March 05, 2006
Quinquireme of Ninevah
For all the Americans wailing and flailing their arms over the Ay-rabs taking over their entire homeland security, here's one less reason to fret.
It appears that DPW is prepared to do business with the "Zionists". In fact, it already is:
Mohammed Sharaf, CEO of Dubai Ports World, told CNN on Sunday, "I have no problem doing business with Israelis; I do so on a daily basis all over the world. Zim and its subsidiaries, and their cargo, enter our ports and use our services.
"I don't deal with the political issues, I deal with the commercial interests. The other issues [boycott] are dealt with on the political level," he said.
This will surely go down a literal storm back home - if it's reported.
Posted by secretdubai at March 5, 2006 02:37 PM
Filed Under: Op-Ed
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Sheikha Lubna al Qasimi, the Economy Minister mentioned on CNN that the boycott on Israel would be lifted shortly anyway as part of the UAE's free trade agreement with the US. As you know, the secondary and tertiary boycotts are already gone. The UAE is certainly not hardcore anti-Israel in the way that Iran is.
Posted by: Dubaiwalla at March 5, 2006 02:47 PM
One hopes it will be reported on. The UAE should make as much noise about this as it can. It would help a lot, and it would embarrass the hell out of all those Congress critters making all those noises about this deal.
Posted by: pantom at March 5, 2006 03:02 PM
Good catch. Could we append, however, a ": [sub-title]" though? It's a bit obscure, the title.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at March 5, 2006 03:11 PM
The UAE should make as much noise about this as it can.
To do so back home would be tantamount to building a Lurpak butter mountain on Jumeirah Beach and forcing everyone of the faithful to have a good lick.
Posted by: secretdubai at March 5, 2006 03:14 PM
Not that everyone doesn't know already, but like one's gay uncle (in region), it is the sort of thing one happily tolerates but prefers not to discuss outside the family.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at March 5, 2006 04:18 PM
It's a bit obscure, the title.
Not to mention horribly inaccurate. Every dolt with at least a third grade education knows quniquiremes/pentereis weren't constructed until the 4th century B.C. - has no one read Diodorus? Or at least Lionel Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World?
Stupid poets :D.
Posted by: Tamerlane at March 5, 2006 05:28 PM
Not to mention horribly inaccurate.
See this is why I can't bear to edit it now. Because it sparks such brilliant debate ;)
Posted by: secretdubai at March 5, 2006 05:32 PM
I am left speechless by the sheer queerness of Tamerlane's comment.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at March 5, 2006 06:02 PM
I am left speechless...
Surely a first!
Posted by: Tamerlane at March 5, 2006 07:16 PM
Posted by: pantom at March 5, 2006 07:27 PM
Hey, geeks need love, too. :-) Even history geeks.
Posted by: Eva Luna at March 5, 2006 08:03 PM
as the poem goes:
Quinquireme of Ninevah from distant Ophir
Rowing home to haven in sunny Palestine
i think it becomes immediately clear that we can kiss any sort of historical accuracy or even attempt at it good-bye. quinquiremes were roman ships, rather bulky large ones. niniveh was pretty much uninhabited from the late 7th century BC until the sassanian period (i.e. beginning 3rd century CE). ophir is the old name for the lands of gold & ivory in east africa (maybe eritrea, maybe puntland, maybe somalia, maybe kenyan coast). palestinian harbors of antiquity were mainly gaza and jaffa.
NOW, at the time of quinquiremes niniveh did not exist. the city was located about 700 miles away from the sea, connected to it by a river (tigris) that is barely navigable and definitely not by a big ship. neither jaffa nor gaza could ever be called "niniveh's harbors on the med" quinquiremes were not used in the red sea and could, in any case, hardly have sailed from north-east africa to palestine, as - in the absence of the suez canal - they would've had to sail around africa, a route not known at the time. nobody would've proposed to to transport a big ship overland across the isthmus between red sea & mediterranean.
history geeks, you people are ... interesting.
Posted by: raf* at March 6, 2006 05:11 AM
"niniveh was pretty much uninhabited from the late 7th century BC until the sassanian period (i.e. beginning 3rd century CE)."
Damn those Chaldean long-term bond rates and their effects on mortgages.
Posted by: matthew hogan at March 6, 2006 09:31 AM
history geeks, you people are ... interesting.
Given what you expounded immediately above, I am left wondering why you are writing in the second person.
Posted by: Eva Luna at March 6, 2006 10:27 AM
Geez, raf. Didn't you just get done saying that you advocated:
"immdediate[sic] deletion of a comment unrelated to the topic of the post in whose comment thread the comment was written"
Or were you intending to segway into the ramifications of Dubai's Quinquireme fleets and galley slaves the on the DPW deal? ;)
Posted by: blue92 at March 6, 2006 11:08 AM
And as long as we're sliding headlong into geekery, the usage geek in me wants to know what mechanism could cause a "literal" storm in Dubai if the news gets there. Or is that, you know, one of those figurative literal storms?
Posted by: Tom Scudder at March 6, 2006 11:20 AM
what mechanism could cause a "literal" storm in Dubai if the news gets there. Or is that, you know, one of those figurative literal storms?
Have you forgotten your Old Testament already?
Posted by: Eva Luna at March 6, 2006 11:55 AM
dear eva luna,
i'm a historian - trained & professional -, not a history geek.
i was making a point for my own case by elucidating just where completely unrelated commentary can lead. on the other hand, i could also argue that my comment relates to the title of the post. your call on which one it should be.
i also vote in favor of long-time commenters coming up with some identities. we all did. it's not that hard. why blue? why 92? 'cause it rhymes?
Posted by: raf* at March 6, 2006 02:09 PM
Raf: Being a trained professional and being a geek are not mutually exclusive. Besides, what's wrong with being a geek? It just means you have a love for something many people find esoteric.
Posted by: Eva Luna at March 6, 2006 02:58 PM
dear eva luna,
Wikipedia: A geek (pronunciation /gi:k/ ) is a person who is fascinated, perhaps obsessively, by obscure or very specific areas of knowledge and imagination. Geek may not always have the same meaning as the term nerd.
i don't say that there's anything wrong with being a geek. i merely stated that i'm not one. and that i find history geeks interesting.
Posted by: raf* at March 6, 2006 03:29 PM
You left out the bit about biting the heads off of chickens.
Posted by: Tom Scudder at March 6, 2006 04:53 PM
> i was making a point for my own case by elucidating just where completely unrelated commentary can lead. on the other hand, i could also argue that my comment relates to the title of the post. your call on which one it should be.
Sorry, no. Either you think it relates to the topic or you're "elucidating" how these comments don't relate to the topic, but you don't get to occupy both positions simultaneously.
When you decide which of your absurd personalities would like to argue your case, please be sure not to bother letting us know.
Posted by: blue92 at March 6, 2006 05:45 PM
I prefer Ashref Bey, the Faqih personally. I am sure I might get a fatoua out of him justifying some of my worst behaviour if I come up with some internally consistent logic.
Else, geek is not a compliment.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at March 6, 2006 11:20 PM
L: you're telling me I just insulted Tamerlane as well? That was certainly not my intent, and that's certainly not my usage - some of my best friends are geeks. Hell, who are we kidding? most of my best friends are geeks.
Posted by: Eva Luna at March 6, 2006 11:41 PM
Hmm. We seem to have left our sense of humor at home and brought along our sense of self-importance. How droll.
Posted by: pantom at March 6, 2006 11:56 PM