Article

2009-09-04 Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2009-09-04 02:05|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#1 Moral of the story: Don't hang out with Taliban.

Posted by gorb 2009-09-04 02:47|| 2009-09-04 02:47|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-09-04 04:30|| Front Page Top

#3 Good advice for us all.

Posted by lotp 2009-09-04 07:02|| 2009-09-04 07:02|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-09-04 08:24|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-09-04 09:00|| Front Page Top

#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|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-09-04 09:07|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-09-04 10:08|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-09-04 10:09|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-09-04 10:33|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-09-04 10:47|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-09-04 11:12|| Front Page Top

#12 I'm with you Ebbang, like cheese in a large Rattrap.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-09-04 11:54|| 2009-09-04 11:54|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-09-04 12:45|| Front Page Top

#14 Ummm a friend once told me jet fuel is just kerosene.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-09-04 13:10|| 2009-09-04 13:10|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-09-04 13:34|| Front Page Top

23:44 Barbara Skolaut
23:41 Barbara Skolaut
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:06 JosephMendiola
23:01 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:43 Frank G
22:17 Glenmore
22:02 gromky
21:45 Besoeker
21:40 European Conservative
21:37 European Conservative
21:28 Barbara Skolaut
21:27 crosspatch
21:24 Barbara Skolaut
21:20 Frank G
21:17 Barbara Skolaut
21:09 Barbara Skolaut
21:06 European Conservative
21:01 Besoeker
20:54 Skunky Glins 5***
20:51 European Conservative