02/23/2006
The sale of US Ports to the Arabs is an incredibly bad idea, both politically, and from the standpoint of national security. Thus it’s not surprising that the Wall Street Journal supports it.Michelle Malkin has more details, but she highlighted this piece of stunning cluelessness on the Journal's part:
Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to "a foreign-based company"; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; and third, Mr. Graham likes to talk first and ask questions later.
Perhaps the WSJ doesn’t realize that there are still different nations and nation states in the world but here it is: Britain is not the United Arab Emirates.The Arabs not British..
The reason that the London bombing were committed by "citizens of Britain," is because Britain extended citizenship to a great many dangerous Muslims. This is what it technically known as a "preventable evil."The attacks weren’t homegrown, but rather transplanted.
But Britain is still dominated by actual Britons, the stock from which the founders American nation came. The British are America’s allies in the War on Terror.
The UAE, on the other hand, is all dangerous Muslims, from top to bottom. They aren’t allies; they're enemies. The Journal, in it’s transnational way, once again proves unable to tell the difference.
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.