400... is it just me, or does this sound like it was planned sabotage???
Posted on 07/05/2014 3:31:34 PM PDT by robowombat
400 fuel trucks gutted, some drivers missing By Khawaja Basir fitri Jul 5, 2014 - 10:23
KABUL (Pajhwok): Attackers set on fire 400 fuel tankers trucks parked on the outskirts of Kabul in the Arghandi square in Paghman district overnight, with some drivers and cleaners missing. The trucks were set afire at around 10:30pm and continued to burn through Saturday noon. Officials said the cause of the fire remained unknown, but the Taliban claimed they torched the vehicles carrying fuel for NATO forces.
The drivers also staged a protest demonstration blocking the Kandahar-Kabul road and demanded reimbursement for their losses. One of the drivers, Hayatullah, who was present at the scene, told Pajhwok Afghan News that three consecutive bomb blasts caused fire to the tankers.
He said all the vehicles torched were privately owned and confirmed they supplied fuel for NATO forces. “All of us are destroyed. Security forces should pay for the losses because they have failed to protect the tankers.” The driver said the price of each tanker hovered between $35000 and $40000 and each carried up to 50 tonnes of oil, all gutted.
The Paghman district police chief, Col. Amarullah, told Pajhwok Afghan News nearly 400 tankers had gutted in the fire. He said there might be some casualties among drivers but he had no details in this regard. But Samiullah, who lost his tanker to the fire, said a number of drivers and cleaners, who were asleep inside the vehicles, had been missing. Without giving further details, he said they had recovered the remains of two persons from the burning vehicles.
Khan Zaman, whose two tankers were destroyed in the incident, said they had parked their vehicles in the area 40 days ago waiting for security escort, which did not come until their vehicles were torched.
He said the government had stopped their vehicles in Paghman because it failed to ensure security on the Kabul-Kandahar highway. He said drivers had staged protests thrice over the past one month but they were not allowed to proceed despite repeated promises by government officials. The Ministry of Interior said it had appointed a team to investigate the incident. In a statement, the ministry said the exact number of tankers torched was yet to be determined, but initial investigation by police showed 200 tankers had been torched.
It said the team had been tasked with determining the cause of the fire, the number trucks destroyed and the losses incurred by owners of the vehicles.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. Spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the militants were targeting fuel tankers belonging to NATO forces.
Good example of how to “Hit ‘em where they ain’t.”
Meanwhile on July 2 these events took place in Kabul:
(Reuters) - A suicide bomber killed eight people and wounded 13 on Wednesday in an attack on a bus carrying military personnel in the Afghan capital, Kabul, officials said.
The explosion happened in the heavily secured downtown area near Kabul University at a time of increasing attacks by the Taliban and other insurgents around Afghanistan, where the outcome of a presidential election is still not known.
At least five of the dead were air force personnel, said Hashmat Stanekzai, a spokesman for Kabul’s police chief. Stanekzai said the bus had been the bomber’s target.
Heavy fighting is still underway in the strategically important Sangin district of southern Helmand province. Many Afghans fear overall security is deteriorating.
When one side has restriction on how to fight a war, and the other side has no restrictions, guess which side wins in the end.
The Allies won WWII because it was total war. Whole cities were carpet bombed both as a way to destroy the means to prosecute the war, but also as a way to destroy the morale of the enemy.
If we had fought WWII using the rules in place today, we would have lost.
The sad part is, just because we pick up our marbles and go home does not mean the war is over. Muslims will continue to fight until they either win, or we destroy them. Thanks to our political elites (and their friends in the media) our best chance to win has been tossed away. The next time we engage them in combat it will be winner take all, and a lot more people will die.
At least that is my opinion.
Parked all in a row - like battleships at Pearl Harbor in 1942.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
— George Santayana:
Ping
This will be felt real keenly by the defensive leaders. Shut off the electricity and they’ll be fighting with clubs and knives. The comm will shut down. No ammo supplies being delivered except by camel. No radar launched weapons at all. No tanks or mobile artillery.
Right on the Money. STUPID ROE’S WILL BE THE DEATH OF US ALL. We need to send these useless pols to the War zone on a one way ticket. Most will probably join the enemy. The ones that don’t won’t last long in the real World.
Then We go back ON OUR ROE TERMS AND HAVE CRUSADE’S II.
Thank You for Your Service.
Thanks
400 is a lot
US taxpayers are always being asked for money
400???
Afghanistan is on the verge of returning to the dark ages — as if it ever left.
Some General should be looking for a new job.How in the hell do you manage to lose 400 Fuel tanker truck?
What the hell kind of Security do they have there?
I realise that the Clown Prince is cutting troop levals there but there should be some security protecting resources of that type.
Just how the hell do they plan to operate vehicles without fuel?or the means to transport it?
400... is it just me, or does this sound like it was planned sabotage???
this story reminds me of why I turned against George W Bush.
in 2004 or so, Bush decided it was a good idea to supply
JAM and everyone else in Iraq with gasoline at 5 cents a gallon.
don’t believe me? read here.
http://www.rense.com/general53/tedx.htm
the reason Bush did that, IMO, is that at the time, Bush did not
like the term ‘civil war’ applied to the conflict,
he preferred ‘insurgency’. so —>
the enemy was well supplied.
for several reasons, I did not like that.
On Cheney’s involvement, I will comment some other time.
attn Bush:
thanks a lot for losses in 2006 and 2008.
what do others Freepers think?
I see in your posting history you’re a real cheerleader for ISIS.
If you like the caliphate then go there and enjoy your rewards. You won’t find any of us here receptive to your crap.
the reason Bush did that, IMO, is that at the time, Bush did not
like the term ‘civil war’ applied to the conflict,
he preferred ‘insurgency’. so —>
the enemy was well supplied.
for several reasons, I did not like that.
On Cheney’s involvement, I will comment some other time.
Please explain what the relationship of dirt cheap gasoline to an insurgency vs a civil is? And what role of VP Cheney are you alluding to?
Your comments are cryptic but most interesting.
Iraq is a made-up country.
in 2006 or so,
what Bush should have done is partition the country.
IMO, he did not do so because of objections
from Turkey and SA.
Iraq will break up eventually.
I support an independent Kurdistan.
Maliki is a snake.
to post 17.
wombat.
for reasons I don’t fully understand.
Bush did not like the term ‘civil war’.
—>
real civil wars have boundaries, fronts,
and regions are kicked out of the legislature.
In the US civil war, the CSA states were
kicked out( or left) the Congress.
.....................
Kumbaya, Kumbaya,
Bush thinks (or says, not sure)
that Iraq is one big happy family.
no civil war here, .... the
problem are insurgents.
so (Bush contends) that there are no
‘enemy regions’, so all regions
must be supplied with food and other stuff
‘Oh Yes! You are quite right. The days after 9/11 were amazing in terms of national Unity and racial harmony.’
True but what I saw and experienced at an Army MACOM HQ was at first disorienting and then in retrospect very disturbing. The GO’s were lashing out in all directions in an angry disoriented sort of way at the staff both civilian and military. Long time civilian staff who had been involved in operational planning since the ramp up for Panama where treated like potential traitors. The leadership was both actually demoralized because of the surprise attack that caught us flatfoot with such simple technical means, and then really fearful their tickets would get torn up because various really stupid things that they had done mostly during Clintontime to save money and go along with the stupid ideas that poured out of the Pentagon (such as reducing chemical weapons storage sites to the classification of a chemical waste dump so that security could be dramatically cut to save some dollars). Anything like the boiling rage and determination to pay the enemy back that one encounters in account after account of the reactions of US military after Pearl harbor was totally absent. No one seemed really motivated to want to really smash the enemy hard and not be very interested in collateral damage. Then watching the muted almost apologetic way the people at the very top of the US government spoke was another demoralizer. The tone was one of real regret about having to do something that would kill some Muslims along with lots of Religion of Peace crap and demoralizing nagging about how Americans and especially those in the military had to be on so respectful of Islam and all those good Muslims as we tried to fight the few bad ones. These events were the start of a very disturbing and disorienting era in which we fought wars that couldn't be called wars against an enemy that couldn't be called an enemy with a leadership that seemed more interested in not hurting the feelings of Muslims and offending their precious sense of ‘honor’ than in beating the foe to a pulp and unambiguously supporting the people at the sharp end of the spear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.