BALI NIGHT CLUB BOMBING This event occurred in B
10 pages not including title and reference.
PLEASE FOLLOW ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THIS WILL BE A GREAT ASSIGNMENT.
EVERYTHING YOU NEED WILL BE ATTACHED
PLEASE FOLLOW THE GRADING RUBRIC ECT.
Running Head: BALI NIGHTCLUB BOMBING 1 1
BALI NIGHTCLUB BOMBING 5
Bali Nightclub Bombing
SNHU
Shawnette Howard
5/1/2022
BALI NIGHT CLUB BOMBING
This event occurred in Bali Indonesia in the year 2002 October 12 in the tourist district of Kuta. It killed 202 people and injured a further 209 people. The immediate responses include; the Australian government mobilized its Military troops and within 17 hours after the incident, Australian Military arrived in Bali to rescue the injured Australian citizens. The Indonesian government allowed the entry of the federal Bureau of Investigation officials from the United States of America to help in the investigations of the incident (Rachmawati & Adhariani, 2019). It also allowed the formation of a joint task force of British, Australian and United States of America police to also assist in the investigations. The government also passed the regulation of detaining terror suspects for up to six months without trial, a regulation that worked to boost the country’s legal power against terrorism.
The impact of the responses by the Indonesian government were on the rights and freedom of its citizens whether criminal or not. Every citizen has the right to a fair hearing in a court of law before a verdict of being detained is reached. Therefore, this is a negative impact on the rights of the citizens. The response by the government also negatively affected the relationship between the country and the United States of America in the sense that United States of America started thinking that the Indonesian government was not taking action against terrorism. It also exposed the tension that has always between existing between United States of America and Indonesia. The Indonesian government had owed to support the United States of American anti-terror war but after the sanctions made by the government, United States government felt that Indonesia was not taking any action against terrorism.
The response of the government to side with the United States of America in its war waged against terrorism and Islamic extremists groups unintentionally encouraged terrorism because the Muslims felt betrayed by their own government. Other countries such as Australia were impacted positively by the Indonesian government response in the sense that, Australia was allowed to bring in their officers to conduct the investigations, thereby enhancing the diplomatic relationship between those countries. It was a similar case also with the Great Britain.
The alternative to the response by the Indonesian government was to put regulations on scrutiny of individuals who are suspected on criminal activities and also including the Indonesian police in the combined police task force for conducting the investigations.
The decisions made by the Indonesian government include; the government decided to arrest Abu Bakar Bashir the leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah, the group suspected of responsibility for the bombing; the government also decided that any suspect of terror will be detained for up to six months without trial; the government decided to follow the anti-terror war that was initiated by the United States of America (Hussain, 2018). The intended purpose for the above decisions was to discourage any terrorists from engaging in any terrorism activity because they knew that the consequence was predetermined. The intended purpose for fostering the anti-terror war that was initiated by the United States of America was to strengthen the relationship between the Indonesian government and the United States government, a relationship which was dwindling and bringing tension between the two nations. The arrest of Abu Bakar Bashir the leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah was intended to weaken the group and to also question him on the adversities that followed the nightclub bombing.
The unintended consequences of the decisions and policies was the emergence of Muslim resistance and the criticisms of the vice president by other countries due to his inclination and the relationship he had with the major Islamic extremist group that was suspected of the bombing of the night club in Bali (Marshall, 2018). The government however could have responded directly to the terror attack through the following ways; arresting all the leaders of any extremists groups in the country together with any government official who is affiliated to any of the groups. This would have shown the seriousness of the government in its endeavors of curbing terrorism.
This alternative of dealing directly with the terrorism would have changed a lot of things. For instance, arresting of the government officials with affiliation to the Islamic extremists groups such as the vice president of the country would halt the confidence that such groups act with. This is because, with the vice president not able to offer his support to the groups, it means that the groups will be weak every day and as such, they will not be in a position of conducting any terror attacks. If the leader of the responsible of the extremist group had not been released on the mere assumptions of lack of evidence of him being involved terrorism activities, the attack wouldn’t have happened probably and as such, the arrest and detention of the leader, the organization of the terrorists would have been affected. This would still have halted their planned terrorist attacks. A weak terrorist group will always be less of a threat to the world we live in today because their threat of criminal terrorists’ activities increases with the increase in their strength.
References
Rachmawati, J. A., & Adhariani, D. (2019). Bomb attacks and earnings management: evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Society, 20(S1), 1-18.
Hussain, Z. (2018). Tourism positioning in Bali. Journal of Tourism Challenges and Trends, 11(1), 99-110.
Marshall, P. (2018). Conflicts in Indonesian Islam. Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, 23(1).
,
Running head: 2002 BALI CLUB BOMBINGS 1
2002 BALI CLUB BOMBINGS 5
2002 Bali Club bombings
Shawnette Howard
SNHU
4/1/2022
The 2002 Bali bombings happened on 12 October 2002 on the common Indonesian island of Bali, specifically in Kuta a region popular with tourists (Phoenix Australia, 2015, May 31). The incident claimed 202 lives, 38 Indonesians, 88 Australians, 23 Britons, and members of about 20 other countries (Phoenix Australia, 2015, May 31). Two hundred and nine persons were injured during the tragedy. Members of the terror group Jemaah Islamiyah, a terror group indicted in connection to the bombings, including three persons who were later condemned to death (Phoenix Australia, 2015, May 31) carried out the attack. The attack entailed the detonation of 3 bombs: a bag-mounted device that was to be detonated by a suicide bomber; a huge car-bomb that was both triggered in or near prominent clubs in Kuta; and a third somewhat relatively small device that exploded just outside of the United States consulate in Denpasar, leading to minor or superficial damage (Phoenix Australia, 2015, May 31). An audio cassette supposedly holding a taped voice message from AL Qaeda terror group leader Osama Bin laden mentioned that the Bali bombings were carried out in direct reprisal to Australia's involvement in the freedom of East Timor and the United States' War on Terror.
The attacks were carried out as a response to Australia's involvement in the liberation of East Timor. Indonesia had invaded East Timor in 1975 and annexed the nation where few nations, including the United States and Australia, recognized the annexation. The cold war events during the time were seen as the main reason why most western nations accepted the annexation. Indonesia was barely a decade old since the overthrow of communism, which the united states had aided in 1965 (Bevins, 2017). Suharto, the Indonesian military leader, led the massacres of Indonesian Communist party members (Bevins, 2017). America feared that if it condemned the annexation, Indonesia would gravitate toward the soviet union, which would see Indonesia used as a launching pad for communism. The Australian defense forces arrived in East Timor in 1999 to return order and peace in the region as the Indonesian military withdrew. The INTERFET operation of 1999-2002 was one of the major reasons for the bombings. Abdullah Sungkar and Abu Bakar Bashir formed Jemaah Islamiyah, the terror group responsible for the attacks, in 1993. The two were hiding from the persecution of the Suharto led government at the time of the bombings. The group started its violence in regions of Poso and Maluku before shifting and targeting western interests in the wider Southeast Asia region and inside Indonesia.
The terror group was formed in Malaysia at the time; the nation was facing a significant terror threat from terror groups within the nation, some of which were fighting the government under the pretext of being persecuted. The two leaders, Abdullah Sungkar and Abu Bakar Bashir, were in Malaysia (Rourke, 2019). They may have been radicalized during then, although Bashir is said to have been involved in bombings inside Indonesia as early as 1985. At the time of hosting the two terror leaders, Malaysia was facing a significant terror threat from the Malaysian communist party, a group responsible for bombings, skirmishes, and assassinations inside Malaysia. This history of violence is becoming a suitable launching pad for other terror groups in the Southeast Asian region.
The invasion of East Timor by the Australian led INTERFET operation of 1999-2002 was the catalyst of the attack. The invasion was seen as a support of infidels, in this case, the East Timorese, who were devout Catholics. In 1999, East Timor voted 78.5% for its independence and autonomy from Indonesia (Rourke, 2019). Islamic terror groups in the region stepped up the attacks after the referendum killing over 2,600 people (Rourke, 2019). Australia led the INTERFET operation to restore order in the region. Gusmao and other exiled leaders were supported by the United Nations and led a three-year operation in the region in 2002; Gusmao was voted in as the leader of East Timor (Rourke, 2019). The terror groups retaliated by attacking Bali's popular Australian holiday region in Indonesia as a reprisal for the support of Gusmao and East Timor autonomy.
Reference
Bevins, V. (2017). What the United States Did in Indonesia. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/the-indonesia-documents-and-the-us-agenda/543534/
Phoenix Australia. (2015, May 31). Bali Bombing. https://www.phoenixaustralia.org/about/paying-our-respects/bali-bombing/
Rourke, A. (2019). East Timor: Indonesia’s invasion and the long road to independence. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/30/east-timor-indonesias-invasion-and-the-long-road-to-independence
,
Running Head: BALI NIGHTCLUB BOMBING. 2
BALI NIGHTCLUB BOMBING. 2
Bali nightclub bombing
Shawnette Howard
SNHU
4/14/2022
2002 The Bombings in Bali, a terrorist attack that killed 202 people. It happened in Paddy's Bar, a hangout for tourists, mainly Australian youngsters. The guests fled into the street, some of whom were injured. Seconds thereafter, a second bomb exploded in front of the Sari Club, near Paddy's. A third bomb exploded in front of Bali's US consulate, but no one was injured. While most casualties were Indonesian, British, and Australian, the attack killed people from at least 21 countries. After a week, Indonesian police detained the first suspected terrorists (Marshall. 2018).
The ideology of the organization.
The bombs showed the serious international impacts of violent terrorism. The operation was organized and carried out by Jemaah Islamiyah, an Indonesian terrorist organization with several ties to al-Qaeda. Relevant authorities are hesitant to act out of fear of offending the country's vast Muslim population. Finally, these attacks create a paradox since, although Bali is an Indonesian island, the targets were deliberately picked to maximize losses among the island's tourists. However, JI's principal objective is establishing an Islamic state in Indonesia, not a battle with the West.
The Bali event is characterized as terrorism since the violence was unanticipated and targeted innocent individuals, placing pressure on external parties such as governments to alter their policies or stances. Contemporary terrorists deploy numerous kinds of violence and target civilians, army bases, and political leaders, among others.
Relationships between the organization's ideology and the attack's worldwide scope
Suicide bombings in Bali and elsewhere are aimed at destroying America and killing its inhabitants and countries that support the United States in its "new Crusade," which they refer to as America's war in Afghanistan, according to International Suicide Batallion. To damage the interests of infidel countries of the Cross and American terrorists worldwide is sometimes referred to as istimaté. One of the attackers set up websites to spread the word about the organization's global mission. He asked Muslims to defend the honor of Muslims by acting following their group or community's values.
The local and global impact of the attack
Numerous people needed medical attention, but the limited resources of the Graha Asih hospital meant it was unable to deal with the volume of patients arriving. As a result of the tragic events, Bali's major hospital, the Sanglah Hospital, was put to capacity. In the hospital, there were a lot of individuals lying on the corridors and inwards, making it a nightmare. People from Australia made up the majority of those involved. The 2002 Bali bombings claimed the lives of more than 20 people from around the world, but 88 Australians were killed. There were fears that Australians would blame Indonesia for the Bali attacks, which might harm Australian-Indonesia relations.
The impact of the attack on the terrorist organization
Americans, who were the primary target of the attack, were largely unaffected by it. After being designated an international terrorist organization, the group lost most of its economic mobility, and many of its top executives were detained in connection with the bombing. Due to the publicity generated by other like-minded individuals and groups, this organization has continued obtaining resources through unconventional means such as siphoning funds from donations from other terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda following the attack.
Reference
Marshall, P. (2018). Conflicts in Indonesian Islam. Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, 23(1).
,
CJ 530 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric
Overview In a globalized world, counterterrorism efforts and research within the criminal justice field continue to expand, and their need is repeatedly underscored by each new attack. Those who seek to mitigate terrorist threats understand that terror does not occur in a vacuum. They explore how historical events, geopolitics, and previous terrorist attacks can influence the nature of terrorism in the world today. Counterterrorism professionals must have the ability to think critically and analytically about current and emerging threats and issues in order to consider all possible outcomes. One way this is achieved is by conducting an alternative futures analysis (AFA). Typically an AFA is conducted by counterterrorism analysts prior to the occurrence of a terrorist event so that alternative trajectories of a known threat can be identified. Rather than predicting one outcome, an AFA attempts to use the complexity and uncertainty of a situation to describe multiple possible outcomes (futures) that intelligence professionals and policymakers should consider.
For your final project, you will conduct a modified version of an alternative futures analysis. You will select a modern terrorist attack as a foundation for exploring alternative futures and critically analyzing the government’s response to the event. In your analysis, you will determine the historical events that set the stage for the attack, including the events that led to the formation of the terrorist organization involved. You will then consider the local and global impacts of the government’s response to the attack, along with the response’s intended goals and unintended consequences. You will describe a possible alternative response to the attack and explain how that alternative response might have made the terrorist organization more or less of a threat to the world today. Finally, you will evaluate the present counterterrorism approach of the country in which the attack occurred and explain how an alternative approach could potentially impact future terrorist actions.
Before beginning this assessment, you must choose one of the following modern terrorist attacks to use as the basis of your analysis.
Bali nightclub bombing: Indonesia, October 12, 2002 Madrid train bombing: Spain, March 11, 2004 London bombing: England, July 7, 2005 Mumbai attack: India, November 26, 2008
The project is divided into three milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Two, Four, and Six. The final product will be submitted in Module Nine.
In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes:
Determine key historical factors that influenced the evolution of modern global terrorism Analyze a terrorist event for determining the extent of its impact on the field of global terrorism Analyze responses to terrorism for determining their expected outcomes and unintended consequences on local and global communities Evaluate past and present counterterrorism approaches for informing future responses to terrorism
Prompt Imagine that you are a counterterrorism analyst working for an intelligence agency in the country in which your selected terrorist attack occurred. Your director has tasked you with conducting an alternative futures analysis on the attack. The purpose of your analysis is to present how the terrorist organization involved in the attack might have become more or less of a threat to the world today if the country’s government had responded to the attack differently. You will also evaluate the country’s current approach to terrorism and explain how a different approach could potentially impact future terrorist actions.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
I. Introduction: Describe the details of the terrorist attack you selected. Be sure to include when, where, and how the attack took place, and the terrorist group responsible.
II. Background on th e Attack: In this section, you will discuss events that contributed to the attack’s occurrence, including the formation of the terrorist organization involved. Limit your focus to historical events that occurred from the Cold War to the present.
A. Explain how the history of the geographic region where the terrorist organization originated contributed to the attack. In other words, how did the region’s history create a volatile atmosphere or lead to tensions that contributed to the situation?
B. Describe the sequence of relevant historical events that set the stage for the terrorist attack. Events to consider might include government policies or decisions, political elections, military actions, and other terrorist attacks.
C. Describe the evolution of the terrorist organization involved in the attack. Be sure to consider the global historical attacks, policies, or decisions that led to its creation.
III. Analysis of the Attack: In t his section, you will analyze the terrorist attack and determine how it impacted the field of global terrorism. A. Explain why the event is considered a terrorist attack instead of an act of violence. B. Explain the ideology and underlying motivation of the terrorist organization responsible for the attack. C. Draw connections between the organization’s ideology and the global nature of the attack. Consider the following:
1. What was the attack intended to draw attention to? 2. How did the organization use the attack to further their global cause?
D. Explain the local and global impact of the attack in regard to who became involved in the response. Be sure to address the following: 1. Which local criminal justice, government, or private sector agencies were involved in responding to the attack? 2. Did other nations get involved, and to what extent?
E. Describe the impact of the attack on the terrorist organization itself. Consider the following: 1. Did it help or hinder the organization’s cause? 2. Did it lose or the gain the support of followers?
IV. Past Response and Alternatives: In this section, you will focus on how the government of the country in which the attack occurred responded to the event. You will also consider the impacts of the government’s response and suggest an alternative response.
A. Discuss decisions that were made and policies that were created in response to the attack to discourage terrorism, and explain the intended purpose of those decisions. You may consider both foreign and domestic policies.
B. Explain the unintended consequences of those decisions and policies. Consider the following: 1. Did the response negatively impact relationships with other countries?
2. Did the response unintentionally encourage terrorism? C. Describe how other countries were impacted by the response, using supporting examples. D. Discuss the lessons learned from the government's response. In hindsight, what did the government do wrong? What did it do right? E. Suggest a specific way in which the government could have responded differently to the terrorist attack. F. Explain how this alternative response could have changed the current state of the terrorist organization responsible for the attack. In other
words, if that alternative response had been used, how might the terrorist organization have been more or less of a threat to the world today? V. Current Approaches and Alternatives: In this section, you will consider the current counterterrorism approaches of the country in which the attack
occurred and discuss possible alternatives. A. Explain how the country’s overall counterterrorism approach has changed or evolved since the attack. B. Summarize arguments that exist for and against the country’s current counterterrorism approach. C. Using your research, determine if the country’s current counterterrorism approach is an effective one. Defend your conclusion. D. Describe a possible alternative to the country’s current counterterrorism approach. E. Explain the potential long-term impact of the alternative approach on preventing future terrorist actions.
Milestones Milestone One: Introduction and Background of Attack In Module Two, you will draft the introduction and background on the attack sections of your final project. In the Module Two discussion, you will choose which terrorist attack you will focus on for your final project. In this first milestone, you will complete an introduction and provide background information on your chosen attack. The milestones in this course will allow you to draft ideas and receive feedback from the instructor throughout the course. These assignments will ensure you are on the right track before you submit your final project in Module Nine. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone One Rubric.
Milestone Two: Analysis of the Attack In Module Four, you will submit an analysis of your chosen attack. In this analysis, you will determine how your chosen attack impacted the field of global terrorism. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone Two Rubric.
Milestone Three: Past Response and Alternatives In Module Six, you will focus on how the government of the country in which the attack occurred responded to the event. You will also consider the impacts of the government’s response and suggest an alternative response. This submission will be graded with the Milestone Three Rubric.
Final Submission: Alternative Futures Analysis In Module Nine, you will submit your final project. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical elements of the final product. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded with the Final Project Rubric.
Deliverables Milestone Deliverable Module Due Grading
One Introduction and Background of Attack Two Graded separately; Milestone One Rubric
Two Analysis of the Attack Four Graded separately; Milestone Two Rubric
Three Past Response and Alternatives Six Graded separately; Milestone Three Rubric
Final Submission: Alternative Futures Analysis
Nine Graded separately; Final Project Rubric
Final Project Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your research proposal should be 10–15 pages (not including your title and reference page) in Microsoft Word, with 12-pt. Times New Roman font, double spacing, and sources cited in APA format.
Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value
Introduction: Details [CJ-530-02]
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and description demonstrates a sophisticated awareness of the attack details
Describes the details of the selected terrorist attack, including when, where, and how the attack took place and the terrorist group responsible
Describes the details of the selected terrorist attack, but description is incomplete or contains inaccuracies
Does not describe the details of the selected terrorist attack
3.96
Background on the Attack: History of the
Region [CJ-530-01]
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and explanation makes cogent connections between the attack and the region’s history
Explains how the history of the geographic region where the terrorist organization originated contributed to the attack
Explains how the history of the geographic region where the terrorist organization originated contributed to the attack, but explanation is cursory, illogical, or contains inaccuracies
Does not explain how the history of the geographic region where the terrorist organization originated contributed to the attack
7.92
Background on the Attack: Historical
Events [CJ-530-01]
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and description provides keen insight into the relationship between the events and the attack
Describes the sequence of relevant historical events that set the stage for the terrorist attack
Describes the sequence of relevant historical events that set the stage for the terrorist attack, but description is cursory or illogical or contains inaccuracies
Does not describe the sequence of relevant historical events that set the stage for the terrorist attack
7.92
Background on the Attack: Terrorist
Organization
[CJ-530-01]
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and description provides keen insight into how and why the organization formed
Describes the evolution of the terrorist organization involved in the attack, including global historical events, policies, or decisions that led to their creation
Describes the evolution of the terrorist organization, including global historical events, policies, or decisions that led to their creation, but description is cursory or contains inaccuracies
Does not describe the evolution of the terrorist organization involved in the attack
7.92
Analysis of the Attack: Terrorist Attack
[CJ-530-02]
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and explanation demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the difference between a terrorist attack and an act of violence
Explains why the event is considered to be a terrorist attack instead of an act of violence
Explains why the event is considered to be a terrorist attack instead of an act of violence, but explanation is cursory or illogical or contains inaccuracies
Does not explain why the event is considered to be a terrorist attack
3.96
Analysis of the Attack: Ideology and Motivation
[CJ-530-02]
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and explanation demonstrates a sophisticated awareness of the organization’s ideology and motivations
Explains the ideology and underlying motivation of the terrorist organization responsible for the attack
Explains the ideology and underlying motivation of the terrorist organization responsible for the attack, but explanation is cursory or contains inaccuracies
Does not explain the ideology and underlying motivation of the terrorist organization responsible for the attack
3.96
Analysis of the Attack: Draw Connections
[CJ-530-02]
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and response demonstrates a sophisticated awareness of the motivations of the terror organization
Draws connections between the organization’s ideology and the global nature of the attack
Draws connections between the organization’s ideology and the global nature of the attack, but response is cursory or illogical
Does not draw connections between the organization’s ideology and the global nature of the attack
3.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
