What's new

Attacks on ISAF Supply Convoys

I believe Afghan war is costing US taxpayers $0.5 billion per day. I'm not an expert but I'm sure a well guarded fence will cost less and create more security on both sides.


You laid huge oil pipelines netwrok in Alaska, built Panama Canal, helped Ango-French build the Euro Tunnel. Compared to all that Pak-Afgan Fence would be an easy task.

Bombing villages by drones is affecting more lives and hurting a lot of people. And worse than that, they're breeding new generations of terrorists. Orphans of todays will be tomorrow's terrorist...not us but you're creating them!

Sir I am appalled at your language calling our brothers in the region who are victims of American Terrorism "Terrorist."

Most Likely If the United States bombs a village of innocent people, that is terrorism. If the victims of that attack become orphans and decide they want to kill Americans that is not terrorism!!! They are fighting back, "Orphans of todays will be tomorrow's terrorist"-Neo , let me inform you Neo, terrorism is killing and targeting innocent civilians, hence if the orphans who are victims of American bombings and American terrorism decide to kill and slaughter US soldiers or perhaps those who have empowered Bush and Cheney in the States that isn't terrorism because those guys are NOT INNOCENT!!!

Trust me If Muslims bombed American "villages" or towns and used the same excuse as the Americans use today, they would still be calling us terrorist. Understand this truth.

SNIPER ON THE ROOF!!! :sniper:
 
.
Yes and that is why we Oppose America and it's Terrorist Military.


Collateral Damage...BS

A word perhaps, against the Taliban and others who tortured and beheaded our soldiers and distributed videos of the act?

A word perhaps, against the TTP and others blowing themselves up and killing innocent women, children and men?
 
.
If the victims of that attack become orphans and decide they want to kill Americans that is not terrorism!!!
If the victims of that attack kill other innocents then they are terrorists.

Whether it is Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan, one injustice done by an occupier does not justify another perpetrated by the 'orphans'.
 
.
If the victims of that attack kill other innocents then they are terrorists.

Whether it is Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan, one injustice done by an occupier does not justify another perpetrated by the 'orphans'.

Yaar you did not quote everything in context! Also I understand your point the Taliban did attack our soldiers, but our soldiers attacked them to because Mr. Musharraf under the orders and pressure of the West was forced to use the Pakistani army to attack its own tribal people, and the Taliban remember once were friends of Pakistan!!! It wasn't until Pakistan began waging War against them in this so called "War On Terror" that they began attacking us. Remember Agnostic "with every action comes a reaction" so when we decide to attack the Taliban what do you expect them to do??? Offer us Tea???

No I am not condoning their attacks on Pakistani soldiers, however I believe the Pakistani army is being misused!!! We never had this much problem with our tribal People, now our tribal people feel some negative sentiment against Pakistan because of the Military's Action. Many Generals and High Officers in Pakistan and ISI agents feel bad about what is happening in NWFP!!!

Please watch this video maybe you will get a better understanding of America's Plan and the Geo-Political situation in the region!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
O great one scholor/academic, I've worn a uniform. So too our soldiers today. They're easily found. Should we transgress to create orphan-militants, they can find our soldiers easily. Should they, instead, decide that plowing planes into buildings are their answer then they are, indeed, terrorists.

From Human Rights Watch-

"In 2006, a minimum of 929 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 699 died during Taliban attacks (including suicide bombings and other bombings targeting civilians) and at least 230 died during NATO or US attacks. Of the latter, 116 were killed by NATO and US airstrikes, and at least 114 were killed by NATO or US ground fire.

In 2007, a minimum of 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 950 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least 434 civilians died during US or NATO attacks in 2007—321 killed by airstrikes, and 113 by US or NATO ground fire. Another 57 civilians were killed in crossfire, and 192 died under unclear circumstances."


Troops In Contact- HRW

NATO hasn't been accused of deliberately targeting civilians. The same can't be said of the insurgents.

For more on total civilian deaths from all violence related causes see-

Civilian Casualties of the War In Afghanistan-Aggregate Wikipedia

With estimates between 1,000,000-1,500,000 during the Soviet-Afghan war and a further estimated dead of 400,000 stemming from the Afghan Civil War and the consequent taliban grip on power through the late nineties-

Life Under Taliban Cuts Two Ways- CS Monitor

-it's plain to see that, however regrettable, civilian deaths from NATO's intervention and the subsequent insurgency are miniscule by comparison. Further, the clear majority of those result from insurgent actions-not NATO.

War is hell and we actually care. Too bad the same can't be said of the insurgents-

The Human Cost: The Consequences of Insurgent Attacks In Afghanistan- HRW

Aircraft strikes and other NATO-inflicted casualties pale against the true culprits. I doubt your scholastic pursuits will drag you here but like a horse led to water, it's up to you at this point.

My disdain for you can't possibly be adequately expressed with your mindlessly thought-through pontifications which, in the end, are baseless.
 
Last edited:
.
Yaar you did not quote everything in context! Also I understand your point the Taliban did attack our soldiers, but our soldiers attacked them to because Mr. Musharraf under the orders and pressure of the West was forced to use the Pakistani army to attack its own tribal people, and the Taliban remember once were friends of Pakistan!!! It wasn't until Pakistan began waging War against them in this so called "War On Terror" that they began attacking us. Remember Agnostic "with every action comes a reaction" so when we decide to attack the Taliban what do you expect them to do??? Offer us Tea???
That is not entirely true. I followed the events very closely at that point.

The dramatic flare up in violence and attacks on both civilians and security forces, and the atrocities such as beheadings, mutilations and videos of those acts did not start until after the Lal Masjid operation.

The PA 'peace deals' in FATA had been adhered to by the military till that point - it was with the LM operation that various militant leaders in FATA declared that the truce was over and started the suicide attacks and assaults on the check posts.

B Mehsud's pretext for murdering soldiers was 'check posts'. Not any 'operation', but 'check posts'. He claimed they were against the 'peace deal' and his response was suicide bombings and kidnappings and murders of soldiers.

It was also in the aftermath of the Lal Masjid operation that the situation in Swat flared up, again without any military operations. In fact the military was not deployed till long after the situation had gone bad, and the local paramilitaries failed to control the situation.

The military inflaming the Taliban into 'reacting' is just a bad lie spouted by Taliban appeasers, who want to find someway of justifying Taliban actions by twisting reality, or even just the time line of events.
 
.
O great one scholor/academic, I've worn a uniform. So too our soldiers today. They're easily found. Should we transgress to create orphan-militants, they can find our soldiers easily. Should they, instead, decide that plowing planes into buildings are their answer then they are, indeed, terrorists.

From Human Rights Watch-

"In 2006, a minimum of 929 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 699 died during Taliban attacks (including suicide bombings and other bombings targeting civilians) and at least 230 died during NATO or US attacks. Of the latter, 116 were killed by NATO and US airstrikes, and at least 114 were killed by NATO or US ground fire.

In 2007, a minimum of 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 950 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least 434 civilians died during US or NATO attacks in 2007—321 killed by airstrikes, and 113 by US or NATO ground fire. Another 57 civilians were killed in crossfire, and 192 died under unclear circumstances."


Troops In Contact- HRW

NATO hasn't been accused of deliberately targeting civilians. The same can't be said of the insurgents.

For more on total civilian deaths from all violence related causes see-

Civilian Casualties of the War In Afghanistan-Aggregate Wikipedia

With estimates between 1,000,000-1,500,000 during the Soviet-Afghan war and a further estimated dead of 400,000 stemming from the Afghan Civil War and the consequent taliban grip on power through the late nineties-

Life Under Taliban Cuts Two Ways- CS Monitor

-it's plain to see that, however regrettable, civilian deaths from NATO's intervention and the subsequent insurgency are miniscule by comparison. Further, the clear majority of those result from insurgent actions-not NATO.

War is hell and we actually care. Too bad the same can't be said of the insurgents-

The Human Cost: The Consequences of Insurgent Attacks In Afghanistan- HRW

Aircraft strikes and other NATO-inflicted casualties pale against the true culprits. I doubt your scholastic pursuits will drag you here but like a horse led to water, it's up to you at this point.

My disdain for you can't possibly be adequately expressed with your mindlessly thought-through pontifications which, in the end, are baseless.

First of all don't patronize me again!

Also in case you don't understand my position, I condemn the attack on the civilians of Afghanistan NO MATTER WHO DOES IT!

Watch the video I posted, Khawaja Khalid is an intelligent man who understands the American strategy. America you are causing trouble in the region, you are not welcomed, you brought 9/11 upon yourself! Yes I said it, you were even warned several times and your government failed to secure you and take action, however now you are using the 9/11 attacks to do whatever you want in today's world.

Again Watch the video I posted...
 
.
That is not entirely true. I followed the events very closely at that point.

The dramatic flare up in violence and attacks on both civilians and security forces, and the atrocities such as beheadings, mutilations and videos of those acts did not start until after the Lal Masjid operation.

The PA 'peace deals' in FATA had been adhered to by the military till that point - it was with the LM operation that various militant leaders in FATA declared that the truce was over and started the suicide attacks and assaults on the check posts.

B Mehsud's pretext for murdering soldiers was 'check posts'. Not any 'operation', but 'check posts'. He claimed they were against the 'peace deal' and his response was suicide bombings and kidnappings and murders of soldiers.

It was also in the aftermath of the Lal Masjid operation that the situation in Swat flared up, again without any military operations. In fact the military was not deployed till long after the situation had gone bad, and the local paramilitaries failed to control the situation.

The military inflaming the Taliban into 'reacting' is just a bad lie spouted by Taliban appeasers, who want to find someway of justifying Taliban actions by twisting reality, or even just the time line of events.

Hmmmm I wonder who helped to create the Taliban??? Also did you know there are some reports suggesting the ISI and Pakistani Army is now arming some of the "Good Taliban" who only fight the the Nato and US occupying forces and not civilians! So apparently some in the ISI are not totally opposing the Taliban.
 
.
^^^coming back to the thread topic - i thought that the PA/FC were going to provide security to the NATO supply trucks/lines. what happened?!!!
 
.
Hmmmm I wonder who helped to create the Taliban??? Also did you know there are some reports suggesting the ISI and Pakistani Army is now arming some of the "Good Taliban" who only fight the the Nato and US occupying forces and not civilians! So apparently some in the ISI are not totally opposing the Taliban.

once again your emotions are taking the better of you. the army is arming the 'tribal lashkers" who are sick of the taliban which you support so fervently from the safe confines of the US.
 
.
^^^coming back to the thread topic - i thought that the PA/FC were going to provide security to the NATO supply trucks/lines. what happened?!!!

From what I understood, extra guards were being provided for the convoys while traveling. Apparently not while parked at the depot's.

This particular raiding party was estimated to be about 200 armed militants. If that is true, then unless we construct heavily fortified depot's and post hundreds of well armed guards, I am not sure how defending these 'depot's' is possible merely from a 'point defense' perspective.

The militants were able to gather and move to the target undetected, or atleast unopposed. Obviously there is a huge need for increased capacity building of local law enforcement and perhaps smaller scale military operations in some of the more heavily populated 'dens of militancy', where these elements retreat and regroup from...
 
.
From what I understood, extra guards were being provided for the convoys while traveling. Apparently not while parked at the depot's.

This particular raiding party was estimated to be about 200 armed militants. If that is true, then unless we construct heavily fortified depot's and post hundreds of well armed guards, I am not sure how defending these 'depot's' is possible merely from a 'point defense' perspective.

The militants were able to gather and move to the target undetected, or atleast unopposed. Obviously there is a huge need for increased capacity building of local law enforcement and perhaps smaller scale military operations in some of the more heavily populated 'dens of militancy', where these elements retreat and regroup from...

now this raises another interesting point. why create such huge staging areas / depots in the peshawar area which are not defendable. it would be better to have these depots at say multan or faisalabad or even better at jalalabad in afghanistan where NATO can provide the security. pak role should be to ensure that the supply convoys reach the torkham border safely.
 
.
once again your emotions are taking the better of you. the army is arming the 'tribal lashkers" who are sick of the taliban which you support so fervently from the safe confines of the US.

First of all fatman, please don't attempt to judge my psychological or emotional condition, it is a dirty and cheap shot and you know it!


"the army is arming the 'tribal lashkers" who are sick of the taliban which you support so fervently"-fatman17

Yes the army has armed the "tribal lashkers" so they may resist Taliban pressure and attacks. Now before you accuse me of supporting the Taliban attacks on civilians, let me tell you something fatman17 I already said I condemn Taliban attacks on civilians or any attacks on innocent civilians, so unless you have a literacy problem or have difficulty reading my previous post then I understand why you make such false and cheap accusations.

But everything I said is true, if the Pakistani army is going to attack the Taliban then we should be wise and expect reprisal attacks on us. Simple "every action has a reaction" unfortunately ignorance prevails over wisdom in the minds of many....

Also don't be so simple minded, many people to are believing in ideas made by the media and western propaganda!!! Why do you people think ALL OF THE TALIBAN is BAD!!?!? Yes there are some horrible Taliban and there are some Taliban who only attack US soldiers and NATO forces. But because you have accepted the western propaganda and even local propaganda that all the Taliban are bad you label them all as bad.
 
.
now this raises another interesting point. why create such huge staging areas / depots in the peshawar area which are not defendable. it would be better to have these depots at say multan or faisalabad or even better at jalalabad in afghanistan where NATO can provide the security. pak role should be to ensure that the supply convoys reach the torkham border safely.

Might just be a matter of time - it may not be possible to complete the journey without traveling at night through FATA, and that would increase the chances of attacks killing both men and material.

If the delays are due to customs or paperwork issues, then I agree with you, all those issues can be addressed at any number of locations along the route.
 
.
More details:

171 Nato vehicles destroyed in attack

Monday, December 08, 2008
Over 300 armed men storm two parking bays in Peshawar

By Javed Aziz Khan

PESHAWAR: As many as 171 vehicles of the US-led Nato forces, including 62 armoured personnel carriers (APCs), were torched by armed attackers in two parking bays on the Ring Road in the vicinity of Pishtakhara here early Sunday morning.

Around 130 vehicles were completely destroyed in the attack, while 40 others were partially damaged. Police officials could only confirm the burning of 62 Humvees, saying some other vehicles were also damaged in the attack.

The attack is the biggest ever on Nato logistics in Pakistan, during which a watchman was killed while two others were injured when they offered resistance to over 300 attackers, who were armed with rocket launchers, hand grenades, petrol bombs and AK-47 rifles.

Police encountered the attackers at some points when they were fleeing. There were reports that three of them were arrested, but nobody confirmed it.

A worker at the Port World Logistics on Ring Road near Pishtakhara said 106 vehicles were parked in their parking lot, including trucks, Humvees, cranes, fire brigade trucks and jeeps. Over 60 other vehicles were parked at the Al-Faisal Terminal, located across the Ring Road.

Recalling the pre-dawn incident, a worker of the Port World Terminal said that over 300 armed men fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the main gate of the parking lot and after breaking in, opened indiscriminate fire on watchmen, killing one on the spot and injuring two others. He added that the attackers later fired rockets at the parked vehicles, hurled petrol bombs and sprinkled fuel on the lorries to set them ablaze.

The firing of rocket launchers and automatic weapons that started at around 3:15 am continued for almost 45 minutes. Eyewitnesses said the attackers were so relaxed about their action that they continued firing and torching the vehicles without any fear of police or other law-enforcers.

Hundreds of villagers in the nearby areas came out of their houses in panic after hearing the loud bangs. “I thought for a moment that Peshawar has been attacked by some militia to take it over,” Ali Rahman of Landi Akhun Ahmad village, told The News, adding that they could hear the blasts in short intervals for a long time.

The fire that reduced vehicles and goods at the terminals to ashes was extinguished at around 8 am.

The attack is second in the past week after the December 1 similar assault when two drivers were killed and 15 Nato trucks were set on fire. Earlier, the Nato trucks en route Afghanistan had also come under fire of the militants who snatched 18 Nato vehicles, including Humvees.

A Humvee is now being used by a newly emerged leader of the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Hakimullah Mehsud.

The TTP had warned of attacking the Nato supplies through Pakistan if the American forces did not stop the missile strikes in tribal areas and parts of the Frontier. Since then, Nato trucks were attacked twice on the Ring Road, hardly two kilometres away from the Peshawar Cantonment.

AFP adds: Meanwhile, senior police officer Abdul Qadir Qamar said, “This is the first time the militants came in such a large number.” He termed it a “coordinated and well-planned attack.”

The insurgents, who had stolen the petrol from a nearby gas station, fled when police arrived at the scene, Qamar added.

One security official said they had struck, as police were busy investigating Friday’s huge bomb blast in Peshawar that killed 34 people and wounded 120 others.

“It was also a weekend and security was relatively relaxed because of Eid vacation,” the official said.

Qamar said the number of guards at the terminal had been increased in the wake of that attack, but they were overwhelmed by the sheer number of the militants.

“We are preparing a new strategy to prevent such incidents in future,” he added.
171 Nato vehicles destroyed in attack
 
.
Back
Top Bottom