Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 What do airlines have to do with port security? 621172[/snapback] "What does security have to do with security?" If Dubai Ports running American ports is such a security risk, why aren't Middle Eastern airlines? If we won't let Raghead Ports operate in the country...why do we let foreign-owned and -operated Sand !@#$ Air fly in? You're only as secure as your weakest point. Which I'm pretty sure was his point. And which I'm pretty sure you didn't need to be told.
Scraps Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Absolutely, nothing. One is a major risk, the other one is minor. 621173[/snapback] I believe that the dangerous things that can be brought in through ports far outweigh the risks of an airliner. We have and do control who can fly into the US and have turned airlines around based on who they had on board on occasion. Its a BS tangent.
Scraps Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 "What does security have to do with security?" If Dubai Ports running American ports is such a security risk, why aren't Middle Eastern airlines? If we won't let Raghead Ports operate in the country...why do we let foreign-owned and -operated Sand !@#$ Air fly in? You're only as secure as your weakest point. Which I'm pretty sure was his point. And which I'm pretty sure you didn't need to be told. 621185[/snapback] What makes you so sure that port security isn't a weaker point than international airlines?
GG Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I believe that the dangerous things that can be brought in through ports far outweigh the risks of an airliner. We have and do control who can fly into the US and have turned airlines around based on who they had on board on occasion. Its a BS tangent. 621250[/snapback] It is not a BS tangent, because I've yet to see a clear explanation of how a Dubai controlled port operator is going to be a bigger security threat than a UK, Singapore, China, or HK controlled operator. The stink about the ports deal is not about security, but about a US company wanting to control the Miami port, filing the lawsuit and getting Congress up in arms. When you try to bring the discussion of DP acquisition back to the security realm, then you have to ask why a) DP is a bigger risk, and b) are there bigger risks out there that are glossed over. If a UA mechanic puts a bomb in the landing gear, how will the FAA know to turn the airplane around?
Scraps Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 It is not a BS tangent, because I've yet to see a clear explanation of how a Dubai controlled port operator is going to be a bigger security threat than a UK, Singapore, China, or HK controlled operator. 621271[/snapback] That has nothing to do with airplanes, which was the BS tangent. Maybe no foreign entities should be running our ports. When you try to bring the discussion of DP acquisition back to the security realm, then you have to ask why a) DP is a bigger risk, and b) are there bigger risks out there that are glossed over. Bigger risks such as? If a UA mechanic puts a bomb in the landing gear, how will the FAA know to turn the airplane around? No set of security will be foolproof. What does this tangent have to do with ports?
Mickey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 89-10 was the senate vote on Patriot extension. 621095[/snapback] I was talking about the NSA wiretapping outside of FISA.
Mickey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Thank you both for confirming my suspicion that despite BiB's, monkey's and others' lengthy diatribes on the logistical problem of launching a terror strike from a shipping container, the criticism can still be boiled down to smelly brown people wearing turbans controlling our ports. Please point out in my post any references to "smelly brown people" or withdraw the accusastion. From a security standpoint, commercial airplanes still possess a disproportionately higher risk to the US than any other means. Please point out in my post where it is that I stated the reverse as you imply. So, let's put the criticism of Dubai Ports on the same plane with Emirates Air (also controlled by the UAE government), and compare the logistics of a possible terror strike. Please point out in my post where it is that I offered criticism of Dubai Ports. You asked why one would worry about ports and not air lines, I offered, "for the sake of argument" some reasons why, none of which you have addressed other than to talk about "smelly brown people". Do you not understand the commonly used phrase "for the sake of arguement"? Your concern that with DP's control of the operation (not security)... Please point out where I expressed concern with DP's control of operation in my post as opposed to pointing out how all passengers and bags are scanned individually. How many containers, shipping containers, boxes, bags, whatever, are scanned prior to entry? How many sailors go through metal detectors? How many vessels are searched? You may not see that as a difference with a distinction which is fair enough but to start foaming at the mouth about "smelly brown people" is a bit unhinged. 621093[/snapback]
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 What makes you so sure that port security isn't a weaker point than international airlines? 621255[/snapback] Why would it matter? According to you, the two aren't even related.
