by Ann Williams
Defending his government’s decisions, President Vladimir Putin claimed that the raid had been extremely successful and had saved many lives. He declared a day of mourning for the victims and expressed his sorrow that the security forces had not been able to rescue all of them.
Later, it emerged that the Russian authorities had refused to let doctors at the hospitals know what kind of gas the victims had been poisoned with. Despite pressure from foreign embassies, they had been unwilling to divulge the exact nature of the gas that the security forces had used. This meant that there had been delays in resuscitating the patients, which led to many deaths.
Eventually, the Health minister, Yuri Shevchenko, was pressured into identifying the gas. He claimed that it was a type of Fentanyl, an extremely powerful morphine-based drug. In Germany, using evidence from a urine sample provided by one of the survivors of the attack, the gas was identified as halothane, a type of anaesthetic. However, there continues to be some dispute as to whether this was the case. Whatever the truth, the gas was administered at levels much too high for the average person to survive.
SERIES OF ATTACKS
Not surprisingly, the Russian government were extremely defensive about what appears to have been a major error on the security forces’ part. Putin insisted that the raid had been a success, and he tightened restrictions on media coverage of terrorist events. He also vetoed the setting up of an inquiry into what had happened during the raid. Moreover, military action against Chechnya was stepped up and security measures tightened. Although the Chechen rebel leader who had seized the theatre, Shamil Basayev, claimed he had no connection with the Chechen president, Aslan Maskhadov, there were many in the Russian government who doubted this was the case, and relations between Russia and Chechnya went on to deteriorate considerably.
The Moscow Theatre Hostage Crisis was just one episode, albeit perhaps the most dramatic, in a series of Chechen terrorist actions designed to draw attention to the republic’s fight for self-government and independence from Russia. Two years later, in September 2004, another crisis broke out when Chechen rebels, once again led by Shamil Besayev, stormed a school at Beslan, killing hundreds of civilians, many of them children (see page 399).
The attack drew condemnation from the West, but there have also been criticisms of Russia and the way it has handled the Chechnyan issue. Some commentators point to a certain degree of hypocrisy in the way that Russia has been criticized by the Western media for its response to Chechen terrorism, while the USA has been praised for a similar, indeed some would say much more far-reaching, response to attacks by al-Qaeda. While we are often encouraged to look at the underlying causes of Chechen rebellion, no such sympathy is extended towards examining the motivation of Islamic fundamentalist groups.
What remains clear is that the Chechen rebels often operate in an extremely brutal way, frequently towards innocent victims who have no connection whatsoever to the political situation they are fighting to improve. This brutality carries with it a lack of respect for basic human rights, as their treatment of hostages in the Moscow Theatre Crisis shows. The rebels’ willingness to die for their cause can be seen as gloriously brave, or – perhaps more persuasively – as evidence of a certain degree of nihilism, or even mental instability.
How such an ethos comes about, and how such a pathology develops, is a subject that has not been analyzed extensively in this context, but it seems likely that the Chechen warlords’ history and culture of living outside the law has contributed to their rough and ready approach to justice. To this degree, they are not very different, on the face of it, to the operatives of al-Qaeda, or indeed to any other contemporary terrorist groups who seek to gain their ends by brute force. Thus, as some commentators have suggested, calling the Chechen hostage-takers ‘rebels’ and ‘warlords’ lends a certain degree of respect to people who are, in the end, simply terrorists, just like those of al-Qaeda and other groups who threaten the stability of the West.
The Bali Bombing
We fight terrorism because we love freedom; because we share the values of other countries that are in the war against terrorism; and because it's evil and you do not seek to reach an accommodation with those who would destroy your sons and daughters and take away the security and the stability of this country.
Quote from The Australian, October 2002
The bomb explosions on the Indonesian island of Bali in October 2002 killed a total of 202 people, most of them tourists enjoying a night out on the Kuta tourist strip there. This was the deadliest terror attack ever to take place in Indonesia, and it is thought to be the work of Jemaah Islamiah, a militant terrorist group with links to al-Qaeda, which seeks to impose a fundamentalist theocracy in South East Asia. Among others, Abu Bakar Bashir, a Muslim cleric with extreme fundamentalist views, was eventually convicted, but he only served a short prison sentence, causing a great deal of controversy, especially in Australia, where many of the victims had hailed from.
SCENE OF CARNAGE
The evening of October 12, 2002, in the tourist town of Kuta, Bali, was much like any other. Crowds of foreign tourists gathered, as they did every night, to dance and drink in the many clubs and bars lining the main street. Among them were many young Australians, for whom the island of Bali was a favourite holiday spot. Unbeknown to them, a terrible drama was about to unfold.
At just after 11.00 p.m., a bomb detonated in a bar known as Paddy’s Bar. The bomb was stowed away in a backpack worn by an individual, who was killed outright. Many of the people in the bar were injured by the bomb and rushed out into the street. Seconds later, another bomb exploded, just outside the Sari Club, which served a mainly Western clientele. This time, the bomb was detonated via remote control and was a far bigger device. It had been hidden in a white van just outside the club, and its force blew a crater in the ground and caused windows of the buildings nearby to blow out.
The scene was one of carnage, as body parts were blown around the street. Many of those who were injured could not get immediate medical attention, as the local hospital was too small to deal with such a disaster. Some of the victims were flown to Australia for specialist treatment, in an emergency rescue launched by the Australian air force. Meanwhile, another bomb went off just outside the American Consulate, but thankfully no one was killed in this attack.
ISLAMIC TERRORISTS
The reaction to the attacks was one of horror, sadness and anger. Most of the tourists were young men and women, enjoying the summer nightlife of Bali. It seemed incredible that someone could launch an attack on such innocent victims. And not only did foreign tourists lose their lives: a large number of Balinese and Indonesian workers and residents were also killed in the attack.
As the investigation began, it became clear that the attacks were made by a terrorist organization. The bomb was found to be manufactured of ammonium nitrate, which is used as a type of fertiliser in Indonesia, suggesting that the perpetrators were local rather than from a foreign country. Suspicion immediately fell on an outspoken cleric named Abu Bakar Bashir, leader of the Indonesian Mujaheeden Council, who had repeatedly made anti-Western statements and was known to be a strong critic of the Indonesian government. He was also alleged to be the spiritual leader of the Islamic terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah and to have links with al-Qaeda. However, he denied these connections and stated that the bombs were planted by the United States intelligence agencies, a theory that few believed. Other suspects included Aris Munandar, an associate of Bashir’s, and Mohammad Abdullah Sughayer, who was thought to be bankrolling Abu Sayyaf, a guerrilla organization from the Philippines.
NO REMORSE
In April 2003, Abu Bakar Bashir was charged with treason for attempting to overthrow the government and set up an Islamic theocracy in its place. The complex case against him involved charges relating to a series of bomb attacks in South-East Asia, including a series of attacks on Christian churches in Indonesia, which claimed 18 victims. However, there was not enough evi
dence presented at court to convict him of the crimes, although he was jailed for immigration offences.
In October 2004, Bashir was once again arrested and charged, this time for his part in an attack at the Marriott Hotel in Jarkarta the year before, which resulted in the deaths of 14 people. As well as the charges relating to the Marriott Hotel attack, there were secondary charges regarding conspiracy in the Bali bomb attack of 2002. Once again, there was not enough evidence to convict him for the main charges, but he was convicted of conspiracy in the 2002 attack. Bashire was given a sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment.
There was dismay in Australia and the USA that Bashir was not given a longer sentence, and there was also outrage when he was released four months earlier than the sentence imposed. Showing no remorse, Bashir came out of prison to cheering crowds. He was escorted by numerous bodyguards, waving a book that he had published to coincide with his release. Afterwards, he told the press that the Australian prime minister, John Howard, should convert to Islam, and that if he did not, he would go to hell.
DEATH BY FIRING SQUAD
The authorities did, however, manage to gain some convictions in the Bali bombing, much to the relief of those who had lost their loved ones in the attack. The individuals named were Amrozi bin Haji Nurhasyim, who was accused of procuring the explosives and the van used to store them outside the Sari Club, his brothers Ali Imron and Ali Ghufron, and Imam Samudra.
Amrozi, as he came to be known, was the fifth of 13 children, who became well known for his confident air during the trial. In fact, he appeared so calm and untroubled by his situation that he came to be known as ‘the smiling assassin’. Amrozi denied being a member of Jemaah Islamiya, but he said that he had done his duty to God, in support of all Muslims around the world. He was sentenced to death by firing squad. However, this method of execution has since been ruled illegal in Indonesia, so he has remained in prison.
Imam Samudra, apparently the intellectual of the group, was sentenced to death for organizing the bombings. Remembered as a quiet, studious child in his native village of Serang, West Java, he later became a religious teacher and then travelled to Afghanistan to fight for the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban regime there. Chillingly, after the bombs went off, he stayed in the Kuta area for several days to witness the devastation caused.
Ali Gufron, also known as Mukhlas, was also sentenced to death. The older brother of Amrozi, he was a preacher, and he is thought to have persuaded his brothers to become terrorists. As the trial progressed, it became clear that he was the mastermind behind the whole plot, and also that he was firmly convinced that he was fighting a ‘jihad’, or holy war, against the West. He stated that the attacks were made in order to avenge Muslims for the United States’ tyranny against them in the Middle East, and he claimed that he was the head of Jemaah Islamiyah. He also said that he knew Osama bin Laden personally, and had fought with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
REMORSEFUL TEARS
Unlike his two brothers, the other man accused, Ali Imron, had a change of heart after the bombings, and during his trial he showed a great deal of remorse for his crimes. He apologized to the relatives of the victims, even dissolving into tears at some points, and co-operated as much as he could with the prosecution throughout. However, despite his expressions of regret, he was given a life sentence. His part in the crime had been a central one, mixing and packing the explosives for the bomb, and training the two suicide bombers who had mounted the attack.
Also suspected of playing a part in the 2002 attack was Riduan Isamuddin, known as Hambali. Hambali is thought to have been the leader of Jemaah Islamiyah and the main contact for al-Qaeda in South-East Asia. He was arrested in Ayutthaya, near Bangkok, by American and Thai intelligence, and he has been kept in American custody ever since. Reports suggest that the USA does not want to hand Hambali over to the authorities in Indonesia, for fear his sentence will not be harsh enough. Today, his whereabouts are kept secret, but it is thought that he may be held in Jordan.
MUSLIM SUPERPOWER
From what is known of Hambali, it appears that he wanted to create a Muslim theocracy across the whole of South-East Asia, with himself at the head of it. This superpower, with a population of around 420 million and a massive army, would have been able to have military power of the region, and control all trade, shipping and other interests there.
As a major operator in terrorist circles, Hambali was friendly with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was behind the September 11 attacks. After the 2002 Bali bombing, Hambali became a top terrorist suspect, and he was eventually tracked down and arrested. However, he has not yet been brought to trial.
To date, none of those convicted of the 2002 Bali bombing have been put to death. In Australia, there is no death penalty, but a recent poll showed that a majority of citizens there feel that the Indonesian courts should impose the death sentence for the crimes the terrorists have committed. The Australian government have also agreed not to ask Indonesia to withhold the death penalty in this instance.
Gulf War Number Three
We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation.
Osama bin Laden
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been the subject of much controversy since it took place. Using the terror attacks of 9/11 as the justification for a ‘war on terror’ against what he called an ‘axis of evil’, President Bush launched a generalized offensive against elements of the Arab world, invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Some argued that, in the case of Afghanistan, this was a legitimate course of action, since the Islamic Taliban regime there was thought to be harbouring Osama bin Laden, who had been identified as the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. However, in the case of Iraq, no such obvious link between the government and the terrorists appeared to exist; indeed, Saddam Hussein and the Islamic fundamentalists who were behind the 9/11 attacks appeared to be polar opposites in terms of Arab culture. (Hussein’s regime was firmly secular, with strong links to the West, while bin Laden’s followers were entirely separatist and fundamentalist in outlook.)
SUPPORT FOR TERROR ATTACKS
Even so, President Bush managed to persuade the American public that Hussein and his regime were linked to the attacks, and that Hussein had funded terrorist organizations to commit such atrocities as 9/11. The USA, aided by the UK, thus launched an invasion of Iraq, citing Hussein’s flouting of international laws regarding weapons of mass destruction, human rights abuses and alleged support of terrorist organizations, as reasons for doing so. Many critics felt that the US behaved opportunistically in this instance, arguing that the real reason for the invasion was to do with seizing control of the oil fields of Iraq.
Whatever the truth of the matter, there is little doubt that the invasion of Iraq provoked many of the Arab nations to regard the USA and the West with tremendous hostility, and that it has had the effect of ratcheting up the tension between the cultures to an alarming degree. This has shown itself in increased support for terrorist attacks among Islamic peoples who had not, before, espoused terrorist violence as a means to protecting Muslim culture and its way of life.
It is also clear that the US invasion of Iraq has done a great deal of damage to relations between the Islamic world and the West. Some commentators go further and claim that the invasion itself was a terrorist attack: that it had no legitimacy and was a form of state terrorism itself. This argument holds that the invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked attack on an independent country, and that as such it was a breach of international law.
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, with a coalition force of American, British and Kurdish troops, as well as involvement from other nations in the form of equipment, security forces and troops. The given reason for the invasion was that the government of Iraq had not
complied with international law, which required them to reveal their weapons arsenal to UN inspectors. The theory was that Iraq had a powerful arsenal of nuclear, biological and other weapons that could be used at any time to launch an attack on the USA or the UK, and that Hussein was planning to do so. As such, Hussein’s regime posed an intolerable threat to the West, which needed to be dealt with by invading the country as soon as possible.
As it transpired, these weapons of mass destruction were never found, and it is doubtful whether they ever existed. Prior to the invasion, UN inspection teams were asking for more time to find these supposed weapons, but their requests were ignored by the US and UK governments.
There was a massive worldwide demonstration on February 15, 2003, protesting against the imminent invasion, in which around 10,000,000 people took to the streets in more than 60 countries, demanding peace. However, the voices of the people went unheard, and the invasion went ahead, despite the enormous opposition that it generated around the world.
CREATION OF A TYRANT
One of the most disturbing aspects of the invasion was that it was not ratified by the United Nations (UN) Security Council. It had become clear that France, Russia and China would block any attempt by the USA to gain permission to launch the invasion. France in particular had strong links with the Iraqi government, having helped to arm Saddam Hussein in the first place. The irony of the situation was that Saddam Hussein had established a strong regime in Iraq with the help of the Western powers, who had seen his secular, modernizing government as a bulwark against anti-Western, anti-capitalist, fundamentalist elements in the Arab world. Moreover, during that time, the Western powers had turned a blind eye to Hussein’s many appalling human rights abuses, especially regarding his treatment of the Kurds in the north of the country. Now, having supported Saddam’s regime from its inception, the Western powers found that they had created a tyrant who would no longer do their bidding.
