Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pakistan To Cut Phone Services To Prevent Muharram Attacks

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the this-interruption-brought-to-you-by dept.

Communications 119

SternisheFan writes with this news from the Indian Express: "Pakistan's interior minister Friday said the government will suspend cell phone services in most parts of the country over the next two days to prevent attacks against Shia Muslims during a key religious commemoration. Militants often detonate bombs using cell phones and this is the first time the government has implemented such a wide-scale suspension. Saturday and Sunday are the most important days of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic calendar, especially important to Shias. Pakistani Shias Sunday observe Ashoura, commemorating the 7th century death of Imam Hussein, the Prophet Muhammad's grandson. Different parts of the Muslim world mark Ashoura on different days —neighbouring Afghanistan, for example, observes it on Saturday. 'The suspension of cell phone services will begin at 6 am Saturday and run through the next day,' Interior Minister Rehman Malik told reporters in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad. He said 90 per cent of the bombs set off by militants in Pakistan have been detonated using cell phones. Some criticized the government for suspending services, saying it was a huge inconvenience."

cancel ×

119 comments

first phoned in post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076125)

boom !

Idiots (2, Insightful)

some old guy (674482) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076131)

the whole bloody lot.

Re:Idiots (1)

mrops (927562) | about a year and a half ago | (#42079395)

On what basis...

you sound like some "grumpy" old guy

Re:Idiots (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42080031)

Are you perhaps implying that getting blown up is somehow equally inconvenient? Don't be silly!

I don't think there is a greater hell (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076143)

than being a religious minority in Pakistan

Shia, Sikh, Hindu, or Christian

the West should just allow all religious minorities free passage out of Pakistan

they're being hunted

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076235)

They don't want to leave, it's their home.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076321)

and they've done a lot for pakistan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minorities_in_Pakistan [wikipedia.org]

The largest religious minority in Pakistan after Muslims, is that of the of Christians. This includes Anglicans, Protestants, Catholics, Armenian Orthodox, Assyrian/Chaldean, smaller numbers of Nestorians and more recent Evangelical sects. They are represented in many fields of Pakistani society and have to some degree, achieved higher positions in the government, bureaucracy and businesses. The Pakistani government has reserved quotas in educational institutes and reserved seats in government to ensure appropriate representation of the Christian community. Famous Pakistani Air Force pilot Cecil Chaudhry is a Pakistani Christian and was credited with numerous kills receiving the PAF awards for gallantry and bravery.

but then

Due to forced conversions, extortion and kidnapping of girls Hindus are fleeing to India. The kidnapping and rape of a teenage Hindu girl, Manisha Kumari, on August 7, 2012 is said to have caused widespread concern among the community. On 10 August 2012 around 250 Hindus refugees from Pakistan crossed over to India.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

the honorable thing to do is stay and fight for your country. which is why i hate on liberal americans who whine about fleeing to canada should republicans win

but staying and fighting assumes an honorable opponent, and a numerical balance

when you are vastly outnumbered, and the enemy has no problem committing vile acts that go unpunished, it is time to run, and live to fight another day, as an expat

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076423)

How about conservative Americans who want to secede?

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076475)

i think that is a hilarious revelation in the dichotomy between left wing douchebags and right wing douchebags

1. a right wing douchebag will claim provenance over the land, even when everyone has moved past their antiquated values that, in reality, never really existed except in myth. therefore, they think secession actually has a chance, because it nicely dovetails with their bullshit belief they are somehow more authentically american. they honestly believe, if they are in a room of 100 americans, and 99 claim that they value {X}, and this right wing douchebag alone claims belief in value {Y}, that they alone are still somehow more genuinely american, and wrap themselves in the flag. it's blindness, egocentrism and selfishness, in ripe psychological display

2. meanwhile, a left wing douchebag will easily sever all allegiance to their homeland, revealing a cowardice to not stand and fight for their beliefs. they think lip service to insane fringe thought is enough, and that fighting for the hearts and minds of their fellow americans is besides the point. then they will flee at the earliest possible convenience, revealing how shallow their beliefs really are. as long as they think that flight is more important than fight, they will always be just empty flakes on the fringe

left wing douchebags and right wing douchebags: you have to hand it to them, their particular strain of douchebagginess is at least unique

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076693)

1. a right wing douchebag will claim provenance over the land, even when everyone has moved past their antiquated values that, in reality, never really existed except in myth. therefore, they think secession actually has a chance, because it nicely dovetails with their bullshit belief they are somehow more authentically american. they honestly believe, if they are in a room of 100 americans, and 99 claim that they value {X}, and this right wing douchebag alone claims belief in value {Y}, that they alone are still somehow more genuinely american, and wrap themselves in the flag.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing about what to have for dinner.

