Hi, I am quite new to politics, and am after some help. I am writing a report on the 2005 Bali Bombs (terrorist attacks) and am looking to see how the events were perceived by different people supporting different theoretical ideoligies (examply marxists / feminists / liberalism etc) and also, of course, their criticism for other approaches and they way that they particularly see it. I have read books, articles and been reserching for weeks, but it is all quite confusing to me and Im really interested to hear some peoples opinions straight from them. Any response would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance

Good work for creating your own discussion, hopefully it gives you the information you seek. I just want to say sorry as I couldn’t quite understand what you were asking for, even after I read it a few times. Are you asking about political theories in reference or to interpret the Bali bombings?

Thankyou for your reply and encouragement. I hope it gives me the info I need too! I guess what I am asking is how do people from different political perspectives interpret an event such as the Bali Bombs. Thankyou

In interpreting an even such as the Bali bombing, perspectives will be more drawn from cultural differences rather than political. This probably doesn’t help in what you are trying to find, but on a political scale, I guess you would say that an attack such as this, which could be called a cautionary attack for Australia in international affairs. That is how I looked at it in 2002 and 2005, Australia is a country that has not and will not be a major influence in global affairs, but our nation’s affiliations may land us in hot water. So on a political note, this would be my interpretation.

Chalottejade: Well, I'll try to offer an explanation from a libertarian perspective, though it's kind of complex, so maybe you should read up on that theoretical approach.

Firstly, libertarians would almost certainly consider the perpetrators and organisers to be murderers since they targetted innocents.

However, in dealing with the political ideologies behind terrorism, it's kind of a case of whether one regards a group as terrorists or freedom fighters, and whether they have legitimate grievances or not.

So, it could be a case that the terrorists had legitimate grievances, but went about dealing with those in the wrong way and targetted the wrong people. Usually, libertarians don't have a problem with the state (and its employees) being a target.

As far as justice and punishment, there are different approaches. On the one hand, libertarians prefer to avoid government justice and would like to see private arbitration that involved the damaged party being paid some form of restitution by those who harmed it. However, in this case, that's unlikely to happen since it requires both to be on the same page, which is essentially the central problem here. Libertarians are certainly not opposed to capital responses (though they'd prefer to be armed for their own self-defence/deterence, rather than have to respond after the event), though vengeance doesn't solve much, although in this case it's probably the most practical. They're probably most likely to advocate completely ostracising someone by not trading with him. However, that's probably not going to work here.

Obviously, there are a lot of assumptions about a rational society/people and so on in this ideology.

Dear ChalotteJade,

It's interesting that you seek opinions relating to Marxists, feminists, liberalists, etc. I don't know what you mean by "etc" though. You see Marxists, feminists and liberalists are all pretty much the same bunch - they all hold similar and overlapping views on most things. They're what gets colloquially called "The Left". When you say "etc", do you mean others of "The Left" like greenies, socialists or democrats? Or does your "etc" refer to others not of "The Left", like capitalists or conservatives?

Whatever, please advise, otherwise I shall answer as being from "The Left" as I believe this would most probably have been the question posed by the assigner, teacher or questioner. If it's a school assignment, I feel confident that they'd only be interested in you learning about "The Left". So here goes...

Firstly Marxists - They believe everyone MUST be equal. They believe that until that arrangement is achieved their social revolution must continue. "No Justice No Peace. Just kill your fellow man until human equality has been achieved." From that perspective, Marxists would generally have sympathy with the bombers, identifying with them that they too were locked in a social struggle to eliminate wealthy western bourgeois oppressors - Australian holiday makers. Yet, on the other hand they would also be critical of the bombers because they were acting from a position of religious zealotry and Marxists hate religion.

Next, the Feminists - Feminists would have been outraged that women and girls were victims and blamed the bombers because they were men. Feminists, would also have gained political mileage from the event because it gave them the opportunity to publicise their "eliminate violence against women" cause. Male victims of the bombing wouldn't have troubled them at all as men are from the oppressor class, the patriarchy, and deserved it.

Finally, liberals - Whilst demonstrating great grief and concern for the victims, liberals would have found the event profitable from the point of view of the political damage that they could bring upon the Howard government.

That's pretty much it in less than 350 words.