Truth about the Bali Bombings

[Big_Drum]

The Indonesian police are widely considered in their own country to be entirely untrustworthy by the general public and the Indonesian news media.

They couldn't describe how the bombs were made, what explosives were used, what device was used to trigger them, or how the operation was planned. Yet, despite knowing nothing about the answers to any of these questions, the Indonesian police claim to have caught the bombers and the mastermind; supposed "bombers" who themselves can't answer of those questions. That fool Amarozi was used to make a video where he showed how the bombs were made, but as any one who knows anything about the materials that he was shown to be using in that re-enactment he did everything wrong. Experts even in Indonesia said he would've blown himself to pieces as soon as he tried to mix the powder. He knew nothing. He can't even describe how to make a simple bomb with gunpowder properly. He doesn't even know how to make a pipe bomb or any other kind of bomb.

If he doesn't know how it was done, and none of his "claimed" allies know how it was done, then it's pretty clear that he and they didn't do the bombing; they don't know how it was done. Keep that in mind. That's been clear since they were first brought out by the Indonesian police with the great fanfare of "We got the bombers". The Indonesian newspapers were suspicious immediately; Indonesians know how things really work in their country. Anyone who knows anything at all about Indonesia and the way things really work there would never trust the Indonesian police version of anything. They're corrupt. It's normal. It's part of the way things are.

I noticed that in the video re-enactment that Amarozi's and the Indonesian police's version of how the bomb was made wouldn't have just blown him up if he'd tried to mix the powder as he said that he did - LOL - it was also very different from the more recent claim that the bombers used a van filled with plastic explosives. They can't say which plastic explosive either, but just a generic "plastic explosive". They can't reasonably describe the planning or how the bomb was built or how the materials were obtained. Neither can Amarozi or any of his claimed cohorts.

 

[Gringao]

Evidence? Where? What?

All you've mentioned is the rubbish mouthed off by one single fool whose own brother's involvement in the bombing is extremely questionable.

You really haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention, have you? Lunatic imams, mullahs and such have been saying the most insane shit for the past several years about each and every subject imaginable: Jews poisoning bananas to kill Muslims, how it is impossible for Muslims to have non-Muslim friends, how Muslims must dress Islamic because Western garb is designed by "faggots and lesbians," how AIDS was created by the US government to kill black people...Jesus, the list is fucking endless.

I see where the usual suspects are headed with this and while I don't doubt for a second (as I said before) that the Indonesian police and military are wrapped up in this, it ain't for the money. They're jihad in a uniform, nothing more. That's not to say that there aren't those that skim from the money, but the bombers are interested in offing the infidel, period.

 

[Silvergirl]

I see where the usual suspects are headed with this and while I don't doubt for a second (as I said before) that the Indonesian police and military are wrapped up in this, it ain't for the money. They're jihad in a uniform, nothing more. That's not to say that there aren't those that skim from the money, but the bombers are interested in offing the infidel, period.

You've got two big problems with your beliefs in this part of your statement.

For starters, if they are only "jihad in uniform" as you call it, then it makes even more sense for the USA, EU, and Australia to stop funding them as they so clearly do.

Secondly, the participants in uniform themselves have pretty much openly admitted on TV that it was for the money, perks, and the new equipment. Being offered hundreds of millions of dollars on the premise that they're fighting terrorism only works if they have any terrorism to fight, but there wasn't enough - so they created it. Then they can claim to have a major problem, which means being able to get more money, and that makes it a pretty good rort by itself.

But then they get the extra benefit of being able to push down property prices (bombs in the neighbourhood do that) and buy them cheap for later resale, get rid of a few political malcontents with frame-ups, and generally ride high on the hog.

 

[woody54]

You really haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention, have you?

Lunatic imams, mullahs and such have been saying the most insane shit for the past several years about each and every subject imaginable: .

Oh silly me, that is the exact same view I have of the creators of the War on Terror which is big on innuendo and very short on compelling evidence that isnt linked back to them somehow.

How is it only worrying if Muslims do it , when the body count suggests that Muslims in fact would be the targets, not the perpetrators.

Just take those panties off your head, step outside into the real world for a bit.

 

[ImpWizard]

(snip)...I see where the usual suspects are headed with this and while I don't doubt for a second (as I said before) that the Indonesian police and military are wrapped up in this, it ain't for the money. ...(snip).

Oh sure, the average indonesian is just rolling in money, and corruption is entirely a figment of the imagination. Nobody cares about bribes, they're all rich, and can eat huge meals everyday and drive big fuel-guzzling cars.

What parallel universe are you living in, Gringao?


The Indonesia that I know means when you want to travel around, every town you visit there's some official or other that needs to be paid a bribe, usually around 10,000 rupiah. Every government official, every cop, every military officer is on the take. People in the majority are poor, and they're desperate for money and most will do practically anything to get ahead.

You must be living in a very different world from the rest of us, Gringao.

 

[Big_Drum]

You must be living in a very different world from the rest of us, Gringao.

He does.

It's a really weirdo place too from the opinions that I've seen him express elsewhere. Bizarro-Land. Panties-on-head is a common fashion there, I think. I save copies of some his comments for a good laugh at how delusional some people are.

 

[Iced_Cherry]

(snip)How is it only worrying if Muslims do it , when the body count suggests that Muslims in fact would be the targets, not the perpetrators.
(snip).

Yeah, we all remember how the two British SAS men were caught in Basra, Iraq red-handed driving a booby-trapped car. http://www.rense.com/general67/boobie.htm
*
We also now know that two American commandos were caught red-handed preparing a 'suicide car' in Baghdad. http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/


The "War on Terror" is mostly fake. Why should we be surprised if it's also fake in Indonesia, and as it has become clearer and clearer, Indonesian intel services have been behind most of the terrorism there. Lovely profits, millions and millions of dollars and shiny new equipment, all provided as long as there is a "terrorist threat" - even if it's being run by the Indonesian intel services themselves.

 

[sigh]

This is a fascinating thread, from many different angles, and well worth the read as much for the information shared as for the reversal of the usual interplay between Americans and non-Americans in this forum.

The flow of skeptism and distrust has swung the other way. It seems just as bitter as always, only the opposite in some ways.

 

[sigh]

It makes me angry too.

Already the government and the US-dominated corporate media in Australia are trying to distract attention away from this.

I have a question, and I don't mean to offend. I'm just confused. It sounds here as if you distrust the media in Australia, and yet several others here have said how trustworthy they are. Are we talking about two different entities?

 

[Don K Dyck]

I have a question, and I don't mean to offend. I'm just confused. It sounds here as if you distrust the media in Australia, and yet several others here have said how trustworthy they are. Are we talking about two different entities?

No, it is the same "entity" . . .

In Oz there is

1. Oz ABC, the government owned broadcasting TV and radio corporation that has a reputation for good, honest reporting and some government interference;

2. Oz SBS, the government owned multicultural TV (and radio?) service that has recently acquired many long established well credentialled journalists as part of a government re-organisation;

3. Numerous commercial radio stations and three commercial TV networks;

4. A community radio network, but I don't think there is a community TV network yet.

5. At present two major newspaper empires, including the Murdoch News Ltd, owners of The Australian newspaper.

Generally, all the commercial radio and TV news comes from the same newspaper news desk. Only the ABC and SBS are separate. All news services rely heavily on the same overseas news footage from American news services.

Oz ABC and SBS have greater credibility that commercial news services.

The fact that the original SBS item has been pulled from the SBS website means that it is probably a true report of events that is also contrary to the preferred government propaganda supporting the AmeriKKKan illegal invasion, occupation and carpet-bagging of Iraq and the insidious "war against terror" that the Fascist regime in the White House has generated.

 

[Lovelynice]

I have a question, and I don't mean to offend. I'm just confused. It sounds here as if you distrust the media in Australia, and yet several others here have said how trustworthy they are. Are we talking about two different entities?

