 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
 Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 6:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Salman Pak was just a fiction created by Chalabi's exile group to stir up the US for an invasion that would benefit them.
Fortunately, the neocon's man-in-charge Chalabi has been discredited. Hopefully, he'll serve his time in a Jordanian prison that he was sentenced in absentia for.
Maybe in his memoirs he'll write about how he suckered so many powerful conservatives who were hungry for any possible excuse to justify the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | Salman Pak was just a fiction created by Chalabi's exile group to stir up the US for an invasion that would benefit them. |
Was the formation of ALF just fiction too, Sparky?
How about sponsering the "Jackal" to attack an OPEC meeting?
Or providing Hizboullah with a new home, weapons, training, etc.?
Or providing Hamas with financial support?
Were those all fiction?
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colmurph
Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 74
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | And everything's going by Bin Ladin's script. He couldn't have asked for more from Bush. |
I must be a little thick sparky, just how the hell does Bush figure into this. Please explain. Or are you just trying to say that no matter what happens anywhere in the world....it's Bush's fault?
_________________
CO ODA-14, B Co. 3d SFG (Abn) 66-68
CO A Co. 4/3 INF, 11th LIB, Americal Div. 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greenhat wrote: |
Was the formation of ALF just fiction too, Sparky?
|
I'm sorry, but on this one, I gotta disagree. I saw that show, and ain't no way some freaky lookin' purple alien creature is real. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hist/student
Lieutenant
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 243
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
retracted
Last edited by hist/student on Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:35 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
campjwIII
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sparky doesn't have a clue to bin Laden's game plan.
The Target is South East Asia.
As demonstrated in Ache-alQaeda agents create sectarian violence between Christian and Muslims. The Government unable to prevent the viiolence leaves a power vaccuum and the locals turn to al Qaeda funded organizations and Imams for socal stablility.
The Area that bin Laden wants to create as an alQaeda built nation stretches from Southern Thailand to the Philippines to include Northern Australia.
bin Ladin's S.A. Asian organizer and bag man Hambali was Captured in Thailand. He created a cell and planned to attack the Oct 2003 APEC conference in Bangkok where the President attended.
Hambali had an onward ticket to create a Jihad in Australia.
Hambali has been replaced.
From AP:
In Indonesia, Zulkarnaen, a former biology student, stepped up last year as operations chief for the Al-Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiah (JI), replacing Hambali after his August arrest.
Another JI figure is 33-year-old Dulmatin, a Malaysian electronics expert nicknamed 'Genius'.
In the Philippines, Khadaffy Janjalani is trying to bring the main faction of the Al-Qaeda-linked extremist Abu Sayyaf group back to its religious moorings.
This, sparky is the reality of bin Laden's Game Plan.
Iraq has thrown a wrench into bin Laden's plans by drawing Jihadists to that area.
_________________
How Many More 9/11 attacks have to happen before you wake up and realize the world is at WAR? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Claim was that a jetliner would be necessary to train a team for counter-hijacking while one could train in a basement to do a hijacking. |
Necessary? No. Preferable? Yes. But, sine the fuselage was there, documented as well as pictures of it, please explain what the reason would be? If for counter-terrorism training, as explained by an unnamed former alleged CIA agent said in the article, wouldn't the basement training scenario work as well for that too?
| Quote: | | But it would make sense that if they wanted to train to do hijacking they would want to do it more out of sight than what was at Salman Pak. |
If you researched it, you would read that the camp was huge, very little of it able to be seen from any passing road. Not unlike many of our very own areas hidden away from the public eye. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | | Quote: | | Claim was that a jetliner would be necessary to train a team for counter-hijacking while one could train in a basement to do a hijacking. |
Necessary? No. Preferable? Yes. But, sine the fuselage was there, documented as well as pictures of it, please explain what the reason would be? If for counter-terrorism training, as explained by an unnamed former alleged CIA agent said in the article, wouldn't the basement training scenario work as well for that too?
| Quote: | | But it would make sense that if they wanted to train to do hijacking they would want to do it more out of sight than what was at Salman Pak. |
If you researched it, you would read that the camp was huge, very little of it able to be seen from any passing road. Not unlike many of our very own areas hidden away from the public eye. |
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm
Training Camps. Two defectors, one of whom claimed to be a senior mukhabarat officer, alleged they had worked at an Iraqi camp south of Baghdad called Salman Pak, where Islamist terrorists had been trained since 1995. The training included, in particular, hijacking techniques useful in seizing aircraft like the American-made Boeing model in use there. How did the defectors know these were Islamists? The defectors said the men prayed and had beards, obviously marking them as Islamists in Saddam's secular Iraq. The information on the Islamists was provided by the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and was not confirmed by other sources. The existence of a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak has been long known, but the aircraft used for training was an old Soviet Antonov and not a Boeing 707, as the INC sources claimed. See Chris Hedges, "Defectors Cite Iraqi Training for Terrorism," The New York Times, 8 November 2001.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”
Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craig, posting the same article again doesn't make it more believable. Do you really expect anyone to believe Saddam was interested in counter-terrorism?  
You seem to have missed the other link I put up, the one where a left-leaning judge agreed with evidence and found compelling reason to link Saddams Salman Pak with the 9-11 terrorist.
Should I list it again for you? Sure, why not?
| Quote: | 9/11 Bombshell: Judge Rules Saddam Trained Hijackers
Friday, May 9, 2003 7:22 a.m. EDT
9/11 Bombshell: Judge Rules Saddam Trained Hijackers
In a bombshell finding virtually ignored by the American media, a U.S. district court judge in Manhattan ruled Wednesday that Salman Pak, Saddam Hussein's airplane hijacking school located on the outskirts of Baghdad, played a material role in the devastating Sept. 11 attacks on America.
The ruling renders moot complaints from Bush administration critics that the U.S. has so far failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, since an official verdict that Baghdad was complicit in the attacks provides more than enough justification for the decision to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.
In reporting Judge Harold Baer's $104 million judgment against Hussein and Osama bin Laden, only the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Chinese news service Xinhua mentioned Salman Pak by name.
But according to courtroom testimony by three of the camp's instructors, the facility was a virtual hijacking classroom where al-Qaeda recruits practiced overcoming U.S. flight crews using only small knives - a terrorist technique never employed before 9/11.
At least one veteran of Salman Pak, Sabah Khodad, has maintained that the 9/11 hijackers were actually trained by Saddam's henchman. He told PBS in October 2001 that the World Trade Center attack "was done by graduates of Salman Pak."
The Inquirer called the finding "dramatic," noting that it was the first legal claim tying Baghdad to America's darkest day.
Meanwhile, the New York Times and the Washington Post, which opposed the war in Iraq, have so far declined to report the first official ruling linking Saddam to 9/11.
Baer's ruling represents a huge victory, not only for the families of Timothy Soulas and George Eric Smith - the two 9/11 victims in whose name the suit was brought - but also for former CIA Director James Woolsey, one of the earliest proponents of the Salman Pak-9/11 connection.
His authoritative testimony, backed by satellite photos showing a Russian-built Tupolev 54 airliner parked in the middle of an open field, offered key support for lawyer James Beasley's argument that Salman Pak played a role in the attacks.
Beasley told the Inquirer that persuading the court about the link was "a hell of a hurdle to get over."
One significant obstacle faced by the Philadelphia lawyer was that Woolsey's successor at the CIA, George Tenet, has never included Salman Pak among evidence tying Iraq to al-Qaeda - and has publicly denied that Baghdad played any role whatsoever in the 9/11 attacks.
Tenet's decision to ignore the critical role played by the camp is said to be based in part on friction between the CIA and the Iraqi National Congress, which helped several Salman Pak veterans defect to the U.S. and made them available to the media.
Tenet's opposition is believed to have been key in the decision by the Bush administration not to spotlight Iraq's 9/11 role, leaving White House officials with the sole argument that Saddam Hussein threatened the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction.
But as the postwar search for WMDs enters its fourth week without any major find, some now fear that the Bush administration's decision to side with Tenet over Woolsey on Salman Pak is shaping up as a major political blunder. |
http://www.floydreport.com/view_article.php?lid=266 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Keith wrote: | | Greenhat wrote: |
Was the formation of ALF just fiction too, Sparky?
|
I'm sorry, but on this one, I gotta disagree. I saw that show, and ain't no way some freaky lookin' purple alien creature is real. |
Arab Liberation Front - Saddam's own terrorist organization
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | Craig, posting the same article again doesn't make it more believable. Do you really expect anyone to believe Saddam was interested in counter-terrorism?
You seem to have missed the other link I put up, the one where a left-leaning judge agreed with evidence and found compelling reason to link Saddams Salman Pak with the 9-11 terrorist.
Should I list it again for you? Sure, why not?
<snip evidence of nothing>
http://www.floydreport.com/view_article.php?lid=266 |
Left leaning? I don't care. There is nutcases aplenty leaning this way and that.
As evidence of anything your post adds up to zero with a +/- 4% margin for error.
Interesting I even find it that your article chose to not mention that Laurie Mylroie was one of the "experts" who gave testimony in the case.
http://www.spartacus.ws/000388.html
November 22, 2002
Another Baer Mauling in NYC
Infamous District Court Judge Harold Baer has come up with another stinker of a decision:
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - In a victory for a Ku Klux Klan group, a federal judge on Tuesday ruled that a New York state law violates the U.S. Constitution by barring public demonstrators from wearing masks.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer held that the law violates the free speech rights of the Butler, Indiana-based Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. If the judge's decision is upheld, members of the group would be able to hide their identities by wearing hoods and masks at future New York rallies.
