No chance that Indonesia might have changed in the last few years?
Btw, as a New Yorker, I've witnessed Police Officers beating civilians, forcing civilians off the road, and seen side mirrors broken by garbage trucks so that they can move unimpeded. I'm also aware (although I did not witness it) of Police Officers killing innocent civilians.

Shall we call the government of New York a repressive one?

And since you are so concerned with repressive governments, can you tell me what the US Government was under Abraham Lincoln? How about FDR?

Do you mean to compare the U.S. under either Lincoln or Roosevelt (or any other wartime American leader) to Indonesia under Suharto?

Don't you think that is a bit of a stretch?

TR

I've beaten civilians (dirt bags resisting or trying to do harm to me or other officers) I've forced civilians off the road (trying to apprehend felons). Heard of all kinds of side view mirrors being broken off in Hit and Run accidents! So they could continue unimpeded.

For the sake of argument, if what you witnessed was abuse I can assure you it would not be sanctioned or authorized by any governmental entity within the city or state of New York. And if a person such as yourself witnessed these events then there are mechanisms in place to deal with the offending officer or garbage truck driver. Did you do your part as a good citizen?


What kind of statement is that? :confused: Are you saying you are aware of a murder? Or are you saying you are aware of a traffic accident in which civilians were killed when struck by a police officer driving a patrol car? Or maybe a citizen was struck by a stray bullet fired by an officer?

It is my experience that good citizens who learn of murders are quick to volunteer their information to the authorities. Did you? And if you did then you need to tell us the rest of the story..........instead of implying murders and abuses are common place and unchecked in New York!



Since your supporting statements to this question are flawed I guess the answer would be NO!





[/QUOTE]

Don't even want to know what your justification might be for this question! Sheesh!

Cherry Picking
 

This thread has spun on and on and on and on and on. Both sides have begun to cherry pick actions and times from both sides of the issue. Both sides are also begining to get a bit personal in the replies.

Let's boil a few things down into bite size chunks.

1.) Most religions had a period in their past where the religion was pushed on the point of a sword or spear, either by the priest or ruler.

2.) Even today some sects within most religions take and extreme view and can kill, all in the name of their religion.

3.) As a whole, most religions today have pulled back from the extreme view and try to live in peace with other religions.

4.) Islam has not. It still is pushing the view that Islam is the only true religion and that all others must either convert, submit or die.


So it is clear that until Islam goes through the modern reformation (?) that most other religions have; then, Yes Islam is at War with the west, and south, and north and east.

Also, Islam is a religious nation, not a geographic nation. That means any follower of Islam has the potential to be in the Combat Forces, the Auxillery, the Underground or other pasive support role unless they prove otherwise.

You are stupid if you give the enemy the benifit of the doubt in war time.

Anytime the “people” live in fear of their own “military” that would mean they have a repressive government. The people of Indonesia are scared shitless of the Indonesian military, and we’re not talking isolated incidents.

I also said a “few” years not 60 or 200 years. I agree that a country can change, but over the course of decades and generations, not a “few” years. You and I both know one cannot research Indonesia, (today) without seeing the phrase “endemic corruption” somewhere in Indonesia’s description. The members reading this need not agree with my views but do a little of their own research, I've little doubt of what they will find.

Let’s not split hairs you also know we (United States) will hold our military and law enforcement accountable for their actions, please don’t compare us to other 5th world countries. Dick Durbin already did that and found it was not a good idea.

BTW how does the 4th most populated country in the world rank so low on the global economic scale? Were they also savaged by the western civilizations or might it be because of internal systemic corruption? (88 percent moslem, imagine that.)

It is amazing how some would compare our military with 5th world countries. Our Military culture is based on serving the constitution and the elected government. The military in 5th world country have more of a feudal culture, they serve the "war lord". IMHO one of greatest protectorate of our constitution along with the 3 branches of government is the Military.

Islam is a feudal culture, clerics have life and death rule over everyone. Over 50% of the Islamic society are chattel slaves (women). One can not question authority, to challenge the Qur'an is a apostasy punishable by death. No wonder Islamic countries are still living under the poorest of conditions. We as Kaffir have no value and no rights under Islam (see Sharia Law).

The Sura Al Maeda (5th) is a good read, and Al Nesa (women) it is written only for men and advocates beating one's wife (4,34). Also read the Hadiths on women. "women only have half a brain", "(Islamic) Hell is filled with women" and it takes 4 women to testify against one man.

According to the "Islamists" Islam is at war will all non-believers and apostates. War is not our choice, it is theirs.

Both are true. The colonialism: http://www.workers.org/indonesia/chap3.html The corruption should be widely known.

Back to the main topic, I think both sides are not necessarily against each other. Islam was brought to SE Asia by Arab merchants, and assimilated with the local culture etc. The lack of violence in the process yield a "more peaceful" version of Islam relative to the ones in Middle East. However, the Koran (and the imam) can easily spark and justify violence.
A good read for Islam and terrorism in SE Asia: http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Libr.../JIHistBG.html

A search on "Kopassus" and "human rights"will confirm this argument.

slight hijack

FrostFire,
Before you start calling the Indonesian people "peaceful" you might want to research what they did about 40 years ago.....
It will give you some insight as to how they "think" as a people. I'll give you a hint, it was genocide on a masssive scale!
TS

End hijack

How about this gem?

Still acquiting killers of 33 protestors as recently as this month:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/12/indone11309.htm

Indonesia: Acquittals Show Continuing Military Impunity
1984 Massacre of Demonstrators Goes Unpunished

(New York, July 12, 2005)—The recent appeals court acquittal of twelve soldiers convicted last year of the 1984 massacre of demonstrators in Jakarta shows the almost complete failure of Indonesia’s human rights courts, Human Rights Watch said today. The latest decision means that no one has been convicted for the so-called “Tanjung Priok” massacre, in which security forces killed at least 33 civilians in 1984.

Whether it is a massacre from the Suharto era or killings in East Timor, these verdicts show that the Indonesian military continues to get away with murder. There is clearly no political will in Indonesia to address this kind of impunity.

Human Rights Watch said that the appeals court decision was not made public, but was reported by the BBC, last Thursday, July 7.

The Tanjung Priok trials had represented Indonesia’s most robust attempt to date to hold perpetrators accountable for Suharto-era abuses. But following the acquittals, Human Rights Watch said that victims and their families have no judicial redress for the 22-year-old killings in Jakarta.

The acquittals followed trials by the ad hoc human rights court on East Timor, which finished appeal hearings in 2004. All but one of the 18 defendants were acquitted for crimes against humanity. Only Eurico Guterres, an East Timorese militia commander, stands convicted at present, and he remains free pending final appeal to the Supreme Court.

“Whether it is a massacre from the Suharto era or killings in East Timor, these verdicts show that the Indonesian military continues to get away with murder,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “There is clearly no political will in Indonesia to address this kind of impunity.”

Fourteen active and retired military officers originally stood trial over the Tanjung Priok incident. Two other soldiers accused of taking part in the incident were acquitted last year, including the head of Indonesia’s special forces, Major-General Sriyanto Muntrasan, who was then North Jakarta military commander. Human rights activists in Indonesia have long criticized the attorney general’s office for not including in the original indictments two retired generals, Try Sutrisno, then-Jakarta military commander (and later vice-president), and Benny Moerdani, then-armed forces commander, whom many believe were implicated in the violence.

The Tanjung Priok killings took place on September 12, 1984, when government security forces fired at civilian protestors during anti-government demonstrations in the Tanjung Priok harbour area of north Jakarta. The protests followed the arrests of several individuals who were accused of giving anti-government sermons at Tanjung Priok Rawa Badak Mosque.

In 2000, Komnas HAM (Indonesia’s National Commission on Human Rights) completed its inquiry into extrajudicial executions and disappearances which took place in Tanjung Priok. The inquiry listed 23 suspects, including many who are now senior Indonesian military officers.

