War on Bali/Indonesia/Australia
 

Bali suffered a major attack this weekend. The attack was part of the war against radical Islamists that many have so far failed to acknowledge is under way.

187 dead counted so far. 309 hurt, 90 critically.

Why Bali?

Is it the high number of vacationing Australians? If so,

Why Australia?

After last week's attack, we determined that France was attacked because "France has a number of overdue bills from colonial brutality" for which "the arab world has a long memory" and "a warning to interventionists" because "france has not refused to acknowledge the war on baddies".

So why Bali - why Australia?

Re: War on Bali/Indonesia/Australia
 

Why not? Maybe it has more to do with where the angry people are rather than who they are angry with?

Re: War on Bali/Indonesia/Australia
 

MSNBC was reporting last night that the US had warned Australia about possible attacks against them due to their "support" of the War on Terror.

What's this "we" shit? ;)

You know...Iraq was a French colony for some time...

Bali is a huge tourist destination, particularly for Australians from what I understand. As far as Australia, see my comments above.

I think syc covered it. Absolute chaos here.

I'm sorry UT but who does not recognise the 'war' is under way? I mean france does, Australia does, what is your point?


Personally i think the attack is twofold, firstly, its a magnet for foreigners, the club that was specifically attacked was known for Australians, but was in the middle of a tourist zone. Secondly it helps destabilise the government.

Thirdly while it's most like a JI attack Indonesia is full of people who are angry at someone and who have a vested interest in causing trouble, from kopassus to indipendance movements. It's worth noting the recent attacks on a convoy to the freetown mine was most likely doneby the Indo military to give them an excuse to attack the free papua movement.

Latest is 220 dead and around 300 unaccounted. This is going to be messy.

There are many who believe that the US was attacked on 9/11 because it was "blowback" and therefore understandable, and sorta deserved, for its misadventurous foreign policy. There are others who believe that the US was attacked because of cultural imperialism. If I recall, you have tended towards the latter theory? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And then let us know what you guys have been exporting to make these misunderstood Muslim gentlemen so mad at you.

BTW, the Sydney Morning Herald was criticized by this blogger for re-writing early wire service stories to disguise the connection to militant Islam.

That's why I ask why. The official sources can no longer be trusted.

I see what you're trying to say. On the other hand i do not see how the two policies are mutually exclusive based on everything i've said.

As for the blogger thing, it's the same as the french tanker, sources of news that have any credability (ie running a major daily newspaper rather than a 2bit webpage) prefer to hold such things back until they have a solid basis rather than unsubstantianted accusations and stabs in the dark. It most likely is but it is wise to wait and see rather than jump to hasty conclusions and have to publish retractions later. Also worth noting the major reliable paper in melbourne, the Age has plenty of stuff about militant islamic links.

Here's a criticism of the Bush administration's shift of focus to Iraq while Al Queda continues its mission of drawing the US and the West into a wider conflict with the Islamic world. The Guardian To me, the bottom line is that if we focus on Al Queda our intentions are completely understandable, however, if we change targets to Iraq, we play right into the hands of the extremists giving them the opportunity to paint us as the aggressors, radicalizing, as tw is fond of noteing, people not normally in the sway of religous extremists. I still don't see the upside of an Iraqi invasion. We knock off Hussein and install another puppet and then spend a generation guarding oil fields? I guess we could use Iraqi airstrips to hammer Syria and Iran...

Nobody said anything about changing targets.

I've decided that answer is too glib. Many have suggested that we're switching targets, most notably Al Gore. But during his time in office, Mr. Gore supported the concept that the US military should be able to fight two wars at the same time, and I think that's what we're going to do.

I believe the idea you're referring to wasn't two wars, but the ability to fight one and a half wars at once. (Two and a half wars was a cold war thing).

Even if it was two wars, that meant two different theaters, or locations. So, in other words, we could fight Iraq and North Korea at once. Not fight Iraq and the entire rest of the world where al-Qaeda has a presence at once. For one thing, that would mean basically the whole world, as there are significant Islamist populations in something like 90 countries. We don't have the military man-power for that kind of scale. Nor is our army equipped for that kind of fighting (I also don't think it's the correct method to fight this, but that's a different topic.)

With one and a half wars, we could fight a full on war in one region and assist in a limited regional conflict elsewhere. So we could fight Iraq and assist the Indonesian government in cracking down on terrorists.

Well bush Has nto said anything about changing targets in the War on Terror™ . Everyone else has. Lets face it, attacking Iraq against the advise of your own intel isn't exactly smart. It does play straight into the arguements of the fundamentaists. Secondly, if the British Army, police and mi5 could not stop terrorism in an area as small as Northern Ireland, why the hell does the US assume it can erradicate it at a supranational level with force alone?

Talking of the war on whoever happens to take peoples minds of the flagging economy this article is worth a looksy.

Christ man, if you're going to invoke Fisk as least invoke the latest one, the most recent column, because it's on topic for the thread.

Australians were the principal victims and their murderers must have known they would be. So why were they targeted? John Howard has been among President Bush's toughest supporters. Australia lined up to join the "war on terror" within 24 hours of the attacks on New York and Washington last year. Australian special forces have been operating with American troops in the Afghan mountains against al-Qa'ida. It's a fair bet that yesterday's savagery was al-Qa'ida hitting back.

Understand? You Aussies never should have participated in Afghanistan. You've only pissed them off and now they're coming for you, as well as for the French, the Brits, and any other people in any other piddling little country that had the nerve to go help collapse the Taliban. Appeasement was the correct response, but now your nation is on the Irate Islamist Master List of Peoples With Whom We Have Legitimate Grievances, and you must simply sit back and try to enjoy the punishment that's coming to you.

I don't see this bombing as being as motivated as you say. I think it has more to do with locale (being in Indonesia, which has the second or third highest number of Muslims in the world) and to extend the rhetoric beyond the United States to the entire West.