Densus 88
February 5th, 2007, in News, by PatungThe name of Densus 88 should be changed to Densus 5000, says Abu Bakar Ba’asyir.
Densus 88, or “Special Detachment 88″, of the Indonesian police force charged with anti-terror duties, Detasemen Khusus (Densus) 88 Anti Terror, has aroused the ire of some Muslims recently because of its increasing success in capturing terrorists and militants.
The head of the Mujahidin Council, (Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI)), Abu Bakar Ba’asyir claims that the squad was given the title “88″ because that was the number of people (Antara) Australians killed in the 2002 Bali bombings, and further, that the name should be changed to Densus 5000, because, he says, 3000 Muslims have been killed in Bali (Antara) Ambon and 2000 in Poso, Central Sulawesi.
Abu Bakar Ba’asyir.
Speaking at a seminar in Jakarta on 4th called “Does there need to be a revolution to impose Islamic law in Indonesia?” Bashir reiterated his earlier calls for Densus 88 to not just be withdrawn from Poso but disbanded.
Baasyir went on to complain that whenever Muslims defended themselves from attack they were labelled as terrorists, and suggested that Christians who did the same were branded as mere criminals, such as in the case of Fabianus Tibo.
There have been a number of mass demonstrations recently, mainly in Surakarta, Central Java, demanding that Densus 88 be abolished, as it is seen as an anti-Muslim, and western-funded, force. [1]
Tags: Terrorism
54 Comments on “Densus 88”
-
Tomaculum Says:
February 5th, 2007 at 1:02 amAnd what about the Christian victims?
Oh, sorry, they don’t count, hmm? Just kafir, so less worth?
3000 Moslem victim in Bali or was it in Ambon? -
Dimp Says:
February 5th, 2007 at 4:43 amHi Tomaculum,
And what about the Christian victims?
They are “kafir” so they don’t count.
-
Zapata Says:
February 5th, 2007 at 8:44 amI am pretty sure if he was asked to provide evidence, he might not be able to do so. I haven’t read any report or analysis which is launched by Moslem organisation in response to other reports (ie Crisisweb) that is perceived by Moslems as an attack towards Islam.
Regarding terrorist network in Poso, analysis of ICG is very interesting. So far it may be the most comprehensive and is supported with many data. There is an interesting fact in the report. The leader of notorious Moslem org, Laskar Jihad, Jaffar Umar Thalib was asked by the police to persuade young Moslems in Sulawesi to surrender and direct their jihad war towards other vice (alcohol, gambling and the like).
-
February 5th, 2007 at 8:50 amThe leader of notorious Moslem org, Laskar Jihad, Jaffar Umar Thalib was asked by the police to persuade young Moslems in Sulawesi to surrender and direct their jihad war towards other vice (alcohol, gambling and the like).
They should start declaring jihad against floods.
-
1ndra Says:
February 5th, 2007 at 9:51 amAnd jihad against the terrorists!
-
Syonan Says:
February 6th, 2007 at 3:05 pmIndonesia has long been a muli-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religous society while acceptance and tolerance exist, there seems to lack an in-depth knowledge, understanding and dialogue about various religions. This lack of inter-religious understanding are potential points of tension. It is time that the Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs re-organised themselves and organise a dialogue between the religious groupings to stamp out the current religious problems that is happening in Sulteng. Further more, the Majelis Ulama Indonesia, Nahdlatul Ulama and Mohammadiyyah should issue a fatwa as regards speeches being made by Abu Bakar Ba’asyir.
-
Ihaknt Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 6:56 amChange the name to densus 5001 and blow up this old twat to make the 1.
Indonesia has long been a muli-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religous society while acceptance and tolerance exist, there seems to lack an in-depth knowledge, understanding and dialogue about various religions. This lack of inter-religious understanding are potential points of tension.
It’s because they have lost all their akal sehat. Everything is associated to religion and yet they forget they are given a brain by God but dont want to use it!
Densus 88, or “Special Detachment 88″³, of the Indonesian police force charged with anti-terror duties, Detasemen Khusus (Densus) 88 Anti Terror, has aroused the ire of some Muslims recently because of its increasing success in capturing terrorists and militants.
Isn’t this a good thing? If ABB wasn’t a terorist himself then why is he worried and now wants the group disbanded, changed name, etc? He is giving the religion a bad name and not even punished for it. Is everyone blind?
-
Dedi turmudi Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 8:29 amWhatever their name are, I don’t care! In my opinion the most important thing is the action. If the name of Densus 88 is changed into Densus 5000, or 5001 or others, but the mission and action are eradicating suspected Moslem terrorist, I will be against it all.
So, it’s no meaning to argue the change of the name. Furthermore, why they make Moslems as victim target? Are all terrorists Moslem? Look at what happen in USA 70% of terrorist are Christians, and the rest are from other religion including Islam. So, the label of terrorists which are mostly adressed to Moslems is a propaganda to kill good Islamic character.I believe also that all master minds of the terror in Indonesia are military and political interest, as it is also quite common all over the world.
Meanwhile, I am questioning why many more Moslems are easily get offended just because of small thing and echo “Jihad”. Are there not any approaches to resolve conflict? So far as I know, the term of Jihad is legal in Islam if it is in the right system. If there is jama’ah and no Imam, it means there is no jihad (war).
There is no Jihad if there is no jama’ah, and there is no jama’ah if there is no Imam / Kholifah. So, all in all who is molsem leader (called Imam) right now who has perogative right to decide whether the situation is Jihad or others?
In conclusion I can say that everything happen in our country, particularly related to terrorist issue, is part of global conspiracy to discredit Islam which are growing fast right now. Though, I am not proud that Moslem followers become more more because the quailty is poor! Therefore, let’s do jihad to eradicate the stupidness, poverty (belief and rich), and so forth. Let’s stop quarelling!
Salam
-
February 7th, 2007 at 9:02 amHi Dedi,
Look at what happen in USA 70% of terrorist are Christians, and the rest are from other religion including Islam.
Can you please advise where do you get 70% from?
In conclusion I can say that everything happen in our country, particularly related to terrorist issue, is part of global conspiracy to discredit Islam which are growing fast right now.
You are another Indonesian who cannot accept the truth, and always blaming others.
-
Grace and Mercy Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 11:51 amI wonder what kind of seminar it was that he was invited to speak. My guess is not a constructive one, since I have honestly never heard anything constructive coming out from Basyir.
-
February 7th, 2007 at 11:53 amDedi,
Dude, you said that too many people are easily provoked, but you sound like you’re one of them. Yes we are all so sick of this terorist issues. But you see, the one thing that is lacking here is right education and open mindedness. They are not taught since early age that people are different. there are other races, places, people, cultures, and so on, and that people should respect and tolerate each other. They are not taught that differences are there so people can learn from each other and compliment each other, not to hate them.
Since the beginning of time, people have been fighting for each other over anything, and of course for power and money. But, obviously people dont learn from past mistakes and still fight each other in the name of religion. Jihad is big stinking BS. You can fatwa me if you want I really don’t give a sh*t.
-
Rockstar Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 2:33 pmYeah right 70% terrorist in the US is a Christian, and I’m Osama bin Laden.
-
Rambutan Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 5:15 pmIn conclusion I can say that everything happen in our country, particularly related to terrorist issue, is part of global conspiracy to discredit Islam which are growing fast right now.
Well, that’s what the radicals want to make you believe, ABB spreading the ridculous ‘theory’ about the Bali bombs actually being an American mini nuke refers.
-
Robert Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 8:13 pmDimp,
Can you please advise where do you get 70% from?
In defence of Dedi I must say that the US has had (and still has) their share of domestic terrorism for more than a century. The most notorious example is the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 in which war-veteran Timothy McVeigh drove his (explosives loaden) truck into a federal building. In the following explosion 168 people (adults and children) were killed.
Apart from this there were (much) smaller terrorist attacks which didn’t get the worldwide media exposure. And these attacks had nothing to do with Muslim terrorism.
The September 11 attacks””the biggest and deadliest terrorist plot ever executed in the United States “”were carried out by foreigners, but Americans were responsible for about three-quarters of the 335 incidents between 1980 and 2000 that the FBI has classified as suspected or confirmed terrorism.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org
So 75% of terrorism-related incidents has been caused by (Christian?) Americans. About the kind of terrorist:
The people and groups range from white supremacists, anti-government types and militia members to eco-terrorists and people who hate corporations. They include violent anti-abortionists and black and brown nationalists who envision a separate state for blacks and Latinos.
Source: Larry Copeland, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com
In Indonesia terrorism maybe religion related, but in the US it is related to matters as religion, militarism, nationalism and ecology etc. And the terrorists themselves span the range from plain idiots to doctors (Ph.D).
We can say that terrorism has always been a part of US history, the difference is the media attention and the number of victims that is involved. -
February 9th, 2007 at 4:31 amHi Robert,
So 75% of terrorism-related incidents has been caused by (Christian?) Americans.
Even if they were caused by Christian, they were more fueled by political agenda rather than religion.
I am sick of people who are defending the violence acts committed by people of the same background (race, religion etc.) by stating that “well, the others are doing it too”. Grow up, people, don’t lie to yourself, the facts are there, if you are at fault then admit it, do something about it, don’t try to blame it on someone else saying that there is a conspiracy against you.
-
Andrew Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 5:12 amIn conclusion I can say that everything happen in our country, particularly related to terrorist issue, is part of global conspiracy to discredit Islam which are growing fast right now.
You should thank Mr. Bin Laden for putting the final seal on the deal. Had it not because of him, people wouldn’t be talking about Islam vs. the rest of the world that much these days. He and his followers - and yes, that includes all radicals that think the west is the enemy of Islam - are the people you should go after.
-
Hassan Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 12:45 amAndrew: But how can we thank Bin Laden if we don’t know him and can’t cast vote to agree or disagree to his decisions/actions?
He and his followers - and yes, that includes all radicals that think the west is the enemy of Islam - are the people you should go after.
How? You know, by individuals like you and me. Andrew, what can you do to stop IRA or the Basque separatists, for example? And oh, we all knew they’re Christians.
My point is: We, the regular everyday Muslims are also the victims here, we received the reputation which they had crafted, without our consent.
Dimp:
Even if they were caused by Christian, they were more fueled by political agenda rather than religion.
Great justification! I’m sure it’s OK to take human lives for that reason.
Anyway, what makes you think that terrorism done by Islamic radicals aren’t political in nature? You should reconsider your judgment if you think that Al Qaeda did it for the glory of their religion. Didn’t you ever hear their statements? They never said that their actions was meant to save Islam, they said they were punishing the west for their injustice and arrogance.
I am sick of people who are defending the violence acts committed by people of the same background (race, religion etc.) by stating that “well, the others are doing it too”. Grow up, people, don’t lie to yourself, the facts are there, if you are at fault then admit it.
OK, we admit. We Indonesian Muslims blew up the WTC, all 180 million of us carried out the two Bali bombings. What else should we admit?
-
February 10th, 2007 at 1:09 amHassan, the moral of the story is, I don’t blame others for whatever happens to Christians, whereas this Dedi dude blames “the world” for what happens to Muslims.
He does not say a single word on anything done by those people who call themselves Muslims but act like barbarians.
It is of course very easy to assign blame to others outside your group, which is why people do that, and forget to look in the mirror.
_______________
And for the sake of discussion, what do you think would happen if the IRA and Basque separatists blew up markets, buildings and towns in predominantly Muslim countries around the world, and claim that they did it in the name of Christianity?
-
February 10th, 2007 at 1:53 amHassan,
Anyway, what makes you think that terrorism done by Islamic radicals aren’t political in nature? You should reconsider your judgment if you think that Al Qaeda did it for the glory of their religion. Didn’t you ever hear their statements? They never said that their actions was meant to save Islam, they said they were punishing the west for their injustice and arrogance.
