Pakistan: Jihadists torch NATO trucks

"Islamabad, a virtual fortress city." "Militants Torch NATO Trucks in Pakistan," by Adnan R. Khan for AOL News, June 9 (thanks to Twostellas):

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (June 9) -- Gunmen torched more than 20 NATO tractor-trailers ferrying fuel and supplies into Afghanistan, killing at least seven people and leaving the charred convoy in shambles just six miles outside Pakistan's capital.
Capital city police said as many as 12 militants attacked the fleet while it was parked at a rest stop in Tarnol, using small arms and grenades to set ablaze oil tankers and military vehicles that were on their way to the Afghan border east of Peshawar. All of the attackers escaped.

Media reports differed on the number of NATO trucks involved, with Xinhua and Al-Jazeera saying more than 50 were destroyed. The Associated Press is reporting that in addition to fuel and other supplies, some of the trucks hauled trailers carrying military Humvees to troops in Afghanistan. The AP, citing police official Shah Nawaz, said the seven people killed were believed to be Pakistanis employed as drivers or assistants.

The Punjabi Taliban has taken responsibility for the attack, adding to fears among Pakistani officials that Punjab province, considered Pakistan's commercial and intellectual heartland, is increasingly vulnerable to militants. Islamabad, a virtual fortress city, has remained relatively peaceful in recent months, but the brazen midnight assault is a stark reminder that groups opposed to the war in Afghanistan can strike even minutes outside the safe zone....

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

8 Comments

| Leave a comment

Sanjay_111 | June 9, 2010 10:57 AM | Reply

American's stalwart ally !

ebonystone | June 9, 2010 11:00 AM | Reply

So the Pakistani army can't protect a convoy of military vehicles from a mere dozen ambushers, who ALL get away after destroying dozens of trucks and killing seven! That's pathetic. It's time to stop all aid to this useless excuse for a country.
N.B. The U.S. isn't much better; we couldn't protect a dozen soldiers on an army base(!) from a Moslem murderer. Thousands of soldiers, all un-armed; it took a private security guard to bring the shooter down.

Enragedsince1999 | June 9, 2010 11:26 AM | Reply

And the US gov.'t went out of its way to antagonize the friendly peoples and leaders of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan who provide the safe routs for delivering troops and supplies to Afghanistan, by aiding a jihad putcsh against the former and a "color revolution" against the later.
And the way the US has kept abusing Russia's good will since the times of the super-accomodating Yeltsyn ... .
The severe imbecility of our State Dept. sociopaths.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Hugh | June 9, 2010 12:30 PM | Reply

And now that Marjah, the famous "offensive" in Marjah, has led to what the newspapers now demurely call "disappointing results," it's time to pour more and more money into Afghanistan, and beat those American swords into expensive plowshares for the Afghans, not after a war, but instead of a war. Or rather, in that famous war for hearts, for minds, Muslim hearts, and Muslim minds, that are a substitute for drawing back, learning about Islam, thinking clearly about its texts and tenets and its effects on the minds of a great many of its adherents, and on all of those adherents who take their Islam fully to heart, and then realizing that the best policy is not to build up Muslim armies and police and lavish still more tens or hundreds of billinos on them, but to do quite the opposite: to leave them to their own Islam-prompted miseries and backwardness, all the while turning our attention to the real theatres of war where Infidels are threatened, in Western Europe above all, through deployment of the Money Weapon (that pays for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, armies of Western hirelings), and campaigns of Da'wa (targetted at the psychically and economically marginal, and with special attention to those in Western prisons), and demographic conquest (aided and abetted by the suicidally generous benefits provided by Infidel nation-states, and paid for by Infidel tax-payers, that keep Muslims alive, on the dole, and breeding to their hearts' content, as they make demands on the welfare systems, and fiddle for even more, in the most fantastic domestic transfer of wealth ever seen -- one that rivals in sheer chutzpah, if not in size, the fantastic transfer of wealth from Infidel consumers of oil to Muslim oil states that have managed not only to charge oligopolistic rents, but successfully to block, in Washington, because of the all-powerful Saudi lobby, for almost four decades, any serious attempts to tax oil and gasoline, slowly and in steady increments, so as to get us off the source of Arab and Muslim power, in a non-panicky fashion.

We've now spent, in the last crazed nine years since 9/11/2001, more than three trilliion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Pakistan, with no signs of letup, and new signs that this "build a nation" so that the Afghans will lose interest in the Taliban and "like us, really like us" (as Al Franken used to say) -- something which, I regret to inform those in positions of policymaking power, can never happen, for they are Muslims and we are Infidels.

The money flows, decumans of it, tsunamis of it, from non-Muslims to Muslims living in the non-Muslim lands, and internationaly, from non-Muslim states to Muslim states, as aid (which they should be getting from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., and all the other Muslim oil states with their unearned, and hoarded trillions), and as military spending and as this and as that.

Basta.

Really. Basta.

tanstaafl | June 9, 2010 1:11 PM | Reply

Let's give Pakistan more money so they can blow up more trucks!

ImNoDhimmi | June 9, 2010 1:15 PM | Reply

No. More. Aid.

ebonystone replied to comment from Hugh | June 9, 2010 1:43 PM | Reply

"...Muslim oil states that have managed . . . successfully to block, in Washington, because of the all-powerful Saudi lobby, for almost four decades, any serious attempts to tax oil and gasoline, slowly and in steady increments, so as to get us off the source of Arab and Muslim power, in a non-panicky fashion."

Exactly so, Hugh. Such a sane policy should have been implemented back in the '70's at the time of the first and second "oil shocks". But no; the left-liberal Congress and media elites were too busy driving Nixon from office and then electing the witless wimp, Carter. So nothing was done except mouth a few slogans. Reagan did something -- de-regulating natural gas, for one thing -- but not enough. And since then it's been one clueless loon after another in the White House (and their opponents in each election have been just as bad, or worse.)
But better late than never. Let's start with a tax of $5 per barrel on non-NAFTA oil imports, with an energy-equivalent tax on non-NAFTA coal and natural gas imports, with the provision that the tax would increase by $1 per barrel every year. Assuming that the tax was spread proportionately over all the products of crude oil, that would work out to about 12 cents per gallon of gasoline.
The present rate of non-NAFTA imports is (I believe) over 8 million barrels/day, so that would yield about $15 billion/year to start with.
With this money we could begin building a system of electrified surface transit -- light rail, heavy rail (subways and els), commuter trains, trolley-buses, inter-city rail -- and reducing our dependence on the highways.
To provide the electricity, the preferred method would be nuclear plants, and government policy should be to expedite their construction. Coal-fired plants would be an acceptable, but less-desireable second choice, if the anti-nuclear "environmentalist" lobby is too strong.
Not all transport can be electrified, of course, so a sensible energy policy would also encourage increased domestic petroleum and natural gas production.
'

pulsar182 | June 9, 2010 4:46 PM | Reply

jihadist were probably wearing Pakistani army uniforms...

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

FrontPageMag.com

Books by Robert Spencer

The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert Spencer

Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian Future

Muslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer

The Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks

“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
— Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
— Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
— Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
— Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
— Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
— Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
— Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
— Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
— Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
— Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
— Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
— Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
— Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
— Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
— Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
— Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
— New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
— Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
— New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
— Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
— Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
— Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
— Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
— Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
— Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
— Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
— Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”