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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[CSMatt]

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

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

[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

[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.

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.

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!

[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).

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.

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.

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?

[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.

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."

The real reason...

[hilather]

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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'.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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:To Paraphrase This:

[SuiteSisterMary]

(picture of the Prophet Mohammed)

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

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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".

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?

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?

[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.