Many are now calling our objections to the UAE port deal "knee jerk", "Islamaphobic", a "red herring" or even "racist". I have friends making the argument, so I won't point them out specifically.
Since the last time I checked "Islam" was still not a "race", I will give no space to that silly argument other than to mention that there are millions of Christian Arabs scattered throughout the Middle East.
As for being "Islamaphobic", I'm not exactly sure how one decides which fears are objectively irrational and which fears are not. For my part, given a fairly large body of evidence, I do not believe it is irrational to scrutinize Muslims more closely than Mennonites and Buddhists. And while I'm sure any religion has its share of its fanatics, to claim that Islam has a disproportionate share of them isn't exactly a problematic in my view.
So, to the last objection: that fears over the announcement that a Dubai (UAE) based company would acquire certain ports in the U.S. were "knee jerk" reactions. This objection is related to the two mentioned above. I can draw no other conclusion than to think that such a statement is predicated on the assumption that the "knee jerk" reaction is based on Islamaphobia or hatred of Arabs. I believe I've addressed those two above, and if the reaction is not based on irrational Islamaphobia or racism against Arabs, then why is it "knee jerk"?
The fundamental problem with the White House arguments that the port sale should go through rest on a misperception of the nature of an ally.
1
I'll try again this again. Internal server must'a not got tipped again!
Your comment on ..."Islam" was still not a "race",...and as I understand "religion" to be defined, not that either. "Cult" seems to be a more accurate description, which can be referred to as an "Extinct Cult" if and when, the world wakes up to the fact that Islamic Ghouls are to be destroyed, not understood or mollycoddled!
Posted by: forest hunter at February 22, 2006 05:33 PM (Fq6zR)
2
I'll try again this again. Internal server must'a not got tipped again! Hopefully, this won't be a double whammy.
Your comment on ..."Islam" was still not a "race",...and as I understand "religion" to be defined, not that either. "Cult" seems to be a more accurate description, which can be referred to as an "Extinct Cult" if and when, the world wakes up to the fact that Islamic Ghouls are to be destroyed, not understood or mollycoddled!
Posted by: forest hunter at February 22, 2006 05:34 PM (Fq6zR)
3
Well, that ought'a clear it up, sayin' it twice! Can ya hear me now? Sorry 'bout that y'all.
Posted by: forest hunter at February 22, 2006 05:37 PM (Fq6zR)
4
Better take that one up with George...
Basically, he can't even find a veto pen since he started "working" as president and now he is ready to whip it out and use it...... for what?
For a sweetheart deal that made Secretary Snow MILLIONS of dollars (and we're supposed to believe he has no conflict of interest as Chairman of the committee that approves it)... and here's the best part....
Bush didn't even know the details of this deal until after he started having a temper tantrum!!!!
So the issue is not principle... the issue is Junior can't stand the idea of having to be accountable or having anyone tell him what to do....
Great. I love to watch the shills defend this .... giving away millions of dollars to a fat cat already worth 100 million so a country that has aided terrorists and nuclear proliferators can manage American sea ports....
What amazes me is how many people went from "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" to "We need to be fair and let terrorist sympathizers manage our ports" OVERNIGHT...
What's it going to take before people walk away from this guy? LNG tankers blowing up in 5 harbors on the same day?
=
Democrats serve their country.
Republicans serve their country up on a platter.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at February 22, 2006 10:17 PM (K5Ko+)
5
Noise, just because the GOP is exposed as being rife with corruption doesn't mean the dhimmicraps get a free pass. The GOP must be purged of their crooks if they want to send anyone else to office, but the dhimmi's are all crooks, and a purge would leave no party. Take your bullshit somewhere else you idiot kid.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 23, 2006 05:24 AM (0yYS2)
6
This hubbub began as a knee-jerk reaction and some have had the intelligence to refine their argument over it while others continue to screech with little basis for it as they don't know all the facts. There has been much misinformation and lack of information over this deal. I understand your argument and I agree. But I still have mixed feelings.
Dubai Ports World is taking a huge risk too. They are already in al Qaeda's sights a traitors to the Arab cause because of the huge steps they've taken to become a tactical ally to us. This will only make it worse for them because the alliance goes beyond just the tactical. You say people remain allies because they have similar goals even if they don't have similar philosophies. This is a
business deal. And business partners are not always of the same political or philosophical stripe either.
What we need to understand too is that port security is still "our" game. Their role is purely operational and they are more advanced technologically than the current operators. Too, one has to understand that they will most certainly protect their financial interests with their own first-line-of-defense security measures because this ain't no small potatoes deal. They are "partly" government owned (many think they are solely government owned) and out of the eighteen ports they manage only three are Arab. They're in Australia, Germany, Romania, China, India ...
But, like you, I still have reservations due to the nature of their government. I'm just trying to be pragmatic.
Posted by: Oyster at February 23, 2006 05:39 AM (YudAC)
Posted by: Oyster at February 23, 2006 07:47 AM (7YTVr)
8
"The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" to "We need to be fair and let terrorist sympathizers manage our ports" OVERNIGHT...
noise,
Just more baseless verbal poopie from the "reality-based" community. I challenge you to show me where Bush has said anything even slightly resembling that comment (I don't expect you to take up the challenge or produce anything tangible, by the way. Just more verbal poop). If anything Bush has bent over backward to the point of snapping his spine trying to convince us islam is a "religion of peace." He's been very consistent about that, and this port deal is consistent with his rhetoric thus far. We happen to disagree with him.
But why are the Dhimmicrats suddenly doing such a 180 on this? Observer how they sell their muslim pets down the road for some short-term political points. It couldn't possibly be hyporcrisy, now could it?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 09:28 AM (8e/V4)
9
Joe,
My comment about the 180 was for people on talk radio and blogs who are trying to put lipstick on this pig.
Bush couldn't do a 180... he didn't even know that Snow was putting this deal together until he read about it in the paper!
I thought the Washington Times' piece titled "Scotch the Port Deal" was funny.... rude given how many DUIs Cheney, Bush, and Snow have between them.... but funny nonetheless.
As for apologists..even in this space there are people trying to paint this as reasonable.
In addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World – on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor, helicopters and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus Christie. That would be like allowing Okinawans in 1942 to work as military contractors at Pearl Harbor.
And for those who think this is simply a matter of DP buying out P&0... think again. The UAE evidently intends to raise nearly all of the $6.8 billion price for P and O on international capital markets. Who will the foreign investors be? How will we know? You think the US is the only country that uses front operations?
The reason we are looking at this mess is this is yet another example of this administration cutting corners and ignoring the laws set up to protect us.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at February 23, 2006 10:26 AM (K5Ko+)
10
Noise,
we're still waiting for you to show us who went from "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" to "We need to be fair and let terrorist sympathizers manage our ports" OVERNIGHT...".
Like I said, Bush has been consistent about working with (moderate) muslims, whilst we genuine islamophobes are consistently against the port deal. So who's flip flopped? Still waiting for you to produce something tangible.
The only flip floppers here are the Dhimmicrats. They're willing to become "racists" and "islamophobes" for some short-term political gain. They won't live this down.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 10:39 AM (8e/V4)
11
check out blisteringcheese.com
http://blisteringcheese.com/index.php/weblog/comments/11491/
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at February 23, 2006 11:34 AM (K5Ko+)
12
"That would be like allowing Okinawans in 1942 to work as military contractors at Pearl Harbor."
Not quite. We aren't at war with the UAE. But nice try.
Posted by: Oyster at February 23, 2006 11:36 AM (7YTVr)
13
Noise,
blistering cheese is making the same baseless claim you are. Conservatives are almost unamimously against the port deal-- whether it be Bush or John Kerry. So essentially you've created a strawman to knock down. And you folks call yourselves the "reality-based" community.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 11:51 AM (8e/V4)
14
and ps., Noise, are you goind to address why you and blistering cheese and the Dhimmicrats have become such islamophobes and racists overnight? Reality-based indeed.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 11:55 AM (8e/V4)
15
From the start, I've said I had no problem with this deal. I actually know exactly what port operations entail pretty much inside and out courtesy my fed job position in harbor operations here in NYC. I know this company and its record - and I have good knowledge of the UAE. I also have decent fair knowledge of actual port security and who does what and what it entails right here in the Port of NY/NJ (one of the biggest in the country).
