A series of coordinated suicide attacks hit several sites in Afghanistan, including the National Directorate of Security (NDS) in Jalalabad and another at a checkpoint along the highway leading to Kabul.
All told the attacks took less than three hours, with three strikes killing at least three security force members and wounding a number of others. A fourth attack was apparently thwarted in Kabul, with an SUV full of dynamite defused near NATO headquarters.
Taliban confirmed credit for the assorted attacks, minus the failed Kabul attack, while Afghan officials termed them a “threat to stability.” Either way, the attacks show the Taliban remains capable of hitting targets nationwide in a coordinated fashion.
Attacks on the NDS have become increasingly common in recent months, with the Taliban looking to show that the intelligence agency is unable to keep even its own sites from being attacked, let alone providing any kind of security to the rest of the nation.
Why are you calling them suicide attacks when there's been no investigation, no trial, no nothing?
Evidence doesn't matter I guess?
I thought Antiwar.com was supposed to be more than a government/corporate media stenographer service
"Why are you calling them suicide attacks when there's been no investigation, no trial, no nothing? "
For the same reason we call a car wreck a car wreck even if we haven't yet determined that the red 1978 Toyota Celica involved had a failing power steering pump.
So in other words we know it was a suicide attack because… well, we know it was a suicide attack? lol Great logic smh
Well, no, we know it was a suicide attack because when someone packs a vehicle full of explosives, drives it to a target and blows himself up, it's a suicide attack.
That's not a matter of "investigation," it's a matter of "definition."
While any particular aspect of it might bear investigation, there's at least one level on which it is what it is because you can see that that's what it is. And it didn't hurt that the area Taliban commander "took credit" for it.
lol So let me get this straight. Crime investigation is now passe. No one need actually look into a crime in order to find out what actually happened. No one need be deterred or influenced by the facts or lack of them. All one need do now is "define" what happened and Viola! there's your investigation, judge, jury, discovery, trial smh So now we no longer rely on objective scientific criteria eg forensics to solve crime. We just "define" events. I can't wait for you to notify the FBI and the rest of Law enforcement in the US and around the globe for that matter. I guess they'll all have to turn in their badges since all any one does now is read a corporate media stenograph of governmet claims and then simply defines the crime.
Ok I'll bite how can I see that it's a suicide bomber?? More to the point What hard evidence do you have that these were suicide attacks? You said categorically that this was a suicide attack
You claim that :
"we know it was a suicide attack because when someone packs a vehicle full of explosives, drives it to a target and blows himself up, it's a suicide attack."
Really? Please provide Hard evidence is support of this claim
Oh and spare me the alleged claim of responsibility by this alleged Zabiullah Mujahid. As if an alleged email to reporters is credible proof of responsibility. And a claim of responsibility is pretty empty unless there is HARD evidence to back it up. Oh right I forgot we don't need evidence now we just "Define" events lol I guess you never heard of a false confession? We don't even know he sent the email lol Anyone could have sent the reporters an email claiming to be Zabiullah Mujahid. Is the email even real. Was it even sent? Where is it? Oh right I'm sorry. We don't ask rational questions. We now just "define" the email as real. And who is this Zabiullah Mujahid? Is he mentally stable? Is he a raving lunatic? According to reports no one is sure of his real identity. A bunch of guys claim to be him. In other words the whole thing is a long string of weak or empty claims unsupported by anything but your "defining" lol
"So let me get this straight"
Not much chance of that.
"Not much chance of that." lol
Pot calling the kettle black. smh
Amazing. Your posts are triumphs of the irrational. You push this lala land sophistry about defining crimes instead of investigating crimes, apparently overthrowing centuries of standard CSI, law, and science. You just don't swallow hook line and sinker a fairy tale from the government/corporate media about suicide attacks and claims of responsibility, but you actually defend the thing and it goes without saying you defend the fairy tale with absolutely ZERO supporting evidence. And you claim I'm the one who can't see reason??
Thanks for the yuks lol
I'm not so much complaining that you can't see reason as observing that you seem not to have the slightest conception of what constitutes reason.