Thread: Indonesian police say 32 dead, 1 missing in Papua attacks

Originally Posted by Switch

I’ve given you the benefit of doubt until now, but it’s clear that you are really thick,

So when you've got nothing more in what was a polite discussion, you resort to personal insults.
OK. Lets leave our disagreement about who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter at that.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

So when you've got nothing more in what was a polite discussion, you resort to personal insults.
OK. Lets leave our disagreement about who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter at that.

You are the one who insulted someone by making the assumption that someone you clearly don’t know, would be a Muslim hater.
Dont pretend your side of the discussion was polite. It was anything but.
You can ignore the fact that you were asked to explain why murder is acceptable under these circumstances, but you should not be deluded into thinking it is acceptable to try and withdraw with such misguided principles intact.

Originally Posted by Switch

You are the one who insulted someone by making the assumption that someone you clearly don’t know, would be a Muslim hater.

You suggested I am happy at the murder of civilians. Recalling some posts you've made about Islam that sounded very much like the hate-monger Islamophobes, I responded. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

Originally Posted by Switch

Dont pretend your side of the discussion was polite.

I'm not pretending. It seems having a different POV is impolite to you. Your first response to me was "You are wrong" and you then went off on a tangent without explaining why what was in my post was wrong. Now, that is not a mature attitude, you must admit.

Originally Posted by Switch

You can ignore the fact that you were asked to explain why murder is acceptable

How does one ignore something that is non-existent? Please point out where you asked anything, let alone that question. What you did do is accuse me of being happy with the murder of civilians.

Originally Posted by Switch

but you should not be deluded into thinking it is acceptable to try and withdraw with such misguided principles intact.

The irony is strong. I'm not withdrawing at all, not on this thread nor the Crime and Punishment thread. In both you have shown an extraordinary level of conflation, delusion, inability to comprehend, and diversion.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

In both you have shown an extraordinary level of conflation, delusion, inability to comprehend, and diversion.

...smells like poster of the year...

Originally Posted by Maanaam

OK. Lets leave our disagreement about who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter at that.

this is not your thinly veiled attempt at a face saving withdrawal then?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

You suggested I am happy at the murder of civilians. Recalling some posts you've made about Islam that sounded very much like the hate-monger Islamophobes, I responded. Perhaps I shouldn't have.


I'm not pretending. It seems having a different POV is impolite to you. Your first response to me was "You are wrong" and you then went off on a tangent without explaining why what was in my post was wrong. Now, that is not a mature attitude, you must admit.
How does one ignore something that is non-existent? Please point out where you asked anything, let alone that question. What you did do is accuse me of being happy with the murder of civilians.
The irony is strong. I'm not withdrawing at all, not on this thread nor the Crime and Punishment thread. In both you have shown an extraordinary level of conflation, delusion, inability to comprehend, and diversion.

Clarity. Example. You are wrong.

I asked you to explain your preposterous views on at least two ocassions. Example. Explain yourself.
opportunity declined by you.

Your support for terrorist murder is implicit in your opening statement. Don’t say something unless you understand it and mean it, only to back track, as you are attempting to do now.

Please link to any posts where I have supported islamaphobia. You will not find one so maybe save yourself the trouble of searching. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else you don’t know?

Originally Posted by Switch

Your support for terrorist murder is implicit in your opening statement.

Not really, those are your words.

One man's freedom fighters are another's terrorists...

Originally Posted by Switch

Territorial disputes can never be settled by war or unlawful killing.

Territorial disputes have been a major cause of war and armed conflict throughout the ages, more often than not they are settled through the use of brute force. Usually follwed by economic exploitation and often cultural & ethnic distruction. Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand and Tibet are just three examples in Asia from the last century.

Originally Posted by stroller

Territorial disputes have been a major cause of war and armed conflict throughout the ages, more often than not they are settled through the use of brute force. Usually follwed by economic exploitation and often cultural & ethnic distruction. Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand and Tibet are just three examples in Asia from the last century.

Wrong person debating the wrong issue uninvited, and on someone else’s behalf. Killing people never resolves conflict and it makes no difference if you think they are freedom fighters or terrorists. Killing is wrong and so are you and the guy you are white knighting for. IMHO opinion war is a very bad thing. I don’t give two stuffs what you think or what you believe. Measured by deaths alone, war is not the solution. The sooner that ignorant fuckwits like you and Manny get the message the better.

Thanks for the red repo manny. I guess that backs up your polite approach to the issue, and defines your lack of debating skills.

Originally Posted by Switch

Wrong person debating the wrong issue uninvited, and on someone else’s behalf. Killing people never resolves conflict and it makes no difference if you think they are freedom fighters or terrorists. Killing is wrong and so are you and the guy you are white knighting for. IMHO opinion war is a very bad thing. I don’t give two stuffs what you think or what you believe. Measured by deaths alone, war is not the solution. The sooner that ignorant fuckwits like you and Manny get the message the better.

Thanks for the red repo manny. I guess that backs up your polite approach to the issue, and defines your lack of debating skills.

You are completely irrational.
Just remember, it's your opinion, not a natural law or written in stone. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a fuckwit, but reading what isn't there and conflating things in your mind that were not said does make you an irrational and somewhat unbalanced person.
BTW....someone making a comment that also disagrees with your opinion is not white knighting for me. He's simply also disagreeing with you...and he did so politely yet got the "fuckwit comment. Please refrain from ever trying to claim you treat people like adults.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

You are completely irrational.
Just remember, it's your opinion, not a natural law or written in stone. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a fuckwit, but reading what isn't there and conflating things in your mind that were not said does make you an irrational and somewhat unbalanced person.
BTW....someone making a comment that also disagrees with your opinion is not white knighting for me. He's simply also disagreeing with you...and he did so politely yet got the "fuckwit comment. Please refrain from ever trying to claim you treat people like adults.

As a sponsor terrorism and murder, you are really in no position to ask me to refrain from anything.

Is it irrational to support the murder of civilians for any reason or cause. Get a moral compass and I think you will discover that killing your fellow humans is readily accepted as bad practice.

Can you name a country in the world that does not have killing on its statute book? That’s as close to set in stone as you can get. How can you possibly condone it? Fuckwit.

Originally Posted by Switch

Wrong person debating the wrong issue uninvited, and on someone else’s behalf. Killing people never resolves conflict and it makes no difference if you think they are freedom fighters or terrorists. Killing is wrong and so are you and the guy you are white knighting for. IMHO opinion war is a very bad thing. I don’t give two stuffs what you think or what you believe. Measured by deaths alone, war is not the solution. The sooner that ignorant fuckwits like you and Manny get the message the better.

Thanks for the red repo manny. I guess that backs up your polite approach to the issue, and defines your lack of debating skills.

Right - pleasant response to my polite comment, even though Harry already ridiculed your ludricous claim earlier.

Manny's correct, it is not possible to have a polite exchange with ignorant, grumpy bigots like yourself.

Some will always see the traditional and invented boogieman.
Hardwired in this fashion.

Papua Rebel Attack Raises Questions about Indonesia’s Infrastructure Push

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s government has often argued that far eastern Papua province was long neglected, while officials pushed for a massive infrastructure strategy to connect the jungle-covered region as a way to winning the hearts and minds of locals.


Now, that thinking is being questioned after separatist rebels attacked workers who were building roads and bridges in Nduga regency as part of the Trans-Papua Highway project, killing at least 20 people, including a soldier on Dec. 2.


The killings, whose details remain sketchy, represented the single most-serious attack by the separatist rebels in many years.


“I don’t think Jokowi asked the West Papuans what they wanted, which was a mistake,” said Damien Kingsbury, a professor at Australia’s Deakin University who specializes in politics and security in Southeast Asia.


“Had he done so, they would probably have answered they do not want their environment destroyed by new roads and bridges, or the influx of outsiders that implies,” he told BenarNews.


Jokowi’s approach to Papua had failed after the government reneged on its promise to open up Papua to outsiders, including to foreign journalists, according to Kingsbury.


The Trans-Papua Highway stretches more than 4,300 km (2,687 miles) from Sorong, the largest city in West Papua province, to Merauke regency, and is scheduled to be completed in 2019, a presidential election year. It is part of the Jokowi administration’s drive to improve infrastructure in the Papua region, where road networks are limited.


In response to the killings, authorities have sent more about 300 police and soldiers to Nduga to hunt the suspects.

A defiant Jokowi has vowed to go ahead with the infrastructure projects in Papua despite the setback.


“We will never be afraid. This (attack) has only strengthened our resolve to carry on with our great task of developing the land of Papua,” he told reporters at the State Palace in Jakarta on Wednesday. “There’s no place for armed criminal groups in Papua and throughout the country.”


Papua is one of the archipelago’s poorest regions despite its rich natural resources. The area where the violence took place was at about 1,500 meters (about 5,000 feet) above sea level.