GG Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Please point out in my post any references to "smelly brown people" or withdraw the accusastion. Since there was absolutely no problem with lilly white Brits controlling the ports as of last month, but a huge hubbub about Arabs owning the ports, I am left with no choice but to infer that the criticism is because the new owners will be Arabs. Granted, you didn't make a direct accusation of Arabs being smelly (but they are brownish in tint and they are people), I am still looking for a reason why people would be opposed to them owning the port operations, especially considering that British terrorists have been responsible for more westerners' deaths in the last 12 months than the non-smelly brown people who hail from Dubai. Please point out in my post where it is that I stated the reverse as you imply. Love the double negative. How about affirming the positive with your example that since everyone is scanned boarding an airplane, while supposing that people & containers just waltz in and out of cargo ships, the two aren't comparable? You're right, they're not comparable. Even though planes are a higher risk (which you appear to agree), we still let airlines from Arab countries into US airspace. Please point out in my post where it is that I offered criticism of Dubai Ports. You asked why one would worry about ports and not air lines, I offered, "for the sake of argument" some reasons why, none of which you have addressed other than to talk about "smelly brown people". Do you not understand the commonly used phrase "for the sake of arguement"? For the sake of argument: In addition to talking about smelly brown people, I offered the reason why commercial airliners offer a more tempting target than transoceanic shipping containers, which have nothing to do with passenger screening. I understand that for the sake of argument we can also discuss why airplanes with 4 engines will have more fuel than airplanes with 2 engines, but it will have little bearing on explaining why allowing a Dubai company to buy a British company is a bad idea for national security. Please point out where I expressed concern with DP's control of operation in my post as opposed to pointing out how all passengers and bags are scanned individually. How many containers, shipping containers, boxes, bags, whatever, are scanned prior to entry? How many sailors go through metal detectors? How many vessels are searched? You may not see that as a difference with a distinction which is fair enough but to start foaming at the mouth about "smelly brown people" is a bit unhinged. 621093[/snapback] 621371[/snapback] Sorry to jump at the conclusion that you aren't perfectly happy with the Dubai acquisition. You did say that you are a disinterested observer: Feb 22 2006, 04:05 PM The UAE are allies in the GWOT thus anyone who is against them is for the terrorists and by extension, against our troops. I think that, in the end, that makes her a traitor, right? Time for another quail hunt. I'm getting the hang of this new republithink.
Mickey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Since there was absolutely no problem with lilly white Brits controlling the ports as of last month, but a huge hubbub about Arabs owning the ports, I am left with no choice but to infer that the criticism is because the new owners will be Arabs. Infer what you want about others if you will. Your reply was to me, not them, what criticism of the new owners did I make? Granted, you didn't make a direct accusation of Arabs being smelly... Oh, you noticed that, good, so don't pretend that I did. ... (but they are brownish in tint and they are people), I am still looking for a reason why people would be opposed to them owning the port operations... Looking or making up reasons like "smelly brown people"? Again, you refer to "people" but your reply was to me. Love the double negative. How about affirming the positive with your example that since everyone is scanned boarding an airplane, while supposing that people & containers just waltz in and out of cargo ships, the two aren't comparable? Everyone is scanned, aren't they? I didn't "suppose" the cargo waltzes in, I simply asked you whether everything coming in was scanned. Sorry to jump at the conclusion that you aren't perfectly happy with the Dubai acquisition. You did say that you are a disinterested observer: I see, so mocking out the search and destroy character assasination machine that has become the republican party must mean that I'm against the port deal? Not exactly. I'm against tagging anyone who dares to object to the deal as a racist out to get smelly brown people, you know, like you're doing. Let me try your logic. I'm looking for a reason as to why you would start throwing around hysterical ravings about smelly brown people at someone who hasn't even taken a position on the deal. Clearly, the only reason there could possibly be is that your an ****. 621552[/snapback]
GG Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I see, so mocking out the search and destroy character assasination machine that has become the republican party must mean that I'm against the port deal? Not exactly. I'm against tagging anyone who dares to object to the deal as a racist out to get smelly brown people, you know, like you're doing. Then perhaps you could provide a link to someone objecting to the deal on issues other than DP is owned by the government of UAE and that's a bad thing. Of course even though you're not against the port deal, you didn't hesitate to jump in with a response to my challenge to the critics of the DP deal on why DP is a bigger security threat than Emirates Air. Granted by your definition, since I wrote "I've yet to hear an explanation from the critics of the port deal" and not "I've yet to hear an explanation from Mickey on the port deal," your response should not automatically lump you in with the general critics of the deal. You are just their counselor. Let me try your logic. I'm looking for a reason as to why you would start throwing around hysterical ravings about smelly brown people at someone who hasn't even taken a position on the deal. Clearly, the only reason there could possibly be is that your an ****. 621552[/snapback] 621585[/snapback] I don't know what my **** has to do with this topic, but I tend to get hysterical at hypocrites.
