U.S. soldiers gunned down by Afghan policeman they trained SECONDS after giving him a weapon

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Were the founding fathers scum for attacking the occupiers?

Were the Brittish training American men and giving them weapons to defend their people? Are we taxing Afghanistan and giving them no representation? Anologies only work when the two things are analogous.

reply to post by Golf66


This is the most sincere reply in the whole thread and echos my thoughts exactly.

The person who committed this act may have had a family member or close relative killed at any point during this conflict and waited for this opportunity.

I know that 99.9% of soldiers don't want civilian deaths but they do happen. And this could have been the consequence of that.

Or he could have just been a Taliban or AQ supporter that infiltrated and waited for his chance. Which I believe is most likely the case from this clip from the OP's source...

'As soon as they gave the weapon to Ismail to begin training, he took the gun and opened fire toward the U.S. soldiers,' Kemtoz said. The police chief added that he had warned U.S. forces organizing and training the community not to move too fast to recruit in the village, which he said is heavily influenced by the Taliban.

It may be a new tactic from the Taliban. And it would be affective, not in mass killings but in creating fear and doubt about the recruits.

reply to post by HomerinNC


Did they ask for your help? are you sure there was no understandable reason for him reacting that way?

Whilst this event is tragic it should at the very least of been expected. when you give guns to people who's country you invaded and possibly killed their loved ones and friends in the process, even if the reason for invading is valid the least you should do is expect events like this.

People always want revenge, it's the same reason America were there to start with.

Originally posted by GAOTU789
I know that 99.9% of soldiers don't want civilian deaths but they do happen. And this could have been the consequence of that.

I'm glad someone get it because it seems in reading ATS comments on would think that that our Soldiers rate somewhere between the plague and Genghis Khan in their respect for life.

Originally posted by GAOTU789
Or he could have just been a Taliban or AQ supporter that infiltrated and waited for his chance. Which I believe is most likely the case from this clip from the OP's source...

'As soon as they gave the weapon to Ismail to begin training, he took the gun and opened fire toward the U.S. soldiers,' Kemtoz said. The police chief added that he had warned U.S. forces organizing and training the community not to move too fast to recruit in the village, which he said is heavily influenced by the Taliban.

It may be a new tactic from the Taliban. And it would be affective, not in mass killings but in creating fear and doubt about the recruits.

The tactic is not new in that there have always been Taliban in every FOB and unit in the theater. That they are attacking openly is new... I agree he likely was a plant from the beginning.

Listening to the locals as indicated in your link would have paid off. However, it’s a double edged sword since one can listen too much and end up being manipulated. Perhaps the pressure of our imminent departure (thanks Barry) is making people rush things...?

I knew who on our FOB was a Taliban supporter and who was not. They are everywhere - cowards mostly who do it for money. Money is an easy motivation to counter/manipulate.

It’s the hard core ideologue that is darn near unbreakable. I had some - I am lucky since I have a background in counterintelligence and HUMINT to rely upon. I used the known hard core agents to create a disinformation campaign and on several occasions got good captures/kills out of total BS - like letting a route and patrol time been seen then ambushing the ambushers so to speak. Not all Commanders make use of HUMINT as effectively. Most just like pictures and video. Me - I like working the human assets.

I am glad I was not in command of the people that vetted him. I can assure you that somewhere right now some young Major or Captain is regretting very much his haste in quickly trying to make numbers rather than properly vetting the indidge for his associations. I hope they review the SOP's and address the problem theater wide so everyone can let it sink in.

Bottom line is we need to get all the conventional forces out soon or there will be a massacre at some point. SF and such can operate in the gray area – just take the Joes out. Watch the ball when we are leaving for during all that transition there may well be a large scale attack on a troop concentration hoping for a Somalia type reaction - especially if Barry gets reelected.

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by yourmaker
I'd probably support doing the same thing to any foreign army trying to teach the new local proxy force to obey some far off Empire. Except far worse...just the truth.

This.

If China (oooOOooo scary china!) invaded the US, and occupied it for an entire decade, treating Americans like garbage that could be kicked around and shot just for the hell of it, siphoned out resources, and dug its cancerous economic tendrils even deeper into the US than the US has already willingly allowed... all of you crying "scumbag!" would be reveling when any occupier of US soil was killed.

Every one of you hypocrites.

Afghanistan and its people needs the US empire occupying its land and digging in its tendrils of influence just as much as the US and its people needs the Chinese empire to occupy America and do the same.

Get the # out of the Middle East, troops, and come home and start defending America against its true enemies and the true threats to its security and sovereignty. HINT: they dont wear turbans, lack a penny to their names, or live in dilapidated huts in the desert!

edit on 8/18/2012 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

Except that (China invading and occupying the mainland United States) would never happen unless they first nuked us and were capable of occupying an irradiated wasteland.

reply to post by Golf66


I have no doubt that their is a decent minority of sympathizers imbedded amongst NATO troops for just this reason. This caught my eye though...

Bottom line is we need to get all the conventional forces out soon or there will be a massacre at some point. SF and such can operate in the gray area – just take the Joes out. Watch the ball when we are leaving for during all that transition there may well be a large scale attack on a troop concentration hoping for a Somalia type reaction - especially if Barry gets reelected.

That was something I was concerned about as well, as I still have a few friends deployed as trainers over there. I don't know, and hope that it wouldn't, if a large attack came close to the end date withdrawal whether it would have the same affect on FP in the US as Somalia had. That pretty much changed how you guys did things for the better part of a decade until 9/11. The difference now is that we have over a decade of fighting under our belts, where as before Somalia, there weren't any large scale, sustained missions. GW1 wasn't really in the same league as what has gone on over the last decade. We have seen pictures of Americans being hung from bridges and the response was the exact opposite than Mogidishu. Although in saying that, it GWB as CIC and not Obama. I don't know if this guy would react the same way to an incident like that. Another Democrat turned tail and ran, I am not sure that the reaction wouldn't be the same from this one.

I'll pray that we get out with as little damage as possible although I know in my heart that there is going to be more of these type of attacks and more frequent. They are on the rise. I just hope there isn't a repeat of the Camp Chapman attack but with a lot higher casualty rate.

Originally posted by GAOTU789

That was something I was concerned about as well, as I still have a few friends deployed as trainers over there.

I wish them all the best - sleep with one eye open and never go anywhere without a sidearm at least. I hope they have changed some of the silly rules in the rear areas. Some places didn't allow any locked and loaded weapons at all even a side arm. Just like in the states it’s an example of failed firearm policy - limiting the good guys who follow the rules to 3-4 seconds of life because you fear an accidental will only result in a lot of dead Soldiers IMO.

When I traveled to them I had more than one sidearm and no adult supervision so I could do as I pleased for the most part. Makes me think of the classy act by SecDef when he required all Soldiers to leave their weapons outside the tent when he spoke. I'd have the obvious one in my hip rig with magazine obviously removed - then two others elsewhere ready to rumble. That was when the curious Supply Colonel decides to check the SF Major for compliance in the PX I can smile nod and say of course sir....

I would recommend your friends set up a set up a shadow security element that would be ideal. When known or suspected ALQ or Taliban were in our compound we had them shadowed by an operator or team who was locked loaded and at the ready to take him down at a moment’s notice. Taking their weapons was not an option as it would decrease the morale and trust with the good Afghanis. Like while one guy is giving a class or a brief another would be behind the trainees locked loaded and ready to engage or watching from a latrine/rest area or whatever usually smoking was the cover for this activity as all Afghanis smoke and a smoker can just stand there and stare off in space with little or no suspicion. We actually called it the "smoke" detail for double witty effect. We bought cigars with your tax payer dollars for the purpose too. Cubans from the tobacconist in town. Thank you American tax payer.

The problem I have with having conventional troops be trainers - they teach them the "training" part but gloss over the "first rule" of training indige is to be alert and ready at all times, not all of them are on your side... The teams are trained well but IMO they rely way too much on local security rather than themselves. Our compound was "secured" technically by Afghanis but you can bet we had a few guys up and about ready to rock at strategic places just in case we get compromised - Ala Chapman.

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
Wth? These countries don't want us there. POTUS don't want us to be there. This is all gov agenda saying anything they want to spend us into oblivion as they dance at the end of the strings of the financial elite.
"The U.S. military trainers handed the new recruit, Mohammad Ismail, his AK-47 to defend his remote Afghan village. He turned around and immediately used it, spraying the Americans with bullets and killing two - the latest of nine U.S. service personnel gunned down in two weeks by their supposed Afghan allies."
UK Daily Mail

Personally I dont see a problem with this. If someone invaded my country I would probably do the same.

We should just pack up and leave the country and cut off all aid to the government. The people evidently don't want us there so why are we there? Maybe we are there because of the Pharma companies interest in their crops as some have implied.

reply to post by TheMindWar


Yup even the most hardcore Americans agree that if someone invades your country, you deal with them, like this guy:

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

 

It's simple: we won't get invaded or occupied, we would fight tooth and nail, remember, many households have more then one weapon, and don't count out the veterans and our hillbillies

But this guy can't understand why an Afghan would do the same.

Soldiers life for money, make sense, no change in American military rules there since WWII.

reply to post by GoldenRuled


Who was the genious who came up with this bright idea in the first place??

If you are at war with someone, why even attempt to get along??

Do you unnecessary killings and please PULL OUT THE TROOPS!!!

There is no need to be there in the first place other than money, now we are training people to kill.....Unreal that we have people that simple minded in charge......

This stuff just makes me sick.....

Rather than be alarmists, we should always stay rational and look at issues at their perspectives.

For every 'nutjob' that kills NATO personnel, there are THOUSANDS & THOUSANDS of afghan security forces that DO NOT do the same.

It is the same, if not lower murder rates than in any country of our world. There is NO way for any civlised nation to stop nutjobs from killing.

Thus, that afghan nutjob is the exception, rather than the rule.

However, every human life is precious, and thus more 'open-minded' studies be researched by 'genuine' researchers on the causes, to cut down as much errors as possible in recruitment, so that it may save more lives.

Nato forces had done the best job they could to provide security, and the high number of votes for the election there attest to the fact that vast MAJORITY of the Afghanis want stability and peace, and DO NOT subscribe to the slaughters conducted by the Taliban monsters.

Nato is only being responsible to ensure our fellow human brothers and sisters in Afghanistan can enjoy the stability and peace when they leave.

The People there must do more to convince families, relatives and friends, to seek for truth and peace, and to reject the Taliban's insane and harming idealogies. and to deny food and water to any Taliban sympathizer, either overtly, or covertly by inform the authorities of who and where they are.

Enough is enough. Those taliban dogs must be exterminated or Afghanistan as a nation cannot exist. The RULE OF LAW must prevail, and NOT the rule of guns, for there are no bullets enough to kill all whom seek for peace.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by GoldenRuled

 

This is why we need to get out of there, we help these scumbags and they turn around and kill our soldiers.

You helped them? You #ed up their country, stole their resources and created chaos amongst the rubbles.... you didn't do jack #, and we don't need you to do more jack # around the world. You are NOT welcome....

Watch the ball when we are leaving for during all that transition there may well be a large scale attack on a troop concentration hoping for a Somalia type reaction - especially if Barry gets reelected.

What is that meant to convey?

Originally posted by roadgravel

Watch the ball when we are leaving for during all that transition there may well be a large scale attack on a troop concentration hoping for a Somalia type reaction - especially if Barry gets reelected.

What is that meant to convey?

I think it's fairly clear to those of us in the business. They would hope that a large body count event would have the effect of scaring the POTUS into withdrawing all the troops even Special Operations, Advisors, and trainers.

Breaking the will of the people to endure further loss - actually the perfect time for this is right before the election since they can use the withdraw of troops under Obama to keep him in power another 4 years. He has proven himself is very malleable at the hands of foreign powers

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
every human life is precious

...

Those taliban dogs must be exterminated

Is it only me who is noticing the discrepancy here?

Originally posted by TheMindWar

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
Wth? These countries don't want us there. POTUS don't want us to be there. This is all gov agenda saying anything they want to spend us into oblivion as they dance at the end of the strings of the financial elite.
"The U.S. military trainers handed the new recruit, Mohammad Ismail, his AK-47 to defend his remote Afghan village. He turned around and immediately used it, spraying the Americans with bullets and killing two - the latest of nine U.S. service personnel gunned down in two weeks by their supposed Afghan allies."
UK Daily Mail

Personally I dont see a problem with this. If someone invaded my country I would probably do the same.

They handed the new recruit his AK-47 to defend his remote Afghan village, which he immediately did.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Nato forces had done the best job they could to provide security, and the high number of votes for the election there attest to the fact that vast MAJORITY of the Afghanis want stability and peace, and DO NOT subscribe to the slaughters conducted by the Taliban monsters.

Nato is only being responsible to ensure our fellow human brothers and sisters in Afghanistan can enjoy the stability and peace when they leave.

I think we are preaching to the deaf here as you can see by the replies after I basically spelled out the real story. It is as you also indicated - most Afghani People want us there. The Taliban and their supporters which are about 10% of the population don't want us there are the vocal and active minority who kill our Soldiers.

Clearly the MSM has done a good job portraying the US Soldier as some mindless killing automaton unleashed on the poor Afghani people who only want to live in peace. The Afghani’s engage the Taliban more frequently than we do we are just better at it. It’s nothing new in the region that coincided with our arrival in theater. The tribes have been killing one another in Afghanistan for 3000 years or more and will continue to do so long after we are gone.

If we had never intervened the place would be a bloodbath of 7th century religion and they would still be killing each other – which is what is going on now. We help one side becasue they are the viticm of oppression.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
I guess you think blowing up their children is helping them

edit on 18-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Is that first guy stupid or what...?

sec.line