Taliban pressures Afghan cell networks into 5PM curfew

After a series of attacks on mobile phone towers, it appears life in Afghanistan has gotten even harder: the four privately-owned Afghan cell companies have all cowed to the Taliban's demands and begun shutting off their networks between 5PM and 7AM every night. The Taliban claims that the companies are aiding Afghan and NATO troops by leaving the networks operational, and has attacked 10 towers in the past few weeks, completely destroying six. We're not sure how big an impact the shutoff has on troops, but there's no denying the effect on Afghan citizens, many of whom rely on mobile phones to contact loved ones and summon medical services. The Afghan government has said it's encouraging the phone companies to resist the Taliban tactics, and that it will "persuade the companies to turn the signals back on again," but it's not clear when that might happen.

[Via Textually.org; Image courtesy of Talking Proud]

[phanbouy @ Mar 12th 2008 7:25PM]

Good thing the war on terrah's working so well.

But hey, in the 80s the Taliban were able to beat back Soviet Russia where network curfew you.

[matt @ Mar 12th 2008 7:31PM]

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahed warned on Monday that the insurgents would attack the technology because it was being used at night to pin-point rebel bases.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hn849MNegTs1h8saHWgqcx8zS52Q

solution: stop using cell phones you stupid terrorists

[william @ Mar 13th 2008 9:55AM]

Boy are these taliban idiots, its like picking on your little sister because your big sister beat you up.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Mar 12th 2008 11:01PM]

"it was being used at night to pin-point rebel bases."

No surprise they want it shutdown before dusk. Keep them operational and save lives of our troops.

[majortom1981 @ Mar 12th 2008 7:43PM]

wouldnt nato and other armed services use satelite phones and there own networks isntead of afgans?

[James @ Mar 12th 2008 8:31PM]

Its not that the US and NATO are using the cell servises themselves for communitation it is that they are using the signals to locate the rebels themselves in the same way that the iphone is able to get the general location of you while using google maps or how verizons navigation system works. Not as accurate as gps but it will give the general area of where people are using cell phones.

[hugh newmark @ Mar 12th 2008 7:28PM]

I hope their nights start before five :)

[Chris in CA @ Mar 13th 2008 2:58PM]

I think they would've got a little more support if they demanded unlimited voice, data and text for under $50. I know I'd be a lot less quick to flame 'em.

[Cru Jones @ Mar 12th 2008 7:29PM]

Dumb ass cell companies. That's called "negotiating with terrorists." Now that they know they can get away with that, who knows what they'll try next.

[Andy @ Mar 12th 2008 7:31PM]

Probably they'll blow up the towers anyway.

[phanbouy @ Mar 12th 2008 7:32PM]

Cru, I heard you're taking donations to finance the Afghani cell phone companies' armies to fight Taliban warlords. Been watching too much "24" I take it?

[Ed @ Mar 15th 2008 4:29AM]

I think you fail to miss something, rather important too.

This is not a negotiation. The terrorists basically informed the cell companies that their entire infrastructure was at risk if they did not comply. Period.

A Cellular company is not a government, and more importantly, these cellular companies are located directly inside Afghanistan where nothing is protected.

So you are being a little hard on them. The people don't have landlines there, they are too expensive. Cell service is critical. If the towers are not protected by US personal, or Afghanistan police 24/7 those companies cannot possibly replace whole towers every week given their immense cost.

So it was:

1) Risk losing cell service all over the country thereby permanently endangering citizens by removing access to emergency services and incur repair costs at an unsustainable rate.

2) Lose cell service all over the country for 2 hours each day.

If anybody failed here, it was the Afghanistan government not providing the needed protection at each tower.

[CL @ Mar 12th 2008 7:32PM]

man....there goes my unlimited night and weekend minutes.....time to call retention and demand my night minutes start at 4pm....

[Rafer @ Mar 12th 2008 7:33PM]

Why does the BBC site spell it taleban. Fucking brits.

[Josh @ Mar 12th 2008 8:21PM]

Why do you say "brits"? Shouldn't it be British? Or at least "Brits"? Quit nitpicking.

[Amy @ Mar 12th 2008 8:29PM]

Because "Taleban" is much closer to the Afghan pronounciation of the word than "Taliban". And in case you weren't aware, that language you're using is called ENGLISH. The Brits invented the language, so don't go complaining how they spell it. I suppose you think Al-Quaeda rhymes with "raider" too.

[Dolemite @ Mar 12th 2008 8:56PM]

I actually agree with Rafer: fuc the limey bastards.

Amy, you clearly must be the most re!arded person here. There is no phonetic difference between Taleban and Taliban, and you are just making sh!t up.


In any case, do you honestly think "the Brits invented the English language"? Really? You think that human languages are something which are "invented"? Gee, I wonder what language the "Brits" spoke before they "invented" English.

[Mark L. @ Mar 12th 2008 10:06PM]

There is no phonetic difference between Taleban and the correct and majority recognized spelling, Taliban. Just because the fascist limey scum invented the back bones of the American language doesn't mean they can screw it up. The inhabitants of the british isles spoke in Germanic tongue and the tribes developed that into Anglo-Saxon. Anglo-Saxon is no longer spoken so stop using that damn cockney accent.

"Me mum made the team fish and chips, they is going to be ready for the football match."

[El Capitaine @ Mar 12th 2008 10:24PM]

"The Brits invented the language"

As far as I know, the only languages that have been 'invented' are either ones in fiction, like Elvish or the like, and things like Pig-Latin and Gibberish.


Actual widely spoken languages are always based off previous languages. For example, French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, and Portuguese are all 'Romance' languages. They are called such because they are all based off the language these people spoke when they were part of the Roman Empire.
These five languages are different merely because after the fall of the Empire, communications between these countries dropped dramatically. Thus, various words were changed or simply began to be spoken differently, and words ascribed to new concepts were obviously different.

However, if you compare the languages, the grammatical structure and noun genders, among other things, are very similar or the same.

In the same way, as posted above, the Brits did not "invent" English. It is based off of German and Latin, evolved into Anglo-Saxon, and finally into English. They did not 'invent the language.'

Although I can easily accept common British terms simply because its a different in dialect, as the various corners of the US have different dialects, there is no reason for the author to alter the correct spelling of this proper noun.

[thedesolate1 @ Mar 13th 2008 2:28AM]

The truth is that is memory serves me right the U.K is living a modern day 1984. You know with all the cctv's and limited freedom of speech where you can't poke fun at religions and those ear piercing whistles to deny teens of freedom to congregate/freedom of peaceful assembly. You see Taleban is actually the newspeak version of Taliban. lol

[technophobe @ Mar 13th 2008 4:59AM]

@ Dolemite

Before English was "invented" the Brits spoke Briton, Then the Romans came and went. Then the Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons & Jutes) and the Vikings came and the language of England became Anglo-Saxon which was the main language until 1066 when Norman French became the language spoken by the wealthy. These languages evolved into to early forms of what would be recognised as English. Which with the Brittish empire spread all over the world including to North America (our wierdos) and The Saouth Pacific and Australlia (our criminals)

[sixhundredtwentysix @ Mar 13th 2008 6:29AM]

"There is no phonetic difference between Taleban and Taliban, and you are just making sh!t up."

you morons r commenting on a word from language that none of u speak. to any body who has any idea of the asian languages, to them there is huge difference in the phonetics of the two words.

there is world beyond the USA.
do this rest-of-the-world a favour, and shut the f*** up.

[Joseph Singer @ Mar 13th 2008 9:35AM]

Considering that Taliban or Taleban are Arabic words to begin with a translitterated spelling is just that... an approximation of the word in a non-native language.

[BigD145 @ Mar 12th 2008 7:33PM]

Cell networks in Iraq, oh I mean Afghanistan, being pressured to shut down? Wait, you mean to tell me there are still terrorists in Afghanistan?! :O

Afghan gov't to cell companies: Resist the Taliban because we sure as hell won't and the Americans don't give a sh!t. If you were an oil company, maybe they'd care.

[Tony @ Mar 13th 2008 12:37AM]

I personally believe, that most people are too busy to help Afghanistan. We are busy with such as helping the Iraq. They need maps!

[Jon MacDoanld @ Mar 12th 2008 7:45PM]

They're just pissed off no one offers the iPhone yet...

[illutionz @ Mar 12th 2008 7:46PM]

Thanks the good ol' U, S, and A for giving them weapons and training to blow up those towers (oops i mean to fight Soviets)

[moose @ Mar 12th 2008 9:13PM]

It is time to nuke the bastards and fry their little brains

[Ian @ Mar 12th 2008 8:57PM]

Ha, America laughs at your stupid comment!!! Why would America train terrorists? We dont even negotiate with them!

Alas I hope you can understand this

[phanbouy @ Mar 12th 2008 9:06PM]

ian I hope that's sarcasm. If not try reading some history instead of reguritating jingoistic platitudes

[ozzzy @ Mar 13th 2008 1:19AM]

Phanbouy, that comment is seething with sarcasm.

[Ian @ Mar 13th 2008 3:55PM]

wow i guess you didnt get it.. ozzzy thank you for understanding

[Moose @ Mar 12th 2008 8:22PM]

Haven't there been Al Qaeda cells there since 2000?

[Maestro @ Mar 12th 2008 8:41PM]

That's actually funny. Why hasn't it been voted up?

[adrian @ Mar 12th 2008 9:45PM]

@Moose

And there gaining more worldwide coverage, everyday.

[68newyorker @ Mar 12th 2008 8:23PM]

It sickens me to know that we've failed so utterly.

[jakem @ Mar 12th 2008 9:04PM]

Don't you mean that it sickens you to think that you've failed so miserably after killing thousands of poor, innocent human beings for no good reason at all.

Look on the bright side, at least things are going well for you in Iraq...oh, wait a minute!!!

[derX @ Mar 12th 2008 9:13PM]

Of course the comments land where they choose. The reply box is just a suggestion as to where the commenter would like the comment to go, perhaps.

But it was @Amy about the whole Taleban/Taliban, thing.

[Amy @ Mar 12th 2008 9:34PM]

derX,

I agree with much of what you say. You're even right that "Taleban" isn't MUCH closer. I was trying to explain to Rafer why the British media spells it the way they do. The British spelling pronounced in standard English IS closer to the Afghan pronounciation.

Amy

[thedesolate1 @ Mar 13th 2008 2:27AM]

Guys the truth is that if memory serves me right the U.K is living a modern day 1984. You know with all the CCTV's and limited freedom of speech where you can't poke fun at religions and those ear piercing whistles to deny teens freedom to congregate/freedom of public peaceful assembly. You see Taleban is actually the newspeak version of Taliban. lol. Oh and the U.S is going slowly going the same path as well thanks to the current administration. Forgive me for the cliche but "they say those that give up their freedom for security often end up losing both."

[derX @ Mar 12th 2008 9:12PM]

Amy, your arguement is so flawed.

First, you start out by saying the British way of spelling is correct because "'Taleban' is much closer to the Afghan pronounciation of the word than 'Taliban'." "Much closer" is a bit much. Taliban/Taleban is pronounced phonetically as Tal-uh-ban; both a similar. Also, someone could just as easily mistakingly pronounce the "e" in "Taleban" as "ee" as many do the "i" in "Taliban." Result: there really is no right answer. It's transliterated, there is no one correct answer in this case.

Then you say it's correct because the language is Engish thus whatever the British say is correct, is correct. This is so not correct. First of all, language is fluid in that it eventually changes with time--'today' is no longer spelled 'to-day'. Ultimately, time controls language, not the country from which it orginates. If the British media--notice, he said BBC, not the *British Panel of the English Language, or whatever the official governing body of the language is--started spelling chair as 943u9t!, does not make it correct.

* Btw, this does not refute the point that time is in control of language; said governing body will just officially change norms to reflect contemporary usage, which is the product of the times.

[CharlieX @ Mar 12th 2008 8:33PM]

This has tertiary advantages: primaruly not being able to drunk dial

[James @ Mar 12th 2008 8:35PM]

The US should have help build more than their military which it used for its own means against the soviets then maybe they wouldnt hate us so much.

[Zorque @ Mar 12th 2008 8:41PM]

I honestly didn't know the Taliban was still operating in Afghanistan. Great job basically halfway getting rid of them and then forgetting about the entire country to focus on one that didn't actually do anything to us, guys.

[Iphtashu Fitz @ Mar 12th 2008 8:41PM]

Is it just me or do the Taliban claims seem like total BS? I seriously doubt the military is relying on commercial cell towers for their own communication, so this likely won't impact them at all. And if the military is using the towers to track Taliban militants then all they need to do is turn off their phones. If they're really paranoid then they can pull the batteries out of them. This is just a thinly veiled attempt by the Taliban to force their totalitarian views on as much of the Afghan public as possible.

[adrian @ Mar 12th 2008 9:38PM]

@ Dolemite

I am sorry you feel that way about the British, Still you can't please everyone, eh?.

As for the topic, it seems as though the Taleban are in control.

[n0thx1ng @ Mar 12th 2008 9:02PM]

Hmmm... It's America's fault that the Taliban has urged the shutdown of cellular service in Afghanistan, right? I mean if US and NATO weren't present in the country this wouldn't be a problem. The Afghani people would be enjoying their free nightly minutes on the phone with their friends and loved ones. But no! America had to be there.

If this isn't proof of the Taliban's totalitarian view on life, I don't know what is.

[Sirius @ Mar 12th 2008 9:10PM]

Hehe... Tele-ban..

[moose @ Mar 13th 2008 9:41AM]

nuke em

[Dany @ Mar 12th 2008 11:11PM]

Phew, good thing I use Al-Qaeda Cellular, we still get free nights and weekends!