Insane Chinook-Shooter Claim Denied by Taliban

Here’s the deal now: in the case of who shot down that Chinook in Afghanistan and if he was indeed killed by US forces yesterday, we have the word of the often-lying Pentagon against that of the often-lying Taliban. What to make of it, I don’t know, but given the latest news, I’m sticking with my original analysis, which is that America’s own Virginia-based international militant group made an utterly unbelievable and frankly insane boast to yet again boost the president’s F*ck-Yeah Factor despite all evidence.

A Taliban spokesman flatly denied that the Chinook shooter was killed in the recent strike. Some other guys were, for sure, he says, but the guy with the golden shot is off doing other jihadilicious things in another part of the country. It was, after all, four days after the Chinook was downed. It seems unlikely the brigade responsible would hang out just on the other side of the mountain and have a picnic.

But one question still remains. Is Iran responsible!? Some military-fantasy fiction writer is pretty sure of it!

25 thoughts on “Insane Chinook-Shooter Claim Denied by Taliban”

  1. ditto on the "jihadilicious" i chuckled too!

    Yeah Jeremy, their stories are becoming more cartoonish by the day. its like they go out of their way to hire the lamest, reject, moronic scriptwriters they can find to write this most incredulous junk.

    they have literally become caricatures of themselves.

    great work, keep it up!

    1. It is judicious that you should write under the pseudonym of "a Human being" otherwise I would have concluded that you are a jackass.
      Exactly what part of this story that you find so utterly moronic? I would venture to guess the part where he calls the Pentagon a habitual liar. Well "Human being", Jeremy Sapienza can not be held responsible for your abysmal ignorance of history and current events where it has been proven that Pentagon pronouncements from Guatemala through Cuba to Vietnam have been a pack of lies. Blame your parents or teachers for your lack of knowledge

      1. Whoa there, Hoss!!
        Point that pea-shooter the other way.
        He was referring to the mainstream media circus and not the author.

    2. They realize there is no longer any value at trying to convince anyone that has a working mind. Their target audience will believe ANYTHING so why make an effort.

  2. It's not Iran that's responsible. It's Hugo Chavez. The whole idea that he's off getting chemo in Cuba is just a cover.

  3. We don't know for certain who killed JFK. But the Pentagon knows the identity of the Taliban insurgent who fired the RPG? Media reports have been more cautious. They have stated that what is "believed" to be the shooter was killed. The NY Times reported that those "believed responsible" for the chopper shootdown were killed. That is how one normally would report this story as a professional journalist. But CNN and Fox are "insane" in their reporting as you characterize it. CNN and Fox echo the absolute certainty of the Pentagon. But how does the Pentagon know for certain the identity of the shooter? Did Oswald assassinate JFK? We do not know for certain. And yet these morons at CNN and Fox know for certain the identity of the Taliban shooter. I think they needed a feelgood spin to this story as the coffins were arriving in Dover. They needed some morale boost. It harkens back to the body counts of Vietnam. They killed 30 of ours but we killed 8 of theirs. And in Waziristan, we just killed 25. It is the taboo body count mentality of the Vietnam War.

  4. The Pentagon is desperate to spin this tragedy in a positive way. But how is knowing that the shooter was killed (assuming it is true) help ease this tragedy? We killed so many Viet Cong in Vietnam but it only made them stronger and increased their determination to endure and prevail. To me, this is a sign of desperation and despair on the part of the Pentagon and their propaganda department.

  5. First, my compliments to Jeremy Sapienza–his post is hilarious!

    He's right: It's the Pentagon's word vs. the Taliban's word. Personally, I'm siding with the Taliban on this one. The Pentagon's word–plus 25 cents–might be enough to get me a cup of coffee.

  6. I predict the next American bird to be shot out of the sky will be downed by the same Chinook Shooter, and we will kill him again, probably a few days after the fact.

    I imagine in some circles the Chinook Shooter is already feted as much as Juba the Sniper was a few years ago.

  7. the real story as told by a London rioter… the elite forces on the helicopter were playing football with a grenade, when the "tight end" caught it an opposing ranger tried to knock it from the mighty grip and came up with a pin. These people don't lie.

    1. I heard it slightly differently: namely that one of the Afghan "commandos" set off one of the package charges they use to blow gates, doors, and so on. The never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste crowd in DC seized upon this tragedy as an opportunity not to be missed. As per usual. The question with the Afghan is this: was it an accident or not? It would not be the first time that one of our tame "wogs" turned out to be an aggrieved "militant".

  8. The fact that the "media" sat through the Pentagon story without a collective "1-2-3 bullshit" cry is telling. It took 10 years and thousands of people to find OBL. As Jay says, we aren't certain who killed JFK in broad daylight in Dallas Texas but the Pentagon knows which yob fired the RPG in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere. Not even close to passing the smell test.

  9. "America’s own Virginia-based international militant group". C'mon Sapienza! Call the spade: "Spade". The CIA is the largest terrorist organisation the world has ever known.

  10. I wouldn't ever second guess the pentagon (no need to). You can simply take it for granted they are lying. As for the Taliban they are as well.

    This was NOT an RPG strike. You can't take down a chinook from that distance with an RPG or small arms fire. This was a set up. If it were that easy to take down a chinook I would have been gone a long time ago.

    What I would like to know is who they actually dumped in the Sea?

    1. "This was NOT an RPG strike. You can't take down a chinook from that distance with an RPG or small arms fire."

      Really?!! Well, just what was the distance? And what difference would distance make if it happened to be within the effective range of an RPG. And if an RPG can take out an Abrams tank, it can sure as hell take out a helicopter…any helicopter. They all have vulnerabilities…moreso with helos. I generally agree with you regarding small arms, but even that's possible if not probable. So, I wouldn't be so assertive if I were you.

    2. At what range WAS the Chinook hit?

      An RPG, while quite deadly in competent hands, isn't exactly made for anti-aircraft use. Even a slow-moving ground target presents the shooter with considerable difficulties in deciding a firing solution; how much more so when the target- even a flying barn door like a Chinook- is moving AND in reduced visibility?

      On the other hand, if one knows a bird is on the way, and one has a little knowledge of the battlefield and the tactics of the enemy, one might have an idea of the most likely route a chopper might take from a know take-off point.

      On another note, range has nothing to do with the hitting power of an RPG round; it doesn't care if it hits at 50 yards or 500 yards, The explosive force will be the same. What DOES matter is the type of round fired- was it HEAT-L, HEAT-R, a Thermo round, or a Frag?

      I have no doubt the Chinook was shot down; I do, however, have to wonder about the circumstances that are being presented as fact- facts which seem to change every other day.

      Personally, I think the shooter was very, very close and was probably just waiting for them to show up. Did he know who was on board? I don't think we'll ever know.

      1. I know you know this, but the range is very important – but only when considering the difficulty in hitting the target. A 500 yard hit even on a hovering target with an unguided rocket would be an amazing feat. If the typical flight paths were known and it was hit from 30 yards while just beginning to move, not as impressive.

    3. The version I heard had the Chinook being attacked shortly after it left the ground. if it simply rose from the ground slowly, being laden with over 30 troops and their equipment, I imagine in trained hands an RPG, no matter what type of round it contained, could be quite deadly. All they would need to do is damage one set of rotors and that bird would drop like a rock.

  11. The engagement took place at around 11 PM, local time, so in the dark. The range of an RPG is between 200m and 500m, depending on the warhead. Keep in mind that the RPG does not come with night sights. Keep in mind that the target is moving. Keep in mind that usually, such operations have an escort of Apaches, who DO have thermal sights and would have been able to locate a shooter in the middle of a field. Keep in mind that to the eye of an untrained observer, everything that flies is a generic RPG. Now, it could have been a MANPAD – Stinger like, AA missile. Now, it is suggested that it was an explosion within the aircraft. Reports say that the aircraft was hit in the nose, probably killing the pilots. What can one say?

  12. The latest installment is an interview with one of the alleged Taliban insurgents who claims that he and another insurgent shot the helicopter down. According to his account, there were two shooters using RPGs. They expected a U.S. assault in the area and were prepared to act. He claimed the chopper flew towards them and he and the other shooter fired their RPGs at the chopper. He is still alive and giving interviews. So if his account is true, and it may not be, the Pentagon story is only half true. The U.S. got one of the shooters but not the second one. It is these kinds of half-truths, distortions, and outright lies that the Pentagon is known for.

Comments are closed.