Nairobi terrorist attack

[ahinton]

We continue to miss the point.

Who's we? You and I?

If something can never be excused for whatever reason the 'motive' is irrelevant. I may murder granny because she didn't put any sugar in my tea or because she doesn't like football. It doesn't matter. Murdering granny is always wrong whatever the 'reason'. In short, it is Evil.

You will, of course, be well familiar with the quotation "it has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing" often misattributed to Edmund Burke. Ignoring the entire question of the motive, the reason, call it what you will on the grounds that the atrocity was "Evil" and that's all that's to be said and done about it seems to me to be a perfect illustration of that quote.

Don't you actually care about how it might have come about, to the extent of wanting to try to encourage the kind of understanding that might bring about a situation in which a repeat is less likely or, better still, impossible? - and, by that, I refer to action including the finding of the perpetrators and their sponsors who, if brought to trial, might reveal something of those motives, reasons or what you will so that the rest of the world might have a better idea as to how to deal with the problem. Also, as I said before, merely claiming "Evil" as the perpatrator will achieve nothing except the possible self-satisfaction of some of those who do so. Why? Well, for one thing, because you can no more investigate, apprehend, charge, try, convict and punish "Evil" than you can interrogate it about how and why it did what it did.

We have been here before. If you believe that there is Good presumably there must be a Bad. There are huge, varying degrees of both. People can't be forced to be good or bad, it's up to them.

And is it up to us all to turn a blind eye - or the other cheek, of whatever - for the purpose of washing our hands of it all because it's just "Evil"?

You can call the Nairobi massacre anything you like. I call it plain, downright Evil. That may seem 'unhelpful' and 'insensitive' to you and Mr GG but blindingly obvious and quite unremarkable to many others.

I call it a devastating and inexcusable atrocity (as, I believe, do you, Mr Pee, Bee Oven! and the rest of us); whatever else you might call it does not make me any less concerned about how to understand it with a view to trying to discourage repeat performances.

[MrGongGong]

We continue to miss the point. If something can never be excused for whatever reason the 'motive' is irrelevant. I may murder granny because she didn't put any sugar in my tea or because she doesn't like football. It doesn't matter. Murdering granny is always wrong whatever the 'reason'. In short, it is Evil.
.

Indeed it is evil
Which i'm sure most will agree (though some might use a different word)
One problem is (and even though you and others who haven't flounced off in a hissy fit ! might think that this is a "distraction" or conveniently "irrelevant") that it's not as simple as that is it ?

What the people who do these things sometimes use for justification is the fact that state sponsored murder is somehow OK and other sorts aren't . It's fine to sell arms to unpleasant regimes because that's good business isn't it ?

If you are adopting a Christian (i.e Pacifist ..... because from what I remember from Sunday School and being in a Church Choir... Jesus preached WAS pacifism) standpoint then that's perfectly logical
BUT i'm not sure that you are ?

[Beef Oven!]

Of course I can grasp that; what you seem not to grasp, however, is that, whilst i might on occasion be responding to one of your posts, my response is intended to form part of the discussion that we're all having, not just as a reply to your post; as it happens, you are not the only opne to put forward the kinds of view to which I've responded and I'm by no means the only one ti take opposite views, so let's not make too much of a one-to-one of this!





I don't necessarily doubt it but as I've said, there's more to this discussion than an interaction between two forum members.


Thank you. I does me best!

Ok..............

When we post, we have the option to either reply to the thread or reply to the post.

If you reply directly to the poster, they will naturally engage likewise and we will have what you describe as 'an interaction between two forum members', first and foremost. Others may or may not join in.

If you want to inform the discussion that we're all having, rather than specifically engage with a specific poster, you can use the (intended) facility to "reply to thread".

I hope you can see the reason why I had a small, but short-lived doubt, that you might have been trying to wind me up. I accept that you wasn't, of course.

No matter, misunderstandings have been reconciled and I look forward to the labours of your trying your best!!

[ahinton]

Ok..............

When we post, we have the option to either reply to the thread or reply to the post.

If you reply directly to the poster, they will naturally engage likewise and we will have what you describe as 'an interaction between two forum members', first and foremost. Others may or may not join in.

If you want to inform the discussion that we're all having, rather than specifically engage with a specific poster, you can use the (intended) facility to "reply to thread".

I hope you can see the reason why I had a small, but short-lived doubt, that you might have been trying to wind me up. I accept that you wasn't, of course.

No matter, misunderstandings have been reconciled and I look forward to the labours of your trying your best!!

That's all understood, then! Whenever I respond to a post using "Reply With Quote" rather than merely posting using "Reply" (and not just on these occasions here), I always seek to kill two birds with one stone (if you'll pardon that phrase in the presetn context!) by replying to the quoted poster as well as contributing to the general discussion, otherwise I'd have sent a PM; merely using "Reply" when one of the things that I'm aiming to do is reply to a particular post would necessitate my including in the text of that post something along the lines of "to Beef Oven!'s assertion that the price of milk is the reason why the Scherzo should follow the Andante in Mahler's Sixth Symphony and that support for same sex marriage is why its adherents should join UKIP", which would, I suspect, be more cumbersome and less clear.