To the lib/left this whole thing is just another example Bush incompetence and why this admin should fall and be replaced by them (the Cheney thing has recently run out of steam).
But to some on the right the reaction borders on blind ignorance, hatred and dare say even bigotry and racism.
Rusty seems to have been the only one who has actually addressed this openingly and intelligently - and though we disagree on the final conclusion - at least I appreciated his argument and gave it serious thought (ref - nature of alliances).
I know the biggest unseen pusher behind the Dem position is the affected unions - and I know what their position is and why. As far as the left - hell - its obvious. But some of you guys on the right - whoa!
Looks like the lib/left found its magic bullet. This really is disturbing in the long term.
Posted by: hondo at February 23, 2006 12:26 PM (fyKFC)
16
hondo,
this "magic bullet" is just more Dem attempts to triangulate. They think they can come off as strong on security with this one lonely example, and in the process they're only confirming to anybody with any sense that they have no core. At least Dhimmi Carter has a core.
Bush, on the other hand, is being entirely consistent with his own rhetoric. He's always said islam is a "religion of peace", and he's always expressed a desire to work with moderate muslims in the war on terror. Dubai certainly fits that bill.
We conservatives too are entirely consistent in our opposition to the deal. It's only the Dems who've flipped. Because they have no core. They simply look for short-term political gain, but it costs them in the long run. It's why they lost the last election, despite the war and the economy. It should have been a gimme.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 12:49 PM (8e/V4)
17
JC
You know how I feel about the lib/left - but some of the conservation reaction is disturbing and not consistant. I know what motivates the lib/left and they don't give a damn about security - and they have consistantly failed to get any traction.
This whole thing however is creating a crack for them and letting the right do more damage than they have been able to.
As I said - I don't have a problem with this deal - and no one has given me an adequate reason to state otherwise - and I am directly affected by this! You could come over my house - we'd drive over to NorthShore Point - and lobe tennis balls off the sides of massive container ships 100 ft away in the channel slowing moving towards the terminal berths. I'm practically sitting on the exact port terminals in question.
Posted by: hondo at February 23, 2006 01:08 PM (fyKFC)
18
hondo,
then Bush should explain to us why the deal is ok, on the merits, instead of labeling us "isolationists" and islamophobes. I expect that from moonbats, not from the Bush camp. He did the same thing to us with Harriet Myers, labeling us sexists and elitists. It's a betrayal. He should knock it off asap.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 01:54 PM (8e/V4)
19
JC, Bush has been very exasperating all along when it comes to communicating. So it's really nothing new that he hasn't changed in that regard. It doesn't make it right - not at all. We do get tired of hearing, "Trust me." I could only recommend doing some serious research. I've been doing a lot. Read the link I gave above to Dennis the Peasant's post and check on his claims yourself to corroborate what info he gives.
Posted by: Oyster at February 23, 2006 02:45 PM (7YTVr)
20
JC
I thought he did! The very fact that a foreign investment like this has to be investigated and get prior approval by more than a dozen federal agencies including National Security related - plus as we now know additional agreements were made above required!
Point is - nothing Bush can say will square this with you. When all the above is done and approved then this is strictly business - how much further do you want the presidency involved in national/regional business operations?
Posted by: hondo at February 23, 2006 06:04 PM (fyKFC)
21
>>>Point is - nothing Bush can say will square this with you.
Nonsense. We've been giving Bush the benefit of the doubt for years. It's only polite that he do the same with us instead of talking to us like he's some kind of moonbat. We aren't isolationists, and we're not unreasonable in our islamophobia. Talk to us, George.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 07:04 PM (8e/V4)
22
Oyster
The Dennis link was right on the money - thanks. This is where I've been working out of for the past 5+ years (recently left) - harbor operations/maintenance (fed agency).
Its amazing how far some will go with this without any idea whatsoever what is involved in port terminal operations - its as if the reality of said operations is irrelevant to all this.
The biggest threats I ever saw was the apparent widespread incompetence and corruption amongst my (former) agency - and we weren't involved in security.
A big force behind the scene on this is the involved unions. They hate all of the private corps and carriers running ops and calling the shots. They really miss the good ol'days of the '50s when they and their political friends ran the docks (into the ground!).
Posted by: hondo at February 23, 2006 08:22 PM (fyKFC)
23
Hey, here's a great idea to please the Arab countries who are our 'Allies' and 'Friends' and all the Muslims, from moderates to radical IslamOfascist monkee killers that dream of destroying and taking over America:
The U.S. should outsource Homeland Security to Saudi Arabia! After all, they are one of our biggest allies in the Middle East when it comes to the GWIFT (Global War on Islamic Fascism & Terror).
Why not? This would be a great way to "make a statement" that we trust any country with our security, even one that secretly nurtures, finances and educates many of their citizenry toward desiring the Non-Islamic world to be enslaved under Sharia Law.
They'll really start to love us after this, terrorism will start to diminish, and many IslamOfascists will start becoming more and more Hippyish and Flowerchildish.
They'll no longer kidnap innocent men and women and slice their heads off on TV.
They will stop raping young women and then stoning them for adultery after they become pregnant.
They will stop hating all Jews and wanting to "wipe Israel off the map".
Why not? This would be a very nice gift to the Islamic world. A way of saying thank you for not committing any major terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11.
Posted by: Little Blue PD at February 24, 2006 12:53 AM (SJJAx)
24
Port operations and port security are two different things - though I doubt some really give a damn.
Some refuse to make a distinction here about anything and insist upon some kneejerk reaction.
Fine. Then why are we even bothering in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Posted by: hondo at February 24, 2006 02:02 AM (fyKFC)
25
Hondo asks: Then why are we even bothering in iraq or Afghanistan?
Good question.
Afghanistan... because the failed regime turned into a launching pad for international terrorists that attacked us. When we demanded they hand over the perpetrators, they refused. We invaded with the support of virtually every country in the world, including Iran, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia. The realization of that threat to international stability was why central asian countries like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and others allowed us to set up military bases for operations. The opposition to that invasion was extremely muted. Congressional approval was virtually unanimous. Even Quakers went on record supporting it.
Iraq... There have been over 2 dozen reasons floated by this administration to justify the invasion. Now that the long predicted Civil War has begun, the only plausible reason left is to maintain control of oil contracts so they can be denominated in dollars not euros. In contrast to Afghanistan, opposition to this invasion was very vocal. About 1/3 of Democrats voted against it. Most of our allies refused to participate. Those who did have since cut back dramatically on their involvement. The consequence is the costs have spiraled out of control, we have damaged our standing around the world, we have stretched our military to the point that is no longer a credible deterrant. Gulliver has tied himself down and inflicted more damage on himself than anyone else could ever have done.
The worst part is the radical new doctrine of preemptive war has provided incentive for other nations to join together. The growing alliance known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization demonstrates the US will soon be confronting a political/economic/military alliance that it cannot defeat.
The pending admission of Pakistan and India to an alliance dominated by China demonstrates how the Bush Doctrine has successfully driven countries that are normally at each other's throats into each other's arms. The rise of SCO will mark the end of American hegemony as it will consist of 4 nuclear powers (with a 5th pending), 2 major oil producers, 2 major gas producers, 1/2 the world's population, and a land mass from the Baltic to the Pacific, the Arctic to the Indian Ocean.
The rise of SCO will scuttle American aspirations for a Pax Americana and mark the end of American hegemony. Unfortunately, this could have been avoided if Republicans served their country before serving their party.
==
The worst wounds are self-inflicted
- Duke Cunningham
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at February 24, 2006 08:34 AM (K5Ko+)
26
Little Blue - Your far-flung and childish suggestions do not advance the discussion at all. You're just "acting out" and contributing absolutely no pertinent knowledge of the situation. Now, if you care to promote discussion in a manner removed from emotion and virtual "waving of arms", we're ready to listen.
Posted by: Oyster at February 24, 2006 08:37 AM (YudAC)
27
noise,
your "analysis" reads like something out of a wacko Leftwing website. But instead of more feverish speculation, why not just answer the few simple easy questions put to you. Because I could challenge your latest drivel too, but what's the use. You're not here for an exchange, merely to hit and run.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 24, 2006 09:07 AM (8e/V4)
28
You can discount what I say, but you cannot ignore the fact that Uzbekistan kicked out US troops last year. We are talking about a country that if it were a state, it would be getting aid from West Virginia. When was the last time the US was kicked out of a country? I mean before Uzbekistan?
You can pretend this is loonie talk... because it scares you witless to realize that the criticism of this policy was right.
BEFORE the invasion people said the NSS of 2002 was a mistake waiting to happen. The invasion of Iraq was objected to because it a) discounted the economic impact of protracted global war, b) disdained the diplomatic alliances needed in a nuclear age, c) dismissed the professional opinion of experienced military commanders, and d) disregarded the intelligence that did not support the policy.
Everyone who raised these points was labelled a traitor, terrorist sympathizer, or worse. Many were fired or forced to resign. During this entire time Republicans have controlled the Executive and the Legislative branches. The cronyism you see with Halliburton and now Snow & Co. are part and parcel of this administration's disdain for dialogue and contempt for law.
Instead of refuting any of the points raised you lob epithets and shriek like a battered spouse protecting her abuser, refusing to see how you have enabled the destruction.
The facts are clear. The arthmetic is clear. The outcome is clear. Pretending otherwise flies in the face and teeth of reality.
=
Napolean's armies were defeated in Haiti before they were defeated at Waterloo.
Posted by: Background Noise at February 24, 2006 09:30 AM (K5Ko+)
29
>>>"because it scares you witless "
noise,
Uzbekistan kicked and out, and we.....ACTUALLY LEFT??? The horrors! I'm scared witless.
But you left out the part that they kicked us out of Uzbekistan because we condemned their human rights record. The Uzbek dictator is a villain who boils dissidents alive, and we had the temerity to criticize him. Shame on you George Bush!
No, I don't lob epithets unless they're first lobbed at me. Then it's open season. On the contrary, I've addressed your hit and runs with reasoned responses, to no avail. You refuse to answer any challenge to your bomb throwing. Shows how weak your position is. It's bumper sticker ideology.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 24, 2006 10:00 AM (8e/V4)
30
you can spin the departure anyway you like... just as you spin everything else .. DiRita tried to spin it too....
The United States was among many insisting upon an independent investigation into the Andijon events. But Uzbekistan sought shelter from international criticism and found it in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which groups Uzbekistan with Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. At the SCO summit in July, the group approved a call for the United States to name a date for its departure from bases in Central Asia.
At the time, US officials blamed China and Russia for pressuring the Central Asian states into demanding the US name a date for leaving.
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Lawrence Di Rita pointed to the importance of the Uzbek base and said it was Uzbekistan and not the SCO who should decide how long the United States could use Khanabad.
"I hadnÂ’t seen the declaration or whatever it was that the group put out. ItÂ’s a facility that is -- that the United States government and, in fact, the coalition have found to be an important -- providing an important capability in the global war on terror. ItÂ’s one that we have operated from with the consent and the cooperation of the Uzbek government. ItÂ’s a decision the Uzbek government has to make as to whether or not we would continue to operate from that." Di Rita said.
In the following weeks, Tashkent made it clear that it wanted US forces out of the country.
US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried was in Tashkent on 27 September to formalize what was already known for two months -- the US military is leaving Uzbekistan by the end of this year.
After FriedÂ’s meeting with Uzbek President Islam Karimov, Uzbek presidential spokesman Beruniy Olimov tried to put a good face on the results. But Fried plainly said that "we intend to leave the base without further discussion." He could have added that the state of US-Uzbek relations was the worst it has been since the Soviet Union collapsed.
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp092905.shtml
the fact is that is the first domino to fall...
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Kyrgyzstan -- aiming to keep the U.S. military base there open -- resulted in a stalemate. While Rumsfeld received assurances from Bishkek that the U.S. air base would not be closed any time soon, he was also told the base would not become permanent. In any event, Washington has made it clear it will not be pushed out of Central Asia easily, so now the real competition can begin.
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=252486&countryId=68
of course it scares you witless....
when people said the nss 2002 was a mistake you called them appeasers and worse.
when people said invading iraq was a mistake you called them cowards and worse.
when people turned their backs and refused to help you mocked them.
when people offered to help they were shunned.
when people tell you how you were misled you ignore them.
when people demand accountability you shirk it.
when it all falls apart you blame everyone but yourself.
the carelessness of an administration run by drunks is no surprise .... what is a surprise is how many people enabled them.
unfortunately, these drunks are taking the rest of us with them as they rush to hit bottom.
But back to Central Asia...
You may think Uzbekistan doesn't matter... but you are wrong. It was a clear signal of America's waning influence and they have snatched upon it and are running with it as fast as they can. The sad part is all the sycophants are so busy parading their triumphalist nonsense they don't even realize their is a race going on... are you aware that there is a new Russian, Indian, Pakistani pipeline deal in the works? Are you aware of the military exercises held by SCO with observer nations attending? Are you aware of the pending joint Russian Indian military exercises? Are you aware of the pending China Iran oil deal pending?
When history is written, Bush will be compared to Nero -- unfavorably -- and those who blindly supported him will not be able to say "we didn't know" because the record is clear you were warned repeatedly and chose to ignore it.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at February 24, 2006 10:37 AM (K5Ko+)
31
You Lefties, as usual, side with foreign dictators, against your own country. The only thing that scares me witless is knowing that there are so many of you within our nation's borders.
"Uzbekistan formally ordered the United States to leave an air base that has been a hub for operations in Afghanistan
in protest over a predawn United Nations operation on Friday to spirit out refugees who had fled an uprising in Uzbekistan in May, senior State Department officials said Saturday.
Mr. Burns said the United States had been
"profoundly concerned" about the status of the Uzbek refuges in Kyrgyzstan who fled after the Andijon incident. "We have energetically supported the efforts to bring them to safety in Romania," he said, "because we feared they would be persecuted if they were sent back to Uzbekistan."
Another State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of department ground rules, said,
"Obviously we don't want to lose K-2." But he added that loss of the base was preferable to backing away from demanding that Uzbekistan start political and economic reforms and agree to an international investigation of the Andijon killings."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/international/31uzbek.html?ex=1140930000&en=6978b2e607a32a53&ei=5070
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 24, 2006 01:08 PM (8e/V4)
32
Regardless of the merits (if any) of placing US ports under foreign control (dubious Dubai), Junior has clearly alienated his clinging remnant of support. He enjoyed a whopping 27% margin amongst non-college-educated White males in the 2004 election, and now even what remained of that hardcore demographic is abandoning him, as even the radical evangelicals within that ilk are now throwing tantrums. The once simmering anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigotry is now seething.
Politically, Junior has just blown the 'national security' dome off the GOP temple, and it was the only shelter they had left.
Confucius say: Always better to shoot friend in face than self in foot.
Posted by: tipsy at February 25, 2006 07:17 AM (PbJdC)
33
GOOD DAY DAER
SO ASK HOW CONYACT?
I NEED TELPHONE OFICE
AND IMAIL
SO THANK YOU REPLY
Posted by: ABDALAH at March 17, 2006 12:19 PM (IpuE8)
34
GOOD DAY DAER
SO ASK HOW CONYACT?
I NEED TELPHONE OFICE
AND IMAIL IN U.A.E
SO THANK YOU REPLY
Posted by: ABDALAH at March 17, 2006 12:20 PM (IpuE8)
35
GOOD DAY DAER
SO ASK HOW CONYACT?
I NEED TELPHONE OFICE U.A.E
AND IMAIL IN U.A.E
SO THANK YOU REPLY
Posted by: ABDALAH at March 17, 2006 12:20 PM (IpuE8)
36
GOOD DAY DAER
SO ASK HOW CONYACT?
I NEED TELPHONE OFICE U.A.E
AND IMAIL
SO THANK YOU REPLY
Posted by: ABDALAH at March 17, 2006 12:21 PM (IpuE8)
37
GOOD DAY DAER
SO ASK HOW CONYACT?
I NEED TELPHONE OFICE U.A.E DUBAI
AND IMAIL
SO THANK YOU REPLY
Posted by: ABDALAH at March 17, 2006 12:21 PM (IpuE8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Why? Because she's hot. She also openly criticizes Islamic countries for thier treatment of women. She's also hot. Did I mention that she was hot?
