Dozens of NATO oil tankers attacked in Pakistan

Dozens of NATO oil tankers attacked in Pakistan

news.yahoo.com

SHIKARPUR, Pakistan – Suspected militants in southern Pakistan set ablaze at least 27 tankers carrying fuel for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan on Friday, police said.

The attack followed the Pakistani government's decision to shut a vital border crossing in apparent protest of a NATO incursion that killed three of its soldiers, and further underscored the risks posed to Western forces who rely heavily on land routes in Pakistan to supply their troops.

(visit the link for the full news article)

After Pakistan shut down a supply line for NATO supplies into Afghanistan yesterday, this happens. Nobody is believed to have been killed, the article says, but this story just came out on yahoo.com's news.

I wonder if this will escalate the tension between NATO and Pakistan. Yesterday, Pakistan said they would use military force to stop incursions into their territory by NATO. This could get bad.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by buni11687


US trapped just like USSR, they didn't even see it coming, so damn embarrassing.



History is there to learn from, not to copy, the same goes for dumb Muslims who just copy history, instead of learning from it

Attacks on NATO supply trucks have happend before, but this has got me wondering, with the tension escalating in the past few days.

Just a shot in the dark, but I would think that there is a possibility that Pakistan might of secretly have done this. They did say, yesterday, they would use military force is violations of their territory continue.

reply to post by buni11687


They said they won't protect US convoy, that is the first statement they made, and they made a condition, the condition was that if NATO disrespects our sovereignty again, they will not protect NATO supplies, but when NATO killed Pakistani soldiers, that was the last straw, Pakistan completely blocked the rout, and now this.

Reminds me when the situation between Pakistan and USSR escalated, it was when USSR violated Pakistani airspace over and over again, conducting bombing operation in Pakistani territories.

reply to post by oozyism


Its pretty interesting how history seems to repeat itself. I would bet alot of Russians are laughing at NATO at the moment. I would be. I would think NATO is still going to bomb targets in Pakistan and pretty much ignore what Pakistan says.

I wonder what would happen if we find out that it actually was Pakistani soldiers doing these attacks.

reply to post by buni11687


That would be the interesting part, if they continue attacking, what would the next action be?

Pakistan already stopped vital supplies, which is crucial to this war, hence around 70% of supplies come through Pakistan.

The next step would probably be the full support for Afghan insurgents. I don't think Pakistan would fight NATO face to face, it doesn't want to risk sparking a nuclear war which would have dire consequences for the whole region.

Pakistan knows it can win this war by supplying the insurgents, but the fear is, that American might supply Pakistani insurgents against the government, and the military might implement another coup. The usual US tactic.

27 fuel trucks? That's a helluva lot of fuel. I'm wondering how urgently it was needed?

And yes, it's terribly funny.

Karma... Maybe in future un wont be so quick to support u.s illegal/immoral wars... But doubt it ...

reply to post by oozyism


Its going to be an interesting next couple of months. With how unstable Pakistan is at the moment, and the possibility of a coup, I could see a possibility of their current government saying screw it and going all out since it does look like a lose lose situation at the moment. (not saying that is going to happen though)

Pakistan is the target for destabilization by the globalist United States and NATO, under the auspices of CFR, Bilderberg and TriLat.

U.S.-NATO agenda: The destabilization of Pakistan

In an article published in December 2007, following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, I suggested that the US-NATO course for Pakistan consisted ”in fomenting social, ethnic and factional divisions and political fragmentation, including the territorial breakup of Pakistan.” Recent developments (including the aerial bombardments of Pakistani villages under the auspices of the “war on terrorism”) indelibly point to a broadening of the Afghan war theater, which now encompasses parts of Pakistan. The underlying tendency is towards an Afghan-Pakistani war.

The destabilization of Pakistan

Various American destabilization plans, known for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of Pakistan's military. . . . US agenda for Pakistan is similar to that applied throughout the broader Middle East Central Asian region. US strategy, supported by covert intelligence operations, consists in triggering ethnic and religious strife, abetting and financing secessionist movements while also weakening the institutions of the central government. The broader objective is to fracture the Nation State and redraw the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan's extensive oil and gas reserves, largely located in Balochistan province, as well as its pipeline corridors are considered strategic by the Anglo-American alliance, requiring the concurrent militarization of Pakistani territory. Balochistan comprises more than 40 percent of Pakistan's land mass, possesses important reserves of oil and natural gas as well as extensive mineral resources.

The Destabilization of Pakistan: Finding clarity in the Baluchistan conundrum

Excerpt: "The problem for US is that BLA alone is not able to break away Baluchistan from Pakistan. Of the 5% population of Baluchistan they don’t even have support of 10% Balochi population. The Pakistan Army and ISI are resisting the assault in national and strategic interests of Pakistan. The Great Game of Brzezinski will surely continue in Baluchistan and rest of Pakistan, the people of Pakistan are ready to counter this great game now we need leadership and some courage. It will take some time to achieve courage and leadership but it will come eventually. Street revolutions are easy to carry out the hard part is the mental revolution. That is what is required right now to challenge the US global hegemony." Baluchistan is strategically located East of Iran and to the South of Afghanistan. It has a port at Gwadar that was built by China. Gwadar lies at the opening of Strait of Hormuz. Baluchistan has huge quantities of natural gas, and unexplored oil reserves. More importantly US wants to control the port of Gwadar, and eventually start their dream oil pipeline from Central Asia, through Afghanistan into Baluchistan and Gwadar. Baluchistan is the largest province of Pakistan in terms of area and it covers almost 48% of Pakistan’s area. But its population accounts for only 5% of the total population of Pakistan. Ethnically Baluchistan is divided into Balochs, and Pathans, followed by other small minorities. The state capital is Quetta, (recently termed as nerve center of Taliban by US Generals).

reply to post by Expat888



The Afghan war isn't illegal. It had multi nation support unlike the Iraq war. The problem is that nato didn't appreciate that the Taliban and their friends in Afghanistan were and still are being funded armed, trained and harbored by the Pakistani authorities. And until we go in and stomp on them in a big way nothing will improve in that region.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by buni11687

 

US trapped just like USSR, they didn't even see it coming, so damn embarrassing.

History is there to learn from, not to copy, the same goes for dumb Muslims who just copy history, instead of learning from it

Absolutely wrong! Afghanistan has many access points. The most prominently used ones are through Pakistan but there is also a route through Iran, there is route through Turkmeinistan and there is even a route through China.
NATO forces use all the routes save the routes through Iran and China. The Iranian route is actually safer, faster and much more accessible and the Afghans are using that quite a bit. NATO's norther supply lines into Afghanistan would do just as fine as the one through Pakistan and maybe in fact quite a bit safer.

Not to forget that even today most of the critical supplies and components are airlifted into Afghanistan and should the need arise the USAF has enough Airlift capacity to clear our forces out of Afghanistan in a fortnight.

reply to post by IAF101



Trouble is I doubt China or Iran would allow us access through their territories? and I believe the route through Turkmenistan that is used has a stipulation that they are not allowed to take weaponry through there (Russia wouldn't like it iirc?)

Video of 27 NATO fuel tankers burnt in Pakistan

reply to post by IAF101


Politically speaking, if the US uses the other routes, it would undermine the political status of the US, is the US willing to go through it?

Worse than that, if vital supplies are re-routed and brought in from the north of Afghanistan, the insurgents will move in to the relatively peaceful north of the country, and cause huge havoc, and spread chaos, more so, it is much easier to attack supply convoys from the north of Afghanistan, more borders to cross lol..

US is trapped.

This was from 2008:

The U.S. doesn’t really have the option of abandoning Pakistan. We rely on Pakistani air, land and sea space to supply critical fuel, vehicles and aircraft to support our 26,000 (soon to be 29,500) troops fighting in Afghanistan. The U.S. would find it extremely difficult to develop alternative supply lines for the war effort in Afghanistan. Lisa Curtis

pakalert.wordpress.com...

What is the alternative route?

I think it is this one:

The Post has obtained US Defence Department documents showing that the Pentagon is seeking far longer, but possibly safer, alternate routes through Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. US seeks alternative supply routes to Afghanistan By Our Correspondent

pakalert.wordpress.com...

Pakistan is the best route.

An agreement with Georgia has been reached and talks are ongoing with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, according to an Oct 31 Pentagon document. “We do not expect transit agreements with Iran or Uzbekistan,” the Transportation Command told potential contractors. US seeks alternative supply routes to Afghanistan By Our Correspondent

pakalert.wordpress.com...

reply to post by solidshot



Actually, I believe the Taliban is being funded by Israel.

second line.

reply to post by Black_Fox


That's a heartwarming sight!

Second line.

Originally posted by oozyism
Politically speaking, if the US uses the other routes, it would undermine the political status of the US, is the US willing to go through it?

The US is using other routes, though not necessarily dedicated to them as the Pakistani routes are. The Afghans get a lot of their oil from the Iranian route as the Afghans don't trust the Pakistanis at all. The US could always get the Afghans to use the Iranian route to import oil and buy it from the Afghans.

Originally posted by oozyism
Worse than that, if vital supplies are re-routed and brought in from the north of Afghanistan, the insurgents will move in to the relatively peaceful north of the country, and cause huge havoc, and spread chaos, more so, it is much easier to attack supply convoys from the north of Afghanistan, more borders to cross lol..

US is trapped.

Wrong.
The main reason the Taliban insurgents have been able to wreck havoc in the South is because they are the come from the same Pastun tribes that inhabit the South of Afghanistan and the North-West Pakistan. In fact, the Pastun tribes south of Kabul and the Pastun tribes in Waziristan and the other NWFP areas all are ethnically pretty similar, that is why you have the Afghan taliban and the Pakistani taliban able to operate seamlessly with each other.
To the North of Afghanistan, the situation is completely different. The Uzbeks and the Turkmen tribes that inhabit the area have little love for the Pastuns and share little in common with them. This is one of the reasons why the Northern Alliance was able to fight so bitterly against the Taliban despite the Taliban's Islamic unity message. A norther route through Turkmenistan via Herat would be quite a bit safer to operate.

Plus, for a fee the Russians might be willing to play ball, to ship basic supplies into Afghanistan through Russian ports in the Baltic Sea and transport it through their rail network through the CAR countries straight into Afghanistan. Rail is much better than road to transport large amount of goods and cheaper too.

Afghan Ethnic map:
geopolicraticus.files.wordpress.com...

Alternative Northern Supply Routes:
www.europeaninstitute.org...

Originally posted by oozyism
This was from 2008:

The U.S. doesn’t really have the option of abandoning Pakistan. We rely on Pakistani air, land and sea space to supply critical fuel, vehicles and aircraft to support our 26,000 (soon to be 29,500) troops fighting in Afghanistan. The U.S. would find it extremely difficult to develop alternative supply lines for the war effort in Afghanistan. Lisa Curtis

pakalert.wordpress.com...

A blog ?? That is not a source. Further that is a Pakistani blog!

This was the thinking in 2008 but that is now known to be utterly untrue as the Pentagon has long since been looking for an alternate route and has already been able to get supplies via a variety of other routes. Including sourcing them through other third parties via the Iranian route. As for airspace, the sovereign right over airspace is limited by international law.

Originally posted by oozyism
What is the alternative route?

I think it is this one:

The Post has obtained US Defence Department documents showing that the Pentagon is seeking far longer, but possibly safer, alternate routes through Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. US seeks alternative supply routes to Afghanistan By Our Correspondent

pakalert.wordpress.com...

Pakistan is the best route.

Yet again, those routes will pass through CAR countries which are much safer and much more reliable than AF-Pak routes.

No, the best route into Afghanistan is through Iran from the Iranian port of Chabahar. en.wikipedia.org...
The Iranian route is safe, fast and reliable but due to diplomatic problems between the Republic of Iran and NATO, that route is not in consideration as a viable supply route. Despite this, the Northern routes- either through the Caucuses or from the Baltic sea etc are much better options even if they are longer than continuing to deal with the Pakistanis. A longer-safer route vs a short-dangerous one is the choice here and with the insurance/losses on these goods factored in, the longer route maybe almost as economical as the shorter one should the US be able to negotiate with the CAR countries and Russia.

I think its interesting the amount of people on this site who adamantly believe that the war in Afghanistan is 'failing', as if it isn't doing its proper job. The war in Afghanistan is going exactly as planned, it is a textbook pipeline war.