The Philippine president-elect Rodrigo Duterte said corrupt journalists were legitimate targets of assassination, as he amped up his controversial anti-crime crusade with offers of rewards for killing drug traffickers.
Duterte won this month’s elections by a landslide largely due to an explosive law-and-order platform in which he pledged to end crime within six months by killing tens of thousands of suspected criminals.
The foul-mouthed politician has launched a series of post-election tirades against criminals and repeated his vows to kill them – particularly drug traffickers, rapists and murderers. In a press conference called on Tuesday to announce the new cabinet, in his southern hometown of Davao, Duterte said journalists who took bribes or engaged in other corrupt activities also deserved to die.
“Just because you’re a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you’re a son of a bitch,” Duterte said when asked how he would address the problem of media killings in the Philippines, after a reporter was shot dead in Manila last week.
The Philippines is one of the most dangerous nations in the world for journalists, with 174 murdered since a chaotic and corruption-plagued democracy replaced the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos three decades ago. “Most of those killed, to be frank, have done something. You won’t be killed if you don’t do anything wrong,” Duterte said, adding that many journalists in the Philippines were corrupt.
Duterte also said freedom of expression provisions in the constitution did not necessarily protect a person from violent repercussions for defamation. “That can’t be just freedom of speech. The constitution can no longer help you if you disrespect a person,” he said.
Duterte raised the case of Jun Pala, a journalist and politician who was murdered in Davao in 2003. Gunmen on a motorcycle shot dead Pala, who was a vocal critic of Duterte. His murder has never been solved. “If you are an upright journalist, nothing will happen to you,” said Duterte, who has ruled Davao as mayor for most of the past two decades and is accused of links to vigilante death squads.
“The example here is Pala. I do not want to diminish his memory but he was a rotten son of a bitch. He deserved it.”
One of the world’s deadliest attacks against journalists took place in the Philippines in 2009, when 32 journalists were among 58 people killed by a warlord clan intent on stopping a rival’s election challenge. More than 100 people are on trial for the massacre, including many members of the Ampatuan family accused of orchestrating it.
Duterte has named Salvador Panelo, the former defence lawyer for the Ampatuans, as his presidential spokesman, a nomination criticised by the victims’ families and journalists’ organisations. Duterte, who will assume office on 30 June, also said he would offer bounties to law enforcement officers who killed drug traffickers. He said 3m pesos (£14,450) would be paid to law enforcers for killing drug lords, with lesser amounts for lower-ranking people in drug syndicates.
Outlining some of his other plans for his war on crime, Duterte said he would give police special forces shoot-to-kill orders and send them into the main jail in Manila where prisoners run drug trafficking operations.
He also said he would enlist junior soldiers to kill corrupt top-ranking police officers who were involved in the drug trade. “I will call the private from the army and say: ’Shoot him’,” Duterte said. He urged police not to wait until he assumed the presidency, and start killing criminals immediately. “Now, now,” he urged them.
Police earlier confirmed killing 15 people in a series of drug raids across the country over the past week, which Amnesty International described as a sharp and sudden escalation in the long-standing problem of questionable deaths by Filipino security forces.
Well, it looks like the Philippines just elected the worlds next dictator. I knew things had been bad in the region, but I was unaware of exactly how bad it was. Especially for journalists in the area.
LordofHats wrote: Is it weird that my very first thought was "this guy sounds a lot like Donald Trump except with more violence and less childish name calling?"
"I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but he was a rotten son of a bitch"
vs
"I'm not saying that he was murdered, but there are a lot of people saying that that aide was murdered"
Yup. I'm also seeing the similarities in speech. It's kinda worrying.
You don't want to be dealing with drugs there. Don't be corrupt. This guy has a lot of faults but he is dead serious.
He already put notice to a lot of officials who are corrupt that they be replaced
The law enforcement officers who are subpar are being relocated to the area where rebels operate.
....
....
This guy is cleaning house.
Read an article a few weeks back on how transparent this election was. Was way more transparent then ours. This guy won fairly. The city he was Mayor of is no joke. Don't get caught dealing with drugs in his domain
Jihadin wrote: You don't want to be dealing with drugs there. Don't be corrupt. This guy has a lot of faults but he is dead serious.
He already put notice to a lot of officials who are corrupt that they be replaced
The law enforcement officers who are subpar are being relocated to the area where rebels operate.
....
....
This guy is cleaning house.
This.
He's not a "dictator" (unless you are one of the "muh feelz" persuasion). The people elected him because they're fed up. And he's keeping his campaign promises to deal with sources of his country's problems directly and harshly And he doesn't wrap his language in claptrap, flowery political double-speak.
And for those who are hysterical over Donald Hairpiece, the only similarity is that both rode/are riding a populist wave, and have the support of those who are fed up of their respective political classes and their inherent corruption. Donald Trump isn't dictator material. He's a bored celebrity billionaire (that ran on a whim) that's doing better than expected, says what a lot of normal people are thinking, and has the hatred of the political establishment on both sides of the aisle because of his "outsider" status.
I don't like Trump personally. I'm only planning to give him my vote because I know Shillery's past history in politics and business, and I'm tired of the political establishment in this country. Trump might screw things up (odds are good), but he's fresh blood on the political stage. It's good to rock the boat every now and then to send a clear message. And it's not like Presidents from the political establishment haven't screwed the pooch, more often than not, since the end of World War II. Even the patron saints of both the right and left, such as Reagan, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton have made serious errors in their administrations.
So, I ignore the propaganda against Mr. Hairpiece. I'm more than willing to give him a chance. If he screws up his term in office, he won't make two terms. Simple as that.
On a positive note, anybody looking to make another Vietnam War film will be able to get as many helicopters as they want, cheap labour, and prime shooting locations
Frazzled wrote: Live that dream. When Trump goes down you're going to lose the House and may effectively lose the Senate too. Local officers will get slaughtered.
Not literally, though. Unlike with Mr. "Cleaning House" and his death squads up there.
Seriously, people. Death squads. Attacking journalists. How does that not raise five billion red flags for anyone on the planet? It's easy enough to say "oh, he was corrupt" after it's all said and done. The man is urging assassinations and talking about sending the army into prisons to execute convicts, how are people in this thread defending him? That's insane, this is two or three steps and a few lunatics in costumes away from being the plot of Arkham City.
Frazzled wrote: Live that dream. When Trump goes down you're going to lose the House and may effectively lose the Senate too. Local officers will get slaughtered.
Not literally, though. Unlike with Mr. "Cleaning House" and his death squads up there.
Seriously, people. Death squads. Attacking journalists. How does that not raise five billion red flags for anyone on the planet? It's easy enough to say "oh, he was corrupt" after it's all said and done. The man is urging assassinations and talking about sending the army into prisons to execute convicts, how are people in this thread defending him? That's insane, this is two or three steps and a few lunatics in costumes away from being the plot of Arkham City.
Frakking death squads.
Because he's TOUGH ON CRIME
When you ability to think critically has been beaten out of you by your peer group, this kind of rhetoric sticks.
I have to agree with Spinner. This is fething insane. Half a century ago, we went to War with despots like this. And I hate to Godwin the thread, but Hitler was a populist leader with the support of his people too.
What happens if the Philippines comes into conflict with a neighbouring country and this guy starts throwing his weight around?
This guy not cranking up death camps. This guy agenda has been known a long time. I was tracking this guy a year ago when he was mayor of Davao when he set loose the LEO of his city on the drug dealers. Welcome to today's version of the route China took to remove their drug users and drug dealers. He is also shaking house with the military. Quite a few Generals are getting canned due to corruption allegations
Edit
Rodrigo Duterte has warned journalists in the Philippines that they are legitimate targets for assassination if they do wrong, in the President-elect’s latest controversial comments ahead of being sworn into office later this month.
Duterte was asked during a press conference Tuesday how he would address the country’s high murder rate for journalists, reports Agence France-Presse. “Just because you’re a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you’re a son of a bitch,” he replied.
The Philippines is considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists and, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 75 reporters have been murdered in the country since 1992, many while investigating official corruption.
The new leader’s apparent explanation is that many of the country’s reporters are themselves corrupt. “Most of those killed, to be frank, have done something. You won’t be killed if you don’t do anything wrong,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Davao City mayor, who won a May 9 election on vowing to crack down on crime across the Philippines, has also given an indication that he intends to ensure the Southeast Asian nation is not over-reliant on its long-term ally the U.S.
Duterte said the country under his watch would be “charting a course of our own” regarding the South China Sea, Reuters reports. The Philippines is one of several countries in the region locked in protracted territorial disputes with China.
“It will not be dependent on America,” Duterte said of his approach to the maritime row. “And it will be a line that is not intended to please anybody but the Filipino interest.”
I like this guy. Straight...to the point...has his head on a swivel.
Jihadin wrote: This guy not cranking up death camps. This guy agenda has been known a long time. I was tracking this guy a year ago when he was mayor of Davao when he set loose the LEO of his city on the drug dealers. Welcome to today's version of the route China took to remove their drug users and drug dealers. He is also shaking house with the military. Quite a few Generals are getting canned due to corruption allegations
Right, and thats something I'm sure we can all get behind. But extra-judicial assassinations and summary executions?
Is there no rule of Law in the Philippines? Is their government above the law?
I didn't say death camps, I said death squads. And assassinations. And placing bounties. And waving his hand at the corpses and saying "Oh, they were corrupt. If you don't do anything wrong, nothing bad will happen to you."
Spinner wrote: I didn't say death camps, I said death squads. And assassinations. And placing bounties. And waving his hand at the corpses and saying "Oh, they were corrupt. If you don't do anything wrong, nothing bad will happen to you."
These are all terrible signs.
Yes. Apparently theres no Presumption of innocence in the Philippines, and even more scarily, westerners in this thread appear to be applauding.
Jihadin wrote: I know a lot of Ex Pats in the Philippines are sitting back watching the fun and supporting this guy.
Which is all fun and games until one of them gets caught with a spliff or a few kilograms of cocaine in an airport. Its easy to cheer this on when its happening to somebody else.
That's one thing I haven't heard about this guy. Journalist killing. I know when the story broke on his Mistress he was like "Your point?" Journalist is still alive I believe.
Still though they're predicting mass exodus of drug dealers soon.
Let's play devil's advocate. What if he doesn't abuse his power and actually only goes after bad people? I've known enough politicians to doubt this, but a few dead bad guys sends a strong message. Maybe if we had a few politicians strung up over here things would be better. Violence or threat of violence is the ultimate motivator.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Let's play devil's advocate. What if he doesn't abuse his power and actually only goes after bad people? I've known enough politicians to doubt this, but a few dead bad guys sends a strong message. Maybe if we had a few politicians strung up over here things would be better. Violence or threat of violence is the ultimate motivator.
Problem is, if they don't get a fair trial then we only have the Government's word that they were "bad guys".
If they're all given fair trials, preferably with juries, then I don't particularly care if they're executed, so long as the crime they committed warrants the death penalty (Drug Lords, murderers etc).
Monkey Tamer wrote: Let's play devil's advocate. What if he doesn't abuse his power and actually only goes after bad people? I've known enough politicians to doubt this, but a few dead bad guys sends a strong message. Maybe if we had a few politicians strung up over here things would be better. Violence or threat of violence is the ultimate motivator.
If thats what he and the people that voted for him whats to do, then more power to them. no matter how despicable it is to everyone else.
I wonder how much less support this would get if the murder victims weren't termed 'corrupt' or 'drug traffickers', but instead 'subversives' or 'enemies of the state'.
As for 'it's the will of the people'...I'm sure the guy calling in freelance hits is going to get a LOT of people running openly against him.
Jihadin wrote: You don't want to be dealing with drugs there. Don't be corrupt. This guy has a lot of faults but he is dead serious.
He already put notice to a lot of officials who are corrupt that they be replaced
The law enforcement officers who are subpar are being relocated to the area where rebels operate.
....
....
This guy is cleaning house.
This.
He's not a "dictator" (unless you are one of the "muh feelz" persuasion). The people elected him because they're fed up. And he's keeping his campaign promises to deal with sources of his country's problems directly and harshly And he doesn't wrap his language in claptrap, flowery political double-speak.
So, using assassins and not using giving people fair trials does not scream "dictator" to you?
Just out of curiosity, how would you define the term "dictator"? He has absolute power and is attempting to rule through the use of fear.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Let's play devil's advocate. What if he doesn't abuse his power and actually only goes after bad people? I've known enough politicians to doubt this, but a few dead bad guys sends a strong message. Maybe if we had a few politicians strung up over here things would be better. Violence or threat of violence is the ultimate motivator.
If thats what he and the people that voted for him whats to do, then more power to them. no matter how despicable it is to everyone else.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you get Hitler. Good job!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And I hate to Godwin the thread, but Hitler was a populist leader with the support of his people too.
Hitler was a vegetarian
Hitler loved dogs
Hitler promoted excellent infrastructure that serves Germans well today
Every politician is populist to some extent. You don't get elected without making claims and promises that appeal to a majority.
In this instance, Filipinos seem to have been swayed by his stance on drugs.
dictionary wrote:dictator
noun
a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
synonyms: autocrat, monocrat, absolute ruler; More
a person who behaves in an autocratic way.
(in ancient Rome) a chief magistrate with absolute power, appointed in an emergency.
None of the above describes what has happened here. People voted in an Authoritarian who advocated violence against criminals.
He's not a dictator until he seizes all power to himself.
I don't personally agree with his stances but I'm not about to 'liberate' the Phillipines and neither is anyone else unless oil is discovered.
China might be raising an eyebrow though.
Dept of State might keep quiet but then again they might not. They're still catching crap from the fall out with Thailand on telling them to reform. Thailand made a arms deal with Putin, also agriculture deal with Putin, also a trade deal, and a few other deals.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And I hate to Godwin the thread, but Hitler was a populist leader with the support of his people too.
Hitler was a vegetarian
Hitler loved dogs
Hitler promoted excellent infrastructure that serves Germans well today
Every politician is populist to some extent. You don't get elected without making claims and promises that appeal to a majority.
In this instance, Filipinos seem to have been swayed by his stance on drugs.
dictionary wrote:dictator
noun
a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
synonyms: autocrat, monocrat, absolute ruler; More
a person who behaves in an autocratic way.
(in ancient Rome) a chief magistrate with absolute power, appointed in an emergency.
None of the above describes what has happened here. People voted in an Authoritarian who advocated violence against criminals.
He's not a dictator until he seizes all power to himself.
I don't personally agree with his stances but I'm not about to 'liberate' the Phillipines and neither is anyone else unless oil is discovered.
One does not have to seize through power to be a Dictator. That is how it usually starts, but of course we know through history that is not always the case. (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini)
He is currently dismissing generals and politicians based on claims of corruption with no trials. He is assassinating journalists and civilians on claims of corruption/illegal behavior with no trial. I mean, how would you describe those actions?
It seems to be a natural extension of the only policies working in that country- the crime statistics are horrifying. The measures he is proposing are undeniably drastic, but for now are strictly leveled against criminals. This is the Phillipne's Robocop.
TLDR, in a city where crime was aggressively prosecuted, with raids, surprise checkpoints and increased surveillance of organized crime, crime decreased 60%. Nationwide it increased 46%. with an emphasis on robberies, murders and rapes.
I can't believe it, but under the circumstances this seems like a really good idea.
I'm all for stepping up drug raids, if the aim is to capture suspects alive and put them on trial. If they violently resist arrest, then by all means, treat them like any armed and dangerous suspect and shoot to kill.
I'm all for removing and prosecuting public officials and journalists who engage in bribery, collusion and other sorts of corruption.
If the severity of their crimes warrant it, and all due process of law is applied and fair trials are given, then by all means execute them. I'm'm not ideologically opposed to the death penalty.
But fething assassinations? Death squads? That's far too much power for any government to wield, the power to kill its own citizens on a whim without any judicial oversight. The only circumstances in which any criminal should be killed outright before a trial is if they resist arrest, or are known for a fact to be too dangerous to arrest (such as suicide bomber cells). The aim should always be to capture them alive if possible and put them on trial before executing them.
I only caught it off John Oliver because, lets be honest, not many people without ties to the Philippines gives two feths about its government, but I'm surprised nobody mentioned his pro-rape stance.
Basically after an Australian woman was raped to death there, he made the comment that it was wrong that the mayor (him) didn't get the first shot. He even then defended the comments.
Though things like that and being "tough on drugs"* do seem to make him the darling of the American Right.
*They do sell alcohol in the Philippines right? How many dealers of that particular poison have been targeted by these death squads?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And I hate to Godwin the thread, but Hitler was a populist leader with the support of his people too.
Hitler was a vegetarian
Hitler loved dogs
Hitler promoted excellent infrastructure that serves Germans well today
Every politician is populist to some extent. You don't get elected without making claims and promises that appeal to a majority.
In this instance, Filipinos seem to have been swayed by his stance on drugs.
dictionary wrote:dictator
noun
a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
synonyms: autocrat, monocrat, absolute ruler; More
a person who behaves in an autocratic way.
(in ancient Rome) a chief magistrate with absolute power, appointed in an emergency.
None of the above describes what has happened here. People voted in an Authoritarian who advocated violence against criminals.
He's not a dictator until he seizes all power to himself.
I don't personally agree with his stances but I'm not about to 'liberate' the Phillipines and neither is anyone else unless oil is discovered.
One does not have to seize through power to be a Dictator. That is how it usually starts, but of course we know through history that is not always the case. (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini)
He is currently dismissing generals and politicians based on claims of corruption with no trials. He is assassinating journalists and civilians on claims of corruption/illegal behavior with no trial. I mean, how would you describe those actions?
I would describe it as a country where the rot runs to the very core, and requires serious measures to root it out and get rid of it. If the criminal justice system is also rotten with corruption, how the hell do you expect any trial is going to pan out? And do you think that journalists are beyond reproach, and automatically exempt from consequences for illegal activity and corruption, because of their occupation?
I don't think he's a dictator except in the sense of the ancient Roman Republic. There is no indication that he's in it for personal power. He's a hard-ass and a bastard who sees his nation in a de-facto state of emergency, seeing it going downhill, and is doing what he thinks needs to be done, no matter how distasteful. I don't claim that he's a saint. In fact, I think he's one mean SOB. But civilizations and societies survive because of the rough men willing and ready to do violence on their behalf.
In any case, I'm mostly curious on how much he manages to pull off, and whether he does (or does not) let it go to his head (thus proving me wrong).
In my opinion, it has already gone to his head. As soon as he started calling for assassinations and vigilante death squads, he crossed a serious line. He is judge, jury, and executioner(he does not pull the trigger himself, but he orders it). Without proper trials and investigations, he is able to accuse anybody of corruption and have them killed. You can make the argument that these people are corrupt and many of them probably are given the problems they have. But how many are not? How do we know all of these people are corrupt? Do you deserve to die just for corruption and dealing drugs?
I understand if they are violent gangs attacking the police and citizens, protect your LEOs and citizens. But a guy selling some weed or mushrooms? No way they deserve to be assassinated.
Haven't heard of them lining up suspects and shooting them up against a wall. In fact the he handle Davao kind of give advance warning to what drug dealers expect. Same as corrupted officials. So far the Ex Pats there are rooting for him to clean house.
Basically after an Australian woman was raped to death there, he made the comment that it was wrong that the mayor (him) didn't get the first shot. He even then defended the comments.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And I hate to Godwin the thread, but Hitler was a populist leader with the support of his people too.
Hitler was a vegetarian Hitler loved dogs Hitler promoted excellent infrastructure that serves Germans well today
Every politician is populist to some extent. You don't get elected without making claims and promises that appeal to a majority. In this instance, Filipinos seem to have been swayed by his stance on drugs.
dictionary wrote:dictator
noun a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force. synonyms: autocrat, monocrat, absolute ruler; More a person who behaves in an autocratic way. (in ancient Rome) a chief magistrate with absolute power, appointed in an emergency.
None of the above describes what has happened here. People voted in an Authoritarian who advocated violence against criminals. He's not a dictator until he seizes all power to himself.
I don't personally agree with his stances but I'm not about to 'liberate' the Phillipines and neither is anyone else unless oil is discovered.
One does not have to seize through power to be a Dictator. That is how it usually starts, but of course we know through history that is not always the case. (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini)
He is currently dismissing generals and politicians based on claims of corruption with no trials. He is assassinating journalists and civilians on claims of corruption/illegal behavior with no trial. I mean, how would you describe those actions?
I would describe it as a country where the rot runs to the very core, and requires serious measures to root it out and get rid of it. If the criminal justice system is also rotten with corruption, how the hell do you expect any trial is going to pan out? And do you think that journalists are beyond reproach, and automatically exempt from consequences for illegal activity and corruption, because of their occupation?
Jihadin wrote: Haven't heard of them lining up suspects and shooting them up against a wall. In fact the he handle Davao kind of give advance warning to what drug dealers expect. Same as corrupted officials. So far the Ex Pats there are rooting for him to clean house.
Guys, this man has got death squads hunting down street kids. Please stop defending scum like this already.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And I hate to Godwin the thread, but Hitler was a populist leader with the support of his people too.
Hitler was a vegetarian
Hitler loved dogs
Hitler promoted excellent infrastructure that serves Germans well today
Every politician is populist to some extent. You don't get elected without making claims and promises that appeal to a majority.
In this instance, Filipinos seem to have been swayed by his stance on drugs.
dictionary wrote:dictator
noun
a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
synonyms: autocrat, monocrat, absolute ruler; More
a person who behaves in an autocratic way.
(in ancient Rome) a chief magistrate with absolute power, appointed in an emergency.
None of the above describes what has happened here. People voted in an Authoritarian who advocated violence against criminals.
He's not a dictator until he seizes all power to himself.
I don't personally agree with his stances but I'm not about to 'liberate' the Phillipines and neither is anyone else unless oil is discovered.
One does not have to seize through power to be a Dictator. That is how it usually starts, but of course we know through history that is not always the case. (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini)
He is currently dismissing generals and politicians based on claims of corruption with no trials. He is assassinating journalists and civilians on claims of corruption/illegal behavior with no trial. I mean, how would you describe those actions?
I would describe it as a country where the rot runs to the very core, and requires serious measures to root it out and get rid of it. If the criminal justice system is also rotten with corruption, how the hell do you expect any trial is going to pan out? And do you think that journalists are beyond reproach, and automatically exempt from consequences for illegal activity and corruption, because of their occupation?
Jihadin wrote: Haven't heard of them lining up suspects and shooting them up against a wall. In fact the he handle Davao kind of give advance warning to what drug dealers expect. Same as corrupted officials. So far the Ex Pats there are rooting for him to clean house.
Guys, this man has got death squads hunting down street kids. Please stop defending scum like this already.
Scum? That's rich coming from somebody who admires another hated hard-ass who's used murder, backstabbing, and attempted murder to get his point across.
And please dispense with the propaganda-inspired hysteria over the guy. We know he's a hard bastard, makes inappropriate jokes, and lacks decorum. But I'm not buying any bs that comes from Western media sources or RT regarding him or his actions. Sensationalism sell papers and jacks up ratings, after all.
The link I posted is a news source in the Phillipines. There's a recording. He's on camera, talking about a murdered lay missionary who had been gang raped, saying that it was a shame because she was so beautiful that he, the mayor, should have been first. This has been filmed, it's not any kind of spin by 'Western media'.
He tried to play it off as a folksy joke. That's not a folksy joke. People need to step away from the Robocop and Punisher fantasies and take a good, long look at what kind of sociopath this man actually is.
There's PC and then there's no PC. He has no PC. [...]
But to clarify or throw in some clarity here
On August 13, 1989, 16 convicts including leaders Pugoy and Mohammad Nazir Samparani, a former sergeant from the Philippine Air Force who was dismissed from service in a 1976 hostage crisis, took 15 members of the Joyful Assembly of God as hostage. All but one of the convicts were part of the Wild Boys of DaPeCol. The Protestant group had conducted a prayer service at the prison shortly before being taken hostage.[1][7][8]
The Wild Boys took the hostages to protest against prison conditions and demanded to speak with Congressman Ramon Mitra and Senator Nina Rasul. Both politicians declined the demand saying that the crisis must be dealt with by the military negotiators.[8]
By August 15, the inmates reportedly surrendered after being promised to be transferred to a prison in Manila. Gunshots were fired as inmates crossed a chain-link fence along with the hostages. Some hostages were able to escape as the rest were dragged back into prison.[8] According to one of the escaped hostages, nine of the hostages including the Australian missionary, Jacqueline Hamill, were raped by the inmates.[7] This led the military to storm into the prison later that day after the hostage takers still refused to cooperate.[8]
The hostage crisis was resolved by a combined police-military intervention which was able to rescue 10 hostages. The end of the crisis saw the deaths of 5 hostages including Hamill as well as all 16 hostage takers.[1][7] It is unclear if the five deaths among the hostages were the result of the intervention or caused by the inmates.[9]
So next time Kim executes someone with a execution from his deck of "How to die" I will laugh OUT LOUD Next time we (US) opt out a Taliban/AQ/ISIS leader I will laugh OUT LOUD
Might as well put me on ignore Spinner because I will have dark humor
I like this new trend of accepting someone acting like a sociopath by brushing it off as "dark humor", "not being PC", and "just saying what we all were thinking".
Ouze wrote: I like this new trend of accepting someone acting like a sociopath by brushing it off as "dark humor", "not being PC", and "just saying what we all were thinking".
[... redactions at Jihadin's request.] Ouze. Its me.....when have I ever been....PC?
Wait one....Besides the "November" word. Wait two....Besides my view on LGBT as in "I don't care as long as they do their job" Think there are some others.....wait...remember when someone threw up the South Vietnam Police Chief executing that VC captain? I took the side of the execution.
I know, right? It's great how inclusive people are being of wannabe psychotic dictators.
Not a huge fan of the ignore button, but, y'know. I can also draw a line between dark humor and suggesting you would have liked to be a part of the gang rape of a murdered woman. Guess that's just 2edgy4me?
Since you do not know me. I'm pretty sure someone on here can vouch I've no issue executing a proven rapist. The guy makes a dark arse joke and becomes a rapist by those words alone. Since clearly he wanted be in prison to commit that atrocity.
Guess what. I'm a cold heart killer. No issue with me putting down a Tango. (notionally)
But...I am also a murderer by being that killer (notionally)
Yet I also committed atrocity by having my driver drive through a mud hut home to kill some bad guys (notionally)
Hey I also sat back with others to laugh and grin and not showing pity on some bad guys as a A10 come in to opt their arse out and TOOK PICTURES (notionally) TWICE!
Hey, we also committed some shady shaningans by turning over bad guys to the ANA for intel processing (notionally)
I've done some dark humor stuff
He makes a comment and gets condemned. I did real world stuff and receive medals and praise for my actions yet I am not condemned.
Guys, this man has got death squads hunting down street kids. Please stop defending scum like this already.
Scum? That's rich coming from somebody who admires another hated hard-ass who's used murder, backstabbing, and attempted murder to get his point across.
And please dispense with the propaganda-inspired hysteria over the guy. We know he's a hard bastard, makes inappropriate jokes, and lacks decorum. But I'm not buying any bs that comes from Western media sources or RT regarding him or his actions. Sensationalism sell papers and jacks up ratings, after all.
I admire someone who uses murder? Who then? I absolutely hate murders more than anything. Maybe that I can admire some aspects of Stalin, but then again I hate him in equal measure.
And do Human Rights Watch and the UN also need to sell papers? Or the Phillipine people that have lost their loved ones to the death squads? Do they need to sell papers too? What you are saying is disgraceful. There is no need for propaganda, evidence of what this man is doing in the Philipines has been well-documented by many different and unrelated independent sources. And even better, the guy has admitted it himself. Better proof does not exist.
Jihadin wrote: Since you do not know me. I'm pretty sure someone on here can vouch I've no issue executing a proven rapist. The guy makes a dark arse joke and becomes a rapist by those words alone. Since clearly he wanted be in prison to commit that atrocity.
Guess what. I'm a cold heart killer. No issue with me putting down a Tango. (notionally)
But...I am also a murderer by being that killer (notionally)
Yet I also committed atrocity by having my driver drive through a mud hut home to kill some bad guys (notionally)
Hey I also sat back with others to laugh and grin and not showing pity on some bad guys as a A10 come in to opt their arse out and TOOK PICTURES (notionally) TWICE!
Hey, we also committed some shady shaningans by turning over bad guys to the ANA for intel processing (notionally)
I've done some dark humor stuff
He makes a comment and gets condemned. I did real world stuff and receive medals and praise for my actions yet I am not condemned.
He's getting condemned for his death squads, too. Don't you worry about that
Let me ask you something. If you were up in front of the cameras - if you were making a bid to be elected - do you think you'd think back on this stuff, and make a 'joke' for the benefit of the crowd? Not about the bad guys, but about their victims? The people they've hurt or killed? Would you make that 'joke' knowing that relatives and friends of the deceased would be watching, or would at the very least certainly hear about it? Because that's what he did. What if it was your mother or sister or friend in that woman's place? Would you still think the idea of him 'being first' is a good example of dark humor, or would that cross a line?
It maybe tangential, but I do have to wonder about how ineffective the Filippino organised crimes are. You would think that in a country that's apparently overflowing with rapists, murderers and cartels, there'd be a huge line-up of would-be assassins.
Jihadin wrote: Since you do not know me. I'm pretty sure someone on here can vouch I've no issue executing a proven rapist. The guy makes a dark arse joke and becomes a rapist by those words alone. Since clearly he wanted be in prison to commit that atrocity.
Guess what. I'm a cold heart killer. No issue with me putting down a Tango. (notionally)
But...I am also a murderer by being that killer (notionally)
Yet I also committed atrocity by having my driver drive through a mud hut home to kill some bad guys (notionally)
Hey I also sat back with others to laugh and grin and not showing pity on some bad guys as a A10 come in to opt their arse out and TOOK PICTURES (notionally) TWICE!
Hey, we also committed some shady shaningans by turning over bad guys to the ANA for intel processing (notionally)
I've done some dark humor stuff
He makes a comment and gets condemned. I did real world stuff and receive medals and praise for my actions yet I am not condemned.
You're just making yourself sound like a war criminal who's desperately trying to pass off all kinds of trauma and emotional distortion as merely appreciating dark comedy.
Also there was little to no laws till he came in. He's enforcing a draconian standards. Don't break laws. Also the last dictator wife is a Senator in their Parliament who still has all the art work on her condo walls that were acquired on the shady side. How many here though remember
Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos, Sr. (September 11, 1917 – September 28, 1989) was a Filipino politician and kleptocrat who was President of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986. He ruled as dictator under martial law from 1972 until 1981.
They let the "Castle" go into disrepair, the material property rotted, the freaking shoes that lady had was INCREDIBLE. So yes. I am comparing D to Marcos being I remember Marcos leadership in the Philippines. before he went down. I also D leadership from Davao visits with friends there.
Also those are not his death squads, he keeps his arsenal in his car, He has no issue being point man for a room rush...I can go on.
Spinner wrote:The link I posted is a news source in the Phillipines. There's a recording. He's on camera, talking about a murdered lay missionary who had been gang raped, saying that it was a shame because she was so beautiful that he, the mayor, should have been first. This has been filmed, it's not any kind of spin by 'Western media'.
He tried to play it off as a folksy joke. That's not a folksy joke. People need to step away from the Robocop and Punisher fantasies and take a good, long look at what kind of sociopath this man actually is.
It's not a "folksy joke" by our standards. I do agree it was tasteless as all hell. But I don't condemn people for off-color crap or shooting off their big mouth.
Dreadwinter wrote:Well that is clearly corrupt journalism!
*puts fingers in ears and closes eyes* nananananananananananana Not listening! He is the hero we deserve and the hero we need!
/Sarcasm
Journalists who are not corrupt either have an ideological ax to grind, or are in it for the money (i.e. a paycheck). There has never been a such thing as "journalistic integrity". The image of a crusading journalist who's only concerned with truth and justice is a goddamned myth. Period.
Spinner wrote:Gosh, you know, I don't think I've ever said that over the memory of a murdered gang rape victim. Weird, right?
That's not dark humor any more than folksy humor, and it doesn't get a pass by talking about PC.
Different people have different standards of humor or love to troll the easily offended. I might not like it myself, but I don't get all bent out of shape about it. I have a thick skin.
I would advise you to never visit 4chan. You would probably go insane.
Ouze wrote:I like this new trend of accepting someone acting like a sociopath by brushing it off as "dark humor", "not being PC", and "just saying what we all were thinking".
Based on the last part, I take it you're not a big fan of Trump?
Hard times and hard societies breed hard individuals. It's not always in line with our clean, tea n' biscuits, Western culture of plenty. What works for us won't work for them, and vice versa. With that in mind, I can admire the guy's drive and hard stance on crime and corruption, despite disliking some of his choices of words.
Guys, this man has got death squads hunting down street kids. Please stop defending scum like this already.
Scum? That's rich coming from somebody who admires another hated hard-ass who's used murder, backstabbing, and attempted murder to get his point across.
And please dispense with the propaganda-inspired hysteria over the guy. We know he's a hard bastard, makes inappropriate jokes, and lacks decorum. But I'm not buying any bs that comes from Western media sources or RT regarding him or his actions. Sensationalism sell papers and jacks up ratings, after all.
I admire someone who uses murder? Who then? I absolutely hate murders more than anything. Maybe that I can admire some aspects of Stalin, but then again I hate him in equal measure.
And do Human Rights Watch and the UN also need to sell papers? Or the Phillipine people that have lost their loved ones to the death squads? Do they need to sell papers too? What you are saying is disgraceful. There is no need for propaganda, evidence of what this man is doing in the Philipines has been well-documented by many different and unrelated independent sources. And even better, the guy has admitted it himself. Better proof does not exist.
The United Nations is a worthless joke that I lend no credence to. The U.S. taxpayers front 25% of the money for an organization, on U.S. soil, that is nothing more than a platform for Third World hellholes to gak all over us (usually after gleefully taking our foreign aid money). Human Rights watch? The same, with the added ideological ax to grind. I can't take any organization seriously that equates the U.S. with murderous Third World countries, just because we still have capital punishment on the books, both on the State and Federal level.
And while the loved ones might be on the level, that alone isn't evidence of a monstrous, mass murdering dictator in the making. And if they could very well be butthurt relatives of drug dealers, corrupt officials, common criminals, or among the political opposition (politics is a cutthroat game).
As for admiring a murderer, I was talking about Vlad Putin. He's ex-KGB (a bloody-handed organization of a bloody-handed U.S.S.R.). He backstabbed the Russian Oligarchs after he used them in his rise to power (which I admire the hell out of him for), the reasons for dead opposition journalist Anna Politkovskaya have pointed back to him (whether he's innocent or not), and there have been attacks/harrassment/humiliation of the political opposition in Russia (Garry Kasparov). There is some evidence that Putin, at least tacitly, allowed for it, if not outright ordered it.
Now I believe a lot of the crap levied against Putin is from bias media cartels, political opponents, Western "journalists", Antifa, ant-Russian governments who don't like his foreign policies, etc, etc. But despite my admiration of Putin, I understand that he is shady and likely has blood on his hands. But Putin is a hard product of the Soviet system, and forged in the chaos and uncertainty of the Yelstin Era in Russia. So, I can disagree with the distasteful crap he's pulled, and still like his drive, desire to see Russia get back on it's feet as a serious world power, willingness to get gak done, and love of the Motherland. The same can be said of Rodrigo Duterte. I don't agree with all of his methods or his choices of words. But I can admire his drive to get gak done, seeing the need to root out corruption/crime, to stamp out the drug trade, and desire to clean up his country.
Despite your view that I'm a disgusting ogre for admiring aspects of Duterte, it's no different than you admiring certain aspects of Stalin, who is one of the top three mass murderers in the 20th Century. Duterte is nowhere in Stalin's league.
The United Nations is a worthless joke that I lend no credence to. The U.S. taxpayers front 25% of the money for an organization
That's a deceiving figure because the U.N then reimburses the salary of the peacekeeping personal, most of which is going to be american. 25% is also the figure I know has been reported for peacekeeping financing, it might be different for overall financing (higher or lower).
For what it's worth, the U.S currently owes about 80% of the U.N arrears.
The United Nations is a worthless joke that I lend no credence to. The U.S. taxpayers front 25% of the money for an organization
That's a deceiving figure because the U.N then reimburses the salary of the peacekeeping personal, most of which is going to be american. 25% is also the figure I know has been reported for peacekeeping financing, it might be different for overall financing (higher or lower).
For what it's worth, the U.S currently owes about 80% of the U.N arrears.
Which the US no longer pays dues being the US is the one leading UN actions around the world.
The US does pay its UN dues now, in fact it's the largest single contributor to the UN's budget.
Not all UN peace keeping forces are led by US forces or comprised of majority US forces.
In fact, checking the UN's info on current operations I don't think there are enough US personnel involved to make a majority contribution to any current mission.
It's not a "folksy joke" by our standards. I do agree it was tasteless as all hell. But I don't condemn people for off-color crap or shooting off their big mouth.
Different people have different standards of humor or love to troll the easily offended. I might not like it myself, but I don't get all bent out of shape about it. I have a thick skin.
I would advise you to never visit 4chan. You would probably go insane.
That's an awful lot of words to say 'that man is an a-hole'. It's okay to say he's an a-hole. He won't send a hitman after you for it.
Probably.
(As an aside, I'm actually a big fan of some of 4chan's creations - the Angry Marines spring to mind. Of course, there's a reason people keep calling it the cesspool of the internet...)
I just don't understand how this isn't clicking for some people. It's not off-color humor, it's monstrously disrespectful. Would you go to Anne Frank's grave and make Holocaust jokes? How is suggesting you would have liked to participate in this woman's gang rape any better? Then again, this is the guy that gets a free pass for his ties to death squads because he says the journalists he's killing are corrupt.
Dreadwinter wrote:Well that is clearly corrupt journalism!
*puts fingers in ears and closes eyes* nananananananananananana Not listening! He is the hero we deserve and the hero we need!
/Sarcasm
Journalists who are not corrupt either have an ideological ax to grind, or are in it for the money (i.e. a paycheck). There has never been a such thing as "journalistic integrity". The image of a crusading journalist who's only concerned with truth and justice is a goddamned myth. Period.
For the life of me he hasn't had a journalist assassinated.. Mention before when he got popped by a journalist for exposing his Mistress and that guy is still around
You should probably read the OP again, then. A journalist who was a vocal critic of his was murdered by gunmen on motorcycles; the case has yet to be solved. Something tells me it's going to stay that way.
Spinner wrote: The link I posted is a news source in the Phillipines. There's a recording. He's on camera, talking about a murdered lay missionary who had been gang raped, saying that it was a shame because she was so beautiful that he, the mayor, should have been first. This has been filmed, it's not any kind of spin by 'Western media'.
He tried to play it off as a folksy joke. That's not a folksy joke. People need to step away from the Robocop and Punisher fantasies and take a good, long look at what kind of sociopath this man actually is.
This guy no Castro, Kim etc etc.
He has no links of Death Squads though he supports their actions verbally. I support this guy. 110%. The Ex Pats there support this guy 110%.
Edit
The US Marine that killed the Lady Boy there is getting life. He already mention he will not show any favoritism with any Nationals what's so ever if you break the law in his country.
Well, I'm sure if you willfully ignore all reporting on the man and his links to vigilante death squads, along with what he's said, how crap like this has gone down in the past, and basic common sense, he seems like a real stand-up guy.
If you're not the type to implicitly trust the grimy van with "free candy" spray-painted on the side (Look! Dark humor!), I really can't understand how you believe "if you're not corrupt, nothing bad will happen to you".
If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
If you're not a traitor, you'll support the Glorious State.
You have nothing to fear from Big Brother, citizen. We only have the vigilante murderers gun down bad people. You trust us to know who the bad people are, right? And that they were bad enough to get a summary execution without a trial?
Pick up the can Citizen. As for Ex Pats packing to leave. You beat your sweet butt the Drug Lord Ex Pats are packing.
Since there is a HUGE Number of American EX Pats there I guess they are like me eh
Wait though. Majority of them are Former US Military. Being the US Navy and Air Force had a huge presence there back in the days. So they must be like me in thought Since I am in the deciding mode of which country to be an Ex Pat in (Thailand or Philippines). Philippines looking damn good at the moment.
Or maybe I know more about the situation then the lot of you
LOL really. You do know Clark Air Force and Subic Bay Naval station were there. Use your Google FU. There are a huge number living in Thailand to. There are a huge number of Filipino's who retire back to the Philippines when they retire from the US Military?
Since I take it your 12 years in the military or did one stint talk to me when you do 23 years and a couple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you playing "gotcha" with me its not going to work.
I
I
[-------]
\ /
\ /
V
Edit
Arrow down doesn't seem to work but Hell I keep it up
Edit
Wait
Veterans Memorial Medical Center
Barangay Project 6, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
There's more
Manila Outpatient Clinic
1501 Roxas Boulevard
Pasay City, PI 1302
"Please feel free to call us, the police, or do it yourself if you have the gun — you have my support," Duterte said, warning of an extensive illegal drug trade that involves even the country's police.
If a drug dealer resists arrest or refuses to be brought to a police station and threatens a citizen with a gun or a knife, "you can kill him," Duterte said. "Shoot him and I'll give you a medal."
LOL really. You do know Clark Air Force and Subic Bay Naval station were there. Use your Google FU. There are a huge number living in Thailand to. There are a huge number of Filipino's who retire back to the Philippines when they retire from the US Military?
This proves that the entire 'Ex pat' community supports this wannabe dictator because?
First I add """" then I added *** then I made a clue...then I made a reference.
Spoiler:
Look at the SIG Chucklehead
Edity
Being this guy got elected. He ran Davao for how long with the same policy and now everyone making him Kim, Castro, Gahdafi, and countless other Tyrants because he got elected.
LOL really. You do know Clark Air Force and Subic Bay Naval station were there. Use your Google FU. There are a huge number living in Thailand to. There are a huge number of Filipino's who retire back to the Philippines when they retire from the US Military?
Hang on, really? Is that what you're basing 'the entire expat community supports this guy' on?
Jihadin wrote: First I add """" then I added *** then I made a clue...then I made a reference.
Spoiler:
Look at the SIG Chucklehead
Edity
Being this guy got elected. He ran Davao for how long with the same policy and now everyone making him Kim, Castro, Gahdafi, and countless other Tyrants because he got elected.
Jihadin wrote: First I add """" then I added *** then I made a clue...then I made a reference.
Spoiler:
Look at the SIG Chucklehead
Edity
Being this guy got elected. He ran Davao for how long with the same policy and now everyone making him Kim, Castro, Gahdafi, and countless other Tyrants because he got elected.
What?
That they're going to stack drug dealer bodies like cordwood soon
Edit
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
In 2015, the U.S. State Department estimated that there were over more than 220,000 U.S. citizens living in the Philippines.[2]
I don't see how any of that indicates some kind of colossal wave of support for inflicting Dredd-style 'justice' on people selling weed on a street corner. If you've got family or friends in the Philippines, you might want to live nearby them. If you like the Philippines, you might want to live there. I think Pat McCrory has his head jammed firmly up somewhere anatomically implausible, but I'm not switching states.
What?
I think it's his less-than-coherent way of saying he's saying stuff to get a rise out of people. Which, you know, there's a word for...
No one knew about this guy but me till the thread started. I know more about the situation in the Philippines lawlessness before this thread started. There's is no mass refugee asylum from the Philippines when he won the election. Everyone seem to have forgotten or not known of Marcos regime. This guy has been Mayor of Davao for 22 years and now makes the news and everyone scream "DICTATOR". Yet do not know his background.
Popular with the locals due to his successful zero tolerance policies against criminals, he earned the nickname "The Punisher". Vigilante groups tied to Duterte are thought to be responsible for the execution of drug traffickers, criminals, gang members and other lawless elements. Over a period of 20 years, he turned Davao City from the "murder capital of the Philippines" to what tourism organisations now describe as "the most peaceful city in southeast Asia," and what numbeo.com ranks as the world's fourth safest place.[11][12][13] Nonetheless, Duterte has drawn criticism from various sources, particularly the press and the Philippine National Police leadership in the Aquino government, which contest the effectiveness of his policies.[14]
Duterte had been urged to run for the Philippine presidency numerous times,[15] but refused these offers until well into 2015 on the grounds of a "flawed government system", old age and opposition from his family.[16] Nevertheless, on November 21, 2015, he declared his candidacy in the 2016 election contest for the office of the President of the Philippines, and won with a landslide victory, garnering 16,601,997 votes.[17] Duterte is due to take office on June 30, 2016, for a term of six years.[18]
So everyone sticks with recent "OMG HE's DICTATOR" and made a off color joke which he claim now since he is label with it.
Since no one else seem to look beyond then what's current NOW. I can go with "He's no Dictator" till he acts like one. Then we can go in and slam him in the cell by Noriega down in Florida.
Since I can't "TROLL" I might as well go full hilt with defending him and defend him being I am comparing him to Marcos and his Dictator ship which people either do not know or remember
There's more.
One article of TIME magazine shows him patrolling in Davao City’s streets on one of his big motorcycles, leading a convoy complete with blaring sirens and M16 rifles. Local news reports show him foregoing the pomp, opting to inspect in a regular taxi, surprising his would-be passengers.[27]
and
Though vocally supportive of the extra-judicial killings of habitual drug users and dealers, Duterte used city government funds to build a ₱12-million drug rehabilitation and treatment center which provides 24-hour services. In 2003, he offered a ₱2,000 monthly allowance to drug addicts who personally approached him and committed to kick the habit. Duterte is also publicly known for visiting remote New People's Army camps negotiating peace transaction efforts and advocating diplomacy.[2
Can't be true is he's killing all users and drug dealers eh
also
Duterte was also the first mayor in the Philippines to give formal representation to the indigenous Lumad and Muslim community, designating deputy mayors to represent their interests in the local government. The anti-discrimination ordinance he mandated, was reportedly a response to news he received that Muslims were being discriminated against by real estate agents
Awesome Sauce. No prosecution of Muslims
n 2010, he was elected vice mayor, succeeding his daughter, Sara Duterte-Carpio, who was elected as mayor. He has been offered the Interior Secretary post 4 times, by presidents Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and Benigno S. Aquino III but rejected all of them. In April 2014, he also declined a nomination for the World Mayor Prize, given by an international body to outstanding mayors saying "he was just doing his job."[27] Among the other awards Duterte also refused to accept for Davao City includes the one given by the American Cancer Society and the 2010 anti-smoking award in Singapore.[20]
He had plenty of times to assume "Dictatorship" Heck Hitler tried to overthrow the government
The infamous quote which I found as dark humor
On April 17, 2016, Duterte was the subject of a controversy after he made a remark on the rape of an Australian missionary in one of his rallies for presidential candidacy at the Amoranto Sports Complex on April 12, 2016, with regard to the 1989 Davao hostage crisis.[79] After being condemned widely by many which include various women's groups and the Australian Ambassador to the Philippines, Duterte later apologized for the incident and acknowledged the comment as a "bad remark" saying he regretted his "gutter language" but would not apologize for being misinterpreted. He insists though that the remark was not a "joke" as reported by some media outlets, saying that he stated it in a narrative. He further said that he was not apologizing for stating the remark reasoning that he made the remark out of "utter anger" when he recalled the events that followed prior to that hostage taking incident
The remark itself since no one else posted it
"Was I mad because she was raped? Yes, that's one of the reasons. But she really was beautiful. The mayor should have been first."
Crowd result
The crowd cheered with laughter
That's not all though *GASP*
Duterte was also critical of the critical comments made by American ambassador Phillip Goldberg and Australian ambassador Amanda Gorely on his remark on the rape incident.[110][111][112] Duterte urged Australia and the United States to cut out ties with the Philippines if he was elected president in response to the ambassadors' critical comments.
There's might be connection to a Communists party. Whew good thing he didn't drop Sarin on them
The administration of Benigno Aquino III warned voters that they should be alarmed that Duterte may be involved with the Communist Party of the Philippines and its militant wing the New People's Army.[119] This was a day after captive police officers was released by the militants to the mayor.
As for that crime rate in Davao. I can't really debate that. Not my strong suit though
Though crime did rise along with the city population growth.
Though he is in a gray branch area with LGBT. This needs to be a thread all to itself b ut that a bit touchy to those who post on DakkaDakka
Duterte criticized boxer Manny Pacquiao after the latter's controversial comments about LGBT couples being "worse than animals", stating that the boxer did not have the right to judge others in such a manner. Duterte has also advocated in support of anti-discrimination measures to protect LGBT individuals in his capacity as a mayor. He has remarked that, in his view, "The universe is ruled by the law of a God who is forgiving, merciful, compassionate and loving, the same God who created all of us equal".[65]
In terms of the legalization of same-sex marriage, Duterte stated in January 2016 that he feels sympathetic to LGBT people on the issue while still believing that he should not push against the current legal code of the Philippines. He noted that current law depicts the matter in terms of religious doctrine and intermingles secular marriage with sacramental holy matrimony, which traditionally is only between one man and one woman. He stressed his feelings of affection for his LGBT friends and family members though indicating his agreement with current traditions
So lets roll with with point; counter point.
Who's game
Edit
Noriega is another Thread if we want to discuss that idiot
I had heard of him previously because I know a Filipino guy, who btw is somewhat torn between schadenfreude for all the technocrat donkey-caves terrified of Duterte and concern for what's going to happen to everyone else.
Never mind that running around and murdering people who use or sell drugs is not necessarily a sane approach. "Drug dealer", well, okay, that can mean anything from the Mafia pushing coke through nazi biker gangs making meth to some guy named Dweezy selling weed on campus. That's without getting into that using drugs of any kind isn't some objective moral failure deserving of divine punishment.
In its 2009 report Human Rights Watch criticised authorities for failing to act against the death squads. It condemned the then president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for tolerating the lawlessness, saying that she had, "largely turned a blind eye to the killing spree in Davao City and elsewhere."[10] In 2004 Arroyo had announced Rodrigo Duterte as her special adviser on crime, an appointment which was viewed as signifying her approval of extrajudicial killings.[5] Human Rights Watch also highlighted the inaction of the Philippine National Police and national institutions such as the Department of Justice, the Ombudsman’s Office, and the Commission on Human Rights. This official tolerance of vigilantism had created, they said, an environment of "widespread impunity".[10] From 2009 Philippines government institutions periodically stated their intention to investigate the death squads. On one such occasion the National Commission on Human Rights created an inter-agency task force to look into the matter. However, no real action was forthcoming.[11] In 2005 Bernie Mondragon, of Coalition Against Summary Executions (CASE), an NGO, said extrajudicial killings "are now the unwritten state policy in dealing with crime".[5] Later, in 2008 the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Philip Alston, pointed out that the fact that the killers made no effort to hide their identity and threatened parents with the murder of their children, suggested a belief by the killers that they were immune from police action.[10]
In 2005, the deputy ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices suspended four senior police officials for six months without pay because of their failure to solve a number of vigilante killings in their area.[10] In an official statement the deputy ombudsman said:[10] "The inability of the respondent police officers to prevent the summary killing in Davao City is an indication of gross neglect of duty and inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official functions."
When the four officers were suspended the mayor of Davao, Rodrigo Duterte directed the four officials to file a petition for certiorari, on the basis that the penalty would demoralize the police, reportedly saying, "I have pledged to help [the police] especially when they are prosecuted for simply performing their duties,"[10] The suspension order was subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeals after the police officers filed a petition.
In 2012 the Office of the Ombudsman charged 21 police officers with a charge of simple neglect of duty over the vigilante killings.[6] The charge provided for penalties of 1-month suspension or a fine of 1 month's salary. Investigators from the Ombudsman's office found that there was an “unusually high number of unsolved killings” from 2005 to 2008 in the areas of jurisdiction of the officers’ precincts.[6] The officers ranged in seniority from police chief inspector to police senior superintendent.
Alleged involvement of Rodrigo Duterte[edit]
Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte has been heavily criticised by numerous organizations for condoning and even inciting murders to take place during his leadership. In the April 2009 UN General Assembly of the Human Rights Council, the UN report (Eleventh Session Agenda item 3, par 21) said, "The Mayor of Davao City has done nothing to prevent these killings, and his public comments suggest that he is, in fact, supportive."[12] Human Rights Watch reported that in 2001–2002, Duterte appeared on local television and radio and announced the names of “criminals”, some of whom were later executed.[7] In July 2005 at a crime summit in the Manila Hotel the politician said, "Summary execution of criminals remains the most effective way to crush kidnapping and illegal drugs".[13] In 2009 Duterte said: “If you are doing an illegal activity in my city, if you are a criminal or part of a syndicate that preys on the innocent people of the city, for as long as I am the mayor, you are a legitimate target of assassination."[2]
Duterte responding to the reported arrest and subsequent release of a notorious drug lord in Manila is quoted as saying: "Here in Davao, you can’t go out alive. You can go out, but inside a coffin. Is that what you call extra-judicial killing? Then I will just bring a drug lord to a judge and kill him there, that will no longer be extra-judicial." [14]
Referring to the arrest of a suspected rice smuggler, Duterte spoke out in the state senate saying, "If this guy would go to Davao and starts to unload (smuggled rice)… I will gladly kill him." For these comments Duterte was attacked in an editorial in The Manila Times, which condemned "the mentality of lawlessness and vigilantism."[15] The newspaper argued that this culture of impunity enabled those in power, including officials, "private warlords and businessmen vigilantes" to take retribution against those they felt had acted against their interests: "They kill journalists exposing corruption and human rights activists exposing abusive police and military men."[15] Following Duterte's comments in relation to killing a person suspected of smuggling rice, the office of the President of the Philippines issued a statement saying, “Killing a person is against the law. The President has been firm in the belief that no one is above the law. We must not resort to extralegal methods."[16]
Commenting on Duterte, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions said in 2008, "The mayor’s positioning is frankly untenable: He dominates the city so thoroughly as to stamp out whole genres of crime, yet he remains powerless in the face of hundreds of murders committed by men without masks in view of witnesses."[10]
More on Wiki. It does not seem to be "kill everyone" who disagree but may perhaps just involve criminals over a broad spectrum.
A team from Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND), a human rights group, and investigators from the Commission on Human Rights discovered killing fields where skeletal remains of victims of the death squads were dumped.[3] Human Rights Commissioner Dominador Calamba II has indicated that local executives and the police knew the militants but were "seemingly tolerating" them.[4] Human rights groups said the killings have become an unwritten government policy to deal with crime due to an ill-functioning criminal justice system and lack of due process in the way authorities administered justice
I heard talks from friends there that pay offs to avoid the Law is pretty common or just doesn't happen.
Anyone else catching the crap going down in Mexico in their tourist locations?
Edit
He double down
(CNN) — Philippines president-elect Rodrigo Duterte effectively said he supports vigilantism in a nationally-televised speech.
Faced with criminals who resist arrest or threaten citizens, the controversial politician suggested that it was fine for citizens to take the law into their own hands.
"If he fights, and he fights to the death, you can kill him," said the former mayor of Davao City, who was elected to the presidency in a decisive victory last month.
During the address, Duterte also encouraged citizens to use deadly force against drug dealers
"Please feel free to call us, the police, or do it yourself if you have the gun ... you have my support," he told the crowd and television cameras.
"Shoot him [the drug dealer] and I'll give you a medal."
As Philippines' likely president, Duterte vows to be 'dictator'
Bounty offered
Earlier in the month, Duterte put bounty of up to 3 million Philippine pesos ($65,000) on drug lords -- which he upped to five million pesos ($108,000) in his most recent speech.
"I'm not saying that you kill them, but the order is 'dead or alive,'" he said.
With less than a month left before he assumes office, Duterte said he will take a tough stance on corrupt cops.
"[To] all police who have cases and are wanted now, if you are still involved in drugs, I will kill you," he said, according to a CNN Philippines translation. "Don't take this as a joke. I'm not making you laugh. Son of a bitch, I will kill you."
He also demanded the resignation of three police generals, but refused to state their names publicly.
"Do not wait for me to name you in public because I will only humiliate you," he said.
Philippines gets its own Trump
Extrajudicial killings advocated
Last month, he said he wants to empower security forces to "shoot to kill" anyone that resists arrest.
He has previously suggested that he himself pulled the trigger on suspects in a kidnapping case while he was mayor of Davao.
Allegations also surfaced that he was connected to extrajudicial killings by a well-coordinated group of vigilantes, earning him the moniker "The Punisher" by Time Magazine.
Duterte himself confirmed the claims during a live TV show broadcast locally in the Philippines last year.
"Me? They are saying that I'm part of a death squad? True, that's true," he said.
The controversial figure also reiterated his views on capital punishment Sunday at a news conference, saying "if there is no fear in the law or attached to the law ... it's useless."
"What I would do is urge Congress to restore the death penalty by hanging, especially if you use drugs," he said according to CNN Philippines.
Duterte confirmed as Philippines president after vowing to sleep in
Journalist deaths dismissed
Duterte also implied last month that some journalists killed on the job in the Philippines may have been corrupt and deserved death.
"Just because you're a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you're a son of a bitch," Duterte said.
"Freedom of expression cannot help you if you have done something wrong," he added.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) was quick to blast the leader for his "appalling" comments.
Ahead of his election, he was an outspoken and unapologetic candidate who, more often than not, refused to distance himself from controversy.
During the race he had refused to apologize following the emergence of controversial comments on gang rape.
A YouTube video appeared during the campaign showing Duterte joking about the 1989 rape and murder of an Australian missionary that took place in Davao City.
"I was angry she was raped, yes that was one thing. But she was so beautiful, I think the mayor should have been first. What a waste," he said, according to a CNN Philippines translation of the comments.
Could Duterte's ascent mean cooler Philippine ties with U.S.?
Forgot to cover the "I will be a dictator portion"
Manila, Philippines (CNN) — Rodrigo Duterte, who is set to clinch the presidency of the Philippines, said he will be a "dictator" against evil and vowed to step down in six months if he failed to fulfill his promise to stamp out corruption.
"I will be strict. I will be a dictator, no doubt it. But only against forces of evil -- criminality, drugs and corruption in government," Duterte said Tuesday morning in his hometown of Davao City in the southern Philippines. Duterte is mayor of the city.
"My message to all government employees -- the police, the military, everyone, including Cabinet secretaries -- stop. You just stop (corruption)," he said.
But Duterte also offered a slightly more self-effacing tone Tuesday, saying he would humbly serve the people of the Philippines.
"If I get to live to the day (of) my oath of office, I don't have other desires than to serve the interests of the people of the Philippines. Nothing follows," he said, promising to focus on improving education, health and agriculture.
Duterte was also seen getting emotional early Tuesday when he sobbed over his parents' grave. According to Edith Ging Caduaya, who posted a video to Facebook, he asked his parents to guide him as he prepares to lead the country.
Going to be watching closely those six months. This guy has my interest.
[quote=Jihadin 692587 8698980 509f9ddf5eb8e4c5c4be99cbd306b0e1.jpg
It does not seem to be "kill everyone" who disagree but may perhaps just involve criminals over a broad spectrum.
As defined by vigilantes operating outside the law.
He wants to murder people for using drugs and you don't think there is a problem with that.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And thats assuming that extra judicial murder is even proportionate for the crimes they're accused of.
Well, it seems that extrajudicial murder is the order of the day. I suppose he'll be supported until/unless he winds up killing a bunch of innocent children during a raid or something like that. Or he may eventually escalate beyond this war on drugs and get drug down by the various insurgents that pop up from time to time.
Philippines' Duterte Follows Through on Drug War Promises
Thirty "drug dealers" have been killed since Rodrigo Duterte was sworn in as Philippine president on Thursday, police said, announcing the seizure of nearly $20 million worth of narcotics but sparking anger from a lawyers' group.
Duterte won the election in May on a platform of crushing crime, but his incendiary rhetoric and advocacy of extrajudicial killings have alarmed many who hear echoes of the country's authoritarian past. He has been nicknamed "The Punisher."
Oscar Albayalde, police chief for the Manila region, said five drug dealers were killed Sunday in a gunbattle with police in a shanty town near a mosque not far from the presidential palace.
"My men were about to serve arrest warrants when shots rang out from one of the houses in the area," Albayalde told reporters, saying officers returned fire and killed five men.
Four guns and 200 grams of crystal methamphetamine were recovered. Three other "drug dealers" were killed in other areas in Manila on Sunday and 22 were killed in four areas outside the capital.
More than 100 people have died, mostly suspected drug dealers, rapists and car thieves in stepped up anti-crime police operations since the election on May 9.
Edre Olalia, secretary-general of the National Union of People's Lawyers, said the killings must be halted.
"The drug menace must stop ... Yet the apparent serial summary executions of alleged street drug users or petty drug lords which appear sudden, too contrived and predictable must also stop," he said in a statement. "The two are not incompatible."
In the north of the main island of Luzon, drug enforcement agents and police seized a shipment of 400 lb of "shabu" (methamphetamine) worth about 900 million pesos ($19.23 million) from either China or Taiwan, national police chief Ronald dela Rosa said.
The shipment was unloaded at sea and brought to shore by small fishing boats before delivery to Manila's Chinatown, he said.
Duterte tapped into voters' disgust with the Philippines' political elite and the failure of successive governments to tackle poverty and inequality, drawing comparisons with Donald Trump and the rise of assertive populists across the globe.
In his maiden speech last week, the president conceded that many believe his methods "are unorthodox and verge on the illegal." However, the 71-year-old former prosecutor said he knew right from wrong and would abide by the rule of law.
Duterte was mayor for 22 years of the southern city of Davao, where, according to human rights groups, death squads have killed at least 1,400 people since 1998, most of them drug-pushers, addicts, petty criminals and street children.
"Verging on the illegal" is an interesting way for a president to describe his policies. This is still nuts.
I think it's also interesting to point out that he won the election with 39% of the vote. I'm no fan of the way the two-party system we have here works, but it's nice to know that our president is going to need a majority.
Spinner wrote: Yeah, but then we all make a big fuss about it :p
I can't see someone winning with only 39%, anyway.
Bill Clinton won with 48% of the vote thanks to Ross Perot running as an Independent. I don't think any other living President has won with less than 50% of the electorate.
It will never cease to amaze me how many people will overlook the actions of a brutal leader because he has some political views they share.
It's probably something to keep in mind for any future political discussions, "interesting opinion you have there, guy that is okay with government organised death squads in the Philippines."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Bill Clinton won with 48% of the vote thanks to Ross Perot running as an Independent. I don't think any other living President has won with less than 50% of the electorate.
Clinton won with 48% in 1996, but before that in 1992 he won with just 43%.
And of course Bush won in 2000 with 48%, which wasn't just less than half, it was also less than his opponent.
NEWLY-INSTALLED Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has reiterated his tough stance on crime by urging the public to not only kill drug dealers, but addicts as well.
His remarks came barely a day after he was sworn in as the country’s 16th president in Manila on Thursday, Vice reported.
Speaking to a crowd of 500 in a Manila slum, Duterte said: “If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself as getting their parents to do it would be too painful.”
He added that, “These sons of whores are destroying our children.”
After claiming victory in the general elections in May, the former Davao city mayor said medals would be given to citizens who shot and killed drug dealers.
His words look to have been put into action since he took presidency as bodies of drug suspects piled up over the last few several days.
According to PhilStar, 18 suspected drug pushers were killed in separate incidents over the weekend, while another 952 confessed drug users and pushers, fearing for their safety, surrendered themselves to authorities in the past two days.
Three suspects were killed by policemen in Duterte’s hometown of Davao and another five suspects were shot in Quaipo.
Lawmen in Caloocan also killed a former policemen and suspected drug pusher.
One man was shot in Tondo, Manila on Sunday and another in San Pedro, Laguna. Another six suspects were killed in Quezon province.
The latest deathtoll brought the number of drug suspects killed to 30 after Duterte was sworn in as president on June 30, PhilStar reported.
"Speaking to a crowd of 500 in a Manila slum, Duterte said: “If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself as getting their parents to do it would be too painful.”"
Looks like he has expanded his KOS list. Always good to see.
(CNN)When comparing yourself to world leaders or historical figures, there are perhaps less controversial choices than Adolf Hitler.
Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte on Friday likened himself to the Nazi leader, saying he wants to kill millions of drug addicts, just as Hitler killed Jews during the Holocaust.
"Hitler massacred 3 million Jews. Now there is 3 million, what is it, 3 million drug addicts (in the Philippines), there are," he said in a speech in his hometown of Davao City.
Philippines' War on Drugs
"I'd be happy to slaughter them. At least if Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have (me). You know my victims, I would like (them) to be all criminals, to finish the problem of my country and save the next generation from perdition."
History counts the cost of Hitler's purges against "undesirables" at 11 million, 6 million of whom were Jews.
World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder, in Israel to attend the funeral of former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, condemned the remarks.
"These statements are revolting, and President Duterte must retract them and apologize," Lauder said. "We just marked the 75th anniversary of Babi Yar, the massacre of more than 33,000 Jews in Ukraine by Nazi Germany. ... Now, the elected leader of the Philippines openly calls for the mass murder of people who are addicted to drugs.
"Drug abuse is a serious issue. But what President Duterte said is not only profoundly inhumane, but it demonstrates an appalling disrespect for human life."
The controversial leader campaigned on a hard line against crime, particularly drug offenses, and has in the past uttered statements which have caused many in the international community to recoil.
I will wait and see on this. The Phillipines is a toilet and democracy isn't really the answer as people want to elect leaders who can make vacuous promises.
Sometimes a dictator is frankly better long term. People will still want their elections because they want their elections, but then dont know what they want when they get them and the system turns to feth when demagoguies exploit that.
There is no such thing as good government, but some government is better than others. Democracy is for advanced western civilisations, it doesn't work everywhere, not matter how much we say it does.
If you look at the Phillipines it was generally happier under Marcos than under any of his successors, because Phillipinos cant have everything, they don't have the money for everything, and a dictator can sort things out.
He could end up another Kim Jong Un, but then he might end up another Castro. Which is a good thing for those who dont know about Castro.
Self hitler comparison is not a good idea.
Hitlers 1000 year empire was anything but long lived.
Every weak willed idiot who held power since Marcos would have made 'get tough on drugs' statements. And it meant zip, Philippines has a drugs and a drugs related corruption problem.
It has to go to another level to be taken seriously now, this man is playing the crowd right. Still a metaphor though.
Self hitler comparison is not a good idea.
Hitlers 1000 year empire was anything but long lived.
Every weak willed idiot who held power since Marcos would have made 'get tough on drugs' statements. And it meant zip, Philippines has a drugs and a drugs related corruption problem.
It has to go to another level to be taken seriously now, this man is playing the crowd right. Still a metaphor though.
Generally, people who have ties to vigilante death squads are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who urge private citizens to commit summary executions are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who make 'jokes' about wishing they were involved with the gang rape of a murdered woman are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who compare themselves to freaking Hitler are not good candidates for leadership.
Drug abuse and corruption are problems. The solution cannot and should not be a legitimization of widespread murder.
Self hitler comparison is not a good idea.
Hitlers 1000 year empire was anything but long lived.
Every weak willed idiot who held power since Marcos would have made 'get tough on drugs' statements. And it meant zip, Philippines has a drugs and a drugs related corruption problem.
It has to go to another level to be taken seriously now, this man is playing the crowd right. Still a metaphor though.
Generally, people who have ties to vigilante death squads are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who urge private citizens to commit summary executions are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who make 'jokes' about wishing they were involved with the gang rape of a murdered woman are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who compare themselves to freaking Hitler are not good candidates for leadership.
Drug abuse and corruption are problems. The solution cannot and should not be a legitimization of widespread murder.
Hitler comparisons should tell you ernough on its own.
Your talking a guy who makes Saddam and gudaffi look like they where playing at being dictators.
Self hitler comparison is not a good idea.
Hitlers 1000 year empire was anything but long lived.
Every weak willed idiot who held power since Marcos would have made 'get tough on drugs' statements. And it meant zip, Philippines has a drugs and a drugs related corruption problem.
It has to go to another level to be taken seriously now, this man is playing the crowd right. Still a metaphor though.
Generally, people who have ties to vigilante death squads are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who urge private citizens to commit summary executions are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who make 'jokes' about wishing they were involved with the gang rape of a murdered woman are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who compare themselves to freaking Hitler are not good candidates for leadership.
Drug abuse and corruption are problems. The solution cannot and should not be a legitimization of widespread murder.
Hitler comparisons should tell you ernough on its own.
Your talking a guy who makes Saddam and gudaffi look like they where playing at being dictators.
You should look at what he actually does rather than get hyped over the rhetoric. Filipinos are sick of the drug gangs and the near total inaction against them. Duterte is wanting to turn up the heat on drug abuse, and frankly the majority of the people are supporting him.
Self hitler comparison is not a good idea.
Hitlers 1000 year empire was anything but long lived.
Every weak willed idiot who held power since Marcos would have made 'get tough on drugs' statements. And it meant zip, Philippines has a drugs and a drugs related corruption problem.
It has to go to another level to be taken seriously now, this man is playing the crowd right. Still a metaphor though.
Generally, people who have ties to vigilante death squads are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who urge private citizens to commit summary executions are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who make 'jokes' about wishing they were involved with the gang rape of a murdered woman are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who compare themselves to freaking Hitler are not good candidates for leadership.
Drug abuse and corruption are problems. The solution cannot and should not be a legitimization of widespread murder.
Hitler comparisons should tell you ernough on its own.
Your talking a guy who makes Saddam and gudaffi look like they where playing at being dictators.
You should look at what he actually does rather than get hyped over the rhetoric. Filipinos are sick of the drug gangs and the near total inaction against them. Duterte is wanting to turn up the heat on drug abuse, and frankly the majority of the people are supporting him.
He got thirty-nine percent of the popular vote. Not exactly the majority of the people.
As for what he does...when you can say the names of suspected criminals and some of them later turn up executed by groups that you have ties to, rhetoric is action.
Self hitler comparison is not a good idea.
Hitlers 1000 year empire was anything but long lived.
Every weak willed idiot who held power since Marcos would have made 'get tough on drugs' statements. And it meant zip, Philippines has a drugs and a drugs related corruption problem.
It has to go to another level to be taken seriously now, this man is playing the crowd right. Still a metaphor though.
Generally, people who have ties to vigilante death squads are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who urge private citizens to commit summary executions are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who make 'jokes' about wishing they were involved with the gang rape of a murdered woman are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who compare themselves to freaking Hitler are not good candidates for leadership.
Drug abuse and corruption are problems. The solution cannot and should not be a legitimization of widespread murder.
Hitler comparisons should tell you ernough on its own.
Your talking a guy who makes Saddam and gudaffi look like they where playing at being dictators.
