Campy Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Chris, you really want to go there? You are going to come away sounding like Schumer. I really hope you are kidding. 629611[/snapback] It's not too terribly complicated IMO: --The UAE monetarily supports Hammas. Hammas is recognized by the US as a "terror organization." --The Taliban supported al Qaeda. al Qaeda is recognized by the US as a "terror organization." --High-ranking UAE officials met with high ranking members of al Qaeda post-9/11, per the 9/11 Commission. I'm blown away by the people who don't have a problem with the US government doing business with governments that supports terrorists. We invade one country, yet want to do business with another? Nah, that's not too hypocritical, but to each his own... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 It's not too terribly complicated IMO: --The UAE monetarily supports Hammas. Hammas is recognized by the US as a "terror organization." --The Taliban supported al Qaeda. al Qaeda is recognized by the US as a "terror organization." --High-ranking UAE officials met with high ranking members of al Qaeda post-9/11, per the 9/11 Commission. I'm blown away by the people who don't have a problem with the US government doing business with governments that supports terrorists. We invade one country, yet want to do business with another? Nah, that's not too hypocritical, but to each his own... 629628[/snapback] I am so chastised. Forgive me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 I am so chastised. Forgive me. 629656[/snapback] I really did think you better than talking points, though. You haven't looked much up, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) It's not too terribly complicated IMO: --The UAE monetarily supports Hammas. Hammas is recognized by the US as a "terror organization." --The Taliban supported al Qaeda. al Qaeda is recognized by the US as a "terror organization." --High-ranking UAE officials met with high ranking members of al Qaeda post-9/11, per the 9/11 Commission. I'm blown away by the people who don't have a problem with the US government doing business with governments that supports terrorists. We invade one country, yet want to do business with another? Nah, that's not too hypocritical, but to each his own... 629628[/snapback] I will not dispute your claim that UAE supports Hamas, (I didn't know that they did, but of Middle Eastern countries, Israel is the only one that I would be surprised to hear that they were supporting Hamas.) I'm not certain what the Taliban supporting al Qaeda has to do w/ UAE nor DPW. I know the Commission report states that there were [EDIT:possible] contacts between al Qaeda and UAE prior to 9/11/01 and that Pakistan made contact w/ Taliban for the US post-9/11, but I could not find where the UAE contacted al Qaeda post-9/11. Perhaps you could provide a link so I could learn details of this meeting? UAE supports several US Navy functions in the region and have been an ally in Afghanistan. I do not see where telling them to blank themselves is in the US's interest. Edited March 15, 2006 by dave_b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 You and I need to have a beer sometime. 629250[/snapback] Cool. Did the results of your poll on the other board end up the way you expected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I really did think you better than talking points, though. You haven't looked much up, have you? 629675[/snapback] Funny, I'm using "talking points" when you disagree, yet to me it's just ol' fashioned common sense and you're the one using talking points. IMO you're making it too complicated Paul, but as I said, to each his own... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 --High-ranking UAE officials met with high ranking members of al Qaeda post-9/11, per the 9/11 Commission. 629628[/snapback] I have the Commission report right here on my desk. What page should I be looking on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 I have the Commission report right here on my desk. What page should I be looking on? 630076[/snapback] Use your common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 Cool. Did the results of your poll on the other board end up the way you expected? 629868[/snapback] No, I thought it would go the other way. I tried to get it pinned for a couple of days in order to get enough for a sample, but big tittied women and TV shows rule the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Use your common sense. 630081[/snapback] Actually, I thought I'd use the index, but the bloody thing doesn't have one. And anyway, I'd rather use Campy's common sense, since he seems to have a surfeit on this topic. Campy, what page of the Commission report details post-9/11 meetings between UAE officials and al Qaeda? Hell, let's take out the qualifier: what page details any meetings between UAE officials and al Qaeda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 It's not too terribly complicated IMO: --The UAE monetarily supports Hammas. Hammas is recognized by the US as a "terror organization." --The Taliban supported al Qaeda. al Qaeda is recognized by the US as a "terror organization." --High-ranking UAE officials met with high ranking members of al Qaeda post-9/11, per the 9/11 Commission. I'm blown away by the people who don't have a problem with the US government doing business with governments that supports terrorists. We invade one country, yet want to do business with another? Nah, that's not too hypocritical, but to each his own... 629628[/snapback] U have a problem with China? Because they do more in a week to undermine US interests than the UAE would do in a lifetime. But hey, they arent Arabs, and make a killer Sweet and Sour Pork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Actually, I thought I'd use the index, but the bloody thing doesn't have one. And anyway, I'd rather use Campy's common sense, since he seems to have a surfeit on this topic. Campy, what page of the Commission report details post-9/11 meetings between UAE officials and al Qaeda? Hell, let's take out the qualifier: what page details any meetings between UAE officials and al Qaeda? 630122[/snapback] lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 It's not too terribly complicated IMO: --The UAE monetarily supports Hammas. Hammas is recognized by the US as a "terror organization." --The Taliban supported al Qaeda. al Qaeda is recognized by the US as a "terror organization." --High-ranking UAE officials met with high ranking members of al Qaeda post-9/11, per the 9/11 Commission. I'm blown away by the people who don't have a problem with the US government doing business with governments that supports terrorists. We invade one country, yet want to do business with another? Nah, that's not too hypocritical, but to each his own... 629628[/snapback] I'm not sure if we've had this discussion before... But, I'll jump in to say that you know better than this. Of course we can draw a line between UAE and terrorist groups. It's the old blindfolded toss of the dart on the Mid East map - chances are, you'll land on a spot that "supports" terrorists. But you also have to recognize the difference between supporting terrorists like Syria is doing and what UAE has done. Plus, if the goal of GWOT is to transform the region to be more western friendly, keeping Arab regime in the indefinite penalty box for pre 9/11 events is a certain way to torpedo the plan. If we're going to use a hard set rule of breaking ties with every regime that "supports" terrorism, then let's close down the borders all together. Sen Menendez, a leading critic of DPW, obviously has no problems with Lukoil getting the gasoline concessions on the Garden State Parkway. To me, it's a toss up of who's been (and continues to be) a bigger supporter of Hamas - UAE vs Putin. (I think you may know my bias) Then, let's extend the logic of the proposed legislation a bit further. It obviously only deals with stateside critical infrastructure. But what about US-owned interests overseas, as well as ex-pats? Is the government saying that we are only concerned about the UAE risk on our shores, but once you're off the 50 states, then dealing with UAE government is ok? Why doesn't legislation extend to stop US investment in UAE or any other regime where a single dollar flowed through or a terrorist stepped foot in related to 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I'm not sure if we've had this discussion before... But, I'll jump in to say that you know better than this. Of course we can draw a line between UAE and terrorist groups. It's the old blindfolded toss of the dart on the Mid East map - chances are, you'll land on a spot that "supports" terrorists. But you also have to recognize the difference between supporting terrorists like Syria is doing and what UAE has done. Plus, if the goal of GWOT is to transform the region to be more western friendly, keeping Arab regime in the indefinite penalty box for pre 9/11 events is a certain way to torpedo the plan. If we're going to use a hard set rule of breaking ties with every regime that "supports" terrorism, then let's close down the borders all together. Sen Menendez, a leading critic of DPW, obviously has no problems with Lukoil getting the gasoline concessions on the Garden State Parkway. To me, it's a toss up of who's been (and continues to be) a bigger supporter of Hamas - UAE vs Putin. (I think you may know my bias) Then, let's extend the logic of the proposed legislation a bit further. It obviously only deals with stateside critical infrastructure. But what about US-owned interests overseas, as well as ex-pats? Is the government saying that we are only concerned about the UAE risk on our shores, but once you're off the 50 states, then dealing with UAE government is ok? Why doesn't legislation extend to stop US investment in UAE or any other regime where a single dollar flowed through or a terrorist stepped foot in related to 9/11? 630239[/snapback] GG you didn't go far enough with the logic...our government supported terrorists when it supported the Taliban in Afganistan against Russia and again when we propped up Sadam in Iraq prior to his falling out. I am sure we are covertly doing it elsewhere in the world, which wouldn't take too much to figure out. So can we do business with ourselves under this law? Guess not, leave the ports unmanaged then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 GG you didn't go far enough with the logic...our government supported terrorists when it supported the Taliban in Afganistan against Russia and again when we propped up Sadam in Iraq prior to his falling out. I am sure we are covertly doing it elsewhere in the world, which wouldn't take too much to figure out. So can we do business with ourselves under this law? Guess not, leave the ports unmanaged then... 630361[/snapback] I think Luxembourg is available. What are their qualifications to run major shipping ports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I think Luxembourg is available. What are their qualifications to run major shipping ports? 630410[/snapback] Shoot, I'll bet some Islamic fundalmentalist has hid out there for a while fundraising at ski parties unwittingly supporting terrorism, with the knowledge of the gov't. Probably rules them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I know the Commission report states that there were [EDIT:possible] contacts between al Qaeda and UAE prior to 9/11/01 and that Pakistan made contact w/ Taliban for the US post-9/11, but I could not find where the UAE contacted al Qaeda post-9/11. Perhaps you could provide a link so I could learn details of this meeting? 629858[/snapback] My oncologist's office has National Review in the waiting area. I read it in there prior to Christmas, so I very well may be mistaken. I'll concede that it was pre-9/11, but it really doesn't change my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Use your common sense. 630081[/snapback] Okey dokey Paul. You're right, I'm wrong. Does that make you feel better about yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 My oncologist's office has National Review in the waiting area. I read it in there prior to Christmas, so I very well may be mistaken. I'll concede that it was pre-9/11, but it really doesn't change my mind. 630461[/snapback] I forgot to add in my original reply to you that I hope your increased posting of late is an indication that your battle is going well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 My oncologist's office has National Review in the waiting area. I read it in there prior to Christmas, so I very well may be mistaken. I'll concede that it was pre-9/11, but it really doesn't change my mind. 630461[/snapback] You're quoting what the commission said based, not on the widely available commission report itself, but on what the National Review says the commission said? Read the report if you want to argue the commission's word. In fact, you can download it in PDF format, and search for all the instances of "UAE" or "Emirates", and see exactly what the 9/11 Commission reported. Yes, I know actually staying informed is difficult. Try to make the effort anyway. Or just shut the !@#$ up. Either way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts