It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Australia Seeks Indonesian Action Against Islamic Militants

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 12:42 AM
Following another fatal terrorist attack in Bali, Australian Prime Minister John Howards will dispatch Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to Indonesia. Howard wants the Indonesians to reign in the militant islamic group, Jemaah Islamiah. The Indonesians have refused to ban the militant group out of fears of starting sectarian violence. John Howard admits that banning JI would not solve anything.
Australia is to pressure Indonesia to rein in the radical Islamic group suspected of involvement in deadly bomb attacks on the holiday island of Bali.

Prime Minister John Howard said his Foreign Minister Alexander Downer would travel to Jakarta soon discuss its approach to Jemaah Islamiah (JI).

But Indonesian officials appear to have ruled out banning the group, a move likely to anger other Muslim groups.

JI was linked to the 2002 Bali bombs, and blasts this weekend that killed 22.

"What will happen is that Mr Downer will be going to Indonesia soon," Mr Howard said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I find it strange that Jemaah Islamiah is not being banned considering it is a proven violent islamic group who has been involved in terrorist attacks. Why the reluctance to ban them? They are no different to Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah but even the Aussie PM thinks banning them is a waste of time.

Could it be that Australian government needs the threat posed by JI to institute its own anti-terror laws? When we get them they might try to get JI banned. Until then, bomb away JI - the Australian PM wont really try to stop you.

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:23 AM
Maybe they think that banning them will accomplish nothing. They are already there, so banning them forces them to go underground and you risk losing track of them. Banning them would also most likely lead to increased violence.

But what do you do with groups like that? Try diplomacy? That won't work; in their eyes it is their way or the highway.

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:30 AM
Thats my point though, whats the point of banning Islamic groups, period?

Britain banned Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al Muhajiroun. Hezbollah is outlawed and considered a terrorist organization by America, Australia and Britain. Al Qaeda is the same but Jammah Islamiah has bombed Bali twice, killed more than 88 Australians but the PM cant see the point in banning them. Wheres the consistancy?

Why ban others but not JI?

[edit on 5/10/05 by subz]

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:19 AM
No need to ban them, just hunt them down and kill them.

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:38 AM

Originally posted by subz
Why ban others but not JI?

I think the reluctance in banning Jemaah Islamiyah stems from the fact that there are a number of elements within the Indonesian government who are sympathetic, to varying degress, of their goal of overthrowing the Indonesian democracy and establishing an Islamic caliphate that would operate under their brand of extremism. If the government were to publicly ban JI, there is a fear that this would create sympathy for their cause and possible instability amongst the Indonesian government itself.

I think this need to maintain stability is behind John Howard's comments that banning JI would be a fruitless endeavour. Australia does not want to see splits develop within the Indonesian leadership, as this would present a range of possible security issues. Banning an organisation such as Al Qaeda is far simpler, given that they are noit entrenched in a nearby neighbouring country. These statements are motivated not so much by fear as by a desire to maintain a sense of balance, at least publicly, within the Indonesian leadership, to avoid instability or a possible overthrow or coup attempt.

I too feel that JI should be located and exterminated. The police agencies of Australia and Indonesia seem to work well together in identifying and apprehending suspects, but it is the military which must be brought to bear on annihilating JI training camps and facilities. This is where it becomes difficult, given that Indonesia is reluctant in the extreme to allow Australian military units to operate on Indonesian soil. This was evident even during the Tsunami crisis, where debate revolved around the number of foreign troops who were operating in Indonesia and the length of time they were in-country for. The Indonesian military isn't bad, but it is conceivable that their potential might be hampered by elements within the government who are sympathetic to JI. It is frustrating, because there is a feeling that if we could just deploy the SAS, we could have JI wrapped up within a relatively short amount of time. I guess it's up to Indonesia.

[edit on 5/10/05 by Jeremiah25]

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:22 PM
When it comes to islamic terror groups, the only ones who profits from banning is, well, the group itself. It draws attention to them, and helps in the recruiting arena when they can say "poor us...look at us...the US/UK/AUSTRAILA is opressing us. Come join the noble fight". At the height of WWII would it/did it do any good to BAN the nazis or japanese. NO! The allies had to drive them from occupied territory, or hunt them down on their own soil and kill them, before they killed more innocent people. The same will have to be done with all the terror groups, it is the only way. HUNT THEM - FIND THEM - DESTROY THEM! It is the ONLY way.

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:47 PM
There is a theory known as 'Primary and Secondary Deviance' and what happens when people begin to push groups [such as those talked about] to the outside of society. It tends to end up with more people getting involved, hearing about them and slowly agreeing with them.

If they were all open to display their hatred, they would not get such a positive outcome from people if the Government didn't care. Let them have their say, let them have their voice and then people will slowly think "What a joke." Instead of pushing people who agree with maybe 1 of their points and forcing them to be stereotyped with those who agree with 5/6points and so on and so fourth.

One of the most important things ever done during the rise of Nazi Germany was putting Hitler in prison. They made him an international star and gave him credability...

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 09:23 PM
OK I think my Devil's Advocacy didnt come through.

I, too, believe that banning groups causes more problems than it solves. If a group has a platform or a stake in the decision making progress it is less likely to jeapordize its voice by using violence.

Why can they see this reasoning with JI but completely ignore it when they ban Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda?

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:20 AM
subz, their Government is probably involved in those ones and not the others?

top topics


log in