| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| 'Scores die' in Afghan explosion |
| 2009-09-04 |
| At least 90 people have been killed after a Nato air strike blew up a fuel tanker hijacked by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan, officials say. Nato confirmed to the BBC that the explosion happened in Kunduz province on the main road to Baghlan. The governor of Kunduz said the tanker was carrying jet fuel. District police chief Basharyar Parwani told AFP news agency that Taliban insurgents tried to drive away the tanker that they hijacked on a highway. "The fuel tanker got stuck in the river. There were local civilians with them as well. The Taliban were bombed," Mr Parwani said. Seriously burned people are crowding a hospital in Kunduz, AFP reported. BBC Radio reports the Governor as stating that the majority of the victims were Taliban, including a number of ;senior commanders'. |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #15 "It is kerosene-based. It is a replacement for the JP-4 fuel; the U.S. Air Force replaced JP-4 with JP-8 completely by the fall of 1996, to use a less flammable, less hazardous fuel for better safety and combat survivability. U.S. Navy uses a similar formula to JP-8, JP-5. JP-8 is projected to remain in use at least until 2025. It was first introduced at NATO bases in 1978. Its NATO code is F-34. It is specified by MIL-DTL-83133 and British Defence Standard 91-87. In the U.S. military, JP-8 and JP-5 are used in the diesel engines of nearly all tactical ground vehicles and electrical generators. The M1 Abrams series of battle tanks also uses JP fuel in its gas turbine engine. The use of a single fuel for most combat applications greatly simplifies wartime logistics. Commercial aviation uses a similar mixture under the name Jet-A. JP-8 in addition contains icing inhibitor, corrosion inhibitors, lubricants, and antistatic agents." |
| Posted by: mojo 2009-09-04 13:34 |
| #14 Ummm a friend once told me jet fuel is just kerosene. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-09-04 13:10 |
| #13 The current MSM meme is that innocent civilians were killed in the destruction of the hijacked fuel trucks, ignoring the facts that those involved were neither innocent, nor civilians. Whoops, I forgot that all the Taliban are civilians, by definition. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-09-04 12:45 |
| #12 I'm with you Ebbang, like cheese in a large Rattrap. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-09-04 11:54 |
| #11 Actually, it sounds like it might be a good idea to let 'em hijack a few more tanker trucks...as long a they're dumb enough to keep taking the bait. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-09-04 11:12 |
| #10 A small number of the casualties are local civilians, including a few children who had come to take free fuel Free?! Horse$hit. There is no such thing as free fuel, and I'm sure the locals know this. They have an odd way of looking at things. Just because they can't see the owner doesn't mean it is theirs to take. And just because you think someone doesn't know that you are ripping them off doesn't mean it's OK to do so. Perhaps they look at it as some kind of involuntary Islamic "act of kindness" or something. They need to get over this. Another moral of the story: Don't steal NATO's stuff. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-09-04 10:47 |
| #9 bill roggio has some more on the fighting in Konduz, including maps that put this in perspective http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/09/afghan_forces_and_ta.php |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-09-04 10:33 |
| #8 Siphoning fuel is hazardous under controlled conditions. Worse when you don't have appropriate gear and smoke while doing it (dozens of Nigerians are burned every year doing this to pipelines.) Doing it on a hijacked truck in a war zone is downright suicidal. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-09-04 10:09 |
| #7 I thought we had been over the geography back in 2001. the north of Afghanistan is almost entirely non-Pashtun and is the most secure area. EXCEPT Konduz province, which is mainly Pashtun. Some 19th cent Afghan king or other decided to settle some of his Pashtun brethren up there. A Pashtun island in a Tajik/Uzbek sea, Konduz was VERY pro-Taliban. It was the last part of the north to be retaken in 2001. So it seems that the Talibs used Konduz to ambush a convoy on its way through the otherwise secure north. THAT cannot be permitted. Hence the NATO airstrike. One hopes that this will go a way towards crippling the Taliban in Konduz. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-09-04 10:08 |
| #6 Civilian casualties during Western military operations in Afghanistan are hugely sensitive and a major source of tension with the Afghan government. Tensions about civilian casualties between the Taliban and the Afghan national government are apparently non-existent. So the lesson here is that if you are Taliban and your actions place civilians in danger, civilians don't mean sh*t! |
| Posted by: badanov 2009-09-04 09:07 |
| #5 This report calls it an airstrike Afghan official says 90 killed in NATO airstrike, mostly Taliban by Staff Writers Kabul (AFP) Sept 4, 2009 A NATO airstrike in northern Afghanistan on Friday killed around 90 people, most of them Taliban insurgents, a spokesman for the provincial government said. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said it was investigating reports of civilian casualties in an airstrike that destroyed two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban in northern Kunduz province. "Some 90 people were killed in this incident and most of them are Taliban. It was an ISAF force airstrike," Mahbubullah Sayedi, a spokesman for the Kunduz provincial government, told AFP. "A small number of the casualties are local civilians, including a few children who had come to take free fuel," he added, declining to give any further details. The German army, whose soldiers are based in Kunduz under NATO command, said the airstrike killed 56 Taliban militants after they attacked an alliance convoy. "There were no civilian casualties. There were no German casualties," an army statement said. Civilian casualties during Western military operations in Afghanistan are hugely sensitive and a major source of tension with the Afghan government. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-09-04 09:00 |
| #4 I'm watching BBC and CNN-I now. They both have a case of the vapors about this. I thought this was supposed to be one of the more secure provinces. |
| Posted by: Mizzou Mafia 2009-09-04 08:24 |
| #3 Good advice for us all. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-09-04 07:02 |
| #2 Or more specifically, don't hang out with Taliban when nearby a loaded fuel tanker! |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2009-09-04 04:30 |
| #1 Moral of the story: Don't hang out with Taliban. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-09-04 02:47 |