah.

[HitmanLV]

Gotta blame the admin for making such an unconvincing, incoherent case for the Dubai ports deal. Once again, the failure to communicate well let to the admin losing public confidence.

And I don’t mean that they should have told us all these details about security. Just make a cogent, clear case for the deal, that’s all. They were simply incapable of doing that.

This Dubya experiment has been one heck of an adventure.

[RTO]

“You are correct in that Nagasaki for historical reasons has had a good bit of Western influence, but also for historical reasons Christianity never took hold in Japan.”

I do not disagree that Christianity “never took hold in Japan”... The fact is that Christian (predominantly Catholic) missions had begun their work to evangelize in Japan, at Nagasaki. Had not the US destroyed the most Christian city in Japan, in 1945, things today would be perhaps quite different. Likewise the history of the Philippines has been one where US meddling resulted in the destruction of the Christian tradition there, and the results have been disastrous for the Filipinos, where Islam has taken a large foothold within their country.

The original contention was that the named nations had such markedly differing philosophy from the West that, by implication, they would know no benefit to traditional western ideals. That such tenets must be alien to their people. In this context, the presumption is that these nations would more likely align themselves with Islam, having no concept of traditional Western culture—a culture that in fact has its roots in the moral code of the Judeo-Chritian tradition.

However, I contend that these cultures have all been exposed to Christianity at some level, and to varying degrees of acceptance. That being so, the argument that these peoples have no commonality with western ideals is not correct.

The Judeo-Christian tradition—what we lable “western”, and more properly is the Latin tradition (eastern influences exists in degree) is in diametric opposition to the teachings of Islam. There is no confluence of ideas, religious or philosophical, because Islam is in diametric opposition to those things which most human beings earnestly desire.

Will Islam then take over the world? History shows that it has attempted the act on several occasions, taking most of the Catholic Roman Empire, including Catholic Spain and parts of France. However, and especially with Spain, this occurred because the people and their leaders had become corrupt, and lukewarm in their faith. We see this phenomena in Europe today, where the Muslim now dominates the continent. Will such conquest repeat itself in greater Asia? (that which is not under communist rule) When considering their memory of rule under similar totalitarian regimes, I would like to believe this outcome is less than likely, but Europe does not provide an example of confidence.

I suspect most people would not readily embrace an Islamic theocratic state, nor the suicidal tendencies that accompany its governing dogma.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Uh huh, and if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a wagon.

[listenhillary]

I don’t believe Rush was ever against it. Not from the beginning middle or end.

[RTO]

“WE DON’T WANT ANY PART OF GLOBALISM. GET USED TO IT!”

Are you making a general statement or is this retort addressed to me? I must reply that I share your exclamation.

RTO

[RTO]

“I don’t have to put words in your mouth. You just repeated your original assertion. “You can’t live with them”. You have no solution or plan other than eliminating them.”

Please direct me to the presumed passage “You can’t live with them,” for I have searched all I have written here, but alas, I am not able to discover this expression, which you credit to my hand.

Neither do I find in my words any suggestion of the specter of genocide, which you also attribute to my hand; but, again, rather these are your conception, which you have made the accusation that I support. I emphatically deny and denounce them both as libelous.

I state and present only the issue of the Muslim desire for world conquest, which is the unfortunate but natural temperament and inclination of Islam. I would rather, and am in no ways ashamed to state, that the Muslim peoples should convert to the Christian faith; and since they have chosen some specific pieces of the Catholic tradition to embellish their sacred writings (although these are used in a most inappropriate way), then all the more I desire they become Catholic. But this must needs be a voluntary act, for Jesus Christ and His Apostles witnessed as much. Therefore, I do, as all Catholics must do, to pray for the conversion of my enemy—and not for his utter destruction. For that would then be the death of his eternal soul as well, And I wish not that fate for any man, no matter how vile a creature he may be.

To my Muslim fiends I shall be content to quote Saint Thomas Moore: “...I do nobody none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm, but with everybody good. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, in good faith I long not to live.”

RTO

[airborne]

Or the CIA could be lying.

Again.

[RTO]

“Uh huh, and if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a wagon.”

I am sorry, but you have me at a disadvantage, sir. I do not find anything here that I have directed at you. Which of my posts are you in disagreement with?

RTO

[RTO]

To ALL:

I am sorry to have posted this article... one of three. I did not realize there would be such a high degree contention and dissension among “FReepers.” Moreover, I am discovering that to reply to all who “ping” is a very labor-intensive and time-consuming task. Time is something I have no luxury of, and thus this experience will serve as a well-learned lesson.

Respectfully to all,

RTO

[ovrtaxt]

Not to you personally- but you posted the thread, so you get all the hostility directed at the first post.

That’s just the way FR works. Wecome, by the way!

[CMAC51]

They have sworn to smite you. You describe them as a whole, vile and perfidious. Will you stand and be struck down or will you fight back? Conversion to Christianity is not in there nature so unlikely to affect them as a group, or is a miracle in the offing? The Muslims will all lay down their arms and embrace Jesus?

Absent that miracle, do you search and find the good among them and strive toward a path of mutual benefit or do you eliminate them before they eliminate you? Your words of hata and condemnation suggested a likely response. Perhaps I am mistaken though and strident terms were truly flowers of love.

[CMAC51]

Sir, any discussion of the Inquisition would be thoroughly off topic. However, that stated, I must protest your insinuation, which is wholly out-of-line, and misinformed. The Inquisition, as it actually occurred in Catholic Spain, was in fact benign, but its occurrence has been thoroughly twisted, into some conspired act of evil persecution, for use by those whom master propaganda against the Catholic Church, so to advance their own political ends. I am a practicing traditional Catholic—and a Catholic historian. Not to be curt, but, you do not want to go “there,” here, with me. On this thread, we must agree do disagree on the subject.

During twelve years of education in Catholic schools, I never heard one Bishop, priest or Nun deny the nature of the inquisition. They often used it as a teaching tool. Has history changed so much in the last 30 years?

In the history of the major western religions, there have been periods of time when men under the influence of religious zealotry have committed unspeakable acts. These mis-quided zealots did not represent the true nature nor the future of their religion.

We most definatley disagree. That doesn't mean I will not respond to your assertions and let them stand unchallenged for others who may read this thread.

[CMAC51]

The original contention was that the named nations had such markedly differing philosophy from the West that, by implication, they would know no benefit to traditional western ideals.

Wrong! Go back and read it again carefully. The contention was that these nations are not western in their philosophy or culture yet were at one time or currently are allies of the United States. Western culture is not a prerequisite of mutually beneficial economic interaction. Though China and Russia today may be more accurately described as rivals than allies they both have strong economic ties to the US which reduce the level of confrontation between the respective nations.

The philosophy of the Islamic nations is not Western, but their is no reason that economic ties cannot be nurtured. History has shown repeatedly that mutually dependent trading partners seldom make for fighting enemies.

[RTO]

“They have sworn to smite you. You describe them as a whole, vile and perfidious. Will you stand and be struck down or will you fight back?”

Self-defense is my right, and duty, as a Catholic. This “includes defense of the innocent and, by natural extension, of the nation. While the Catholic Faith is indeed inclined towards pacifism, it is not pacifistic. It would be a grave sin if I did not defend my family, or defend my own life, on which my family depends.

However, the doctrine of ‘Just War’ does not permit the wanton slaughter of an entire people. The operative term here is ‘proportionate response.’ This must naturally rule out the use of nuclear weapons, or indiscriminate conventional bombing. Many will think this insane, but one must fight according to the moral rules of warfare. Whether the enemy chooses to obey that moral imperative must not determine my response. If I use the same tactics as the Muslim, to wit: indiscriminate attacks and the murder of civilians, then I am become my enemy, and thus I loose my justification to fight, and perhaps my eternal soul in the process. What profit it a man to gain the world and loose his soul?

Many Catholic saints chose martyrdom at the hands of their persecutors, when clearly they had the right to exercise self-defense. However, their ‘state in life’ was such that they were free to make the choice of self sacrifice for the sake of upholding and giving public testament of the Catholic Faith.

The Crusades were an action of self-defense, a response long withheld from an enemy whose encroachment upon the Holy Roman Empire was constant and without cause. When finally begun, the Crusades were still not fought in earnest offense; but rather, were in their effect, too little too late.

“Conversion to Christianity is not in there nature so unlikely to affect them as a group, or is a miracle in the offing? The Muslims will all lay down their arms and embrace Jesus?”

The Old Testament states of the children of Ismael, those of the bond woman, Hagar: They shall be as wild asses. (paraphrasing) However, I must also trust the words of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Sister Lucy (Fatima): “In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph... Russia will be converted, and a period of peace will be given the world.” For that peace to occur the Muslims would needs be converted to the Faith. Thus, it is not for me to question my Lord, or doubt the words of his most Holy mother. My lot is to accept His will, and to make it my own, as best I can.

