Why Won't Liberals Do Business With the "Religion of Peace"?

The Dubai ports deal has pointed out an amazing inconsistency among the left. Maybe they should have a little powwow and get their stories straight rather than rely on talking points to guide them in policy making decisions.

You see, since September 12, 2001, the liberals among us have insisted that Islam is a "religion of peace", and that we shouldn't consider terrorist extremists as representatives of Islam. Over the last couple of years they've taken it upon themselves to relabel the terrorists "freedom fighters", and insist that, if only we were more understanding, more accommodating, they wouldn't be so bent on blowing us to smithereens.

But the liberals are apparently not guided by the mantra of common sense as much as they are the mantra of "hate Bush". In the same spirit of ideological partisanship that saw them reverse themselves from a position of demanding that social security was in crisis to that of utter denial when the Republicans presented a solution to the problem, they now insist that EVERY Islamic government is to be feared by the American people, regardless of how cooperative they have been with our efforts to bring terrorists to justice. They forget that it is the UAE who allows us to maintain strategic bases within their borders, at their own personal peril from middle eastern governments and entities that oppose our very existence in that part of the globe. They forget that it was the UAE who handed over the mastermind behind the bombing of the USS Cole and who has worked to help us apprehend terrorists in the middle east, providing us with intelligence that we, as westerners, would be unlikely to obtain without their cooperation, again, at their own personal peril. They will point to the fact that 2 of the 19 9/11 hijackers hailed from the UAE, as if that were somehow representative of the ideology of that nation's government. All that matters is the simple rule of thumb that if Bush supports it, they must be against it.

They have even defied the fact that one of their own iconic figures, Jimmy Carter, ENDORSES the deal. All that matters to them is their antipathy towards the Bush administration.

It would stand to reason that if Islam were truly the "religion of peace", we would not only want to do business with them, we would practically INSIST upon it. After all, who better to do business with than an ally dedicated to pacifism, to peaceful cooperation? Dubai would seem the perfect "marriage partner" in this deal, even better than Britain, whose historical imperialism would prevent them from being considered a "peaceful ally", even though they have shown themselves to be a consistent ally of the United States. The fact is, the liberals KNOW that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, and they KNOW the dangerous consequences if somehow extremist elements of Islam are in control of our ports. Their hatred of Bush just gives them a convenient out to opposing the ports deal without owning up to that fact.

11,785 views 37 replies
Reply #1 Top
Nice to see you jumping on the liberal bashing bandwagon about this deal.

Who is actually blocking this deal from going through Gideon? Who is actually keeping us from doing business with the "Religion of Peace"? Liberals?
Reply #2 Top

Who is actually keeping us from doing business with the "Religion of Peace"? Liberals?

Both liberals and conservatives, davad. But the conservatives who voted against the ports deal have remained consistent to their position, no matter how misguided it may be. The liberals, on the other hand, have insisted that Islam is a religion of peace while working to block the ports deal. While I think the decision to block the ports deal is HORRIBLY misguided, I find the actions of the liberals to be FAR MORE appalling than those of the conservatives.

I am not on any "bandwagon", davad. I have remained consistent with what I have said on this blog: That we MUST do business with legitimate businesses from these countries, or we run the risk of polarizing the moderate Islamists out of desperation. As I said on another thread about this, if you take away a person's legitimate means of earning a living, they will turn to illegitimate means. ALWAYS.

Reply #3 Top
yet another tired, tiresome and flawed (based on your observation about good ol iconic jimma carter) attempt to diminish a legitimate concern by insisting those who disapprove are nothing more than robots driven by some sorta precisely coordinated campaign.

you're putting words in our mouths (which requires you yourself to perpetuate a very flimsy party line), neglecting to acknowledge the number of bush's team who have a problem with the dpw deal and totally ignoring the fact the left has proven beyond a doubt its inability to organize a sunday school picnic.

i'm opposed to the deal because i don't believe seaports, airports, railway depots, bus stations or border stations should be operated by companies owned by nation states other than our own. i fully realize this is about terminals not the entire port and the coast guard will continue to be responsible for overall security.

for me--and i doubt i'm unique in this--it has nothing to do with muslims or the phantom arab 'race'. it's not an indictment of any religion (altho it becomes very clear near the end of your post we differ on that) but disdain for what appears to be just one more sleazy example of people in power feathering their nests in anticipation of leaving office Link ; sadly, it's one that is a gamble and just may leave us less rather than more secure on down the road.

perhaps we're better off without any more post-911 thinking.
Reply #4 Top
eaports, airports, railway depots, bus stations or border stations


tommy lee jones just called me to say i seem to have left dollhouses, chickenhouses, whitehouses and outhouses outa the litany.
Reply #5 Top
Both liberals and conservatives, davad. But the conservatives who voted against the ports deal have remained consistent to their position, no matter how misguided it may be. The liberals, on the other hand, have insisted that Islam is a religion of peace while working to block the ports deal. While I think the decision to block the ports deal is HORRIBLY misguided, I find the actions of the liberals to be FAR MORE appalling than those of the conservatives.


Exactly what actions are you appalled by? What liberal specifically is being inconsistent? Is there a liberal in office who goes about ranting about Islam being a religion of peace that has voted against the deal?
Reply #6 Top

neglecting to acknowledge the number of bush's team who have a problem with the dpw deal

kingbee,

I will readily acknowledge them. But those individuals AREN'T the ones insisting Islam is a "religion of peace"! Right wingers are pretty traditional isolationists, while many liberals are associated with the "Open borders" movement, and their action on this issue smacks of partisanship and hypocrisy. It is NOT consistent with ANY of the ideals they have expressed elsewhere. Granted, not all libs support the open borders movement, but most DO profess that Islam is a religion of peace. It's a compelling question as to why, then, they won't allow us to do business with an Islamic country that has consistently proven itself our ally.

My question is simple: Are we engaged in a war on terror or a war on Islam? While I detest even the "war on terror" rhetoric, this is an important distinction to make. If we effectively boycott arab nations from doing business with us, we are effectively declaring war on Islam, something that is unwise and misguided.

If this were about a sale from a US owned company to Dubai, I would have greater reservation. In fact, I don't believe ANY foreign interests should be operating our ports, friendly or not, in an ideal setting. But because we have allowed other foreign interests to control our ports, then shutting Dubai out of the deal smacks of discrimination.

Reply #7 Top

Is there a liberal in office who goes about ranting about Islam being a religion of peace that has voted against the deal?

I would have to research to find the ones in office. But I can point you to SEVERAL bloggers on this site and within the media who have ranted about Islam being a religion of peace and yet have decried the deal. If you want a place to start, start with everyone's buddy the good old col.

Reply #8 Top
once again, to me it's not important which foreign nation owns the corporation...only that it's owned by a foreign nation.

you're the one insisting it's anti-islam discrimination. i don't think of dubai nor the uae as being an islamic state so much as i do 'money can buy ya anything there' kinda place.

rather than insisting on letting foreign governments operate our terminals by proxy in some sorta goofy attempt at fairness, why not get behind the movement to outlaw that kinda operation altogether?
Reply #9 Top
if you think about it for even a moment you may recall i'm hardly gonna be supportive of engaging in this sorta business with any religion...whethor of peace or anything else.
Reply #10 Top

once again, to me it's not important which foreign nation owns the corporation...only that it's owned by a foreign nation.

See, and THAT stance I appreciate, kingbee. You and I actually agree 100% there. But if we're going to kick Dubai out, kick EVERYONE out! What set this off, however, was a recent article by you know who insisting that we should nix the ports deal because of the involvement of 2 Dubai natives in 9/11, among other things. He was not the only liberal voice on this, but his article stands out pretty strongly. If we're going to nix the ports deal for any reason, it should be the same reason we nix ports deals for other countries.

While I have not verified this, I have heard some individuals say that China owns some of our ports. I'm FAR more concerned about the possibility China might own some of our ports than I am about Dubai.

Reply #11 Top
It all comes down to polling.  It use to be politics.  Just last year it was ok to be a bigot if the targeted audience was a white christian.  Today, based upon polling, it is ok to be a bigot as long as the target is an arab muslim.  They talk the talk, but so far, they have yet to take the first step in walking the walk.
Reply #12 Top

That we MUST do business with legitimate businesses from these countries, or we run the risk of polarizing the moderate Islamists out of desperation.


These Arab businesses are rich, greedy bastards who would rather make a deal with satan than be loyal to their own people and religion.

In other words, they are people we can live with.
Reply #13 Top

These Arab businesses are rich, greedy bastards who would rather make a deal with satan than be loyal to their own people and religion.

In other words, they are people we can live with.

Yep!

Reply #14 Top
While I have not verified this, I have heard some individuals say that China owns some of our ports. I'm FAR more concerned about the possibility China might own some of our ports than I am about Dubai.


Here Link
And Here Link
And Here Link

It looks like the China Overseas Shipping Company tried to lease the port, but that action was blocked by Congress in 1998.
At least that's my 5 minute take..

Reply #15 Top

While I have not verified this, I have heard some individuals say that China owns some of our ports. I'm FAR more concerned about the possibility China might own some of our ports than I am about Dubai.

Here I am being a stickler again, but no one owns ports.  They manage terminals, and yes China manages some in long Beach.

Reply #16 Top
as long as the far left can score some points they do not care about anything else, if they get to trash Bush in the process, so much the better.
Reply #17 Top
I think the point was that if we allowed China to operate terminals, but blocked Dubai from doing the same that it could be interpreted by some as discrimination. I don't mind regulations stating something like "no company that is wholly owned by a foriegn government shall operate terminals at US Ports". I do think its fishy when they add phrases like, "... foriegn governments who acknoledge the Taliban.. ", into the sentence.
Reply #18 Top
" once again, to me it's not important which foreign nation owns the corporation...only that it's owned by a foreign nation.

you're the one insisting it's anti-islam discrimination. i don't think of dubai nor the uae as being an islamic state so much as i do 'money can buy ya anything there' kinda place.

rather than insisting on letting foreign governments operate our terminals by proxy in some sorta goofy attempt at fairness, why not get behind the movement to outlaw that kinda operation altogether?"


The problem is Kingbee graces the issue with his logic and thoughtfulness, but in reality for Congress it is about the Democrats being able to wade into the rural "Hell yeah, git them ragheads" territory during an election year. We've see blog after blog about how the Democrats desperately need to steal the 'country folk' back from the Republicans, and they are going to milk this for exactly that reason.

There is so little middle ground that the Democrats can use to get at the Republican base, and apparently they aren't above xenophobia and fearmongering to get the job done; acts they've specifically condemned Republicans for. I mean, for God's sake, Jimmy Friggin Carter supports this.

Let me say that again, Jimmy Carter is AGREEING with Bush about this. Have the planets lined up? Is it the end of the world? Are the sheep laying down with the lions? No. Carter just sees how heinously self-destructive it is to send this message to the world.

My prediction, you heard it here, is that if things go south in the next few years people are going to look at this as a pivotal issue. Middle Eastern people are angry about a lot of things, but this is the kind of thing that is going to sway the most moderate among them. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Reply #20 Top
those who disapprove are nothing more than robots driven by some sorta precisely coordinated campaign.

I think the merest whiff of controversy came first, then the hastily-coordinated campaign came afterwards. This time it appears to have worked.
Reply #21 Top

I think the point was that if we allowed China to operate terminals, but blocked Dubai from doing the same that it could be interpreted by some as discrimination. I don't mind regulations stating something like "no company that is wholly owned by a foriegn government shall operate terminals at US Ports". I do think its fishy

You hit the nail on the head.  Exactly.

Reply #22 Top

"Hell yeah, git them ragheads"

It always is do as I say, not as I do.

Reply #23 Top
the Democrats being able to wade into the rural "Hell yeah, git them ragheads" territory during an election year


success spawns imitators.

if you're correct (i'm not convinced at the moment but...), i truly don't know how i'll make it to 2007.

shortly after 9/11/2001 i found myself becoming increasingly disgusted by the shamelessly cynical way in which the administration exploited fear to distract the public. less than six months later, my capacity to be disgusted seemed just about maxed out--or so i thought. then bush or that mean old man who claimed armor wasn't necessary cuz you gotta fight the war you got (where did that ol prick disapper to btw?) or some graduate of the machiavelli school of law would manage to evoke just a lil bit more.

should the other team join in now, i'd be even more disgusted. between the two i'm sincerely concerned i'll wind up being physically damaged.

i wouldnt usually envy bush backers (that goes double for bush brokebackers) but most of yall hardly seemed flustered by your party's deliberate--and despicable--descent into the slimepit. the more honest among you no longer dispute allegations of fear mongering. the rest smile smugly while shaking their heads in a parody of denial; its almost as if they're part of a huge covert dick cheney stemcell cloning research project.
Reply #24 Top
Middle Eastern people are angry about a lot of things, but this is the kind of thing that is going to sway the most moderate among them


of course. after all it woulda provided such a better life to so many non-royals (with or without cheese).
Reply #25 Top
Your article implies that Islam isn't a religion of peace. Fair enough. Is there a religion of peace, then? Is is Christianity? Because, if we're talking about a choice here, then I say, a plague on both your houses. Us radicals don't want your Jesus any more than we want the Qu'ran. They're both religions of hate parading as religions of peace. Christians are no better than Muslims, you're all the flawed, idiot children of silly superstitions.