You should look at what he actually does rather than get hyped over the rhetoric. Filipinos are sick of the drug gangs and the near total inaction against them. Duterte is wanting to turn up the heat on drug abuse, and frankly the majority of the people are supporting him.
Calling for the execution of drug users and drug sellers by civilians is not rhetoric, it is government sanctioned murder. So lets stop with that line of bs.
Calling for the execution of drug users and drug sellers by civilians is not rhetoric, it is government sanctioned murder. So lets stop with that line of bs.
But drug addicts are clearly 'bad people', in fact they are barely people......
Self hitler comparison is not a good idea.
Hitlers 1000 year empire was anything but long lived.
Every weak willed idiot who held power since Marcos would have made 'get tough on drugs' statements. And it meant zip, Philippines has a drugs and a drugs related corruption problem.
It has to go to another level to be taken seriously now, this man is playing the crowd right. Still a metaphor though.
Generally, people who have ties to vigilante death squads are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who urge private citizens to commit summary executions are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who make 'jokes' about wishing they were involved with the gang rape of a murdered woman are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who compare themselves to freaking Hitler are not good candidates for leadership.
Drug abuse and corruption are problems. The solution cannot and should not be a legitimization of widespread murder.
Hitler comparisons should tell you ernough on its own.
Your talking a guy who makes Saddam and gudaffi look like they where playing at being dictators.
You should look at what he actually does rather than get hyped over the rhetoric. Filipinos are sick of the drug gangs and the near total inaction against them. Duterte is wanting to turn up the heat on drug abuse, and frankly the majority of the people are supporting him.
Calling for the execution of drug users and drug sellers by civilians is not rhetoric, it is government sanctioned murder. So lets stop with that line of bs.
So you don't approve of drone strikes then, and you believe the Sinaloa et al should be given free reign to do as they please?
You and I live in a country where you don't have to fear drug cartels. Not everyone has that luxury.
Are drug users and sellers not citizens of their country? Do they have no rights? What is the oversight for these killings? How do we know that they are only killing addicts and sellers?
Self hitler comparison is not a good idea.
Hitlers 1000 year empire was anything but long lived.
Every weak willed idiot who held power since Marcos would have made 'get tough on drugs' statements. And it meant zip, Philippines has a drugs and a drugs related corruption problem.
It has to go to another level to be taken seriously now, this man is playing the crowd right. Still a metaphor though.
Generally, people who have ties to vigilante death squads are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who urge private citizens to commit summary executions are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who make 'jokes' about wishing they were involved with the gang rape of a murdered woman are not good candidates for leadership.
Generally, people who compare themselves to freaking Hitler are not good candidates for leadership.
Drug abuse and corruption are problems. The solution cannot and should not be a legitimization of widespread murder.
Hitler comparisons should tell you ernough on its own.
Your talking a guy who makes Saddam and gudaffi look like they where playing at being dictators.
You should look at what he actually does rather than get hyped over the rhetoric. Filipinos are sick of the drug gangs and the near total inaction against them. Duterte is wanting to turn up the heat on drug abuse, and frankly the majority of the people are supporting him.
Calling for the execution of drug users and drug sellers by civilians is not rhetoric, it is government sanctioned murder. So lets stop with that line of bs.
So you don't approve of drone strikes then, and you believe the Sinaloa et al should be given free reign to do as they please?
You and I live in a country where you don't have to fear drug cartels. Not everyone has that luxury.
Could you make the strawman a bit more obvious please?
Orlanth wrote: So you don't approve of drone strikes then, and you believe the Sinaloa et al should be given free reign to do as they please?
You and I live in a country where you don't have to fear drug cartels. Not everyone has that luxury.
You are creating a fantasy in which there are only options; tolerating the existing corruption and power of drug gangs, or engaging in extra-judicial murders. This is the logic of 80s action movies. It is the thin veneer to explain why some guy with a mullet who is good a kicking has to spend the next 120 minutes slaughtering a lot of people wearing denim jackets and headbands.
As a piece of political commentary given in seriousness, its absurd. You don't murder away socioeconomic problems. You reform police, you fund rehab, you work on renewal of afflicted areas. What's even crazier is that Duterte has actually made concerted efforts in most of these areas, with debatable success, but at least he recognizes that stuff is important. In your defence, you're actually putting up something more hardline than Duterte, Which is pretty god damn incredible.
The real trouble here with this guy is that he's saying he's willing to kill 3 millions of drug addicts and drug criminals.
The question is; who is he calling that way? And who says he doesn't just point at people who may bother him too much and say it's a criminal before killing them?
Once you've crossed the line and see the world in pure black and white boundaries, it's easy to say everyone not agreeing with you is on the black side. And when you just kill the people on the black side...you know what's coming next.
I can't believe what I'm reading on this topic, sometimes. It's people saying disgusting things like this who put that kind of horrible psychopaths in power. And I think it's really dangerous for whole mankind, in the end.
Orlanth wrote: So you don't approve of drone strikes then, and you believe the Sinaloa et al should be given free reign to do as they please?
You and I live in a country where you don't have to fear drug cartels. Not everyone has that luxury.
You are creating a fantasy in which there are only options; tolerating the existing corruption and power of drug gangs, or engaging in extra-judicial murders. This is the logic of 80s action movies. It is the thin veneer to explain why some guy with a mullet who is good a kicking has to spend the next 120 minutes slaughtering a lot of people wearing denim jackets and headbands.
As a piece of political commentary given in seriousness, its absurd. You don't murder away socioeconomic problems. You reform police, you fund rehab, you work on renewal of afflicted areas. What's even crazier is that Duterte has actually made concerted efforts in most of these areas, with debatable success, but at least he recognizes that stuff is important. In your defence, you're actually putting up something more hardline than Duterte, Which is pretty god damn incredible.
Am I. I am instead seeing the reality as it is.
What you are forgetting is that major drug cartels as they operate in drug producing countries is that while technically organised crime, they operate in the manner of a large scale terror network.
Now remind yourself how Al Quaeda was dealt with, by reading them their rights and putting on the cuffs. Sometimes, but normally you have to send soldiers in to where they lurk. How was Bin Laden dealt with, even when cornered, was he arrested and read his rights?
I repeat, we have the luxury of living in the developed world, and even then with some sorts of crime we bend the rules, and even ignore rights.
Don't make the mistake of not putting these people in the same category. Frankly I am not the one mixing things up with Holywood. These people are not like the 'bad guys' in a cop movie you can just arrest and expect them to come quietly, or even neatly die off in a shootout. No these are deep organisations, long lived well funded and totally ruthless, they are the sort of people who use large scale torture to ensure fear and compliance. However as they are doing this to brown people it doesn't matter too much, in europe and America, and we only care about what the leader says, because it upsets us when we read the newspaper, not what is actually happening to his people, which never makes global print.
Now Duterte is using shock rhetoric, and it is gaining attention and critique, but that is all you actually have on him. His shock rhetoric shows the world he is more serious about dealing with the problems, I dont expect he will open any death camps, and most Filipinos aren't running around in fear that he will, in fact he gets mobbed by supporters who see a man who actually gives a gak when cartels come to their village.
Those who critique Duterte and by extension my defence of him ought to look at history. Did rehab programs get FARC to the negotiating table, or deal with other problems in central America; or was it SEALs and the loan of helicopter gunships to the government militaries. Duterte is in good company when it comes to leaders who think the best way to deal with the major cartels is with military and intelligence service action, and is not the first to wave away civic rights in doing so. Most of these guys get the nod of approval from Washington, and you could list American presidents directly in this number, Reagan especially.
There are more Dutertes than meets the eye, and most have our collective blessing when they get tough on cartels, even when it causes problems. Duterte used the H-word though, and is therefore very naughty.
China now backs him though.
Orlanth wrote: Am I. I am instead seeing the reality as it is.
That's the kind of line you'd get in one of those gakky 80s movies. Right before someone did a big flying kick.
What you are forgetting is that major drug cartels as they operate in drug producing countries is that while technically organised crime, they operate in the manner of a large scale terror network.
Yes, everyone in this thread has let it slip their mind that drug gangs are generally criminal gangs. We all forgot that gangs are gangs. That's the reason you're right and we're wrong.
Now remind yourself how Al Quaeda was dealt with, by reading them their rights and putting on the cuffs.
It is dangerous to start equating domestic criminal with international terrorist groups. A national government has a very different set of powers and responsibilities for a criminal inside their own borders, than a terrorist hiding out in Yemen.
Frankly I am not the one mixing things up with Holywood. These people are not like the 'bad guys' in a cop movie you can just arrest and expect them to come quietly, or even neatly die off in a shootout. No these are deep organisations, long lived well funded and totally ruthless, they are the sort of people who use large scale torture to ensure fear and compliance.
Whether you get it from Hollywood or some other source it doesn't really matter, your entire look at this is nonsense. I'll repeat my basic point to again - You don't murder away socioeconomic problems.
This is the basic fething reality of solving drug problems. Where there is a drug problem, you kill some people, you still have a drug problem. Kill some more people, you will still have a drug problem. Kill and kill and there will always be more, you will never kill your way to a solution.
The solution comes, like I already said, from reforming police corruption, from rehab, and most importantly from renewal of afflicted areas. Giving people options outside of a life of drugs.
Now Duterte is using shock rhetoric, and it is gaining attention and critique, but that is all you actually have on him.
That and the massive spike in deaths, sure. I mean, I guess there's people out there saying that Duterte's rhetoric about killing druggies and his rise to power are entirely coincidental with the spike in deaths of druggies. But you know, there's also people who argue that Hitler had no clue about what happened in the extermination camps. There will always be people who'll convince themselves to believe just about anything. Those people don't really belong in sensible conversation.
Did rehab programs get FARC to the negotiating table, or deal with other problems in central America; or was it SEALs and the loan of helicopter gunships to the government militaries.
First up, FARC first came to the negitating table and made a deal in 1984. They even started a political party. Then right wing death squads killed about 1,000 senior FARC people in executions, and FARC went back the jungles, resumed their kidnappings and fighting with the army, and got about another 100,000 killed. So that's a fething wicked argument for the value of death squads right there.
Second up, a large part of the solution to FARC came from local businesses and farms establishing their own paramilitary groups, and marking out territory FARC could not operate in, something the fairly hapless Columbian military of the 90s couldn't manage. Sounds like a great argument for violence outside of state sanctioned means... except many of those groups ended up as criminal gangs no different to FARC, funded through extortion, kidnapping and drugs. So if people can read that and not learn a lesson about the dangers of allowing non-government groups to start undertaking extra-judicial killings, well then I don't know what to say.
And most importantly, just like above you failed to distinguish between domestic criminals and international terrorists, here you're failing to distinguish between domestic criminals and an armed revolutionary movement that is attempting a military takeover of the country. The argument that the level of violence justified in fighting armed revolutionaries should be the same as that used to fight domestic criminal gangs is unbelievable.
That is mighty Christian of you Orlanth. At what point are you going to address the rise in murder of drug addicts? Because so far you have only been talking about cartels.
And most importantly, just like above you failed to distinguish between domestic criminals and international terrorists,
There is no practical difference unless one considers that the people they destroy don't matter.
Such groups become international terrorists when they kill people who matter in the eyes of the west. Until then nobody cares.
here you're failing to distinguish between domestic criminals and an armed revolutionary movement that is attempting a military takeover of the country.
No distinction need be made here. Instead there needs to be a distinction between domestic criminals and drug cartels. Drug cartels take over swathes of territory, terrorise the populace etc, the average mugger or bank robber or someone who fiddles their taxes does not.
The argument that the level of violence justified in fighting armed revolutionaries should be the same as that used to fight domestic criminal gangs is unbelievable.
It is believeable to those who think for more than themselves. Just because the drug cartels have a profit motive doesn't mean they are in any real way different from revolutionaries. They are only different from the point of view of the safety of an armchair in the west, they are indistinguishable to the average farmer and guy in the sururbs in the country effected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: That is mighty Christian of you Orlanth. At what point are you going to address the rise in murder of drug addicts? Because so far you have only been talking about cartels.
I don't and need not agree with everything he says or does.
What you are forgetting is that major drug cartels as they operate in drug producing countries is that while technically organised crime, they operate in the manner of a large scale terror network.
Yes, everyone in this thread has let it slip their mind that drug gangs are generally criminal gangs. We all forgot that gangs are gangs. That's the reason you're right and we're wrong.
Deliberate misquote there. You all forgot that drug cartels are NOT regular criminal gangs, they operate as large scale paramilitaries, and as terrorist networks, the only difference is a profit motive at the core rather than an ideological one, and even that line is blurred as cartels become regional forces with geographic power bases.. That is the reason you are wrong.
So, if I got it right, people are upset at killer being killed ? And people are arguing that our methods , which ALWAYS failed, and cost so much, are better than this man's methods, without even awaiting his results in one or two years ?
Ok then, keep your minds closed and narrows. For once, a guy is trying to really help his people, with concrete solutions, not stupid promises.
Oh, I just want to say: a socio economical problem CAN, and WILL, be killed.
godardc wrote: So, if I got it right, people are upset at killer being killed ? And people are arguing that our methods , which ALWAYS failed, and cost so much, are better than this man's methods, without even awaiting his results in one or two years ?
Ok then, keep your minds closed and narrows. For once, a guy is trying to really help his people, with concrete solutions, not stupid promises.
Oh, I just want to say: a socio economical problem CAN, and WILL, be killed.
I'm always reminded of the bad guy from Firefly when I hear this guy.
The one with the attitude that- I'm working towards a perfect world. I'm not meant for it- I'm a monster. But I am working towards a perfect world.
I doubt he considers himself a good or even viable long term solution- what he ran on was addressing the drug problem violently and directly. The people voted him in and are with him, this is the opposite of a hidden agenda.
It is hard to fathom living somewhere that this is a reasonable response- and yet, he is the leader they chose to do what he is doing. I also am very eager to see his results on a national scale.
godardc wrote: So, if I got it right, people are upset at killer being killed ? And people are arguing that our methods , which ALWAYS failed, and cost so much, are better than this man's methods, without even awaiting his results in one or two years ?
Ok then, keep your minds closed and narrows. For once, a guy is trying to really help his people, with concrete solutions, not stupid promises.
Oh, I just want to say: a socio economical problem CAN, and WILL, be killed.
Do you approve murdering drug users in your country?
I don't think France approves this, but personnaly I hope for this.
Imagine a world without any criminal. Without recidivism (you can't backslidewhen you are dead !).
Now look at our world: the traditionnals weak methods have failed, and failed again. I really don't understand why people want to keep something that CAN'T work and doesn't work ?
The argument that the level of violence justified in fighting armed revolutionaries should be the same as that used to fight domestic criminal gangs is unbelievable.
Perhaps you don't realise how insanely dangerous some of these gangs are. They're not like street dealers in the UK, they're very like a terrorist organisation. I don't know much about gangs in the Philippines, but those in South America and around Mexico are some of the violent groups in the world. They're armed to the teeth and run parts of cities which are no go zones, that are as well equipped as many terror groups. Firefights in are common, people are regularly shot dead in the street, drug dealing and kidnapping are rife. The police only go in occasionally for raids and go in like the military armed to the teeth because it's like a war.
There are numerous mind boggling examples of the sort of violence meted out towards anyone who opposes these gangs. One case, I think in El Salvador, had a gang cut a reporter's arms and legs off and set him on fire when still alive. There a many such extreme stories. How exactly are they so different to terrorist groups other than in ideology?
Disagree with the approach taken certainly, but don't diminish the scale of the problem by assuming 'domestic' means the threat is small.
godardc wrote: So, if I got it right, people are upset at killer being killed ? And people are arguing that our methods , which ALWAYS failed, and cost so much, are better than this man's methods, without even awaiting his results in one or two years ?
Ok then, keep your minds closed and narrows. For once, a guy is trying to really help his people, with concrete solutions, not stupid promises.
Oh, I just want to say: a socio economical problem CAN, and WILL, be killed.
Do you approve murdering drug users in your country?
No, you approve on drone strikes on neutral countries without informing their government.
There is a false moral high ground, and people are standing on it thinking 'oh we wont do anything this bad'.
Some of these comments are like reading dialogue from a dystopia story. 'Imagine a world without any criminals...' because the government urges you to shoot suspected drug addicts. And why stop there? We've already gone from drug dealers to addicts; let's just execute thieves in the street as well. I mean, they're breaking the law too, law-abiding people get hurt during robberies. Speeders? Sure, they're putting people in horrendous amounts of danger. How about people who don't clean up their dog's poop? That's a health risk! Summary executions for all!
...actually, that last one might get more support.
Sebster's absolutely right. It's like the people supporting him think we're living in an eighties action movie. Shooting 'bad people' indiscriminately isn't fixing a problem; it's attacking a symptom, and it's also murder. I don't care how many supporters he has at his rallies. You know who else had a lot of supporters at rallies? Hitler. I realize that's a craptastic argument and I'm sorry for Godwinning the oh wait he already Godwinned himself.
I doubt he considers himself a good or even viable long term solution- what he ran on was addressing the drug problem violently and directly. The people voted him in and are with him, this is the opposite of a hidden agenda.
If thirty-nine people out of a hundred vote to have, say, ten people in the group shot for committing crimes, does that make it okay to do? What if some of those people maybe didn't commit crimes, but instead said things that one of the thirty-nine people didn't like?
None of this is intended to trivialize the issue of cartel-related violence. That's a whole basket of bullcrap all on its own, and it needs to be addressed, but this is absolutely not the way. What's going to happen is that some low-ranking people are going to get shot or turn themselves in, a number of people who don't like Duterte are going to be accused of corruption and gunned down as well, and he's going to do everything he can to consolidate his own personal power.
Ok, so let's the world the same as we found it, or maybe even worse ! Yeah that so great ! I think people nowadays really need to grow balls. We have to do what we have to do. No one, NO ONE is supposed to break the Law ! But apparently it is okay, because some people may get hurted if you told them not to do it.
You know what ? A LOT more people are going to get hurt if the law isn't repescted. A lot more.
Look at this: 3500 died, 700 000 (!!!) surrended. That's 700 000 the State can now help. 700 000 who otherwise would have died fom their drug addiction. 700 000 people saved by Duerte, not killed.
Spinner wrote: Some of these comments are like reading dialogue from a dystopia story. 'Imagine a world without any criminals...' because the government urges you to shoot suspected drug addicts. And why stop there? We've already gone from drug dealers to addicts; let's just execute thieves in the street as well. I mean, they're breaking the law too, law-abiding people get hurt during robberies. Speeders? Sure, they're putting people in horrendous amounts of danger. How about people who don't clean up their dog's poop? That's a health risk! Summary executions for all!
Shooting 'bad people' indiscriminately isn't fixing a problem; it's attacking a symptom, and it's also murder. I don't care how many supporters he has at his rallies. You know who else had a lot of supporters at rallies? Hitler. I realize that's a craptastic argument and I'm sorry for Godwinning the oh wait he already Godwinned himself.
We don't live in an ideal world, this is why we use military forces to deal with terrorists rather than just arrest them with nice police officers. There is no difference between the 'right' for the Filipino government to cross the line to deal with the cartels as it is for the US of A to cross the line to deal with Al Quaeda. These people are on a moral par, and law enforcement is not enough to deal with the problem. Is it murder to deal with Bin Laden? i argue not, he had it coming, many of these cartels are no less worthy of action taken against them. You might not think so only because you haven't been exposed to them, after all the World Trade Centre wasn't full of Filipino dirt farmers.
If thirty-nine people out of a hundred vote to have, say, ten people in the group shot for committing crimes, does that make it okay to do? What if some of those people maybe didn't commit crimes, but instead said things that one of the thirty-nine people didn't like?
If those ten were members of Daesh and were involved with beheading journalists, the people would likely say yes, and have done so. They cheered when drones killed the jihadists, why not the cartels.
I could take the counter arguments from a Corbynite peacenik who is against all violence, it would be very naive, but at least consistent.
However people are condemning Dutente for doing what Obama and Bush would gladly do, and only make a distinction because only brown people die in the cartels massacres, and their deaths are just a forgotten statistic.
And it is likely to escalate the violence on the side of the drug dealing groups as well. They are less likely to surrender and go quietly when there is a real possibility that they will just get executed without trial during said surrender anyway.
A Town Called Malus wrote: And it is likely to escalate the violence on the side of the drug dealing groups as well. They are less likely to surrender and go quietly when there is a real possibility that they will just get executed without trial during said surrender anyway.
That's false. The whole thing is they can surrender, 729 000 people surrendered. That's the whole point: to help people. I know he is daemonized by a lot of news, but look by yourself, and you'll find immedialtely that they can surrender.
And if they don't surrender, they won't be violent for very long
A Town Called Malus wrote: And it is likely to escalate the violence on the side of the drug dealing groups as well. They are less likely to surrender and go quietly when there is a real possibility that they will just get executed without trial during said surrender anyway.
That's false. The whole thing is they can surrender, 729 000 people surrendered. That's the whole point: to help people. I know he is daemonized by a lot of news, but look by yourself, and you'll find immedialtely that they can surrender.
And if they don't surrender, they won't be violent for very long
I could take the counter arguments from a Corbynite peacenik who is against all violence, it would be very naive, but at least consistent.
However people are condemning Dutente for doing what Obama and Bush would gladly do, and only make a distinction because only brown people die in the cartels massacres, and their deaths are just a forgotten statistic.
I am condemning them because he is urging that people be put to death without trial, without evidence, by private citizens.
I am condemning them because what he is doing is not conducive to the rule of law or any sort of due process.
I am condemning them because it is blatantly obvious that these methods can be used to silence criticism from the press and remove political opponents.
I am condemning them because there is a truly disturbing amount of support for actions that many of his defenders would consider abhorrent if the targets were labeled 'subversives' or 'enemies of the state'.
I am condemning them because, in Duterte's world, and the world espoused by his supporters, if you smoke a joint you're exactly the same as a cartel boss ordering that someone be hacked apart with a machete, and someone is going to drive by your house on a motorcycle and shoot you in your living room. His targets have absolutely already moved; why should he not extend the death penalty to people accused of theft?
I am condemning them because Duterte is a murderous something I can't say on these forums.
If you want to pretend that these statements are naive or ignorant of the real world, you go right ahead and do that. Yes, I'm happy bin Laden was killed, and I'll be happy if a mass-murdering cartel member is killed. Obama did not urge private citizens to shoot anyone they thought looked like bin Laden. The actions taken are not equivalent.
Ok, so let's the world the same as we found it, or maybe even worse ! Yeah that so great !
I think people nowadays really need to grow balls. We have to do what we have to do. No one, NO ONE is supposed to break the Law !
But apparently it is okay, because some people may get hurted if you told them not to do it.
You know what's against the law?
Murder. Murder is against the law. That's why they're called extra-judicial killings.
People need to grow some balls and realize that real-world problems are complicated, and solving them isn't as simple as shooting the bad guys.
Are you talking about the War on Terror, or Duerte here, Spinner? Civilized, first world countries do this. I remember when we were going to topple Saddam Hussein, and win the war. And when we were going to destroy Al-Qaeda, and win. Yet we are still fighting, and most of the folks on the opposing side do not get trials- no more than they provide to the people on our side they kill. Many of your objections are actions that we do, we just coat them in euphemisms like eliminating targets and do it thousands of miles away. We've been at war longer than my children have been alive, with no end in sight.
The craziest thing about this drug user and dealer open season is that it is overwhelmingly supported by his populace.
That's higher than any US President's approval rating- ever! And that is after his policies began to pile up bodies, both official and suspected vigilantes.
It isn't remotely consistent with what we consider civil rights, or civilization- but it is exactly what the people of the Philippines feel are necessary. So I suppose your analogy about 39 condemning 10 would be more accurate if we had 91 of those 100 saying we had to kill 10 to save the country. And yes, if you believe in democracy, then you must respect the wishes of countries that do things differently than us. I have so much sympathy for the Philippines, and hope they are able to resolve this drug crisis of theirs.
The Sate dictates Laws.
I can't arrest / hit / kill anyone. The Police has this right, for example ( under certain conditions).
In this particular example, Duerte gave the right to kill drugs addicts.
It isn't really different: the Sate already had the right to kill people, now it has the right to kill more people.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Belief in democracy does not invalidate belief in the rule of law and due process.
Yes it does if the target is a member of Daesh and is in the sight of your drone operators. And we continue to vote in governments that openly do this.
We can do that, so why cant the Philippines get rid of their problem.
Due process is a luxury for when you have a functioning society, drug cartel infested nations don't have a functioning society, and cant while the cartels are still around; first you have to get rid of the cartels then you can have a working society and due process.
godardc wrote:So, if I got it right, people are upset at killer being killed ? And people are arguing that our methods , which ALWAYS failed, and cost so much, are better than this man's methods, without even awaiting his results in one or two years ?
Ok then, keep your minds closed and narrows. For once, a guy is trying to really help his people, with concrete solutions, not stupid promises.
The problem is that his "concrete solutions" are poorly thought out. We have already gone from killing dealers without any need of evidence to killing drug users without any need of evidence. Accusing someone of being involved in the drug trade currently gives anyone a licence to kill.
godardc wrote:Oh, I just want to say: a socio economical problem CAN, and WILL, be killed.
No, they cannot be killed until you kill almost everyone. Without dealing with the root socioeconomic problems that drive people to start drug trades, killing the current cartels is like playing whack a mole. When you whack one mole, another one pops up to take its place, except instead of moles, you happen to be whacking human lives. Working to support people and reform public services would do more for the long term solutions to these problem than the extrajudicial murders ever could.
Gitzbitah wrote:I'm always reminded of the bad guy from Firefly when I hear this guy.
The one with the attitude that- I'm working towards a perfect world. I'm not meant for it- I'm a monster. But I am working towards a perfect world.
He was from Serenity! *froths and nerd rages* *wanders off to cuddle Jayne doll*
Usually, people saying it's fine are the ones who never did ANYTHING to actually solve the problem at the roots. They're right wingers, thinking the fault is coming from "others" and can't help but call about killing others. Basically, they're also criminals trying to find a justification for their own bloody surges.
I say we should put these people on first line, let them killed in a gruesome way by their own stupidity and then go back to the problem again to solve it peacefully.
Oh wait, these people are also the ones who never want to be on first line. Well, nevermind them.
godardc wrote: So, if I got it right, people are upset at killer being killed ? And people are arguing that our methods , which ALWAYS failed, and cost so much, are better than this man's methods, without even awaiting his results in one or two years ?
Ok then, keep your minds closed and narrows. For once, a guy is trying to really help his people, with concrete solutions, not stupid promises.
Oh, I just want to say: a socio economical problem CAN, and WILL, be killed.
Do you approve murdering drug users in your country?
No, you approve on drone strikes on neutral countries without informing their government.
There is a false moral high ground, and people are standing on it thinking 'oh we wont do anything this bad'.
No, I do not. I do not approve of what you are saying.
We can do that, so why cant the Philippines get rid of their problem.
Terrorism does not equate to the illegal drug industry, especially when you are targeting the end user.
It would be like us killing the victims of there terrorists.
You realize that drug users are making the choice to buy illegal drugs, rather than the terrorist victims who are being killed by criminals, right?
I don't think anyone in this thread is trying to argue that illegal drug users are as bad or worse than illegal drug sellers, but there is a big difference between someone who is engaged in illegal activity and the victim of a terrorist attack.
We can do that, so why cant the Philippines get rid of their problem.
Terrorism does not equate to the illegal drug industry, especially when you are targeting the end user.
It would be like us killing the victims of there terrorists.
You realize that drug users are making the choice to buy illegal drugs, rather than the terrorist victims who are being killed by criminals, right?
I don't think anyone in this thread is trying to argue that illegal drug users are as bad or worse than illegal drug sellers, but there is a big difference between someone who is engaged in illegal activity and the victim of a terrorist attack.
You do understand that addiction is a disease and those who are addicted are victims, right?
Orlanth wrote: There is no practical difference unless one considers that the people they destroy don't matter.
The motives, the reasons for existing, and the basic business model of each are massively different. As such, the methods you use to counter each should be very different.
There are so many differences between an organisation looking to sell drugs for profit, and an organisation receiving funding from third parties to undertake acts of terror... it is simply not possible for you to not understand.
No distinction need be made here. Instead there needs to be a distinction between domestic criminals and drug cartels. Drug cartels take over swathes of territory, terrorise the populace etc, the average mugger or bank robber or someone who fiddles their taxes does not.
Groups that exist to make money out of a criminal activity are wholly different from groups planning to destroy government. One is a matter of law and justice, one represents an existential threat to the government. This makes one a policing issue, and the other a military issue.
It is believeable to those who think for more than themselves. Just because the drug cartels have a profit motive doesn't mean they are in any real way different from revolutionaries. They are only different from the point of view of the safety of an armchair in the west, they are indistinguishable to the average farmer and guy in the sururbs in the country effected.
Yeah, to a victim of violence the motive is quite meaningless. If this all boiled down to how victims were sad, then you'd have a great point.
But in the real world where you base government policy on something other than emotive nonsense, then you have to deal with what works against different kinds of organisations. Organisations that are massively different require different policy sets.
Look, I get that you came in wanting to make some kind of point about naive Westerners or something, and probably didn't really think this through. Whatever, that happens to everyone from time to time. But please don't keep doubling down on that mistake. If yuo can't take the ego hit of admitting you were wrong, then at least just walk away and stop from this ridiculous nonsense.
I mean fething seriously dude, we don't have drones launching predator missiles at kids selling dime bags, but we do launch drone strikes against terrorists. There is no confusion anywhere in the world about why this is the case. You are walking yourself in to a position where you are pretending you don't understand why that is. Stop it, it is getting really weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Deliberate misquote there. You all forgot that drug cartels are NOT regular criminal gangs, they operate as large scale paramilitaries, and as terrorist networks, the only difference is a profit motive at the core rather than an ideological one, and even that line is blurred as cartels become regional forces with geographic power bases.. That is the reason you are wrong.
You've now basically said "oh sure the two organisations have entirely different reasons for existing, entirely different aims, and entirely different business models but that's the only difference."
Incredible really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: Now look at our world: the traditionnals weak methods have failed, and failed again. I really don't understand why people want to keep something that CAN'T work and doesn't work ?
We spent most of human history with extremely oppressive penalties for crime. Multiple years for petty theft. Body parts cut off for more serious theft. The death penalty for almost everything else. Crime remain unchanged throughout.
Now we have far more tolerant penalties, we also have the lowest crime rates in human history.
This doesn't mean that more tolerant punishments reduce crime, of course. It means that most likely the scale of punishment has very little effect on the crime rate. What matters more are economic opportunities, effective and non-corrupt policing, stuff like that.
It certainly does mean that your claim, that traditional 'weak' methods have failed, is 100% completely wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Perhaps you don't realise how insanely dangerous some of these gangs are. They're not like street dealers in the UK, they're very like a terrorist organisation. I don't know much about gangs in the Philippines, but those in South America and around Mexico are some of the violent groups in the world. They're armed to the teeth and run parts of cities which are no go zones, that are as well equipped as many terror groups.
I understand that entirely. You're the one who is completely failing to understand that "both terror groups and cartels are scary and have lots of guns" doesn't make them the same thing.
To take the example of Mexico, you probably aren't aware but cartel violence has massively changed in the last decade. Wars of expansion, directed against police and legitimate businesses, are being replaced by wars between cartels. This is because the power of the cartels has been massively curtailed. Not by police or military action, which remains ineffective, but by economics. Mexico continues its own industrial revolution, this has produced more jobs and steadily increasing rates of pay. This has greatly reduced the power of the cartels, as it turns out being part of an ultra-violent drug gang isn't that appealing when it is no longer the only game in town.
There are numerous mind boggling examples of the sort of violence meted out towards anyone who opposes these gangs. One case, I think in El Salvador, had a gang cut a reporter's arms and legs off and set him on fire when still alive. There a many such extreme stories. How exactly are they so different to terrorist groups other than in ideology?
You're confusing a moral position with an issue of effective response. On a moral level both the cartels and the drug gangs are both horrible groups of people. But that doesn't mean the methods you use to defeat one group are the same that you would use to defeat the other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: Ok, so let's the world the same as we found it, or maybe even worse ! Yeah that so great ! I think people nowadays really need to grow balls. We have to do what we have to do. No one, NO ONE is supposed to break the Law !
And here it is. The tough guy fallacy. That idea that if only we were tough enough then we could solve all our problems. That the reason things like drug addiction and criminal drug gangs aren't solved is just because we aren't willing to be brutal enough.
But it is a fantasy. Here in the real world these are complex issues with very complex problems and no easy solution. What takes real balls is admitting there is no easy solution, and that the last thing we need to do is go wandering off in to ultra-violent machismo fantasies.
Gitzbitah wrote: Are you talking about the War on Terror, or Duerte here, Spinner? Civilized, first world countries do this. I remember when we were going to topple Saddam Hussein, and win the war. And when we were going to destroy Al-Qaeda, and win. Yet we are still fighting, and most of the folks on the opposing side do not get trials- no more than they provide to the people on our side they kill. Many of your objections are actions that we do, we just coat them in euphemisms like eliminating targets and do it thousands of miles away. We've been at war longer than my children have been alive, with no end in sight.
The craziest thing about this drug user and dealer open season is that it is overwhelmingly supported by his populace.
That's higher than any US President's approval rating- ever! And that is after his policies began to pile up bodies, both official and suspected vigilantes.
It isn't remotely consistent with what we consider civil rights, or civilization- but it is exactly what the people of the Philippines feel are necessary. So I suppose your analogy about 39 condemning 10 would be more accurate if we had 91 of those 100 saying we had to kill 10 to save the country. And yes, if you believe in democracy, then you must respect the wishes of countries that do things differently than us. I have so much sympathy for the Philippines, and hope they are able to resolve this drug crisis of theirs.
I mentioned the War on Terror because Orlanth specifically brought up bin Laden and Al Qaeda. There is a difference between a military engagement and urging private citizens to commit extrajudicial murder, and I think we all know that.
As for the poll...I read the article, it didn't exactly seem like a glowing endorsement of Duterte's policy. Here's an excerpt from the end -
On Aug. 29, police told reporters they had opened fire that night on a drug suspect in Tondo, a dirt-poor and densely populated district of Manila.
A Reuters reporter looked into the suspect's one-room home and saw a mattress splattered with blood. He asked a neighbor how many shots had been fired, but the man replied: "Sorry, my friend. I didn't hear a single shot," and walked away.
Which really puts another angle on a popularity poll with an insanely high number, doesn't it? I have to wonder how it was conducted.
Gitzbitah wrote: It isn't remotely consistent with what we consider civil rights, or civilization- but it is exactly what the people of the Philippines feel are necessary. So I suppose your analogy about 39 condemning 10 would be more accurate if we had 91 of those 100 saying we had to kill 10 to save the country. And yes, if you believe in democracy, then you must respect the wishes of countries that do things differently than us. I have so much sympathy for the Philippines, and hope they are able to resolve this drug crisis of theirs.
Democracy is not two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. It is not mob law.
Democracy needs rule of law, and it needs a basic level of fairness and safety guaranteed for all citizens. Otherwise elections become death matches, where the loser cannot quietly accept defeat and plan for next time, because losing means a real chance of your head being next on the chopping block.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: The Sate dictates Laws.
I can't arrest / hit / kill anyone. The Police has this right, for example ( under certain conditions).
In this particular example, Duerte gave the right to kill drugs addicts.
It isn't really different: the Sate already had the right to kill people, now it has the right to kill more people.
He's president, not a magical fairy princess. This means he can't just make something lawful and right because he says it. He still needs to follow the proper processes and laws of the country.
He hasn't. There is no law passed saying "it is okay to kill a person who sells drugs". He is just instructing his police to not investigate any such killings, and for police to undertake those killings themselves.
Orlanth wrote: Now Duterte is using shock rhetoric, and it is gaining attention and critique, but that is all you actually have on him. His shock rhetoric shows the world he is more serious about dealing with the problems, I dont expect he will open any death camps, and most Filipinos aren't running around in fear that he will, in fact he gets mobbed by supporters who see a man who actually gives a gak when cartels come to their village.
He's doing more than shock rhetorics. People are being KILLED because of him. Sorry but shooting somebody is more than rhetorics no matter how you try to BS it as rhetorics.
Slaughtering thousands is not rhetorics and not excusable by any amount of BS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: So, if I got it right, people are upset at killer being killed ? And people are arguing that our methods , which ALWAYS failed, and cost so much, are better than this man's methods, without even awaiting his results in one or two years ?
Ok then, keep your minds closed and narrows. For once, a guy is trying to really help his people, with concrete solutions, not stupid promises.
Oh, I just want to say: a socio economical problem CAN, and WILL, be killed.
Methods are the problem. He has given up his humanity.
And no killing never solves problem. It just creates more problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: I don't think France approves this, but personnaly I hope for this.
Imagine a world without any criminal. Without recidivism (you can't backslidewhen you are dead !).
Now look at our world: the traditionnals weak methods have failed, and failed again. I really don't understand why people want to keep something that CAN'T work and doesn't work ?
Because slaughtering has never worked in the history? You are one advocating trying to fix problem with proven failure methods.
Sorry but as much as it might surprise you killing people won't solve the issue. We have thousands of years of human history to show that.
And this is slippery road. Next he's ordering killing of thieves. Then anybody objecting his rule. Next he's running country as he pleases with anybody showing any dissent getting killed.
The motives, the reasons for existing, and the basic business model of each are massively different. As such, the methods you use to counter each should be very different.
A mere technicality. After all many terrorist organisations are very different from each other in goals and methods. Some are dealt with almost entirely from within the rule of law, others cannot be.
However drug cartels including those in the Phillppines usually mimic the latter.
There are so many differences between an organisation looking to sell drugs for profit, and an organisation receiving funding from third parties to undertake acts of terror... it is simply not possible for you to not understand..
I understand perfectly well. You fail to understand that drug cartels are indistinguishable from the terrorist networks in terms of everyday reality to its victims.
What is the difference between two fathers one whose daughter is tortured to death because she refused the advances of a Daesh warlord, or one who is tortured to death because her daddy refused to plant drugs in his farm.
Groups that exist to make money out of a criminal activity are wholly different from groups planning to destroy government. One is a matter of law and justice, one represents an existential threat to the government. This makes one a policing issue, and the other a military issue..
That would make sense in your naive cops and robbers show world. However cartels dont live in that world, and they force others to live in that world also. the cartels form an existential threat to government in anything but name only. If not stamped on they take over geographical regions, becomes the sole economy and majority employer and get their fingers in everything, and dont ask nicely when doing so.
Yeah, to a victim of violence the motive is quite meaningless. If this all boiled down to how victims were sad, then you'd have a great point.
But in the real world where you base government policy on something other than emotive nonsense, then you have to deal with what works against different kinds of organisations. Organisations that are massively different require different policy sets.
Actually they are very similar. Cartels when established become a quasi government, they easily have the resources to do so, and the motive, they get into everything of consequence and rule with extreme brutality.
Look, I get that you came in wanting to make some kind of point about naive Westerners or something, and probably didn't really think this through. Whatever, that happens to everyone from time to time. But please don't keep doubling down on that mistake. If yuo can't take the ego hit of admitting you were wrong, then at least just walk away and stop from this ridiculous nonsense.
Dont be patronising. I know what I am talking about.
I mean fething seriously dude, we don't have drones launching predator missiles at kids selling dime bags, but we do launch drone strikes against terrorists. There is no confusion anywhere in the world about why this is the case. You are walking yourself in to a position where you are pretending you don't understand why that is. Stop it, it is getting really weird.
No we don't launch drones are kids selling dime bags, likewise we dont round up and execute the kids who are the lookouts standing on the corners of Tikrit waiting for the MNNV's to arrive. Those kids are there though and identifiable. They are definitely part of the terrorist infrastructure though, and a vital one.
Why dont the soldiers hose down those kids with a .50 cal to get rid of the problem. Think about that a while and you will find your answer.
Also minor league drug dealers arent a problem, they can be dealt with within the rule of law, as can a fundraiser for a terrorist cell from outside a cartel controlled zone. They get quietly arrested too. There are a large number of people in that category. Full on Daesh members who fundraise, we send police to their door to arrest them, many even go quietly. We dont send drones to attack Birmingham or Riyadh or whever else they are rattling thier tins.
Orlanth wrote: Deliberate misquote there. You all forgot that drug cartels are NOT regular criminal gangs, they operate as large scale paramilitaries, and as terrorist networks, the only difference is a profit motive at the core rather than an ideological one, and even that line is blurred as cartels become regional forces with geographic power bases.. That is the reason you are wrong.
You've now basically said "oh sure the two organisations have entirely different reasons for existing, entirely different aims, and entirely different business models but that's the only difference."
Incredible really.
Not incredible if you understand that drug cartels don't work like they do in your cops and robbers show. They don't spill the beans at the end of the episode to the heroic police officer and get sent down. and your heroic police officer doesnt get to strut around with a theme tune playing in the background, he has to work in total secrecy because if his ID his known his family get tortured to death. So that he goes around wearing a ski mask when working narco as its the only way to survive. Also you cant send the people you arrest to the courts because all the local courts are bent. Any lawyer who is not on the drug lords payroll is shot or run out of town, and the hero cop can't win them over to the forces of light because the cartels know where the lawyers kids are. You have to send anyone you arrest back to the capital under military escort, because the people who try to spring them, or silence them, wont turn up in flash suits carrying .38's to line up and be shot by hero cops. They will turn up with heavy ordnance and are often better equipped than the army.
You do know that Mexican police patrols go around wearing masks, and the cartels often run checkpoints in full paramilitary uniform and not wearing masks. Its a topsy turvy world out there.
We spent most of human history with extremely oppressive penalties for crime. Multiple years for petty theft. Body parts cut off for more serious theft. The death penalty for almost everything else. Crime remain unchanged throughout.
Now we have far more tolerant penalties, we also have the lowest crime rates in human history.
To achieve this we must first establish rule of law. This cannot happen in a cartel or terrorist controlled area, no more than it can in an area under occupation from a foreign military power.
All those regions you can think of with the tolerant legal systems were first made that way by being conquered or liberated by armies not practicing much restraint.
I understand that entirely. You're the one who is completely failing to understand that "both terror groups and cartels are scary and have lots of guns" doesn't make them the same thing.
The NRA also has lots of guns, they arent the same either.
Its what they do with them that makes them similar.
To take the example of Mexico, you probably aren't aware but cartel violence has massively changed in the last decade. Wars of expansion, directed against police and legitimate businesses, are being replaced by wars between cartels. This is because the power of the cartels has been massively curtailed. Not by police or military action, which remains ineffective, but by economics.
Sorry, you are talking bollocks. Cartel violence has massively changed but this is because the cartels now have saturation. A visible example of cartel power saturation Shorty Guzman was able to hold out in the geographical region he held and live openly for months because HE CONTROLLED THE GEOGRAPHICAL REGION. The cartels are directly at war because they have power saturation but cartels don't like competition. The Zeta and Sinaloa are fighting for regional territory, not 'gang turf'.
Mexico continues its own industrial revolution, this has produced more jobs and steadily increasing rates of pay. This has greatly reduced the power of the cartels, as it turns out being part of an ultra-violent drug gang isn't that appealing when it is no longer the only game in town.
This is true only of secured zones, most cartel infested nations have those. However whole regions are controlled by the cartels, and they have asymmetric reach into the core.
There are numerous mind boggling examples of the sort of violence meted out towards anyone who opposes these gangs. One case, I think in El Salvador, had a gang cut a reporter's arms and legs off and set him on fire when still alive. There a many such extreme stories. How exactly are they so different to terrorist groups other than in ideology?
You're confusing a moral position with an issue of effective response. On a moral level both the cartels and the drug gangs are both horrible groups of people. But that doesn't mean the methods you use to defeat one group are the same that you would use to defeat the other.
So why the the Mexicans use their special forces and not their police to arrest Gusman, why cant the government keep him in prison without the CIA providing double watch and a direct promise from the President of Mexico. 'Drug gangs' don't control large sections of the legal infrastructure, or dominate vast swathes of the nation state. Cartels do.
Philippines was heading the same way.
But it is a fantasy. Here in the real world these are complex issues with very complex problems and no easy solution. What takes real balls is admitting there is no easy solution, and that the last thing we need to do is go wandering off in to ultra-violent machismo fantasies.
It is no fantasy, it is a reality millions of people have to live with daily. You cannot moralise it away. In an ideal fairytale world when the ramps lowered on the landing craft on D-Day the soldiers coming out would be armed with arrest warrants for the naughty Third Reich. We dont live in that world.
heavy action against the cartels is not macho, its not flying drop kicks and 80's movies, its not Van Damme or Arnie as you like to imply, it's dealing with hard reality. A reality you don't have to deal with in your comfy chair, a reality that is often edited out of the news in case it upsets people, but millions of people have to suffer for for lack of coherent action.
Orlanth wrote: Now Duterte is using shock rhetoric, and it is gaining attention and critique, but that is all you actually have on him. His shock rhetoric shows the world he is more serious about dealing with the problems, I dont expect he will open any death camps, and most Filipinos aren't running around in fear that he will, in fact he gets mobbed by supporters who see a man who actually gives a gak when cartels come to their village.
He's doing more than shock rhetorics. People are being KILLED because of him. Sorry but shooting somebody is more than rhetorics no matter how you try to BS it as rhetorics.
Slaughtering thousands is not rhetorics and not excusable by any amount of BS..
Yes people are dying, they died in Afghanistan too.
They are also surrendering Dutente has got the balance right, the gloves come right off, but if you surrender you get good treatment. He has bypassed the bs and dealt with the problem.
godardc wrote: So, if I got it right, people are upset at killer being killed ? And people are arguing that our methods , which ALWAYS failed, and cost so much, are better than this man's methods, without even awaiting his results in one or two years ?
Ok then, keep your minds closed and narrows. For once, a guy is trying to really help his people, with concrete solutions, not stupid promises.
Oh, I just want to say: a socio economical problem CAN, and WILL, be killed.
Methods are the problem. He has given up his humanity.
And no killing never solves problem. It just creates more problems..
Last time I checked history killing kept the Soviet Union out of your country. Finland lives as a western democracy thoughout the last half of the twentieth century, it didn't have to suffer under decades of Stalinism. You ought to think about that before you decry violence as a solution, you any idea of life in your country for all your parents generation and perhaps also your own would have been like if people with brass balls didnt defend your lands like savage beasts in 1940.. Sometimes its the only sane option left.
Sure the Philippines arent being invaded, but live under the cartels is like life under a Stalinist dictator if you come onto his radar, which is easy to do.
And this is slippery road. Next he's ordering killing of thieves. Then anybody objecting his rule. Next he's running country as he pleases with anybody showing any dissent getting killed.
He is democratically elected, and popular, there is no evidence he is doing this or will do this. He isn't even an actual dictator, being democratically elected and having a mandate from the people.
If you are truly looking to decry the evil people who took power in the Philippines with brutality and without any mandate from the people, then dont wag your finger at Dutente when he isolates and dispenses with them.
The motives, the reasons for existing, and the basic business model of each are massively different. As such, the methods you use to counter each should be very different.
A mere technicality. After all many terrorist organisations are very different from each other in goals and methods. Some are dealt with almost entirely from within the rule of law, others cannot be.
However drug cartels including those in the Phillppines usually mimic the latter.
There are so many differences between an organisation looking to sell drugs for profit, and an organisation receiving funding from third parties to undertake acts of terror... it is simply not possible for you to not understand..
I understand perfectly well. You fail to understand that drug cartels are indistinguishable from the terrorist networks in terms of everyday reality to its victims.
What is the difference between two fathers one whose daughter is tortured to death because she refused the advances of a Daesh warlord, or one who is tortured to death because her daddy refused to plant drugs in his farm.
Groups that exist to make money out of a criminal activity are wholly different from groups planning to destroy government. One is a matter of law and justice, one represents an existential threat to the government. This makes one a policing issue, and the other a military issue..
That would make sense in your naive cops and robbers show world. However cartels dont live in that world, and they force others to live in that world also. the cartels form an existential threat to government in anything but name only. If not stamped on they take over geographical regions, becomes the sole economy and majority employer and get their fingers in everything, and dont ask nicely when doing so.
Yeah, to a victim of violence the motive is quite meaningless. If this all boiled down to how victims were sad, then you'd have a great point.
But in the real world where you base government policy on something other than emotive nonsense, then you have to deal with what works against different kinds of organisations. Organisations that are massively different require different policy sets.
Actually they are very similar. Cartels when established become a quasi government, they easily have the resources to do so, and the motive, they get into everything of consequence and rule with extreme brutality.
Look, I get that you came in wanting to make some kind of point about naive Westerners or something, and probably didn't really think this through. Whatever, that happens to everyone from time to time. But please don't keep doubling down on that mistake. If yuo can't take the ego hit of admitting you were wrong, then at least just walk away and stop from this ridiculous nonsense.
Dont be patronising. I know what I am talking about.
I mean fething seriously dude, we don't have drones launching predator missiles at kids selling dime bags, but we do launch drone strikes against terrorists. There is no confusion anywhere in the world about why this is the case. You are walking yourself in to a position where you are pretending you don't understand why that is. Stop it, it is getting really weird.
No we don't launch drones are kids selling dime bags, likewise we dont round up and execute the kids who are the lookouts standing on the corners of Tikrit waiting for the MNNV's to arrive. Those kids are there though and identifiable. They are definitely part of the terrorist infrastructure though, and a vital one.
Why dont the soldiers hose down those kids with a .50 cal to get rid of the problem. Think about that a while and you will find your answer.
Also minor league drug dealers arent a problem, they can be dealt with within the rule of law, as can a fundraiser for a terrorist cell from outside a cartel controlled zone. They get quietly arrested too. There are a large number of people in that category. Full on Daesh members who fundraise, we send police to their door to arrest them, many even go quietly. We dont send drones to attack Birmingham or Riyadh or whever else they are rattling thier tins.
Orlanth wrote: Deliberate misquote there. You all forgot that drug cartels are NOT regular criminal gangs, they operate as large scale paramilitaries, and as terrorist networks, the only difference is a profit motive at the core rather than an ideological one, and even that line is blurred as cartels become regional forces with geographic power bases.. That is the reason you are wrong.
You've now basically said "oh sure the two organisations have entirely different reasons for existing, entirely different aims, and entirely different business models but that's the only difference."
Incredible really.
Not incredible if you understand that drug cartels don't work like they do in your cops and robbers show. They don't spill the beans at the end of the episode to the heroic police officer and get sent down. and your heroic police officer doesnt get to strut around with a theme tune playing in the background, he has to work in total secrecy because if his ID his known his family get tortured to death. So that he goes around wearing a ski mask when working narco as its the only way to survive. Also you cant send the people you arrest to the courts because all the local courts are bent. Any lawyer who is not on the drug lords payroll is shot or run out of town, and the hero cop can't win them over to the forces of light because the cartels know where the lawyers kids are. You have to send anyone you arrest back to the capital under military escort, because the people who try to spring them, or silence them, wont turn up in flash suits carrying .38's to line up and be shot by hero cops. They will turn up with heavy ordnance and are often better equipped than the army.
You do know that Mexican police patrols go around wearing masks, and the cartels often run checkpoints in full paramilitary uniform and not wearing masks. Its a topsy turvy world out there.
We spent most of human history with extremely oppressive penalties for crime. Multiple years for petty theft. Body parts cut off for more serious theft. The death penalty for almost everything else. Crime remain unchanged throughout.
Now we have far more tolerant penalties, we also have the lowest crime rates in human history.
To achieve this we must first establish rule of law. This cannot happen in a cartel or terrorist controlled area, no more than it can in an area under occupation from a foreign military power.
All those regions you can think of with the tolerant legal systems were first made that way by being conquered or liberated by armies not practicing much restraint.
I understand that entirely. You're the one who is completely failing to understand that "both terror groups and cartels are scary and have lots of guns" doesn't make them the same thing.
The NRA also has lots of guns, they arent the same either.
Its what they do with them that makes them similar.
To take the example of Mexico, you probably aren't aware but cartel violence has massively changed in the last decade. Wars of expansion, directed against police and legitimate businesses, are being replaced by wars between cartels. This is because the power of the cartels has been massively curtailed. Not by police or military action, which remains ineffective, but by economics.
Sorry, you are talking bollocks. Cartel violence has massively changed but this is because the cartels now have saturation. A visible example of cartel power saturation Shorty Guzman was able to hold out in the geographical region he held and live openly for months because HE CONTROLLED THE GEOGRAPHICAL REGION. The cartels are directly at war because they have power saturation but cartels don't like competition. The Zeta and Sinaloa are fighting for regional territory, not 'gang turf'.
Mexico continues its own industrial revolution, this has produced more jobs and steadily increasing rates of pay. This has greatly reduced the power of the cartels, as it turns out being part of an ultra-violent drug gang isn't that appealing when it is no longer the only game in town.
This is true only of secured zones, most cartel infested nations have those. However whole regions are controlled by the cartels, and they have asymmetric reach into the core.
There are numerous mind boggling examples of the sort of violence meted out towards anyone who opposes these gangs. One case, I think in El Salvador, had a gang cut a reporter's arms and legs off and set him on fire when still alive. There a many such extreme stories. How exactly are they so different to terrorist groups other than in ideology?
You're confusing a moral position with an issue of effective response. On a moral level both the cartels and the drug gangs are both horrible groups of people. But that doesn't mean the methods you use to defeat one group are the same that you would use to defeat the other.
So why the the Mexicans use their special forces and not their police to arrest Gusman, why cant the government keep him in prison without the CIA providing double watch and a direct promise from the President of Mexico. 'Drug gangs' don't control large sections of the legal infrastructure, or dominate vast swathes of the nation state. Cartels do.
Philippines was heading the same way.
But it is a fantasy. Here in the real world these are complex issues with very complex problems and no easy solution. What takes real balls is admitting there is no easy solution, and that the last thing we need to do is go wandering off in to ultra-violent machismo fantasies.
It is no fantasy, it is a reality millions of people have to live with daily. You cannot moralise it away. In an ideal fairytale world when the ramps lowered on the landing craft on D-Day the soldiers coming out would be armed with arrest warrants for the naughty Third Reich. We dont live in that world.
heavy action against the cartels is not macho, its not flying drop kicks and 80's movies, its not Van Damme or Arnie as you like to imply, it's dealing with hard reality. A reality you don't have to deal with in your comfy chair, a reality that is often edited out of the news in case it upsets people, but millions of people have to suffer for for lack of coherent action.
Orlanth wrote: Now Duterte is using shock rhetoric, and it is gaining attention and critique, but that is all you actually have on him. His shock rhetoric shows the world he is more serious about dealing with the problems, I dont expect he will open any death camps, and most Filipinos aren't running around in fear that he will, in fact he gets mobbed by supporters who see a man who actually gives a gak when cartels come to their village.
He's doing more than shock rhetorics. People are being KILLED because of him. Sorry but shooting somebody is more than rhetorics no matter how you try to BS it as rhetorics.
Slaughtering thousands is not rhetorics and not excusable by any amount of BS..
Yes people are dying, they died in Afghanistan too.
They are also surrendering Dutente has got the balance right, the gloves come right off, but if you surrender you get good treatment. He has bypassed the bs and dealt with the problem.
godardc wrote: So, if I got it right, people are upset at killer being killed ? And people are arguing that our methods , which ALWAYS failed, and cost so much, are better than this man's methods, without even awaiting his results in one or two years ?
Ok then, keep your minds closed and narrows. For once, a guy is trying to really help his people, with concrete solutions, not stupid promises.
Oh, I just want to say: a socio economical problem CAN, and WILL, be killed.
Methods are the problem. He has given up his humanity.
And no killing never solves problem. It just creates more problems..
Last time I checked history killing kept the Soviet Union out of your country. Finland lives as a western democracy thoughout the last half of the twentieth century, it didn't have to suffer under decades of Stalinism. You ought to think about that before you decry violence as a solution, you any idea of life in your country for all your parents generation and perhaps also your own would have been like if people with brass balls didnt defend your lands like savage beasts in 1940.. Sometimes its the only sane option left.
Sure the Philippines arent being invaded, but live under the cartels is like life under a Stalinist dictator if you come onto his radar, which is easy to do.
And this is slippery road. Next he's ordering killing of thieves. Then anybody objecting his rule. Next he's running country as he pleases with anybody showing any dissent getting killed.
He is democratically elected, and popular, there is no evidence he is doing this or will do this. He isn't even an actual dictator, being democratically elected and having a mandate from the people.
If you are truly looking to decry the evil people who took power in the Philippines with brutality and without any mandate from the people, then dont wag your finger at Dutente when he isolates and dispenses with them.
I'll be frank. That may be one of the longest posts in the history of Dakka that wasn't a multipage batrep. I am not worthy.
Orlanth wrote: A mere technicality. After all many terrorist organisations are very different from each other in goals and methods. Some are dealt with almost entirely from within the rule of law, others cannot be.
However drug cartels including those in the Phillppines usually mimic the latter.
Organisations that are operate within existing social structures to make profit, even if they their methods and product are illegal, are not the same as organisations attempting to destroy the existing government.
You can keep ignoring that basic reality all you want. But the only result is making you look silly.
I understand perfectly well. You fail to understand that drug cartels are indistinguishable from the terrorist networks in terms of everyday reality to its victims.
A person hit by a drunk driver and a woman deliberately run over by an abusive ex-partner could have identical injuries. Arguing that the perpetrators should be treated exactly the same is bonkers.
That would make sense in your naive cops and robbers show world.
You keep saying this. It is empty and puerile. There is nothing naive in what I am saying, it is informed by the reports of how powerful organised crime groups have been dealt with around the world.
What is hopelessly naive is your insistence that simple brute force can resolve or overcome complex social, economic, legal and institutional issues. It is the mindset of the 80s action movie, if only someone would just go and shoot all the baddies in that bad gang then we'd have no more problems from the baddies in the bad gang. It would be comical if it wasn't for the actual dead people in the Phillipines.
the cartels form an existential threat to government in anything but name only.
Well, name and reality. To go back to the FARC example you produced, with nothing like the numbers or firepower of the Mexican cartels, came awfully close to toppling the government. But in Mexico, with far greater numbers, guns and resources, the cartels never even tried. This is for the simple reason that taking over government is bad for business. It is expensive, and if you win then you have to run government, which doesn't make anything like the money that drug smuggling makes.
Different organisations. Different goals. Different actions. You don't understand this and it is quite amazing.
Dont be patronising. I know what I am talking about.
I'm giving you an out. Take it.
Not incredible if you understand that drug cartels don't work like they do in your cops and robbers show.
And here's that line again. From the guy asking me not to be patronising. So that's a thing.
To achieve this we must first establish rule of law. This cannot happen in a cartel or terrorist controlled area, no more than it can in an area under occupation from a foreign military power.
Actually there's been effective efforts to remove cartels and other criminal gangs from lots of places. Go read about Brazil, about Mexico. These efforts have involved militaries police and have been pretty direct use of force. But they've never required police or non-government groups operating as authorised death squads.
Sorry, you are talking bollocks. Cartel violence has massively changed but this is because the cartels now have saturation.
Yes, there's millions of people leaving the US and going back to Mexico now that finally they can live in cartel controlled hellholes like they always dreamed. That's a thing. Good point.
So why the the Mexicans use their special forces and not their police to arrest Gusman, why cant the government keep him in prison without the CIA providing double watch and a direct promise from the President of Mexico.
Largely because of chronic police corruption. Also because when acting against criminal gangs you have to bring heavy firepower - this is the same everywhere, you might have noticed the existence of special weapon and tactics units in every country on the planet.
You will notice what Mexico didn't use - death squads operating with government approval. Probably because such squads are a terrible, stupid idea supported by total fething lunatics and no-one else.
It is no fantasy, it is a reality millions of people have to live with daily.
You're not even reading what I'm saying. What a fething waste of time this is.
Anyhow, the fantasy is not the crime problem in the Phillipines, the fantasy is in thinking that you can respond with absolute brutality.
In an ideal fairytale world when the ramps lowered on the landing craft on D-Day the soldiers coming out would be armed with arrest warrants for the naughty Third Reich.
Yes, stating the policing should be limited by police process and not engage in or condone death squads means that military action against hostile foreign governments also need to be limited by police process. That is a sensible argument made by a sensible person.
BigWaaagh wrote: Just saw this article. It has some insight and commentary from a senior PNP officer who was actually involved in some of the killings.
Good rule of thumb for life:- If genocide has become your solution, you've become the problem. And all you can do is hope that people like you aren't the ones who eventually deal with you.
The fact that numerous people in this thread are apparently not merely ok with, but seem to actively support, on demand extra judicial murder of people arbitrarily deemed "bad" simply for being involved at any level with a subset arbitrarily chosen intoxicating substances, has dramatically reduced the level of respect I had for the members of this board.
The mental gymnastics going on here is mind boggling, and an excellent view into how quickly people willingly embrace murderous regimes.
Vaktathi wrote: The fact that numerous people in this thread are apparently not merely ok with, but seem to actively support, on demand extra judicial murder of people arbitrarily deemed "bad" simply for being involved at any level with a subset arbitrarily chosen intoxicating substances, has dramatically reduced the level of respect I had for the members of this board.
The mental gymnastics going on here is mind boggling, and an excellent view into how quickly people willingly embrace murderous regimes.
There's a bit of a continuum here. If the status quo is rival strongmen thuggery that indiscriminately kills/levies with threat of violence against everyone in a quasi-feudal setting, then a strong central authority that kills "bad guys", even one that accepts loss of some marginal types as collateral damage, can understandably be seen as a better alternative.
I'm very opposed to this sort of extreme Leftist/fascist government structure, but I can absolutely understand the appeal for the normal person on the ground that simply wants to be left to live their own life and sees their immediate surroundings getting cleaned up. If the government begins to descend into the same sort of thuggery as the "bad guys" they're kicking out versus normal everyday citizens, then that's the tipping point where it really is a fascist regime, but that's up to the people of the Philippines to figure out and prevent.
Ketara wrote: Good rule of thumb for life:- If genocide has become your solution, you've become the problem. And all you can do is hope that people like you aren't the ones who eventually deal with you.
Yeah, my favourite example of this is Robespierre. He had the idea that there was specific number of bad people in a society, that could corrupt the rest. So his simple solution was to kill the bad ones in order to create a good society. In one sense he was kind of right, because Robespierre and people like him were some bad dudes, who produced a horrible, murderous society, and it was eventually, in part, solved when they cut Robespierre's head off.
Vaktathi wrote: The fact that numerous people in this thread are apparently not merely ok with, but seem to actively support, on demand extra judicial murder of people arbitrarily deemed "bad" simply for being involved at any level with a subset arbitrarily chosen intoxicating substances, has dramatically reduced the level of respect I had for the members of this board.
The mental gymnastics going on here is mind boggling, and an excellent view into how quickly people willingly embrace murderous regimes.
There is no actual moral difference between what the Filipino government is doing and other western governments. Extreme action is commonplace, Obama authorises assassinations and drone strikes with regularity, often violating international borders to do so. Nobody here complains at that, because the targets are *OUR* enemies.
If you are a peacenik condemining all violence then you would have a point, Dakka usually isn't flush with those, and most here are fairly hawkish about bombing the usual suspects. Filipinos are currently content with their presidents decision to rid the nation of its endemic drug crime problem, it may well be brutal, but it offers results; in this is is little different from the extra judicial killings our own society condones, endorses and actions. If they are content what business is it of ours. By what right to we say that we as 'civilised' nations have the right to bomb who we please to defend our interests, and play that reach globally, while others cannot deal with what is to them as serious a threat from within their own borders.
Vaktathi wrote: The fact that numerous people in this thread are apparently not merely ok with, but seem to actively support, on demand extra judicial murder of people arbitrarily deemed "bad" simply for being involved at any level with a subset arbitrarily chosen intoxicating substances, has dramatically reduced the level of respect I had for the members of this board.
The mental gymnastics going on here is mind boggling, and an excellent view into how quickly people willingly embrace murderous regimes.
There is no actual moral difference between what the Filipino government is doing and other western governments. Extreme action is commonplace, Obama authorises assassinations and drone strikes with regularity, often violating international borders to do so. Nobody here complains at that, because the targets are *OUR* enemies.
If you are a peacenik condemining all violence then you would have a point, Dakka usually isn't flush with those, and most here are fairly hawkish about bombing the usual suspects. Filipinos are currently content with their presidents decision to rid the nation of its endemic drug crime problem, it may well be brutal, but it offers results; in this is is little different from the extra judicial killings our own society condones, endorses and actions. If they are content what business is it of ours. By what right to we say that we as 'civilised' nations have the right to bomb who we please to defend our interests, and play that reach globally, while others cannot deal with what is to them as serious a threat from within their own borders.
Okay, so just because some Filipinos are currently content with his decision, it is okay for him to kill other Filipinos, who are clearly not content with his decision?
I would think there are plenty of Filipinos that are not okay with him calling for their violent, extra-judicial murder. I would assume anybody that cared about their laws would have an issue with it.
You know what, who needs laws if a leader can just say and do what he wants. A lot of people back him, he should be able to disregard them and lets his citizens disregard them. Lets go full blown anarchy boys!
Orlanth wrote: A mere technicality. After all many terrorist organisations are very different from each other in goals and methods. Some are dealt with almost entirely from within the rule of law, others cannot be.
However drug cartels including those in the Phillppines usually mimic the latter.
Organisations that are operate within existing social structures to make profit, even if they their methods and product are illegal, are not the same as organisations attempting to destroy the existing government.
You can keep ignoring that basic reality all you want. But the only result is making you look silly.
You are labouring under the delusion that cartels cannot be an existential threat to society as much as terrorists. The reality is they can.
Also there is an enormous amount of crossover, many terror networks fund themselves with drugs and many cartels become politicised due to their growing powerbase.
I understand perfectly well. You fail to understand that drug cartels are indistinguishable from the terrorist networks in terms of everyday reality to its victims.
A person hit by a drunk driver and a woman deliberately run over by an abusive ex-partner could have identical injuries. Arguing that the perpetrators should be treated exactly the same is bonkers.
You are placing a false flagged analogy there. It is not a matter of identical injury its on level of threat. In terms of societal harm a cartel has more in common with a terrorist movement than it does with a gang of thieves.
That would make sense in your naive cops and robbers show world.
You keep saying this. It is empty and puerile. There is nothing naive in what I am saying, it is informed by the reports of how powerful organised crime groups have been dealt with around the world.
Actually drugs cartels are normally dealt with by military means, the alternative is to invite failure. The only exceptions are in highly developed countries that have a large enough infrastructure to be resistant to organised crime. Cartels cannot effectively subvert the entire justice or prison system of the US or a European state, and can be dealt with within the framework of policing. The same is not true of smaller developing countries.
It is the mindset of the 80s action movie, if only someone would just go and shoot all the baddies in that bad gang then we'd have no more problems from the baddies in the bad gang. It would be comical if it wasn't for the actual dead people in the Phillipines.
That is the general idea, but it involves more thought than you are assuming. The Pentagon thinks as you described pretty much all the time, and its not taken as being an 80's action movie plot.
the cartels form an existential threat to government in anything but name only.
Well, name and reality. To go back to the FARC example you produced, with nothing like the numbers or firepower of the Mexican cartels, came awfully close to toppling the government. But in Mexico, with far greater numbers, guns and resources, the cartels never even tried. This is for the simple reason that taking over government is bad for business. It is expensive, and if you win then you have to run government, which doesn't make anything like the money that drug smuggling makes.
Mexico is bigger than Columbia, there are more government controlled areas. The Philippines is on the small size, and its at risk to the same level as the threat posed by FARC.
anyway what you are forgetting is that a cartel doesn't need to completely remove the government to form an existential threat to society. The people in the regions controlled by the Sinaloa and Zerta etc are still Mexicans, but the cartels are an ever present danger, with enormous reach, and the ability to touch just about anyone, at any time, anywhere. This is far more than say ISIS or most other terror groups can or could do in Europe.
Different organisations. Different goals. Different actions. You don't understand this and it is quite amazing.
I will explain for the hard of thinking.
- I do understand that the organisations and goals are different. It is not really relevant though.
- The actions towards the local populace actually are very similar between a terrorist group and a cartel.
Again I make the point. there is no real difference between farmers tortured to death for failing to plant drugs in their farms as ordered and people tortured to death for failing to convert to radical Islam. When both live under the thumb of a paramilitary system that controls the geographical region.
Actually there's been effective efforts to remove cartels and other criminal gangs from lots of places. Go read about Brazil, about Mexico. These efforts have involved militaries police and have been pretty direct use of force. But they've never required police or non-government groups operating as authorised death squads.
However those efforts failed in the Philippines and the people had enough, and voted in someone who would step up.
Sorry, you are talking bollocks. Cartel violence has massively changed but this is because the cartels now have saturation.
Yes, there's millions of people leaving the US and going back to Mexico now that finally they can live in cartel controlled hellholes like they always dreamed. That's a thing. Good point.
Mexico is a large country, and actually quite rich. There are whole swathes not under cartel control. You will find that is where the returnees are heading, and not the cartel controlled hellholes, which certainly do exist.
So why the the Mexicans use their special forces and not their police to arrest Gusman, why cant the government keep him in prison without the CIA providing double watch and a direct promise from the President of Mexico.
Largely because of chronic police corruption. Also because when acting against criminal gangs you have to bring heavy firepower - this is the same everywhere, you might have noticed the existence of special weapon and tactics units in every country on the planet.
Ask yourself this: how did police corruption get so bad? Police services don't just spontaneously decided to be on the take, there is a long and drawn out process of threats, infiltration and bribery with hidden paymaster at the other end.
Also the use of heavy firepower is NOT universal for handling regular drugs crimes or small scale terror operations. Handled well and even major arrests can occur without armed support. The Al Quaeda cell involved with the soda bomb plot in London in 2005 was rounded up without the presence of armed police at all. Though that was an extreme case.
However against cartel or terrorist saturated regions heavy firepower support need is universal.
You will notice what Mexico didn't use - death squads operating with government approval. Probably because such squads are a terrible, stupid idea supported by total fething lunatics and no-one else.
Lunatics like the UK and US governments, amongst other major western democracies? We use death squads, we just give them fancy names, and apply other fancy names to what they do.
Vaktathi wrote: The fact that numerous people in this thread are apparently not merely ok with, but seem to actively support, on demand extra judicial murder of people arbitrarily deemed "bad" simply for being involved at any level with a subset arbitrarily chosen intoxicating substances, has dramatically reduced the level of respect I had for the members of this board.
The mental gymnastics going on here is mind boggling, and an excellent view into how quickly people willingly embrace murderous regimes.
There is no actual moral difference between what the Filipino government is doing and other western governments. Extreme action is commonplace, Obama authorises assassinations and drone strikes with regularity, often violating international borders to do so. Nobody here complains at that, because the targets are *OUR* enemies.
If you are a peacenik condemining all violence then you would have a point, Dakka usually isn't flush with those, and most here are fairly hawkish about bombing the usual suspects. Filipinos are currently content with their presidents decision to rid the nation of its endemic drug crime problem, it may well be brutal, but it offers results; in this is is little different from the extra judicial killings our own society condones, endorses and actions. If they are content what business is it of ours. By what right to we say that we as 'civilised' nations have the right to bomb who we please to defend our interests, and play that reach globally, while others cannot deal with what is to them as serious a threat from within their own borders.
Okay, so just because some Filipinos are currently content with his decision, it is okay for him to kill other Filipinos, who are clearly not content with his decision?
I would think there are plenty of Filipinos that are not okay with him calling for their violent, extra-judicial murder. I would assume anybody that cared about their laws would have an issue with it.
You know what, who needs laws if a leader can just say and do what he wants. A lot of people back him, he should be able to disregard them and lets his citizens disregard them. Lets go full blown anarchy boys!
You could word replace 'Filipinos' with 'Americans' in your last comment and it would read exactly the same. The result: War on Terror. The people on the other end of drone strikes don't get trials, they get summary executions. The voters in the US and elsewhere vocally back up their government in its own extra-judical murders, because it is in tune with our rhetoric.
So yes the public mandate does make a difference, even if the actions are extreme, because those are the standards we set for ourselves. At least the Filipino government are only exercising their mandate within their own borders.
Orlanth wrote: There is no actual moral difference between what the Filipino government is doing and other western governments. Extreme action is commonplace, Obama authorises assassinations and drone strikes with regularity, often violating international borders to do so. Nobody here complains at that, because the targets are *OUR* enemies.
Orlanth believes that no-one complains about the drone program. Orlanth seems to believe there wasn't a whole ton of threads about the drone program on dakka. Orlanth chooses his own reality.
Vaktathi wrote: The fact that numerous people in this thread are apparently not merely ok with, but seem to actively support, on demand extra judicial murder of people arbitrarily deemed "bad" simply for being involved at any level with a subset arbitrarily chosen intoxicating substances, has dramatically reduced the level of respect I had for the members of this board.
The mental gymnastics going on here is mind boggling, and an excellent view into how quickly people willingly embrace murderous regimes.
There is no actual moral difference between what the Filipino government is doing and other western governments. Extreme action is commonplace, Obama authorises assassinations and drone strikes with regularity, often violating international borders to do so. Nobody here complains at that, because the targets are *OUR* enemies.
If you are a peacenik condemining all violence then you would have a point, Dakka usually isn't flush with those, and most here are fairly hawkish about bombing the usual suspects. Filipinos are currently content with their presidents decision to rid the nation of its endemic drug crime problem, it may well be brutal, but it offers results; in this is is little different from the extra judicial killings our own society condones, endorses and actions. If they are content what business is it of ours. By what right to we say that we as 'civilised' nations have the right to bomb who we please to defend our interests, and play that reach globally, while others cannot deal with what is to them as serious a threat from within their own borders.
I would posit that the difference is one is acting against a foreign other that is in open and direct two-way conflict with the aggressor, and the other is acting against a vaguely defined subset of the domestic population perceived as the cause of a host of problems that really stem from underlying socio-economic issues.
And yes, people have and do raise objections to things like drone strikes and whatnot, that makes many uncomfortable and has been discussed at length many times, but the nature of that conflict is also different.
Orlanth wrote: You are labouring under the delusion that cartels cannot be an existential threat to society as much as terrorists. The reality is they can.
And you are continuing with the old mistake of thinking model and reason for being doesn't exist, and adding a new mistake in thinking all terror groups are the same.
You are placing a false flagged analogy there. It is not a matter of identical injury its on level of threat.
Dude, that was your argument. You tried to reduce things down to purely the impact on victims. I accepted that as it was, but now that it was reflected back at you, then you noticed the problem. Funny that.
Actually drugs cartels are normally dealt with by military means, the alternative is to invite failure.
Here 'military means' has somehow come to include extra-judicial killing by police, and turning a blind eye to extra-judicial killing by vigilante groups. feth me this is bonkers.
And yet you aren't protesting direct brute force action against Al Quaeda.
And now we're going full circle, back to that stupid argument you made earlier that citizens operating criminal operations within a country's borders are the same thing as non-citizens operating terror cells in another country.
That is the general idea, but it involves more thought than you are assuming. The Pentagon thinks as you described pretty much all the time, and its not taken as being an 80's action movie plot.
While the US military has targeted various terror groups and other enemies of the state, this is in concert with massive amounts spent on capacity to remove the base cause of the problem. In Afghanistan alone $85 billion has been spent on reconstruction efforts by the international community, with the US providing the most funds. To characterise that as a focus purely on going in an killing the bad guys so there are no more bad guys is ridiculous.
Mexico is bigger than Columbia, there are more government controlled areas. The Philippines is on the small size, and its at risk to the same level as the threat posed by FARC.
Okay, so in addition to everything else your geography really sucks. Mexico has 120 million people. The Philippines has 100 million people. Columbia has 50 million. You have now learned that the Philippines is much closer to Mexico than to Columbia.
Anyhow, the sillier thing you just claimed is that the cartels are an existential threat like FARC was. Is the worst part of that statement that you still don't understand why profit seeking criminal organisations are different to revolutionary organisations? Or is the worst part that you said that just because Mexican cartels aren't an existential threat to Mexico doesn't mean the cartels in the Philippines won't be... when the spike in cartel growth and violence in the Philippines has come from the Mexican cartels moving in to the Philippines?
anyway what you are forgetting is that a cartel doesn't need to completely remove the government to form an existential threat to society. The people in the regions controlled by the Sinaloa and Zerta etc are still Mexicans, but the cartels are an ever present danger, with enormous reach, and the ability to touch just about anyone, at any time, anywhere. This is far more than say ISIS or most other terror groups can or could do in Europe.
You've just tried to argue that just because something isn't an existential threat, that doesn't mean it isn't an existential threat.
- I do understand that the organisations and goals are different. It is not really relevant though.
And I will explain it yet again - what you've just said is bonkers. An organisation working towards destroying government is a totally different kind of threat to an organisation working to maximise profits, even if both use similar criminal operations.
Again I make the point. there is no real difference between farmers tortured to death for failing to plant drugs in their farms as ordered and people tortured to death for failing to convert to radical Islam.
And again I point out how inane that is. You don't manage a threat based only on the harm done, you manage it based on the most effective means of controlling each, based on the nature of the organisation producing the threat.
However those efforts failed in the Philippines and the people had enough, and voted in someone who would step up.
And here you've all of a sudden found a new respect for democracy and the rationality of the population. Let's just forget how this conflicts with plenty of other stuff you've written, and look at the issue of assuming rationality of the average Philippines voter - 40% have completed high school. In countries with 95% high school complete it's a stretch to claim that political victory comes down to citizens calmly and rationally deciding whether policy initiatives have proven effective.
Claiming that for the Philippines is hilarious.
Ask yourself this: how did police corruption get so bad? Police services don't just spontaneously decided to be on the take
The Philippines has a long cultural tradition of corruption, like much of Asia. If you didn't know this, then is this really an issue you need to be giving an opinion on?
Also the use of heavy firepower is NOT universal for handling regular drugs crimes or small scale terror operations.
Now you decided to ignore the difference between having heavy firepower on hand just in case, and routinely using it.
Lunatics like the UK and US governments, amongst other major western democracies? We use death squads, we just give them fancy names, and apply other fancy names to what they do.
And now you've gone back to conflating international terror operations with operations against domestic criminals.
Orlanth wrote: There is no actual moral difference between what the Filipino government is doing and other western governments. Extreme action is commonplace, Obama authorises assassinations and drone strikes with regularity, often violating international borders to do so. Nobody here complains at that, because the targets are *OUR* enemies.
Orlanth believes that no-one complains about the drone program. Orlanth seems to believe there wasn't a whole ton of threads about the drone program on dakka. Orlanth chooses his own reality.
Orlanth knows that despite there being a drone program, and the fact that some do complain about it, it nevertheless is conducted openly by a government with large scale consent of the populace. Last time I checked Obama wasnt being threatened with international court, or facing impeachment for murder/extra judicial killing etc.
Orlanth also knows that any policy is seldom if ever universally accepted, there will always be dissenters. Everyone else knows that too, but Sebster likes to assume I dont so that he can make a cheap shot.
Vaktathi wrote: The fact that numerous people in this thread are apparently not merely ok with, but seem to actively support, on demand extra judicial murder of people arbitrarily deemed "bad" simply for being involved at any level with a subset arbitrarily chosen intoxicating substances, has dramatically reduced the level of respect I had for the members of this board.
The mental gymnastics going on here is mind boggling, and an excellent view into how quickly people willingly embrace murderous regimes.
There is no actual moral difference between what the Filipino government is doing and other western governments. Extreme action is commonplace, Obama authorises assassinations and drone strikes with regularity, often violating international borders to do so. Nobody here complains at that, because the targets are *OUR* enemies.
If you are a peacenik condemining all violence then you would have a point, Dakka usually isn't flush with those, and most here are fairly hawkish about bombing the usual suspects. Filipinos are currently content with their presidents decision to rid the nation of its endemic drug crime problem, it may well be brutal, but it offers results; in this is is little different from the extra judicial killings our own society condones, endorses and actions. If they are content what business is it of ours. By what right to we say that we as 'civilised' nations have the right to bomb who we please to defend our interests, and play that reach globally, while others cannot deal with what is to them as serious a threat from within their own borders.
I would posit that the difference is one is acting against a foreign other that is in open and direct two-way conflict with the aggressor, and the other is acting against a vaguely defined subset of the domestic population perceived as the cause of a host of problems that really stem from underlying socio-economic issues.
And yes, people have and do raise objections to things like drone strikes and whatnot, that makes many uncomfortable and has been discussed at length many times, but the nature of that conflict is also different.
It doesnt matter that they are different case . They need not be identical, and the underlying actual difference is that the problem matters to us, whweras people forget all too easily what happens to Filipino farmers and victims of endemic drugs violence.
Fact remains that state sanctioned extra-judical killings are commonplace. The US, for example, justifies it and the US populace, or large numbers of them back the government in doing so. The Philippines have freely elected a government which made stated claim to take extreme measures against the drugs infrastructure, and that support remains during this stage of implementation.
Orlanth wrote: You are labouring under the delusion that cartels cannot be an existential threat to society as much as terrorists. The reality is they can.
And you are continuing with the old mistake of thinking model and reason for being doesn't exist, and adding a new mistake in thinking all terror groups are the same.
Far from it, or I wouldnt have posted, in the post you are critiqueing, that some terror groups are handled differently to others.
You are placing a false flagged analogy there. It is not a matter of identical injury its on level of threat.
Dude, that was your argument. You tried to reduce things down to purely the impact on victims. I accepted that as it was, but now that it was reflected back at you, then you noticed the problem. Funny that.
No it wasn't you were misrepresenting it. the actual point is that there is a similarity of scale and a similarity of saturation of the local social structure. A gang might torment a victim in the way a cartel or a terror group might. But a gang operates on a personal scale, one has to be unlucky or in the wrong place to be victimised. A cartel or terror group may achieve a social saturation, the torments can be the same as a gang metes out, but the reach means there is little escape.
Here 'military means' has somehow come to include extra-judicial killing by police, and turning a blind eye to extra-judicial killing by vigilante groups. feth me this is bonkers.
And yet you aren't protesting direct brute force action against Al Quaeda.
And now we're going full circle, back to that stupid argument you made earlier that citizens operating criminal operations within a country's borders are the same thing as non-citizens operating terror cells in another country.
The arguement is not stupid, you just cant grasp it. Dont assume your lack of understanding means that there a lack of intelligence behind a presentation. Your failure is your own.
'Citizens operating criminal operations' can range from muggers to people who fiddle their taxes, you are making an unfair distinction. cartels are closer in operation morality and ehos to terror groups than tax dodgers, even though cartels also dodge tax. Acaretls are also international concerns, though whether a threat is not international doesnt detract from its validity as a major threat.
While the US military has targeted various terror groups and other enemies of the state, this is in concert with massive amounts spent on capacity to remove the base cause of the problem. In Afghanistan alone $85 billion has been spent on reconstruction efforts by the international community, with the US providing the most funds. To characterise that as a focus purely on going in an killing the bad guys so there are no more bad guys is ridiculous.
Even you in more lucid moments admitted that Dutente is also backing up his eradication plan with alternative means:
You reform police, you fund rehab, you work on renewal of afflicted areas. What's even crazier is that Duterte has actually made concerted efforts in most of these areas, with debatable success,
But are now backtracking and claiming this is just a case of solely 'shooting all the bad guys'. Make your mind up.
Also The Philippines doesnt have $85 billion to spend on reconstruction, that is about 30% of the nations GDP.
Mexico is bigger than Columbia, there are more government controlled areas. The Philippines is on the small size, and its at risk to the same level as the threat posed by FARC.
Okay, so in addition to everything else your geography really sucks. Mexico has 120 million people. The Philippines has 100 million people. Columbia has 50 million. You have now learned that the Philippines is much closer to Mexico than to Columbia.
Anyhow, the sillier thing you just claimed is that the cartels are an existential threat like FARC was. Is the worst part of that statement that you still don't understand why profit seeking criminal organisations are different to revolutionary organisations?
Sigh. Lets explain in simpler language.
It doesnt matter of the organisation intends to formally replace the nation state with say an Islamic republic or communism. We can take is as a given that cartels arent interested in that. They still take over. Take over as in control the courts, control the police, control the local government etc etc. Whether they do so by replacing everyone in aurthority with comrades, forcinbly converting everyone in authority to Islam or by widescale bribery extortion and threats; doesn't matter so much.
Terrorists try to take over, cartels try to take over, gangs dont/cant.
Or is the worst part that you said that just because Mexican cartels aren't an existential threat to Mexico doesn't mean the cartels in the Philippines won't be... when the spike in cartel growth and violence in the Philippines has come from the Mexican cartels moving in to the Philippines?
Pay attention. I said that cartels are an existential threat to society, not to the nation state itself. Even the most drug wracked Latin American state still retained its national identity, but that might just be a facade. Also cartels ARE an existential threat to society in Mexico, however that threat is regionalised.
If you think about it for a second you will understand better. An existential threat to society doesnt need to destroy all society everywhere. More usually the damage is localised, but even 'local' might refer to large percentages of the country.
We can see that the cartels are an existential threat to Mexican society because of ther deep reach the cartels have into the prison system , courts and police. That reach is undeniable, effects large percentage of the national system and is esential to maintaining a stable society.
anyway what you are forgetting is that a cartel doesn't need to completely remove the government to form an existential threat to society. The people in the regions controlled by the Sinaloa and Zerta etc are still Mexicans, but the cartels are an ever present danger, with enormous reach, and the ability to touch just about anyone, at any time, anywhere. This is far more than say ISIS or most other terror groups can or could do in Europe.
You've just tried to argue that just because something isn't an existential threat, that doesn't mean it isn't an existential threat.
Thank you for quoting what you evidently failed to understand even when written in plain English. Highlighted in bold above.
Somehow you somehow grasped an almost entirely opposite meaning to what was clearly presented. You are very confused today.
- I do understand that the organisations and goals are different. It is not really relevant though.
And I will explain it yet again - what you've just said is bonkers. An organisation working towards destroying government is a totally different kind of threat to an organisation working to maximise profits, even if both use similar criminal operations.
No it doesn't matter if the goals are different. Also you fail to grasp that cartels are not solely occupied with maximising profits. If they were they would cooperate more, as prolonged conflict is unprofitable.
Again I make the point. there is no real difference between farmers tortured to death for failing to plant drugs in their farms as ordered and people tortured to death for failing to convert to radical Islam.
And again I point out how inane that is. You don't manage a threat based only on the harm done, you manage it based on the most effective means of controlling each, based on the nature of the organisation producing the threat.
The only think you are pointing out is that you dont understand the simple scale of the problem. You simply cant lump everything into two categories, crime or terrorism. Some terrorism is small scale enough its treated like regular street crime in most respects, some crime is large scale enough its treated like large scale terrorism.
For example a 'lone wolf' shooter is treated like any other spree shooter. Motive might be reflected on sentencing and the level of security of their confinement but otherwise they are failrly similar. a major cartel can be handles in the same way as a large scale terrorist group, examples here being the prevelant use of special forces and airstrikes against cartel infrastructure including drug farms. Some of these military operations occur across national borders and sometimes without consultation of the local authorities.
Why is this the case - because the scale of the threat merits the scale of response, and the brutality of the threat merits the resolve to respond.
However those efforts failed in the Philippines and the people had enough, and voted in someone who would step up.
And here you've all of a sudden found a new respect for democracy and the rationality of the population.
Actually i have been consistent throughout. Everything rests on the fact that the actions are initiated by the legitimate Philippine government. I even made comment that the threat title is inaccurate as Dutente is not a dictator, but a democratically elected leader enacting the will of his political mandate along the lines of the policies he promised.
and look at the issue of assuming rationality of the average Philippines voter - 40% have completed high school. In countries with 95% high school complete it's a stretch to claim that political victory comes down to citizens calmly and rationally deciding whether policy initiatives have proven effective.
Ask yourself this: how did police corruption get so bad? Police services don't just spontaneously decided to be on the take
The Philippines has a long cultural tradition of corruption, like much of Asia. If you didn't know this, then is this really an issue you need to be giving an opinion on?
Question remains, how does the corruption come about. You snipped the quote to avoid the point that it was a rhetorical question intended to channel you into thinking.
And now you've gone back to conflating international terror operations with operations against domestic criminals.
With good reason. Lets take a simple example. Was Shorty Gusman a 'domestic criminal'?
wikipedia wrote:Each year from 2009 to 2011 Forbes magazine ranked Guzmán as one of the most powerful people in the world, ranking 41st, 60th, and 55th respectively. He was thus the second most powerful man in Mexico, after Carlos Slim.[5][6] He was named as the 10th richest man in Mexico (1,140th in the world) in 2011, with a net worth of roughly US$1 billion.[7][8] The magazine also calls him the "biggest drug lord of all time",[9] and the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) estimates he has surpassed the influence and reach of Pablo Escobar, and now considers him "the godfather of the drug world".[10] In 2013, the Chicago Crime Commission named Guzmán "Public Enemy Number One" for the influence of his criminal network in Chicago, though there is no evidence that Guzmán has ever been in that city.[11] The last person to receive such notoriety was Al Capone in 1930.
Cartels are routinely classified as international not domestic with good reason. Yes there is good reason to treat cartels as one does terrorist networks.
Central American cartels are in hard reality often treated in the same manner as terrorist groups. Extreme measures have been used by some US administrations, though by no means all. I will grant you that p[olicy against terrorism is more consistent than against cartels, but they can and have got the same treatment from Washington when the will is there. Reagan in particular used extreme measure to deal with cartels.
It is not therefore illogical to expect that other nation states might follow the same pattern of policy. The Filipino government is being decidely crass and unsubtle, but iinvolves extra judicial killings of targets which mirror efforts by western powers in recent history.
Orlanth wrote: Orlanth also knows that any policy is seldom if ever universally accepted, there will always be dissenters.
Your words; "Nobody here complains at that".
Apparently under Orlanth rules when he says 'nobody' and you assume he means 'nobody', then it is your fault.
Nobody here, means nobody here. There have been no threads on Dakka that I can recall on critique of drone strikes.
Never implied that dissent doesn't exist, or that no forum member might object., but nobody complains about it.
This is my point: Dutente is loudly criticised for doing what our governments do, right beneath our noses without anyone being vocal about it.
Orlanth wrote: Far from it, or I wouldnt have posted, in the post you are critiqueing, that some terror groups are handled differently to others.
That you’ve recognised that reality doesn’t mean you haven’t forgotten in this part of your post. It doesn’t make the mistake go away, it actually makes it worse.
No it wasn't you were misrepresenting it. the actual point is that there is a similarity of scale and a similarity of saturation of the local social structure.
And now you’re argument is becoming one in which you insist that we must recognise the ability for social saturation, but continue to ignore the basic motivation differences.
Perhaps, but then a lot of
You started an answer here and then moved on. Normally I just let this stuff go, but I really want to see the argument for why “military means” should be assumed to include police undertaking extra-judicial killings and ignoring extra-judicial killings by vigilante groups.
cartels are closer in operation morality and ehos to terror groups than tax dodgers, even though cartels also dodge tax. Acaretls are also international concerns, though whether a threat is not international doesnt detract from its validity as a major threat.
This is a great deal of words that basically boils down to ‘they’re meanies’. It is a purely moralistic argument, it is an attempt to justify an extreme response purely by claiming the target is very bad indeed.
It’s kind of funny considering that you’re the guy who was repeating over and over again that other posters were naive and seeing this as white hats and black hats. But here you are, with an answer that basically boils down to ‘the cartels have the blackest of black hats, so Duterte needs to murder them’.
All the while you continue to ignore the basic problems with trying to murder away problems driven social and economic failings.
Even you in more lucid moments admitted that Dutente is also backing up his eradication plan with alternative means:
Yep, and I criticised you for ignoring those elements and talking only about the importance of killing people, taking a more extreme position than Duterte. And now I’m criticising you for being totally ignorant in the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.
Also The Philippines doesnt have $85 billion to spend on reconstruction, that is about 30% of the nations GDP.
Ignoring that the Phillipines would involve a growth and capacity building program, and not a reconstruction… why would the number be the same? What part of your brain decided that any and all reconstruction efforts would need to cost $85 billion?
I mean what the hell dude?
Sigh. Lets explain in simpler language.
Don’t. You’ve repeated it maybe a dozen times now. It’s still terrible.
Pay attention. I said that cartels are an existential threat to society, not to the nation state itself.
I know what you said. It’s a gibberish sentence that shows you don’t understand what existential means in this context. You make a (fairly imaginative) argument that Philippine society might become worse, and try to claim that as an existential threat. Go look up existential, learn, then drop this particular bit of silliness.
An existential threat to society doesnt need to destroy all society everywhere.
Heh. “An existential threat doesn’t need to threaten its existence”. So we’re just going to invent new definitions for words as we go now.
No it doesn't matter if the goals are different. Also you fail to grasp that cartels are not solely occupied with maximising profits. If they were they would cooperate more, as prolonged conflict is unprofitable.
Do we need to wander off in to a lengthy discussion of competition and the prisoner’s dilemma, or should we just note that what you said above is bonkers and move on?
The only think you are pointing out is that you dont understand the simple scale of the problem.
What we’ve established is that you think only in scale, and not in type. Two criminal organisations with 20,000 members and affiliates shouldn’t demand exactly equal treatment, where their methods, means and motives are entirely different.
Actually i have been consistent throughout. Everything rests on the fact that the actions are initiated by the legitimate Philippine government.
As already pointed out, simply being elected doesn’t make you all powerful. Presidents are still constrained by process and procedure. A president simply saying ‘death squads are legal’ doesn’t make them legal. This is a thing I know you understand, because I remember you making similar arguments in other threads.
But it turns out in Orlanth world facts come and go, depending on their political suitability.
You have the vote. Why not a Filipino.
Of course they should have the vote, like everyone. Once again you’re deliberately misunderstanding in order to try for a cheap point. In front of an audience of no-one.
Anyhow, the point that while democracy is great, it is beyond stupid to assume that every democratic election is the result of a calm and rational review of the effectiveness of existing policy by the greater electorate. This is an even stupider assumption in a country where more than half the population didn’t finish high school.
But you made this assumption because you just don’t give a feth about what is actually sensible, you’ll say anything you can think of to try and justify a program of extra-judicial killing.
Question remains, how does the corruption come about. You snipped the quote to avoid the point that it was a rhetorical question intended to channel you into thinking.
No, I snipped it down to the opening question because it was a fething stupid question that showed you have tremendous ignorance of the history of the country. There was endemic corruption long before there was anything you could call a cartel. You didn’t know this, because as is becoming apparent you know almost nothing about the Philippines beyond ‘they have cartels’.
Not at all. I even gave example that the heavy firepower might in fact be entirely absent.
And what the hell could that ever possibly mean? Sometimes police don’t ensure they have overwhelming firepower on scene. Uh yep, that’s true, and?
With good reason. Lets take a simple example. Was Shorty Gusman a 'domestic criminal'?
Guzman. With a ‘z’.
And you will note that Guzman was responded to with… ordinary criminal measures. No death squads. No drone strikes.
And if you think that changing that, that if instead of being arrested in the early 90s they just straight up murdered him, that the power of the Sinaloa cartel would have been reduced, and the scale of drug trafficking reduced then you really are living in an 80s action movie.
Reagan in particular used extreme measure to deal with cartels.
And we all remember the 80s as a time when the drug problem was brought under control.
Nobody here, means nobody here. There have been no threads on Dakka that I can recall on critique of drone strikes.
You’re all over the place. You said nobody here. I made fun of that because it was clearly untrue to anyone who’s been on this site for a long time, man did we argue about that.
In response you ignored your own criteria, ‘here’. Instead your response started talking about overall acceptance of the program.
So I made fun of it again, because now you were redefining ‘nothing’ to mean ‘not actually nothing’.
Then you came back, remembering you had the word ‘here’ in there. And so now we’re back to me making fun of you, because man did we ever debate the drone program. There’s nothing wrong with you forgetting that, or just not being aware of it because you didn’t post here, but there’s something very wrong with you just assuming it wasn’t debated, and now getting pissy when you’re getting called on that false assumption.
You started an answer here and then moved on. Normally I just let this stuff go, but I really want to see the argument for why “military means” should be assumed to include police undertaking extra-judicial killings and ignoring extra-judicial killings by vigilante groups.
Nevermind. I wrote my answer then accidently deleted half the text and didn't notice. Sorry about that.
What was missing: With our sanctioned extra-judicial killings sometimes we use drones or special forces, sometimes we outsource by funding opposed radical, some of which are almost as bad as the people we are fighting.
Yep, and I criticised you for ignoring those elements and talking only about the importance of killing people, taking a more extreme position than Duterte. And now I’m criticising you for being totally ignorant in the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.
Yet I am aware that the reconstruction work has failed. as soon as the grip is loosened the Taliban will return.
Pay attention. I said that cartels are an existential threat to society, not to the nation state itself.
I know what you said. It’s a gibberish sentence that shows you don’t understand what existential means in this context. You make a (fairly imaginative) argument that Philippine society might become worse, and try to claim that as an existential threat. Go look up existential, learn, then drop this particular bit of silliness..
I knolw what existential means, which is why I used the phrase. Cartel infrastructure kills societal infrastructure.
Do we need to wander off in to a lengthy discussion of competition and the prisoner’s dilemma, or should we just note that what you said above is bonkers and move on?
Its normally better to post rational reply rather than fall back on making insulting insinuations about your targets mental health.
However I expect low standards from you, its a course hazard when posting on Dakka.
As already pointed out, simply being elected doesn’t make you all powerful. Presidents are still constrained by process and procedure. A president simply saying ‘death squads are legal’ doesn’t make them legal. This is a thing I know you understand, because I remember you making similar arguments in other threads.
Reality disagrees with you. You are only correct that being elected doesnt make you all powerful, but it does make you able to deal with those that the people who give you the mandate do not sufficiently care about the rights of.
This is a flat fact, backed up by weight of recent history.
I say so because examples can and have been given. American presidents are not all powerful, they can be impeached and are not above rule of law. However they can ignore international law, civic rights for entire people groups, sanction open extra-judicial killings on a large scale, perform large scale imprisonments without trial, torture etc.
I am right and you are wrong. The evidence for this is because George W Bush has never been placed on trial and it is clearly evident he sanctioned all of those things. Do you want to me to list them one by one for you?
ignore international law, = illegal invasion of Iraq
civic rights for entire people groups, = illegal occupation of Iraq, interference with Iraqi elections
sanction open extra-judicial killings on a large scale = drone strike in Pakistan
perform large scale imprisonments without trial = Guantanamo
torture et = waterboarding, CIA special flights.
Now in spite of these flat facts the US can still claim to be a law respecting country, with fair reason, because it restricted these excesses to people that it by and large convinced the world were valid targets for these excesses. Within reason I myself agreed with the actions taken, and the Uk government itself participated in them, and still does.
This is the main reason why I will not critique Dutente. I can and do support using extreme measures against groups like Daesh.
Of course they should have the vote, like everyone. Once again you’re deliberately misunderstanding in order to try for a cheap point. In front of an audience of no-one.
Your comment was that Filipinos were too ignorant to make decisions for themselves because only 40% of the electorate had completed high school. You have no special standing to suggest your vote is worth more. All you are proving is your overbearing arrogance in assuming so.
But you made this assumption because you just don’t give a feth about what is actually sensible, you’ll say anything you can think of to try and justify a program of extra-judicial killing.
I will defend a sovereign nations right to raise the stakes when dealing with an insidious a threat as drug cartels. It would be hypocritical for me not to and yet defend the extreme actions taken against Daesh.
No, I snipped it down to the opening question because it was a fething stupid question that showed you have tremendous ignorance of the history of the country. There was endemic corruption long before there was anything you could call a cartel. You didn’t know this, because as is becoming apparent you know almost nothing about the Philippines beyond ‘they have cartels’.
So when you can't make a reasoned argument, try an ad hominem attack.
You arent in any position to be calling anyone else ignorant.
And you will note that Guzman was responded to with… ordinary criminal measures. No death squads. No drone strikes.
You miss the point again. Guzman was a major international threat, not a 'domestic criminal'.
Also even if a policy of elimination is carried out sometimes it is tactically better to arrest rather than eliminate.
Guzman was on the run from an extant judicial sentence, so it made better sense to force him to complete said sentence rather then shoot him, which in a way enables him to die free.
Also there was nothing ordinary in Guzmans arrest. The arrest team was made of special forces, not police, after his arrest his captors hid him in a brothel because they were concerned the Sinaloa could spring him if he was taken to a police station.
Orlanth wrote: What was missing: With our sanctioned extra-judicial killings sometimes we use drones or special forces, sometimes we outsource by funding opposed radical, some of which are almost as bad as the people we are fighting.
Just a repeat of your main, and only, premise. Wasn’t really worth me asking for the follow up, or getting you to type it up. Apologies.
Yet I am aware that the reconstruction work has failed. as soon as the grip is loosened the Taliban will return.
You’ve got to follow the debate. I pointed out that just boiling things down to shooting the baddie was stupid, the logic of an 80s action movie. You said this is what the Pentagon does. I then mentioned there’s actually been immense efforts to reconstruct Afghanistan, so clearly the Pentagon knows there’s a lot more to the issue than just shooting the bad guy.
Whether or not the reconstruction will work is not the issue at discussion. You tried to claim that the Pentagon just followed the ‘shoot the baddies and problem solved’ logic. That $85 billion was put to reconstruction shows that obviously the Pentagon doesn't think like you do, making your claim completely wrong.
Just answering you in the tone you set.
I set a tone that said every effort at reconstruction everywhere on the planet, at any time, would cost $85 billion. That’s a strange tone for me to set, I’m not quite sure how I did that. Can that even be a tone? It must be a challenging one for an ad libs group to handle. “Okay, the setting is a birthing suite, and the tone is… every reconstruction effort must cost $85 billion.”
I knolw what existential means, which is why I used the phrase. Cartel infrastructure kills societal infrastructure.
Wow, so I actually start cracking jokes at your expense for not understanding what existential means in this context, and it still doesn’t prompt you to go and look up what the word means. I know you are on the internet when you’re posting in this, so you will have the ability to go look up the meaning of existential. And yet you haven’t done it. That’s incredible.
An existential threat to society, threatens society with its end.
Except you previously posted this; “An existential threat to society doesnt need to destroy all society everywhere.”
So now we have an argument where the threat isn’t to all society, but is threatening society with its end.
Its normally better to post rational reply rather than fall back on making insulting insinuations about your targets mental health.
You don’t read. I said your argument is bonkers, I have no opinion on you on any level. Why would I, you’re just some guy posting silliness on the internet.
To get back to your bonkers argument that cartels aren’t just profit seeking because if they were they would co-operate, we can extend that argument to claim that car manufacturers aren’t profit seekers, because if they were they wouldn’t compete on price, or look to innovate and develop better cars, because that’s less profitable than everyone agreeing to sell the same car every year at a huge mark up.
If you really don’t understand this, start with the prisoner’s dilemma. Then move in to basic market studies – see how demand and supply changes when you move from perfect competition to oligopoly conditions.
I am right and you are wrong. The evidence for this is because George W Bush has never been placed on trial and it is clearly evident he sanctioned all of those things.
Your argument now is that it is legal as long as you don’t get punished for it. That’s a thing.
Your comment was that Filipinos were too ignorant to make decisions for themselves because only 40% of the electorate had completed high school.
No, that wasn’t my comment. You’re fething lying.
My comment was that it was ridiculous to assume that voters anywhere have made their choice based on a rational review of the effectiveness of existing policies. This becomes an even more ridiculous assumption in places where a large portion of the population hasn’t finished high school.
If you really need this spelled out, consider a guy with a Bachelor’s, a white collar guy who follows politics daily. It’d be fething stupid to assume that guy studied and fully knowledgeable of his country’s history of police and judicial policy, and the effectiveness of each reform. Now put that same expectation on a guy who didn’t finish high school, what was absurd becomes utterly absurd.
But it is the position you’re trying to claim in this thread. It’s comical.
So when you can't make a reasoned argument, try an ad hominem attack.
You can hide behind ‘sebster is a meanie’ if you want, but it still remains a reality that you had no idea of the history of corruption in the Phillipines, but still decided you had an opinion on the country’s police and drug issues that is worth a damn.
You miss the point again. Guzman was a major international threat, not a 'domestic criminal'.
You miss the point. Despite being a major international thread, he was still addressed with conventional police operations, not death squads.
Guzman was on the run from an extant judicial sentence, so it made better sense to force him to complete said sentence rather then shoot him, which in a way enables him to die free.
This is a thing you actually typed.
There were some successes. It's a hell of a lot worse now.
Oh bless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Orlanth, I have said I do not agree with drone strikes in this very thread in response to you. What more do you want?
He wants people to recognise that he is the hard man with the hard solutions. That he sees it like it is, and how it is is a hard world where we need to make hard choices, which only hard men will do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silent Puffin? wrote: I only deal with one item of crazy at a time, he does it all (or most of it). He probably deserves some kind of award.
Yet I am aware that the reconstruction work has failed. as soon as the grip is loosened the Taliban will return.
You’ve got to follow the debate. I pointed out that just boiling things down to shooting the baddie was stupid, the logic of an 80s action movie. You said this is what the Pentagon does. I then mentioned there’s actually been immense efforts to reconstruct Afghanistan, so clearly the Pentagon knows there’s a lot more to the issue than just shooting the bad guy.
Whether or not the reconstruction will work is not the issue at discussion. You tried to claim that the Pentagon just followed the ‘shoot the baddies and problem solved’ logic. That $85 billion was put to reconstruction shows that obviously the Pentagon doesn't think like you do, making your claim completely wrong.
You really have missed the point. Even with the large restructuring the Taliban will *still* return as soon as it is safe to do so.
I knolw what existential means, which is why I used the phrase. Cartel infrastructure kills societal infrastructure.
Wow, so I actually start cracking jokes at your expense for not understanding what existential means in this context, and it still doesn’t prompt you to go and look up what the word means. I know you are on the internet when you’re posting in this, so you will have the ability to go look up the meaning of existential. And yet you haven’t done it. That’s incredible.
Don't know where to begin with your patronising rubbish. An existential threat is an annihilatory threat. This can be taken either literally, or figuratively if the threat is to something not directly tangible. Society is not directly tangible, there is no nation or land mass called society. Yet an existential threat can exist to society. Some uses of the term refer to existential on that level. For example nuclear war is an 'existential threat', and is considered such politically, however not literally as the planet will still be here and in all likelihood the human race would survive; but whole nation states, whole societies, would cease to exist.
You need to think more and be less literal minded. You whine about how I havent looked up a term I clearly already understood from the context of its use. Do you need to scrape the barrel, to try and make a comeback point.
An existential threat to society, threatens society with its end.
Except you previously posted this;
“An existential threat to society doesnt need to destroy all society everywhere.”
So now we have an argument where the threat isn’t to all society, but is threatening society with its end.
Case in point. You don't need to destroy all society everywhere to have an existential threat to society. Let me give you an example, native american society. They faced an existential threat to their society in the 19th century. However the larger society of the USA was not destroyed, or even under pressure. You cant claim that the threat they faced was not existential simply because not every culture within the US was facing annihilation. Stop being so two dimensional.
To get back to your bonkers argument that cartels aren’t just profit seeking because if they were they would co-operate, we can extend that argument to claim that car manufacturers aren’t profit seekers, because if they were they wouldn’t compete on price, or look to innovate and develop better cars, because that’s less profitable than everyone agreeing to sell the same car every year at a huge mark up..
You will find cooperation between manufacturers. For a start you get price fixing. Also cooperation doesn't eliminate competition, healthy competition is often good in a marketplace as it drives the market forwards.
Also last time I checked Fords and General Motors are killing each other for regional control. Drug cartels do that.
Again you cant see beyond the two dimensional, and make a forced assumption that cartels and car manufacturers would have identical operating methods if they carried the same overall ethos regarding relations between each other. you can hardly accused me of being bonkers and make up crap like that.
Do I need to explain the ethical differences between the manufacturing and the narcotics industry. Do I have to spell it out? In order for you to try and add such flatly bogus comparisons.
Fact remains that military struggle is expensive, just like war is expensive, as its far closer to war than a corporate rivalry. The fact that they use machine guns and not superior product placement should be a clue.
Cartels make war, even though it is unprofitable to do so because they are regional power groups and not just profit seeking enterprises. In fact the major cartels already make so much profit they dont know what to do with it. Unlike just about any other industry spending the money is far harder than making it. One safehouse in Mexico was found filled with $250M in dollar bills, because the Sinaloa didnt know what else to do with it! Car manufacturers et al dont have this 'problem'.
No cartels are not just about profit, though it certainly helps. They are about power.
I am right and you are wrong. The evidence for this is because George W Bush has never been placed on trial and it is clearly evident he sanctioned all of those things.
Your argument now is that it is legal as long as you don’t get punished for it. That’s a thing.
Sorry Sebster but welcome to reality. Aerial bombing and submarine campaigns were only kept off the war crimes trials after 1945 because it would be blatantly hypocritical for the allies to put people on trial for that. We did it so it therefore had to be legal.
Your comment was that Filipinos were too ignorant to make decisions for themselves because only 40% of the electorate had completed high school.
No, that wasn’t my comment. You’re fething lying.
My comment was that it was ridiculous to assume that voters anywhere have made their choice based on a rational review of the effectiveness of existing policies. This becomes an even more ridiculous assumption in places where a large portion of the population hasn’t finished high school..
So you aren't saying that Filipinos are too ignorant to make decisions for themselves, they just don't have a rational review because a large proportion hasn't finished high school.
Just a play on words.
If you really need this spelled out, consider a guy with a Bachelor’s, a white collar guy who follows politics daily. It’d be fething stupid to assume that guy studied and fully knowledgeable of his country’s history of police and judicial policy, and the effectiveness of each reform. Now put that same expectation on a guy who didn’t finish high school, what was absurd becomes utterly absurd..
So you assume they are too ignorant to vote. Gottit.
but it still remains a reality that you had no idea of the history of corruption in the Phillipines, but still decided you had an opinion on the country’s police and drug issues that is worth a damn.
You don't know what I know, who I know, where I go, what I read. Yet you still make these claims, and on the back of them make dismissive statements, as its easier than to try to articulate counter arguments.
Dreadwinter wrote: Orlanth, I have said I do not agree with drone strikes in this very thread in response to you. What more do you want?
He wants people to recognise that he is the hard man with the hard solutions. That he sees it like it is, and how it is is a hard world where we need to make hard choices, which only hard men will do.
And you have delusions of possessing psycho-analytical skill also. You dont know me.
Orlanth wrote: You really have missed the point. Even with the large restructuring the Taliban will *still* return as soon as it is safe to do so.
I said your argument was like 80s action movie logic, kill the baddie and problem solved. You said that the US army followed 80s action movie logic, because that's all they try to do. I pointed out that was a ridiculous comment, because they've invested a fortune in trying to rebuild the country.
Whether or not that program succeeds or fails, it shows the intent of the US armed services as something way different to 'kill the baddie and move on'. This makes your earlier argument completely wrong.
Understand now?
Don't know where to begin with your patronising rubbish.
I can't decide for you, but probably the best place to start would be to stop feeding my patronising with so many terrible arguments.
This can be taken either literally, or figuratively if the threat is to something not directly tangible.
I introduced the term, as a means of distinguishing a group that is an existential threat, from a group that is not.
If your counter-arugment to that really is that one group is a literal existential threat, but that's not that big a deal because this other group is a figurative existential threat, then I guess that's up to you. It's a bit funny though.
You will find cooperation between manufacturers. For a start you get price fixing. Also cooperation doesn't eliminate competition, healthy competition is often good in a marketplace as it drives the market forwards.
Obviously. This is the dynamic discussed in the prisoner's gang, where everyone would benefit if they co-operated, but individuals benefit if they compete. It's quite fascinating and you really should read up on it.
But to return to the actual point at discussion - you claimed that cartels aren't just profit seeking, because they compete with each other, when cartels as a whole would profit most by collusion. This shows a complete failure to understand how individual groups can be incentivized to compete.
Also last time I checked Fords and General Motors are killing each other for regional control. Drug cartels do that.
If we were discussing whether major car manufacturers or criminal gangs are more violent, then your comment above would mean something. But as we are just talking about competition and collusion, your comment above is really very weird.
One safehouse in Mexico was found filled with $250M in dollar bills, because the Sinaloa didnt know what else to do with it!
And now your evidence that cartels aren't profit seeking is that they make so much money that they don't know what to do with it.
And yes, cartels are also about power. Just like companies will often expand to a size much bigger than an optimum return on shareholder investment would justify, just because senior executives like empire building. This doesn't mean the organisation seeks to be a profit seeking organisation, it just shows you have a very limited understanding of what a profit seeking organisation is.
Sorry Sebster but welcome to reality. Aerial bombing and submarine campaigns were only kept off the war crimes trials after 1945 because it would be blatantly hypocritical for the allies to put people on trial for that. We did it so it therefore had to be legal.
This isn't even a response. It's just a repeat of the same broken premise.
So you aren't saying that Filipinos are too ignorant to make decisions for themselves, they just don't have a rational review because a large proportion hasn't finished high school.
Just a play on words.
Nope, you're lying again. Those aren't my words, and the only way you could conclude that is a summary of what I said is by being a liar.
So, either say "I understand sebster's position is that no electorate can sensibly be expected to have rationally reviewed all government policy when casting their vote, and this is especially true when education levels are low".... or being a fething liar.
You don't know what I know, who I know, where I go, what I read. Yet you still make these claims, and on the back of them make dismissive statements, as its easier than to try to articulate counter arguments.
I know what you've posted here. Your background is irrelevant, when the arguments you present are ignorant then that is what it is.
And you have delusions of possessing psycho-analytical skill also. You dont know me.
You don't know what psycho-analysis is. Because I didn't do any. I just made a conclusion on your politics, based on your political arguments. That doesn't require psycho-analysis.
Orlanth wrote: You really have missed the point. Even with the large restructuring the Taliban will *still* return as soon as it is safe to do so.
I said your argument was like 80s action movie logic, kill the baddie and problem solved. You said that the US army followed 80s action movie logic, because that's all they try to do. I pointed out that was a ridiculous comment, because they've invested a fortune in trying to rebuild the country.
Whether or not that program succeeds or fails, it shows the intent of the US armed services as something way different to 'kill the baddie and move on'. This makes your earlier argument completely wrong.
Understand now?
How to put this, a band aid over a bullet wound.
Yes I do understand the situation, in fact I saw it coming, as did many others.. I know Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and know the UK armed forces understood it too and far enough in advance to also see the outcome.. Which is why the emphasis was on low key security, and why initially at least the Uk forces were far better received than the US forces. Though the heavy handedness eventually lumped all the coalition armies under one label.
Now the US approach was so heavily in favour of 'kill the bad guys' that and infrastructure support was futile.
Don't know where to begin with your patronising rubbish.
I can't decide for you, but probably the best place to start would be to stop feeding my patronising with so many terrible arguments.
Well at least you are forced to accept there that you are being intentionally patronising. My points aren't insane you just disagree with them, and have only a different opinion, not an inherently superior one on account of being Sebster. Come off your high horse.
Also last time I checked Fords and General Motors are killing each other for regional control. Drug cartels do that.
If we were discussing whether major car manufacturers or criminal gangs are more violent, then your comment above would mean something. But as we are just talking about competition and collusion, your comment above is really very weird..
You chose the analogy, and insisted they were comperable. I was taking your 'logic' to its natural conclusion.
But to return to the actual point at discussion - you claimed that cartels aren't just profit seeking, because they compete with each other, when cartels as a whole would profit most by collusion. .
But your critique here only makes sense if that was *all* they cared about. The reality is that the major cartels have more money than they can spend, and while greed will encourage them to aquire more, they hacve pased beyond the pioint of usable excess and the primary motive for cintinuency and expansion is due to the incumbent power they have. So it order to make a point you try to misinterpret mine to mean that caretls are disinterested by profit, immediately after trying a different interpretation for another point.
You display a complete lack of intellectual integrity when you repeatedly and rapidly flip between mutually exclusive assumptions of opposed comments in order to manufacture cheap and fallacious arguments.
And yes, cartels are also about power. Just like companies will often expand to a size much bigger than an optimum return on shareholder investment would justify, just because senior executives like empire building. This doesn't mean the organisation seeks to be a profit seeking organisation, it just shows you have a very limited understanding of what a profit seeking organisation is.
Blah blah, very limited understanding that the other. You are making cheap shots and not in any way backing them up. If I was this rude to you I would have had a thread ban by now.
Sorry Sebster but welcome to reality. Aerial bombing and submarine campaigns were only kept off the war crimes trials after 1945 because it would be blatantly hypocritical for the allies to put people on trial for that. We did it so it therefore had to be legal.
This isn't even a response. It's just a repeat of the same broken premise.
Why is the premise broken? Evidently only because you cant formulate a counter to it?
Its HARD REALITY, baxckecup historical fact. Nothing broken about the presmise because the realities can be seen in well observered events. There were moves to add aerial bombing and submarine warfare to the list of charges as crimes against humanity, but thisd was dropped because it would be too blatantly hypocritical to only censure germany and Japan over those actions. Legality therefore was based the identity of those deemed culpable rather than the offences committed.
We even have a phrase to describe the process - Victors Justice.
So you aren't saying that Filipinos are too ignorant to make decisions for themselves, they just don't have a rational review because a large proportion hasn't finished high school.
Just a play on words.
Nope, you're lying again. Those aren't my words, and the only way you could conclude that is a summary of what I said is by being a liar.
It must be embarrassing for you to be caught out like this. [i[I directly quoted you.[/i] If you want to whitewash it all away why don't you quietly edit your posts before calling me a liar. You made the education level of Filipinos directly relevant to their ability to vote rationally. Which is at best arrogant and frankly downright bigoted.
Now you can throw your rattles out of the pram and call me a liar as much as you like, it doesnt help your case.
Now a better educated electorate is always a plus, but no nation has ever had an enlightened plebiscite, but average voters can understand plain issues like drug violence, especially if they are living in the country with the problem, and can listen to their leaders and vote based on the policies presented to them.
I know what you've posted here. Your background is irrelevant, when the arguments you present are ignorant then that is what it is.
Evidently you have a poor grounding with which to accuse anyone else of ignorance.
Your just being a parrot here - "you have no idea what X is" being your persistent squark, even when I demonstrate and articulate at least an equal or better understanding of the topics than yourself.
Come up with an honest argument, and argue the topic, not the person, like an adult should.
And you have delusions of possessing psycho-analytical skill also. You dont know me.
You don't know what psycho-analysis is. Because I didn't do any. I just made a conclusion on your politics, based on your political arguments. That doesn't require psycho-analysis.
You edited away the reason for the reply. You have made repeated insinuations about my mental health.
It was fair reply to say that you have no moral right, reason or evidence to make such suggestions.
Sebster, we used to have good topical arguments you and I. Why dont we call truce and return to that. If you agree you get one free reply in current format.
Vaktathi wrote: The fact that numerous people in this thread are apparently not merely ok with, but seem to actively support, on demand extra judicial murder of people arbitrarily deemed "bad" simply for being involved at any level with a subset arbitrarily chosen intoxicating substances, has dramatically reduced the level of respect I had for the members of this board.
The mental gymnastics going on here is mind boggling, and an excellent view into how quickly people willingly embrace murderous regimes.
There is no actual moral difference between what the Filipino government is doing and other western governments. Extreme action is commonplace, Obama authorises assassinations and drone strikes with regularity, often violating international borders to do so. Nobody here complains at that, because the targets are *OUR* enemies.
If you are a peacenik condemining all violence then you would have a point, Dakka usually isn't flush with those, and most here are fairly hawkish about bombing the usual suspects. Filipinos are currently content with their presidents decision to rid the nation of its endemic drug crime problem, it may well be brutal, but it offers results; in this is is little different from the extra judicial killings our own society condones, endorses and actions. If they are content what business is it of ours. By what right to we say that we as 'civilised' nations have the right to bomb who we please to defend our interests, and play that reach globally, while others cannot deal with what is to them as serious a threat from within their own borders.
Filthy socialist peacenik here. I condemn the use of drone strikes not really because of the fact they are employed, but the more because of manner in which they are used. The current M.O. is to drop munitions, then declare every dead male over 15 and under 60 a terrorist. That's absurd, and no way to conduct a "just war".
The key difference between western drone strikes and the filipino death squads is the deliberate targeting of what basically amounts to civilian bystanders. You seem to be celebrating the execution of the "bad guys", the cartel members, but they could only make up a small portion of the killings. The large part has to be the user.
You have put yourself in the position where you are cheerleading for a guy who calls for his countrymen to round up and murder people who's only crime is to be addicted to drugs. Was that your intention when you opened this can of worms with your first post?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: What if he disagrees? Why does he only get one reply? Why do you get to decide this?
Read carefully. I cant tear a piece back in reply, and then call a truce without allowing fair right of reply.
If he refuses the discussion continues as it has done.
Not implying he cant post what he wants anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jmurph wrote: I think it is an attempt to quell what is becoming an impasse. The same two posters posting the same arguments back and forth is pretty pointless.
You have put yourself in the position where you are cheerleading for a guy who calls for his countrymen to round up and murder people who's only crime is to be addicted to drugs. Was that your intention when you opened this can of worms with your first post?
My first post had a different tone. Along the lines of why the specific level of complaint when our governments do as much with less concern.
Also the sort of people who are wagging fingers are doing the drone strikes you dont like, Obama for instance.
The Philippines is in a dire situation, the drug problem is getting worse and worse, and their new government has been given an mandate to govern on the grounds of doing something about it.
Governments from time to time find that extreme action is the only solution to a problem. A justifiable declaration of war is a good example of this. Sometimes a threat grows to the point that rational men believe that bombing shooting or invading it, is th only solution. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes they are right.
the Filipino people have overall placed their trust in someone who has promised such action. Had Dutente suddenly come up with a 'mad plan' to slaughter everyone he disliked, I would not be backing him. But it isn't a 'mad plan', its entirely premeditated and based on electoral promises that the populace had every opportunity to oppose in a democratic election. This is the kernel of the issue, it is an internal matter and the Filipino people have decided that the risks of the heavy handed action against drugs are worthwhile overall. As with any form of action of this sort, tragedy is inevitable, but tragedy is already long present. The Filipino people have of their own accord decided that the only way out is through. Stopping the campaign now, when the price is being paid but the goal is not yet achieved would be a colossal waste, and a violation of the will of a self governing and sovereign people to make their own solutions to their own problems.
You have put yourself in the position where you are cheerleading for a guy who calls for his countrymen to round up and murder people who's only crime is to be addicted to drugs. Was that your intention when you opened this can of worms with your first post?
My first post had a different tone. Along the lines of why the specific level of complaint when our governments do as much with less concern.
Also the sort of people who are wagging fingers are doing the drone strikes you dont like, Obama for instance.
The Philippines is in a dire situation, the drug problem is getting worse and worse, and their new government has been given an mandate to govern on the grounds of doing something about it.
Governments from time to time find that extreme action is the only solution to a problem. A justifiable declaration of war is a good example of this. Sometimes a threat grows to the point that rational men believe that bombing shooting or invading it, is th only solution. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes they are right.
the Filipino people have overall placed their trust in someone who has promised such action. Had Dutente suddenly come up with a 'mad plan' to slaughter everyone he disliked, I would not be backing him. But it isn't a 'mad plan', its entirely premeditated and based on electoral promises that the populace had every opportunity to oppose in a democratic election. This is the kernel of the issue, it is an internal matter and the Filipino people have decided that the risks of the heavy handed action against drugs are worthwhile overall. As with any form of action of this sort, tragedy is inevitable, but tragedy is already long present. The Filipino people have of their own accord decided that the only way out is through. Stopping the campaign now, when the price is being paid but the goal is not yet achieved would be a colossal waste, and a violation of the will of a self governing and sovereign people to make their own solutions to their own problems.
The answer, Feeder, is yes. Tough times demand tough answers from tough guys, and Orlanth knows them when he sees them.
I am still waiting for his response to me not approving of US drone strikes, which kind of makes his whole argument pointless.
Very well, but I need not have replied to you, but I will as you are 'waiting'. It doesn't matter if you do or don't approve of drone strikes. It makes no difference to my argument a jot, as I need not find an absolute vacuum of contrary opinion for the premise to remain, and I need not give a rodents rectum what any individuals beliefs are. You sound your own, and I will sound mine.
I really don't even know how to enter into the conversation on this thread, so I'm just going to speak my mind on this horrible situation. On the surface, there's an elected official advocating open mass slaughter of the citizenry. This, simply, is the stuff of hell. Beneath that, is the apparent need...and want...for desperate measures to address a desperate situation. If mass murder is the only perceivable solution, God help us all.
I'll simply say that murder, state sponsored or otherwise, is murder and unacceptable, always. It is unacceptable in a civilized world and indefensible as an act by humans. Drug abuse is but a symptom and indicator of a larger problem and should be addressed accordingly. A bullet to the back of a human being's head is not, and can never be, acceptable as a means to solving the problem because it does nothing to address the core problem.
I truly can't believe this gak is even real and happening.
I am still waiting for his response to me not approving of US drone strikes, which kind of makes his whole argument pointless.
Very well, but I need not have replied to you, but I will as you are 'waiting'. It doesn't matter if you do or don't approve of drone strikes. It makes no difference to my argument a jot, as I need not find an absolute vacuum of contrary opinion for the premise to remain, and I need not give a rodents rectum what any individuals beliefs are. You sound your own, and I will sound mine.
No, you need to change your argument then. You accused me of supporting drone strikes and in turn supporting behaviour such as this. I do not. Neither do other posters.
What is going on in the Phillipines is not legal and not right in any way. Full stop. Your lack of knowledge about addiction and the difficulties involved is glaringly obvious. Because advocating for the extra judicial murder of citizens by authorities as well as other citizens is no way to solve a problem. What you are calling for is genocide and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.
Is genocide the right term for this? For that, I usually think of ethnic cleansing or race wars. About the only voluntarily associated group I'd extend the term to are religions.
Should drug users and drug dealers be considered enough of a group to qualify for genocide?
I'm not certain how they're identifying or why they're targeting drug users at this point. Admittedly they did at some point choose to engage in illegal activities, but with all of the loaded rhetoric coming out of the Phillipines about the evil of the 'pushers' it seems their fury is mostly directed at the dealers as the source of corruption.
Gitzbitah wrote: Is genocide the right term for this? For that, I usually think of ethnic cleansing or race wars. About the only voluntarily associated group I'd extend the term to are religions.
Should drug users and drug dealers be considered enough of a group to qualify for genocide?
I'm not certain how they're identifying or why they're targeting drug users at this point. Admittedly they did at some point choose to engage in illegal activities, but with all of the loaded rhetoric coming out of the Phillipines about the evil of the 'pushers' it seems their fury is mostly directed at the dealers as the source of corruption.
When you have government death squads roaming the country with an open license from the leader and the belief they are "Angels of Mercy", then exact terminology is kind of beside the point. It's a disgraceful clusterfeth is what it is.
Gitzbitah wrote: Is genocide the right term for this? For that, I usually think of ethnic cleansing or race wars. About the only voluntarily associated group I'd extend the term to are religions.
Should drug users and drug dealers be considered enough of a group to qualify for genocide?
I'm not certain how they're identifying or why they're targeting drug users at this point. Admittedly they did at some point choose to engage in illegal activities, but with all of the loaded rhetoric coming out of the Phillipines about the evil of the 'pushers' it seems their fury is mostly directed at the dealers as the source of corruption.
When you have government death squads roaming the country with an open license from the leader and the belief they are "Angels of Mercy", then exact terminology is kind of beside the point. It's a disgraceful clusterfeth is what it is.
If you have a rival or enemy.
Just claim or plant some drugs, and kill em. Its legal .....
I am still waiting for his response to me not approving of US drone strikes, which kind of makes his whole argument pointless.
Very well, but I need not have replied to you, but I will as you are 'waiting'. It doesn't matter if you do or don't approve of drone strikes. It makes no difference to my argument a jot, as I need not find an absolute vacuum of contrary opinion for the premise to remain, and I need not give a rodents rectum what any individuals beliefs are. You sound your own, and I will sound mine.
No, you need to change your argument then. You accused me of supporting drone strikes and in turn supporting behaviour such as this. I do not. Neither do other posters.
No I did not make any reference to your opinions. I commented on the general lack of condemnation of si8milar actions like drone strikes. The fasct that you dont like them is not relvant, you were exactly standing up about it either.
Your lack of knowledge about addiction and the difficulties involved is glaringly obvious..
Is it? I recognise that drug addicts don't just come off drugs, there needs to be a very strong incentive, and in the cases stick outperforms carrot. Drug addicts are encouraged to 'surrender'. If they do they are forced off drugs.
I am not pretending that isn't nasty, but the Filipino people have decided that a tough approach is better for their society in the long term. They may well be right, they have a chance to live in a future without this problem, or at least drugs problems along the scale they currently suffer for.
Because advocating for the extra judicial murder of citizens by authorities as well as other citizens is no way to solve a problem. What you are calling for is genocide and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.
1. Its not genocide.
2. Those who surrender, including drug pushers avoid further action.
3. Sometimes a hard policy but with a fair opt out is better than the half hearted approaches used elsewhere.
4. The Filipino people are calling down the fire on themselves under their own mandate.
5. More lives might be saved in the long run by removing the problem.
6. Remember again the motive is to force an unconditional surrender of the narcotics community, not the death of citizens. Which instead is the threat to force the surrender.
We must face the facts, the narcotics infrastructure devastates society, the Filipinos know this and want a way out. Rehab is only marginally effective even when vast sums are invested in it. the US which has a far lerger budget to deal with these issues has largely failed. The Philippines considers it is time to try another way.
Besides the vast majority of those at risk are surrendering, this places them under protection.
4. The Filipino people are calling down the fire on themselves under their own mandate.
The idea that drug addiction can only be stopped by murder is generally idiotic but it particularly strikes me that the Filipinos getting murdered are perhaps not 100% the ones who voted for Duterte.
4. The Filipino people are calling down the fire on themselves under their own mandate.
The idea that drug addiction can only be stopped by murder is generally idiotic but it particularly strikes me that the Filipinos getting murdered are perhaps not 100% the ones who voted for Duterte.
Pffft, next you'll be telling me it wasn't the Jews, communists, gypsies and disabled peopled who voted for Hitler [/sarcasm]
4. The Filipino people are calling down the fire on themselves under their own mandate.
The idea that drug addiction can only be stopped by murder is generally idiotic but it particularly strikes me that the Filipinos getting murdered are perhaps not 100% the ones who voted for Duterte.
And how do you its not motivated by revenge, greed or many other reasons to kill.
Well, it is genocide. You are cleansing a cultural and national group. Unless we stopped referring to it as drug culture.
Do you really consider it a fair opt out when the fair part is you get to keep your life? That doesnt seem fair really. In fact, that sort of thing seems illegal. Last I checked, murder isn't exactly legal.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, it is genocide. You are cleansing a cultural and national group. Unless we stopped referring to it as drug culture.
Do you really consider it a fair opt out when the fair part is you get to keep your life? That doesnt seem fair really. In fact, that sort of thing seems illegal. Last I checked, murder isn't exactly legal.
And those who are guilty of nothing but the bad luck of being in the wrong place at wrong moment. There's no proof, no trial, no evidence, just a killers say so.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, it is genocide. You are cleansing a cultural and national group. Unless we stopped referring to it as drug culture.
Do you really consider it a fair opt out when the fair part is you get to keep your life? That doesnt seem fair really. In fact, that sort of thing seems illegal. Last I checked, murder isn't exactly legal.
And those who are guilty of nothing but the bad luck of being in the wrong place at wrong moment. There's no proof, no trial, no evidence, just a killers say so.
Such as the 5 year old girl who was shot in the head when gunmen entered her home.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, it is genocide. You are cleansing a cultural and national group. Unless we stopped referring to it as drug culture.
Do you really consider it a fair opt out when the fair part is you get to keep your life? That doesnt seem fair really. In fact, that sort of thing seems illegal. Last I checked, murder isn't exactly legal.
And those who are guilty of nothing but the bad luck of being in the wrong place at wrong moment. There's no proof, no trial, no evidence, just a killers say so.
Such as the 5 year old girl who was shot in the head during a raid.
Philippines raid?
Not seen of that sad news story.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, it is genocide. You are cleansing a cultural and national group. Unless we stopped referring to it as drug culture.
Do you really consider it a fair opt out when the fair part is you get to keep your life? That doesnt seem fair really. In fact, that sort of thing seems illegal. Last I checked, murder isn't exactly legal.
And those who are guilty of nothing but the bad luck of being in the wrong place at wrong moment. There's no proof, no trial, no evidence, just a killers say so.
Such as the 5 year old girl who was shot in the head during a raid.
Philippines raid? Not seen of that sad news story.
Well her grandfather was brought in for questioning as he was suspected of being a drug dealer based on a tip-off (family says he has never been involved in drugs, he used to drive a rickshaw but stopped after having a stroke apparently). He's released and then three days later some guys bust in and start shooting. Don't know whether it is the police or what at this point and, considering it happened in August, I doubt we will.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, it is genocide. You are cleansing a cultural and national group. Unless we stopped referring to it as drug culture.
Do you really consider it a fair opt out when the fair part is you get to keep your life? That doesnt seem fair really. In fact, that sort of thing seems illegal. Last I checked, murder isn't exactly legal.
And those who are guilty of nothing but the bad luck of being in the wrong place at wrong moment. There's no proof, no trial, no evidence, just a killers say so.
Such as the 5 year old girl who was shot in the head during a raid.
Philippines raid?
Not seen of that sad news story.
Well her grandfather was brought in for questioning as he was suspected of being a drug dealer based on a tip-off (family says he has never been involved in drugs, he used to drive a rickshaw but stopped after having a stroke apparently). He's released and then three days later some guys bust in and start shooting. Don't know whether it is the police or what at this point and, considering it happened in August, I doubt we will.
Ok, so he taken by police, no charged then a bunch of vigilantes go in gun him down and his granddaughter..
Yeah, people ar using this as a excuse to settle scores it seems.
Orlanth wrote: Yes I do understand the situation, in fact I saw it coming, as did many others.. I know Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and know the UK armed forces understood it too and far enough in advance to also see the outcome.. Which is why the emphasis was on low key security, and why initially at least the Uk forces were far better received than the US forces. Though the heavy handedness eventually lumped all the coalition armies under one label.
That’s an interesting and reasonable little aside, but it still involves you walking back on your claim that the US military is all about killing the bad guys, to one in which you now argue that focus on the bad guys too much.
And it’s also very strange that you’re now arguing that the US in Afghanistan and Iraq was too heavy handed and that had negative consequences, but here in this thread you’re arguing in favour of extra-judicial death squads.
Well at least you are forced to accept there that you are being intentionally patronising.
I never said it was intentional. I have just accepted that is how it is coming across.
My points aren't insane you just disagree with them, and have only a different opinion, not an inherently superior one on account of being Sebster. Come off your high horse.
No, you are not giving an insane argument just because it is different from mine. The argument is insane because you are arguing in favour of extra-judicial death squads. I think you need to worry less about any high horse I might be on, and worry more about getting yourself out of the gutter.
You chose the analogy, and insisted they were comperable. I was taking your 'logic' to its natural conclusion.
That isn’t how analogies work. You know this, and don’t pretend otherwise. If I was to say that a new truck was as big as an elephant, that is a comparison of one element between the two. It would make no sense and you make a person sound very foolish to say that ‘that analogy doesn’t work because the truck doesn’t have legs’.
Cartels and car manufacturers are both profit seeking organisations, who compete at times and collude at others. Neither group of organisations stop being seen as profit seeking because they compete and thereby make less money than if they colluded all the time. That is the argument you made, and it was terrible.
Even you somehow worked out that I was saying - cartels are not entirely motivated by profit seeking
Now that you’ve retreated back to that statement, it has become less wrong but meaningless. No organisation anywhere is 100% profit seeking, this does not stop them being understood and seen as profit seeking.
Why is the premise broken? Evidently only because you cant formulate a counter to it?
No, I already countered your argument that people have gotten away with war crimes in the past. I explained to you that simply because someone gets away with something doesn’t stop it being illegal, or being immoral. You responded by repeating your claim that crimes in the past were not punished.
It must be embarrassing for you to be caught out like this. [i[I directly quoted you.[/i]
No, you didn’t. Stop lying.
If you want to whitewash it all away why don't you quietly edit your posts before calling me a liar.
What edit? Stop lying.
You made the education level of Filipinos directly relevant to their ability to vote rationally. Which is at best arrogant and frankly downright bigoted.
No, you are lying, it is fething shameless. I said that no country can be assumed to have an electorate that is so rational and well informed that we can assume their democratic decisions are good choices. This becomes a greater issue where education is lower. It’s a pretty simple and obvious position, to put it in your own words…
“Now a better educated electorate is always a plus, but no nation has ever had an enlightened plebiscite”
Now stop fething lying about the simple and obvious thing I said.
but average voters can understand plain issues like drug violence
They can see the problem, but understanding what most effectively controls that problem is very difficult to assess, even for people who work in the field. So the argument that an electorate voted for a solution therefore that solution must be necessary and effectives is a terrible argument.
Evidently you have a poor grounding with which to accuse anyone else of ignorance.
Your just being a parrot here - "you have no idea what X is" being your persistent squark, even when I demonstrate and articulate at least an equal or better understanding of the topics than yourself.
Come up with an honest argument, and argue the topic, not the person, like an adult should.
Wow. You asked a terrible question that tried to link the creation of corruption in the Philippines to the cartels. I pointed out that corruption in that country was around long before cartels, it is a long documented feature of governance of that country. I then said that if you’re ignorant of this you should stop commenting on the issue. You complained this was an ad hominem, I pointed out that it was a comment on what you actually knew on the subject. And then you responded with that.
You edited away the reason for the reply. You have made repeated insinuations about my mental health.
My points aren't insane you just disagree with them, and have only a different opinion, not an inherently superior one on account of being Sebster. Come off your high horse.
No, you are not giving an insane argument just because it is different from mine. The argument is insane because you are arguing in favour of extra-judicial death squads. I think you need to worry less about any high horse I might be on, and worry more about getting yourself out of the gutter.
I am not in favour of death squads. I am in favour of the surrender of the narcotics infrastructure, that is the goal. However the goal however requires a large stick to back it up, amnd the Filipino people have chosen to back someone who is willing to perform extreme action to achieve this goal.
Other methods of dealing with cartel infrastructure beyond violence have failed, utterly. You are insisting that the Filipino people must adhere to failed methods and face larger losses and more tragedy than the current program is causing, because the methods of ending it dont meet your approval. Due to the cartel infrastructure and drugs culture large scale loss of life is ongoing and unending, the Filipino want it to end, not to be perpetuated and are willing as a sovereign people to instill policies burn out the problem.
sebster wrote: .
Wow. You asked a terrible question that tried to link the creation of corruption in the Philippines to the cartels. I pointed out that corruption in that country was around long before cartels, it is a long documented feature of governance of that country. I then said that if you’re ignorant of this you should stop commenting on the issue. You complained this was an ad hominem, I pointed out that it was a comment on what you actually knew on the subject. And then you responded with that.
The Philippines is a developing country, not particularly well off in terms of natural resources, and was under occupation in living memory. It is evident that the society is not going to be settled. however other nations without a cartel problem can overcome corruption, in so much as corruption can be overcome in any nation. However the presence of the cartels eliminates the possibility of reducing corruption, as they cement it in place.
The Philippines cannot move forward until the problem is burned away, drug cartels dont pack up business by being asked nicely.
I am not in favour of death squads. I am in favour of the surrender of the narcotics infrastructure, that is the goal. However the goal however requires a large stick to back it up, amnd the Filipino people have chosen to back someone who is willing to perform extreme action to achieve this goal.
Other methods of dealing with cartel infrastructure beyond violence have failed, utterly. You are insisting that the Filipino people must adhere to failed methods and face larger losses and more tragedy than the current program is causing, because the methods of ending it dont meet your approval. Due to the cartel infrastructure and drugs culture large scale loss of life is ongoing and unending, the Filipino want it to end, not to be perpetuated and are willing as a sovereign people to instill policies burn out the problem..
So they choose yet another proven failure method like slaughtering people you don't like. That has NEVER worked in history of human kind. Actually it just makes things work. Good game!
If you aren't happy with old methods why not try something NEW rather than OLD that not only FAILS but is also INHUMAN? Those supporting this are throwing away their right to call themselves humans.
I am not in favour of death squads. I am in favour of the surrender of the narcotics infrastructure, that is the goal. However the goal however requires a large stick to back it up, amnd the Filipino people have chosen to back someone who is willing to perform extreme action to achieve this goal.
Other methods of dealing with cartel infrastructure beyond violence have failed, utterly. You are insisting that the Filipino people must adhere to failed methods and face larger losses and more tragedy than the current program is causing, because the methods of ending it dont meet your approval. Due to the cartel infrastructure and drugs culture large scale loss of life is ongoing and unending, the Filipino want it to end, not to be perpetuated and are willing as a sovereign people to instill policies burn out the problem..
So they choose yet another proven failure method like slaughtering people you don't like. That has NEVER worked in history of human kind. Actually it just makes things work. Good game!
If you aren't happy with old methods why not try something NEW rather than OLD that not only FAILS but is also INHUMAN? Those supporting this are throwing away their right to call themselves humans.
Sovereign states make these sorts of decision frequently, and I am not talking about extreme 'regimes'. Our 'civilised' government just label what they do in another way. Oh and yes slaughtering people does work, it was how Europe was freed etc. Besides the purpose here is NOT to slaughter, but to force 'surrender'. If slaughter was the goal it would not have the backing it has got from the Filipino people.
Other methods of dealing with cartel infrastructure beyond violence have failed, utterly. You are insisting that the Filipino people must adhere to failed methods and face larger losses and more tragedy than the current program is causing, because the methods of ending it dont meet your approval. Due to the cartel infrastructure and drugs culture large scale loss of life is ongoing and unending, the Filipino want it to end, not to be perpetuated and are willing as a sovereign people to instill policies burn out the problem.
Seems to me that there is a lot more to the corruption in the Philippines than the cartels and that killing people however and whenever is a terrible idea. You think notions of who uses and sells drugs are racially neutral? There is a huge god damned leap between saying that more direct and drastic measures are needed to combat the cartels and officially sanctioning death squads.
Orlanth wrote: I am not in favour of death squads. I am in favour of the surrender of the narcotics infrastructure, that is the goal. However the goal however requires a large stick to back it up, amnd the Filipino people have chosen to back someone who is willing to perform extreme action to achieve this goal.
Yes, and that extreme action is the use of extra-judicial death squads. So your argument boils down to not being favour of death squads, but being in favour of things you believe will be achieved by the use of death squads. This is the same fething thing.
The Philippines is a developing country, not particularly well off in terms of natural resources, and was under occupation in living memory.
Actually the Philippines has pretty reasonable natural resources. It's one of the biggest producers of nickel in the world, and there's good supplies of copper and gold. The issue, like in many countries, is that natural resources don't actually translate in to social wealth when the population is under-skilled and government institutions are badly lacking.
However the presence of the cartels eliminates the possibility of reducing corruption, as they cement it in place.
The Philippines cannot move forward until the problem is burned away, drug cartels dont pack up business by being asked nicely.
These simplistic, hard lines you take are really very telling.
Anyhow, all that is kind of a bit dull by now, I'm really interested in the claims you made that I was abusing your mental health, then sneaking in to edit my comments to something different. Is that really a thing you believe? If so, what led to such a conclusion?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Sovereign states make these sorts of decision frequently, and I am not talking about extreme 'regimes'. Our 'civilised' government just label what they do in another way. Oh and yes slaughtering people does work, it was how Europe was freed etc. Besides the purpose here is NOT to slaughter, but to force 'surrender'. If slaughter was the goal it would not have the backing it has got from the Filipino people.
This argument reminds me of the Simpsons, when Bart and Lisa are passive aggressive fighting. Bart starts kicking as he walks, saying "I'm just going to walk around like this and if you get in the way". Lisa starts whirling her arms around "I'm just going to do this and if get in the way".
In this case it's "We're just going to allow death squads to kill any drug traders or addicts that don't surrender, and so if you don't surrender it's your fault, not ours".
Orlanth wrote: I am not in favour of death squads. I am in favour of the surrender of the narcotics infrastructure, that is the goal. However the goal however requires a large stick to back it up, amnd the Filipino people have chosen to back someone who is willing to perform extreme action to achieve this goal.
Yes, and that extreme action is the use of extra-judicial death squads. So your argument boils down to not being favour of death squads, but being in favour of things you believe will be achieved by the use of death squads. This is the same fething thing.
The emphasis is on forcing surrender, and from what we are seeing that is working.
However the presence of the cartels eliminates the possibility of reducing corruption, as they cement it in place.
The Philippines cannot move forward until the problem is burned away, drug cartels dont pack up business by being asked nicely.
These simplistic, hard lines you take are really very telling.
Sometimes the problem is obvious, but the solution is not.
Dutente beleives he had an answer. he explained his solution to the electorate. The Filipino people voted Dutente in in a democratic mandate and have since endorsed the policy as it is being carried out. They understand will well there has been collateral and innocent lives lost, but that was happening anyway.
Who are you to tell them they cannot fight their way out of their problem. Who are you to say that a sovereign government acting on a clear mandate cannot take the action that the people believe can remove this major curse. The poltical will is present to make good of this tragedy, and yes its a tragedy, nobody denies that, but the Filipino people have decided that not acting, or the usual methods don't work, and is worse.
In this case it's "We're just going to allow death squads to kill any drug traders or addicts that don't surrender, and so if you don't surrender it's your fault, not ours".
Basically this. Starve the narcotics industry of its customer base, and destroy narcotics infrastructure. SAVE LIVES in the longer term. REDUCE VIOLENCE in the longer term.
Drug addiction is powerful but can be countered by force of shock. Crystal meth is the major drug being encountered, which is nasty stuff. Fear of death will be about the only reliable means to get people off it on a large scale.
You need a scalpel to save the patient.
Drug addiction is powerful but can be countered by force of shock. Crystal meth is the major drug being encountered, which is nasty stuff. Fear of death will be about the only reliable means to get people off it on a large scale.
You need a scalpel to save the patient.
Isn't the problem with drug addiction that, in severe cases, it's so powerful as to drive people to murder and prostitution to get their fix? I'm really not sure the additional threat of death can do much in those scenarios.
And I'm reminded of that one Bond villain who also compared some of his favorite dictators to "surgeons, cutting off society's rotting flesh". Comparing people (drug addicts here) to a malign tumour or necrosis...
People who use meth are usually at a nadir in their lives anyway and risk death every time they use and certainly from use over time. Healthy successful people with something to lose are generally not the people who start using meth in the first place.
The idea that you can shock people out of drug use with lethal force is, quite frankly, absurd, and has been proven so by every major crackdown on drugs ever. The Chinese killed untold tens of thousands of Opium addicts over many decades, and Amercian nations like Mexico and Columbia certainly havent been able to stamp out their drug problems by killing suppliers and users, nothing changed demand until social changes came about to reduce the perceived need. Meth use is similar, a symptom of larger social problems.
Solve those and you solve the meth problem. Killing drug users and sellers is just playing whackamole with peoples lives in a fruitless but bloody tantrum that avoids confronting the real issues and drives the industry to greater violence and deeper underground. That has been proven many times in the real world.
Drug addiction is powerful but can be countered by force of shock. Crystal meth is the major drug being encountered, which is nasty stuff. Fear of death will be about the only reliable means to get people off it on a large scale.
You need a scalpel to save the patient.
Sources on that?
I would really like to see where you came across that knowledge.
Dutente beleives he had an answer. he explained his solution to the electorate. The Filipino people voted Dutente in in a democratic mandate and have since endorsed the policy as it is being carried out. They understand will well there has been collateral and innocent lives lost, but that was happening anyway.
There is a lot more going on than that. For starters, the Philippines have been ruled by long lines of self-serving incompetent wonks who do stuff like hijack aid shipments to catastrophe-afflicted areas so they can print out stickers with their names on them and put on the packages to fish for votes. Duterte doesn't do that because he's a genuine right-wing strongman. The Philippines also has a long history of getting screwed over by the US, to the point that even though Filipinos are more pro-American than Americans they know that when Duterte talks gak about the US he is correct. The tradition of opposition to China is a US-mandated policy and has so far lost the Philippines an island and a lot of money through import bans in China with no compensation on the part of the US to make up for being a puppet.
There is no cold, hard, factual defence of death squads hunting down anyone they think uses drugs. It's an insane leap of logic to go there. You just really like the thought. That's all there is to it.
Solve those and you solve the meth problem. Killing drug users and sellers is just playing whackamole with peoples lives in a fruitless but bloody tantrum that avoids confronting the real issues and drives the industry to greater violence and deeper underground. That has been proven many times in the real world.
It is a real world solution. Yes addiction is powerful but the fear doesnt need to result in death, it can result in surrender. Surrendering is surrendering, geting registered and monitored and having the ability to take drugs taken away.
People need to open their eyes and look at the issue clearly.
lets look at the hysterical arguements:
1. "Oh my God government death squads!"
Actually the death squads have been there for decades, and run by the cartels and there is no control or restraint involved. What the government is doing is nothing like that and the term death squads is mostly a press and political exaggeration.
By empowering the people the actual death squad culture is diminished.
What Duterte has done is enabled and empowered the people to resist the cartels.
The result is fewer 'death squads' not more.
2. "Violence doesnt work."
Yes it does, or the cartels themselves would not have survived. Their main tool are fear bourne by their extreme violence. Dutente has revitalised a long practiced and worable solution to this: Frontier justice.
What is frontier justice? Frontier justice is a popular enabling and empowering in order to allow the citizenry to resist and deter large scale crime. It works where a broad unity can ber established to knit together the resultant armed populace.
there are numerous examples of this working in history. I will concentrate on one example.
If you look at what Dutente is doing its similar to the 'wild west'. The Old West in the 19th century, used frontier justice frequently. in fact there is a strong connexion between how Dutentes police/vigilante networking operates and the orginal US Marshals service. What is a posse if not a death squad? And while some Us marshals were more interested in arrest than summary execution both methods were used, often with popular support.
It is in a way odd that the US government is strongly condemning these policies even though they closely mirror a period of history their own culture has iconised for a very long time. Frontier justice cannot persist forever, but then it need not, it only needs to persist long enough for a peaceful unity of the people, without threat of large scale organised crime, then replaced with ever more ordered stages of society.
Yes before anyone goes off on one, Dutente and movie westerns should not be confused, and havent been. there are many other parallels, this is just one that is easy to draw open to make a clear example.
3. "This is inhumane and brutal."
When the problem is burned out the Filipino people can afford to be nice. Currently they cant. Brutality is the language of the cartel and that language is spoken on anywhere except the most affluent and well protected neighbourhoods. Compard to the populace the cartels are a tiny minority wielding extreme power, power wielded through fear. That is the inhumanity, that is the true brutality. Duterte has outsourced justice and empowered the people so instead of the multitude being afraid of the cartels the cartels can be afraid of the armed multitude. It is a workable solution. Whether it will work here is yet to be seen, but it can work and is the best chance the Filipino people have had to forge a better future in living memory.
4. "What about the tear inducing stories."
What of them? Yes innocents will die, they do anyway. Yes people will use the new status quo to mislabel opponents and settle scores. In a cartel infested society this happens anyway. If the problem is burned away there can be a future without such tragedies on a large scale.
It is a real world solution. Yes addiction is powerful but the fear doesnt need to result in death, it can result in surrender. Surrendering is surrendering, geting registered and monitored and having the ability to take drugs taken away.
People need to open their eyes and look at the issue clearly.
You appear to equate 'opening eyes' and 'seeing the issue clearly' with 'agreeing with Orlanth's view of the world'. As well as rule out the possibility of people understanding everything you are saying, yet still thinking your views are bat-gak crazy.
I fall into the latter right now. You really do seem to think this can be solved like an eighties action movie.
Dutente beleives he had an answer. he explained his solution to the electorate. The Filipino people voted Dutente in in a democratic mandate and have since endorsed the policy as it is being carried out. They understand will well there has been collateral and innocent lives lost, but that was happening anyway.
There is a lot more going on than that. For starters, the Philippines have been ruled by long lines of self-serving incompetent wonks who do stuff like hijack aid shipments to catastrophe-afflicted areas so they can print out stickers with their names on them and put on the packages to fish for votes. Duterte doesn't do that because he's a genuine right-wing strongman. The Philippines also has a long history of getting screwed over by the US, to the point that even though Filipinos are more pro-American than Americans they know that when Duterte talks gak about the US he is correct. The tradition of opposition to China is a US-mandated policy and has so far lost the Philippines an island and a lot of money through import bans in China with no compensation on the part of the US to make up for being a puppet.
China and Russia both are welcoming the switch in Filipino ties. Moscow is probably a better choice of partner than Beijing, Beijing itself wants things the Filipinos don't want to give.
There is no cold, hard, factual defence of death squads hunting down anyone they think uses drugs. It's an insane leap of logic to go there. You just really like the thought. That's all there is to it.
I haven't tried to contest this, it is definitely happening but is likely mushroomed in the press as Dutente makes for a great boogey man right now. Dutente did make an apoplogy to Jerws over the hitler remarks, which is fair enough but hasnt otherwise backed down, as the more balls-on-the-line serious he appears the more the people will take his policy seriously. It takes some guts for those in the villages and suburbs to trust Dutente to come through if you rise up against the cartels, he has shown every indication he is serious.
The comments of I will kill all three million drug users like Hitler is smarter than it sounds. Its not at all like the rhetoric of Mugabe or another wierd dictator. Dutente knows he must go the extra mile to assure those who he wants to stop living in fear of the cartels and make the cartels instead live in fear. In this he is successful.
It is a real world solution. Yes addiction is powerful but the fear doesnt need to result in death, it can result in surrender. Surrendering is surrendering, geting registered and monitored and having the ability to take drugs taken away.
People need to open their eyes and look at the issue clearly.
You appear to equate 'opening eyes' and 'seeing the issue clearly' with 'agreeing with Orlanth's view of the world'. As well as rule out the possibility of people understanding everything you are saying, yet still thinking your views are bat-gak crazy.
I fall into the latter right now. You really do seem to think this can be solved like an eighties action movie.
I am not the only one, even on Dakka.
I am not ruling out the possibility of an alternate point of view. But it isn't bat-gak-crazy.
And what is all this crap about 80's movies, that is a cheap shot.. I have given example and weighting to my comments, articulating them thoroughly. You don't have to agree with the reasoning to at least have the decency to admit that the reasoning has been made. 80's movies means having a fight without a plot, you cant ever label that against me. I explain all my opinions, hence why my political posts are often longer than a sentence or two.
Most of the critique leveled against my arguments is based on press hysteria. Even when pointed out that the whole threat to drug users was in order to force surrender, not to kill them people still talk about death squads as if the Phillipines wasn't already rife with them anyway.
What of them? Yes innocents will die, they do anyway. Yes people will use the new status quo to mislabel opponents and settle scores. In a cartel infested society this happens anyway. If the problem is burned away there can be a future without such tragedies on a large scale.
This is a VERY easy thing to say when you have not held your wife's hand as she dies. If you have not had to wash the blood off the floor, trying to see through the tears. I sincerely hope you never have to endure that.
Solve those and you solve the meth problem. Killing drug users and sellers is just playing whackamole with peoples lives in a fruitless but bloody tantrum that avoids confronting the real issues and drives the industry to greater violence and deeper underground. That has been proven many times in the real world.
It is a real world solution. Yes addiction is powerful but the fear doesnt need to result in death, it can result in surrender. Surrendering is surrendering, geting registered and monitored and having the ability to take drugs taken away.
And yet, given existing historical examples, this has never once been proven true...quite the opposite.
Did mass executions by the tens of thousands solve the Opium problems in China? No. Did death squads or military execution units solve the problems in Columbia, Nicaragua, or Mexico? No. I cannot think of a single example where violence solved a drug problem, despite such having been tried many times in the past. Hell, in Mexico, those death squads ended up just taking over cartel operations themselves and dramatically escalating the violence.
This is not a hypothesis in need of testing, this is a discredited theory with a long history of damning contrary evidence.
People need to open their eyes and look at the issue clearly.
...really?
lets look at the hysterical arguements:
Yes, we'll label the mass murder by uncontrolled government elements of the civilian population "hysterics".
1. "Oh my God government death squads!"
Actually the death squads have been there for decades, and run by the cartels and there is no control or restraint involved. What the government is doing is nothing like that and the term death squads is mostly a press and political exaggeration.
By empowering the people the actual death squad culture is diminished.
What Duterte has done is enabled and empowered the people to resist the cartels.
The result is fewer 'death squads' not more.
What universe do you live in? Where on earth has this actually worked in the manner you are describing, and not just resulted in larger body counts, particularly body counts largely constituted by innocents?
Your "theory" here has been tried, again and again, in many countries in many different time periods. It's neither novel nor new, and has failed every time. I can't come up with a single example of it actually solving anything. Why anyone thinks it will do anything but rachet up the bodycount is beyond me...
2. "Violence doesnt work."
Yes it does, or the cartels themselves would not have survived. Their main tool are fear bourne by their extreme violence.
If you cant see the difference between a dealer knocking off competition or a snitch, and police just killing anyone they want as long as they can implicate drugs in some way, I dont know what to say.
Other nations seems to eventually resolve these issues without having to abandon their duties, laws, and responsibilities to engage in mass murder...
Dutente has revitalised a long practiced and worable solution to this: Frontier justice.
What is frontier justice? Frontier justice is a popular enabling and empowering in order to allow the citizenry to resist and deter large scale crime. It works where a broad unity can ber established to knit together the resultant armed populace.
there are numerous examples of this working in history. I will concentrate on one example.
If you look at what Dutente is doing its similar to the 'wild west'. The Old West in the 19th century, used frontier justice frequently. in fact there is a strong connexion between how Dutentes police/vigilante networking operates and the orginal US Marshals service. What is a posse if not a death squad? And while some Us marshals were more interested in arrest than summary execution both methods were used, often with popular support.
"Frontier Justice" is an overblown myth of the US West, largely perpetuated for dramatic effect and wannabe macho headcannon of "better times", with a dramatically lower occurrence and bodycount than is typically portrayed. It's mostly a fiction. Did some things happen? Yes. Were they commonplace or on anything near the scale ocurring in the Philippines? No. Was the West anywhere near as wild as its often portrayed? No. What eventually calmed what wild there was in the west? Economic development, not violence.
3. "This is inhumane and brutal."
When the problem is burned out the Filipino people can afford to be nice. Currently they cant. Brutality is the language of the cartel and that language is spoken on anywhere except the most affluent and well protected neighbourhoods. Compard to the populace the cartels are a tiny minority wielding extreme power, power wielded through fear. That is the inhumanity, that is the true brutality. Duterte has outsourced justice and empowered the people so instead of the multitude being afraid of the cartels the cartels can be afraid of the armed multitude. It is a workable solution. Whether it will work here is yet to be seen, but it can work and is the best chance the Filipino people have had to forge a better future in living memory.
You're assuming that only cartel members are being targeted here, and not casual harmless users or basically anyone a policeman or goverment official takes a disliking to, which very much appears to be the case. We're not talking a state vs state military engagement here, we are talking about a state engaging in the massacre of its own people. In such a case, fighting raw brutality with brutality works when you're willing to extirpate populations, and generally nothing short of that. Given that anything short is simply pointless slaughter, and taking it to such a conclusion in this case is getting into genocide and mass slaughter, I am astonished that anyone is seriously advocating for this.
Again...yeah, the Philippines has problems. Plenty of other nations manage to eventuay solve those without mass slaughter...
4. "What about the tear inducing stories."
What of them? Yes innocents will die, they do anyway. Yes people will use the new status quo to mislabel opponents and settle scores. In a cartel infested society this happens anyway. If the problem is burned away there can be a future without such tragedies on a large scale.
This is not an argument I made, but regardless, that one is willing to advocate to shed innocent lives on a mass scale and acknowledge their humanity juat to discard it on a whim as just the cost of the police doing business is both disgusting and infuriating, particularly when the dead in such events are mostly innocents and government action of this kind just escalates the bodycount and has never been shown to reduce it.
Every single one of these arguments could be, and has been, erroneously used to commit mass murder and great social harm. This is all straight out of the Franco/Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pot playbook, line for line, and that people still think it'll have some positive effect is the definition of insanity.
At this point, does anyone think Dutente is ever going to willingly leave office?
TL;DR
This approach has been tried many times and has never proven successful, and has in almost all instances simply made things worse, and often played into dictatorial power seizures. Other nations have worked through these issues without resorting to mass murder. Why anyone thinks it'll work in this instance is beyond puzzling.
On that note, I'm done with this particular thread. I need a drink.
I am not ruling out the possibility of an alternate point of view. But it isn't bat-gak-crazy.
And what is all this crap about 80's movies, that is a cheap shot.. I have given example and weighting to my comments, articulating them thoroughly. You don't have to agree with the reasoning to at least have the decency to admit that the reasoning has been made. 80's movies means having a fight without a plot, you cant ever label that against me. I explain all my opinions, hence why my political posts are often longer than a sentence or two.
By 80's movies, I'm referring to this bizare idea that somehow excessive violence from sanctioned Government hit squads which operate outside the law courts and due process will somehow result in all wrongs being righted, and everyone skipping off into the distance to a happy and productive future. I mean, seriously, just to take your prior post
By empowering the people the actual death squad culture is diminished.
What Duterte has done is enabled and empowered the people to resist the cartels.
The result is fewer 'death squads' not more.
The 'people' haven't been empowered. The only ones empowered are those with the ability to commit extrajudicial killings with no consequence. Your average citizen hasn't been 'empowered', he's just been made a potential target for two factions instead of one in any negative circumstances.
In the best case scenario, one of the factions will kill and replace the other. Just because one of those factions (the government) will cheer them on if they weigh in against the other (the drug pushers), doesn't rectify that. The fact remains that there are now two groups dragging people away in the night and gunning them down in the street.You proceed to say that:-
When the problem is burned out the Filipino people can afford to be nice.
but what will happen is that the drug pushers will be eliminated, and they'll have been replaced by governmental execution squads capable of eliminating any dissent in a far more focused way with a clear political imperative.The Filipino 'people' do not win in this scenario. The execution squads won't simply dissolve into the backdrop of a Vegas club scene for retirement surrounded by beautiful ladies to leave the country to forge a brave new future (like an eighties film). The kind of people you recruit to string people up en masse illegally don't tend to be what you'd call 'good guys'. This:-
Yes innocents will die, they do anyway. Yes people will use the new status quo to mislabel opponents and settle scores. In a cartel infested society this happens anyway. If the problem is burned away there can be a future without such tragedies on a large scale.
is just so much speculatory optimistic hogwash. In real life, mass murders of tens of thousands of people don't leave you with a happy party at the closing credits, with all the remaining celebrating citizens quaffing champagne and revelling in their newly acquired freedom.What they leave you with is hundreds of thousands of people whose relatives you just murdered looking for revenge, a large number of well-organised morally deficit execution squads trained to eliminate any dissent, and someone in power whose learnt that opposition can be eliminated by force with no restraint that's suddenly risking a personal future filled with prosecutions and a vengeful populace. If you honestly look at that and see a happy positive ending, you really, really, really look at it like an eighties film; where excessive violence by hard-as-nails yet heart-of-gold fellas with the good of the people at heart kill all the baddies before fading into a backdrop of a happy ending.
What of them? Yes innocents will die, they do anyway. Yes people will use the new status quo to mislabel opponents and settle scores. In a cartel infested society this happens anyway. If the problem is burned away there can be a future without such tragedies on a large scale.
This is a VERY easy thing to say when you have not held your wife's hand as she dies. If you have not had to wash the blood off the floor, trying to see through the tears. I sincerely hope you never have to endure that.
Yes it is. But I have no magick wand to wave to dispel away crime. human tragedy will continue no matter what we do or not do. Large scale societal ills can be cured, contained or dispensed with with varying degree of success and yet with side effects.
People die because they are hit by police cars and ambulances answering emergency calls. Their deaths could be avoided if said ambulance drove slower, but should they? Human tragedy doesn't eliminate the dilemmas society faces, and individual calamities are not indusive to the whole. I wont sugar coat that out of sentiment.
Did mass executions by the tens of thousands solve the Opium problems in China?
Not a good comparison. China may have held mass executions, Dutente is avoiding that. Base your critique on the facts not the hysteria.
Dutente has made some very strong language and as expected the drug addicts are surrendering, a number of the drugs abusers are also surrendering. Most of the rest are running.
No. Did death squads or military execution units solve the problems in Columbia, Nicaragua, or Mexico?
Yes they do. its how the Zeta contested a quarter of the nation from other cartels in a short space of time.
Also you didnt mention Belize. It worked in Belize, not death squads per se, but Belize does have Gurkhas running around its jungles. Cartels learned quickly not to feth with them. Why is this, because they have the best singalongs or knitting bees?
Dutentes methods are to instil fear, not death, as with the Gurkhas. Yes something can be scary enough even to stop cartels.
No. I cannot think of a single example where violence solved a drug problem, despite such having been tried many times in the past.
I can. The KGB had a handle on it. Part of the reason things went vary badly when Yeltsin took over was because Russia was virgin territory for organised crime and suddenly left without strong internal security. Yes there was organised crime in the soviet Union, it happens everywhere, but it was comparatively low key.
there, one example, there are several more, and not just counting different communist countires either.
Hell, in Mexico, those death squads ended up just taking over cartel operations themselves and dramatically escalating the violence.
This is not a hypothesis in need of testing, this is a discredited theory with a long history of damning contrary evidence.
You are making up conclusions without looking for evidence, never a good sign.
A successful example was given to you, and a methodology in separation to a KGB style security police was also given to you in the form of frontier justice.
People need to open their eyes and look at the issue clearly.
...really?
lets look at the hysterical arguements:
Yes, we'll label the mass murder by uncontrolled government elements of the civilian population "hysterics".
We are seeing mass surrender, that is a defacto fact as vast numbers have been forced onto the rehabilitation programs associated with surrendered drug users and street level sellers.
Your "theory" here has been tried, again and again, in many countries in many different time periods. It's neither novel nor new, and has failed every time. I can't come up with a single example of it actually solving anything. Why anyone thinks it will do anything but rachet up the bodycount is beyond me...
You are making conclusions based on unfactual evidence backed up by an assumption without basis that there has been no successful application of the ;'theory' as you put it, despite presented researchable evidence to the contrary.
Other nations seems to eventually resolve these issues without having to abandon their duties, laws, and responsibilities to engage in mass murder...
Actually they dont. Even the US with all its might has failed. However frontier justice, that does work.
Also three facts before you repeat the mass murder hysteria message.
- Dutente made the scare message you are latching onto to get drug users to take the warning seriously which is working.
- The mass murder is already long ongoing due to the cartel violence, not armed empowered populace are no longer playing the forgotten victim.
- The hard fact is that the majority of those who are potential targets are surrendering and are thus protected.
"Frontier Justice" is an overblown myth of the US West, largely perpetuated for dramatic effect and wannabe macho headcannon of "better times", with a dramatically lower occurrence and bodycount than is typically portrayed. It's mostly a fiction.
I don't disagree with this statement with regards to the Old West, which is why caveats were given. Alternate less well known examples could be given, The British and other european powers colonial administrations used this strategy successfully in Africa.
it also worked in post colonial Africa.
Did some things happen? Yes. Were they commonplace or on anything near the scale occurring in the Philippines? No. Was the West anywhere near as wild as its often portrayed? No.
However it did occur and did work. Gangs did rise and flourish and fall apart because an armed empowered citizenry made them fail. The analogy did at that level hold. This is why its a valid example. Now the Old West didn't have a major drug cartel problem, most forms of narcotics were legal at that time and there was no equivalent to a drugs industry. Gang might was a problem but it was a small scale problem, however the analogy follows because frontier justice works at a local level. Its not the government taking on the local drug gangs but the government empowering the local people to take up arms and oppose the drug gangs. From a local point of view there isn't too much difference between a drugs cartel local death squad and a small isolated band of bandits, they are a broadly comperable threat that can be opposed the same way.
What eventually calmed what wild there was in the west? Economic development, not violence.
Actually this required hardmen to work with the corporations. Violence was a major part of the successful economic development, especially the railroads. Once infrastructure was established things changed.
Again...yeah, the Philippines has problems. Plenty of other nations manage to eventualy solve those without mass slaughter...
again the hysteria message to counteract a lack of facts.
Spelling it out for you.
- Mass murder is already ongoing, cartels do it. Dutente is stopping the mass murder, not starting it.
- The goal is to force mass surrender, not mass deaths, its even working.
- The secondary goal is to empower the populace so that they don't have to live in fear of the cartels, but the cartels must fear the consequences of brutalising the people.
The Philippines doesnt have the time or patience to wait decades for an alternate solution. There might not be an alternate solution, and any solution would have to be economic, which cant happen if the infrastructure is saturated.
This is not an argument I made, but regardless, that one is willing to advocate to shed innocent lives on a mass scale and acknowledge their humanity juat to discard it on a whim as just the cost of the police doing business is both disgusting and infuriating, particularly when the dead in such events are mostly innocents and government action of this kind just escalates the bodycount and has never been shown to reduce it.
Not willing to shed those lives, just willing to acknowledge that collateral is an ugly reality that occurs whenever force is used on a large scale.
You can be disgusted and infuriated by the comments. Go ahead. I too could share disgust, but I would share it with those, who from the safety of armchairs thousands of miles away would condemn the Philippines to remain suffering under an unending tide of drugs violence, mass killings cartels, infiltration at will into civic society. All because the needed solution to rid the nation of those evils did not meet the approval of some people on the internet. Who the feth are you to get in their way?
Last year who here or in the press was calling out for action against the mass killings gojng on perpetuated by cartels. It wasnt news in the west, partly because its commonplace year in year out and also because its just brown people dying, to criminals.
The Filipino people, have on their own accord, backed a democratically elected leader, not a dictator as the hysterics would say, and openly and continually endorsed a plan intended to rid the Philippines of cartel influence. This plan is intended to work by forcing organised crime underground and to the fringe (it is an unrealistic goal to eliminate drugs completely), starving the narcotics industry of much of its functionality by forcingly rehabilitating drug users and most of all destroying the fear infrastructure by making it dangerous for drug cartels to brutalise local populations if said local populations are encouraged and empowered to resist and fight back.
Not you, not me, but the people on the ground, the people suffering in the Philippines, the people who see this problem and live with it every day. They are asking for help and large numbers are backing Dutente here.. Its ally in the US did very little, and largely didn't give a feth when people died even in large numbers. But when someone finally does do something, now the White House is raising its arms in condemnation.
This is all straight out of the Franco/Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pot playbook, line for line, and that people still think it'll have some positive effect is the definition of insanity.
Is it? Did you actually try to look at the issues before you posted that hysterica nonsense. Actually frontier justice was supported by several US administrations, it was one of the benefits of the right to bear arms to be included in the US constitution. An armed empowered populace is a safeguard against centralised tyranny. Also none of the above you mentioned, wanted independent arming of the populace, as they realised it gives the populace independence from centralised government.. So despite your soundbyte it is THE EXACT OPPOSITE IN FACT to what Franco, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot actually did.
And the insanity accusation rears its ugly head again, from yet another person who will not think things through.
This approach has been tried many times and has never proven successful, and has in almost all instances simply made things worse, and often played into dictatorial power seizures. Other nations have worked through these issues without resorting to mass murder. Why anyone thinks it'll work in this instance is beyond puzzling.
Your conclusion is baseless, you make absolute statements why something would never work and ignore that you are completely wrong because it has in fact doen so on several occassions. You can stop now.
I am not ruling out the possibility of an alternate point of view. But it isn't bat-gak-crazy.
And what is all this crap about 80's movies, that is a cheap shot.. I have given example and weighting to my comments, articulating them thoroughly. You don't have to agree with the reasoning to at least have the decency to admit that the reasoning has been made. 80's movies means having a fight without a plot, you cant ever label that against me. I explain all my opinions, hence why my political posts are often longer than a sentence or two.
By 80's movies, I'm referring to this bizare idea that somehow excessive violence from sanctioned Government hit squads which operate outside the law courts and due process will somehow result in all wrongs being righted, and everyone skipping off into the distance to a happy and productive future. I mean, seriously, just to take your prior post
Ok you can stop that right now. This is politics and I understand politics well enough and articulate it clearly enough so that it is not excusable to accuse me of seeing a 100% successful outcome, to anything.
A. If you are trolling then you are trolling. I expect that from Sebster, not from you.
B. If you actually do think that I am assuming that there are zero side efects to this policy and that it will mean everyone being happy riding off into the sunset or equivalent. Then where the feth is your evidence for it. I am not tal;king about evidence you agree with, just evidence that I dont think things through, that I don't see several outcomes or look at several perspectives. My posts are thorough enough, you know this.
The 'people' haven't been empowered. The only ones empowered are those with the ability to commit extrajudicial killings with no consequence. Your average citizen hasn't been 'empowered', he's just been made a potential target for two factions instead of one in any negative circumstances.
The Filipino 'people' do not win in this scenario. The execution squads won't simply dissolve into the backdrop of a Vegas club scene for retirement surrounded by beautiful ladies to leave the country to forge a brave new future (like an eighties film)..
Ok. First I dont think about this like an eighties film, you just either cant understand that or didnt be bothers to read well enough to recognise that. That isn't my fault.
Secondly this is an empowerment of the people, look at the policy. But it's in it's very early stages, so opportunists are trying their hand - the populace will both take longer to empower and will be more restrained, and the press are only really reporting the tragedies as they make the best headlines.
It is not a case of Dutente arming alternate criminals, that has already happened, its popular empowerment, so eventually the populace gets the empowerment. The 'execution squads' as you think of them (and yet you are calling me out for seeing this like an 80's movie, the hypocrisy) would have to face an empowered populace.
is just so much speculatory optimistic hogwash. In real life, mass murders of tens of thousands of people don't leave you with a happy party at the closing credits,......
Still waiting for you to base your commentary on anything other than press hysteria.
You have jumped up in outrage at press articles without thinking through what is happening.
So, I dont think I will bother with the rest.
Sheesh, and to think that YOU are calling ME out on mental health grounds. Yet I am being rational and analytical here.
Orlanth wrote: The emphasis is on forcing surrender, and from what we are seeing that is working.
Whatever Duterte may choose to emphasize, the thousands murdered by extra-judicial mobs are the single stand out result.
Dutente beleives he had an answer. he explained his solution to the electorate. The Filipino people voted Dutente in in a democratic mandate and have since endorsed the policy as it is being carried out. They understand will well there has been collateral and innocent lives lost, but that was happening anyway.
His name is Duterte, not Dutente. I know you've complained about me being mean to you for not actually knowing anything about this, but there are reasons. You keep claiming you have real knowledge and insight in to the culture and politics of the Philippines, but you don't even know the name of the country's leader, a guy we've been arguing about for 9 pages.
And anyway, you've just gone back to repeating that same ridiculous argument again that Duterte won the election therefore anything goes. Democracy does not give the winner open slather, it is not the rule of the mob. Successful democracy is tempered by process and the rule of law.
Who are you to tell them they cannot fight their way out of their problem.
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens.
Basically this. Starve the narcotics industry of its customer base, and destroy narcotics infrastructure. SAVE LIVES in the longer term. REDUCE VIOLENCE in the longer term.
This is the argument Robespierre made too.
Murder now, happy society later is a really fethed up thing, and it never works.
Orlanth wrote: The emphasis is on forcing surrender, and from what we are seeing that is working.
Whatever Duterte may choose to emphasize, the thousands murdered by extra-judicial mobs are the single stand out result..
The single stand out results are the 700,000 and counting who have surrendered. That hasn't happened before. The smaller number of people who died, that was happening anyway, because it's what the cartels do.
His name is Duterte, not Dutente. I know you've complained about me being mean to you for not actually knowing anything about this, but there are reasons. You keep claiming you have real knowledge and insight in to the culture and politics of the Philippines, but you don't even know the name of the country's leader, a guy we've been arguing about for 9 pages..
I had it right earlier, and am posting late at night. It's not a name I am familiar with yet. You misspelled Philippines earlier, just after I misspelled Guzman, I didn't call you out. Because it would be cheap to do so.
And anyway, you've just gone back to repeating that same ridiculous argument again that Duterte won the election therefore anything goes.
No that isn't the aguement, and you are being dishonest if you say it is. Duterte explained to the electorate what his policy would be and as mayor he already done something very similar. He won a popular mandate with account to that. So its not a case of 'anything goes', which would imply that Duterte could make up policy as he goes along.
Basically this. Starve the narcotics industry of its customer base, and destroy narcotics infrastructure. SAVE LIVES in the longer term. REDUCE VIOLENCE in the longer term.
This is the argument Robespierre made too.
Robespierre is not comparable, he was a revolutionary directly appointed to a committee (to which he did not at the time volunteer) charged with internal security of a revolutionary state by any means. Duterte is a democratically elected politician with a legal term of office and mandate.
Duterte is interested in dealing with crime in a nation with its own sovereign parliament, Robespierre was interested in dealing with any form of dissent by a revolutionary government that had outlawed any opposed position.
Murder now, happy society later is a really fethed up thing, and it never works.
Force surrender of entrenched armed opposition now, happier society later is a more plausible goal.
Besides a brutal but cautioned response to brutality has worked several times in history. Just taking the broad geographical region, Malaysia in the 50's comes to mind immediately, as it stopped a communist guerilla campaign, same in Borneo.
This is brutal but cautioned as there is a way out - surrender.
Besides this is already working, and again - it wouldn't be the first time. But why let facts get in the way of a good handwave, you can just say 'it never works', without bothering to find out if you are right or not, and its like 'lalala not listening'.
I am not saying Duterte will succeed, he may, he may not. but there is plausibility to the plan he is working on. Its neither as dumb or random as some people assume.
Orlanth wrote: The single stand out results are the 700,000 and counting who have surrendered. That hasn't happened before. The smaller number of people who died, that was happening anyway, because it's what the cartels do.
You treat murder as an accounting function, if x people are murdered by the state, and E(x) was equal then nothing bad has happened. You are ignoring the basic risks to the state from government sanctioning murder.
And that's before we even consider that your assumption that as many people would have been killed by the cartels is based in nothing but casual speculation.
I had it right earlier, and am posting late at night. It's not a name I am familiar with yet. You misspelled Philippines earlier, just after I misspelled Guzman, I didn't call you out. Because it would be cheap to do so.
You've spent time in this thread lecturing me that you know so much about the country and it's problems, but now you admit that you're not even very familiar with name of its president.
No that isn't the aguement, and you are being dishonest if you say it is. Duterte explained to the electorate what his policy would be and as mayor he already done something very similar. He won a popular mandate with account to that. So its not a case of 'anything goes', which would imply that Duterte could make up policy as he goes along.
That's a ridiculous reading of what I said. Anything goes is a reference to the abandonment of legal process, which should have been clear if you'd just read what I said. Instead you chop it up in to little quotes, argue each sentence and sentence fragment in isolation of the context given by the complete statement, and the result is, well, the utter nonsense we've been doing for about four pages now.
So the US is not a democracy then? Drone victims dont get due process.
Sorry, that doesn't follow.
You are trying to make the argument that ignoring due process in one democracy means it is okay for every other democracy to ignore due process. This is ridiculous.
And you continue to ignore the difference between operations outside of the US, and operations within the borders of the Philippines.
Robespierre is not comparable, he was a revolutionary directly appointed to a committee (to which he did not at the time volunteer) charged with internal security of a revolutionary state by any means. Duterte is a democratically elected politician with a legal term of office and mandate.
Yes, Robespierre had a new state in a state of high flux. If anything his position is at least somewhat sympathetic, though his response is almost universally regarded as utterly barbaric and totally self-defeating. Duterte doesn't even have the defence of a state in a high state of flux.
Meanwhile, once again you've managed to deliberately miss the argument. Whatever a person's end goal, deciding to murder everyone who stands in the way of that end goal, actually makes that person the evil dude.
Force surrender of entrenched armed opposition now, happier society later is a more plausible goal.
And the forced surrender happens... by murdering a lot of people.
I am not saying Duterte will succeed, he may, he may not. but there is plausibility to the plan he is working on. Its neither as dumb or random as some people assume.
And I am saying it is extremely unlikely he will succeed, because you cannot murder your way out of a drug problem. It is a social failing. And then on top of that there's an even stronger point, that even if his methods did succeed it wouldn't justify state sanctioned murder. There is nothing as powerful as the state, it holds almost complete power over the lives of anyone who lives there. Allowing the state to murder people inside its own borders is obviously incredibly dangerous, and I am amazed that you have so blithely ignored the risk.
The single stand out results are the 700,000 and counting who have surrendered. That hasn't happened before. The smaller number of people who died, that was happening anyway, because it's what the cartels do. .
How many of those 700k people actually used or sold drugs? Are people suspected of drug offences who hand themselves into the police despite being completely innocent included in that figure?
Orlanth wrote: The single stand out results are the 700,000 and counting who have surrendered. That hasn't happened before. The smaller number of people who died, that was happening anyway, because it's what the cartels do.
You treat murder as an accounting function, if x people are murdered by the state, and E(x) was equal then nothing bad has happened. You are ignoring the basic risks to the state from government sanctioning murder.
We don't call our extraijudicial killings 'murder'. It isn't even a new policy over there, or haven't you realised this. All Duterte is doing is increasing the numbers of drug gang members being summarily shot by police, it was already happening. They even called it a drugs war. In their eyes it isn't 'murder' any more than those who get killed by drones.
And that's before we even consider that your assumption that as many people would have been killed by the cartels is based in nothing but casual speculation..
Admittedly true, but they do have some crime data and know it is heavy and ongoing. So speculation that the trend would continue is not 'casual speculation'.
I had it right earlier, and am posting late at night. It's not a name I am familiar with yet. You misspelled Philippines earlier, just after I misspelled Guzman, I didn't call you out. Because it would be cheap to do so.
You've spent time in this thread lecturing me that you know so much about the country and it's problems, but now you admit that you're not even very familiar with name of its president.
He is rather new, and its a letter error not a miss-attribution to someone else.
At least I can spell the country. What does it say about you if we apply your own logic to yourself. The Philippines have been around a lot longer than Duterte. Also it was late at night when I wrote this, but you had to take your cheap shot.
You are grasping.
That's a ridiculous reading of what I said. Anything goes is a reference to the abandonment of legal process, which should have been clear if you'd just read what I said.
What abandonment? You imply that using the police to gun down drug gang members is somehow new in the Philippines. Its inherent and ongoing. Try and understand something of the situation before you post please. You are spouting random speculation out of ignorance.
Instead you chop it up in to little quotes, argue each sentence and sentence fragment in isolation of the context given by the complete statement, and the result is, well, the utter nonsense we've been doing for about four pages now.
This is called analysis, but I don't look at it in isolation, but with reference to the situation on the ground as from what I can read of it. You should try doing the same.
So the US is not a democracy then? Drone victims dont get due process.
Sorry, that doesn't follow.
You are trying to make the argument that ignoring due process in one democracy means it is okay for every other democracy to ignore due process. This is ridiculous.
No I am arguing a reply to your earlier comment, if you didn't remove your comment from the quote you wouldn't haver any excuse to try and make up a new inference that you can critique easier than what was actually implied. Not falling for that.
Yes, Robespierre had a new state in a state of high flux. If anything his position is at least somewhat sympathetic, though his response is almost universally regarded as utterly barbaric and totally self-defeating. Duterte doesn't even have the defence of a state in a high state of flux.
Duterte doesnt have the need to eliminate rivals. He is instead upping the stakes in an ongoing drugs war. Still a democracy over there and Duterte's critics are loud enough in parliament. He may or many not try to suspend democracy, if he does my opinion of him will change. However I will not assume this of him, unlike others who insist it has already happened.
Meanwhile, once again you've managed to deliberately miss the argument. Whatever a person's end goal, deciding to murder everyone who stands in the way of that end goal, actually makes that person the evil dude.
I understand, you evidently dont. The goal is not to 'murder everyone who stands in the way' or Duterte would not be forcing surrender as his primary goal. There would be no point in that. You keep avoiding the facts because facts get in the way of your preferred point of view.
Force surrender of entrenched armed opposition now, happier society later is a more plausible goal.
And the forced surrender happens... by murdering a lot of people.
Case in point. Are police extra-judical killings in a country with a continuous history of extra-judicial killings in a drugs war 'murder'. To them it is not, and they are the law practicing the law in an internal matter.
If Filipino cops shot someone outside the Philippines thern you could definitely say murder. Even then what the Filipino government is doing is not different to what other governments do, and it is not in their cases called murder.
Your terminology is loaded.
Not only is it loaded it is inaccurate. Forced surrender happens by the threat of killing. The killings are ongoing and predate the new policy and current administration as part of the Philippines war on drugs. Then add tom that the further dynamic of empowerment of the populace to resist the cartels.
And I am saying it is extremely unlikely he will succeed, because you cannot murder your way out of a drug problem. It is a social failing.
It worked for the Soviets. So you are definitively incorrect there.
Social failing it is though, and above a certain scale cartels saturate the infrastructure and it is destructive to society. The Us has enough money and resources to prevent that happening. Central American countries dont and thus suffer appallingly for it. The Philippines is in the same position and wants out. They either take a tried and tested hardline approach (Duterte is trying this, and has backing from Russia and China, so he has the tools to succeed), or a tried and tested have a multi-trillion dollar GDP approach (nice if they could have that), or continue with guaranteed perpetuated large scale human misery (your preferred option).
And then on top of that there's an even stronger point, that even if his methods did succeed it wouldn't justify state sanctioned murder.
First in your ignorance, even after all these pages, you haven't realised that the extra-judiical killings are ongoing, not new. Second state sanction killing occur in a lot of places without the effects you can predict. Israel will likely survive, and the US and Uk still keep their democracies.
There is nothing as powerful as the state, it holds almost complete power over the lives of anyone who lives there. Allowing the state to murder people inside its own borders is obviously incredibly dangerous, and I am amazed that you have so blithely ignored the risk.
You utterly fail to comprehend what was explained earlier plainly. By empowering the populace to make armed resistance to drugs infrastructure you inherently empower them against centralised control.
You are so set upon the 'state sanction murder buzzwords, because they look your arguments appear cool and heady without looking at what is actually happening. Do yourself as favour, think for yourself, rise above the press hysteria message of mods and death gangs etc and rad between the lines. see what is actually going on behind the rhetoric of both Duterte and his opponents.
Can you imagine that the Filipino people would say yes to random death squads causing large scale mass-murder with tens-of-thousands dead? - Here lumping together collage of the wild eyed hysteria and exaggeration posted by both yourself and others over the last few pages. It would be like Jews voting in the Holocaust. Give your brain a chance, read beyond the headline grabbing lines and read the articles. See how long this has been ongoing, who is being mobilised and how, what is being said, in the Philippines by whom and on what.
Remember that the people voted for this man because of what he said he would do, and has done previously as mayor, and Duterte maintains a level of popular support that would be anomalous if he had suddenly gone off the rails and not being working to a plan.
Ask yourself why vast numbers of people would surrender, if they believed surrender was a shortcut to later death camps.
The single stand out results are the 700,000 and counting who have surrendered. That hasn't happened before. The smaller number of people who died, that was happening anyway, because it's what the cartels do. .
How many of those 700k people actually used or sold drugs? Are people suspected of drug offences who hand themselves into the police despite being completely innocent included in that figure?
We dont know. I could see the possibility that innocent law abiding citizens get accused of being drug pushers so that rivals could harm them, and surrender to the police before harm occurs.
Part of the tragedy is that as with any armed conflict collateral happens. Some collateral is intentionally targeted, especially in civic unrest. This is endemic in cartel violence infest areas anyway. It is part of the inevitable symptoms of a long diseased nation state.
Drug users are the primary targets for surrender anyway, and they are easy to identify. The main problem we are seeing in reports is that so many are surrendering it is overloading the support services treating drug addiction.
Just speculation here but China could easily provide the medical muscle to help with this, and is motivated to bind stronger ties. Especially as US support is fading.
Ok you can stop that right now. This is politics and I understand politics well enough and articulate it clearly enough so that it is not excusable to accuse me of seeing a 100% successful outcome, to anything...If you actually do think that I am assuming that there are zero side efects to this policy and that it will mean everyone being happy riding off into the sunset or equivalent. Then where the feth is your evidence for it. I am not tal;king about evidence you agree with, just evidence that I dont think things through, that I don't see several outcomes or look at several perspectives. My posts are thorough enough, you know this.
That's funny, because that was the picture you were busy drawing. That's why I quoted your prior post to that effect. The one where you said things like 'If the problem is burned away there can be a future without such tragedies on a large scale' or 'When the problem is burned out the Filipino people can afford to be nice.'
Statements like these imply that the problem will be solved. Finished. Completed. Job's a good 'un. That any future problems will be unrelated to these ones (having been 'burned away' and all), and what problems are around will be far smaller in scale/scope. The statements also imply that the future will be bright/positive.
If these are not the themes you are intending to communicate, you may wish to rephrase.
The 'people' haven't been empowered. The only ones empowered are those with the ability to commit extrajudicial killings with no consequence. Your average citizen hasn't been 'empowered', he's just been made a potential target for two factions instead of one in any negative circumstances.
Evidence please.
Errr.....the fact that your average citizen is now at risk from being gunned down by both the cartels and the police? Our hypothetical citizen was previously only vulnerable to extrajudicial murder as a result of extortion/manipulation/mistaken identity/etc from one faction; namely the cartels. Now they risk those things at the hands of the police (and potentially other citizens) as well. Evidence isn't really necessary, it's the core facts of the scenario being discussed. It's like asking me for proof that 2 exists in 2+2=4.
Stop you there, based on what evidence.
Well, presumably, the worst case scenario would be the continued existence of both factions able to commit extrajudicial killings? I'm assuming you'd agree with that, considering you're arguing for the elimination of one of the factions with extreme violence. So...the best case scenario is the continued existence of one of those factions? Again, I'm not sure what evidence you're after here, it's somewhat implicit in the scenario being discussed.
Ok. First I dont think about this like an eighties film, you just either cant understand that or didnt be bothers to read well enough to recognise that. That isn't my fault.
I don't know.....what are the odds of practically every other poster in here somehow lacking the communication skills to understand what you're saying? I mean, I like to think this is a reasonably well educated forum.
Secondly this is an empowerment of the people, look at the policy. But it's in it's very early stages, so opportunists are trying their hand - the populace will both take longer to empower and will be more restrained, and the press are only really reporting the tragedies as they make the best headlines.
It is not a case of Dutente arming alternate criminals, that has already happened, its popular empowerment, so eventually the populace gets the empowerment. The 'execution squads' as you think of them (and yet you are calling me out for seeing this like an 80's movie, the hypocrisy) would have to face an empowered populace.
Where do you think the 'empowered populace' gets hold of its munitions? How likely do you think it is that any government sanctioned squads will ever be prosecuted for murdering innocents for any reason it feels like? What's to stop these governmental squads from stamping out all other opposition once the cartels are gone, under the prext of continuing operations against cartels? How long do you think your 'empowered populace' will last if that occurs?
Ok so where are the 'mass executions'? Is it backed up by evidence or assumption and hysteria.
In order to stamp out the cartels, you are advocating mass executions. Whether they have happened yet or not is actually irrelevant to the point under discussion. We're discussing in future tense, not past, on the basis that what you are envisioning has occurred. And in order to envision a future where all the cartel members and drug users have been killed, we have to envision one where someone actually, well y'know....does the killing?
Still waiting for you to base your commentary on anything other than press hysteria.
You have jumped up in outrage at press articles without thinking through what is happening.
So, I dont think I will bother with the rest.
Sheesh, and to think that YOU are calling ME out on mental health grounds. Yet I am being rational and analytical here.
I never said anything about your mental health. Perhaps you wish I had, in order to vaguely justify your faux outrage/premeditated conclusions about my own own position. But I'm afraid all I'm guilty of is being amused at the idea that you can idly kill thousands of people with no legal ramifications or oversight, and then fade away into a happy backdrop. It really is the sort of thing that only occurs in movies.
Statements like these imply that the problem will be solved. Finished. Completed. Job's a good 'un. That any future problems will be unrelated to these ones (having been 'burned away' and all), and what problems are around will be far smaller in scale/scope. The statements also imply that the future will be bright/positive.
If these are not the themes you are intending to communicate, you may wish to rephrase.
No, that is a fair assessment. However it gives nobody room to assume the Philippines will be a resultant paradise, more like further from hell.
Errr.....the fact that your average citizen is now at risk from being gunned down by both the cartels and the police? Our hypothetical citizen was previously only vulnerable to extrajudicial murder as a result of extortion/manipulation/mistaken identity/etc from one faction; namely the cartels. Now they risk those things at the hands of the police (and potentially other citizens) as well. Evidence isn't really necessary, it's the core facts of the scenario being discussed. It's like asking me for proof that 2 exists in 2+2=4.
Collateral, is a side effect that ideally should be eliminated but practically cannot. The Philippines has a long ongoing drugs war, this generates collateral casualties anyway, so that hasn't changed.
Well, presumably, the worst case scenario would be the continued existence of both factions able to commit extrajudicial killings?
On a worst case that can happen. However the mass surrenders make that scenario less likely, as does the empowerment of the populace who were hitherto victims. War deosnt come without risk of defeat.
I'm assuming you'd agree with that, considering you're arguing for the elimination of one of the factions with extreme violence. So...the best case scenario is the continued existence of one of those factions? Again, I'm not sure what evidence you're after here, it's somewhat implicit in the scenario being discussed.
The continued existence of the police is not a problem, even if the police has blood ion its hands. There is a chain of command and an ongoing amnesty, this inherently includes a procedure to end both meaning that once completed the action can stop. there are historical examples in the past of such campaigns.
Where do you think the 'empowered populace' gets hold of its munitions? How likely do you think it is that any government sanctioned squads will ever be prosecuted for murdering innocents for any reason it feels like? What's to stop these governmental squads from stamping out all other opposition once the cartels are gone, under the pretext of continuing operations against cartels? How long do you think your 'empowered populace' will last if that occurs?
What prevents the empower populace from turning on Duterte either. When you outsource retribution to the people you empower them at expense of central government. As for the armaments, china seems an increasingly likely source. Armed citizenry with an instilled national identity are a strong deterrent to organised crime and make government oppression. Duterte doesn't need to twiddle his moustache and muhahaha to power, he is democratically elected and the people are backing him. If he delivers they will continue to vote for him. If he becomes the saviour of his nation in the eyes of his own electorate, he will be very strongly entrenched.
In order to stamp out the cartels, you are advocating mass executions. Whether they have happened yet or not is actually irrelevant to the point under discussion. We're discussing in future tense, not past, on the basis that what you are envisioning has occurred. And in order to envision a future where all the cartel members and drug users have been killed, we have to envision one where someone actually, well y'know....does the killing?
Correction, the ideal is still to force a general surrender. This fits all logic, including right back to Sun Tzu. Give your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across. Surrender and decent treatment is that bridge. It would hurt Dutertes policy not to keep his promises over treatment post surrender. The mass executions will not occur. Individual targeting of cartel members will occur and drug users and drugs criminals will be encouraged to surrender. Thats the plan anyway.
I never said anything about your mental health. Perhaps you wish I had, in order to vaguely justify your faux outrage/premeditated conclusions about my own own position..
But I'm afraid all I'm guilty of is being amused at the idea that you can idly kill thousands of people with no legal ramifications or oversight, and then fade away into a happy backdrop. It really is the sort of thing that only occurs in movies.
Sorry to break your amusement, but I am not calling for mass killings, and Duterte is only making such comments to show how far he is prepared to go if surrender does not occur. Surrender is occurring, as he expected.
The narcotics industry requires a product and a customer base. Deny a customer base, even if doing so with a nasty stick of reprisal can starve out the drugs industry of most of its income. The next stage will be elimination of rural narcotics infrastructure, i.e. drug farms. Normally that is whack a mole, because the accessible customer base still exists, and thus the losses are recoverable. However with starving local drug producers of their income and forcing a reinvestment of infrastructure may well be too much. The above is theory as we are still at early stages, the policies are currently only implemented in the urban areas. China has already promised assistance in materiel. There are popular movements waiting to be armed and take back rurtal areas from the cartels.
I cant fail to notice that the entire process is very ugly, and don't deny that. But it is one that is endorsed by a sovereign people as perhaps their only way out of the problem they are in. But its a necessary ugly, It is a necessary ugliness, like Bomber Command planning the annihilation of German cities in World War 2, nasty ugly decisions made for the longer term good.
So you agree that you expect all issues relating to the drugs cartels and the subsequent violence used to eliminate them to simply vanish.
I suppose all those freshly armed citizens with guns you're envisioning with murdered relatives will simply issue blanket forgiveness for the good of society, any police units used to killing civilians without trial will willingly lay down their arms, and the Premier, despite his personal risk of subsequent trial and prosecution, will have faith that his future will be wonderful under any latter administration and step aside eagerly when his time comes.
What a magnificent place to live the Phillipines must be.
Collateral, is a side effect that ideally should be eliminated but practically cannot. The Philippines has a long ongoing drugs war, this generates collateral casualties anyway, so that hasn't changed.
Okay? So you agree that your average citizen isn't 'empowered', but rather now at risk from unwarranted murder by two armed factions instead of one. But since they were at risk of that anyway, you believe it's an acceptable state of affairs? That seems to be your reasoning, tracking your responses on this point.
On a worst case that can happen. However the mass surrenders make that scenario less likely, as does the empowerment of the populace who were hitherto victims. War deosnt come without risk of defeat.
One wonders why if the opposition is willing to 'surrender' so easily, extrajudicial killings are necessary. Regardless of that, we've established that no matter who wins, the 'best' result is a heavily armed police force well used to extrajudicial killing with a definite stake in maintaining power.
The continued existence of the police is not a problem, even if the police has blood ion its hands. There is a chain of command and an ongoing amnesty, this inherently includes a procedure to end both meaning that once completed the action can stop. there are historical examples in the past of such campaigns.
There are infinitely more of the opposite.It's not the norm, historically speaking.
What prevents the empower populace from turning on Duterte either.
The well armed police force used to performing extrajudicial killings? I mean, that's the logical answer there.
When you outsource retribution to the people you empower them at expense of central government.
You keep talking about the 'empowered people', but your average bloke in the street won't burst into drug cartel territory with an AK-47 even if you promise him nothing will happen to him. He values his life, and believes he pays taxes to the state to undertake jobs like that. People don't generally set out to kill unless they either feel they have no choice thanks to an immediate threat, or have a screw loose.
No 'empowered people' will be capable of resisting any sort of sustained suppression by a security force with experience in dismantling armed civilian based organisations . If they could, the police force wouldn't be capable of dealing with the cartels to begin with. Either the police has capability to destroy the cartels (through extrajuduicial killings and direct assaults), and can therefore obliterate any one of these recently 'empowered' groups of civilians you're referring to, or they can't. You can't have it both ways.
Correction, the ideal is still to force a general surrender. This fits all logic, including right back to Sun Tzu. Give your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across. Surrender and decent treatment is that bridge. It would hurt Dutertes policy not to keep his promises over treatment post surrender. The mass executions will not occur. Individual targeting of cartel members will occur and drug users and drugs criminals will be encouraged to surrender. Thats the plan anyway.
So rather than mass killings followed by a happy backdrop, what you're actually saying is that there will be mass executions threatened, followed by a general surrender and a happy backdrop?
The Phillipines does indeed sound like the perfect place to live.
Your comments. Because they are. I'll leave it to you and whoever else cares enough, to consider the question of whether only the insane can hold insane views. I have better things to do.
Yes it is. But I have no magick wand to wave to dispel away crime. human tragedy will continue no matter what we do or not do. Large scale societal ills can be cured, contained or dispensed with with varying degree of success and yet with side effects.
People die because they are hit by police cars and ambulances answering emergency calls. Their deaths could be avoided if said ambulance drove slower, but should they? Human tragedy doesn't eliminate the dilemmas society faces, and individual calamities are not indusive to the whole. I wont sugar coat that out of sentiment.
These are platitudes passed off as tough, no-nonsense truth saying. This post boils down to "sometimes there is badness" and has no coherent connection to anything.
The President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte has confirmed to the BBC that he shot dead three men while mayor of Davao.
He said: "I killed about three of them... I don't know how many bullets from my gun went inside their bodies. It happened and I cannot lie about it."
His statement came hours after his spokesman denied that Mr Duterte had personally killed anyone.
The recent controversy began on Wednesday at the president's palace.
He told a group of business leaders gathered there: "In Davao I used to do it [kill] personally. Just to show to the guys [police] that if I can do it why can't you.
"And I'd go around in Davao with a motorcycle, with a big bike around, and I would just patrol the streets, looking for trouble. I was really looking for a confrontation so I could kill."
Mr Duterte was mayor of the southern city for two decades, during which time he earned a reputation for brutally suppressing crime, and was accused of sponsoring death squads.
He first spoke about killing three men in 2015, while still mayor of Davao. He said that the men were suspected of kidnapping and rape.
Speaking to the BBC on Friday, Mr Duterte's spokesman Martin Andanar said the president's apparent admissions were simply tough talk and that he was "not a killer".
"That is the style of the president, ever since he was a mayor he would talk that way," Mr Andanar said.
"We do not take all of those statements literally. We take it seriously, but we don't take it literally."
But hours later Mr Duterte reiterated his earlier admissions. But he denied reports that he had shot people who were kneeling down with their hands tied behind their back.
'Not an addict'
Speaking to the BBC after a news conference, Mr Duterte pledged to wage his war on drug dealers "until the last day of my term".
Nearly 6,000 people are said to have been killed by police, vigilantes and mercenaries in the Philippines since Mr Duterte launched a drug war after being elected in May.
Critics say he has encouraged police and vigilantes to shoot drug dealers and users on sight.
Mr Duterte denied that he was a drug addict himself, despite using the powerful pain killer Fentanyl.
"I'm not an addict," he said. "Only when it is prescribed. Addiction is only with regularity, my friend."
Mr Duterte has admitted to using the drug, saying he had migraines and issues with his spine.
Mr Andanar dismissed claims that the president was suffering from the side effects of Fentanyl, which can cause confusion, anxiety and even hallucinations.
"[Mr Duterte] is healthy," Mr Andanar said. "We've seen him work till the wee hours of the morning. He is in a hurry, [and is] very impatient because our country has been dragged down to the toilet."The president's admission on Wednesday sparked calls for his impeachment from opposition leaders and rights groups.
It was the latest in a series of controversial claims by Mr Duterte since he became president.
Senator Leila de Lima, a staunch critic of Mr Duterte, has said his admission could be grounds for impeachment.
Hmm, so he murders people and takes Fentanyl? Seems like the kind of guy you want in charge.
He will not solve problem if he kills just narcomans and poorer of the dealers. Drug Empire leaders are safe and maybe use that killings for their own drug wars. Without punishing the head, it's just killings for killing.
godardc wrote: So, Obama lost Phillipines, too ?
This man really wasted his 8 years as president.
What, do you expect him to change who get's elected?
It's like the ultimate "Thanks Obama". Blaming him for something he had no control over. And US popularity is still at something like 98% in the Philippines.
Dreadwinter wrote: That says a lot more about them than it does about Duterte.
It doesn't legitimise anything he's done, but it is a good indicator on whether he'll be able to keep winning elections and keep doing it.
While it is also a very small electoral sample, I've spoken to three Phillipinos where Duterte came up. Two were in favour, and one had no idea who he was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: So, Obama lost Phillipines, too ?
This man really wasted his 8 years as president.
You so funny.
The people of the Philippines elected their government. If they choose a stinker you don't place the blame for that with Obama or anyone else in the US. Doing that is treating the people of the Philippines as children.
This violent authoritarianism seems to be a streak running across the globe. It kind of reminds me a bit of the 30's where authoritarianism was again on the rise. People in that time were dealing with rapid technology change and felt like they could not compete globally. This led to extremism and nationalism on the left and right. I would need to look closer into the time period to see further parallels.
godardc wrote: So, Obama lost Phillipines, too ? This man really wasted his 8 years as president.
You so funny.
The people of the Philippines elected their government. If they choose a stinker you don't place the blame for that with Obama or anyone else in the US. Doing that is treating the people of the Philippines as children.
Obama has done more in the region for positive promotion since 2001 when the Bush administration basically abandoned the region to pursue its War on Terror. Duterte is a demagogue who doesn't like to be questioned and is throwing a fit. While Duterte feels like China accepts him, an illusion the Chinese are all to willing to promote, they are shaking his hand with one hand and stabbing Duterte in the back with the other. Unilateral actions by an egomaniac can't be blamed on others no matter how badly people like Godardc will whitewash them, just to go thanks Obama.
I missed an article awhile back where he admitted to throwing somebody out of a Helicopter. I will need to look that up. Seems like a swell guy though.
"If I have to declare martial law, I will declare it -- not about invasion, insurrection, not about danger. I will declare martial law to preserve my nation –- period."
Pretty sure that is the reason used by the majority of dictators as to why they seized control of the country.
Philippine police are suspending their controversial war on drugs until after the "corrupt" police force has been "cleansed".
Police Chief Ronald dela Rosa said on Monday that anti-drug units would be dissolved.
It comes after the murder of a South Korean businessman inside police headquarters. He had been kidnapped and killed by anti-drug police.
More than 7,000 people have been killed since the crackdown on drugs began.
The death toll and President Rodrigo Duterte's hardline stance against drugs have attracted intense criticism from human rights groups and Western countries, although the president continues to enjoy a high level of support among Filipinos.
Speaking on Monday, Mr Dela Rosa said Mr Duterte "told us to clean the organisation first".
"We will cleanse our ranks... then maybe after that, we can resume our war on drugs."
Mr Duterte has made tackling drug use in the Philippines a central part of his presidency.
He had initially promised to eradicate the problem by December, then extended the deadline to March this year.
But he told reporters at a press conference late on Sunday: "I will extend it to the last day of my term... March no longer applies." Mr Duterte's term ends in 2022.
He said he had underestimated the depth of the drug problem.
Jonathan Head, South East Asia correspondent, BBC News: Police too tainted
For eight months President Duterte has been unrepentant as the death toll from his drug war has risen. He has repeatedly promised to support, even pardon, any police officers accused of unlawful killing, and been unmoved even by the clear evidence of police involvement in the drug trade, and the murder of important drug suspects in police custody.
But the shocking murder of South Korean businessman Jee Ick-joo last October has forced Mr Duterte to acknowledge that the Philippines National Police are too tainted to continue running the anti-drugs campaign.
Mr Duterte now accuses the police force of being "corrupt to the core". He has ordered all tainted officers to be sent to front-line duty in the conflict-wracked southern Philippines.
Even if this happens, though, it will not necessarily bring the drug killings to an end. More than 4,000 of the deaths are blamed on unidentified hit squads, although many of those are believed to be run by the police. And the president's promise to extend the anti-drug campaign to the end of his term of office suggests he may try to revive it once the fuss about the murdered South Korean dies down.
Senator Leila De Lima, Mr Duterte's most vocal critic, said the president and the police chief "should categorically give the order to end the killings".
She said the dismantling of the police anti-narcotics operation meant "they are aware that the very men involved in anti-drug operations... are involved in illegal activities under the guise of the so-called war on drugs," she told ANC television.
'Corrupt to the core'
Mr Duterte also railed against the police force on Sunday and vowed to "cleanse" it, in response to the killing of Jee Ick-joo.
Jee Ick-joo was seized from his home in Angeles city, near Manila, under the pretence of a drug raid, the Department of Justice said. After strangling him, his killers pretended he was still alive in order to collect a ransom from his family.
"You policemen are the most corrupt. You are corrupt to the core. It's in your system," Mr Duterte said, adding that he thought up to 40% of policemen were used to corruption.
Mr Duterte had sanctioned extra-judicial killings previously, saying he would pardon policemen who kill criminals and civilians in the line of duty.
"When I said I'll protect the police, I'll protect the police. But I won't protect lying," he said.
Duterte Gives ‘Rotten’ Officers Choice: Go to Terrorist Hotbed or Go Home
MANILA — President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines angrily dressed down more than 200 police officers on national television on Tuesday, presenting them with a thorny ultimatum: Resign or be shipped off to a terrorist hotbed known for beheadings and attacks on police stations.
Mr. Duterte accused the 228 officers of a litany of criminal and professional misdeeds, including corruption, drug use and dealing, and, in one high-profile case, the kidnapping and murder of a South Korean businessman.
Calling the group of National Police officers from Manila, the capital, “rotten to the core,” Mr. Duterte said he was ordering them to Basilan, an island in the country’s restive south and home to the Islamic terrorist organization Abu Sayyaf.
“I need policemen in the south. There is a lack of police officers in Basilan; that is why the police stations there are often under attack,” he told the officers, who were forced to stand for over an hour in the sun.
“That is why all of you who are here, you are going to be part of Task Force South,” he told the officers. “If you don’t want to go there, go to your superior officer and tell them that you’re going to resign.”
He gave the officers 15 days to prepare for their new assignment, and he said the deployment would last for at least two years.
“If you survive, come back here,” Mr. Duterte said. “If you die there, I’ll tell the police not to spend to bring you here and just bury you there.”
Since taking office in June, Mr. Duterte has led a bloody crackdown on drug users and dealers that has left at least 3,600 people dead, and possibly thousands more. Last week, the president replaced the National Police force with the military as the primary enforcers of his campaign after an embarrassing scandal emerged when it was discovered that it was police officers who killed the South Korean businessman.
Duterte Gives ‘Rotten’ Officers Choice: Go to Terrorist Hotbed or Go Home
MANILA — President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines angrily dressed down more than 200 police officers on national television on Tuesday, presenting them with a thorny ultimatum: Resign or be shipped off to a terrorist hotbed known for beheadings and attacks on police stations.
Mr. Duterte accused the 228 officers of a litany of criminal and professional misdeeds, including corruption, drug use and dealing, and, in one high-profile case, the kidnapping and murder of a South Korean businessman.
Calling the group of National Police officers from Manila, the capital, “rotten to the core,” Mr. Duterte said he was ordering them to Basilan, an island in the country’s restive south and home to the Islamic terrorist organization Abu Sayyaf.
“I need policemen in the south. There is a lack of police officers in Basilan; that is why the police stations there are often under attack,” he told the officers, who were forced to stand for over an hour in the sun.
“That is why all of you who are here, you are going to be part of Task Force South,” he told the officers. “If you don’t want to go there, go to your superior officer and tell them that you’re going to resign.”
He gave the officers 15 days to prepare for their new assignment, and he said the deployment would last for at least two years.
“If you survive, come back here,” Mr. Duterte said. “If you die there, I’ll tell the police not to spend to bring you here and just bury you there.”
Since taking office in June, Mr. Duterte has led a bloody crackdown on drug users and dealers that has left at least 3,600 people dead, and possibly thousands more. Last week, the president replaced the National Police force with the military as the primary enforcers of his campaign after an embarrassing scandal emerged when it was discovered that it was police officers who killed the South Korean businessman.
So, he very publicly condemned a bunch of "corrupt" officers and then stated he was going to send them to an area a terrorist group?
Meanwhile, the terrorist group is already trying to figure out how to pay them off. This guy.....
TOUGH ON CRIME 
