world

Dozens of NATO oil tankers attacked in Pakistan

16 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments
Login to comment

"Friday’s attack and the decision to close to the border have underscored the uneasy relations."

The US was so desperate for allies in 'the war on terror' that they took on anyone who bothered to raise a hand (especially with Iraq). Pakistan is a shining example of a conflict of interests. I just hope they don't capitulate to Taliban and its interests.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US was so desperate for allies in 'the war on terror' that they took on anyone who bothered to raise a hand (especially with Iraq). Pakistan is a shining example of a conflict of interests. I just hope they don't capitulate to Taliban and its interests.

Any blame for, any condemnation of the 'militants' who blew up these tankers? Any outrage from the environmental crowd at acts like this? Any concern for the possibility of harm to innocents in the area? Nah. Not from the head in the sand in Japan bunch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Any outrage from the environmental crowd at acts like this? Any concern for the possibility of harm to innocents in the area? Nah. Not from the head in the sand in Japan bunch.

sorry but NO outrage after seeing so many corpses in Afhan/Iraq and suicides in Japan for so many years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sorry but NO outrage after seeing so many corpses in Afhan/Iraq and suicides in Japan for so many years.

Sunni vs Shia sectarian violence, on for centuries, is related to Japanese suicide? How? What is the connection with this story? What is your point?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US should pull of Afganistan and stop all aid payments to Pakistan. I'm sure all the billions of dollars being spent could do wonders in increasing homeland security.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Opinion polls show many Pakistanis regard the United States as an enemy, and conspiracy theories abound of U.S. troops wanting to attack Pakistan and take over its nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, these kind of beliefs flourish when a country neglects to educate its people. Pakistans government has provided fertile ground for the "USA is out to get us" crowd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone see where this is headed? NATO invaded the wrong "stan" they should have been more worried about the one that has nukes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: "Any blame for, any condemnation of the 'militants' who blew up these tankers?"

Absolutely! I condemn it 100%. Am I surprised by it? 100% no.

"Any outrage from the environmental crowd at acts like this?"

Absolutely! Outrage 100% Less tankers would mean less problems, and in this case less targets. You'd think this might push a little harder on the 'we should seek alternative energy resources' issue, but my guess is that the only reason this is making news is because oil tankers were struck... not people.

"Any concern for the possibility of harm to innocents in the area?"

Absolutely! 100% Same as when US drones fly into Pakistan and 'kill militants' only to have it released later that it was civilians, whom people like yourself suddenly sympathize with and get angry -- oops... sorry, in those cases you just think said innocents are terrorists and the US was right to send in unmanned drones into sovereign territory on bad intelligence.

"Nah. Not from the head in the sand in Japan bunch."

Ummm... Is this a new catch-phrase you're going to stick to? Are you talking about Ozawa and Hatoyama? I think you simply can't see the forest for the trees, and hence my original comment rings all the more true. It also makes my comment the other day on a gun-nut thread all the more relative -- when faced with obvious facts all you guys can do is try to suggest the poster feels no sympathy for those killed/injured (I KNOW! The POOR oil tankers!). It always smacks as being pretty hollow and obviously silly after you dismiss civilian deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan as 'justified', though.

Sorry... truth hurts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NATO is during the right thing, too bad for the oild tankers, and too bad for the poor Pakistani soldiers killed by accident by the NATO air raids, but after 9/11 we can not just wait, sit around and HOPE that our ENEMIES (Muslim brainwashed terrorists) will just go back to their countries and forget about getting REVENGE against Christian, Hindu and Jewish countries. All of the USA/Canada Western Europe/India parts of Africa, even in Latin America have been attacked by MUSLIM TERRORISTS, so the question is do we go and kill them in their caves in Pakistan, and any other STAN or wait until they are breathing down our throats in NYC,LA, MADRID, New Delhi or Buenos Aires?? We must use DRONES night and day, but at the same time help Pakistan etc...that hating free countries like the USA has a price, this price is flying real quite over your head with a new drone and that it will smoke you real good and then be put on FACEBOOK etc...so other terrorists will understand that price too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For sure the entire story seems highly likely to be exactly as it's sold.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought it was a pretty well written article.

But it is frustrating to have to tap dance around "conspiracy theory" mentalities. They really do need to get into the modern age so the rest of us aren't restricted by idiots.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone see where this is headed? NATO invaded the wrong "stan" they should have been more worried about the one that has nukes.

Since when did the USA actually attack any country which could actually defend itself?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Attacks on NATO and U.S. supply convoys in Pakistan give militants a propaganda victory, but coalition officials say they do not affect operations in Afghanistan. The vast majority travel through the country unharmed."

Who is more disappointed - - the jihadis in Pakistan or their Lefty allies outside of the country?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Absolutely! 100% Same as when US drones fly into Pakistan and 'kill militants' only to have it released later that it was civilians

Which attacks were later to be released as killing civilians or the majority of those killed civilians?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which attacks were later to be released as killing civilians or the majority of those killed civilians?

What I mean by that is when it is officially confirmed to have killed civilians, not locals claiming it killed civilians. I'm not saying they don't, I just saying I don't trust the locals when they say they were civilians when the aircraft is targeting someone whom they believe is a militant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since when did the USA actually attack any country which could actually defend itself?

One could just as easily ask- - when did America's foes defend nations that couldn't defend themselves against the attacks you bring up? What were the ideological motivations ? Are you sad that the Comintern is dead?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites