Originally posted by jaden101
i understand you're criticising the UAE...but you continually ignore the fact that they're done more for the US in the war against al qaeda than any other country since 9/11...so your argument are based on history...i take it you still blame the Germans for WW2?
How the hell did the UAE do the most for the US?
And why are you bringing up WW2? Yes, I blame the Germans by the way.
so i guess your constant accusal of bush-bashing could be translated as bush-loving on your part? notice i didnt resort to that once...
so by highlighting the FACT that you constantly criticise Bush makes me Bush lover...uuummm...no it doesn't really does it?...
i said that an efficiency track record is irrelevant in the face of recent history with regards to...oh ffs im not going to repeat myself AGAIN.
do you also find it irrelevant that they already operate in the US and there hasn't been a terrorist attack instigated through their operations?
do you also find it irrelevant that they operate ports throughout the world and never once has an al-qaeda attack been instigated through any of their ports?
in some warped parallel universe, where fascists still held sway in germany, yes i would. but alas we dive deeper into the great sea of irrelevance.
you know what else is irrelevant? judging countries on their past actions when their present actions are entirely different
you say you aren't concerned with a state owned Chinese company operating ports but lets actually look at China
it has one of the worst human rights records. according to amnesty international it has jailed without trial, thousands and even hundreds of thousands of political activists...it continually supresses the rights of people in Tibet...it constantly threatens military action against taiwan. it has massive nuclear proliferation. it is the world biggest communist state...despite all this...because the US economy is reliant on China then it's ok to allow to operate ports in the US
so basically thats puting financial concerns over both national security and morality...which strangely enough is EXACTLY one of the main criticisms levied at the Bush administration with regards to the DPW deal
lets look at some related aspects...you are...shall we say...a critic of the Bush administration and its actions throughout the world...
yet despite the Bush administrations actions...you dont find it a problem the the US has more unmonitored naval ports and air bases throughout the world that any other country...places where it could easily transport whatever it likes...completely unchallanged from those countries where its bases are situated
i think we can both agree that this debate is getting a bit cyclical in its nature
so what i'm trying to say is that i understand why, if you dont know the facts, you would be concerned with a UAE partly state owned company operating in the US could cause security problems...and all i've tried to do is show you that those concerns are unfounded
but all you seem to be doing is disregarding the facts to suit your own opinion...
How the hell did the UAE do the most for the US?
you know what...clearly people like you need to learn how to research stuff on your own and find out facts...so i'll only go as far as to say that if you bothered to read the thread...and bothered to look up information on what they've done in the war on terror...then you wouldn't need to ask that question
They said, 'Terrorists, bad.' That's about all it would take to win that award.
way to piss on the graves of all the non US soldiers and citizens who have died because their countries support the US in the war on terror
that would mean 200+ UK soldiers...200+ people in the Bali bombings...the 56 people who died in the London bombings...the 191 people who died in the Madrid bombing...the 33 people who died in the HSBC bank and British consulate bombing in Turkey
Originally posted by jaden101😑 Way to not understand a joke!
way to piss on the graves of all the non US soldiers and citizens who have died because their countries support the US in the war on terror
Originally posted by jaden101
that would mean 200+ UK soldiers...200+ people in the Bali bombings...the 56 people who died in the London bombings...the 191 people who died in the Madrid bombing...the 33 people who died in the HSBC bank and British consulate bombing in Turkey
Originally posted by jaden101
so by highlighting the FACT that you constantly criticise Bush makes me Bush lover...uuummm...no it doesn't really does it?...
no, by hilighting the FACT that you unconditionally defend him in every thread makes you someone who is obviously bias. however, since we are all bias in this matter, disregarding those who dont give a shit, i find that pointing that out would be a weak and irrelevant method and would only open the door for yet another classic pinheaded right/left strawman debate.
Originally posted by jaden101
do you also find it irrelevant that they already operate in the US and there hasn't been a terrorist attack instigated through their operations?
yes i do. as i found it irrelevant that new york city was safe from terrorist attacks for over a decade since the first wtc bombing. oh wait...its not that we were safe, was it? but rather that there simply wasnt an attack planned and executed until 9/11. that is why i say the VERY short term absence of an attack means: N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
Originally posted by jaden101
do you also find it irrelevant that they operate ports throughout the world and never once has an al-qaeda attack been instigated through any of their ports?
the only use for ports would be for a nuclear and/or biological attack. since al qaeda has yet to aquire such weapons, or may be holding them as an ace in the hole, why would there have been attacks already? what the hell good would it do them to send a suicide bomber into a shipping crate? if they hit us via shipping ports, they will make it count and they will hit us hard.[/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by jaden101
you know what else is irrelevant? judging countries on their past actions when their present actions are entirely different
you behave in an irrational manner, like you have a hair right across your bunghole. keep repeating the same dead point like a parrot, but fine. ill say again: YES i will hold a country responsible who no longer than FIVE YEARS AGO....AFTER the attacks were reluctant to cooperate in a u.s. investigation.
QUICK!!!! IGNORE THE POINT!!! LOOK AWAY!!!! CALL ME A LIAR AND A RACIST!!!! RUN!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by jaden101
you say you aren't concerned with a state owned Chinese company operating ports but lets actually look at China
way to piss on the graves of all the non US soldiers and citizens who have died because their countries support the US in the war on terror
this is about as low as it gets. the debate ends here before i tell you what i really think of you and get banned.
tell me again why you posted this?
That's about all it would take to win that award.
essentially saying that the best any country has done to help America in the war on terror is to condemn terrorism
despite the fact that hundreds of people have died because of their countries helping in the war on terror
Originally posted by jaden101
so by highlighting the FACT that you constantly criticise Bush makes me Bush lover...uuummm...no it doesn't really does it?...
no, by hilighting the FACT that you unconditionally defend him in every thread makes you someone who is obviously bias. however, since we are all bias in this matter, disregarding those who dont give a shit, i find that pointing that out would be a weak and irrelevant method and would only open the door for yet another classic pinheaded right/left strawman debate, which you seem quite fond of.
Originally posted by jaden101
do you also find it irrelevant that they already operate in the US and there hasn't been a terrorist attack instigated through their operations?
yes i do. as i found it irrelevant that new york city was safe from terrorist attacks for over a decade since the first wtc bombing. oh wait...its not that we were safe, was it? but rather that there simply wasnt an attack planned and executed until 9/11. that is why i say the VERY short term absence of an attack means: N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
Originally posted by jaden101
do you also find it irrelevant that they operate ports throughout the world and never once has an al-qaeda attack been instigated through any of their ports?
the only use for ports would be for a nuclear and/or biological attack. since al qaeda has yet to aquire such weapons, or may be holding them as an ace in the hole, why would there have been attacks already? what the hell good would it do them to send a suicide bomber into a shipping crate? if they hit us via shipping ports, they will make it count and they will hit us hard.[/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by jaden101
you know what else is irrelevant? judging countries on their past actions when their present actions are entirely different
you behave in an irrational manner, like you have a hair right across your bunghole. keep repeating the same dead point like a parrot, but fine. ill say again: YES i will hold a country responsible who no longer than FIVE YEARS AGO....AFTER the attacks were reluctant to cooperate in a u.s. investigation.
QUICK!!!! IGNORE THE POINT!!! LOOK AWAY!!!! CALL ME A LIAR AND A RACIST!!!! RUN!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by jaden101
you say you aren't concerned with a state owned Chinese company operating ports but lets actually look at China
you put words in my mouth. go back and read my post. im not going to repeat myself.
way to piss on the graves of all the non US soldiers and citizens who have died because their countries support the US in the war on terror
this is about as low as it gets. the debate ends here before i tell you what i really think of you and get banned.
should i grandstand and say your pissing on the graves of 9/11 victims? no because that would be as shitfaced and irrational as you have been. im through.
consider your ass ignored
Originally posted by jaden101
tell me again why you posted this?essentially saying that the best any country has done to help America in the war on terror is to condemn terrorism
despite the fact that hundreds of people have died because of their countries helping in the war on terror
no, by hilighting the FACT that you unconditionally defend him in every thread makes you someone who is obviously bias
actually mate...you're talking shit again because i've condemned many of the things the Bush administration have done with posts in this forum...so i suggest you get your facts straight
yes i do. as i found it irrelevant that new york city was safe from terrorist attacks for over a decade since the first wtc bombing. oh wait...its not that we were safe, was it? but rather that there simply wasnt an attack planned and executed until 9/11. that is why i say the VERY short term absence of an attack means: N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
sorry...whats the point you're trying to make here?...the attack on the WTC had nothing to do with DPW...and it was planned in Germany from as early as 1994...the German authorities were monitoring the people involved and did nothing...this is all established fact...so i really dont see what you're getting at
the only use for ports would be for a nuclear and/or biological attack. since al qaeda has yet to aquire such weapons, or may be holding them as an ace in the hole, why would there have been attacks already? what the hell good would it do them to send a suicide bomber into a shipping crate? if they hit us via shipping ports, they will make it count and they will hit us hard.
and like i said before...if this was to happen...would jump the gun and automatically assume the it would be the DPW fault...hence the baseless scaremongering and prejudice
you behave in an irrational manner, like you have a hair right across your bunghole. keep repeating the same dead point like a parrot, but fine. ill say again: YES i will hold a country responsible who no longer than FIVE YEARS AGO....AFTER the attacks were reluctant to cooperate in a u.s. investigation.
many countries refused to co-operate with the US even after 9/11...not surprising given the the US were ready to bomb anyone that so much as had the slightest connection with al qaeda...such as Iraq strangely enough
this is about as low as it gets. the debate ends here before i tell you what i really think of you and get banned.
thats just petty and pathetic but feel free to use the PM...i can take a little criticism on the chin while it appears that you cant
and whats really as low as it gets is being prejudice towards a company simply because they're arabs despite all the evidence that disproves any other concerns that are fabricated as an excuse to hide the real reason you dont want them to operate in the US
boo f*cking hoo, come back to this thread when a simple two-line post that IS WHAT IT IS (on the surface...didn't try to make anyone dig any deeper this time...maybe I should have for your sake) doesn't send you to the streets, screaming at the moon for someone to strike down anyone who doesn't dig to the 18th layer of your internal politics.
try and dismiss it as a joke if you want...you make it quite clear to anyone who can read what you think of the countries who have helped America...
you managed to try and be patronising and insulting all in the one post...
way to go son...WAY...TO...GO
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Thats ALL they did, jaden. Givinig somebody thumbs up and tell them "good luck!" is by no means help.
except thats not all they did is it...the US have their biggest permanent navel base in the middle east in the UAE...they have launched more attacks from their air bases in the war on terror than from any other country in the middle east, from the UAE...the UAE have provided more intelligence on al qaeda than any other ally...they have also arrested many al qaeda operatives including 2 of al qaeda most wanted men Abdel Raheem al Nashiri and Qari Saifullah Akhtar
so please do try and get some facts before making rash statements...thats all i ask of all of you