Jump to content

Talk:Indonesian invasion of East Timor

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

Emphasis

[edit]

This article devotes little exploration of the actual invasion, but rather spends most of its time discussing western and UN involvement in some depth. Should there not be more on the actual military aspets and before that the background to the invasion? --Merbabu 13:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The figures for Indonesian casualties are way exaggerated. The real source, "Indonesian Casualties in East Timor" by Gerry van Klinken, shows only 2000 Indonesian soldiers and pro-Indonesian militiamen died in East Timor from 1975-1999 from all causes, far below the 10000 figure mentioned in the article.

The military aspects not being unimportant, it is also true that once the powers that be said "yes", the invasion became a simple pro-forma walk-in. Xyzt1234 22:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really see why Chomsky's reaction deserves to be in the lede; I'm going to see if it fits somewhere else in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.162.199 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation

[edit]

There is no discussion of motivation. The Indonesians claimed to be suppressing communism -but what are some of the other motivations? ie. Does east Timor have natural resources or are there some religious concerns (Indonesia being primarily Muslim and East Timor being Christian).

No, the primary objective is to eliminate communism in East Timor.The resources are just a bonus from occupying East Timor and about the religion part, most of Timor island are Christian and even Soeharto is a Muslim, He doesn't care about religion part. Mollucas (Indonesia province) majority is Christian. Zhacky Samson —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I disagree. If Indonesia simply wanted to "suppress communism", they could have installed a puppet right-wing government after they invaded, and then left. They didn't. Fretilin were vaguely left-wing (hardly communist). If they were communist, they would surely have received aid from the USSR or the PRC. They didn't. Indonesia would probably have invaded even if an independent East Timorese government was right-wing, simply because, after the Portuguese left, they could. And after the massacres of '65, the Indonesian generals were golden boys in Washington's view, so if the USSR or PRC weren't going to intervene, that meant carte blanche. Excuses of "suppressing communism" were used to justify far more Indonesian crimes than what happened in ET during the Cold War. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with "your disagree". If the reason to invade was because Indonesia "could", then given that in 75 Indonesia was in the state of financial crisis due to the Pertamina's problem, in which Suharto himself initially against the idea of invasion, then your theory does not hold much water. You seem to be unaware that the massacres of '65 was the massacres of Indonesian communist by Suharto? in which during the '65 coup, Pro-communist Sukarno was overthrown by US-backed Suharto which also marked Indonesia's turn to a military state. You also seem to be unaware of the power communism in South East Asia and how anti-communism Suharto was: PKI (Indonesia communist party) was the strongest political party before Suharto's coup and Indonesia could have been a bigger threat than Vietnam to US or Australia. Consider that also, during Indonesia's 20+ yr occupation of East Timor, what has Indonesia gained other than the on-going war with the Fretilin? Definitely not natural resources.
"To justify far more Indonesian crimes?" So when was the crimes committed? before or after "the excuses"? I thought the excuses were given before the crimes committed such that they got approval from the US? Also this doesn't answer the original question: why Indonesia invaded ET? to commit many crimes and still can be justified??
I never understand what was Indonesia's motivation to invade East Timor. But "suppressing communism" is the most likely scenario from my Indonesian eyes, given that the anti-communism sentiment was rife during Suharto's era (for example Indonesians were forced to see the replay of Anti-communism movie G30S/PKI every Sep 30th, and the quick way to eradicate troublemakers by military/govt was by labeling them 'communist', and 100% books used at schools were anti-communist by portraying PKI as the perpetrator of the coup and spreading rumors like how PKI members burned Quran and mosques, not to mention all PKI ex-members and their children had to have their ID cards specially marked to limit their access to jobs and social life) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UUlum (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was yet another war of aggression by muslim towards christians. The purpose was conquest for conquest's sake. 65.209.62.115 (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PRC tried to support the FRETILIN, but Australian navy blocked any ships to East Timor. But FRETILIN was only a melting pot of different, mainly left oriented politicians. "Suppress comunism" was maybe the reason for Australia and USA to support Indonesia, but not for Indonesia. Their reason was simpley to conquer the whole Malayan archipelo. It was the same in Southern Molucces, West Papua and conflicts with Malaysia. References (in English) are available at German de:Geschichte Osttimors. Greetings, --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename request

[edit]

I'd like to rename this article "Indonesian occupation of East Timor". The UN condemned the invasion; very few governments (I know of only Australia) recognized the "annexation"; and naming it "occupation" would allow for a more comprehensive review of the 1975–1999 period of time. Thoughts? – Scartol • Tok 23:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands (perhaps because of the name) only discusses the early invasion period. I'd suggest starting an article on the occupation period itself - there's certainly more than enough there for an article, and I feel that the invasion needs its own article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Your opinion is shared by the folks at WP MilHist, so once I get to it, I'll start with the redir page. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 13:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info

[edit]

I removed a large section of rambling, possibly WP:OR from East Timor. Apart from POV, style and referencing issues, it's simply too long for that country summary article. Diff is [1]. Perhaps some of this info can be used - and some not - but must be scrupulously referenced due to the contentious nature of the topic. regards --Merbabu (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some editing over the next few days

[edit]

Hello - I've been doing some extensive research on the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia over the past few months and the article seems pretty accurate in comparison to the scholarly works out there. Over the next few days, I will be doing some editing and cleaning up - Please do not be alarmed! I am a new Wikipedia user so you may find some of my adjustments unorthodox - please excuse me! Thank you. IR393DEME (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Some of the 'citations needed' - I actually was not the one who wrote it. Hopefully the original author can figure it out?

Don't panic: it is not your responsibility to make the article perfect, just do the best you can. The cite needed tag just alerts all editors that a citation is missing. Maybe someone will find a citation tomorrow or next week or next year. There is no time limit in Wikipedia. The cite needed tag also alerts the reader that some information is not verified yet (or might, indeed, be wrong). The original author may fix it, or they might never be back, and someone else will eventually fix it. Theoretically, after an infinite amount of time, Wikipedia will be perfect. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Involvement

[edit]

I believe that the British (British Aerospace / BAE Systems) also sold arms to Indonesia, such as Hawk aircraft, used in the invasion. Could anyone add a section, like those for the US and Australia? 202.231.41.1 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given Indonesia didn't actually order the Hawk until 1978, BAE must have included time machine in the deal for them to have been used in the invasion. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Could somebody please point out to me what the problem is with my additions to the infofox (support of Indonesia by the US, Australia and Britain). If the issue in question is sources, then I can easily provide some on request, but it seems to me that the only argument against my contribution was that these countries did not "directly participate in the invasion". As I explained multiple times in my edit summaries, "supported by" does not mean direct participation. If they had participated directly they would not be entered under the sub-heading of "supported by". For example the Vietnam war article contains entries for the Republic of China and the Spanish state under the Anti-Communist side, but as they did not directly participate in combat they are listed under "supported by". The Portuguese Colonial war article is another good example of this. I am keen to hear from anyone who can shed light on this issue. Mr A (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you don't have consensus and wikipedia works on consensus. (As I said before), you should not remake this change alone without FIRST getting a consensus to make this. You thinking it is correct does not make it consensus. Indeed, you are edit warring and you should stop - it's not how wikipedia is improved.
As explained to you by three editors, this is not appropriate use of the info box. It implies that the supporting countries offered combat support. Obviously not true. Simply saying that it is not your intention is not enough - thats what is implied by the change and your intent is not the same as a readers' impressions.--Merbabu (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Merbabu Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening to what I'm saying. I'll repeat it again, "supported by" means these parties provided support, it does not mean they sent their own military forces to directly participate, see the Portuguese colonial war page as an example. On that page there are a great many countries listed under the African independence movements as "supported by" because they supported them but did not directly fight with them. How on Earth is this "inappropriate use of the infobox"? Kindly give me a reason other than that about not directly which I have addressed umpteen times. Mr A (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to repeat it again. We are listening to what you say, indeed we even understand. But we disagree. It doesn't matter if your intention is good - we accept that - but the result is not good. What's important is not, unfortunately, what you would like it to be read, but how it actually will be read. --Merbabu (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not making any sense. What do you mean how it will be read? If people can't read the words "supported by" that's their problem. And there's nothing unusual about supported by, it's not inappropriate use of an infobox. For god's sake just look at the Portuguese Colonial War and countless other pages containing the sub-heading "supported by" in the infobox. It is standard practice for infoboxes and I do not understand the problem people on this page seem to have with it. Mr A (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, how these "support"-think started up in en-Wikipedia, but it is ridiculous. Where starts support and where ends it? Does Germany supported Indonesia, because they didn't protested against Suharto while his visit in Germany 1995? Where weapons sold mainly for the use in Timor or where they sold generally to Indonesia to support the country? Is the acceotance by Kissinger for the invasion support? That is all very unclear. I wouldn't mention such support. But if you mention it, you have to list the PR China at side of FRETILIN, because China tried to give weapons to FALINTIL between 1975 and 1978, but didn't succeeded, because Indonesian and Australian navy blocked any ships trying to reach East Timor. Check "Loro Horta: „Timor-Leste - The Dragon’s Newest Friend“, 2009" and German artice de:Geschichte Osttimors. Greetings, --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello J. Patrick Fischer. I think we can assume that "supported by" means something along the lines of either giving overt political backing or sending supplies, military or otherwise, but not actually participating in a traditional military sense. In other words, Germany not protesting against the invasion would not constitute support. But for example, on the Vietnam War page, the Republic of China is listed on the anti-communist side, but because they only sent military supplies to the Saigon regime, they are listed under "supported by". Incidentally I totally agree with your suggestion of adding China under a "supported by" entry for FRETILIN, perhaps with a footnote to explain about their interception, and the fact is that the "supported by" sub-heading is common pratice on military conflict articles on wikipedia, so I can't quite work out what makes this page any different. Mr A (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horhey Edit Warring

[edit]

This edit may be it for Horhey. He's been given his "last warning" already. His restoration of this removed, copied and pasted material, after being told that it violated copyright (coupled with his edit warring and failure to discuss his differences on the talk page) could result in him being banned. I intend to report it to an admin as soon as I get a chance.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already angry here. Ald™ ¬_¬™ 04:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Horhey reverted it twice, while personally attacking other editors as "censors". He's digging deeper and deeper.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my content on the grounds that my paraphrasing was "commentary" when it was supported by the source. Then when the wording is more similar to the article I get "copyright violations" when I made sure the wording was not "copy and paste." I am being censored.--Horhey420 (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses, excuses. You failed to discuss. More importantly, you were copying and pasting material from the start--including commentary from the articles you were copying. You even added an interview with President Clinton and a paragraph of commentary by the Democracy Now! interviewer, despite the clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Your personal attacks and edit warring after being told not to copy and paste huge chunks of material is the main issue--your conduct is even more offensive than your content.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Horhey has been blocked.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
per 1st Ald™ ¬_¬™ 04:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the material this editor added is still in the article, I'd appreciate it if editors could remove it - it can be safely assumed to have been a copyright violation. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supported by...

[edit]

There have been frequent edits to this article by IP editors adding countries such as the US and the UK under "supported by" in the infobox for the Indonesian side, and Portugal for the East Timorese side. However these countries played no military part in the invasion. They may well have provided political support (particularly the US), but that does not qualify for inclusion in the infobox. If is did, surely every ASEAN nation would be in there, and perhaps Australia could be included in the "supported by" category for the East Timor side as the invading Indonesians killed five journalists covering the story. I will keep reverting this every time it gets changed, but would welcome any thoughts from anybody on this issue. Davidelit (Talk) 03:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this, I tried looking up the source for which placed the supported countries in the infobox but I cannot find the source anywhere at all (Jolliffe, pp. 208–216; Indonesia (1977)). Jill Jolliffee has no book attributed to her that is called "Indonesia (1977)" as far as I can see from the National Library of Australia and as such recommend removing the countries from the infobox until a valid source can be provide the backs up said claims of supporting nations. Kunamesenpai (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odd combatans

[edit]

The infobox claims that the "UDT" fought as an East Timor "dissident" on the side of Indonesia, but this seems very wrong according to the UDT article. That one explains that until January 1975 they were actually direct allies of FRETLIN, but that this weakened due to foreign pressure and intimidation. They were the ones to carry out a coup against Portugal, yes, but then afterwards they fled West and were forced by the Indonesians to sign their petition. I see no reason to say UDT was on the Indonesian side. 188.207.91.211 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The UDT fought against FRETILIN in 1975, after influence of Indonesian secret service, but lost. Most of UDT members fled to Indonesian West Timor, some cooperated with Indonesians and collaborated, when Indonesia invaded East Timor. There was the so called Balibo declaration, where UDT and APODETI members requested Indonesia for help, but it was incenated by Indonesia. Later the UDT was part of resistance against Indonesian occupation. It is very difficult to say, if they were on side of Indonesia. I woul say: "Some of UDT were, but not all like APODETI." --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Indonesian invasion of East Timor. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 20:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indonesian invasion of East Timor. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch involvement

[edit]

The Netherland did not support the invasion of Timor and Minister Pronk of the Netherlands was excused in 1992 when he critizided the Indonesian government which led to a diplomatic problem between two nations.

https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/indonesie-duldt-geen-enkele-herdenking-bloedbad-oost-timor~b04cb739/

--Orange2000 (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prabowo Subianto

[edit]

It was listed that Prabowo Subianto was among invasion commander. This is wrong because Prabowo Subianto did not involved in the invasion (1975), but rather he was chosen as commander of Group 1 Special Forces in East Timor on 1976 after the invasion was completed. So Prabowo Subianto's leadership was to retain Indonesia's occupancy in East Timor instead of during the invasion itself. 149.113.219.233 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Timor&oldid=1218481021"