that's what I 'think'. I hope her family is getting alot of support, but I'm sure they are not.

* "Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was reported as being 23, based upon a judgement on her physical appearance, according to one of the journalists who had reported the stoning. Her actual age was confirmed to Amnesty International by other sources, including her father.

* Her father said she had only travelled to Kismayo from Hagardeer refugee camp in north eastern Kenya three months earlier.

* She was detained by militia of the Kismayo authorities, a coalition of Al-shabab and clan militias. During this time, she was reportedly extremely distressed, with some individuals stating she had become mentally unstable.

* A truckload of stones was brought into the stadium to be used in the stoning.

* At one point during the stoning, Amnesty International has been told by numerous eyewitnesses that nurses were instructed to check whether Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was still alive when buried in the ground. They removed her from the ground, declared that she was, and she was replaced in the hole where she had been buried for the stoning to continue.

* An individual calling himself Sheik Hayakalah, was quoted on Radio Shabelle saying:``The evidence came from her side and she officially confirmed her guilt, while she told us that she is happy with the punishment under Islamic law.'' In contradiction to this claim, a number of eye witnesses have told Amnesty International she struggled with her captors and had to be forcibly carried into the stadium.

* Inside the stadium, militia members opened fire when some of the witnesses to the killing attempted to save her life, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander. An al-Shabab spokeperson was later reported to have apologized for the death of the child, and said the milita member would be punished."

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/somalia-girl-stoned-was-child-13-20081031

... that the rapists were among those casting the stones?

This illustrates yet again that men in backward societies (yes, I think we can put anarchic Somalia in that category) often have a terrible fear of female sexuality.

Remember poor virgin Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 gang and his pathetic last will and testament in which he urged that his body not be touched by a woman.

In recent days I was reading an interview with a 24-year-old man who has been in jail since the age of 14 here in Florida for murdering a young girl playmate. The article avoided any discussion of the murder, but you can bet that he was trying to shut her up so as to avoid her reporting some kind of sexual behavior or experimentation.

Today I was listening to a radio show that discussed suicide by teenage boys, and again, although the real motives for the suicides were glossed over, because the emphasis was on the feelings of the surviving friends, you can bet that shame over sexuality is very likely a cause.

What you have in these primitive societies, where no one can talk about sex at all, is a Lord of the Flies society where even the adult men are mentally adolescent boys.

The good thing is that incidents of this kind are probably much, much rarer than they have been for most of human history. As far as I can gather sacrificing virgins was pretty much routine procedure in earlier versions of American and old world societies.

that this is legal and necessary per their 'God'?

The whole thing sounds improbable and preposterous, even to this person who wants to attribute this case to mere Western misunderstanding of Islamic law.

just insert a klan lynching story from the not so distant history of america, and moderate your contempt.

ignorant, religion-ridden, human societies often exhibit disgusting behavior, unlike the civilized people in [insert your home town here].

often have a terrible fear of female sexuality.

I always hear this phrase, but I do not think it is fear of female sexuality as much as that unfettered female sexuality is an indicator of greater anarchy in the society.

To these people (as to most people), law means punishment and lawlessness means anarchy. The only question then is, what are the accepted verities.

You can bet too that MANY of the women in that society enthusiastically support what is going on there-- and that many men there blanche at what is going on but refuse to speak up for fear of punishment themselves and/or lack the power to change it.

So again, it is unfair to demonize ALL men and make ALL women out to be angels.

I was going to say something profound and insightful but I got nothing. I am glad to hear that apparently some audience members tried to stop the stoning... not so glad to hear that they got gunned down.

I'm pretty sure that although there's no Islamic law that demands anything like this, the average Somalian cleric's grasp of Islam is about the same as the average gun-totin' childmolesting rural American preacher's grasp of Christianity.

These stories never really explain what the thought process is for these people. I guess it is unexplainable? How is it that somebody who is a victim of a violent action is then responsible for that action? It sounds to me like the perpetrators of the act are the ones making the accusation in order to cover up their act -- but wouldn't others be able to see that? I guess you have to have a larger understanding of the society and culture they live in, and I do not have such an understanding. The only conclusion I can draw is that there is something fundamentally wrong with their entire society, and that's an unfortunate conclusion because I do not want to be dimissive of them, as it seems especially counterproductive.

If I understand the article correctly, there were women among the people throwing the stones. So of course the women are also part of the society that does that (and I still would like to see which Islamic law makes this a necessity.)

You assume too quickly that Ms Clark-Flory was simply blaming men. As far as I can tell, she wasn't. She was blaming a society that is so terribly afraid of women having sex without the accepted rules that it will go to such lengths. Not necessarily the men: a society.

Don't be so quick to pull the trigger. I think you were the only person here to think that "men", rather than society, was responsible for that. I frankly don't see any demonization here. (It may be that men had an important, or even the most important, role in making these 'laws' enjoy such wide currency in Somalia; but nobody has claimed that here thus far. Except you, implicitly. Of course reality is more complicated than that.)