Ag with kids said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Holy #$&@. Some idiot reporter just questioned whether the NG personnel should have been there. Judge Jeanine tore her a new one.

---

I've seen that same sentiment on FB...blaming TRUMP for these shooting because he put the NG there.

---

The Democratic Party leadership and their minions lost their ability to think rationally quite some time ago.
Anyone considering voting for any Democratic candidate should immediately reconsider their voting preferences.

Prayers to the NG troops and their families this Thanksgiving. Providing they survive, their recovery will be a hard journey with more than likely pretty severe limitations for the rest of their lives. Praying for them during this Thanksgiving.

The POS who did this needs to be unalived, period.

The why and how, and whatever needs to be investigated to help ensure this never happens again. If someone messed up and that led to this POS doing this, that person, department, or agency needs to be dragged through the coals.

Again, the POS needs to be unalived when all is said and done. No living the rest of his life in prison, death sentence, period. If he lasts that long, that is.

Secolobo said:

---

One guess, first word, first letter, rhymes with 🐝 @POTUS @DNIGabbard https://t.co/YuIAxZS2Lr

— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) November 27, 2025

---

And here come all the dumbass conspiracy theories from Flynn and Logan.

Now all we need is Owens to chime in and connect it to France, the Jews, and Charlie Kirk.

eric76 said:

---

At least one story says that the current administration granted him asylum earlier this year either before or after he overstayed his visa.

In any case, we should not admit foreigners to live in the US unless they are fully willing to assimilate into the US.

---

Yeah. I'll call bull*****

I was correct in my earlier assertation about Blinken. THEY DID NOT VET THESE PEOPLE.

Excerpt from the transcript of the Antony J. Blinken hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Examining the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan, held September 14, 2021 where he addressed the question of vetting evacuees:

Quote:

---

Senator Barrasso: "…what percentage of the Afghan population that left Afghanistan as part of our U.S. evacuation efforts, what percentage of those were vetted before they actually got on the airplanes?"

Secretary Blinken: "Before they got on the airplanes to leave Kabul? Certainly not most of them were not."

---

Source: 09 14 21 Examining the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan.pdf

This needs to be hammered by Republicans in the media at every GD opportunity and I bet they never mention it. What an absolute failure by the Biden administration...AGAIN.

People need to start tweeting this out because I bet most have forgotten this or never saw it when it happened.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

Why do we import so many people that hate us?

---

Because women can vote. But we need to let them because it's ethical. Ethics will be our downfall. Ironic, and salt in the wound.

---

Is it ethical to allow policies that get Americans killed. Not so sure.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Bill Kristol probably still believes it to be true. He's a repugnant beta worthy of our scorn.

---

Worse than that - He's a *****. He'll say whatever his paymasters want him to. Primarily Pierre Omidyar

To all the "He wasn't vetted" folks, I get it, but it's also pretty clear that this particular guy WOULD have passed any vetting. He worked for the CIA and fought on our side over there. I'm assuming he was "vetted" pretty well before they put him alongside our guys and gave him a gun. It sounds like he IS one of the guys we should have grabbed on the way out (after our own of course...).

I'm viewing this through a lens of western civilization, but what is more strange to me is that he'd choose attack "fellow" soldiers. Rather than "poor vetting", it seems more likely that he was still controlled by the CIA and acting on orders.

No, I'm not some crazy conspiracy guy. I just don't trust the government and it would 100% kill Americans to protect itself or further its agenda.

YouBet said:

---

I was correct in my earlier assertation about Blinken. THEY DID NOT VET THESE PEOPLE.

Excerpt from the transcript of the Antony J. Blinken hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Examining the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan, held September 14, 2021 where he addressed the question of vetting evacuees:

Quote:

---

Senator Barrasso: "…what percentage of the Afghan population that left Afghanistan as part of our U.S. evacuation efforts, what percentage of those were vetted before they actually got on the airplanes?"

Secretary Blinken: "Before they got on the airplanes to leave Kabul? Certainly not most of them were not."

---

Source: 09 14 21 Examining the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan.pdf

This needs to be hammered by Republicans in the media at every GD opportunity and I bet they never mention it. What an absolute failure by the Biden administration...AGAIN.

---

Applied for asylum and was granted in April of 2025!
Hammer that also while trying to blame someone for an act of an idiot!

He was absolutely vetted.

I've seen the vetting first hand. These guys go through quite an ordeal to become members of zero units. Polygraphs, deep background checks, etc.

Probably was flipped online or his family was held ransom in Afghanistan and this was the cost for their lives.

Al Qaeda is alive and well in Afghanistan. Ditto for ISIS.

Radicalizing former Afghan soldiers in the US has always been a stated goal of these groups bc it would increase the chances of other being deported back.

Can't link it on my phone easily but Sarah Adams has some info pinned on X about him. CIA trained with family ties to Pakistan intelligence.

Another attack that was easily preventable but no politician is willing to do the right thing and deport all those that shouldn't be here. We are still funding the Taliban as well.

The choices:

1) don't let anymore Afghans in among those that helped US troops, because there is a risk that they could commit a terrorist act.

2) If so, then accept in the future no one will actually believe that they will be protected by the US, if they help US troops.

It turns out that the people that believed in US staying power and promises of protection, vs the Tablian. Well, I don't even have to say it.

Aggie-Clausewitz said:

---

He was absolutely vetted.

I've seen the vetting first hand. These guys go through quite an ordeal to become members of zero units. Polygraphs, deep background checks, etc.

Probably was flipped online or his family was held ransom in Afghanistan and this was the cost for their lives.

Al Qaeda is alive and well in Afghanistan. Ditto for ISIS.

Radicalizing former Afghan soldiers in the US has always been a stated goal of these groups bc it would increase the chances of other being deported back.

---

It'll be interesting to see what the feds find when they go through his online and social media activities.

It enrages me to no end knowing that everything we did after 9/11 has done squat with what we were all told were the reasons we went over there.

Thanks for the info, even if just pissed me off more than I already am about this situation.

Aggie-Clausewitz said:

---

He was absolutely vetted.

I've seen the vetting first hand. These guys go through quite an ordeal to become members of zero units. Polygraphs, deep background checks, etc.

Probably was flipped online or his family was held ransom in Afghanistan and this was the cost for their lives.

Al Qaeda is alive and well in Afghanistan. Ditto for ISIS.

Radicalizing former Afghan soldiers in the US has always been a stated goal of these groups bc it would increase the chances of other being deported back.

---

So, they want their people deported back to the ME from the US? Great! Let's make this happen.

So they can be executed - the goal is to tarnish those who fought and killed for America - causing us to deport them
and then they can be punished for allying with us.

Aggie-Clausewitz said:

---

So they can be executed - the goal is to tarnish those who fought and killed for America - causing us to deport them
and then they can be punished for allying with us.

---

Gotcha.

45-70Ag said:

---

This didn’t age well https://t.co/740M7cAvB4

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 27, 2025

---

"Well, I did say "ALMOST", right?" - Bill Kristol, probably.

I'm guessing the guy just snapped for whatever reason. I doubt it's some big conspiracy. Years of working with the CIA in a war time environment probably doesn't lend to a healthy mental disposition. A lot of our guys also have to work hard on mental health challenges as a result of what they went through and saw over there.

MaxPower said:

---

I'm guessing the guy just snapped for whatever reason. I doubt it's some big conspiracy. Years of working with the CIA in a war time environment probably doesn't lend to a healthy mental disposition. A lot of our guys also have to work hard on mental health challenges as a result of what they went through and saw over there.

---

We probably do not need to keep PTSD riddled former enemy soldier walking amongst our American citizens.

Whether he snapped or not, was part of a conspiracy or not, helped us in Afghanistan's or not, he did not need to be in Our Country.

We seem at this point to be completely incapable of proper vetting, proper monitoring, and proper surveillance to identify and remedy these threats. People will cry authoritarian rule and such, but Trump can and I believe will fix this.

Rydyn said:

---

To all the "He wasn't vetted" folks, I get it, but it's also pretty clear that this particular guy WOULD have passed any vetting. He worked for the CIA and fought on our side over there. I'm assuming he was "vetted" pretty well before they put him alongside our guys and gave him a gun. It sounds like he IS one of the guys we should have grabbed on the way out (after our own of course...).

I'm viewing this through a lens of western civilization, but what is more strange to me is that he'd choose attack "fellow" soldiers. Rather than "poor vetting", it seems more likely that he was still controlled by the CIA and acting on orders.

No, I'm not some crazy conspiracy guy. I just don't trust the government and it would 100% kill Americans to protect itself or further its agenda.

---

Especially the alphabets have shown they would further globalist goals. You might be onto something there, as yes, it stands to reason the man had passed any number of "vetting" just to be operating as he was with forces over there. In this case, the `non-vetting' probably is a red-herring -- an unhelpful cause to cite.

Rydyn said:

---

To all the "He wasn't vetted" folks, I get it, but it's also pretty clear that this particular guy WOULD have passed any vetting. He worked for the CIA and fought on our side over there. I'm assuming he was "vetted" pretty well before they put him alongside our guys and gave him a gun. It sounds like he IS one of the guys we should have grabbed on the way out (after our own of course...).

I'm viewing this through a lens of western civilization, but what is more strange to me is that he'd choose attack "fellow" soldiers. Rather than "poor vetting", it seems more likely that he was still controlled by the CIA and acting on orders.

No, I'm not some crazy conspiracy guy. I just don't trust the government and it would 100% kill Americans to protect itself or further its agenda.

---

Excellent post.

Even without a tinfoil hat, those at the top of the CIA/FBI need to go through the program that this guy came in with and go through it with a fine-toothed comb to see where things went wrong, or just scrap every program like this.

If they don't get rid of these programs, you know full well that things are still very amiss, even with Trump's people in charge of these agencies.

Aggie-Clausewitz said:

---

So they can be executed - the goal is to tarnish those who fought and killed for America - causing us to deport them
and then they can be punished for allying with us.

---

Great! Deport them. And stop bringing in Muslims.

Aggie-Clausewitz said:

---

He was absolutely vetted.

I've seen the vetting first hand. These guys go through quite an ordeal to become members of zero units. Polygraphs, deep background checks, etc.

Probably was flipped online or his family was held ransom in Afghanistan and this was the cost for their lives.

Al Qaeda is alive and well in Afghanistan. Ditto for ISIS.

Radicalizing former Afghan soldiers in the US has always been a stated goal of these groups bc it would increase the chances of other being deported back.

---

Sure wish the Taliban were still running Afghanistan. Now we have to deal with real radicalized Muslims.

titan said:

---

Rydyn said:

---

To all the "He wasn't vetted" folks, I get it, but it's also pretty clear that this particular guy WOULD have passed any vetting. He worked for the CIA and fought on our side over there. I'm assuming he was "vetted" pretty well before they put him alongside our guys and gave him a gun. It sounds like he IS one of the guys we should have grabbed on the way out (after our own of course...).

I'm viewing this through a lens of western civilization, but what is more strange to me is that he'd choose attack "fellow" soldiers. Rather than "poor vetting", it seems more likely that he was still controlled by the CIA and acting on orders.

No, I'm not some crazy conspiracy guy. I just don't trust the government and it would 100% kill Americans to protect itself or further its agenda.

---

Especially the alphabets have shown they would further globalist goals. You might be onto something there, as yes, it stands to reason the man had passed any number of "vetting" just to be operating as he was with forces over there. In this case, the `non-vetting' probably is a red-herring -- an unhelpful cause to cite.

---

If he suicides himself within the next 72 hours, I will view that as a pretty big indicator that he was acting on orders.

And agreed, the vetting discussion, though a valid one, is not applicable to this particular case. Neither is the fact that the Trump administration granted a continuation of asylum. That is actually to be expected for an Afghan friendly who was working with our troops.

What is applicable is WHY this individual who was trained by us and was given asylum in this country threw everything away to make a political statement against the very administration that provided him with continued asylum.

I read that the two National Guard who were shot were sworn in less than 24 hours before the incident? Is that correct? Makes this whole thing even crazier.

Damn. Thoughts and prayers for that young lady and her family. Hope that ******* burns in hell and gets sodomized a hundred times before he dies.

EDIT: Already posted above.

This guy was either not vetted or vetting doesn't work.

That's it. Those are the two choices.

Squadron7 said:

---

This guy was either not vetted or vetting doesn't work.

That's it. Those are the two choices.

---

Vetting aliens is necessary but not sufficient. NO alien should take up residence in the US without being vetted. Any vetted alien should be monitored for radical, hostile, criminal or duplicitous conduct or contacts as a condition to their being here. You object because there are too many to monitor adequately? Well there is a solution to that, too.