View Full Version : Densus 88 shoot dead 5 terrorist suspects
Another two raids in Jakarta have culminated in 5 dead, and the recovery of side arms and a couple of assault rifles. Looks like the shoot-to-kill policy remains in force.
Seeing that shoot-to-scare doesn't work against terrorists bent on dying, it might not be a bad policy.
It is also the case that it is fiendishly difficult and long winded to bring live terrorist suspects to trial. In any other circumstances I would oppose a shoot to kill policy, but I have to admit it is the best solution in Indonesia at present.
waarmstrong
12-05-10, 21:23
I believe I have mentioned this before on a similar thread. It is much more productive if individuals can be captured, rather than killed. I have no way of knowing the truth of the matter, but I think it is a reasonable speculation that the raids today were made possible from intelligence gathered (beat out of) those apprehended a few days ago. Killing people who would indiscriminately murder in the name of religion or ideology is perhaps satisfying, but not very bright, if the goal is destroy the entire network. If Densus 88 are the professionals they claim to be, then most suspects should be taken alive.
I agree that intelligence gathering (beating the living crap out of prisoners until they spill) from suspects may well be useful especially if they are shot trying to escape later but dead terrorists are a very good political move.
It's even better if their village gives them a sod off tablet and refuses to allow them to be buried there.
The trials just give these idiots propaganda time and encourage other weak minded idiots who seem to think it's sexy to kill in the name of the Almighty a push to that daft line of thinking.
TV pictures of dead murderous dogs laid at the side of the road for the flies to feast on then dumped in the back of a truck with zero mention of anything religious is a good move.
If Densus 88 are the professionals they claim to be, then most suspects should be taken alive.
But if they do take them alive they have a very short time to get any intel out of them (as the suspects know very well) before they are handed over to our glorious prison system and turned into TV celebs. There then follow months or years of colourful courtroom pantomime - again all on local TV - where lawyers get rich while the smiling celebrity jihadis become cover photos for terrorist recruitment efforts.
waarmstrong
13-05-10, 09:05
Its no news flash that the judicial system here is rotten and that jihadists often become the celebrities of the moment. Killing them on the spot is not going to change the mind set of the sizable contingent of the sympathetic. In this battle it is probably not the side that kills the most who wins, but rather the side that the people eventually come to be convinced is the most just. If Indonesia cleans up its act, there would be few hosannas for Top and his ilk. Now, its just one group of scum bags killing another.
Densus 88 should try to capture fist the terrorist suspects, but if they have guns then there is no choice for Densus to act either kill or killed. If the suspects are killed then no information furthermore can be digged to describe their network. The most wanted terrorist is now Umar Patek who has battle experiences in Afganistan and Mindanao/Phillipines. Densus solution on terrorists is effective only for short term, for the long term the root causes should be found out.
I suggest that getting to the root of the problem will involve closing down organisations that are not overtly terrorist but which actively support the overthrow of RI and its replacement with a Shariah state. There are a number of such organisations and indeed members of two of them, MMI and JAT, were among those arrested or killed recently. The authorities don't wait for Ambon or Papuan separatists to raise a weapon before going after them and I think the same should apply to the jihadi support organisations without which the active terrorist cells couldn't survive.
The government however is too weak to do so. We have a problem here: should Indonesia return to the harsh kind of rule Soeharto style?
Terrorists were caught by Densus 88 near my house in Sukoharjo: http://berita.liputan6.com/politik/201005/276805/Teroris.Sukoharjo.Ditangkap.di.Tiga.Lokasi
waarmstrong
15-05-10, 14:51
Basically what's advocated immediately above is a return to some sort of strong-man rule. That cure would kill the patient, to my way of thinking. If a group wishes to advocate Shariah, fine. Most Indonesians don't buy the arguments and don't need protection that bans spouting ones ideas. Same goes for the unhappy Papuans. They should have the right to make their case. The government should step in when any group tries to violently impose its views. Indonesia needs most, an even-handed impartial enforcer of the law, not a government that suppresses either popular or unpopular views.
You are right about what the Indonesian government should do, in theory that is. In reality, strong rule is needed to keep Indonesia stable and united. Islamist terrorist groups grow on a network of radical pesantrens, political groups and teachers. In your view, the Indonesian government is only allowed to cut off the dragon's heads; it won't put an end to islamic violence.
What is needed is the complete supression of the support base of terrorists. This can only be done by measures that counter liberal ideas on freedom of expression and so on. Yes, I do advocate stronger rule in Indonesia - but I do see the dilemma. What needed is a Lee Kuan Yew, not another corrupt third world dictator.
It is notable that while there is a strong support base in Malaysia for the jihadis there is little or no terrorist activity there because of the Internal Security Act under which possession of a single bullet will see you to the hangman's noose. Supporting terrorist organisations within Malaysia will ensure detention of a very private kind where TV cameras cannot go. That is why Malaysian armchair jihadis instead send money to various 'educational charities' in Indonesia. There are far fewer supporters in Singapore but the city state has a very similar security act with similar detention.
A very positive first step would be to set up a new prison for terrorist convicts - somewhere suitably remote - where visiting rules are strictly enforced and cameras are banned. Supplement this with a secure holding facility for terrorist suspects on remand and you cut off the oxygen of media publicity. It wouldn't take another Soeharto.
waarmstrong
16-05-10, 20:30
...What is needed is the complete supression of the support base of terrorists. This can only be done by measures that counter liberal ideas on freedom of expression and so on. Yes, I do advocate stronger rule in Indonesia - but I do see the dilemma. What needed is a Lee Kuan Yew, not another corrupt third world dictator.
Suppression doesn't work. What is more, in this country sanctioning such tactics will see them once again employed not against religious fanaticism, but in the service of the corrupt to maintain the staggering imbalance between the wealthy few and the impoverished many. Even Lee Kuan Yew knows that prosperity is the only cover for a dictatorship. If your strong-arm rule were employed against the kleptocracy, and goods became more fairly distributed, the terrorists would find their base disappearing.
It is notable that while there is a strong support base in Malaysia for the jihadis there is little or no terrorist activity there because of the Internal Security Act under which possession of a single bullet will see you to the hangman's noose. Supporting terrorist organisations within Malaysia will ensure detention of a very private kind where TV cameras cannot go. That is why Malaysian armchair jihadis instead send money to various 'educational charities' in Indonesia. There are far fewer supporters in Singapore but the city state has a very similar security act with similar detention.
A very positive first step would be to set up a new prison for terrorist convicts - somewhere suitably remote - where visiting rules are strictly enforced and cameras are banned. Supplement this with a secure holding facility for terrorist suspects on remand and you cut off the oxygen of media publicity. It wouldn't take another Soeharto.
Indonesia had such law, the notorious UU Pemberantasan Kegiatan Subversi. It was revoked back in 1999 because Soeharto used it many times to suppress dissent, even when the disagreement was non violent. Any draconian law that makes suppression of terrorism easy can be (and have been) used to suppress legitimate dissent.
Indonesia at this time prides herself as the most democratic country in SE Asia, and the facts support it. It is a work in progress, so mishaps are bound to happen.
I am fully confident that Indonesia will never be radicalized because at the core we are moderates. The first democratic election in 1955 gave about 44% of power to Islamic parties, in 2004 the number is 38% and in 2009 it's 24%. To say the entire Indonesia is slowly rolling into an Islamic state based only on sporadic terrorist activity and church vandalism is folly.
1% of the 24% can do a lot of damage.
1% of the 24% can do a lot of damage.
I'm pretty sure the 99% can do much more damage. Indonesia has extended experience dealing with Islamic-based rebellions, and we suppressed it every single time.
This too shall pass.
Tell me one time that an armed 'Islamic' group has been supressed since 1998. Laskar Jihad are alive and well (if bored) on extended R&R in Papua. Ba'asyir's tangled web is intact save for a few footsoldiers getting shot. Only JI has come close to being destroyed, though most of its support base is intact.
LJ is still alive because TNI thinks they still have some value. It is a pawn in Indonesia's politics that's more complicated than simple Islamic fundamentalism. So you think JI's destruction is nothing special?
Tell me, in a 88% Muslim country can we totally destroy the "support base" without forsaking democracy? Can we prosecute anybody whose sole mistake is giving support to them?
