Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

[flintlock]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101001/D9IIS8D00.html

Things starting to escalate?

[don]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

See Stukas, 1939

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

See Stukas, 1939

Could you be a tad more specific in that reference?

All I've learned so far in a few minutes of searching is that the Stukas was a German dive bomber that saw much active development, and initial deployment in Poland, in 1939.

[don]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

In the old daze, when a sovereign country was bombed by another, it was a defacto declaration of war. Apparently it still ruffles a few feathers.

(I made the same point in the thread: Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

[flintlock]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

Stuka, best name for a plane ever.

[don]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

You might be right but there's competition.

Black Widow (enough said)

Sturmovik (cries out "panzer-buster")

Flying Fortress (seems to epitomize America's tremendous industrial war-making capability)

[flintlock]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

I just finished a book on night fighters featuring the Black Widow.

[don]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

Black Widow

[flintlock]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

one of the coolest looking aircraft of WWII.

Third attack on tankers in Pakistan btw.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

Third attack on tankers in Pakistan btw.

I smell escalation of "peace keeping operations" into Pakistan.

[flintlock]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

Another attack today. They seem to be targeting oil tankers specifically. And people say they are just a bunch of ignorant tribesmen!

[Slimprofits]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...-threat-claims

A US terror alert issued this week about al-Qaida plots to attack targets in western Europe was politically motivated and not based on credible new information, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told the Guardian.

The non-specific US warning, which despite its vagueness led Britain, France and other countries to raise their overseas terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in US drone and helicopter attacks inside Pakistan that have "set the country on fire", said Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain.

Hasan, a veteran diplomat who is close to Pakistan's president, suggested the Obama administration was playing politics with the terror threat before next month's mid-term congressional elections, in which the Republicans are expected to make big gains.

He also claimed President Obama was reacting to pressure to demonstrate that his Afghan war strategy and this year's troop surge, which are unpopular with the American public, were necessary.

"I will not deny the fact that there may be internal political dynamics, including the forthcoming mid-term American elections. If the Americans have definite information about terrorists and al-Qaida people, we should be provided [with] that and we could go after them ourselves," Hasan said.

"Such reports are a mixture of frustrations, ineptitude and lack of appreciation of ground realities. Any attempt to infringe the sovereignty of Pakistan would not bring about stability in Afghanistan, which is presumably the primary objective of the American and Nato forces."

Dismissing claims of a developed, co-ordinated plot aimed at Britain, France and Germany, European intelligence officials also pointed the finger at the US, and specifically at the White House. "To stitch together [the terror plot claims] in a seamless narrative is nonsensical," said one well-placed official.

[flintlock]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

Who can you trust anymore?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

While I can see lots of reasons why this is happeneing, I think the likely to highly likely reasons include:

*Media attention.....have there been previous, but largely unreported, attacks on MSRs in Pakistan...if lots of stuff on the Pakistani side of the MSRs have been stolen or blowed up in the past......why the attention now, and who's behind it the attacks AND directing attention?

*How does this cluster of attacks mesh with the ongoing loss of supplies arriving through Pakistan...does this cluster represent a significant CHANGE in the ongoing loss? I've read 20-ish% losses(stolen), but I don't know the context, sample size, etc or how accurate that is at all....THAT massive shrinkage between what is sent and what arrives has certainly gone under-reported.

*How does this attack relate to MSR convoy losses in Afghanistan? Could this be a positive for ISAF in Afghanistan? Could ISAF be laying effective smackdown and keeping the Afghani side MSRs relatively safe forcing the enemy to shift their ambush focus to a weaker, mote vulnerable Pakistani MSR?

It seems like an awful lot of attention for what sounds like a rounding error loss in the greater scheme of things.

Is it an indicator?

Is it a message?

Is it an anomaly?

MSR= Main Supply Route

My guess is the attacks and the coverage simply would not occur unless they were directed/encouraged/managed by the Pakistani ISI...and the related depth of media coverage would be difficult to impossible without ISI media folks pulling strings and pushing buttons.

[don]

Re: Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan

Caught this on the radio this morning. The on-going rate for safe passage has been $1,000/fuel tanker, a 50-50 split with the Taliban and the local warlord. As an example, they said that a 17 tanker convey that had paid for 16 would have the 17th torched. If I can hunt down a link I'll post.