Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is George W. Bush turning over US ports to terrorists?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Proud2BAmurkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:21 PM
Original message
Why is George W. Bush turning over US ports to terrorists?
Waiting for democrats to get the balls to ask the question THAT WAY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Becasue he's a terrorist too?


Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neoblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. My sentiments exactly! n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. Having balls doesn't mean being fucking bigoted.
Just because the people are from the UAE doesn't mean they're terrorists.

Come on, we're Progressives, not Freepers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. They do not represent the people of the UAE,
they do not represent a company, and they do not represent any of the Earth's races.

They are a handful of evil people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Please.
Edited on Mon Feb-27-06 07:38 PM by The Stranger
You know why he wants the Democrats to claim that they are terrorists. And it is not because there is one fucking ounce of evidence any of them actually did anything.

It is because of where they come from, which has everything to do with the color of their skin and the religion to which they belong. They are made guilty by association because of what others of the same race and religion have done.

Regarding their being "evil people," I know Bush and people like him are fond of using the term "evil," but when I see someone use a term like that, it always raises questions, and fast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. And why do you liken these evil people
to every member of their race and religion? What you are doing is the ultimate in bigotry.

These people represent nobody but themselves. That's what sets them apart. That's what makes their system of government so despicable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Why do you keep calling them "evil people"?
Can you post a link to one fucking piece of evidence that shows any crime this company has committed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. It's not a company. It's a handful of evil dictators.
You haven't reached the starting line on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. Dictators That Funneled Terrorists Money
Hello?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. The UAE is mentioned over 20 times in the Zacarius Moussaoui indictment
Edited on Mon Feb-27-06 08:02 PM by BattyDem
Here's one section of the indictment:

Money is Moved to the Hijackers

21. On or about June 29, 2000, $4,790 was wired from the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Manhattan.

22. On or about July 19, 2000, $9,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

23. On or about July 26, 2000, in Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh wired money to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Florida.

24. On or about August 7, 2000, $9,485 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

25. On or about August 30, 2000, $19,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

26. On or about September 18, 2000, $69,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohamed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).


Read the rest here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm


How can you say there is no evidence against them when our own Justice Department used evidence involving the UAE to indict Moussaoui? :shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Who "has balls"?
I'm just wondering what you're talking about because it doesn't make sense to me. You appear to be arguing that it's OK that our ports should be run by foreign countries, particularly ones that are known to harbor and support terrorists - the real ones that attacked America, not the fake ones in Iraq.

I have news for you. It's not OK.

And that's not bigotry. It's common sense. This is not a privately owned commercial company taking over, but a company owned by a foreign government that is, at the least, sympathetic to the terrorists and is on record as bigoted jew haters. If you're looking for bigots, check out the UAE who owns the company that's going to be taking over our ports or terminals, and understand that you cannot even go there if you've ever been to Israel on vacation. That's bigotry, and they're dangerous to say the least.

Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. He wants the Democrats to claim that they are terrorists. Period.
Do you have a post to link to any evidence that this company has committed any terrorist act?

Until there is that evidence, the statements that the people in this company are terrorists are nothing but pure guilt by association and completely bigoted. The statement is made simply to elicit guilt by association based on the fact that they are of same race and religion as others who have committed such acts.

It is hard to believe that this is actually on Democratic Underground.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. I don't want to belabor the issue, so here's a link to the argument

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x533574

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) had direct links to al-Queda and bin-Laden. The 9/11 Commission told of a 1999 incident in which bin-Laden was in CIA sights and the attack was called off because he was with UAE Royal family members while hunting in Afghanistan. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government in Afghanistan while the Taliban shielded al-Queda as they planned the 9/11 attack. Two hijackers on 9/11 were UAE citizens, with one being the pilot who flew into one of the WTC towers. It should be noted that becoming a citizen in that country is nearly impossible if you are not born there of UAE parents. It's impossible for immigrants to become citizens there. 11 of the 19 hijackers' last stop before coming here was the UAE. Money for the 9/11 attack was laundered and funneled through the UAE. Afghanistan drug lords did and continue to launder heroin profits through the UAE. The UAE is committed to the destruction of our ally, Israel. Finally, it has been proved that Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan smuggled nuclear parts to North Korea, Iran and Libya through the Port of Dubai (UAE) which is under the watch, then and now, of Dubai Ports' World, the company owned by the UAE in the ports deal here.

(Here's the line that makes them cry)

I can make a better argument for attacking the United Arab Emirates than Bush can make for turning our ports over to them.


This poster made all the salient points. Read this and come back and tell me you want to go to bat for the UAE taking over our ports, or any part thereof. How any American citizen would want to carry water for the UAE is beyond me. Sure the thread starter made a blanket comment and reached a bit by extending the UAE's support of terrorists into the entire country being actual terrorists, but that's not a far stretch and it falls WAY short of bigotry. The Bush administration is not turning the ports over to the people of the UAE, who I'm sure have diverse opinions, but the government of the UAE which is clearly bigoted, racist and also harbors and supports terrorists including the ones that attacked the US.

