Quantcast

Militants set fire to NATO fuel tankers in Pakistan Another reason to stop the insanity and bring our troops home.

ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2010/10/01 18:35:58
Related Topics: Nato, Fuel, Afghanistan
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Militants set fire to NATO fuel tankers in Pakistan



Reuters, Karachi

Suspected
militants in Pakistan set fire to tankers carrying fuel for NATO troops
in Afghanistan on Friday, officials said, a day after three soldiers
were killed in a cross-border NATO air strike.

Pakistani
authorities, angered by repeated incursions by NATO helicopters over the
past week, have blocked a supply route for the troops in Afghanistan.
Senior local officials said "extremists" are believed to have carried
out the attack on the tankers in the southern town of Shikarpur early on
Friday.

About 12 people, with their faces covered, opened fire
with small arms in the air to scare away the drivers and then torched
some 30 vehicles.


Three Pakistani soldiers were killed and three
wounded on Thursday in two cross-border strikes by NATO forces chasing
militants in Pakistan's northwestern Kurram region.

It was the
third cross-border incident in a week, the Pakistan military said. NATO
said the helicopters briefly crossed into Pakistan airspace after coming
under fire from people there.

Hours later, Pakistani authorities
halted tankers carrying supplies for the NATO forces passing through
the Khyber tribal region on the Afghan border.

Pakistan is a
crucial ally for the United States in its efforts to stabilize
Afghanistan, but analysts say border incursions and disruptions in NATO
supplies underline growing tensions in the relationship.

The United States has already stepped up missile strikes by its pilotless drone aircraft on militant targets inside Pakistan.

A
senior Pakistani intelligence official said border incursions were a
"red line" and could lead to a "total snapping of relations."

About
half of all cargo for NATO forces in Afghanistan travels through
Pakistan, most of it via two main border crossings: Chaman and Torkham.

Another
third flows into Afghanistan through the northern distribution network
across Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Sensitive gear like ammunition,
weapons and critical equipment is flown in.

AP adds: The
Pakistani government shut the Torkham border in the northwest in
apparent protest at a NATO helicopter incursion that killed three of its
soldiers on the border. The events raised tensions between Pakistan and
the United States, which have a close but often troubled alliance in
the fight against militants.

The convoy of tankers attacked
Friday was likely headed to a second crossing in southwest Pakistan that
was not closed. It was not clear if the vehicles had been rerouted
because of the closure at Torkham.

Around 80 percent of the fuel,
spare parts, clothing and other non-lethal supplies for foreign forces
in landlocked Afghanistan travel through Pakistan after arriving in the
southern Arabian sea port of Karachi. The alliance has other supply
routes to Afghanistan, but the Pakistani ones are the cheapest and most
convenient.

Islamist militants occasionally attack NATO supply
tankers in Pakistan, mostly in the northwest where their influence is
stronger. Thursday's strike was in Sindh province, far from the border,
and might be taken as a sign that the insurgents are expanding their
reach.

Around 10 gunmen attacked the vehicles when they were
parked at an ordinary truck stop on the edge of Shikarpur town shortly
after midnight. They forced the drivers and other people there to flee
before setting the fires, said police officer Abdul Hamid Khoso. No one
was wounded or killed.

The trucks were alight several hours after the attack, according to an Associated Press photographer at the scene.

Another
officer, Nisar Ahmed, said the tankers had arrived in Shikarpur from
the southern port city of Karachi and were heading to Quetta, a major
city in the southwest. From there, the road leads to the Chaman border
crossing.
http://www.rferl.org/content/NATO_Supply_Vehicles_Attacked_Af...
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • harleyxx 2010/10/01 22:12:37
    This is just what happens in war and we must stay in Afghanistan
    harleyxx
    Cut and Run!...This should be the new Democrat motto. lol

    I was always taught not to leave until the job is finished.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ harleyxx 2010/10/01 22:38:57
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    You never started a job. You're one of the leeches and you believe the publum of your leader, Limbabble so you can be a mindless ditto head. I'm tired of wasting time on clicking back to replies and realize I am coming face to face with your ignorance.
  • harleyxx ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2010/10/01 23:41:10
    harleyxx
    Pretty wild assumptions you're making my befuddled friend! Too bad you are incapable of engaging in conversation without resorting to childish name calling and baseless charges.
    Maybe you need to find a site where only those that agree with you are allowed to post.
    LOL. I don't really blame you for feeling frustrated. It's hard to deny the facts when there is so much evidence against you.
    I welcome those who disagree with me. I never know, when I might encounter someone who can present an argument that is logical enough & reasonable enough to change my mind.
    I encourage you to keep trying, you never know when you might stumble onto the truth.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ harleyxx 2010/10/02 00:28:47
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    I read none of this. I see your avatar and just go to the next.
  • harleyxx ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2010/10/02 01:05:56
    harleyxx
    HAHA. You know you read it! You couldn't stop yourself if your life depended on it.
  • harleyxx harleyxx 2010/10/02 00:14:55
    harleyxx
    In 2007 the Democrats were demanding immediate or rapid abandonment of the war in Iraq at any, or almost any, price. They had the same defeatist attitude back then as they do now.
    When the surge was proposed, the Democrats, Obama included, railed against it saying that it would not work. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

    In 2007 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, " Now I believe myself ... that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."
    Minutes later the same man went back to his mike and said, "The (Iraq) war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the president needs to come to that realization," Even though he tried to backtrack and cover his defeatist ass, he was still wrong.

    I stand my statement that "Cut & Run!" should be the Democrat motto.

    Now they want to pull out of Afghanistan before the job is done. It is obvious that the Taliban is still operating. Today's attack on the oil tankers is all the proof we need. And yet Obama has already given a deadline for pulling the troops out!
    This is like a gift wrapped suicide vest to the Taliban insurgence. All they have to do is hold out until the deadline and then pat themselves on the back because in true form, the Democrats, "Cut & Run!".
    .
  • Atmara 2010/10/01 18:54:27
    I think we need to come home
    Atmara
    +1
    The war? You mean the stupid occupation?
    When will the USA stay out of the politics of other countries?
    Do you like it when other countries interfere in USA politics?
    Besides, if there was some clear goal to accomplish, but I dont understand why the USA is there.
  • I think we need to come home
    ღ✞☮ νєяσηιcα ღ✞☮
    This is exactly the outcome Obama was banking on: if enough of our Soldiers perish, their families will speak out to end the war. Never mind that Obama’s new ROE is killing our Soldiers, he will be heralded for ending the war and bringing what’s left of our troops home. As U.S. deaths in Afghanistan rise, military families grow critical of the new Rules of Engagement that embolden the enemy (Obama’s Taliban pals)
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ ღ✞☮ νєя... 2010/10/01 18:53:20
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    Read your first sentence and didn't read the rest of your rant. You're just another ditto head bending over for Beckerhead and Limbabble.
  • ღ✞☮ νєя... ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2010/10/01 18:59:24
    ღ✞☮ νєяσηιcα ღ✞☮
    +1
    Really WOW ! Maybe you should not post on an "OPINION" site if you can NOT hear others that are DIFFERENT form you own - with out the CHILDISH NAME CALLING ..Buh Bye Now !
  • Walt 2010/10/01 18:44:00
    I think we need to come home
    Walt
    +1
    We need to bring the troops home, not because they are and will continue to be attacked. That's a given. We need to bring the troops home because they are no longer serving a valid purpose there.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/23 11:24:54

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals