Category Archives: NATO

ISIS Commanders Claimed to Have Full Cooperation with Turkey in Kurdish Genocide

U.S. President Obama shakes hands with Turkey's PM Erdogan after a bilateral meeting in Seoul

Turkey may be a member of NATO, but as much as 60 percent of the country, which has repeatedly voted in Islamist governments, hates NATO and is allied with ISIS. The evidence of that continues to pile up.

A so-called US ally is not only allied with terrorists, but is involved in genocide.

A reluctant former communications technician working for Islamic State, now going by the pseudonym ‘Sherko Omer’, who managed to escape the group, told Newsweek that he travelled in a convoy of trucks as part of an ISIS unit from their stronghold in Raqqa, across Turkish border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February.

“ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks,” said Omer of crossing the border into Turkey, “and they reassured us that nothing will happen, especially when that is how they regularly travel from Raqqa and Aleppo to the Kurdish areas further northeast of Syria because it was impossible to travel through Syria as YPG [National Army of Syrian Kurdistan] controlled most parts of the Kurdish region.”

“While we tried to cross the Ceylanpinar border post, the Turkish soldiers’ watchtower light spotted us. The commander quickly told us to stay calm, stay in position and not to look at the light. He talked on the radio in Turkish again and we stayed in our positions. Watchtower light then moved about 10 minutes later and the commander ordered us to move because the watchtower light moving away from us was the signal that we could safely cross the border into Serekaniye.”

Until last month, NATO member Turkey had blocked Kurdish fighters from crossing the border into Syria to aid their Syrian counterparts in defending the border town of Kobane. Speaking to Newsweek, Kurds in Kobane said that people attempting to carry supplies across the border were often shot at.

Omer explained that during his time with ISIS, Turkey had been seen as an ally against the Kurds. “ISIS saw the Turkish army as its ally especially when it came to attacking the Kurds in Syria. The Kurds were the common enemy for both ISIS and Turkey. Also, ISIS had to be a Turkish ally because only through Turkey they were able to deploy ISIS fighters to northern parts of the Kurdish cities and towns in Syria.”

“ISIS and Turkey cooperate together on the ground on the basis that they have a common enemy to destroy, the Kurds,” he added.

It’s time to kick Turkey out of NATO. As long as Turkey remains in NATO, then NATO remains complicit in genocide.

New NATO Sec.General is a Promoter of Hamas

Stollenberg is a poor choice as NATO sec.general for many reasons, the leading one being his support for Hamas.

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

As time passes, it becomes increasingly clear how absurd the choice of former Norwegian Labor Party Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg as NATO’s next Secretary General is. The new Hamas-Fatah agreement brings to mind the many ways Stoltenberg, his government and Labor have directly and indirectly promoted Hamas’ interests.

 

Hamas calls for the murder of Jews in its party platform.[1] In January 2006, it won a majority in the only Palestinian general elections. The European Union and the U.S. classify Hamas as a terrorist group.[2] Both ended contacts with Palestinian officials after Hamas formed a new Palestinian government led by Ismael Haniyeh in March 2006. The United States and the E.U. then also cut off aid to the Palestinians.[3]

 

In April 2006, two Hamas representatives, parliamentarian and spokesperson for the Hamas bloc in the Parliament, Salah Mohammed El-Bardawil and Mohammed El-Rantisi, were invited to visit by the Norwegian Palestine Committee. They claimed that it was “important” to invite representatives from the new Palestinian government.[4] El-Rantisi was given a Schengen visa by Norway, allowing him entry into any of the 15 member countries, while El-Bardawil received a national visa as his previous Schengen application was denied by France.[5] [6]

 

The entry permits were given only a few weeks after a major suicide bombing took place outside a fast food restaurant ‘The Mayor’s Falafel’ in Tel Aviv, which claimed nine lives and left more than 70 wounded.[7] The Islamic Jihad movement claimed responsibility. Hamas called the attack a legitimate response to “Israeli aggression.” Even though El-Bardawil said that he did not condemn the suicide bombing, Foreign Minister Støre – also from Labor – welcomed the Hamas representatives to Norway.[8] [9]

 

In the following months, Hamas representatives parliamentarian Yahya al-Abadsa and Refugee Minister Atef Adwan were invited by the same organization. Al-Abadsa met with Amnesty International Norway and the Labor party head of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Olav Akselsen, during his week-long visit.[10] Adwan attended a meeting with head of the Middle East section of the Foreign Ministry, Kåre Eltervåg.[11] He also met with parliamentarians from both the Labor and Socialist Left parties.

Stoltenberg was not only Prime Minister but also head of the Labor Party, which he is until now.

 

Norway was the first Western government to recognize the short-lived 2007 Hamas-Fatah unity government, again led by Haniyeh.[12] Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister Raymond Johansen became the first senior European official to hold talks with him in March 2007. Several media displayed a picture of the two shaking hands.[13] After meeting Haniye, Johansen said “We hope that all the European countries and even other countries will support this unity government.”[14] [15] Israel thereupon cancelled all planned meetings between Johansen and Israeli officials.

 

During Israel’s Cast Lead Operation in 2008, two Norwegian physicians and extreme left activists Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse, went to Gaza and assisted in the treatment of wounded Gazans. They traveled to Gaza as part of the humanitarian organization NORWAC, which is supported financially to a great extent by Norway’s Foreign Ministry.[16] Gilbert and Fosse were frequently interviewed by the international media and claimed that Israel was attacking civilians and compared it to the God of the Dead and the Underworld, Hades from Greek mythology.[17]

 

The Gazan hospital where they worked was used as Hamas headquarters. However, the Norwegian physicians did not mention this once in their multiple international press interviews. In their book Eyes in Gaza, these two Hamas propagandists tell how Stoltenberg called the physicians when they were in Gaza and expressed support on behalf of the government and the Norwegian people. “We are very proud of you,” said Stoltenberg.[18]

 

In 2011, the Norwegian government claimed on its official website that it had assisted in bringing Fatah and Hamas together in their short-lived unity government in 2007. Støre had then approached Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal at the request of Mohammed Abbas to convey expectations of the international community that the two parties join in a unity government. The Norwegian government also asserted that it never recognized Hamas and did not establish political contact with it.

 

Benson K. Whitney, then-American Ambassador in Norway, saw it differently. In a note from 2009 which he had written to the State Department, he said that, “Even though they would deny it, there are clear signs that the contact with Hamas is not just a tactical need for dialogue, but that they also support Hamas’s position on some level.”[19]

 

I have already documented elsewhere many other reasons why Stoltenberg is such a poor choice as Nato Secretary General.[20] As time passes, additional arguments supporting this will most likely come to the surface.

Sources:

[1] “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement,” Yale Law School. [retrieved 29 June 2013]

[2] “Hamas Wants off US, EU Terror lists,” CBNNews 12 March 2013

[3] “EU, US set to end boycott of Palestinians,” BBC, 20 March 2007.

[4] Ole Berthelsen and Ole Peder Giæver, ”Støre ønsker Hamas velkommen,” Nettavisen, 18 April 2006.

[5] Abigail Klein Leichman,“Oslo Grants Visa to Hamas Lawmaker,” Jerusalem Post, 16 May 2006.

[6] Sissel Henriksen, ”Slakter Sveriges,” Klassekampen, 19 May 2006.

[7] “Suicide bomber kills nine in Tel Aviv,” NBC News, 17 April, 2006.

[8] Ashraf al-Khadra and Ole Peder Giæver, ”Fordømmer ikke selvmords-angrepet,” Nettavisen, 18 April 2006.

[9] Ole Berthelsen and Ole Peder Giæver, ”Støre ønsker Hamas velkommen.”

[10] Ole Peder Giæver,”Hamas-parlamentarikeren Yahya Al-Abadsa, som denne uken er på besøk i Norge, tror ikke det brygger til borgerkrig i de palestinske områdene,” Nettavisen, 13 June 2006.

[11] ”UD-representanter møtte Hamas-minister,” Aftenposten, 13 May 2006.

[12] Harald S. Klungtveit and Morten Øverbye, ”Israel avlyser alle avtaler med norsk statssekretær,” Dagbladet, 20 March 2007.

[13] “Norwegian minister meets Hamas PM,” BBC News, 19 March 2007.

[14] Ibid.

[15]  Norway-Hamas Link Angers Israel,” BBC News, 20 March 2007.

[16] Erik Abild, “NORWAC i Palestina,” Norwegian Aid Committee, 19 December 2010.

[17] Gjermund Glesnes, “Sammenligner Gaza med dødsriket Hades,” Verdens Gang, 4 January 2009.

[18] Erlend Skevik, ”Regjeringen støttet Gaza-legene,” Verdens Gang, 18 September.2009.

[19]  Pål T. Jørgensen and Espen Eide, ”Støre har hatt hemmelige samtaler med Hamas.” 27 January 2011.

[20] Manfred Gerstenfeld, ”NATO’s new secretary-general: Problematic not only for Israel,” Jerusalem Post, 6 April 2014.

 

 

NATO Troops in Palestine Will Be Another Afghanistan

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu accidentally let the “cat out of the bag” when he said two months ago that, “The crumbling of the UN force on the Golan Heights underscores the fact that Israel cannot depend on international forces for its security. They can be part of the arrangements. They cannot be the basic foundation of Israel’s security.”

Netanyahu’s lawyer-like parsing of the words “cannot depend,” “basic foundation,” and “can be part of” cannot hide the fact that the words “can be part of” really only mean US troops will almost certainly “be part of” any “peace” deal in Judea and Samaria.

Palestinian Authority “President” Abbas is already on record as being totally on board with an international force deployed in the area.  Why not, he knows they’ll be there to protect Palestine Arabs, not to protect Israel.  In 2010, Nimar Hamad, Abbas’s political advisor stated that, “Abbas is open to an international force along Palestinian borders of any religion or origin.  The president said in his meetings with AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee), and with Israeli journalists and world leaders that he welcomes the deployment of an international force regardless of the troops’ religion.”  (Even Jews, just as long as they don’t want to live there…)

Abbas would never have met with AIPAC if the Israeli government hadn’t given AIPAC its total sanction and full approvals for such a meeting.  So, as early as 2010, the Israeli government has been “educating” and directing AIPAC to actively lobby US congressmen to agree to deploy and fund American troops one day in Judea and Samaria.

Then, in 2011, Abbas’ adviser disclosed that Abbas had told visiting US Congressmen “that the security of the future Palestinian state will be handed to NATO under US command.”

These American troops won’t be on a “peace” mission, but on a death march, waiting to be blown to bits by Iranian-funded suicidal terrorists in a fictional “demilitarized” Palestinian Arab State on the narrow, windy roads of Judea and Samaria.  “Fictional,” because if Israel cedes control over the planned PA State border with Jordan, and creates an Allon Plan Palestinian Arab state in Western Samaria, Hamas’ al Qaeda will start to smuggle weapons into it just as they did in Gaza.  The Western Samarian PA State will make Hezbollah’s South Lebanon seem demilitarized in comparison.

And, I, as an American Jew who warned against US troops in the Golan Heights close to 20 years ago, believe Bibi is insane if he agrees to that deployment.

While Israeli leaders may want to commit national suicide, Israel will be asking American Jews to commit communal suicide by setting them up for the most virulent anti-Semitism imaginable and charges of dual-loyalty, when the Obama “peace” turns to a new “Iraqi” war, and US troops come home in body bags.

If putting US troops in the Golan was putting them in quicksand, putting them into a Palestinian Arab state will be condemning them to a deathtrap

NATO researcher, Florence Gaub, who authored the analysis “NATO: peacekeeping in the Holy Land? A feasibility study“, wrote:

“In a nutshell, NATO’s mission in Palestine would have slim chances of success, and a high probability of failure.  One should not be blinded by perceptions of a historical opportunity and embark on an endeavor that could cost NATO credibility, prestige, money and lives simply because it seems to be a politically symbolic chance in a lifetime to establish NATO as a global security provider.”

“The territory involved presents aspects that would cause any campaign planner nightmares – densely populated, urban areas with highly intermingled conflicting populations, a volatile political ambiance where the tides can turn any second, and a very experienced opponent if it ever comes to counterinsurgency.

“Thus, this mission would need through preparation, careful planning, sufficient staffing and funding, a significant amount of political will, and would leave a very narrow margin for success.”At the current stage, and with its operations ongoing, it seems irresponsible to hasten NATO into a mission that has all the ingredients to turn into a quagmire that equals the Alliance’s involvement in Afghanistan.”

General John Allen was tasked with with “security arrangements” in the creation of the new “Afghanistan” of the Palestinian Arab state.   Gen. Allen would be well-advised to carefully read the Gaub NATO study and be thoroughly disabused of the ludicrous notion that US troops would act as a stabilizing force.

The 2010 Gaub analysis was written before the “Arab Spring”, so doesn’t factor in multiple raging civil wars in Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon where al Qaeda will fight with Hezbollah to see who gets the honor of liquidating Abbas first – if Israel actually cedes critical lands in Judea and Samaria.

US Congressmen are now likely being grossly misinformed, if not worse, by clueless American and Israeli Jews and their leaders.  These US congressmen are almost surely being told that the US troops will stabilize the area.  In fact, any US troops in the areas of Western Samaria would be adding lighter fluid to a raging fire.

Analogous question: Would putting US troops into Gaza, stop Gaza’s rockets firing into Ashkelon, or stabilize “peace”?  No, they would only give the rocket wielding terrorists more reason to fire them.

Israel’s government’s attempt to have American Jews, who don’t know the first thing about Israeli security, actively lobby for deploying US troops into an new Afghanistan-like danger zone is worse than suicidal.  AIPAC members don’t know the difference between a Kassam and a Katyusha, or the “Jordan Valley” and the “Mountain aquifer.”

But, Bibi would have these same mindless American Jews go to Capitol Hill, and strongly lobby for putting US troops into imminent danger without having the slightest idea what the risks are.

Putting American troops in Judea and Samaria will bring certain death to the US troops, catastrophic dual-loyalty risks and virulent anti-Semitism to American Jews – all this, in addition to jeopardizing the existence of the State of Israel.

For more information, please visit www.marklangfan.com

Replace the United Nations

By //Living in a city like Vienna, one feels as if one is in a living museum. Vienna was not only the final redoubt for European civilization in 1683, but was the heart of the system that governed international relations from 1815 to 1914, known as the Congress of Vienna. The Vienna of today, exemplifies much of what ails European foreign policy and trans-Atlantic relations: the lack of a dynamic goal and a failure to build upon roots that made the civilization great. The European Union is in disarray, and NATO is searching for a redefinition. This is happening while the United States has made no clear signal as to the future of Atlanticism, NATO, or leading the West.

The world has emerged from the so called post-Cold War era transitioning through three phases of American leadership. Phase I under the Bill Clinton presidency illustrated national security and foreign policy drift. Phase II under President George W. Bush exemplified clear national and global goals driven by events in the Middle East and Central Asia. Phase III under the Barack Obama administration is similar to Phase I, but has embraced a policy of “leading from behind.” Meanwhile, the world’s geopolitical situation has shown signs of three major threats that will require a new international order. These threats are a resurgent Russia, a rising China, and the waning and waxing fortunes of Islamic extremism. This does not count the numerous middle level and low level threats that dot the international landscape. The successful Pax Romana and Pax Britannica were much more triumphant than the multipolar order making attempts such as the Congress of Vienna or Versailles Treaty. The most successful international order maker has consistently been the United States and the Pax Americana. In order to ensure the continuance of international stability many strategic decisions must be made. One of these decisions concerns the future of American international leadership: A dynamic international system must rise to meet these challenges, a system where the United States spearheads the creation of an amplification of NATO by fostering the D.A.N—Democratic Alliance of Nations.

The United Nations, an attempt by leaders like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to inject some realism into the failed League of Nations by creating five policemen has failed. It has failed to create stability and order except in those instances backed by the use or threat of American force. The current situation in the United States is one of war weariness and fear of over extension. The president will need to gain electoral support for America’s preeminence in world affairs. A new organization, one that has credibility with the American people, could go a long way to solving all of these issues. This new dynamic organization could go by many monikers; the one used here is the D.A.N. The Democratic Alliance of Nations would model itself on NATO, and if successful could replace NATO and cease the endless bickering about the future of that historically critical organization. The basic essence of NATO would remain; this would include a supreme commander that would be an American, a rotating political head, and Article 5 would serve as a similar trigger for action. However, there would be some drastic differences as well. Only nations that were willing to employ proportional military force (not token support) would be allowed membership. The Article 5 style trigger of “an attack on one is an attack on all” would be broadened. These triggers would have to include preemptive and preventative threats, as well as a mechanism to deal with genocide, massive human rights abuses, regional despotism, rogue states, and failed states. Further, there would have to be a clear mandate that military force would and could be used under these trigger conditions. This does not mean that military force would be the first or only option; but unlike the Security Council, it would be a viable coalition response. Critical to the composition of the Democratic Alliance of Nations would be that membership be reserved for only true democracies. This would be subject to scrutiny of the founding members and include such benchmarks as working democratic constitutions; the real rule of law; a vibrant civil society; the full protection of private property; and obedience to natural law. The foundation of the organization would have to start in the Anglo sphere (United States/United Kingdom/Canada/Australia/New Zealand) which would bring in elements of both NATO and ANZUS. Membership would hopefully be expanded to states such as (but not only) those in Western and Central Europe, Israel, South Korea, and Japan. Obviously, it goes without saying that some of these nations would need to make fundamental changes in their foreign policy legal mechanisms and even political culture.

It would therefore be through the Democratic Alliance of Nations that the United States could lead the free world in a dynamic 21st century, as it had through the tribulations of the 20th. It would further the security of the United States and the American people, and would serve as a way to illustrate to the electorate that the United States is not forced to act alone nor bear the only burden. It would further enhance the political and economic connections of members for stronger ties and bonds.

Syria: Assad forces shell refugees camp inside Turkey

By Al Arabiya With Agencies//Syrian army forces shelled Syrian refugees camp Oncupinar inside Turkey, the opposition Revolutionary Council reported on Monday, as U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon condemned “terrorist bomb attacks” in the Syrian cities of Damascus and Idlib.

Turkey has not commented on the alleged cross border shelling, but a similar incident on April 9 prompted Ankara to threaten to use force to set up a safe haven for refugees within Syrian territory.

Four Syrian refugees and two Turks, a policeman and a translator, were wounded in the Kilis refugee camp in southeastern Turkey when they were hit by gunfire from across the border.

When asked on April 12 what Turkey’s response would be to conflict spilling over the Syrian-Turkish border, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded by saying that “we have several options.”

“First of all, there is an option of invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty,” he said of NATO clause which stipulates that an attack against a NATO member is considered an attack against all members.

NATO action, however, requires unanimous support from members of the North Atlantic Council, the decision-making body of the group.

Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu too said Turkey was considering “all possibilities in order to protect national security” if the violence continues to bring tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into its territory.

In addition to taking in more refugees, Turkey has also emerged as the main haven for Syrian opposition groups and rebel fighters, but it refuses to arm the forces fighting the Assad regime.

The escalation at the border with Turkey followed a series of bombing across Syria that left more than 30 people dead.

U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon condemned the “terrorist bomb attacks” in the Syrian cities of Damascus and Idlib, and noted that while there had been security improvements in areas monitored by U.N. observers, he was “gravely concerned” by the continued violence.

“The Secretary-General condemns the terrorist bomb attacks in the cities of Idlib and Damascus which took place today and on 27 April 2012, killing and injuring scores of people,” Ban’s press office said in a statement

“While noting improvements in areas where U.N. monitors are deployed, the Secretary-General remains gravely concerned by reports of continued violence, killing and abuses in Syria in recent days,” it said.

US not reporting all Afghan attacks

WASHINGTON (AP) — The military is under-reporting the number of times that Afghan soldiers and police open fire on American and other foreign troops.

The U.S.-led coalition routinely reports each time an American or other foreign soldier is killed by an Afghan in uniform. But The Associated Press has learned it does not report insider attacks in which the Afghan wounds — or misses — his U.S. or allied target. It also doesn’t report the wounding of troops who were attacked alongside those who were killed.

Such attacks reveal a level of mistrust and ill will between the U.S.-led coalition and its Afghan counterparts in an increasingly unpopular war. The U.S. and its military partners are working more closely with Afghan troops in preparation for handing off security responsibility to them by the end of 2014.

In recent weeks an Afghan soldier opened fire on a group of American soldiers but missed the group entirely. The Americans quickly shot him to death. Not a word about this was reported by the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, as the coalition is formally known. It was disclosed to the AP by a U.S. official who was granted anonymity in order to give a fuller picture of the “insider” problem.

ISAF also said nothing about last week’s attack in which two Afghan policemen in Kandahar province fired on U.S. soldiers, wounding two. Reporters learned of it from Afghan officials and from U.S. officials in Washington. The two Afghan policemen were shot to death by the Americans present.

Just last Wednesday, an attack that killed a U.S. Army special forces soldier, Staff Sgt. Andrew T. Brittonmihalo, 25, of Simi Valley, Calif., also wounded three other American soldiers. The death was reported by ISAF as an insider attack, but it made no mention of the wounded — or that an Afghan civilian also was killed.

The attacker was an Afghan special forces soldier who opened fire with a machine gun at a base in Kandahar province. He was killed by return fire.

That attack apparently was the first by a member of the Afghan special forces, who are more closely vetted than conventional Afghan forces and are often described by American officials as the most effective and reliable in the Afghan military.

Coalition officials do not dispute that such non-fatal attacks happen, but they have not provided a full accounting.

The insider threat has existed for years but has grown more deadly. Last year there were 21 fatal attacks that killed 35 coalition service members, according to ISAF figures. That compares with 11 fatal attacks and 20 deaths the previous year. In 2007 and 2008 there were a combined total of four attacks and four deaths.

ISAF has released brief descriptions of each of the fatal attacks for 2012 but says similar information for fatal attacks in 2011 is considered classified and therefore cannot be released.

Jamie Graybeal, an ISAF spokesman in Kabul, disclosed Monday in response to repeated AP requests that in addition to 10 fatal insider attacks so far this year, there have been two others that resulted in no deaths or injuries, plus one attack that resulted in wounded, for a total of 13 attacks. The three non-fatal attacks had not previously been reported.

Graybeal also disclosed that in most of the 10 fatal attacks a number of other ISAF troops were wounded. By policy, the fact that the attacks resulted in wounded as well as a fatality is not reported, he said.

Asked to explain why non-fatal insider attacks are not reported, Graybeal said the coalition does not disclose them because it does not have consent from all coalition governments to do so.

“All releases must be consistent with the national policies of troop contributing nations,” Graybeal said.

Graybeal said a new review of this year’s data showed that the 10 fatal attacks resulted in the deaths of 19 ISAF service members. His office had previously said the death total was 18. Most of those killed this year have been Americans but France, Britain and other coalition member countries also have suffered fatalities.

Graybeal said each attack in 2012 and 2011 was “an isolated incident and has its own underlying circumstances and motives.” Just last May, however, an unclassified internal ISAF study, called “A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility,” concluded, “Such fratricide-murder incidents are no longer isolated; they reflect a growing systemic threat.” It said many attacks stemmed from Afghan grievances related to cultural and other conflicts with U.S. troops.

Mark Jacobson, an international affairs expert at the German Marshall Fund in Washington and a former deputy NATO senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, said attacks of all types are cause for worry.

“You have to build up trust when working with partners, and years of trust can be destroyed in just a minute,” Jacobson said. No matter what the motivation of the Afghan attacker, “it threatens the partnership.”

Until now there has been little public notice of non-fatal insider attacks, even though they would appear to reflect the same deadly intent as that of Afghans who manage to succeed in killing their foreign partners.

Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi, spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, said the army has tightened its monitoring of soldiers’ activities recently and, in some cases, taken action to stop insider attacks.

For example, “a number of soldiers” have been arrested for activity that might suggest a plot, such as providing information on army activities to people outside the military, he said. Some have been dismissed from the Army, but he did not provide figures.

U.S. officials say that in most cases the Afghans who turn their guns on their supposed allies are motivated not by sympathy for the Taliban or on orders from insurgents but rather act as a result of personal grievances against the coalition.

___

Associated Press writer Heidi Vogt in Kabul contributed to this report.

Robert Burns can be followed on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/robertburnsAPThe U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan is under-reporting the number of times that Afghan soldiers and police open fire on American and other foreign troops.