babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » At least 182 killed in Bali blasts

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: At least 182 killed in Bali blasts
David Kyle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1530

posted 13 October 2002 10:50 AM      Profile for David Kyle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bali blast, ABCAt least 182 killed in Bali blasts, Jakarta Post
The quiet Hindu island of Bali was rocked yesterday by at least three bombs.

One city block was destroyed in the popular Kuta Beach area of Bali. At least 182 people of various nationalities have been confirmed dead and over 300 people injured, many with life threatening injuries.


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 October 2002 10:59 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the BBC site:


quote:
Bali was regarded as a peaceful, mainly-Hindu enclave in the world's most populous Muslim nation. The BBC's Richard Galpin in Bali says it may have been seen as a soft target for anyone who wished to attack Westerners.

The bombing followed persistent US warnings that American nationals in Indonesia were at risk of being targeted by Islamic militants linked to the al-Qaeda terror group.

The embassy itself closed for several days last month after intelligence reports warned of possible car bomb attacks.



From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
David Kyle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1530

posted 13 October 2002 02:06 PM      Profile for David Kyle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A friend of mine pointed out that the bombing could be directed at Australians for their "invasion" and "liberation" of East Timor.
From: canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 13 October 2002 05:01 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I point out that a terrorist group with ties to Afghanistan has a legitimate grievance for the Australian concentration camp holding Afghan refuges in appalling conditions.
From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ApolloTeflon
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2840

posted 13 October 2002 05:05 PM      Profile for ApolloTeflon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interestingly enough, an Australian (typically accused of being an "anti-American," whatever that means, by conservative whack-jobs) on another forum site was asked if he detested any of the policies of his OWN government (like it matters), and he responded with that very example.

I give it another 15-20 minutes before this is termed "...a dispicable act of terrorism, possibly by al-Qa'ida, against people who hate Americans," or somethign like that.


From: Prince Edward Island | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 13 October 2002 05:21 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thankfully there are only a few 'whack-jobs' here, and those rabblers who are conservative tend to be, for the most part, of the respectful flavour.

But a whole lot of us know on which side our hearts are beating.


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ApolloTeflon
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2840

posted 13 October 2002 05:28 PM      Profile for ApolloTeflon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Forgive the confusion on my part, I didn't mean to imply that conservatives are whack-jobs--rather that the cons on the other forum who would use the term "anti-American" as if it meant something are whack-jobs. ^_^
From: Prince Edward Island | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 13 October 2002 05:35 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your post was clear Tef.

I know what you meant.

I have had some experiences with these 'whack-jobs' myself in the form of r.w. libertarians invading a Buddhist forum, of all places, and was just giving you some unsolicited reassurance about rabble.ca.


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 October 2002 05:35 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A friend of mine pointed out that the bombing could be directed at Australians for their "invasion" and "liberation" of East Timor.


This strikes me as highly unlikely, since the perps in that case would be the current elites of Indonesia, if not the gov't itself, and at the moment (as usual, of course) all those people have a compelling interest in remaining very tightly allied with "the West" in general.

No, the theory that Bali, in its Western-exploited peace and innocence, is an easy place to make an anti-Western statement in general sounds a pretty likely scenario to me.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 13 October 2002 06:20 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I give it another 15-20 minutes before this is termed "...a dispicable act of terrorism, possibly by al-Qa'ida, against people who hate Americans," or somethign like that.

Dubya said it!


From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
David Kyle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1530

posted 14 October 2002 10:30 AM      Profile for David Kyle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I point out that a terrorist group with ties to Afghanistan has a legitimate grievance for the Australian concentration camp holding Afghan refuges in appalling conditions.

Ok, that justifies the killing of Australian nationals. The irony is that the "terrorist group" would have supported the suppression of the Aghan people during the Taliban regime. Thus causing the exodus of Afghans to other parts of the world.

Now with that said, how would you justify the killing of so many Balinese?


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 14 October 2002 10:58 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I point out that a terrorist group with ties to Afghanistan has a legitimate grievance for the Australian concentration camp holding Afghan refuges in appalling conditions.

But this is ridiculous, flotsom. Al Qaida or fellow travellers -- if it's they who are responsible -- obviously cared and care nothing for Afghanistan or Afghans, except insofar as the country provided them a convenient base of operations, and a source of cannon-fodder for their vision of jihad.

As for conditions in Australian concentration camps -- the phrase is apt, going right back to the British in the Boer War -- which I agree are appalling... as good apocalyptic revolutionaries, Al Qaida and fellow-travellers should rather welcome than condemn them. Anything which exposes the True Nature of the West's attitude toward Islam, anything which produces more hardened revolutionaries, etc. and so forth, should be a Good Thing to them.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 14 October 2002 12:34 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post
This could be just the conspiracy theorist in me but it seems curious that America (Bush) is trying to get other nations on side to fight Iraq for the removal of Sadaam - er - I mean disarmament of weapons of mass destruction - er - I mean to continue the war on terrorism, and only managed to convince Britian. Yet there was a "terrorist" attack on a French tanker and now a "terrorist" attack on a night club full of Austalians. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to consider that these were perpetrated by the CIA (yes, that evil group) then blamed on al Q. Notice how quickly the Americans sent in their own "investigators".

Sort of reminds me of Peral Harbour but in reverse. If you can't convince someone to fight, then provoke them into it. Sort of grade school don't you think? Smacking someone on the back of the head then blaming it on someone else.

Anyway just a thought...


From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 14 October 2002 12:44 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why do we need to apologize for a 'conspiracy theory'?

Why does a 'conspiracy theory' get automaticlly ridiculed these days?

Conspiracies do happen all the time. 'Even' (or rather 'especially') at the highest level.

Anyone ever heard of Nixon? Watergate? 'Irangate'?

Is this like the 'anti-political-correctness' conspiracy of the neo-coservative baffoonery?

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 14 October 2002 01:06 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post
My apologies for apologizing for my conspiracy theory. I didn't realize that I was, but maybe I was. I just can't take anything that happens at face value especially when Bush is involved. After listening to Scott Ritter speak No Case for War
all my suspicions on Bush's real agenda were realized.

From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 14 October 2002 01:25 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re. the so called 'riduculousness' of conspiracy theories.

Yet one more time on the theme of: 'if it could happen before, it could happen again'. There is nothing sacred about our time, our culture and the US empire.

...................

"On February 22 1933 a deranged communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, 24, from Holland attempted to strike a blow against capitalism by burning down the German Reichstag. German Chancellor Adolph Hitler’s SA agents knew about his plan but instead of preventing him they were concerned that the fire he set wouldn’t be effective.

So while Marinus was upstairs setting his fire SA Storm Troopers under Karl Ernst, entered the Reichstag basement through a tunnel connected to Herman Goering’s residence and distributed enough gasoline and incendiaries around to ensure a good blaze.

After the Reichstag had burned and Van der Lubbe had been captured, an incensed Hitler told his nation “The German people have been soft too long. Every Communist official must be shot. All Communist deputies must be hanged this very night. All friends of the Communists must be locked up. And that goes for the Social Democrats and the Reichsbanner as well!”

The next day he issued the following proclamation; “Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscation, as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

The Reichstag Fire had increased Hitler’s power and authority Tremendously, but it still wasn’t enough. Hitler wanted total control. With an election scheduled for March 5 1934 he had an opportunity to take it.

Accordingly, the Nazis made an all out attempt to win a majority in the Reichstag so they could get an ironically named “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich” passed. This act would confer on Hitler the constitutional functions of the Reichstag including, the power to make laws, control of the budget and the ability to make treaties with foreign governments.

Political enemies were arrested by the thousands and put in hastily constructed prisons. Old Army barracks and abandoned factories were converted to this purpose and thus was begun the concentration camp system.

Large donations were solicited, and received, from industrial organizations like Krupp and I.G. Farben. But in spite of an energetic and well-executed campaign the Nazis didn’t win the majority they needed to pass the act.

They were undeterred however, and when the newly elected Reichstag convened in the Kroll Opera House on March 23, they packed it inside and out with SA Storm Troopers. And with Storm Troopers on the outside chanting slogans like “Full Powers, or else! We want the bill, or fire and murder!” and Hitler lying on the inside with statements like “The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures" and promises to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union; the measure passed and Hitler became dictator of Germany.

....................

It is funny how blind people can get, isn’t it? Just one example is the Jews in Nazi Germany, who all heard Hitler frothing at the mouth, and some of them may even have heard of (or read) ‘Mein Kampf’, still it was a very small minority of the German Jews (a lot of scientists among them) who took it seriously enough to leave the country. Most of them dismissed Hitler as a loudmouth upstart, who wouldn’t have the guts to do what he was shouting from the rooftops, for all to hear. For most of them it was too late by the time they admitted that they had been wrong.

Now, if it was possible to be so blind, in spite of Hitler telling them what he was going to do, isn’t it so much easier to be blind when those who may have nefarious intentions tell you that they are your friend (while stabbing you in the back), they will protect your freedom (while severely curtailing it) and democracy (while they redefine it), they will respect your laws (until they change them) and serve your best interest (while going for a major power and money grab)?

If it was possible to be so deadly wrong about Hitler in 1934, in spite of him telling people what he wanted to do, is it not equally possible to be deadly wrong about Bush and his gang now?

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 14 October 2002 01:45 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post
The Reichstag Fire parallels the Pearl Harbour reference. In that case, the American President knew ahead of time about the attack, but let it happen to convince the rest of the isolationist government of the time to enter the war.

The Americans are the last people that should be involved in the investigation in Bali. Having Americans "investigate" the evidence in Bali is like having a murderer investigate his own crime.


From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 14 October 2002 02:22 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The "CIA did it" theory is now in play in Indonesia - the head of Jemaah Islamiyah, the al-Qaeda-linked group being blamed for this atrocity, has suggested that the USA set the bomb to justify intervention in Indonesia and elsewhere. Not much support for this theory yet, but the Indoneisan vice-president is a friend of his, so we'll see.

Another conspiracy theory that seems more likely is that the Indonesian armed forces may be implicated, to justify sweeping new powers they would be given under Indonesia's anti-terrorism law, now stalled in parliament. The last Americans killed in Indonesia were two teachers killed as part of an ambush in Papua (formerly Irian Jaya). The most credible investigation of this so far suggests that it was done by army special forces to build the case for US "anti-terrorist" military aid to Indonesia. One of the results of the Papua killings and now the Bali bombing, then, would be the resurgence of the armed forces, the top human rights violaters in Indonesia.

Or, the instant suspicions could be right. Jemaah Islamiah hates westerners and Australians most of all, hates night clubs, and hates tolerant Bali almost as much as it hates Indonesian Christians.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 14 October 2002 02:29 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But this is ridiculous, flotsom. Al Qaida or fellow travellers -- if it's they who are responsible -- obviously cared and care nothing for Afghanistan or Afghans, except insofar as the country provided them a convenient base of operations, and a source of cannon-fodder for their vision of jihad.

That, 'lance, is a supposition that I'm not qualified to qualify.

As suppositions go, the one above is, at the moment, rather popular.

It is however, entirely possible that Bin laden and his henchmen have deep emotional involvement for the plight of Muslims who are faceless and unknown to them personally despite the appalling barbarity of their actions last September.

The assumption that you make is, in my opinion, part of the parcel that wants to demonize (as in they are evil) the terrorists so as to deify the abstract trappings of America - the flag, statue of liberty, police, Freedom (TM) et al: four legs good...

Not that I think this is your intention 'lance, btw.

But...

Two legs bad?


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 14 October 2002 02:59 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The assumption that you make is, in my opinion, part of the parcel that wants to demonize (as in they are evil) the terrorists so as to deify the abstract trappings of America - the flag, statue of liberty, police, Freedom (TM) et al: four legs good...

Not that I think this is your intention 'lance, btw.

But...

Two legs bad?


But this is ridiculous, flotsom.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 14 October 2002 03:58 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So then ridicule me.

(It's much easier than explaining yourself)


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 14 October 2002 04:03 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When I've been insulted -- and the use of that cheap and ancient rhetorical device, "I'm not saying you're a [insert term of opprobrium here], but..." is always insulting, to the intelligence if nothing else -- I typically feel very little need to explain myself.

Something that typically irritated me during the old Cold War days was the intellectual squalor evident on all sides, "progressive" as well as Establishment -- in particular, the Manicheism, the belief that if you say something critical about Side A, you must, can only be, a supporter of Side B -- or, at best, deluded or confused.

Ten years on, I see some of the old patterns haven't changed. Bah. It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 14 October 2002 04:09 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is however, entirely possible that Bin laden and his henchmen have deep emotional involvement for the plight of Muslims who are faceless and unknown to them personally despite the appalling barbarity of their actions last September

And if you state that this is also ridiculous then you are as insufferable and myopic an idiot as appears nightly on CNN.

Keep your 'ridiculousness' to yourself you pesty little rocksniffer


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 October 2002 04:11 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wide Eyes, the Pearl Harbor charge is a right-wing canard. FDR did not know ahead of time of the attack. There were warnings of possible attacks in the Pacific but nothing specific until it was too late. FDR wanted to get into the war, but in Europe, not the Pacific.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 14 October 2002 04:13 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Keep your 'ridiculousness' to yourself you pesty little rocksniffer

And why the "big grin" smilie, flotsom? Does it signify, maybe, your pride at this turn of phrase?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 14 October 2002 04:15 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And we know, for fact, exactly what was in FDR's mind almost 60 years ago? Amazing!
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 14 October 2002 04:21 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because I am laughing at you and your own ridiculousness Sir 'lance.

You claim in your first post in our exchange that an idea of mine is ridiculous without any further qualifications, and the idea is valid and obviously not worthy of ridicule whether you disagree or not.

This is (and was) offensive to me, and yet, you are the first one to be claiming an offense.

Too silly, 'lance.

('lance is changing the subject)

Refering you back to my own post preceding this one...


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 14 October 2002 04:23 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Come on, flotsom. Even if the 11/9 attackers had as their goal "the betterment of Muslims around the world" (with which I disagree, but we can leave it at that), they didn't achieve a tiniest bit of it. The 11/9 did not make the US a better global citizen, or make it more aware of the unfairness in international relations; it didn't result in any improvement in any predominantly Muslim country in the world; it asserted W. as the legitimate President; it resulted in more xenophobic immigration policies in the US and some other countries (including Canada).

Then again, it could be that Al Qaeda's goal was the betterment of Muslims' lives around the world. In which case they failed miserably.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Trespasser ]


From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 14 October 2002 04:31 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't find flotsom's idea ridiculous at all. They may have planned for long term (provoke reprisals that would unite the Muslim people against a common enemy -- Western imperialism). If this was a case, they are right on target.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 14 October 2002 04:31 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Then again, it could be that Al Qaida's goal was the betterment of Muslims' lives around the world.

Right.

Although a year is hardly time to make any meaningful evaluation of this, just on the strength of my deep visceral rejection of violence alone I suspect that no long-term good can come of that act of terrorism.

But that would be a strategical error and says nothing of the aims or goals of said terrorists.

As Zatamon just correctly pointed out in reference to FDR and his alleged foreknowledge of Pearl Harbour - these things are impossible to know.

We can only speculate.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 14 October 2002 04:33 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For speculation, see my previous post...
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 14 October 2002 04:44 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I disagree with Zatamon and you, Flot. First of all, a united front against the US is not made through spectacular televised terrorist acts - how did that help unite the US ally Saudi Arabia and, say, Afghanistan?

Second, even if there is some basis to it (and I think you ascribe to Al Qaeda too much foresight and studiousness) the talk of the "long term" reminds me of the argument of "justifiable victims" -- as long as the march of history is in the right direction, we would have to endure some sacrifices; our own people will suffer in the process, but hey, that's the price we have to pay for the "ultimate goal."

I don't see Al Qaeda as something qualitatively different on the IR scene.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Trespasser ]


From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 14 October 2002 04:45 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All right, flotsom, I'll explain why I thought your assertion (not you, personally) was ridiculous.

Let's assume for the moment that Al Qaida, or more likely the fusion of Al Qaida and the Egyptian organization Islamic Jihad, was responsible for the attacks on the U.S. of Sept. 11 last year.

Al Qaida and Islamic Jihad have as their immediate goals the establishment of 'proper' Islamic states in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. (Members of Islamic Jihad were, for example, responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981, for having made a peace agreement with Israel).

Neither has more than a handfull of supporters in either country. In common with revolutionaries of their ilk world-wide, they're far too weak to make a difference themselves.

Therefore, in common with such revolutionaries, they dream of dramatic events which will turn the populations of their countries decisively against the governments involved.

When they attacked the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, the most plausible interpretation of what they were after was an indiscriminate, careless, and extremely destructive US attack against Afghanistan in the first instance (they must have known perfectly well that the US would attack Afghanistan, at least), and with luck (from their point of view) against Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for having produced and "harboured" the plotters, and perhaps still other Muslim countries. With still greater luck, the populations there would then rise up against these US client states.

(That I've borrowed this supposition from Gwynne Dyer does not make it less plausible).

That is: if this interpretation bears any water, they were likely prepared to countenance the deaths of thousands, or perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands, of Muslims in the service of their vision of Islamic revolution. In this, again, they had much in common with apocalyptic revolutionaries through the ages.

At the very least, they must have known that some untold number of Muslims would be killed at the WTC -- who, being largely immigrants, would be at least disadvantaged, at worst oppressed, members of American society.

This, to me, is not the pattern of people primarily motivated by a desire to better the lives of actually existing Muslims in the world today, but rather the pattern of people prepared to use Muslims and non-Muslims alike as tools in the service of constructing some ideal future society.

And you may say this is all speculation, but in fact Al Qaida and Islamic Jihad have published descriptions of their aims and goals for years.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 14 October 2002 04:52 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Absolutely, Zatamon.

Quite a of a gamble, though, isn't it?

Three scenarios that have serious and terrible potential:

a. Bagdhad is attacked and as a part of their futile gesture of defence the Iraqis once again launch their missiles at Israeli civilian targets -- which the Israelis respond to by launching their own retaliatory strike in the form of a nuclear weapon(s) upon Baghdad.

b. The Iraqis use chemical or bio. weapons on the invading American forces who respond by rapidly retreating and launching their own nuclear assault on Bagdhad.

c. Due to the state of fury and outrage in the global Arab community itself, over the American invasion of Bagdhad, an unknown variable: perhaps one of Russia's several missing 'suitcase bombs', perhaps already 'sleeping' in the United States, is detonated, triggering the unmentionable...


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 14 October 2002 04:58 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Trespasser: Second, even if there is some basis to it (and I think you ascribe to Al Qaeda too much foresight and studiousness) the talk of the "long term" reminds me of the argument of "justifiable victims" -- as long as the march of history is in the right direction, we would have to endure some sacrifices; our own people will suffer in the process, but hey, that's the price we have to pay for the "ultimate goal."

I believe you, Trespasser. I mean I believe that 'this' reminds you of 'that'. And such atitude does exist in the world. I hope you are not suggesting that it could possibly be my or flotsom's attitude.

We were talking about a possible long term plan of the terrorists (Bin Laden was described as highly intelligent -- I never met him, so I have no idea) -- and we were NOT talking about any possible justification for a horrible, barbarous, unforgivable act of terrorism. So why bring it in?

Just for the record...


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 14 October 2002 05:09 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS. As far as Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders are concerned, I can easily imagine their justifying the short term suffering of 'their' people as the price for their long term 'vision'. It is quite common among fanatics of all stripe: Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, ... they all put their own country through unimaginable pain and suffering for their 'vision'.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 14 October 2002 05:18 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Neither has more than a handfull of supporters in either country. In common with revolutionaries of their ilk world-wide, they're far too weak to make a difference themselves.

Therefore, in common with such revolutionaries, they dream of dramatic events which will turn the populations of their countries decisively against the governments involved.


The possibility of a gross underestimation in the first part is very real 'lance.

quote:
When they attacked the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, the most plausible interpretation of what they were after was an indiscriminate, careless, and extremely destructive US attack against Afghanistan


"Most plausible."

Don't cut your own hand on Occam's razor, 'lance.

It was Einstein that cautioned to make things as simple as possible...but no simpler.

Remember that before the American coalition went into Afghanistan many pundits were speculating that this would be another Russian occupation for the Al Quaida/Taliban forces -- another Vietnam for America...

And in further support of my doubts I remind you that the intelligent strategic (to say nothing of the ethics) reaction would probably have not been a military one -- that served mostly to scatter Al Queda likely to hell and back, but a meticulous intelligence and policing effort a la Interpol and Germany for example, which by the way, has had much greater results in capturing important Al Queda ops. than the coalion military operation to a factor of somthing like four to one, I think I saw.

edited to add:

Zatamon's second to last post speaks for me as well.

Thanks.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 October 2002 06:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I don't understand is why anyone would think that the Afghan terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or the Taliban or whomever would give a darn about refugees in Australian concentration camps. I'd be willing to bet that in most cases, it was the terrorist groups that turned those people INTO refugees. Afghan refugees generally are fleeing the oppression that people like bin Laden and the Taliban and the Northern Alliance caused in Afghanistan. I doubt there would be any love lost between those groups and the people who ran away to escape them.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 14 October 2002 06:54 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think you are right, Michelle...and I don't think any of that matters one bit.

As I see it, all that matters in considering my comment is the impression that the explosion in Bali is likely to make, and the message it will communicate to the Moslem world.

An act of solidarity with the refugees.

Another rallying cry.

Why not?

In reality I think its safe to assume that any specifically American target is always their first choice, next of course being any Western target in general.

The convenience of having those Afghani refugees in Australia is just good luck from the Al Queda point of view.

Anyhow, I just raised this yesterday as something to consider.

I was not proclaiming this to be the Holy Truth.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 October 2002 06:58 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know. I haven't been online for most of the weekend, so I'm just catching up now, and I saw that remark and just had to respond.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 14 October 2002 07:02 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Righto.

Has Al Qaida or sympathisers claimed responsibility, btw?

(a safe bet regardless)


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 14 October 2002 07:05 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry to nitpick, but I have to take exception to:

quote:
...Afghan terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or the Taliban...

Al Qaeda is not Afghan. If anything, it is Saudi. But "Saudi terrorist" doesn't play as well in Peoria.

The Taliban are Afghan, but I don't know that there are (were) terrorists. Terrible, yes; violent, yes; dictatorial, yes; but terrorist means something specific and I'm not convinced that the Taliban qualifies. (Unless the specific meaning is "any group hated by George W.")

I mostly object because I don't like the way that our very vocabulary is being co-opted by Georgie and his pals.

But I agree with you, Michelle -- the Australian connection is pretty far-fetched.


From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 October 2002 07:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're right, Rici, and I was thinking that while I was typing it. But they are terrorist groups that have basically "adopted" Afghanistan and have been based out of there, so they're likely the ones who have been creating Afghan refugees. That's all I meant.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 14 October 2002 08:15 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please spare a thought for the poor, oppressed bombers who may have had to give up their lives in
their pursuit of ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’ and any and all grievances that they might imagine, concoct, or otherwise employ in their ludicrous attempts to rationalize their barbaric and cowardly crimes against humanity. Many on this board seem willing and able to help them with that. For example:

How many conspiracy wingnuts subscribe to this irrational nonsense?:

quote:
I don't think it is too much of a stretch to consider that these were perpetrated by the CIA (yes, that evil group) then blamed on al Q. Notice how quickly the Americans sent in their own "investigators".

From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 14 October 2002 08:48 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has anyone claimed reponsiblity yet? I haven't been listening to the news and from what I have heard most of the government line is conjecture and conspiracy theory as well.
Terrorists both of the political or religious fascist type always claim responsibility to further their point they generally don’t just terrorize for the sport of it. From what I’ve heard from western politicians, they have been pretty quick to use this as political fodder to maintain the status quo.

It is not unlikely the bomb blast could have just been a settling of scores by crime lords.

"Never believe in conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity"


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 October 2002 08:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear Mandrake,

Could you please list, individually and by name, the "many people" on this board who have supported suicide bombing or terrorist bombing?

Please be sure to be explicit and use direct quotes.

Sincerely,
Michelle


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 14 October 2002 08:50 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
so they're likely the ones who have been creating Afghan refugees.

I believe that the Afghani refugees are/were fleeing the severe and ongoing drought and famine in Afghanistan.

Rici, see my post in response to Michelle for my view on this 'Australian connection'.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Terry Johnson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1006

posted 14 October 2002 09:25 PM      Profile for Terry Johnson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What worries me about the fallout from Bali is that it could presage a renewed assault on Indonesian sovereignty.

Indonesia is a large, multinational country, with a great deal of unexploited mineral, oil and gas resources. It also has a complex of very nationalistic laws regulating development of these resources.

Western resource companies, I think, would much rather deal with a bunch of weak statelets than a strong Jakarta. Unlike the Cold War, when Indonesia was a reliable anti-Communist ally, my bet is that the US, Australia and other Western government would now prefer 20-odd East Timors over one Indonesia. So I expect we're going to be hearing a lot more about the oppression suffered by the residents of Irian Jaya and western PNG and Indonesia's many other minority regions.

It's a Yugoslavia in the making. Just watch. Post-Bali pressure on the central government to deal with Islamic parties like JI will be twinned with Western complaints about human rights abuses of minorities and open encouragement of secessionist forces. Next thing you know there'll be bomb-laden B-2s--and Australian F-111s--over Jakarta.

I just hope my initial instincts are, as usual, wrong.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 14 October 2002 09:54 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why does a 'conspiracy theory' get automaticlly ridiculed these days?

I don't think "conspiracy theories" get automatically ridiculed. In fact, they often garner more attention that they in fact deserve.

More often than not, conspiracy theories are presented with a "prove me wrong" stance-- an affront to reason because it's difficult to prove a negative, and because it off loads the onus of proof from the claimant, where reason demands it should stay.

There's nothing wrong about "conspiracy theories", as certainly we've seen conspiracies before, as you point out.

The ones that are long on speculation and short on evidence invite ridicule, however.

And rightfully so.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 14 October 2002 10:17 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Western resource companies, I think, would much rather deal with a bunch of weak statelets than a strong Jakarta. Unlike the Cold War, when Indonesia was a reliable anti-Communist ally, my bet is that the US, Australia and other Western government would now prefer 20-odd East Timors over one Indonesia. So I expect we're going to be hearing a lot more about the oppression suffered by the residents of Irian Jaya and western PNG and Indonesia's many other minority regions.

There is not a single resource company that wants to see Indonesia dissolved. Every western company in Indonesia, and every western government, is committed 100% to Indonesia's territorial integrity. A company like Exxon Mobil in (majority Muslim and secession-minded) Aceh, or Freeport in Papua (majority Christian and secession-minded - and by the3 way "western PNG" and "Irian Jaya" are the same place, the official name is now Papua), or Inco in Sulawesi, is too tied in to the fortunes of the central government to ever contemplate wanting a smaller unit to deal with. In fact they mostly oppose decentralization to the provinces because it is the local level that drives a hard bargain on things like environmental standards. Now that it's independent, East Timor got a better deal on its offshore oil (still a bad one, but a better one) than Indonesia was ever able to manage.

We'll be hearign a great deal more about Aceh and Papua, but it will be despite the pro-Jakarta business lobby, not because of it.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 14 October 2002 10:21 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wrong, Tommy, I have seen, heard, far too often, in a sneering voice, with rolling eyes, with a tired and exasperated facial expression:

"He is crazy with his conspiracy theory",

instead of intelligently dealing with the arguments.

A theory, in its inception, has no proof yet. It is speculation, trying to imagine the possible.

In a court of law, when there is no absolute proof, only circumstantial evidence, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his 'theory' fits the facts. If the defense can come up with another theory, supported by the same facts, there is 'reasonable doubt'.

It is all right to theorize, even without proof. That is how knowledge is gained.

"The genius is the crazy one who turns out to be right".

Let's not sneer at imagination and creativity. They may often lead down a blind alley, but humanity would still be in the caves without it.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 October 2002 12:54 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee 50 posts in a string about the Bali bombing and no one has expressed any horror at the loss of life in this tragedy. Are we all so obsessed with wacko conspiracy theories and hyperbola that none of us can express any sadness about all these people on holiday who were butally murdered - in all likelihood by the forces of Islamic fascism!

I'm sick of this navel gazing that some of us on the Left get into. it reminds me of how a year ago in the wake of Sept. 11 it seemed like some people couldn't have cared less about the tragedy in New York. All they cared about was - what would this mean to leftwing academics!

Let's put this stuff in perspective and stop being apologists for terrorists.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 15 October 2002 01:31 AM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I rather assumed everyone in this discussion was horrified at the bombing (that's why i used the word atrocity). And it probably was a mass murder by Islamic fascists, yes. But given the state of Indonesian, maybe it was someone else -- and c'mon, is asking who did it really being an apologist for terrorists?
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bryan Peeler
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3193

posted 15 October 2002 03:02 AM      Profile for Bryan Peeler        Edit/Delete Post
If this is in fact an al-Qauda attack, once again I cannot buy anti-imperialist argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.

What these people want to do is impose Shariah law, not just on Muslims in countries like Algeria, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but on all other relegions and atheists too. They want to establish a tyrany in the Muslim world by means of indiscriminant violence in the non-Muslim world.

Surely we on the left cannot accept this.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 15 October 2002 03:09 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Surely we on the left cannot accept this.

Who is saying we are?


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 15 October 2002 03:37 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Indonesia has been a bit of a hot spot and had suspected cells.

quote:
WASHINGTON, Oct 14 (Reuters) - The Bush administration has been worried for some time about the possibility of terrorist attacks in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, and has been pressing the country's leadership to crack down on radical Islam, U.S. officials said on Monday.

U.S. worried for some time about Indonesia terror

Isn't Reuters the propaganda arm of the CIA?

I know I have little respect for the faculties of Bush Jr, but, well, a Reichstag comparison seems a tad overblown. I mean, if Bush was mien Fuhrer, you'd think he or his advisors would engineer something with a clear link to Iraq, since, you know, Saddam is a bad, bad man and that is their myopic concern right now. A few bombs in a foreign tourist destination somewhere far away is a piss-poor strategy to attain administration goals. Indonesia ain't even in the vaunted Axis of Evil. Hell, just glancing at some of the latest articles from over in Europe, some are jumping on this to show that, you know, Saddam has little to do with tourist destinations while the various jihad groups which may or may not be connected to a regrouped al Qaeda and which have committed known terrorists acts in the past are still the bigger threat.

But, of course, Bush can play the same game, too:

quote:
[Bush] added that disarming Saddam Hussein was part of the campaign against terrorism, and that the United States military was capable of fighting terrorism on two fronts, in Iraq and the rest of the world.

At a political rally at the Oakland County International Airport here, Mr. Bush again linked Mr. Hussein to Al Qaeda, without citing evidence, and suggested that the Iraqi leader could give a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon to the terrorist organization for use against its enemies. "We need to think about Saddam Hussein using Al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind," Mr. Bush said.


Bush Ties Bombing at Bali Nightclub to Qaeda Network

I wonder if this Abu Bakar Bashir guy is a babbler:

quote:
"The United States intelligence agency is behind the Bali bombings in an attempt to justify their accusation that Indonesia is a terrorist base," said Abu Bakar Bashir, the leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, a radical Islamic group that many analysts say may itself have organized the attack.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 October 2002 05:22 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If anything I think the Associated Press and the CNN would be the propaganda arms of the CIA.

Assume for a moment that Al Qaeda did this. It still does not mean that Al Qaeda is automatically responsible for the bombing of the French tanker (which, I bet, was registered under a flag of convenience to avoid paying property and wealth taxes on the ship, but that's an ax to grind for another thread).

If we assume that Al Qaeda did NOT do this, then someone else DID, and that someone else stands to benefit in some way.

Who benefits?

Cui bono, as they say? Ask this and it becomes clear that the Indonesian government immediately stands to benefit if the objective is to ram through anti-terrorism legislation much along the lines of the USA PATRIOT act or Canada's Bill C-36.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 15 October 2002 08:48 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Stockholm: ...obsessed with wacko conspiracy theories and hyperbola ...
See what I mean, Tommy?

Dear Stockholm, horror over senseless killing is taken for granted, unless you are a cynical, cold blooded monster -- so questioning its existence is kind of an insult to the good people of Babble. Jumping up and down about it and thumping our chests is optional, so be my guest.

As far as "wacko conspiracy theories and hyperbola" is concerned, that is what the first proponents of Nixon's complicity in Watergate were probably accused of.

Since you posted your comments right after my post where I tried to defend people's right to intelligent speculation, I will not repeat it here, because it obviously made no impression on you yesterday and not likely to make any today.

But I am happy you made those comments, providing me with an excellent example I can quote in the future. For that, I thank you.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 15 October 2002 12:40 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post
Sorry to getting back to you so late Josh.
quote:
Wide Eyes, the Pearl Harbor charge is a right-wing canard. FDR did not know ahead of time of the attack. There were warnings of possible attacks in the Pacific but nothing specific until it was too late. FDR wanted to get into the war, but in Europe, not the Pacific.

Actually this discussion would be best explored on another thread, but I have to say that I've never been accused of being right-wing. BTW didn't FDR get involved in BOTH theatres after Pearl Harbour?

Anyway back to Bali, it's now estimated that 200 have been killed. And yes Stockholm, it is a tragedy about the number killed, I don't think anyone has overlooked that. But "If" someone like the US perpetrated this act for the sake of promoting a war on terrorism, then that itself is a war crime. I'm sure we all hope that this isn't the case, but it has been done in the past and should not be ignored or dismissed.


From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 15 October 2002 01:48 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I had a potato explode in my microwave today. I suspect Al-Qaeda. It was an Idaho potato, so I believe the reason was to express hatred for the good old US of A and her freedoms that the rest of the world so despises.

Edited to add: So much acrimony on this thread; so few facts. None of us has ANY idea who's responsible.

Again, the lives of innocent people have become bargaining chips in ideological poker. (I want my pukey smiley ).

I mean, I have been known to speculate a little bit beyond the facts, but how seriously are we gonna take our sources over here.

Hasn't anyone seen the movie Capricorn One or Wag the Dog?

Josh- Right-wing canard?? Right-wing canard???!!! Well isn't that just ducky, my favourite conspiracy and all... Just like Bush, FDR knew.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 October 2002 01:54 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not to restart an old feud that seems to have died of natural causes...
quote:
Al Qaida or fellow travellers -- if it's they who are responsible -- obviously cared and care nothing for Afghanistan or Afghans, except insofar as the country provided them a convenient base of operations, and a source of cannon-fodder for their vision of jihad.
is a bit wide of the mark, I would say lance. Al Qaeda, as far as I know, was formed specifically to rid Afghanistan of non-Muslim - Russian specifically - domination, very much out of concern for the well-being of Afghans. At least that's the way Rambo III painted it. Valiant Mujahideen ridding the region of Godless communists and all that.

A proviso for those of you who mistake discussion for support. This post is in no way intended as an endorsement of Al Qaeda, Wahabbism or any of its adherents or financiers past or present. Thank you.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 15 October 2002 01:59 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, ignore it, my mistake...

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 15 October 2002 02:02 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sisyphus: I had a potato explode in my microwave today. I suspect Al-Qaeda.
I doubt it!

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 15 October 2002 02:07 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Al Qaeda, as far as I know, was formed specifically to rid Afghanistan of non-Muslim - Russian specifically - domination

I would say you don't know much about Al Queda then.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 October 2002 02:16 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wide Eyes, I knew when I wrote that you might take it wrong. What I meant was that the charge was a right-wing canard primarily advanced by FDR's bitterest political enemy, fellow upstate New Yorker Hamilton Fish.

After the U.S. declared was on Japan, Hitler declared war on the U.S., which made FDR's day because he then had the political cover to concentrate on Europe before the Pacific.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 15 October 2002 02:37 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what gets overlooked is that this is an Indonesian event first, and the perpetrators are almost certainly Indonesians, even if there are al-Qaeda links. The fact that it was Australians, foreign enemy number one to
the nasties in home-grown terror groups like Jemaah Islamiyah and Laskar Jihad, underlines the local aspect.