I'm not denying that injustice and oppression against minorities are rampant (on par with most 3rd world countries), but to imply that Indonesia is in the cusp of turning into a fundamentalist Muslim country is being divorced from reality. I'm getting increasingly annoyed by Christian groups advancing their "Christians are persecuted" line, because it's the same line used by fundamentalists claiming "Muslims are persecuted". This line has been used by many groups to advance survivalist and extremist mindset.
LJ
Tell me, in a 88% Muslim country can we totally destroy the "support base" without forsaking democracy? Can we prosecute anybody whose sole mistake is giving support to them?
Why shouldn't people and organisations be prosecuted for supporting violent Islamist groups who are endangering the Indonesian nationstate? Why should Indonesia be tolerant to the intolerant?
I'm pretty sure the 99% can do much more damage. Indonesia has extended experience dealing with Islamic-based rebellions, and we suppressed it every single time.
This too shall pass.
But the 99% aren't trying to do damage inflicting pain on others to advance their deranged plans.
What too shall pass? Bombings?
Tell me, in a 88% Muslim country can we totally destroy the "support base" without forsaking democracy? Can we prosecute anybody whose sole mistake is giving support to them?
.
Your words, not mine, are the ones suggesting that average Muslims support the extremists. I disagree. Of the 88% of Indonesians who are Muslim I don't think very many actively support the likes of JAT and MMI - and by actively I mean going to meetings, giving money, providing premises etc.
My guess why the Indonesian government does not prosecute/hunt down all elements of her society involved in subversive activities, is that terrorists are much easier to monitor when they enjoy a certain freedom and don't go underground. I think it's a choice the government makes, based upon what they know about their own capacity to infiltrate and track down individuals. Indonesia does not have a similar budget to the US to spend on fighting terrorism.
Laskar Jihad does not exist anymore as a group, by the way. The people involved in LJ and their 'manhaj' are, but they are not united Laskar Jihad anymore. They once united under certain circumstances and for a certain goal. They split up when the circumstances changed (and the goal was achieved).
Are you all saying that we should imprison anybody who agrees with LJ and JI and Ba'asyir? Are we expected to police ideologies just like during Suharto's time? My understanding of democracy is that people have the freedom to think and speak regardless to how vile their views are to others, as long as they do not commit violence. I absolutely detest pesantren Ngruki, but despite their extreme teachings and their ideological support for Islamic terrorism, they do not commit violence. Any law that can be used to close them can also be used to close other organizations conducting legitimate dissent.
We can't just arrest them for the same reason UK couldn't just arrest Sinn Fein members. USA has many tinfoil-wearing anti-government militias that are armed to the teeth, including the KKK, but you can't arrest them until they commit physical harm. I know many countries in Europe have laws against "incitement of hatred", but Indonesia does not currently have such law (except for the Internet), neither does the U.S. The anti terrorism law was shot down because it was too close to the anti subversion law of old.
It's a bit annoying to see people supporting democracy and freedom, but only when it doesn't go against their ideology.
My guess why the Indonesian government does not prosecute/hunt down all elements of her society involved in subversive activities, is that terrorists are much easier to monitor when they enjoy a certain freedom and don't go underground. I think it's a choice the government makes, based upon what they know about their own capacity to infiltrate and track down individuals.
I feel this is a gross over-estimate of the competence of politicians in general. The record of bureaucrats worldwide on matters such as the economy, global warming, disaster management, etc hardly suggests they are going to suddenly shine on terrorism. Looks very much like reactionary knee-jerk hand-to-mouth to me.
Are you all saying that we should imprison anybody who agrees with LJ and JI and Ba'asyir? Are we expected to police ideologies just like during Suharto's time? My understanding of democracy is that people have the freedom to think and speak regardless to how vile their views are to others, as long as they do not commit violence. I absolutely detest pesantren Ngruki, but despite their extreme teachings and their ideological support for Islamic terrorism, they do not commit violence. Any law that can be used to close them can also be used to close other organizations conducting legitimate dissent.
We can't just arrest them for the same reason UK couldn't just arrest Sinn Fein members. USA has many tinfoil-wearing anti-government militias that are armed to the teeth, including the KKK, but you can't arrest them until they commit physical harm. I know many countries in Europe have laws against "incitement of hatred", but Indonesia does not currently have such law (except for the Internet), neither does the U.S. The anti terrorism law was shot down because it was too close to the anti subversion law of old.
It's a bit annoying to see people supporting democracy and freedom, but only when it doesn't go against their ideology.
In my opinion, they can be tried based on the reason that their words/teachings are against anti blasphemy law - they give bad names to Islam! - I think the moderate muslims should sue Basyir etc for giving false lectures on Islam What do you think?
In my opinion, they can be tried based on the reason that their words/teachings are against anti blasphemy law - they give bad names to Islam! - I think the moderate muslims should sue Basyir etc for giving false lectures on Islam What do you think?
I'd rather nobody use that law so there's no precedent.
I'd rather nobody use that law so there's no precedent.
It's too late. It has been used to ban Ahmaddiyah, Lia Eden, and a lot of other people - so there hve been precedents. If it's used for good, to show the people that the terrorists are wrong, at least the law serves its function to protect and help religious people.
I guess it could be tried, although I'm not sure whether it's gonna work. The law is designed to ban heretics, not zealots.
But I still don't like the law, and will seek to have it abolished if an opportunity presents itself.
I guess it could be tried, although I'm not sure whether it's gonna work. The law is designed to ban heretics, not zealots.
But I still don't like the law, and will seek to have it abolished if an opportunity presents itself.
I agree with you that I would like it abolished too. But then again, whilst it stays, I do hope that it can benefit peace loving muslims like you in getting rid of terrorism teachers.
just wanted to share my experience (and opinion) on this...
I was born a Muslim, raised a Muslim and still am a Muslim...and had no problem living as a Muslim back in the US.
then one day, after a few days of coming back from the US, I was introduced to an Imam by a close friend...my friend said to him that I just got back from America and guess what the Imam said?
"You're lucky you're not an American, cause I'd kill you right now if you were"...I was like WTF??? is this dude fuckin serious???
out of all the years I've lived in the states never once was I discriminated for being a Muslim. I'm just shocked that people who never set foot on US soil could be so prejudice towards Americans or foreigners in general.
to tell you the truth, I was a bit traumatized in meeting Imams afterward and would limit my relationship with them. I admit that I am a bit discriminative towards them now.
nowadays, when I sit and listen to friday lectures, my ear has this automated filter to screen out hate and stuff that would compromise my faith. it's sad that it had to come to this though.
on the topic, I'd like to see justice being served, which means fair trial...
but if these guys put up a fight (with guns) and resisted arrest...well, you fought the law and law won
In my opinion, they can be tried based on the reason that their words/teachings are against anti blasphemy law - they give bad names to Islam! - I think the moderate muslims should sue Basyir etc for giving false lectures on Islam What do you think?
I think that will be very difficult in a country like Indonesia. These terrorists' ideas are based upon their interpretation of certain islamic texts. If a judge has to decide that these interpretations are false, how can he do that? Does the Indonesian law say anything about the correct interpretation of islamic texts that seem to be interpetable in more than one way? If so , can NU be tried also then?
I agree. It is not a theological problem, but a security problem. Groups and individuals who strife for an Islamic state are a national threat because they undermine the principles on which Indonesia was built. They should be dealt with accordingly.
just wanted to share my experience (and opinion) on this...
I was born a Muslim, raised a Muslim and still am a Muslim...and had no problem living as a Muslim back in the US.
then one day, after a few days of coming back from the US, I was introduced to an Imam by a close friend...my friend said to him that I just got back from America and guess what the Imam said?
"You're lucky you're not an American, cause I'd kill you right now if you were"...I was like WTF??? is this dude fuckin serious???
out of all the years I've lived in the states never once was I discriminated for being a Muslim. I'm just shocked that people who never set foot on US soil could be so prejudice towards Americans or foreigners in general.
to tell you the truth, I was a bit traumatized in meeting Imams afterward and would limit my relationship with them. I admit that I am a bit discriminative towards them now.
nowadays, when I sit and listen to friday lectures, my ear has this automated filter to screen out hate and stuff that would compromise my faith. it's sad that it had to come to this though.
Are you familiar with Jaringan Islam Liberal?
waarmstrong
25-05-10, 14:19
just wanted to share my experience (and opinion) on this...
I was born a Muslim, raised a Muslim and still am a Muslim...and had no problem living as a Muslim back in the US.
then one day, after a few days of coming back from the US, I was introduced to an Imam by a close friend...my friend said to him that I just got back from America and guess what the Imam said?
"You're lucky you're not an American, cause I'd kill you right now if you were"...I was like WTF??? is this dude fuckin serious???
out of all the years I've lived in the states never once was I discriminated for being a Muslim. I'm just shocked that people who never set foot on US soil could be so prejudice towards Americans or foreigners in general.
to tell you the truth, I was a bit traumatized in meeting Imams afterward and would limit my relationship with them. I admit that I am a bit discriminative towards them now.
nowadays, when I sit and listen to friday lectures, my ear has this automated filter to screen out hate and stuff that would compromise my faith. it's sad that it had to come to this though.
Religion seems to provide refuge for xenophobes, racists, and closed-mind hate mongers. Two points. Perhaps you should choose your close friends more carefully. Screening out the hate and absurdities suggests some discomfort with much of what is on the religious offering plate. Intellectually, could you be on a path away from faith, toward reason?
Hombre de Maiz
25-05-10, 14:46
One problem is these neat divisions that people create for themselves in order to protect the faith from the facts/reality. These neat mental divisions will have us believe that any negative or objectionable behaviours are mere "deviations" from the "true" faith. The "true" and "pure" faith is an ideal contained in the holy texts which exists on a separate plane from the actions and thoughts of the believers. What adherents of faith X practice is conveniently and self-servingly divorced, estranged from the "true" faith, when it is, in fact, the practice of the faith which makes it. So long as this neat, though transparent, division exists, the problems with religion-inspired violence will persist.
Cryptkeeper
26-05-10, 14:27
Actually, many of the locals are thinking that this is just one of the "pengalihan isu", you know, with the "Bank Century", Susno Duadji is singing, to DPR wants a spanking new 1.2 billion Rupiah building.. But whether this is a "pengalihan isu" or not, I believe those guys would start bombing and shooting if they had a chance, so, thank you Densus 88!
Are you familiar with Jaringan Islam Liberal?
no, I've only heard of them in the news and have not met them in person before
Religion seems to provide refuge for xenophobes, racists, and closed-mind hate mongers. Two points. Perhaps you should choose your close friends more carefully. Screening out the hate and absurdities suggests some discomfort with much of what is on the religious offering plate. Intellectually, could you be on a path away from faith, toward reason?
I like to keep a balance of both... I won't cross out reason, but on the other hand I believe in a higher being. it's a bit too close for comfort towards hypocritical though :/
I guess debating over ideals and utopia can never be settled, so I keep my beliefs to myself (most of the time)
For those who thought that Densus 88 is a police force named after the team member with the highest IQ: you're wrong. Densus is an ebbreviation of Detasemen Khusus. The number 88 comes from a misunderstanding of an Indonesian official who heard somebody say 'A.T.A.' (anti terror assistance) and he thought that the man said eighty-eight. The number '8' is thought to be a lucky number so '88' was made official. (source en.wiki and id.wiki)
Hombre de Maiz
28-05-10, 09:10
I agree. It is not a theological problem, but a security problem. Groups and individuals who strife for an Islamic state are a national threat because they undermine the principles on which Indonesia was built. They should be dealt with accordingly.
Here again pops up the neat divisions. Of course, there is nothing wrong or objectionable with the body of belief, or in this case with the Islamic state. It's all hunky-dorey, the perfect divine plan. The problem lies solely with the mundane affairs of state. Yes, of course, it has nothing to do with theology.
Here again pops up the neat divisions.
I assume that overthrowing non-western/non-democratic governments by the west for the sake of a better world also fits in your 'neat divisions'?
Hombre de Maiz
28-05-10, 15:05
It certainly could. Why not?
It certainly could. Why not?
It's just that I've never heard of the term, trying to get a picture of the definition of 'neat divisions'. :-)
For those who thought that Densus 88 is a police force named after the team member with the highest IQ: you're wrong. Densus is an ebbreviation of Detasemen Khusus. The number 88 comes from a misunderstanding of an Indonesian official who heard somebody say 'A.T.A.' (anti terror assistance) and he thought that the man said eighty-eight. The number '8' is thought to be a lucky number so '88' was made official. (source en.wiki and id.wiki)
What the "wikipedia" forgot to put is, 88 is the exact numbers of Australians who died at Bom Bali 1....Australia then rumoured to be behind the financial backup for this 'special squad'....
I put apostrophe because, you may check with ur military friend as well, Densus 88 is a joke for a definition of special forces. My KOPASSUS( ground forces-Angkatan Darat) friend told me, the routines drill to take down terrorist usually done in max 10minutes with max 5 members involved.....this one also applied to NAVY special forces( DENJAKA) and Airforce ( PASKHAS)....
so, hours of bombing, everybody dead, while the forces using machine guns and grenades against pistols and m16 ( ???) is sounded just either ridiculuos or "framed for a purpose".....
What the "wikipedia" forgot to put is, 88 is the exact numbers of Australians who died at Bom Bali 1....Australia then rumoured to be behind the financial backup for this 'special squad'....
Oh dear, not that half-baked conspiracy theory again... Pure coincidence. My vehicle number plate is 3036. Wow! 3036 is the designation of an asteroid in the outer belt that, if it were hit in just the right angle by another celestial body, might collide with the earth.
D88 are just one part of the ant-terror infrastructure put in place with the aid of funding from (primarily) the US State Dept with a little help from the UK and Aus.
Oh dear, not that half-baked conspiracy theory again... Pure coincidence. My vehicle number plate is 3036. Wow! 3036 is the designation of an asteroid in the outer belt that, if it were hit in just the right angle by another celestial body, might collide with the earth.
D88 are just one part of the ant-terror infrastructure put in place with the aid of funding from (primarily) the US State Dept with a little help from the UK and Aus.
actually, the statement mentioned was part joke as well between the "community"....another positive thought, 88 is a lucky number in chinese astrology LOL...ok, lets not go through the conspiracy thingy, it would be endless to discuss, why "88" instead of "13" or "17" or "101"
Without knowing the full detail, I'm not gonna take Kopassus' bravado at face value. Sure it can take just 10 minutes with 5 team members, but it can also take 2 seconds for the entire team to be blown to bits by a booby trap. These terrorists have bombs and they're not afraid to use it. If they're going to kill themselves anyway, there's no point in sending expensively trained Densus 88 members to die along.
My KOPASSUS( ground forces-Angkatan Darat) friend told me, the routines drill to take down terrorist usually done in max 10minutes with max 5 members involved.....
From what I read about them in the news I thought they were trained to do marathon standoffs, and that in the process some of their suspects would die from exhaustion and famine rather than taking one of their bullets.
Densus 88 has arrested Abdullah Sonata last night...
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2010/06/201062315215220293.html
waarmstrong
24-06-10, 09:33
There is also an article in today's paper about Densus 88 being, yet again, accused of torturing political prisons in custody.
There is also an article in today's paper about Densus 88 being, yet again, accused of torturing political prisons in custody.
Wot? They force them to watch Ariel's video??? :eek2:
There is also an article in today's paper about Densus 88 being, yet again, accused of torturing political prisons in custody.
I thought everybody did that,If you need information to save lives, perhaps the means justify the end,, but torture for no reason doesnt help
waarmstrong
24-06-10, 10:16
I thought everybody did that,If you need information to save lives, perhaps the means justify the end,, but torture for no reason doesnt help
Maybe you should read the article. The main example of the torture was the guy who waved the Republic of South Maluku independence flag under SBY's nose. They were trying to get him to sign a paper renouncing his views. Hardly information needed to save lives.
Maybe you should read the article. The main example of the torture was the guy who waved the Republic of South Maluku independence flag under SBY's nose. They were trying to get him to sign a paper renouncing his views. Hardly information needed to save lives.
I heartily agree there, that torture gains absolutely nothing, and waving a flag hardly warrants it
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.