ET Republicans:Why bother fighting the war on terror when you give terriosts the keys

[Pabst]

I'm glad the left has abandoned the notion that some Arabs are better than others. Now lefties from Maureen Dowd on down have de facto embraced the notion of profiling. Perhaps the NYT can run an editorial titled "The Only Good Muslim is a Dead Muslim." By Dowd's view and all those who are going ballistic over this: only a nut would hire an African-American as a security guard.

This issue shows what a poor job polls do in measuring actual sentiment. Most polls I've seen of late show most Americans believing that Muslims are ok and only the extremists are capable of terror. I never believed Americans were quite that open minded. Now I know the truth. American's hate, fear and loathe ANYONE who's Arab or Islamic. Those may be valid emotions. But America and Europe are increasingly throwing down the gauntlet in preparation for Jihad. Whether it's mocking Mohammed, failing to recognize the ruling political Party in Palestine or dissing even friendly Arab nations, we're quickly heading down a road to confrontation that makes the alleged incite's in Iraq pale by comparison.

 

[Trader5287]

Quote from Pabst:

I'm glad the left has abandoned the notion that some Arabs are better than others. Now lefties from Maureen Dowd on down have de facto embraced the notion of profiling. Perhaps the NYT can run an editorial titled "The Only Good Muslim is a Dead Muslim." By Dowd's view and all those who are going ballistic over this: only a nut would hire an African-American as a security guard.

This issue shows what a poor job polls do in measuring actual sentiment. Most polls I've seen of late show most Americans believing that Muslims are ok and only the extremists are capable of terror. I never believed Americans were quite that open minded. Now I know the truth. American's hate, fear and loathe ANYONE who's Arab or Islamic. Those may be valid emotions. But America and Europe are increasingly throwing down the gauntlet in preparation for Jihad. Whether it's mocking Mohammed, failing to recognize the ruling political Party in Palestine or dissing even friendly Arab nations, we're quickly heading down a road to confrontation that makes the alleged incite's in Iraq pale by comparison.

Oh I don't know about that. They just don't want their president or the gummint appearing to sell out the country to Arabs, Chinese as in that deal with Unocal or to illegal immigrants coming across the southern border. It's scary and alarming on top of everything else that is scary and alarming.

Americans don't seem to give a holyoleshit that the deal "was reviewed by the intelligence agencies." That's what they tried to spin last night. Now today, they say Bush was caught unprepared or did not know the procedural history or some BS. Great - he's got as much thought and effort in this seemingly important deal on our ports as a drunk walking out of a bar.

Just stop looking like a sellout or trying to pull a fast one - that's all the message is here from what I can see. And the Dubai crowd is just as much to blame - how could they miss seeing this coming? Any PR firm could tell them it wasn't going to sit well here.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Pabst:

I'm glad the left has abandoned the notion that some Arabs are better than others. Now lefties from Maureen Dowd on down have de facto embraced the notion of profiling. Perhaps the NYT can run an editorial titled "The Only Good Muslim is a Dead Muslim." By Dowd's view and all those who are going ballistic over this: only a nut would hire an African-American as a security guard.

This issue shows what a poor job polls do in measuring actual sentiment. Most polls I've seen of late show most Americans believing that Muslims are ok and only the extremists are capable of terror. I never believed Americans were quite that open minded. Now I know the truth. American's hate, fear and loathe ANYONE who's Arab or Islamic. Those may be valid emotions. But America and Europe are increasingly throwing down the gauntlet in preparation for Jihad. Whether it's mocking Mohammed, failing to recognize the ruling political Party in Palestine or dissing even friendly Arab nations, we're quickly heading down a road to confrontation that makes the alleged incite's in Iraq pale by comparison.

Pretty ironic, isn't it? The same liberals who go into tirades about racial or ethnic profiling see nothing wrong about doing it on a macro scale. Of course, they are ready to contort themselves ideologically if it gives them a chance to bash Bush.

As for the attitudes of most Americans towards Arabs, I think it mirrors the way they feel about illegal immigrants. Most americans are very opposed to illegal immigration, but they also respect the hard working illegals they come across in their own daily lives. Most Americans will treat individual Arabs or arab-americans just as they would anyone else, but they get nervous about their possibly divided loyalties when thinking about them as a group. The solution in both cases is obvious. Start enforcing the immigration laws we have, and change the laws to make it very difficult for people to immigrate here who are not likely to assimilate quickly.

I know that sounds harsh, but the alternative is to end up like France.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Pretty ironic, isn't it? The same liberals who go into tirades about racial or ethnic profiling see nothing wrong about doing it on a macro scale.

Ironic? why is it ironic, it only shows that your stereotype of the liberal movement is wrong, that they are way more reasonable, intelligent and patriotic than you give them credit for. Rightwingers playing the race card is indeed funny though.

 

[sputdr]

Well I think what happening is Americans and Europeans (ex-France) are realizing that you can't negotiate with a bunch of lunatics and people are finally getting sick of their shit.

Do you think it's time well spent to try and come to agreement with a group that goes on a worldwide protest over a cartoon that ends up burning down embassies, murder and other crimes?

Maybe we should behave like they do and just drop a daisy cutter on one of their capitals everytime one of their mullahs calls for death to the west, calls us the great satan etc.

I personally wouldn't care.

Quote from Pabst:

I'm glad the left has abandoned the notion that some Arabs are better than others. Now lefties from Maureen Dowd on down have de facto embraced the notion of profiling. Perhaps the NYT can run an editorial titled "The Only Good Muslim is a Dead Muslim." By Dowd's view and all those who are going ballistic over this: only a nut would hire an African-American as a security guard.

This issue shows what a poor job polls do in measuring actual sentiment. Most polls I've seen of late show most Americans believing that Muslims are ok and only the extremists are capable of terror. I never believed Americans were quite that open minded. Now I know the truth. American's hate, fear and loathe ANYONE who's Arab or Islamic. Those may be valid emotions. But America and Europe are increasingly throwing down the gauntlet in preparation for Jihad. Whether it's mocking Mohammed, failing to recognize the ruling political Party in Palestine or dissing even friendly Arab nations, we're quickly heading down a road to confrontation that makes the alleged incite's in Iraq pale by comparison.

 

[NKNY]

Quote from mahram:

If america is attacked in one of these ports, and UAE is running it, then the republicans would never get elected for the next 50 years. They would be known as the party that allow an attack. Instead of the party of Linchon. Can you imagine the political fallout if any attack. Im not even talking about WMD type thing but more of one where terriosts used the ports as tranfer points.

Shit, even if the deal goes through and there is no attack I would never vote republican again in my life... I have actually fired off some letters to my reps for the first time in my life and I suggest everyone opposed to this deal do the same.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/extraimpact/extraimpact.tt

Nick

 

[jzlucas]

PORT OF BALTIMORE, Md., Feb. 22, 2006 — Politicians have raised the alarm at every level of government about an Arab-owned company, Dubai Ports World, which is poised to take over operations at major American seaports. But what would a takeover by the Dubai company really mean for day-to-day operations at the six U.S. ports?

Port security actually begins three to 12 miles out at sea, where the U.S. Coast Guard makes first contact with all cargo ships heading to U.S. ports.

"They can board any ship that enters into the U.S. territorial waters," said Michael Lovejoy, director of the U.S. Customs Service's anti-smuggling programs for field operations.

Once a ship reaches port, the U.S. Customs Service takes over. Agents using computers scan the ship's manifest trying to determine if any of the ship's containers might be high risk.

"While the ship is still overseas, 24 hours prior to loading the cargo onboard, they send us the electronic manifest information, which is the contents of the container, who it's being shipped from, and who's it being shipped to," said Lovejoy.

Only 5 percent to 7 percent of all cargo is physically screened. Some of it is X-rayed for indications of conventional weapons, drugs or other contraband. Others may be subjected to portable radiation detectors, which search for evidence of a nuclear device.

It is only after customs has cleared the cargo that the port operator, a company like Dubai Ports World, begins to unload the thousands of containers.

The primary responsibility of the company that operates the port is to unload the thousands of containers coming in from overseas. Employees hired by the companies are union-affiliated and will likely not change should the deal with the Dubai company go forward.

The company does background checks on all employees, and some security analysts say the new company poses no security risk.

ABC News' Pierre Thomas filed this report for "World News Tonight."

 

[dddooo]

Quote from jzlucas:

PORT OF BALTIMORE, Md., Feb. 22, 2006 — Politicians have raised the alarm at every level of government about an Arab-owned company, Dubai Ports World, which is poised to take over operations at major American seaports. But what would a takeover by the Dubai company really mean for day-to-day operations at the six U.S. ports?

Port security actually begins three to 12 miles out at sea, where the U.S. Coast Guard makes first contact with all cargo ships heading to U.S. ports.

"They can board any ship that enters into the U.S. territorial waters," said Michael Lovejoy, director of the U.S. Customs Service's anti-smuggling programs for field operations.

Once a ship reaches port, the U.S. Customs Service takes over. Agents using computers scan the ship's manifest trying to determine if any of the ship's containers might be high risk.

"While the ship is still overseas, 24 hours prior to loading the cargo onboard, they send us the electronic manifest information, which is the contents of the container, who it's being shipped from, and who's it being shipped to," said Lovejoy.

Only 5 percent to 7 percent of all cargo is physically screened. Some of it is X-rayed for indications of conventional weapons, drugs or other contraband. Others may be subjected to portable radiation detectors, which search for evidence of a nuclear device.

It is only after customs has cleared the cargo that the port operator, a company like Dubai Ports World, begins to unload the thousands of containers.

The primary responsibility of the company that operates the port is to unload the thousands of containers coming in from overseas. Employees hired by the companies are union-affiliated and will likely not change should the deal with the Dubai company go forward.

The company does background checks on all employees, and some security analysts say the new company poses no security risk.

ABC News' Pierre Thomas filed this report for "World News Tonight."

In other words you support the decision to sell seaports to Arabs, right? Why am I not surprised?

 

[jzlucas]

Actually, I don't. That article popped up on ABC news, thought I'd post it. Sorry to offend you. You're wrong again, why am I not surprised?

 

[dddooo]

Quote from jzlucas:

Actually, I don't. That article popped up on ABC news, thought I'd post it. Sorry to offend you. You're wrong again, why am I not surprised?

Sorry, I did not realize you could possibly disagree with the president. My bad.