Somali woman stoned for adultery

Uriel · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:28

It only makes sense to intervene in somewhere like Somalia if there is a realistic prospect of success. That would require at the very least massive international co-operation.

scorza · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:33

Uriel said:
It only makes sense to intervene in somewhere like Somalia if there is a realistic prospect of success. That would require at the very least massive international co-operation.

We had that in '93. It only makes sense to intervene if the people you're helping actually want to be helped. Somalis had the chance to help themselves in '93, and chose the warlords and Al-Queda over the UN and aid.

mollymoo · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:36

dangerstat said:
Whatever it takes to stop this type of cruelty to the innocent people of Somali. Haven't "the west" got about 30 ships off their cost to stop those pirates? Sure we could mount some sort of offensive, even if it's soley using air power. The point is we have to show "You will not go unpunished for this"

Is it really for us to go shoving are faces in there and telling countries what they can and can't do though, wouldn't it be better to try to sort it diplomatically, prehaps point out that their strange and unusual behaviour really doesn't have a place in modern society.

daz · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:37

Uriel said:
It only makes sense to intervene in somewhere like Somalia if there is a realistic prospect of success. That would require at the very least massive international co-operation.

We kind of intervened in Somalia when the US backed Ethiopian troops invaded in 2006 and set their (Somalia's) fledgling Islamic government back several years.

dangerstat · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:39

mollymoo said:
Is it really for us to go shoving are faces in there and telling countries what they can and can't do though, wouldn't it be better to try to sort it diplomatically, prehaps point out that their strange and unusual behaviour really doesn't have a place in modern society.

If I thought that would have a remote possibility of working, then I'd be all for it, diplomacy with these people is impossible

I get around · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:42

Some countries are still obsessed with religion, they're thousands of years behind the times.

scorza · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:44

daz said:
We kind of intervened in Somalia when the US backed Ethiopian troops invaded in 2006 and set their (Somalia's) fledgling Islamic government back several years.

Not quite. The Ethiopian troops backed Somalia's fledgling government, who were losing a civil war against Al-Queda Islamist groups. This stoning occurred in areas of the country controlled by these Islamist groups.

Tefal · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:46

dangerstat said:
Whatever it takes to stop this type of cruelty to the innocent people of Somali.
.

only way you're going to do that though is to commit terrible crimes against innocent Somalis..

daz · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:47

scorza said:
Not quite. The Ethiopian troops backed Somalia's fledgling government, who were losing a civil war against Al-Queda Islamist groups. This stoning occurred in areas of the country controlled by these Islamist groups.

Your idea of a fledgling government is obviously different to mine. The islamic group that managed to gain power and control over the areas they did were bringing stability to the area.

mollymoo · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:51

dangerstat said:
If I thought that would have a remote possibility of working, then I'd be all for it, diplomacy with these people is impossible

It was serve as much purpose as a sustained air strike.

dangerstat · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:53

Tefal said:
only way you're going to do that though is to commit terrible crimes against innocent Somalis..

I guess you have to ask yourself what is the lesser of the two evils. Allowing these people to be stoned to death or doing all you can to protect them even in the knowledge you may well harm others in the process. I'm firmly a believer in the later, I'm sure arguments along the lines of yours where made before Rwanda too.

Tefal · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:54

dangerstat said:
I guess you have to ask yourself what is the lesser of the two evils. Allowing these people to be stoned to death or doing all you can to protect them even in the knowledge you may well harm others in the process. I'm firmly a believer in the later, I'm sure arguments along the lines of yours where made before Rwanda too.

However what do you do to all the people that think differently to you and will continue the practice regardless?

You can;t build prisons fast enough, you going to kill them too?

dangerstat · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:55

mollymoo said:
It was serve as much purpose as a sustained air strike.

It would serve?

I agree that an air strike wouldn't be overly affective. But it would show
[A] The "west" do care and will act and target those responsible
Given we have some idea of the where these extremists hide out, there's a decent change we might inflict some causalities on them.

Just to sit here and do nothing at all, for me, wouldn't be an acceptable option

dangerstat · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:57

Tefal said:
However what do you do to all the people that think differently to you and will continue the practice regardless?

You can;t build prisons fast enough, you going to kill them too?

I have no objections to ANYONE thinking differently that I do, otherwise I'd be advocating an air strike on your house Tefal. But when it comes to killing innocents by stoning them I have to draw the line, as I believe any sane person would

mollymoo · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:57

dangerstat said:
I guess you have to ask yourself what is the lesser of the two evils. Allowing these people to be stoned to death or doing all you can to protect them even in the knowledge you may well harm others in the process. I'm firmly a believer in the later, I'm sure arguments along the lines of yours where made before Rwanda too.

Can't help but think if these innocents were happy to die for freedom then surely they would stand up to the oppressors themselves, or even stand in front of the half buried people who were about to be stoned to death.
As it is you are suggesting taking that decision for them.

Tefal · 18 Nov 2009 at 18:03

dangerstat said:
I have no objections to ANYONE thinking differently that I do, otherwise I'd be advocating an air strike on your house Tefal. But when it comes to killing innocents by stoning them I have to draw the line, as I believe any sane person would

should we be invading Iran too?

Or does military power have a bearing on justice?

dangerstat · 18 Nov 2009 at 18:03

mollymoo said:
Can't help but think if these innocents were happy to die for freedom then surely they would stand up to the oppressors themselves, or even stand in front of the half buried people who were about to be stoned to death.
As it is you are suggesting taking that decision for them.

I think, modern evidence shows the danger of acting against groups like this. Even in a much more civilised country (or seemingly) like Zimbabwe, the act of standing against Robert Mugube got many opposition supporters tortured, so in a country with no functioning government and rife with islamic extremist groups, they'd have to insane to try and intervene on their own. My belief with Somlia is that we'll see MUCH worse than this is we don't act reasonably soon

dangerstat · 18 Nov 2009 at 18:06

Tefal said:
should we be invading Iran too?

Or does military power have a bearing on justice?

I think it does have a bearing on Justice - which is precisely the point I was making (look at my first post). It shouldn't and by acting on one thing and ignoring something equally bad somewhere else makes a mockery of the UN and our own claims to actually care about the safety of civilians. If we want to have effective foriegn policy it is essential to be consistent.

scorza · 18 Nov 2009 at 18:08

daz said:
Your idea of a fledgling government is obviously different to mine. The islamic group that managed to gain power and control over the areas they did were bringing stability to the area.

They brought Sharia law and a warped version of Islam to the area, which isn't in anyone's interests - as today's stoning neatly demonstrates.

muon · 18 Nov 2009 at 18:34

dangerstat said:
Whatever it takes to stop this type of cruelty to the innocent people of Somali. Haven't "the west" got about 30 ships off their cost to stop those pirates? Sure we could mount some sort of offensive, even if it's soley using air power. The point is we have to show "You will not go unpunished for this"

Yeh lets bomb Somalia, even if there exists no military to target. Lets solve the issue of barbaric punishments by punitively bombing somalia and hence killing hundreds if not thousands of civilians.