With these “don’t look before you leap” bandwagons overloaded with Conservatives, let’s do a review of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -owned company, Dubai Ports World, and the contract with the London company to manage U.S. ports.

- Bang

An interesting take on this that many may not have taken into account.

From the Canada Free Press, read on LFG:

The goal of Islamists, following in the footsteps of Muhammad is to create the Islamic kingdom of God on earth. The strategy to obtain this goal in our lifetime includes the control of the world’s energy infrastructure, the transportation systems, currency, media, elections, immigration and education. The control of the port facilities is hence a critical element. Foreign ownership, in and of itself, although important, is not as significant as the strategy and goals of the owner. In the case of DP World ownership, my hypothesis is that their plan for utilization of these strategic infrastructure resources is to accomplish the ultimate goal of world domination of the sea borne transportation infrastructure. In similar moves, a newly-formed Dubai consortium unveiled plans to bid for the development and operation of airports in China, India and the Middle East, a market they estimate to be worth $400 bln. The consortium comprises DAE Airports and six other top companies in the United Arab Emirates.

DAE Airports is a subsidiary of Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE), a recently launched holding firm that aims to invest $15 bln in manufacturing and services in the aviation sector. Its partners are real estate-based Emaar, air services supplier DNATA, aviation industry technology firm Mercator, Emirates National Oil Co, Amlak Finance and Dubai Airports Free Zone Authority (DAFZA).

In the case of DP World’s acquisition, the prices paid for acquisition cannot be justified based on strictly economic factors. The implications of Islamists creating global port control have strategic, security and religious implications.

Read the rest here

Should this be a cause for alarm?

Definately concern, if what they say is correct.

We have already seen the education system slowly bending.

Jim D has pointed out continuously some of the security in place, which seems to go unheard. Somewhat to that point, “ownership of ports” should be accurately described as what it actually is.

PCD stated what I read and heard in the transcripts from Rush. The longshoremen and teacher unions both reflect the types and depths of problems of anyone having absolute “control” over more than just our infrastructure. Solitaire, if you think Rush says something just to rattle your chain, you’re mistaken. He’s got an extensive staff of fact finders and readers of history. That’s the difference between him and the incoherent conspiracist rambling chatter from people like steve.

Not sure what kind of information is out on salon, but you can check the complete 911 commissioned report Here. looks like they may have taken excerpts from there as I had.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda are bla, bla, bla, to quote a ceertain lib lady lawyer.

I don’t Bin Laden would dare go near the UAE. I think Saudi is iffy for him, too.

But, your outrage seems selective. It you are so outraged by an entity having Al Qaeda contacts, why so quiet on CAIR and the ACLU?

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8FUV97O9.html

“The report states U.S. intelligence believed that bin Laden was visiting an area in the Afghan desert in February 1999 near a hunting camp used by UAE officials, and that the U.S. military planned a missile strike.

Intelligence from local tribal sources indicated “bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis,” the report said.

“National technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of bin Laden’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely,” the report said.

The ILW, Longshoremen’s union, has a long history of corruption and huge donations to the Democrat party. What is so unfounded that they’d demand something for their money and “boots ong the ground on election day”?

For once, I agree with ST, albeit not for the same reasons.

The reckless fiscal policies (or lack thereof) of the current administration have led to the largest twin deficits — in real terms — of the last two decades. It is not surprising that the foreigners who finance our debt by buying T-bonds are now investing in our capital assets: the return is better.

So, instead of getting all hysterical about the ports’ deal, people would be well advised to question the policies that have led — and will continue to lead — to foreign acquisition and control of our infrastructure.

after reviewing the facts, hearing the talking points, and reading an insane number of blogs, I am beginning to believe this is not only a serious waste of time, but it may not be such a bad idea after all.

Security will be compromised a little. But what about the economic future of great American companies like IBM and Motorola? Without deals like this margins drop! The public must learn to suck it up a little! The people in charge know what they’re doing!

You’re kidding right? We need to “suck it up” and accept security holes so that corporations can continue to outsource our industries and jobs to foreign countries? You have to be kidding.

When Mansoor Ijaz talks, I listen–he’s one of my essential sources of information on terrorism. His take on the UAE ports deal is at NRO–it’s a must-read.

Washington’s bout with Islamophobia also ignores the reality of…