Nairobi terrorist attack

[teamsaint]

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.

yes, certainly. Wrongdoers need dealing with.
People like corrupt politicians, corrupt Police chiefs, bankers bringing the economy to its knees because of greed, arms dealers, corporate tax dodgers, media tycoons with dangerous agendas, and so on.
They all need that kind of treatment.
Well said Mr Pee.

[MrGongGong]

yes, certainly. Wrongdoers need dealing with.
People like corrupt politicians, corrupt Police chiefs, bankers bringing the economy to its knees because of greed, arms dealers, corporate tax dodgers, media tycoons with dangerous agendas, and so on.
They all need that kind of treatment.
Well said Mr Pee.

I don't think he meant that did he ? (:laugh: :fall over laughing:)

I wonder if JM meant himself ? After all he was shagging Edwina at the time
pooooooooooooor Norma

(I can't forget the "Ginny likes peas" Spitting Image character ...... Grey and sad)

[teamsaint]

I don't think he meant that did he ? (:laugh: :fall over laughing:)

I wonder if JM meant himself ? After all he was shagging Edwina at the time
pooooooooooooor Norma

(I can't forget the "Ginny likes peas" Spitting Image character ...... Grey and sad)

It's genuinely difficult to know who to feel most sorry for in that scenario.....

(or happiest for)...........

[french frank]

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.

But if you want 'balance', couldn't you say 'Society needs to condemn a little less and understand a little more?' Isn't that just as 'balanced'?

Edit - Oh, you're just trying to even up the numbers, I presume, rather than 'take a balanced view'?

[MrGongGong]

It's genuinely difficult to know who to feel most sorry for in that scenario.....

(or happiest for)...........

I'm now feeling a little queasy
I really shouldn't have entertained the thought
Sorry

As you were, gazing longingly at the moral high ground of Peeland

[teamsaint]

I'm now feeling a little queasy
I really shouldn't have entertained the thought
Sorry

As you were, gazing longingly at the moral high ground of Peeland

Perhaps it will be strangely inspiring in your work, Gongers.....

If he has an original thought, it will be New Peeland.
anyway, this battle will set the mood nicely for tonights " Leningrad"..

[Padraig]

But if you want 'balance', couldn't you say 'Society needs to condemn a little less and understand a little more?' Isn't that just as 'balanced'?

Edit - Oh, you're just trying to even up the numbers, I presume, rather than 'take a balanced view'?

II don't understand your Edit, ff.

But, yes, you could rework the former quote as you suggest. My reading was that Major was pointing out that there was already a lot of effort to 'understand', just as there is here - or at least a lot of exhortation to understand, which might/not be the same thing. A bit more heartfelt condemnation, he suggests, would not go amiss. Understanding, where possible, is one thing, and full marks for trying, but let's not forget the ongoing phenomenon of man's inhumanity to man.

Edit. I think I now know what your edit meant, ff.
I am not 'just' taking sides in the discussion. I am saying what I think.
I am aware of the consensus culture that exists here, and of those who are outside it, those who are inside it and those who strive to be included. I find myself very often in agreement with the dissenters!

[french frank]

Understanding, where possible, is one thing, and full marks for trying, but let's not forget the ongoing phenomenon of man's inhumanity to man

I don't think that has been forgotten or in any way condoned in this discussion. Mr Major's axiom suggests that 'condemning' and 'understanding' are in some sense linked alternatives. I would see them as separate, both being, as appropriate, necessary. You don't have to do one less in order to do the other more.

[MrGongGong]

I don't think that has been forgotten or in any way condoned in this discussion. Mr Major's axiom suggests that 'condemning' and 'understanding' are in some sense linked alternatives. I would see them as separate, both being, as appropriate, necessary. You don't have to do one less in order to do the other more.

Indeed
Why do people insist that being in favour of one thing ( in this case Understanding but it could easily be another like Stockhausen) that one is against another (Bach ) ?

[teamsaint]

Indeed
Why do people insist that being in favour of one thing ( in this case Understanding but it could easily be another like Stockhausen) that one is against another (Bach ) ?

I'm not sure people insist, it has been driven deep into our psyche over generations.
sadly, this approach to almost everything seems more prevalent than ever.

[scottycelt]

Getting back to the subject of this thread, I'm still not clear what more there is to 'understand'.

As already stated (apologies for repeating myself) the group representing the killers have officially declared that these atrocities will continue until they get their way. Yes, innocent men, women and babies in prams will be slaughtered anywhere and at any time ... could be us or any of our relatives in London, Manchester or Bristol, and even those who might be trying hard to 'understand', including valued members of this forum. Al-Shabaab has made that perfectly clear. It wants us to 'understand' that. Some of us understand that only too well. Thankfully, I'm pretty sure our security services and police understand that, but, sadly, they are not supermen/women and, as the saying goes, the killers need only be lucky once.

Also, it has hardly escaped one's notice that some now urging a search for 'understanding' behind the 'reasons' which provoke mass murder show very little sign of this generally admirable trait when dealing with the sincerely-held opposing views of forum members on other matters! <unconvinced emoticon>

[ahinton]

Getting back to the subject of this thread, I'm still not clear what more there is to 'understand'.

As already stated (apologies for repeating myself) the group representing the killers have officially declared that these atrocities will continue until they get their way. Yes, innocent men, women and babies in prams will be slaughtered anywhere and at any time ... could be us or any of our relatives in London, Manchester or Bristol, and even those who might be trying hard to 'understand', including valued members of this forum. Al-Shabaab has made that perfectly clear. It wants us to 'understand' that. Some of us understand that only too well. Thankfully, I'm pretty sure our security services and police understand that, but, sadly, they are not supermen/women and, as the saying goes, the killers need only be lucky once.

Also, it has hardly escaped one's notice that some now urging a search for 'understanding' behind the 'reasons' which provoke mass murder show very little sign of this generally admirable trait when dealing with the sincerely-held opposing views of forum members on other matters! <unconvinced emoticon>

"Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner".

That's been around for a very long time.

One could, however, as easily substitute "condemn" for "forgive" should the circumstances demand it, as in this case. FF has hit the nail firmly on the head for the benefit of doubters such as you; to "understand" something - in this case to understand why something has happened in the precise way that it has - does not have to mean to "condone" it as well. This is where the problem lies. The only commonality here is that "understanding" it - or at least trying to do so - without any intention to do anything about it or any hope that something be done about it as a consequuence of that understanding - is complacent; so is condemning the action without also trying to understand it.

[french frank]

As already stated (apologies for repeating myself) the group representing the killers have officially declared that these atrocities will continue until they get their way.

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

[amateur51]

Some people prefer to take an ahistorical (an aexperience?) approach to events such as this but when they start flinging around ideas such as 'these atrocities will continue until they get their way' then they need to be reminded that Nelson Mandela, Menachem Begin, Archbishop Makarios, Robert Mugabe, Gerry Adams, and many others were all regarded as being beyond the pale because of atrocities in which they were implicated until the world stopped to listen to what they were fighting for, and then the talking began and the world began to change.

Perhaps they should ask themselves why are such outrageous acts of slaughter committed? To get our attention?

[vinteuil]

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

Mr Major's axiom suggests that 'condemning' and 'understanding' are in some sense linked alternatives. I would see them as separate, both being, as appropriate, necessary. You don't have to do one less in order to do the other more.

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?