Jump to content

Talk:Abu Bakar Ba'asyir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

De-stub?

[edit]

He's been charged for treason. Time for destubbing? - erzengel 15 Apr 2003 1428 UTC

earlier comments

[edit]

If he was found not guilty of the Bali bombings, he should not be referred to as the "Bali bombing cleric." 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)69.19.14.29

Forget what I say above. I went back and reread the article. 69.19.14.29 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Injustice

[edit]

This guy should have been shot by firing squad. The Indonesian Govt is piss weak (to use the Australian vernacular). KymFarnik 04:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a good outcome this week. Here's some more information about the Indo Govt's role... http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19480035-601,00.html --Merbabu 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This really doesn't contribute anything to the discussion, does it?Daimanta 20:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Daimanta[reply]

I responded to Kymfarnik's comments that the "Indonesian Govt is piss weak". Out of the two comments, my posted article contributes more - maybe kym can see there is more to it than his simplistic interpretations. --Merbabu 09:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ill health

[edit]

what is the source for this, i know he is in his sixties but is there anything specific in the public domain.Hypnosadist 11:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is in not very good health. In his second jailing he was arrested when he was in hospital for treatmentNielswik(talk) 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

double jeopardy

[edit]

can he be retried if additonal evidence found for same crime. I just did some copyediting. thouhgt was there to start with. Maurabu removed it said it was pointless. Not necessarily. In Indonesian law, there may not be double jeapordy. It may be possible to retry someboby twice for same offense. Regards. this whole article is very POV anyway, reads like an indictment, needs a major rewrite OldRoy 01:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a re-write - but that could make it worse, lol. I don't know about double jeopardy in Indonesia, although hasn't he been tried twice already? As for removing the "pointless" section, i just didn't think it added anything - notwithstanding double jeopardy (in which case the article shoud specifically state that), wasn't it kind of obvious but added no value? --Merbabu 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., U.K., and presumably Aus, a defendant could not be tried twice for the same crime by thesovereign for the same offense. So the statement in question added info of value providing double jeap doesn't exist in Indo. that's the uestion still unresolved. Going back to the larger question, a biography should be more than an indictment by detractors, it shuld be balanced. Obviously he is a mero in his own country, albeit a fundamentalist. Regards. OldRoy 11:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a "hero" rather than "mero"? That is not at all obvious. He is strongly pushing for Indonesia to be run on sharia lines but that is only supported by a minority of Muslims in that country and this has been the case for decades. Just cos you see a few hundred people crowding around him on the news, doesn't mean he speaks for the other 200million. --Merbabu 11:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People don't have to come and crowding around him to show their supports. Quite a big number of Muslims in Indonesia support sharia, though it have not reached 2/3 portion to be able to amendment the law. You can check the last election result and you will see Islamic parties got a big number. And very little people in Indonesia regards him as terrorist. This article is very POV, because the lack of Indonesian sources that can be cited, so the article becomes pro-Australia biased Nielswik(talk) 12:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is way off 2/3 majority. THe two biggest parties at the last election were secular based scoring roughly 20% each. The next three parties were 2 Islamic parties and another secular party that combined got 25%. THese were all moderate Islamic parties supporting the continuation of a secularly run Indonesia. One of them included the party of former president Gus Dur the esteemed, but unfortunately ineffectual former president. Those parties advocating Sharia and other strict forced Islamist influences for Indonesia performed relatively badly. Not surprising really given the devoted but moderate interpretation of Islam held by most Indonesians. This was a great result for Indonesian democracy that shows that reasonable and tolerant Islam has a place in democracy (well, that is my take on it). See Elections_in_Indonesia
As for the original question re double jeopardy, it is my understanding that it doesn't apply in Australia like in the US. I might be wrong though. --Merbabu 12:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are 7 islamic parties National Awakening Party , United Development Party, Prosperous Justice Party, National Mandate Party, Crescent Star Party, Reform Star Party, and Indonesian Nahdlatul Community Party (you may note that they dont sound like Islamic party, but they are. Suharto's oppression against Islamic movement made people reluctant to name their party Islamic). and if their votes are combined you will have almost 40%. quite a big number, though it is not majority. About double jeopardy, i really don't know what about Indonesia as i don't like law very much :) Nielswik(talk) 12:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is roughly correct. But my point was that only a few of these parties are advocating Indonesia be run along strict Sharia lines (or similar) and of the seven they are the least popular. I think it is ineviteble Islam has an increasing influence in INdonesian life and that is fine, but as for saying it will become a strict Islamic state, I can't see that happening and is against the majority of Muslims' opinions. Sure, they are devoted to Islam, but in their Indonesian way. --Merbabu 13:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the bad spelling, DJ only applies to the same soverign. For example in the U.S. you could be retried in Federal court even after being acquitted in a state court(does not aply to hung juries). Or even called back up to military duty and tried in a military court. I'm sure it applies in Oz as a daughter country of the Mother U.K. but how about Indo? We don't know? We need to identify the persons on this forum with knowledge of Indonesia and defer to them or their sources. NielW appears to know something about Ineasa. RegardsOldRoy 16:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)([reply]

I am Indonesian, OldRoy, but i have no idea about DJ in indonesia. Hey oldroy use correct spelling :) Since Indonesia are not so advanced at IT and English, there are few sources available in the internet. Anyone of you guys understand indonesian lang? Indonesian article has a lot of thing, and we can get some of them here.
About Indonesian election, 2 of the seven (National Awakening Party and National Mandate Party) don't say explicitly that they are going to implement sharia, but They resemble 2 biggest Islamic organization in Indonesia, Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah respectively. I am going to bring things from indonesian article in, feel free to correct my language Nielswik(talk) 10:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pointed out that NU (which incidently, is arguably the biggest Islamic organisation in the world) has explicitly said they don't support Sharia or an Islamic state for Indonesia and fosters good relations with other religions. Muhammadiyah tends to be a little more conservative to my knowledge but shares similar views, but i could be wrong. --Merbabu 12:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, please feel free to copyedit Nielswik(talk) 12:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice editing work fellas. The article's come a long way in a very short time, particularly thanks to Nielwik's efforts. There's still a bit of cleaning up (refs etc) but I think we collaborated well on what is clearly a sensitive subject. --Merbabu 14:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah nice work guys, thanks for the nice collaboration Nielswik(talk) 15:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DJ. Just a simple google search of DJ and Oz shows DJ is alive in Aus though under attack and has been repealed in the U.K.! It is given recognition in certain U.N. docs as a basic human right.[1]Now we well google for Indonesia. Indonesia has DJ but its application is unclear.[2] Regards. OldRoy 13:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The application of law anywhere and everywhere is unclear. That's why defendants hire expensive laywers. To believe different is ethnocentric. After conviction of a capital offense, the average length of time on death row in the United States while cases are on appeal can last 15 years! Indonesian law is said to be based on Civil Law and not on the Common Law and therefore not based on stare decisis or precedent but I think that's bullcrap. I"m sure they have annotated statues and don't reinvent the wheel in every fresh case. Regards OldRoy 15:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The present problem in Indo appears to be retrospective laws. Apparently they passed laws after some terror acts which applied post ex facto or after the fact. This in general is not a good thing to criminalize conduct after its ocurrence. A person should be on notice prior to an act that its action is proscribed. that seems to be the problem in what I've been reading. Regards. OldRoy 15:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt know much about Indonesian law, but I do know that indonesia law cannot aply retroapectively, but for reason that I don't know the court uses it to Bali Bombing suspects. Most of them end up in death penalty --Nielswik(talk) 17:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from a technical legal point of view, what odlroy says is correct, but from a moral point of view you are surely not suggesting that knowingly bombing such venues with the expectation of killing people is somehow OK as these laws were not in place? Surely that is no excuse for mass murder? it is an interesting point though. A year or 2 ago, there was discussion as to whether prosecutors had made an error in using the new terrorism laws to prosecute. A fair point was made that existing murder laws were fine AND much less likely to subject to appeal. I know there were appeals arguing retrospective laws were invalid. Even it that is legally correct, i think we all know would have been bulls**t to release people who had admitted to killing 202 people. Murder is murder whether there are anti-terror laws in place or not.--Merbabu 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Murder is opinion, killing is fact. Murder is killing plus. The plus part has the added dimensions of unjustified, intentional or acting with substantial certainty of a forseseeable result, without excuse which elements have to be determined judiciously. For example, some would argue dropping millions of second order ( second order means there is a seconday explosion) cluster munitions upon a civilian population within the last 24 hours of war after a cease hostilites U.N. resolution is signed is "Murder" but Olmert, Dan Halutz, and Peretz have not yet been charged. Millions of these cluster bomb duds are laying around to maim children and farmers. They are far more horrendous than the Bali bombing I&II. Often Westerners get on the soapbox about "morals," when their interests are involved and ignore the other sides perspective which drives violence spirals. The wise men have always said it all started in the middle east and that's the place to fix it. OZ minister Howard strongly supported Israel in the recent fracas. The whole issue of retrospective punishment was raised at the Nuremberg trials, ex post facto laws, the justice of the victors. It's time for universal peace and quiet. Regards OldRoy 13:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow. Talk about off topic. Mine was a fairly simple question - no need for all the rest. I really can't be bothered talking with people who seem to be suggesting that killing civilians is somehow justified and a matter of "opinion". I don't think anyone can justify the killing of one group of people because another did it. It's not about westerners vs. whoever it is you think you speak for - what's with the "them and us" business? It's about people. Simple. Murder is murder wherever it is and whether it is 1 or 1 million people. As for your claims of a "soapbox", i find that funny given your previous post.--Merbabu 13:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this has been off topic, if you guys are still interested this discussion can be moved somewhere. And if you do it, don't forget to put a move notice below this discussion. I agree with OldRoy on double standard, and i agree with merbabu on the bali bomb perpetrator should be punished. But i believes the perpretrator is not only the so-called JIs, but also foreign agencies who wanted to blame Indonesian muslims. And sure, what Israel did is really bad. And to make it worse, people still call Palestinians (who suffer from Israeli occupation, full embargo, and ruthlessness) as terrorists. They have their lands invaded, bombed and occupied, their family killed in brutal way, and they fight back with anything they have. And for this resistance they are called terrorists. Poor Palestinian. Poor Lebanese. Poor Iraqis. Poor Afghanistani. Muslim suffers everywhere. But people call them terrorist. I also feel sorry for Australian kiled in Bali, American killed in WTC, and any other terrorist actions, but at least people dont call them terrorists --Nielswik(talk) 14:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early life section

[edit]

I got all the things that i put in this section from Indonesian and Malaysian wikipedia article Nielswik(talk) 13:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are they referenced? I hope so - then use their references here. Are there other references? Even in Indonesian is OK, but English is preferred. --Merbabu 13:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is a Tempo (indonesian newspaper and magazine) profile about Bashir. It confirms the following

  • all the things in the 1st paragraph of the early life section.
  • founding of Al-Mukmin, the name of founders, its location, and that it expands from post-dhuhr short discussion to a madrasah (Islamic school) and a pesantren (Indonesian Islamic boarding school) due to many people interestiing on it (the article said that "people were flooding it")
  • he and sungkar was arrested by suharto because of the reason listed on the article, and that he escaped to malaysia during his "kasasi" (appeal to Mahkamah Agung, indonesian highest court)
  • he taught people on Islam in Malaysia and Singapore, and USA accused during that time Bashir began involved on JI
  • in 1999 he returned home and joined MMI.

It is on Indonesian language, if you doubted my above explanation you could ask someone to translate it Nielswik(talk) 13:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makasih ya, aku baca sendiri aja. ;) --Merbabu 14:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that tempo article also said that Suharto accused him of supporting Hispran (DI/TII separatist in central Java), it has nothing to do with GAM in aceh or separatist in sulawesi Nielswik(talk) 13:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As most of the statement have been confirmed by the tempo article, then what should we do with the unreferenced tag? Nielswik(talk) 15:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir, CIA and Bali Bombing

[edit]

As you think that sounds stupid, i think i have to explain you. Bashir believes that Indonesian bombers was involved, but CIA knew this in advance, and then, place more powerful bombs (the "mini-nuke" bombs) to maximize the effect, and justify its claim that Indonesia is a "sarang teroris". In fact, the Indonesian bombers confessed that they bombed using potassium chlorate, and I read this material couldnt have caused such a great explosion which killed 202 deaths and destroyed building several blocks away. And that also explains why US consular building wasn't much affected, though it was one of three location of the bomb-blasts. Nielswik(talk) 14:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Niel, there have been many false flag operations in the past. the granddady being the Lavon affair that brought down Israel's Ben Gurion goverment in the 1950's. And Suitcase bombs (nukes) are believed to exist. But they leave a telltale radioactive signature. No doubt Bashir believes what you say he believes, but is it indeed true?. In fact many people in U.S. believe 9/11 was a false flag operation. I guess those that hide those things would hide the tell tale radioactive signature as well. In these days where we have U.S. Vice President Cheney telling the world that Saddam Hussein was an associate of UBL/OBL (condradicting Bush), it's hard to know in whom the truth resides. Quien Sabi? Regards OldRoy 19:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bombers have also confirmed all the clear evidence that the Paddies bomb was a backpack bomb, and that the second Sari Club bomb was in a van. They found bits of the truck, and the prosecutors built a replica of the bomb, which the bombers gladly described on freely transmitted TV. I don't why people are so quick to believe whacky conspiracies. Furthermore, i don't believe accepting the truth is any way a slur on Islam, Muslims or Indonesians - who like any group of people are overwhemingling decent. Of course, the question of whether ABB was involved is a completely seperate question, and I admit, is less clear than the question of what sort of bombs were involved. regards --Merbabu 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merbabu: as you are able to understand indonesian (are you too, OldRoy?) here is two article (in Indonesian) "Bali Bombs, Micronuclear?" by an ISTECS (Institute for Science and Technology Studies) scientist and this "Bali Bombs was not C4 but it was a micronuclear!" in detik.com, the biggest web-based Indonesian news service. I am figuring out how to find English-language source of this --Nielswik(talk) 09:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is an english article but it is not a RS, i think. --Nielswik(talk) 09:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved the discussion above to Talk:2002 Bali bombing#Bashir, CIA, Bali Bombing Conspiracy --Nielswik(talk) 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih. But, I am not clever enough to speak the Bahasha. I admire those that do Jumpa lagi OldRoy 11:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Everybody speaks Bahasa! --Nielswik(talk) 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Biasanya sedikit sedikit ... SatuSuro 13:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little little we can --Merbabu 14:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
haha great~ --Nielswik(talk) 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2011 conviction

[edit]

A couple of Sydney Morning Herald articles on on Bashir's recent conviction:

--Merbabu (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

drug smuggler gets Death, while Terrorist murder gets prison time? typical Indonesian idiocy Juror1 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Abu Bakar Bashir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abu Bakar Bashir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material about early life

[edit]

I just removed a paragraph and a half of material about Bashir that had been unsourced since 2007. Whenever I remove long-term unsourced material, I make an effort to see if I can verify it, and in this case was initially quite pleased: I found two Indonesian-language sources verifying all of our early-life information: CNN Indonesia; Republika.

However, on further review I found that the Republika article is plagiarizing id:Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, and I became suspicious that the CNN article used the exact same ordering of facts as our article does, which made me suspect possible citogenesis. I ran this by User:Nyanardsan, who speaks Indonesian, and he felt that the statements are extremely similar as well. For that reason, I'm not considering the CNN article reliable (despite being published by what is generally a reliable source). I cannot find any other corroboration of the early life claims, which is why I've removed them.

That said, I have a gut feeling that these claims are probably true. If someone can find a reliable source asserting them that doesn't look like citogenesis, please feel free to restore the material. And if someone disagrees with my conclusion that the CNN article is citogenesis, please let me know, as I'd really like to be wrong on that (since otherwise it's a perfect source). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Bakar_Ba%27asyir&oldid=1199581171"