Campy Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 All other reasons aside, I'd rather see the management of infrastructure - including ports - be controlled by domestic companies. I'm not a big fan of foreign ownership of our air (TV and radio) either. GG makes an interesting point regarding Emirate Air, but I guess the difference to me is that a plane's cargo (human and otherwise) has been inspected/screened before being transported away from the airport, and you just don't see too many jetliners travelling on the interstates. Containers are loaded onto tractor trailers and away they go. I appreciate the point that there are foreign airlines in our airspace and at our airports, but I still don't think that they offer the same potential threat as an uninspected container travelling through our cities. IMO, some things shouldn't be exported (for lack of a better term).
Johnny Coli Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Blocked. 62-2. US House committee votes to keep Dubai firm from US ports A powerful House of Representatives committee voted overwhelmingly to block Dubai Ports World from managing six US ports, moving closer to a showdown with the White House over the deal. In a 62-2 vote, the House Appropriations Committee approved a budget bill amendment that would prevent DP World from acquiring control of US port operations now held by Britain's Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
Scraps Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Why would it matter? According to you, the two aren't even related. 621432[/snapback] I just don't see why port security should not be addressed because tangent boy swung a shiny object out there.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 I just don't see why port security should not be addressed because tangent boy swung a shiny object out there. 621997[/snapback] Which is, of course, not even remotely what he said. And soon it'll be a moot point. UAE is ready to kill a multi-hundred million dollar deal with Boeing for airliners. Which I suppose is a good thing, because more Boeing aircraft were involved in 9/11 than UAE nationals, so Boeing's clearly a major security risk...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Which is, of course, not even remotely what he said. And soon it'll be a moot point. UAE is ready to kill a multi-hundred million dollar deal with Boeing for airliners. Which I suppose is a good thing, because more Boeing aircraft were involved in 9/11 than UAE nationals, so Boeing's clearly a major security risk... 622096[/snapback] And the world continues to turn. See? This is nothing more than a conspiracy by Airbus. Just for ***** and giggles, can I see a show of hands of those who have ever been involved in import security?
GG Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 I just don't see why port security should not be addressed because tangent boy swung a shiny object out there. 621997[/snapback] I didn't realize how much I missed these repartees. I take it the Arafat mourning period is over. I guess you'll mourn Sharon's pending demise as well, with an appropriate avatar. Enlighten me in how I went on a tangent in asking a question about port security in a thread about port security? Or is it more than one level of logical progression that you seem to have difficulties with, in how we treat a port operator vs airline owned by the same Arab government? Let's leave the airlines out of this, for the sake of argument. Maybe you, or others (including, but not limited to, Mickey) can tell me how the House committee could discern in 10 days that DP is a security threat to move ahead with legislation.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 And the world continues to turn. See? This is nothing more than a conspiracy by Airbus. Just for ***** and giggles, can I see a show of hands of those who have ever been involved in import security? 622107[/snapback] AND I just heard where UAE is considering putting strict limits on US Navy basing and port visitation rights. Yeah, I can see how blocking this deal is REALLY benefiting national security.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Let's leave the airlines out of this, for the sake of argument. Maybe you, or others (including, but not limited to, Mickey) can tell me how the House committee could discern in 10 days that DP is a security threat to move ahead with legislation. 622113[/snapback] Like they needed all 45 days to figure out they were dealing with ragheads.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 AND I just heard where UAE is considering putting strict limits on US Navy basing and port visitation rights. Yeah, I can see how blocking this deal is REALLY benefiting national security. 622164[/snapback] You don't get it. This thing was not only masterminded by Airbus, but part of the plan was to make DPW spend a few billion so we could piss them off by being stupid, giving them an excuse to restrict basing rights. That proves they are all terrorists.
Recommended Posts