Silvergirl and the others are talking about the SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) being trustworthy, and they are. That's why they have respect. They have well and truly and many times earned it. They have taken on State and Federal authorities, blown the cover on "official" lies, and proven what they have stated in court cases that they have won again and again when the federal and state departments have tried to call them liars and/or silence them.

On the other hand, the majority of the media corporations in Australia are owned by two people; Rupert Murdoch, and Kerry Packer. Between these two men, they control 95% of the media. Neither of these men would want to offend their US government allies, or the Australian government, by telling any hard truths.

 

[sigh]

You've got a major problem dealing with reality.

SBS-TV isn't anything like the NYT or LA Times, or one of your dodgy American news media. They wouldn't be reporting this if they didn't have the evidence.

What you don't seem to get is the RESPECT that they have in Australia. Well earned respect.

That the "The Australian" newspaper is backing them up on this means that what they say is credible.

Our viewpoint is jaded, and with good reason. At one time, 60 Minutes was just as respected here. Unlike the Cap'n, I don't think our media is slanted one way or the other. I just recognize that their primary intent is to make money, and they'll publish anything that'll sell that even approximates the truth.

From what Don said, it sounds as if that's not the case with SBS, but a government-controlled news source is something that we're also raised to distrust almost from birth. It goes back to our First Amendment stuff and that's nearly as sacred here as God is to the Vatican. And in fact, Don's last paragraph seems to insinuate that the item was pulled from the SBS website for political reasons. Of course, as he said, that could imply there might be some unpleasant truths that the government doesn't want let out, or it might imply that there were mistakes or even deliberate mistruths that they're now trying to conceal. I don't claim to have the insight to know, one way or the other.

That said, I'm not trying to justify the Cap'n's remarks in any way. He and I spat over the media all the time. I'm just trying to give you some insight into our collective skeptism regarding all news sources.

Regardless, it's a fascinating story. Thanks to all for sharing it. I'll be watching to see if any of it leaks into our media. Maybe it already has. I've been horribly out of touch lately.

 

[sigh]

Silvergirl and the others are talking about the SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) being trustworthy, and they are. That's why they have respect. They have well and truly and many times earned it. They have taken on State and Federal authorities, blown the cover on "official" lies, and proven what they have stated in court cases that they have won again and again when the federal and state departments have tried to call them liars and/or silence them.

On the other hand, the majority of the media corporations in Australia are owned by two people; Rupert Murdoch, and Kerry Packer. Between these two men, they control 95% of the media. Neither of these men would want to offend their US government allies, or the Australian government, by telling any hard truths.

Don says the The Australian is a Murdoch paper? And they backed up the SBS report.....

Now that's interesting.

 

[sigh]

Silvergirl and the others are talking about the SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) being trustworthy, and they are. That's why they have respect. They have well and truly and many times earned it. They have taken on State and Federal authorities, blown the cover on "official" lies, and proven what they have stated in court cases that they have won again and again when the federal and state departments have tried to call them liars and/or silence them.

Okay, that' s good to know. It seems to not agree with Don's assessment though, at least not completely.

Just watching and trying to learn.

 

[Gringao]

You've got two big problems with your beliefs in this part of your statement.

For starters, if they are only "jihad in uniform" as you call it, then it makes even more sense for the USA, EU, and Australia to stop funding them as they so clearly do.

Secondly, the participants in uniform themselves have pretty much openly admitted on TV that it was for the money, perks, and the new equipment. Being offered hundreds of millions of dollars on the premise that they're fighting terrorism only works if they have any terrorism to fight, but there wasn't enough - so they created it. Then they can claim to have a major problem, which means being able to get more money, and that makes it a pretty good rort by itself.

But then they get the extra benefit of being able to push down property prices (bombs in the neighbourhood do that) and buy them cheap for later resale, get rid of a few political malcontents with frame-ups, and generally ride high on the hog.

The problem is that the Indonesian government and its police and military are pretty much the only organizations in that country that are capable of A-opposing the terrorist elements there and B-able to be supported by Aussie and American policies. So the choice is between either not supporting them in any way (thereby leaving Indonesia to the terrorist elements) or supporting them in the hopes that, on balance, the effort winds up being in opposition to the terrorists and that we can influence the higher-ups to purge their military and police of the corrupt and terrorist-collaborative members.

 

[Gringao]

Yeah, we all remember how the two British SAS men were caught in Basra, Iraq red-handed driving a booby-trapped car. http://www.rense.com/general67/boobie.htm
*
We also now know that two American commandos were caught red-handed preparing a 'suicide car' in Baghdad. http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/


The "War on Terror" is mostly fake. Why should we be surprised if it's also fake in Indonesia, and as it has become clearer and clearer, Indonesian intel services have been behind most of the terrorism there. Lovely profits, millions and millions of dollars and shiny new equipment, all provided as long as there is a "terrorist threat" - even if it's being run by the Indonesian intel services themselves.

Rense and a Russian Communist propaganda sheet. And I'm told my sources - the New York Times and the LA Times - aren't sufficiently reliable to persuade. Oh, the irony...

If I didn't know better, I'd swear you fruitcakes were Karl Rove plants, charged with the task of utterly discrediting the Left.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

You've got a major problem dealing with reality.

SBS-TV isn't anything like the NYT or LA Times, or one of your dodgy American news media. They wouldn't be reporting this if they didn't have the evidence.

What you don't seem to get is the RESPECT that they have in Australia. Well earned respect.

That the "The Australian" newspaper is backing them up on this means that what they say is credible.

LOL, Gringao has fought many battles with reality and in his mind he's won them all.

Wouldn't SBS be in huge legal trouble if they were wrong about this?

 

[Gringao]

LOL, Gringao has fought many battles with reality and in his mind he's won them all.

Wouldn't SBS be in huge legal trouble if they were wrong about this?

As a point of fact, I'm not the one incessantly declaring himself the victor in debates. Look into the mirror for the culprit there (if you can stomach it, that is).

Second of all, why would they be in trouble legally? It's a government-funded pack of left-wing wack jobs, not unlike our Bill Moyers. Is the government going to sue itself?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Idiotic comment of the week above

Congratulations, you have put yourself in the running for being the most stupidly ignorant American when commenting about Australia and official Australian government news organisations.

Roses N Lavender, you have sooooooooo not heard the best part of it yet.

Cap'n Amatrixca listens fervently to Fox News, a highly conservative and large network in the United States. I'm sure you know who they are... but do you know what Fox News has actually argued for in court? LOL. They've argued in court for the right to distort the news. Here's the documentation on that: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

 

[Le Jacquelope]

As a point of fact, I'm not the one incessantly declaring himself the victor in debates. Look into the mirror for the culprit there (if you can stomach it, that is).

The difference is you're always wrong.

Second of all, why would they be in trouble legally? It's a government-funded pack of left-wing wack jobs, not unlike our Bill Moyers. Is the government going to sue itself?

Individual people could get fired. Retractions could be made. And you're very wrong about that organization. In case you haven't noticed, everyone's telling you SBS has major street cred in Australia. That doesn't come from being a bunch of left-wing wack jobs (i.e., unbalanced and biased). It comes from being right.

It must suck for you to always be the minority opinion. Then again, you're used to living with the fact that the whole world hates your narrow minded wild west tumbleweed-smoking lame brained excuse for a belief system.

 

[Gringao]

The difference is you're always wrong.

Like I've said, bright boy, as long as you're calling the balls and strikes, you're always the winner. Your results will vary on plane earth.

Individual people could get fired. Retractions could be made. And you're very wrong about that organization. In case you haven't noticed, everyone's telling you SBS has major street cred in Australia. That doesn't come from being a bunch of left-wing wack jobs (i.e., unbalanced and biased). It comes from being right.

It must suck for you to always be the minority opinion. Then again, you're used to living with the fact that the whole world hates your narrow minded wild west tumbleweed-smoking lame brained excuse for a belief system.

Getting fired or issue retractions isn't "legal trouble," smart guy. And don't count on those - if inaccuracy was grounds for dismissal, Paul Krugman would be mumbling his disconnected prose to rats on the Bowery instead of putting them on the op-ed page of the NYT.

Oh, and those that are trumpeting the 'street cred' of SBS are also posting links to Rense and unreconstructed Russian communist agit-prop sheets as rock-solid evidence. Need I say more or explain how good it feels not to be part of the "majority opinion?"

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Like I've said, bright boy, as long as you're calling the balls and strikes, you're always the winner. Your results will vary on plane earth.

LOL, I guess you don't notice how many people in this thread are calling strikes on you. And, as always to be expected of you, no balls.

Getting fired or issue retractions isn't "legal trouble," smart guy. And don't count on those - if inaccuracy was grounds for dismissal, Paul Krugman would be mumbling his disconnected prose to rats on the Bowery instead of putting them on the op-ed page of the NYT.

Those SBS journalists could get sued into oblivion for this. Oh but they can't, because they're accurate.

Oh, and those that are trumpeting the 'street cred' of SBS are also posting links to Rense and unreconstructed Russian communist agit-prop sheets as rock-solid evidence. Need I say more or explain how good it feels not to be part of the "majority opinion?"

If being not of the majority opinion makes you feel good then you should be in complete and utter rapture 24/7.

 

[Gringao]

LOL, I guess you don't notice how many people in this thread are calling strikes on you. And, as always to be expected of you, no balls.

I see some interesting commentary, and I agree with it to a point, as I said before you bellyflopped so rudely in the thread. I also see the characteristic left-wing overheating of the furnaces of hate for their standard bogeymen, which I do not agree with.

Those SBS journalists could get sued into oblivion for this. Oh but they can't, because they're accurate.

Accuracy isn't the standard for libel, at least not in the US. I'm not familiar with the libel law in Oz, but I doubt it's as open as it is in the UK where even a lying, corrupt shitheel like George Galloway can win in court, even when the accuracy of the story isn't at issue.

But I see that you're back pounding on the "legal trouble" nail. Exactly who is going to file suit against SBS? Another Aussie government agency?

If being not of the majority opinion makes you feel good then you should be in complete and utter rapture 24/7.

I'm delighted not to be neck-deep in your fever swamp, LT. The kooks are a majority there but, as you can see, in real society you're considered a fringe element ignored at no loss.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Okay, that' s good to know. It seems to not agree with Don's assessment though, at least not completely.

Just watching and trying to learn.

Uhmmm . . . sigh, I agree with Lovelynice . . . there is no conflict between our opinions on this matter . . .

 

[Don K Dyck]

The problem is that the Indonesian government and its police and military are pretty much the only organizations in that country that are capable of A-opposing the terrorist elements there and B-able to be supported by Aussie and American policies.

So the choice is between either not supporting them in any way (thereby leaving Indonesia to the terrorist elements) or supporting them in the hopes that, on balance, the effort winds up being in opposition to the terrorists and that we can influence the higher-ups to purge their military and police of the corrupt and terrorist-collaborative members.

There are two points here:

1. It is becoming increasingly obvious to Blind Freddie that the major perpetrators of the so-called "terror" are the minions of the Fascist regime in the White House . . . the CIA and corporate AMeriKKKa . . .

THESE are the people/entities with the unlimited funds to bribe/purchase the police and politians and influence to do their bidding as necessary.

2. BY "we can influence the higher-ups" you seem to mean that "we can bribe/purchase their support . . . even to the extent of "assisting" in setting up bombings to support the so-called "campaign against terrorism".

Gringao . . . the script for this Shrubya "terror" scenario was written decades ago by Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451 . . . you should read it . . .