Talk:Salman Pak facility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] External Links

Seeing that there is a number of external links that lend varying degrees of support to the now discredited defectors’ story, for balance, I have introduced a link (to a web log) containing a critical analysis. Stephen M. Birmingham | Dec. 09, 2005

[edit] Discredited defectors

This piece is based largely around the uncorroborated claims of two INC "defectors", both of whom have since been discredited. According to U.S. authorities, the first informant -- a self-confessed rapist and mass-murderer -- is known to have lied about his level of access while the second source simply regurgitated the claims of the first, his close friend!

This piece is completely out of order.

Stephen Birmingham

--

In Response: The CIA did not believe the Salman Pak defectors, but the basic elements of their stories (foreign fedayeen, Tupolev airliner) were confirmed by the Marines who fought an intense battle with the foreign fighters in the Salman Pak facility in April 2003.

There's a good quote from Charles Duelfer about the airliner. He visited it in Jan. 1995 and was told by the Iraqis that it was used for counterterrorism training. Duelfer and other UN inspectors instinctively discounted the "counter" part of the claim.

I'll try to work all of this into the next revision.

--

In reply:

Inspectors with greater experience and longer memories recall sighting the body of an aircraft when they first visited the then suspected biological-weapons facility four years earlier, in 1991, and at least one inspector with a background in military intelligence, Scott Ritter, was able to corroborate and was later willing to elaborate on the history of the training facility:


"Iraqi defectors have been talking lately about the training camp at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. They say there's a Boeing aircraft there. That's not true. There's an Antonov aircraft of Russian manufacture. They say there are railroad mock-ups, bus mock-ups, buildings, and so on. These are all things you'd find in a hostage rescue training camp, which is what this camp was when it was built in the mid-1980s with British intelligence supervision. In fact, British SAS special operations forces were sent to help train the Iraqis in hostage rescue techniques. Any nation with a national airline and that is under attack from terrorists - and Iraq was, from Iran and Syria at the time - would need this capability. Iraq operated Salman Pak as a hostage rescue training facility up until 1992. In 1992, because Iraq no longer had a functioning airline, and because their railroad system was inoperative, Iraq turned the facility over to the Iraqi Intelligence service, particularly the Department of External Threats. These are documented facts coming out of multiple sources from a variety of different countries. The Department of External Threats was created to deal with Kurdistan, in particular, the infusion of Islamic fundamentalist elements from Iran into Kurdistan. So, rather than being a camp dedicated to train Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, it was a camp dedicated to train Iraq to deal with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

"And they did so. Their number one target was the Islamic Kurdish party, which later grew into Al Ansar. Now, Jeff Goldberg claimed in the New Yorker that Al Ansar is funded by the Iraqi Intelligence service. But that's exactly the opposite of reality: the Iraqis have been fighting Al Ansar for years now. Ansar comes out of Iran and is supported by Iranians. Iraq, as part of their ongoing war against Islamic fundamentalism, created a unit specifically designed to destroy these people."


Though clearly not a Boeing of any description, upon closer inspection, experts have identified the aircraft as an old Russian-built Iraqi Airlines Tupolev 154.

Further information on the site comes from Seymour Hersh, who, in his May 2002 article "Selective Intelligence", wrote:


"Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and 'Frontline,' the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation ‘was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,’ and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.

"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. … 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 Holly-wood rinky-dink stuff,’ the former agent said. ‘They train in basements. You don't need a real airplane to practice hijacking.’

"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."


I have also noted that the number of alleged hijackers, said to have been carrying knives, operating in small groups, varies from story to story (the number ranges from 4-to-5, 3-to-4 to 2-to-3). As I say, there are simply too many red flags here to justify this page in its current form.

Stephen Birmingham

--

[edit] Amazing

I'm quite amazed to find this largely unsourced article accepting as fact claims that have long been discredited. The article needs quite a lot of work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've commented out the more contentious claims for now. This does need a major reworking because it would be as wrong to ignore the claims as it would be to report them as fact. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The DOCEX project

Added a paragraph discussing what Stephen Hayes, from the Weekly Standard, claims are documents showing ~8,000 terrorists were trained at three facilities (one being Salman Pak) from 1999 until 2002. 12.109.128.2 14:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Dan

An interview with Vice-President Cheney was added on to the paragraph I added (see above). But this line was included, "... indicating why Hayes would have been careful to say that the officials testified to the "character" of the documents, rather than their specific content." Can this be shown - that the reason "why" Hayes said something is "indicated"? Dan 12.109.128.2 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page is nonsense

The claims here have all been discredited, except for the ones which are blatantly unsourced assertions that appear here for the first time in print! Eventually I will try to turn my attention here, but this has all been refuted on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and of course by the CIA and DIA and the SSCI and the 9/11 Commission... The Hayes stuff is newer but it is also BS as even a cursory glance at the documents available shows. What a mess. Why are some people so obsessed with putting blatant disinformation on wikipedia?--csloat 08:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TDC hit-and-run POV shift

TDC this is the same thing you pulled on the Plame page. If you are going to do a massive steamrolling rewrite of the article, at least have the courtesy to list your changes on the discussion page. Explain why you eliminated certain things, like the fact that Ritter's claims (which you erased on the bogus assertion that he is working for Saddam) have been confirmed, or the consensus view about the facility reported by Columbia Journalism Review. Or why you have changed Hayes' bogus "assertion" to a "report." Or why you removed relevant and sourced information about Ghurairy. I understand that you may be uncomfortable about some of the facts that have turned up about Salman Pak and that you still wish to believe Salman Pak was a terrorist training camp, but if you are going to make massive edits to shift the POV please explain each of them.--csloat 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duefer Report and what not

Since the Memeri report post dates Hersch's piece it is not accurate to say no information has come forth since. Secondly, the Duelfer report is not "consistent with the consensus view" as the Duelfer report specifically mentions the training of foreign fighters at the camp, something this "consensus view" apparently does not believe. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The consensus view is not about training foreigners; it is that the camp was for counterterrorism purposes. I don't see how these two positions contradict. The CIA helped set up similar training camps around the middle east. I'm not sure what the Memeri report is but we know that as late as Nov. 2005 it was reported that US officials determined the camp was used for counterterrorism purposes. Is this Memeri report something more recent? Feel free to add it if so, but there is no need to delete relevant and sourced information.--csloat 07:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
actually, the Nov. 2005 article i think you are referring to states that after the war, officials said it was a counterterrorism camp. this is just rehashing old news. the "consensus view" article cited in the main page was written months before the duelfer report was released. i haven't seen anything that challenges what the duelfer report asserts about the camp, that "It trained Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Yemeni, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Sudanese operatives in counterterrorism, explosives, marksmanship, and foreign operations at its facilities at Salman Pak." counterterrorism was one aspect of the camp, but "explosives, marksmanship, and foreign operations" aren't counterterrorism activities. i agree that the duelfer report contradicts the Columbia Journalism Review article. what to do about it i'm not sure. Anthonymendoza 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Whose definition of "counterterrorism" are you using? The claim that counterterrorism fighters don't need to know how to blow things up, shoot straight, or operate in foreign countries seems absurd to me. Do you have counterterrorism training? I don't see any evidence that the duelfer report contradicts the CJR piece. The Nov 2005 article states what officials concluded after the war - I am not sure how that is "old news." If there was any evidence of officials recanting, then you might have something there. I do not see the Duelfer report as in any way supporting the view that al Qaeda trained there, that's for certain.--csloat 19:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Palestinian counterterrorism training? Seriously, is that a joke? The Duelfer report does not claim or support the claim that AQ was there, but it most certainly supports the claim that foreigners were training there and that counterterrorism training was not the primary function of the facility. Something that the CJR, Hersch and Ritter does not seem to agree with. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see where the Duelfer report tells us which function was "primary." The consensus view is that the facility was used for counterterrorism training, and the Duelfer report confirms that. I don't see how these things are inconsistent.--csloat 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, Hersch's piece was published in may of 2003, before Duefer's report was released. This makes the statement 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 a bit dated. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The claim may be dated but there has been no counter-claim. If the troops found evidence of training of al Qaeda, let's see it.--csloat 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The deletion of Ritter’s quote was not a “trick”, I simply condensed it into a few sentences. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's keep the whole quote in there rather than your "condensation," which eliminates crucial information. I'd rather see this quote in Ritter's own words than in the words of an acknowledged enemy of his position (i.e. TDC). Thanks.--csloat 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Write and a few other things

A few things. First the article was broken up in a haphazard way, and needs to be reorganized. It just does not seem to flow too terribly well. Secondly, I think the article is incorrect about Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami. After doing some digging, I found that Alami did not claim that the 9-11 hijackers had trained at Salman Pak. Also, I don’t think its either fair or accurate to portray Alami as being part of the INC, the information he provided to the feds, hid did under his own accord although press interviews were arranged by the INC. [1]

It is well known that the INC coached defectors in a way that was mendacious and manipulative.--csloat 19:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
That inlcudes Alami? Care to present a source? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The source is right above my comment in the comment by the anon editor. INC's goal was to provoke a war, and they got ahold of defectors, coached them, and made them available to the media for this purpose. They were successful.--csloat 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Jones Staff Editing the Article

Is this Kosher?

Whois for user:209.21.50.127

network: Class-Name: :network
network: Auth-Area: 209.21.0.0/18
network: ID: NETBLK-A008-209-21-50-0-24.127.0.0.1/32
network: Handle: NETBLK-A008-209-21-50-0-24
network: :network-Name: A008-209-21-50-0-24
network: IP-:network: 209.21.50.0/24
network: In-Addr-Server;I: COGENT1-HST12700132
network: In-Addr-Server;I: COGENT2-HST12700132
network: IP-:network-Block: 209.21.50.0 - 209.21.50.255
network: Org-Name: Mother Jones
network: Street-Address: 731 Market Street Sixth Floor
network: City: San Francisco
network: State: CA
network: Postal-Code: 94103
network: Country-Code: US

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL. It's an investigative journalism piece cited in the text of the article. It would be "unkosher" to not cite it.--csloat 09:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It was cited in the article, but this and the others made by motherjones borders on linkspam. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL. It's a bibliography. I don't see the "others," but as far as this one goes, it is a reasonable citation.-csloat 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] govt organizations1

Rather than continue the nonsense with the anonymous vandal, I have deleted the "statements in publications" section as most of that information is not relevant anyway. Anything that should stay in the article can be incorporated into the "Allegations" section as it is more appropriate there anyway. There is no reason to continue the debate about whether Maccolum is right about the "consensus view," and I do not wish to continue a meaningless revert war over how to phrase a subject heading. That quote is better in the allegations section anyway, and if anyone wants to add more from the New Yorker or Weekly Standard that may go there as well. Hope everyone is satisfied with this solution.--csloat 00:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SSCI volume

I am fixing the anon edits of 76.209.55.176 (talk • contribs) as they are partially incorrect. First, an opinion piece by the controversial conspiracy theorist Laurie Mylroie should not be cited as fact. If you want to have one sentence that indicates Mylroie disagrees with the SSCI and put a link to this article I will not delete it, but I don't want to see a whole paragraph devoted to her extreme fringe opinion on this topic, and I certainly don't want to see it included without her name as if it were a mainstream news report. This is a non-notable opinion piece, not a piece of investigative reporting. Second, the anon is totally wrong about the claim that "the vote in the committee (8-7) was closely divided, with Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, an outspoken critic of the war, siding with the Democrats in a vote that was otherwise along party lines." That is false. The volume cited here was voted for almost unanimously (14-1 -- only Senator Lott voted no, perhaps while waving the stars and bars; see p. 137). There was, however, an 8-7 vote on striking the Brooks commentary, which may be what the anon is referring to; again, I think one sentence addressing the Brooks issue is reasonable but that's it -- there is a page for the SSCI report itself if the anon would like to put further detail on that page; it does not belong here. Finally, the paragraph as inserted makes it sound as if Brooks is saying that al Qaeda trained at the camp. But in testimony to Congress on April 6 2006 the Pentagon made it clear that the foreign fighters trained in Iraq were "pan-Arab nationalists," not Islamist terrorists, and that they had no demonstrable connection to al-Qaeda (transcript here); we should not give the misleading impression that connections to al Qaeda were asserted when they were not. csloat 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey csloat: i think the anon editor was confused. the conclusions of the report dealing with the INC were passed on an 8-7 vote, with hagel and snowe voting with all the democrats. but i do think the 8-7 vote on the Brooks press conference is significant. i wasn't aware of the transcript you cited above. some interesting outtakes:


Mr. ROHRABACHER. So when you talk about the Arab liberation movement, would this be considered somewhat of a secular equivalent of the al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood and that type of thing?
Lt. Colonel WOODS. The Pan-Arab movement, sir, had long viewed the consolidation of the Arab states, so he viewed in some ways, after 1991, when he didn’t get a lot of support out of Arab states, he went directly to the people in a way, and so there was a—his idea was to have members of surrounding states supporting the pan-Arab view.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I appreciate that opportunity, Mr. Chairman. My memory of Saladin is that he was a Kurd. Am I accurate? Right, I doubt that he would have emulated Saladin. And the Ba’athists, gentlemen, I mean they are secularists, aren’t they? I mean, they were not fundamentalist Islamists in the nature of Osama bin Laden. Is that a fair and accurate statement? When we talk about pan-Arabism, wasn’t that Gamal Masser’s vision too for the region?
Lt. Colonel WOODS. Yes, sir, you are correct. The Ba’athist political philosophy is a secular philosophy, but it did change after 1991 inside of Iraq.


General CUCOLO. Sir, our study is what it is, and we can call it up to April 2003, and it was clear that up to April 2003, besides attempting to survive at all costs, groups like Hamas, as we mention here, Palestinian Islam Jihad, he was a supporter of groups like that.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. And they served as a base for training and operations and equipping, et cetera. This is a safe haven for the——
General CUCOLO. We confirmed training.


Lt. Colonel WOODS. Sir, as I answer within the context of the document reviewed, which, you know, may not be all of the documents available, may not be the entire context, but from the context of the documents, the activity was increasing from 1995. The training activity of the groups was increasing both internally and apparently externally. It was increasing over time, but I don’t have an actual number.


I don't think Hamas and Islam Jihad are considered Pan-Arab nationalists groups. it shows saddam wasn't only willing to deal with secularists. the testimony shows those trained in iraq left and came back before the war. some have argued that those trained in iraq may have gone on to join al qaeda, although it hasn't been proven. but i agree with your edits, although i will add the brooks vote.Anthonymendoza 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confusing the issue. Saddam's support for Palestinian groups was well known, and the claim here is not that he trained those groups at salman pak (or anywhere) but that he (like every Arab dictator) was "a supporter of groups like that." The training discussed here is explicitly of a secular force. Though it is true that after the US invasion a lot of secular Iraqi baathists (we don't know much about the foreigners) were swayed by the more Islamist point of view (as the antiwar advocates had warned would happen in the wake of a US invasion). But that's a separate issue, of course. Anyway, I agree with your edits too :) csloat 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/l/Talk%7ESalman_Pak_facility_839a.html"