The city said it would appeal."
You may recall that in March 1996, Judge Howard Baer, Jr., a Manhattan U.S. District Court jurist and Clinton appointee, set off a storm of criticism when he ruled that 80 pounds of cocaine and heroin found by police in a car could not be used as evidence.
The incident in Washington Heights (a lower middle class, largely Hispanic neighborhood in Northern Manhattan) involved two New York City police officers who observed a woman slowly drive down a street at 5 a.m., double park her car and open her trunk. Four men then emerged from between parked cars and placed two large duffel bags in the trunk. When the men spotted the police officers they ran away from the car and the woman drove off. After following the out-of-state rental car for several blocks, the officers stopped the car, searched the trunk, found the drugs and arrested the woman.
In declaring the drugs inadmissible, Judge Baer said there was no probable cause to search the car because it is not unusual for people to be leery of police in an inner-city neighborhood like Washington Heights.
After the public outcry about this ruling, including criticism from President Clinton and calls for his impeachment by Senator Dole, Baer reversed his decision and removed himself from the case.
In the current case, Judge Baer ruled that an 1840s NY State statute that prohibits two or more persons from "congregating" in public while wearing masks to obscure their identities was unconstitutional. To my way of thinking, preventing anonymous mobs from congregating in our cities is hardly an infringement of political speech. The law did nothing to restrict people's rights of assembly or free expression: it merely required that they show their faces while doing so.
Maybe the impeachment issue should be revisited in the 108th Congress... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There is nutcases aplenty leaning this way and that. |
Let me see if I get this right, Craig. If they rule in favor of the left, they are good judges and worthy of attantion. If they rule in favor of the right, they are nutcases, huh?
Odd how you lefties want us to believe you are "objective."
But, my friend, the intent of the article isn't to show how intelligent the judge was, but that under rule of law, compelling evidence was found and ruled that Iraq and Salman Pak was indeed involved in terrorist training, most likely for those involved in 9-11.
I have to wonder if he would be such a nutcase had he found no connection? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know, it's not surprising that after not finding an Al Qaeda link or WMD's, rightwingers would seize on simply anything to save face after the big F***-UP that is the Iraq occupation.
Even if it means sleeping with a motley cast of criminals and con artists in the Iraqi National Congress.
The big question is whether the administration actually believed their BS or if it just provided additional cover for a war neocons had been drooling over for a decade.
And to add insult to the conspiratorial injury, conservatives believe that the reason the entire world (excepting them) has concluded that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11 is because of a media coverup and that only NewsMax tells the truth.
Paranoid beyond belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | | Quote: | | There is nutcases aplenty leaning this way and that. |
Let me see if I get this right, Craig. If they rule in favor of the left, they are good judges and worthy of attantion. If they rule in favor of the right, they are nutcases, huh?
Odd how you lefties want us to believe you are "objective."
But, my friend, the intent of the article isn't to show how intelligent the judge was, but that under rule of law, compelling evidence was found and ruled that Iraq and Salman Pak was indeed involved in terrorist training, most likely for those involved in 9-11.
I have to wonder if he would be such a nutcase had he found no connection? |
I decided against to make the same accusation you made above. I thought it would be a rude accusation as well as fallacious argument and I would prefer that you initiate that sort of thing.
Had you researched the witnesses and the Judge I doubt that you would have presented that as evidence of anything unless you counted on no one else going to the bother.
The evidence was not so compelling other than the judge had opinion that it barely stood to the standard which would be as 51% rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" as would be in a criminal case. And I suppose that Judges finding will stand since there is unlikely to be an appeal.
Since Bush and his administration does not buy into your theory, what excuse do you make for them? Is it a Bush lie to claim there is no known ties of Iraq to Al Qaeda?
Or is Bush and crew just plain wrong?
And when you would start the name calling of me a lefty I consider if I ought to return in kind with suggestion that I wonder if they are not still using your mom to sniff drugs at the airport.
I only find the Democrat agenda less offensive than the Republican in general.
In relation to some of that military crap My view of Bush with connections getting him into a safe place means about as much to me as Clinton connections keeping him safe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The big question is whether the administration actually believed their BS or if it just provided additional cover for a war neocons had been drooling over for a decade. |
Good question, Craig. Maybe we could ask the following Deomcrat the same thing;
"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
'[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
"[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
And after 9-11?
"In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an un-inspected four-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them... .The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new."
Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.), Foreign Relations member Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002
No need for me to post other prominent Democrats quotes, unless you forgot them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
