Censored: Inside Indonesia’s war on terror

In one of our previous reports we stated that the same C4 was used in the Bali and USS Cole attack. We mean by this that the C4 came from the same batch. While this documentary does not confirm our findings, it shows we are not alone in believing that the second explosion at the Sari Club was far more powerful than the bombers anticipated and had been tampered with. The former President of Indonesia says the same thing towards the end of this documentary.  We would like to repost the whole of our Bali report in the near future, with information from the documentary incorporated. We hope to do this because the relatives of the deceased do not deserve to be lied to. We have been told the documentary is subject to a D-Notice, and that publishing it within Australia is prohibited. We maintain that the Australian Constitutional Free Speech provisions take precedence over any flimsy D-Notices – which are of a voluntary nature anyway. What on earth is the Australian government going to do to us as punishment for breaking the D Notice we haven’t even seen? Are they going to bar us from their press conferences at Parliament House? Does that mean we won’t get any more free Sara Lee cheesecakes? Many thanks to Archangel for providing the link and info.

Of course we must be wary of accepting information at face value from SBS television in view of the fact that they are partly funded by the Australian Federal Government and have a track record of providing disinformation. It is also plausible to consider a  scenario where the Australian Government wanted to put pressure on the Indonesian Government because of its perceived failure to reign in radicals, terrorists and extremists.  Despite the fact that this documentary disappeared from the SBS website and a transcript was not published, the film was made and shown on prime-time television. All the fuss occurred after it had been shown. Therefore, it is safe to say the Indonesian government did get the message as embassy staff  in Canberra would have recorded it for their bosses in the Republic. Was the film made for the Australian public or the Indonesian government? All the fuss about removing the transcript from the website could, in this view, be seen as a smoke-screen. It gave the Australian government a chance to demonstrate they were distancing themselves from the production – but only after the film had been aired. If they had not wanted it to be shown in the first place, we feel sure they could have prevented it. Or does the Australian government want its gullible citizens to believe that they spend hundreds of millions of overpriced Australian dollars on ASIO and ASICS but don’t know when a government funded television station is producing a documentary highly critical of  Indonesian Intelligence?

SBS television have, moreover, a track record of lying through their teeth in their so-called news reports. To cite just two examples, we refer to the infamous ‘Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction’ claims and also a report about the criminal behaviour of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. It was reported approximately two years ago in the New York Times that Australian soldiers had attacked defenceless villagers in Afghanistan and a number of children were killed. SBS television reported that Australian forces had attacked a so-called Taliban compound without mentioning that the New York Times had already identified the village attacked and the horrendous casualties. As a partly funded government entity, we feel sure the views expressed on SBS television mirror those of the government itself.  To reinforce this perspective we point out that at no time have SBS television told the truth about Afghanistan or Iraq. They have never conceded that Australian forces face a mass resistance movement; that the overwhelming majority of Afghans want them to depart and have constantly described attacks upon occupation forces as being the work of militants, extremists and Taliban.

When an Australian soldier is killed in Afghanistan, on the other hand, SBS television show their true colours. Immediately the accolades start flowing and extended coverage is given to “our brave diggers.” The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are  given ample opportunity to present a eulogy and reinforce the lie that the soldiers are there to protect future generations from terror attacks such as those that occurred in Bali. In conjunction with the Singapore intelligence services, they have created a South-East Asian bogeyman named Abu Bakar Bashir, in much the same way that American intelligence created the legend of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. Together with their counterparts in the Singapore Intelligence community, they have even given Abu Bakar Bashir’s organisation a name: Jemmah Islamiya.

Could SBS television be telling the truth in this case, given the above-mentioned factors?

We can see from this report that C4 plastic explosive was definitely used in the Bali bomb. Why the cover-up? Why not just admit it? We can see from this link that Glen Jenvey claimed the C4 used in the Bali bomb and the USS Cole came from the same batch. The only plausible reason for denying the discovery of C4 at the Bali bomb site was the knowledge that Amrozi and his cell could not get their hands on such material. It is also possible that  Amrozi’s cell was infiltrated by agents of Indonesian intelligence who worked actively in the cell to produce a much larger explosion than Amrozi expected. It is also possible to conclude that had evidence been produced to demonstrate the presence of C4, then investigators would have to examine the origin of that material and the results could not be controlled by the American military as they had been in the USS Cole attack.

The Americans admitted C4 was used in the USS Cole attack but there was no pressure for them to demonstrate the origin of that material because the Navy controlled the investigation. If the same C4 turned up two years later in Bali which is part of  independent Indonesia, that’s another kettle of fish.  The Americans could not control that investigation so effectively so they summoned the Deputy Sheriff in the region, John Howard. Howard dismissed the C4 results and said the Australian Federal Police could not support the conclusion that C4 was used. The investigators from Indonesia were left with egg all over their faces but Howard – and the Americans – effectively diffused the ticking time bomb of where the C4 used in Bali actually came from. We know it is possible to determine as C4 plastic explosive has markers. Do the markers point to an American military origin?

That would be guesswork on our behalf. We don’t have samples to investigate ourselves so obviously we can’t say. There are reports circulating that plastic explosives could be purchased quite easily in Belgrade, Serbia. If the C4 used in the Cole attack and Bali had a Serbian origin, then investigating that angle could prove highly embarrassing for the Americans and British as they had helped recruit fighters for the KLA through the Finsbury Park Mosque using Abu Hamza to further their geopolitical schemes.

It is important to state that SBS television said nothing about the explosion at the Sari Club being carried out by the police or military. That statement came from the former President of Indonesia. And just in case our detractors start saying that he was only speculating, that’s the way he talks. He throws out a proposition and then counters it by saying he doesn’t really know. He knows alright, otherwise he wouldn’t have said it in the first place.

We found some sort of confirmation for the evidence  presented. Iman Samudra in an interview conducted in prison claimed the bomb was indeed tampered with. Readers can link to the interview here.


Comments are closed.