Remember, this is not about a company, but a government that owns the company in question. If a government owns a company, that company is an arm of the government. It's really simple and I don't know why you can't see that.

Like the above poster, I can make a better argument for attacking the United Arab Emirates than Bush can make for turning our ports over to them. What's your incentive to do that? Why are you willing to turn our ports over to this country, or any other country for that matter?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Tell that to the people being held ILLEGALLY at Gitmo...
WE, at DU, already know that.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. They aren't "from" the UAE; they ARE the UAE. It's the GOVERNMENT
controlling OUR ports.
As in: The same as OUR owning Iraqi oil-fields.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. why are DUers stooping this low...?
Edited on Mon Feb-27-06 07:34 PM by mike_c
This whole affair has been a real low point for DU, IMO. There's been a shameful amount of ignorance and bigotry on display.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
28. Exposed.......
low point huh? Nice try sucka.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. LOL....
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. Because that would be a really silly question for democrats to ask
since the people buying the ports are not terrorists.

I still think it's a bad idea for several good reasons, most of all they don't recognize Israel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. I think they've said they do not recognize Israel because of Israel's
illegal occupation of land that belongs to the Palestinians. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Do you think that sounds unreasonable?

I do appreciate it that you corrected the OP about the "terrorist" label, as it really is innaccurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. What illegal occupation of land that belongs to the Palestinians?
Last time I looked, Israel was a sovereign nation. So it sounds unreasonable to me not to recognize Israel.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Many don't know that the UN has said the Israeli Occupation is illegal
Edited on Mon Feb-27-06 08:48 PM by Wordie
under International law, and that Human Rights Watch also has repeatedly issued warnings to Israel for it's actions in the Occupied Territories (lands belonging to the Palestinians). The UAE is not at all unreasonable to make it's recognition of Israel contingent on Israel's efforts toward peace, imho.

This letter to President Bush from Human Rights Watch explains how things stand pretty well:

Israel: Expanding Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Letter to President George W. Bush


December 27, 2005

Office of the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush,

I am writing to you with respect to multiple Israeli announcements of its plans to continue expanding settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). This directly contravenes international law and Israeli commitments under the Road Map.

You recently reiterated Israel’s obligations to stop expanding settlements when you said, on October 20, 2005, following your meeting with Palestinian President Abbas: “Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.” Israel has acted contrary to these obligations, escalating the building of settlements in 2005. According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, in the first half of 2005, there was a 28% increase in settlement housing starts compared to the same period in 2004. Israel now proposes to further expand West Bank settlements in the coming year.

We urge you to use U.S. diplomatic and financial influence to stop this trend in 2006.

On December 26, the Ministry of Housing released tenders for the construction of 228 housing units in the West Bank settlements of Beitar Ilit and Efrat; on December 19, , the Ministry of Housing published tenders for constructing 137 new housing units in the West Bank settlements of Ariel and Karnei Shomron; and on December 14, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz’s approved the construction of approximately 300 new homes in the West Bank settlements of Maale Adumim, Bracha and Nokdim. Maale Adumim is one of the largest and fastest growing settlements in the West Bank, with some 30,000 inhabitants. The settlement is located east of Jerusalem and adjacent to the much-publicized area of “E-1,” the last remaining site for potential Palestinian development around settlement-encircled East Jerusalem. The Israeli government also has made clear that, despite U.S. opposition, it plans to build 3,500 housing units in E-1 and to include Ma'ale Adumim and E-1 on the western side (the “Israeli side”) of the metal and concrete barrier that Israel is building, mostly inside the OPT (hereinafter, the “wall”). Such actions would effectively sever the West Bank in two by cutting the already limited Palestinian north-south access routes through the West Bank. In addition, a wall encircling E-1 and Ma’ale Adumim would make access to East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian economic and religious life, virtually impossible from the rest of the West Bank, except through limited checkpoint crossings in the wall, most of which Israel has not yet funded or built.

Israel’s continuing settlement activity is a violation of international humanitarian law (IHL), United Nations Security Council resolutions, and Israel’s own commitments under the U.S.-sponsored Road Map of April 2003. The Israeli government’s policy of encouraging, financing, establishing, and expanding Jewish-only settlements in the OPT violates two main principles of IHL: the prohibition on the transfer of civilians from an occupying power's territory to the occupied territory, and the prohibition of creating permanent changes in the occupied territory that are not for the benefit of the occupied population. In particular, Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that "he Occupying Power shall not …transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Under the road map, Israel agreed to freeze all settlement activity, including “natural growth,” and to dismantle all settlement outposts created since March 2001.

No one but Israel disputes the fact that its settlement policy violates IHL. Yet the international community, including the United States, has failed to hold Israel accountable to its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention to, at the very least, immediately cease current Israeli settlement activity. The wrongfulness of the settlement expansion is compounded by evidence stemming from the construction of the wall within the OPT that suggests an Israeli intention eventually to annex the territory in question. Israel claims that the wall is being built for security reasons, but the deep intrusion of the wall into West Bank territory, and the capture of major settlements on the ”Israeli side” of the wall, suggest otherwise. The International Court of Justice, in a view shared by many international legal commentators and every major human rights organization in the world, concluded in its June 2004 advisory opinion that Israel’s construction of the wall within the boundaries of the OPT contravenes IHL and is tantamount to an illegal annexation of the settlements on the Israeli side of the wall.

Peace Now has published a list of seven settlements where large-scale construction (hundreds of units) is occurring. All but one of them are located on the Israeli side of the wall. In a similar list of seventeen settlements where medium-scale construction (tens of units) is occurring, all but three are on the Israeli side of the wall. In addition, two Israeli human rights organizations, B’Tselem and Bimkom, recently published a report that documents the fact that 55 settlements, including 12 in East Jerusalem, housing approximately 75% of all settlers, would fall on the Israeli side of the wall. The report shows that Israeli officials established the wall’s route hundreds to thousands of meters east of the existing boundaries of these settlements to allow for maximum future expansion. The organizations conclude that “contrary to the picture portrayed by the state, the settlement-expansion plans played a substantial role in the planning of the Barrier's route."

The Israeli government has recently sought to justify its construction of the wall inside Palestinian territory, and beyond the Green Line, as based on its sovereign duty to protect Israeli citizens, notwithstanding their presence in settlements. But Israel can well protect these citizens by dismantling the settlements and bringing its settler citizens back within the legitimate borders of its state. Such a measure would satisfy Israel’s duty to protect its citizens without undermining its duty to respect and uphold international law and would end the severe humanitarian and economic harm inflicted on the Palestinian population by virtue of the wall’s construction.

Even the Israeli government has now stated that the wall is not being built just for security purposes but also to establish its territorial claims on OPT land. On December 1, news reports quoted Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Minister of Justice, as saying that the future borders of Israel will roughly follow the route of the wall. This statement by an Israeli public official was the first to explicitly link the route of the wall with Israel’s political, not security, aims.

We urge you to take immediate action to end U.S. support of Israel's unlawful policies. According to an investigative report by the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, based on government ministry budgets, Israel spends about NIS 2.5 billion a year ($550 million) for the non-military aspects of settlement maintenance and expansion. Furthermore, the Knesset has projected that Israel will spend about $3.4 billion in total on construction of the wall, 80% of which is inside the occupied West Bank. (Israel has not made public a breakdown of the portions of the costs attributable to construction of the wall inside the West Bank, on the Green Line, or inside Israel). Recent experience with the Rafah border-crossing deal confirms that when the United States is determined to change problematic Israeli conduct, Israel will comply. To avoid U.S. financial complicity in policies that the U.S. Government opposes and that international law prohibits, we therefore call on you and other key government officials, first, to state in unequivocal terms that the United States will not tolerate any further settlement expansion and, second, to announce that the administration will deduct from U.S. financial aid to Israel - about $2.58 billion in fiscal year 2005 -- an amount equal to Israel's expenditures on the settlements and on the construction and maintenance of such portion of the wall that is inside the West Bank.

Yours sincerely,


Sarah Leah Whitson
Executive Director, Middle East North Africa Division
Human Rights Watch

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/27/isrlpa12346.htm

(Please note that I want peace in the region, and that the only way for that to happen will be for both sides to do what it takes to achieve it.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. It's something they will ask
Edited on Mon Feb-27-06 07:41 PM by Tiggeroshii
and have probably asked or asserted in an indirect fashion. They don't do and say what's good anymore, they're simply saying what will get them votes. If taking advantage of post 9-11 -the same way Bush has in the past will win them a solid majority, then they'll do it despite the ethics. Of course, they are seemingly oblivious to the fact that their problem isn't that but rather a nice, innocent conglomerate that starts with "D" and ends with "iebold."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverevergivein Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. I bet if you peeled back every layer
Osama Bin Laden is pulling the strings on this "company". You're either with us or against us. If you believe that, than this port deal CAN NOT go through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I'd take that bet
I could do with some extra cash :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Did you really just say, "You're either with us or against us."??? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
15. And why did he divert attention from Afghanistan to attack Iraq?
and let Bin Laden escape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
24. most Democrats have balls, they just don't have courage
PLEASE find another expression already
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
26. Casue if he doesn't, they tell the journalists about his deals with the
Bin Ladens, et al.

They've got the goods on the chimperor, and probably lots of proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
30. 'Cause he's the King, silly
The ideas of the masses of people who actually think it's their country are really really dumb. What do they know about DPW? C'mon it makes good sense. I even had well respected Du'ers try to convince me. But you know, if you don't turn over your ports to whomever Bush says trust me about if they happen to be A Rab that means you are a race ist. And dammit they aren't terrorists. Just money launders to terrorists. Just the kind that look the other way to terrorists if the money is good enough.

Kinda like Bush!and that's why there is a BIG difference, JOSE. Because it's not personal to either of them. It's just business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
32. he hates our freedom
no shit, he seriously does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
33. Why does a bear shit in the woods?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC