Talk:Salman Pak facility/Archive 1

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

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

--

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

anon POV edit war

Anon user, please discuss the material you wish to add to the article here. As I said in the edit summary, WP should not be telling the reader how to weigh a particular piece of evidence. You keep adding a statement that Kohada's credibility was bolstered and the only "evidence" for this is an unconfirmed opinion piece in the National Review followed by a blog entry. I don't think that sort of speculation belongs in an article like this; if you think there is really something here, at least link a reliable source that makes this claim. csloat (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i'll post my entire revision here. First, this entire article is basically a summation of "debunkings" of the claim. To do such should at least have a history and explanation of how the allegations came about. Thus, it should be split between allegations and critisms, rather than have the two fight it out on the same page, it's sloppy and unorganized, and I suspect that is how all the supporting evidence in favor of the allegations have been removed, for "debunkings" and non "credible sources". A neutral view should present both and allow the reader to determine.

I get all my sources from Lexus Nexus which is why i added the footnotes on the bottom. Typically you get better information that way than, say, a google search.

The "Evidence" is the comparisons of Kohada's hand drawn picture and an aerial photograph. I found that Kohada's picture is still hosted by PBS frontline. However, the aerial photograph was taken by a companing called "Space Imaging" which is now defunct, and is a now a new company called Globaleye, I couldn't find the picture in question searching their website. A lexus nexus search does show numerous journals and articles written about the image comparison, which are linked to at the bottom. To find the picture being hosted, a google search mostly shows no-name political blogs. Which is why i linked to townhall, as the only other option was RushLimbaugh.com. I think a visual comparison of the two should be offer to the readers. The issue at question is the picture, not the source or anything the source has to say about it. It is not a sound arguement to remove the picture or the ability to see the picture because it is not hosted on what someone speculates as an uncredible source. I believe the Aerial photograph is non-copywrited for public use, and I'm sure PBS's Kohada drawinng could be used as well. This should be looked into of whether the the actual pictures can be displayed directly on the page.

Their are numerous Salman Pak photographs available, however the Space Imaging picture is the best one to do a side by side comparison with the drawing. The Space Imaging picture can be compared to other Salman Pak photographs and be recongized as legimate. If it can be proven that the picture is a fake or forgery, they by all means it should be taken down. I'm not aware of any source that has attempted to do that. If another source alleges that it is fake, then that should be annotated, but atleast still allow the picture for viewing. Again, I am not aware of any source that has attempted to do that.

Further, I don't see why National Review, Laurie Mylorie, or someone else can be taken down for not being a "credible source", and Motherjones is allowed to make their claims they found unabated. Certianly Townhall has at least as much credibility as Mother Jones for saying they found Al-Qurairy. As my articles i linked to demonstrate, there were numerous follow-ups with credible Newspapers with Al-Qurairy. U.S. Intelligence (albeit unnamed by the journalists) confirmed that Al-Qurairy defected and spoke to Intelligence agents in 2000, before 9/11. There weren't partisan hit-peices, if you read the articles they quote officials as having doubts to the story, that Iraq claims to be doing counter-terrorism, doubts on the reliablity of the INC. etc.

Does this site really think it is neutral to take down all claims of anyone assoicated with the INC for not being "nuetral" yet we can post the bazillion hit-peices against the allegations, from places like mother jones?

Also, The SSIC while extremely important in weighing in on the matter, doesn't need to be boldly proclaimed before and after every allegation that is made, especially when it's coming from people who generally take pride in not believing anything the government tells them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chudogg (talk • contribs)

First, I suggest you read WP:NOR and WP:3RR. I have reported your three-revert violation; if you plan to revert again you are likely to be blocked. A lot of what you're doing here is original research -- re-evaluating the claims of discredited defectors, for example, or digging up satellite photos and comparing them to drawings. If there are no reliable sources already discussing a particular piece of evidence it is not Wikipedia's job to do so. Second, your additions rely totally on two defectors who have been discredited since the information you provide. They have not responded to the discrediting. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to give discredited sources a platform and to bury the fact that journalists, government investigators, and intelligence agents have all concluded that these defectors were lying. Third, read WP:RS and avoid citing blogs. Townhall is not an edited magazine; Mother Jones is (their politics aside). A blog is not a WP:RS. And an opinion piece in National Review might be useful to record that someone had a particular opinion, but we cannot refer to it as if it was the conclusion of an investigative research piece (such as the findings reported in the Mother Jones article). Fourth, Laurie Mylroie has been completely discredited as a scholar with any understanding of these issues; a quick look through her biography reveals that no terrorism expert takes her seriously anymore. This is not the place to try to change that perception; only to report it (and that is taken care of on her biography page; it doesn't belong here). Fifth, the SSCI is a part of the government, so it is a bit silly to criticize them for taking "pride in not believing anything the government tells them." Sixth, al-Qurairy was not who he claimed to be. It is true that he spoke with officials before 2001; it is also true that an investigative journalist discovered that the man who spoke with officials was a liar, and that the real al-Qurairy had never left Iraq. Your claim about "numerous followups" is totally misleading; the investigative report published in Mother Jones has not been followed up on by any of your sources, and to this day there is nobody defending al-Qurairy's credibility. csloat (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. i just lost my entire post from hitting the back button *slaps forehead*

Ok.. the abridged version

First, I would like to say I find your tonality and demeanor to be completely disrespectful. I understand being an editor on a site like wikipedia can give someone a limited satisfaction as a sort of authority figure, but I don't think there is any reason to be dictatorial when guests come and do exactly what is supposed to be done on wikipedias format. Ok. addressing your post

"I have reported your three-revert violation"

I posted it twice after the first time was completely deleted. I apologize but i was not familiar to the format of Wikipedia. After seeing your original post i posted it in the discussion page. I have done nothing but attempt to follow wikipedias rules in highlight the deficincies of this post.

"A lot of what you're doing here is original research"

This is simply incorrect. I posted numerous sources that address the pictures of Salman Pak. Should I simply qoute directly from that rather than try to summarize them?

The only thing I did do, was link to Townhall.com for the hosted picture of Salman Pak. The only other sources i found were Rush Limbaugh.com and various blogs. The photograph and the comparisons to Kohaba's drawing are outlined in numerous sources, however. I do think the actual pictures should be able to be viewed from Wikipedia (it is damning ;) Space Imaging is now defunct, and the new company Geoeye, does not appear to have it on this website. Perhaps upon contacting them they will release a photograph for public viewing. Mind if I namedrop wikipedia?

The comparison was actaully highlighted by the lawfirm the sued on behalf of the 9/11 victims. I can also contact the lawfirm, if they can be source the photograph. Would that be sufficient as well?

As for being original research. The photograph is named in numerous sources.

Interview With James Woolsey

Fox News Network, November 26, 2001 Monday

Woosley qouted by Tim Russert, NBC News Transcripts, December 9, 2001

LA Weekly (California) May 24, 2002, Friday "defecting Iraqi intelligence officer tells Iraqi National Congress representatives about Islamists being trained in hijacking techniques, including the use of one's hands and knives to take over airliners. The training was conducted aboard a Boeing 707 parked at Salman Pal, a secret Iraqi camp. The information has been corroborated, post--9/11, by Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami, a former Iraqi captain who was a military instructor at Salman Pak from 1994 to 1998. Post--9/11, U.S. intelligence releases an aerial photo of a 707 parked at Salman Pak."

National Public Radio (NPR)November 1, 2001 "Thursday Possible involvement of Iraq in anthrax attacks" Mr. CHARLES DEULFER (Former Deputy Head, UN Special Commission for Iraq): There were lots of places in Iraq where training of non-Iraqis, or things, which by our lexicon would be considered terrorism, was taking place. That's why Iraq is on the terrorist list. Having a large aircraft, a 707, in a peninsula, completely visible from the air or from satellite, with no airline runways nearby, that's not there by accident.

The Bulletin's Frontrunner, November 27, 2001 Bush Warns Saddam To Allow UN Inspectors Back Into Iraq Or Face Consequences."The satellite imagery obtained by NBC News shows the Boeing 707 south of Baghdad. Iraqi defectors told them this plane is used for terrorist training exercises.

Defense & Foreign Affairs' Strategic Policy. September, 2002. Iraq Using Riverine Barges as WMD Sites . A Monthly Report on Issues of Strategic Significance; Pg. 3 "Satellite photos which confirmed the existence of Saddam's hijacking school, the parked Boeing 707, Iraq's own admission that hijacking rehearsals were taking place at Salman Pak, although Iraqi officials claimed at the time that they were part of "counter-terrorism training"."

CNN July 31, 2002 Wednesday CNN DAYBREAK 05:00 Bush Points to Saddam Hussein as Being Sponsor of Terrorism. Carol Costello, Mike Boettcher. "Viewed from this satellite image, this patch of land inside the river bend south of Baghdad seems like an odd place for a jetliner to be parked. There's no passenger airport around. But anti-terror coalition intelligence analysts familiar with this place, a few miles southeast of Baghdad, say it's not so odd.

They tell CNN they strongly suspect that this old airliner fuselage highlighted here is part of a terrorist training camp called Salman Pak, a place where, among other things, terrorists practice hijacking techniques.

Eleven years after the end of the Gulf War, Salman Pak is a major piece of evidence for those who want to make Saddam Hussein's Iraq the next target in the war against terror.

Iraq claims the fuselage is used for anti-terror training."

Federal News Service. July 31, 2002 Wednesday. HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SUBJECT: IRAQ

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN, JR. (D-DE) LOCATION: ROOM 419, DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON,D.C.

Ambassador Hamza: "There have been several confirmed sightings of Islamic fundamentalists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Gulf states being trained in terror tactics at the Iraqi intelligence camp at Salman Pak, 20 miles south of Baghdad on the Tigris River. Three former intelligence officers have reported that they were surprised to find non-Iraqi fundamentalists undergoing training at the facility. The training involved assassination, explosions and hijacking.

All the three reported that there is a fuselage of an old Tupelev-154 airliner used for hijack training. This was later confirmed by satellite photographs."

Federal News Service. April 19, 2002 Friday

REMARKS BY FORMER CIA DIRECTOR JAMES WOOLSEY AT A DEFENSE FORUM FOUNDATION BRIEFING SUBJECT: THE WAR ON TERROR: WHY WE ARE IN IT AND HOW WE SHOULD FIGHT IT LOCATION: B-339 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.NOON

James Woolsey: Second, Iraq has had Salman Pak on the southern edge of Baghdad, a training facility for terrorism for a number of years, using an old Russian commercial aircraft to teach terrorist takeovers of aircraft. The aircraft shows up on commercially available satellite photography. They train, according to several defectors and several U.N. inspectors, Muslim extremists from other countries than Iraq, keep them separate from the Iraqi training, and they train people on taking over aircraft with knives.

Second, Iraq has had Salman Pak on the southern edge of Baghdad, a training facility for terrorism for a number of years, using an old Russian commercial aircraft to teach terrorist takeovers of aircraft. The aircraft shows up on commercially available satellite photography. They train, according to several defectors and several U.N. inspectors, Muslim extremists from other countries than Iraq, keep them separate from the Iraqi training, and they train people on taking over aircraft with knives.

The Weekly Standard. February 11, 2002. Return of the Saddam Apologist. Not surprisingly, Ritter is skeptical. He laces his article with quotation marks insinuating that the defectors are providing bad "information," and doing so at the direction of the Defense Department. "The facility at Salman Pak does exist," Ritter ruefully concedes, in a head-fake towards the truth. (This is not really much of a concession, though, since U.N. weapons inspectors visited the camp in 1995, and satellite photos by Space Imaging conform its existence.) Nonetheless, he's unconcerned by the fact that Saddam is training terrorists.

Aviation Week & Space Technology January 7, 2002

Satellite Photos Believed To Show Airliner for Training Hijackers

MICHAEL A. DORNHEIM

Satellite images of a facility near Baghdad show an airliner that Iraqi defectors say is used to train terrorists in the art of hijacking.

Space Imaging, which operates the Ikonos civilian surveillance satellite, was prompted to look for the aircraft in existing photos after a Frontline television show interviewed two Iraqi defectors who described the hijacker training and the aircraft used for the mock attacks.

ONE OF THEM DREW a map of the Salman Pak training area, and Space Imaging was able to find the facility and the aircraft in photographs taken on Apr. 25, 2000, of an area about 15 mi. southeast of Baghdad on the Tigris River. The zoomed-in photograph is a close match to the hand-drawn map, lending credence to the defector's story.

OK. I merely trying to show that the photograph does exist. It's been documented, it's not hearsay, and it isnt going away. I think it should be shown side by side with Kohaba's picture.

Hey, I'll make it easy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/art/map.jpg and http://www.asjewelers.com/FRstuff/salman_pac_small.jpg

You don't think that is relevent?

"Fourth, Laurie Mylroie has been completely discredited as a scholar"

While I am not attempted to defend her reputation, I was just merely pointing out that, so is MotherJones. But I'm sure you have no problem with Wikipedia attempting to change that perception.

I might add, motherjones doesn't show up in LexusNexus. While Laurie Mylroie and some of her journals does.

"the SSCI is a part of the government, so it is a bit silly to criticize them for taking "pride in not believing anything the government tells them."

Apparentely you didn't understand my point. The political contigent that usually denies Hussein's existence to terrorist groups quickly point out when government instiutions decide against it. Yet on other issues, they are usually the first to point out that the U.S. government is unreliable and choose not to believe anything the government tells them. For example, if we were discussing U.S. invovlement in some coup attempt, would asserting the CIA denied the claims shut down the arguement?

"the investigative report published in Mother Jones has not been followed up on by any of your sources, and to this day there is nobody defending al-Qurairy's credibility."

This is kind of petty. Not too many people are willing to jump and investigate every claim Mother Jones makes. A minor and yet highly charged publication like this doesn't carry the reputable clout to shut down an issue when they make an allegation. This story doesn't appear in Lexus Nexus, yet it was mentioned in The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin). There are few other articles mention Qurairy/Guirary (i tried different spellings) and there are only a few articles that revisit the claim Post-April 2003 invasion, most of them are revisiting the credibility of Chalabi defectors in general (based on WMD reporting). It doesn't appear that any major publication took the effort to revisit the credibility of Kohoba/Qurairy, it completely fell off the radar. Although that just an initial search, based on that alone i think is enough to gloss over Mother Jones reporting. Maybe, it's worth mentioning to annote under Quirary's allegations. But definitely not enough to remove Quirary from the pages of history when discussing Salman Pak.

Really, that's all this is about. A certain political following is attempting to remove any and all speculation that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. While this is certianly up to debate, which I would acknowledge, I would never attempt to remove and censor any arguements and evidence that disagreed with my opinion.

Prior to the run-up to the Iraq War, there was a universal bi-partisan consensus that Hussein was tied to terrorist groups. Interestingly enough, I found in the news archives that the first articles implicating Iraq with 9/11 were media outlets critizing the administration and Intelligence agencies for missing key warning signs. And a quick lexus-nexus search shows that during the Clinton adminstration numerous media outlets were documenting the ties between Iraq and al-qaeda, there same outlets that are now saying there is no evidence, and blocking speculative attempt from the public.

This incredibly biased article should show both sides. Neither one is ever going to be the "factually documented" with the other "debunked", all i ask is for an open mind and understand that.

Sorry, my formatting sucks. Chudogg (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"[T]his entire article is basically a summation of "debunkings" of the claim." To the extent that it references two prominent Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reports, including the findings of CIA and DIA. And with very good reason. U.S. intelligence agencies determine that the southernmost tip of Salman Pak was developed as a special forces counter-terrorism training facility. The British Government knew this to be the case from the start. [2][3] Investigative reporters have also uncovered evidence that seriously undermines earlier claims. On the other hand, you adduce a create-your-own.townhall.com blog, insisting it "has at least as much credibility as Mother Jones' ... hit piece". That's just plain silly. You also cite two pre-war reports by British journalist David Rose without noting that he looks back on his enthusiastic support for invasion "with shame and disbelief". In the September issue of New Statesman, he wrote:

"To my everlasting regret, I strongly supported the Iraq invasion, in person and in print. I had become a recipient of what we now know to have been sheer disinformation about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his purported 'links' with al-Qaeda - claims put out by Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress." [4]

More to the point, you attempted to insert material in a manner expressly forbidden by Wikipedia. If you merely wish to add context then please do so constructively and, may I suggest, incrementally, to avoid POV pushing like this. smb (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Added NPOV dispute. Information being withheld: sourced and documented, including photgraphic evidence. Opinions of major prominent figures withheld. Entire reason is basically guilt by association, and "consensus" disagrees. Article is content to be limited to questions of credibility, without documenting any supporting evidence or relevent assertions. LexusNexus search doesn't contend editor's assertion on consensus. One source of limited credibility, that is not recognized by valid archives and databases, questions one of the three to five sources that originated the allegations. Chudogg (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag because nothing stands in your way of improving this page. The problem, most obvious, is that you haven't proven yourself capable of doing that yet (withing the rules and guidelines). We live and learn. smb (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, chudogg, lexis nexis is a database operated for a profit. They purchase the rights to reprint journals that sell those rights. The fact that Mother Jones chose not to sell those rights to Lexis Nexis (or that Lexis Nexis chose not to buy them) does not mean it is as reliable as "townhall" blogs. The report published there is legitimate and reliable investigative journalism that has not ever been refuted by any source. Your edits are a blatantly obvious attempt to bury this fact by citing earlier articles that do not take into account what was learned by 2005. You're doing the same thing with the kohada material. And your side by side photo links is clearly original research. Find a reliable source that published those photos side by side; publishing them here without that (and with snide innuendo about what this silly cartoon "proves") is blatantly POV and original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.173.67 (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)