Taliban Demands Downtime on Afghanistan Cellphone Networks

faster_manic writes "The Taliban has demanded that cellphone network providers in Afghanistan cease service between the hours of 5pm and 7am each night of the week, as they believe American troops are able to track down Taliban members using their cellphones."

Comments

Isn't it as easy as

[tnoren]

Turning the cell phone off? Maybe Airplane mode?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[ack154]

I don't think they got that memo.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Mongoose Disciple]

I had the same thought.

Maybe they're thinking that people who regularly turn off their phones at night (and why at night?) will be obvious Taliban sympathizers and hunted down during the day? Beats me.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[rvw]

I don't think they got that memo. Maybe you can put a demo on Youtube.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Loibisch]

but...but...but what if you forget to turn it off...wouldn't it be much more convenient if some safety measure kicked in, like, let's say disabling the ability of a whole country to use their phones?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[erroneus]

You need to understand and appreciate the mentality that doesn't seem to be exclusive to muslim extremists.

The mentality I speak of is "The entire world around me should be adjusted to fit my way of thinking or doing things."

If you happen to live in an area where "blue laws" exist, you'll know what I'm talking about. In my area, you cannot buy beer on Sunday before 12:00 noon, so if you forgot to buy beer before the game starts the previous day, you're SOL thanks to these religiously sponsored legislative actions. Such laws do not serve the community -- they serve to create a society that better aligns itself with religious interests.

In this case, it would make more sense that Taliban people should have to turn their phones off to avoid being tracked... but it's too inconvenient for them to change the way they do things. So instead, they want to make things inconvenient for EVERYONE to better suit their individual needs.

This just goes to show what is truly broken about their minds. They are far too self-interested to really be concerned about anything resembling "greater good." And I'll say it once again -- this is not the exclusive territory of muslim extremists. It's not even the exclusive territory of religious extremists though it does seem to be something of a hallmark of them. It's a problem of the self-interested mind.

So every time you see someone trying to get new law written to protect their children when they should be doing it themselves, this is a sign that they have the same mental weakness that requires the rest of the world compensate for their stupidity.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Dr. Eggman]

but...but...but what if you forget to turn it off... Don't worry! If you forget to turn off your cell, some helpful people will come along and "turn off the cellphone" for you...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sumdumass]

Well, when you see concentrated movements at night and it isn't going to a pub, you pretty much know that you should at least check into it when your in a war zone.

The interesting thing here is that we are seeing two things that we haven't really saw before. One and probably the most significant, is that taliban tactics are being traded and treated like open information like the US government's terrorist spy program. This tells me that people aren't as afraid of the taliban as they used to be. The other is that we are hitting them so hard that they are scrambling for a way to mitigate it. If it was something they weren't worried about, they would simply say leave them off. But for some reason, they are desperate enough to ask for help in turning the towers off because they think it is how we are finding them.

Either way, I like it.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Glock27]

Turning the cell phone off? Maybe Airplane mode?

No. Time to get paranoid, your cell phone can be remotely tapped (speakerphone mic) even when it's off:

http://www.news.com/2100-1029-6140191.html

That's what they're concerned about. A quote from the article:

Security-conscious corporate executives routinely remove the batteries from their cell phones, he added.

I wonder if that applies to Steve's iPhone? heh

All cars with OnStar can be monitored the same way. Welcome to 1984.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[FrostDust]

I remember hearing how the US government is able to turn on and use a cellphone's microphone, even if the phone turned off, in order to listen in on the converstations being held by suspected drug trafficers. I can't imagine it being that impossible for the military's intellegence agencies to ascertain a phone's general location. Short of the user removing the battery, or securing the phone in a faraday cage, shuting down the phone towers seems the easiest way to keep everyone's location hidden at night.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[oyenstikker]

Damn religious zealots. When I forget to pick up my wine for communion on Saturday, I'm SOL the next morning.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[erroneus]

That would essentially correct... but in my area, it's all about the Southern Baptists... no such activity. Otherwise, I'm sure they'd have added just such a provision to the blue law.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[laejoh]

So just to be sure that I understand, you mean that the taliban and these guys are a bit the same?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[QuantumRiff]

You mentioned blue laws.. HAHA.. Here in Oregon, you cannot buy Liquor anywhere but at a state owned liquor store. The state owns the store, then leases it out to a private individual to run. You can buy beer and wine at grocery stores, but not between 1am and 9am. (which sucks when you try to go to the 24 hour supermarkets at 5am to avoid the crowds). All liquor stores close at 7pm, 8pm on friday and saturday nights, and they are closed on Sundays. The state sets the prices of the liquor, because they get a percentage of the prices in taxes. I'm 20 minutes from California border, and can get a fifth of Rum for about $9 from a grocery store down there, but have to pay about $16 for the same bottle in Oregon. Fortunately, a huge wholesaler, Costco is challenging the constitutionality of those laws in Oregon and Washington (which has similar laws) because they make so much money off of liquor in CA.
I spent a few weeks in WI this summer, and was completely blown away by their state fair. Every food booth there sold beer along with food. (I imagine it had something to do with WI being the brewery state!). In Oregon, you have to have a fenced off area, with guards manning the entrance, ID'ing everyone that wants to walk in. My cousin couldn't enter the beer garden, because her 1 year old son was with her in a stroller, and they wouldn't let her in, she might give alcohol to a minor! Nice to know that Oregon is there to Protect you from yourself!

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[CohibaVancouver]

thanks to these religiously sponsored legislative actions

But if that's the will of the majority, then so be it. And if that's not the will of the majority, then get organized and change the law.

As a Canadian, I'm always surprised how much the religious right seems to have influence in the USA when the appear to represent the minority opinion.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

This just goes to show what is truly broken about their minds. They are far too self-interested to really be concerned about anything resembling "greater good." And I'll say it once again -- this is not the exclusive territory of muslim extremists. It's not even the exclusive territory of religious extremists though it does seem to be something of a hallmark of them. It's a problem of the self-interested mind. s/religious extremists/linux zealots/

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[jimicus]

I think George Bernard Shaw said it best:

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.".

It's probably not politically correct to point out that in this case, "progress" would mean "towards a Taliban-controlled state which is about half a millennium behind the rest of the world".

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Amouth]

Where my grandmother lives you can't buy anything stronger than wine at all and you can't buy beer or wine on the weekends (both saturday and sunday) really screwed up if you ask me

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Shakrai]

Fortunately, a huge wholesaler, Costco is challenging the constitutionality of those laws in Oregon and Washington (which has similar laws) because they make so much money off of liquor in CA

They will lose. Let me save them the trouble:

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited

In broad terms the 21st Amendment allows the states to do whatever the hell they want with liquor sales. That was the price of repealing prohibition -- the states gained full control to do virtually whatever they want within their own borders. There's nothing preventing a state from adopting statewide prohibition tomorrow if it desired to do so -- well, nothing except the voting public :)

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[AJWM]

shutting down the phone towers seems the easiest way to keep everyone's location hidden at night.

Actually that's a totally useless way of doing it, unless you're assuming that the telco is the only one that can own/operate a cell phone tower. Mobile cell phone towers are off-the-shelf equipment, telcos set them up in areas of temporary high demand (eg, for post disaster media circuses, they'll set one up nearby for a few weeks or so -- it's just a small trailer and an antenna mast). For tracking purposes, they wouldn't even have to hook it into the regular telephone network.

That's just off-the-shelf. If the military really wants to track cellphones (or anything else that emits enough RF to detect), they could have custom-built gear that can narrow it down much better than cell towers can. (Steerable -- mechanical or electronic -- beam antennas, for example.)

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Sancho]

Rant about blue laws aside, there are still differences in the two situations. While buying alcohol on Sunday isn't likely to harm anyone else, a Taliban fighter or two forgetting to turn off his phone could compromise the group. Likewise, a group of cell phones suddenly going off at 7pm would be as suspicious as a group of them moving about. And there's still the possibility that the towers can track them even with the phones off (depending upon what "off" really means on that phone--my phone is never unless I pull the battery, but it's poorly designed.)

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sm62704]

...if you forgot to buy beer before the game starts the previous day, you're SOL thanks to these religiously sponsored legislative actions.

That's something I can't understand, except that people are too lazy to read their own bibles and fall prey to the wolves in sheep's clothing.

There is nothing whatever in the Christian Bible that says drinking is a sin. Ok there is a passage in the old testament that says kings shouldn't drink, and one in the new testament that says we should soberly wait for the second coming - but it also says "give strong drink to the dying and wine to those with the blues." It also chronicles the fact that on Jesus' last night on earth, all the apostles were shitfaced drunk.

These peole aren't reading Christ's bible, they're reading Pat Robertson's bible. Jesus had quite a few things to say about people like Robertson and his four thousand dollar suits...

-mcgrew

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[ArcherB]

But for some reason, they are desperate enough to ask for help in turning the towers off because they think it is how we are finding them. All they need to do is call a phone in the US. Then the Gov't can't track them without a warrant.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Grishnakh]

They (the religious right) do represent the majority; it's just that people don't want to admit it.

In certain states, they're definitely not the majority (California, etc.), but overall in America, they're either a majority, or so close it doesn't really matter (high 40%). Plus, the states they control are less populous, and the way our government is set up, those sets have greater per-capita representation than the most populous states.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[arth1]

In this case, it would make more sense that Taliban people should have to turn their phones off to avoid being tracked... but it's too inconvenient for them to change the way they do things.

It's not that easy. Then turning off your cell phone at night becomes reason for the occupation forces intelligence to investigate, making it easier to narrow down just who to track down.
The request to the cell phone companies would then change from "We are the Taliban, and we want the cell phone service off at night" to "We are the guys with the BIG bombs, and we want lists of everyone who shuts down their phone at night".

--
*Art

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[cayenne8]

"Maybe they're thinking that people who regularly turn off their phones at night (and why at night?)"

Yeah, that's stupid...that's when the "Free Nights and Weekends" minutes kick in....

:-)

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[erroneus]

I refuse to believe that the religious reich is a majority. They are a vocal majority, however, and that's what makes all the difference. These "protect the children" groups and the like are also similarly motivated. Unfortunately, votes are counted based on the number of participants. It's very rare when people are motivated to get out to oppose something. Most people who would otherwise have an opinion to express, or none at all (i.e. those who would vote to not change things) aren't vocal.

It's a shame, really, but that's the way it is.

Minority interests actually make the rules because the majority are too busy with their daily lives or are otherwise uninterested to counter the few.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[neersign]

I'll play devil's advocate- US Army Joe: Hey, Abdul turns his cell phone off every night at 5pm and turns it back on at 7am. US Army Joe 2: Achmed does the same thing. We know Achmed is a terrorist, Abdul must be too. -doesn't seem so stupid now.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[earthforce_1]

> The mentality I speak of is "The entire world around me should be adjusted to fit my way of thinking or doing things."

It also seems to be a common mentality with certain industry cartels and corporations - The RIAA/MPAA, and Microsoft for example...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[scamper_22]

And this is different from any other political group how?

I'm pretty sure you can take almost any political initiative/law and use this statement.

"Such laws do not serve the community -- they serve to create a society that better aligns itself with X interests."

I'm pretty sure, we've all heard this before. The best boss is not one that tries to be your friend, but one that tries to be fair.
The same is true for government. It shouldn't try and solve all the problems, it should only seek to be fair. In that respect all political parties are failures.

I can't get school choice because it goes against the teacher unions who run the democratic party.
I have to spend my tax dollars support public sector union pensions, while the government does not offer the same pension to me. ...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[mi]

The mentality I speak of is "The entire world around me should be adjusted to fit my way of thinking or doing things."

We all have this mentality — the difference is in how we react to others not agreeing. Reactions range from shrugs, to voting to make one's way the encouraged (or the only legal) one, to blowing up other people to make one's point...

Who is "extremist" and who is not is determined by where on the above scale their reactions reside...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Svartalf]

This just goes to show what is truly broken about their minds. They are far too self-interested to really be concerned about anything resembling "greater good." And I'll say it once again -- this is not the exclusive territory of muslim extremists. It's not even the exclusive territory of religious extremists though it does seem to be something of a hallmark of them. It's a problem of the self-centered[was interested] mind.

There...corrected it for you...

There's nothing quite wrong with a self-interested mind. Much of what we call "progress" is due to the self-interested mind.

It's when it's self-centered (The world revolves around the person, not the other way around...) and the self in question isn't
in alignment with the rest of the people around them, whether that's right or wrong (Keep that in mind...) that it becomes a problem.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[blueskies]

But if that's the will of the majority, then so be it. And if that's not the will of the majority, then get organized and change the law.

You mean the tyranny of the majority, right?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[KevMar]

They are doing this backwards. instead of educating its members to turn the phone off. They instead go after the towers. If you shut the towers off, the phones are still on.

Now the US will drive in a moble cellphone tower. All the phones will connect to it because it is the only available tower in range. Now the US can easily fallow the signal or use more moble towers to pin point an exact location and just bomb it.

And because the towers are off, the people that would have turned the phone off dont.

This is the stupidest mistake they could make.

on the other hand, if the cellphone makes that tone indicating that it is roaming late at night something is up.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[cayenne8]

"You mentioned blue laws.. HAHA.. Here in Oregon, you cannot buy Liquor anywhere but at a state owned liquor store. The state owns the store, then leases it out to a private individual to run. You can buy beer and wine at grocery stores, but not between 1am and 9am. (which sucks when you try to go to the 24 hour supermarkets at 5am to avoid the crowds). All liquor stores close at 7pm, 8pm on friday and saturday nights, and they are closed on Sundays. The state sets the prices of the liquor, because they get a percentage of the prices in taxes. I'm 20 minutes from California border, and can get a fifth of Rum for about $9 from a grocery store down there, but have to pay about $16 for the same bottle in Oregon. I spent a few weeks in WI this summer, and was completely blown away by their state fair. Every food booth there sold beer along with food. (I imagine it had something to do with WI being the brewery state!). In Oregon, you have to have a fenced off area, with guards manning the entrance, ID'ing everyone that wants to walk in. My cousin couldn't enter the beer garden, because her 1 year old son was with her in a stroller, and they wouldn't let her in, she might give alcohol to a minor! Nice to know that Oregon is there to Protect you from yourself!"

Yeah, liquor laws are the MOST mixed up set of laws that exist...not just state to state, but, even county to county (well, parish down here).

If you really want to get used to more friendly laws, come to New Orleans. Home of the "to go" cup. I've gotten so used to buying a drink 'to go' down here, that I sometimes forget when out of state, and the bouncer at a bar almost clotheslined me trying to leave with my drink. Hehee...then the looks I get when I forget, and ask the bouncer for a to go cup.

Pretty much no times down here you can't sell liquor. I came from AR, a 'notch' in the freakin' bible belt...and up there, no alcohol sales at ALL on Sunday, not even restaurants...hence all restaurants were closed, and they used to rope off aisles in the stores that were open...for certain other items that couldn't be sold on Sunday. Since then, the blue laws have been slightly repealed...you can sell most any item retail you want, but, still no booze in store....only in restaurants that server food, or private clubs. Also, only beer in grocery stores, wine and booze only in liquor stores. It was always 21 to drink up there.

Imagine how much fun I had when I moved to LA...to go to LSU. I went into a grocery store that had a beer aisle, a wine aisle and a liquor aisle. I quickly threw all the food out of my cart...and loaded up with booze!! It was also 18 years old for booze down here at the time. La was pretty much the last state to repeal that....and only due to the oil crunch of the 80's. Before that...the figured they'd lose more in alcohol tax revenue than they would Fed. Hwy funds...but, the oil crunch fscked that up.

But we have neat things like drive thru daquire stores, and yes we put a LOT of booze in our daquiris. We have to-go cups...it is a great place. Hell, until just a year or before Katrina, we didn't even have an open container laws in the cars here...was cool, cop pulls you over, just hand your beer to the passenger before he got to your window.

Yep, the last bastion of sin....I gotta tell you, I was blown away that they were able to pass the no smoking in restaurants thing here..I really was amazed. I've quit smoking recently...but, I still gotta say, even though it keeps me from temptation...the govt. should not be able to regulate a private business allowing a legal activity within its structure...but, that's another argument.

Anyway, c'mon down here and party. Alcohol laws are not only more permissive, but, it is cheap down here too....since we in the NOLA area drink so much....they give us a volume discount.

:-)

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really interesting that your grandmother lives in such a place, but it would be EVEN MORE interesting to know where that is, exactly.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[zzsmirkzz]

But if that's the will of the majority, then so be it. And if that's not the will of the majority, then get organized and change the law.

Now do you mean the simple majority which can be expressed as 50.1% vs. 49.9%? Does that really seem fair? I certainly don't think that it does. Or, you can live in Washington, where they are trying to reduce the 50% (super-majority) vote to less than that for raising taxes to fund schools, which is bullshit.

That's what I think this country really needs, eliminate the simple majority rule. If the country is really divided 50/50, then nothing should be done. We should up it to like 60/40 or 65/35 for simple laws, and at least 75/25 or 80/20 for constitutional amendments. That'll keep these silly Government Nanny laws from being passed and pissing off the average citizen.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[cayenne8]

I dunno...I think I saw a poll on TV this morning when getting ready for work saying that the percentage of religious, Christian religious in the US had dropped to just below 75%....

So, only about 25% of the people in the US don't claim to be assoc. with some form of Christianity.

I'd have to guess the Atheists are the loud, vocal minority in the US.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about how Jesus blessed the water and turned it into wine.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[RealProgrammer]

. It's not even the exclusive territory of religious extremists though it does seem to be something of a hallmark of them. It's a problem of the self-interested mind.

I think you're failing to see apples and oranges here. First, the fact that the blue laws were passed means (our government being run the way it is) that at least for the time when the laws were passed, they were not "religious extremists" but some kind of majority coalition. For instance, though I don't care about church, I like the fact that there is a quiet time on Sunday morning during which stores are closed. Helps me enjoy my waffles. The whole "day of rest" thing is something religions have right, I think. Now, if they try to close the Waffle House they're going to have a political fight on their hands.

Secondly, wanting to extend morality is a universal trait. Codes of morality differ, but what they all have in common is that morality is how we believe everyone ought to behave. It's not even a baby step from there to "let's pass a law" (be it against selling beer on Sunday or using ethnic slurs).

But the apples-and-oranges part is that the Taliban are not asking for the networks to be down for religious or moral reasons, but for tactical advantage. They're wanting the telecom companies to choose sides. It's also not out of laziness. How often do people forget to turn off their cell phones in theaters, job interviews, etc.? Someone would forget to turn his phone off during that big kill the Americans meeting at the Poobah's pad, and boom, no more Poobah.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

I sort of disagree. The blue laws are bulllshit with no justification, whereas this is a tactical decision made for good reason. If someone starts turning their phones off regularly at night they'll be just as suspicious. Granted they could just leave it on and at home, but overall you're in a better tactical position if you can completely black out the information source if you can't 100% control the information.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[murdocj]

How about "leave your cellphone at home when you go out at night to terrorize people"? After all, if you want the cellphones off, clearly you aren't going to be using them to communicate, so why carry them?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[CptNerd]

There are whole counties in Kentucky where even beer and wine are illegal. Google the phrase "dry county" and "wet-dry elections" and you'll see where. I know first-hand, because I grew up in one, city of Middlesboro, Bell County, Kentucky.

What was always interesting was how often the bootleggers sided with the preachers to keep the county dry, every time they held a vote.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason cell phones are not allowed on top secret military installations, even if they are in airplane mode. Unless the battery is actually separated from the phone and no power is being supplied, then it is still possible to eaves drop both when the phone is and isn't in use from a decent distance. Additionally, the phone can be used to grab images of it's surrounding area even if it doesn't have a built-in camera. We're not talking about 5 megapixel vivid color images here, but they are good enough to get a picture of what's around them.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[networkBoy]

There's nothing preventing a state from adopting statewide prohibition tomorrow if it desired to do so -- well, nothing except the voting public :) I think you may have mis-spelled rioting
-nB

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sayfawa]

The interesting thing here is that we are seeing two things that we haven't really saw before. One and probably the most significant, is that taliban tactics are being traded and treated like open information like the US government's terrorist spy program. This tells me that people aren't as afraid of the taliban as they used to be. The other is that we are hitting them so hard that they are scrambling for a way to mitigate it.

It tells me quite the opposite. It tells me that the Taliban is back to being powerful enough to make demands of companies and think it has a chance of being listened to. Over 6 years after they were almost bombed out of existence they are now almost back to running some things.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Bloke down the pub]

Too cheap to buy a round like everyone else.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Homr Zodyssey]

You may refuse to believe it, but according to a survey that was released this week. More than 50% of Americans claim to be Protestants and 25% claim to be Catholic. Now, it is true that only 26% of American's claim to be Evangelical Protestants, which is not a majority, but rather a plurality.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

You should realize a few things ...

1) all active cellphones can be located (and, with some systems, targeted) easily
2) all cellphones, whether active or not, can be located (by sending out signals which will provoke a passive response from their antenna's), over a short range (but still a few miles, given enough power in the transmitter)

So just turning it off, if you want to avoid being targeted, is not sufficient. Either wrap it in a (thin) faraday cage (which will itself be trackable from overhead if it's mass is too much, but hey), or, better, leave it at home. Do not use radio communication equipment.

Of course for the taliban, there really is only one recourse, give up. Either they will lose gradually, or they will cause massive casualties, which will provoke a really big attack on the population of pakistan (did you know, in reality as opposite moonbat's mindsets, that in the geneva conventions civilians amongst whom non-uniformed enemy fighters are located, are fair game and can be killed. The decision whether or not terrorists are amongst them can (only) be made by a field commander, in short, every bomb short of a nuke would be perfectly legal to shoot into a mass of afghan civilians), and the commander giving that order would go completely free under international law.

Only civilian prisoners and UNIFORMED enemy prisoners cannot be killed. They can, however, be locked up indefinitely without recourse to trial. For the muslims there is another problem. Anyone who does not intend to respect other's human rights (and muslims don't, declaration of Cairo on human rights in islam, stating that there can be no freedom of religion and that religious discrimination is mandatory, and adds to that that sexual discrimination is also mandatory) cannot call upon the human rights laws to defend him/herself. (article 29 of convention of Geneva, clause c, and article 30 of UNHR)

And perhaps the US will have problems doing that, but the afghan government (you know the people that actually suffer, not the ones complaining from 5000 km away) will not hesitate to do that. If WWII is realistic precedent, the population fired upon will thank the Afghan government for firing upon them, if it does indeed remove muslim terrorists from their cities and villages (and it will).

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[networkBoy]

This just goes to show what is truly broken about their minds. They are far too self-interested to really be concerned about anything resembling "greater good." And I'll say it once again -- this is not the exclusive territory of muslim extremists. It's not even the exclusive territory of religious extremists though it does seem to be something of a hallmark of them. It's a problem of the self-interested mind. s/religious extremists/linux zealots/ ok:

This just goes to show what is truly broken about their minds. They are far too self-interested to really be concerned about anything resembling "greater good." And I'll say it once again -- this is not the exclusive territory of muslim extremists. It's not even the exclusive territory of linux zealots though it does seem to be something of a hallmark of them. It's a problem of the self-interested mind.
hmm..... I guess it works after all... I thought it wouldn't read right.
-nB

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

I spent a few weeks in WI this summer, and was completely blown away by their state fair.

Glad you liked it. It's typically thought of a pretty good fair.

Every food booth there sold beer along with food.

Hmmm... It's been too long since I've been to the state fair. I can say for things like SummerFest, there are big beer stalls pretty much everywhere that you buy beer from. I don't recall the food vendors selling beer. I'm kind of surprised that food vendors at the state fair do that, only because fairs tend to like to keep things streamlined.

In Oregon, you have to have a fenced off area, with guards manning the entrance, ID'ing everyone that wants to walk in.

That's not much different than Wisconsin. The state fair might not have fenced off beer gardens but most city festivals will have one with the same ID policy. Heck, in Madison we call those beer gardens "bars".

My cousin couldn't enter the beer garden, because her 1 year old son was with her in a stroller, and they wouldn't let her in

Too bad the police where the ones having to give you cousin some common sense.

she might give alcohol to a minor!

A likely story. I think the cops are probably smart enough to know that a 1-year old kid in a stroller in a packed beer garden full of stumbling inebriated beer bellies is probably not the "safest" place for a child and had to dumb it down for your cousin. Of course, if you've seen YouTube lately, it shouldn't be too surprising to see parents give their 1-2 year old beer, pot, or other drugs. Of course, I think there's policies all over Wisconsin that bar things like strollers in beer gardens. Though, if the parent wants to get a beer, it's Wisconsin law that minors can be in bars (and even drink) if accompanied by their parent/guardian. Though, the bar tender doesn't *have* to server you if he doesn't want.

Nice to know that Oregon is there to Protect you from yourself!

Sounds like your family needs it.

The grass is always greener. You're welcome to have our "beer policies" if we trade our tax burdens as well.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Dmala]

If you happen to live in an area where "blue laws" exist, you'll know what I'm talking about. In my area, you cannot buy beer on Sunday before 12:00 noon, so if you forgot to buy beer before the game starts the previous day, you're SOL thanks to these religiously sponsored legislative actions. Such laws do not serve the community -- they serve to create a society that better aligns itself with religious interests.

Strangely enough, at least in MA, this really wasn't the case. When the laws were enacted 150+ years ago, they may have been intended to serve religious interests. When they repealed the law banning Sunday liquor sales not too long ago, it was the packies, err... liquor stores that fought tooth and nail against it. Apparently, many stores actually saved on operating costs by not having to open on Sundays. I guess in the case of small mom-and-pop shops, it was a choice between working seven day weeks or paying someone time-and-a-half to come in and man the store. "Having" to open on Sunday (because the competition would) was actually costing them money. I suppose there was some outcry from religious interests, but it was pretty minimal, relatively speaking.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Neurotoxic666]

some helpful people

Don't antropomorphise .50 bullets, they don't like that.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sheph]

I live in an area where you can't buy alcohol at all on Sunday, and if you want anything other than beer or wine you have to go to a state run dispensary. It was annoying when I first moved here, but after getting stuck once I learned to plan ahead (what a novel concept). It's never been a problem since. Now if I'm running low on Saturday I go down before 8PM when they close and grab another bottle. When I get home from church I can have a drink if I want to, problem solved. So to equate what these guys are doing with blue laws seems like reaching. Cell phone service is a critical public service. Being able to buy booze is not. You can't work around it if they turn the towers off.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why Ahmed the Terrorist didn't get the memo, Islamic governments don't like how subversive Youtube is and outright ban it instead.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[wiremind]

> It tells me that the Taliban is back to being powerful enough to make demands of companies

I just have to disagree.

It take 2 or 3 taliban guys to "go have talks" with the cell phone companies.
and it take 2 or 3 taliban guys to build a bomb, and start knocking down cell towers.

So all this proves is they are getting tracked, they dont know how, and 2 or 3 guys are desperately grasping at straws.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Muad'Dave]

According to Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs", the county that the Jack Daniel's Distillery is in is 'dry', so they can't legally taste their own product in their own factory!!!

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[arth1]

"When you go out at night to terrorize people"?
Not opinionated at all, are we? You appear to have swallowed our administration's rhetoric, hook, line and sinker.

There were no Taliban members in the September 11 attack. None. The Taliban was guilty of allowing the Saudi prince to operate from within Afghanistan, and while guilty of their own atrocities, terrorism wasn't one of them. They were attacked for not arresting and serving Bin Laden's group to the US on a plate, claiming that was outside their control. (Which is very similar to what Musharraf has used as an excuse for not handing over Bin Laden for years now, but that's of course different, because he's an ally...)

These are the very same people we called "freedom fighters" while they fought the Russians. While there are people in Afghanistan desperate enough to commit acts of terrorism, they're not these guys, but other groups. Treating every single person in Afghanistan that's opposed to the US the same is silly, because they are often even deadly enemies. If there's one country in the world that is known for its factions, it's Afghanistan.

As for your idea to leave the cell phones at home... The guerilla fighters who (currently and allegedly -- this is Afghanistan, after all) support the Taliban tend to either sleep or travel at night, not "terrorize" and then go home. And if they travel, it's kind of silly to leave their cell phone at home, don't you think? Oh, that's right -- you don't.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

Cell phone service is a critical public service. Being able to buy booze is not. You can't work around it if they turn the towers off. You could make all your calls in advance.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[rah1420]

According to Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs",

Before that, it was according to some JD print ads that I recall seeing. Something to the effect of "You can buy our product in our store, but we can't give you free samples, because Lynchburg is in a dry county..."

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[heelrod]

I wish they would turn off the phone networks here at nite as well.

cell phones suck

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Bud Dickman]

"I refuse to believe that the religious reich is a majority."

Based on what? If I refuse to believe in gravity, it won't make me any less dead when I jump off a building in defiance of gravity.

"Minority interests actually make the rules because the majority are too busy with their daily lives or are otherwise uninterested to counter the few."

Are you suggesting mob rule is the right and just path?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

You mentioned blue laws.. HAHA.. Here in Oregon, you cannot buy Liquor anywhere but at a state owned liquor store. It's the same here in Soviet Pennsylvania.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[kd5ujz]

Pakistan has since lifted the ban.

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority told Internet service providers to restore access to the site after the removal of what it called a "blasphemous" video clip, authority spokeswoman Nabiha Mahmood said.

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3673

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[saider]

Alcohol is ridiculously cheap to produce. The price is set to maximize the profits of the distributor. Notice that for a given area, there is only one distributor for each brand. The distributors can lose their monopoly if the parent company finds out they are selling in a more expensive area (a rural LA parrish selling stuff in N'orleans).

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sm62704]

Hey, if I could turn water into wine I'd be shitfaced 24/7.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[CKW]

I figured it out.

The problem the Taliban have isn't that their own cellphones are emitting at night. I'm damn sure they're careful with cellphone use.

The problem is when NATO electronically sees a whole village *leave* their village at 2am.

Hmmm, I wonder what town the Taliban just rolled into?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[iso-cop]

Hmm...you might be in the right zip code there but do not forget Ephesians 5:18, 1 Peter 4, 1 Thessalonians 5, Galatians 5:19-21, and such. The Bible does not advocate drunkenness and excess.

Where you quote Proverbs, you are seeing the contrast between a person of leadership who restrains themselves from drunkenness and those dying and in anguish who indulge. It also follows up by saying that the one in leadership should speak up for the one who is destitute to help pull them out of that miserable situation.

I am not sure where we find the apostles drunk. I would appreciate if you can clarify. They were celebrating Passover, which does involve wine but I do not find them drunk in the scriptures.

All that said, I am not sure that sales blackout periods or state ownership of alcohol distribution address the core issue.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sporkme]

"A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --- Benjamin Franklin

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[TeamSPAM]

Yeah gotta love the states with oppressive liquor laws. In PA, we have beer distributors and state stores. The state stores sell wine and hard liquor while the beer distributors only sell beer and soda. Of course you also must buy beer in quantities of a case (ie 24 bottles/cans). Which sucks for a beer snob like me that wants to buy in smaller quantities to sample different microbrews. Also makes it nearly impossible to sample Belgian style beers which come in 750ml bottles. You can buy beer in smaller quantites from delis, but they are over priced. I could care less where I have to buy my beer, I just want variety in the quantities I can buy it in. I'm resigned to fact that I don't think the laws will change.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

It means put paper in the printer, asshole.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[OldeTimeGeek]

It's not necessarily the will of the majority, but the will of the majority of people that actually come out to vote or the will of the groups that have the organization to get their candidates into office. The people for some of the "nanny laws" are usually far more organized and dedicated to their point of view than the folks that aren't.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[nelsonal]

Montana didn't have drinking and driving laws until 2005 (you couldn't be intoxicated, but the driver could enjoy what ever beverage they wished while they drove).

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[linux_geek_germany]

I remember reading somewhere that turning the cellphone (depending on the model) off doesn't prohibit tracking. Any technical info on this?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[dpninerSLASH]

That was my first thought. Odd that it took so long for someone to suggest it.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Toonol]

Either wrap it in a (thin) faraday cage (which will itself be trackable from overhead if it's mass is too much, but hey), or, better, leave it at home. Do not use radio communication equipment.

How can a faraday cage be detected? Do you mean by something like active radar? How does the signature of a faraday cage differ from, say, any other block of metal?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[AsnFkr]

2) all cellphones, whether active or not, can be located (by sending out signals which will provoke a passive response from their antenna's), over a short range (but still a few miles, given enough power in the transmitter)

Here's an honest question as you seem to know about this type of thing: With this type of technique would one be able to find the location a *specific* cell phone, or just find *a* cell phone? I can see how you could detect the existence of any cell phones in an area, but I'd be amazed if you could track down a specific cell phone that was powered down and perhaps had the battery removed.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[khallow]

Taliban is back to being powerful enough to make demands of companies [...] they are now almost back to running some things

If by "running things" you mean "say things in public". And aside from complete eradication, I have no idea how you can keep organizations from being "powerful enough" to make public, empty demands.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't turn water into wine,
But into cold Coors Light.
I'm not my brother, I know,
Don't walk on H2O,
But I got hydroponic shit
That me and Judas grow.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[toleraen]

Except here in Wisconsin a parent can order an alcoholic drink for their underage child or spouse. Bartender can deny them, but it's still legal last I heard.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Zeinfeld]

There were no Taliban members in the September 11 attack. None. The Taliban was guilty of allowing the Saudi prince to operate from within Afghanistan, and while guilty of their own atrocities, terrorism wasn't one of them.

On the contrary, terrorism was the Taleban modus operandi. They seized power through terrorism, they maintained power through terrorism. Bin Laden ain't a prince either.

The Taleban supported Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda supported the Taleban. They provided them with material support for their attacks on the US. Their support for Al Qaeda went far beyond mere toleration.

What is rather more interesting here is whether the Taleban are actually able to succeed in attacking the cell phone towers or whether the NATO forces are able to defend them. Its probably not that difficult to destroy the currently installed towers that were not designed to withstand attack. Sustaining a denial of service attack over an extended period of time is less likely to succeed. It is not likely to be very popular with the locals either.

Whatever the outcome is, it is unlikely to be ambiguous. If the Taleban fail to keep the cell towers down it is a very visible sign that they are a spent force politically. If they succeed it demonstrates only that they can perform nuisance actions against undefended installations.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Machtyn]

If the enemy is out "there" and you know where the friendlies are over "here", "here" and "here. Sending out a ping and getting a passive radar-like response from antennae would give you locations of those antennae. Just target the unknown locations that responded.

Of course, I'm thinking large field attacks and not a general city attack... though the idea can be modified to suite a localized area of a city.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

You know who coined that phrase? Elites who were afraid of losing power.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[g0rAngA]

I always thought that the booze laws here were pretty awful, but from what I'm hearing, they aren't.

Anyone who sells alcohol must have a liquor license, that come in either on- or off-licenses. In order to get a license, you've got to do a 2-year "social impact study", and of course pay the administration fee, which I can only imagine would be considerable. Only bottleshops, hotels, pubs, clubs, casinos, restaurantes may sell booze, and even then, there are restrictions on who can buy it, and at what times.
For instance, off-licence sales are limited to 8am-12am. The good news, i guess, is that pubs can be 24-hour.

This is pretty off-topic, so I won't go into it further. I had to learn all these nasty intricacies in order to be allowed to work as a bartender.

My point is that if someone wants to sell booze, then they should be able to do it. No restrictions on when or where.
Now that I've written that, I'm not sure I agree with my own statement...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

"A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --- Benjamin Franklin

which is why cannibalism is legal in all democratic countries. Oh, wait...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Mongoose Disciple]

Hmm. But couldn't they just leave their phones at home before they roll out?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[bperkins]

article 29 of convention of Geneva, clause c:

Also, apart from the baths and showers with which the camps shall be furnished prisoners of war shall be provided with sufficient water and soap for their personal toilet and for washing their personal laundry; the necessary installations, facilities and time shall be granted them for that purpose.

ref: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art29

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[savorymedia]

2) all cellphones, whether active or not, can be located (by sending out signals which will provoke a passive response from their antenna's), over a short range (but still a few miles, given enough power in the transmitter) So just turning it off, if you want to avoid being targeted, is not sufficient. Either wrap it in a (thin) faraday cage (which will itself be trackable from overhead if it's mass is too much, but hey), or, better, leave it at home. Do not use radio communication equipment.

Or you could just take the battery out when you're not using the phone or charging the battery. No power = no signal.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[timeOday]

They are far too self-interested to really be concerned about anything resembling "greater good." And I'll say it once again -- this is not the exclusive territory of muslim extremists. It's not even the exclusive territory of religious extremists though it does seem to be something of a hallmark of them. It's a problem of the self-interested mind.

During WWII, Britain (and every other country) made everybody turn out the lights during bombing raids. Is this different?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[IronChef]

You mentioned blue laws.. HAHA.. Here in Oregon, you cannot buy Liquor anywhere but at a state owned liquor store. The state owns the store, then leases it out to a private individual to run. You can buy beer and wine at grocery stores...

Well as no one can get drunk on beer or wine, it's OK to sell them more openly.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[MrSteveSD]

Of course for the Taliban, there really is only one recourse, give up.

That's unlikely since in a guerilla war like this they could go on for a long time. They come from the largest ethnic group, the Pashtuns (42% of the population). The United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (or the Northern Alliance as the media prefers) is mostly made up of Tajiks (27% of the Population), Hazara and Uzbeks.

This whole thing is broken down on ethnic grounds and NATO have chosen to back one ethnic group over the others. The United Islamic Front (UIF) are really no better than the Taliban if you look at the human rights reports.

Either they will lose gradually, or they will cause massive casualties

The UN recently reported that NATO and US forces had killed more civilians than the Taliban, mostly in air-strikes. There is a policy of sacrificing civilians in order to keep military casualties down. It's safer to bomb something than to send troops in. 10 dead Afghan civilians is more politically acceptable than 10 dead US soldiers. In the unlikely even of the media kicking up a real fuss about the civilian deaths, you can always just dredge up the tired old excuse that it's the enemy's fault for "hiding among the civilians".

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Viol8]

"2) all cellphones, whether active or not, can be located (by sending out signals which will provoke a passive response from their antenna's), over a short range (but still a few miles, given enough power in the transmitter)"

Sorry , I don't buy that. To get a readable reflection off a mobile phone antenna you'd either have to have a very highly focused beam - effectively a radar system - or broadcast a megawatt power RF signal which would probably knock out just about every cellphone and numerous other devices in the vacinity not to mention the potential harmful effects to people. Even if you do get a reflection how would you know which phone it is or even whether its a phone at all or just some other bit of metal that resonates at that frequency?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Z34107]

As a Canadian, I'm always surprised how much the religious right seems to have influence in the USA when the appear to represent the minority opinion.

The vast majority of the country is Christian, although not as much as it used to be. That's not to say that 78.4% of the country are reactionary zealots, but keep in mind that religious people of all stripes are likely to be influenced to arguments that appeal to their religion.

Athiests, on the other hand, are an incredible minority. Less than 22% of this country is "non-Christian", and that includes people not affiliated with any specific faith, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. But, how often do you hear diatribes against the "religious right?" Christmas trees? Flying Spaghetti Monsters?

That's not to say that minority opinions have no right to express themselves, or that the "religious right" speaks for all who are religious. But, they try to appeal to what roughly 80% of our country has in common on either side of the political spectrum.

And, the mods are on crack again. How was parent poster CohibaVancouver flamebait? "But if that's the will of the majority, then so be it. And if that's not the will of the majority, then get organized and change the law." seems like a rather neutral answer to some demagoguery about "religiously sponsored legislative actions."

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[kalidasa]

These are the people who don't want to be in town while the Taliban is there because they're afraid of being bombed (and probably also afraid of what the Taliban will do to them). They'll want to take their cell phones with them for safety.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

But the annoying thing is, you can't buy Beer in the state owned liquor stores. You have to go to a whole other store for that. So to prepare for a party you need to hit 3 different stores for food, beer and liquor.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[JAlexoi]

Are you the stupid one here? Or you just don't know the difference between federal and unitary states?

USA is a federal state. Get used to it! Positives and negatives come with it.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[lubricated]

wrong constitution. They are challenging the laws based on the state constitutions.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Shakrai]

Sadly enough people probably would riot if you tried to take away Budweiser. Yet nobody bothers to riot over the erosion of habeas corpus, our civil liberties, or other injustices (poverty, hunger, AIDS) in the World.

*sigh*

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

If you happen to live in an area where "blue laws" exist, you'll know what I'm talking about. In my area, you cannot buy beer on Sunday before 12:00 noon, so if you forgot to buy beer before the game starts the previous day, you're SOL thanks to these religiously sponsored legislative actions.

That may have been true in the past, but not anymore. At least not where I live. In CT you can't buy alcohol after 9pm or on Sundays. A few years ago there was a proposition to expand the sales times (it was 8pm). The biggest, loudest, hardest lobbying opponents were not religious people but liquor store owners. The reason? They don't want to have compete with 24 hour grocery stores and the like. They're very happy having the smallest range of opening hours they can arrange.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[DMUTPeregrine]

Pesach involves at least 4 cups of wine, generally more. They were drunk unless they could hold their liquour quite well. Maybe not very drunk, but drunk enough.
4 cups for the seder, but extras tend to get drunk as well. You say a blessing, the wine is part of it, so bless the table, the chairs, the guests, bless everything! Mel Brooks wasn't really joking in M"en In Tights".

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Mongoose Disciple]

Ah, I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sm62704]

"Not advocating" isn't exactly "forbidding".

Ephesians 5:18- And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

That's a far cry from saying not to drink, or that drinking is a sin. It's saying that being filled with God is better than being filled with wine. Who besides an athiest could argue with that?

1 Peter 4 - Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

I don't see where this is germaine to drinking; it doesn't mention drinking at all.

1 Thessalonians 5 says nothing at all about drinking either.

Galatians 5:16-21 (more in context) says This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Hatred. Variance. Wrath. Strife. Revelling. All the same as drunkenness. Yet again, the apostles were so drunk they couldn't stay awake in the garden with Jesus.

Matthew 26:39 - And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?

Mark 14:23-37 - And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. ...
And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?

Proverbs 4:24 - Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.

In other words, stop frowning!

Yes, drinking can have us do things we may later regret, but that's not the fault of the wine. God put wine here for us to enjoy.

Genesis 1:29 - And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Killer Instinct]

And the bible is full of stories of people getting stoned...i tried that excuse with my parents when i got caught, they didnt like my argument. I guess Pat Robertson got to them before i did.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[ILongForDarkness]

I think the claim is that the NATO forces are using cellphones. The article is poorly worded; near the top it sounds like cellphones are being used to locate the terrorists, later one it sounds like the are being used by NATO to communicate to each other, at least the way I read it.

How about them replying: "well if I can get your phone number I'd be happy to have a 'customer service manager' reply to your concerns." :)

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[BewireNomali]

how about taking out the battery? just curious for no reason.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[murdocj]

I'm sorry, I guess I was confusing the Taliban with the folks who executed women who tried to learn to read and write. Oh, that's right, they ARE the religious zealots who executed and tortured anyone who disagreed with them.

As far as Osama bin Laden, the Taliban did NOT say that they didn't have control over bin Laden, they somehow thought bin Laden wasn't responsible for the attacks. A little different from the current situation.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[alexgieg]

There is nothing whatever in the Christian Bible that says drinking is a sin.

Absolutely true. But evangelicals have their own ways to twist these texts. I have a few evangelical relatives who are 100% sure, contrary to all evidence, that anywhere the Bible speaks of "wine" it "actually" means "non-alcoholic grapes juice". So much that, believe it or not, this is precisely what they use on Sunday service. And when I try pointing out that "wine" in fact means "wine", if for no other reason than the historical fact that for most of History we drank alcoholic beverages to avoid the diseases typical of drinking non-treated water, they simply don't want to hear anything about it. It's sad really. And I say that from the perspective of someone who doesn't drink.

Most interesting, however, is how persons like these like accusing other Christians of not being "Christian enough" if they just don't agree with this nonsense. German Protestants just love beer (Oktoberfest anyone?). Can you imagine what the Dry Law was like for Lutheran immigrants, including German priests? I'm from German descent, and I know for sure that Hell would break loose if something like that was enacted here in Brazil.

The New Testament is all about the faithful not needing to follow overly strict rules to attain Salvation. Paul even explicitly forbids Christians from discriminating each other due to what they eat, drink, or refuse to eat or drink! Sure, some rules exist, such as not killing, not having sexual relations outside marriage etc. But even those are few and generic, not specific. Puritanism and their derivatives on the other hand, Evangelical Christianism included, are all about rules, rules and more rules. What's "Christian" about this? Hardly anything at all.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Lost Engineer]

So Joe six-pack is now the elite now and Paul Sunday the common man?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[ILongForDarkness]

Just a quick thought. Doesn't the Taliban have to wear the black turbans for religious reasons? How about putting a nerve agent in all black cloth? Everyone stops buying black clothing except of course the Taliban that has too :) Nothing against turbans but the Taliban must have the ugliest way of tying them ever invented, it seems everytime I see a picture of one of them it looks like they were born with a deformed (and probably empty) head. We need to find a way to turn them into a weapon :)

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

You Might be a Taliban if......

1.You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.
2.You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.
3. You have more wives than teeth.
4. You wipe your butt with your bare left hand, but consider bacon "unclean."
5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Chrononium]

If you scan over enough bandwidth, every piece of metal (and other types of objects) has some peculiar properties. But yeah, you'd have to have "active radar" (which is really just plain old radar ... it's a misnomer to talk about passive radar unless you're talking about something specific to bistatic radar, as conventional radar uses both a transmitter and a receiver) to perform such sensing.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Grishnakh]

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't even address federal vs. unitary states, I only stated that the religious right is either a majority, or very close to it and because of our federal system has majority-level power. I never said I liked or disliked the federal system; I was only putting into proper perspective the true power of the religious right in the USA, because some people may wrongly believe it to be a small minority when it is not.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Lost Engineer]

To say passover involves wine is an understatement. IANAJ, but I believe the tradition is 4 glasses. If we use French glasses, traditionally filled, not Holy Grails, that's a whole bottle. Of course we get the impression that people in Biblical times had mad tolerance, so maybe they were sober after that.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Lost Engineer]

Well that's just dumb. Mom and pop: meet Costco.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

For those that didn't get the memo, the US airforce have kindly offered to send a copy as an airborne attachment!

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[EdelFactor19]

given this statement, how do i not come to the immediate conclusion that the "towers" are irrelevant.. if your cellphone is turned off its going to be doing the exact same thing regardless of what the carrier is doing. if as you suggest its a signal eminating from the cellphone it self then what does the "carriers" state have to do with anything?

if its dependant upon the carrier, i don't see how pulling the battery and storing beneath lots of crap isn't going to do a good enough job; otherwise wouldn't it be insanely easy to recover lost / stolen cell phones?

if they are that concerned about being found perhaps having a cell phone isnt such a good idea; isnt there going to be some registration ifnormation somewhere or just the ole random dial until you get the taliban answering machine lol?

"hi you've reached the taliban, we're out hunting infidels or hiding from you, please leave a message after the beep and we'll get right back to you.. unless you are an infidel we are hunting down. Have a nice day :-)"

lol

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[djh101010]

Or you could just take the battery out when you're not using the phone or charging the battery. No power = no signal.

I don't think it's that simple. The access badges I have for work, and my speedpass, and the anti-theft devices at stores, don't have batteries. I think the mechanism here is to produce a strong enough pulse so that an RF device of known frequency range, will respond with some sort of echo.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[effigiate]

Here in Oregon, you cannot buy Liquor anywhere but at a state owned liquor store. The state owns the store, then leases it out to a private individual to run. You can buy beer and wine at grocery stores, but not between 1am and 9am. (which sucks when you try to go to the 24 hour supermarkets at 5am to avoid the crowds). All liquor stores close at 7pm, 8pm on friday and saturday nights, and they are closed on Sundays.

Consider yourself lucky. In Pennsylvania, you can't get beer or wine at the grocery store or the gas station. Your option is the beer distributor which sells cases mostly or a bar that has a six-pack-shop attached.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[grahamd0]

You're confusing "Christians" with "the religious right". The latter being a subset of the former.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Ogive17]

Not being able to sell it in certain counties doesn't make it illegal. Every time I go to Cumberland I make sure I stock up in Covington, KY (much cheaper than in Ohio) because I know the county where the marina is in is dry.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[jdkchem]

By definition German Protestants, Lutherans especially, are Evangelical Christians.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sm62704]

I was named after Saint Stephen, who the bible says was stoned. If you read my journals you'll find all kinds of references to pot, here's the latest, Dork Side of the Moon about last Wednesday's eclipse. It mentions buying reefer from my dealer, Mary Jane. Sorry, no hookers in that one. However, considering your slashdot nick you might find it interesting, as someone goes to jail for attempted murder.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[aztektum]

Having moved TO Oregon FROM Wisconsin back in '04, I was definitely "blue" about the liquor control out here. The people are all liberal and such, but Oregon politics is fuckin' ridiculously nanny state slanted.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sm62704]

Amen.

Pat Robertson and George Bush are the wolves in sheep's clothing Christ warned us about. I firmly believe that Pat Robertson single handedly converted more Christians to Athieism than all the slashdot Athiests combined!

Never trust a "Christian" in a four thousand dollar suit.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps something in Oregon's own constitution precludes the rather unfortunate application of these laws.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Ucklak]

I think he means how can you identify a cellphone of a particular account if it is off instead of a person with a cellphone.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Peter Mork]

I refuse to believe that the religious reich (sic) is a majority.

Agreed! "About 14 percent of the electorate in 2000 identified itself as part of the "Christian Right," with 79 percent of this sector voting for George W. Bush," quoted from this article.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[questionlp]

A little while back, the law that did not allow liquor stores to be open on Sundays was changed. Now, it is up to the leasee whether or not they want to be open on Sunday or not. You can see which ones are open from their list.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[blueskies]

Yeah, because i'm sure it never occurred minorities active in the Civil Rights movement. I hear they were some of the strongest supporters of the will of the majority as shown in their unabashed support of Jim Crow laws. It amazes me how uppity they were just because they didn't like the will of the majority. sheesh.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

(did you know, in reality as opposite moonbat's mindsets, that in the geneva conventions civilians amongst whom non-uniformed enemy fighters are located, are fair game and can be killed.

So far as I can tell, the words "fair game" do not appear in any of the four Geneva Conventions. Please provide a citation.

another problem. Anyone who does not intend to respect other's human rights (and muslims don't, declaration of Cairo on human rights in islam, stating that there can be no freedom of religion and that religious discrimination is mandatory

Which bit, please? It does indeed state that it's unacceptable to try to convert people away from Islam, but it also states quite clearly (article 18a) that "everyone shall have the right to live in security for himself, his religion, his dependents, his honour and his property", which sure sounds like it's allowing freedom of religion to me.

and adds to that that sexual discrimination is also mandatory

Which bit, please? Are you perhaps referring to article 6, which says "Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage"?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[houghi]

Come to Belgium. We have beer (real beer) in our MacDonalds and winetasting in the supermarkets. And on fairs, there is beer everywhere. I know many people who grew up as kids with drinking 'tafelbier' at their lunch.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[ngc3242]

States have constitutions too. Perhaps he was referring to Costco challenging the laws based on Oregon's and Washington's constitutions.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's that simple. The access badges I have for work, and my speedpass, and the anti-theft devices at stores, don't have batteries. I think the mechanism here is to produce a strong enough pulse so that an RF device of known frequency range, will respond with some sort of echo.

What sort of speed pass do you have that doesn't have a battery? I know the North-East US Easy-pass has a battery, and my understanding was that most of the competing systems did too.

As for the other systems you name, they have an effective range of what? a few feet?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[budgenator]

An active radar has both a transmitter and receiver in the same device, a semi-active radar has the transmitter and receiver separated. The bird I worked on, the HAWK Missile worked this way.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[isomeme]

I find it a huge relief that the arch-villains intent on destroying The American Way of Life(TM) don't know how to turn off their cell phones. Perhaps our defense budget can be reduced a bit next year?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[b3m87]

Ocean City New Jersey is a dry town as well :p

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[jratcliffe]

"...in this case, "progress" would mean "towards a Taliban-controlled state which is about half a millennium behind the rest of the world".

I think the Taliban would find 1508 to be at least 850 years too recent for their tastes. They're really much more about the 7th century.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[TheQuantumShift]

"The mentality I speak of is "The entire world around me should be adjusted to fit my way of thinking or doing things.""

Screw "E Pluribus Unum", thats the phrase that needs to be on our money...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

All they need to do is call a phone in the US. Then the Gov't can't track them without a warrant.

While funny, this is not true. The F.I.S.A. statutes specifically allow the government to conduct domestic surveillance involving U.S. persons and a phone call from a foreign entity or individual without a warrant until 72 hours after the surveillance begins. If the person inside the U.S. is also a foreign entity or individual (rather than a U.S. person), the surveillance can take place for a full year without a warrant. These provisions are in the 1978 act passed to protect Americans from a president run amok (by using foreign surveillance domestically). It is only fitting the current president does not follow the law. Bush believes he does not have to even follow the F.I.S.A. statutes. I wonder what Nixon, if he were alive today and drawing from his own experience, would say to Bush's bad behavior.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[rawtatoor]

You may be right, but I assumed that he meant State constitution. Remember, the States are not created by the federal constitution.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the cops are probably smart enough to know that a 1-year old kid in a stroller in a packed beer garden full of stumbling inebriated beer bellies is probably not the "safest" place for a child and had to dumb it down for your cousin. Let me dumb it down for YOU: a car is a VERY unsafe place for a 1-year-old to be, yet you're allowed to take your 1-year-old in a car, because IT'S NOT UP TO THE STATE TO NANNY US.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[SomeGuyTyping]

the states gained full control to do virtually whatever they want within their own borders

that's actually how it's supposed to work - each state has the right to have different laws, no matter what the object of the law. that's the reason they are called "states" and not "provinces" or "territories"

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Copid]

For instance, though I don't care about church, I like the fact that there is a quiet time on Sunday morning during which stores are closed. Helps me enjoy my waffles.

I didn't realize that I was interrupting your waffle consumption on my way to the liquor store. You should have said something.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Copid]

The biggest, loudest, hardest lobbying opponents were not religious people but liquor store owners. The reason? They don't want to have compete with 24 hour grocery stores and the like. They're very happy having the smallest range of opening hours they can arrange.

Well, it's good to know that consumer choice is being limited in order to stifle competition and maximize profits and not to cater to arbitrary religious nonsense. Price gouging is something I can get behind. At least it's something with objectively measurable consequences.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Loco3KGT]

Jack Daniels is actually made in a dry county in Tennessee.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[collectivescott]

Pennsylvania is even more restrictive than Oregon. Beer in the grocery store? I can only dream of that...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Loco3KGT]

Because anyone can't just "demand" things. They have to have power?

I demand things all of the time, often met by laughter from others, especially women.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

they sell this stuff called 'aluminum foil' optionally you can cut the top off a can of soda, I've tested FM radios and cellular phones inside foil, just too be 100 percent sure, even the thin brand x foil that tear easily block radio and microwave energy. they are however useless for stopping high energy particles, such as X-rays, background radiation etc. which is what they make 1" thick lead for, in which case only extremely high energy particles, that themselves are very rare from the size sun we have can go through lead, since the extremely high energy particles need about 1.1 light years of lead to 'stop' them completely. which is a ridiculous amount of lead to stop a very rare particle that is difficult to study to do the rarity of it and the fact that it is hard to contain, or even record traces of it's movement without a very deep underground research lab.

so where was i again? yeah. microwave and radio waves are easy to stop, background radiation and most common high energy particles can be reduced by making a 'clean room' with lead walls, but food and water will contain trace amounts of radiation, so really you can't completely isolate a living organism from background radiation, although you can shield delicate scientific equipment from background radiation.

and yeah, I was paranoid enough to test what aluminum foil could stop and what it couldn't, just to get the idea of how much safer my room would be if i lined the walls with aluminum foil. tinfoil hats ignore the rest of the body, so of course the walls need to be lined, to prevent receivers from being embedded in the arms or legs.

but of course they could then go to a receiver that is based on the less safe high energy particles, and installing that much lead is both costly and difficult. and who knows what they'd do if my walls were lined with lead... most likely they'd start using my electric lines to put hidden transceivers in my wall sockets. and it's very hard to cook food indoors without electricity, of course i could just do the bedroom, and have other people bring me the food, if i were rich, which I'm not. then I'd have to wonder about what they were doing to my food, since i had managed to cut myself off completely...

perhaps it's safer to just be on my medication.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[discogravy]

You must be thinking of some other United States; in mine we don't even need a warrant to snoop on our own citizens, why would we even pretend to need one for non-citizens?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[ari_j]

Don't forget that among the first miracles of Christ was turning water into wine. He didn't do this just to prove a point, either. A wedding party ran out of wine, Jesus turned some water into wine so that the party could go on, and the banquet master went so far as to say that it was the best wine of the night.

I once knew someone who tried to argue that wine in the time of Christ meant water that had some wine added to it to make it safe to drink. Just in case anyone reading this thinks that is the case, remember that there was already a word for water that was made safe by adding wine to it: water.

Of course, if intoxication causes you to sin, the Bible would recommend you cut intoxication out of your life. But imbibing from time to time is not just okay, it's also sometimes the answer to that age-old question: WWJD.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[GonzoPhysicist]

Fist off I don't know of any cell phones with RFID tags in them (that's the tech in all those cases). Even if they did have, it would probably only have a range of several meters. At that distance you might as well use your head mounted stereo sonar [ears].

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[quincunx55555]

Actually, I think the OP was referring to Oregon's constitution, I could be wrong. Also (in reference to the OP), you can buy liquor in Oregon on Sundays, and new privilege given to liquor store contractors. They can be open until 9 on Friday and Saturday. The official "no serve" time in Oregon is 2:30am, so you can buy beer and wine after 1 (or liquor in a bar), but some stores/bars lock stuff up early as "insurance" from the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Consumption Cops).

Oregon's laws actually teach you to be a more responsible alcoholic. Instead of just buying it whenever you want, you have to stock up (or drive out of state, probably while under the influence). Stocking up causes planning though, and you get the volume discount (not sure if that's actually true, but it sounds good). Next thing you know, not only are you a drunk, but a drunk that can plan ahead and manage finances better. Thank You Oregon!!!

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[MenTaLguY]

You'll still get a passive response from the antenna even if you take out the batteries. It's a basic-properties-of-RF-radiation thing.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[glsunder]

I would be willing to guess that a lot of mainstream Christians don't realize how quickly fundamentalism is spreading. Most of them probably think they're still relegated to the "false profit" style TV preachers we saw in the 80s (pun intended).

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[johnpaul191]

I think they mean some sort of "pulse" would return a signal from a cell phone, even without battery. While i am not sure it would give anything more than what band it uses, it might somehow give back some info that there are a bunch of cell phones in that one little building? This same "pulse" idea would not matter if the towers are powered down though.... unless it serves as a reminder to save batteries and power down?

I'm pretty sure that anything you could avoid by shutting off the towers could also be done by popping a battery. By turning off the towers, powered up cell phones are just going to try harder to find a signal and give off more info about where they are. I would think something like a drone or unmanned blimp could easily detect something like 15 phones in one rural spot all looking for signal.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[myth24601]

"Pesach involves at least 4 cups of wine, generally more. They were drunk unless they could hold their liquour quite well. Maybe not very drunk, but drunk enough."

In those days people probably had a good tolerance for alcohol. It's not like they had lots of alternatives available.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[carlcmc]

Pro 20:1 Wine 1 is a mocker 2 and strong drink is a brawler; whoever goes astray by them is not wise.

As just one example. Most scholars with careful reading of the bible acknowledge that alcohol is warned against. The repeated reference to wine are the fresh juice not what we call wine today. Jewish scholars of the language of the time and a careful reading of the greek illustrate this. Go ahead and drink if you want, but the don't go and use the Bible to defend it. It just isn't there taking all verses into context.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[budgenator]

Prisoners of war are uniformed combatant in the employ of a country engaged in a declared war, any civil treatment the enemy combatants and insurgents receive is an unearned. Honorable prisoners of war will except neither parole or pardon from his or her captors and will either escape to their freedom or remain incarcerated until the conclusion of hostilities. The Taliban is not known for honorable behavior.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[The End Of Days]

Additionally, the phone can be used to grab images of it's surrounding area even if it doesn't have a built-in camera. We're not talking about 5 megapixel vivid color images here, but they are good enough to get a picture of what's around them. I think you've watched too many Star Trek movies.

But feel free to point me at anything that would corroborate this. I couldn't find anything.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[RealProgrammer]

>You should have said something.

So that was YOU. Expect to hear from my ... people.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

As for "every bomb short of a nuke would be perfectly legal to shoot into a mass of afghan civilians"

" * Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited right to choose methods and means of warfare. It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering." *1

"Only civilian prisoners and UNIFORMED enemy prisoners cannot be killed. They can, however, be locked up indefinitely without recourse to trial."

Yes, thats what the current rulers in the US thinks, but the international laws only distinguish between civilians (common criminal laws) and combatants (laws of war) (in some cases I think people can be held until the end of the war (a war against an other nation, not war on terrorism/drugs/infidels...))

"The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law.[7] However--unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian"--the term "unlawful combatant", or similar, is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.[8][4]" *2

"Anyone who does not intend to respect other's human rights (and muslims don't, declaration of Cairo on human rights in islam, stating that there can be no freedom of religion and that religious discrimination is mandatory, and adds to that that sexual discrimination is also mandatory) cannot call upon the human rights"

You can't sign away your human rights, not even if you/your country says you hate them. If you do to horrible things thou you can always be tried as a war criminal.

Sorry for my bad English, not an English speaker

*1 http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZMEEM
*2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." (1 Timothy 5:23.)

Also, the bible seems to imply there is nothing wrong with having multiple wives...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of that is accurate regarding Oregon. The sale of beer and wine is prohibited between 2:30am and 7:00am. Liqour stores are now allowed more flexibility in their hours, and the daily closing time is generally 8pm weekdays, 10pm weekends. They are also now experimenting with selling liquor in grocery stores in Oregon. Basically, Oregon liquor laws have changed quite a good deal over the previous decade, but not all stores have rushed to implement these changes.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[raju1kabir]

You'll still get a passive response from the antenna even if you take out the batteries. It's a basic-properties-of-RF-radiation thing.

I don't see how this would be useful at any reasonable distance. You'd have to flood the area with enough RF to fry small animals. And it definitely wouldn't be useful for identifying individual phones (unless you have a REALLY good database of imperfections in their antennas, and how many keys each Talibanister carries in his pocket).

Furthermore, the Taliban have requested to have the towers turned off, not to have the batteries removed from each phone by some form of remote magic. So evidently they're already comfortable with remaining trackable, they just don't want to be annoyed by stupid ringtones after dark.

If the phone company towers were turned off and I were the CIA, then promptly at 5:01pm each evening I'd turn on my own promiscuous CIA towers, and all phones in the country would cheerfully tell me where they are.

Basically, it appears the Taliban's grasp of telecommunications is about on par with their grasp of Islam.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[ArsonSmith]

You do realize that nanny state is liberal politics right?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[budgenator]

But for some reason, they are desperate enough to ask for help in turning the towers off because they think it is how we are finding them.
There is nothing so troubling as talking to a loved one on the cellphone and hearing artillery incoming and a short "gotta go click" then nothing for 2 weeks. I'm sure that the NSA has a pretty good idea where the action is over there and when somebody is getting their asses waxed and calls for help or to say goodbye, they are really interested in who is getting called and how the dots connect. A couple wash, rinse, repeats and the picture gets pretty clear.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[ontheroll]

You should realize a few things ...
(did you know, in reality as opposite moonbat's mindsets, that in the geneva conventions civilians amongst whom non-uniformed enemy fighters are located, are fair game and can be killed. The decision whether or not terrorists are amongst them can (only) be made by a field commander, in short, every bomb short of a nuke would be perfectly legal to shoot into a mass of afghan civilians)

Interesting, seems like the UN (and actually, the world), convinientlly forgot about that when Hizbollah was firing rockets into Israel from inside civilian areas by people wearing civilian clothes.

The same kind of forgetfullness overcomes them when civilian-clothes Hamas/Islamic Jihad fighters fire on soldiers from inside seemingly "peaceful" demonstrations, using the other civilians as human shields.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[rthille]

CA refers to those as "open container" laws.

I think in Texas, you can still drink your beer while driving your truck and shooting out the window at street signs.

Ok, I made that last bit up.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[budgenator]

Makes no difference, if the NSA rate their own room at AT&T, then I'll bet those rooms were spec'ed out in advance by the KBR people that build the networks under contract from the USG.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Eli Gottlieb]

IAAJ! The Pesach seder (the religious bit) involves a minimum of 4 cups of wine. You may drink more for the meal itself.

Admittedly, kosher wine isn't very strong, but you're going to be frickin wasted.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Solandri]

The mentality I speak of is "The entire world around me should be adjusted to fit my way of thinking or doing things."

If you happen to live in an area where "blue laws" exist, you'll know what I'm talking about. In my area, you cannot buy beer on Sunday before 12:00 noon, so if you forgot to buy beer before the game starts the previous day, you're SOL thanks to these religiously sponsored legislative actions. Such laws do not serve the community -- they serve to create a society that better aligns itself with religious interests.

In this case, it would make more sense that Taliban people should have to turn their phones off to avoid being tracked... but it's too inconvenient for them to change the way they do things. So instead, they want to make things inconvenient for EVERYONE to better suit their individual needs.

This just goes to show what is truly broken about their minds. They are far too self-interested to really be concerned about anything resembling "greater good." And I'll say it once again -- this is not the exclusive territory of muslim extremists. It's not even the exclusive territory of religious extremists though it does seem to be something of a hallmark of them. It's a problem of the self-interested mind.

I'm gonna burn some karma. I don't see anything wrong with that attitude. In fact, I'd argue that that attitude is what drives us to come up with new and better laws. "Hey, did you hear people are snapping up domain names without paying for them (i.e. "tasting them")? That's just wrong." "Yeah, ICANN should change its policies to prohibit it..."

The problem isn't that people want to change the world in a way which they believe will make it better. The problem is when they fail to convince the masses or lose the vote, some people feel strongly enough about it to resort to violence or brute force to impose their changes on an unwilling population.

You feel the Taliban thinks everyone else should follow their way of thinking or acting. You claim their rules aren't for the greater good. Yet from their point of view, you think everyone should follow your way of thinking and acting, and they would claim your rules aren't for the greater good. You're making the mistake of categorizing right and wrong based on a subjective measure ("greater good").

The idea behind democracy is to side-step this subjective measure entirely by letting the affected population decide for themselves what is the "greater good". Democracy just presents a framework for making decisions which will affect the entire population; the population itself makes the subjective judgments of right, wrong, and "greater good". If the majority decides they want the blue laws, then they (and you) get blue laws. If you're on the losing side of that vote, respect the democracy and abide by the laws decided upon by the majority. Ignoring those laws because you don't feel they're right destroys your credibility when asking others to abide by laws you feel are right. Resorting to ad hominem attacks (criticizing their mentality) as justifications for why they're wrong makes you no different from the people you're criticizing. If you don't like blue laws, start up a state-wide petition to get them repealed within the democratic process.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[budgenator]

Gorilla fighters depend on irregular movement erratic tactics, stealth and cached supplies and equipment to be effective or even survive; when the locals jump on the cell phone and narc out their movements and locations, they don't last long. The part about being tracked via cell towers is a red herring and is being used to avoid admitting the majority of the afghans oppose them and are actively turning them in to the authorities.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[budgenator]

I'd even expect that more than half of those "Christians" are not participatory "christians" but the went to Sunday School a couple times, and got married in church type of "christians".

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[default luser]

Agreed. Long-range radar works because we are usually looking for something much larger than a cellphone; otherwise, your target would be lost in mountains of clutter. Although the antenna gives it a large radar cross-section for it's size, the cell phone is far too small to be easily located out of the noise.

If you ask me, Taliban leaders are asking the cell networks to shut down because the dumber Taliban members can't resist using their cell phones. You know those kind of people: the kind who no matter what you tell them, they do whatever they want? Just like the rest of the world, I'm sure there are plenty of these type in the Taliban.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[magus_melchior]

You'd think the English translations would use "wine" when they meant wine, and "grape juice" when they meant grape juice, and make it a bit easier for those of us who haven't studied Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek...

Of course, the original texts are all public domain, so perhaps a translation wherein you make such distinctions is in order?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Troy Baer]

Technically, Catholics are "evangelical Christians" too.

Let's be honest here: When most people, particularly in the U.S., use the phrase "evangelical Christians", they really mean "fundamentalist evangelical Christians", because somewhere in the last ten or fifteen years the news media stopped using the word "fundamentalist".

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[simey]

What they mean is that sending a signal to an area will cause the cell phone antenna to form a resonating circuit with a similar frequency to the sent pulse which can be detected.

Removing the battery or turning off the cell phone towers has nothing to do with this capability.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[budgenator]

They just don't want the common Afghan civilians to call the authorities and report their movements, it's not about the towers tracking the cellphones of the Taliban.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[letxa2000]

Anyone who does not intend to respect other's human rights (and muslims don't, declaration of Cairo on human rights in islam, stating that there can be no freedom of religion and that religious discrimination is mandatory, and adds to that that sexual discrimination is also mandatory) cannot call upon the human rights laws to defend him/herself. (article 29 of convention of Geneva, clause c, and article 30 of UNHR)

That may be true from a moral and logical standpoint, but it doesn't seem to be supported by the articles of either document you mentioned. At least not in the clauses you mentioned.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[darkfire5252]

Yep, the GP really pulled that one from nowhere. However, this is actually there:

ARTICLE 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
...
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
...
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
... I can't claim to be familiar enough with how the Taliban operates, but if they disguise themselves as citizens, conceal their firearms, or violate the customs of war then they do not fall under the title of "Prisoner of War" and are not protected by it.

So, while wildly off on the citation, the GP is correct that a fighter who does not obey the Geneva convention (or any other customs of war) or does not openly display recognizable symbols or weaponry does not get protected by the Geneva convention.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[budgenator]

more like,
Mohamed dials 1-(800) us-army on his cell phone,
Mohamed: hey Army Joe, that scumbag taliban Achmed and his guys that keep stealing my chickens "for the cause" is coming through the village
US Army Joe: Sure no problem Mohamed, we'll light'em up out on the trail.
Mohamed: Thanks Joe, have a good one.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[alexgieg]

By definition German Protestants, Lutherans especially, are Evangelical Christians.

Well, it depends on how your classification system works. Literally, yes, after all they all follow (or profess following) the gospels. The system I'm used to, however, prefer to call Lutherans and other denominations that appeared roughly at the same time as either as "Protestant Churches" or, preferably, as "Historical Churches". Why "historical"? Three reasons, basically:

a) Because they're much older and the historical predecessors of the newer Christian denominations;

b) Because they were the first with definite historical starting points (Luther, Calvin etc.), what doesn't happen with, for example, the Catholic, Orthodox or Coptic churches, none of which you can point to and tell who was the idealizer/constructor of its specific doctrine;

c) Because they focus most on the history of Christianity and on hardcore theological analysis to determine most of their practices, and not on feelings, which is the main drive behind Evangelical Christianism.

In this classification, you'd have then the "Traditional", "Historical", "Evangelical", "Pentecostal" (due to the "speaking in tongues" nonsense) and "Other" (those with insertion of random doctrines derived out of nowhere, what means, among others, the Last Day Saints, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses etc.) churches.

So, although I agree that some terms there might be ambiguous, I think it's nevertheless an useful classification.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[letxa2000]

I'm 20 minutes from California border, and can get a fifth of Rum for about $9 from a grocery store down there, but have to pay about $16 for the same bottle in Oregon.

At the risk of going even further off-topic, this kind of government efficiency is one of the most obvious reasons so many of us conservatives shudder at the thought of government-run health care. Uninsured citizens is a problem, but it pales in comparison to the problems we'll have if the government gets in the business.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[alexgieg]

When most people, particularly in the U.S., use the phrase "evangelical Christians", they really mean "fundamentalist evangelical Christians", because somewhere in the last ten or fifteen years the news media stopped using the word "fundamentalist".

That's a good thing, though, since the term "fundamentalism" literally means a system that attempts to return to the "fundamentals" of something, and this the Evangelical churches don't do. Why? Because their "fundamentalism" is actually to take the Bible literally, what neither the primitive Christians nor the Traditional churches have ever done. You'll find fundamentalists, in the proper meaning of the word (thus my lack of quote marks), among orthodox followers of Egiptian Copticism, Eastern Orthodoxism, Western Catholicism, and even the more authoritative branches of the first Historical Churches, but not among Evangelicals or more recent denominations, never among them. Now, if we were to call these "Literalist Christians" instead of Evangelicals, then I think we'd have a good term. But "fundamentalists"? No, that just doesn't suit them.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[phaetonic]

its nice to be around when a new cliche is born.... =)

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[alexgieg]

Never trust a "Christian" in a four thousand dollar suit.

Hehe, I appreciate the sentiment. :-) But take care in not taking this rhetorical argument of yours in too much of a literal sense. You won't find a condemnation of riches themselves in the Bible. Sure, you find allusions as to how difficult it is for a rich person to be saved. But the reason for this is well explained too. It's because rich persons are usually attached to their riches more than they're to God, thus placing God on a secondary place. Some rich persons, though, even if they wear "four thousand dollar suits", are interiorly detached from their riches to the point of placing God in the first place. Those, riches or no riches aside, get saved yes. After all, remember that the Gospel is about the relationship between individuals and God, not between "economic classes" (or any other kind of collective whole) and God.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[mjwx]

Non uniformed partisans are covered under the same clause as spies (I don't know the specific clause). It's been this way since the first Geneva convention. Some nations chose (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia just to name few) to shoot insurgents or send them to prisons without the possibility of release upon capture. For civilised western nations it is considered law that captured combatants (uniformed or not) are sent home upon the cessation of hostilities (actual spies/infiltrators are executed).

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[mjwx]

Don't antropomorphise .50 bullets, they don't like that.

Yes, only 7.62mm and 3.03 bullets can be anthorpomophoised. Rockets and 155mm artillery shells can also be anthromorphosied but is generally not acceptable.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[75th Trombone]

Yeah, I'm sure those AIDS riots would be really effective.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[agrippa_cash]

I believe Texas changed the law in 2002. I remember because I was down there for the last couple days before the change.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Watson Ladd]

Pics or it didn't happen. Civilian areas are crappy launch sites as they have buildings, and the missiles are way too big to fire from inside. They are launched from trucks parked in open ground. The US Army frequently claims human shields are the cause of massive civilian casualties, but they are lying a vast amount of the time. I have just searched the New York Times archive, a pro-Israel source, for any incidents like those you described and found none.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[rtechie]

The Geneva Conventions divide everyone on Earth into two categories:

Combatants - anybody who fights

Civilians - anybody who doesn't fight

All combatants are treated as Prisoners Of War if captured. This means no questioning whatsoever, name rank and serial# only. You can hold POWs indefinitely until the cessation of hostilities. You can charge POWs with war crimes and execute them if convicted.

This "illegal combatant" crap is all about wanting to interrogate and torture people, which is 100% illegal for anyone under all circumstances under US military, civilian, and international law.

This comment is not directed at the OP, who is obviously just a white power type that hates Arabs.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[ontheroll]

You dont have to work hard to find examples.

Just go to youtube and type "hizbollah firing". The examples are numerous

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=hizbollah+firing&search_type=

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[digitalchinky]

2) all cellphones, whether active or not, can be located (by sending out signals which will provoke a passive response from their antenna's), over a short range (but still a few miles, given enough power in the transmitter)

You just made that up.

If by a few miles you actually mean a few meters, then yes, this is possible. At a distance of a few miles a transmitter of this kind would have to pump out some serious energy as you say, but it would also need to have a duty cycle that would allow it to listen for responses, it would then need to filter those responses and categorize one from another amongst millions of signatures received. An impossible task since a cell phone will give off the same type of radiated energy as every single other moderately complex electronic circuit in the area. All metallic objects will radiate energy.

No sane military would employ this type of technology anyway, their transmitter would be visible for a hundred kilometers in every direction. RADAR systems are typically the first targets to be taken out in any fight, if the operators are sensible they just switch them off and go home.

I say point 2 is busted. What say you?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[digitalchinky]

Yes, along with every other metallic item in the area. The tech does not exist to do this at a range of any more than a few meters. Anything else is propaganda.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[digitalchinky]

The towers identify the phone using IMEI initially, then the phones are assigned a fairly random ID after that. These are easily tracked if you are able to watch most major parts of the exchange, and you can bet this is happening. Multiple towers can also identify the location of the phone down to a fairly precise area. I doubt the military is trying to target individual phones from their choppers or UAV's. I'd personally suggest the Taliban have cottoned on to the fact that the SIGINT guys are picking them off from the comfort of their padded leather recliners back at the NSA HQ.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[cheesybagel]

How about just removing the cellphone battery? Seems much simpler to me. Unless you are using an iPhone that is.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

While I do agree with your line of thinking. However I do live in WI, and every time I see a parent at a wedding, fair, or something of the sort give their 4 year old a swig of their drink it make me sick. Sometimes I wonder if people are stupid and incapable of being responsible parents, which is worse laws that inhibit on my freedom or laws that stop the others from being completely irresponsible.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[jackbird]

Actually, the stipulation to stop at 4 cups is rather strong. The Seder is structured like a Greek symposium, except that at the end, the Greek version of the Afikomenos was to go out drinking and whoring in the streets after the fancy talk was over. Turning the Afikomen into a dessert after which no more can be imbibed was a repudiation of this part of the tradition.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[ArcherB]

Oh to live in a world where this is modded Insightful and not Funny.

Yeah, because as a former soldier, I want our troops in the field to be worried about things like, "Did we get a warrant to raid this cave?" before storming in.

Oh to live in a world where Americans consider the lives of their fellow countrymen to be more important than the "rights" of those in foreign countries who want to kill them.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Hamsterdan]

You obviously don't know how GSM phones work... GSM phones are *NOT* identified by the phone's casing's serial number, but with that little flat thing that gets inserted in the phone, the SIM card... GSM is used worldwide, CDMA phones won't work in those coutries. SIM stands for *Subscriber Identity Module* If a cell phone is turned off, it shouldn't & won't transmit anything. (it will not transmit anything, unless your tinfoil hat doesn't fit) If you're really that paranoid, take the battery out, and smash the phone in case it has a backup of some kind... I would use a 12-pound Black & Decker Sledgehammer, or a 3030 shotgun. Might wanna use some Thermite on it too, just to be on the safe side :)

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sumdumass]

Terrorist and all around bad people have been demanding companies act in certain ways and then being disappointed when they don't for years before we got into it with the taliban.

To me, it is an act of desperation. If I look at it like you do, then it isn't much at all.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Wes Janson]

Oh, they'll be bigger than a .50 cal, no worries about that...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[theunjake]

No it isn't as easy turning their phones off you morons. They are not talking about tracking the cell phones of the insurgents rather they are talking about the US forces and local friendlies using THEIR OWN PHONES to work together to help with their searches.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is: in Oregon winters are uncomfortable but tolerable. In Wisconsin they are fatal. Street people are non-existent in Wisconsin, so communities can afford to be more tolerant with alcohol.

As an east coaster who has lived in the midwest and who now lives in Berkeley, I assure you the Oregon attitude has grown to seem a lot more reasonable.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[PrayingWolf]

Either they will lose gradually, or they will cause massive casualties, which will provoke a really big attack on the population of pakistan

That of course sounds reasonable, but might I remind you that this IS Afghanistan. This is the story I was told in 1989:

Once upon a time a scorpion wanted to cross a brook. On the bank he saw a frog and asked if the frog would give him a ride to the other side.
"Oh no," says the frog, "If I carry you on my back you will sting me."
"But why would I sting you when we would both surely perish," replied the scorpion.
The frog eventually conceded that the scorpion had a point, and agreed to the request.
Half way across, the scorpion stang the frog, and they both began to drown.
"But why did you break your word and sting me, knowing it would be certain death for us both?" cried the frog.
"Because", replied the scorpion, "THIS IS AFGHANISTAN!"

There isn't going to be a resolution to the Afghan problem in the foreseeable future... and to the Afghan mindset, it is inconsequential if they lose GSM coverage themselves after blowing a few base stations up.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Ixitar]

Like this: Mr. Deity and the Really Cheap Meal

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Nethemas the Great]

There's a problem with the whole "give up" bit. For you see, they can't. There is no scenario available to them that would allow them to retain their life. If they give up, they will be locked up, possibly executed. So while fighting may be ultimately futile for them, they have the possibility to take others with them. It might not be a win, but it's less of a loss. Mean while their ranks are replenished by the disenfranchised youth who also see no future for themselves. While waiting for the inevitable they figure they might as well do something perceived to give their existence meaning.

History demonstrates time and again that violence only begets more violence. This is especially true when those in the recruitment pool have no other opportunities but as fighters. The strongman has no influence over those with better options. It's horrible shame that our leaders don't care and/or aren't paying attention to easily obtained truth.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Oktober Sunset]

the real reason they wear black turbans is cos they think it makes them too badass.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[belmolis]

Do you really think that the Afghan government is going to hunt down all of the Taliban if they put down their arms and go home? That is very unlikely. Doing so would just rekindle the fighting - remember that in their home areas the Taliban have a lot of support. The Taliban could indeed give up. The leaders would need to take refuge in areas which they control or in which they can hide, or go to a safe place, such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. The rest could just stop fighting and go home.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Foobar of Borg]

History demonstrates time and again that violence only begets more violence. This is especially true when those in the recruitment pool have no other opportunities but as fighters. The strongman has no influence over those with better options. It's horrible shame that our leaders don't care and/or aren't paying attention to easily obtained truth.

Violence also begets massive profits and extensions of power for those pulling the strings. That why "our leaders" don't care.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Nethemas the Great]

If they try to just "go home" the Afghan and/or US might not chase after them, but the Taliban will. What happens when anyone leaves a gang or similar group, they're branded as traitor and enemy. That's as much of an option as the other two.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, heh, heh -- well said!

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[belmolis]

What you say may be true if individuals go home (I don't know what the Taliban policy is on this - some such organizations, in spite of their brutality, allow people to come and go according to their personal needs if they aren't actually in battle), but not if the organization as a whole decides to give up, which is what I was thinking of.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Chrisq]

But the off switch has probably been bypassed. After all that's all part of the "western conspiracy", just like putting Aids virus in the polio vaccine.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[TheRaven64]

I'd personally suggest the Taliban have cottoned on to the fact that the SIGINT guys are picking them off from the comfort of their padded leather recliners back at the NSA HQ. They should just do:

signal(SIGINT, SIG_IGN);

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[TheRaven64]

How about putting a nerve agent in all black cloth? Can we use this idea to get the goths and emos too?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[noddyholder]

"...every bomb short of a nuke would be perfectly legal to shoot into a mass of afghan civilians), and the commander giving that order would go completely free under international law."

Um...no. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) (internationally recognized and codified in US statutes) states that those making the attack must take into consideration proportionality. A commander who orders an attack that kills 50 civilians just to get one terrorist will be punished for failure to adhere to the LOAC.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[master_p]

But if it wasn't for such a case, we wouldn't have the Dukes of Hazzard, would we?

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[bronsinbound]

Incoming.....GOTCHA! One less rat in the world...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[ILongForDarkness]

And another thing. I'd say about 80% of the pics I see of them are them sitting on a porch step somewhere. What they want to rule the country again but they couldn't even scavenge up the resources for a chair :) If they weren't pointed out as Taliban I would have thought Afganistan had a lot of beggars (probably do anyways though now that I think of it). They always look real sad; I guess a warlord without anyone to abuse if a sad warlord.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[LifesABeach]

So, if the cell phone carriers do not comply, the Taliban will do what? Bomb the cell phone transmitters? Kill the staff members that maintain the cell phone transmission equipment? Plunge the area into the Stone Age? From my view point, "Proud Ignorence" is a tragic form of Insanity.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Amouth]

transylvania county nc

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sm62704]

Too bad that insightful comment was posted too late for the mods to see.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sm62704]

Yes, it does, and I can't for the life of me figure out why anybody could stand having more than one. I met a man who had been married twelve time, and I thought to myself, "and I thought I was a fool!"

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[darkfire5252]

Without a citation, I'm inclined to think you're wrong. The clauses I quoted (and others from Article 4) do provide for non-uniformed combatants, but the general trend of the Geneva convention seems to indicate that it only provides protection for combatants openly resisting or openly fighting one another. It's very clear throughout that there is an emphasis on displaying a recognizable symbol or openly displaying arms. Plus, from Article 2, the following seems to indicate that forces who do not subscribe or abide by the Geneva Convention are not protected by it:

ARTICLE 2
...
[T]he present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
...
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof[emphasis mine].

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam does not state that there can be no freedom of religion and that religious discrimination is mandatory. And it does not add to that that sexual discrimination is also mandatory.

I just went through the wikipedia article, and I have seen you do the exact same thing every other Islamophobe is doing. You read a few lines, and applied those lines to your own culture and understanding. To you, when someone says the word "religion" in front of you, I'm sure all you can think of is Richard Gere visiting the Dalai Lama, or Michael Jackson "trying out" Islam.

The only thing I've read with distant reference to your message, was the cross-religious marriage, which is not approved in many religions, not only in Islam. As far as I know, Orthodox cannot marry Catholics.

Moreoever, it is called the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam", and hence Islam does believe in human rights, and hence, muslims have the right to call upon human rights laws.

Thank you for your attempt.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sm62704]

Too bad your comment was posted too late for the +5 insightful it deserves. I agree completely.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[tbannist]

The religious right doesn't represent a majority, except perhaps a majority of voters, even then it's doubtful. They're what is properly called a significant minority.

Suppose for an instance that 30% of voters belonged to the religious right movement. Assume a new law comes up for a vote on it. As long as the law isn't only of interest to the religious right, even at 30% of the actual voters (not eligible) they essentially have the power to pass or fail the bill. To thwart them, you'd need at least 72% of all other voters to disagree with them.

So the moral is the religious right doesn't need to a majority to push their agenda. They just need to have a small but motivated voting body. Voter apathy is actually what allows them to push the rest of you around. When the turn out at an election is 30% of the population, as little as 9% of the population can effectively force their rules on the rest of you.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[darkpixel2k]

You must be thinking of some other United States; in mine we don't even need a warrant to snoop on our own citizens, why would we even pretend to need one for non-citizens?

What United States were you in again? In this one, you do need a warrant to listen in on citizens.

Although you apparently don't need one if the person on the other end of the line is a terrorist.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Lord Apathy]

Then the answer is simple. You flood the area with enough RF to fry everything. Then you go in, rifle through the corpses collecting cellphones, then you use that to identify the enemy. Simple.

(Yes, I am be sarcastic.)

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[BattleApple]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedpass

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Modding parent "flamebait"? What, are the dumbass Bushbots out in force on Slashdot again? Truth hurts, doesn't it fuckers! You are all a bunch of tyrants and child murderers!

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Lord Apathy]

Truly your ignorance in this matter is beyond reproach. First all Black and Decker doesn't not manufacture sledgehammer esp. in the 12 pound requirement Then a .30-30 is not a shotgun round. It is a rifle round first marketed by Winchester in the 1800s. Shotguns are measured in gauges not caliber.

But your comment about termite is right on. :)

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Grishnakh]

So the moral is the religious right doesn't need to a majority to push their agenda. They just need to have a small but motivated voting body. Voter apathy is actually what allows them to push the rest of you around. When the turn out at an election is 30% of the population, as little as 9% of the population can effectively force their rules on the rest of you.

Perhaps, but that bit about apathy is important. If someone is apathetic about the issue, and doesn't vote, then by definition they really don't care one way or the other. So, the apathetic ones really don't count. If you take them out of the population numbers, and count only the people who actually vote, then you'll probably find the RR is a majority, or very close.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[tbannist]

Sorry, that was the entire point, they're not a majority of the voters and especially not a majority of the population. Not caring about an issue is merely one aspect of voter apathy. There's also the disenfranchised people who really don't think their vote counts for anything, the people who believe the system is corrupt and don't vote because it's therefore futile, the people who don't know about the issue, the people who don't understand the issue, and the people who are legally barred from voting. There can be other groups as well.

The Christian Right, is very good at motivating their people to go and vote by framing issues in terms right and wrong. Of course, the accuracy of their interpretation of right and wrong is very much open for debate.

But as I was saying, it only takes a tiny minority of organized and interested voters to take control of a voting system with low turnout. It is therefore relatively easy for any motivated group to amplify their importance and cow politicians into working towards the group's goals instead of the populations.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Grishnakh]

There's also the disenfranchised people who really don't think their vote counts for anything, the people who believe the system is corrupt and don't vote because it's therefore futile, the people who don't know about the issue, the people who don't understand the issue, and the people who are legally barred from voting.

I believe the system is totally corrupt. However, I'm still voting because I'd rather see my "no-chance-of-getting-elected" candidate get 5% or whatever of the votes rather than 0. It might eventually make a small difference.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[arth1]

I'm sorry, I guess I was confusing the Taliban with the folks who executed women who tried to learn to read and write. Oh, that's right, they ARE the religious zealots who executed and tortured anyone who disagreed with them.

What part of "while guilty of their own atrocities, terrorism wasn't one of them" didn't you understand? The "guilty of their own atrocities" part?

And no, they have not executed anyone for trying to learn to read and write. They have denied women rights to education outside very narrow fields, which is bad enough (and ironic, considering that the Taliban started as a student movement). They have executed women for other causes which we don't consider crimes (like for them immodest behaviour).
Condemn Taliban for what they actually did -- there's enough to choose from. But stop repeating the propaganda from the US government, which is only meant to increase hatred and direct it at those the government wants us to hate. Facts get in the way of that.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm nearly there, I can turn wine into water...

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[sm62704]

Me too but I don't think you would want to drink the water.

Re:Isn't it as easy as

[nelsonal]

Every state did, Montana and Wyoming were the last two. Congress tied highway money to passing open container laws in 2004 and that pretty much makes the western states jump.

obvious answer

[sl0ppy]

afraid of being tracked? don't carry your cellphone.

it's much easier to make a personal change than to have a whole infrastructure shut down.

Re:obvious answer

[Manhigh]

They seem to have a history of preferring others to change rather than change themselves.

Re:obvious answer

[dave420]

But it's a lot harder to enforce that personal change in thousands of people than it is to pull 1 plug.

Re:obvious answer

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

Or..... you could just remove your battery from your phone? Surely they can't believe that Americans can track their inert lump of metal...

Re:obvious answer

[edward2020]

I think in this case infrastructure probably refers to a few towers. The article mentions that we're (the US) tracking them primarily thru satellites. So, my techy friends, is it possible to track folks thru their cells without things like GPS. Isn't the inability to track people (and the problems this would cause for emergency operators in the 911 service) why GPS is being included in phones now.

Re:obvious answer

[metlin]

Isn't the inability to track people (and the problems this would cause for emergency operators in the 911 service) why GPS is being included in phones now.

I do not know about that, but cell phone tower triangulation can be done without a GPS, to establish your position.

Quite obviously, the accuracy and resolution of such triangulation would not compare to a GPS triangulation, but it is still quite possible to sort of point your position using tower triangulation techniques.

Re:obvious answer

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Not really. Let me pretend to be a taliban leader. :"the americans are tacking our movement by your cell pones. Leave them at home on covert operations or else they will find and kill you".

That seemed easier the pulling a plug. I know, you would think there would be the one guy who wouldn't listen and keep his phone on during the movie. But these people aren't exectly known for not doing what they are told by their leadership.

Re:obvious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Let them think they're turned off. We can put in our own that turn on when the official ones are turned off.

Re:obvious answer

[Firehed]

You don't think there's a slight chance that the possibility of tracking is just an excuse to stop communications nationwide as they feel convenient, do you? They may be ass holes, but they're not stupid.

Re:obvious answer

[TooMuchToDo]

It all depends on how spread out the towers are. The closer together they are, the better triangulation resolution you'll have.

Re:obvious answer

[haystor]

You could start tracking all the phones that drop off the network from 5pm-7am.

Re:obvious answer

[Gerzel]

Also the time it takes to do such an operation.

I don't know but 911 is often a time-limited affair.

Re:obvious answer

[Tom]

You can carry it.

Just remove the battery. If if it had a super-secret micro-battery hidden somewhere, that wouldn't last for more than maybe half an hour. A guy I remotely know who works for a german intelligence agency did that with his private cell phone - almost ten years ago.

You can also put it into a Faraday Cage, you know?

All of these strike me as more useful, because:
a) they mean that you are in control about when or when not you can be tracked.
b) a cellphone searching for, but not finding, a tower, will increase its output and continue searching. That means that at short range, you are easier to find if the cell network is down.

But hey, we don't expect the Taliban to know (or care) about technical details, do we?

Re:obvious answer

[CSMatt]

So does this mean that we can call the "think of the children" groups terrorists now?

Re:obvious answer

[pev]

afraid of being tracked? don't carry your cellphone.

Nah, that's dangerous - you might need the phone to call an Ambulance after being shot at by the American squaddies...! Of course the pragmatic approach is to carry one but leave it switched off unless required.

Re:obvious answer

[TooMuchToDo]

Depends. Most backend software for cellular networks will allow you to find the location of a particular handset/network device in under a few minutes with some clicking around or command line fu. Of course, you get a pretty large search area (handset is withing X of meters of this location) compared to GPS due to triangulation vs satellite positioning, but in the middle of nowhere, I would assume it would be pretty easy to locate the target/asset with that information.

I've only worked on GSM backend/middleware software in the US (two different providers), so CDMA/iDen/etc may be different.

Re:obvious answer

[vessel]

afraid of being tracked? don't join the taleban

Re:obvious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

You could start tracking all the phones that drop off the network from 5pm-7am.

Brilliant.

Next you're going to tell us how light bulbs work by sucking up all the dark.

Re:obvious answer

[erroneus]

No! Because the terrorists all use iPhones!

Re:obvious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunatly your "solution" doesn't address the problem.

In particular it doesn't stop someone from calling NATO when he sees the Taliban fighters doing something in the middle of the night.

But hey, we don't expect you to know (or care) about technical details, do we?

Re:obvious answer

[dave420]

They're known EXACTLY for not doing what they are told by their leadership. Don't confuse fanaticism with obedience. They're tenacious fighters, but their command structure leaves a lot to be desired, especially as they're disparate groups of fighters. So your example might work, but then that's just one commander, and there are hundreds of those guys out there. It just takes one signal for the bombs to be called in. "Lol" indeed.

Re:obvious answer

[AJWM]

Well, in the middle of nowhere you may only be within range of one tower, which makes triangulation rather problematic.

Re:obvious answer

[Tom]

You're right, the article summary is misleading, and I should've expected as much on /.

Unfortunately.

Re:obvious answer

[mcpkaaos]

So do we.

Re:obvious answer

[Paradise Pete]

afraid of being tracked? don't carry your cellphone.

I know the summary is poorly worded, but that has nothing to do with it. From TFA:

The reason for the threat is the Taliban's belief that American soldiers and rebels within Afghanistan are using mobile phones to track down remaining Taliban members. "Since the occupying forces stationed in Afghanistan usually at night use mobile phones for espionage to track down the mujahideen, the Islamic Emirate gave a three-day ultimatum to all mobile phone firms to switch off their phones from five in the afternoon until seven in the morning,"

Re:obvious answer

[TooMuchToDo]

Towers use phased arrays on each side of the tower (usually in a 3-sided triangle shape). You can still use triangulation using just the phased arrays on top of the tower, with a reduced amount of accuracy.

Re:obvious answer

[Paradise Pete]

Or..... you could just remove your battery from your phone? Surely they can't believe that Americans can track their inert lump of metal...

The Taliban phones have nothing to do with it. It's the US and rebel phones that are the problem. And as for the tracking, I'd imagine that if the US had the phone numbers of all the Taliban they'd be a bit easier to round up.

Re:obvious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't been?

Re:obvious answer

[sconeu]

Actually, Iraq is a bad war. Afghanistan was legit.

US: Give us bin Laden.
Taliban: We don't have him.
US: Bullshit. Give us bin Laden.
Taliban: OK, we have him, but we'll try him in our own special way.
US: Bullshit. Give us bin Laden.
Taliban: Come and get him. But remember the USSR.
US: [invades]

Re:obvious answer

[MightyYar]

Afghanistan never invaded a foreign country. They never invaded, but they sure did bomb.

Harboring known terrorists (even hosting their training camps!) is an act of war, even if you consider the terrorists to be freedom fighters or a legitimate military force.

Re:obvious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be more prone to consider your opinion if you didn't relentlessly support islam and its radical against the US in every single discussion of the subject.

Bias like yours isn't balance or devil's advocate, it's just bias, and it disqualifies your opinion from consideration.

In all honesty, it's kind of pathetic watching you go through the mental contortions necessary to support your "points".

Re:obvious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, heck, I think the phone companies should start handing out FREE phones! Blanket the country with them. Have contests and give them away. And put up MORE towers running 24/7 (with Afghan guards...perhaps they can at least handle guarding a communication tower...). If the Taliban don't like it, for whatever reason, I'd say start ramp it up as much as possible! :-)

Re:obvious answer

[Aceticon]

It all starts with thinking "We know better than everybody else".

Some use weapons and explosives to try and impose their "enlightened" will on others (or scare others into compliance), others form pressure groups to get politicians to pass laws to impose their "enlightened" will on others (or scare others into compliance).

Both groups think they know best. Both groups try to impose their view on others. Both groups, directly or indirectly use force to impose their will on others (how many people get shot in police raids because they're drug users?).

Re:obvious answer

[mapkinase]

We are not talking about war. We are talking about "making other people change instead of changing themselves".

Even if one considers proven that people who are solely responsible for 9/11 were at Afghanistan at this moment, it would be a huge stretch to say that the purpose of all this is to change Americans living their lives in US.

Re:obvious answer

[mapkinase]

That is double off-topic

Re:obvious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorists? No. But I have a lot of other horrible words I use to describe politicians (both on the left and the right) that use the "children" as an emotional appeal to go along with whatever political program they are pushing at the moment.

"Terrorist" has a very specific definition. Don't water it down with hyperbole.

Re:obvious answer

[radarjd]

Actually, Iraq is a bad war. Afghanistan was legit.

I agree with you, but fear so many have forgotten it in light of Iraq. If we had dedicated the resources to Afghanistan that we did to Iraq, these issues probably would not have come up, and we'd have a much better chance of having the leadership of Al Qaeda. All the international goodwill we've lost, and what have we bought for it?

Re:obvious answer

[jeti]

I live in Germany and sometimes I wonder what would have
happened if Bin Laden had been around here. German laws
forbid extraditions without adequate proof. More importantly,
they also forbid extraditions in cases where the death
penalty might be applied.

I'm convinced that the German government would have broken
the law and extradited Bin Laden anyway. But I wonder how
the US would have responded if our government acted legally
in this situation.

Re:obvious answer

[JAlexoi]

Actually, Iraq is a bad war. Afghanistan was legit.

US: Give us bin Laden.
Taliban: We don't have him.
US: Bullshit. Give us bin Laden.
Taliban: OK, we have him, but we'll try him in our own special way.
US: Bullshit. Give us bin Laden.
Taliban: Come and get him. But remember the USSR.
US: [invades] BS:
If Russians would have had no opposition by US, Afghanistan would be a country much like Tajikistan.
And if with that opposition Russians would be like Romans, than there would BE no afghanis(pashtunis more precise)...

Re:obvious answer

[shutdown -p now]

US: Give us bin Laden. Taliban: We don't have him. US: Bullshit. Give us bin Laden. Taliban: OK, we have him, but we'll try him in our own special way. US: Bullshit. Give us bin Laden. Taliban: Come and get him. But remember the USSR. US: [invades]

To expand on the last one:

1. Invade
2. ???
3. Bin Laden!

They still haven't figured out the second one though, I'm afraid.

And given the way things are going in Afghanistan now, I for one can certainly remember the USSR. So they made their point.

Re:obvious answer

[pjabardo]

That is not correct. They actually said that if the US could provide evidence for 9/11 they would turn Bin Laden over. The US said they should turn him unconditionally and bombed them. Whether they would actually turn Bin Laden over I don't know but the US would have bombed them anyway.

Re:obvious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Bin Laden was wanted by Interpol long before 9/11.

Anyway, this was an attack by surrogates of a terrorist under the protection of the government of Afghanistan .

Invasion was the only way to go.

Re:obvious answer

[VGPowerlord]

double plus ungood?

Re:obvious answer

[VGPowerlord]

#2 is look in holes in the ground!

Hey, it worked for finding Saddam...

Re:obvious answer

[Gerzel]

Yes but the major problem still is time and effort required to do a single tracking operation.

GPS is designed from the ground up to do position triangulation, cell towers are designed to relay data. Sometimes it is cheaper to have a system do what it was not designed to do, and sometimes if you do it right that system does very well, but not always.

The question isn't "Can they?" but "Can they do it well enough?"

Re:obvious answer

[mrsmiggs]

Can you actually declare war on a country because they are habouring a futurative? The UN, Europe etc did not and could not raise objections to the invasion of Afghanistan because the the 'Northern Alliance' held the Afganistani seat at the UN, the Taliban were never actually recognised as the legitimate government of Afganistan and where only likely to achieve legitimate status if they wiped the Northern Alliance out because of their creative interpretations of Sharia law , human rights abuses and links to various terrorist organisations including Al Qaeda. It was a legal war because they were assisting the UN recognised government the fact that they were going in for an entirely unrelated matter didn't seem to worry any of the international community, so long as America got their pound of flesh.

Re:obvious answer

[sumdumass]

after thinking about it, I agree. I just wish it was as easy as "It just takes one signal for the bombs to be called in." I'm not saying it isn't in this context.

But think about what it could be like if we had all the telemarketers call the suspected taliban operatives in the middle of the night and every phone answered in the middle of a desert or beside a discrete cave could be a target. Finally, a use for those scums...

Re:obvious answer

[Johnny Mnemonic]

We would have pressured the German political system to write a special law just for him, that would allow extradition. Or face some kind of economic penalty, including the withdrawal of the US armed forces bases from Germany. That would make it both legal, problem solved.

I think this has already come up in the past, as other EU nations don't allow extradition to the US when the suspect faces the death penalty; but I can't quite remember how it turned out. I think in that case we agreed to take the death penalty off the table.

I'll get right to it.

[IndustrialComplex]

"they believe American troops are able to track down Taliban members using their cellphones."

I'm sure those companies who have physical, and known locations will get on that ASAP.

Re:I'll get right to it.

[klx]

We don't notice them here, but I bet a cell switch stands out like a sore thumb in a less-developed country.

Re:I'll get right to it.

[MightyYar]

"What, that old thing? It's a chicken coop."

Re:I'll get right to it.

[Anonymous Coward]

With three-headed chickens laying pre-cooked eggs.

obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Or...they could just turn their phone off.

DIAL MYCROFTXXX...

[Phil-14]

It occurs to me that in a country like Afghanistan, which like most developing countries these days has better cell infrastructure than landline infrastructure, cellphones may be the _only_ way of calling the local police to say the Taliban are attacking you.

Re:DIAL MYCROFTXXX...

[edward2020]

lol, the local police. Pres. Karzai is more like the mayor of Kabul. In a country like that which totally lacks any rule of law, I wouldn't doubt that the police (if there are any outside the capital) may be just as bad as the warlords or the Taliban.

Re:DIAL MYCROFTXXX...

[sconeu]

Adam Selene, is that you?

Ha Ha

[jimbobborg]

You have got to be kidding. Did they just now figure this out? Or did a member of the press feel the need to point this out, just like when someone printed the article that the US was eavesdropping on OBL on his unencrypted satellite phone?

This made me laugh!

[Ynsats]

This news story essentially amounts to the Taliban crying "C'mon guys! Play fair!"

Don't get me wrong, the news story is quite legit, it just sounds like the kids playing cowboys and indians in the playground.

Re:This made me laugh!

[Computershack]

Reminds me of the IRA who said they were a legitimate force fighting a war against the British then bitched and whined to the EU courts when the British Army carried out a strong of very successful ambushes on them using GPMGs (M60 equivalent) saying it was unfair.

Re:This made me laugh!

[Eli Gottlieb]

That's just how the mujahideen think. When they play dirty, it's the for the greater glory of Allah. When someone else manages a clean kill on them, it's time for those bullies to start playing fair! Perfect example: Palestine. No, I mean it. Apparently when the Palestinians blow up a nightclub it's "resisting occupation", but when Israelis assassinate a Hamas leader it's time for an investigation into human rights violations.

What total bitches.

Re:This made me laugh!

[coldcell]

An interesting analogy, non-natives with superior tech ousting the locals to pave a new democracy and plunder local resources. Yes, it's EXACTLY like they're playing cowboys and indians.

Re:This made me laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

it just sounds like the kids playing cowboys and indians in the playground. Interesting analogy. I assume you've cast the allies in the role of the cowboys. But consider this: over time, the plight of the North American Indian has rightly gained a great deal of sympathy from non-indians. God help us if the same thing happens with the Taliban.

Re:This made me laugh!

[MightyYar]

Are you sure you aren't thinking about Iraq. Afghanistan isn't exactly resource-rich unless abject poverty is a resource. Look out, Haiti!

Re:This made me laugh!

[jeti]

It's a good thing that US citizens are immune to such thinking.

Re:This made me laugh!

[Pecisk]

They act like children, think like children and are cruel like uneducated, stupid, spoiled children.

That is most frightening. You can disagree with US foreign policy as much as you like, but world (and yes, I am talking about world) can't give in to these nuts. They are not ultra radicals, they just dumb as stones. And that is more dangerous.

Re:This made me laugh!

[Eli Gottlieb]

Hey, you don't find me supporting the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. We were supposed to have caught Osama Bin Laden and brought him to trial like the criminal he is YEARS AGO!

And don't even get me started on the sheer boneheadedness and immorality of invading Iraq. And PLEASE DEAR GOD let's not invade Iran next. I know some Persians. They're good people. In (a little-known fact), the Persians are more or less on the side of civilization, on the side of not fucking up other people. They just have a crap government that wants to make itself a regional power by sponsoring bitchy, terrorist Arabs who would normally earn nothing more than a sneer from Iran or Persians (Persians have a long-running ethnic dislike of Arabs that not even Islamism can paper over).

Stupid

[GrassIsRed]

Wow these guys are stupid. Just turn off the damn phone. Oh yeah it requires stupidity to be a religious extremist.

Re:Stupid

[Dunbal]

Wow these guys are stupid. Just turn off the damn phone.

Wrong. They can track it even when it's off. They can even use it as an eavesdropping device, when it's off. Google "roving bug"...

Take out the battery.

Re:Stupid

[Firehed]

Has that ever been proven? Seems to me that the idea is just some conspiracy theory someone came up with for whatever reason - probably as an excuse to not get his daughter a cell phone.

It's not like I have cell signal when my phone is on anyways, let alone while it's off. I'm generally labeled as a conspiracy theorist, but this whole idea of always-recording-your-every-word cell phones seems a bit far-fetched, especially given the general incompetence of those in the cellular industry.

Re:Stupid

[gnick]

Google "roving bug"... Not to be a dick, but I can think of at least a couple of more useful methods of making a reference than just telling somebody to Google something...

Re:Stupid

[Eli Gottlieb]

They're not stupid. They're conspiracy-theorist tinfoil hatters who believe that phones can be tracked even when off (and possibly with the batteries out).

More than anything else, this is what holds the Muslim world back: they refuse to believe anything bad about themselves or good about the West (much less those infidels on the Mediterranean coast), and they're all too willing to rewrite the history books, censor the newspapers and even invent false technological information to maintain the illusion.

One of these days the truth will hit them: they are one of the most arrogant, poor, ignorant, and backwards sections of the world as we know it today.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that are american troops using their OWN cellphones, you are basically proposing that talibans should sneak to all and every enemy troop to disable their cellphones?

Oops, sorry, nobody reads TFA, I kind of forgot.

Re:Stupid

[Richthofen80]

Well, the Taliban recently converted to a new cult; This time, its the cult of Apple. Having bought hook, line and sinker into that stinking fetish, the Taliban all got themselves a new iPhone. However, little did they know that iPhone's contain no user servicable battery, so essentially there's no way to remove their battery, and thus no way to prevent being tracked. Yet another example of religion ruining everything.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an iPhone you insensitive clod!

Re:Stupid

[Detritus]

It's theoretically possible if the phone's firmware is modified to add those capabilities. That does not mean that a stock cell phone can be used as a bug or locater beacon when it is turned off. For the vast majority of cell phones, off means off. It uses a tiny amount of power to periodically scan the keyboard for key presses. All non-essential circuits, like the RF circuits, are powered down.

Re:Stupid

[GrassIsRed]

Well especially after having read the summary here the article could also be understood as the Taliban being tracked through their own telephones. "Since the occupying forces stationed in Afghanistan usually at night use mobile phones for espionage to track down the mujahideen" It's probably as you say though.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Not trying to feed the conspiracy theorists, but if someone offered the maker of the phone's OS a bag of money to add that feature to every phone it produced it wouldn't be that big deal to add.:


if ($phoneMenuLanguage == Farsi)
    include(trackerMod.c);


If everyone's phone in a language/region behaved a certain way no one would be the wiser unless they did tests for the same model across language/regions.

Re:Stupid

[Detritus]

The trick would be doing it without killing the battery life, which would get noticed. There's also the issue of unexpected RF emissions being noticed by the user. The speakers on my computer often make funny noises when a GSM phone is nearby and sending or receiving SMS messages.

This is a good first step.

[brennanw]

Next, they'll get the phone companies to give them the phone records of all Afghani citizens who may be saying mean things about the Taliban. That's when we'll know the Taliban are on their way to becoming a full-fledged modern democracy like us.

Re:This is a good first step.

[akar_naveen]

Got to appreciate the humor in this situation - telling the hunter not to use a certain weapon.

My first First Post

[denobug]

Seriously, does Taliban expect a business to bend over and get ass-f*cked by them, knowing that if they came in power they will cease to be in business anyway? At least there are "business activities", even by Taliban, at this moment of time.

Re:My first First Post

[Steauengeglase]

Yes, they do. If not they aren't responsible for someone blowing up the infrastructure/offices and "accidentally" raping and murdering your family for whatever heresy someone might just have felt like cooking up. This is real politic, not angry letters to city hall.

Good Luck

[Bullfish]

Cell phone companies don't pay any heed to anyone. I suspect this ridiculous plea will get the same attention as someone wanting a fairer contract.

Re:Good Luck

[gstoddart]

Cell phone companies don't pay any heed to anyone.

Well, the people in this case giving the "or else" might just start blowing up cell towers or kidnapping company officials.

The Taliban isn't asking with a "please", they might get noticed.

Cheers

Re:Good Luck

[jandrese]

If you started kidnapping and killing your phone company employees and their family, along with bombing the cell towers, I bet you could get their attention.

Re:Good Luck

[Monchanger]

TFA states that four cellular providers actually met with the Taliban. They have already been noticed, and it reads that this happened before an ultimatum was delivered.

Their threat seems to me a little short-sighted. They depend on cellular technology for their asymmetric warfare operations. While taking out towers, and kidnapping engineers may sound like a good way to pressure the mobile providers, but any resulting downtime prohibits them from operating. What else are they going to do? Switch providers?

What happens depends on the companies' business ideals (whether they adhere to the American "we don't negotiate with terrorists") and resolve after stuff hits the fan. I have no idea what legal/political influence the American government has on Afghani business, but I'm sure they're already looking into providing some sort of "support".

pfft...

[djupedal]

The cell network is one of the more low-tech surveillance methods available to the US military/CIA...knock y'self out - the demand is perhaps more to inhibit local/individual freedoms/communications and insure continued fear-based controls more than it is a 'militia' concern.

Am I the only person who...

[mckinnsb]

...thinks these leaders are total dumbasses for not telling their members to shut off their own phones during 5pm and 7am? Oh wait, and they are using *cellphones?* For their operations? And shutting them off is going to help them...how?

Huh?

[PontifexMaximus]

Okay, I MUST be missing something. They want cell phone providers to cease service between 7pm and 5am because the Americans can track them when they are using their cell phones? WTF? If they can do it between those hours, don't you FREAKING THINK THEY CAN OUTSIDE THOSE HOURS? Idiots. Well that just proves right there those dillholes don't know shit about technology. There's nothing better than a group who wants to keep their people in the Dark Ages.

Oh, hello, Congress. I didn't see you standing there. I was talking about the Taliban, not you. You guys are doing one hell of a bang up job in DC. Honest.

Re:Huh?

[Dunbal]

No, the tracking technology only works at night... because most of the attacks are at night. The fact that US troops are probably using their night vision equipment to gain an advantage over them at night has NOTHING to do with it.

Re:Huh?

[Jasin Natael]

Maybe it's because the other citizens are phoning in tips about the Taliban's operations during non-work hours. If people plainly see a lynch mob forming in their neighborhood, I'm sure a fair number would try to stop it. If the cell network is down, though, and the Taliban wants to go door-to-door torturing people without victims / neighbors calling for help (or to warn each other), this would certainly further their cause.

I'm pretty sure that the Taliban members' own phones aren't the only part of their motivation, or even the larger part.

Re:Huh?

[Harin_Teb]

I would guess what they are actually thinking is American forces can track them using some form of Uber-1337 reverse GPS upload deal where they can see where the Taliban is moving based on the movements of their cellphones. IE they have a cool map with glowing red dots showing "this cell phone is moving along this ridge" or something similar.

This way they could move during those two hours and not be tracked... of course this doesn't make much sense either becuase they could always just turn their phones off and voila! no tracking...

Re:Huh?

[internetcommie]

You guys are doing one hell of a bang up job in DC.
You got that right!

Re:Huh?

[pev]

Well, night vision may be an advantage but I'm pretty sure the Taliban have it too. In fact, it's being sent to Afganistan by UK nationals for use by insurgents so the odds are they're sharing with the Taliban as they're buddies.

Re:Huh?

[marc252]

Maybe it's because they wan't this two hours to move freely without having to worry if any of the gang left their cellphones on.

Re:Huh?

[Sycraft-fu]

Well I doubt they have it as extensively as the US forces do, or that they have the training in night fighting. What the grand parent is pointing out, correctly, is that the US are night fighters. The US forces decided they were going to be able to play at night and get good at it, and they have. You'll notice that major offensives (like both Iraq invasions) start at night.

The reason is simple: US forces are extremely good at fighting at night, I don't know that it degrades their ability at all. They have the gear and the training to do it well. Most everyone else is not. As such it gives the US an advantage.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That claim is just political swill trying to get their sympathizers that still live in the cities to support the ban.
They're smart enough to keep their own phones from being tracked too easily (we trained them on SIGINT back in the 80s)... The problem is the that everyone else in the country kinda wants them to go away, and calls up these nice 1-800-AIR-STRIKE hot-lines whenever they see a bunch of guys running around with RPG-7s.
This is a criminal organization trying to shut down the 911 service that hampers their ability to move around and operate.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess:The American troops have night vision and gps. That gives them a huge tactical advantage during nighttime raids. The Taliban probably figure they can see the Americans coming in the daytime.

Re:Huh?

[dreamchaser]

It has nothing to do with the tracking technology. Those are the main 'office hours' of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Most of their operations take place at night. During the day they tend to do their planning and otherwise blend into the rest of the population (or stay holed up in their caves).

Re:Huh?

[shiftless]

I know you were being funny, but I thought I should add this. It's not like the ISAF would have no idea when attacks are coming without citizens phoning in tips. Last year I spent some quality time at a forward base that would be attacked very frequently, as often as every day, usually no less than every 2-3 days. These guys knew when attacks were coming cause half the time the Taliban forces and their buddies (Uzbeks, Czechs, etc) would come over the radio and SAY SO. Not only do they use unencrypted radio to communicate with each other during attacks, but they like to get on the air and talk to our translators. The translators and the Taliban swap taunts and brag to each other and it's actually quite funny.

Oh, and another clue when there's about to be an attack: all the locals close up shop and head home at 2 PM, or whatever. Or you see a village that looks like a ghost town when normally at that time of day/night it would be pretty busy. You know there is an attack coming because the Taliban has warned the populace.

Re:Huh?

[meringuoid]

These guys knew when attacks were coming cause half the time the Taliban forces and their buddies (Uzbeks, Czechs, etc) would come over the radio and SAY SO.

Czechs in the Taliban? As in Budvar and Skoda?

Re:Huh?

[shiftless]

I'm not sure of the specifics, or who exactly these people are. This is just information I overheard and picked up while hanging around in the FOB's comm center over a couple weeks. I heard the platoon leader saying something about Czechs, and when I asked about it he said there are some Czech militants working/fighting with the Taliban. I'm guessing they are supplying the Taliban with arms. Not sure if it's rebels, government forces, or what. I am pretty sure he said there were Uzbeks as well but I can't be certain of it.

Cheap ass U.S. government

[Zygote-IC-]

Come on feds, spend the extra little bit of money and track these guys using something other than your unlimited "Nights and Weekends."

Re:Cheap ass U.S. government

[Anonymous Coward]

"Come on feds, spend the extra little bit of money..."

No kidding, a $170 Billion war budget should get you something without asking for more.

May i be the first

[Broken scope]

to say "Nuts to that".

Possibly, "fuck that noise".

The real reason...

[hilather]

Since the invasion, residents of Afghanistan have been recieving an increasingly alarming amount of American telemarketing calls.

Re:The real reason...

[AdamReyher]

Nice try. We all saw the video 6 years ago.

Re:The real reason...

[XxtraLarGe]

Oddly enough, all those American telemarketers sound a lot like their neighboring Indians.

Re:The real reason...

[hansamurai]

They should really sign up for the Do Not Call List.

By "us," of course...

[brennanw]

... I mean people living in the United States. I still occasionally suffer from the conceit that everyone who reads the same web site I do is obviously from the same country.

Re:By "us," of course...

[Johann Lau]

Nah, it's okay, democracy is a popular word of not-so-democratic systems besides the USA.

Re:By "us," of course...

[huckamania]

I don't think the phone companies keep transcripts of you calls and probably don't keep track of who you are saying mean things about.

Besides, the mark of a true democracy is when the phone companies are given retroactive immunity by the group that is supposed to be keeping a check and balance on things.

Re:By "us," of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but that's why "United States" contracts to "us" - the rest of us English-speaking countries just pretend it's bad capitalisation.

Re:By "us," of course...

[l4m3z0r]

I don't think the phone companies keep transcripts of you calls and probably don't keep track of who you are saying mean things about.

Alas, I long for the days when I was this naive.

Re:By "us," of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why Hitler could never have been an American president - no matter how popular his policy of "kill all jews browns and blacks" would be.

And of course all the presidents before emancipation, women's suffrage and so on took the presidency by coup.

Keep pretending that the electoral college does anything but ensure that corn farmers keep getting to vote themselves cash out of the coffers.

Re:By "us," of course...

[Bobx23456]

If the US was a democracy we'd still have the institution of slavery, women would not vote, and children would still be property under the law.

Bob: Bob has never favored slavery. We should note, however, that an estimated million white Europeans were captured and sold into slavery in Africa during the several hundred years before Europe, and particularly the US under President Jefferson, became powerful enough to stop it. Female suffrage is a huge mistake crammed down the throats of men by an evil government out of control. And children should still belong to their fathers. Obviously, our representative democracy doesn't work very well.

Luckily, it is not. It is a federal constitutional republic. It is a system where emancipation, suffrage and child labor and welfare laws can be jammed down the majorities throat, for the betterment of the country as a whole.

Bob: Obviously. But not for the good of the people. Jamming crap down our throats is police state tyranny, what our founders fought against. It does not, in general, improve a country.

Likewise, if Afghanistan or Iraq were a democracy, they'd simply return to taliban/warlord control, as nobody would dare vote against them.

Bob: Uh, no. Afghanistan was a representative democracy or rather a tribal society ruled by local chieftains. The Taliban was jammed down the throats of the people without their consent, much like the authors of this absurd article recommend. The people, if allowed to vote, would vote against them in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Voters can be bought, coerced, and easily confused into following the charismatic, but evil candidate. But we have the electoral college to make sure that despite the wishes of the majority of morons, they can choose what is best for the country. This is why Hitler could never have been an American president - no matter how popular his policy of "kill all jews browns and blacks" would be.

Bob: Indeed, females especially should not be allowed to vote. Neither should crack heads on welfare, nor government workers. The rise of the German National Socialist Labor Party, NAZIS was the first great victory for female suffrage. Clearly, female suffrage has been one of the great mistakes of history. It is much easier to buy politicians than voters. Our government has become much like the NAZIS and even worse in some particulars. In America they target men instead of jews.

But, you know, lets all hate America and mouth off blah blah blah and not really understand why the constitution is structured the way it is.

Bob: It is the author of this article who has little understanding of America and our constitution. Our founders included the 2nd Amendment in hopes that we could have the means to overthrow the bastards when they become tyranny as they now are. Unfortunately they abrogated our constitution almost a century ago.

Re:By "us," of course...

[Johann Lau]

I just pointed out that doublespeak is a de facto standard most anywhere, but nice rant anyway.

Quick! Someone tag it with "religionofpeace"!

[Reality Master 201]

That way we can paint the whole Muslim world as being represented by the crazy activites of a small number of radicals.

Then someone can post a response to me and inform me that Islam is evil!

Yay! Slashbigots!

Re:Quick! Someone tag it with "religionofpeace"!

[neoform]

Better yet, don't identify yourself as being a Muslim who is against these 'radicals' and instead pan everyone else for stating what is obvious to them, islam is not a 'religion of peace'.

Re:Quick! Someone tag it with "religionofpeace"!

[milsoRgen]

Islam in and of itself is not evil, I have a copy of the Quaran sitting right here on my desk. But like most any religon, yes it does indeed lead to so called 'evil' behavior. Them damn 'people of the book' need to be set the fuck straight and all.

Re:Quick! Someone tag it with "religionofpeace"!

[Harin_Teb]

/oblig

Islam is evil. The more you know!

(sorry. I had to do it. Please forgive me.)

Re:Quick! Someone tag it with "religionofpeace"!

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here. Everyone knows Islam is evil. EVIL I say!!!

Re:Quick! Someone tag it with "religionofpeace"!

[Alcoholic Synonymous]

How dare you call us Slashbigots!

For this outrage, we will turn off your cellphone and cut off your head!

Admiral Ackbar!

Re:Quick! Someone tag it with "religionofpeace"!

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam is a stupid, backwards, evil supremacist religion.

Re:Quick! Someone tag it with "religionofpeace"!

[rapierian]

Quick, label everyone a bigot who points out that despite being labeled a religion of peace, nearly all terrorists around the world are Islamic, and at least one side of almost every conflict being fought on our planet is Muslim. Of course, those are just simple facts, so saying them makes me a bigot too, doesn't it?

There are indeed peace loving Muslims out there, who support liberty, human rights, and all that jazz. However, while Muslims will take to the streets in riots when some Danes draw cartoons of Mohammed, the streets remain empty and few, if any Muslims rise to denounce the honor killings, female circumcision, targeting of civilian (Heck, even civilian non-Jewish) populations by Al Qaeda/Hamas/Hezbollah/Fatah, executions for being raped without four male witnesses around to vouch for the woman, executions for converting to a different religion...etc. And all of these activities are committed by people claiming to do so in the name of Islam.

If Muslims are truly opposed to these activities, why aren't they protesting day after day, saying, "Not in our name!"?

Re:Quick! Someone tag it with "religionofpeace"!

[Anonymous Coward]

A religion that advocates wife beating and thinks of women as half a man is not evil? A religion that calls pagans to be exterminated and the people of the book (Christians and Jews) to be made as dhimmis (third class citizens with limited rights, who must pay jizyah - tribute - to muslims) is not evil? If you have a copy of the Quran, damn read it. Keep in mind that every single word in the Quran is Allah's, dictated to Mohammad by Jibrel. Muslims must accept this or else they aren't muslims. So don't you go on saying that Islam is not evil because not all muslims are evil. There are good muslims, but by Islam's standard, they aren't the true muslims. Followers != Religion. Their humanity trumps the true calling of Islam. "Good" muslims follow shariah and what not, like the Talibans.

I think every religion whose prophet married a 6 y.o. girl and fucked her when she was 9 is evil.

Re:Quick! Someone tag it with "religionofpeace"!

[framauro13]

Quick, label everyone a bigot who points out that despite being labeled a religion of peace, nearly all terrorists around the world are Islamic, and at least one side of almost every conflict being fought on our planet is Muslim. Of course, those are just simple facts, so saying them makes me a bigot too, doesn't it Simple facts? Citation needed. Should we go over atrocities committed in the name of Christianity throughout history? Does that inherintly make all Christians bad? No, so why does the same have to apply to Islam and its followers?

Muslims will take to the streets in riots when some Danes draw cartoons of Mohammed Because it was a violation of their religion. Remember what happened when "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was published? Uproar. Why? Because a basic fundamental rule of their religion was broken.

The reason I point these out is that your argument can be applied to any religion, anywhere, anytime. Any educated person knows the difference between a Muslim and a terrorist. The same for Christians for that matter. Catholic Priest doesn't necessarily mean child molester.

The above comment seems to be more intent on blaming the religion, not the skewed, perverted interpretation that the extremists follow.

If Muslims are truly opposed to these activities, why aren't they protesting day after day, saying, "Not in our name!"? They do. The reason you don't see it over there is because the minute this happens, they're executed. You're more apt to bring change if you're not dead.

Re:Quick! Someone tag it with "religionofpeace"!

