What's new

Gunmen torch 10 Nato oil tankers in Peshawar

Cityboy

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Country
India
Location
India
543x27562.jpg


PESHAWAR: Unidentified assailants set fire to 10 Nato oil tankers in Peshawar on Saturday, reports said.

According to police officials, six assailants attacked a workshop located on the Ring Road and torched 10 Nato oil tankers, completely gutting them. The attackers fled while opening fire.

The police also disabled a half-kilo bomb recovered at the site of the attack. —DawnNews
 
Looks like a accident :agree: looks like the tank was taking a turn and fliped and fell on its belly its tough to take oil for illegal war criminal acts with out the truck falling over by itself tsk tsk ... stuff happens
 
US should try providing cover to its supply lines with the help of drones. That would be awesome ... though it's difficult to provide for all the route but saying that it is providing cover will have serious results on these attacks :)
 
US cannot provide security within Pakistan. It should be the responsibility of PA or the police to provide security for the transport convoys. The transporters have been asking for better security cover for their convoys, but so far security hasn't been upto the mark for these guys.
 
US cannot provide security within Pakistan. It should be the responsibility of PA or the police to provide security for the transport convoys. The transporters have been asking for better security cover for their convoys, but so far security hasn't been upto the mark for these guys.
No disagreement, but it would cost the US more.

If our people were smart, they would've gotten the US to furnish a major highway route capable of handling big trucks.
 
No disagreement, but it would cost the US more.
Yes of course.... it is like when someone buys insurance for their property... they should pay more if the local security resources are to be used.

But I guess US is not bothered much at this point because the loss could be a small fraction and they maybe willing to take the loss. Hopefully the local transporters do get cover for their loss in these attacks.
 
In my opinion, Pakistan should be providing secruity for our supplys, I'm afraid if this keeps going on we will be forced to attack with more drones in your region....

I'm highly sure that we are making plans to monitor our Envoys if this becomes an ongoing issue.
 
In my opinion, Pakistan should be providing secruity for our supplys, I'm afraid if this keeps going on we will be forced to attack with more drones in your region....

I'm highly sure that we are making plans to monitor our Envoys if this becomes an ongoing issue.


Not sure of US drone attacks, But alot of Pakistani members are gonna attack on your post :lol::lol:
 
In my opinion, Pakistan should be providing secruity for our supplys, I'm afraid if this keeps going on we will be forced to attack with more drones in your region....

I'm highly sure that we are making plans to monitor our Envoys if this becomes an ongoing issue.
Why should we provide more security to your people if you're not paying for more security? Guns and men don't come for free you know?

We're giving you logistical services not insurance services. We will put your goods on a truck and tell our guys to go from point A to point B. To guarantee that it reaches there you need to hire more services.
 
Why should we provide more security to your people if you're not paying for more security? Guns and men don't come for free you know?

We're giving you logistical services not insurance services. We will put your goods on a truck and tell our guys to go from point A to point B. To guarantee that it reaches there you need to hire more services.

And for guarantee to get all supplies in full amount, some MOREEEE Money.:lol::lol:

blackmail.jpg
 
US should try providing cover to its supply lines with the help of drones. That would be awesome ... though it's difficult to provide for all the route but saying that it is providing cover will have serious results on these attacks :)
:hitwall:

:hitwall:


duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......WOW JUST WOW.Mr you don't have to worry about US/Nato supply lines etc.
 
US cannot provide security within Pakistan. It should be the responsibility of PA or the police to provide security for the transport convoys. The transporters have been asking for better security cover for their convoys, but so far security hasn't been upto the mark for these guys.

Incorrect:

Firstly before making wild accusations please read the NATO CAGE guidelines on "convoy Security" available for download from
CAGE Welcome

Read the guidelines on contractor "convoy security"

Secondly blaming Pakistan is always the easy way out... Nato's malpractices when it comes to hiring contractors for convey security is widely criticised and well known:

FoxNews.com - Reckless behavior of private companies protecting NATO convoys angers Afghans


Furthermore the official process to get "government security escort" is by submitting a "Request for Assistance" or "Official Escort" Request to the Ministry of Interior in Islamabad.

The convey contractors "private companies" hired by Nato have never ever made any such requests when the leave Karachi Sea Port to the various dry ports in and around Pakistan until reaching NWFP:

Quote:
Security remained an unresolved issue between the authorities and those transporting consignments for Nato forces in Afghanistan which leave the city ports and pass through the roads of the metropolis in large numbers everyday.

Quote:
“They (convoys carrying Nato consignments) move in a regular way like other trade goods,” Sindh Home Secretary Arif Ahmed Khan told Dawn in his brief response. “The stakeholders, who transport the goods, have never asked for security neither we provided that. So there is no security cover for these particular consignments.”
DAWN.COM | Local | Little security for Nato supply convoys

In addition to this list of gross failing, these contractors use open space to hub these containers and tankers containing goods and raw materials worth 100'000's of $, yet there are contractors in pakistan that have specifically designed high security hubs in Karachi, Islamabad, Peshawar and Quetta. Why does NATO not use them?

The Answer: Cheap tendering and what people call in the business "Sub Contracting", the onus of security rests on the shipper not the nation the shipping is going through.

A simple example is "If Indian mail loses your letter, you had it insured, who do you sue? Indian mail or the city the letter was going to?"

Furthermore it is also largely NATO's fault for not conducting due diligence on these contractors to see if they have the facilities and ability to store, and safeguard their cargo to and from Pakistan.

Due Diligence: "Due diligence" is a term used for a number of concepts involving either an investigation of a business or person prior to signing a contract, or an act with a certain standard of care. It can be a legal obligation, but the term will more commonly apply to voluntary investigations.

As i said before: "Just blaming everything on Pakistan is bad practice and is now getting tiresome."


If you still think that the "Pakistani Government" is to blame here then just look at the catalogue of malpractices by private contractors:

According to the US Military Anti Terrorism Trainining Level 1: for DOD contractors: https://atlevel1.dtic.mil/at/

All private contractors must maintain the highest level of OPSEC:
Operations security (OPSEC) is a process that identifies critical information to determine if friendly actions can be observed by adversary intelligence systems, determines if information obtained by adversaries could be interpreted to be useful to them, and then executes selected measures that eliminate or reduce adversary exploitation of friendly critical information.

So one would assume these contractors carrying high security, military goods worth Millions of $ would exercise discretion and caution? :rolleyes:

Exposed Hummers leaving Karachi:
hummers-portqasim.jpg


Exposed Hummers entering khyber crossing:
pakafghanborderreut608.jpg



In addition to this, considering the sensitive nature of their cargo, you would assume that these contractors would use secure storage faciliies located around the country "for a cost"... :rolleyes:


NATO Containers parked up in the open country close to a trucker stop at Khyber Pass:

65002970-stranded-nato.jpg


NATO military vehicles parked up in an Open space outside Islamabad's Industrial sector:

large_GI-Supplies-Halted-Pakistan-Nov16-08_Meye1.jpg


Consider the fact that these contractors/carriers have not hired any personal security, there is no gated lot nor is there any watch and ward at these areas... It is like taking candy from a baby...

And that is exactly what happened the following night:

The same convoy in I-Sector in the morning:
ss-100609-pakistan-turmoil-01.ss_full.jpg


All this can be avoided if the OPSEC is good, If NATO conducts due diligence on the contractors and clearly requires prior to siging a carriage contract that all NATO haulage companies will request "official escort" from the MOI and all goods will be kept in secure HUBS such as the following:

blackwaterarmswarehouse.jpg
 
Why should we provide more security to your people if you're not paying for more security? Guns and men don't come for free you know?

We're giving you logistical services not insurance services. We will put your goods on a truck and tell our guys to go from point A to point B. To guarantee that it reaches there you need to hire more services.

The money we already sent is not enough? We already sent 10 billion plus over to Pakistan...


So your saying we need to hire more services? Wow.... Sounds like BS to me
 
US should try providing cover to its supply lines with the help of drones.

And do what? If a bunch of militants pretending to be civilians suddenly blow themselves up near a NATO truck or even are about to, if the drones react they will simply do the militants' job of blowing the whole convoy to smithereens with their missiles.

There are 2 solutions to this problem:

- Get into an agreement with Pakistani Army to send armed soldiers with shoot-at-sight orders given to them to eliminate any suspect.

- Close down Pak route altogether, listen to what Russia has to say, agree to it and get a safer route through its territory.

Come on dude, drones flying over trucks loaded with fuel and ammunition? The whole reason why bandits and militants are able to blow up convoys is because brute firepower around such flammable and dangerous stuff by security forces is impossible.
 
Incorrect:
Firstly before making wild accusations please read the NATO CAGE guidelines on "convoy Security" available for download from
CAGE Welcome

Read the guidelines on contractor "convoy security"

Secondly blaming Pakistan is always the easy way out... Nato's malpractices when it comes to hiring contractors for convey security is widely criticised and well known:

Thanks for the useful information on the guidelines. I certainly was not blaming Pakistan but referring to a few interviews that I saw on TV about the truck drivers blaming absence of security for their convoys causing them to loose their livelihood until they were back on the roads. But I am apprehensive about the quality of security that can be provided by the local private security agencies when you are dealing with the Taliban. In this regard, it is only just to expect the more professional services for providing security along the NATO guidelines.

Hope it is resolved soon... so far I haven't seen any strong statement from NATO on this issue so I assume they are aware of their shortfalls.
 

Back
Top Bottom