You cannot take religion out of the equation here. The are plenty of people in the west too who think the west are injust and arrogant. Those people don’t do terrorist attacks.
You make it sound like it is pure coincidental that the people who flew into the WTC or commited the bomb attacks on Bali, London and Madrid are Muslims.
Why don’t Hindu’s and Buddhists commit these crimes like these then. Don’t they see the arrogance and injustice of the west? -
February 10th, 2007 at 4:13 amHassan,
Great justification! I’m sure it’s OK to take human lives for that reason.
I never justified their actions, I condemned their actions for whatever reasons.
Anyway, what makes you think that terrorism done by Islamic radicals aren’t political in nature? You should reconsider your judgment if you think that Al Qaeda did it for the glory of their religion. Didn’t you ever hear their statements? They never said that their actions was meant to save Islam, they said they were punishing the west for their injustice and arrogance.
I agree they have political agenda as well, but most people will perceive their actions is based on religion as they always use that they are fighting the enemy of Islam. But again I am not bashing Islam, I am just bashing these terrorists.
OK, we admit. We Indonesian Muslims blew up the WTC, all 180 million of us carried out the two Bali bombings. What else should we admit?
What the, I think you misunderstood me Hassan. If you have been justifying the terrorists act because others have been doing the same violent act then you should look deep into yourself.
-
February 10th, 2007 at 8:46 amWe can say everything here, but with cold head, because this is a medium to argue what we know.If you really want to know where I got the information about 70% terror attack in US was non Moslem, then read the easist one, REPUBLIKA. Ask the publisher of that media in Jakarta, because I am in US now.
In addition, 9/11 is questioned by some US people that the doers were Moslem. They believe that 9/11 is conspiracy visit website : http://www.INFOWARS.com
http://www.911TRUTH.com
http://www.911TRUTHDVD.com
http://www.PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.com
http://www.TRUTHWARS.com
http://www.FREEDOM.corg
http://www.FREEDOMTOFACISM.com
http://www.PRISONPLANET.com
http://www.PROPAGANDAMATRIX.com
http://www.AMERICANFREEDOMWRITERS.com
http://www.GIVEMELIBERTY.com
http://www.RONPAUL.comEnjoy your opinion.
____________________
Please watch this video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7776047547963007354
-
February 10th, 2007 at 10:26 pmI think you are confusing yourself.
First of all, if 9/11 was done by non-Muslims, why would Osama proudly claim it was his brainchild?
Secondly, the evidence overwhelmingly points to Osama and his organization, and not to anyone else.
Finally, Osama is a Muslim (or so he claims) - BUT the governments of the western countries never said it represents Islam in general. It is Osama who attempted to link the terrible incident with Islam for whatever reason he had in mind. So, sure you are right, this is an attempt to discredit Islam, but it is done by someone who claim to be a Muslim. Now tell me, why do you blame the world, and make no mention of the culprit?
And yes, I live in the US, too, and despite some resistance, I can clearly see the US government’s effort to treat Muslims in the country in a fair manner. You can always point to injustice here and there, but before you do that, you should see how minorities are treated in Indonesia.
-
February 11th, 2007 at 12:51 pmRobert: “You cannot take religion out of the equation here. The are plenty of people in the west too who think the west are injust and arrogant. Those people don’t do terrorist attacks.”
You can take religion into the equation if legitimate religious authority in that religion (like the Catholic Pope, for example) declared war (in the form of a crusade, jihad, etc.) or officially condoned the actions. No legitimate Islamic religious authority (like the Khalifa, Grand Mufti, etc.) had ever condoned any terrorist acts. Those terrorist actions were done outside the religious system, as far as Islam is concerned.
If it were the IRA who had blown the WTC, could we blame Christianity as a whole?
“You make it sound like it is pure coincidental that the people who flew into the WTC or commited the bomb attacks on Bali, London and Madrid are Muslims.
Why don’t Hindu’s and Buddhists commit these crimes like these then. Don’t they see the arrogance and injustice of the west?”I always believe that for every action there is an opposite or equal reaction. The answer for your question may lie in the fact that while the other religions also see the arrogance and injustice of the west, it was nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran who were the targets of the west’s wrath, not India, Nepal, or Japan. Had India been the target of a US invasion, I believe that there will be some Hindu fanatics blowing bombs in some western public transport systems.
It is quite obvious that after communism, Islam is what the west felt as the biggest threat, a threat to their ideology and way of life. You know why the US struck the Islamist militiamen in Somalia with air strikes? Or why they brought the Taliban down? Or indeed why they label Abu Bakar Baashir as a terrorist? All of them had one thing in common, all of them wanted to apply the sharia in their respective countries. The US does not want sharia to spread more than it already has, in places like Saudi Arabia, etc.
If Indonesian Muslims unite one day and declared that they wanted to convert Indonesia into a nation based on sharia, you can count that the US will not sit back and watch.
The religion Islam is not the enemy for them, the Islamic ideology, the sharia, is.
-
February 12th, 2007 at 3:44 pmHassan.
No legitimate Islamic religious authority (like the Khalifa, Grand Mufti, etc.) had ever condoned any terrorist acts. Those terrorist actions were done outside the religious system, as far as Islam is concerned.
So, from your point of view, because there is no “certificate of authencity” issued by the religious authorities, the terrorist act is not religion-related.
I don’t think religious authorities have anything to do with it. The fact that a terrorist act is religion related has to do with the motive of the purpetrator, so what’s in his mind. When the purpetrator finds the justification for his acts in religion or religious writings then we can say it is a religion-related act.
For example in the US anti-abortionists kill doctors who work in abortion clinics. They do that with the Bible in one hand and with a gun in the other. I didn’t hear that the religious authorities (Pope?) gave their approval. I think this has everything to do with religion because there the justification is found, with or without “official” approval.If it were the IRA who had blown the WTC, could we blame Christianity as a whole?
Is the IRA a religious organisation then? No, they are just a bunch of people (British) who want Northern-Ireland to become part of the Irish Republic and fight the UK government, by killing other British citizens. It is just plain old nationalism.
No, they wouldn’t fly into the WTC because it would make no sense. On the contrary the IRA always got their biggest support and funding from the US, so they wouldn’t harm the hand that is feeding them.I always believe that for every action there is an opposite or equal reaction.
So do I. Al-Queda hits the US by flying into the WTC. The US strikes back by hitting Al-Queda in Afghanistan. Al-queda strikes back again etc etc.
Had India been the target of a US invasion, I believe that there will be some Hindu fanatics blowing bombs in some western public transport systems.
I am 100% sure that this would happen.
The US does not want sharia to spread more than it already has, in places like Saudi Arabia, etc.
I agree with you, I think this is one of the main reasons behind the present US foreign policy.
If Indonesian Muslims unite one day and declared that they wanted to convert Indonesia into a nation based on sharia, you can count that the US will not sit back and watch.
I am not that sure about that. The US Government is already in deep sh*t because of the Iraq conflict. I don’t think the (new Democrat) Government would take another (big) risk. It would depend on the attitude of the (new) Indonesian government towards the US and its investments in Indonesia. When they would do business with the US like they always did, nothing would happen.
Apart from the US Government, there would be a lot opposition in Indonesia itself from others like Christian’s and Hindu’s. There would also be the military to deal with, because they will not let their position be jeopardized. And let’s not forget China, I don’t think they will endorse a sharia-state. -
February 12th, 2007 at 6:24 pmRobert: You said,
Is the IRA a religious organisation then? No, they are just a bunch of people (British) who want Northern-Ireland to become part of the Irish Republic and fight the UK government, by killing other British citizens. It is just plain old nationalism.
And what makes you think Al Qaeda is a religious organization? Al Qaeda was once a part of the mujahiddeen in Afghanistan, struggling to oust the Sovyets out of Afghan. Al Qaeda was supported, funded, armed and trained by the US through the CIA, for obvious reasons prevalent during the Cold War era. Just because they quote verses from the Quran doesn´t meant they are a religious organization. They are former mercenaries without a master, and eventually they turned against their former master, the US.
No, they wouldn’t fly into the WTC because it would make no sense. On the contrary the IRA always got their biggest support and funding from the US, so they wouldn’t harm the hand that is feeding them.
First of all, my question was hypothetical. IF it were some terrorist group who happened to be Christians who had attacked the WTC, should we blame Christianity as a whole? Secondly, Al Qaeda had also gotten their support and funding from the US during the Afghan-Sovyet war. The difference with the IRA situation is, the US abandoned them when the Cold War ends, and Al Qaeda turned against their old master and harmed the hand that had fed them.
So do I. Al-Queda hits the US by flying into the WTC. The US strikes back by hitting Al-Queda in Afghanistan. Al-queda strikes back again etc etc.
The thing is, there is no definite proof that Al Qaeda had done all those things. What happened was the US accused Al Qaeda as the culprit, using one sided arguments, “evidence”, theories, and “facts”. The last time the US used the same one sided approach was when they accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction, ready to launch within 24 hours. Now, where was those WMD´s? You still believed anything the Bush administration tells you after that WMD fiasco?
Anyway, Al Qaeda had always said they didn´t do it. Osama said 9/11 was more than his wildest dreams. Which one do you believe more, the serial liar Bush, or the ex-CIA puppet Osama? I say none! Both of them are just trying to play us for a fool.
And let’s not forget China, I don’t think they will endorse a sharia-state.
China had always been tolerant, and they don’t want to risk losing the support of the Islamic world by invading the biggest Islamic country in the world. If the Arabs decides to stop their oil to China as an act of solidarity, it’s bye bye China. And China can’t threat or lobby those Arab countries like the US can.
About the other minorities, minorities are minorities, they are the same all over the world. They will follow the majority, willingly or unwillingly.
_________________
For those who still believed in the Bush administration and still thinks that Al Qaeda blew the WTC, open the link http://www.911truthDVD.com.
A link which Dedi Turmudi provided. I found that it was the most wothwhile and truthful link from the list.
The language wasn´t propaganda-ish and conspiracy theory-ish, actually it used a rather scientific tone and approach.
If you profess of being a rational and open-minded person, I´m quite sure that you will agree with the arguments stated in the video.
-
February 12th, 2007 at 9:22 pmHassan,
The thing is, there is no definite proof that Al Qaeda had done all those things. What happened was the US accused Al Qaeda as the culprit, using one sided arguments, “evidence”, theories, and “facts”. The last time the US used the same one sided approach was when they accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction, ready to launch within 24 hours. Now, where was those WMD´s? You still believed anything the Bush administration tells you after that WMD fiasco?
Once a liar, always a liar.
China had always been tolerant, and they don’t want to risk losing the support of the Islamic world by invading the biggest Islamic country in the world.
China a tolerant country? Yeah, sure. Ask the people in Tibet, or the victims of the Cultural Revolution or the Falun Gong. China has an appalling human rights record. The Chinese are far away from being tolerant.
The Chinese don’t need Indonesian support, they only need Indonesia’s natural resources.If the Arabs decides to stop their oil to China as an act of solidarity, it’s bye bye China. And China can’t threat or lobby those Arab countries like the US can.
That’s right, China can not threat Arab countries yet. But what is not possible at the moment, may become reality in the (near) future when China becomes a military superpower. Then it might be bye bye Arab countries.
-
February 13th, 2007 at 5:55 amTolerant China? Never heard of it. They are probably one of the strictest ruled and merciless countries on earth. Many of the citizens can’t do much. The workers don’t have good working conditions. And the on-going torture to the Falun Gong followers is just appalling. The more protest they do, the more torture they get. Fair enough that their economy is currently growing, but many still live by getting food ration in the poorer areas of the country.
-
Madesh Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 1:02 pmIf I am not mistaken Dedi is trying to say that Osama, Hasan Ashari, Nordin Moh Top, Imam Samodra, Muchlas and the gangs have converted to Christian.
-
February 13th, 2007 at 3:13 pmNo wonder Abu Bakar keeps making non-sense comments. It never fails to stir up yet another heated arguments in Indonesia Matters.
-
February 13th, 2007 at 11:22 pmWhat I meant by “China had always been tolerant” was that China was quite tolerant towards other ideologies, well at least more so than the US. The US will always viciously try to block or destroy a rival ideology, like Communism in the past or Islam at present. I can’t see any comparison between the US and China in that department.
China had never invaded another sovereign country or topple the legitimate ruler of another country over ideological differences (I don’t know if the Tibet case can be considered an ‘ideological war’), that my friends is America’s favorite past time.My point is, I doubt if China will be the one who will invade or attempt a regime change in Indonesia IF (note the ‘IF’) Indonesia converted to an Islamic state based on Sharia.
But what is not possible at the moment, may become reality in the (near) future when China becomes a military superpower.
If China becomes a military superpower, I doubt if they will try to crush the Arabs first. Their rival is just across the Pacific. Naturally, the two military superpowers will clash first before anything else.
-
February 14th, 2007 at 1:50 amHassan,
Tibet was a sovereign country and the chinese are intolerant against the tibetan culture and religion! -
February 14th, 2007 at 2:23 amHassan,
I don’t know exactly about which ideologies you are talking. However in the past the Chinese were very opposed to any foreign ideology, except communism ofcourse. Foreign influences have always been a delicate matter. The state has always tried to control this by limiting press freedom and censorship on television and radio. Recently they expanded their influence on the internet as well (The Great Chinese Firewall).
As far as religions are concerned China only allows Buddhism, Daoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism. Their houses of worship must be state-approved. Otherwise they will be closed down. In the past several churches and mosques did have to close actually. Also here the firm hand of the state is felt.
The Chinese considered Tibet to be a part of China (like Taiwan), so they invaded it and wiped out Tibetan culture (and some of its inhabitants too).
When I compare the US with China, I do think that an individual in the US will have more freedom than in China. China has always been more oppresive then the US and in fact still is. But that is on a domestic level.
Looking at their foreign policies it is a difference between night and day as you already mentioned yourself.The Chinese have a different agenda than the Americans do. The Chinese agenda is mainly focussed on expanding the economy. So as long as they get their oil, gas, wood etc. there will be no problem. Maybe they won’t be ecstatic about a sharia-state, as long as the flow continues they don’t mind as long as all Chinese interests are safe.
The only thing what is scarry what will happen in the future, if the flow stagnates and this in combination with China being a superpower. I don’t know whether the Chinese will lean back and wait, or that they will respond in another manner.Will China and the US clash? They need each other too much (at the moment). The US needs Chinese money to fuel the economy and to fight wars. On the other hand the Chinese need American technology and education.
-
February 14th, 2007 at 10:28 amWhat I meant by “China had always been tolerant” was that China was quite tolerant towards other ideologies
China blocks free access to the internet, how is that tolerant?? Come on, don’t be naive. An idea is epxressed just for the sake of anti-America or pro-Arab/Islam without substantiation can sound really foolish.
-
February 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pmPlease read my comment again, carefully. “What I meant by “China had always been tolerant” was that China was quite tolerant towards other ideologies.” They didn’t try to block or destroy other ideologies as vehement or blatant as the US did.
Tom, Tibet was not an ideological battleground. That was colonialism plus some added cultural aspects.
Grace and Mercy, the internet wasn’t an ideological battleground ala Capitalism vs Communism in the Cold War era, or the US vs the Islamic ideology (the Sharia) now.
If you just joined this discussion, please read from the top, if you had the time that is.
Robert, I wasn’t talking about religious or individual freedom in China or in the US. And this statement, “Maybe they won’t be ecstatic about a sharia-state, as long as the flow continues they don’t mind as long as all Chinese interests are safe.” is spot on.
“And let’s not forget China, I don’t think they will endorse a sharia-state.” but yet they won’t bomb other countries who tried to implement it, like in what the US had done towards the Taliban, or the Somalian Islamist Militia who tried to do just that. That is the difference between those two countries’ foreign policy.
-
February 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pmthe internet wasn’t an ideological battleground
Oh really? And why would China block it, or at least Chinified it then? To protect their “economy”. I hardly think so. Try googling “Tiananmen” in google.com and compare your result to google.cn.
For your information, I have been reading this discussion from the beginning and sorry to say, your argument does not weigh in, because of lack of proper/credible substantiation.
-
February 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pmHassan,
China will block and/or destroy whatever they think is necessary. In the past they destroyed a big part of their own culture (Cultural Revolution) and others (Tibet). Nowadays they are still trying to destroy/block whatever they think is undesired, the Falun Gong, free access to internet etc.
Implementing the sharia was not the reason the US invaded Afghanistan. The reason was that Al Queda had its bases in Afghanistan, and the US held them responsible for the WTC drama.
Just before 9/11 the Taliban had made a great deal with the US Government, they received $43 Million in the war against drugs. If 9/11 wouldn’t have happened the Taliban might still have been the rulers in Afghanistan.
The US is prepared to do business with the most barbaric regimes on this earth as long it fits their political agenda. Nothing to do with sharia, only with american opportunism.As far as the Somalian Islamist Militia are concerned, they don’t constitute the official government, they are not in a position to implement anything.
They are just one of the many groups of rebels/warlords, no more, no less.
Whether they want to implement sharia or not, they will get their ass kicked anyway, by the Somali and Ethiopian Government and if necessary by the Kenyan Government.Unlike the US and many other western countries China has been safeguarded against terrorrist attacks (up to now). I wonder what kind of stand they will take, once they have been target by foreign terrorrists. They don’t take foreign interference lightly.
-
February 19th, 2007 at 6:11 pmGrace and Mercy, blocking internet on one’s own country is hardly compArable to invading other countries or using military intervention to prevent them from developing a certain ideology. Remember Vietnam? Afghanistan?
As for substantiation, you can start by opening these links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html
and of course, http://www.911truthDVD.com.
Robert:
I quote from our previous comments,
Hassan : “The US does not want sharia to spread more than it already has, in places like Saudi Arabia, etc.”
Robert : “I agree with you, I think this is one of the main reasons behind the present US foreign policy.”
Contradicts your last comment, “Implementing the sharia was not the reason the US invaded Afghanistan.”
-
February 19th, 2007 at 10:14 pmHassan,
I said:
“I agree with you, I think this is one of the main reasons behind the present US foreign policy”.
“Implementing the sharia was not the reason the US invaded Afghanistan.”
You are right that my arguments sound contradictive. Though I do think they are both valid. Please let me clarify.
First, I didn’t say that the US automatically will invade every sharia-state, I only said it was one of the main reasons behind the US foreign policy. There are ofcourse more reasons, amongst them are economical reasons.
Secondly, for the US it is normal to judge countries with double standards. This depends on the agenda, which can be military, political or economical.As long as the US need a certain regime in a polical and/or economical manner, they accept all the possible disadvantages (Saudi-Arabia, Afghanistan before 9/11). Possible gripes they might have with these regimes disappear like snow in the sun.
In the case of Afghanistan, the US needed the Taliban for the fight against drugs, although they knew the Taliban were very anti-US. And ofcourse the US needs Saudi-Arabia for the oil.
The US will prevent a country turning into a sharia-state by intervention or supporting the (military) opposition, when they know that their intervention has no direct political and/or economical consequences (Somalia).Hassan, you are saying that China doesn’t prevent other countries from developing a certain ideology. Well that may be true (except for Tibet). On the other hand the Chinese Government is very oppressive towards their own people, especially in the fields of freedom of speech and Human Rights.
Also you mention the US prevented countries like Afghanistan and Vietnam their own ideology.
What ideologies did they develop then? North-Vietnam imported communism, just like China and North-Korea did. You cannot speak about development here. The Americans fought the North-Vietnamese and lost. So the entire Vietnam became one communist country, the Americans couldn’t prevent that.And Afghanistan, what did they develop? The regime in Afghanistan was a back-to-the-Middle-ages kind of regime. There was no development at all. When the Taliban seized control, they stripped women of their basic human rights. Afghanistan changed into a brutal gender-apartheid state which without precedent. It became a totalarian ruled state.
I fully understand your gripe with US foreign policy, but your concern with this Afghan “development” baffles me. And BTW the US didn’t block the Taliban from exercising their ideology until 9/11. -
Mohammed Khafi Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 11:04 pmHassan said:
The religion Islam is not the enemy for them, the Islamic ideology, the sharia, is.
Sharia is Islam’s worst enemy, it will either cause the destruction of Islam, or it will destroy civilisation as we know it.
-
February 20th, 2007 at 9:28 amHi Hassan
Grace and Mercy, blocking internet on one’s own country is hardly compArable to invading other countries or using military intervention to prevent them from developing a certain ideology.
Ok, point taken from this statement. But it doesn’t justify your first and foremost statement in your this post that says:
China had always been tolerant” was that China was quite tolerant towards other ideologies.”
I hardly think attacking your neighbor does not make oneself tolerant. I hardly think over-protecting one’s ideology by blocking the internet is tolerant. Granted, they don’t have an invasionist policy, but they are certainly not tolerant.
This is what i meant dear friend, when I said your argument is not substantiated, because from the beginning I believe you were trying to do so by using a totally different issue.
-
February 21st, 2007 at 10:45 pmRobert: “First, I didn’t say that the US automatically will invade every sharia-state.”
Maybe, but I reckon they will use every precautions necessary to prevent nations from becoming sharia states as they did to nations who wanted to become a part of the communist block back in the cold war eras. And invasion will never be out of the equation.
“What ideologies did they develop then?”
I believe the word I used was ‘implement’ a certain ideology, and not “develop” or “development”. Perhaps you would be less baffled by that.
Grace and Mercy: Perhaps I should have said “China had always been more tolerant towards other countries who wanted to implement ideologies which does not suit them than the US” rather than “China had always been tolerant”
-
February 21st, 2007 at 11:13 pmHassan you said:
precautions necessary to prevent nations from becoming sharia states
Who are all these nation who want to become Sharia states? The only people I know who live in Sharia states want to get the 4uck out of them and go live somewhere else. It seems that somebody like yourself is maybe a little delusional about understanding what other people want, just because you yourself want it so badly that you cannot understand anybody else feeling differently. The fact is that the majority of us don’t want what you want, if we did we would have voted for Islamic parties at the last elections, we didn’t. Even the Achenese voted for secular Govenor and Vice Govenor. These are the same pepole that the government and the religious leaders tell us wanted Sharia imposed on them!
Peace
-
February 21st, 2007 at 11:38 pmMohammed Khafi: We’re not having a religious argument here, Khafi. The topic is more about international relations and and the war on other ideologies.
Besides, I felt that arguing about sharia with you is quite useless. You will forever be against it, as a liberal would. And I will always advocate it, as a mainstream Muslim would. Case closed?
BTW, Acehnese voted for that guy because of his ties with the GAM, that’s more political than religious. Had the Acehnese wanted to get rid of the sharia, they would have protested on the streets and would have rejected the whip punishments, etc. Don’t give us false conclusions, Khafi.
-
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 amHassan,
In fact I was to referring to your comment to Grace and Mercy where you mentioned Vietnam and Afghanistan developing ideologies. Anyway you’ve made you point clear.
I already feel less baffled now. -
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 pmHassan said:
And I will always advocate it, as a mainstream Muslim would.
My own experience is that most mainstream Muslims in this country as elsewhere do not want Sharia imposed on them, unless by mainstream you mean the likes of FPI, and Laskar Jihad.
Had the Acehnese wanted to get rid of the sharia, they would have protested on the streets and would have rejected the whip punishments, etc.
The problem with Sharia, Hassan is that once it is in place, nobody can argue with it because they are terrified of being classed as apostates, that is how Sharia works Hassan, by using fear.
If you want Sharia, live your life according to Sharia, nobody is stopping you from doing that, it is your choice.
-
February 25th, 2007 at 1:26 pmMohammed Khafi: Perhaps those ‘mainstream’ Muslims you mentioned are the abangans, which are quite numerous. They would surely reject anything like Sharia.
While the ‘mainstream’ I meant was the decent mosque going, pengajian attending Muslims, which I know for a fact that most of them are longing for the application of Sharia in a correct way.If there are some discourse about the implementation of Sharia among those people, it will be about: 1. How to implement it correctly 2. Is it possible to to implement it in a secular country like Indonesia without resorting to a revolution 3. The treatment for minorities, etc.
The arguments were never about: should we implement it or no, because the answer is always yes. But of course there are also some who claimed to be realists who thinks that it’s almost impossible to uphold Sharia in such a secular country and they just give up on the idea altogether. And also some pessimists who predicts Sharia could never be practiced in a heterogenous country like Indonesia, with their crystal balls an all.
-
February 25th, 2007 at 2:57 pmHassan,
Just what is your definition of Sharia?
Is it the Sharia which allows a young unmarried mother to be stoned to death? (Nigeria)
Is it the Sharia which allows 15 schoolgirls to burn to death, because they were not properly dressed to be allowed out of the burning building? (Saudi)
Is it the Sharia, which punishes apostates with death?
Is it the Sharia which allows men to have sex with their servants?
Is it the Sharia which forbids education for females?
Is it the Sharia which doesn’t allow women to work?
Is it the Sharia which encourages suicide bombings or terrorism?
Is it the Sharia which allows kidnapping, and beheading of the victims?
Is it the Sharia which allows female genital mutilation?
Is it the Sharia which forbids democracy?
Is it the Sharia which forbids freedom of speech?
Is it the Sharia which destroys a peoples cultural heritage?
Is it the Sharia which forbids others to practice their own religions?
Is it the Sharia which imprisons anybody who holds a different viewpoint?
Is it the Sharia which requires a female rape victim to provide four male witnesses and if she cannot, imprisons the rape victim for having unmarried sex?
Is it the Sharia which allows a man to divorce his wife with just a few words?I could go on a lot longer, but I hope you get the idea. Just which Sharia do you support? Can you give us an example of a good Sharia system in place and working? Anywhere?
Peace
-
Brett Kerrigan Says:
March 17th, 2007 at 7:30 amAmerica and China are not really that different. Both are capitalist and secular. Anyway, you Indonesians think too much of yourself. You will never be a major player on the world’s stage and if you commit to the SHARIA - You drop further back in the developmental stage. Your economy will mirror your religion - BACKWARD and PRIMITIVE. Yes, that is what ISLAM is. A primitive ideology. An ideology that forces women into subordination.
-
March 17th, 2007 at 4:34 pmBrett Kerrigan said:
America and China are not really that different. Both are capitalist and secular. Anyway, you Indonesians think too much of yourself. You will never be a major player on the world’s stage and if you commit to the SHARIA - You drop further back in the developmental stage. Your economy will mirror your religion - BACKWARD and PRIMITIVE. Yes, that is what ISLAM is. A primitive ideology. An ideology that forces women into subordination.
We may be backward and primitive, but at least we are trying to improve ourselves. If you were not such an ignorant bigot you would realise that Islam is not as you describe it, the true teachings of Islam from Al Quran, do not force women into subordination, however the corrupted Sunnah and Hadith teachings unfortunately do, and it is also doubly unfortunate that the majority of Muslims seem to follow these practices.
If you believe that Islam as practiced by the majority of the uneducated, brainwashed masses, is the true Islam, you are unfortunately displaying exactly the same lack of education and lack of reason as them.
I would suggest that you do a little more study before coming back here and being so objectionable.
Peace
-
Kenichi Takoyaki Says:
October 31st, 2007 at 12:45 pmWithout any mean to discredit any religion I humbly want to say that it is hard nowadays to see international terror acts that are not committed by fundamentalist Muslim. Not to say that there is no other terror act which is perpetrated by other religion-based fundamentalist such as say, ultra-nationalist Hindu in India or something like that.
There are two possibilities for this. First is because media coverage with which western government’s interest is closely attached to. As a result, if its about their interest, they are very likely to take it as a serious matter and thus all western media if not most, always propagandize this Muslim terrorism very vigorously, especially post 9/11 and Bali Bombing. This situation contributes significantly to the way that (fundamentalist muslim) terrorism is now regarded as a top global threat, regarding the random way that it happened. For example, why is Tamil tiger rebellion in SriLanka or terror acts that are committed by other religion-based fundamentalist is not regarded as serious threat to global order? Two answers: because it does not directly threaten the western societies by which all attention is emerged. Secondly, although it is a direct formidable threat to SriLankan government, it is not an international network and thus it exaggerate the fact that no matter how dangerous it is, it won’t disturb us, so why bothers?
The second possibility, there has been a change in the nature of terrorism today, especially post 9/11. IRA and other terror acts before operated within one country’s border yet see what happened with Al-Qaeda. It is an international terror network stretched from the Arabian Middle East to probably, say, western countries. It is thus far deadlier than most terrorist that operated before 9/11. Moreover, see the way that they have created a massive number of casualties in WTC. Not only that, they manage to inspire other radical movements in many parts of the world globally such as one of them is the perpetrator of Bali Bombing, J.I. It is then logical that fundamentalist-muslim terrorism is becoming the central international issue today as a consequence.
What further exacerbate the problem and the image of Muslim people is that because despite the hidden fact of any political motive, most fundamentalist-muslim terror act always behold the name of religion, and (as if) it is different with other religion-based terror acts because usually they state clearly their political motive in nationalist, marxist flavour and not merely religion although there is a bit of religious motive.
And I am still confused, why would some people especially Indonesian, still supp
ort some radical Islamic movement such as FPI (Forum Pembela Islam), and stuff. Is there any fear that if they are not radical enough then they are not considered as the true moslems? Or is it simply just because most Moslem in Indonesia do not know how to choose because of educational barrier. This is very hard to explain because if we see the nature of fundamentalist christian in the US, they are well-educated and most of them are prosperous, so why would they still become christian fundamentalist? -
October 31st, 2007 at 1:01 pmOne more thing, I strictly oppose sharia law not only because it is highly oppressive and discriminative but also because it will not work. We should separate religion and politic and uphold secularism. Europe has experienced such ‘catholicism and christianism sharia’ in the past and guess what? It did not work. People eventually rebel and the Christendom fell down so ingloriously. Another example is Turkey, it used to be the capital of Islam in the world and not it embraces secularism. History has proven that religion is just a matter of personal belief and when it come to politicize it, everything will turn crappy and backward.
Do you know that Muslims in Jordan and other Arab countries seem to be more liberal and secular than Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia? I’ve seen one show about it in Oprah and these people although they do sholat and stuff, do not get provoked as easy as what I’ve seen with Indonesian Muslims. Such as when Palestine and Israel war happen or Israel and Lebanon war happened. In the news, some Indonesians did demonstration, saying that Israel oppressed their muslim brothers, these people should not be tortured and stuff. Yet in Jordan, Saudi Arabia (as some of my middle easterners friend said to me), nothing really happened. This is ironic with the Bali Bombing thing which killed many Indonesian and Balinese as well. No Indonesian went to the road and say ‘Hey terrorist! Stop Fu***** my Balinese brothers or my indonesian brothers!’
And one more thing, if you thing that Middle East is always about women with burkah and head veil, you’re not totally right. Well, I mean in some areas, there are still plenty of them wearing those things. Yet as I saw in Oprah, Jordanian women seems very liberal in terms that they don’t wear head veil and they clearly stated that it is ok in Jordan not to wear them if you feel you are not ready or for whatever reason. In Indonesia, what I’ve seen is that there is a peer pressure or society pressure to muslim women if they don’t look like ‘Real’ muslims. It is true that there is no certain punishment or something like that happen to this women, but I’ve a muslim friend (girl) who always do sholat, wear head veil, etc yet she is still ‘bitchy’. You know what I mean right? It is true that I should not generalize from that example but in general I see more people in Indonesia seem to be trapped in superficial level of Islamism
-
Wibowo Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 11:03 amIt’s all come to the “man behind the gun”. I mean sharia should be seen as a whole not part by part. when european had this “christianity sharia” and finally people could not stand it, it is because the clerics were abusing their power. AFAIK it was not very “logical” at that time in europe. Anything againts the church (even science) is againts God…that was because the clerics were afraid of losing the grip on power and influence to the kings. Europe was in “dark” age at that time. when one really applies and understand sharia (even christianity sharia) then one would not abuse the power.
Spirit of sharia (islam especially), does not mean that one should literally use sharia law, the law can be adjusted and prepared to have that spirit of sharia and it is not bad at all. When sharia says about zakah, it is all about social security. When sharia says about women wearing hijab, it is all about respecting them. Do you know that mothers give all her copies (genetic) to her children? It is why one should protect women because they are the ones who define the future of our mankind. It is also why sharia strictly mentions muslims to respect their mothers 3 times more than their fathers. Because muslims owe their life to their mother.
I believe when a government is spiritually influenced by sharia (any sharia) and really govern things base on that, the fate of a nation will be brighter or at least have very little trade offs (e.g moral decadencies, the rich getting richer etc.)
One should not forget about local traditions. In bali traditional balinese men do not work. They only take care of their fighting cocks. The women work hard in the field. Knowing this, wouldn’t you agree that sharia put women at higher level, respect them, protect them? In indonesia there is a saying that heaven is at the mother’s foot. Respect your mother, respect women.
-
Spectator Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:50 pmC’mon guys, could you be cool for a sec’, instead of telling this religion was evil, terror spreader, mine not, perhaps y’all should look a lil’ closer the matter from a sociocultural and historical aspect, now, when an irish IRA set a suicidal bomb on the ireland conflict, and accidentally the bomber was a Christian, so all the Christian are terrorist? or Tamil Tigers in Srilangka, whose majority were Hind, setting a bomb, and you mark Hind as a terrorist religion? I believe all the religion is good in nature, and the human itself, whose to blame, yes, us, we makes the religion, try to divert it to our own appeal, yes we knew, western liberalism change the Christianity, yes, we knew that Buddhism and Hinduism evolves with human mind with their teachings as a way of life, and you guys think the Koran that we read nowadays is the Koran as it were? do you think so? well think again.. After Zaid bin Sabit deceased, no one in the Kalifah were as familiar to Koran as to him and his predecessor, so, no one knows what might happened during the unification of the Koran rite? “NO, the Koran is a same as it were!”, yeah at least that what you’re being told, and your dad, and your granddad, and so forth and so forth..
-
kinch Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 pmAssembled Natives of Indonesia, the Kinch will now speak ex-cathedra on a matter of great doctrinal importance:
bitch |bi ch |
noun
1 a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.
2 informal derogatory a woman whom one dislikes or considers to be malicious or unpleasant.
• [in sing. ] informal a thing or situation that is unpleasant or difficult to deal with : the stove is a bitch to fix.NB: worthy denizens of the clove-reeking archipelago: nowhere does it say ‘one who puts it out wantonly in BATS’!
Bitch does NOT mean ‘whore’ or ‘woman of loose morals’.
What you want to say in these situations is ’slut’ - although I must admit a fondness for ’strumpet’.
(And yes, Timdog, I am well-aware of certain interesting congruencies in the history of the usage of both slut and bitch… but to discuss here would merely confuse the already confused.)
And if anyone is looking for collective nouns, try these:
A Jam of Tarts.
An Anthology of Pros.
A Fanfare of Strumpets.Here endeth the lesson,.
Trackbacks
Comment on “Densus 88”.
Subscribe
Related Stories
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-08 