Michele 1 #26 March 14, 2003 Kallend, since you don't seem to accept the Guardian as a source, I am giving you several sites in addition to the 4 (?) above, that will demonstrate how long we've known about it, how it was developed, and so forth. Where appropriate, I've made a comment in () beneath it. When I ran a search, there were over 7500 hits. Granted, not all of the 7500+ have to do with the BQ/T Salman Pak, but more than 1/2 certainly do. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/salman_pak.htm (same write up, additional information) http://www.iraq.net/erica/news-e/archives/00000132.htm (interview with unknown...not best source, but interesting) http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1998/299.htm ( Dr. Richard Spertzel, UNSCOM's chief biological weapons (BW)) http://www.wmdconsulting.us/Iraq.htm (I am not familiar with this organization...) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/programs/dc/briefs/020201.htm http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/iraq2~1.htm (Not much on Salman Pak, however...but good read, although "dry") http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/dossier01b.htm http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/08/latest2.htm (not best source, but interesting. Ties w/ foreign nat'ls at a time OBL was in Sudan, which was declared a terrorist state and had close ties to Iraq) http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=993832002 (for NacMac...Happy reading! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #27 March 14, 2003 Girl, you are all that and a bag of chips! So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shabakazaa 0 #28 March 14, 2003 bodypilot90... Did you mean MilCommSat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
algboy 0 #29 March 14, 2003 "If this proves true what will you say to going in tonight for the safety of the USA?" The word 'hyperbole' comes to mind. How `bout we just withdraw our troops from 144 countries? I'd say consider the source: we're still waiting after nearly a year and a half for a 'legit' investigation of 9/11. (Sorry, the secret congressional thing doesn't count). We were so darn 'inept' at foreseeing the attacks--despite warnings from several countries and our own intelligence services--yet we miraculously produce 'bad guys' and passenger lists within hours of the attacks?? We had a massive STAND DOWN on 9/11 from our hardwired system (no Presidential order needed--remember Payne Stewart?) to intercept wayward/hijacked aircraft. I mean, Andrews is only spitting distance from Washington! What was up with that?? There was massive 'short selling' of UAL, American and Morgan Stanley stock just days before the attacks. We have Echelon software to track unusual trades. Where's THAT story? I repeat--STAND DOWN. Tony Blair uses a plaigarized 'intelligence study' on Iraq that Powell referred to in glowing terms just a few weeks ago. Missed that on the US news didn't you? The US has been busted for spying on the UN. Did you catch THAT story just a week or so ago? OK--now that I've got that off my chest, please tell me more about this compelling evidence for war . . . . . .“Keep your elbow up!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #30 March 14, 2003 "Tony Blair uses a plaigarized 'intelligence study' on Iraq that Powell referred to in glowing terms just a few weeks ago." Not only was it plagiarised, it was 12 years out of date.No we didn't miss it. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #31 March 14, 2003 Michele, you are the most valuable asset these boards have had lately. Nice work. Looks like I just got Friday reading for work. Hey guys...go vote for her as Character of the Year.... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386866#386866 She is winning anyway. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #32 March 14, 2003 Clickies. Quotehttp://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/salman_pak.htm (same write up, additional information) http://www.iraq.net/erica/news-e/archives/00000132.htm (interview with unknown...not best source, but interesting) http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1998/299.htm ( Dr. Richard Spertzel, UNSCOM's chief biological weapons (BW)) http://www.wmdconsulting.us/Iraq.htm (I am not familiar with this organization...) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/programs/dc/briefs/020201.htm http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/iraq2~1.htm (Not much on Salman Pak, however...but good read, although "dry") http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/dossier01b.htm http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/08/latest2.htm (not best source, but interesting. Ties w/ foreign nat'ls at a time OBL was in Sudan, which was declared a terrorist state and had close ties to Iraq) http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=993832002 (for NacMac...) Happy reading!-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #33 March 14, 2003 QuoteKallend, since you don't seem to accept the Guardian as a source, Ciels- Michele I think I said just the opposite - the Guardian (aka Grauniad) and Observer are very widely read newspapers and claiming that the story was kept quiet for intel purposes because it only appeared there is a ridiculous statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #34 March 14, 2003 "(aka Grauniad)" Kallend definitely knows what he is talking about, the Grauniad is legendary for letting spelling errors slip in unnoticed. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites flyingferret 0 #35 March 14, 2003 Dude, I see your point, but read what I wrote! QuoteI should have said 'wide-spread' media attention. .... My point was it did not receive widespread attention. ... Perhaps, the administration deliberately chose to focus on other things. That is totally different then saying 'kept quiet'! Obviously these stories were not in the front of everyone's mind, so it has not been at the forefront of the press. As far as know beforehand, etc. I agree we should have had more indication, but... This not some case of government inaction. It was a case of middle level management making decisions about which they were less educated than the operators. Just average joes too arrogant to take other people's advice. It happens almost always before a disaster like this. Someone with the right idea just did not get the authority to do something about it. A real life example of how bureaucratic systems can cost lives by inaction. Think I am full of shite? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #36 March 14, 2003 >I am absolutely amazed! If this interview was conducted in 2001, >why did it not get any media attention? It may not have been credible; defectors sometimes aren't. For example, here is a story about Hussein Kamel, the former head of Iraq's secret weapons program and a son-in-law of Hussein. In other words, about as highly placed a defector as you could hope for. He said that Iraq had destroyed all their WMD's after the Persian Gulf War. We didn't believe him either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #37 March 14, 2003 Quote I think I said just the opposite - the Guardian (aka Grauniad) and Observer are very widely read newspapers and claiming that the story was kept quiet for intel purposes because it only appeared there is a ridiculous statement. Ahhhhh, well, my bad. Sorry. The additional links, however, do demonstrate that it was widely known about the Boeing 707 and hijacking training at Salman Pak. I think that there was an atmosphere in the US at the time that "terrorism happened there, not here". And with that attitude, during the Clinton administration, there were other things he was working on. And sadly, that is the time where AQ came into it's own. We did attack Salman Pak during the '91 war, as we were aware of it then. It just kinda fell off the radar, until we needed to pay attention to the issues in a far more specific way. And because of the lax UN inspection enforcement, Salman Pak was, as far as I could tell, rebuilt, and brought back "on-line"... Just my take on things...Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites flyingferret 0 #38 March 14, 2003 Or perhaps recent events made it publically credible? Quote Yesterday their story received important corroboration from Charles Duelfer, former vice chairman of Unscom, the UN weapons inspection team. Edit: you of course insinuate that only credible things make the news.......hold on....-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #39 March 15, 2003 QuoteUmmm - it was published in the media over a year ago. Oh - sorry, I forgot... it was a British newspaper, they don't count. ???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #40 March 15, 2003 Quote Just my take on things... Very nice "take". You have been working way too hard lately. Too much fact and truth is going to ruin everyone's vilification of the US. We can't have that. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #41 March 15, 2003 Quote Quote Just my take on things... Very nice "take". You have been working way too hard lately. Too much fact and truth is going to ruin everyone's vilification of the US. We can't have that. Oh yes, truth, the first victim in war: www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html for a conservative view: www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html some observations about those Iraqi WMDs www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg01206.html About US meddling in UNSCOM www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/march99/unscom2.htm for those that trust FOX news, here's a good one: www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm and for those who believe the "liberal media" claims: www.corporations.org/media/ and finally, a bit off the wall, but who knows? mediastudy.com/articles/av1-9-03.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #42 March 15, 2003 QuoteOh yes, truth, the first victim in war: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html You need to read deeper into this situation. The UN dismissed them as fake but that has yet to be proven. Get this..............the US is not the one that allegedly forged them. The documents were given to the US and the UK from an unnamed third country. I'm sure you can deduce what country that is. This is currently under investigation by the FBI. Most of what you posted is opinion not fact. You need to make sure you differentiate the two. For someone who keeps accusing the conservative crowd of lying I sure have seen a lot of incorrect facts or twisted facts presented by the liberal side. What's is that about throwing rocks and glass houses or something? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #43 March 15, 2003 QuoteQuoteOh yes, truth, the first victim in war: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html You need to read deeper into this situation. The UN dismissed them as fake but that has yet to be proven. Get this..............the US is not the one that allegedly forged them. The documents were given to the US and the UK from an unnamed third country. I'm sure you can deduce what country that is. This is currently under investigation by the FBI. Most of what you posted is opinion not fact. You need to make sure you differentiate the two. For someone who keeps accusing the conservative crowd of lying I sure have seen a lot of incorrect facts or twisted facts presented by the liberal side. What's is that about throwing rocks and glass houses or something? That Pat Buchanan, such a pinko-liberal!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #44 March 15, 2003 QuoteThat Pat Buchanan, such a pinko-liberal! Yeah, he is such a level headed preacher of everything that is right and just in this world. Give me a break. Both sides have their idiots. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,027 #33 March 14, 2003 QuoteKallend, since you don't seem to accept the Guardian as a source, Ciels- Michele I think I said just the opposite - the Guardian (aka Grauniad) and Observer are very widely read newspapers and claiming that the story was kept quiet for intel purposes because it only appeared there is a ridiculous statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #34 March 14, 2003 "(aka Grauniad)" Kallend definitely knows what he is talking about, the Grauniad is legendary for letting spelling errors slip in unnoticed. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #35 March 14, 2003 Dude, I see your point, but read what I wrote! QuoteI should have said 'wide-spread' media attention. .... My point was it did not receive widespread attention. ... Perhaps, the administration deliberately chose to focus on other things. That is totally different then saying 'kept quiet'! Obviously these stories were not in the front of everyone's mind, so it has not been at the forefront of the press. As far as know beforehand, etc. I agree we should have had more indication, but... This not some case of government inaction. It was a case of middle level management making decisions about which they were less educated than the operators. Just average joes too arrogant to take other people's advice. It happens almost always before a disaster like this. Someone with the right idea just did not get the authority to do something about it. A real life example of how bureaucratic systems can cost lives by inaction. Think I am full of shite? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #36 March 14, 2003 >I am absolutely amazed! If this interview was conducted in 2001, >why did it not get any media attention? It may not have been credible; defectors sometimes aren't. For example, here is a story about Hussein Kamel, the former head of Iraq's secret weapons program and a son-in-law of Hussein. In other words, about as highly placed a defector as you could hope for. He said that Iraq had destroyed all their WMD's after the Persian Gulf War. We didn't believe him either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #37 March 14, 2003 Quote I think I said just the opposite - the Guardian (aka Grauniad) and Observer are very widely read newspapers and claiming that the story was kept quiet for intel purposes because it only appeared there is a ridiculous statement. Ahhhhh, well, my bad. Sorry. The additional links, however, do demonstrate that it was widely known about the Boeing 707 and hijacking training at Salman Pak. I think that there was an atmosphere in the US at the time that "terrorism happened there, not here". And with that attitude, during the Clinton administration, there were other things he was working on. And sadly, that is the time where AQ came into it's own. We did attack Salman Pak during the '91 war, as we were aware of it then. It just kinda fell off the radar, until we needed to pay attention to the issues in a far more specific way. And because of the lax UN inspection enforcement, Salman Pak was, as far as I could tell, rebuilt, and brought back "on-line"... Just my take on things...Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #38 March 14, 2003 Or perhaps recent events made it publically credible? Quote Yesterday their story received important corroboration from Charles Duelfer, former vice chairman of Unscom, the UN weapons inspection team. Edit: you of course insinuate that only credible things make the news.......hold on....-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #39 March 15, 2003 QuoteUmmm - it was published in the media over a year ago. Oh - sorry, I forgot... it was a British newspaper, they don't count. ???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #40 March 15, 2003 Quote Just my take on things... Very nice "take". You have been working way too hard lately. Too much fact and truth is going to ruin everyone's vilification of the US. We can't have that. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #41 March 15, 2003 Quote Quote Just my take on things... Very nice "take". You have been working way too hard lately. Too much fact and truth is going to ruin everyone's vilification of the US. We can't have that. Oh yes, truth, the first victim in war: www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html for a conservative view: www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html some observations about those Iraqi WMDs www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg01206.html About US meddling in UNSCOM www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/march99/unscom2.htm for those that trust FOX news, here's a good one: www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm and for those who believe the "liberal media" claims: www.corporations.org/media/ and finally, a bit off the wall, but who knows? mediastudy.com/articles/av1-9-03.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #42 March 15, 2003 QuoteOh yes, truth, the first victim in war: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html You need to read deeper into this situation. The UN dismissed them as fake but that has yet to be proven. Get this..............the US is not the one that allegedly forged them. The documents were given to the US and the UK from an unnamed third country. I'm sure you can deduce what country that is. This is currently under investigation by the FBI. Most of what you posted is opinion not fact. You need to make sure you differentiate the two. For someone who keeps accusing the conservative crowd of lying I sure have seen a lot of incorrect facts or twisted facts presented by the liberal side. What's is that about throwing rocks and glass houses or something? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #43 March 15, 2003 QuoteQuoteOh yes, truth, the first victim in war: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html You need to read deeper into this situation. The UN dismissed them as fake but that has yet to be proven. Get this..............the US is not the one that allegedly forged them. The documents were given to the US and the UK from an unnamed third country. I'm sure you can deduce what country that is. This is currently under investigation by the FBI. Most of what you posted is opinion not fact. You need to make sure you differentiate the two. For someone who keeps accusing the conservative crowd of lying I sure have seen a lot of incorrect facts or twisted facts presented by the liberal side. What's is that about throwing rocks and glass houses or something? That Pat Buchanan, such a pinko-liberal!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #44 March 15, 2003 QuoteThat Pat Buchanan, such a pinko-liberal! Yeah, he is such a level headed preacher of everything that is right and just in this world. Give me a break. Both sides have their idiots. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
