oldreliable67
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,641
- Reaction score
- 1,102
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:Nope, it wasn't west of Baghdad, it was south of Baghdad. Found something on it at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/733893/posts
"Salman Pak: Iraq's Smoking Gun Link to 9-11?
With all the talk about how little evidence the Bush administration has tying Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks, we're more than a little surprised at how quickly reporters, not to mention the White House, seem to have forgotten about Salman Pak.
That's the name of the Iraqi training camp located south of Baghdad where, according to the accounts of at least two Iraqi defectors quoted in the New York Times last November, terrorists from around the world rehearsed airline hijackings aboard a parked Boeing 707 that bore an eerie resemblance to what transpired on 9-11.
"We could see them train around the fuselage," one of the defectors, a five-year veteran of the camp, told the paper. "We could see them practice taking over the plane."
And that's not all.
A few days before the Times report, the London Observer revealed that one of the defectors, a colonel with the Iraqi intelligence service Mukhabarat, had drawn an even more direct link to 9-11.
The former Iraqi agent, codenamed Zeinab, told the paper that one of the highlights of Salman Pak's six-month curriculum was training to hijack aircraft using only knives or bare hands. Like the Sept. 11 hijackers, the students worked in groups of four or five, he explained.
Zeinab's story has since been corroborated by Charles Duelfer, the former vice chairman of Unscom, the U.N. weapons inspection team, who actually visited the Salman Pak camp several times.
"He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors," the Observer reported. "The Iraqis, he said, told Unscom it was used by police for counterterrorist training."
"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer explained. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect?"
Unlike the other parts of Salman Pak, Zeinab told the Observer that there was a foreigners' camp that was controlled directly by Saddam Hussein.
"It was a nightmare! A very strange experience," the Iraqi agent said. "These guys would stop and insist on praying to Allah five times a day when we had training to do. The instructors wouldn't get home till late at night, just because of all this praying."
A second defector said that conversations with the hijacker-trainees made it clear they came from a variety of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt and Morocco.
"We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States," he added chillingly. "The Gulf War never ended for Saddam Hussein. He is at war with the United States. We were repeatedly told this."
Though the Bush administration has been largely silent about Salman Pak, former CIA Director James Woolsey is apparently convinced it was used to rehearse Sept. 11-style hijackings.
In late November he told Fox News Channel's Laurie Dhue:
"We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses - three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors - have said - and now there are aerial photographs to show it - a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives."
Another intriguing coincidence: Salman Pak's hijacking school reportedly opened for business in 1995, the same year al-Qaeda agents in the Philippines hatched a plot to hijack 12 airliners and slam some of them into U.S. landmarks.
If America's press is looking for smoking-gun evidence tying Iraq to the 9-11 attacks, Saddam Hussein's hijack school for Islamic terrorists is as good as it's likely to get."
...
> Didn't find the embedded reporter piece that sticks in my mind. Will keep looking for it.
> Not familiar with the source website. Anyone have an impression? Lunatic fringe? Reputable? Something in between?
> Some of you who are deep into this might have info to refute this. If so, post it up!
scottyz said:
wxcrazytwo said:The whole Bush Presidency was staged. This is a freaking ruse, and I am ashamed to be an American under Bush.
JOHNYJ said:President Bush is afraid of the American people.That is not a secret,his public ppearances are all staged.Only Pro-Bush people are allowed any where near them.Which I personaly believe it violates the Freedom of Assembly clause of the Constitution.Why the ACLU doesn't go after hm for that I don't understand.
AS I said President Bush will not appear befor unscreened crowds.
ANAV said:Hey we agree!!! With a stupid post like that I'm ashamed you're an American too.
independent_thinker2002 said:See, you prove my point! You, like many conservatives, love the fallacy of false dilemma. Everything is black and white with you. Either you are with us or against us. France is not our enemy just because they don't send troops to Iraq. They can be our friend and ******s at the same time. I do not oppose our military.I oppose how the non-military leaders choose to implement our military. And please don't tell me that the military is a place for the free exchange of ideas. And if you were in the military you would know that convicted felons have more rights than enlisted men.
independent_thinker2002 said:This is why I never signed up for the military. I don't need to be coerced into what I think. Good soldiers don't think for themselves, they follow orders. That is why these soldiers "think" that they are protecting America.
JOHNYJ said:RE[ Gordontravel
President Bush never appears in front of unscreened crowds,never ! The only time he takes a chance of getting a hard question is n his rare TV press conferences.
The stilted answers by those soldiers added to the suspicions.
I think he was only talking about you Navy Pride? :mrgreen:Navy Pride said:Sugar coat it all you want.Blame Conservatives or whatever........Your true colors come to the top........You think our brave military are a bunch of mindless robots just following orders.
Really? Can YOU PROVE what you just wrote Mr. Pride? Seems like your words are a bunch of BS to me. Newsflash....nothing, and I mean nothing that Bush says or does or has done provokes "jealousy" from me or IMHO, for any Democrat. Jealousy is one of those retarded emotions that mostly under educated people obsess on or write about.Navy Pride said:If this thread proves nothing else it proves how jelaous some of our left wing friends are of the relationship between out troops and President Bush.
Dear friend, I think you need to check your facts on this one?gordontravels said:During the year prior to the 2004 election, President Bush held 33 press conferences where the press asked questions he had no idea were going to be asked other than knowing the issues at the time. These were both scheduled and unscheduled and the press was represented by all our major news networks and foreign reporters as well. These were 33 press conferences in 12 months and you call it rare?
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0120-01.htm10: Number of solo press conferences that Bush has held since beginning his term. His father had managed 61 at this point in his administration, and Bill Clinton 33
26 X World Champs said:Dear friend, I think you need to check your facts on this one?
Here's what I found out about the total number of SOLO press conferences Bush held during his entire first term:
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0120-01.htm
Do you think this liberal website is lying and that you're correct? Common Dreams is quite liberal, yet also quite legitimate. I believe this fact to be the truth. Please prove me and Common Dreams wrong by sourcing the 33 SOLO Press Conferences that Bush had in 2003?
26 X World Champs said:Dear friend, I think you need to check your facts on this one?
Here's what I found out about the total number of SOLO press conferences Bush held during his entire first term:
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0120-01.htm
Do you think this liberal website is lying and that you're correct? Common Dreams is quite liberal, yet also quite legitimate. I believe this fact to be the truth. Please prove me and Common Dreams wrong by sourcing the 33 SOLO Press Conferences that Bush had in 2003?
26 X World Champs said:Really? Can YOU PROVE what you just wrote Mr. Pride? Seems like your words are a bunch of BS to me. Newsflash....nothing, and I mean nothing that Bush says or does or has done provokes "jealousy" from me or IMHO, for any Democrat. Jealousy is one of those retarded emotions that mostly under educated people obsess on or write about.
So Mr. Pride (Isn't Pride one of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS?) care to prove to this community that your "jealousy" statement is true? Just because you write something, or maybe in your case, especially because you write something does not make it true.
Funny.. I heard a lot of wounded troops refuse to meet with him.Navy Pride said:All you need to do is look at when President Bush meets with the troop or see the wounded in hospitals and you can see the admiration for him........No you can't because you blinded by the hate that is eating you alive for him but any non biased person can...........
Have a link to the actual voting results? Not polls... the actual vote results.Look at how the miltary voted......Overwhelmingly for this President.....
scottyz said:Funny.. I heard a lot of wounded troops refuse to meet with him.
If they love them so much why does he have to handpick certain members of the military to have a staged conversation with? Why didn't he want them going off script? What's he afraid of?
Is that non-biased person you NP? :rofl
Have a link to the actual voting results? Not polls... the actual vote results.
Navy Pride said:Did you even read the thread?
Here you go:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm
Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.
scottyz said:Did you even read my post? I didn't ask for a poll. I asked for actual voting results.
scottyz said:Did you even read my post? I didn't ask for a poll. I asked for actual voting results.
I will find the percentages of how they voted since your the only one in the USA does not know.......
Deegan said:That's easy, 69% BUSH 24%KERRY
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_military-data_10-15_report.pdf
That's a survey... not actual voting results. :lol:Deegan said:That's easy, 69% BUSH 24%KERRY
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_military-data_10-15_report.pdf
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?