Soldier of our Afghan ally murders three German troops, wounds six others

The sad reality about Islam’s killers is this; Because Islam makes a continuous claim of religious legitimacy, Islam, as a system, can rely on a huge, unpaid, unseen, unorganized, individually acting, empowered to act, widely distributed group of highly motivated devout believers who are willing to kill in order to keep Islam the way it is.

Read the complete theory at http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/

"Since late 2009, there have been three incidents of Afghan police and soldiers turning on their NATO comrades."

We're infidels, not comrades. Someday Western armies will leave Afghanistan and if they're wise they'll lock the door on their way out. The "innocent" people of Afghanistan will have to fight their own battles for freedom and they will have to do it without outside assistance.

George W. Bush ought to come out of retirement (a la Jimmy Carter) and take a trip over to Afghanistan, and go on a speaking tour giving speeches to the peaceloving Afghani people. His topic? The inherently enchanting quality of the religion of Allah and the re-enchantment of Islam.

Leaving Afghanistan and cutting off all monies to Afghanistan are grand ideas...so is Banning Muslim Immigration.

Unfortunately the best policy is to ignore these kinds of attacks.

These attacks are not caused by some muslim just going berzerkoid at random. Someone directs them or specifically inspires them to do it. There are two results desireable to the enemey.

1. To make allied troops not want to mix with muslim troops. The result would be that muslim soldiers would then not absorb the values, goals and world view of the western troops. If they are not in contact it will be easier to make the muslim soldiers switch their view of nato from ally to alien invader.

2. To trick other muslim soldiers into thinking that this is what other muslims think this is the patriotic thing to do- thus making them more likely to do it themselves. I hope the muslim command tries to counter this way of thinking.

If those are the purposes of such an attack the only way to counter its purpose is to ignore it physically but counter it with education/propoganda directed at the muslim soldiers.

One thing that would help, if it is not being done already, is to agressively and realistically educate muslim soldiers more about the damage to the country and it's citizens caused by the taliban when they had their way.

And that it is the taliban, by acting for Pakistan, that were the ones allied and tools of an alien invader first. And the Nato forces came to help them repell the foriegn invaders and their tools.

I hope the muslim command is actually doing that. It would be a subtle thing to craft such counter propoganda in a way that its result wouldnt't be counter to it's intent if they use islam in the propoganda.

"O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it."
bukhari/005.059.369
Lesson: Systematic lying to the infidel, must be considered part and parcel of Islamic tactics.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/12/perfect-man-of-islam.html

There is a simple way to distinguish a peaceful Muslim from a Jihadist. Call them a "moderate" and see how they react.

The article did not make note of it (that I saw, at any rate), but surely the Afghani was yelling 'Alla hu Akbar' until he was taken down.

What's up with that?

I was just reading about this article this morning in the paper the sunday mail,it's quite amazing at what they fail to mention they said a man in an afghan uniform opened fire on german troops,nothing about the deception or the root cause of why he did this, he somehow must have got hold of the uniform and used his prowess to enter the camp before engaging his targets,he couldn't possibly have been smiling at his enemies while cursing with his heart now could he,any shocking news from the islamic world is dumbed down to politically correct propaganda levels in australian papers and blogs

Dangerously naive? I fail to see how looking beyond the reaction the enemy wants us to have in order to figure out the purpose of this tactic is naive. Esepecially when an attack is so obviously an attack against morale and intended to foment division between allies, drive out Nato and stop the training of Afgan soldiers.

The reactions of "We shouldn't be there" "none of them can be trusted" is one of the exact reasons they do this sort of thing. They want western soldiers to not trust Afgani soldiers. They want Afgani soldiers to feel that they aren't trusted and become resentful so the enemy can convert them to their cause. They want Nato to stop training a soldiery that will then use that training to create an army that can stand against them.

And more than anything they want westerners to want NATO out of Afganistan so they can claim victory and take over the country again. The jihadists will be further emboldened and there will be even worse carnage then there is now, if that is even possible.

Splitting is a common strategy Islamic Supremicists have used against muslims living in the west to drive them apart from the native populations and against all manner of political entities in order to nutralize opposition to their agenda. Why would they not do it against military opponents as well?

I think both Truthiocity and gravenimage have a point. Switching sides is common, from leader to soldier and at the same time the jihadist strategy appears to be "separating" foreigners and members of the afghan army. A masterfully designed strategy, tricky to counter.

When working with MUslims, keep them in front of you and in clear view.....You just never know when they will decide to become pious Muslims....

The global jihad has used Iraq and Afghanistan to weaken and pick off our troops (and those aligned with us) for ten years. This is how they will finish the job. Our troops teach them, then they turn on our troops in the last hour and kill as many as they can. When they then destroy a major city in the U.S., Obama will rationalize that we do not have enough troops to defend ourselves and sign a dhimmi contract with the Muslim Brotherhood.

We should let these two "democratic" countries recruit and train their own military and police and criminalize the jihadists (of course, jihad is not illegal under Sharia law). They have had enough time to do so if they were in good faith about it.

AlaskanInfidel and both make solid points.

AlaskanInfidel

"But as to whether or not that was the plan...?"

Absolutely that was the plan. They knew there was little chance the guy would have survived such an attack. They could have killed the soldiers with a bomb and not lost a jihadi, or chose other soldiers to kill. But instead of a bomb they chose this method and this target.

There is no way he just went berzerkoid out of the blue. These guys don't come to these decisions on their own. The fort hood shooter acted alone but was in contact with a now notorious priest shortly beforehand and the times square guy had assistance as well.

The enemy does not want afgani soldiers trained by Nato in how to fight them better. The afgan army will have better training than the taliban AND won't adhere to the various rules of engagment that Nato troops must.

They also don't want afgans in close contact with westerners, and especially not looking up to them.

One of the real reasons those people hate us is because they believe westerners and paticularly America infected muslims with western impure decadence of casual dating and women wearing pants. They believe if islam is to be pure america in particular must be destroyed, prevented from influencing the world or made muslim.

They absoulutely do not want muslims mixing with westerners, learning to like them and accepting their impure ways.

gravenimage I thought overnight about my statemnt and there are just as good reasons for me to have suggested the extreme opposite. Namely that the hunkering down in order to show the enemy that we won't be moved contributes to the hemoraging of wealth and manpower that they also want us to suffer.

However a benifit of the training is that eventually there should be enough afgans trained by Nato to be able to train others and we won't be needed.

An upleasant upside of this incident is that it might indicate that the taliban has to resort to this kind of trickery because they cannot field the numbers of fighters they've previously been able to.

I don't think afgans would see our steadfastness as foolighness. If they had the ability to distinguish resolve from foolishness that country would be in better shape than it is. But if we leave before we should our allies there will see it as a betrayal (yah I know "what have you done for me lately") and abandonment and the enemy would see it as a victory. As they would claim no matter what it must be seen by the world that they were crushed or that we left behind a force that could stand against them.

Personally I will never consider it a success because we did not salt the poppie fields or put a stop to those disgusting pedo-pimps.