Nairobi terrorist attack

[MrGongGong]

Some people seem to think that "understanding" implies "agreeing with" or "being able to agree with". This is not the case; it is not what I intend.

"Understanding" means "understanding". Capisce?

I wonder whether this has always been the case ?
It seems to be a rather common confusion these days ?

[ahinton]

There is an asymmetry.

There might be good arguments as to whether to be 'more' or 'less' condemnatory in respect of a particular bad thing.

There are no good arguments to be "less understanding" rather than "more understanding" about anything.

Some people seem to think that "understanding" implies "agreeing with" or "being able to agree with". This is not the case; it is not what I intend.

"Understanding" means "understanding". Capisce?

Indeed so but, as you see here, it's a concept whose explanation and reiteration, however simple in itself and however clear, unequivocal and logical, can nevertheless on occasion seem wearisomely intractable!

[scottycelt]

That's a reasonable starting point. 'Their way' being what?

Well, surely any of us with internet access can now search for information in order to develop our understanding.

Here's an interesting and informative source which might help.

http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.2(1)/2012(2.1-32).pdf

[scottycelt]

There is an asymmetry.

There might be good arguments as to whether to be 'more' or 'less' condemnatory in respect of a particular bad thing.

There are no good arguments to be "less understanding" rather than "more understanding" about anything.

Some people seem to think that "understanding" implies "agreeing with" or "being able to agree with". This is not the case; it is not what I intend.

"Understanding" means "understanding". Capisce?

But if the Nairobi perpetrators have already declared their motives and murderous tactics what exactly is the problem regarding any degree of 'understanding'?

Exactly what else do members wish to 'understand'?

[amateur51]

Well, surely any of us with internet access can now search for information in order to develop our understanding.

Here's an interesting and informative source which might help.

http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARI...12(2.1-32).pdf

Do us a favour and highlight the top ten ... I hesitate to ask for bullet points ... ten identifying features out of the twelve pages, as your contribution please scotty.

[scottycelt]

Do us a favour and highlight the top ten ... I hesitate to ask for bullet points ... ten identifying features out of the twelve pages, as your contribution please scotty.

Don't be so lazy, amsey ... if you are really that keen on 'understanding' the Nairobi terrorists you only have to read the (Islamic) article.

[amateur51]

Don't be so lazy, amsey ... if you are really that keen on 'understanding' the Nairobi terrorists you only have to read the (Islamic) article.

You had your chance, you're telling me it's important so front it.

I'm not reading twelve pages of mumbo jumbo just to make you happy - précis svp!

[french frank]

I wonder what scotty thinks of this analysis, particularly the historical details? Or perhaps we all prefer our own 'sources'?

[scottycelt]

I wonder what scotty thinks of this analysis, particularly the historical details? Or perhaps we all prefer our own 'sources'?

Not at all, ff.

"My" source is an appropriately Islamic academic study ... it has absolutely nothing to do with me or my natural sentiments whatsoever ... "your" source is a 'liberal' Western press article with which you may well have a natural empathy, especially as it happens to come from the forum "bible"! <winkeye>

Let us each draw our own conclusions.

[scottycelt]

I'm not reading twelve pages of mumbo jumbo ...

Good Heavens, are you a closet UKIP supporter, amsey ... ?

[french frank]

Not at all, ff

Did you read it? If so, what did you think of it?

Unlike the source you gave (and why should it be more reliable, being written by someone in Pakistan, rather one with African, specifically Kenyan, connections?), there was a clearer historical perspective. 'Understanding' crucially involves where people are 'coming from' - how they came to form their ideas and why.

The atrocity of the event and the utter revulsion and condemnation are givens. 'Understandin'g is moving on from there. But it isn't absolutely necessary: you are perfectly free to take what you see at face value if you are already satisfied with what you know. But I don't see anything particularly objectionable - or even 'disgusting' - about the statement "it's important to recognise that terrorism does not happen outside of history".

[scottycelt]

Did you read it? If so, what did you think of it?

Unlike the source you gave (and why should it be more reliable, being written by someone in Pakistan, rather one with African, specifically Kenyan, connections?), there was a clearer historical perspective. 'Understanding' crucially involves where people are 'coming from' - how they came to form their ideas and why.

The atrocity of the event and the utter revulsion and condemnation are givens. 'Understandin'g is moving on from there. But it isn't absolutely necessary: you are perfectly free to take what you see at face value if you are already satisfied with what you know. But I don't see anything particularly objectionable - or even 'disgusting' - about the statement "it's important to recognise that terrorism does not happen outside of history".

I don't want to get bogged down in tat for tat arguments about 'sources'. What does it matter what I 'think of it'? That in itself suggests I should have some sort of pre-conceived idea before I try to 'understand' the already well understood!

The difference between an academic study and a press article will be clear to most of us. The former states facts and strives to avoid opinion whilst the latter provides a careful selection of a few facts alongside a lot more subjective opinion.

That is not to say that opinion is necessarily wrong ... but it is just that ... opinion.

Frankly, I'd rather go with the more factual academic study and then form my own opinion, and not rely on that of the Guardian!

[french frank]

There was no attempt at 'tit for tat': I simply asked a question. Like amateur (I suspect!) I found the piece you posted somewhat rebarbative, and requiring more time to digest than I wished to spend on it. It didn't seem to be going in a useful direction - but I will go back and read it .....

I don't think, though, that the article was 'opinion'. It was also written by an academic, if not an academic paper.

I don't want to get bogged down in tat for tat arguments about 'sources'. What does it matter what I 'think of it'? That in itself suggests I should have some sort of pre-conceived idea before I try to 'understand' the already well understood!

The difference between an academic study and a press article will be clear to most of us. The former states facts and strives to avoid opinion whilst the latter provides a careful selection of a few facts alongside a lot more subjective opinion.

That is not to say that opinion is necessarily wrong ... but it is just that ... opinion.

Frankly, I'd rather go with the more factual academic study and then form my own opinion, and not rely on that of the Guardian!

[french frank]

I'm not sure whether you read the whole article? It's slightly bizarre for an academic work in being written in very poor English - strange, in that foreign language papers are vetted by editors, I would have thought.

It divides into two parts:

1. The (military) structure of the movement. Interesting enough in itself, but not of primary relevance here. Descriptive.

2. The ideology: this is hardish line jihadist, which seems initially centred on getting rid of foreign influences in Somalia and setting up an Islamic state - and it does just touch on the same George Bush involvement (p 4) as the Guardian article, in similar terms. This is what seemed to lie, immediately, at the heart of the Nairobi attack - the Kenyan military involvement within Somalia; hence the retaliation factor. Nothing very unfamiliar.

[amateur51]

Good Heavens, are you a closet UKIP supporter, amsey ... ?

I was making a reference to religion, scotty.