How We Love Our Backstabbing Allies (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

The Bush administration has been pushing the point very hard in recent days that the United Arab Emirates is a close ally in the war on terror, and how we ought to let them control our ports, through their state-owned company Ports World. However, facts have come to light which shows that the UAE cannot be trusted, either with our security, or as an ally.

In July of 2001, Osama bin Laden was a wanted man and a known terrorist. He was also a guest of the UAE, where he was being treated for his kidney disease. Thats right. Instead of arresting bin Laden for the Cole bombing and other atrocities, the government of that nation gave him VIP treatment. 2 months later, 911 happened. If our so-called ally had acted like an ally, do you think that 911 might not have happened? Nobody can answer that, but it does appear to be a possibility. And how about Pakistan, the nation which, instead of arresting bin Laden, gave him their blessing to go to the UAE?

So why does our government now treat the nation which harbored bin Laden as a trusted ally? Why does our government see those who harbor terrorists as allies? Your guess is as good as mine, but this sheds new light on why our lawmakers are up in arms about the port deal. And dont forget Saudi Arabia, where most of the 911 hijackers came from.

Article is here.

 

[cnredd]

The Bush administration has been pushing the point very hard in recent days that the United Arab Emirates is a close ally in the war on terror, and how we ought to let them control our ports,

Lie #1...They will not "control our ports"...

At not time will they have any more than 30% of managing the removal of containers from ships onto trucks...They have NO AUTHORITY on any security matters...

through their state-owned company Ports World. However, facts have come to light which shows that the UAE cannot be trusted, either with our security, or as an ally.

Lie #2..."Facts come to light"...An article from over three years ago...real enlightening...

In July of 2001, Osama bin Laden was a wanted man and a known terrorist. He was also a guest of the UAE, where he was being treated for his kidney disease.

Possible lie #3..."He was also a guest"...Please explain where in the article this is mentioned...

Are you under the impression that every single person in a country is a "guest" of their country?...Has the UAE ever acknowledged this?...Is there any proof that Bin Laden was there and the UAE officials knew about it?...Or is this one of those, "Well they MUST'VE knew, so I'll write it up as fact."?...

Thats right. Instead of arresting bin Laden for the Cole bombing and other atrocities, the government of that nation gave him VIP treatment.

See above...show me ANYWHERE in that article that states this...You can't...You have no idea...

2 months later, 911 happened. If our so-called ally had acted like an ally, do you think that 911 might not have happened?
Nobody can answer that, but it does appear to be a possibility. And how about Pakistan, the nation which, instead of arresting bin Laden, gave him their blessing to go to the UAE?

Possible lie #4..."Pakistan...gave their blessing"...show me ANYWHERE in that article that states this...You can't...You have no idea...

So why does our government now treat the nation which harbored bin Laden as a trusted ally?

Third time you push this..."harbored"...

Show me ANYWHERE in that article that states this...You can't...You have no idea...

Why does our government see those who harbor terrorists as allies? Your guess is as good as mine,

No...It's a LOT better...I read things and distuinguish facts from baseless accusations...

but this sheds new light on why our lawmakers are up in arms about the port deal. And dont forget Saudi Arabia, where most of the 911 hijackers came from.

Which has to do with this HOW?...

Article is here.

I read it...At some point, you should too...

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July

French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital

Wowwie!!!!....An "alledged" followed by a "claim"..

It MUST be true!...:roll:

The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.

So this comes from people with admitted political motives...How sweet...

Bin Laden is reported...

I don't even need to read on...speculation...

The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact.

Funny way how that word pops up again...

Intelligence sources say that another CIA agent was also present;

say...Later on, others say otherwise...

The American hospital in Dubai emphatically denied that Bin Laden was a patient there.

Washington last night also denied the story.

Why didn't you mention this?...Oh yeah...Because when it comes to America saying one thing and foreign intelligence says another, you go against America every time...

Ladies and gentlemen...robin Jr....

 

[danarhea]

Lie #1...They will not "control our ports"...

At not time will they have any more than 30% of managing the removal of containers from ships onto trucks...They have NO AUTHORITY on any security matters...

Lie #2..."Facts come to light"...An article from over three years ago...real enlightening...

Possible lie #3..."He was also a guest"...Please explain where in the article this is mentioned...

Are you under the impression that every single person in a country is a "guest" of their country?...Has the UAE ever acknowledged this?...Is there any proof that Bin Laden was there and the UAE officials knew about it?...Or is this one of those, "Well they MUST'VE knew, so I'll write it up as fact."?...

See above...show me ANYWHERE in that article that states this...You can't...You have no idea...

Possible lie #4..."Pakistan...gave their blessing"...show me ANYWHERE in that article that states this...You can't...You have no idea...

Third time you push this..."harbored"...

Show me ANYWHERE in that article that states this...You can't...You have no idea...

No...It's a LOT better...I read things and distuinguish facts from baseless accusations...

Which has to do with this HOW?...

I read it...At some point, you should too...

Wowwie!!!!....An "alledged" followed by a "claim"..

It MUST be true!...:roll:

So this comes from people with admitted political motives...How sweet...

I don't even need to read on...speculation...

Funny way how that word pops up again...

say...Later on, others say otherwise...

Why didn't you mention this?...Oh yeah...Because when it comes to America saying one thing and foreign intelligence says another, you go against America every time...

Ladies and gentlemen...robin Jr....

OK. I see where this is heading. I respond by calling you a liar, then we spend the rest of the thread acting like children, and derail any meaningful discussion. So I am going to pre-empt that course at this point. I will ask you a few questions. Please try to answer them in a civil manner.

1) Do you admit or deny that bin Laden was treated in the United Arab Emirates? It appears that you deny it, but I would like you to confirm this with a simple yes or no answer.

2) Do you admit or deny that bin Laden was already a wanted man in connection with the Cole bombing in July of 2001?

3) Do you admit or deny that bin Laden flew to the UAE for treatment?

We can start with these 3 premises, then move onto the others when these are settled.

Let me add that, although the article is old, in light of our sale of the control over significant aspect of our port facilities to the UAE, this does bring facts to light, as I stated.

 

[aps]

OK. I see where this is heading. I respond by calling you a liar, then we spend the rest of the thread acting like children, and derail any meaningful discussion. So I am going to pre-empt that course at this point.

You are a classy guy. I am proud of you. I don't know how cnredd enjoys himself on this message board. He likes to call people liars and tear apart almost every word of their post. I wonder if he does this in real life. :shrug:

 

[cnredd]

OK. I see where this is heading. I respond by calling you a liar, then we spend the rest of the thread acting like children, and derail any meaningful discussion. So I am going to pre-empt that course at this point. I will ask you a few questions. Please try to answer them in a civil manner.

NO...

This is not how debate works...

YOU don't come onto a public forum, throw lies out, then when confronted on these lies, put the onus on me to answer your questions...

"What I think" cannot be relevant until the lies I've shown are defended or agreed upon...Why would I comment on an issue that is chock full of innuendo and inconsistancies?"

No sir...Your article even shows that what you wrote are lies...I debunked it...Now it's your turn to make the case where your assessment is correct or admit your accusations are baseless...since you won't do that, you attempt to distract and get me to provide answers...

Not happening...

Notice how your posts end up like this?...Maybe you can get it through your dome that this forum has legitimate and intelligent debators, and you can't get this pile of rubbish over on everyone...

Unless you don't care, and just want to play to this forum's lowest denominators...

In that case...Good job!...:2wave:

 

[americanwoman]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Like cnredd pointed out all those countries that have ports here DO NOT have control over our port security. This is more about business and trade than about terrorism. Just another attempt to undermine our security.

 

[cnredd]

You are a classy guy. I am proud of you. I don't know how cnredd enjoys himself on this message board. He likes to call people liars and tear apart almost every word of their post. I wonder if he does this in real life. :shrug:

Anyone here can call someone a "liar"...But there's a big difference between just saying it and providing evidnce, which I have done through the use of their very own source...

From the "Tips for debate" thread...

LYING - Although there is no official rule against lying, doing so will kill your credibility and respect. If you make a statement that you say is documented, you'd better have the goods to back it up.

 

[danarhea]

NO...

This is not how debate works...

YOU don't come onto a public forum, throw lies out, then when confronted on these lies, put the onus on me to answer your questions...

"What I think" cannot be relevant until the lies I've shown are defended or agreed upon...Why would I comment on an issue that is chock full of innuendo and inconsistancies?"

No sir...Your article even shows that what you wrote are lies...I debunked it...Now it's your turn to make the case where your assessment is correct or admit your accusations are baseless...since you won't do that, you attempt to distract and get me to provide answers...

Not happening...

Notice how your posts end up like this?...Maybe you can get it through your dome that this forum has legitimate and intelligent debators, and you can't get this pile of rubbish over on everyone...

Unless you don't care, and just want to play to this forum's lowest denominators...

In that case...Good job!...:2wave:

Since you dont want to answer the question, I will proceed from the presumptions you based your namecalling on. Lets choose point number one for starters.

You pointed to a place in the article where the UAE and the US both deny this occured, based on their intelligence, and take that as gospel, and the right to act like a child and call me names. OK, this is as good a place as any to start.

Of course, it stands to reason that the UAE would deny if they had any rogue elements in their government that would allow this to happen. And dont forget that 2 of the 911 hijackers were from the UAE. Would you trust this source? I wouldnt. Not if the safety of our ports is at stake.

As for the American intelligence, dont forget that this came from the same government which has admitted that the intelligence used to justify going to war in Iraq was faulty.

Whether the French intel is any better is open to debate, but you choose instead to just call names. And you, a mod, too. Tsk, tsk.

 

[Robodoon]

The Bush administration has been pushing the point very hard in recent days that the United Arab Emirates is a close ally in the war on terror, and how we ought to let them control our ports, through their state-owned company Ports World. However, facts have come to light which shows that the UAE cannot be trusted, either with our security, or as an ally.

In July of 2001, Osama bin Laden was a wanted man and a known terrorist. He was also a guest of the UAE, where he was being treated for his kidney disease. Thats right. Instead of arresting bin Laden for the Cole bombing and other atrocities, the government of that nation gave him VIP treatment. 2 months later, 911 happened. If our so-called ally had acted like an ally, do you think that 911 might not have happened? Nobody can answer that, but it does appear to be a possibility. And how about Pakistan, the nation which, instead of arresting bin Laden, gave him their blessing to go to the UAE?

So why does our government now treat the nation which harbored bin Laden as a trusted ally? Why does our government see those who harbor terrorists as allies? Your guess is as good as mine, but this sheds new light on why our lawmakers are up in arms about the port deal. And dont forget Saudi Arabia, where most of the 911 hijackers came from.

Article is here.

Not only that, but this morning they were going over the security measurses and said that it would be based on "PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP" DAMN thats Fascism, thats "THIRD WAY POLICY" (UN AGENDA 21 guidelines) the darling of Socialists Bill Clintong and Tony BLAIR....and Bush is doing it to, some Conservative, some American...

Sold out on all Fronts!! is we the sheeple...we use to be people

ITS TREASON!

 

[cnredd]

Since you dont want to answer the question, I will proceed from the presumptions you based your namecalling on.

A) Proceeding with pesumptions...That's nothing new for you...

B) Namecalling?...No namecalling whatsoever...

If I called someone a "whore", and that person is someone who exchanges sexual favors for money, drugs, or other barter, then that is not calling someone a name...It is fact...

Just the same, calling someone a "liar" is not namecalling if, in fact, that is indeed what one does...This is not an accusation...Accusations must be backed by evidence before it becomes fact...A prosecutor can call the defendant a murder until he's blue in the face, but only when he presents his case will the claim of "murderer" be valid...

Same here...I have validated my claim that you are a liar through clear evidence...hence, no namecalling...just fact...

Lets choose point number one for starters.

You pointed to a place in the article where the UAE and the US both deny this occured, based on their intelligence, and take that as gospel, and the right to act like a child and call me names. OK, this is as good a place as any to start.

The namecalling again...already refuted..."Acting like a child" would be to call you a liar and NOT prove it...I did the opposite...

Of course, it stands to reason that the UAE would deny if they had any rogue elements in their government that would allow this to happen.

But you have provided no evidence that suggests that they DID allow this to happen, whether or not they would publicly declare it...If 100 nations deny having rogue elements in their government, does that mean that they all DO?...You have to PROVE they do...Your source, nor you, have done so...

And dont forget that 2 of the 911 hijackers were from the UAE.

Don't forget Americans John Walker Lyndh and Jose Padilla either...

BTW - If Zacarias Moussaoui wasn't in custody, he would've been the 20th hijacker...Zacarias Moussaoui is French...Would you have blamed France for this?

Would you trust this source? I wouldnt. Not if the safety of our ports is at stake.

But the safety of the ports is NOT at stake...You are wallowing in the panic...

As for the American intelligence, dont forget that this came from the same government which has admitted that the intelligence used to justify going to war in Iraq was faulty.

Right...so EVERYTHING they ever say from now on is 100% wrong...

Until 2009 of course, then your playtoy will be gone, and all credibility restored...

Whether the French intel is any better is open to debate, but you choose instead to just call names. And you, a mod, too. Tsk, tsk.

Third time is not a charm...

You...are a liar...

I'll retract when you prove otherwise...

 

[cnredd]

I shouldn't even have to say anything...

Robodoon agreed with danarhea...And this is not the first time...

That should tell the forum members all they need to know...

 

[aps]

Anyone here can call someone a "liar"...But there's a big difference between just saying it and providing evidnce, which I have done through the use of their very own source...

From the "Tips for debate" thread...

I wasn't saying that you could not call someone a liar. Whether you back up that word with facts does not matter to me. It shows hostility, if you ask me. If you were at a party and someone said something that you knew was a lie, would you look them in the eye and say, "Liar." I would not expect to see any self-respecting person saying that. You can say, "Your facts are wrong." Anyway, you do as you see fit. You feel it's your duty to attack people's credibility. Why? Does that make you feel better about yourself? Does it prove that you're more credible and command respect from others as a result? I don't get it.

You exude hostility in my eyes. For that, I feel sad for you.

 

[talloulou]

Dubai is not a democratic nation. They have restrictions on our ability to own stock and land in their country. They do not allow their people to vote, none of their officials are elected. They do not allow free speech. Just because they allow drinking and the eating of pork they are still a far cry from "modern."They may in fact be "more" tolerant than other Islamic nations but that is not placing the bar very high. To call them "westernized" is ridiculous. And as far as this just being financial......

I have no problem with them operating businesses within the US but I have a real problem allowing them to have anything to do with our ports.

 

[danarhea]

I wasn't saying that you could not call someone a liar. Whether you back up that word with facts does not matter to me. It shows hostility, if you ask me. If you were at a party and someone said something that you knew was a lie, would you look them in the eye and say, "Liar." I would not expect to see any self-respecting person saying that. You can say, "Your facts are wrong." Anyway, you do as you see fit. You feel it's your duty to attack people's credibility. Why? Does that make you feel better about yourself? Does it prove that you're more credible and command respect from others as a result? I don't get it.

You exude hostility in my eyes. For that, I feel sad for you.

Of course. If you dont agree with cnredd, he is going to call you a liar.

Personally, I think he is just trying to get a rise out of me, and maybe get me mad enough so I lose my temper and say something that will get me banned. It's an old trick, which people try and pull on just about every board in the universe, and its not too clever either. It is also interesting that, in this case, the tactic is being used by a mod.

But back to the issue. I disagreed with him, he slams me. When I point out through logic just why I did not trust the intel of Dubai and the US. His response was just to childishly start calling me a liar again. Its kind of like this......

cnredd: You are a liar

then later on.....

cnredd: I never called you names.

Silly tricks are for kids. cnredd just went on my ignore list.

 

[Deegan]

Is this not the purpose of this forum, to debate the facts, and to hopefully win arguments with those who refuse to see those facts? I can understand you people more if you actually play the same game cnredd does, but you choose to resort to emotional pleas of "he called me names" or "he's rude" and finally, "he's just too hostile"

I would almost bet he his laughing his behind off, not because he is rude, hostile, or angry, but because I have yet to hear anyone debunk his factual response to these theories. In this world, and this is unfortunate, if you repeat something enough, it becomes truth, and some of us just can't sit idle while that happens. I suggest picking apart his retorts, as he does yours, and injecting the same facts that he so often does. Until you do this, you just look as if you're whining, and that is not very becoming, or attractive.

 

[cnredd]

I would almost bet he his laughing his behind off, not because he is rude, hostile, or angry, but because I have yet to hear anyone debunk his factual response to these theories.

I understand where you're coming from, but I am not laughing at all...I'm very dissappointed...

Imagine an objective observer(forum) to this thread watching a tennis match...

With Post #1, the observer would say, "OK there's the serve, let's see what the volley looks like"...

With Post #2, the observer would say, "OK, there's the volley, let's see the return"...

Then instead of having it returned, it gets missed, so the poster decides to pick up every ball they can find near the court and start throwing them at their opponent...

The observer(forum) would be thinking to themselves, "What the heck is this?...I thought we were going to have a match of wits here, and it sinks to this?"...

Post #3 was the perfect time to refute anything I stated...Didn't happen...

I even went so far as to explain it in Post #5...still no response...

And for that, I am disappointed...

 

[aps]

Is this not the purpose of this forum, to debate the facts, and to hopefully win arguments with those who refuse to see those facts? I can understand you people more if you actually play the same game cnredd does, but you choose to resort to emotional pleas of "he called me names" or "he's rude" and finally, "he's just too hostile"

I would almost bet he his laughing his behind off, not because he is rude, hostile, or angry, but because I have yet to hear anyone debunk his factual response to these theories. In this world, and this is unfortunate, if you repeat something enough, it becomes truth, and some of us just can't sit idle while that happens. I suggest picking apart his retorts, as he does yours, and injecting the same facts that he so often does. Until you do this, you just look as if you're whining, and that is not very becoming, or attractive.

Deegan, there is a decent/classy/mature way to debate and an indecent/unclassy/immature way to debate. The way to talk to someone you disagree with or know that they are not presenting facts accurately is to point that out--not to call them a liar. Frankly, I think cnredd's tactics are pathetic. You don't, and that's fine. But think about this--do you see politicians during debates calling each other liars? I don't. And it's because that politician would have very few supporters if he/she behaved that way. What I must remember is that people like you probably support Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. I think they are terribly rude to their guests. If they were democrats, I would be embarrassed for them. So maybe you don't see cnredd's way of debating as anything but normal for a republican.

I just don't relate to that kid of behavior. If that makes cnredd a better debater than I am (which I highly doubt) or if people on this message board think he's debunked my arguments or that I look like a fool or that he's smarter than I am, I honestly do not care.

 

[debate_junkie]

Of course. If you dont agree with cnredd, he is going to call you a liar.

Personally, I think he is just trying to get a rise out of me, and maybe get me mad enough so I lose my temper and say something that will get me banned. It's an old trick, which people try and pull on just about every board in the universe, and its not too clever either. It is also interesting that, in this case, the tactic is being used by a mod.

But back to the issue. I disagreed with him, he slams me. When I point out through logic just why I did not trust the intel of Dubai and the US. His response was just to childishly start calling me a liar again. Its kind of like this......

cnredd: You are a liar

then later on.....

cnredd: I never called you names.

Silly tricks are for kids. cnredd just went on my ignore list.

I have to step in here for a minute. I've not agreed with cnredd on a few issues, but I've never been called a liar by him. That is an untrue, and unfair allegation, danarhea. He refuted your argument in his very first post, and you chose not to respond to it. :roll:

 

[aps]

I have to step in here for a minute. I've not agreed with cnredd on a few issues, but I've never been called a liar by him. That is an untrue, and unfair allegation, danarhea. . . . :roll:

debate_junkie, so because YOU have not been called a liar by cnredd, danarhea's statement is unfair? LOL Yeah right. He's called me a liar (among other things), and I would never intentionally state incorrect facts. What are we in elementary school on the playground during recess? Look at yourself in the mirror when you roll your eyes.

 

[debate_junkie]

debate_junkie, so because YOU have not been called a liar by cnredd, danarhea's statement is unfair? LOL Yeah right. He's called me a liar (among other things), and I would never intentionally state incorrect facts. What are we in elementary school on the playground during recess? Look at yourself in the mirror when you roll your eyes.

Look at his post, again.. aps. He stated what he believed to be lies, and refuted them with his own arguments. Wouldn't it have stood to reason then his arguments be refuted? Nope, instead dana chose to whine about being called a liar, when all cnredd did was refute what HE believed to be lies. Imagine that!

 

[aps]

Look at his post, again.. aps. He stated what he believed to be lies, and refuted them with his own arguments. Wouldn't it have stood to reason then his arguments be refuted? Nope, instead dana chose to whine about being called a liar, when all cnredd did was refute what HE believed to be lies. Imagine that!

You and I see this issue differently.

 

[danarhea]

You and I see this issue differently.

Guess who Osama bin Laden's hunting partner was between 1995 and 2001?

None other than the Emir of Dubai.

1995-2001: Persian Gulf Elite Go Hunting with bin Laden in Afghanistan Complete 911 Timeline

After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.” [MSNBC, 9/5/03] While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money. Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Former US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries' outbound jets may also have smuggled out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] On one occasion, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he's falconing with important members of the United Arab Emirates' royal family (see February 1999).

Are you still willing to trust America's ports to them?

Article is here.