Somalia Resembling Afghanistan under Taliban
 

Somalia resembling Afghanistan under Taliban

Some experts say the similarities are no accident


MOGADISHU, Somalia — Men are forced to grow beards. Women can't leave home without a male relative. Music, movies and watching sports on TV are banned. Limbs are chopped off as punishment, and executions by stoning have become a public spectacle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38802019...ld_news-africa



One word: DAMN.

It's such a shame that these weird fringe groups hurt the image of Islam worldwide. And there's little chance that the US will blast in to "save the day" in Somalia this time, so they're pretty much on their own. How much worse can existence become in Somalia?

DAMN is right. :(

What is we to do?! What is we to do?!

Is we to do a thing? Is we to do a thing?

I found this statement particularly interesting:

What a horrifying choice: rape or stoning.

It is horrible yet it makes complete sense. The crime and chaos under such regimes is on the part of the regime and not the citizens. The citizens are too afraid to do anything criminal and deviant.

The regime will do the raping, stealing, and killing.

^^ There is no oil there nor Haliburt...errmm Bush in office so why should we care. ;)

In all seriousness, I think that unless there is something in Somalia that is of interest, we won't be interfering anytime soon.

And we probably shouldn't.

Presumably, at least this gives some semblance of a government, some possibility for improvements to infrastructure, etc.

And if they have Sharia, at least they don't have anarchy. Sharia is a much more fair method to solve your problems than an AK-47.

And when these groups own whole countries, how can you say they are "fringe"? They are what they are, but when you have millions of adherents, you're something, but fringe, you ain't.

Fringe might be the wrong word, but "adherents" don't count if they are only adherents at gunpoint.

All governments enforce their laws at gunpoint on some level.

My guess is that the people of Somalia are fine with Sharia. Probably beats the heck out of being ruled by the local warlords, drafting the people's children into their armies and such.

Folks are going to support the group most likely to meet their basic needs in the most secure way. In poor countries, the Taliban model is set up to do that very effectively.

I don't care what you call your system of government if you HELP your people, but this is not helping, and it's not Sharia. I live under Sharia law, and I can tell you there is no risk of me being stoned in public no matter WHAT I've done.

In the militant-heavy areas, families are being forced to give up their boys to be in the army. Childless families or families with daughters only are forced to pay about $50/month because they don't have a boy to give.

Sharia is fine in a lot of ways, and it does beat anarchy to some degree, which gives it an edge in terms of areas that have had lawlessness for long periods of time. I should add that the thing about Sharia is the implementation and operational function, it's not actually a bad way of living if implemented correctly and humanely.

I do, think, however, that when you consider the whole of Islam, these groups are definitely on the fringe. It's only when you scale it down to specific countries that it's not.

The implementation of Islamic law varies greatly from place to place. For you to say that their Sharia is not Sharia and yours is is about as true as a Catholic telling a Protestant theirs is the true religion and the other is an imposter.

**Flashing back to nun who said I was hell bound because I'm not Catholic**

Bad logic.
Something being better than it was before doesn't mean you're ok with it. I'm going to fail for Godwinning the thread but just because certain dictators "made the trains run on time" or provided more "efficient" government didn't make them loved by the people.

The people of Afghanistan were not having their needs met under the Taliban. People outwardly support the type of government they have as long as the government they have will kill/punish/threaten/rape/torture them for doing otherwise. It's not like there was an election for Sharia law vs. warlord vs. parliamentary government and so on. For the average individual, supporting Group A over Group B is more about who's been killing you recently and who promises to stop it. If Group B comes back in a year and swears to end the punishments of the Taliban, people would probably support that too.