• Brand New Afghan Policeman Kills Two U.S. Troops Minutes After He's Handed His Official Weapon At Hi
    58 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The WSJ]KABUL—A newly recruited Afghan village policeman opened fire on his American allies on Friday, killing two U.S. service members minutes after they handed him his official weapon in an inauguration ceremony. It was the latest in a disturbing string of attacks by Afghan security forces on the international troops training them. Later Friday, an Afghan soldier turned his gun on foreign troops in another part of the country and wounded two of them, a NATO spokesman said. The attacks in the country's far west and south brought to seven the number of times that a member of the Afghan security forces—or someone wearing their uniform—has opened fire on international forces in the past two weeks. Such assaults by allies, virtually unheard of a few years ago, have escalated, killing at least 36 foreign troops this year. They also raise questions about the strategy to train Afghan national police and soldiers to take over security and fight insurgents after most foreign troops leave the country by the end of 2014. The coalition led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has said such attacks are anomalies stemming from personal disputes, but the supreme leader of the Taliban boasted Thursday night that the insurgents are infiltrating the quickly expanding Afghan forces. The top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, said in response: "The pride of the Afghan people has been smeared by killers who pose as soldiers and police." Friday's deadly attacker in the far western province of Farah was identified as Mohammad Ismail, a man in his 30s who had joined the Afghan Local Police just five days ago. He opened fire during an inauguration ceremony attended by American and Afghan forces in the Kinisk village, the Farah provincial police chief Agha Noor Kemtoz said. "As soon as they gave the weapon to Ismail to begin training, suddenly he took the gun and opened fire toward the U.S. soldiers," Mr. Kemtoz said. Mr. Ismail was shot and killed as the coalition and Afghan forces returned fire, the police chief said. A spokesman for the international coalition force, Jamie Graybeal, confirmed that two American service members were killed Friday by a member of the Afghan Local Police. The Afghan Local Police is different from the national police and represents a village defense force under the Ministry of Interior that is being trained by international forces, including U.S. Special Forces. Mr. Graybeal gave no other details on the Farah attack other than confirming the shooter had been killed. Mr. Kemtoz, the police chief, said the attack took place about 8 a.m., after the U.S. forces arrived in the village to train the local police. He said one Afghan National Police officer was also seriously wounded in the shooting. Later Friday, an Afghan army soldier fired on coalition troops in the southern province of Kandahar. Two of the international troops were wounded but none was killed in that shooting, Mr. Graybeal said. He added that the soldier was shot and died later Friday of his wounds. So far in 2012, there have been 29 attacks reported on foreign troops by Afghans they are training, compared with 11 attacks in 2011, according to an Associated Press count, and five attacks in each of the previous two years. Seven such attacks have come in the past two weeks alone, with six American troops killed last Friday in two separate shootings in Helmand province in the south and another American killed a few days previously on a U.S. base in Paktia province in the east. The trend raises questions about potential resentment by Afghans after more than a decade of international presence since the American-led intervention to oust the Taliban regime from power for harboring the al Qaeda terrorist leadership after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S. The insider attacks also renew concern that insurgents may be infiltrating the Afghan army and police, despite intensified screening. Insurgent infiltration or recruitment was behind only about 10% of this year's reported attacks on coalition forces by Afghan allies, Mr. Graybeal said earlier this week, citing investigations into attacks before those of the past week. Mr. Graybeal insisted the deadly violence is relatively small scale compared with the nearly 340,000 Afghan security forces now being trained. The international coalition has said that Afghan forces are increasingly able to lead operations and already have started to assume responsibility for security in areas of the country that are home to 75% of the Afghan population. However, the Taliban have been quick to seize on the increasing number of attacks as a sign of Afghan rejection of foreign forces and the insurgents' own successful recruitment. The group's supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar said Thursday night that the insurgents "have cleverly infiltrated in the ranks of the enemy" and were successfully killing a rising number of U.S.-led coalition forces. In an email to media organizations, Mr. Omar said the plan to transfer responsibility to Afghan forces by the end of 2014 is a "deceiving drama" that the international community has orchestrated to hide its defeat. The Taliban leader's message came on the same day that a U.S. military helicopter crashed during a firefight with insurgents in a remote area of southern Afghanistan, killing seven Americans and four Afghans in one of the deadliest air disasters of a war now into its second decade. The Taliban claimed they gunned down the Black Hawk. [/QUOTE] [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444375104577594703977564444.html[/url] How and why does this keep happening?
Christ man, that's awful.
I think it's time we remove all of our troops. We have no business there.
why the hell was it loaded?
What the fuck?
[QUOTE=salty peanut v2;37302321]why the hell was it loaded?[/QUOTE] it was minutes after, not immediately. I'm assuming he loaded it in those minutes and shot them.
The fact that those already trained opened fire on the gunman shows that not everyone is corrupt so we still have some hope for the country.
[QUOTE=Ereunity;37302402]The fact that those already trained opened fire on the gunman shows that not everyone is corrupt so we still have some hope for the country.[/QUOTE] and now thats why we get the hell out
[QUOTE=Ereunity;37302402]The fact that those already trained opened fire on the gunman shows that not everyone is corrupt so we still have some hope for the country.[/QUOTE] I feel bad for them, the vast majority probably want to make their country at better place but they're all overshadowed by the Shear stupidity of these people who only succeed in making entire country look like a uneducated mindless theology driven ass-backwards shit hole.
This is no random series of attacks. Obviously someone coordinated these, maybe to sow dissension in the ranks or to cause the folks back home to seriously question the validity of the continuation of this war, or maybe to just kill a bunch of Westerners. I don't know, but it's a shame all the same.
Maybe we should refrain from handing weapons to new recruits until they're trusted enough. I know the place is bad and unarmed officers is risky, but killer-cops aren't helping anyone.
Whoever it is we're fighting out there have realised that by doing this is doing more damage to us than however they were fighting us before, I don't just mean damage in the people being killed but also the fact that the relationship between our troops and the afghan police/army is going to become much more tense.
I'd hate to see us leave but hate to see us stay. Afghanistan is a shit hole without us and the violence will be overwhelming without US support and training but, it's still a shithole (albeit not as bad as it used to be) with us and it's just a drain on us economically and in terms of causalities.
Did I read that wrong or did it say that he had only joined the police force 5 days prior? Shouldn't they at least give these people a thorough screening before handing them a gun?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37303302]Maybe we should refrain from handing weapons to new recruits until they're trusted enough. I know the place is bad and unarmed officers is risky, but killer-cops aren't helping anyone.[/QUOTE] Wasnt this his inauguration ceremony? Hes already been a recruit for a while now and has probably been trusted by his trainers. This is the worst
This is why when I get there, I am not going to trust anybody but NATO personnel.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;37302334]it was minutes after, not immediately. I'm assuming he loaded it in those minutes and shot them.[/QUOTE] [quote]"As soon as they gave the weapon to Ismail to begin training, suddenly he took the gun and opened fire toward the U.S. soldiers,"[/quote]
[QUOTE=BorisJ;37302302]I think it's time we remove all of our troops. We have no business there.[/QUOTE] What so the citizens can suffer the oppression of the Taliban again? Mass executions across the country? We put them in this mess, it's our countries duty to finish it.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;37304492]What so the citizens can suffer the oppression of the Taliban again? Mass executions across the country? We put them in this mess, it's our countries duty to finish it.[/QUOTE] No we didn't, we pulled them out of that mess, and now we're holding them up, but we can't hold them up forever. [editline]18th August 2012[/editline] We're going to leave in a few years, and the whole place will decend back into chaos, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;37304492]What so the citizens can suffer the oppression of the Taliban again? Mass executions across the country? We put them in this mess, it's our countries duty to finish it.[/QUOTE] didn't realize the taliban were a direct & intentional product of the US government, please elaborate
[QUOTE=BorisJ;37302302]I think it's time we remove all of our troops. We have no business there.[/QUOTE] "Hm. The nation has an increase in violent activity, which is precisely what the US is trying to cut down on by having troops there.. better remove all our troops!" /fplogic
[QUOTE=cccritical;37304548]didn't realize the taliban were a direct & intentional product of the US government, please elaborate[/QUOTE] The conflict is very much a product of US intervention, not that I necessarily disagree with kicking them out of power but if you're going to start this conflict then it needs finishing.
[QUOTE=cccritical;37304548]didn't realize the taliban were a direct & intentional product of the US government, please elaborate[/QUOTE] They were created to fight against the Russian forces during the Cold War, trained by the CIA and funded by the US government.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37304375]This is why when I get there, I am not going to trust anybody but NATO personnel.[/QUOTE] I have a challenge for you SKEEA, you go one post without reminding everyone you're in the military.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37302596]Green on Blue attacks have increased a tenfold in the past decade. [IMG]http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/08/17/green-on-blue-attacks-chart.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Simple reason really. The allies have generally pushed the taliban out of official areas and on top of that have the superior firepower in direct confrontations. Which forces the taliban to not attack directly. And putting up covert gunmen takes time.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;37305080]Simple reason really. The allies have generally pushed the taliban out of official areas and on top of that have the superior firepower in direct confrontations. Which forces the taliban to not attack directly. And putting up covert gunmen takes time.[/QUOTE] is there any legit evidence this is the case or are you just guessing
[QUOTE=G3rman;37304951]They were created to fight against the Russian forces during the Cold War, trained by the CIA and funded by the US government.[/QUOTE] No they weren't. That was Mujahideen. Quite a bit different from Taliban. Taliban as it's known today came about after an incident that happened after the Russians had left the country.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37305391]No they weren't. That was Mujahideen. Quite a bit different from Taliban. Taliban as it's known today came about after an incident that happened after the Russians had left the country.[/QUOTE] Much of what remains of that organization has ventured off into the terrorist organizations we know today, they are connected.
The Taliban emerged in 1992 after the fall of the communist regime. They are not connected to the Mujahideen. [QUOTE=G3rman;37305551]Much of what remains of that organization has ventured off into the terrorist organizations we know today, they are connected.[/QUOTE] Proof?
Gee, maybe they're sick of being under hostile occupation for a decade...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.