Talk:2002 Bali bombings

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

incorporate upper talk section into TOC[edit]

Days before the bombing a group of european party professionals (DJ's etcetera) were subject of a reroute, get the hell out of here and do your stuff in the next town. This was arranged by local producers which bring them out of town to another resort!!! Weeks later back in Europe these people did not want to make an official statement at all. They were really very afraid. As a journalist, i could not force them to confirm their own story because of their right to silence. I asked them for a press release but they would not confirm it by mouth. This page is maybe the place to confirm that DAYS before the bombing certain "friendly" guests of the bar-business were politely FORCED to move (and that there was an arrangement to do that by local producers of the trip, informed by the bombers upforhand...) I don't know of this piece of the cake was involved in the judgement. If so let me know!!!!! On this page please.

The official death toll is put at 2002. However, it has been suggested the number is foreign nationals only. Can anyone advise the total body count, including Indonesians?

Apparently that nutball "cleric" also blamed "the Jews" for the bombing on an interview on Radio Australia's Indonesian service, but I can't find a transcript of that interview. Can anybody else confirm that he said this? --Robert Merkel

I know that neutrality isn't required in the talk pages, but calling him a "nutball" only causes one to question the neutrality of anything you post to the article page, even if you couch it in neutral language.

The person who complained about the use of "nutball" in a talk page was an unregistered person who also vadalised a number of pages. Andjam 03:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should bring this thing up to date.

  • There has been a great many developments in the case, including arrests.
  • The economy of Bali has changed greatly, and this in turn implies changes in the relationship betwee Indonesia and Bali.
  • It has had a significant effect on Indonesial political life.
  • It has had a significant effect on the political climate in Australia.

I confess to a marked lack of interest and have ignored the event and its aftermath almost as carefully as I have ignored the WTC attacks, so I can't add to it with any authority but surely someone around here has the knowledge and interest to do something about this article? It needs work. Tannin 11:23 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

I must confess to a certain inactivity over this story myself. Odd really. I guess that it did not have the same impact as Sep 11 did - and certainly October 12 was not as bad in terms of casualties.
Actually, in terms of % of population killed, it was worse than 911. Tannin
In terms of Indonesia's population or that of Bali? And how would that compare with that of Sep 11, where the victime came from numerous places, including Boston - outside New York state?
Australia's population. Most of the victims were Australians. A higher proportion of Australians died in Bali than the proportion of Americans that died on 911. Smaller total, of course, but from a smaller population. i.e., Australians were more likely to be or personally know a Bali victim than Americans were likely to be or personally know a 911 victim. Of course, it wasn't reported nearly as much as 911: for a number of reasons: smaller total body count, less saturation from the US-owned & controlled media, and (most of all, IMO), lack of graphic video footage. Plus, I think people were getting a little over-saturated with death and disaster stories by then. Tannin
What? When i worked it out, Sep 11 killed ~.0015% of USA's total population while the Bali bombings killed ~.00044% of Australia's population.
You are right with these numbers ROxBo 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It compares in that some nutballs like to say WTC Towers were demolished by couple of aneutronic hydrogen bombs, and that in Bali, they also used an atomic bomb.

I've added some stuff on the legal aftermath. It's a little scant on details, but most of it is there. It focusses more on the legal side of things than many of the news articles at the time which dismissed the very important Constitutional Court case as a 'technicality'. Psychobabble

Still I must agree that this could be fleshed out a bit more. Arno
I think a few more sentences on acts of heroism would be great - some people did some truly great things. Unfortunately I don't have details ROxBo 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you all right now that when examining the death toll proportional to the population, Australia didn't come anywhere near the proportion of Americans killed on September 11. Australia: 20 million (in 2002), 88 deaths. I'm not an American so don't quote me on this: 300 million?, 3000 deaths?. On another note, proportion doesn't matter. Both nations suffered horribly in their own way on those tragic days.--Just James 22:26, 9 October 2006 (GMT+10:00)

This page needs to be standardized, and needs an appropriate title. --Minesweeper 07:24 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

A week after the blast some DJ's and party-flockers came back to Europe and told ME that they were evacuated two days before the attack. Their schedule was rearranged to another city to prevent that tehy would be a victim. So I asked this person if I could make a press release about his witness. He said no. Now I say yes, here it is.

There is one major problem that I've missed until now - the date should be October 12!!! Arno

It's OK, I've moved this myself to a page with a better title. Arno 07:43 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

"Driving the dead and injured out into the street ..."

That doesn't quite sound correct to me. - erzengel 15 Apr 2003 1404 UTC

It's now a complete sentence. Tuf-Kat

The Age in April claims 89 Australians died. The BBC in February says the final count is 202 dead including 88 Australians. Did the final count get changed? Rmhermen 15:44 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

The latest The Age[1] quotes 88 Australians, so I'll change that back in the next edit (I'm gathering material in an attempt to address Tannin's points above). Strangely enough, Amrozi has been charged for causing 192 deaths instead of 202.[2] Erzengel 11:13 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

A BBC article claims that nationals from 21 countries were killed --we list 15. Does anyone have a casualty list we can draw from. Rmhermen 15:54 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Page name[edit]

Besides POV issues 'Bali terrorist bombing' appears to be a minority usage. 'Bali bombing' is much more common, so I suggest this article should be moved to 2002 Bali bombing. Any other ideas? --mav 04:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bali bomb is a similar article Melaen 12:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Timing[edit]

Does anyone else besides me wonder if it's not just coincidence that the bombing happened 1 year, 1 month and 1 day after 9/11? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 3 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)

Not a coincidence. The Madrid train bombings took place 911 days after 9/11. Kransky 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Blast[edit]

Why was the photo of the blast removed? this one here http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/bali03_small.jpg Smoth 007

crater digging conventional explosives[edit]

I don't know whats funnier, that:

  • Mythbusters SE2 EP18 detonated 850 lbs of "commercial blasting agent" and didn't leave a scratch

or

  • That as a pre-test for the Trinity test, the US detonated 100 US tons (approx 100 times the suspected bali bomb) of Composition B , a pile the size of a house, and dug a crater only 1.5 times as deep.[3]

Food for thought anyway. --Uncle Bungle 23:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If non-conventional explosives were used, how come so few buildings were destroyed?
What would they have used? A nuclear fission bomb would have given off radiation, and there's no evidence of that.
"Funnier" is a poor choice of word. Andjam 09:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what they would have used, but its wasn't a truck full of ANFO. --24.150.216.251 00:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    • reformat if necessary - absolutely not an ANFO bomb. I was there - saw the devastation - the effect on bodies, buildings and stripped rebar. Again in the early hours I wathched police, and later on in the morning FBI. probing the water filled crater. It easily went down 2 meters. NOT an ANFO bomb.**


Death total[edit]

The total dead in the table adds up to 206, but the "total" given is 202. I don't know what to do about it, but I may as well point it out. Andjam 02:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The total number of Australians killed was 88 - at least that was the number that most people refer to and the number that Jason McCartney wore on his shirt when he played his first game since the bombing (and his final game for that matter). This might clear up part of the discrepency in the numbers. kju 14:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC) The total also has some discrepancies as south Korea is mentioned twice ?? --BAnanasdoom (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 US citizens are not listed, It seems they are mistaken for Chinese? The link/source does not list any Chinese victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.42.56 (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Nuke[edit]

There is a widely held conspiracy theory that the weapon used in the 2002 Bali Bombing was a mini nuclear device.

The general theory is that the confined space of the sewage system underneath the bar, where the device was placed, would not have been large enough to accommodate the necessary amount of conventional explosive required to produce the blast. Ergo the explosive must have been unconventional and possibly nuclear.

As with most conspiracy theories, that comment is not based on fact. The first smaller bomb detonated in Paddies Bar was carried in a back pack by a suicide bomber. Witnesses saw this. The second much larger bomb was carried in a van parked outside the Sari in the narrow Jalan Legian (street). Anyone with even the slightest knowledge knows this and there are countless witnesses and forensic evidence. --Merbabu 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Is a discussion on the nature of the device worthy of inclusion in the article?--Fergie 11:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that personally I think that this is a load of bollocks--Fergie 11:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fergie, whenever a terrorist attack takes place, in most countries a military unit which specializes in nuclear/biological and chemical weapons is sent out to the site to check for any sign of contamination. I'm not sure if Indonesia carries out this check but all I can say is that the FBI and AFP where on the scene 24 hours later and if there any traces of radioactivity, Kuta would have been evacuated - that did not accure. A mini nuke would have wiped ut the entire strip leaving no survivors. It has been proven that the people behind this used a home made bomb based on semtex but they failed to detonate it correcty - only 30% of the explosived denotated, the rest just burned off like a bucket of petrol. The guy that made the bomb was Azahari Husin. --Smoth_007

I found one of sites long ago, and whent here to see something about it, but to my surprice, i found nothing. I added a minimal amount of text to the bottom of the article regarding this. --Striver 11:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, i don't want to offend anyone, but i moved the nuke section to accompany Abu Bakar's mention of a US plot. it does not deserve a whole full section of its own. Actually, personally i would rather see the whole nuke thing removed. Cheers.--Merbabu 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, i have no problem with that, only as long as its somewhere. Why delete it? Somebody just did, i dont get why there is a need to delete this specific "conspiracy theory". --Striver 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, i think they are garbage, but i realise that others may feel differently. I didn't delete cos i didn't want to offend. I think we both agree though that they don't need much too much attention though. Cheers. --Merbabu 11:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have conpiracy theories for everything else, and they are more or less the same in nature, i feel i did'nt get a answer on why this particular one should be deleted. --Striver 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean. The article makes mention of these conspiracy theories. They are not even conspiracy theories in the convetional manner, they are simply the claims of those known and self-identified Islamists trying to divert attention from their deeds - they are hardly credible sources. It's a wonder no-one has actually removed it. Have you read the articles? They use very flimsy evidence, some that is completely laughable. I know the sites well, have been to the clubs (pre-2002), spoken to a number of witnesses and am familiar with the expert-written reports. I don't need the garbage of half-wits that this article refers to. Is that the answer you want? --Merbabu 09:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting. I was surprised to hear on Foreign Correspondent that ABB apparently believes the conspiracy theories. I thought he'd know better than virtually anyone else who did the bombings. Andjam 13:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be charitable and assume the above comment is intended to be ironic, rather than incredibly stupid as one would otherwise have to conclude. Adam 13:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn - This theory is not worthy of mention. It never was a credible explanation, and has since proved to be rubbish. That it is mentioned on a handful of (*ahem*) underground websites does not lend it any more weight. Removing section. Beeromatic 14:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All nuclear weapons emit lethal neutrons. These are usually absorbed by air before they get to anyone who could survive the blast. A mini nuke would have the same effect as a neutron bomb in that you would have a lot of people in range of the emitted neutrons who survived the blast, and so you would get noticeable numbers of people dying of radiation sickness after the event. This did not happen, therefore there was no mini nuke. 86.129.153.8 17:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this theory is total crap. If a nuclear weapon is detonated at ground or below ground level there would have been huge amounts of radiation, making the ground unlivable. Air burst nuclear weapons, such as those used in the attacks on Japan, for some reason do not have this same effect. However, even with airburst detonations, radiation is still a very serious risk, almost half of the deaths related to the Nagasaki or Hiroshima occured well after the blasts (cancer related illnesses, birth defects etc). As stated above, there has been no increase radiation related illnesses from survivors or from those living in the area. --Theinnerexits 06:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Addition: Theory holds water when you have an understanding of what was actually used: Dimona is a small city, approximately 35 kilometers west of the Dead Sea in the Negev Desert in the southern region of Israel. Construction commenced in 1953 and it was first settled two years later. After a secret deal signed by Israel and the French government in 1956, a nearby location approximately 13 kilometers south east of Dimona became the site for the Negev Desert Nuclear Research Centre. A massive installation built by over 1500 Israeli and French workers that went "on-line" 8 years later, in 1964, included a fourteen square mile underground complex. Dimona became birthplace of the “mini-nuke”. A thing of concern is that Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to date has refused to allow IAEA inspectors to visit Dimona.

Conventional nuclear weapons are “dirty”, leaving behind radioactive trace for many years to come and could never be deployed in secret.  Back then these were still large and cumbersome objects, however after some years of research and development they were able to not only shrink the size of these weapons, but also clean them up so that if deployed, one did not leave the usual telltale signs. The thing here is that this is not a recent development, with the first of these stealth nukes being tested as early as 1981.

This new type of nuclear weapon had now completely eliminated the “dirty” Uranium 238 reflector and by refining the cores Plutonium 239 to nearly 99.8% they had effectively rendered this weapon virtually undetectable to a standard Geiger counter as Plutonium 239 only emits alpha radiation, a fact that can be confirmed by US’s EPA. A Bali Bombing survivor.(23 May 2021)

needs a cleanup[edit]

The 2005 Bali Bombings article, which covered a similar although much less severe attack, is much better and informative.

Yes, it is very good in comparison. I'd like to clean it up but have too many other wiki priorities at the moment. By the way, don't forget to sign your comment. It's the button above this text box with the squiggly signature label (3rd button from the right for me). Press once and you get this: --Merbabu 11:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted two misspelt paragraphs under 'suspects' that said it was a conspiracy to get Australia involved in the War on Terror. Is it not a stylistic standard that we give prominence to the result of a judicial investigation and the self-incriminating boasts of the perpetrators, before adding on any extra conspiracy theories as a footnote?

Major differences between this and a recent documentary[edit]

Reading over this article I noted several major differences in comparison with a recent show I watched on it, which seemed to be very in-depth. Some differences include:

1) there were three bombs, but for some reason this is not mentioned in this article until after the other two, which exploded later. 2) the "first" bomb mentioned here was a vest, not a backpack. 3) the third bomb was detonated by an operator in the van, not by "remote control".

I'm not saying the show was "correct", but it did seem to have been well researched, and other shows in the series I have watched seem to be equally high quality. Should I jump in?

Maury 12:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Meiring[edit]

I did not see a Wikipedia entry for Michael Meiring, and was wondering if this article should include a mention of him, or if he should perhaps have a separate entry. I wouldn't know how to go about creating one, though.

Copyright issues?[edit]

There seem to be some similarities between this article and this AFP page, for example:

"a bomb hidden in a backpack ripped through Paddy's Bar. The device ... killed the backpack owner, likely a suicide operative ... a second much more powerful car bomb of close to 1,000 kg, concealed in a white Mitsubishi van was detonated by remote control in front of the Sari Club. Windows throughout the town were blown out. The explosion left a one meter deep crater"

(both articles use the American English spelling "meter") and

"a third bomb detonated in the street in front of the American consulate in Bali. This bomb caused a slight injury to one person, and only modest damage. It was packed with excrement for maximum moral damage."

seem to be very similar in both pages. There may be other examples as well.

What should be done? Andjam 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the quotes you posted there i see no similarlities. Could you clarify your point, please? In the mean time, I suggest nothing "should be done". --Merbabu 16:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've bolded the bits that are the same, character for character, with the AFP page. Andjam 02:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol - I thought you were trying to compare the two passages above - thus i thought you were nuts. But now i see. hmmm, i know there are some wikinazi's who want to freeze an article until it is resolved. I'd suggest re-writing the offending sections. Some of the factual stuff can be found anywhere and is common knowledge to people familiar with the event, particularly those with first-hand knowledge (including myself). THis stuff i suggest doesn't need to be referenced to this article. Others, such as the reference to excrement i never heard except here, thus i do suggest a specific reference to the AFP page. --Merbabu 02:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I think i may have removed most (all?) of the offending sections. OK, i admit parts i paraphrased but i think this is more than appropriate as the same information is widely avaible from other sources - perhaps the final step is to include references to these other items. --Merbabu 04:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

Merbabu, per [[4]] the introduction is lacking. It provides little of an overview beyond the date, location, and casualty count. IMO it should include perpetrators or suspects, details of the bombing, aftermath & outcome. I will restore much of this that you removed. It wasn't a cut/paste job as you suggest in your edit summary - I tried to make the text relevant to the introduction. Kaisershatner 13:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, i do agree that the Lead should be longer - it is now thanks to your efforts - but I am not sure that it doesn't go into too much detail, ie naming individual perpetrators, which is all repeated, anyway later. I will have a look and see what can be done, as you suggest in line with WP:LEAD --Merbabu 01:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Bakar Bashir[edit]

This article narrates as if Bashir is a terrorist and responsible for the attack. In fact, he have been tried is found not guilty for any involvement in bali bombing and he was only imprisoned for immigration violation(actually most immigration violators are not charged in Indonesia, but they charged bashir to entertain USA and Australia). I tried to bring this but someone reverted. Why? --Nielswik 07:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Nielswik's edit where he changed the text to say that he was "was accused guilty of conspiracy and, by strong Australian pressure, was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment". My idea of a NPOV article doesn't include "accused guilty". Andjam 07:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's true. Your government intervened court in Indonesia, and ask Baashir to be imprisoned. However, he was found not guilty of any involvement in this bombing, and to entertain Australia, he was imprisoned for immigration violation (that's why the prison term is only some years) Nielswik 08:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations please? Andjam 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bashir was NOT in jail at the time of the 2002 bombings. You are presumably getting confused with bombings in 2003, 2004, & 2005 during which he was in jail. If you really believe that why did you leave the previous sentence saying he held a press conference the same day? --Merbabu 09:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you replying to? Andjam 10:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a guess. ;) Use my edits as a hint. --Merbabu 04:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A court ruled that Bashir was not proven to be the leader of Jemaah Islamiah[5], is this what you mean? He was not charged with terrorism, but as the judge said, of "a sinister conspiracy against the state".[6]. If I recall, this was because Indonesia's terrorism laws could not be retroactively applied, so he was charged under existing laws. A number of the primary charges against him were struck out, that is true. Speaking of "conspiracy", the allegation that the Australian government was involved in pressuring the court or Indonesian government is totally unverifiable, and frankly contemptuous of the Indonesian justice system. If Australia has such influence over Indonesian justice, why was Bashir released early, despite Australian government misgivings? --Canley 04:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I am no Bashir fan and agree that the earlier rantings about "interference" and "pressure" are imagined and ultimately undermine the ranter's point, but from memory, the convition charge was something like not telling someone not to carry out the attack when he heard about it - the evidence was to this charge was was someone who had heard another talk about it. Pretty flimsy stuff. There was simply no reliable evidence to pin leadership of JI and detailed involvement with the plot on Bashir (even though we all kinda "know" he did - a**hole that he is). I've always found accusations of the West "interfering" in Indonesian affairs to be silly - sure, they comment, as is their right - but it is only interference if it is FORCED change to the situation (ie, never) or the interference is ALLOWED by the Indonesians. Reinforcing the stupidity of these arguements, is that these same people usually point out that Indonesia is a sovereign state and they are quite correct. Thus, it is Indonesia calling the shots as an sovereign state - it is not like Australia (or whoever) is FORCING a change. --Merbabu 04:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to Canley: No, he was never found guilty of conspiracy, he was only jailed because of immigration violation. The reference that you gave cannot be trusted, as it is from Australia and australia is not neutral in this case. Indonesian law commonly cannot be retroactively applied, but terrorism law can. Imam Samudra, Amrozi and other Bali Bombing suspects were sentenced to death by the terrorism law. Baashir isn't sentenced to death because no one can prove him guilty, not even Australian police that 'helped' indonesian investigators. To entertain Australian pressure, the court charged and jailed baashir with immigration violation. --Nielswik(talk) 10:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect - the records show it. Yes, there were immigration convictions but there were. YEs, other charges of planning involvement found no conviction but he was convicted of conspiracy for giving his blessing. In his second trial, judges said that while he had not been involved in the Bali attacks, he had given his approval. He was sentenced to 30 months in jail for being part of an "evil conspiracy". [7] I like this one though, ABB on Osama bin Ladin: ABB: Osama believes in total war. This concept I don't agree with. If this occurs in an Islamic country, the fitnah [discord] will be felt by Muslims. But to attack them in their country [America] is fine. [[8]]
For the benefit of these articles, at least get the facts right, even if NPOV proves more elusive. (remember you said only a few days ago that Bashir was in prison during the 2002 Bali Bombing). --Merbabu 10:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, bashir was not in jail during 2002 bali bombing. i was wrong, he was in jail during JW Marriot bombing --another terror attack that Australian government blame on him. He was in his Islamic school in Solo during the 2002 bombing. Now let we compare your BBC text (which is from Britain, USA and Australian close ally) with our wikipedia article: wikipedia : Members of Jemaah Islamiyah, an Islamist group allegedly led by radical cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, were suspected of carrying out the attack, BBC : the courts acquitted Ba'asyir of being JI's spiritual leader, after judges said there was not enough proof.
You said Bashir gave blessing for this attack. At the same time you gave citation where Bashir doesnt agree with attack on Islamic country. Which one is true? Abu Bakar Bashir also doesn't agree with attack on American civilian. It is quite funny when you linked this with a film review or whatever it is. --Nielswik(talk) 14:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nielswik, please show some common sense. Bashir was convicted of conspiracy but yes, he denied it. Bashir is not the first person to deny a crime he was convicted of. Should a court believe every defendant? As for the specific JI charge that failed, that has never been disputed here (see Canley's first post), so why bring it up? By the way, i posted the link to another article accidently. [9] - he suggest attacking AMerica. You can't just ignore any article that comes out of the US, UK or Australia, but here is one from Al Jazeera if that is more to your liking - still paints a picture of a man with ugly thoughts. And the interviewer didn't ask him whether he supported terrorism.[10]. --Merbabu 15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you guys in Australia may think that he is obviously a terrorist, but he isn't. Probably your government and media fed you up with news that he is a terrorist and his release means a terrible disaster. He is a normal Islamic teacher, and he never teaches terrorism. Australian and USA police and intelligence agents gives indonesian court whatever they can make up, yet the court still decide that he is not the JI leader. But our wikipedia article seems not to agree with the court. The Al-Jazeera interview with Bashir doesnt give any hint that he support terrorism. Yet it does tell that the court was greatly intervened by USA and Australia
Let us see his comment on osama more carefully. here it is I don't agree with all of his actions. Osama believes in total war. This concept I don't agree with. If this occurs in an Islamic country, the fitnah [discord] will be felt by Muslims. But to attack them in their country [America] is fine. [11] right? He stated that he doesnt agree with Osama's total war (killing civilians thing). I guess what he meant by "attacking them" is attacking US troops, and it is normal because the fact that America slaughters people in Iraq and Afghanistan indiscriminately may hurt him as a religious muslim --Nielswik(talk) 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This disucssion is not about whether he actually is or isn't a terrorist, rather it is about what has been stated or alleged, and to confirm that the article says that. It is a fact that he has been alleged to be the spiritual leader of JI. Whether he actually is a different question and not necessarily fact (it's not necessarily false either). It is also a fact that he was convicted of conspiracy relating to the plot. Even if it was a false conviction, as you suggest, it is still factually correct that he was convicted by a court of conspiracy.
Saying western media is a dubious source of information is a bit too general (much is dubious, I agree) but then believing everything that Bashir says, particularly when he contradicts himself, I'd suggest is even more dubious. I don't believe everything that George Bush says (just for a clear example!), anymore than i believe what someone like Bashir says either. But i really don't want continue discussing it as i feel it will have no benefit for this wikiepedia article.
--Merbabu 01:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nielswik, your claims of bias in the Australian media, and amongst Australian Wikipedians regarding this article is completely unfounded. You know, I'm sure if someone changed the article to claim that Bashir was "undoubtedly a terrorist and the leader of JI", an Australian Wikipedia editor would probably be the first to remove the claim as not being NPOV! --Canley 04:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir, CIA, Bali Bombing Conspiracy[edit]

As you think that sounds stupid,Merbabu, 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]

BASHIR DECLARED INNOCENT[edit]

I have read newspaper reports of Abu bakar Bashir been declared innocent of any wrongdoing. Hence I recommend that the pertinent sections be edited. --ToyotaPanasonic 11:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

I just added a section on the 2005 movie about the Bombings (Long Road to Heaven), but it appears to be too long. I suggest we split the page into two seperate articles. Any ideas? Crisco 1492 10:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I split it already. see Long Road to Heaven Merbabu 11:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Merbabu. I just tidied up the ending of the article, since (menurut saya) the film should be mentioned in the article (although greatly reduced from what it had been.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crisco 1492 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Preaching from jail[edit]

This [12] story from the BBC is interesting. Ali Ghufron has been preaching from jail to militants in Poso in Sulawesi and then there has been more violence. I think this should be in this article but i could not find anywhere it seemed to fit. Any thoughts?Hypnosadist 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the link to my website removed?[edit]

PutuNix 12:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All,

I'd like to know why the link to the Bali Bombing resources on my web site was removed. Bali Bombing Resource

All material contained therein is either by myself and other members of the local community or in the public domain. All photographs of patients from Sanglah Hospital were taken after i obtained spoken permission from them - which I recorded audibly (and still posess) but which were not posted on my site.

I believe that the information on my site is valuable and unique and I was very surprised to find the link had been removed.

Thanks.

Suspect listings and Status[edit]

Perhaps someone can put up a grid putting up a list of suspects and their status to be put up.

--Hourick 23:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates fixed[edit]

Just quickly ran through the article and made the date-style consistant. All are now written 12 October, 2002 as Wiki policy suggests as per subject matter. Cheers, Rothery 04:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Australia?[edit]

maybe this should also be grouped with Wikiproject australia, as it involve a lot of australian. w_tanoto (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Fool me twice' reference[edit]

I've deleted a section related to the documentary Fool Me Twice. The film deals with several conspiracy theories relating to the 2002 Bali Bombings that do not warrant their own section in this article. Glebesam (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added reference to Fool Me Twice. The film documents important information about the 2002 Bali bombings including Jakarta Post senior editor, Robert S. Finnegan's investigation, US State department translator's admission of CIA efforts to secretly render Abu Bakar Bashir prior to the bombings and pre-bombing Australian intelligence warnings from the interrogation of Jemaah Islamiah suspect, Omar al-Faruq who subsequently escaped Bagram Air Base prison. Japan1000 13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the film makes references to what some may regard as important events. What I take exception to though is this film being given it's on sub-heading and referenced as the source of these theories related to the Bali bombings when all it does it report other sources. The 2002 Bali Bombing was a significant event in Indonesia and Australia's history and I believe this reference to a 'film' that was only released on the internet undermines this significance. What do others think. I suggest we delete (again) this reference to 'Fool me Twice'Glebesam (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the style of other wiki entries relating to major terrorists attacks I have deleted the reference to the conspiracy theory film 'Fool Me Twice.' I think a small paragraph about various conspiracy theories related to Bali would be suitable (as appears in the 9/11 article) but this film is not an original source of this information and has no place in this article. Users must ask themselves why the 'film' has no entry of its own? Once again, I suggest that having the film mentioned under its own heading in this article is seriously to it's detriment.Glebesam (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added reference to Fool Me Twice. The film includes important original sources of information including Jakarta Post senior editor, Robert S. Finnegan's independent investigation, and pre-bombing Australian intelligence warnings. Fool Me Twice has no entry of it's own because it was deleted at the request of Glebesam. The film is under its own title, mirroring the other referenced film 'Long Road To Heaven' Japan1000 05:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're being urged to discuss this issue some more. So let me make a few points. Firstly, the Fool Me Twice wiki entry was deleted because the film does not meet the requirements for inclusion (I deleted it after it was suggested by another user. I should also add that I am not necessarily averse to some of the conspiracy theories being included somewhere in the entry under their own heading. But Fool Me Twice is not the original source of this information, so I don't believe it should be included. The inclusion of Long Road the Heaven is also questionable, but I'll get to that once this issue is resolved. Perhaps Japan1000 can address my points and particularly outline why none of the conspiracy theories discussed in the film are mentioned anywhere else in the article. sc (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the film, but assuming it "documents Jakarta Post senior editor, Robert S. Finnegan's investigation, US State department translator's admission of CIA efforts to secretly render Abu Bakar Bashir prior to the bombings and pre-bombing Australian intelligence warnings", can we find reliable sources that discuss these theories? The film is not sufficient. Somno (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If reliable sources can be found then I think a small section of this article could deal with these conspiracy theories. Until such a time though I'm strongly of the opinion that the reference to the film should be deleted.sc (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be under the title of 'Alternative Theories'. The entire article is about the conspiracy of the 2002 Bali bombings. Japan1000 04:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the article may deal with elements of the 'conspiracy' as you put it, but iy also concerns itself with the direct aftermath of the blasts and the investigation and legal proceedings that followed it. To say that the entire article is about the conspiracy is simply wrong. Having an 'alternative theories' section is an option, but that would need further discussion on this page. If such a section was formed I'd be surprised if 'Fool Me Twice' was used as a reference. Most of the information in the film had previously been published by more reliable and objective sources (ABC programs like Radio National's 'Background Briefing' and Australian Story to name just two)sc (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I agree with Glebesam/sc - the article is about much more than conspiracy theories, and we need to be careful we do not give these theories undue weight. They are alternative theories, but conspiracy theories is a more appropriate title due to the nature of the theories. Any mention of conspiracy theories must be supported by a reliable source, and Fool Me Twice is not a reliable source. If we brainstorm some possible reliable sources here, perhaps we can create a draft section to enter into the article? Japan1000, your input here would be very valuable. Do you have access to some sources we could use? Somno (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reflex action of labeling verified information contradicting the official theory as conspiracies, undermines the authenticity of this article. 'Fool Me Twice' is the only source detailing the sole independent investigation of the Bali bombings headed by Jakarta Post senior editor, Robert S. Finnegan.

Japan1000 05:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense would suggest that the forensic resources of two police forces and a lengthy, transparent court procedure would produce a more credible version of events than an expat cherrypicking for facts that suits a particular story. Finnegan's work is not an "investigation". Kransky (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed a formal investigation. Verifiable and documented in the largest English language daily in Indonesia at the time. Kransky appears to be a troll out to make a name for himself, or spread disinformation that has plagued this atrocity from the very beginning and has made no effort at contact despite the information being publicly available since 2002. It is his commentary that is unverifiable and devoid of factual information or attribution.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100423015428/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2003/01/03/bali-bombing-an-investigator039s-analysis.html

https://nusantaranews.co/ghost-war-sebuah-pandangan-geopolitik/

Robert S. Finnegan The 5th Estate Asia Jakarta, Indonesia rsfinnegan@gmail.com +62-812-9173-1666

10/21/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.12.131 (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japan1000, please read the article on conspiracy theories. It is a neutral term referring to the type of theory. If Fool Me Twice is the only source for these claims, then the claims do not belong in an encyclopedia, which requires verifiable information from reliable sources. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "truth". Somno (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Warning to both editors with messages above - please do not revert again without considering that an admin might want to sanction either of you for continued reversions/additions - please take care! SatuSuro 08:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; please discuss this here rather than revert each other. Please also note that the relevant Wikipedia policies are WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.95.33.218 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Bali Bombing Memorial in Sutherland Shire[edit]

VERY dissapointing to read this article and find NO mention of the memorial in 'Peryman Place' at North Cronulla Beach(Australia). SEVEN Sutherland Shire residents died ALL young women no older than ≈32 years. SHAME Wikipedia! This sort of omission is almost UNFORGIVEABLE!.
Sorry, I got a bit pissed off at this error.

Relevant info. from Sutherland Council Website here - [13] Extracts of appropriate text:

"Memorial for Shire victims of Bali bombings"[edit]

"Of the 88 Australians who died in the blast, seven lived in Sutherland Shire. They were: Charmaine Whitton, Jodi Wallace, Jodie O'Shea, Michelle Dunlop, Renae Anderson, Simone Hanley, and Francoise Dahan.(Likely inappropriate to put names in article)

The memorial
On Sunday 28 September 2003, around 500 people attended a dedication ceremony for a memorial to these seven women. Sutherland Shire Council commissioned sculptor Chris Bennetts and Ishi Buki Sandstone Sculpture to design a memorial... Their work, called "The Seed", is a design derived from the seed and foliage of the Banksia robur, a beautiful native plant indigenous to Sutherland Shire. The seed was chosen as it signifies renewal, resilience and regeneration. This pink sandstone sculpture is the centrepiece of the memorial. It is set in a black granite pond and located not far from North Cronulla Beach which was frequented by many of the seven victims and their families.

The plaques
Two stainless steel plaques are set into the black granite surrounding the pond. The text on the plaques reads:

Memorial plaque
"Shortly before midnight on Saturday 12 October 2002, a devastating terrorist attack was triggered at the beachside town of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali."

Poem plaque
The second plaque is a poem written by the families of these seven women. This plaque also carries photos of the seven women.

PHOTO[edit]

A photo of the memorial is needed, The link above has some photos. Remember they need to be 'released' or public domain for 'us' to use in Wikipedia. I'll follow this up if someone doesn't beat me to it. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Coogee memorial has a photo here [14] --203.63.130.37 (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial wall to honour Bali bomb victims (NSW)[edit]

"A memorial wall with the names of all 44 NSW residents killed in the 2002 Bali bomb blasts will be built at a Sydney beach as a permanent reminder of the tragedy." SBS World News 12 October 2009', 02:03:25 PM, Source: AAP Australia [15]
Probably best to leave entering information about this until it actually built. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty numbers do not addup[edit]

Please fix. 202 <> 152 + 38. Tuntable (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing it right now and including a ref with the final death toll. Check back in a few minutes. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties number[edit]

On the lead section the number of people injured is 240. In the infobox, the number is given as 209. Which (if any) is correct? Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 7[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide bomber[edit]

Does anyone know that name of the suicide bomber. Thanks, 114.77.180.7 (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers[edit]

As someone already mentioned, it says 240 in the start of the text but 209 in the statistics on the side when it comes to injured, but not just that, it also says that 5 Swedish people died in the text while the statistics over nationalities it says that 6 Swedes died in the attack. Which are the correct numbers? According to an old article from a Swedish newspaper's website, it should be 6 Swedes. I will change the place which says 5 to 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.111.139.200 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC) (I am Swedish so I understand the article there) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.111.139.200 (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

al-Qaeda?[edit]

What is the evidence that al-Qaeda was involved in these bombings, as the info box indicates? The only reference to al-Qaeda made in this article is that the funding may have come from al-Qaeda, that the Americans blamed al-Qaeda and that as of four days after the attack the police hadn't found any evidence of connection to al-Qaeda. If the article states that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda then there should be more substantial information about this connection.--67.250.35.250 (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I read the source for the reference to the Bin Laden recording, which explicitly states that the recording did not claim responsibility. I have removed the reference from the article until someone can provide reliable substantiation for this suggestion. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on 2002 Bali bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2002 Bali bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2002 Bali bombings. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2002 Bali bombings. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2002 Bali bombings. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2002 Bali bombings. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2002 Bali bombings. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal, evading an indefinite block through sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Renamed_user_49274c4c204245204241434b[edit]

An anonymous IP, 2A00:23C4:20E:E800:7DF4:585C:6801:7BDA excised a passage today. They also made a huge and unjustifiable excision from the article on Hambali. I reverted their vandalism to the Hambali article, and noticed they made a questionable edit to this article, which I also reverted. I don't think an explicit explanation is required for an IP whose other two edits were nonsense.

Another IP, 2605:8D80:621:341B:F80B:ED63:B1A:3F2 repeated the excision, with the edit summary "Anonymous users aren't automatically wrong. Please provide a rationale for your revision." This IP is from a range used by a very persistent wikistalker, with terrible anger management issues. I angered them with some perfectly reasonable questions and comments, almost a year ago.

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b

They acknowledged being a long term IP contributor. They established a named ID, just to wikistalk me. That named ID was indefinitely blocked. After which they have been evading their indefinite block using anonymous IP addresses. That alone is vandalism. Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another excision from the range of IP addresses used by the wikistalker who is evading their indefinite block.
  • They have mastered the art of leaving deceptive edit summaries that give the surface appearance that there is a genuine policy dispute. Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason McCartney[edit]

That section is out of proportion to the article and needs to be cut right back, or removed and replaced with a link to the McCartney article. Perhaps he, and all notable victims and survivors, could be in the "See also" section. Adpete (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut it from 5 paragraphs to 2, but even that might be a bit long. Adpete (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this was re-added today, but I reverted it. My earlier edit got one "thank", so I decided that on a majority of 2 to 1 (me + the thanking editor, versus the editor who re-added it) was justified. I just don't see how AFL-specific information like the match score, or details of any match plays, belong in this article; especially when the section is already longer than the sections on most other Bali bombing memorials. Readers of this article are after information about how it was a memorial or tribute to the Bali victims, and many (probably most) don't know or care about AFL. I copied most of the AFL-specific detail to the Jason McCartney (footballer) article. Adpete (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2002_Bali_bombings&oldid=1216896388"