you will see PHOTOS of WHO and WHERE Bin Laden and his NETWORKS AREÖ.

URGENTÖPLEASE HELPÖ. I CANNOT FROM HEREÖ.. I AM BLOCKED ALL AROUND
FORWARD THIS INFORMATION TO THE FBI.

gavriild@gmail.com

And yes, the Chinese have access to some American ports. This is not news, but since the Clinton is not Bush people refrained from outrage.

As far as that is concerned a man named Bowers who is with the Longshoremans Union was busted back in July 2005 on racketeering charges in relation with the Gambino family. But hey, they are criminals not Arabs.

Over the last several years, decades really, America has eased out of the shipping industry. Some people say it is the thin profit margin, some people say it is the Unions and labor costs. But now all of a sudden people are freaking out. The most unusual thing about this Dubai deal is the over reaction and Bush bashing from both sides of the aisle.

Believe it or not there is no law that says a British company can not sell out to a company based in Dubai. And gratuitous Muslim bashing is not going to help anyone.

I read that the fifth fleet of the US Navy has Dubai ports do its port calls and of course we do have a military presence there. These people have tried harder to cooperate with the US since 9/11 than many of our socalled allies in Europe. In fact they signed onto the US Containment Security Act.

Do I like the fact that many of the people are antisemitic? No of course not, but the truth is the same can be said of people in Iraq and Afghainstan and much of Europe.

Here’s an interesting paragraph from Florida Shipper (December, before the deal was finalized):

“London-based P&O is the fourth-biggest port operator in the world. DP WorldÔøΩs agreement to buy it would make the Dubai-based company the worldÔøΩs second-largest container terminal operator and put an Arab government-owned company in one of the most significant strategic positions in history, equal to Egyptian control of the Suez Canal or Panamanian control of the Panama Canal.” (link)

Interestingly, here is a more recent article in the same publication, by the same guy, coming down on the side of the deal.

The vessel would go to the terminal next door. Having spent many years in the forwarding business, I remember when the vessels of ME origin used to require an indication on the bill of lading an Israeli Boycott statement. This later became illegal.

All of these objections to this deal have no relation to real life.

If we were so concerned about the Arab world and a potential USA security breach, we wouldn’t have been allowing the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia and Saudia Airlines access to our airspace and shipping lanes.

This isn’t theoretical. During the Iraq war, at least one European corporation–possibly two–refused to supply parts for a critical missile system. (According to the House Armed Services Committee)

What if, for example, in a future war, with Israel under attack, US weapons shipments destined to that country were refused by terminal operators and/or ocean carriers? What if components manufacturers refused to supply parts for replenishment munitions intended for use in that conflict?

In the specific case of the ports, the risk can be significantly mitigated by appropriate contract language and the posting of a very large surety bond, forfeitable in the event of wilful nonperformance. I’m concerned about the general case, though, and hope someone is thinking about it.

Saudi Arabia is a lot bigger threat to the West than the UAE is.

1.)The following quotes are those of John Fund of The Wall Street Journalís ìOpinion Journalís Political Diary.î:

ìIt seems every party except one has undergone scrutiny in the firestorm over the Dubai ports deal. The Bush administration is answering reams of questions, and reporters are certainly giving the anti-terrorism record of the UAE government a once over. But where are the questions about the unions that are in the front row of the jeering section trying to scotch the deal?

The wonder is that the Dubai company was willing to take on the hassle of managing U.S. ports for thin profit margins,” one maritime expert told me. He noted that Hutchison Whampoa, the Hong Kong-based leader in port operations, refuses to invest in the U.S. because it won’t deal with the local unions. A former member of the Federal Maritime Commission told me it is an open secret that the U.S. longshoremen’s union prefers U.S. operators “because they can get more patronage and exercise more leverage that way.î

http://yargb.blogspot.com/2006/02/what-is-role-of-gambino-crime-family.html

2.) This is something else I found out about a few days ago:

ìEarlier this year Dubai Holdingís subsidiary luxury hospitality group Jumeirah International took over the management of the famous Essex House hotel in New York, rebranding it Jumeirah Essex House, following a $ 500 million buyout by Dubai Investment Group, also a subsidiary of Dubai Holding, from Strategic Hotel Capital in September last year.î

ìLast year Istithmar acquired one of New Yorkís most famous landmark buildings ó 230 Park Avenue in Manhattan, also known as the Helmsley Building, a 34-storey gold-domed office block which sits at the top of Park Avenue, in a $ 705 million deal.î

http://yargb.blogspot.com/2006/02/increased-terrorist-risk-in-manhattan.html

Does anyone believe that the super-rich are suicidal? And yet, they see, quite content to allow companies from Dubai manage their office spaces and hotel accommodations.