A lynch mob is also a good example of democracy.

If that one out of 100 is more correct than the other 99, then he deserves to prevail and they don't. If he is not more correct than the 99, it would be the rare case of the majority/mainstream actually having the high ground. Rather than getting their way by force of numbers which is the kind of "might makes right" bullshit that is a lot more common.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076701)

Don't stop before you get to the "moderate" wing douchebags. They'll listen to the arguments of the other douchebags and say, "you guys are douchebags. Let's do half of what each of you want." Because obviously averaging two bad ideas is just like having a good idea, right?

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076749)

Moderates truly are are spineless and fickle children.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

sycodon (149926) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077095)

The only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow strip and dead animals.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

Krojack (575051) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077133)

Wish I had mod point to give you solely for fact you haven't been brainwashed by either side and will openly acknowledge they are both idiots.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42079235)

Allegiance to my homeland.. Lol. Nationalism is arrogance

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076657)

they are butthurt morons.

What i don't get though that you can't talk even hypothetically about secession in the US. Ron Paul recently said that the secession, no matter how improbable, should always be on the table, so the federal government doesn't get too comfortable with pushing plebes around. He was shat all over by everyone, including all those tolerant, peace loving progressives. Are they against self-determination and freedom of association only because 200 years ago people's ancestors joined some union?

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076835)

Lots of people are for political self-determination until it lessens their own political power.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077653)

I'll start listening when he denounces his state-level-theocracy ways.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078157)

nice ad hominem. Why won't you do the same with B.H.Obama who is directly responsible for deaths of thousands as the head of the war machine. Oh yeah, he looks cool on TV and poses for memetastic photos a lot so he's justified.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076741)

which is why i hate on liberal americans who whine about fleeing to canada should republicans win

Hey, at least when liberals threaten to leave, they don't threaten to secede.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077071)

which is why i hate on liberal americans who whine about fleeing to canada should republicans win

Hey, at least when liberals threaten to leave, they don't threaten to secede.

Is that you, Alec Baldwin?

Now that we're gonna have 4 consecutive terms of the Bush Administration - Patriot Act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps, unilateral invasions, extrajudicial killings of US citizens - when the hell are you actually gonna leave?

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076279)

Don't worry, the phones will all be up and running on Christmas eve.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076353)

Don't worry, all the phones will be ringing.

Signed, Jobe.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077087)

Not even that. Most phones have a schedule alarm function. Shouldn't take much more than five minutes poking around the settings menu. Sure they might not be able to ring or text it to set it off, but if they have an idea of the date and time where a target is most likely to show up it doesn't take a genius to figure out the rest. If they're already familiar with a certain model phone for triggering bombs, disabling the actual phone function isn't going to throw them off by that much.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076315)

No. ALL Superstition is bad. ALL Superstition is enemy to the search for truth because it promotes dogma instead.

We shoud DESPISE primitive beliefs and seek to keep their adherents away. We have enough Superstitionist nutters in the West already.

If any can PROVE their Sky Fairie exists, I shall recant and kiss his/her/it's Noodly Appendage. They've had THOUSANDS of years to prove they aren't promoting lies designed to enslave men to other men.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (-1, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076347)

hey, asshole:

i would prefer a moderate religious person over an atheist zealot, any day

the problem with religion is the zealotry. the point in getting rid of religion is more moderation. but if, as with your scumbag attitude, you get rid of the religion and yet you still have zealots, nothing has improved

so kindly fuck off, shitbag. your attitude sucks. change it

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076505)

i would prefer a moderate religious person over an atheist zealot, any day

What exactly is the definition of an "atheist zealot"? Asking for positive evidence sounds perfectly reasonable to me, especially whenever what those people profess is only one of a large number of equally likely alternatives. That's just simple logic of reasoning to me.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

rodarson2k (1122767) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076671)

What exactly is the definition of an "atheist zealot"?