Jokowi has visited Papua at least eight times since taking office in 2014, a sign that he is paying close attention to the country’s easternmost region.


He has repeatedly emphasized that lower transportation costs due to better infrastructure will make things more affordable in Papua, which makes up the western half of the island of New Guinea.


“While his attention has been appreciated, Jokowi has also been accused of having a poor attitude to human rights abuses and state violence in the region,” Arie Ruhyanto, a doctoral researcher at the University of Birmingham, said in a piece published on Conversation.com on Wednesday.


“Jokowi has also focused on developing security, deploying thousands of additional soldiers to the region,” he said. “Although aimed at strengthening national defence, there are ongoing concerns about human rights abuses in the region.”



Rebels reject infrastructure projects


In a phone interview with BenarNews on Wednesday, Sebby Sanbom, a spokesman for the West Papuan National Liberation Army (TPNPB), the military wing of the Free Papua Movement, made it clear that the separatist group rejected the government’s infrastructure projects.


“This attack is a message to the colonial government of Indonesia that we are fighting for the freedom of the West Papua Republic. We are not asking for the Trans-Papua roads or other development,” Sebby said.


Sebby has said that those killed during what he described as an “exchange of fire” were not civilian workers, but soldiers from the army’s engineering detachment.

He said the group that carried out the attack was led by Egianus Kogoya, the local leader of TPNPB.


On Thursday, Sebby told the Jawa Pos news website that the insurgent group had 29 regional commands and 2,500 personnel.


He described the separatist army as “world class.”


“They (the Indonesian military) may have more personnel, but nature is with us. Forests and valleys are with us and we will not surrender,” Sebby told Jawa Pos.


In a phone interview with the Associated Press on Friday, Sebby demanded that the government hold negotiations on self-determination, and he warned of more conflicts.


“Trans-Papua road projects are being carried out by Indonesian military and that is a risk they must bear,” Sebby said. “We want them to know that we don’t need development, what we want is independence.”



Guerrillas from the West Papuan National Liberation Army (TPNPB), the military wing of the Free Papua Movement, stand in formation in Indonesia’s Papua province, in this photo provided by the group’s spokesman, Sebby Sembom, January 2018.




A self-motivated faction

Kingsbury, the Australian university professor, said attacks such as the one on Dec. 2 were easy to pull off.
“It’s not hard for the rebels to obtain weapons, with even members of the security forces contributing to the black market in their sale.”


“An attack such as this takes minimal planning,” he said.


Kingsbury said the group responsible for the attack appeared to be a self-motivated faction that supported the TPNPB but was not under its direction or control.


Meanwhile, there are fears that the security forces could respond disproportionately to the killings, which could lead to more human rights abuses, analysts said.


“Any security and law-enforcement operation must be conducted proportionally and must not lead to casualties among civilians,” said Al Araf, executive director of Imparsial, a Jakarta-based human rights watchdog.


Al Araf said focusing on the economy while neglecting other issues was a mistaken approach.


“The economic gap is not the only factor, there are also the historical aspects, human rights violations that have never been resolved and the marginalization of the Papuans,” he told BenarNews.


“Development is important, but the government needs to adopt an approach that is more inclusive and give Papuans a leading role to find solutions,” Al Araf said.


The killings occurred after police arrested more than 500 activists in rallies across Indonesia on Dec. 1, the date regarded by most Papuans as their independence day from the Dutch.


Papua declared its independence from rule by the Netherlands on Dec. 1, 1961, but it was rejected by the Dutch and later by Indonesia.


In 1963, Indonesian forces invaded the region and annexed it following a contentious referendum in 1969. During the plebiscite, according to rights groups, security forces selected only more than a thousand people to agree to the region’s formal absorption into the archipelagic nation.


Public Works Minister Basuki Hadimuljono defended the construction work on the Trans-Papua highway, saying ordinary Papuans supported it.


“The project has been communicated well to the local people,” he said. “Residents supported it and even told us that they would guarantee the security.”


https://www.benarnews.org/english/ne...018162741.html

Originally Posted by stroller

Right - pleasant response to my polite comment, even though Harry already ridiculed your ludricous claim earlier.

Manny's correct, it is not possible to have a polite exchange with ignorant, grumpy bigots like yourself.

In that case, you can fuck off with impunity, in the certain knowledge that your opinions are unwanted and invalid, a bit like your life really.

Originally Posted by misskit

Guerrillas from the West Papuan National Liberation Army (TPNPB), the military wing of the Free Papua Movement, stand in formation in Indonesia’s Papua province

...Papuans look scary even without their weapons...

Originally Posted by Switch

As a sponsor terrorism and murder, you are really in no position to ask me to refrain from anything.

Is it irrational to support the murder of civilians for any reason or cause. Get a moral compass and I think you will discover that killing your fellow humans is readily accepted as bad practice.

Can you name a country in the world that does not have killing on its statute book? That’s as close to set in stone as you can get. How can you possibly condone it? Fuckwit.

Perfect case in point. Now, read the following slowly and carefully. Try to read the words and ignore the odd thoughts popping into your head about what you think you're reading. Look at the words, digest their meaning, comprehend what they mean in a sentence. Read all the words of a sentence (miss some out and you're bound to misunderstand the author's intent). Then, before you respond, ask yourself, "Is this a rational and logical response to those words?"

"As a sponsor terrorism and murder, you are really in no position to ask me to refrain from anything." Here we have a good example of 1) Your weird leaps of interpretation of words. I said they are "freedom fighters, not terrorists". You read "I sponsor terrorism and murder"! 2) The rationale you use to judge when somone is in a position to ask you to refrain from anything is, well, lacking in rationale.



"Is it irrational to support the murder of civilians for any reason or cause." 1) Odd question and one that has ambiguity and an absolute. It depends on what the rationale is. Are you asking if the support has reason or cause, or asking if murder, which has has no reason or cause, is irrational? Either way, it depends on what the rationale is. And also either way, you're trying to impute that I support the murder of civilians, which is something that I have not indicated at all.

"Get a moral compass". I have already reminded you that morals are not natural laws and thus will differ in interpratation and execution from person to person. There is no universal set of morals and as such, morals are only opinions. You might be more accurate to suggest that True North on my moral compass is different to TN on yours. But that's by the by. You're continuing to infer that I support murder, which is not true nor have I implied that I do.

"Can you name a country in the world that does not have killing on its statute book? That’s as close to set in stone as you can get.". No I can't. So what? What's the price of fish at the moment? I fail to see what various countries' statute books have to do with your morals or mine. Reminder: morals are merely opinions.

"How can you possibly condone it? " Once again, how does contradicting your view that the killers are terrorists by me saying they are freedom fighters mean that I condone murder? If you think about it, if you're capable, you're inferring that killings by freedom fighters is moral.

"Fuckwit". Again, the irony is strong here, as is the rudeness, which I can only think comes from someone who is flailing helplessly and so lashes out ad hominem.

Originally Posted by misskit

while officials pushed for a massive infrastructure strategy to connect the jungle-covered region as a way to winning the hearts and minds of locals.

Winning the mineral resources of the region would be the real reason for infrastructure.

Originally Posted by misskit

In 1963, Indonesian forces invaded the region and annexed it

Hey Switch, what do you call a man whose lands were stolen and who finds the "laws" of the invader don't work in has favour at all, on the contrary, the laws of the invader are designed to oppress and rob from the natural occupiers of the land? A terrorist or a freedom fighter?
On a slight tangent, the hostile natives of North Sentinel Island killed a missionary who landed without their invitation 2 weeks ago. They're terrorists and criminals in your book, I suppose, and they have no moral compass?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Perfect case in point. Now, read the following slowly and carefully. Try to read the words and ignore the odd thoughts popping into your head about what you think you're reading. Look at the words, digest their meaning, comprehend what they mean in a sentence. Read all the words of a sentence (miss some out and you're bound to misunderstand the author's intent). Then, before you respond, ask yourself, "Is this a rational and logical response to those words?"

"As a sponsor terrorism and murder, you are really in no position to ask me to refrain from anything." Here we have a good example of 1) Your weird leaps of interpretation of words. I said they are "freedom fighters, not terrorists". You read "I sponsor terrorism and murder"! 2) The rationale you use to judge when somone is in a position to ask you to refrain from anything is, well, lacking in rationale.



"Is it irrational to support the murder of civilians for any reason or cause." 1) Odd question and one that has ambiguity and an absolute. It depends on what the rationale is. Are you asking if the support has reason or cause, or asking if murder, which has has no reason or cause, is irrational? Either way, it depends on what the rationale is. And also either way, you're trying to impute that I support the murder of civilians, which is something that I have not indicated at all.

"Get a moral compass". I have already reminded you that morals are not natural laws and thus will differ in interpratation and execution from person to person. There is no universal set of morals and as such, morals are only opinions. You might be more accurate to suggest that True North on my moral compass is different to TN on yours. But that's by the by. You're continuing to infer that I support murder, which is not true nor have I implied that I do.

"Can you name a country in the world that does not have killing on its statute book? That’s as close to set in stone as you can get.". No I can't. So what? What's the price of fish at the moment? I fail to see what various countries' statute books have to do with your morals or mine. Reminder: morals are merely opinions.

"How can you possibly condone it? " Once again, how does contradicting your view that the killers are terrorists by me saying they are freedom fighters mean that I condone murder? If you think about it, if you're capable, you're inferring that killings by freedom fighters is moral.

"Fuckwit". Again, the irony is strong here, as is the rudeness, which I can only think comes from someone who is flailing helplessly and so lashes out ad hominem.

Don’t patronise me boy. You’re wriggling again. Your meaning originally was quite clear. You do support the deaths of construction workers in Indonesian PNG. Call it any name you want, slaughter, killing, termination , eradication. It all amounts to the same thing, murder. Unauthorized removal of life in a terrorist act. Calling them freedom fighters or giving them any label, does not change the fact that people died going about their business.

Now we come to opinions. In the opinion of civilization as a whole, killing is illegal. That’s why the worlds justice systems punish killers. The fact that we have different opinions on what the perpetrators may be called is largely irrelevant, because the justice system uses a moral compass to determine the name and punishment for the unauthorized termination of another’s life. Justice is generally dispensed following a commonly accepted moral code for human behavior. As you can see, in both cases, killing is wrong

Your twisted juxtaposition of me inferring that “killing by freedom fighters is mora” just beggars belief.. No sane person following these exchanges could possibly e Th arrive at such a ludicrous conclusion. Ergo, you are insane.
Ed
Your obvious insanity and persistent wriggling over minutiae marks you as something far worse than fuckwit. That is not rude, it’s actually quite tame considering the epithets that your online persona might reasonably attract, based on your insane ramblings.
In future don’t moan about the darkness, light a candle. If that is too subtle for a fuckwit like you to understand, try seeking greater clarity in your written opinions. It might stop you bumping into things in the dark.
You May leave now.

Whew!
Pointless to respond to the multiple examples of irrationality and fantasy. Other than....

No, I shouldn't laugh. I actually feel a bit sorry for you.

Originally Posted by Switch

Your obvious insanity and persistent wriggling over minutiae marks you as something far worse than fuckwit.

...I believe the next step down is FaRTwit...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...I believe the next step down is FaRTwit...

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Whew!
Pointless to respond to the multiple examples of irrationality and fantasy. Other than....

No, I shouldn't laugh. I actually feel a bit sorry for you.

You e been told once already. Your patronizing dismissals are unwarranted and irrelevant. You are still a fuckwit, living in another realm to everyone else.
You clearly have no rational debate to the points I have given you,
so you think that a self declared win is the answer.
Wrong again.
The laughing smiley? Really, you have such disdain for human life that you find it amusing. Don’t feel sorry for me. Feel ashamed of yourself for supporting the termination of life on a whim.
Fuckwit.

I very rarely respond to these types of discussion as each protagonist in the "discussion" clearly has their own views and it would be very difficult to sway them to "light a candle" and see the light.

As a person who spent more than 6 years living and working in Papua I have seen the situation first hand.

I would like to point out one serious mistake some people make and that is Papua is NOT PNG. PNG is Papua New Guinea which is an independent country to Indonesia. Papua is a province of Indonesia.

As surprising as it seems in this case I tend to agree with Maanaam.
I would ask if anyone thinks the Resistance fighters in France during WW2 were terrorists?

Originally Posted by ootai

I very rarely respond to these types of discussion as each protagonist in the "discussion" clearly has their own views and it would be very difficult to sway them to "light a candle" and see the light.

As a person who spent more than 6 years living and working in Papua I have seen the situation first hand.

I would like to point out one serious mistake some people make and that is Papua is NOT PNG. PNG is Papua New Guinea which is an independent country to Indonesia. Papua is a province of Indonesia.

As surprising as it seems in this case I tend to agree with Maanaam.
I would ask if anyone thinks the Resistance fighters in France during WW2 were terrorists?

Thank you for the correction re PNG.

My point is that calling a group freedom fighters or resistance fighters is irrelevant. That label does not cede moral or judicial imperatives.

In the case of France in WWII, war had been declared and the territorial rights of the French was not in dispute. A rather disingenuous comparison.