Confidential UN Map Shows Dire Security in Afghanistan | The War on Terrorism Homeland Security | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Confidential UN Map Shows Dire Security in Afghanistan
December 28, 2010
8:02 am
Avatar
Aquarian
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 779
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

KABUL — Confidential UN maps show a clear deterioration in security in parts of Afghanistan this year, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday, as its mission there acknowledged security in some parts had worsened.

[imghttp://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/un_maps_afghanistan.jpg][/img]

Two United Nations maps, one showing the situation at the start of this year's fighting season in March and the other towards its end in October, highlight a particular decline in parts of the north and east, the paper said.

Kieran Dwyer, communications director of the UN mission in Afghanistan, acknowledged security had got worse in some parts, hampering its mission, although he said he had not seen the maps.

"There are parts of the country that have become increasingly difficult to operate in during 2010 due to insecurity.

"This includes the targeting of humanitarian workers and government officials whose jobs it is to deliver services to the people," he told AFP.

"As the conflict intensifies in certain parts of the country, we're seeing insurgents bobbing up in districts which have previously not been a target."

While the situation in the south -- the fiercest battleground between US-led troops and the Taliban -- remained virtually unchanged between the two maps at "very high risk", it worsened in 16 districts in the north and east, the paper reported.

These districts were in the provinces of Badghis, Sari Pul, Balkh, Parwan, Baghlan, Samangan, Faryab, Laghman and Takhar.

The paper added that only two districts previously deemed high risk -- one in Kunduz in the north and another in Herat in the west -- had received a safer rating in October.

Earlier this month a US review described strategy as being "on track" but warned that gains were fragile, a year after President Barack Obama ordered 30,000 extra troops into battle.

There are around 140,000 US-led NATO troops in Afghanistan, two-thirds of whom are from the United States, fighting a nine-year Taliban insurgency.

A limited withdrawal of troops is expected to start in July 2011 and foreign troops are preparing for a planned security handover to Afghan forces in 2014.

Violence in the north has steadily worsened over the last two years despite the Taliban insurgency having its powerbase in the south.

The United Nations uses the maps to assess the dangers of travelling and running schemes across Afghanistan, the Wall Street Journal said.

© 2010 Agence France-Presse

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/27-5

The Few assume to be the deputies, but they are often only the despoilers of the Many.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

December 28, 2010
6:34 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10166
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Confidential UN maps show

Please explain what the first 4 words of your post mean to you, and how that could have a negative impact on colition forces, by publishing this?

December 29, 2010
10:21 am
Avatar
Aquarian
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 779
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It means the truth should be revealed. Secrecy breeds tyranny.

If soldiers are going to continue dying for the imperialist cause, the voting population should have the full story.

The Few assume to be the deputies, but they are often only the despoilers of the Many.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

December 29, 2010
5:23 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10166
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You do not have the slightest concern that this tips off the enemy to weaknesses that can result in the death of our troops?

December 29, 2010
10:00 pm
Avatar
Tairaa
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2842
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"Aquarian" wrote: It means the truth should be revealed. Secrecy breeds tyranny.

If soldiers are going to continue dying for the imperialist cause, the voting population should have the full story.

Incorrect.

What if the Nazis knew about the 5 landing zones in Normandy before they happened because of the publics "right" to information pertaining to warfare?

Afterwards it all comes up, if the situation described is the situation at present, and this information can possibly result in harm, hardship, death etc, than no, people do not have a right to know.

"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."

December 29, 2010
10:08 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10166
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

What do you think they would have done to Assange, had he posted the plans to the Normandy invasion, and than said the public has the right to know all this, and the truth can never hurt anyone.

Thank You Tairaa! Good comparison!

December 30, 2010
2:41 am
Avatar
Aquarian
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 779
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Notice that it is the two vociferous supporters of the occupation and war of aggression in Afghanistan who view this as a reprehensible act.

When truth becomes treason in society, we are in big trouble. Comparing this to revealing World War II plans is argumentative at best. There is alot of information to suggest that the U.S. and England contributed to the rise of Hitler for geostrategic gains and interests, along with the support of the Rockefellers and other oil tycoons. We can devote a whole thread to that, but the issue at hand, with this and the Assange episodes is the fact that people should have a right to be informed about what is going on in their world because it affects us all equally. Our foreign spying, meddling, wars of aggression, occupations, genocide against civilians, war profiteering, fattening of the military budget, etc is what is at the very heart of this issue. We wouldn't have these problems if the U.S. never launched any wars of preemptive aggression in the first place. If the security situation is DIRE and WORSENING as the maps suggest, why would it be detrimental to the troops FACING THAT SITUATION AS WE SPEAK ANYWAYS to show it people who believe they have to be informed of the facts? You want to know what this harms? It harms the Obama Administration's credibility. It harms the UK's credibility. It harms Canada's credibility. It harms the credibility of every nation that sends its troops to die. Simple as that.

The Few assume to be the deputies, but they are often only the despoilers of the Many.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

December 30, 2010
3:10 am
Avatar
Tairaa
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2842
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Notice that it is the two vociferous supporters of the occupation and war of aggression in Afghanistan who view this as a reprehensible act.

Oh hardly, you're equally loud about your opinions, just that you're on the other side of the fence so to speak.

Comparing this to revealing World War II plans is argumentative at best.

Again, hardly. I realize it's on a different level but the two scenarios are similar in nature if not in scope.

people should have a right to be informed about what is going on in their world because it affects us all equally.

First of all, how does it affect us all equally?
Second, why should people have a right to information when said information being public knowledge can lead to bloodshed?

There is alot of information to suggest that the U.S. and England contributed to the rise of Hitler for geostrategic gains and interests, along with the support of the Rockefellers and other oil tycoons.

Throw some literature my way. Maybe we can talk about it once I read up on it.

Our foreign spying, meddling, wars of aggression, occupations, genocide against civilians, war profiteering, fattening of the military budget, etc is what is at the very heart of this issue.

That's your interpretation of your countries foreign affairs, but not everyone agrees with your interpretation.

"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."

December 30, 2010
3:58 am
Avatar
Aquarian
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 779
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Oh hardly, you're equally loud about your opinions, just that you're on the other side of the fence so to speak.

I'm just saying. Peace!

Again, hardly. I realize it's on a different level but the two scenarios are similar in nature if not in scope.

Yet, even WWII (despite how much I thought was a product by design) had a "definitive end". The "visceral threats" present in World War II would have probably been more tangible than the threat of Islamic Radicalism/Fundamentalism because there was actual subversion of nations on the part of Hitler's regime, unlike those of radical Islamists.

First of all, how does it affect us all equally?
Second, why should people have a right to information when said information being public knowledge can lead to bloodshed?

It affects us all equally because most of us are voting citizens, or potentially voting citizens who contribute tax dollars to financing these lovely ventures, crusades, etc.

The second question; I think the bloodshed would have continued despite the release of this information which only explains the security situation in Afghanistan. I'm sure the soldiers knew that firsthand anyways without having to read this. The bloodshed will continue as long as their war and brutal occupation.

Throw some literature my way. Maybe we can talk about it once I read up on it.

U.S. Industrialism and the Rise of Hitler:
http://www.karenlyster.com/hitler.html

The inspiration for Nazi Eugenics:

http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

Hitler-Rothschild Connection:
http://www.cephas-library.com/.....child.html

Links to some of the facts:
http://www.threeworldwars.com/dload/

Ford and the Führer -
http://tinyurl.com/m46tb

American supporters of the European Fascists -
http://tinyurl.com/qetw3

How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power
http://www.commondreams.org/he.....925-01.htm

That's your interpretation of your countries foreign affairs, but not everyone agrees with your interpretation.

My aim is to convince them otherwise, of course.

The Few assume to be the deputies, but they are often only the despoilers of the Many.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

December 30, 2010
5:57 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10166
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

God help this country if you are our future Aquarian!

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
30 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10166

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 23672

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 32

Topics: 8550

Posts: 122758

Newest Members:

7155304653, iluty, Donald Mitchell, skippy mccracken, Henweielts, Athena, Athena, Athena, ocodevohu, yxufuguj

Administrators: John Greenewald: 518, blackvault: 1777