Posted on 08/31/2002 3:07:33 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
Friday Aug. 30, 2002; 11:16 p.m. EDT Limbaugh to White House: What About Salman Pak?
Is the Bush administration using all the ammunition at its disposal to convince the American people that war with Iraq is imperative?
Not according to conservative media giant Rush Limbaugh, who chastised the White House Thursday for not spotlighting the issue of Salman Pak, the hijacking school run by Saddam Hussein just south of Baghdad where the 9-11 hijackers likely trained to attack America.
"It's unbelievable that somehow this story remains sequestered," Limbaugh told his 20 million listeners. "I read this story last night and I was amazed."
"There is something called the Republican National Committee and there is the administration," the number one talk host complained. "And look, if I could find this on the Internet, I'm sure the web surfers in the basement of the White House or the Old Executive Office Building could find it too."
Limbaugh proceeded to read at length from a Nov. 11 report in London's Observer newspaper - one of the most respected broadsheets in Great Britain - detailing the accounts of two Salman Pak defectors along with corroborating testimony from a former UN weapons inspector.
Though the Observer's bombshell report has been largely ignored by both the press and the White House in recent months, the similarity between what transpired over the skies of New York and Washington, D.C. on Sept. 11 and the drills at Saddam Hussein's hijacking school offers clear evidence of Iraq's involvement in Osama bin Laden's attacks on America.
The facts uncovered by the Observer have yet to be refuted by any subsequent media investigation. And should they be invoked by the Bush White House, the story could form the basis for a solid argument that attacking Iraq isn't merely a preemptive strike to keep Saddam from getting the bomb, but instead direct retribution against the lone head of state who both financed and helped plan the worst attack on the United States in its history.
NewsMax.com first reviewed the Salman Pak story nearly three weeks ago in a report headlined: "Salman Pak: Iraq's Smoking Gun Link to 9-11."
Some excerpts:
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. (End of NewsMax excerpt)
Despite the compelling case of Salman Pak, the shockingly flat-footed Bush public relations team remains mum on the most potent justification for hitting back at Baghdad.
No wonder support for Bush's Iraq attack has dropped to just 51 percent in the latest Gallup poll.
I read your Post, but I'd still like to read the Article in question. Gotta Babelfish translation of the Egyptian, by any chance?
Not out of "doubt", but certainly out of "justifiable curiosity".
BTTT.
Soul sleep? I would not say "acceptable".
Intrinsically Error, but Heresy if mixed with Dualistic Gnosticism (as it often is).
Ping "the_doc" for more; he will both understand my response and be able to add more, if he cares.
I found another interesting article the other day just surfing the web.
(Beirut conference)...A number of groups that U.S. officials consider the most dangerous were represented at the Beirut conference, including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization; Hamas; Hezbollah; and the Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials said.
All of the groups have claimed responsibility in the past for attacks on American and Israeli targets.
One State Department official called the Beirut meeting a "cause for concern" but cautioned it "doesn't indicate that we (the United States) should expect a rash of coordinated activity."
Another reason for concern, officials say, was the presence of representatives from Iran and Iraq.
By CNN, Adrea Koppel
Guess when? Feb 2001.
Ahh. Well, "the_doc" is an ordained Presbyter of the Baptist Confession and enjoys a right to pick his battles. I'll respect that.
So, I'll say this on my OWN behalf...
That is HERESY. It denies the fact that God designed Man and Creation as Spirit Enfleshed, and He fully intends to accomplish His PERFECT Design (and in the process, glorify the Incarnate Word -- Very Man of Very Man -- as Lord of Men and Redeemer of Men and Judge of Men).
It denies the whole point of the Bodily Resurrection -- de facto, if not de jure.
Fragmentary, but not a bad squib.
In 1993, the WTC was attacked by persons connected not just to al Qeda but to the accessories from Iraq whom it is now certain helped to finance and train and provide with documents forged and covered through the invasion of Kuwait.
The planned hijacking plot for several airliners by an Iraqi connected terrorist group working in the Phillipines that never happened due to lucky intel and accidental disruptions.
Saddam and Usama's sons are close friends (Uday, I believe is the one who invited Usama's son to a birthday party in Iraq).
Salman Pak is well covered above, but note please the connection to the research and training with chem and bio weapons there and the defectors who've testified to al Qaeda members being trained there.
It is now known from defectors out of Iraq that Saddam sent persons from his secret police to Afghanistan, to train and equip al Qeda personnel in handling and producing bio and chem weapons, now connected to the planned use of chem weapons in London, thwarted by the Italian efforts.
Saddam tried to assassinate the previous President Bush in Kuwait.
Saddam has invaded two neighboring nations and used chemical weapons on the Iranis, weapons originally obtained through the Carter administration.
Saddam has murdered tens-of-thousands of his own Iraqi people, including moire than ten thousand Kurdish villagers, not Kurdish troops in rebellion.
There are dozens of al Qaeda now being harbored in Baghdad and Northern Iraq.
saddam pays the families of the suicide murderers assaulting the civilians of Israel.
Saddam sent scud missiles into Saudi Arabian and Israel, killing civilians as well as our troops there.
It is the espoused aim of Islamism to rule the world and Saddam has made speeches in which he fashions his image as a modern Islamic messiah ... and any student of history understand the peril in ignoring an Islamic man professing the desire to rule his known world and bring all non-Moslem people under the forced worship of allah or be put to the sword.
And then, of course, there's the Freeper "Mother of all iraqi-bin laden threads": Freeper Resource: What Team Saddam Doesn’t Want You To Know!
I personally accept quite a few of your items, taken together, as more than sufficent cause for attacking Iraq.
From my reading of scripture I would offer that Jesus doesn't condemn self defense and if you cannot see that Iraq poses a direct threat to the U.S and in fact all of Western Civilization with his proven connections to terrorist groups who hate America and have vowed to attack us, then I cannot persuade you further. Perhaps we are to remain in disagreement.
We are already in a HOT war with world-wide terrorism and Saddam, if he remains alive in power in Iraq, can and will export death and misery to this nation for we are the only real thing standing between him and world domination via control over Middle East oil. If he gets nukes, he will use them on Iran and Kuwait and then seek some way to destroy Israel, and he doesn't care how many Iraqis or Israelis are slaughtered in his quest. Perhaps that would be the onset of armageddon, but it is troubling that I do not find America in the final battle of Revelations. I don't want to risk Saddam aiding and abetting our demise.
JW's teach that, "In his resurrection, he was no more human. He was raised a spirit creation" (The Kingdom Is At Hand, p. 258)... This is heretical Gnostic Dualism, plain as day. Heresy.
As far as the Adventists go, they are probably closer to a pure "Soul Sleep" Dogma, an Error but not necessarily a Heresy which does not expressly deny the Bodily Resurrection (indeed, they say that they wholeheartedly affirm the Bodily Resurrection -- though it is always important to define our terms).
Are the Adventists in error? Or are they downright heretical?
My Orthodox Presbyterian teaching elder ("pastor") had a great observation on Adventists. He observed that...
Certainly, they are Strict Sabbatarian Legalists, at best. But Heretics?
This is why, though it is impossible to call Adventists any sort of "orthodox Christians", it is also hard to classify Adventists in the Camp of the Heretics with Mormons and JW's.
Ever they do skirt the fine line between gross Error and outright Heresy... ever they do sit upon the Pnuematological Fence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.