Solid reporting from Indonesia in English: http://www.thejakartapost.com/headlines.asp

Dr Conway's question: Who benefits? is a sensible one. I'm afraid it's the Indonesian army, which is itself a terrorist organization operating independent of government control. Who loses? After the victims themselves, the biggest loser may be democracy in Indonesia. Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group makes this point: http://www.iht.com/articles/73657.html


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 October 2002 02:37 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I can spell it, at least.

quote:
The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism.

any more questions?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 15 October 2002 02:46 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did you catch the first paragraph of that linked article?

quote:
Al-Qaeda, meaning "the base", was created in 1989 as Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden and his colleagues began looking for new jihads.

Created as the soviets were leaving and as a result of Bin Laden and colleagues looking for new jihads is not quite the same as being "formed specifically to rid Afghanistan of non-Muslim - Russian specifically - domination"


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 October 2002 03:18 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd say al Queda evolved from the Muhajadeen after the Russian pull-out, rather than being "created" from thin air.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 October 2002 03:22 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So your only concern then is when they chose their name. When they were Islamic Jihad financed by the US and Pakistan and working with bin Laden and all the main players they were okay. They only became a problem when they sat down and registerd Al Qaueda as a trade mark. Is that it?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 15 October 2002 03:27 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's about it...not only have they failed to file the paperwork to legally register "Al-Queda" as a registered copyright and trademark..all rights reserved, they've also failed to register as a business with the yellow pages, so when you want to phone them up you have to go to the white pages and look them up alphabetically...which is a real pain in the ass when you look at all the different spellings of their name.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 15 October 2002 03:38 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I changed my mind. I use it later...

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Terry Johnson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1006

posted 15 October 2002 05:02 PM      Profile for Terry Johnson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
and by the3 way "western PNG" and "Irian Jaya" are the same place, the official name is now Papua)

Thanks for the correction, Swallow. I must have been a little stupid when I posted.


quote:
Now that it's independent, East Timor got a better deal on its offshore oil (still a bad one, but a better one) than Indonesia was ever able to manage.

East Timor's oil will be developed exclusively by foreign--primarily US and Australian--firms. But under Indonesian law, if my memory serves me right, 50% of all resource development must be undertaken by Indonesian firms, who generally enter into joint agreements with TNCs. Suharto used this to reward his cronies, but it has also helped build local expertise.

Foreign resource firms operating in Indonesia regularly complain about this and other similar laws. Like all capitalists, they're wary of political instability. But my point is that they would prefer to deal with a weak, pro-Western government under colonial stewardship than with a strong nationalistic government in Jakarta. If Aceh or Irian Jaya could be separated from Indonesia, and put under UN trusteeship for four years or so, as East Timor was, many companies now wary of operating in Indonesia would likely be quick to take advantage.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 October 2002 05:18 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes I caught that first paragraph sheep. Did you catch that second paragraph?

Al Qaeda is Arabic for "the list", specifically, the list of non-Afghan veterans of the Afghan war. It is very much like the Legion for those mujahideen - based in Pakistan, CIA supported - who fought to expel the Russians from Afghanistan. In order to make Al Qaeda - the list - you had to have fought, or financially supported the fight in Afghanistan. Which is why I think lance was a bit off the mark in stating that Al Qaeda had little interest in the well-being of Afghans. What is your point, exactly?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 15 October 2002 05:23 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Al Qaeda is Arabic for "the list",

It's actually Arabic for "The Base", and lance was right on the money with his comment that Al Qaeda doesn't give a rat's ass about the well being of Afghanis. Well, maybe they care about their spiritual welfare, and their place in heaven for following a strict interpretation of Islamic law, but not a damn about their economy, their education, or their human rights.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 October 2002 06:30 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Damned if I can find it now, but apparently it means two things at once, and the list of veterans is the important meaning.

The US was more than willing to milk the mujahideen's religious fanatacism back when it suited their policy objectives and then cynically dump them like yesterday's garbage when their objective was met. Who was it who gave a rat's ass again? Al Qaeda is many distasteful things, but cynical doesn't really appear to be one of them.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 15 October 2002 06:32 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just as there is no such thing as Islamic Nazis, there is no such thing as Islamic Fascists.

Conspiracy theory?:
Al-Qa'ida is a CIA front. Its members are American agents. The USA's problem is that some of them have used their resources in independent and insurgent activities. Part of America's war on whatever is to control these stray members, and reorganise its intelligence base in Islamic communities.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 15 October 2002 07:00 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Just as there is no such thing as Islamic Nazis, there is no such thing as Islamic Fascists.


That's not quite true. The Nazis had a (white) Muslim unit in Yugoslavia or another eastern European country. I'm not sure how long it lasted, but I saw some pictures. The Nazis also built alliances with some Arab leaders because of their common hatred of Jews.

And fascism (in contrast to National Socialism) isn't inherently racist -- just totalitarian, anti-democratic, anti-left and warlike. So there can be Islamic fascists, Jewish fascists, black fascists, Asian fascists, and even gay fascists.


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 15 October 2002 07:13 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But my point is that they would prefer to deal with a weak, pro-Western government under colonial stewardship than with a strong nationalistic government in Jakarta. If Aceh or Irian Jaya could be separated from Indonesia, and put under UN trusteeship for four years or so, as East Timor was, many companies now wary of operating in Indonesia would likely be quick to take advantage.

I'm sorry, but i just don't buy this line. It smacks of "big countries good, small countries bad," and that's just nonsense.

US business formed a lobby group a few years back especially to support Indonesia's territorial integrity and oppose East Timor solidarity activists. Now these same people want to back up Indonesia by restoring their aid to the Indonesian army, the self-proclaimed guarantor of the nation's territorial integrity. Whoever committed the Bali atrocity played into their hands.

By the way, the head of the independence movement in Papua/Irian Jaya wants to ban all logging. Indonesia wants more logging. If you find a "strong nationalist government in Jakarta," you'll let me know, right?


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 15 October 2002 10:18 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
D'oh, this post was supposed to come after a post further up, but I forgot to look at the next page)

"Base" or "foundation". I have read that al Qaeda doesn't even refer to itself as such (according to the NY Times, and further eluded to here in an article on the speculative origin of the al Qaeda name:

quote:
That would seem to cut out Asimov. But other reasons why al-Qaida might be so called are no less mysterious. After all, communiques issued by Bin Laden and his associates never use the name. Instead they refer to themselves as the "World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and the Crusaders", the "Islamic Army for the Liberation of Holy Places" and so on.

The first use of al-Qaida in western media was in 1996 in an American newspaper report which identified it as another name of the Islamic Salvation Foundation, one of Bin Laden's jihadi charities. The term only came into general usage after the group's bombing of the US embassies in East Africa in 1998, when the FBI and CIA fingered it as an umbrella organisation for various projects of Bin Laden and his associates -many of which grew out of ideas originally hatched by Abdullah Azzam, who'd been killed by a car-bomb in Peshawar in 1989.


[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 16 October 2002 01:40 AM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if babbler "Bill from Bali" is going to check in soon.

Are you out there, Bill?


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 16 October 2002 02:13 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and the Crusaders",

Maybe it rolls off the tongue in Arabic.

Names that take up half your alloted 8 second sound bite just won't do in this day and age.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 16 October 2002 02:45 AM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Arch Stanton ]


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 16 October 2002 06:13 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andy: I know that Islam is inherently anti-racist. But I didn't know about a Nazi unit composed of Moslems. Interesting.
Also Fascism is a nationalist and autocratic philosophy. As far as I know, Islamic political philosophy is opposed to it. And I'm not aware of any Islamic group that espouses an autocratic, nationalist philosophy. But then, Islam today comprises a wide variety of groups and philosphies.
And since no one has yet proven responsibility for the bombing, it is misleading to start pointing fingers at Fascists. Or Nazis.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 16 October 2002 01:35 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Indonesian air force officer confesses to making the bomb: http://www.iht.com/articles/73857.html
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 October 2002 01:50 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey ronb --

quote:
Al Qaeda, as far as I know, was formed specifically to rid Afghanistan of non-Muslim - Russian specifically - domination, very much out of concern for the well-being ohf Afghans. At least that's the way Rambo III painted it. Valiant Mujahideen ridding the region of Godless communists and all that.

Well, of course the mujahideen chased out the Soviets, with some CIA help of course (Stihnger missiles and all that). But al-Qaeda as such post-dates the Soviet pull-out.

The New Yorker has had some seemingly well-informed writing about the history and the players. This is from their Sept. 16th issue, an article by Lawrence Wright about Ayman al-Zawahiri, former emir of Islamic Jihad:

quote:
The Arabs who remained in Afghanistan [after the Soviet withdrawal] were confronted with the question of jihad's future. Toward the end of 1989, a meeting took place in the Afghan town of Khost at a mujahideen camp. A Sudanese fighter named Jamal al-Fadl was among the participants, and he later testified about the event in a New York courtroom during one of the trials connected with the 1998 bombing of the American embassies in East Africa. According to Fadl, the meeting was attended by ten men -- four or five of them Egyptians, including Zawahiri. Fadl told the court that the chairman of the meeting, an Iraqi known as Abu Ayoub, proposed the formation of a new organization that would wage jihad beyond the borders of Afghanistan. There was some dispute about the name, but ultimately the new organization came to be called Al Qaeda -- the Base. The alliance was conceived as a loose affiliation among individual mujahideen and established groups, and was dominated by Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The ultimate boss, however, was Osama bin Laden, who held the checkbook.


Wright continues:

quote:
In 1989, [bin Laden] returned to Saudi Arabia, ostensibly to work in the family business. The following year, Saddam Hussein ordered the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Bin Laden, who had achieved mythic status in his country because of his role in the Soviet-Afghan war, went to the royal family and offered to defend the Saudi oil fields with his mujahideen companions. The rulers decided to put their faith in an American-led coalition instead, reportedly promising bin Laden that the foreigners would leave as soon as the war was over. But American forces were still in Saudi Arabia a year after the Gulf War ended, and bin Laden felt betrayed. He returned to Afghanistan and began speaking out against the Saudi regime. He also started funding the activities of Saudi dissidents in London.

How reliable al-Fadl is, or for that matter Lawrence Wright, I don't know. But that's one version of the story.

But then, as swallow says, this Bali bombing business should be understood first and foremost as an Indonesian story, and all this stuff about al Qaeda is kinda off-topic.

Edited to add:

Posted before swallow's latest link -- thanks for that.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 16 October 2002 02:34 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So this is a group of fellas that spent the better part of a decade fighting alongside Afghans to "liberate" Afghanistan without actually caring about Afghans? That's a bit far-fetched, that's all I'm saying. We may not agree with their aspirations for Afghanistan, but saying that their motivations were simply opportunistic and exploitatitive seems misleading. That they themselves were exploited by shameless opportunists seems quite clear in hindsight. Hence their anger.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 October 2002 02:39 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, my point is simply that there's no reason to think the formation of al-Qaida, as such, was motivated by any concern for Afghanistan.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 16 October 2002 02:47 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're right, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Bali, we're falling right into Bush's trap by even discussing it, frankly.

...but I can't help myself. It appears that Al Qaeiouda formed mostly to extend the sucess of their Afghan jihad into the rest of the Muslim world. Why this indicates that they don't care about Afghans eludes me, I'm afraid.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 16 October 2002 03:01 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The United States claims that they care about the well-being of Afghanistan and the Afghan people too. Do you believe them?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 October 2002 03:15 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are you talking about the US administration or the US people? The answers are no and yes, respectively. People who care don't tend to litter the countryside with cluster bomblets.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 16 October 2002 03:19 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Neither do they ban kite flying, music, television and radio, destroy centuries old cultural artifacts, and import and train thousands of mercenary soldiers (or terrorists, as some would call them).
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 October 2002 03:28 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did I say the Taleban gave two toots about the Afghan people? I didn't think so. Neither do Bush and company. These two groups can hate each other without caring a spit for the unfortunate civilians caught up in collateral damage.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 16 October 2002 03:31 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Taliban, Al Qaeda...what's the difference?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 October 2002 03:36 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They're all towel-headed brown people, right?

So there is actually a big difference between the two groups, and they were often not on the best of terms until the US started bombing Afghanistan. The Taliban was comprised of Pashto speaking Afghans, al-Qaeda largely not.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 October 2002 03:36 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*sigh* If you don't know that, then I can't help you.

Edited to add:

quote:
Neither do they ban kite flying, music, television and radio, destroy centuries old cultural artifacts, and import and train thousands of mercenary soldiers (or terrorists, as some would call them).

BTW, sheep, I understood from this statement that you were speaking of the Tal(i/e)ban. Please take care before smearing me as ignorant just because you don't read your own posts.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 16 October 2002 03:44 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
they were often not on the best of terms until the US started bombing Afghanistan

I've got a great deal on some land in Florida that you might be interested in, if you believe that.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 October 2002 04:08 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe that. It would appear you've been sold acres upon acres of great land in Florida. But to be fair, the Taliban and Al Qaeda do have a couple of things in common. They were both created by Russian adventurism and US cynicism. The same two parties who brought us 50 years of cold war. And both are fighting Islamic rebels in the same part of the world and now verge upon the oil wars. You bought Florida land from these guys, sheep?

Try here: http://www.800helpfla.com/


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 16 October 2002 04:24 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nah, the company I deal with throws in a free bridge with every land purchase
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 October 2002 04:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do trolls come with that bridge?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 16 October 2002 04:37 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I want to make a point on the mujahideen being formed to fight the Soviets. I am by no means a student of Afghan history, but as I understand it, the mujahideen was formed in response to internal Afghan politics. In 1973 there was a coup by someone that relied on leftist political elements and by 1978, that someone was trying to purge the leftist elements out which precipitated another coup, the April Revolution of 1978. The mujahideen formed in response to what I gather was forced land reforms that summer. It wasn't until the end of 1979 that events happened which precipitated the Soviet invasion.

Whether this is actually splitting hairs, I don't know. Apparently Jimmy Carter has written that he started giving support to the mujahideen six months before the Soviet invasion but then the leftist purges that led to the 1978 coup were done, apparently, in part to rid the government of Soviet influence.

I don't have a specific site reference for this. I've just gleaned this from a sentence here and a sentence there.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 16 October 2002 04:47 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The United States claims that they care about the well-being of Afghanistan and the Afghan people too. Do you believe them?

Although it's sometimes hard to tell, the "United States" is actually not a small group of religious zealots. Al Qaeda is. You're comparing apples and jihadis there. That aside...

Since the US bankrolled the mujahideen's project - Islamic theocracy for Afghanistan - then Islamic theocracy must be the US preference for Afghanistan too, right? But wait, why would the US foist a system of government they would never tolerate for themselves on people they supposedly care so deeply about? It couldn't have been out of sheer convenience, could it?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 16 October 2002 04:59 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Do trolls come with that bridge?

Me? A troll? Why I outta make porridge out of your bones!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 16 October 2002 05:03 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
why would the US foist a system of government they would never tolerate for themselves on people they supposedly care so deeply about?

Yeah, the US "foisted" Islamic theocracy on Afghanistan...just like Saudi Arabia too. Part of the conditions of military aid right? After all, who could ever choose a form of government like that themselves?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 16 October 2002 05:06 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Janes had a really concise timeline on this. Can I find it now, though? No of course not.

Upshot is, I think you're correct. The mujahideen formed earlier, with US help, specifically to destabilize the moderate socialist Afghanistan that everyone now bemoans the loss of, the Afghanistan that emancipated women and built hospitals and modern education systems etc etc - all the stuff that wahabbists, and Americans apparently, hate.

The US aim was to neutralize India's influence in the region - India was a massive supporter of this Afghan government, much to Pakistan's discomfort - and to create a cancer right on the soviets' own border that could conceivably spread into soviet muslim republics. Like Chechnya. A bit like ideological bioterror. And like bioterror, hard to control when unleashed.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 16 October 2002 05:19 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yeah, the US "foisted" Islamic theocracy on Afghanistan...just like Saudi Arabia too.

I see. The US poured countless millions of dollars into arming and aiding the mujahideen in Afghanistan, but were unaware of their wahabbist ideology. So they're just stupid then.

I believe it was Britain who brought the Sauds to the dance. Not that this stopped them from going home with Standard Oil in the end.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 17 October 2002 01:19 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know it's bad form to paste in whole articles, but this one is an excellent analysis and can't be linked (those damn Australian Fairfax newspapers premium paysites).

The point is, there is an outpouring of sorrow and horror for foreign victims. (In yesterday's Toronto Star, Richard Gwyn had the the tgemerity to claim: "All those who were killed were Westerners, and white.") Harldy any for the Balinese murdered on Oct. 12 & the many Indonesians killed by terror attacks and soldiers before Oct. 12.

quote:
Australian Financial Review
October 16, 2002

Opinion

Don't rule out domestic terrorism

Wimar Witoelar

Two days after the bomb destroyed Bali's innocence, a ragtag but colourful
procession of Balinese people dressed in traditional costumes blocked traffic
at Jakarta's Hotel Indonesia Circle, site of many political demonstrations in
the past five years.

This was a peaceful demonstration, poignantly pleading for peace to return to
Bali, the island of the gods.

Earlier in the day, a delegation of social activists presented flowers in
sympathy to Richard Smith, the Australian ambassador, who then distributed
the flowers among the people queuing up for visas.

In Bali, domestic and foreign tourists worked hand in hand as volunteers to
help with the treatment of victims and with the evacuation.

Rarely has an act of violence riveted the attention of the Indonesian public
as strongly as the Bali bombing. Maybe because Bali is so special in its
culture, natural beauty and economy.

The Bali bombing wrenched our emotions because it hit the island of peace,
our last hope for a turnaround in our fortunes. As the World Trade Center
symbolised technology and superiority, Bali symbolised culture and balance.

The Indonesian public responded to the bombing with horror, disbelief, and
despair. The final touch of tragic irony is that so many of the victims were
Australians, the most loyal friends of Bali. Young Australians constantly
gave Indonesia a vote of confidence by streaming in to Bali even when
politicians on both sides were engaged in one-upmanship.

We lost much that is beautiful when the bombs drove a wedge between our
people and the international community.

It is strange that there is a notion among some outside analysts that there
is support for terrorists in Indonesia. Probably it is created by the
posturing by opportunistic politicians who are using their 15minutes of fame.

The Bali bombing was horrendous in its callousness, but Indonesia has
experienced events with more casualties. They did not receive as much
international attention, because the victims were locals.

The May riots in 1998 took more than 1,000 lives. This was the first instance
of the death throes of the Soeharto regime, taking the form of terrorism
provoked by its darkest agents provocateurs.

The 1999 Banyuwangi killings took hundreds of lives and the Madurese were
murdered by the hundreds in the vengeance of pent-up Dayak anger in
Kalimantan.

Over several years the conflict in Ambon took many hundreds of lives. Terror
has always been around us in Indonesia: state terrorism in Aceh and East
Timor, domestic terrorism as the state tries to cleanse itself.

The string of terrorism plaguing the country shows a strong common
denominator. The weapons, organisation and motivation used in the Bali
bombing point to certain groups.

This prompted former president Abdurrahman Wahid to state that the culprits
were Indonesian. This was interpreted to mean people pursuing a domestic
political agenda. People who have military expertise and political

motivation. Not the official military now in uniform (make no mistake about
it, they have a stake in building the nation) but those who are threatened by
the human rights tribunals and corruption investigations.

They left their mark from the student killings at Trisakti University to the
militia rampage in East Timor. They are still hidden after five years of
public pressure.

It is understandable that the Indonesian public sees the Bali bombing in the
context of domestic politics, which is very real to us.

Public opinion in Indonesia is based on consciousness of being in a stage of
transition from an autocratic regime to an open democracy. We have found that
this is complicated, and we find ourselves caught in the transition.

We have unseated Soeharto, but he has not faced trial. We have identified
perpetrators of human rights abuse in East Timor, but they are escaping
justice as the US puts human rights on freeze.

Problems upon problems come to this society, ranging from a depressed
economy, a dysfunctional legal system to the increasing incidence of mass
violence and terrorism. Indonesia is a large country with large problems.

Just as the guy in the American Midwest is not much aware of the rest of the
world, the average Indonesian is sunk in the vastness of his country.
Awareness of the outside world comes from stereotypes cast locally or by
reactions against stereotypes cast on Indonesia by the outside world.

How is this despicable act of terror going to influence the course of things
in Indonesia and its relationship with the outside world?

Conventional analysis on the politics of Islam, the military, constituencies
and power centres will not provide answers. Indonesia is in a state of random
flux, a messy state where people are the only hope. In the situation of
defective political mechanisms, public opinion is the only source of energy
for improvement. Public perception of the political elite is very low.

The co-option of the Megawati government by the remnants of Soeharto's regime
of corruption and violence leaves it with little moral authority to be
assertive in law enforcement. But now she must bow to public demand for
reform, starting with a crackdown on terrorism. She must be open to
international support, and the government must guide such support to lock in
with our need for justice.

Wimar Witoelar, a spokesman for former president Abdurrahman Wahid, is a
columnist, a television talk-show host and an adjunct professor of Deakin
University.



From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Terry Johnson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1006

posted 18 October 2002 08:21 PM      Profile for Terry Johnson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
James Heartfield of spiked-online.com expresses some of the same concerns about the West's post-Bali relationship with Indonesia as I feel.

See Breaking up Indonesia.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 25 October 2002 07:21 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Been out of commission for a while... that's an interesting article Terry, although it has some historical inaccuracies (Sukarno's first name was not Ahmed, etc) and i thjink some questionable interpretation. But no need to go into the ins and outs of Indonesian history in this post.

Although he's not a separatist, a leading Papuan human rights activist is now touring Canada (Vancouver and Montreal events are in rabble's "what's on" and other cities are also included). He'll offer another point of view, or check out this page: www.westpapua.ca


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 28 October 2002 02:47 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
whodunnit? the latest theories overviewed
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 04 December 2002 01:52 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Time summarizes Bali investigation

Despite the source, this is a good overview of the current state of the investigation, which accords with local Indonesian press reports.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 04 December 2002 05:42 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is long, I'm closing it. Start another, if you like!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca