Somalia Resembling Afghanistan under Taliban

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

All governments enforce their laws at gunpoint on some level.

Bad logic.

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.

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.

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.

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.