March 21, 2007

HAVING BIFFED THE MOG AGAIN:

Heavy fighting erupts in Somalia (BBC, 3/21/07)

Heavy fighting has broken out in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, between government forces backed by Ethiopian troops and armed insurgents.

A BBC correspondent says seven people were killed in the battle, the heaviest since the Islamists fell last year.

There are reports that angry crowds dragged dead soldiers' bodies through the streets and set them on fire.

Some 1,200 African Union troops were deployed to Mogadishu this month to try to bring stability to the city.

Dozens have been killed during insurgent attacks in Mogadishu in the past two and a half months, which the government blames on remnants of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC).


We'll not only welcome the return of the UIC to power but may well help them.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 21, 2007 6:06 AM
Comments

Why not send the rest of the Somali terrorists to Milwaukee to join their fellows.

Posted by: erp at March 21, 2007 9:40 AM

Somalia has no answer right now. It is about as ungovernable as parts of Iraq, or all the Waziristans. And having even 10,000 African Union bodies won't change a thing.

Posted by: ratbert at March 21, 2007 11:57 AM

Somolia, like Haiti, has no answer. It will always be a wound that won't heal.

Posted by: Dave W at March 21, 2007 12:39 PM

"Heavy fighting. . .seven people were killed in the battle. . .the heaviest. . .since last year."

Seven--sounds like a bad weekend in Philadelphia. A very strange idea of "battle."

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 21, 2007 2:08 PM

They were doing rather nicely when Ethiopia attacked.

Posted by: oj at March 21, 2007 2:26 PM

Other than the people they beat or killed for watching soccer matches on TV or whatever. OJ, you're rather wobbly on the whole civil liberties thing when religious nuts are involved. The UIC doesn't deserve to be treated any differently than their ideological cousins the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

Posted by: PapayaSF at March 21, 2007 6:28 PM

No, the point is that there are no civil liberties where there is no law and order.


There's no basis for them where there is no religion.

We likewise welcomed the Taliban takeover because the chaos they replaced was intolerable.

Posted by: oj at March 21, 2007 8:20 PM

No, the point is that there are no civil liberties where there is no law and order.

That's a rather sweeping statement. In any case, one can have law and order without beating people for watching TV or wearing makeup. Only cultural relativists and fanatics excuse that sort of petty, idiotic tyranny.

There's no basis for them where there is no religion.

I know this is one of your favorite points. I grant its truth to a degree, but I won't go as far as you do. One can have religion in a society without violence against those who don't follow minor precepts. That's something we enjoy in this country, and I'd like others elsewhere to have that same freedom.

We likewise welcomed the Taliban takeover because the chaos they replaced was intolerable.

Um, you do remember what that got us, right? You sound as if tyranny is always preferable to anarchy, but it's not. If your goal is to create a nice, liberty-respecting democracy, I'd say you're better off starting with an anarchy than a tyranny.

Posted by: PapayaSF at March 22, 2007 12:37 AM

Now you're being intentionally inane. Without law there is no "civil."

Tyranny is indeed always preferable to anarchy. That's why the former frequently endures and the latter doesn't.

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2007 6:26 AM
« OLLY-OLLY OXEN FREE: | Main | IT'S ALMOST LIKE HE SAVED SOME MONEY, EH? »