Privacy and the State

[An_Inspector_Calls]

... if you understand this, can you explain to us why they do these things?

I think Scotty has it (the Nairobi attack) as well as anyone is going to 'understand' Al Shabaab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shabaab_(militant_group)

" Alleging ulterior motives on the part of foreign organizations, group members have also reportedly intimidated, kidnapped and killed aid workers, leading to a suspension of humanitarian operations and an exodus of relief agents"

To suggest the Kenyan's brought the Nairobi attack on themselves forgets that they had already started infiltrating Kenyan society to recruit members.

It seems to me that barrett's argument that if 'we' hadn't interfered with them they'd have left us alone would fail in this instance.

[ahinton]

I know, you keep saying that over and over again ...

Some of us do take notice of what all members say, not just the illustrious Mr Barrett. That's what a forum is for, I'd have thought.

It's just that some of us don't agree with Mr Barrett (and others). I know it may be hard for you to come to terms with such a shocking and appalling revelation but you really must try and get over the hurt you so obviously feel on Mr Barrett's behalf, ahinton!

If you ever decide, for whatever reason/s or none, to stop writing such irrelevant, puerile and meaningless rubbish as you've typed above, please do be sure to let us all know, won't you? Thanks!

[ahinton]

It seems to me that barrett's argument that if 'we' hadn't interfered with them they'd have left us alone would fail in this instance.

Richard Barrett to you - and whatever it might "seem" to you does not of itself imply that it does so to everyone else here.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

hinton, If ever you write a sentence of less than twenty words, do share it with us.

[scottycelt]

... if you understand this, can you explain to us why they do these things?

I thought that was your mission? Can you explain after seven long decades why the Holocaust happened and how we now 'understand' so much more about why it happened?

I have no reason to 'understand' any more than what the terrorists themselves tell us why they do these things. Don't you believe them?

I understand what they are saying and believe them only too well!

[Richard Barrett]

It seems to me that barrett's argument that if 'we' hadn't interfered with them they'd have left us alone would fail in this instance.

I don't recall making any comment on the Nairobi event. My argument (I say for the second time) was concerned with the supposed thread subject, viz. the terrorism which is the ostensible reason for the surveillance made public by Snowden.

[scottycelt]

I was just going to enquire whether scotty knew exactly what the word 'why' means.

I'd refer you to your own post #1169 ...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I don't recall making any comment on the Nairobi event. My argument (I say for the second time) was concerned with the supposed thread subject, viz. the terrorism which is the ostensible reason for the surveillance made public by Snowden.

That's irrelevant. You've made the general argument several times before that a prime cause for terrorism was 'our' aggressive foreign policy and what I was pointing out was that I couldn't see that as an explanation in the Nairobi case. Frank suggests this more strongly in #1153.

[french frank]

You've made the general argument several times before that a prime cause for terrorism was 'our' aggressive foreign policy and what I was pointing out was that I couldn't see that as an explanation in the Nairobi case. Frank suggests this more strongly in #1153.

A 'prime cause' of terrorism directed at the West, at the US, at the UK. In the Nairobi case it was not directed at the West and there seemed to be a link between Kenyan involvement in Somalia and the Somalians attacking Kenyan targets. The same point, isn't it?

[vinteuil]

I have no reason to 'understand' any more than what the terrorists themselves tell us why they do these things.

... I think it is probably interesting and important to think whether there are other things that may have occasioned particular events - over and above what, for example, the terrorists themselves may claim. You seem satisfied to take their account without further thought.

[scottycelt]

... I think it is probably interesting and important to think whether there are other things that may have occasioned particular events - over and above what, for example, the terrorists themselves may claim. You seem satisfied to take their account without further thought.

I see no reason to disbelieve them as they are are the only people who can possibly know why they commit such atrocities!

If there is one saving grace about these thugs it is their total honesty. They make no bones about their intent and methods.

Are you claiming that you (and others) might know better why they do these things than they do themselves?

[vinteuil]

... well, my professional life would certainly have been simpler if I had been able just to believe that the motivations for what people did were precisely what people claimed. Unfortunately perhaps I have found that life, humanity, politics, history, society and so on make it all a little more complicated than things seem to be in scottyworld.

[french frank]

I see no reason to disbelieve them as they are are the only people who can possibly know why they commit such atrocities!

But Osama bin Laden's Letter to America made a number of claims, following 9/11, all relating to alleged US intervention in a number of countries, or US support for regimes that were attacking Muslims. Can we believe them?

[Mr Pee]

Blackmail it may be but every British Prime Minister in my experience has found it necessary to negotiate with terrorists in the end. Why don't we learn the lessons of history and act on them a little more quickly, I wonder?

Suppose then that Gay Rights/Marriage legislation was violently opposed by a certain minority group, who made their point by bombing Gay pubs and clubs, or attacking a ""Pride" parade with assault rifles? Would you suggest that the Government of the day should sit down and negotiate with them? Perhaps accede to some extent to their demands?

By your logic, that would be the solution. Because violence is either an acceptable way to further a cause, or it is not.

You can't have it both ways.

(P.S.- I have slightly edited your original post. "Terrorists" is enough.)

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The same point, isn't it?

Yes, and as I questioned in #1186 I really can't see that applying in this case.


You don't have to post if you can't keep up.