There's no proof that profits from Jihad Ice Cream goes to Al Qaeda. As with the DPW subsidiary, it's only operating in the US and under US guidelines. And as for the UAE, who is the owner of the company in question supporting terrorism... Support for Hamas and other terrorist groups count. If your going to use an example of an encapsulated company in the US as legal, it has to apply across the board. Why can't Iran, North Korea or any other country do the same thing as the UAE according to your example?
> No, because that business would inevitably be providing material support > for Al Qaeda, and that would be a violation US law, whereas the DPW > subsidiary would be operating only in US ports and under US guidelines- > meaning no boycott of Israel. It is different than the Al Qaeda example > because the act of sending profits back to DPW does not violate US law, > whereas Jihad Ice Cream would be violating the law by sending funds back > to Bin Laden, et. al. > >>So if Al Queda sets up a separate subsidiary, staffed by Americans, that >>operates only the US business and complies with all the relevant laws, >>none >>of this would be a problem. >>Jihad ice cream anyone? All legal. >> >>> Even assuming that's all true, if DPW creates a separate subsidiary, >>> staffed by Americans, that operates only the US ports and complies with >>> all of the relevant laws, none of this would be a problem. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:198366 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