“Absent that miracle, do you search and find the good among them and strive toward a path of mutual benefit or do you eliminate them before they eliminate you? Your words of hata and condemnation suggested a likely response. Perhaps I am mistaken though and strident terms were truly flowers of love.”

I must presume that you meant “hate” not “hata”...

Condemnation yes... Hate the Muslims? Absolutely not, save but to despise their horrendous behavior. Hate the sin, love the sinner... even the most vile sinner. Did our Lord, while on the cross and yet suffering the blasphemous insults of the Pharisees, not say: Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”? Did Christ not next forgive the repentant thief? How then may I do less? Remember: Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us... that sentiment is not Heaven’s “recommendation”... it is Our Lord’s command.

One more example shall serve: Saint Joan de Arc, perhaps the greatest warrior Catholic France ever knew, would weep over the bodies of her slain enemy, for she knew the true loss that had occurred.

Each day, I pray for my country, for our leaders, and for our enemies. I pray for their conversion. I know that one day this will happen. I may not live to see that day... nevertheless, I believe it must be so.

RTO

[RTO]

“The philosophy of the Islamic nations is not Western, but their is no reason that economic ties cannot be nurtured. History has shown repeatedly that mutually dependent trading partners seldom make for fighting enemies.”

Since when does economy and trade guarantee peace?

The American colonies were trading partners with England, but that did not prevent the American Revolution.

The Northern and Southern States of the US were trading partners—and nominally of the same Christian creed, language, and, to a degree, national culture; yet that did not prevent the American Civil War.

In 1932 Japan and the United States were trading partners; yet when Japan invaded Nationalist China the economic arrangement soon thereafter came to a bitter end.

Economy is something transient and trade is fickle. If nothing else these two impostures hide a wolves-den of evil beneath a pretense of so-called mutual benefit. When that pretense is stripped away, and the ulterior motives exposed, hostilities are not far off.

Unless there be a solid base upon which two or more peoples share a deep commonality: Language, Religion, and Culture, they will not long remain friends, especially where the forces of self-interest become dominant. (We could go on long and hard on the merits and defects of Representative Republican government vs Catholic Monarchies, but that discussion is perhaps best reserved for another time.)

Catholic Europe was once united under the Holy Roman Empire, but following the divisions created in 1530 vis-a-vis the Protestant Reformation in Germany and the low countries, and then further expanded through the English Reformation, the stage was thus set for the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic Wars to wreak further disunity. WWI to drive the final nail in the coffin with the collapse of the Hapsburg Dynasty. WWII and the Cold War sealed the fate of Catholic Europe, which is no more.

But I digress, and we are way off topic.

RTO

[CMAC51]

For all your prose and numerous quotes you failed to answer the question.

You have characterized all Muslims as representing these vile and perfidious acts. The jihadists have sworn to destroy you. You then lump all Muslims within this group. Ergo, by your logic they are all sworn to destroy you. Will you be destroyed or destroy all of them? Whether by sword, bullet, or bomb, singly or en mass, the act is the same; you send the soul to the after life and the body which is of the earth is conveyed back to the earth.

[CMAC51]

Since when does economy and trade guarantee peace? The American colonies were trading partners with England, but that did not prevent the American Revolution. The Northern and Southern States of the US were trading partners—and nominally of the same Christian creed, language, and, to a degree, national culture; yet that did not prevent the American Civil War. In 1932 Japan and the United States were trading partners; yet when Japan invaded Nationalist China the economic arrangement soon thereafter came to a bitter end.

In none of these cases were the trading partners mutually dependent. The American Colonies and Japan were being exploited and hostilities ensued as a result of escalation of the exploitation. In the case of the South, the North was attempting to restrict the economic viability of the South's ability to trade productively with any of its trading partners.

(We could go on long and hard on the merits and defects of Representative Republican government vs Catholic Monarchies, but that discussion is perhaps best reserved for another time.)

Whoa...Okay, enough said. Even for amusement I won't go there. I prefer to stay in the world of reason and reality.

[CJ Wolf]

There is no way I’m gonna allow the UAE to run our ports. they can pound sand. You think that there won’t be there agents all over our ports? Maybe we should let them run TSA too.

I call BS.