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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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:obvious answer

[Manhigh]

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

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.

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

[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.

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:obvious answer

[CSMatt]

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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: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.