Bali bombing...Why Bali

[lionking]

I recently finished watching a cable TV movie about the Bali bombing called "A Long Way to Heaven" or something like that. It wasn't too bad apart from the annoying and insensitive aussie reporter. Anyway, near the end of the movie one of the organisers asked another (Muklas, I think) why Bali? And he spoke about a time earlier in the movie when a westerner closed an elevator the muslims were about to get in. He wore a shirt with "I love Bali" on it. He said that was the reason and that if the shirt said "I love Phuket", Phuket would have been the target.

So, is there any basis for this, or is it just conjecture by the movie makers?

 

[Mephisto]

I recently finished watching a cable TV movie about the Bali bombing called "A Long Way to Heaven" or something like that. It wasn't too bad apart from the annoying and insensitive aussie reporter. Anyway, near the end of the movie one of the organisers asked another (Muklas, I think) why Bali? And he spoke about a time earlier in the movie when a westerner closed an elevator the muslims were about to get in. He wore a shirt with "I love Bali" on it. He said that was the reason and that if the shirt said "I love Phuket", Phuket would have been the target.

So, is there any basis for this, or is it just conjecture by the movie makers?

[Beavis&Butthead] Huh, huh, huh you said phuket. Huh, huh ,huh[/Beavis&Butthead]

Actually the program has its roots in reality. Bali is a popular resort vacation area for people of many nationalities AND Al Qaeda is fairly active in the area:

Bali terrorist blasts kill at least 26

Bloody attacks recall 2002 bombings linked to al Qaeda

(CNN) -- Terrorists brought death to Indonesia's Bali paradise for the second time in three years, as blasts killed at least 26 people at two resort spots packed with tourists.

The blasts struck the seaside area of Jimbaran Bay and the bar and shopping hub of Kuta, 30 kilometers (19 miles) away at about 8 p.m. Saturday night (8 a.m. ET).

In addition to the 26 fatalities, hospital officials said 102 people were wounded. One of those who died was a 16-year-old Australian boy, officials said, while South Koreans, Americans, Japanese and Britons were among those wounded.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/01/bali.blasts/

The name of the game is headlines and attacking "soft" targets. Bali devotes relatively little to security compared to Europe.

 

[lionking]

Actually I was referring to the 2002 one where 202 people were killed, not the 2005 one, but the same question applies I guess.

 

[Damien Evans]

Best guess: Because there wasn't much security and it was known to be a popular spot for westerners.

Every time I hear about the Bali bombings I think of this:

Jason McCartney, the most courageous man ever to play AFL, and my favourite player.

 

[fuelair]

I recently finished watching a cable TV movie about the Bali bombing called "A Long Way to Heaven" or something like that. It wasn't too bad apart from the annoying and insensitive aussie reporter. Anyway, near the end of the movie one of the organisers asked another (Muklas, I think) why Bali? And he spoke about a time earlier in the movie when a westerner closed an elevator the muslims were about to get in. He wore a shirt with "I love Bali" on it. He said that was the reason and that if the shirt said "I love Phuket", Phuket would have been the target.

So, is there any basis for this, or is it just conjecture by the movie makers?

It does seem to represent the mentality of the terrorist rectum eaters.

 

[Kiosk]

One answer you might hear: the West gave tacit backing to General Suharto's mass killings, and the tourist hotels in Bali are more or less built on the mass graves of thousands of Indonesians slaughtered in the mid-Sixties, described as a "cleansing process" by the Australian ambassador of the time.

Personally, I doubt this was a serious motivation for AQ, since the dead were identified as "communists" (although in practice this often meant anyone openly to the left of Suharto, which is pretty much everyone) rather than radical Muslims, and AQ are not in the business of defending "communists". Also, the long-gone Suharto regime is unlikely to mean much to a Jihadist anyway. The fact remains, though, that Suharto was generally opposed by Muslim groups for many of the same reasons Saddam would also fall foul of these people (military dictatorship necessitating suppression of radical Islam), and Bali is connected to mass murder in a Muslim country, effectively funded by the West.

How relevant that is to the bombings is a matter of opinion - and like I say, I'm not convinced it matters much, the conspicuous "decadence" of Australian tourists being a far more likely factor. But while it probably doesn't offer any clues to the motivation of terrorists, it's a reasonable example of the selective memory of the Western media when it comes to the War On Terror - I remember one BBC reporter informing viewers of the Six O'Clock News that this paradise island had now "lost its innocence", while standing on a concreted-over mass grave. Irrespective of its relevance to the bombing, anyone discussing the relationship between the West and the Islamic world should really be aware of this.

 

[lionking]

One answer you might hear: the West gave tacit backing to General Suharto's mass killings, and the tourist hotels in Bali are more or less built on the mass graves of thousands of Indonesians slaughtered in the mid-Sixties, described as a "cleansing process" by the Australian ambassador of the time.

Personally, I doubt this was a serious motivation for AQ, since the dead were identified as "communists" (although in practice this often meant anyone openly to the left of Suharto, which is pretty much everyone) rather than radical Muslims, and AQ are not in the business of defending "communists". Also, the long-gone Suharto regime is unlikely to mean much to a Jihadist anyway. The fact remains, though, that Suharto was generally opposed by Muslim groups for many of the same reasons Saddam would also fall foul of these people (military dictatorship necessitating suppression of radical Islam), and Bali is connected to mass murder in a Muslim country, effectively funded by the West.

How relevant that is to the bombings is a matter of opinion - and like I say, I'm not convinced it matters much, the conspicuous "decadence" of Australian tourists being a far more likely factor. But while it probably doesn't offer any clues to the motivation of terrorists, it's a reasonable example of the selective memory of the Western media when it comes to the War On Terror - I remember one BBC reporter informing viewers of the Six O'Clock News that this paradise island had now "lost its innocence", while standing on a concreted-over mass grave. Irrespective of its relevance to the bombing, anyone discussing the relationship between the West and the Islamic world should really be aware of this.

Wow! I was in Bali in the mid 90s and it is true that people are reluctant to talk about those times (and wasn't it Sukarno in the 60s not Suharto) but to draw a link between the Indonesian civil war (one-sided that it was) and the War on Terror and the Bali bombings is the longest of long bows.

 

[Kiosk]

Wow! I was in Bali in the mid 90s and it is true that people are reluctant to talk about those times (and wasn't it Sukarno in the 60s not Suharto)

Yes, Sukarno was President at the time; Suharto was his top general, and the purge was Suharto's response to Communist subversion, specifically the murder of some senior figures in the Sukarno government (the story gets pretty messy - no one quite agrees on who did what, or why, or whose idea it was, or who was paying). The upshot was the CIA-backed Suharto taking over the Presidency, and much carnage thereafter.

but to draw a link between the Indonesian civil war (one-sided that it was) and the War on Terror and the Bali bombings is the longest of long bows.

I don't think anyone's saying Bali was targeted specifically because of that, just as an example of a (broadly) Muslim country in which The West has interfered in a manner not advantageous to Muslims (or anyone else much). The usual mixture of political anger and terrifying religious lunacy. My personal opinion is that some of my fellow lefties sometimes make too much of the "political anger" part, and far too little of the "terrifying religious lunacy" part, for their own political convenience (although saying so hasn't always made me popular). I think the sight of the Muslim world being used as a Westerners' playground would be quite enough in itself.

 

[lionking]

Yes, Sukarno was President at the time; Suharto was his top general, and the purge was Suharto's response to Communist subversion, specifically the murder of some senior figures in the Sukarno government (the story gets pretty messy - no one quite agrees on who did what, or why, or whose idea it was, or who was paying). The upshot was the CIA-backed Suharto taking over the Presidency, and much carnage thereafter.



I don't think anyone's saying Bali was targeted specifically because of that, just as an example of a (broadly) Muslim country in which The West has interfered in a manner not advantageous to Muslims (or anyone else much). The usual mixture of political anger and terrifying religious lunacy. My personal opinion is that some of my fellow lefties sometimes make too much of the "political anger" part, and far too little of the "terrifying religious lunacy" part, for their own political convenience (although saying so hasn't always made me popular). I think the sight of the Muslim world being used as a Westerners' playground would be quite enough in itself.

Nitpick, I know, but Bali is overwhelmingly Hindu. Indonesia is not of course. Personally I dont think it mattered to the terrorists what the religion of the country attacked is, so long as they could do maximum damage.

But back to the OP, I take it that there is no evidence that Bali was chosen because a terrorist leader was insulted by someone wearing a "I love Bali" shirt.

 

[Zep]

IIRC, the target locations were chosen because the bombers thought they were full of American tourists.

That there were likely to be other nationalities and local Balinese present was considered unimportant. That their "research" was horribly wrong (there are not ever many American tourists in Bali) was rationalised away after the event with the claim that any decadent western tourists were considered "valid targets", including that Australia was a US ally in Iraq and thus made Australians especially valid targets.

This is the line the convicted bombers are pushing even today, broadening it even further to hatred of any and all non-Muslim believers.

What these low-lives haven't explained away is that, like on 9/11, people of many other nationalities, including very many local Muslim Balinese, were killed that night.

They are simply religiously insane.

 

[gtc]

IIRC, the target locations were chosen because the bombers thought they were full of American tourists.

That there were likely to be other nationalities and local Balinese present was considered unimportant. That their "research" was horribly wrong (there are not ever many American tourists in Bali) was rationalised away after the event with the claim that any decadent western tourists were considered "valid targets", including that Australia was a US ally in Iraq and thus made Australians especially valid targets.

This is the line the convicted bombers are pushing even today, broadening it even further to hatred of any and all non-Muslim believers.

What these low-lives haven't explained away is that, like on 9/11, people of many other nationalities, including very many local Muslim Balinese, were killed that night.

They are simply religiously insane.

I think I have read that their attitude is that the Muslims who died were either 'bad' muslims for associating with the infidels or 'good' muslims who have gone to their reward. However, I can't confirm this.

I have wondered whether Australia's intervention in East Timor or the Hinduism of most Balinese had anything to do with it.

 

[lionking]

I think I have read that their attitude is that the Muslims who died were either 'bad' muslims for associating with the infidels or 'good' muslims who have gone to their reward. However, I can't confirm this.

I have wondered whether Australia's intervention in East Timor or the Hinduism of most Balinese had anything to do with it.

I think that there was some after-the-event comments by the terrorists about East Timor being a justification, but I go with Zep's interpretation - they thought they would kill Americans and when they found they didn't, had to come up with some sort of reasoning.

Interesting comment about Hinduism. Apart from the India/Pakistan tension (which is probably more about territory than religion) I am not aware of any great animosity between radical Muslims and Hindus, but am not an expert in this area at all.

 

[Magenta]

FWIW, these are the reasons Imam Samudra gave in his November 2002 confession:

a. To oppose the barbarity of the US army of the Cross and its allies (England, Australia, Germany, France, Japan, Orthodox Russians, and others)

b. It was my obligation as a Moslem to take revenge for the pain of 200,000 weak men, weak women and babies who died without sin when thousands of tonnes of bombs were dropped in Afghanistan in September 2001, during Ramadan in the Islamic year 1422, to be precise.

c. Because Australia had taken part in efforts to separate East Timor from Indonesia, which was all an international conspiracy by followers of the Cross.

d. Troops of the Cross, working with infidel Hindu troops in India, had slaughtered Moslems in Kashmir.

e. Revenge for the barbarity and involvement of troops of the Cross in the Muslim Cleansing scenario in Ambon, Poso, Halmahera, and so on.

f. Defence of Bosnian Moslems who were slaughtered by troops of the Cross.

g. To carry out my responsibility to wage a global jihad against Jews and Christians throughout the world ([in] Moslem States).

h. As a manifestation of Islamic solidarity between Moslems, which is not limited by geographic boundaries.

i. To carry out Allah's order in the Book of An-nisa, verses 74-76, which concerns the obligation to defend weak men, weak women, and innocent babies, who are always the targets of the barbarous actions of the American terrorists and their allies.

j. As a strong warning to Jews and Christians, led by the American infidels, who occupy and defile two Islamic holy lands, places where the Prophet received the word of Allah.

k. So that the American terrorists and their allies understand that the blood of Moslems is expensive and valuable; and cannot be - is forbidden to be - toyed with and made a target of American terrorists and their allies.

l. So that the terrorists [hand-written addition - America and their allies] understand how painful it is to lose mothers, husbands, children, or other family members, which is what they have so arbitrarily inflicted on Moslems throughout the world.

m. To prove to Allah - the Almighty and most deserving of praise - that we will do whatever we can to defend weak Moslems, and to wage war against the US imperialists and their allies.

The reason I chose Paddy's and the Sari Club in Jalan Legian, Kuta, Bali as targets for the jihad bombing is because I saw a lot of foreigners there engaged in immoral acts; and that place is the biggest centre of immoral activities in Bali, compared to other places.

Source

I think that covers just about everything.

 

[lionking]

FWIW, these are the reasons Imam Samudra gave in his November 2002 confession:




I think that covers just about everything.

I'll say. So I can put the "I Love Bali" shirt on the disrespectful infidel theory to bed then.

 

[Zep]

Yes, I remember reading that some years ago. I could not help but think it was a whole bunch of post-event rationalisation. I was really surprised he didn't mention 9/11 as an example or as a predecessor, but then that would have weakened his argument against the American infidel considerably.

My take then was that Samudra had religious intolerance in a REALLY BAD way. I have seen nothing since to ameliorate my view, and much to enforce it. I'd like to know he will rot the rest of his miserable life away alone in a very tiny hell somewhere. I know of some uninhabited islands in the southern Indian Ocean that need fertiliser...