“Because President Yudhoyono was elected democratically, many now wrongly believe that Indonesia’s military has been reformed,” said Adams. “This is not the case. The military remains above the law, apparently too powerful for the courts to tame.”

Based on a law passed by the Indonesian parliament in 2000 establishing special human rights courts on April 23, 2001, Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid enacted a presidential decree establishing an ad hoc human rights court to try gross violations of human rights in East Timor in 1999 and in Tanjung Priok in 1984.

Four regional human rights courts were also established by the 2000 law, including one in Makassar, Sulawesi. The Makassar court is expected to issue a ruling soon in the cases of two police officers on trial for the 2000 Abepura case, in which Indonesian police shot dead one student, tortured to death two more, and arbitrarily detained, tortured and ill-treated approximately 100 others.

Indonesians (Peaceful, Modern Islamists) Impose Sharia Law

TR

Aceh in Wonderland

27 June 2005

(A version of this article appeared in the Jakarta Post 28 June 2005)

Is Aceh being turned into the world of Alice in Wonderland? There is a British novel called Alice in Wonderland. A young girl called Alice, falls into a hole and enters a world full of confusion and absurdity. Everything is turned upside down and Alice is trapped to deal with too many pictures of small things, unable to focus on the world beyond. Are the Acehnese to be driven to this kind of existence?

Last week in Aceh several poor Acehnese, accused and found guilty of gambling under sharia (Islamic) law, were publicly flogged with canes by a government appointed executor. It is the first application of sharia since its imposition several years ago.

This is an absurdity; never in the history of Aceh has Islam been exploited in this way, simply to punish the poor. In the past Islam was the foundation and inspiration for the Acehnese to defend themselves against colonialism, social injustice and oppression.

Islamic values informed the fight against Portuguese oppression, which stopped their colonial expansion in Asia, and galvanised the Acehnese to defend themselves against Dutch invasion. The resilience of the Acehnese effectively bankrupted and thus defeated the Dutch. These values went on to imbue many Acehnese with the will to oppose injustice in the post colonial era. It was non conservative values of Islam, a desire for equality and justice that motivated the Acehnese to seek freedom from any and all attempts to conquer them.

But now we have some Ulamas empowered by the government using religious law to punish some people who commit petty crime, such as gambling, and enforcing disproportionate penalties. Gambling, if it is a crime at least only harms the gamblers, at worst their families. The conflict region of Aceh is full of groups and individuals harming the wider society, committing crimes that perpetuate conflict and exploitation. The crimes of the powerful; the killing of innocent civilians or involvement in large scale corruption seem to elicit a different response than the crimes of poor. When the rich and powerful seem immune from judicial action, even under sharia law, while the poor Acehnese are subject to all the extremes of this religious law it only serves to institutionalise inequality.

There was a question posed on the internet, circulated by some young Acehnese, asking jokingly how many times Abdullah Puted would be caned if this law were to be applied to him. How about if this law was applied to those who are killing Acehnese civilians? No, it will not apply to them said Sharia authority. In fact it will not even be applied to the prosecutor who is making the case in this first trial of Sharia, who had admitted he received money as a bribe, from the defendant.

Indeed it is only for the poor, the powerless amongst the Acehnese to bear the brunt of this newly emboldened Sharia authority. The other weak Acehnese targeted are women, the most vulnerable groups of society in Aceh right now. The police sharia, the government discussion about women, instead of being about education and equal rights for women, is about clothes, the headscarf, the way they wear things. There have occasionally been sweeps by sharia police to check whether Acehnese women are wearing their clothes according to sharia. There is a story that recently at a meeting of local government officials, woman was made to sit at the back of the room. All this comes at a time when the women of Aceh are calling for equality, access to education and a voice in the reconstruction.

This is an insult to Acehnese women who in the past have asserted their will to play a significant role in society. To cite a few obvious examples, three women have ruled the kingdom of Aceh, there have been several female admirals and high ranking members of armed forces. Most famously Cut Nyak Dhien but there was also Cut Meutia, Pocut Baren and others. There has been no such discussion about dress codes in the past, yet both Islam and women’s involvement in the wider society have managed to flourish.

By emphasising conservative aspects of religion and strict adherence to sharia law, some clerical leaders seek to blinker the Acehnese from wider problems in the region. They are exploiting the religious conviction of many Acehnese to manipulate them. In truth they are acting as an obstacle to change by distracting the locals from the main problem of injustice. This orchestrated distraction is perfect for a government which seeks to neutralize progressive voices in Aceh. This is a strategic alliance of the government with conservative religious to pacify the Acehnese.

If there is somebody most responsible for this, it is Abdurahman Wahid. It was Gus Dur the most liberal of Islamic thinkers who kick-started this new Sharia revolution. He decided to impose sharia law in order to show the political will of the government to solve the problem of Aceh. Rather than responding to Acehnese demands for a political solution to the conflict and social justice, this was a crude attempt to co-opt and empower a conservative religious elite to assist with the subjugation of the Acehnese desire for justice.

This use of religion as political tool to pacify the population or as political bribery is a dangerous move. It is like setting a time bomb. When it goes off it could unleash an era of harsh, intolerant and conservative Islam. It is the last thing everybody wants to happen in Aceh.

The writer is an Acehnese human rights advocate working for TAPOL, the Indonesia Human Rights Campaign in London and Kontras in Jakarta. He can be reached at agus_smur@hotmail.com


Indonesians Continue Legacy of Genocide

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...puahrights.pdf

This paper considers whether the Indonesian government’s conduct toward the people of West Papua constitutes genocide, as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The paper begins with a detailed account of the human rights situation in West Papua from the beginning of Indonesian rule in 1963 until today. It then analyzes the law of genocide as applied to the West Papuan case. Although the paper does not offer a definitive conclusion about whether genocide has occurred, it finds in the available evidence a strong indication that the Indonesian government has committed genocide against the West Papuans. Moreover, even if the acts described in the paper were not carried out with intent to destroy the West Papuans as a group, a necessary element of the crime of genocide, many of these acts clearly constitute crimes against humanity under international law.

Asia, the Peaceful Face of Islam?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=9319

The War on Terror: A War for Human Rights
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 11, 2003

The Indonesian terrorist group, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), demonstrated last week that the war on terror is not just an effort to prevent recurrences of September 11; it is a struggle for human rights. As JI celebrates (yes, celebrates) its murder of fifteen people and the wounding of 150 more in a suicide attack on the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta last Tuesday, as well as the death sentence given Thursday to JI member Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, the “smiling bomber” who murdered 202 people in Bali last October, it is instructive to remember that JI is doing all this killing for the Sharia.

The Sharia is the classic code of Islamic law that mandates stoning for adulterers and amputation for thieves, disallows a rape victim’s testimony in her own case, and hamstrings freedom of conscience by prescribing death for apostates from Islam and those who have blasphemed the Prophet — an offense that Christians in Pakistan and other beleaguered minorities in the Islamic world have found to be distressingly elastic. Jemaah Islamiyah, al-Qaeda’s southeast Asian affiliate, dreams of the day when the Sharia holds sway over the entire world, or at least its own corner of it.

Jemaah Islamiyah is fighting to create a Sharia-ruled Islamic megastate in Southeast Asia, comprising Indonesia, Malaysia, southern Thailand, Singapore, Brunei, and the southern Philippines island of Mindanao. In a certain sense it’s fitting that they see blowing up innocent people as a viable means to attain this end, for the utopia that group members envision is just as brutal and unreasoning. There have been numerous indications of that recently in places where the Islamic law that JI reveres is already (in varying degrees) in force:

• The supreme court of Afghanistan on Thursday upheld death sentences for two journalists, Sayeed Mahdawi and Ali Reza Payam. Their crime? Criticizing what they called the “holy fascism” that still holds sway in Afghanistan, and asking: “If Islam is the last and the most complete of the revealed religions, why are the Muslim countries lagging behind the modern world?”

• A court in Pakistan on Tuesday sentenced another man, Bashir Ahmed, to death for making “derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet and his companions.”

• Women’s groups in Malaysia protested, thus far in vain, against a decision by that country’s Sharia court that men could divorce their wives by leaving a message on their mobile phones.

• The Jordanian parliament rejected on Islamic grounds a measure that would have given women the legal right to file for divorce, as well as another that would have led to stiff penalties for “honor killings”: the barbaric murder of young women by family members who believe that they have committed adultery, thereby shaming the family honor. Many young women have even been murdered after being raped, since traditional Islamic law allows a rape charge to be established only by the testimony of four male witnesses who saw the act itself.

• In Iraq, Muslim authorities in the Shiite holy city of Najaf overruled, also on Islamic grounds, the appointment by American authorities of a woman judge, Nidal Nasser Hussein. Afrah Najem, who like Nidal Nasser Hussein is a female lawyer in Iraq, knows that she has hit the mother of all glass ceilings: “Ours is an Islamic society that would not tolerate a woman judge.”

Draconian blasphemy laws, appallingly loose divorce laws (for men only), a totalitarian resistance to self-criticism, institutionalized brutality and oppression of women — these are the features of the Sharia law that forms the centerpiece of JI’s dream state. Their path to this utopia is stained with the blood of the nightclubbers, businessmen and bystanders that JI is rejoicing over having slaughtered in Indonesia.

Donald Rumsfeld has declared that the United States will not accept an Islamic state in Iraq. One may hope that this indicates that the human rights component of the war on terror has at least some advocates in high places. For the events recounted above illustrate why everyone who values freedom and basic human rights should oppose the Sharia, whether it is implemented in whole or part, not just in Iraq or Indonesia, but everywhere that it hinders the liberty of human beings — including Saudi Arabia.

Like a peevish schoolmarm, the judge who sentenced Amrozi scolded him for perverting Islam and jihad. But it is unlikely that any of the Muslim onlookers who cheered and shouted “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is great) when Amrozi entered the courtroom were brought to a moment of theological reckoning by the judge’s lecture. After all, moderate Muslims still have not answered the nagging question of why, if Islam forbids terrorism and the Qur’an teaches nonviolence, have so many devout Muslims around the world misinterpreted it so thoroughly and repeatedly. Where are the moderate Muslims who can teach not Western non-Muslims, but their fellow Muslims that Islam is peaceful?

If the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslim advocacy groups really want to demonstrate that “Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy and forgiveness that should not be associated with acts of violence against the innocent,” let them definitively renounce the Sharia for which Jemaah Islamiyah kills, and which brings anything but peace and mercy to those who must suffer under it. Let them work to create in the United States a truly moderate Islam that accepts the principles of Western secular society and coexistence with non-Muslims. If they do not do this, it is clear: history will judge them as being on the wrong side of this great struggle for the rights of mankind.

oh well, might as well add one more...can't wait for the next draft


The Jakarta Post, August 1, 2005
MUI's fatwa encourage use of violence

Concluding its seventh congress last week, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) issued eleven fatwa that sparked concern over its increasingly conservative stance. Prominent Muslim scholar and rector of the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Azyumardi Azra shared over the weekend with The Jakarta Post's Ridwan Max Sijabat his opinion on the controversial views of the MUI.

Question: The MUI has issued several contentious fatwa. What is your comment?

Answer: It is most regrettable that the MUI seems to be issuing edicts without consulting the relevant Muslim figures, or dialog with the parties concerned. The fatwa are not enforceable, nor are they binding. It does not have the authority to enforce them.

What do you think is the background of this growing conservatism?

There is something that has been changing in the organization -- before and entering the reform era. The MUI has shifted from being umat-oriented to being government-oriented. During the New Order era, the MUI was used by former president Soeharto's regime as a tool to justify government policies. For instance, the MUI issued a fatwa that allowed the consumption of frogs. The edict was issued to annul another edict banning frog consumption -- issued by the MUI's West Sumatra branch -- and to support the government policy on the acceleration of non-oil commodity exports.

Entering the reform era, the MUI sought to be independent and become closer to the umat (members of the Muslim community). But the fact is that the MUI does not represent all Muslims and this is evident in the increasing number of Muslims questioning and denouncing the edicts.

Why have pluralism, liberalism and secularism been declared forbidden? Are they really against Islam?

The problem here is that the MUI has an understanding that differs from the academic perception on the three isms, because they are dominated by groups who take the Koran and hadith (Prophet Muhammad's sayings) literally and without any rationale or logic.

The Koran teaches tolerance -- including of other religions. The Koran, Prophet Muhammad and Islamic teachings accept differences not only as a reality but also as Allah's grace.

Liberalism is forbidden because the MUI is of the opinion that liberals no longer believe in the Koran, Prophet Muhammad and true Islamic teachings.

The MUI cannot ban Muslims from thinking, because pluralism, liberalism and secularism are not ideologies but ways of thinking. To some extent, the MUI's fatwa are against freedom of _expression and human rights in general.

Why are the edicts outlawing mixed marriages, and on joint prayers with people of different faiths, considered controversial?

The fatwa banning mixed marriages between people of different faiths and of joint prayers performed with people from other faiths negates pluralism. Islam is not the only religion in the country and Muslims have to be able to live side-by-side with people of different faiths.

With the growing controversy, many people are starting to question the necessity of an organization such as the MUI.

But it must be underlined that the MUI is not a state institution. It can issue fatwa and orders to Muslims, but they are not binding and it does no have the authority to enforce them. Legal authorities in the government have no obligation to enforce the edicts while Muslims are not obliged to comply with them.

Because the MUI has no authority to enforce the controversial fatwa, it is the hard-line groups, like the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) who appear at the frontline to pressure the authorities to enforce them. If they believe the authorities have failed, they (the hard-line groups) could directly come to the field to enforce them. I fear that hard-liners will head to Parung in Bogor regency, to bulldoze the Ahmadiyah boarding school and drive away its supporters based on the MUI's fatwa that Ahmadiyah is a heretical sect.

What would you recommend for the MUI in the future?

The MUI should clearly pause for reflection. The MUI plays a strategic role in this predominantly Muslim nation and, therefore, it should consult with all stakeholders in the Muslim community before issuing fatwa.

The MUI will be fully respected and its edicts will be complied with if the edicts are based on fiqih (Islamic jurisprudence) -- not on political interests -- dialogs with all stakeholders and the interests of all Muslims and of the nation in general.

Honestly, I have received many telephone calls complaining about the edicts.

Cut to the chase
 

OK all, there has been a whole lot of chatter filling up the many pages of this thread. How about if we stop dancing around the pole and come up with a straight yes or no answer?

My answer?

YES

I think that the Muslims are further defining the conflict every day.

While I am a trained hearts and minds kind of guy, desperate times call for desperate measures. They are with us, or against us.

Before 9/11, I would have said that the potential for a global religious war was relatively low. Now I believe that it is approaching certainty.

With every additional act of butchery by Muslim extremists, encouraged by so many of their religious leaders, the attendant denials by their people, and the lack of Muslims taking actions against these swine on their own accord, these terrorists alienate more and more of the moderates (and apologists) around the world who have been urging caution.

Eventually, they are going to hit the infidel population hard enough that the gloves are going to come off and it will be open season in a real war on Islam. If pushed hard enough, we can push back. We have interned our citizens and deported our detractors, waged total war, and unleashed Hell on Earth before. If the Muslims do not help get this under control, assist us with tracking these people down, and drag themselves and their faith into the 21st Century, the day may come when we DO have to view all Muslims as threats and deal with them accordingly.

What would we do if NYC, LA, and Chicago were burned off the face of the planet tomorrow, or hemorraghic plague were to kill millions of our people, in the name of Allah? Blame the 19 directly responsible, or their supporters and enablers?

If the millions of "peaceful" Islamic people care about their future, they had better wise up quickly, before too much damage is done.

TR

Not JUST wise up, but RISE UP and put those that are causing the problems into the light of both day and justice !!!