The ICU (a state organization) currently controls most of Somalia. The instability is largely caused by groups backed by the UN (a state organization) and tribal forces (state organizations). The only non-state organizations involved in the conflict are the radical Islamists, though if they were to take over they would almost certainly want to establish
a state. So, no, Somalia is NOT a post-state society. It is a land contested by multiple states. But so is Afghanistan, and nobody is using Afghanistan as a strawman against anarchy. Somalia is just the favorite strawman of the media who are pointing at the various state factions going at each other and saying, "look what happens when you don't have a state!" But what they mean by "no state" is a lack of a single, unified, largely unchallenged state. But what anarchists mean and have always meant by "no state" is a lack of state organizations shaping society. Two states in conflict shape a society just as easily, and often more violently, than one unchallenged state.
And I ignored your points because apparently you expect every stateless society to be exactly the way YOU want it to be, when in this place called "reality" it's not going to be the way you want it.
Apparently you ignored my points without ever having READ THEM, because that's not what I said at all. In fact, I said something rather strongly to the contrary.