backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by saiga6360.. on Feb 26 at 9:22 PM


Cell phones used as major communication tool amongst Taliban members and media outlets.  (Source: Reuters India)
Taliban officials have given four mobile phone operators in Afghanistan an ultimatum to shut down their night-time service or be attacked

Afghan cell phone companies on Monday have been posed an ultimatum by Taliban insurgents to shut down mobile phone operators at night in three days or face an attack, reports Reuters. 

Taliban officials claim that the U.S. and other nations use mobile phones to track key Taliban rebel forces.  Four major mobile phone operators have been targeted with the ultimatum.

Taliban spokesman, Qari Mohammad Yousuf, held recent talks with the four companies, proposing the ultimatum.  The deal included that the operators had to shut down their towers at night for 14 hours and had only three days to comply, or they would see an attack on their towers.

"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," Yousuf said in an interview with Reuters by mobile phone.

The four cell phone companies include: Afghan Wireless Communication Company; Roshan, which is owned by Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development, the Monaco Telecom International, and TeliaSonera; Areeba, which is owned by Investcom Holding; and Etisalat, which is a Dubai-based company.

Mobile phones are the widest known means of communication in Afghanistan amongst warring Taliban and opposition forces. Afghanistan's phone network has been tapped before by American forces to track movements of leaders.

In 2006, the FBI activated a cell phone headset remotely to tap the conversation of alleged Cosa Nostra members. The Taliban threat may be in retaliation of similar tapping operations in Afghanistan.

This is not the Taliban’s first attempt to threaten cell phone operators in Afghanistan.  The rebel group has accused companies of collaborating with NATO and U.S.–led troops in the past, though the accusations were never acted on.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Doesn't this tell you something?...
By mdogs444 on 2/25/2008 6:26:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Taliban spokesman, Qari Mohammad Yousuf, held recent talks with the four companies, proposing the ultimatum. The deal included that the operators had to shut down their towers at night for 14 hours and had only three days to comply, or they would see an attack on their towers.


Ok, so a proven terrorist group threatens private companies out of fear that the US & Coalition forces are monitoring their terrorist threats. Goes to show that the bill does have justifiable meaning. And no, the US Govt. is not worried about the 18yr college guy talking to his mom on the phone, so lets not even start that debate.




RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By saiga6360 on 2/25/2008 6:37:40 PM , Rating: 5
Doesn't prove anything other than the fact that people in occupied territories/war zones don't have the same liberties we have in the US. It only makes perfect sense that US forces would be monitoring cell phone activity in Afghanistan and Iraq and it also makes sense for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to be upset about it.


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By feraltoad on 2/26/2008 5:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't it also prove that Fundamentalist will make any kind of demand as if they had the right as the ultimate authorities, whether or not it is even reasonable, and then carry out violent acts until the opposition is cowed or murdered? They can turn their damn phones off at night, and take out the batteries if their so worried.


By saiga6360 on 2/26/2008 9:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
Fundamentalists always make demands, that's what such extreme religious organizations do, and no I'm not talking about just the Islamists. They usually intimidate people with their doctrine but when they start carrying out violence against non-combatants then they become nothing more than terrorists.

I just find it hilarious that the Taliban are using cell phones.

Whatever happened to going all old-school?


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By Lightning III on 2/25/2008 6:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yup too bad they were insisting on amnesty for the telecoms or they would have had it.

although I thought they decided to just go on without it with no loss of intellagence gathering after all thru some other avenue or that the trelecoms are just going to go on breaking the law for the shrub.


By Samus on 2/25/2008 7:08:38 PM , Rating: 3
I find it amusing that we are supposedly tracking these guys with their cell phones and still don't have the situation under control.

Isn't triangulation accurate to 300ft? Seriously...what's the hold-up?


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By sprockkets on 2/25/2008 7:53:55 PM , Rating: 1
The Taliban according to the article want it down because the stationed forces use it, not because we wiretap. If it was just because we can wiretap, then the Taliban would force it down completely and/or they would just communicate more securely anyhow.

In case you and everyone else forget, the old FISA bill allows wiretapping. You just need an authorization. Need one after the fact? You have 3 days to apply after you start.

Instead of breaking the current law, you can always improve on it and make it faster to get authorizations. Or you could have asked for warrantless wiretapping before you had the telcos break the law. But, with Mr. "Decider" "Commander In Chief" in charge, he feels he is god and above the law and the constitution.

Amazing. Bill Clinton is almost impeached for his statements on his BJ, and the "Decider" has done torture, lied about it, warrantless wiretapping, the debacle in Iraq with lying over WMDs, Katrina, hiring cronies over people actually equipped to do jobs, and so on.

The only good reason of course not to impeach him is because the real evil, Dick Head Cheney and his lawyer friend who helps him with his endeavor to do away with checks and balances is David Addington.

Besides, they failed to pay for their wiretaps anyhow, so the telcos stopped doing them months ago. Now who is weak on terror?


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By Ringold on 2/25/2008 8:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Amazing. Bill Clinton is almost impeached for his statements on his BJ,


Wrong. He was impeached, and then acquitted by the Senate, and it was not because of "statements on his BJ", it was perjury. He knowingly lied while under oath. As if lieing to the American people isn't bad enough, he had to do it under oath just for good measure.

You were close, though.


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By sprockkets on 2/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By robinthakur on 2/26/2008 9:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
Its a pity you can't be impeached for ruining the economy with an elective $3 trillion war which harms world peace irreperably as well as America's standing in the world for decades to come. Just too bad...Nobody got hurt under Clinton, he lied about a sexual infidelity which i think should have been private. The same cannot be said of Bush and his gang of hawkish, cynical old men, who did what they liked on the back of a blank check written out by a scared, cowering populace.

With this nightmare as a backdrop, the notion that so much fuss was ever made over a BJ which the president lied about
is almost comical and tends to indicate America's bizarre and hypocritical attitude to sex rather than its love of doling out justice...


By retrospooty on 2/26/2008 9:43:18 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, you spelled it out exactly as it is... The really scary thing is that 1/2 the country doesn't see this as clearly as you, and would call you un-american for even saying it. Really scary...


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By logaldinho on 2/26/2008 1:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
you dont remember bill clinton authorizing the missile attack on those medical facilities in the middle east to shed some of the light off his impeachment?

you dont remember the united states getting involved with the serbs?

did you see that our embassy just got torched for our responsibility over kosovo?

no but bush is obviously the bad guy in your eyes. im not a bush supporter but i am a conservative, but you need to be more aware regarding the presidents that you support.


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By retrospooty on 2/26/2008 1:41:07 PM , Rating: 1
None of those military actions caused a 6 1/2 year occupation to do internal Police work for Iraq. They were all minor skirmishes.

We were attacked by a serious bunch of nutbags (Al Qaeda) and our military commander did the right thing, for a few months and went after the culprits. Then he turned our military micht on a different path and went into Iraq, a country that had no Al Qaeda/Taliban, and no ability to do us harm, and most importantly nothing at all to do with 911...

What were we taliing about here? =)


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By rcc on 2/26/2008 3:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What were we taliing about here? =)


Your inability to admit that it's wrong for a leader to lie to the American people regardless of party?


By feraltoad on 2/26/2008 6:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
It is wrong to lie about a blow job to the American people. Getting us bogged down in an insanely costly war predicated on mountains of lies that will benefit only the military-industrial complex and petrol companies is also wrong. If I have a choice I'll take the lie about the blow job, thanks.


By retrospooty on 2/26/2008 8:51:19 PM , Rating: 1
Everyone lies, and so do all presidents. The diff is, Clintons lie was a personal matter and wasn't anyones business... Bush's long string of lies cost us over 1 trillion dollars and 4000 lives.

which is worse?


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By sporr on 2/26/2008 1:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you dont remember bill clinton authorizing the missile attack on those medical facilities in the middle east to shed some of the light off his impeachment?


I dont remember Bill Clinton allowing 9/11 to happen, just to further his and others political and financial gain.

ps. im not a conspiracy theorist, so dont throw that one at me in response :)


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By Xerio on 2/26/2008 2:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
Wha....?!?!? Bush allowed 9/11 to happen? Show me proof.


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By retrospooty on 2/26/2008 2:21:55 PM , Rating: 1
I think he means the fact that the Bush Administration was specifically warned that Al Qaeda was up to something really big in the days and weeks before 9/11 and the warnings went ignored.

I for one don't blame Bush for that, hindsight is easy. No-one could have guessed when and where they would strike, or how severely it turned out to be, so lets give Bush a break on that one... I also totally agree with Bush going into Afganistan to get these nutsacks. good Job Georgy...

I just cant grasp why, in the end, instead of going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan, we diverted to Iraq, and remain there today, while Al Qaeda regrouped, and is gaining strength again, and why people think Bush is doing a good job at national security. It makes zero sense to me.


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By Xerio on 2/26/2008 2:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, we may never know...

I just have a hard time with people making unsubstantiated comments like "Bush allowed 9/11 to happen." That is a huge accusation to make, no matter what mistakes Bush has made.


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By sporr on 2/26/2008 3:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
Of course it is a huge accusation, the issue itself is huge.

I dont want to argue over this, but, how is my statement unsubstantiated? There is plenty of evidence suggesting that the bush administration, FAA and other agencies had much more involvement than they would like the public to know about.

quote:
this is the stuff that can bring governments down... and governments dont like being brought down.


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By Xerio on 2/26/2008 3:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
I just want you to back up your statement.

I think that it is so sad that people take events like 9/11 that brought us together as a country for a short while and twist them to fit their agendas. We need to work hard to be the United States of America; not to find fault in others.

We are all human, and we can't fault our leaders for that. No one can say that they would have better handled the events leading up to and after the attacks September 11, 2001.


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By retrospooty on 2/26/2008 4:41:53 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder if you know that you sound alot like Barack Obama right now =)

I mean that as a compliment, he has my vote, and undivided attention.


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By Xerio on 2/26/2008 4:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I guess.

I do agree with him that we need to be more united, but that is where my agreement with his ideas ends. Obama is way too liberal for me.


By sporr on 2/26/2008 5:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
Let me also apologise for taking this off topic !


By sporr on 2/26/2008 5:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think its just easier for you to believe that the people in control of your countries homeland defence are incompetent.

quote:
the 9/11 Commission found that "A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania"


By logaldinho on 2/26/2008 2:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
there is no theory, impeachment hits high noon and clinton makes a missile attack - something that was completely out of the blue and not in line with the administration -


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By sprockkets on 2/25/08, Rating: 0
By ebakke on 2/26/2008 1:06:21 AM , Rating: 3
No. Users rated your post down, because they didn't like it.


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By HighWing on 2/25/2008 11:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Goes to show that the bill does have justifiable meaning. And no, the US Govt. is not worried about the 18yr college guy talking to his mom on the phone, so lets not even start that debate.


Ummm WRONG!!!. Your statement only shows that you don't read things fully and jump to conclusions too fast. Any American bill would have NO effect on this situation, or did you not read/realize that these are telecoms in another country that we have no jurisdiction over?


By ebakke on 2/26/2008 1:08:28 AM , Rating: 2
The bill in question covers calls originating outside the US, connecting to someone within the US. So in this case, a Taliban member in Afghanistan could call someone in the US.


By rudy on 2/26/2008 2:00:25 AM , Rating: 3
Wont shutting down the tower also shut down their own communication? Not sure how they gain so much.


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By retrospooty on 2/26/2008 8:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
"And no, the US Govt. is not worried about the 18yr college guy talking to his mom on the phone, so lets not even start that debate."

I agree with you there... The problem is that we had Afganistan all wrapped up, job nearly done, then we unjustly turned our attention away from the terrorists and Al Qaeda/Taliban (who represent a real threat to the USA, and others) and sent all our troopps and resources to Iraq, leaving Afganistan largely undefended, and letting Al Qaeda nd Taliban forces back in, to regroup and take back over.

What the hell was our Military leadership thinking?


RE: Doesn't this tell you something?...
By DASQ on 2/26/2008 11:34:00 AM , Rating: 2
Largely undefended?

I guess Canada's occupational troops are just huddling around the single Tim Horton's and ice fishing, right?


Am I missing something?
By rsmech on 2/25/2008 7:13:01 PM , Rating: 4
If the towers are shut down their cell phones don't work, therefore no overheard conversations or plans. Wouldn't shutting their own phones off during these times have the same effect?

If I'm missing something I would guess that these cell providers are assisting the U.S. and others and the Taliban use other carriers. But their conversations may use these companies towers at times. Shut them down & possibly the only towers left are the ones not assisting the coalition. Sounds like these other cell companies have the billing addresses of a few doors we want to knock on.




RE: Am I missing something?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/25/2008 7:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
All the vets I know who were out there used satellite phones anyway. It seems like all they're doing is demanding to shoot themselves in the foot.


RE: Am I missing something?
By rsmech on 2/25/2008 7:56:19 PM , Rating: 3
The real issue is that the underlings have day jobs so when work is over they gossip like 15 year old girls with other Taliban underlings. I think their ranks have become smaller so they are more desperate to hold onto their members. They can't control their members out of fear like before, The Coalition is working. The Taliban can't control their own so they try & control the environment. They can no longer drop the hammer on the little guy, he'll just walk away.


RE: Am I missing something?
By Tacoloft on 2/25/2008 9:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
good point. Also, didn't they just tell the U.S. exactly where they will be focusing their efforts? If I were comanding any U.S. or allied ground forces in the area I would hide snipers and such around each tower and wait for them to come out and play... Course there might be a lot of towers--but still a good idea...


This is Osama...
By dflynchimp on 2/25/2008 8:02:49 PM , Rating: 5
...can you hear me now?...shit!




RE: This is Osama...
By Tacoloft on 2/25/2008 9:41:17 PM , Rating: 1
LMAO--actually it is pronouced "sheet!"


RE: This is Osama...
By eye smite on 2/25/2008 9:50:57 PM , Rating: 4
That is pretty funny.


OR.....
By GreenEnvt on 2/25/2008 7:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
The taliban could just tell their people to turn off there cell phones at night...




RE: OR.....
By Noya on 2/26/2008 12:22:35 AM , Rating: 4
They would actually have to take out the battery to have the phone dead.

"Kaplan further added that the functionality of the roving bug was in place even when the phone was powered off -- or at least when the phone looked to be powered off."
http://www.dailytech.com/FBI+Activates+Cell+Phones...


RE: OR.....
By jjmcubed on 2/26/2008 2:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
It takes all of 5 seconds to take your battery out. Really, how hard can that be to communicate to others in your group to take out your battery?


Ah
By Trisagion on 2/25/2008 10:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
Now here's a good use for that $1000 GSM cracker.




exchange rate
By sfi786 on 2/25/2008 10:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
A picture is worth a thousand words.

In this case totaling around 2000 words.




SILENCE! I KILL YOU!
By werepossum on 2/26/2008 6:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
Somehow I can't get past the image of Jeff Dunham's terrorist puppet Achmed shreiking "Silence! I kill you!"




"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki