Islamophobia Does Not Constitute a Party Platform

At least not any party I would associate myself with.

It is wrongheaded, and profoundly ethnocentric to think like this!

Although judging from the threads of the past few days there are many here at DU who want to make the Port Issue and other things just that...

The Democratic Party has always stood for inclusivity and public discourse. I haven't seen enough of that on DU lately.

LINKS TO THE THREADS IN QUESTION


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=467575&mesg_id=467575
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x465909
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x453502
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x465919
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2118060
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2117603
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=461270&mesg_id=461270

And Many Many More

see as being our biggest threat for being struck by a terrorist group? Tongans?

as part of our Party policy?

one of the 911 terrorists was a Muslim. They have openly called for attacks against the US, and while I can see what brought us to this place we're at (and WE ARE NOT BLAMELESS), only a fool would allow the openings to their countries to be run, the port systems to be owned, by a foreign nation with ties to terrorist groups. Because no matter how you want to white wash that one, it still won't come out clean. The 911 boys and their money moved through the UEA.

Nope, I am strictly for the most vulnerable entrances and exits in this country to be controlled by Americans. While that will not guarantee safety, because we all know how full of holes (and shit) the government's air marshall program is, it is ours and we will be at fault if and/or when anything happens.

Plus you know what? I don't think it's right that so much of this country has been sold off to foreign owners anyway. In a way it is a sick poetic justice, we who have controlled so many other poorer countries for so long because we bought and owned their assets are not in the same boat as so many third world nations. In hock up to our armpits and not much we can do about it.

But this we can. And don't accuse me of demonizing large groups of people. That remark is simplistic and ignorant. I understand that all Muslims are not terrorists. ONCE AGAIN. I understand the all Muslims are not terrorists. But I will try to get it through to you one final time, all the 911 terrorists were Muslims. And then there are the Muslim terrorist in the Phillipines and SE Asia, the Cheychen, and on and on and on.

What's called for here is common sense.

Do you boycott their companies and products. Of course not, the good people of Michigan had nothing to do with it! Do you see the simplicity of the logic?

I agree on common sense... but I find it lacking in your arguments... You ARE demonizing the UAE because of the simplistic associations you make between religion and terrorism.

more similar would be comparing the Islam to right wing ideology in this case.

terrorists are terrorists regardless of geography or ideology...

Islam paints everything in the Muslim world... even secular politics...

You might for example have a completly secular politician who mentions the Prophet or some aspect of religion. It's just as much cultural as it is religious.

The brush that most are painting with the issue is way too broad.

just like our discussions of Islam in this case isn't attacking every Muslim. we weren't attacking every single Republican when we were being critical of McVeigh and right wing ideology.

and just like we aren't bashing every christian when we criticize intelligent design supporters. even though Christianity itself will be brought up.

involvement in terrorism?

Also, part of the reason this was done was because the US wanted BACKCHANNELS to communicate with the Taliban.

The UAE rarely operates a foreign policy that is independent of US wishes.

like Robertson etc also.

none of us think they are totally innocent. in fact this is another instance of their selling out.

How are they profiting from this?

Even if you take the latest angle they're trying to push about Dubai/UAE being in a strictly administrative position, that puts them into an excellent place where they can move people and packages around to enable safe and sure access to smuggling in anything that they want. And sometimes people who have a political agenda don't really care about the financial losses that they might incur to achieve their goal. To assume anything else in regard to the port situation is naive and potentially fatal; something not to be taken lightly or at face value. Investigation and even refusal of contract is warranted.

Don't you understand that! The happy boys and girls from Homeland Security! :sarcasm:

The honus in on the U.S. government, not a management company to provide security.

It is JUST management that will be conducted by DP!

and Homeland Security being in charge of Port Security...

I don't trust Chertoff to be competent at anything!

I don't trust Chertoff either. The fact that he is part of the administration who is pushing this deal is enough for me.

On the other hand, why would or should we trust Dubai instead? I'm sorry, I just don't see doing that either.

with it????????????

...but I wasn't asking you.

was said.

this guy couldn't manage his way out of a paper box!

You answered my question.

and the Democrats are right to make it an issue. it's an issue that clearly shows to the American people who don't pay attention to the details that this administration cares nothing about national security.

...For, if security is the issue, what no one is explaining is that DP World or Dubai will have nothing at all to do with security aspects at these ports. It is a commercial deal, pure and simple. The works that the Dubai firm would do are in respect of management of the facilities in the US ports, among others around the globe. It has nothing to do with security. Security will be America's own job at those ports.

To DP World's credit, there are no two opinions about the competence of the UAE firm to undertake a vast global operation of this kind. "It could be perfectly qualified to operate the ports around the world", admits none other than Senator Chuck Schumer, who was among the first to raise concerns over the DP World forays into the US shores. Those concerns are, he says, based (only) on matters of US internal security.

The problem, prima facie, is that the Senators and others who are raising a hue and cry over the Dubai moves are, deliberately or otherwise, confusing people about the role of an international port operator like DP World. They do so by ignoring the fact that matters of security at these ports will be firmly in the hands of the US security personnel and US systems... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x191942

terrorism funding often is a result of people wanting to make private profits. just like the Bush gang in their attempt to make profit from oil has done things to endanger our security. and the same will happen here.

and it's a very good issue for the Democrats to take up to go after the Republicans and especially Bush on.

Are you an American citizen? Are you a member of the democratic party?

I was a candidate for the Florida Legislature in 2002 (I lost against an incumbent) and served as a regional director for the Florida Gubenatorial campaign of 2002 for the primaries.

I am a University Professor currently working for the American University of Sharjah (the best University in the country). I also work closely with the UAE government on DEMOCRATIZATION. I work directly with the next generation of UAE leaders to give them the tools they need to form free and democratic societies. I also work directly for the UAE President in an advisory capacity.

US ports should have never been outsourced in the first place (bottom-line I agree with you there)... However, I think it is profoundly xenophobic (paranoid??) to think that DP will not do a proper job.

questions?

And now knowing that you're an American, and you agree that outsourcing any aspect of control of American ports was asinine, what confuses me is why you think that any hope of rectifying the situation is wrong? Why should we not, knowing what is going on now, do what we can to make the situation better?

Have we now lost our rights to demand certain aspects of our nations be under strict US control simply so that we can be 'politically correct'? We don't have any rights now, except the right to shut up and live with whatever deal international corporations put together having to do with the extremely sensitive entrances and exits to our country. And in our biggest ports?

that is now under Homeland Security.

Outsourcing isn't good! But do you think Bush would move to NATIONALIZE the ports...? That just ain't gonna happen...

UAE. And somehow you think that you're an unbiased observer of your fellow American's bigotry when they object to losing control of an important aspect of their country, namely the largest ports.

Think what you want, I think it's kind of funny, your little finger wagging lecture on how we should be ashamed of ourselves about worrying over who's in control over the operation of the ports into and out of this country, and what a bunch of religious bigots we are. Who should we worry about? What precautions should we take? Because according to you, the very thought that we should take any at all smacks of intolerance and hypocrisy. It's nice to know that we've been stripped of our right to consider defending ourselves just because some people don't like the way it's being perceived.

"US ports should have never been outsourced in the first place (bottom-line I agree with you there)... However, I think it is profoundly xenophobic (paranoid??) to think that DP will not do a proper job."

If you agree that the jobs should not be outsourced, why should you think it "xenophobic (paranoid??)" to think that the DP will not do their job? Wouldn't it be more prudent for the DP to "in-source" those jobs?

likely still be subcontracted to Union shops (i.e. status quo). Even the DP managers for US (I am sure) will be either US or British employees (hired from P&O). 75% of UAE population is comprised of Expats... The only thing that will be Emirati about the company is the board and the funding.

and the rapture and other fundie crap.

it doesn't mean our party platform is bigoted against Christians.

Would you feel any different if US ports had been sold to Israel? Germany? Singapore? Russia? China?

we seriously are opposed to it being taught in public schools nad public funds being used for it.

of the nations you list, i would trust Germany to do the best job and what is in the interests of the American people. not so with the rest.

in terms of policy...

There is not a constitutional question here...

it's a real debate about what the facts are. and we really do have a problem with them spreading this crap about intelligent design around.

to spread their crap so to speak?

deals with questions of science and constitutionality...

These are items that are relatively easily verifiable...

Even with UAE not being a threat, in a MIHOP situation, not only would the perpetrators have access to do damage, but they would have a very handy scapegoat to blame it on. How much oil do they have in UAE?

Homeland security is in charge anyway... if they want MIHOP, they can make it any time they like...

:eyes:

trying to claim those who object to this are doing it because of Islam.

you seem to have a problem with any criticism when it comes to the UAE. including when i criticized when for their anti gay policies.

They have been doing so for years?

The broad American response to this sale as "putting our ports in the hands of terrorists" stems from a well-nurtured Islamophobia. It's a most unfortunate sentiment...but it IS exquisite payback to BushCo for actively nurturing all that indiscriminate hate in the first place. Sweet karma, if you will.

The response I've seen here on the DU has been somewhat more thoughtful, and does make me wonder: if the UAE is suspected of having links to laundered money (in the form of gold) and terrorist financing (it's believed that most of the money to bankroll the 9/11 terrorists came through Dubai), then why should we want a UAE state-owned company administering our ports without first ascertaining what the UAE government has done to stop these loose practices, if anything?

I realize one doesn't necessarily have to do with the other. It puts me in mind of British anger towards the US over the IRA funding and material support that flowed to N. Ireland from these shores for so long. It didn't stop relations, but it was still a valid concern and quite a sticking point at times. I think if BushCo were truly interested in its so-called War on Terror, it would regard this sale in a similar light. That it's been rubberstamped by Bush** raises legitimate questions (and equally legitimate anger) from those of us who think before reacting -- questions not only about the UAE, but about BushCo's motivations as well.

Fear inspires voters to vote for "security" and be led by "strong" leaders. Much to the delight of the "defense" industry and colonialists.

Follow the money. This is a squabble between corporations who are intent to cash in.