Al Qaeda seeking nuclear kit for attacks-UK official

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep, even the parts that are vauge. The Dubai ports deal was a tempest in a tea pot. Dubai would only take over operations. Security would have still been in the hands of Americans. That was just liberal spin and you fell for it.

Liberal Spin eh? Perhaps its spin that some of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE, and DPW is a company with strong ties to that country (in fact, the King is the ###### CEO!) and funnels massive amounts of money through it's banks (i.e. the Royal Treasury). No that wouldn't represent a conflict of our security interests would it? And I suppose Saudi Arabia doesn't do its daily part in covertly funding Al Qaeda either...? Guess not.

Why would you support a vague law that deliberately open to a wide range of interpretation? Wouldn't such a law be open to abuse. Please tell me how your vague law will safeguard us?

Incidentally, exactly what kind of comprehensive security do we currently have at our commercial ports. Would this be the sort of security that the Bush administration decided was unnecessary by ignoring the 9/11 commission findings?

I would love to stay up with you all and continue this discussion. At least it's enlightening and nobody is throwing personal barbs. BUT...

Wes and I have to get up at 5 am so we make it in time for a second set of fingerprints for him. Because we had to file for a renewal of his EAD so that he can continue to work legally in this country, since his AOS is not complete. Because he is stuck in namecheck, a black hole from which he can't emerge until the FBI releases him. A black hole which no elected representative can extract him from. A black hole which means he is technically an out-of-status immigrant with no Constitutional protections.

I want my liberties protected. I don't want my government fiddling around with them in any way, shape or form.

Good luck to you - I hope you get it sorted ASAP. I have to remove my AOS conditions next year and am dreading going back to the USCIS. Can't wait to be rid of the bastards.

Edited November 16, 2006 by erekose

[rebeccajo 14]

Good luck to you - I hope you get it sorted ASAP. I have to remove my AOS conditions next year and am dreading going back to the USCIS. Can't wait to be rid of the bastards.

Thanks. After I hit the reply button it occured to me that it was inappropriate for me to post this here. I didn't mean to draw the discussion away to our personal problems. I brought it up only because to me I want our family to be fully documented. Sorry if I got off on a tangent but for me I guess it is personal.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Good luck to you - I hope you get it sorted ASAP. I have to remove my AOS conditions next year and am dreading going back to the USCIS. Can't wait to be rid of the bastards.

Thanks. After I hit the reply button it occured to me that it was inappropriate for me to post this here. I didn't mean to draw the discussion away to our personal problems. I brought it up only because to me I want our family to be fully documented. Sorry if I got off on a tangent but for me I guess it is personal.

No need to apologise - it is an immigration forum first and foremost. And government policy as regards national security certainly does affect immigrants, so totally relevant I'd say. I remember being 'undocumented' - it wasn't the most pleasant of experiences.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yep, even the parts that are vauge. The Dubai ports deal was a tempest in a tea pot. Dubai would only take over operations. Security would have still been in the hands of Americans. That was just liberal spin and you fell for it.

Liberal Spin eh? Perhaps its spin that some of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE, and DPW is a company with strong ties to that country (in fact, the King is the ###### CEO!) and funnels massive amounts of money through it's banks (i.e. the Royal Treasury). No that wouldn't represent a conflict of our security interests would it? And I suppose Saudi Arabia doesn't do its daily part in covertly funding Al Qaeda either...? Guess not.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia have ties with the bad guys? Now that's just liberal paranoia there, erekose.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep, even the parts that are vauge. The Dubai ports deal was a tempest in a tea pot. Dubai would only take over operations. Security would have still been in the hands of Americans. That was just liberal spin and you fell for it.

Liberal Spin eh? Perhaps its spin that some of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE, and DPW is a company with strong ties to that country (in fact, the King is the ###### CEO!) and funnels massive amounts of money through it's banks (i.e. the Royal Treasury). No that wouldn't represent a conflict of our security interests would it? And I suppose Saudi Arabia doesn't do its daily part in covertly funding Al Qaeda either...? Guess not.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia have ties with the bad guys? Now that's just liberal paranoia there, erekose.

Indeed. What was I smoking thinking?

[GaryC 7]

Yep, even the parts that are vauge. The Dubai ports deal was a tempest in a tea pot. Dubai would only take over operations. Security would have still been in the hands of Americans. That was just liberal spin and you fell for it.

Liberal Spin eh? Perhaps its spin that some of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE, and DPW is a company with strong ties to that country (in fact, the King is the ###### CEO!) and funnels massive amounts of money through it's banks (i.e. the Royal Treasury). No that wouldn't represent a conflict of our security interests would it? And I suppose Saudi Arabia doesn't do its daily part in covertly funding Al Qaeda either...? Guess not.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia have ties with the bad guys? Now that's just liberal paranoia there, erekose.

Indeed. What was I smoking thinking?

Dubai would only be unloading and loading the ships. The security would have stayed exactly the same. I am not saying that we couldn't improve port security but letting a company owned by Dubai wouldn't have changed a thing. You do know that a lot of our ports are run by Chinees companies? And those companies took control durring the Clinton admin? Where was the outcry then? I guess there wasn't any because Bush had nothing to do with it.

[Marc and Olga 0]

Yep, even the parts that are vauge. The Dubai ports deal was a tempest in a tea pot. Dubai would only take over operations. Security would have still been in the hands of Americans. That was just liberal spin and you fell for it.

Liberal Spin eh? Perhaps its spin that some of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE, and DPW is a company with strong ties to that country (in fact, the King is the ###### CEO!) and funnels massive amounts of money through it's banks (i.e. the Royal Treasury). No that wouldn't represent a conflict of our security interests would it? And I suppose Saudi Arabia doesn't do its daily part in covertly funding Al Qaeda either...? Guess not.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia have ties with the bad guys? Now that's just liberal paranoia there, erekose.

Indeed. What was I smoking thinking?

Dubai would only be unloading and loading the ships. The security would have stayed exactly the same. I am not saying that we couldn't improve port security but letting a company owned by Dubai wouldn't have changed a thing. You do know that a lot of our ports are run by Chinees companies? And those companies took control durring the Clinton admin? Where was the outcry then? I guess there wasn't any because Bush had nothing to do with it.

Probably no outcry because of the lack of an "imminent threat" from the Chinese. However, if you can recall, both UAE and Saudi Arabia had citizens that directly caused 9/11.

[GaryC 7]

How soon they forget. If Dubai was so bad then why this?

Schumer's Dubai deal

TODAY'S EDITORIAL

May 11, 2006

Nearly three months ago, Sen. Chuck Schumer led the charge against Dubai Ports World. We shared his worries that a Dubai firm running U.S. ports might be more easily infiltrated by al Qaeda or other terrorists. But now Mr. Schumer wants to outsource cargo screening to the very same company.

Mr. Schumer might not even fully know what he has proposed. In a failed amendment to the emergency-spending bill, Mr. Schumer tried to force all ports participating in the Container Security Initiative -- that's more than 40 of the world's busiest ports including Singapore, Rotterdam and Tokyo, among others -- to model their cargo-screening systems after Hong Kong's if they want to keep sending cargo to the United States. Beyond its bullying unilateralism, this would have ended up handing much of the country's foreign-cargo screening records to Dubai Ports World.

Hong Kong's new system -- though innovative and worthy of study -- is criticized by industry insiders as "vendor-driven." That means that private firms handle the screening records. And it happens that the emerging private "vendor" on the world scene is Dubai Ports World. Since its recent acquisition of CSX Corp.'s terminals businesses in China, Australia, Germany and elsewhere, Dubai Ports World has literally expanded all over the world.

So if Mr. Schumer had his way, the same company that he helped bounce from American ports would be handling our cargo-screening records just about everywhere else. How ironic.

It's not just Dubai Ports World, either. Mr. Schumer's proposal would also have made Hutchison Whampoa -- a Chinese firm with close ties to Beijing -- eligible for the same function. Hutchison, the CIA once worried, "could provide a conduit for illegal shipments of technology or prohibited items from the West to the [People's Republic of China], or facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas."

Some Republicans worry that Mr. Schumer might try to insert this language into other legislation. Key targets might be the Senate's port-security bills, including the one spearheaded by Sens. Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye. The other possibility is that Mr. Schumer might try to insert it into an unrelated bill, as he did recently.

For Republicans, this is a case where security and good politics align perfectly. Security requires lawmakers to stop the furtive and potentially damaging insertion of a terrible idea into coming legislation. Politics requires that conservatives thwart a liberal demagogue like Mr. Schumer who could well be trying to blow up the heretofore successful Container Security Initiative. At minimum, Mr. Schumer is trying to make Republicans look weak on port security. So in this case, good policy and good politics coincide nicely. It's time to put an end to Schuma-goguery.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060510-093229-4647r.htm

Seems Dubai was a threat only when it served the dems political purposes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep, even the parts that are vauge. The Dubai ports deal was a tempest in a tea pot. Dubai would only take over operations. Security would have still been in the hands of Americans. That was just liberal spin and you fell for it.

Liberal Spin eh? Perhaps its spin that some of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE, and DPW is a company with strong ties to that country (in fact, the King is the ###### CEO!) and funnels massive amounts of money through it's banks (i.e. the Royal Treasury). No that wouldn't represent a conflict of our security interests would it? And I suppose Saudi Arabia doesn't do its daily part in covertly funding Al Qaeda either...? Guess not.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia have ties with the bad guys? Now that's just liberal paranoia there, erekose.

Indeed. What was I smoking thinking?

Dubai would only be unloading and loading the ships. The security would have stayed exactly the same. I am not saying that we couldn't improve port security but letting a company owned by Dubai wouldn't have changed a thing. You do know that a lot of our ports are run by Chinees companies? And those companies took control durring the Clinton admin? Where was the outcry then? I guess there wasn't any because Bush had nothing to do with it.

Firstly with China we're talking 'pre-911', when as many people have noted, National Security (Specifically with regards to international terrorism) was not a priority. So why would there be 'retroactive' uproar about something that was not even an issue back then?

So yes, post 9/11 when everyone is so security concious that we are now signing into law things that would have been unthinkable for a western democracy prior to "the incident", as it were - and seeing as how you consider security enough of a priority to wholeheartedly applaud the Patriot Act, it might seem strange then that you do not consider that having our ports operated by a country with direct ties to a middle-eastern country (not to mention that country's Monarch/CEO/Prime Minister), a country which has connections to 9/11 to be particularly bothersome.

And as regards the security arrangements - considering that we are currently unable to scan the hundreds of thousands (sorry "millions") of shipping containers that arrive in this country, and ports are the largest single entry point into the US - what exactly are you suggesting here. That we shouldn't be concerned about port security?

Coincidentally, this is another one of those issues that would likely have not been a problem under any other president were it not for the fact that GWB has squandered and abused the public trust. When we're talking lame ducks here - its really no surprise, and you and the public at large have no-one to blame but GWB.

It's no coincidence that Bush has some sort of "reverse Midas Touch" where every issue he touches turns to $hit.

[Identity 0]

Let's see how the neo-cons can somehow blame this on the "libruls" and "Dems".

Your right. It's just war mongering or is it fear mongering. That is, from a group who has already proven their threats are not to be taken lightly ie eg Sept 11, Spain train bombings, London Bombings, terror in Iraq, earlier attempted WTC bombings, Bali bombings..

They kinda pale into insignificance when you consider the latest UN Report figures into Iraqi civilian deaths for October. Over 3500 civilians died during the last month.

On the issue of nuclear weapons. States produce nuclear weapons; terrorists can not. People easily forget the days of the Cold War, when one decision would cause the launch of thousands of ICBM's. I'm not afraid of Ahmed, Mohammed, and their silly ideology.

[kaydee457 13]

You know, all these opinions here in this thread would be moot if we just left Al Quada alone....You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You know, all these opinions here in this thread would be moot if we just left Al Quada alone....You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

That's ok - we all know you'll only be happy once the entire middle east is a reduced to radioactive ash, so that "not even a lizard can live there for a thousand years).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

[kaydee457 13]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts? The fact is that post 911 both the President and the Congress; Republicans as well as Democrats agreed that Iraq was a threat; a threat poised to pass WMD's to Al Qaueda....

Now let's address the topic at hand. The unfortunate fact is that if Al Qaueda gets their hands on any nuclear material, however small the amount, however benign in its uselfulness as a weapon it will be yet another victory in the propaganda war.

If anyone in this thread believes that Al Qaueda needs sophisticated technical expertise to use a "dirty bomb" to achieve its goal; that of terrorizing and skewing the opinions and hearts and minds of this country, are delusional.

They have achieved victory in the latest round of propaganda, having elevated the Dem's to control the congress and if they let loose with a nuke (anything) in a crowded city, or perhaps a sports stadium in the USA, we will have once again have to accept a military defeat as this kind of incident would be amplified and exaggerated by the leftist media as one that cannot be defeated militarily.

They, the enemy knows how to defeat this country. The battlefield isn't really in Iraq, it's in the hearts and minds of the American people; unfortunately our culture demands "quick fixes" and instant results.

The enemy knows this. They learned from our Viet experience; we did not....

Unfortunately, I believe that we'll need to have another 911 to remind this country that these people aren't going away regardless of how much wishful thinking the Democrats and the Liberals in this country want to stick their heads in the sand; and cut'n run from Iraq.......

Edited November 26, 2006 by kaydee457

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts?

Actually, no, it isn't.