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/extremists [theoatmeal.com]

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42081289)

You should have noted that Mr. Oatmeal did some careful digging and posted a link to atheistcartoons.com, where this comic was originally conceived.
Still funny, in a very sad http://books.google.com/books/about/Laughter_through_tears.html?id=hyLzAAAAMAAJ [google.com] sort of way.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076681)

Perhaps, for example, an atheist zealot would be someone who opposes offering asylum to heavily persecuted religious minorities because "we shoud DESPISE primitive beliefs and seek to keep their adherents away"? That degree of intolerance sure looks like zealotry to me.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

tverbeek (457094) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076721)

I'm not sure if this is what he meant, but one can be an atheist who is zealous about something non-theistic, such as an atheist libertarian zealot, an atheist communist zealot, an atheist animal-rights zealot, or an atheist law-and-order zealot. Those can be more dangerous than your garden variety moderate theist.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

causality (777677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076763)

i would prefer a moderate religious person over an atheist zealot, any day

What exactly is the definition of an "atheist zealot"? Asking for positive evidence sounds perfectly reasonable to me, especially whenever what those people profess is only one of a large number of equally likely alternatives. That's just simple logic of reasoning to me.

Well, he could start by not implicitly linking a few psychopaths who USE BOMBS AND MURDER OTHERS with those who go to church or have their own personal beliefs. He is not asking for evidence to satisfy his own inquiry. That would be a separate discussion. He's simply expressing his hatred and mockery of anyone who entertains beliefs he finds distasteful.

Blaming all religion (and he made no distinction) for the problems in Pakistan is like never eating food again because someone was choking.

This one is apparently wasted on him, but maybe you will appreciate it. I am not an atheist, yet I feel no need to mock, disrespect, denigrate, or look down my nose at anyone who chooses to be an atheist. To me that is a personal decision. If a person wants my input, they will have to ask me specifically. Otherwise, it's none of my damned business what they believe. I should treat other people with the dignity and respect they deserve no matter what I think about their faith or lack of faith.

That is what you are not seeing from the GP. He does not appear to be an atheist because he found no religion to be satisfying or believable. He appears to be an atheist so he can pat himself on the back for being better than all those "morons" who don't see things his way. What a miserable way to be. I assure you, no one who lives like that can be truly joyful and happy, not in any enduring sort of way. Their happiness depends on what other people do.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42080539)

Your own sig could be easily applied to religion and rational thought.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077079)

What exactly is the definition of an "atheist zealot"?

A: Atheists on /. - Seriously, I've never seen a bigger group of haters in my life. Every time a discussion comes up that remotely involves religion the Horde of /. non-believers go on a rage fest. I can understand not believing or not knowing what you believe, but the level of hate that comes from some of these people (Hatta I'm looking at you) is sickening and nothing less than zealotry.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077107)

i would prefer a moderate religious person over an atheist zealot, any day

What exactly is the definition of an "atheist zealot"? Asking for positive evidence sounds perfectly reasonable to me, especially whenever what those people profess is only one of a large number of equally likely alternatives. That's just simple logic of reasoning to me.

Just Google Damon Vix [google.com] .

Such an asshole, the very air around him has a visible pucker.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (2)

evilviper (135110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42079847)

First, let's not confuse atheists with agnostics...

Speaking for myself only, I'd call all self-assured atheists crazy zealots. If you profess to be rational, but are CERTAIN that there can't be any deity out there, you're just nuts. There's the simple fact that you can't prove a negative, the fact that insufficient evidence to prove a positive does not disprove the original point, etc.

If you don't know what's out there, so you don't believe in any particular religion (agnostic), I say more power to you. If instead, you're an angry, loud-mouthed jack-ass who has to spout-off about how sure you are that there's no deity, and jump into every discussion, attacking the beliefs of all those who disagree with you, calling them idiots who deserve to be harmed... You're just as much of a blind believer, and a dangerous zealot who would probably kill for his religion should the appropriate circumstances arrise.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (2)

jma05 (897351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42080041)

I define atheists and agnostics quite differently.

> you don't believe in any particular religion (agnostic)

That's atheistic for me, not agnostic. Agnostic is when you say one/some of the religions *might* actually be correct, but there is no way to know for sure. As an atheist, I hold that all *current* religions made enough demonstrated blunders by their claims that their cosmic myths and escatologies don't deserve any further consideration (the validity of their social philosophies are a different matter, I am just referring to the supernatural bits here). As an atheist, I do not worry about whether a so far unmentioned deity beyond current religions could in fact be a causal force. I just think it is a wrong question.

Let's replace God with Lochness monster.

Agnostic - The current sightings don't prove existence, but it is still an open question.
Atheistic - So many of the sightings turned out to be errors and outright frauds that the rational position is that we consider it as just a myth.

