"Earlier this month, an Afghan soldier killed three British service members with gunfire and a rocket-propelled grenade and in November, an Afghan policeman killed five British soldiers at a checkpoint in Helmand."
And here is yet another. The rate of various failures of discipline among Afghan soldiers -- defections, disappearances (including those 46 or more who have disappeared in the U.S. after coming here for "training"), and outright murder should point to far more at work here than the official story of a developing country getting its bearings and facing some bumps in the road. But as always, there is the ideological component of jihad, together with a pervasive disregard for non-Sharia law, that constitute a persistent "elephant in the room."
"Afghanistan: Two Americans killed by 'alliance' soldier," from AdnKronos International, July 21:
Kabul, 21 July (AKI) - Two American civilians and two Afghan soldiers were killed Tuesday on a military base in northern Afghanistan, NATO said.
The attacker - an Afghan soldier at the base outside Mazar-e-Sharif -opened fire during a weapons exercise, NATO said in a statement. The shooter was among those killed.
NATO and Afghan authorities will conduct a joint investigation into the incident, according to Afghan defence ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi.
The soldier fled after that attack, leaving his motive unclear, according to a news report.
No information about the American civilians was immediately available but contractors commonly work on military bases.
Earlier this month, an Afghan soldier killed three British service members with gunfire and a rocket-propelled grenade and in November, an Afghan policeman killed five British soldiers at a checkpoint in Helmand.
The soldier fled after that attack, leaving his motive unclear, according to a news report.
I might be able to help them out with that "motive" mystery.
Some of the collaborators are deciding instead to resist foreign invaders? Outrageous!
...The shooter was among those killed....
...The soldier fled after that attack, leaving his motive unclear, according to a news report...
I didn't know dead people could flee, but I guess anything is possible with Allah...
Hmmm Dave...There was an initial invasion, but at the present time, the US is there by government invitation...The Taliban are fighting with the gov as much as with the foreigners...
duh swami:
"There was an initial invasion, but at the present time, the US is there by government invitation...The Taliban are fighting with the gov as much as with the foreigners..."
To the extent your own government follows orders from another nation, and actually invites them to occupy your country, then they are also collaborators and subject to attack. (Makes me wonder what would happen if the US sheeple ever realized that we have a puppet government of Israel).
"I didn't know dead people could flee"
This is very perceptive. You simply brush this off with a juvenile remark, but doesn't this make you wonder if you should trust reporting from "Adnkronos Intl," whom Mr. Spencer seems to quote quite often?
I make lots of juvenile remarks about Islam and Islamic antics, because Mahoundians understand it...I speak in your language, you acknowledge it with "This is very perceptive".
Speaking of juvenile remarks...
To the extent your own government follows orders from another nation, and actually invites them to occupy your country, then they are also collaborators and subject to attack.
Any gov in the world, good or bad, will shoot you for that...
Following orders is not substantiated...And they are not invited to 'occupy'...But granted, it would seem that a nine year presence could constitute an occupation...
Does anyone happen to know if the US vets Muslim pilots, or would that be considered profiling or worse, political bigotry?
I imagine quite a bit of damage could be done by a US trained pilot enjoying the advantage of air superiority with a full payload, but it's only lives after all, so probably better not to rock the boat with awkward questions.
duh swami:
"I speak in your language, you acknowledge it with "This is very perceptive"."
The reason is said "this is very perceptive" is because you bought up an obvious problem with the Adnkronos story, and I asked you why this type of reporting doesn't make you question the source. You reply with the quote above. I don't get your reply.
I want to know why you don't question a source that claims that a dead man fled the scene.
Just after the first American was killed in Afghanistan, a northern alliance fighter overheard the Taliban discuss: "the prisoners wanted to go back out to get Mike to bring him inside to shoot him to be sure he was dead. They wanted be able to take credit for Mike’s death so when they were killed they could go to heaven for killing an American."
Dave, you've refused to answer my question on 2 other threads. Now, I'm asking yet again--I'll put it in caps for your convenience:
DAVE, ARE YOU A 9/11 "TRUTHER?" YES OR NO?
Well?
How can our poor overworked and undereducated(about islam and jihad), troops win the hearts an dminds of the Afghan people when they can't win the hearts and minds of the people who are our friends?
friends like the afghan government and the militery?
Best thing to do is get out of that hell hole, seal the borders.
Whenever I read about one of these deadly episodes - Afghanis killing Americans, or others, I think of what the British colonials used to say about Afghanis: "You can rent them, but you can't buy them."
Of course he is a Troofer. It is one of the common causes that unites all Internet Kooks, be they Islamist, Marxist, White Nationalist, or Anarchist.
(Makes me wonder what would happen if the US sheeple ever realized that we have a puppet government of Israel).
