Few would disagree with Chris Davir's call for better relations with Indonesia. But many would disagree with his dredging up of the old apologist theme of beating terrorism by asking why terrorists attack us in the first place, as though it is not really their fault, but something we have done. The only reason for the current brand of terrorism is the criminal lunacy of individuals with a warped sense of Islam. Mr. Devir suggests as much when he tells us that the mere resentment of Westerners by the Indonesians is enough to make us a target for terrorists.
And, yes: "Australians have to relate to Indonesia as they would any mature and developed country". It's a pity that Mr. Davir didn't think to mention Indonesia's responsiblities to the relationship.

Good on ya Leigh,well said,you saved me the effort.

The relationship with Indonesia is the cornerstone of Australia’s foreign policy, and as such, this case for building bridges with our nearest neighbour is well grounded. Therefore the valuable contribution of the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development following the tsunami should be acknowledged. Similarly, the study of Bahasa Indonesia at the school and college level has provided a good framework for an appreciation Indonesian culture, though more needs to be done in this area.

To Leigh,

You have failed to understand my point completely. Interpreting the article as an apology for terrorism is completely misguided. Ignorance is bliss but it can be dangerous. I am unaware to your answer to terrorism as you failed declare any solution. The current approach to fighting terrorism, the pre-emptive "big stick" is failing alarmingly. Leigh, I suggest you read the article again and refute the argument with alternative, not hostile rhetoric. If you still have the same opinion then I suggest you forget about this site (Online Opinion) and move directly to foxnews.com, you will feel a lot safer.

Chris Devir,

Sorry, Chris. I won't be leaving this site because you don't like what I say. If you believe that I indulged in 'hostile rhetoric' and you cannot accept that your opinions are are not superior to everyone else's and that they should not be criticised, you are very fragile and, perhaps, you are the one who should not be posting those opinions. Your advice to me:- "If you still have the same opion (mine-after re-educating myslelf with your opinion)then I suggest you forget about this site (Online Opinion)and move directly to foxnews com, you will feel a lot safer", is extremely arrogant and rude. You even took the trouble to ensure that I knew the name of the site and suggested that opinions not in line with my own make me feel "unsafe". Not so, Chris. Your petulant reaction to my criticism shows you are the one with that feeling, and your advice to me is the patronising "weapon" of a very young and immature man who thinks that he can squash opposing views by attempting to put others down.

Incidentally, your opinion of the failure of using a big stick against terrorists is just that - an opinion, as is your claim that finding out why terrorists are terrorists is the answer. You are entitled to those opinions, but don't expect everybody else to agree with them. Surely, that is what "Online Opinion" is all about.

It will be interesting to see what sentence the Bali Nine get.I think they may well get a far lesser sentence than Schapelle Corby.They were after all,exporting drugs to the infidels and possibly bringing money to Indonesia.It will be an opportunity for the Indonesians to do an "In your face verdict."

They have virtually freed Abu Bakar Bashir and condoned the murdering of 80 Australians.

Schapelle is now a political prisoner and they will use her to assert their authority.

If Schapelle was a real drug dealer,she would have had the money to buy herself out of trouble by bribing the customs officers.Once this story reached the media,Schapelle had lost the battle.

It all should have been done behind closed doors.