[OT] Bali terrorist attacks

[Atticus_of_Amber]

So you are blaming this terrorist strike on America? Well, it won't help you, because the people who did this don't care if you like America or not.

That’s just the point, these people DO care about what you think of America. Being an ally of “the Great Satan” is what makes you a target. These people hate and despise US foreign policy, the US government, American culture and the American people (in that order) and anyone who allies with the US become guilty by association.

That doesn't necessarily make it the US's "fault". Causation is not necessarily culpability. Butthe enemy of your friend easily becomes your enemy as well (and vice versa).

I suspect that if this is the work of Islamic Fundamentalists, it is Australia’s staunch/fawning (depending on your POV) support of the US that has made us a target. If this is the work of Indonesian nationalists, then it is Australia’s support of the East Timorese separatists (and the apparent hypocrisy that implies after Australia’s quarter-century of support for the Indonesian occupation right up until our back-flip at the time of the collapse of the Suharto regime)* that made us a target.

I suspect it was really a combination of both.

*Note: There is a respectable case that until Suharto collapsed there was nothing Australia could do for the East Timorese except try to influence Indonesia’s policy by 'constructive engagement". I’m not sure I believe that (maybe I'm just too cynical) but it’s plausible…

 

[Agback]

To me, terrorism is the use of force against civilians in order to bring publicity to a political cause and/or to disrupt political opponents through fear of further violence. Others have defined it as violence against civilians used as a means to a political end.

Forced to the sticking-place, I would probably define terrorism as the criminal use of violence to induce terror in the larger group of which the victims are members, with a view to intimidating that group. But I would have to frame the definition so as to exclude warlike operations against military personnel.

I would not agree to a definition that excluded all attacks on military personnel, not to one that excluded attacks motivated by xenophobia or bigotry rather than politics.

If whomever blew up that nightclub in Bali did it to intimidate Australian tourists into avoiding Indonesia I would call the attack terrorist, even if the motive was xenophobic hatred of Australians rather than anything to do with politics. Or, for that matter, even if the motive was muslim bigotry against the hindus of Bali (hoping to cut off their tourist incomes). In fact, I would still call it terrorism is the motive was religiously-based hatred of night-clubs (because alcohol is drunk in them, etc.) So long as the intention was to induce terror in a group by inflicting violence on some of its members, that's terrorism.

But I take your point that it might conceivably have been motivated by a personal animosity, and therefore might not have been a terrorist attack. I wrote impetuously.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Existence]

Please do not close this thread. Existance stated he was upset, as are many of us (I only found out today I had a cousin who was injured in the blast). Let me offer a clarification to Existance's post: Many Australians fear that we will become a target for terrorism due to our support of the United States. The attack on Bali, due to the fact that many Australians were involved, has reinforced that state of mind in some of us. Please excuse the poster and keep the thread open and civil

Thank you Eternalknight. In no way did I mean to shift the blame onto the US. I'm just worried that this war on terrorism has made more enemies than it has disposed of. Sorry if my comment angered some people.

 

[Wizardry]

According to the most recent news reports, the Indonesian government is now saying Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack.

 

[Agback]

My prediction is that there is NO WAY the Indonesians will let us anywhere near the investigations.

We would not let Indonesian police investigate a bombing in, say, the Gold Coast, even if Indonesians had been killed. We would say "These clowns have no jurisdiction, don't speak the language well enough to be useful in interviewing either suspects or witnesses, and aren't trained inbuilding cases under Australian laws" if the Indonesians were cheeky enough to offer.

The Americans would not let Australian police investigate a bombing in the USA. Nor ought they to do so.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Forced to the sticking-place, I would probably define terrorism as the criminal use of violence to induce terror in the larger group of which the victims are members, with a view to intimidating that group. But I would have to frame the definition so as to exclude warlike operations against military personnel.

I would not agree to a definition that excluded all attacks on military personnel, not to one that excluded attacks motivated by xenophobia or bigotry rather than politics.

If whomever blew up that nightclub in Bali did it to intimidate Australian tourists into avoiding Indonesia I would call the attack terrorist, even if the motive was xenophobic hatred of Australians rather than anything to do with politics. Or, for that matter, even if the motive was muslim bigotry against the hindus of Bali (hoping to cut off their tourist incomes). In fact, I would still call it terrorism is the motive was religiously-based hatred of night-clubs (because alcohol is drunk in them, etc.) So long as the intention was to induce terror in a group by inflicting violence on some of its members, that's terrorism.

But I take your point that it might conceivably have been motivated by a personal animosity, and therefore might not have been a terrorist attack. I wrote impetuously.

Regards,


Agback

With respect, I really think we need to be much clearer than this on what we mean by "terrorism".

“Terrorism” is a pretty pejorative term. In some countries being suspected of being a “terrorist’ will get your civil rights suspended. Countries that are thought to support or tolerate or harbour “terrorism” are liable to have the crap bombed out of them. If you are not a US citizen, are captured by the US army and are suspected of being a “terrorist”, you can be locked up in mosquito-infested barbed wire cages in “Camp X-ray” at Guantamano Bay in a kind of legal limbo (not a criminal; not a prisoner of war) with no right to see a lawyer or be brought before a judicial officer.

The United States says it is currently engaged in a “War on Terrorism”.

Being labelled a “terrorist” has some VERY serious real world consequences. Thus it terrifies me that there seems to be no clear definition of this horrible category and no attempt to define it. In fact, there seems to be a deliberate attempt NOT to define it.

If we are going to have a special category of “bad” person apart from civil criminal and military enemy - a category that is denied all the rights of the citizen, the criminal, the enemy combatant and the prisoner of war - we need to be pretty damn clear what the boundaries of that category are.

I would be far happier with the way “terrorists” are treated so harshly if someone could tell me exactly what a “terrorist” is…

But this is certainly not the place for a discussion of the definition of terrorism. My point is that the word is very unclear in its meaning; that most of the classic definitions focus on the use of violence to attract media attention and create fear and uncertainty in aid of a political cause; and that someone who explodes a bomb in a nightclub is thus not necessarily a “terrorist” - though the evidence regarding this particular bombing strongly implies it was a "use of violence to attract publicity and paralyse civilian infrastructure though fear in aid of a political cause."

 

[Mark Chance]

Bali Terrorist (?) Attack

That?s just the point, these people DO care about what you think of America. Being an ally of ?the Great Satan? is what makes you a target. These people hate and despise US foreign policy, the US government, American culture and the American people (in that order) and anyone who allies with the US become guilty by association.

It is not being an ally that makes you or me an enemy of Osama bin Laden and his kind, or that makes you or I an ally of the Great Satan. It is being non-Muslim that does that.

Islam, like other religions, divides the world into believers and nonbelievers. The radical fundamentalists in Islam, who are growing in number and influence it seems, add further descriptors: those who serve Allah and those who deserve to die in the great jihad.

Neutrality will save no one for long. Say what you want about Dubyah, but military action against Osama and crowd has been a long, long time coming (30 years, to be more or less exact).

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Re: Re: [OT] Bali terrorist attacks

I would be far happier with the way “terrorists” are treated so harshly if someone could tell me exactly what a “terrorist” is…

It is hard to come up with an internationally accpeted definition of terrorism because each country has to live with its own past actions.

EX:

What about this: ''The deliberate use of violence against groups of civilians for the purpose of causing terror in the population and thus create pressure on their government.''

Is that good? Well, by that definition the explosion of two atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima could be said to be terrorism. That's no good; back to the drawing board.

No country will come up with a definition of terrorism that include some of its past actions yet all countries will want a definition that's as broad as possible.

 

[jaerdaph]

That’s just the point, these people DO care about what you think of America. Being an ally of “the Great Satan” is what makes you a target. These people hate and despise US foreign policy, the US government, American culture and the American people (in that order) and anyone who allies with the US become guilty by association.

I think the reality is that these extremest fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups actually hate *all* of "Western" culture, not just the United States. It is our Western set of values and morals, or their preceived lack as far as they are concerned, that they despise.

Anyhow, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families, as yours were with us last year on September 11th.

 

[Roman]

It seems to me that most of the Islamic brand of terrorism seem to make little distinction between the various Western countries. True, they probably hate USA and Israel (and possibly the UK) more than any others, but the rest are by no means loved, whether they support the war on terrorism or not. Let's look at Europe, as an example. Europe seems to be for the most part opposed to the strike against Iraq. Not only that, but Europe also supports Palestinians far more than the Israelis in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Therefore, in theory, these terrorists should love Europe, but opposite is the case. There have been several attempts at terrorist attacks linked to Al-Queda against European targets over the past year that have luckily been foiled.

Conclusion: Al-Queda and related organisations do not have merely specific gripes against the Western countries. They hate us for who we are - they hate us by definition and their aim is to destroy us.