That said, I lay at least part of the blame any misunderstandings on this on Gove and Cameron; if they'd done nothing wrong, we'd have nothing to fear but climate change, women bishops in Iran and poor value postal workers' pensions among the nuts of Australia.

[Beef Oven!]

by replying to the quoted poster as well as contributing to the general discussion, otherwise I'd have sent a PM; merely using "Reply" when one of the things that I'm aiming to do is reply to a particular post would necessitate my including in the text of that post something along the lines of "to Beef Oven!'s assertion that the price of milk is the reason why the Scherzo should follow the Andante in Mahler's Sixth Symphony and that support for same sex marriage is why its adherents should join UKIP", which would, I suspect, be more cumbersome and less clear.

Or, ''see post #XX''. That, I would say, is even clearer and simpler.

In a recent piece of research that I just made up, women bishops in same sex marriages who deny man-made climate change, place the andante after the scherzo. I wasn't actually expecting that.

[ahinton]

Or, ''see post #XX''. That, I would say, is even clearer and simpler.

Well, that's only really OK when an entire post is being referred to rather than just an extract from one.

In a recent piece of research that I just made up, women bishops in same sex marriages who deny man-made climate change, place the andante after the scherzo. I wasn't actually expecting that.

"Be careful what you research for" might therefore be the appropriate homily here - but, in so doing, might those bishopesses not be thought thereby to advocate coitus intermahleruptus? If so, the emissions therefrom might be of quite serious consequence and 60,000 of them would indeed be quite a lot...

[scottycelt]

Who's we? You and I?

I have come around to Member Grew's view that the use of 'you' is itself 'unhelpful'.

You will, of course, be well familiar with the quotation "it has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing" often misattributed to Edmund Burke. Ignoring the entire question of the motive, the reason, call it what you will on the grounds that the atrocity was "Evil" and that's all that's to be said and done about it seems to me to be a perfect illustration of that quote.

Don't you actually care about how it might have come about, to the extent of wanting to try to encourage the kind of understanding that might bring about a situation in which a repeat is less likely or, better still, impossible? - and, by that, I refer to action including the finding of the perpetrators and their sponsors who, if brought to trial, might reveal something of those motives, reasons or what you will so that the rest of the world might have a better idea as to how to deal with the problem. Also, as I said before, merely claiming "Evil" as the perpatrator will achieve nothing except the possible self-satisfaction of some of those who do so. Why? Well, for one thing, because you can no more investigate, apprehend, charge, try, convict and punish "Evil" than you can interrogate it about how and why it did what it did.

And is it up to us all to turn a blind eye - or the other cheek, of whatever - for the purpose of washing our hands of it all because it's just "Evil"?

I call it a devastating and inexcusable atrocity (as, I believe, do you, Mr Pee, Bee Oven! and the rest of us); whatever else you might call it does not make me any less concerned about how to understand it with a view to trying to discourage repeat performances.

Can't we just accept that men and women can do bad things as well as good? There is nothing much more to understand than that. Whatever the 'reason' for the Nairobi atrocity it can never be justified it so how can it possibly be 'understood'?

Do I care about any declared 'motives' for committing random mass murder?

Frankly, no ... I only care about the security services rooting out these cruel killers and defeating them.

[MrGongGong]

Can't we just accept that men and women can do bad things as well as good? There is nothing much more to understand than that. Whatever the 'reason' for the Nairobi atrocity it can never be justified it so how can it possibly be 'understood'?
.

For someone who loves his dictionary you seem to be unable to separate the meanings of the words
Understand
and
Justified

Guess what ? They mean DIFFERENT things ........

There is much to understand....... thinking you can "defeat" an idea would seem to go against history. It didn't work with Christianity did it ?

[french frank]

Can't we just accept that men and women can do bad things as well as good? There is nothing much more to understand than that. Whatever the 'reason' for the Nairobi atrocity it can never be justified it so how can it possibly be 'understood'?

Do I care about any declared 'motives' for committing random mass murder?

Frankly, no ... I only care about the security services rooting out these cruel killers and defeating them.

That may apply to this individual incident, as far as you're concerned, but it isn't an attitude that will fit all cases.

'Understanding', in a general way, involves working out whether you - or someone else - has acted in such a way that they have contributed in some indirect way to an act of violence. We have to judge our own actions as much as the actions of others, rather than take the self righteous view: "It was nothing to do with us. There is no way that we can act differently in future in order to prevent innocent people being slaughtered by acts of savage barbarism." That isn't to excuse or justify such acts of barbarism but in the hope that we can do something positive to make it less likely that innocent people will be slaughtered in such a way in future. If we don't do that, and it happens again, we are in a measure responsible. That, to me, is the morality involved in 'understanding' horrendous events of this kind. To abrogate all responsibility for the security of others is not moral.

[ahinton]

I have come around to Member Grew's view that the use of 'you' is itself 'unhelpful'.

I've never (at least knowingly) "used" "you", scotty...

Can't we just accept that men and women can do bad things as well as good? There is nothing much more to understand than that. Whatever the 'reason' for the Nairobi atrocity it can never be justified it so how can it possibly be 'understood'?

No. We can, of course - and indeed must - accept that men and women can and do do bad things as well as good, but to suggest that there is "nothing much more to understand than that" sounds to me like a case of throwing in the towel and admitting defeat. Of course the Nairobi atrocity cannot be justified, but what needs to be understood is precisely what it was that motivated those who committed it and if no one can be bothered to try to do that then no one will be seen to care about that, leaving it open for a repeat performance that none of us wants and the very prospect of which every one of us surely dreads.

Do I care about any declared 'motives' for committing random mass murder?

That's only for you to answer, scotty - but, before you deicde whether or not and why you might care about it, it behoves you to think about the extent, if any, to which this particular instance of mass murder was "random" (to use your term), compared, for example, to the much more randon-like mass murders perpetrated in various places (notably US) by lone individuals with no obvious religious or political objectives or agendas.

Frankly, no ... I only care about the security services rooting out these cruel killers and defeating them.

I care about that too - very much - but that will be dependent upon those security services and others making the necessary determined efforts to understand how and wy they came about and not only who actually committed them but who was behind those perpetrators and why and to what hoped-for ends.

[ahinton]

That may apply to this individual incident, as far as you're concerned, but it isn't an attitude that will fit all cases.

'Understanding', in a general way, involves working out whether you - or someone else - has acted in such a way that they have contributed in some indirect way to an act of violence. We have to judge our own actions as much as the actions of others, rather than take the self righteous view: "It was nothing to do with us. There is no way that we can act differently in future in order to prevent innocent people being slaughtered by acts of savage barbarism." That isn't to excuse or justify such acts of barbarism but in the hope that we can do something positive to make it less likely that innocent people will be slaughtered in such a way in future. If we don't do that, and it happens again, we are in a measure responsible. That, to me, is the morality involved in 'understanding' horrendous events of this kind. To abrogate all responsibility for the security of others is not moral.

You put this far better than I did; that's absolutely correct.

[scottycelt]

For someone who loves his dictionary you seem to be unable to separate the meanings of the words
Understand
and
Justified

Guess what ? They mean DIFFERENT things ........

There is much to understand....... thinking you can "defeat" an idea would seem to go against history. It didn't work with Christianity did it ?

Ah, we have suddenly (if somewhat belatedly) discovered the value of dictionaries!

According to my dictionary 'understanding' means 'comprehension'.

What is there to 'comprehend' apart from the fact that likely well over 100 innocent souls have been slaughtered in cold blood by a group of homicidal maniacs?

Would the 'understanding' of Adolf Hitler's Nazis have prevented the Holocaust?

[french frank]

What is there to 'comprehend' apart from the fact that likely well over 100 innocent souls have been slaughtered in cold blood by a group of homicidal maniacs?

If you have a fundamentalist view of the existence of 'evil', you won't need to understand anything else, other than that God works in mysterious ways and has made some people 'evil': in this case a whole group of them in the same place at the same time.

[MrGongGong]

Ah, we have suddenly (if somewhat belatedly) discovered the value of dictionaries!

According to my dictionary 'understanding' means 'comprehension'.

What is there to 'comprehend' apart from the fact that likely well over 100 innocent souls have been slaughtered in cold blood by a group of homicidal maniacs?

Would the 'understanding' of Adolf Hitler's Nazis have prevented the Holocaust?

I'm not sure I go along with that there is a difference but i'll leave that to a resident linguist !
BUT
I think (as I said above) you confuse Understanding (and comprehension) with 'justification'

and to your final sentence
It's quite possible that it would .......... understanding why people think what they do helps one understand why they act like they do ....... which is a rather useful thing I would think

[amateur51]

We continue to miss the point. If something can never be excused for whatever reason the 'motive' is irrelevant. I may murder granny because she didn't put any sugar in my tea or because she doesn't like football. It doesn't matter. Murdering granny is always wrong whatever the 'reason'. In short, it is Evil.




We have been here before. If you believe that there is Good presumably there must be a Bad. There are huge, varying degrees of both. People can't be forced to be good or bad, it's up to them.

You can call the Nairobi massacre anything you like. I call it plain, downright Evil. That may seem 'unhelpful' and 'insensitive' to you and Mr GG but blindingly obvious and quite unremarkable to many others.

Many others? You mean Mr Pee?