Densus 88 Raids, Noordin (Not) Dead

Aug 8th, 2009, in News, by

Noordin M Top not dead after a Densus 88 raid in Temanggung, in another raid in Bekasi a car bomb is found.

Temanggung

On the morning of August 8th in Beji, Kedu, Temanggung, Central Java anti-terror police Densus 88 raided a house where Malaysian terrorist Noordin M Top was thought to be hiding. Police said that Noordin was likely killed during the raid, however upon DNA tests of the body it was found that it was Noordin M Top at all.

Police had had the house, owned by one Muhjuhri, surrounded in a tense standoff since around 4pm the previous day, while explosions and gunfire were heard at the time of the raid.

Reports in recent days had suggested that Noordin M. Top was most likely hiding somewhere in Central Java, moving from house to house every six hours even.

Bekasi

Meanwhile in Bekasi, West Java, near East Jakarta, the home of one Ahmad Fery located at Puri Nusapala, Blok D, RT 4 RW 12 in Jati Makmur, Jatiasih was also raided by Detasemen Khusus (Densus) 88 at 1am Saturday morning, after two men arrived at the house in a van.

The two men, believed to be named Air Setiawan/Setyawan and Eko Joko Sarjono, attempted to throw pipe bombs at police, it is said, and were shot dead.

Weapons, bomb making materials, and a Mitsubishi pickup truck that had been prepared as a car bomb were seized.


Jatiasih, Bekasi

Police general Wahyono said the house had been watched by police for the last ten days.

A few days ago another senior policeman in Bekasi, Herri Wibowo, had said there were six areas in the regency which were known to be home to adherents of hardline Muslim groups and therefore the police were focusing on them in the search for likely terrorist hideouts in the wake of the Jakarta suicide bombings.

He would not name the six areas but said they included a few ordinary kampung areas, and other areas where were located certain Islamic schools, and lots of short term housing. antara


96 Comments on “Densus 88 Raids, Noordin (Not) Dead”

  1. Achmad Sudarsono says:

    Seksi Pak Patoengs yth.,

    On liberal conservatism… Good point.

    Begs the question of whether or not history is linear or goes in circles, or both, in a kind of archimedian spiral.

    Too much for a simple Ukulele player to understand.

    x o to all !

  2. Odinius says:

    Sorry but how was “liberal conservatism” ever remotely “left wing?”

    Classical liberalism certainly was. After all, the principles of classical liberalism are:

    *lots n’ lots of liberty (political and economic)
    *equal legal protection for all citizens (theoretically, though often not in practice)
    *individualism, not collectivism
    *government serves at the behest of the citizenry, and can be replaced by it

    It’s difficult for me to see how this kind of a platform can be right wing, unless it’s diluted and distorted so far from its original message that it’s unfair to attach the word “liberal” to it.

    Which is how i’d describe “liberal conservatism.” It’s right-wing Burkean style conservatism fancied up with a few economic libertarian ideas (arguably those that end up serving the entrenched elites anyways). Hardly left…

  3. David says:

    I’m saying ‘liberal conservatism’ is not a fixed thing in terms of the positions that ‘liberal conservatives’ hold at different times, – what a ‘liberal conservative’ believes today is often not what a ‘liberal conservative’ believed 100 years ago and will not be…. in 100 years time. Transplant Oigal back 100 years with the opinions he holds now, today, and he would be thought of as ‘left wing’ by the conservatives of the day, and probably by non-conservatives, in at least some respects, at that time, send him back several centuries and he’ll be thought utterly radical.

    Example – ….once upon a time a conservative was someone who was, for example, opposed to universal male suffrage, he thought only landed men should be able to vote, never mind women….at that time his position would have been regarded – in terms of the zietgeist – as a normal, not at all unusual position, maybe even ‘liberal conservative’ (if it means Burkean), and at least some of the opposing positions as ‘radical’….fast forward to today….

    Today almost no person who is considered ‘conservative’ opposes universal male suffrage, in fact they fully support it plus for women! IE, they are quite left wing when comparing to previous periods, that’s what I mean by a shifting of positions.

  4. Dragonwall says:

    Everyone knows newspaper are meant for reading and it is only dirty farts like you said that’ So does the newspaper carry reports that the DNA of the dead person was from a someone called Ibrahim as released by Police Spokesman?

    But what can I say when some leeches and mochos kept repeating to others to read the news instead of facts.

    Well nothing to complain of when coming out from people of mediocritic mentality who can’t differentiate between straight and crooked lines..

  5. Oigal says:

    Dang…Its a never ending wonder how posts can spear off on a tangent..How on earth did we get to

    Transplant Oigal back 100 years

    on post Densus 88??

    However just for fun I would like to think on my brighter days

    *lots n’ lots of liberty (political and economic)
    *equal legal protection for all citizens (theoretically, though often not in practice)
    *individualism, not collectivism
    *government serves at the behest of the citizenry, and can be replaced by it

    Pretty much sums up my general position, which means Ody has confused me..because the above pretty much very thing the left despises..

    Lots of liberty?? Show me a leftist government that has ever supported that?
    equal legal protection??? Only if you meet the Left’s view of deserving protection
    *individualism, not collectivism??? Oh please…shall we just say the collective left fairly hates individuals
    government serves at the behest of the citizenry… chuckle..thats just funny from the Lefts point of view..

  6. Cukurungan says:

    To a certain degree everyone is guilty of defending their “tribe, nation, group, religion” when it is under perceived attack even when we know our particular little group may be in the wrong…That’s why the langauge politics is so important ..It would appear critical to disconnect the murderers from (in this case) the religion.

    The above is what puzzles me most, how on earth does the “West’ with its information technology and ability to produce/massage messages lose the information and propaganda wars..

    Pak Oigal Yth,

    Agree that the technology and ability to produce message are important tolls in the propaganda war but it is not a key element on winning the war because the key element in the propaganda war is how you gaining and getting trust to the people of subject your propaganda.
    In this case, the west has no ground to win propaganda war against the Muslim because the western fault its self and not because Muslim superiority in the propaganda war.
    How come the Muslim could trust with the west information if the most of the west information be bombarded to us just simply the full of hypocrite:
    1)The west bombarding information that a nuclear bomb is dangerous if so why the west keep it for them-self.
    2)The west says that they want fair trade but they cheated and bullied other poorer and weaker countries with unfair subsidized practice.
    3)The west say that terrorist is so dangerous but fact talk itself that the west people who killed by the act terrorism is much smaller than who got killed by the wild act of their own genital.
    4)The west says that the Muslim is jealous with the west freedom and liberty…oh my Gun…in this opportunity let me clarify it….we Muslim do not care with what you do….as long as you do it in your own land whether you want to f***ck your MIL or your sister or you want to display threesome in the public simply we do not care.

    Regards,
    Dr Propaganda War

  7. Oigal says:

    Thanks for commenting Mr Elliot Goblet..I will be sure to enter your tome into the UN incoherent international program

    Although I am all for giving Iran the atomic bomb..although getting oil out from under glass may prove problematic..

  8. Odinius says:

    Oigal said:

    However just for fun I would like to think on my brighter days

    *lots n’ lots of liberty (political and economic)
    *equal legal protection for all citizens (theoretically, though often not in practice)
    *individualism, not collectivism
    *government serves at the behest of the citizenry, and can be replaced by it

    Pretty much sums up my general position, which means Ody has confused me..because the above pretty much very thing the left despises..

    Lots of liberty?? Show me a leftist government that has ever supported that?
    equal legal protection??? Only if you meet the Left’s view of deserving protection
    *individualism, not collectivism??? Oh please…shall we just say the collective left fairly hates individuals
    government serves at the behest of the citizenry… chuckle..thats just funny from the Lefts point of view..

    Well, common-sense understandings of “left wing” are tainted by association with Marxism. That is, people are so used to thinking of “left” and “Marx” as synonymous that they have forgotten that liberalism is the O.G. left.

    A true liberal is an ultra-individualist. He or she sees no sense in making cultural distinctions or treating individuals as members of groups. In fact, he or she is morally opposed to it. You’re an individual person, and answerable for your actions as such, in exactly the same way and to the same degree as everyone else.

    What I fail to see is anyone on either the left or right who applies this evenly. The left wants special rules for minorities; the right wants special rules excluding minorities. The left wants absolute social freedom but wants to restrict economic freedom, while the right wants absolute economic freedom but wants to restrict social freedom. etc.

    Not that I think a “liberal extremist” perspective, that wants no government and guns for everyone is really a good thing. But the general principles of a free and fair economy, social liberty, a social contract making the government responsible to the people, and absolute individualism under the law are good ones.

  9. sputjam says:

    Hambali was arrested in bangkok and was quickly taken away by the CIA and possibly flown to a country where torture is still legal.
    Mas selamat (accused of planning to crash a plane in singapore central business district and bomb theUS naval base in changi) was detained by indonesia, extradited to singapore(he is singaporean), escaped from prison and was re-arrested in Malaysia, where they have decided to keep him for themselves.

    Nordin Top, or the guys behind him, I am sure, have some big financial backers. As long as the bombs keep on blowing, the money will keep on flowing.

  10. Odinius says:

    Sputjam, these are not big financial operations. The 2004 Australian Embassy bombing is thought to have cost about $9000 USD.

    They have financial backing, but I don’t think it’s necessarily anyone big.

  11. sputjam says:

    Whoever is behind all these is earning big bucks from contributors.
    They are probably, like yasser Arafat, have palaces in paris and live a life of luxury, while palestinians suffer due to his refusal to sign a peace deal with israel. And as long as TV screens show Palestinians throwing stones (intifada) at israeli troops, he gets richer by the day thanks to contributons from sympathisers.
    Same with Nordin Top. he is doing the dirty job, being paid by his bosses, who are laughing all the way to the banks everytime another target is blasted away.
    There can never be peace with this people in operation. Their purpose is to make money by causing mayhem.
    Statements like “formation of a pan-islamic south-east asian nation” is just something to con the contributors. When the money runs out, or the contributors are not convinced anymore, then we shall have peace.

    I believe this nordin guy has western education, where he could have met his financiers, probably from some arab or pakistani networks. Or it could be a rival neghbouring country, or even hedge funds who bets on currencies and commodities.

  12. fanglong says:

    We need proofs of Noordin’s implication in the July 7 blasts, and proofs of the existence (and plans ?) of his sponsors.

  13. Odinius says:

    Wow! Too bad I didn’t proof read for grammar 🙁

  14. David says:

    We need proofs of Noordin’s implication in the July 7 blasts, and proofs of the existence (and plans ?) of his sponsors.

    I can’t offer you that but this is interesting – http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6278… in the local media there is talk of a Yemeni connection, with payments of one billion rupiah at a time.

  15. Odinius says:

    Hmm. I generally like Ms. Jones and find her quite credible, but that article was so speculative my head hurts.

    “There’s no proof, but maybe Noordin bought a mobile cell sometime between 2007 and 2009, and activated blackberry chat, which would have allowed him to discuss his plans at length with militants outside Indonesia…”

  16. fanglong says:

    Thank you, Patung (& Odinius) : yes, nothing really conclusive for the time being…

  17. Jakartass says:

    Am I being cynical to equate the 9 deaths caused by the supposed 417 terrorists with the death toll on Jakarta of 642 (from Jan – July) this year caused by (and amongst) the six million motorcyclists?

    It could be argued that every motorist is a potential killer

    A war on terror v a war on the rakyat.

    Eh??

    Just because road kills don’t make a good cinetron?

    A sense of pespective is surely called for!

  18. Odinius says:

    Just because road kills don’t make a good cinetron?

    “This week on Nikita, one of the annoying suitors of the doctor chick gets run over by a bajaj.”

    Actually sounds quite good!

  19. dragonwall says:

    I think finaly you realize what is the middle east war is ll about.

    They are probably, like yasser Arafat, have palaces in paris and live a life of luxury, while palestinians suffer due to his refusal to sign a peace deal with israel. And as long as TV screens show Palestinians throwing stones (intifada) at israeli troops, he gets richer by the day thanks to contributons from sympathisers.

    Same with Nordin Top. he is doing the dirty job, being paid by his bosses, who are laughing all the way to the banks everytime another target is blasted away.
    There can never be peace with this people in operation. Their purpose is to make money by causing mayhem.

    Honestly speaking this guy is not doing the dirty job, but as a courier to make othersdo the dirty job. He gets the money, he get the blame and gets the name. Not too bad.

    Statements like “formation of a pan-islamic south-east asian nation” is just something to con the contributors. When the money runs out, or the contributors are not convinced anymore, then we shall have peace.

    Not to con the contributors but to convince the contributors that the job they do is justifiable and more contributions needed.

    How does a person takes death toll in road accidents compare to terrorist who kill people by the hundred and thousands.

    I wonder has he seen each time a suicide bombers walk into a market place in baghdad and a bomb exploded killing 2- 300 people and how many times an accident would killed 2 – 300 people. Yeah of course plane crash, Titanic.

    How would he feel if his brother was killed in a bicycle accident and to compare that with having his brother’s body blown into pieces by a terrorist. Will he be making such a comparison and calling motorist to be potential killer.

    I am sure he doesn’t understand the difference between negligence and premeditated.

  20. Andy says:

    Anyone who can condone the slaughter of innocent women and children in bars and western hotels has lost the moral argument. After 9/11 ANY muslims who plot terrorist attacks against us are our enemy which means they should be destroyed. One of their ploys is to use their own people as human shields such is their contempt for humanity and decency.
    We have the right to own and build nuclear weapons as we have proven to be responsible in the past and not commit vile acts against innocent people. Therefore we can own them and countries like Iran can’t and shouldn’t. If we suddenly destroyed our weapons no doubt we would see a mushroom cloud on our doorstep with muslim fingerprints on the switch. They have proven to fight dirty unlike other conventional wars and cannot be trusted under any circumstances.

  21. Odinius says:

    Andy,

    What about Christians who “plot terrorist attacks against us?” Had a few biggies here in the US not too long ago, the UK has had more than its share from the IRA over decades, and you’ve still got ETA and others running around. Do they get a pass because they’re not Muslim? How about the Tamil Tigers who invented suicide bombing?

    Second, did you know that far, far more civilians died in Vietnam as a direct result of American (and allied) bombing and violence than in all the terrorist attacks of the past 50 years combined? Given that fact, would you suggest that Vietnam, and not the United States, should have the bomb?

    This isn’t an argument for letting Iran have the bomb or letting Muslim terrorists off the hook, just pointing out a few logical fallacies inherent in your argument. I don’t really see why anyone should have nuclear weapons, so I’d like it if non-proliferation entailed both stopping aspiring nuclear countries from acquiring them and nuclear countries scuttling their arsenals. I’d also like to see people start to look at terrorism like they do homicide or genocide–not something “they and only they” do, but something that’s done in many places, for many reasons, by many types of people, and needs to be contained and stamped out regardless of its circumstances.

  22. Jakartass says:

    Dragonwall asked:> How does a person takes death toll in road accidents compare to terrorist who kill people by the hundred and thousands?

    Easily D., because you’ve reversed the statistics I used.

    Maybe you don’t agree with Odinius who pointed out that “far more civilians died in Vietnam as a direct result of American (and allied) bombing and violence than in all the terrorist attacks of the past 50 years combined“, thus suggesting that undeclared wars are terrorist acts. That wasn’t the example I chose.

    There are far more road deaths worldwide – hundreds of thousands in fact – than those slain by car bombs or individual suicide bombers.

    You suggest that I don’t know “the difference between negligence and premeditated.

    Of course there’s a difference. An assassination is premeditated.

    Negligence is not preventing the terrorist bombings

    Those slain in terrorist attacks were/are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe James Castle and his business circle were individual targets, but some guests couldn’t make the breakfast date at the Marriott. In this instance, therefore, another element is introduced – chance.

    Of course, none of these random killings – those civilians killed through military acts are callously labelled as ‘collateral damage’ – can be justified because all are avoidable.
    …………………………………..

    Andy said:> We have the right to own and build nuclear weapons as we have proven to be responsible in the past and not commit vile acts against innocent people.

    “Responsible in the past?” Eh?

    A few examples, among many, immediately spring to mind:
    Konfrontasi
    1965/66
    East Timor
    Aceh
    Papua (ongoing!)
    Petrus
    1997/8

  23. fanglong says:

    Interesting theses and answers, Jakartass !

  24. Odinius says:

    Jakartass said:

    “far more civilians died in Vietnam as a direct result of American (and allied) bombing and violence than in all the terrorist attacks of the past 50 years combined“, thus suggesting that undeclared wars are terrorist acts.

    Not quite what I was getting at. Okay, My Lai and similar events certainly were terrorist acts, deliberate massacres of civilians done in order to vent anger and spread fear. But the war itself was much more complex and ambiguous. My point was that Andy’s argument as to why “we” (whoever “we” are) have the right to own nuclear weapons is extraordinarily tenuous, by its own yardstick. I’d argue no one is “responsible” enough to have nuclear weapons. Certainly not Iran, but probably not any of the existing nuclear powers either. Practically speaking, the fact is some do and others don’t. I strongly believe in limiting the development of nuclear weapons in places like Iran and North Korea, but I think declared nuclear powers should also be scuttling their arsenals, or at least visibly reducing them.

  25. David says:

    Police have released new Noordin pics!

  26. enigmatic says:

    Hillarious. Good Job Patung!

  27. dragonwall says:

    Easily D., because you’ve reversed the statistics I used.

    Reversed statistics you used. How well are you acquainted with knowledge and statistic? And you said

    Maybe you don’t agree with Odinius who pointed out that “far more civilians died in Vietnam as a direct result of American (and allied) bombing

    Why the Vietnam War? Why because the US are afraid of the expansion of communist infiltration on US allied territories. This is perhaps one of CIA best excuse for a covert operation to enable them to have more finanical support for them. Didn’t you understand that more wars meant more money coming in to them. What did the CIA do? Underground support for coke manufacturing, arms trade etc.
    Those are know as collateral damage to them. Also they meant to have a show of force to the CHinese at that time who supported the Congs. What happened thereafter?

    and violence than in all the terrorist attacks of the past 50 years combined“, thus suggesting that undeclared wars are terrorist acts. That wasn’t the example I chose.

    So you meant the violence exceed that of terrorist attacks for the past 50 years” Tell us is your comparison rational? Genocide, Communist and socialist are wars not terror and accidents. When did most of the Islamic Jihad terrorist started? 50 years ago or the last 20 years? What were their objectives comparing to a war? So

    There are far more road deaths worldwide – hundreds of thousands in fact – than those slain by car bombs or individual suicide bombers.

    A comparison you deemed fitting? Di you find hundred of people died in one accident? But I find there are hundreds who died in one terrorist bombings? What is the difference? You are taking the whole world’s accident to compare to a bombing like Oklahoma, Baghdad, Bali, Pakistan etc. What kind of bullcrap statistic comparison.

    You suggest that I don’t know “the difference between negligence and premeditated.”

    Yes I thin so because yousaid

    Of course there’s a difference. An assassination is premeditated.
    Negligence is not preventing the terrorist bombings

    Negligence is not preventing the bombing because they are premeditated. I meant negligence meaning drivers who cause accidental road death are negligent. The negligence you conform onto will thus call for more argumentation when you are unable to differentiate betwern the kind of negligence.

    Those slain in terrorist attacks were/are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    So those that died in the road accident were also at the right place at the wrong time? And that those who were killed in the war were also at the right place at the wrong time!

    Maybe James Castle and his business circle were individual targets, but some guests couldn’t make the breakfast date at the Marriott. In this instance, therefore, another element is introduced – chance.

    So that must be fat chance! Which castle was that doesn’t matter. What matters is that they were targeting the American owned properties. Then those that died in the bombing were collateral damages including some indonesians.

    Of course, none of these random killings – those civilians killed through military acts are callously labelled as ‘collateral damage’ – can be justified because all are avoidable.…………………………………..

    Ahh so they are justifiable because they are avoidable. like the power struggle between Wiranto and Prabowo who cause the 1998 May incident to erupt making the Chinese collateral damage of their power struggle because they were at the right place at the wrong time and that they are even avoidable? Then how come the incident? Supported by Safrie Samsuddin that is premeditated. No negligence, but with intent.

    If you do not know exactly what to compare then

    A few examples, among many, immediately spring to mind:
    Konfrontasi
    1965/66
    East Timor
    Aceh
    Papua (ongoing!)
    Petrus
    1997/8

    becomes redundant.

    No wonder fanglong Says:

    Interesting theses and answers, Jakartass ! which is quite befitting.

    Odinius Says:

    Not quite what I was getting at. Okay, My Lai and similar events certainly were terrorist acts, deliberate massacres of civilians done in order to vent anger and spread fear. But the war itself was much more complex and ambiguous.

    So you didn’t know what you are talking about, right!

    One thing I find people bloggin in the IM tends to try in every explicit way of demonstrating their point of view they wish to know instead of the truth and how to solve the problems. It really defeats the purpose of the whole IM blogs

  28. Jakartass says:

    Nice bitching, Dragonwall. You’ve summed up your point of view very succinctly in the last paragraph.

    Pity you strayed off the topic without informing us what you think the “truth” is.

Comment on “Densus 88 Raids, Noordin (Not) Dead”.

RSS
RSS feed
Email

Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-20
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact