Civil war, chaos, mass suffering, and finally an Islamic movement to stop it all by imposing Sharia by force. This will be GREAT. It worked in Afghanistan after all, and there were no consequences to the Taliban taking over, right?

Posted by: Quijybo at June 7, 2006 6:00 PM

The BBC doesn't mind Shariah in the UK. Why would they oppose it in Somalia? Wouldn't that make them hypocrites?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 7, 2006 6:10 PM

I was going to say the BBC doesn't mind jihadists ruling in Bosnian and Kosovo, in fact it seems to prefer it.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at June 7, 2006 6:38 PM

Some people, like the Palestinians and Somalis for example, really do deserve a good dose of shari'a and the social tranquility that comes along with its stonings, beheadings, amputations, hangings, firing squads, floggings and crucifixions. Shari'a is a fate worse than death, but then a gain, shari'a IS death, death of freedom, death of joy, death of intellectual pursuit, death of art and science, death of justice, death of the soul. Yes, some people do deserve shari'a.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at June 7, 2006 6:49 PM

Actually Robert, the BBC is on to something. Let people live uder the system they so desire. Let them enjoy it with all its pleasant qualities. Then let the Moslem world - no, the whole world - see what it is.

Kafir

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 7, 2006 7:00 PM

Kafir nonbeliever: "Let people live uder the system they so desire."

I'm with Kafir. You want islam? You got it. Isn't that what Hugh (taking a page out of the Tao Te Ching) has been advocating all along?.

If they try to use Somalia as a base for attacking the free world (or if we suspect they're trying to get their hands on WMD) then we'll bomb the hell out of them.

But also - no refugees to the west from Somalia. No escape for their choices. Muslims want Islam? Give it to them.

Posted by: Caroline at June 7, 2006 7:15 PM

Caroline, Kafir -- only problem with that position is that all Muslim countries are stolen land -- stolen by horrific conquest, and as such are part of the jihadist triumphalism that cannot be whetted until the whole world is conquered. If we adopted your position, we'd have to be committed to "bombing the hell out of" many countries, and I doubt we could muster the popular support for that, given our PC disease.

Posted by: Television at June 7, 2006 7:21 PM

On the BBC web page Robert provides, there is a link to another article, "Profile: Somalia's Islamic Courts." And in that article, you will find this:

There are 11 autonomous courts in Mogadishu, some of which have periodically tried to clamp down on robbery, drugs and what they say are pornographic films being shown in local video houses.

At first they concentrated on petty crime but by the mid 1990s they had progressed to dealing with major crimes in north Mogadishu.

Thieves had their limbs amputated and murderers were executed.

Mr Garaad says that despite protests from human rights bodies, north Mogadishu residents were pleased to enjoy law and order - in stark contrast to south Mogadishu, where crime was rampant.

The system [Union of Islamic Courts] has since further expanded and the Islamic courts also validated transactions such as the purchase of houses and cars.

They also oversaw weddings and divorces and expanded their authority across most of the capital, while staying out of politics....

The union's public face is its chairman Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, a moderate....

But the union does contain radical elements.

Two of the 11 courts are seen as militant; one is led by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, on an American list of terrorism suspects because he used to head al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, which was linked to al-Qaeda.

Mr Aweys says al-Itihaad no longer exists and also denies accusations from some western diplomats and observers that there are training grounds for Islamic fighters in Somalia.

He is, however, strongly critical of the United States and its "war on terror".

Western diplomats are also concerned by Afghanistan-trained militia commander Adan Hashi Ayro, whose militiamen have been implicated in numerous killings of Somali nationals, as well as five foreign aid workers and a BBC producer, Kate Peyton....

One visible sign is that before the civil war began in the 1980s, very few women wore headscarves in Mogadishu.

Now, almost every woman wears a headscarf and an increasing number are wearing veils covering their faces, with just narrow slits for the eyes.

http://tinyurl.com/kzncl

So far, it sounds just like the start of the Taliban's rule. I can already write the rest of the script:

1. Exterminate non-Muslim culture.
2. Beat women into submission.
3. Harbor anti-Western terrorists.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 7, 2006 7:36 PM

Al Beebeeceera is well under-wandered by Islamic enemy-agents who have their own prayer-rooms and make policy and news which is Mahammedan friendly

Sorry to burst your bubble folks, but in Somalia things will just happen against all your hopes:

The west will give plenty of aid and will be dictated to on how that aid can be given and to whom, there will be plenty of bleeding heart aid-workers who will gladly wear hijabs to help and perhaps 'revert' to Islam.

Then, once the public hand, foot-and head-chopping begins on Fridays and the hangings in the western build soccer stadiums, there will be lots of 'moderate' muslim 'refugees', who will be given asylum in the west, where they will turn into less 'moderates'....

Afghanistan revisited...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 7, 2006 7:38 PM

Television - as far as I'm concerned, the stolen land is history. I have no interest in "reconquering" previously Christian land.

As to the "jihadist triumphalism" - I understand your point that every conquest whets their appetite, but Somalia is already a Muslim country. They've already won there. But that so-called "win" can be turned into a "loss" if we let them have Islam (and by that I mean "pure" Islam - the "real" Islam - i.e. Muhammad's Islam - their "perfect man" after all.)

If we keep them out of the west, and don't allow them to escape the consequences of their choices by emigrating out of their hellholes to the west but while still maintaining the hubristic and delusional idea that Islam is the answer - then I don't see the downside to letting them have their "Islamic paradises".

Lao-tzu said it:

"If you want to shrink something,
you must first allow it to expand.
If you want to get rid of something,
you must first allow it to flourish."

(but obviously you have to keep it within a closed system to carry out that experiment - otherwise we wind up with what we have now - millions of Muslims escaping from the systems they've created but then imagining that we westerners would be better off if we adopted the very system that caused them to flee in the first place and immigrate to our obviously vastly superior culture).

Even if Muslims haven't grasped the obvious, why shouldn't we? We're dealing with children who are incapable of logical thought. The consequences of their actions need to be domonstrated to them for them to understand it. Our continual "rescuing" of them perpetutates their infantilism, which isn't fair to us OR them.

If the US largely stays out of their affairs (isn't that what all the leftists want anyway?) and only goes in strategically to diffuse actual threats - like the threat of tribal barbarians about to get their hands on WMD - I think most westerners would actually be behind that.

Posted by: Caroline at June 7, 2006 7:41 PM

How is the imposition of a Islamist regime in Somalia a positive development? In what respect would the imposition of Sharia improve the situation in that benighted country? The B.B.C.'s writer is showing his ignorance at best, and I would hate to think about the worst take on it.

Posted by: Worry at June 7, 2006 7:43 PM

worry: "How is the imposition of a Islamist regime in Somalia a positive development? In what respect would the imposition of Sharia improve the situation in that benighted country?"

It wouldn't improve the condition in that country. Which is the point which may well save the rest of us in the long run from a similar fate.

Posted by: Caroline at June 7, 2006 7:51 PM

It might seem inhuman, but shouldn't we be arming one side and then the other to keep them killing each other for as long as possible: that way they won't have much spare time to devote to trying to kill us infidels and when they eventually do find they have some leisure, there will be a lot less of them around, to attempt it.

Posted by: wallyUK at June 7, 2006 9:01 PM

Oh, Wally...THAT's worked really well in the Middle East, hasn't it?

OT, help me out here, long-time JW/DW readers. Am I dreaming, or what? It seems to me that when I first bumped into the concept of taqiyya on this site a few months ago, I found a definition on Wikipedia (I know, I know) that pretty much reflected the meaning I've seen here & in further readings, i.e., official Islamic OK to practice deception when dealing with infidels, especially during wartime. I went back to it again today, and find a totally different, feel-good, more positive-toward-Islam take on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

Anybody else remember it being otherwise defined, not so long ago?

Posted by: Vee at June 7, 2006 10:43 PM

"THAT's worked really well in the Middle East, hasn't it?"
-- from a poster above, replying to another poster who had asked "shouldn't we be arming one side and then the other to keep them killing each other for as long as possible..."

The Iran-Iraq War kept both Saddam Hussein and the Islamic Republic of Iran busy for eight years, bleeding both countries, and incidentally using up $60 billion given to Saddam Hussein by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the U.A.E. That war should have gone on forever -- if, that is, you were an Infidel.

The proxy war in the Yemen in the mid-1960s between Nasser and the Al-Saud, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, was also a good thing -- if, that is, you wished to see both countries preoccupied.

The brief hostilities between Algeria and Morocco, Libya and Egypt, Syria and Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, or for that matter the constant bullying by Saudi Arabia of its smaller neighbors, including not-quite-so-small Yemen, and Oman (Saudi support for the Dhofar rebellion), and the Emirates (the Buraimi Oasis dispute) were all the kinds of things that make those smaller states wish to collaborate, perhaps even to offer bases to, the Americans -- not because the Americans are liked (they aren't), but because Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran are the bullies of the Gulf, and you were a member of the Al-Thani family in Qatar, or the Al-Sabah in Kuwait, perhaps you too would want some Americans nearby whose presence would inhibit attacks from others.

But as to the rhetorical question posed -- "That's worked really well in the MIddle East, hasn't it?" the answer he assumes will be given is NO.

The correct answer, however, is YES.

Posted by: Hugh at June 7, 2006 11:07 PM

Vee

What you pick out of Wikipedia is the taqiyya description of Taqiyya. Very appropriate.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 7, 2006 11:21 PM

'Let people live under the system they so desire. Let them enjoy it with all its pleasant qualities.'

Seems to have worked in Iran. According to Ali Sina, after 27 years of Sharia, more than half of all Iranians no longer call themselves muslim.

Posted by: PAS at June 7, 2006 11:31 PM

Hugh's strategy will work better once we begin to do it intelligently, and not just accidentally as we've been doing it for the most part.

Posted by: Television at June 8, 2006 1:15 AM

Vee:

OT, help me out here, long-time JW/DW readers. Am I dreaming, or what? It seems to me that when I first bumped into the concept of taqiyya on this site a few months ago, I found a definition on Wikipedia (I know, I know) that pretty much reflected the meaning I've seen here & in further readings, i.e., official Islamic OK to practice deception when dealing with infidels, especially during wartime. I went back to it again today, and find a totally different, feel-good, more positive-toward-Islam take on it.

I don't know about that, but have you looked at the discussion sparked by the Mohammed cartoons? There has been an endless debate about whether or not the cartoons should be shown in the article, and the talk page has instructions for hiding the display of the images. You can imagine my shock when I ventured over to the Piss Christ article and there was nothing similiar in there, even though the image was on full display. While the Mohammed cartoon article still has the image displayed, it's absolutely shameful that they are/were actually debating the subject. The entire thing should have been forcefully ended a long time ago.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at June 8, 2006 3:16 AM

The point about wikipedia is that you can change it if you want, but if you put something biased it may be complained about, and they put a yellow triangle on it with an exclamation mark in it on it. I've seen this on a website to do with the jihad on wikipedia, ie the article about Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar who tried to kill some students in a vehicle. Presumably Muslims are involved in changing articles as well as anybody else, and you should change them to truth and accuracy if possible, though I should imagine it'll be an ongoing thing. As regards the aforementioned article, it is hard to tell what they are complaining about, and which way they are saying it is biased. Interesting that they are both articles about Muslims though.

Posted by: acornbutter at June 8, 2006 3:52 AM

Do journalism schools teach things like history and logic today?

"One is the legal government, the other is a popular force in control of the capital."

The "popular force in control of the capital" usually turns into the legal government.

" ... they could turn into the group which delivers the capital to the government". It is all about power. If they have it, why should they give it up?

There is a fair sized Somali "community" up in Maine less than 200 miles from where my mother lives.

A few years ago, on one of my visits home, she asked me, "What is wrong with these people?"

"Mom, they are Muslims. They are just doing what Muslims do."

I got a look of shock and disbelief. Now I just sigh and ask, "What now?" And Mom has started to catch on.

Posted by: jay at June 8, 2006 4:38 AM

The point about wikipedia is that you can change it if you want, but if you put something biased it may be complained about, and they put a yellow triangle on it with an exclamation mark in it on it. I've seen this on a website to do with the jihad on wikipedia, ie the article about Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar who tried to kill some students in a vehicle. Presumably Muslims are involved in changing articles as well as anybody else, and you should change them to truth and accuracy if possible, though I should imagine it'll be an ongoing thing. As regards the aforementioned article, it is hard to tell what they are complaining about, and which way they are saying it is biased. Interesting that they are both articles about Muslims though.

The problem with the Mohammed cartoons article isn't that it's biased (no alert flags are present, anyway). The problem is that Muslims and hysterical dhimmis are offended by the images, so the images should be removed or hidden. Obviously this is not a viable solution, since it would have to be enforced everywhere, and not just in articles that make Muslims go crazy. I think the problem is actually that the article is not biased in favor of Muslims.

I actually checked out the discussion for the Jihad article on Wikipedia, and somebody was complaining about the Islamic Thought Police, while some Muslim user stated that

Personally, I think all of you guys are fools for arguing over the "definition" of Jihad. I believe you should keep it to the actual Muslims. We know the most about this stuff anyway... ... And although I totally do not like the government definition of Jihad and all other definitions relating to terrorism, I believe they should stay for the sole purpose of reference. They are not right but an opinion is an opinion. However, everything that deals with religion is an opinion. My last thought is that you don't delete and only add info. It gives a better perspective. I know I sound like a fool but its all opinion.

Non-Muslims shouldn't talk about Islam, Jihadist warfare doesn't exist, and Wikipedia is a collection of opinions... hmm!

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at June 8, 2006 5:40 AM

The BBC reflects an all-too-common mindset that thinks that ANYBODY with a plan and program to hold a so-called nation-state together is better than that so-called nation-state brekaing apart under different local leaders (called "warlords" when the Anointed We doesn't like them). We saw it before when people figured the Communists would be better for China than its possible breakup into several separate (But still relatively large) states. This mindset never stops to consider that warlordism has been the common lot of much of humanity for much of its history.

My own feeling on Somalia, as with much of the rest of the world, is that history is going to happen to people (especially those who are bound, determined, and fanatic to have it happen to them), and the BBC should grow up and recognize that fact.

Posted by: Kepha at June 8, 2006 7:08 AM

Thanks to all for the comments on Wikipedia. I should have been a bit more clear with my question regarding it's info on taqiyya being totally changed.

I was thinking that yes, Wiki articles can be amended or argued against, but wouldn't (shouldn't?) there be a history of that? My real question was, is it possible that the entire entry has been done over, with no "paper trail"?

That's why I asked if my memory was failing me; did anyone remember seeing the taqiyya page as other than it currently is?

Infidel Pride, you may have it exactly right.

Posted by: Vee at June 8, 2006 8:55 AM

Hugh, re: your comments about arming one side, then the other, to keep them killing each other. I think we should step back; they'll be at each other's throats soon enough (already happening, of course). I prefer not to have to fund that with MY tax money, that's all.

When I wrote my original comment (BTW, I'm a "she"), I was remembering conversations I'd had years ago with an Israeli who'd fought in both the Six-Day War & the Yom Kippur War. He'd frequently bitterly complain about US aid to both sides, saying we should have just butted out & Israel should have taken care of things on their own. (But as we know, many others had their fingers in that pie, too.) Anyway, I was a little off the mark in not thinking Islamic army vs. Islamic army.

Posted by: Vee at June 8, 2006 9:03 AM

"Hugh, re: your comments about arming one side, then the other, to keep them killing each other..."
-- from a posting above

That's not exactly what I have written in a few hundred other posts. I have repeatedly said no American military equipment -- not a rifle, not a jeep -- ideally should be left behind. Giving some military equipment to the Kurds, so that they can fend off the Arabs, and also supply Kurds in Iran who can make their own trouble, and in making that trouble for Iran encourage Baluchis, Azeris, Arabs, for if they all start to make trouble, of various kinds, in various places, at the same time, then the Islamic Republic of Iran is going to have its difficulties. Some stuff will be left, alas).

Above, I was merely taking a rhetorical question by a previous poster, and offering a Yes for his No. But in my discussion of the Iran-Iraq War, the Yemeni War (between Royalists and Marxists), the clashes between Morocco and Algeria, Libya and Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and the assorted mischief-making of Saudi Arabia in the Arabian Peninsula, the Jazirat al-Arab, I nowhere implied that I thought the Americans or any other Infidels should be arming either side. We might consider allowing them to buy arms to replenish those they send to co-religionists, but at very high prices, and only if that weaponry is carefully monitored and is used, as we should hope it would be used, to harm other Muslims. The only recipients of outright aid should be the Kurds, who in defending themselves, and in helping Kurds in Syria and Iran, can help promote our interests. That's the main exception as far as Muslims in North Africa or the Middle East are concerned. But should there ever be a revolt in the Kabyle, and Berbers need to be supplied by non-Arabs, given that the Arabs in and out of Algeria will be as one in attempting to crush any Berber attempts at autonomy, much less independence, supporting those Berbers with arms would be intelligent. There are non-Arabs and non-Muslims in that so-called, soi-disant, sogenannte, tak nazyvaemiy "Arab world" and the Camp of Islam can be riven or split here and there, even in North Africa and the Middle East.

Posted by: Hugh at June 9, 2006 1:00 AM

It isn't just the BBC that seems to approve the Islamist takeover of Somalia - London's Channel 4 TV News was on form on Wednesday evening and contained an interview with a Brit dhimmi whose credentials for welcoming the arrival of Jihadist rule was that he belongs to something called the Royal Africa Society. He insisted the West has nothing to fear from Islamic rule in Somalia and the coming rulers will be unconnected to Al-Qaeda. As Al-Qaeda operators are known to be in Mauretania and other north and central African countries it is rather puzzling that someone dug-out to comment by Channel 4 TV News should have such lack of grasp of reality. The main C4 newscaster - Jon Snow - was factually inaccurate when he claimed it was Bill Clinton who first sent US forces into Somalia: WRONG - it was George Bush Snr in the last weeks of his Presidency and Clinton (not well-versed in international affairs) who had to deal with this. I don't want to get bogged down on small details but the more one sees and hears the downright factual inaccuracy about the conflict between Islam v the rest of the world, the more one realises how difficult it must be for anyone new to its study to get a grasp of this history.

Posted by: moris2 at June 9, 2006 7:43 AM