Nairobi terrorist attack

[Mr Pee]

The families of the massacred might make more sense of the 'rational' explanation of what happened: that this was Muslim retaliation for Western interventions. You don't, apparently. You appear to prefer the irrational explanation that some people are just 'evil' because they're born evil. They just are,Satan incarnate.

I cannot speak for the families of those murdered, and neither can you, but I would speculate that they would be horrified- and frankly disgusted-that some people, in the comfort and relative safety of the UK, are making any attempt whatsoever to contextualise the slaughter of their loved ones on the basis of the perceived policy failures of Western Governments.

[amateur51]

I cannot speak for the families of those murdered, and neither can you,

You were making sense up to that point ...

[Beef Oven!]

I cannot speak for the families of those murdered, and neither can you, but I would speculate that they would be horrified- and frankly disgusted-that some people, in the comfort and relative safety of the UK, are making any attempt whatsoever to contextualise the slaughter of their loved ones on the basis of the perceived policy failures of Western Governments.

Quite frankly one does not have to be a member of the poor families that have suffered such a terrible loss to be disgusted with this type of mentality, emanating from the safety of our UK homes, from keyboards on internet discussion forums. But it's never about what it's about. Otherwise we'd be trying to 'contextualise' Nick Griffin and the BNP, understand the 'rationale' of Stephen Lawrence's murderers and so on. What it's about is ideology, and this atrocity is the medium to channel the the ideological rhetoric.

[french frank]

Quite frankly one does not have to be a member of the poor families that have suffered such a terrible loss to be disgusted with this type of mentality, emanating from the safety of our UK homes, from keyboards on internet discussion forums. But it's never about what it's about. Otherwise we'd be trying to 'contextualise' Nick Griffin and the BNP, understand the 'rationale' of Stephen Lawrence's murderers and so on. What it's about is ideology, and this atrocity is the medium to channel the the ideological rhetoric.

Islam has existed for a few years. You have to go back to medieval times to find East and West slaughtering each other. I believe that was a form of 'ideology' too. Since then there had been centuries where the ideology had lain dormant and it has only sprung up since the west started engaging in foreign wars with Muslim countries, accidentally killing innocent civilians (and no, I don't equate such events with the Nairobi atrocities).

Why on earth anyone should be disgusted by westerners looking at their own activities and feeling that there were strong grounds for believing that such activities 'radicalises' devout young Muslims; by not believing that we are the universal caped crusaders (you might as well believe that the Western Christians were 'right' when they engaged in the medieval crusades ...) everywhere doing good.

It still leaves the atrocities as just that: savage, unforgiveable murders. And the West with ill-advised foreign policies. Just as there are Muslims who condemn the horrific massacres, there are others who condemn Western foreign policy.

[scottycelt]

But you spoke of the concept of the 'existence' of evil as if it was disconnected from the acts themselves, which is indeed a concept of (some) religions. And you see no need to 'explain' or 'understand' it.

I should think most of us recognise and understand 'evil' and 'good' when we come across these. Temptation to do something we shouldn't is within all of us. In our better moments we may be inspired to do good. These internal forces are real to me, but not to you?

Which, to my mind, says nothing at all: all people are prone to falling down, but why does an individual fall down? What explains that fall? What makes some people who are 'prone' to evil perpetrate atrocities while most people don't?

People are indeed prone to falling down but that is (presumably) an involuntary act. Of course it could still be the fault of the individual (drunkenness, etc) but in most cases it is through ill-health or bad luck. In the case of mass murder we are not talking about involuntary acts but quite deliberate and calculated random death and destruction. It's true that not everyone kills but it's also true that not everyone puts a thieving hand in the company till or claps between symphonic movements. We are all different and can have sharply disparate moral and behavioural standards. Why do the perpetrators do it? Well, in the case of Nairobi the perpetrators have already told us. Don't you believe them?

I don't insist you're saying anything: I used the words 'appear' and 'apparently' to indicate how it seemed to me.

Maybe it's because I was being 'too literal' that you considered my words were somehow craftily coded to mean something else? <winkeye>

[MrGongGong]

I should think most of us recognise and understand 'evil' and 'good' when we come across these.

I would like to think that
maybe you should have a word with the leaders of the Catholic Church about it ?

Your argument could be possibly be expressed like this (not perfect I know)

There is a country where there are two groups of people who for generations have been hostile to each other. From time to time this has erupted into wars causing great suffering to all the population but things are never resolved.
Another country far away has developed a rather efficient arms industry and is also in a state of hostility with others BUT things have always been resolved through diplomacy and communication.
The country far away sees that it can make lots of money (which it needs) from selling huge quantities of weapons to the first lot so goes ahead , the country it is hostile to also sells weapons to the other side, this results in a huge war killing thousands of people...........

The cause of the death and destruction is irrelevant as its all to do with something called "EVIL" which has no cause and just IS. In fact , suggesting that there is somehow a contextual link between selling people weapons and them using them is considered offensive..............



The people I know who know about history will tell me that

most of us recognise and understand 'evil' and 'good'

simply isn't true

The problem with 'singularities' and this kind of absolutism (and don't get me wrong this was an absolutely terrible , unforgivable and horrendous act) is that it allows no space for empathy or understanding. Some of the more extreme Zionist folks campaigned to prevent Holocaust Memorial Day (or Mozarts birthday ?) including the genocide in Rwanda, the victims of Stalin and Pol Pot etc because the Holocaust was an "Unique" event and comparing it was akin to anti-semitism. This kind of thinking is IMV rather dangerous. Saying (and i'm not quoting you as you make huge efforts NOT to mention religion !) that "It's Evil , only God understands" would seem to be rather defeatist way of thinking that goes no where to bring peace to the world.

[amateur51]

The notion of a ubiquitous Evil let's us all off the hook, it seems to me.

Hannah Arendt, covering Eichmann's trial referred famously to "the banality of evil"

Someone has already quoted Burke's "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

That's all we need to know about evil.

[ahinton]

Someone has already quoted Burke's "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

That's all we need to know about evil.

'Twas I, although I did cite it as something frequently misattributed to Burke...

[vinteuil]

... Burke's "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

... I did cite it as something frequently misattributed to Burke...

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/04/good-men-do/

[amateur51]

'Twas I, although I did cite it as something frequently misattributed to Burke...

Frankly I couldn't give a flying fartoon in a hurricane about who said it, it's the content I'm after :winkeye:

[french frank]

I think part of the problem is that some people seem to see 'understanding' (or indeed analysing) such an event as intended to 'mitigate' or offer 'extenuating circumstances' for the perpetrators. It isn't. You can't undo what has been done but you can do your best to prevent a similar thing happening again.

A quite different event (I know!): the now sadly familiar gun massacres in the United States. Understanding why an individual might do it is almost impossible. Acting to prevent it is less so. If the nation and government were to enact gun control it would not guarantee that it wouldn't happen again. Doing nothing ensures that it will. These are not parallels, but the gun 'analogy' shows that, by learning lessons, actions done by others not directly involved in the atrocity, can help to safeguard others in the future.

[vinteuil]

... also "understanding" things (people, events, motivations, influences) is in itself a good thing.

Striving to "understand" is one of the most praiseworthy things humans do.


Of course the ineffable John Major took another view - "Society needs to condemn a little more and understand a little less", he said.

... 'nuff said.


.


.

[Mr Pee]

Of course the ineffable John Major took another view - "Society needs to condemn a little more and understand a little less", he said.

Spot on.

John Major may not have been the most dynamic PM we've ever had, although practically anyone would have been onto a losing wicket having to follow Lady Thatcher, but he was quite right when he said that.

[Padraig]

... also "understanding" things (people, events, motivations, influences) is in itself a good thing.

Striving to "understand" is one of the most praiseworthy things humans do.


Of course the ineffable John Major took another view - "Society needs to condemn a little more and understand a little less", he said.

... 'nuff said.




.


.

vinteuil,

If balance is what is needed in this discussion, I would suggest that John Major's view is as fair as one can be in such an emotive topic.

[MrGongGong]

Spot on.

John Major may not have been the most dynamic PM we've ever had, although practically anyone would have been onto a losing wicket having to follow Lady Thatcher, but he was quite right when he said that.

Well there you go
I wonder if mrPee is the only person who passes this test ?

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/are-you-hated-by-the-daily-mail/

I guess he is right in a sense
as we seem to let off those who sell arms to dodgy regimes