[rapierian]

Simple Facts. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_wars for a list of current conflicts. Kashmir, Chechnya, Sudan, Kenya, The Phillipines, Thailand, and most of the other current African conflicts also involve Muslims, in addition to the various middle eastern conflicts. Recent conflicts that are considered resolved and so aren't on the list also include Kosovo. Admittedly, there's a couple conflicts I didn't know about, so I'll retract my statement of almost every conflict and change it to the majority of conflicts. As for nearly all terrorists around the world being Islamic, lets look at the numbers there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations Notice that the Islamic and West Bank/Gaza organizations outnumber the non-Islamic organizations 40 to 26 - and that several of the non-Islamic organizations have disbanded, or disarmed (like the Northern Ireland organizations. Of course, number of organizations is different from number of members. So lets go by the number of attacks. Here's the past couple years, and I'll let you count: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents%2C_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents%2C_2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents%2C_2006 Keep in mind that all of the terrorist incidents in Kashmir, Pakistan, The Phillipines, Algiers, and Europe (and many in Kosovo too) are all of Muslim origin. It is in fact quite a search not to find terrorist attacks not by Islamists. Yes, Christians have behaved badly throughout history, as have Muslims. The difference is that Christianity stopped being a religion that resolves its differences by killing hundreds of years ago. Islam still orders hits taken on people who write books that criticize it. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" compares to the Danish cartoon riots? Please. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", the piss christ, the elephant dung madonna - Christianity takes such violations daily, and they speak out about it, sure, but they don't riot in the streets and issue death warrants for those who created the violations. My arguments can be applied to any religion, anywhere, anytime? Yeah, sure. Its funny, cause I can't think of the last time Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, or Jews have attacked others in the name of religion, or at least wearing their religion on their sleeves and not been loudly denounced by the rest of their religion for their violence. Only the Muslims have this problem. Large portions of their religion are stuck in a completely medieval mindset, and the others rarely protest about it. And I'm not talking about the Muslims who live in the middle east or Africa protesting "not in our name". Why will Muslims in Europe, England, and America take to the streets to protest Danes drawing cartoons, but not the daily, despicable acts performed in the name of their religion, the daily violations of woman's rights, human rights, and fundamental liberties?

Brings a whole new meaning to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Brings a whole new meaning to...

"Reach out and touch someone" ;-)

If we are doing this, it'd be great if we'd ring um just as the bomb was about to hit, with a recording of that song ;-)

(wonders if he's the only one here old nuf to remember that annoying ad)

Disrupting Communications

[bannerman]

Their goal is obviously to disrupt communications, not to avoid being tracked. If they knew we were using their phones to track them, they could use that as an advantage to setup traps and make us confident of their whereabouts. They could always just remove the batteries or stuff the phone in a lead box or whatever. If you can't call for help it makes the decision to resist or just do whatever these psychopaths want a much simpler one.

Re:Disrupting Communications

[mdielmann]

...stuff the phone in a lead box... Um, are these the new radioactive cell phones? Any metal will do, and some are lighter than lead. Besides, we all know the really cool guys use 18 karat gold faraday cages.

Taliban cellphone billing address

[caffeine_monkey]

3rd cave on the eastern side,
Mountain that looks like a sitting goat,
Kandahar, Afghanistan

Am I to understand...

[hbean]

...that theres been a towlie-ban [wikipedia.org]?

Pssssst... Taliban...

[ThousandStars]

Here's a hint: if you turn your cell phone off, no one can find you. Furthermore, if you're still paranoid, you can always leave it at home, or in your cave, or whatever.

If you're still more paranoid, you can wrap tinfoil around your cell phone and head. If you need instructions as to how that should be done, this forum is an excellent place to find individuals with enormous experience.

too bad it'll make them more easily tracked

[SuperBanana]

they believe American troops are able to track down Taliban members using their cellphones.

Too bad it'll make all their cell phones transmit MORE, looking for said shut down towers- when a cell can't reach a tower, not only does it try to reconnect more often, but it also bumps up the transmit power.

That makes the cell phone a whole lot easier to find...and kills everyone's batteries...

Re:too bad it'll make them more easily tracked

[brian0918]

Except you need to read the article to realize that the actual situation has no relation to your analysis. They are not using cell phones. The people phoning in tips have the cell phones, and the Taliban doesn't want them phoning in tips while they're doing their raids.

*POOF* (your insight, disappearing in a puff of smoke)

Re:too bad it'll make them more easily tracked

[Anonymous Coward]

No it does not. Phones don't transmit to find a tower, they LISTEN to find a system, then REGISTER on that system.

A phone that hears no base station will never transmit.

Re:too bad it'll make them more easily tracked

[Anonymous Coward]

repeat after me, exponential back off, exponential back off ....
(that is, it won't kill your batteries. Your phone is 'smarter' than that.)

Re:Quick! Someone tag it QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest reading this site. Not all Muslims are radical crazies, but it's also not true that the religion has nothing to do with making certain elements radical crazies. Islam needs to learn tolerance, not the other way around.

Next they'll want immunity...

[John3]

Next thing you know the Taliban will demand immunity from lawsuits arising from damage or injuries caused by the cell service being shut down.

Turn the phone off?

[cgitz]

Overkill response: we're worried about being tracked so we should shut down the whole network every night.

Intelligent response: we're worried about being tracked so we should turn off the phone.

oo.. i love wikipedia..

[newbie56k]

Cell phone tracking tracks the current position of a cell phone. To locate the phone, it must be turned on but does not require an active call. GSM localisation is then done by triangulation based on the signal strength to nearby signal masts.[1] In order to route calls to your phone the cell towers listen for a signal sent from the phone and negotiate which tower is best able to communicate with the phone. As the phone changes location, the towers monitor the signal and the phone is switched to a different tower as appropriate. By comparing the relative signal strength from multiple towers a general location of a phone can be determined. A phone's location can be uploaded to a common web site where your "friends and family" can view your last reported position. Newer phones may or may not have built-in GPS receivers which could be used in a similar fashion, but with much higher accuracy. Some newer phones and technology may also allow the tracking of the phone even when turned off or, at least, have the microphone activated.[2] Also, phones can have secondary batteries installed to allow tracking even if the battery is removed. ------ So, even if you turn your cell phone is off or remove batteries they (or you) can still be tracked.

Don't do it!!!

[kpainter]

If this demand is successful, the next thing they will want is to turn the clock back a thousand years! Oh, wait...

Try Reading The Article

[mjpaci]

From the article:

The reason for the threat is the Taliban's belief that American soldiers and rebels within Afghanistan are using mobile phones to track down remaining Taliban members. "Since the occupying forces stationed in Afghanistan usually at night use mobile phones for espionage to track down the mujahideen, the Islamic Emirate gave a three-day ultimatum to all mobile phone firms to switch off their phones from five in the afternoon until seven in the morning," Taliban spokesperson Qari Mohammad Yousuf told Reuters, ironically via mobile phone (and presumably during daylight). They're trying to disrupt the Americans' use of cell phones as a communication network for gathering information. i.e. informants all over the country phone in the whereabouts of Taliban baddies.

Re:Try Reading The Article

[Maxo-Texas]

I think your answer is more plausible.

It prevents any anonymous tips during that period.

Re:Try Reading The Article

[RobinH]

I have a theory of my own:

The Taliban may be using roadside bombs that are detonated by cell phones. They may be trying to mask the position of these devices which are probably deployed at night and the cell phone gets turned on when the device is deployed. If you're monitoring cell traffic and you see a device turn on in the middle of the night right beside a highway, you have a suspected IED.

Re:Try Reading The Article

[RobinH]

Which made me think of a great strategy. You see a cell phone turn on in the middle of the night... just give the number a ring to see who answers"

"I only heard it ring once, then it went offline. I wonder what happened."

Re:Try Reading The Article

[Skuld-Chan]

Yeah the American army is using cell phones to communicate...

Re:Try Reading The Article

[mjpaci]

Not the army itself but its web of Afghani informants just very well may be which is why the Taliban want the cell towers shut off so they can disrupt this form of communication. A cell phone is a lot easier to explain away when being questioned by the Taliban than a short wave radio or a sattelite phone.

--mike

Their reason is...

[Mubarmij]

According to Al Jazeera, their reason is that the Americans are using cellular footprints to track and attach them at night (?).

As other posters stated, mobile phones are the sole communication tool there.. and Taliban are among the users. They must have a military reason to try to enforce this demand.

Re:Their reason is...

[Alcoholic Synonymous]

I am guessing it is because of their inability to prevent Abdullah from calling his "lover" during free nights and weekends. Note, I didn't say girlfriend.

It wasn't insightful yesterday when you posted it

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=465572&cid=22544926

And it's not insightful now.

I couldn't care less about your opinions on Islam, stop spamming the fucking board, douche.

Thanks.

To Paraphrase This:

[florescent_beige]

The Taliban say: "Help us to hide so we may launch sneak attacks on you. If you don't do this, we will launch sneak attacks on you."

Nice demand geniuses. I can think of no better use for the phrase "How about 'no' you crazy bastards?"

PS:
:)
(picture of the Prophet Mohammed)

Re:To Paraphrase This:

[Anonymous Coward]

A better picture of Mahommed:

&:-{(>

Re:To Paraphrase This:

[SuiteSisterMary]

(picture of the Prophet Mohammed)

I hereby create the official Prophet Mohammedicon.
@:)}
That is all.

Re:To Paraphrase This:

[Anonymous Coward]

hereby create the official Prophet Mohammedicon.
@:)}
That is all.

Blasphemer! You have depicted the Prophet (however iconically) -- now you must die! I call upon all devout Muslims everywhere to hunt you down and stone you to death like the dog you are! I call upon all others to come into the streets and violently demonstrate the extent of our extreme rage at this defilement of our beliefs in front of the embassies of every Western nation! This insensitivity to our needs is so typical of you infidels ...

Gazing into my TinFoil Ball...

[hanshotfirst]

Nah, they're in collusion with the cell phone providers to take away free ANYTIME minutes overnight and blame the US government. If it works there, look for this to come here under the guise of protection from warrantless cellphone-tapping.

T.K.'S GONNA HURT SOMEBODY!

[Megaweapon]

T.K. must mean Taliban Kook.

MacGuffin

[Shadow Wrought]

The whole, "US may be tracking us," is just a MacGuffin. The reality is their teen's texting charges are flat out killing them. Why do you think they only want the phones on during school hours? Coincedence? Ha! I think not.

The Wile E. Coyote solution.

[jpellino]

Just slap one of these http://www.gethandyswitch.com/ to each tower's fence, and let them knock themselves out.

Do you plan to complain about this every day?

[keineobachtubersie]

I was sure I saw a very similar compliant yesterday, and I was right.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=465572&cid=22544926

See you tomorrow I guess...

Re:Do you plan to complain about this every day?

[Dwarfgoat]

See you tomorrow I guess...

Haha...okay that made me laugh. Wish I had some mod points at the moment. Sorry to step in you guys' argument! Carry on!

Free nights

[hunterzach_02]

Its the cell phone companies, they don't want people to have free nights

This isn't about being track by their cellphones

[Anonymous Coward]

This demand is about proving the Taliban is still relevant to the population of Afghanistan and capable of influencing their lives. They've lost pretty much all of their control over the population's behavior and they need to prove to themselves that they still matter.

darn..

[thestudio_bob]

It look like I'm going to have to update my favorite 5.

TFA

[chromeshadow]

Reading TFA (what there is of it) suggests another interpretation: that the coalition forces are using mobile phones when they attack, mostly at night. That is, it isn't the Taliban use of phones which is the issue, it's the occupation forces'. Not saying it makes much more sense...

But if the country shuts down

[Cro Magnon]

the terrorists win!

the muslim world

[circletimessquare]

needs to control their radicals. of course the majority of muslims are moderate. but if their radicals are allowed free reign, the muslim world invites deserved criticism

the usa gets plenty of criticism for its actions in the world. much of it deserved. do you think the usa deserves no criticism? of course you don't

so, in the spirit of an open mind, you accept that the muslim world deserves criticism as well

there are some xenophobic bigots who are doing the criticism of the muslim world, yes. there are also some mindless bigots criticizing the usa

the point is, the existence of these bigots does not mean that all criticism of the muslim world, or criticism of the usa, is simple bigotry or without merit

so if you dismiss all criticism of the muslim world out of hand, simply because you think it is all bigotry, it is you, as well as the bigots, with a closed, simple partisan kneejerk mind

Re:the muslim world

[Reality Master 201]

[the Muslim world] needs to control their radicals. of course the majority of muslims are moderate. but if their radicals are allowed free reign, the muslim world invites deserved criticism

Absolutely! As do the Jewish, Christian, and Hindu worlds (and some of the Buddhists in Sri Lanka are a little scary too). Radicals need to be gotten under control in all of the world's religious communities.

so if you dismiss all criticism of the muslim world out of hand, simply because you think it is all bigotry, it is you, as well as the bigots, with a closed, simple partisan kneejerk mind

Ah, but I don't dismiss all criticism of the Muslim world out of hand. I dismiss criticism which amounts to saying that the whole of Islam and the Muslim world may be fairly judged as being indistinguishable from the Taliban.

Re:the muslim world

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ah, but I don't dismiss all criticism of the Muslim world out of hand. I dismiss criticism which amounts to saying that the whole of Islam and the Muslim world may be fairly judged as being indistinguishable from the Taliban."

Or, in this case, you respond to a fabricated point that no one attempted to make, which is almost the same thing as "saying that the whole of Islam and the Muslim world may be fairly judged as being indistinguishable from the Taliban".

Sadly for you, no one said anything resembling that, so you had to toss it out there. Again, it was a moronic straw man yesterday when you posted it and nothing has changed in the mean time.

Re:the muslim world

[Anonymous Coward]

This is by far one of your most coherent and insightful comments.

Re:the muslim world

[ScentCone]

I dismiss criticism which amounts to saying that the whole of Islam and the Muslim world may be fairly judged as being indistinguishable from the Taliban

The problem is that you lead off with a pre-emptory attack on anyone that might consider Islamic culture conducive to the breeding of these crazies, and you don't - in your own words - personally condemn them. That's exactly the problem, here. You attack - as your opening sentiment - everyone else, and not a peep out of you, in the same breath, about how little you think of the people who are trying so hard to defame the wider Muslim culture through their actual, murderous actions. This is exactly what I encounter in almost every conversation I have with Muslims. A completely defensive posture about the whole thing - so defensive, in fact, that they sweep defense of retrograde mysoginst killers like the Taliban right up into their piety and wounded feelings. In essence, people who think and act like the Taliban are busy making the world a more miserable place for Muslims, and Muslims are so busy saying how offended they are when lumped together with the Taliban that they forget to bother to proactively differentiate themselves from those clowns. If a culture of untold millions of people is unable to regularly figure out that they're not helping themselves by aggessively shouting down and personally doing everything they can to extinguish movements like the Taliban, then I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when they're perceived as being part of the problem.

The people in quesition kill women for teaching their daughters to read. They stone women to death for having been raped. And what do I hear from somewhat more modern Muslims? Not, "These people have to be stopped, especially since they want to run the entire middle east that way (and London, and Canada) - how can I help?" but rather, "Oh, we're not all like that, and you're a bigot for even wondering if Islam itself, by its nature, seems to be built around these notions." Passively allowing violent medieval theocracies to try, again, to take root and spread is only scarecly worse than actively pushing for it. Making the people who honestly express disgust at that entire world view sound like the villains is your primary mistake, and if anyone should be insulted it's them, not you.

Re:the muslim world

[Anonymous Coward]

and some of the Buddhists in Sri Lanka are a little scary too Huh? The scary ones are the Tamil Tigers and Tamils are predominantly Hindu.

Re:the muslim world

[thegnu]

the usa gets plenty of criticism for its actions in the world. much of it deserved. do you think the usa deserves no criticism? of course you don't

The reason why the USA gets an unfair share of criticism in the USA is that the USA and its responsibility is the responsibility of the USA and its citizens. I (and many others) view the morals of my representatives as representative of my morals. It really makes sense, it does.

Not that you don't make valid points. I agree. Just that I'm intrinsically involved in the murder of Iraqis. I'm NOT intrinsically involved in the Taliban shutting down cell phone towers. I talk about things I'm intrinsically involved in significantly more.

Re:the muslim world

[dfenstrate]

It's almost like a good cop/bad cop routine.

Re:the muslim world

[g8oz]

The kneejerk responses are primarily on the part of people criticising Islam - the ones whose analysis goes no further than condemning all Muslims because of the actions of the extremists.

Confusing the part for the whole is one of the more elementary fallacies.

Re:the muslim world

[Stalyn]

If a culture of untold millions of people is unable to regularly figure out that they're not helping themselves by aggressively shouting down and personally doing everything they can to extinguish movements like the Taliban, then I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when they're perceived as being part of the problem.

Isn't this the same line of thinking terrorists use to justify killing innocent civilians for the perceived crimes committed by their governments?

Re:the muslim world

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is exactly what I encounter in almost every conversation I have with Muslims. A completely defensive posture about the whole thing..."

And who steers the conversation in this direction? Don't you think these Muslims are sick of hearing about it? Can you blame them for being defensive? Who among us really enjoys defending ourselves against those who would criticize and attack us for the actions of the worst among our own kind?

I don't disagree with your essential point, but honestly, if I, as an American, had to constantly and personally answer for the actions of Bush and Co. I'd probably get pretty defensive too.

Re:the muslim world

[shutdown -p now]

The people in quesition kill women for teaching their daughters to read. They stone women to death for having been raped. And what do I hear from somewhat more modern Muslims? Not, "These people have to be stopped, especially since they want to run the entire middle east that way (and London, and Canada) - how can I help?" but rather, "Oh, we're not all like that, and you're a bigot for even wondering if Islam itself, by its nature, seems to be built around these notions."

Actually, no. What they say is, "Alright, so stoning is not okay here yet - you guys are just not ready for it, I think - but normally it's the right way!".

Note that the guy who said this is not a random Muslim immigrant from the streets. He is an old guy, not a yound hothead, has lived in NZ for 30+ years by the time he made that statement, and, as an elected MP, is effectively an representative of the active Muslim community in the legislative. So much for the "religion of peace on average", then.

Re:the muslim world

[g8oz]

Making the people who honestly express disgust at that entire world view sound like the villains is your primary mistake

The offense is in condemning Islam and all Muslims not just the radicals. You're setting up a straw man here. I doubt any normal Muslim has an issue with you condemning the Taliban or similar groups.

If a culture of untold millions of people is unable to regularly figure out that they're not helping themselves by aggessively shouting down and personally doing everything they can to extinguish movements like the Taliban, then I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when they're perceived as being part of the problem.

The condemnations of extremism and terrorism from Muslim leaders are legion - if you haven't been paying attention thats your problem and your error.

Muslims live in different countries, belong to different ethnicities, speak different languages. For the most part they live in countries with dysfunctional goverments which hamper the develoment of effective civil society institutions. They don't all get together in a town hall every Tuesday and decide the future of Islam. Their positive influence extends as far as living their own lives peacefully. Which is exactly what the vast majority does.

Re:the muslim world

[ScentCone]

The offense is in condemning Islam and all Muslims not just the radicals. You're setting up a straw man here. I doubt any normal Muslim has an issue with you condemning the Taliban or similar groups.

We've had years and years now, since the radicals have been showing their colors in places like Iran, or in the streets of the Palestinian territories, or more recently in their fading attempt to walk into Iraq and start a civil war that will delay the establishment of a civil society there. They cannot function without substantial popular and economic support. It's not like we're talking about a few crazies that are holed up in a basement or in the forest somewhere. This is a substantial movement with manifestations in every predominantly Muslim - and many hardly-at-all-Muslim - country in the world. Muslims in Indonesia, and Syria, and Turkey, and London, and Egypt, and Sudan, and Michigan DO all need to act, as the single culture that they choose one word with which to identify themselves, to stop this. But they can't, because there are millions - not dozens - who seem to consider people like Khalid Sheik Mohammad to be Robin-Hood-esque heroes. It's an ugly, self-destructive streak that would hardly matter if it didn't happen to involve a culture with its historical and demographic roots in a place where the fact of sitting on the ground there makes you the owner of trillions of dollars worth of fuel. Just as Hugo Chavez is using his oil cash to prop up an increasingly brutal, counter-productive bit of tyranny, it's the story in the middle east. And to the extent that the ugliest bunch of hot heads within that mess proclaim themselves to be the voices and hand of Islam... and other Muslims don't bother to stop them, but instead send them their money and their sons, well, there you have it.

The condemnations of extremism and terrorism from Muslim leaders are legion - if you haven't been paying attention thats your problem and your error.

Sorry, no. Those condemnations are completely toothless. Why? Because the people that could make them really stick - the leaders of the countries that could actually, right now, this minute, put a stop to such radicals - do not. Why? Because large swaths of their populations - Muslims - do not want them to. Try too hard to stop it, and they are killed for doing so - from police officers, through legislators, and right on up to top officials and their families. The only thing that's legion is the deafening roar that such minority moderates have to face, and from which they usually back down.

Their positive influence extends as far as living their own lives peacefully.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Their radical brothers choose to extend their influence through violence visited upon other people. Those who want peace have to do MORE than simply live quietly and shake their heads at the folks down the street who are harboring a bombmaker or delivery food to training camp, or sending cash to Hezbollah.

Re:the muslim world

[ScentCone]

Don't you think these Muslims are sick of hearing about it?

Sure. Why is it do you suppose that they don't do anything about it?

Can you blame them for being defensive?

Sure. I wouldn't blame them for actually stepping up and putting a stop to it, though. But that's where the total passivity kicks in, except for a few very brave people down at the police-officer level... and they tend to get killed for doing so. Killed, by people operating out of basements, building bombs made from materials bought with cash that could be dried up in an instant, if the wider body of Islam actually wanted to stop it. They SHOULD feel defensive about it.

When some addled-brained US serviceman pulls some sort of crap overseas, he winds up in a court martial. When a foreigner from Syria is in Iraq with a bomb he bought using cash that laundered its way to him from a jewelry kiosk in a mall in Detroit straps it onto a mentally retarded woman and sends her into a market full of kids to die and take dozens with her... that person's family gets treated like neighborhood celebrities. Yeah, that's worth getting defensive over, I'd say.

Re:the muslim world

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

I don't pretend to be an expert on Islam in any way and am willing to be corrected.

The problem seems to be that Islam teaches that you must support anyone who is a muslim. The way this is dealt with by the moderate majority of Islam is to simply ignore the radicals and hope they go away. If they criticize the radicals then they are not supporting muslims. If they don't then they are passively supporting radicals. It's a real catch 22 for them.

The only way I can see of getting out of this is perhaps invoking the "God's Name In Vain" clause. This however would only work for Muslim vs Muslim justice as anyone else opposing a muslim can be painted as an infidel.

Re:the muslim world

[g8oz]

It doesn't matter whether those condemnations are considered toothless or not. The fact is that they were and are made and puts to bed the accusation that Muslim leaders are giving tacit approval to terror.

But your essential point is that Muslims aren't trying hard enough to stop terror.

That argument is flawed.

You say that the various dictatorships in power have the power to kill/stop/imprison all the terrorists.
But the autocratic leaders do not have the consent of those that they govern. That hamstrings them in fighting radicals.
Even with government resources they are the few fighting against a movement. Society can't help them, it is not allowed to help them, because if it was allowed to do anything it would get rid of them first. Because of this oppression the only opposing movements that can exist are necessarily pathological. Given this situation, the effects of condemnations by those leaders and ordinary responsible Muslims are guaranteed to be less than desired.

So even though the issue is draped in religious clothing it is fundamentally a political one.

Dictators like Musharraf are incompetent at fighting determined guerillas but are all too effective at shutting down democracy movements and civil society institutions like the Supreme Court - phoney election theatre aside. Yet it is those movements and institutions that can engage the populace and amplify the will of the majority against the actions and appeal of the violent minority.

Thats how it works in the Western democracies. Italian Americans did not rise up against the Mob. But a law-enforcement apparatus that they and other Americans give legitimacy to has been effective in countering its influence. See where I'm going with this?

The average Muslim thus is not a moral failure. He/she simply lacks the tools that know-it all observers take for granted.

That means to the extent that the West can play a positive role in the Islamic world, it will not be though invasions, sabre-rattling or sneering contempt but through support of countries - not governments, and processes & institutions - not personalities.

Comply or else!

[sm62704]

If we don't comply they'll attack us again!

Don't forget Pakistan. We have to shut off cell phone service there too. After all, most of the Taliban is with our "friends" in Pakistan.
</sarcasm>

-mcgrew

and also that

[circletimessquare]

anything that is landline based is usually blown to smithereens in the prolonged effort to keep the people of afghanistan in the middle ages, where the ideology of the taliban actually works

Re:and also that

[shiftless]

There practically isn't anything land-based in Afghanistan. Most everything is cell phone or satellite. The country is so damn rugged and mountainous that it would be prohibitively expensive to deploy anything else.

Re:and also that

[Lost Engineer]

Why don't we ever invade and annex somewhere nice, like French Polynesia?

Re:and also that

[shiftless]

The country is actually very beautiful. It has a wide variety of climates and terrain; mountains, forests, valleys, rivers, deserts, hot, cold, humid, dry, and everywhere in between. It's a geologist's dream, and I bet botanists and anthropologists would love the place too. The people are extremely poor, but they have the right attitude, and with the help of the ISAF, USAID, etc (despite the efforts of the Taliban) are improving themselves and their society step by step. I probably sound like a broken record or a propagandist, but I always have to chime in whenever there is a story about Afghanistan, as I have been there to see it firsthand, and I can't over-emphasize the great things that are happening there. The way things look right now I think Afghanistan has a bright future ahead of it, and I hope the U.S. and other major players fulfill their commitments to make sure that happens.

This is our enemy?

[Rampantbaboon]

If you want a real reason why Iraq troop levels are bad. The fact that we cannot defeat an orginization of idiots like this is proof enough.

5:00pm to 7:00am

[Darth_brooks]

Wow, i had no idea that terrorists and religious fundamentalists also worked normal business hours.....

"Tomorrow at 8:00pm, you will drive an explosives laden truck into the American barracks."

"Hold on, Muhammed. My position as a level 1 suicide bomber clearly states that this is a non-exempt position, and my scheduled hours are from 8:00am to 5:00pm complete with two fifteen minute breaks and a 30 minute lunch. I can't be forced to work any overtime. Look, we can take this all the way to Vicki in HR, but I'd really rather not.

Re:5:00pm to 7:00am

[WilyCoder]

"level 1 suicide bomber"

implies there is a level 2 suicide bomber.

hmmm.

Re:5:00pm to 7:00am

[Anonymous Coward]

"level 1 suicide bomber"
implies there is a level 2 suicide bomber. There is! A level 2 is a guy who failed to detonate at level 1 and was promoted. If he keeps on screwing up, he can advance through the ranks of management. Those who fail across the board will usually leave to join one of the major suicide bomber consulting firms. You know, the ones who do all of those "risk assessment" and "outsourcing to Pakistan" studies.

Not to different.

[Anonymous Coward]

"So instead, they want to make things inconvenient for EVERYONE to better suit their individual needs"

Sounds like capitalism to me. Where's the problem here?

Can you hear me now?

[night_flyer]

Goo::BOOM::

I think you misoverestimate them

[jesterpilot]

Seriously, i don't think they are as smart as you presume. They use the cell phones in combat to communicate. I'm afraid they want the networks shut down so they can call each other without being tracked. They're muslim terrorists you know, the type of guys who tried to sink a navy vessel but failed because they overloaded their boat.

Re:I think you misoverestimate them

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, i don't think they are as smart as you presume....
They use the cell phones in combat to communicate. I'm afraid they want the networks shut down so they can call each other without being tracked.

Let's see. If they shut off the networks then they can call each other...
Good one there, Einstein.

Re:I think you misoverestimate them

[RealGrouchy]

"Can you hear me explode now?"

- RG>

Personally

[Kylere]

What the Taliban wants rates below what I think of whatever Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh want, but add in my total disdain and desire to see every member of the Taliban drink a warm coca-cola full of ground glass.

Three Words

[o1d5ch001]

False Flag Propaganda.

War has changed...

[Cathoderoytube]

War has certainly changed, back in the day soldiers didn't have the convenience of hiding by the enemies mailbox and blowing them up when they came out to get their phone bill.

Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[AHumbleOpinion]

"All cars with OnStar can be monitored the same way. Welcome to 1984."

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin

I love Ben's wisdom, but this quote is being so overused and so often poorly used that it is being diminished. Please note the word "essential", Ben put that word in there for a reason. His words were carefully crafted and extraneous words were not left in. In short, non-essential liberties are excluded by the quote and anonymity while driving is a non-essential liberty, actually a non-existent liberty. We have no right to drive on public roads, it is a privilege. We knowingly enter into a contract in order to exercise that privilege. Our cars must be registered and display a unique identifier, the license plate. We are required to be licensed and must present that license upon request. Furthermore, OnStar is voluntary and has positive benefits, any good contract should, such as notifying rescue personnel of an accident's location. Ben's quote is quite inappropriate here.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[TemporalBeing]

We have no right to drive on public roads, it is a privilege. We knowingly enter into a contract in order to exercise that privilege.

Roads have existed long before cars and used by horse, carriage, and other methods of transportation for millenia. Yet, only recently have we tried this mantra of "it's not a right, it's a privilege". I can see where people come from, given that today's modern vehicles are far more heavy and faster than those older methods - so there are safety concerns; but let's not forget that we do have an inherent and essential right to travel through the methods available to us. Horse & carriage is really available any more. Vehicles are. It's more of a right, than a privilege, than you may realize.

Also, remember that the Constitution (in the US) grants only a specific set of rights/abilities to the federal government (intra-state, and external activities), the states (within their borders, and according to their Constitution which must be similar to the it), and releases all else to the people.

BTW - that doesn't mean we shouldn't ensure people know how to use the methods of transportation.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[db32]

Except you are misapplying "essential" the sense that he is describing some liberties as essential and others as nonessential. Liberty itself is essential is the point. The idea that you can qualify some as nonessential is exactly what leads to the big brother state of "it is better that we watch all of you to keep you safe" nonsense. So you are grossly misapplying the words to twist it into a justification for exactly the opposite of what he said.

Oh...and you are right to a degree, driving on roads is a privlidge the key being on the roads. The fact that they are nice paved roads is certainly a privlidge that we have purchased through our taxes. The problem is traveling about as I see fit how I see fit is actually more of a liberty issue. The fact that we are willing to follow a set of rules in that traveling is a matter of convenience and cooperation. In fact, my right is to travel how and where I want, it is through collective cooperation that we give up this part of this right to make it a bit better and more convenient for everyone.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[DrStrabismus]

From Wikiquote:

• Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
  • This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchae a little Temporary Safety, deerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
  • Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
    • "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
      "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
      "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
      "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
      "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
      "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
      "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."
      "Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[MightyYar]

I love Ben's wisdom, but this quote is being so overused and so often poorly used that it is being diminished. The really funny thing is, the original appearance of this quote criticizing the Quakers for not accepting guns when they were being attacked by natives. The "essential liberty" he is referring to is in this case firearms. :) I'm simplifying of course, but I need to stay funny.

The original quote from 1755 is:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

He was actually talking about a collection of people who were living on the frontier, and my comment is a gross simplification... it was apparently well-received because he used it many times throughout the pre-revolutionary and revolutionary periods, in many different contexts.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[raddan]

There are no "inherent rights". Sure, there was a lot of hand-waving by people like Hobbes and the Founding Fathers and others about there being "God-given" rights and so forth; but I'm sure it was just a bit of rhetoric since the theological argument had so much more weight back then. If you take the idea of a secular state to it's logical extreme-- we trade for those rights. We trade in responsibility, duty, and cash. Every one of those "God-given" rights that we now enjoy was paid for in suffering, either in war, or protest, or court battle, or legislation-- by somebody. Over the years we've "chopped out" what the state cannot do, because people in power almost always want total control. If these rights are indeed God-given, well, God didn't help us very much, did he?

Sure, roads have been around for a long time. But is that really a good counter argument? I mean, the parent poster pointed out that this is not even an implict contract-- you pay tax on your vehicle, you license it and yourself for travel on the road. Those documents mean something whether you choose to believe it or not. If you want to walk down the sidewalk, unlicensed, go right ahead. No one will stop you. But if you want to drive on a road that must be maintained and patrolled by safety officers, you need to accept some tradeoffs, because it ain't your road.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[AHumbleOpinion]

Roads have existed long before cars and used by horse, carriage, and other methods of transportation for millenia.

And many were private or otherwise non-government owned, or simply an information evolution of natural trails. Things are a little more complicated than you suggest given the state purchase of land, or seizure through eminent domain, and state construction of roads.

I can see where people come from, given that today's modern vehicles are far more heavy and faster than those older methods - so there are safety concerns; but let's not forget that we do have an inherent and essential right to travel through the methods available to us. Horse & carriage is really available any more. Vehicles are. It's more of a right, than a privilege, than you may realize.

I understand your sentiment, but the courts have ruled regarding the operation of motor vehicles on public roads. Registration and licensing has passed constitutional challenges. Bicycles, mass transit, etc provide a sufficient opportunity for travel.

Also, remember that the Constitution (in the US) grants only a specific set of rights/abilities to the federal government (intra-state, and external activities), the states (within their borders, and according to their Constitution which must be similar to the it), and releases all else to the people.

Not quite. The Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government, and leaves the rest to the states' discretion. The state constitutions does not need to be similar, merely compatible.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[Jorgandar]

Oh, is it a "privledge" now? That's funny how you so whole-heartedly believe what the government tells you. So if the govt wanted to take away that "privledge" at any time, for any reason, could they? After all, its not a right. What if they didn't like your name and put you on a "no-road" list, and took away your "privledge". What would you be saying then? "Well, it's a privledge and not a right. So i guess i have to live with it."

Privledge my butt. Driving is a RIGHT, SO LONG as you meet certain minimum legal/safety requirements and do not break the law. Just like freedom is a RIGHT, so long as you do not break the law and get thrown in jail. This is not a privledge.

Do you actually think about this kind of nonsense?

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, is it a "privledge" now?"

No, it always has been.

"That's funny how you so whole-heartedly believe what the government tells you."

Funny how you think people aren't able to come to conclusions on their own. Says a lot about you, and while it may be true for you, you sound pretty fucking stupid assuming it's true for the rest of us.

"Driving is a RIGHT, SO LONG as you meet certain minimum legal/safety requirements"

Which means it's a privilege, rights are inherent.

"Do you actually think about this kind of nonsense?"

Obviously more than you do.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[dashslotter]

The politicians sold you on the "driving is privilege, not a right" bullcrap. They did that to make it easier to take your rights away from you. Given the need to commute to earn a living, and the lack of viable public transit (think SoCal), it's absolutely a right to drive, don't let them tell you otherwise, even if you did sign a contract that says otherwise.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[tame1]

I would have to go even farther. Our cars are our property. I don't recall anything in the constitution regarding needing any government's approval to use my own property, and in my opinion, the State has no authority to demand license plates, registration (property taxes by another name) or any of that hoopla. Telling me I cannot drive is Unlawful Taking, and is forbidden in the Constitution. The most they can do is require that I be over 18 (i.e. a citizen). Once I reach 18 and am a citizen in my own right, the State has no authority over my property. Call me an anarchist, but that is how I interpret the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the supporting documents (letters and notes, etc.) written by the framers. And yes, I actually read them. I wish more people did.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[Jorgandar]

Weak. All you did was take out non-points in my arguement and didnt actually address any of the points im making, because, perhaps, you're wrong.

You dont quite get the difference i'm making between "privledge" and right. Rights are inherent so long as you don't break the law. "Privledges" (in theory) are inherent so long as you...dont break the law. Hum....Except we don't call them rights anymore. For what purpose? So people like you will give them up more easily.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[BobMcD]

I regret asking this even as I type it, but without the existence of ""God-given" rights" as you say, are we not then free to entertain ideas such as legal slavery? Unequal sexes? Federal journalism? Mandatory religion? Mandated cell phone outages?

I kind of thought the issue that "all men were created equal" with certain "inalienable rights" was one of the most powerful underpinnings of what made the United States not just some other nation, but the best nation on earth. "By the people, of the people, for the people" and whatnot. What ever happened to THAT idea?

If we're really willing to trade all that away as "hand-waiving", then perhaps it really is time to let the terrorists win. "Live free or die", no?

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[Glock27]

I love Ben's wisdom, but this quote is being so overused and so often poorly used that it is being diminished. Please note the word "essential",

I'm well aware of the word 'essential'. You've misinterpreted the quote. Ben makes no distinction between different 'types' of liberty - he views liberty itself as essential, as important as air. He is simply stating that liberty is more important than safety, period. As in, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

In short, non-essential liberties are excluded by the quote and anonymity while driving is a non-essential liberty, actually a non-existent liberty. We have no right to drive on public roads, it is a privilege. We knowingly enter into a contract in order to exercise that privilege. Our cars must be registered and display a unique identifier, the license plate. We are required to be licensed and must present that license upon request. Furthermore, OnStar is voluntary and has positive benefits, any good contract should, such as notifying rescue personnel of an accident's location. Ben's quote is quite inappropriate here.

Once again you've missed the point. The infraction here is not one regarding identity, it's regarding potentially having private conversations monitored without any warning having been given that such a thing is even possible. I'm quite sure the courts support an expectation of privacy for conversations within a personal vehicle. I own an OnStar vehicle, and I assure you no one ever mentioned that my conversations might potentially be monitored with no visible sign. I'm sure some folks are going over the OnStar contract with a fine toothed comb as we speak to see if such a possibility is mentioned. In a similar vein, I'm sure plenty of cell owners are questioning the legality of their devices ALL being clandestine listening devices.

There's a difference between knowing your calls may be tapped, and finding out that your cell phone may have been bugging off-air conversations with no visible sign. Just as in 1984 where the TV could watch you - and couldn't be turned off.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[AHumbleOpinion]

I can see where people come from, given that today's modern vehicles are far more heavy and faster than those older methods - so there are safety concerns; but let's not forget that we do have an inherent and essential right to travel through the methods available to us. Horse & carriage is really available any more. Vehicles are. It's more of a right, than a privilege, than you may realize.

I live in SoCal and have commuted vast distances for various jobs. I *could* have used public transportation, bus to train to bus. However I have not because it is more comfortable and convenient to drive myself. Before I had a drivers license I took the bus all over town, once I got that license I *had* to drive. This same bias/perception continued into adulthood, and it remains a preference not a reality. As much as I enjoy and prefer my car, driving it on a public road remains a convenience not a necessity.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note the word "essential", Ben put that word in there for a reason. [...] In short, non-essential liberties are excluded by the quote and anonymity while driving is a non-essential liberty, actually a non-existent liberty.

I don't know. If I talk about my beautiful fiancée, it would be disingenuous to say I had multiple fiancées and was talking about only the beautiful one.

Furthermore, Franklin uses 'liberty' singular, not plural. Does it make sense to say there are multiple liberties, but only one is essential?

Of course, I agree that people on slashdot have driven that quote into the ground; it may as well be "won't someone think of the children".

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[Anonymous Coward]

This is correct. You can drive all you want with no license on private property with permission of the owner. You don't even have to be 18 years old. The government has absolutely nothing to say about it, unless you're making enough noise or other pollution to be a nuisance to other people.

The public roads are a shared resource best managed by government authority -- hence the driver licensing system. Licensing and policing wouldn't even be necessary there if cars weren't so damned dangerous. You don't need a license to ride a bicycle or a horse.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[Abcd1234]

Please note the word "essential", Ben put that word in there for a reason. His words were carefully crafted and extraneous words were not left in. In short, non-essential liberties are excluded by the quote and anonymity while driving is a non-essential liberty, actually a non-existent liberty

Err, you're misreading things, here, I think. Just to repeat, the original quote is:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You're suggesting that "essential" is specializing the word "liberty", selecting a subset of the group of liberties, rather than simply describing the concept. I disagree. If he really meant only "essential liberties", he would have wrote that:

"They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Or:

"They that can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But no, he wrote of "essential liberty"... ie, liberty, which is itself essential.

Now, that's not to say I disagree with the rest of your post. The idea that privacy in your car on the road is a right at all is, I think, quite silly. You're in a public place, and no one should expect the right to privacy in a public venue. However, I still believe you are misreading the quote.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[raddan]

There are plenty of reasons to believe that slavery, legally-enforced inequality, state-sponsored religions and so on are not beneficial to a state or its citizens, without having to rely on a theological argument. Mill's utilitarianism, for example, provides such a framework. There have been many refinements to that philosophical framework since then. Kant's categorical imperative is another. I think it would be a mistake to think that only a religion can provide a solid moral grounding for law. In fact, I think it is a mistake to believe that religion is even a good grounding for law.

I suspect that few of the Founding Fathers truly believed that "all men are created equal". As a pragmatic matter, do we even believe that now? You'd have to be quite the idealist. In the 18th century, this must have been just as apparent as it is now. However, the phrase serves as an important legal principle, and I think that if you expand that phrase to mean "all men are created equal before the law", then you really have a useful touchstone. Unfortunately, the "inalienable rights" that the Constitution speaks of have never been regarded inalienable, even in theory. The United States has a long legal history of narrowing those rights. For example-- you have the right to assemble, but you cannot do so in front of a place like an abortion clinic throughout much of the U.S. You have the right to bear arms, but only certain kinds, and in certain places, and doing so is highly regulated. Rarely has the legal scope of the "rights" enumerated in either the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights been expanded.

Look, I'm not saying that the phrases aren't important, and I'm not saying that the legal concepts themselves aren't important, either. I quite like my country, and I think that our government has many advantages over many other governments. But it certainly has room for improvement, and I can recognize rhetoric when I see it. There's a lot of rhetoric in our founding documents. I'm certain that there was a lot of legal idealism at the time of our country's founding, but we need to keep in mind that these founders were also people, and more importantly politicians and members of the empowered class. They did a marvelous job at balancing their future government, but modern people have forgotten that many of had an interest in maintaining the status quo (e.g., legal slavery). The legal progress that has happened since then is the result of the hard work of many concerned Americans throughout the years-- NOT as a direct result of some fabulous, supposedly "God-given" right. In almost every case, the overturning of those legally-enforced wrongs resulted in profound legal, religious, and social crises, but in many, many cases, for the better. You don't need God to tell you that.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[AHumbleOpinion]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." You're suggesting that "essential" is specializing the word "liberty", selecting a subset of the group of liberties, rather than simply describing the concept. I disagree. If he really meant only "essential liberties", he would have wrote that: "They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Or: "They that can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." But no, he wrote of "essential liberty"... ie, liberty, which is itself essential.

I think your parsing of the language is subjective, overly dependent on a narrow interpretation of the singular. Consider that there is essential liberty and non-essential liberty, as there is hot food and cold food. Now add to that the fact that writing styles and speech patterns have changed over the centuries and I think your argument is even more precarious.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[visualight]

We have no right to drive on public roads, it is a privilege.

Please stop telling people that. I have the right to travel on the public roads in an automobile, there are several court cases to back me up on this ( nope, you search ), but most obviously, my RIGHT to drive on the public roads cannot be taken away or denied without due process, just like all rights.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[tehdaemon]

I have to differ on your interpretation of Franklin's message.

First, here is the whole thing link

There is no mention of Quakers in there. This is about disputes between the Penn. Assembly and the Royal Governor. It seems that the Governor was rejecting bills from the Assembly in an arbitrary manner, and the gist of it seems that the Governor was trying to get more control, and refusing any bill funding a defence against the indians on the frontier if he didn't get it. The 'essential liberties' are those the Governor wants to take away, and the 'safety' would have come from the extra war funding.

On the other hand, this looks like it was an established quote even then, either one he came up with earlier, or someone else's statement that he was using. One that other people would recognise.

T

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[MightyYar]

But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them. You certainly seem to be right. Shit I'm getting old. I'm clearly confusing this quote with one of his others - he wasn't their biggest fan.

It's still essentially about guns, though... my joke still works. :)

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[wild_berry]

Don't forget that William Penn was a Quaker and that the non-violent 'testimony'/lifestyle of the Quakers would have had some impact upon the ethos of Pennsylvania.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[MightyYar]

Yeah, that's why I think Franklin was jaded. He even relates a story about William Penn's hypocrisy in his autobiography. The story is that William Penn was traveling with a servant on a ship. Another, possibly hostile ship approached and the alarm was sounded. Penn refused to fight and went below deck, but his servant stayed and manned a gun. The ship turned out to be friendly, and Penn than admonished the servant for fighting. The servant said something like, "Master, I am your servant - if you did not want me to fight, why did you not order me to stand down?". The implication being that Penn, when threatened, was happy to have someone fight on his behalf even as he claimed pacifism.

There are a few other "hypocritical Quaker" stories in there as well.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[wild_berry]

I'm not surprised. Noone's perfect, and it's easy to see the dirt on those with so obviously different standards like Quakers.

Re:Note the word "essential" in Ben's quote

[MightyYar]

Oh, I'm not picking on the Friends - hell, I'm from the Philly area and my uncle was a Quaker (weird funeral, by the way...). Though I do agree with Franklin that their pacifism was kind of a joke. He still managed to raise Quaker armies.

Re:It wasn't insightful yesterday when you posted

[gstoddart]

I couldn't care less about your opinions on Islam, stop spamming the fucking board, douche.

Oh, the irony of it all.

Look at the bright side

[blanks]

If the Afghanistan goverment follows through with the request then it will prove that the Afghanistan goverment is supporting the taliban.

But really, do they really expect the goverment to basicaly turn off a standard and important utility in their country? Why not turn off electricity so they can't see the lights on in taliban members houses?

Re:This isn't about being track by their cellphone

[Frosty Piss]

This demand is about proving the Taliban is still relevant to the population of Afghanistan and capable of influencing their lives.

There is a perception that these are a few dozen or even a hundred guys up in the mountains in caves. But outside the major cities, in the smaller towns, and most of the rural areas, these extremists still wield a lot of power. And, if you watch the news, you know that they still send people into crowded shopping areas to blow themselves and those around them, to where ever it is that martyrs go.

The Taliban is still to this day an active and dangerous group intent on forcing their extreme views on the world. In that respect, they have a lot in common with GWB and his junta.

Their behavior is perfectly "rational"

[AHumbleOpinion]

They seem to have a history of preferring others to change rather than change themselves.

That is perfectly "rational" behavior when you are acting precisely as God has "commanded". ;-)

Reverse Psychology?

[Pope Jimbo]

If you were a taliban fighter and you were upset because you couldn't detonate any of your suicide bombers via a cell phone because the coverage in your country was so horrendous, how would you get the cell infrastructure upgraded? 1) Call government and cell providers and ask them to spend more money on said infrastructure so your fighters could operate more effectively? 2) Issue crazy sounding demand that cell towers are evil and must not be built (or operated at night)? I think #2 would probably pay off in spades. Once they hear that the taliban wants less cell phone coverage, the coalition forces are going to be throwing up towers everywhere. The best part of the plan, is that issuing a crazy threat like this won't necessarily tip off your enemies because they are used to demands like this from you. A third possibility is that the taliban didn't really issue the threat themselves. Instead it was issued by a few (OK, the only) tech support workers in Kabul who are sick and tired of being paged late at night.

Nights and Weekends.

[Radon360]

No, no, no. You don't understand. Tracking is free and unlimited during off-peak hours. They're just trying to make it really expensive for the U.S. government to pay for all that tracking during peak daytime hours.

Hate

[eulernet]

Mod me down, but I'm always surprised by the amount of hate US has against the talibans.

Come on, the talibans try to free their country from foreign occupation, and they believe that their cause is right.
They are warriors, not kamikazes that kill innocent people by exploding themselves.
In France, this was called "Resistance".

BTW, what are the US troops doing in Afghanistan after all these years ?

Re:Hate

[tjstork]

Mod me down, but I'm always surprised by the amount of hate US has against the talibans.

Taliban are a bunch of Pakistani trained people that took over Afghanistan after the Russian withdrawal and turned it into a medieval butcher shop. they publicly gunned down people, censored everything, harassed and abused women, destroyed priceless cultural landmarks, drove their people in backwards illiterate oppression, but other than that, I guess they were ok.

We should have nuked Afghanistan.

Re:Hate

[dave420]

"We should have nuked Afghanistan"??

Re:Hate

[jobsagoodun]

Sad thing is we bankrolled them while the Ruskies occupied and thereafter. Nothing like making a rod for your own back.

Back on topic - this is probably good news, as it smacks of desparation.

Re:Hate

[shutdown -p now]

You mean, being nuked is better than being gunned down?

Also, you understand that the "Northern Alliance" is not really any better when it comes to gunning down people and abusing women, except that they do it more often for the sake of fun and profit, while Taliban usually did so for religious reasons?

One guy, an Afghani refuge living in NZ, told me once: "The Taliban were loonies, but at least they had law, cruel as it was, and they made it known, and you knew that you'd normally be okay as long as you stick to it. You could live your lives. But now, the country is run by bandits, and there's no law at all - you'd get robbed, tortured, or killed (and women, raped) just because you might have money or something valuable, because you look wrong (i.e. Pashtuni), because they've had a bad day, or because they were bored and wanted to have some fun."

I'm not saying the West shouldn't get involved and try to fix this mess. I'm rather glad we did, originally. But the wrong way to do that was to pick one side from several and help them - because there weren't any "good guys" on either side. Now, it was an easy choice to make, since that meant that NATO didn't have to put troops on the ground when it was really hot - the Afghanis themselves did the dirty job, and took the toll. But easy choices are often wrong. And handing sovereignity over to that mob, now what a joke! And with predictable outcome, too, now that Shari'a courts are doing well again, this time on a fully consitutional basis:

• Chapter I, Article 3: "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.";
• Chapter II, Article 54: "The state adopts necessary measures to ensure physical and psychological well being of family, especially of child and mother, upbringing of children and the elimination of traditions contrary to the principles of sacred religion of Islam."
• Chapter VII, Article 130: "When there is no provision in the Constitution or other laws regarding ruling on an issue, the courts' decisions shall be within the limits of this Constitution in accord with the Hanafi jurisprudence and in a way to serve justice in the best possible manner."
• Chapter X, Article 1: "The provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime of the Islamic Republic cannot be amended."

And there aren't just words on the paper, either: they have already been applied in practice to pronounce death sentences under Shari'a. There are a few high-profile we know about and intervene, but how many we don't (and which are most likely fulfilled).

Re:Hate

[mjwx]

Remember that it was the US that gave the mujahadeen the weapons and money to fight the Soviets and the CIA never did check on who got those weapons so long as they were pointing them at the soviets, as a consequence the religious maniacs got all the weapons and still had them when the Soviets left. Indirectly the US put the Taliban into power and I find it ironic that US forces were occasionally shot at with 1970's and 1980's vintage equipment.

Nuclear strikes are never an option. The amount of weapons required would have caused enough fallout would have killed everyone from Burma to Israel, but that OK because they're only Jews, Muslims, Hindu's and Buddhists right (hint: I'm being sarcastic)?

Re:Hate

[tjstork]

You mean, being nuked is better than being gunned down

You make an argument that says, at first, the Taliban are religious, and the other guys are not, but then you go and essentially the entire country is filled with religious fruitcakes, otherwise, they wouldn't have the Constitution that they have.

So really, what it boils down to, is that, yeah, the entire population is in fact the problem. So therefor, even if a morally wrong choice, wouldn't nuclear weapons be an option? If Shariah law is evil, but everyone wants it, then, doesn't that make everyone over there evil?

Honestly, the USA should have just nuked Kandahar, and not invaded either country. It satisfies domestic lust for revenge against arabs post 9/11, and keeps the USA from being entangled into two wars of liberation for a people that want to enslave.

yes I think you are

[Quadraginta]

Missing something, that is. The problem, as someone pointed out above, is more likely that informants are phoning the Americans to tell them where the Taliban are, which information might be followed up with a Predator overflight and a missile up the ass.

The US military obviously doesn't need commercial cell-phones to communicate amongst themselves, and, while it's certainly possible in principle to find someone using a cell phone, it's a fair amount of work and he's got to be a pretty high-value target, as well as dumb enough to stick around in the same cell after calling. It's much cheaper and easier to pay off some mistreated or misunderstood underling -- there's always one -- to betray his masters by phoning in their whereabouts when they're up to something he knows the Americans would find interesting.

Never underestimate the cost-benefit ratio of "humint" versus "elint."

How is it happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm betting this is how it's being done:

Soldier 1: Hey, call that Taliban number you found and ask them where they are.
Soldier 2: OK.
Soldier 2: [dials number]
    Taliban: Hello?
Soldier 2: We were wondering where you are right now?
    Taliban: I'm at Abdul's lunch counter. Why?
Soldier 2: Oh, no reason, just wondering.
Soldier 2: [hangs up]
Soldier 2: Ok, let's go, we know where he is.

The US Military will just put up...

[Anonymous Coward]

...their own temporary, and mobile, cellphone mini towers programmed to spoof the Afghan towers that are powered down, and then be able to simply and rapidly p0wn the cellphones that were left powered up, and triangulate their positions within seconds, and also perhaps even give them dialtone and the ability to make and receive calls on a totally 100% monitored and recorded man-in-the-middle intercept.

Re:The US Military will just put up...

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD parent UP

Anything to stop the telemarketing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now THERE is one sure-fire way to get rid of the Taliban. Attack them with telemarketing until they commit suicide. Either that or they redirect the Jihad to counter-attack the telemarketers. Keep pitching those time share condos in Kabul until we get a result one way or the other. A win-win as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Anything to stop the telemarketing!

[petermgreen]

http://web.archive.org/web/20021130135854/http://politicalhumor.com/HumorPics/NoTalibanAnsMach.mp3

No, its not easy, they have a legit complaint ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

Isn't it as easy as turning the cell phone off? Maybe Airplane mode?

No, it is not that easy, they have a "legitimate" complaint from their perspective. The "problem" is *not* their people and their cell phones. The "problem" is that ordinary citizen are reporting suspicious nighttime activities. Their are essentially trying to turn off the tips hotline.

offtopic: tags

[mapkinase]

"religionofpeace, thatsnotfair, lol, justturnitoff"

Some tags are assign by /. editors, some are assigned by users (mostly idiots who do not understand a concept of tag).

Is there a way to see only editor-assigned tags?

Also, if I pick !stupidtag, I would like not to see "stupidtag" in my view as well.

"lol" as a tag? Give me a break... /. is becoming more and more like digg.

Re:offtopic: tags

[Anonymous Coward]

Dugg!

Turning off the towers

[Kiralan]

This may backfire on them. If they are anything like US cell phones,when they do not receive a signal from a tower, they kick into a higher power transmit mode in search of any tower. If anything, this would make them even more detectable. Also, what would prevent the 'opposition' from setting up other better-protected/secured towers, which they would then connect to?

Re:Turning off the towers

[Anonymous Coward]

No they don't. The towers are sending a continuous stream with system info, paging info, etc. The phones listen and find a compatible system (home system, then roam), then register with that system by transmitting. They DO NOT transmit to find a tower, they LISTEN, and then transmit only when they find a suitable system.

Denmark has nothing on Slashdot!

[BForrester]

Publish this!

Rather doubtful.

[Radon360]

Unless your phone gets pwned or otherwise modified, every phone I've encountered shuts down the radio circuit when powered down to conserve battery life. If this weren't the case, your phone wouldn't have to a take a short moment to search for service when first powered up. I don't know of any phones that will "wake themselves up" on a regular basis once powered down, either.

Your phone can be tracked when it is on and you're not using it, since it communicates (transmits/receives) with the network on a regular basis when not in use. The eavesdropping without some software modification is rather questionable as well.

I think someone's been watching too many movies or episodes of 24.

May all Talibs Face this Fate

[squidguy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_Dudayev#Assassination

Wrong Request

[GatheringDust]

Wouldnt it just be easier to ask the Americans to stop bombing them? Then they could still call their girlfriends after the days usual activities... oh wait, about the girlfriends...

Proof?

[mosb1000]

Is there any proof to back-up this claim? Obviously, in order to be tracked your phone has to give off a cell phone signal. If it's true that your phone does this even when it's "off", it should be pretty easy to tell. I haven't found any legitimate sources to either prove or disprove your claim.

Empty threat

[sdhankin]

If cell phones weren't important to them, they would discard them and find other means to communicate. So we can safely assume they depend on them.

They are threatening to blow up towers if their demands aren't met, which would eliminate the cell service they depend upon.

Clearly, they will either be cutting of their own noses to spite their faces, or the threat is without substance.

Wagers anyone?

Yep...

[Svartalf]

As long as the phones are on, they're going to try to link up to a tower, which causes a definite
beacon-like behavior that can be tracked with a portable cell site or the modern signal warfare hardware
the US military already has.

Heh... Shows you how clueless they are. The US military has gear that can track cell conversations
and their general location of origin, along with pretty much any RF comm gear you can imagine, in a
theater of operations.

Re:Yep...

[networkBoy]

I was just thinking, the army has better gear than I can get but:
Average Cell tower uses 3 120deg antennas on a mast for 360deg coverage. In dense high volume areas they use 6x60deg antennas. There are 30, 15, and 5 deg antennas also available. just ring a mast with 5 deg antennas to get a bearing then use a .5deg dish to get a line, finally with two (preferably three) of these stations spaced reasonably far apart you can all in a strike with high certainty as to the location of the signal (and that's with consumer hardware).
-nB

Emergency response, not triangulation

[tonan]

It's been mentioned earlier, but this tracking and espionage has to do with the local populace being able to report Taliban activity, not US (and other joint) forces tracking their current location. Because there is no landline infrastructure, they can prevent the people of Afghanistan from being able to communicate with the outside world by simply turning off the cell towers.

But if that is true, then Coalition forces would not have to wade through a bunch of cell phone chatter to see who's talking to who (via radios and other stuff). Only the bad guys will be talking at night...

Simple -Kill service to Taliban phones at night

[Glasswire]

Surely this is simply a misunderstanding on the part of users who do not wish to use mobile phones at night themselves who think that it is necessary to shut down the towers and take away everyone's service. Ideally, the Afgani telcos will understand who the noctually-sensitive customers are and simply shut off service to THOSE handsets at night. In any case, Any user that are discourtious enough to wish ALL users to be off the air at night won't be able to tell the difference between their phone being unable to connect and the entire tower being shutdown.

Seriously, the Talaban are caught in a contradiction here. Either they need the towers operational for their own purposes during the day (in which case, blowing up the towers is counter productive) or they don't need them, in which case why ask the telcos to do the nightly shutdown and simply blow them up anyway. I suspect the answer is that destroying the towers would be incredibly unpopular and there's a internal struggle going on between the luddite faction in the Taliban that wants to blow them anyway and the more rational faction that realizes this will be a huge PR mistake.

Comically easy to subvert.

[Hillgiant]

Does the Taliban really think there is something special about the cell phone towers? Sure, shut them down at night. Then fly an AWACS over suspected Taliban areas with its own "cell tower" of hardware and software. Hell, I bet you could package it into a Predator if you felt like it. Taliban operates under the mistaken impression that their communications are safe.

Re:Comically easy to subvert.

[Howler]

"ummm...yeah, sure, we'll turn off the towers for you *snicker*....please ignore the the two AH-64Bs that are loaded to the teeth."

As someone has already mentioned, there are AWACS, there are also many other ways to monitor movement and such, many of which I am sure are not disclosed to the public. For some reason, I have this notion that satellites may be involved along with predator vehicles and such...either way, I don't really like the, "$>kill -9 cellserivce", I'd much rather see "$>kill -9 taliban_all".

Re:Comically easy to subvert.

[Hillgiant]

Sadly, the taliban_all seems to fork processes faster than they can be killed. =[

how to lose the war: piss off the local population

[peter303]

And taking away their cell phones might just do that. Maybe can can force people to wear beards and veils. But some things go too far.

But uhh...

[kennedy]

...didn't we topple the taliban? take them out of power? I mean c'mon - the current administration wouldn't LIE to us... would they? :P

Re:It wasn't insightful yesterday when you posted

[Anonymous Coward]

"I couldn't care less about your opinions on Islam, stop spamming the fucking board, douche.

Oh, the irony of it all."

Pot, kettle, you're a fucking moron, etc.

I can see it now.....

[8127972]

"Can you hear me now?"

Demands?

[roberthead]

Wait. Six years later, the Taliban is in a position to make demands?

In Taliban territory Internet comes in a ditch

[wsanders]

Yeah forget about shiny new wtubes, in Taliban territory the internet comes to you in a muddy ditch.

The first 3 Rules for...

[snowful]

...the New Fascism.

1. Confiscate all firearms with all people/groups not in agreement with you.

2. Confiscate or disable all cell phones with those people/groups not in agreement with you.

3. When no one complies with demands 1 and 2, throw a tantrum while hiding in a hole in the ground and shitting next to your bedroll.

Well, the headline is confused

[SmallFurryCreature]

This is one of those super rare, once in a lifetime occassions where Slashdot gets the headline wrong. I know, I know, difficult to believe but true nonetheless.

A lot of the comments suggest that the taliban is afraid of the cellphones they use being tracked by the US. This does not seem to be the case.

Rather the taliban objects to the fact that the cellphone network is being used as a communication network for the US to gather intelligence on the taliban. Simply put, people call on their cellphone to tell about the taliban.

In effect this would be like a gang of criminals demanding that 911 be taken down because people keep calling it to report on them.

About half the comments already get this right, they seem to want to take out a communication network that allows people to inform the western forces about their activity at night.

What is amusing about this is that obviously the Taliban with all their anti-western rethoric still needs this very western tech to be operational part of the time for some reason, else they would just demand the towers be torn down and launch attacks against the towers themselves makingthe network go dark 24/7.

For some reason I don't think they "allow" the network to beactive during daylight is out of concern for the common public, obviously they need it for their own purposes.

Neither do they strictly want it to go down to stop US forces or orgnanised "spies". Either would just use other means of communication. No, they want the general public to be incapable of making a call at night, when the taliban is most active.

This is in a way hopefull news, it suggests rather strongly to me that the general public is a bit to fond in taliban eyes of calling the supposedly hated occupier whenever they show up.

After all if the taliban was popular among the common public then this cellphone spy network would work both ways, why is the taliban prepared to give up the chance for any freedom loving afghani to call the taliban and inform on the invader? Don't they want to get a call telling them a convoy is on the move?

This is a bit of a subtle conclusion on my part, but on the whole you don't destroy a bit of infra-structure when you still need it. You don't blow up the bridge your forces still need and you do NOT disrupt a communication service unless you have no need for it. I think the Taliban uses the phone network therefor occasionally to communicate but does no longer have the support that would allow it to use the phone network to receive intelligence of its own during the night.

It will be intresting to see what happens next. Is the taliban really willing to disrupt communications for the common public (the occupying forces don't need it) AND themselves to avoid their activities being reported by the common public? If the towers remain up and are not assaulted I think that proves just how feeble the taliban has become, radio's ain't that expensive to buy, why is the taliban so depended on the cellphone network to wish it to remain active during the day?

Another Concern/Giving In

[Gallenod]

The Taliban may be concerned that US forces are using the cell towers as a passive rader system to track their movements, as described here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_42/b3854113.htm

Afgan cellular companies have three choices: 1) keep the towers running 24 hours a day, 2) give into the Taliban, or 3) say they're not going to comply but then contract AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint to manage their systems, which in terms of service pretty would much achieve the same result as option 2.

Hey Taliban ...

[anup_at_mac]

So what happens to my "Unlimited-Nights" ..... you insensitive clods.

Predator Plan w/Free Nights and Weekends

[overThruster]

I don't get these guys. They're paying for the Predator plan with free nights and weekends. They might as well use the service!

Re:ISLAM IS THE CANCER! NUKES ARE THE ANSWER!

[soccer_Dude88888]

Just to be fair I'll cite you some of your precious Biblical verses.

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations,

Back atcha

[kahei]

So, you live in an area most of whose people have decided that beer shouldn't be sold before noon on Sunday. But that doesn't suit you. You'd prefer it to be changed -- you want the world around you adjusted to fit your way of thinking. Tough luck.

Those laws *do* serve the community. Whether they make sense I don't know, but the community opted for them. Whether the community are happier this way or not, whether they know what they're doing or not I don't know, but they picked what to do, and if that doesn't suit you that doesn't mean everyone *else* has to change and do it *your* way. Maybe you don't share their religious views. Maybe you don't spend your Sunday the same way as them. That doesn't mean they have to do things differently for your benefit.

It's ironic that you can use this as an example of *other people's* self-interestedness and closed-mindedness. You're right, those things aren't the exclusive territory of muslim extremists; suburbanites can be pretty darn focused on themselves too. Of course, not many devout Muslims would talk about unbelievers with quite the same lofty scorn that you use in your second-to-last paragraph, there.

The rest of the world really *isn't* asking you to compensate for their stupidity. But you seem to ask a heck of a lot from the rest of the world. Not everyone is the same as you and not everyone -- not the Taliban, not regular people who happen to have a religion, not your local town council -- has to be like you. They can write laws that they think protect their children if they darn well want to.

Re:Back atcha

[erroneus]

I'm guessing you agree with blue laws for some reason.

1. Do you think it is "fair" or "just" to impose a religiously based rule as law for everyone?
2. Specifically, do you think it is "fair" or "just" to restrict commerce based on a religiously based rule?

Just to be clear, my ideal for law making is based on the notion that my rights end where other peoples rights begin. If a law runs afowl of that ideal, then I can't say that it's based on ideals of fairness or equality. And in the case of being able to buy beer on a Sunday morning, I'd seriously like to hear an argument as to why that's a good idea that doesn't involve religion and why it's good for the general population.

All I ask from the rest of the world as that they give the same respect they expect to be given. Perhaps it is a lot to ask.

Re:Back atcha

[Peter Mork]

Those laws *do* serve the community.

I disagree. In many cases, we are being tyrannized by our ancestors. The current generation is much more permissive of sex, drugs (including alcohol) and rock 'n' roll than was society fifty (or a hundred) years ago. Laws that were perfectly reasonable back then have been preserved out of inertia. Consider strip clubs, for example. Which politician is going to go on record saying, "I think strip clubs aren't so bad. Let's allow more of them in our community." It doesn't matter that the majority of the population would agree with this sentiment. A very vocal minority can ensure that the restrictions are never lifted. Thus, laws that once served the community now serve to repress the community (e.g., so-called blue laws). What once was opted for may no longer be sensible. Unfortunately, we seem to be regressing with respect to individual rights.

Re:Back atcha

[Pfhorrest]

The difference is that he is not demanding that beer be served on Sundays - he is demanding that beer be permitted to be sold on Sundays. The religious fanatics who push these blue laws demand that the world be changed to suit their way of thinking inasmuch as they demand that other people do or not do certain things. The person to whom you are responding does not, because he is not demanding that people do or not do anything, other than not make such demands.

Wouldn't it be funny...

[hesaigo999ca]

It would be soooo funny if this was a media applied American move to find the Taliban...

BUSH: So you are saying let's tell them to all turn off their phone as not to be able
            to track their movement? How does that work?

CHANEY: Well this is why I am vice president and you are only the president.
                By telling them to do this as if I was their leader sending the message,
                we will know who all the Taliban are by seeing who turns of their phones between this time.

BUSH: Thank god you are on our side dick!

Heh

[retro128]

Nice to know the Taliban has regained enough power in Afghanistan where they can make such demands. We've half-assed Afghanistan, we've half-assed Iraq, and we are going to lose both. I don't know if history will ever figure out how such a simpleton ended up doing two terms in office.

Re:Isn't it as easy as PRedator?

[davidsyes]

The mobile tower probably is and HAS been a squadron of Predator (or unnamed, undisclosed, covered/black-ops) drones.

Looks to me like the Taliban will pull an Iraq and set up a mesh radar to find these drones. They might even use one-time microwave jammers to fry the sky-bugs...

Or, they can just send the DIA/CIA on wild goose chases. Put the suspected phones in vehicles that make regular and irregular but fixed runs. Deliver critical messages the old fashion way: Carrier Pigeon. That bird will be more able to evade the predator, since unless the Predator has a super synthetic aperture radar, the pigeon's natural features as natural predator evasion coloring/maneuverability might help it. Question is: how to train the pigeon in SERE: Survival, Escape, Resistance & Evasion, AKA, "lose the tail".

Might make movie of the week...

We should oblige them

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I think a wise mode of action should be to agree with them and turn off the cell towers. Thus the taliban would be lulled into some false sense of security. Then use mobile truck mounted antenna to triangulate and locate their handsets and bomb them to their 72 waiting virgins in heaven.

Roads

[thegameiam]

Roads have existed long before cars and used by horse, carriage, and other methods of transportation for millenia. Yet, only recently have we tried this mantra of "it's not a right, it's a privilege".

Go further back than all that: it used to be that roads were built by individual rulers or individual societies, and there were LOTS of toll roads - the tolls did things like finance the soldiers who would protect them. The word you're looking for is path not road.

In the USA, roads are built by the state or private individuals, and the state or private individuals are allowed to place conditions on the public use of those roads. Typical conditions would be "use a liscenced vehicle" or "pay a toll." If one is unwilling to comply with those conditions, and attempt to use the road anyway, then one can be hauled off to jail. Sounds like it's not quite as inalienable right as you implied...

no...

[Reality Master 201]

The problem is that you lead off with a pre-emptory attack on anyone that might consider Islamic culture conducive to the breeding of these crazies

No. What I did was call people who are willing to hold up such an article as being emblematic of the whole of Islam (by tagging it "religionofpeace") bigots.

My point was that tagging the article in that way is a condemnation of Islam, in its entirety, with no nuance. Tagging the article with the sarcastic "religionofpeace" moniker is not a way of criticizing the Islamic world's attitudes towards its radicals - it's an outright condemnation of the entire religion based on a small, radical subgroup.

... and you don't - in your own words - personally condemn them.

No, I didn't, but BFD. My failure to explicitly condemn them, however, in no way constitutes approval. I don't really think that a group as crazy and evil as the Taliban needs condemnation every time it's mentioned. My post was targeted specifically at the way discussions of anything involving Islam or Arabs happens on Slashdot.

Re:no...

[keineobachtubersie]

My point was that tagging the article in that way is a condemnation of Islam, in its entirety, with no nuance.

The problem with that is that it is sarcasm, which is by its very nature nuanced.

"Tagging the article with the sarcastic "religionofpeace" moniker is not a way of criticizing the Islamic world's attitudes towards its radicals - it's an outright condemnation of the entire religion based on a small, radical subgroup."

No actually, in my case it's a reaction to the near universal response "it's a religion of peace" when any discussion of violence relating to islam begins. It's an outright condemnation of disingenuous intelectualls, not of muslims. Unless they also spout "it's a religion of peace" as an autonomic response to any criticism of islam.

"My failure to explicitly condemn them, however, in no way constitutes approval."

Yeah, sorry, no. It sometimes does mean approval, in fact it's called "tacit approval" and it appears to your posts.

Read The F***ing Article

[Anonymous Coward]

The Taliban would rather there was NO cell phone communication at all so that the American network of hired spies on the ground couldn't communicate so effectively. BUT they'll accept business hours communication because it's needed for other purposes.

My problem with that . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

it makes me responsible for Pat Robertson. The man advocates assignation. I would also be responsible for people who burn shoot abortion doctors, blow up clinics and set follow on bombs for the police, etc.

Re:It wasn't insightful yesterday when you posted

[gstoddart]

"Oh, the irony of it all."

Pot, kettle, you're a fucking moron, etc.

Ahh, the unbridled wit of an AC. It really does warm the heart.

Go soak your head in your cave, troll.

agreed

[filthpickle]

You might want to do a little reading about the current state of things. Saw an excellent interview with Sarah Chayes on PBS over the weekend. I can't remember what show it was on. She is an American that lives in Afghanistan now, her story is pretty cool http://chayes.blogs.nytimes.com/

The best quote from her was along the lines of 'They have paved the roads in Kanahar, which is great, but if you drive on them you'll be shaken down by the government in the day and the taliban at night.' She said that before the taliban fell that she could drive into Kandahar (when the roads were dirt), but wouldn't dream of doing it now (she was making a point, not saying that they should come back).

She is on the ground there living as a citizen and doesn't think that the taliban is going anywhere anytime soon. Her opinion of the government is that we have replaced the taliban with criminals.

Re:agreed

[baldass_newbie]

She is on the ground there living as a citizen and doesn't think that the taliban is going anywhere anytime soon. Her opinion of the government is that we have replaced the taliban with criminals.

She is also a NY Times reporter and is therefore a partisan hack.
There is NO FUCKING WAY she would have driven the road when the Taliban were in power.
Period.

Re:agreed

[filthpickle]

I won't argue that she's probably a liberal. I don't really care about that stuff so it means nothing to me either way.

What are you basing your second statement on? As I read my post I see that it kind of implies that she was behind the wheel, which is not what she meant. I am sure that she was in the back seat with a veil on.

I saw the interview and don't really understand what she gains by stretching the truth. I believe her, if she's lying then she's duped me. Not the first woman to do it and almost certainly not the last.

I found the interview on pbs' (fantastic) website: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02222008/watch2.html

Re:agreed

[Acer500]

Re: Sarah Chayes

She is also a NY Times reporter and is therefore a partisan hack.
There is NO FUCKING WAY she would have driven the road when the Taliban were in power.
Period. Not to mention, there are fatwas (religious edicts) forbidding women from driving cars in Saudi Arabia (even from sitting in front seats I think), so I guess Afghanistan would be far worse.

That said, what I read from the media and Wikipedia doesn't sound bad, at the very least she's corageous (Peace Corps in Morocco, Kosovo and now Afghanistan??). And I thought most Slashdot readers thought the Government is always composed of criminals to some degree (according to Ayn Rand followers). Add to that a Muslim fundamentalist country, and I'm pretty sure it's not the government I would want - better than before? don't know. But war has a habit of promoting extremists at the expense of the middle-of-the-road types. (slightly OT: that could explain Bush to some degree, even if the US's war is more perceived than real). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Chayes

Re:agreed

[budgenator]

Women don't drive in Traditional Islamic Countries; a few dared to in Saudi Arabia after the shooting started but not after the shooting stopped.

Re:agreed

[ramsun]

Women don't drive in Traditional Islamic Countries; a few dared to in Saudi Arabia after the shooting started but not after the shooting stopped.

They certainly do, in the UAE, in Oman, in Kuwait, in Syria, in Iran, in Iraq (even before you guys invaded it).

In fact the only country where they are not allowed to drive is in Saudi Arabia.

And what do you mean by "in Saudi Arabia before the shooting stopped.." I am aware of no such incident, and I live here.

Re:agreed

[budgenator]

By when the shooting started I was referring to when the coalition forces crossed the boarder from Saudi Arabia into occupied Kuwait to expel the Iraqis forces. I'm surprised and now know better but I assumed that Syria and Iran would be more traditional, the other countries on your list I consider more modernized

In other news....

[Roskolnikov]

The US supports the requests of the Taliban; apparently turning cell towers off has the opposite effect, phones seeking signal will broadcast at full strength while searching, the 5 fold increase in signal strength should allow new cellphone guided missiles to zero in with previously unrecorded accuracy.

The real reason:

[Reddragon220]

Maybe they just hate paying prime-time rates as much as the rest of us?

dude

[circletimessquare]

you're the first person who has me marked as a foe on slashdot that i have marked as a friend on slashdot

you have written my own thoughts better than i could ever write them

Re:dude

[ScentCone]

you're the first person who has me marked as a foe on slashdot that i have marked as a friend on slashdot

Um... Dude back at you. For what it's worth, though, I've never marked anyone as a foe... that was you, who had ME marked as a foe, from some earlier snotting contest that I think we probably were having over copyright issues (knowing me!). Always nice to find some common ground, ain't it?

It's called Night Fighting

[Anonymous Coward]

The Taliban needs to sleep sometime. Meanwhile the US has a lot of practice at night ops. Plus we have a ton of toys outside of night vision goggles to enhance those capabilities. They're just hoping that if people can't tell the US where they are at night, or that without the cell phones up the US can't track them they can get some sleep.

Tactically this makes a lot of sense because they still need easy communication, and radio is a smidge easier to intercept.

RTF

[Anonymous Coward]

TF states that they are concerned that anti-Taliban forces are using cell-phones as a communication medium to engage in tracking and obstruction operations at night - NOT that they are tracking Taliban phone calls. Taliban wants that medium of communication severed - they are asking to kill the network so their phone calls cannot be traced.

Re:RTF

[Mesa MIke]

Kind of sad, isn't it, that the United States Military Forces have to depend on Afghani cell phone service for tactical communications.

Or is that just what the Taliban thinks?

Stupid Taliban

[Nom du Keyboard]

The Real Reason the Taliban want to ban cell phones at night is that they keep forgetting to put theirs on vibrate. Here they are sneaking up on the running dog Crusader American sentry when their brother terrorist gets notice that the latest OBL tirade just got posted to the web. He calls his brother to tell him the joyous (Allah be Praised!) news, the phone goes off, and another terrorist bites the dust. After six years of this happening, some bright Taliban commander finally figured this out and set about solving it in the usual 7th century medieval manner used by those folks. Noisy Twinkie wrappings will certainly be banned from sale as an Insult to Islam next.

you ARE responsible for pat robertson

[circletimessquare]

you are also responsible for the taliban. so is everyone else. what kind of insanity is this? it's the notion that you are responsible for the world you live in. the more people think like that, the better the world is

you, all of us, have to actively fight the scourge of religious fundamentalism in the world. passive acceptance of religious fundamentalism is not a morally or intellectually defensible position. religious fundamentalism is a weed. it must be actively hunted down and destroyed for being the evil it is, or it will spread in our neglect, and strangle us all: bring civilization and progress in decline, and fill the world with ignorance

religious fundamentalism does not disappear on its own. it actively breeds and spreads its hateful ideology. therefore, you must forever more eradicate it. its a simple maintenance function of human civilization, a taking out of the mental trash. if you don't take out the trash, your house begins to stink and becomes unliveable. if religious fundamentalists are not opposed, civilization stagnates and becomes backwards and oppressive and cruel

this is actually a big hurdle for many people. they enjoy the fruits of enlightened society and tolerant ideology, but they are hesitant to defend tolerance, or even admit that it is threatened. they see in the effort to defend enlightenment a seed of the very avarice that must be fought in order to preserve enlightment. and they react to that seed instead of the slobbering monster hellbent on destroying the tolerance they hold so dear

tolerance of intolerance is intolerance by extension. intolerance of intolerance is tolerance by extension

people need to learn this. you must defend civilization form religious fundamentalism. because religious fundamentalism is most certainly hard at work destroying all of the enlightened thought you hold so dear

No need

[commodoresloat]

Once they read about it on slashdot, they'll figure it out.

Isn't that just tough sh*t!

[ChemGeek4501]

"Turn off your cell phone towers so we can't be bombed back into the last century." Right- that should happen....

you are responsible for your world

[circletimessquare]

you are responsible for the taliban

no really, you are

and so is everyone else

the more people who think like this, the better the world is

the more people divest themselves of their simple human responsibility to take care of the world, the worse the world is

it really is as simple as that

and sometimes i wonder if some (i said SOME not ALL) criticism of the usa is really just anger at the usa doing a job no one else wants to do. a job that if everyone just ignores does not go away on its own. just because the job is ugly, not because the job is wrong. kind of like how many people are always cricisizing the police. even though they enjoy the stablity in society that police provide, and if there were no police, the same people that have nothing but words of criticism for the police would be begging for police

people are very shortsighted. and the whine and complain. even when they are totally wrong

Re:you are responsible for your world

[thegnu]

you are responsible for the taliban

I'm not saying that on absolute terms, I don't have responsibility, but there's a difference between being responsible for how I treat others, and being responsible for how my mother treats others. Likewise, I am more directly and tangibly responsible for the actions of my mafia (the govt.) than for their mafia.

I can directly affect change in my mafia, whereas most of the change I can affect in the Taliban is by not being bigoted, and doing my best to have my mafia wield its power responsibly.

people are very shortsighted. and the whine and complain. even when they are totally wrong

Yeah, dude. Some of that is called having an opinion that is different from yours. Other instances are called people being wrong. Welcome to the Internet. Check this website. It's neat.

"Sadly for you, no one said anything resembling

[circletimessquare]

that"

actually, the top post in this thread was attacking people for exactly saying that (saying that the whole of Islam and the Muslim world may be fairly judged as being indistinguishable from the Taliban)

okay, so help me out here...

[King Gabey]

I'm not a member of the TIA (Taliban Intelligence Agency) so I may just be missing something obvious here, but couldn't any taliban who didn't want to be tracked turn off their phone? And what is it about the hours between 7am and 5pm that Taliban celphone usage is untrackable? The only way that makes sense is to imagine that only Taliban make phone cals between 5pm and 7am. Which is so far out there that it makes me laugh out loud. Ha. Ha.

OT: sucking up the dark

[jahudabudy]

Completely off-topic, but I just had a conversation with a moron recently where I tried to use that example. For some reason, I was trying to explain to her that cold is not an actual "thing", it is the absence of heat, heat being the "thing". I tried to explain it to her as being similar to the way dark is really just the absence of light. I made some comment about you can shine light on something, but you can't shine dark on it, merely block the light. This baffled her, which fact baffled me, so I conceded the bet and bought her a beer.

There are certain special brands of stupid you just can't argue with.

Enough with the Republican Fear-Mongering!

[Poppa]

Let us get back to the Democrat Global-Warming Fear-Mongering ...

Who blew the wistle?

[Raphael Emportu]

You mean they didn't know till now? Why hasn't that war been won yet?

idea

[pak9rabid]

Can't we just round up all of the selfish groups of people that demand the world revolve around them, stick them on an island somewhere, and watch them all kill each other off? Yano, kinda like 'Battle Royal', but with fucked up adults instead of high-schoolers.

SILENCE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I KILL YOU!

I see you're a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I see you can dish it out but you can't take it.

What a surprise...

By the way...

"Go soak your head in your cave, troll."

What are you, 90? "go soak your head in a cave" What the fuck is that supposed to mean? How could you "soak your head" in a big open space in some rocks? Wouldn't you use a lake or something?

Maybe you shouldn't be questioning anyone's wit, or before you do, try "soaking your head in a cave".

Re:Isn't it as easy as... What short memories

[davidsyes]

"Off-topic"-modding moderators have...

I was referring to "memos" as in the move "Office Place", as in the guy being pestered by management over a memo he got, but forgot to adhere to.... PC Load Letter was a later scene....

GOD DAMN, can moderators themselves to a little googling before using their annointed powers. The context was meant to be funny, and now you spoilt it, byatch!

And why are they using cellphones?

[JAlexoi]

Really WHY are they using cellphones?
Shouldn't they be like... amish? They are ultra religious...

The Taliban must not read Slashdot...

[smitth1276]

The Taliban must not read Slashdot, because I have been reliably informed by Slashdotters--who are, of course, the smartest and most reasonable and independent-thinking people in the world (and they'll confirm that if you don't believe me)--that the only reason that the US is interested in that sort of data managed and maintained by telecom companies is to spy on John and Jane Doe as they are making arrangements for picking up their kids at soccer practice. I have been assured that all of the government's very limited human resources is already allocated to "spying on Americans", so they surely aren't busy actually hunting down terrorists.

They should just relax.

Re:Isn't it as easy as... What short memories

[davidsyes]

Correction to my "Office Place"... I meant "Office Space"...

Re:No, its not easy, they have a legit complaint .

[Anonymous Coward]

Ding ding ding! Somebody finally got it.

Let me re-state my post from another forum (which has utterly degraded into a holy war, but I digress)..

The Taliban is not interested in whether they can be tracked, phones are cheap and disposable. Why not take down the networks entirely? Cells are ok for setting off a bomb, but not reliable enough to pop a rolling convoy at just the right moment. Total loss of the networks would be bad for them, they'd have no innocent chatter to hide amongst. They don't need nighttime communications, terror cells just operate independently on orders received earlier.

No, losing nighttime networks has another purpose. Their most insidious base of support is with good people that would love to support America, and have democracy. In the cover of darkness, the Taliban slips into the homes of upstanding citizens, holds knives to their families throats, and lets it be known that no amount of American support will bring them back if you cooperate with the foreigners.

A nighttime cell network gives those innocent citizens some hope of fighting back against this most immediate threat. Having such an assault called in is a risk that their freedo^W slavery fighters will be caught, and raises the cost of doing it. All in all, basic lynching psychology is all that's going on here.

RTA...You've all got it backwards

[iamlucky13]

Perhaps I'm the one who's got it backwards, but I'm pretty sure what the article is saying is not that the Allied forces are tracking down the Taliban's cell signals, but that the Allied forces are using cell phones for their own communications, either between units or to get in touch with informants, spies, etc. It makes sense. Suppose Hashim down at the local market knows that Yousaf, who owns the fertilizer store, is a Taliban supplier. If you want Hashim to tell you whenever Yousaf makes a big sale of ammonium nitrate, you can either give him a $6,500 SINCGARS tactical radio that he'll need a couple hours training to use and if the wrong people knows he has they'll kill him for working with the invaders...or you can just get his phone number.

"Since the occupying forces stationed in Afghanistan usually at night use mobile phones for espionage to track down the mujahideen, the Islamic Emirate gave a three-day ultimatum to all mobile phone firms to switch off their phones from five in the afternoon until seven in the morning," Taliban spokesperson Qari Mohammad Yousuf told Reuters, ironically via mobile phone (and presumably during daylight).

Besides, it doesn't make sense for the Taliban to need the towers turned off. If they were looking to prevent anyone from tracking them (assuming we know which phones to track in the first place), all they have to do is turn their phones off as you said, or switch to airline mode, or if you want to be really certain, remove the battery. That way you don't piss off the service providers, you don't piss off the other Afghani's whom you're supposedly trying to "free," you don't expose yourself to risk by contacting the service providers who are supposedly in league with the infidels anyways, and you don't have to waste explosives blowing up more people.

But it's still kind of funny to hear the Taliban whining about cellphones. Just wait until they find out you can download Jessica Simpson music videos on VCast.

and sometimes

[circletimessquare]

people with a different opinion than yours are also the same people that are wrong ;-)

Re:Isn't it as easy as PRedator?

[DMUTPeregrine]

It is already a movie, it happened in WW2. BBC article about the medals. The Aussies have given medals to pigeons too.

Re:Isn't it as easy as PRedator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks to me like the Taliban will pull an Iraq and set up a mesh radar to find these drones. They might even use one-time microwave jammers to fry the sky-bugs...
You give the Taliban WAY too much credit - the low tech approach is more their style (AKs, RPGs, bombs, mortars and rockets). The Afghan government, with US/ISAF support, couldn't pull off what you suggest - this is a poor country. Sub-Saharan-African poor. If they had carrier pigeons, they would EAT the carrier pigeons. Mesh radars? Jammers? You've got to be kidding me.

The mobile tower probably is and HAS been a squadron of Predator (or unnamed, undisclosed, covered/black-ops) drones.
Also, don't give UAVs too much credit - they don't have the payload or power supply to be mobile cell towers. The Predator is a more-or-less disposable reconnaissance drone powered by a modified snowmobile engine (at least for the early Preds), with some high tech bits. Great system, but don't oversell it, kid.

A couple of things...

[keineobachtubersie]

First, the fact that you parse this to mean what you like doesn't make that THE meaning, and more importantly, when you say "you are grossly misapplying the words to twist it into a justification for exactly the opposite of what he said" I have to ask, how could you possibly know that? I see nothing that supports a reading one way or the other, and it would seem including the qualifier "Essential" was done to differentiate between types of liberties. I cannot believe the quote is meant to portray all liberty as essential, and reading it that way doesn't make any sense.

Regardless, in either case, we can agree that traveling would probably be "essential". But your reading is no more authoritative than anyone's, and seems to be wrong.

Also, Ben Franklin didn't say it, and in fact, denied having anything to do with the quote apart from reprinting it.

One last thing

"In fact, my right is to travel how and where I want"

No, actually, it isn't. You can't, for instance, drive your car across my lawn with impunity because of my rights as a property owner. This is just one example demonstrating that you are incorrect on this point.

You are acting as though convenience has anything to do with rights. You can always walk, thereby preserving your RIGHT to travel, and essentially ends your argument.

Carrier/Homing Pigeons...

[realsilly]

They could go back to using Pigeon express, where notes are 10 words long and take 3 days to deliver.

On setting traps

[KKlaus]

We already have the problem of deliberate misinformation that you talk about - it exists all over the place in anonymous tips where someone will call an Army hotline and say "I've seen a weapons cache behind so and so building downtown" and when troops show up, there is an IED or an ambush. As a new vector for similar misinformation, cellphones aren't really a game changer, and the military is already aware that information they get leading to militant hideouts and so on can be "spurious" at best. So the problem you highlight gets handled like we handle anonymous tips, and troops go in with the foreknowledge that they may be heading towards a trap. I know you're probably not intending to paint the military as a house of fools, but they _can_ imagine that locational information from an insurgent phone leads them to something other than an unprepared insurgent.

Informants!

[gnuman99]

The issue is not some super high-tech gadgets. It is basic intelligence. It is the informants! The informants in the Afghan population are reporting Taliban movements to their local police or military units. That's it. When you turn off the cell towers, then Taliban can move much more freely as no one will be reporting them.

Taliban is not supported by majority, or even a sizable minority in Afghanistan. People are tired of war. Hell, 25+ years of it in one way or another.

Furthermore, do you think the women like Taliban? Even if only 1 in 100 women is brave enough to report Taliban movements, that's 1 in 200 people. And I would guess that most med do not want their women bound to their houses either (hey, men don't like the extra work ;).

Kabul is now thriving compared to when Taliban were in power. Kandahar is even much better off now. People see the change. There are more informants every day. And cellphones are what is enabling them to provide the military/police with intelligence they would never be able to gather alone.

Cell Phones for espionage... or peace...

[CodeShark]

So let's see. What the women-oppressing child and baby maiming terrorist want is for the major networks to turn off the ability of the populace to name names and point to places by thoe terrorists hang out because them darn 'mricans have a habit of showing up with nasty explosive devices and very accurate bullet-firing devices that make it hard to do the business of oppression and death as usual.

So sorry. I think the 'mrican soldier's ability to mostly differentiate between the bad guys and the rest of the population has about two hundred years of ethical tradition behind it, so I'll go with letting the cell phone networks stay on.

Any Talibani warriors who disagree are welcome to call into their respective cell phone provider networks and complain.

The parent is NOT offtopic.

[RudeIota]

NT

Since when do you need power to make demands?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Does the article have ANYTHING to say about the phone companies giving in to these demands?

I DEMAND YOU GO AND KILL YOURSELVE!

Take that world, obviously I rule you since I can demand you kill yourselve.

Oh, you are not going to give into my demands, well that ain't nice.

Oh and if the taliban is winning, why are they then so worried about the phone network? I think it is a sign of them loosing.

But you don't want to hear logic, you just want to slam the war, go right ahead but do realize you sound like a bit of a twit when you link making demands (which so far have not even been replied to one way or the other) shows who is control. People in control don't make demands, they dictate.

Re:Since when do you need power to make demands?

[retro128]

Have you been reading the news? The Taliban have reconstituted themselves in Afghanistan to the point where they are now causing problems in Pakistan. It's one thing to have some crazy mullah demanding that cell services be taken offline for some arbitrary about of time, but seeing as how the Taliban are once again seizing territory and conducting suicide attacks, it does not matter whether the cell companies give in or not. The point is the Taliban has come back under our watch and likely has the ability to follow through with their threats.

And your assertation that the Taliban are losing because they are worried about cell towers, well..ha ha...hahahaha. My boy, you need to stop watching American Idol with that Bill O'Reilly chaser.

Perhaps my original post wasn't as clear as it should have been, but the endgame I put forth remains the same. Our Middle East adventure is a micromanaged political war, just like Vietnam. During Vietnam, the peoples' concerns regarding the wisdom of such a war were kept in check by the government telling then the commies will get them. Only today it's terrorists. Even in the unlikely event we do "win", the whole region will slide back to square one because of our inability to follow through. When we kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan we didn't want to confront them directly, so we armed and trained local freedom fighters - One of whom was Osama bin Laden. But once the Reds were gone we had no reason to stick around and help the Afghanis rebuild. So the seedling Taliban took root to fill the vacuum and Osama went on his merry way to begin his illustrious future career as our favorite boogeyman. Ta daaa! Do you see how this works now?

Re:Isn't it as easy as PRedator?

[An ominous Cow art]

There's an exhibit in the USAF Museum for "Stumpy" John Silver, a carrier pigeon in WW1. Quoting from my blurry photo of the placard:

The enemy had laid down a furious bombardment prior to the attack. Through this fire,the pigeon circled, gained his bearings and flew on a direct course for Rampant. Men in the trenches saw a shell explode near the pigeon. The concussion tossed him upward and then plunged him downward. Struggling, he regained his altitude and continued his course. Arriving at Rampant 25 minutes later, the bird was a terrible sight. A machine gune bullet had pierced his breast, bits of shrapnel ripped his tiny body and his right leg was missing. The message tube, intact, was hanging by the ligaments of the torn leg. ...

Hereafter on each Organization Day of the 11th Signal Company, the name "John Silver" will be added to the roll-call. When his name is called, the senior non-commisioned officer present wil lrespond, "Died of wounds received in battle in the service of his country."

Don't forget IMSI-catchers

[Lonewolf666]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI-catcher for how they work.
I think switching off the regular towers would make an IMSI-catcher even more efficient at locating the talibans' phones... ;-)

of course

[circletimessquare]

but we're talking about the people who take what you say and go "therefore, there shall be no criticism of the muslim world"

The problem with the Taliban in a nutshell

[rjschwarz]

Instead of telling Taliban members not to use their cell phones they try to shut down the towers so using them is impossible. Instead of telling men not to molest women they force the women into burqas to shut down any desire the men might have. To me God or Allah would be more impressed by someone who avoids sin in Vegas (hard, temptation everywhere) than one who avoids sin in Salt Lake City (easy, no temptation to be found). The Taliban knows they will fail the self control test so they remove the options that tempt them. They are losers.

Communication Disruption

[Vash24601]

A Communication disruption can mean only one thing...inv--oh wait.

Insightful my ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN recently reported that NATO and US forces had killed more civilians than the Taliban, mostly in air-strikes. There is a policy of sacrificing civilians in order to keep military casualties down. It's safer to bomb something than to send troops in. 10 dead Afghan civilians is more politically acceptable than 10 dead US soldiers. In the unlikely even of the media kicking up a real fuss about the civilian deaths, you can always just dredge up the tired old excuse that it's the enemy's fault for "hiding among the civilians".

What a load of bullshit. Where did you fantasize this crap, while sitting on the toilet trying to think of something witty to say on slashdot today?

Tired old excuse? But the enemy does hide among the civilians. What, do you think they have a piece of territory with a flag waving over it and guards at the borders?

Go back to your visual basic maintenance and leave the thinking to others.

Re:Insightful my ass!

[RealGrouchy]

But the enemy does hide among the civilians. That is not an excuse to randomly kill civilians, or to kill all civilians in a room/house because one of them is suspected (or even known) to be an enemy. If it were, we'd might as well just nuke the whole region and be done with it.

- RG>

Re:Insightful my ass!

[coastwalker]

Nuking the lot of them would be a lot cheaper in the long run.

Re:Insightful my ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of bullshit. Where did you fantasize this crap, while sitting on the toilet trying to think of something witty to say on slashdot today? The most alarming point: As of July, more civilians had died as a result of NATO, U.S. and Afghan government firepower than had died due to the Taliban. According to U.N. figures, 314 civilians were killed by international and Afghan government forces in the first six months of this year, while 279 civilians were killed by the insurgents.
--Losing Afghanistan One Civilian at a Time(Washington Post)

Barbarians

[Crazy Taco]

What? Do they not like free nights and weekends or something? They really are barbarians!

Psy-Ops here

[Anonymous Coward]

US gov't wants the Taliban to think they are being tracked via their cellphones.

Taliban hasn't requested anything of anyone. This is US agents at work.

Re:moderation system is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing this place has not yet degenerated to Digg level, but that day is coming. It hasn't?

You went from stupid to incoherent

[Anonymous Coward]

"You dont quite get the difference i'm making between "privledge" and right. Rights are inherent so long as you don't break the law. "Privledges" (in theory) are inherent so long as you...dont break the law."

Yeah, how could anyone not get that, the difference is obvious...
God damn you're dumb.

"For what purpose? So people like you will give them up more easily"

So every activity I want to engage in is a right (that is your argument here)? And it's only the government's desire to restrict things that creates privileges.

I thought your opening was retarded, but you really went off the deep end with that one.

I enjoy it when I crush someone so completely (as in this case) that they can't even cobble together a coherent post. Next time get someone to proofread so you don't look like a total moron. Again.

So,

[confused one]

Mount a frikin laser on the shar... err, I mean cell tower.

HARM missile works wonders in this situation.

[Neanderthal Ninny]

Gee I'll leave the cell sites up in Afghanistan and listen into any large congregation cell phones that are of any real terrorist that really plotting something bad and then send in a HARM to finish the job.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-88.htm

Turn it off?

[delvsional]

They can't turn off their Iphones. Damn you steve jobs, WHY?!?!??

Re:No, its not easy, they have a legit complaint .

[Sax Maniac]

So in other words, please turn off cell network (except when we're using it to activate bombs).

Mod parent -1 War-Crime Apologist

[orzetto]

Of course for the taliban, there really is only one recourse, give up. Either they will lose gradually, or they will cause massive casualties, [...]

What about dragging the war on until the US gets beaten, like in Vietnam? I would suppose that is their goal, and they are winning at that: attacks in the north are increasing, my country has soldiers in Herat and only in recent months they have started to come under fire.

which will provoke a really big attack on the population of pakistan (did you know, in reality as opposite moonbat's mindsets, that in the geneva conventions civilians amongst whom non-uniformed enemy fighters are located, are fair game and can be killed. The decision whether or not terrorists are amongst them can (only) be made by a field commander, in short, every bomb short of a nuke would be perfectly legal to shoot into a mass of afghan civilians), and the commander giving that order would go completely free under international law.

Aside from the fact that you are suggesting practices typical of the SS divisions (I don't care about Goodwin: they were the last ones in the West to do anything like that, it's the only example available), the Geneva conventions is only about war prisoners, and makes no mention of civilians only because of that. That a US commander would walk out freely I have no doubt, they are pretty much untouchable no matter what crimes they may commit; what is sure is that, no matter what, any attack directed against civilians is a war crime . Surely, Nazi officers who practiced retaliation on civilians were jailed for decades when they could be tried in the countries where they committed their atrocities.

Only civilian prisoners and UNIFORMED enemy prisoners cannot be killed.

Such utter disrespect of the life of a person who is not a threat is really appalling. Of course, other than being brainwashed by war-time propaganda, you are also wrong: the Geneva convention, article four, states very clearly:

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
   1. that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
   2. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
   3. that of carrying arms openly;
   4. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit

palestine argument invalid

[CBravo]

about the palestine argument: it is the chicken and egg-problem and you're not giving the complete context (and I'll refrain from that too).

Re:palestine argument invalid

[Eli Gottlieb]

I acknowledge that the Palestinians don't exactly have well-trained, high-tech military forces in the way of Israel or the USA. I acknowledge that they consider the Occupied Territories (AT MINIMUM) to be their rightful homeland.

But this doesn't mean that firing Qassam rockets (which are technically impossible to aim, and therefore of no legitimate military use) or blowing up nightclubs is moral. Hamas, Fatah, and especially Hizballah have all shown themselves able to conduct strikes specifically on Israeli military targets (witness the instigation of the Second Lebanon War) when they want to. But they don't restrict themselves to such actions. Why?

Because Islamists hold the rest of the world, especially the portion fighting against Islamists, to a higher moral standard than that to which they hold themselves. Which is one of the definitions of "bitchy".

I don't like this idea

[Provos]

It makes my unlimited nights and weekends plan kind of worthless.

In fact, we all did it.

[Kupfernigk]

The SS were not the last ones in the West to target civilians. The Russians, the US and the UK all did it before and after D-Day. This is an extremely difficult ethical question, and before some kneejerk moderates this flamebait, please read on.

Max Hastings, the military historian, has written in his remarkably fair and balanced book Armageddon about the British policy of carpet bombing civilians, and how it probably lengthened the war (because it diverted resources from protecting shipping in the Atlantic, and because strategic attacks on oil plants could have caused the German army to come to a stop much sooner. He describes revenge attacks by many Allied groups. Apart from Bomber Harris, the Allied commanders were in general much more careful than the Russians, and this reduced casualties in the West. In the east, knowing what the Russians would do, the Germans fought with more desperation.

Hastings points out, very fairly, that Japan suffered far less than Germany because the result of the A-bomb attacks was surrender without invasion. Therefore, paradoxically, the A-Bomb may well have reduced the death rate in the Far East very considerably.

This shows how ethically difficult the whole thing is in the context of all out war.

It is also very difficult nowadays to define who is a civilian. Is a worker in an oil production plant a civilian when a tanker driver is a soldier? They are part of the supply chain, and the oil plant could well be a legitimate military target. In a country where the majority of men carry guns, how do you tell a civilian from a soldier?

I am not in favor of indiscriminate war, believe me. Thanks to my father and my uncle and their friends, my only experience of the military has been as an R&D engineer. But I do think we often expect the military to solve ethical problems that philosophers give up on, and that when it comes to people who want to run a country so they can torture and abuse women versus people who, basically, don't, I think we need to be very careful before sounding off.

Re:In fact, we all did it.

[Doctor Faustus]

In a country where the majority of men carry guns, how do you tell a civilian from a soldier?
And if you're fighting a country with a draft, should there be any ethical distinction?

Check your facts, you're wrong

[keineobachtubersie]

Ben makes no distinction between different 'types' of liberty - he views liberty itself as essential, as important as air. He is simply stating that liberty is more important than safety, period. As in, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

The problem with your assertions here about what "Ben" (and I presume you mean Franklin) meant is that this isn't a quote from "Ben" at all, so your argument is totally fabricated.

"Ben" reprinted it, but openly "denied writing any part of it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Those_who_would_give_up_Essential_Liberty

It's hard to give much consideration to your opinion when you obviously accept and repeat things you hear without checking them for accuracy.

Re:Check your facts, you're wrong

[Glock27]

"The problem with your assertions here about what "Ben" (and I presume you mean Franklin) meant is that this isn't a quote from "Ben" at all, so your argument is totally fabricated." That quote is commonly attributed to Ben Franklin, and he did publish it, implicitly endorsing it. The rest of my argument stands as written.

Re:Check your facts, you're wrong

[keineobachtubersie]

"That quote is commonly attributed to Ben Franklin"

And that attribution is wrong. Your acceptance of an incorrect attribution, and worse, your defense of your use of the incorrect attribution proves what I suspected about your opinion to be true.

"and he did publish it, implicitly endorsing it."

He published it. You're making a second claim there that is neither true nor logical, as all kinds of publications publish all sorts of things that they disagree with for a variety of reasons.

"The rest of my argument stands as written."

And can be dismissed. It's telling that when confronted with a factual inaccuracy in your post, rather than taking the opportunity to reexamine your ideas, and make corrections, you instead plow ahead oblivious.

Re:Check your facts, you're wrong

[Glock27]

Let's see, asshat. We're off on a tangent of discussing a quotation which had nothing to do with the substance of the post, per se. Dismiss whatever you like, it's clear facts don't bother you a bit.

I hope our future is never in your hands.

Re:Isn't it as easy as... What short memories

[Anonymous Coward]

You flub the quote and you can't even get the name of the movie right the first time. It wasn't even a funny joke. No wonder you got modded down.

Now if your response had been "The Taliban didn't get the memo about the new coversheets we're using now, either" that might have been funny. The joke in this article about "The USA will deliver an airborne memo to you" was funny. To make a joke funny, you've got to relate the Taliban in some way to the movie. Just quoting from the movie is insufficient, even if you type the quote in correctly. A response of "If I had a million dollars, you know what I'd do? I'd do two chicks at the same time." is not funny. Maybe insightful.

Well...

[insllvn]

I remember a while back there was a story that the Taliban thought US Army personal had air conditioned underwear and their nightvision technology let them look through women's clothes so I would say it is very possible they think the towers track the cell phones even when they are powered down.

Give them all iPhones

[Anonymous Coward]

Nato should hand out free iPhones there so they can't "take out the battery." Perhaps some Apple software updates to enhance the GPS tracking capabilities too.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Gobsmacked by reality

[Anonymous Coward]

The people are all liberal and such, but Oregon politics is fuckin' ridiculously nanny state slanted. And slowly, a light begins to come on...

ACTUALLY, you seriously need to learn how to read

[Anonymous Coward]

"actually, the top post in this thread was attacking people for exactly saying that "

ACTUALLY that was my point, which you apparently missed in your mad rush to ejaculate your ignorant opinion on the screen. Reality Master 201 attacked them, when THEY DIDN'T EXIST. NO ONE SAID THAT. Reality Master 201 was attacking an imaginary argument that hadn't been made.

Which was my point.

YOU misunderstood. NO, I know you, and you're going to try and turn this into someone else's fault, so read this until you get it.

YOU MISREAD THE POST, AND ARE IN FACT, WRONG. I WAS SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THE CLAIM YOU REFERENCE (it's the same guy, Reality Master 201, who I'm replying to and who made the claims you are speaking of) , IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT CLEAR HE WAS USING A STRAW MAN. YOU FAILED TO READ IT CORRECTLY, AND ARE WRONG.

Get it?

DO NOT bother to reply. I am telling you EXPLICITLY what my post referenced and what I meant. YOU got it wrong, and your opinion on the subject doesn't matter.

So, ACTUALLY you prove once again that you'll shoot off your mouth before understanding what the fuck you're talking about (or bothering to read the screen names of the people in the discussion).

ACTUALLY, even worse though is that you're such a self important asshole that you'll still try to find a way to admitting you're wrong.

So why don't you fuck off? ACTUALLY?

Aussie POV

[greatscottsby]

Don't give them hell, give them TEL$TRA!!!!!

Re:This isn't about being track by their cellphone

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the parent modded "Troll"?

Re:No, its not easy, they have a legit complaint .

[Anonymous Coward]

Because ordinary citizens can't use land lines if their cell was down?

They want a monopoly on entertainment.

[Neanderthal Ninny]

Taliban is like any other totalitarian group where you must view their propaganda only which their form of YouTube.
Also want these cell phones off so the members don't take part any "special" activities after hours.

upon the cessation of hostilities?

[HornWumpus]

So they're in for life then.

Re:upon the cessation of hostilities?

[mjwx]

Well that's certainly not something a civilised, enlightened, peaceful and freedom loving society with a strong sense of compassion and dedication to the furthering human rights would actually do.

You tell me.

Re:upon the cessation of hostilities?

[HornWumpus]

Certainly.

So long as the civilised, enlightened, peaceful and freedom loving society with a strong sense of compassion and dedication to the furthering human rights still retained any sense of self preservation it would lock up those towel heads and throw away the key. Sometimes you've got to split the difference and treat you enemy kind of like they want to treat you.

The enemy is radical Islam. Until we own their kids via MTV middle east or their society collapses from AIDS we should keep the fanatics locked up (at least the few competent ones). It that's for life so be it.

The logic of war is brutally simple. The logic of economics are much more complicated. In ether case there is no reason (short of following them and blowing them up with their cohorts) to let any non-uniformed combatants go free, ever. Shooting them all as spies makes more sense. Infecting the really incompetent with Hep-C and HIV then releasing them makes still more sense. (Last I checked Iran claimed to have no AIDs problem. Ignoring problems always makes them better.)

Re:upon the cessation of hostilities?

[mjwx]

Wow
I hope you're being sarcastic.

You can measure how free and fair a society is by examining the way it treats it prisoners.

I mean it must be safe and reassuring in a society that condones biological warfare. You never have to treat the enemy the same way they treat you, you always have the choice to be better and in the long run the most ruthless don't always win (American revolution, Napoleonic wars, WWII FFS).

Until we own their kids via MTV middle east or their society collapses from AIDS we should keep the fanatics locked up (at least the few competent ones). It that's for life so be it.

I really hope you're being sarcastic.

Your idea of victory is to become your enemy?
Convert to westernism or die from a horrible communicable disease.
I'm sorry but you earn a big EPIC FAIL here. If we followed this strategy we'd all earn a big EPIC FAIL. I mean here's a fantastic idea, lets give people who hate us and already are willing to die an incurable, slow acting fatal disease. By George that's fantastic thinking make a fanatical people more desperate, that'll show em, they'll never retaliate.

Radical Islam is not the enemy, thinking like this is the enemy, thinking you own the world is the enemy. Radical Islam can only be defeated by discrediting their leaders, a video of Bin Laden having a glass of wine would be more effective than all the bombs dropped in the last 6 years. If left alone, Radical clerics will lose support, Radicals need an enemy otherwise the indoctrinated have time to think. Radical Islam will never force western nations to convert and the chance of western society being destroyed by external influence is so astronomically low that it is not worth mentioning so to succeed against radical Islam, we don't have to win, we just have to survive. I would rather see my free and fair state destroyed than see it succumb to ignorant and extremist thinking from inside. If I can go about my daily business then that is a victory.

I'm sorry but your logic of war fails when you don't understand your enemy or the logic of war to begin with. The logic behind releasing non-uniformed combatants is to create a bridge to peace, holding them only continues the to fuel a cycle of hate. The true objective of war is not the elimination of the enemy but the elimination of their reason to fight you. If you continue to hold there citizens they will continue to have a valid reason to attack you, an enemy without a valid reason for a war will not be able to garner much support (Sun Tzu covered this 2000 years ago) which is why the IRA haven't been in the news lately, they don't have much of a reason left to attack anyone.

Re:upon the cessation of hostilities?

[Foobar of Borg]

Sun Tzu covered this 2000 years ago

[redneck mode on] But that thar Sun Zoo is one o' them thar yeller people. He ain't no true 'merican, so he cain't know shiyat.[/redneck mode off]

Seriously, though, it is amazing how people ignore some of the most basic wisdom that has come down through the ages in favor of babbling idiocy. Of course, it may not truly be babbling idiocy. Bush et al. may really want a protracted, hopeless war.

Re:upon the cessation of hostilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

have fun keeping your head in the sand while your nation is being infiltrated by vermin. Western civilization will die because of idiots like yourself that fail to recognize evil when it is before your eyes.

Re:upon the cessation of hostilities?

[Descalzo]

The logic behind releasing non-uniformed combatants is to create a bridge to peace, holding them only continues the to fuel a cycle of hate. The true objective of war is not the elimination of the enemy but the elimination of their reason to fight you. If you continue to hold there citizens they will continue to have a valid reason to attack you, an enemy without a valid reason for a war will not be able to garner much support

I read your post a while ago, and something about this bothered me, and it took me a while to figure out what it was:

If a nation with a free press can 'invent' an enemy and reason to go to war, then certainly a nation without a free press can invent enemies. If it's war they want, they can turn their people toward it in a nation such as Iran more easily than in a nation such as the USA, can't they?

Re:upon the cessation of hostilities?

[mjwx]

If a nation with a free press can 'invent' an enemy and reason to go to war, then certainly a nation without a free press can invent enemies. If it's war they want, they can turn their people toward it in a nation such as Iran more easily than in a nation such as the USA, can't they?

Not quiet as easy as that, there are never just two sides in a propaganda war. These day's its pretty much impossible to prevent external access to information as even the most closed and dictatorial nations will still have tourism, international trade and relations with their neighbours. News from the outside world gets to North Koreans, albeit very slowly, sometimes only through rumour as humans are gossipy social creatures (Off topic point of note, North Koreans don't rise up against the dictatorship because they are still mostly hill tribes living very simplistic lives with little interest in politics on a national scale, most of Asia was dragged into the industrial world in the last 50 years since WWII, mostly by colonial powers and dictatorships).

As I said, its not as easy to invent an enemy. Many a dictator has tried and damn few have succeeded. Once you create the illusion of an enemy you need to make sure you can keep it. Confronting the enemy is the quickest way to destroy this, the problem with a propaganda fuelled campaign is that your troops still have to face the enemy and once that is done you can no longer control the contact your people have with the enemy. It takes a few brave men to actually say "the state is wrong" and break a politically created image, this is often how revolutions are started.

In Islamic (or any other kind of) extremism it is easier to indoctrinate an absolute belief in leaders than to drive a fear based campaign about an enemy onto a great mass. Indoctrination involves getting people while they are young and impressionable (any time up to about 25 as a general reference) and remove their ability to think. To just conjure an enemy out of thin air creates more questions then answers as intellectuals and outsiders can comment. One of the greatest reasons that cold war propaganda worked so well is that we never actually met in a shooting war, I have no doubt that the average Russian was not as brutal and sadistic as the American propaganda said and I have absolutely no doubt that the average American was a greedy and conniving as the Soviet propaganda said. I often wonder weather an American soldier and a Russian soldier would have shared a smoke on Christmas as the Americans and Germans climbed out of their trenches and did on Christmas 1917, even the best propaganda can be destroyed in 5 minutes given the right circumstance. If a nation without a free press has trouble convincing people to fight by means of a fear campaign, what chance has a nation with a free press have. The point of the part of my post that you quoted was to say that releasing partisans was a means of burying the hatchet.

Under the Geneva Convention, Not human rights.

[HornWumpus]

You have to meet certain conditions to get any benefit from the Geneva convention. The Taliban does not. The VC did sometimes. (Remember the black pajamas? Those were uniforms. Ho was smarter then Mulla Omar is.)

Anybody not in uniform fighting in a war can be summarily executed legally.

You fail reading comprehension.

[HornWumpus]

Re-read you own post. Particularly points 2.1 thru 2.4. Point 6 does not apply at all.

Captured Taliban are not legally 'Prisoners of war'. By your own citation of the Geneva convention.

Finally. Abortion is a civil right? You are nuts.

Re:You fail reading comprehension.

[orzetto]

Re-read you own post. Particularly points 2.1 thru 2.4. Point 6 does not apply at all.

What do you not understand of "one of the following categories"? It is an OR connection. Even if Taliban do not fit points 2.*, they fit points 1, 3, and 6. So, they are prisoners of war.

Captured Taliban are not legally 'Prisoners of war'. By your own citation of the Geneva convention.

In that case, they should either be indicted for any crimes they may have committed, or otherwise immediately released. You cannot just kidnap people because you do not like them. Well, unless you are an oppressive regime, that is, but that does not make it right.

Finally. Abortion is a civil right? You are nuts.

Sorry for belonging to a culturally more advanced section of society, Mr. Taliban with a cross. Where I live, people have still the right of deciding over their own body.

If you just aren't funny stop trying.

[HornWumpus]

You are only embarrassing yourself. Complaining about your 'joke' not being modded funny makes you look like an unfunny whiny bitch.

Jewish scholars of the language of the time

[HornWumpus]

Name one?

I hear that interpretation on occasion from a 'fundy scholar'. (He graduated the sixth grade!)

Never from anywhere else.

BTW grape juice that isn't boiled and kept sterile will invariably turn to wine or vinegar.

The bible warns against excess in all things earthly. Not all will go astray by wine or strong drink, the wise will know their own personal history.

Re:Jewish scholars of the language of the time

[sm62704]

BTW grape juice that isn't boiled and kept sterile will invariably turn to wine or vinegar

Actually, if it isn't drank the grape juice will first turn to wine, then vinegar.

Re:Jewish scholars of the language of the time

[HornWumpus]

Depends what microbes are present.

There is natural alcohol producing yeast in the grapes. But if grape juice was first boiled it could turn directly to vinegar (depending). It can be kept as wine if the vinegar producing microbes are kept out.

In any case it won't be grape juice for more then a week past harvest short of sterile handling and bottling techniques which were unavailable in biblical times.

Re:Isn't it as easy as - Flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent modded Flamebait, for giving an informed response... How _dare_ parent use Bible quotes to prove that most Christians believe alcohol is okay.

Mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

"What about dragging the war on until the US gets beaten, like in Vietnam?"

Please try to read history (I lived through it).

Vietnam was not principally a guerrilla war, there was a uniformed fighting force that the U.S. faced, although guerrillas played a role, but not the primary role.

The war dragged on until the U.S. lost interest in the war. The U.S. wasn't beaten in a military sense; and even the so-called TET offensive was a military failure for the North. But when it became obvious that the war wouldn't end soon, the US public got tired of it, primarily because of the draft. The draft was a PR disaster, since it was sending the nation's youth to SE Asia to fight an unpopular war. Pretty soon kids figured out if they went to college, they could avoid it altogether. This had two consequences, one good, one bad. The bad was that poor kids got drafted, which made it a class war. The good part was a lot of kids forced themselves to go to college and study (if you dropped out you got drafted).

Bush's advisers have been smart enough to not even suggest a draft.

There are strong parallels to the Vietnam war, and those parallels remain to this day. But militarily, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The difference is that with the violence winding down, the pressure from the public to immediately leave Iraq is starting to subside. That's probably a good thing. As bad an idea as it was invading Iraq, the only thing worse would be to leave suddenly. The power vacuum in the region would be breathtaking, and would embolden all the bad people in the middle east.

Re:Mistaken

[orzetto]

If you lived through it, you must have done so with a blindfold.

The U.S. wasn't beaten in a military sense; and even the so-called TET offensive was a military failure for the North.

The Tet offensive was a decisive strategic victory for Vietnam: US troops had to be recalled from the countryside to fight back in the cities. The fact that the offensive was tactically repulsed in the cities is of little significance, because the countryside fell to the Viet Cong, and the US would never reattain the same level of control of the territory they had before Tet.

But when it became obvious that the war wouldn't end soon, the US public got tired of it, primarily because of the draft.

Hey, you don't need to read von Clausewitz to know that an action that demoralises the enemy counts as a victory too.

But militarily, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.

Except, duh, being an unpopular war leading nowhere, discrediting the US administration and generating more support for enemies of the US?

Obligatory Monty Python quote: "We didn't lose Vietnam! It was a tie!"

Re:Mistaken

[KDR_11k]

How the hell did the draft even get approved for a war where losing would not be a major threat to the US? Drafting for WW2 made sense since not intervening in the European Theatre of War would most likely lead to the winner mounting an invasion of the US but Vietnam?

Re:Mistaken

[ksheff]

Got a reference for the Tet victory? Everything that I've read indicated that it was only a PR victory for the Viet Cong and a loss for them by most military standards. The US & its allies never really controlled the countryside in a traditional sense before or after Tet because it would take more manpower than was politically acceptable.

enough with the tagging

[mr100percent]

Who is approving these 'religionofpeace' tags? They're not relevant to a lot of the stories, and I don't see a tag mocking christianity...

It's as easy as

[Khyber]

REMOVING THE FUCKING BATTERY so no matter what you do, the damned cell phone doesn't send out a fucking signal. It's that damned simple unless some screwed up cell phone company went Apple and hardwired the battery.

batteries required . . . Re:Isn't it as easy as

[gregconquest]

Take the battery out, and the phone becomes a brick -- not trackable at all. Put the battery back in a make a call. Take the battery back out and breathe easy . . . This will also render the "roaming bug" *feature* of a cell phone useless as well.

Re:No, its not easy, they have a legit complaint .

[AHumbleOpinion]

Because ordinary citizens can't use land lines if their cell was down?

Land lines, in Afghanistan? Perhaps you missed it, but the developing world decided to skip plain old telephones and go straight to cellular. The cost and disruption of laying new phone lines made the plain old telephone system a bad idea.

And I thought the Taliban were smart

[DaveDerrick]

They could easily have used the situation to their advantage, by having their phones used to give false information on where they are, strap it to a dog, leave it on a bus, whatever. They could easily have drawn their hunters out with a collection of phones in a booby-trapped area & ambushed them. Maybe they are dumb & lucky so far...

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori?

[wild_berry]

Yeah, because as a former soldier, I want our troops in the field to be worried about things like, "Did we get a warrant to raid this cave?" before storming in.

May I make the observation that 'disregard for due process' should be the epitaph for the present Bush administration? I'm not a US citizen and want to make it known that putting American lives before human rights is arrogant, outrageous and dangerous. Either everyone has inherent rights (not just US citizens), or noone has inherent rights (even US citizens). Finally, I believe that the 'they want to kill us, so we'll kill them first' attitude will only bring about more blood shed.

Thank you for listening to my words.

Re:Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori?

[ArcherB]

I'm not a US citizen and want to make it known that putting American lives before human rights is arrogant, outrageous and dangerous. I don't know what country you are from, but I know what country you WOULD be from from if The US, Russia and Britain had that attitude in the 1940's. I'm not saying you owe us or anything. I'm just saying that when you are at war, and we are, you can't really win when you consider the rights of the enemy over the lives of your soldiers and population.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should carpet bomb neighborhoods and rape and pillage, but there is a limit. Different rights have different weights. An enemy's assumed right to privacy is not as important as his right eat or feed his family for example. For that matter, an enemy's privacy is pretty much a privilege.

Still, if listening to a phone call can pinpoint a bad guy's location so that we only have to raid one house rather than 100, isn't that worth it? Isn't it better to do passive intelligence (listening) than it is to do active intelligence (kicking doors down and rummaging through stuff)?

Either everyone has inherent rights (not just US citizens), or noone has inherent rights (even US citizens). Not exactly. If everyone has inherent rights, that means they are worth fighting for (Iraq, Afghanistan for example). Why is your country's military not helping us liberate the good people of Iraq? Why is your country's military not liberating the good people of some other country whose population. You can't oppose the US in Iraq and then claim that every human has inherent rights. Part of the reason we are in Iraq is to grant those rights to the people of Iraq.

Finally, I believe that the 'they want to kill us, so we'll kill them first' attitude will only bring about more blood shed. It's not that they want to kill us. It is that they will and they HAVE killed us. They have shown without a shadow of a doubt that they are willing and able to kill American civilians by the thousands and would love nothing more than to reduce entire cities to smoldering rubble. Compared to their brutality, we have been extremely kind in our retaliation.

Thank you for listening to my words. Likewise.

Wow, how interesting that you say that...

[keineobachtubersie]

"it's clear facts don't bother you a bit. "

Well, it's funny you say the when the FACT is, you said something that was FACTUALLY incorrect, then based your reasoning on your incorrect FACT.

The FACT is, the only reason I replied to you was to correct your erroneous assumption of FACT. In fact, I am the only one of us who has actually presented ANY correct facts.

It seems your statement applies far more to you and your factually incorrect post, and your insistence that you being wrong doesn't matter, than it does to me.

And that's twice now that you've behaved like a child instead of thanking me for educating you. Are this much of an asshole to everyone who corrects you when you're obviously wrong, or are you just embarrassed by your failure and lashing out?

Re:Wow, how interesting that you say that...

[Glock27]

And that's twice now that you've behaved like a child instead of thanking me for educating you. Are this much of an asshole to everyone who corrects you when you're obviously wrong, or are you just embarrassed by your failure and lashing out?

So I'm the one lashing out? ROFL

I hope you can come up with something germane to the actual conversation next time.

Here's another quote for you to ponder...I'm sure I got the attribution right on this one.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

Re:Isn't it as easy as - Flamebait?

[sm62704]

Thank you. The only two explanations I can think of for that modding are that one of slshdot's religious fanatics (athieism, the athiests here are the most fanatical of all) got his panties in a bunch because I dared quote the dreaded book, or it's one of my freaks.

I got one of those "reletionship change" messages from /. that said "[some asshat] has made you his foe." I looked at the guy's user page, and he had no comments, no journals, no fans, no freaks, the only indication he had ever been at slashdot at all was his "foes" list, with only one name - mine. Prabably had something to do with my Whore Journals.

The metamods will take care of the idiot who modded that as flamebait. Meanwhile another slashdotter's sig comes to mind: "Karma excellent. Try again, modboy!"

Again, thanks for the support.

Pakistan & Islam isn't alone in the censor cir

[infonography]

In the West we use other methods to obscure News, uncomfortable truths and other opinions. I call it the noise to signal ratio.

BRITNEY SPEARS.

PARIS HILTON

etc

We're not Muslim. We support the Jews.

[HornWumpus]

That's all the reason they need to continue hating us.

In the end we're not going to force anybody to convert to 'westernism'. They're children will choose to convert because 'westernism' is more fun. Their society will break because it cannot bend.

BTW Sun Tzu never said anything of the sort. He didn't address the political underpinnings of war at all. Make stuff up elsewhere.

Your whole approach has earned an 'Epic Fail' every time it's been tried. Its not useful to be more 'civilized' then you enemy when your enemy is now in charge. Tell it to Nevil Chamberlin (better yet tell it to the Vechi French). You can only afford to be so civilized. That is largely a function of the level of civilization of your enemies.

The 'fanatic stupid' already believe AIDs is a CIA plot. What do we have to lose by making sure the Ben Ladin family gets its share? (Yes I'm talking about rich Saudi's)

AIDS is already running rampent in the Arab world (Arafat died of AIDS). They are just in denial, claiming no homosexuality or AIDS in Iran for instance.

They don't fit 1, 3 or 6.

[HornWumpus]

Point 1. Taliban is a militia part of a regular army. Failed.

Point 3. Part of a regular army. Point does not apply. Regular army has a definition and requires uniforms at least.

Point 6. Haven't had time to organize? Might have applied once for a brief time. Not any more.

The only point they could fit is 2. If they adopted uniforms and carried arms openly. That might not work out so well for them however.

That's why you fail reading comprehension. You see those words you cite? They mean things.

And failing the test for 'Prisoner of war' does not make you a simple criminal. It makes you an unlawful combatant. BTW in WWII nobody was convicted of any crime against non-uniformed partisans (French or otherwise). That's because the Germans/Japanese/Americans/Russians were within their legal rights just shooting them. Nuermburg was about war crimes. Shooting spies or other non-uniformed combatants is not a war crime. Never has been, hopefully it never will be.

Your society has chosen to define the start of life as birth. Other societies are more culturally advanced (Most of Europe bans third trimester abortions with very narrow exceptions). Abortion is not a human right, life is.

It is all about when you define the start of life. (I'd use the start of electrical activity in the fetal brain, more or less the same as the modern definition of death.)