If we do in fact find a Lochness monster, I won't be embarrassed about my position. My position was rational and being rational with available information does not guarantee correctness. It just improves the odds significantly.

Can unicorns theoretically exist? Sure. But please excuse me if I privately chuckle at unicorn believers though. I won't normally mind their personal beliefs beyond that, but when they unilaterally think it is OK to preach to me and label me on my lack of unicorn belief, question my morality and when their beliefs start coloring public policy... which does impact my life, I do believe in calling out on their irrationality (people everywhere are rational about some things and irrational about others).

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42080307)

According to Merriam-Webster...

Agnostic:

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Atheist:

: one who believes that there is no deity

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about a year and a half ago | (#42080581)

By those definitions no one could rationally be an atheist, making it a useless notion. Those definitions seem to have been written from a religious point of view.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42080771)

We're talking beliefs here, rationality doesn't enter into it. Besides, I've personally encountered several such irrational atheists (hence my original post), so they most certainly do exist in decent numbers, and the term is perfectly useful. It's not my fault that some of the folks you may identify with, just happen to be just as irrational (and frankly, batshit insane) as the various religious extremists.

Other sources have similar definitions of the term. Wikipedia uses a similar definition as well:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5]"

Those definitions seem to have been written from a religious point of view.

Tone down the persecution-complex there, bud. Just because you've been using a word wrong for years, doesn't change its meaning, and make all the dictionary writers conspirators to discredit you. I'm sure if you take a few seconds to look, you'll find a perfectly cromulent alternate term to suit you.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year and a half ago | (#42080847)

Right, so holding up a definition from your favourite dictionary wins. Unless you've truly given this very little thought and study, you surely must be aware that it's nowhere near as clear-cut as you claim. Have you read the Oxford English Dictionary definitions?

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

Hey, wait. You as an agnostic are specifically claiming that nothing can be known about the existence or nature of God? That seems a bold statement and a very large burden of proof. Nope, I won't assume that because I know that it's just one usage of the word. I'll do you the courtesy of asking you what you believe.

I'm an atheist in the sense of lacking belief in gods. With particular gods though I'd go so far as to say that they certain gods are internally inconsistent and probably don't exist. If a believer told me that their god is the universe then to that extent I'd agree that their god exists. Where it's likely to break-down is when the believer begins to ascribe self-serving attributes and desires to their god.

Your agnosticism appears rooted in a straw man of atheism. Are you the type who's trying to rise above the melee by adopting the view that theists and atheists are just as bad as each other? In reality atheists and agnostics generally hold the same basic view. Do you believe God exists? If your answer is "I don't know", then by default you lack belief in God. You are an atheist in the sense of lacking belief, and you would also be an agnostic in the sense of not claiming knowledge of God's existence or non-existence.

By all means use the agnostic term if it feels more comfortable. Don't use atheism as a straw man to make agnosticism seem the rational rising above the irrationality of atheism and theism. Read, and maybe consider discussing this with atheists and agnostics.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076767)

Naïveté, it verily oozes from your words...

The problem with religion is religion. Where do you think those jihadists in Afghanistan are gettiing money from? Who do you think pays for all those madrassas in Pakistan? The extremists are supported by the not-so-extreme, who are supported by the "conservatives", who can only thrive within the cover of a large population of moderates, who are shielded as far as public relations by the liberals.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077579)

Yeah, I am sick of these atheist zealots bombing cities in the name of spreading atheism. I wish there were more conservative atheist. All they do is talk.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076439)

Intolerance is intolerance, no matter what you believe or don't believe. An asshole is an asshole, no matter what he believes. Consider circletimessquare's post to be ditto'd here.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078305)

Is it trying to erradicate the flu virus intolerance against disease?
if so, is that bad?
No one whould like their lifes to be ruled by sychpaths so why its ok to allow religion and religious nuts to rule people lifes
Am I been intolerant agaist believers by whising that they were dealt apropriately, e.g. treating them as patiens sufering from a mental disease?
Is is not that the rational, logical and humane proper response?

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42080495)

Intolerance is intolerance, no matter what you believe or don't believe.

It's only "intolerance" if religion itself is a reasonable and reasoned thing. Otherwise it's concern over a dangerous form of delusion.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076497)

than being a religious minority in Pakistan

Shia, Sikh, Hindu, or Christian

the West should just allow all religious minorities free passage out of Pakistan

they're being hunted

Living in the Gaza strip? You are ruled by mindless theocratic thugs, and hemmed into a concentration camp by right wing ultra nationalists who would like nothing better than to drive you at bayonet point into the sea and then sit on the beach eating popcorn and sipping soft drinks while they watch you drown.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

amiak (663900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077583)

so... heaven exists, hell exists, people exist... all for no good reason whatsoever? what you *think* about hell won't really matter will it if you happen to be wrong. you place too much esteem on your limited intellect. you are betting your current state of comfort on the idea that painful punishment that lasts long time won't happen to you. why not? anybody have a safety certificate that extends beyond the grave? the Koran is the uncreated Speech of the Creator of the heavens and earth. You can prefer "science" over "religion" if you want but I don't recommend it. That ambiguous route is polluted anyway. Experts can pinpoint fallacious arguments and sink the boat of misguidance. The challenge is to find the person with the informational cure. "Science" is required and "Religion" is up to you. However, since you will be alone in your grave I hope you have had a solid reason for the daily decisions you have made. Did you Create yourself or are you made from nothing? Have concern for The One who you will eventually return to.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42079539)

than being a religious minority in Pakistan

Shia, Sikh, Hindu, or Christian

the West should just allow all religious minorities free passage out of Pakistan

they're being hunted

yes, I'm sure Israel would be glad to take them all in.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42080117)

Except maybe Shias. once in the west, they would all of a sudden be a muslim first and anyone else second. Shia majority countries are not faring any better you know. Learn from history.

Re:I don't think there is a greater hell (1)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | about a year and a half ago | (#42080795)

Yes there is, try being a religious minority in Saudi Arabia(frankly, all non-wahabi), in Burma(muslims), In Srilanka(hindus)...

My country is a miserable, miserable place, but trust me, I have seen worse.

Cell phones don't kill people (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076163)

...people kill people.

Re:Cell phones don't kill people (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076483)

the roaming charges can be killer

Re:Cell phones don't kill people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076519)

As funny as the OP was trying to be, there's a good point to be made in this post. In the US our constitution is constructed around this idea to limit governmental powers and the way we do this is through the freedom of speech and freedom to bare arms. It seems like the cell phone falls under both.

Re:Cell phones don't kill people (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076735)

The right to bear arms (if you interpret that as either the right to have and serve in an army/militia, or a personal right to own a gun) doesn't mean you just get to shoot people for the hell of it, or because you disagree with their religion though. If you're using a gun for that purpose your gun (and your freedom) can and should be taken way.

Cell phones aren't speech, at least not in the constitutionally protected sense of being able to say what you want, no matter how vile, without the government stopping you. Without a cell phone you can still say whatever you want, you just can't use a mobile to do so.

Anything after that is a far more serious discussion than presented here, because cell phones being used to murder people, and a lot of people, is a very serious problem. If you cannot find the people behind the cell phones then as a matter of public policy you may need to block cell phones, or change the rules about acquiring cell phones, or both, or any number of other things. Just like guns. No one in the world looks at gun ownership without reflection on just what types of guns, what they're being used for, and what the cost benefit analysis really is. The rest of the world generally disagrees with the US assessments, but the US do think about this a lot.

why not just jam the signal ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076175)

why disable everything and not just jam signals around the area ? i've been to a couple of events here in Canada where they have Cellphone Jammers and they work really well !! nothing like getting zero cell-phone coverage on parliament hill !

Re:why not just jam the signal ? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076333)

You don't have to go far to find such technology in use. One of the black vans that accompanies the president is supposedly a continuously operating cell jammer.

But the difference here is that it is done for religious purposes, to protect one of the most violent religions in the world today. And since the bombings would target markets and parades and Mosques, the number of areas needing protection pretty much constitutes the entire country.

Will phone service be up and running all through Christmas and Easter?
Of course it will.

Re:why not just jam the signal ? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076389)

I've been to a couple of events here in Canada where they have cellphone jammers and they work really well!

Nope, that's just the regular coverage of our crappy carriers.

Are they going to ban the sale of clocks too? (1)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076191)

Will they then also ban all devices capable of being involved in triggering a bomb: clocks, watches, matches, and egg timers? Are they also banning the use of vehicles to inhibit mobility in planting these bombs? Will they be requiring people to report to the local police station to have their hands tied behind their backs to prevent them from making said bombs? Just wondering....

probably. (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076205)

some of the wacko bin Loonies would like to roll the clock back to 700 AD, so shut off the electricity and phones and let them see what it would be like. oh, and there were no rifles and RPGs and stuff, let them go back to horses and bayonets.

Re:probably. (3, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076253)

...and binders for their women.

no, the other kind of binder.

way back in the sticks, it's still done there (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076663)

some Sauronesque minds out there....

Re:Are they going to ban the sale of clocks too? (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076227)

Even easier - give AT&T the contract for all Pakistani cell phones. Nothing would get through, anytime.

Re:Are they going to ban the sale of clocks too? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076241)

Will they then also ban all devices capable of being involved in triggering a bomb: clocks, watches, matches, and egg timers?

That won't help you. If you're going to commit a serious crime, what's a pesky ban to prevent you from doing it? Anyway, building your own radio-controlled detonator shouldn't be difficult these days. With modern electronic components? Child's play.

why not block the area off and force any one (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076251)

why not block the area off and force any one entering to go under a full body cavity search

Re:why not block the area off and force any one (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076575)

full body cavity search

That sounds like a call for laparoscopy to me. Anyway, a shaped charge in the abdominal cavity isn't such a bad idea! You get quite a lot of bang for the buck, pardon my pun.

Re:why not block the area off and force any one (1)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | about a year and a half ago | (#42080335)

They do this, things are cordoned off, barb wires, military snipers, the works, etc.

But you underestimate terrorists. My neighbour could be a terrorist and I would never know until I went BOOM.

Police have discovered cellphone-bombs in dustbins, and even bins used to house torn piece with Islamic words on them (they are then disposed of separately)...terrorists are like honeybadgers, they don't give a shit.

Hence the blanket downage.

Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076193)

Religion! Let's keep it alive.

Doesn't seem a real solution (4, Insightful)

Brandano (1192819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076203)

If they use a different system to detonate a bomb (and now they know the cellphones won't work, so it becomes more likely) then it will delay any call for help from the area. Can't they just set up the towers so that a new, unknown, or unregistered foreign number can only make and not receive calls? Then it's a matter of asking people crossing the border to register their number if they want to receive calls, and that makes them more traceable. In any case nothing beats good detective work, most of these "security" measures seem to be just for show, and easily defeated. Why people always seems to think that the bad guys must be stupid? Too many action movies?

what about banding pre paid phones and force you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076307)

what about banding per paid phones and force you to get up your name / info to get a working sim / be able to take a call.

But even with out going only there still a way to use it in a bomb just dial out and then send a tone that sets it off.

Re:Doesn't seem a real solution (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076395)

The bombers don't come from across the borders. The come from the next street over.
And they use stolen phones.

Re:Doesn't seem a real solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076757)

Do we really need to explain the difference between "And" and "Or" to you?

Re:Doesn't seem a real solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42080823)

Do we really need to explain "stolen phone" to you?

they'll just send a Nobel vest over there (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076669)

plenty of people they can coerce into wearing clothing that ticks.

Re:Doesn't seem a real solution (2)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076997)

Why people always seems to think that the bad guys must be stupid?

Everybody is stupid.

The problem is that some people are stupid enough to assume that their enemy is more stupid than themselves.

Re:Doesn't seem a real solution (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077147)

I expect they use stolen phones -- a phone stolen that day, or the day before, if necessary -- so none of what you proposed will work.

Re:Doesn't seem a real solution (3, Interesting)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | about a year and a half ago | (#42080345)

The PTA (Pakistan Telecommunications Authority) has been on a MASSIVE crackdown to block unregistered SIMs...but with a zillion unregistered sims floating around (it was so bad that *hawkers* used to sell sims with attractive numbers on stands everywhere...) that nothing short of a blanket ban is effective.

Timer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076207)

I have no knowledge but always though that cellphones were used purely because they had great countdown timers built in? Nothing to do with network. So is this just another "great firewall of wherever" excuse for authorities to mess with the phone system?

Re:Timer? (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076399)

Timers suck. What if you need to abort? Also, timing can vary... do it at the right time and you can maximize your kill rate... at the wrong time, it is minimized. Worse, you accidentally kill a friend or relative.

Note IANAT [I am not a terrorist], but it's not hard to imagine... I wonder if the people who actually do this stuff give this much consideration to the act?

Re:Timer? (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077013)

Worse, you accidentally kill a friend or relative.

A truly dedicated terrorist HAS no friends, nor relatives.... anymore!

Re:Timer? (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076449)

There are a lot of ways you can use a cell phone. Basically any way that triggers the speaker can be used.
The timer option is only chosen for airplanes which will be out of cell range.

Most of the time the bomb is triggered by a simple text message or phone call after it is carried into the target area
by a imbecile too stupid to understand what they are doing or an equally imbecilic jihadist convinced that the 17 virgins will be waiting for him.
The bombers are usually watching, so they can set it off early if the mule is approached by police.

(I read somewhere that the number of village idiots in Pakistan and Afghanistan has fallen to nearly zero.)

Second to garage door openers (not all that common in that part of the world) cell phones are simply the device that is cheapest and most readily available and drop dead (bad pun) easiest to find and use.

Re:Timer? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076489)

(I read somewhere that the number of village idiots in Pakistan and Afghanistan has fallen to nearly zero.)

Unfortunately, no. Humanity is exceptionally efficient in this regard. No matter how quickly we use them up, we make more of them even faster.

Re:Timer? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076565)

(I read somewhere that the number of village idiots in Pakistan and Afghanistan has fallen to nearly zero.)

Unfortunately, no. Humanity is exceptionally efficient in this regard. No matter how quickly we use them up, we make more of them even faster.

I suppose you are right, especially given the level of inbreeding over there.

The story I read was in the news when a pretty dim witted woman was convinced to carry a backpack into a market.
After they identified the body, they were able to trace her to a village where her family had grown tired of caring for
her with no prospect of a mahr.

Uhm... That won't work... (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076361)

In addition to turning off towers, they will need to set up phone jammers everywhere. If not, all the bad guys need to do is set up one of those portable mobile phone hacking things to enable calling the remote device from a reasonable distance. I know it seems like a lot of work, but you know? If someone is going to go through the trouble of making a bomb detinator using a phone, then it's not a stretch to imagine taking that extra step to ensure that it works.

Other thoughts? If your religion preaches intolerance, it is already a failure. (Yeah, I get it, the number of devout followers of these intolerant and violent religions would offer evidence to the contrary, but I mean failure in another sense.)

Also, Islam would do well to learn lessons from Christianity. Look at how adaptable Christianity has been! It adopts all sorts of holidays and celebrations so that people think it's religious (like Christmas and Easter) and allows participation with pagan holidays like Halloween without fear of corrupting people because it's all in fun, not to be taken seriously. Also, in the 60s, they avoided a serious departure from Christianity in the US by changing God's personality from fire, brimstone and harsh punishment to a gentle god of love, forgiveness and tolerance. And it worked! The face of Christianity in the US today is completely different from the pre-60's version. Islam is like it is stuck 1000 years in the past.

Re:Uhm... That won't work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076549)

But that's part of the problem too.

Islam is not monolothic school. For example Sunni fundamentalists are already accusing Shia of adopting holidays and celebrations, and that they have jewish/pagan roots. Saudi is rich country and pushing its ideology abroad, pakistan is a horrible place but it wasn't this bad always.

Re:Uhm... That won't work... (1)

grumpy_old_grandpa (2634187) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076553)

> Islam is like it is stuck 1000 years in the past.

Or rather, they are 600 years behind. Wikipedia mentions [wikipedia.org] the first Muslim traditions dating from around 630 AD.

As you said yourself, only some 50 years ago, Christianity in the US had a bit of an ugly face to it. Give Muslims a couple of hundred years, and they'll sort it out as well.

Re:Uhm... That won't work... (2)

Princeofcups (150855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076739)

Also, in the 60s, they avoided a serious departure from Christianity in the US by changing God's personality from fire, brimstone and harsh punishment to a gentle god of love, forgiveness and tolerance. And it worked!

You mean the Christian god who says that killing dark skinned people is great if you think they might be a threat, that carrying a gun is great in case you have to kill someone who might try to "steal your property," that killing doctors is fine if they are "killing innocent fetuses," and that gays are such an abomination that he sent his holy plague of AIDS to kill them? When you look at it, are the Muslim extremists any worse than the Christian ones? Agreed there are issues in the Islamic world that need to be changed, such as their rampant abuse of woman, but that is more cultural than religious. Face it, they are not as different from us (Americans) as we want to believe.

Re:Uhm... That won't work... (2)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077205)

I get what you mean, but I guess I should have added there was a hint of joke in what I was asserting about Christianity. (What I was saying is that Christianity is so adapted and modified, that it's DEFINITELY not what the original god and/or leadership intended... it just does what it has to to keep its customers happy.)

Re:Uhm... That won't work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078481)

Also, Islam would do well to learn lessons from Christianity.

There is also that partially religious 100 year war which devastated the central Europe leading to the birth of modern diplomacy.
  People see sense only after 100 years of continent wide butchering. Maybe the Muslim world don't have to go there, maybe they do.

Re:Uhm... That won't work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42080153)

>> If your religion preaches intolerance, it is already a failure.
Alas, its usually not the religion, but the interpretation and ignorance that spreads the intolerance. If only all humans believed in humanity....

How in the world can they.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076369)

do this? - They won't be able to track anyone.

Re:How in the world can they.. (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076411)

Sure they can. Just listen to the devices looking for towers but don't transmit back. In fact, it would work even BETTER like that because mobile phones transmit with more power when they have trouble receiving.

Oh religion... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42076659)

Religion: dragging humans back to the Stone Age since forever.

Re:Oh religion... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078779)

See, the problem here is that people who are against religious freedom or a particular religion are carrying out these violent attacks, where the victims of these attacks are peaceful and religious individuals. In reality, the killing is born out of a sentiment against religion, so really you are not at all different from the people you're attempting to criticize. In fact, you're even more extreme than them. These killers say that a particular religion is evil; you say all religions are evil.

Re:Oh religion... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42080839)

These killers say that a particular religion is evil; you say all religions are evil.

No, the killers say that all religions other than theirs are evil; I say that all religions are evil, period.

Once they outlaw cellphones (2)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076967)

Only OUTLAWS will have CELLPHONES.

Typial human "solution": Hide the symptoms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077885)

Same thing happened here, with child pornography:
Catching the people doing it? Noooo, we would never do that.* We just redirect some domains, which is circumvented by everyone with a real interest in 30 seconds, but hides them away from the eyes of the average retard^WNPC^Wuser, so that in fact it worsens things.

We're not that much different. Both our governments are evil shits, and both our loud retard parts of the population are really loud and really retarded.

By the way: Why don't we regroup? Instead of Pakistan, the USA, Germany, we should have "Evil Fuck Country" "Loud Retard Country" and "Sane Normal Country" (with each one declaring itself the "Sane Normal" one, of course :).
Then we can use embargoes properly, and see how long they survive with their attitudes.

__
* Unless it's a politician/activist we want to get rid of, and there suddenly "appears" child porn on his computer.

Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078751)

These are lies spread by evil nitwits India, whose country, as everybody know, is run by little girls. Also everybody know that Indian are a very nosy people.

Mi-Fi (1)

a-puredot (881392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42080253)

I tweeted this yesterday. If they really want to cut off wireless communication by all means, the government of Pakistan should seriously be thinking of jamming WiMax signals as well in its biggest city - Karachi. There are 4 Wimax telcos providing coverage in Karachi. Using Mi-Fi (Pocket rechargable wimax modem + Wi-Fi) coupled with Viber/Tango/WhatsApp could be easily used for the same purpose which they are trying to avoid. /dm

Lights Out? Maybe not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42080351)

The war criminals need to get busy with starting world war three fast, God Forbid, before the Mexican Cartel off grid style phone networks pop up in the middle east. Only nukes will take out the antennas then.
This be the Aztec/Mayan/Drug Cartel off grid Antenna Apocalypse for these filthy un-declared wars? Maybe the whole Earth should be nuked to bring down these terrorist antennas? Oh wait...

http://www.heyahey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/drug-cartels.jpg
http://m3report.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/various-states-the-military-announced-it-had-dismantled-a-2.jpg

Maybe the antennas aren't the problem.
Maybe it's the corrupt fuckwads in charge, who blame antennas?
This path forward doesn't bode well for hams, or experimenters, next thing you know drug cartels will be at the swap meet, and TSA, DOJ, ATF, will be there to snoop everything, making creativity grey like a Russian prison. Radios and electronics treated as Guns and ammunition, Children's Chemistry sets will be considered terrorist parts, Such is the fun fascist future us retarded fuckers put up with as this whole show marches forward and we don't say a fucking thing about it, indeed jack booted Thugs, enabled by a few official brainwashed sheep buy into it. I've spoke out for years now. Where are you? Oh that's right you've be spending your time arguing how electronic voting machines would be somehow magically better if only they were using open source, while you conveniently ignore chain of custody and transparency.

This is this way because we do not have control of government.
In turn government now breaks it's oath

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...