Ah yes, good old ZOG. Been spending much time over at Stormfront? Sometimes I actually wish that ZOG was real, because if they were half as powerful, cunning, and ruthless as you would like us to believe, there is no doubt that they would quickly grow tired of your incessant prattle, and Jihadwatch (and everyone else for that matter) would have stopped hearing from you quite some time ago.
The "War on Terror" just isn't cutting it.
Now we will have to declare a "War on Surprise Attacks by People Who Seem to Be Our Friends."
Of course, if we could only find a common theme for all of the attacks on us.
But, I just cannot find a shared thread.... Now what could it possibly be that all of these people have in common?
Yep. This is a really tough recognition problem. What is common here.... What is common here.... What is common here....
Owww. My brain hurts trying to figure this one out.
I guess it's hopeless that I could possibly come up with the answer, since all the best and brightest in Washington, the Pentagon, the Main Stream Media, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, etc., have not been able to figure out what the common theme across all of these attacks is.
It sure would be nice if *someone* could figure it out.
George:
What is the definition of a "truther"? What is the definition of a "conspiracy theorist"?
Well a "truther" is generally a American with the brains of a dung beetle. They are also virulently anti-Jewish to the point that they compete with Muslims and Neo-Nazis in terms of hatred.
Here's a good link that debunks these "loose change"
idiots and lunatics.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons%29
Dave, prevaricating by falsely playing dumb is truly shameful. You know full-well what I'm asking you.
Posting here, on Jihad Watch, as one who believes that not muslims, but our own government, planned and executed the 9/11 attacks is disingenuous and deceitful. Your twisted version of those events colors every word you write. And your refusal to answer to this when asked is dishonest and cowardly.
You have zero honor, zero credibility, and zero claim to any bully-pulpit here from which to praise our enemies or insult our citizens. You should be written-off like a bad-debt...
This is very perceptive. You simply brush this off with a juvenile remark...
Q. What's juvenile about pointing out a gross inconsistency in a news article?
A. Absolutely nothing.
*** 4:142 ***
It is your accusation of juvenility that's questionable.
Alarmed pig farmer:
"What's juvenile about pointing out a gross inconsistency in a news article?"
Nothing. It is a good thing. The comment afterwards is what I was referring to:
"I didn't know dead people could flee, but I guess anything is possible with Allah..."
George:
"Dave, prevaricating by falsely playing dumb is truly shameful. You know full-well what I'm asking you."
I am not playing dumb. Serious research articles and books make a big deal about carefully defining terms. Since you seem to be so worried about labels, I need to know what you are referring to. If you can't define the term, then don't bother asking me if I belong to that group.
What a cowardly, dishonest wimp you are, Dave. I spelled it out in my post. Walt provided you a website. Are you ashamed to be a troofer, Dave? Or is it just that, if folks here knew that about you, then you couldn't pose as just another muslim apologist, and whatever troll- credibility you (mistakenly) hoped to gain would be lost?
Your whole Truther schtick is sick fantasy, Dave, it's dumpster material. And so are you. Go play with the other pathetic loser-freaks on Loonwatch.
George:
It's funny that you cannot define a word.
Anything but answer the question, right Dave?
Coward.
George:
Coward: a person who lacks courage, especially, one who is shamefully unable to control fear and so shrinks from danger or trouble.
It's not so hard.
Coward: a person who lacks courage, especially, one who is shamefully unable to control fear and so shrinks from danger or trouble.
Sounds like the perfect description for someone who claims their own government is responsible for mass murder, that their own nation is a rogue state, and yet continues to stay in said country, enjoying the benefits thereof, paying taxes to support said government, and never dreaming of taking up arms against said government.
I imagine the words hypocrite, or phony might also apply.
"...one who believes that not muslims, but our own government, planned and executed the 9/11 attacks..."
Sounds like you provided a rather straight forward definition to me George, but I have to wonder whether "Serious research articles and books" would consider the word sheeple a 'carefully defined term,' and not just a sloppy and condescending rhetorical device of political and social outcasts?
Kuffir, I think you expressed it perfectly and in context. And, look, he's still dancing around like a marionette, doesn't have the courage of his convictions, afraid to admit what he believes, will even play the dunce to avoid it. Dave, who will neither be honest nor defend himself, is unqualified to defend anything else, least of all islam.
I just decided he shouldn't get away with his little charade while he's running around the threads with his drivel. Am I ever glad you were here, too!
Regards to you, Kuffir!
G
Hey, George ...dave is also a Toymentor, because he likes to play games by not answering a simple question. Hmm, that makes him sadistic as well.
George:
"...one who believes that not muslims, but our own government, planned and executed the 9/11 attacks..."
If this is the definition then, no, I am not a truther.
George:
If you define conspiracy theorist, I will tell you if I am that.
George:
Conspiracy theory: A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
If you think that a secret group of men in a cave half-way around the world is responsible for 9/11, then you are a conspiracy theorist. The belief that men in caves guide world events seems unique, though. Maybe there should be a separate word for people who believe that major events are the result of conspiracies hatched by men in caves living thousands of miles away. How about "sheeple"?
Next time Mr. Spencer has a thread on 9/11 and I am available, we can discuss it. You, of course, will be unable to do so, other than making the usual juvenile remarks. Until then, we are off topic, at your insistence.
A word of advice for our newest non-Muslim posters and lurkers, those who have joined us in the past month or even in the past weeks or days -
beware of the poster calling himself 'dave742'.
During the period when we used IntenseDebate for comments here (early-mid 2009) and could choose little pictures to represent ourselves, *his* 'avatar' was... the nasty Hezbollah flag, complete with kalashnikov. Nuff said.
I have not yet decided whether he is a Mohammedan (if so, he is probably a Shiite, and quite possibly Persian, practising taqiyya and kitman to the nth degree) or whether he is merely an enthusiastic dhimmi janissary for Jihad.
It hardly matters; either possibility fits with the style and substance of his postings, which I think are in general intended to dismay, distract, confuse, press supposed guilt buttons (unfortunately for him, most posters here long ago quit blaming themselves for the Jihad waged against them and theirs, having discovered that those who *don't* resist Jihad seem to cop it just as much as, or even more than, those who do) to deny, to obfuscate and, to put it simply, to throw sand in everyone's eyes and run interference for the Jihad and the Sharia-pushers. To try, if he possibly can, to thwart the educational functions of this website and prevent more non-Muslims from realizing that there *is* a clear and present danger from the jihad-wagers, from the sharia-pushers.
Whenever 'dave742' appears on a thread, it is a good idea to make sure that you re-read the posted article and Mr Spencer's comments, and anything that Hugh Fitzgerald may have had to say, among the comments.
"*his* 'avatar' was... the nasty Hezbollah flag"
Yes, I support group that fight invaders for their right to self-determination.
"I think are in general intended to dismay, distract..."
Listen,nitwit. I am more than happy to discuss the subject of every thread I post to, and I would prefer that. It is others that want to either talk about my avatar, call me names, change the subject to 9/11 so they can call me names, make inane posts like the one you just made, etc. I have no problem talking about the subject of the thread, and it is not me who changes the subject.
How dare this person press me for the truth!
How do I get outta' this? Here, I'll define my way out of the question. Good! Then I'll put conditions on my answering the question. Make sure it sounds condescending, throw-in a few ad hominems--there! By God, I can dissemble with the best of them!
"Conspiracy Theorist," eh, Dave? Oh, I so want to ask you,"Please tell me who did 9/11, Dave?" But I already know that. And just getting you to admit to your "Trutherness" was worse (and much longer) than a root canal!
Hi Champ!
Geez, this place is starting to look like a troll convention! Perhaps some instruction in
pest control from the Alaskan Infidel would be in order? LOL!
G
I guess that if being suspicious at the idea that some folks who were already on terrorist watch lists were able to defeat the security of hardened cockpit doors with box cutters and force 4 planes full of people to crash. If believing New York City Firefighters{many of whom share the anti-Islamic ideas touted on this blog} when they say that they witnessed a controlled DEMOLITION of both towers AND bldg. 7, I suppose that if believing people who had no reason to lie in their statements which support the idea that 911 was an inside job, rather than swallowing the party line of the same government that started a war without end over some WMDs we now know that they KNEW didn't exist...
If that is how one qualifies for the label "Truther", well I suppose you should put my name on that list also.
I AM a Muslim, and as I've stated elsewhere this week, I find nothing about Islam for which I feel the need to apologize. I don't "misunderstand" my faith, at ALL! Islam WILL dominate the world again, as it has before, and I pray for the day when the United States are united under the Leadership of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Allah Bless America!!!!
I was there:
-Some of the collaborators are deciding instead to resist foreign invaders? Outrageous!
he wasn't resisting foreign invaders, he killed them because he was mad at them. They had just got in an argument, it was an 'honor thing'.
-"I didn't know dead people could flee"
-This is very perceptive. You simply brush this off with a juvenile remark, but doesn't this make you wonder if you should trust reporting from "Adnkronos Intl," whom Mr. Spencer seems to quote quite often?
no numbnuts, he was running away after shooting two people in the back, as was shot while fleeing.
Following orders is not substantiated...And they are not invited to 'occupy'...But granted, it would seem that a nine year presence could constitute an occupation...
actually most of the military are glad we are here, as well as most civilians I've encountered.