Afghan interpreter kills 2 US soldiers, US gov’t makes excuses

Last Friday an Afghan interpreter shot and killed two U.S. soldiers before being killed himself.

“Initial indications are this was a case of a disgruntled employee,” a military said according to Reuters.

An Afghan provincial official, who also asked not to be named, said the interpreter had quarrelled with the soldiers over pay and treatment, before opening fire.

Circumstances surrounding the incident are strange: Little to no information on the shooting is available – ISAF only issued a two-sentence statement, only a handful of publications (mostly foreign) have picked up the story, and the names of the fallen soldiers are still not listed a week after the incident.

With that in mind, can we trust this unnamed “Afghan provincial official” (perhaps he is disgruntled, too)? But if what he says is true, why was the interpreter disgruntled? Are we about to witness a string of disgruntled interpreter attacks? Could the 13 year-old Afghan boy who was injured the following day when the IED he was placing prematurely detonated have done so because he too was disgruntled? Were we attacked on 9/11 by disgruntled individuals?

Perhaps our government thinks that this whole war is being fought against enemy who is simply disgruntled, which would make more sense as to why Obama thinks that the Taliban can simply be paid off (with our tax dollars). Disgruntled employees can be placated with money, but uncompromising ideologues can not.

It is plain to see that the U.S. government covers for Islamic jihad at every opportunity. But why?

And while they tell us not to jump to conclusions, they are jumping from conclusions. Which is worse? The truth is what counts, not perceptions.