Somalia: Civilians are completely at the mercy of armed groups.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7385078.stm

"Civilians are completely at the mercy of armed groups in Somalia, says human rights group Amnesty International."

"Even in refugee camps, Somalis face attack, Amnesty says. It says no-one is offering them any protection."

Right here is a perfect example of why free people should never be disarmed. Disarmed people will always be at the mercy of the armed, and will always be at the mercy of others for protection.

Why ... "civilians" ... with gunz ...


Or did you have some other theory?


Edit: you might have to know something about recent Somali history to understand the question ...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It says the situation is "dire" in the centre and the south with government troops, their Ethiopian allies and Islamist insurgents "out of control".

This quote above from the original link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7385078.stm

I guess "Government troops" are just civilians in uniform and of course the "Ethiopian allies" might or might not be Government troops and those pesky Islamist insurgents seem to keep popping up all over the world but then they might NOT be part of an irregular militia or other semi-formal armed force. Just "civilians" ... with gunz ...

I would certainly prefer to have my own gun in that situation. Not that I expect anyone to care about "my" desires or wants. :)

I think I need to go pick up a copy of Hooked on Phonics to give as a Christmas Present for some of our loyal readers.

I guess "Government troops" are just civilians in uniform

That's nice.


Shall we play Spot The Government?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1072611.stm

Warlord or government, militia or government, band of thugs with AK-47s or government ...


and of course the "Ethiopian allies" might or might not be Government troops

Huh. Someone named DrCory was just singing the praises of Ethiopia here the other day ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=167951&mesg_id=168189
"Oh, and however was Mengistu compelled to flee Ethiopia? Incessant teasing about his ill-fitting hat? No, that's not the answer. Being that current day Ethiopia is a functioning parliamentary republic, that should suffice as well."


those pesky Islamist insurgents seem to keep popping up all over the world but then they might NOT be part of an irregular militia or other semi-formal armed force. Just "civilians" ... with gunz ...

Uh ... huh ... and your point there would be ...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your link to the timeline in Somalia has several references to government troops like this:

"2007 March - African Union peacekeepers land at Mogadishu amid pitched battles between insurgents and government forces backed by Ethiopian troops. The Red Cross says it is the worst fighting in 15 years."

"2007 November - Government shuts down Radio Shabelle, Radio Simba and Radio Banadir. UN special envoy Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah describes Somalia's humanitarian crisis the worst in Africa, suggests using international justice to curb the violence. Nur Hassan Hussein, also known as Nur Adde, sworn in as new prime minister. Number of Somali refugees hits one million, with nearly 200,000 fleeing the capital in the past two weeks, the UN reports."

So spot the government for us. No matter how shabby, they do have one. A government with guns and citizens without means the citizens are at the mercy of the government. That was the OP's premise I believe and it seems to be well supported by the cited links.

You seem to believe that obfuscation is the better option to continue the debate with instead of arguing the point. Your semantic antics are wasted and imply a lack of integrity when it comes to rational debate on guns.

Warlord or government, militia or government, band of thugs with AK-47s or government ...

Like you care, Iverglas. You've made it quite plain that you wouldn't care what sort of enemy these people are up against - you would still prefer them to be disarmed.

And in areas like Somalia, with two powerful forces at play against each other (islamists and secular warlords) what happens when a community not already involved wants to stay out of the fighting? When armed press-gangs show up to force the people of that community to support them, what can the unarmed people possibly do? If they are armed as well, then yes, some of them will probably die fighting off islamists and secular militias, and yes, there is a possibility that they may be wiped out in an act of revenge by the same forces, but how is dying defending your homes worse than dying in the capitol fighting against another militia in a conflict you didn't choose to be involved in?

Also there is a good chance that faced with organized resistance from an entire community the militias would just look elsewhere for softer targets, like the predators they are. If enough of the population was capable of putting up an armed resistance to being dragged into this conflict, eventually the two sides would run out of steam, plus the government forces who are doing their best could start to reinstate order in the now-militia free areas. Life would slowly begin to work itself out for them.

That's an entirely realistic scenario, or would be if actual civilians (not "civilians with Gunz" who are only "civilians" in that they do not belong to any government groups) were armed and had the resolve to remain independent of this conflict, realizing that no matter the cost in the short term, they would be greatly assisting their nation return to stability.