[QUOTE]A bomb planted by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan has destroyed 22 Nato fuel tankers carrying supplies to coalition forces, local officials say.
The vehicles were hit by a pre-dawn explosion which triggered a huge fire that engulfed them in flames, they say.
At the time, the trucks were parked overnight in Samangan province, as they headed from Uzbekistan towards Nato forces in the south.
Police told the BBC that the fire caused by the bomb is still burning.
An intelligence official said the device was attached under one of the trucks, which were parked close together.
"Since it was early in the morning, there were not a lot of people around. Otherwise, it could have caused a lot more casualties,'' the official told the BBC.
In a statement, the Taliban said they carried out the attack, which officials say is the first of its kind in northern Afghanistan.
The trucks were attacked in the same province where well-known Afghan politician Ahmad Khan Samangani was killed in a suicide attack on Saturday while attending his daughter's wedding.
Nato has relied heavily on overland supplies from Central Asia since last November when Pakistan banned Nato convoys after US airstrikes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on the Afghan border.
Although Pakistan lifted its blockade earlier this month, Nato traffic has yet to return to normal.
While attacks on Nato tankers have been commonplace in Pakistan in recent years, correspondents say such attacks in Afghanistan have been much less frequent.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18882247[/url] << Video in source.
They should really guard their convoys better.
I'd guess those trucks are inspected. So then you'd check and see which checkpoint was the last to pass the trucks and that's probably the location the bomb was planted. If the bomb was planted when they were parked it should be even easier to figure out, unless no one is inspecting those trucks.
Holy shit. It's lucky no one was killed(?)
Did anyone die? The article doesn't mention it but the quoted official says there could have been "more casualties"
[QUOTE=Chernarus;36825944][URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18882247[/URL] << Video in source.
They should really guard their convoys better.[/QUOTE]
YOUR ARTICLE:
[quote]At the time, the trucks were parked overnight[/quote]
[QUOTE=scout1;36827089]YOUR ARTICLE:[/QUOTE]
So you're saying it's impossible to guard a valuable, and explosive target once the sun goes down?
[QUOTE=Socram;36827308]So you're saying it's impossible to guard a valuable, and explosive target once the sun goes down?[/QUOTE]
Don't be a dumbass he's saying it wasn't a convoy, they were parked.
[QUOTE=RBM11;36827334]Don't be a dumbass he's saying it wasn't a convoy, they were parked.[/QUOTE]
Convoy is not a convoy anymore when it parks somewhere?
Suddenly I don't feel so bad for watching that video of the Apache attack on a Taliban unit
[QUOTE=RBM11;36827334]Don't be a dumbass he's saying it wasn't a convoy, they were parked.[/QUOTE]
I'm not being a dumbass, I'm trying to understand his post, but regardless of whether we interpret it my way or yours he is still wrong. A convoy can be defined as any grouping of vehicles travelling together, regardless of whether they are actually travelling at the time.
You should overreact harder though, and be wrong at the same time too.
One of my best friends was killed by an IED... this hits home...
[QUOTE=Chernarus;36825944][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18882247[/url] << Video in source.
They should really guard their convoys better.[/QUOTE]
*snip* didn't read. derp.
[QUOTE=Socram;36827308]So you're saying it's impossible to guard a valuable, and explosive target once the sun goes down?[/QUOTE]
It is, by its very definition, not a convoy.
woah taliban not okay
[QUOTE=/dev/sda1;36828525]woah taliban not okay[/QUOTE]
totally not cool broski
[QUOTE=scout1;36828485]It is, by its very definition, not a convoy.[/QUOTE]
I guess I misunderstood your meaning. I don't know why you thought splitting those hairs was worth your initial post, but regardless of that you are wrong.
[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/convoy?s=t&ld=1086[/url]
See def. 6 and 2 for both dictionaries, and you'll see that just because they weren't presently moving does not make them "not a convoy".
Again, why did you even feel this was worth arguing in the first place.
R.I.P. fuel trucks :(
Truth be told, the Taliban is not stupid. They are some crafty motherfuckers. I am glad that no one was killed in this attack, though I hope they shoot whoever did it.
Are you guys sure no one was killed because it doesn't exactly say and it says "it could of caused a lot more casualties" implying that there were casualties?
And jesus that other part, guy was killed attending his daughters wedding, that's horrible
by nato tankers, it means trucks driven by mostly civilians. pretty sure.
I'm pretty sure they just blew up parked vehicles. That's why there are no casualties. Everyone was sleepin'. They could have waited till they went into the trucks to blow them up that's why they say there could have been more casualties.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
