Emirates Aided Kin of Palestinian Militants

March 20, 2006 9:36 AM

Emirates Aided Kin of Palestinian MilitantsThe American people, for reasons of possible anti-Arab feelings, made it clear that the Arab Emirates were not to gain control over our ports, despite the statements from the White House that this group is our friend and a partner in the fight against terrorism. Despite our 'friendship," there is now this evidence to the contrary. But will this news be sufficient to prevent Dubai's $1.2 Bln Bid for U.S. Weapons Maker ?
posted by Postroad (31 comments total)

I'm confused, how does the UAE's gifts to palestinian militant's relatives affect me, a non-isreali?
posted by delmoi at 9:38 AM on March 20, 2006

have you perhaps confused this country, called America with another country, called Israel?
posted by delmoi at 9:39 AM on March 20, 2006

I'm confused, how does the UAE's gifts to palestinian militant's relatives affect me, a non-isreali?

Because Saddam was directly and clearly linked to evil anti-US terrorism when he did the exact same thing. In fact, this sort of dupport-for-families-of-suicide-bombers is the only solid connection that the Adminsitration was ever abole to produce. Now, our dear friends are doing the same thing. Whoops.
posted by verb at 9:46 AM on March 20, 2006

OMG the Red Crescent helps people in war torn countries regardless if they were civillian or soldier. Madness! Only Baptist pacifists of white complexion should qualify for these funds, eh Postroad?
posted by skallas at 9:51 AM on March 20, 2006

viz., the president is a hypocrite. Positively revelatory.
posted by rxrfrx at 10:05 AM on March 20, 2006

This doesn't really say anything about suicide bombers, verb.

Saddam really was trying to gin up support among extremists by specifically giving cash payments to families of suicide bombers. He wasn't trying to help anyone, just trying to get cred as a supporter of terrorism.

The program discussed in this article is one which gives money, housing, food, and other goods to children whose parent or breadwinner have been killed by the Israeli military. It says most of the payments have been to civilian families, and that steps have been taken to ensure that they weren't distributed via any terrorist groups.
posted by cell divide at 10:09 AM on March 20, 2006

The program discussed in this article is one which gives money, housing, food, and other goods to children whose parent or breadwinner have been killed by the Israeli military.

C'mon. We all know what that's a code-word for.
posted by verb at 10:11 AM on March 20, 2006

verb makes the much more relevant point here: it's more about the hypocrisy of turning the GOP "this is why we have to invade Iraq" talking points than the donations themselves.

The UAE's royal family hosting bin Laden is a much more direct connection than the filtering of money suggested by the donations to the Red Crescent. The logic there seems a lot weaker. I mean, Tim McVeigh's parents likely collect Social Security. Does that mean our government is aiding the families of terrorists?

(Cue usual suspects to come in and comment on how this is "what they expected from the crowd at MetaFilter")
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:11 AM on March 20, 2006

verb makes the much more relevant point here: it's more about the hypocrisy of turning the GOP "this is why we have to invade Iraq" talking points than the donations themselves.

Is it really that hypocritical? The Admin spews so much meaningless gobbledygook it's impossible to take anything they seriously. They can't be hypocrites because they never "say" anything other then what they think is the best thing to say at any moment.
posted by delmoi at 10:25 AM on March 20, 2006

Is it really that hypocritical? The Admin spews so much meaningless gobbledygook it's impossible to take anything they seriously. They can't be hypocrites because they never "say" anything other then what they think is the best thing to say at any moment.

If you're saying that, you're already part of the choir.

That said my first post in this thread is probably one of the most shocking displays of bad typing I've ever witnessed. *I* should probably be censured for it.
posted by verb at 10:40 AM on March 20, 2006

Them owning a weapons manufacturer is fine--that's not at all like a port.
posted by amberglow at 10:58 AM on March 20, 2006

They can't be hypocrites because they never "say" anything other then what they think is the best thing to say at any moment.

An ideology of contingency == anti-ideology == you know what, the f-word.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:01 AM on March 20, 2006

The secretary general of the Emirates Red Crescent, Sanaa Darwish al-Kitbe, said the goal of its Palestinian programs was to "influence the negative atmosphere" to build peace. "By building homes and helping people to have a better life," she said, responding to written questions with a statement sent by e-mail, "you are creating some hope in the middle of all this suffering," allowing young Palestinians to "concentrate on the positive and move away from extremist views and actions."

These guys sound like real nutjobs.
posted by chunking express at 11:14 AM on March 20, 2006

What? Just because two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE and Osama bin Laden has a history of friendship with members of the UAE royal family and they country recognize and support the Taliban?
Why would the Bush family, major shareholders in the Carlyle Group - (which owns the majority interest in CSX Transportation - a division of DP World as well as vast holdings in the aerospace, telecommunications, defense contracting, Iraq rebuilding and foreign policy industries) bend over backwards to help Dubai Investment Capital Group (created by the lead securities consultant: the Carlyle Group) in Doncasters Group Ltd. just because Carlyle recently aquired them?
Sure and just because Treasury Secretary John Snow is the former chairman of CSX transportation and currently the chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (and stood to gain from stock investment on the Dubai port deal - but didn’t recuse himself) was appointed by Bush, somehow the Bush family would be looking the other way on all this stuff just to make money?

Tinfoil hat time you conspiracy theory weirdo freaks. Oohh! Scary political behind the scenes deals just because billions of dollars are at stake - Oooh! - Where’s the UFOs?

Rich people have a hard time making a move without running into a problem because they’re interests are so diversified. They agonize over political conflicts and human rights concerns when they cross purposes with doing business. They wouldn’t sacrifice principles or morals for the sake of making a buck.
So the Red Crescent Society donates to charities connected to Hamas - So? It’s not like they’re terrorists like Shukri Abu Baker

“To those who exploit good hearts to secretly fund violence and murder, this prosecution sends a clear message: There is no distinction between those who carry out terrorist attacks and those who knowingly finance terrorist attacks,” - Attorney General John Ashcroft
posted by Smedleyman at 11:39 AM on March 20, 2006

/hyperbole aside: goose/gander, pot/kettle, all that.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:51 AM on March 20, 2006

Pretty much, Smedleyman.

I'm not particularly bothered by the idea of helping families of people killed in violent conflicts. Hell, even helping families of people who blow themselves up in violent conflicts. Some say that it will only encourage more bombers -- because the prospective human fuses will know their kin is provided for.

I think it's just basic human compassion, and more likely to blunt generational cycles of victimization and outrage.

That said, though, this is no more tenuous than the kinds of connections the Bush Administration and its supporters have used as rhetorical levers in the past. The lesson learned is obvious: neocons do not start with a presumption of what actions are bad and what actions are good. They start with a presumption of who is an ally and who is an enemy. The moral universe is not 'good or bad,' it's 'with us or against us.'

That's not NEWS, but it's always interesting to see it displayed in an obvious fashion.
posted by verb at 12:08 PM on March 20, 2006

This post is noise. Doncasters does not make weapons.
Editoralising bullshit. Flagged.
posted by adamvasco at 12:19 PM on March 20, 2006

whoaaaa.....wrong thread WTF.. sorry all
posted by adamvasco at 12:19 PM on March 20, 2006

aw fuck .. no its not. Postroad I call bullshit on your second link.
posted by adamvasco at 12:21 PM on March 20, 2006

adamvasco :huh?
posted by Smedleyman at 12:57 PM on March 20, 2006

Smedleyman, it looks like some confusion about the difference between, say, 'things that go boom' and 'critical parts of things that fly around making things go boom.'

Engines for an F-15 aren't weapons per se, so one could argue that they are only a subcontractor for a weapons manufacturer. Sort of like aluminum tubes aren't weapons, they ju-- oh, snap...
posted by verb at 1:01 PM on March 20, 2006

adamvasco, "Dubai's $1.2 Bln Bid for U.S. Weapons Maker" is verbatim from the linked article. I'd say that is, by definition, not editorializing.
posted by rxrfrx at 1:06 PM on March 20, 2006

You know who else used industrial gas turbines and superalloys? Hitler.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:08 PM on March 20, 2006

What's this shit about the UAE's "royal family"? AFAIK, it's the United Arab Emirates, plural, with several royal families, not all of them in speaking terms with each other. Keep muddying the waters, folks...
posted by Skeptic at 2:44 PM on March 20, 2006

Yeah, you bastards, only a couple of the several royal families have links to bin Laden. It's not like there's a consensus.
posted by shoos at 6:30 PM on March 20, 2006

and only a couple of the families are investors in the Carlyle Group, and only a couple went on hunting trips with Osama, etc...
posted by amberglow at 7:43 PM on March 20, 2006

The program discussed in this article is one which gives money, housing, food, and other goods to children whose parent or breadwinner have been killed by the Israeli military. It says most of the payments have been to civilian families...

Those bastards! How dare they!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:23 PM on March 20, 2006

This is older than old news. I lived in Saudi Arabia from late '01 through early '03, read a lot of the English-langauge publications there. This was related at some length.
posted by ambient2 at 9:11 PM on March 20, 2006

In the calm light of day I will try again without a cat on the keyboard. The Bloomberg link is in itself misleading. OK the quote is direct from the headline; however this is shrill.
If a friend of mine works in a peanut butter factory and this peanut butter is eaten by troops on the ground could said friend be catagorised as feeding the US war machine.
This post is axe grinding.
posted by adamvasco at 12:22 AM on March 21, 2006

If a friend of mine works in a peanut butter factory and this peanut butter is eaten by troops on the ground could said friend be catagorised as feeding the US war machine.

That's taking it a bit far. Making peanut butter and making parts for combat aircraft is a bit different, neh? Especially when the company explicity sells itself to the military as a contractor.

The point remains -- Dubai has ties that would've been labeled 'undeniable' and 'conclusive' and 'dangerous' by the Administration if it'd been Iraq in 2003.
posted by verb at 5:38 AM on March 21, 2006

“The program discussed in this article is one which gives money, housing, food, and other goods to children whose parent or breadwinner have been killed by the Israeli military. It says most of the payments have been to civilian families...”

Same schtick said by muslim charities in the US. But they get arrested. Funny how that works.

“This post is axe grinding.”

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe making specialized precision turbine fins specifically for combat aircraft isn’t a defense contractor job.
What part of the secondary argument: Bushco slides deal to overseas cronies is untrue?
If it were Gore or Kerry pulling this crap people in the Red would be twice as pissed and call bullshit on the corruption.
But no, this the argument is this defense thing.
They could make marbles and it would bother me that some folks overseas had that much pull on our top officials.

It’s the only reason I supported (earlier) going into Iraq - so that foreign powers could not influence policy decisions through extortion or threat of withholding or fluxtuating the oil.

Direct contribution by foreign powers to the personal fortunes of our top officials is not something I expect anyone to defend.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:39 PM on March 21, 2006