Densus 88

Feb 5th, 2007, in News, by

The 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
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 Bashir reiterated his earlier calls for Densus 88 to not just be withdrawn from Poso but disbanded.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.


69 Comments on “Densus 88”

  1. avatar Tomaculum says:

    Hassan,
    Tibet was a sovereign country and the chinese are intolerant against the tibetan culture and religion!

  2. avatar Robert says:

    Hassan,

    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.

  3. avatar Grace and Mercy says:

    What 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.

  4. avatar Hassan says:

    Please 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.

  5. avatar Grace and Mercy says:

    the 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.

  6. avatar Robert says:

    Hassan,

    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.

  7. avatar Hassan says:

    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. 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. πŸ˜‰

    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.”

  8. avatar Robert says:

    Hassan,

    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.

  9. avatar Mohammed Khafi says:

    Hassan 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.

  10. avatar Grace and Mercy says:

    Hi 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.

  11. avatar Hassan says:

    Robert: “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” πŸ™‚

  12. avatar Mohammed Khafi says:

    Hassan 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

  13. avatar Hassan says:

    Mohammed 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.

  14. avatar Robert says:

    Hassan,

    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. πŸ™‚

  15. avatar Mohammed Khafi says:

    Hassan 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.

  16. avatar Hassan says:

    Mohammed 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.

  17. avatar Mohammed Khafi says:

    Hassan,

    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

  18. avatar Brett Kerrigan says:

    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.

  19. avatar Mohammed Khafi says:

    Brett 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

  20. avatar Kenichi Takoyaki says:

    Without 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?

  21. avatar Kenichi Takoyaki says:

    One 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

  22. avatar Wibowo says:

    It’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.

  23. avatar Spectator says:

    C’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..

  24. avatar kinch says:

    Assembled 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.
    β€’ [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,.

  25. avatar Dera Sutijo says:

    I think Indonesia Government very tollerant for this f**in Basyir.
    This people should be Jail again for what he said.

  26. avatar Arai says:

    I read comments talking bout religions. I think we all should notice that terrorism is terrorism. We all hate those, but there is one thing that we all should know, and this is what I’ve teach to the youngsters that “let’s don’t blame on religions or races” religions got nothing to do with the terrorism. I believe that there is no such religion that taught us to do bad things. Don’t get any further. We all can pick. Which one is good, which one is bad.

    I think everyone can be a terrorist. Doesn’t matter if he’s a moslem or a christian or etc. It depends on their common sense. Let’s not be sarcastic. We all love living in a peaceful world.

  27. avatar peace says:

    densus 88 attacks terrorist camp, succesfully
    and nordin maybe died as loser

  28. avatar iyan says:

    it is very simple for me to stop terrorist attack :
    1. check out america from afghan & iraq
    2. don’t intervention another country, especialy muslim country or majority muslim country

  29. avatar Oigal says:

    it is very simple for me to stop terrorist attack :
    1. check out america from afghan & iraq
    2. don’t intervention another country, especialy muslim country or majority muslim country

    Iyan, gee.. so simple then perhaps you can explain how the Bali bombing occured seeing how it was well before IRAQ or Afganistan. Is it really too much to ask for people to use their brains before accepting the spoonfed slush and bile spouted by the evil idiots of the world.

    Keeping in Indonesia, hopw do you explain the ongoing terrorist attacks on the Indonesian people since the 50’s (in varying levels of evil) by intolerant morons who wish to impose a religious government on people who have plainly demonstrated they do not wish it.

    Here’s an idea, why don’t the Muslim nations of the middle east put their hands up for peace and security responsibility in Iraq and Afganistan….sorry…thats just plain nasty.

    Time to grow up and and act like human beings and stop blaming everyone else for the muslim worlds woes…

  30. avatar Oigal says:

    In bali traditional balinese men do not work. They only take care of their fighting cocks.

    Truely stunning in its ignorance and inaccurracy and fine example of Indonesian Pluralism…You have to wonder what the author has to say about his countrymen in Kalimantan and Papua for example.

Comment on “Densus 88”.

RSS
RSS feed
Email

Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-18
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact