Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm not gonna try and make an argument about ISIS vs Duterte, because the hell if I know to be honest*

Really? Wow.

 Frazzled wrote:

I'm not gonna try and make an argument about ISIS vs Duterte, because the hell if I know to be honest*

Really? Wow.

Clearly you missed this part:

Sebs:

*Duterte is dangerous because he has a large share of the electorate behind him, in support of his brutal policies. ISIS are dangerous because they don't care about winning support and that makes them capable of anything. Hell if I can figure out which of those two things is scarier.

 Easy E wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I'm not gonna try and make an argument about ISIS vs Duterte, because the hell if I know to be honest*

Really? Wow.

Clearly you missed this part:

Sebs:

*Duterte is dangerous because he has a large share of the electorate behind him, in support of his brutal policies. ISIS are dangerous because they don't care about winning support and that makes them capable of anything. Hell if I can figure out which of those two things is scarier.

His popularity could help him rally the farmers and such in earlier pics, and well, they ain't lightly armed with some heavy fire power like a BAR with a heavy calibre punch, full battle rifle calibre guns and Thompsons which while old might be a nasty surprise in a street fight.

If you got groups like that behind you, that's a powerful advantage to have while untrained, alot of militia grade fighters handy alongside military.
That night away his advantage against Islamic state.

 Easy E wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I'm not gonna try and make an argument about ISIS vs Duterte, because the hell if I know to be honest*

Really? Wow.

Clearly you missed this part:

Sebs:

*Duterte is dangerous because he has a large share of the electorate behind him, in support of his brutal policies. ISIS are dangerous because they don't care about winning support and that makes them capable of anything. Hell if I can figure out which of those two things is scarier.

I didn't miss it, its just asininely stupid and borderline racist. "The little peon 3rd world country elects a man I disagree with, so they're no better than ISIL." Thats a pretty big you to the Filipino people who are tired of poverty and druggie warlords, controlling the countryside. Now they have to deal with these wackjobs, which the majority Mindanao Muslims can't deal with-again cutting of heads and gak. But hey they're no better than ISIL.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I'm not gonna try and make an argument about ISIS vs Duterte, because the hell if I know to be honest*

Really? Wow.

Clearly you missed this part:

Sebs:

*Duterte is dangerous because he has a large share of the electorate behind him, in support of his brutal policies. ISIS are dangerous because they don't care about winning support and that makes them capable of anything. Hell if I can figure out which of those two things is scarier.

I didn't miss it, its just asininely stupid and borderline racist. "The little peon 3rd world country elects a man I disagree with, so they're no better than ISIL." Thats a pretty big you to the Filipino people who are tired of poverty and druggie warlords, controlling the countryside. Now they have to deal with these wackjobs, which the majority Mindanao Muslims can't deal with-again cutting of heads and gak. But hey they're no better than ISIL.

He disagrees with the man because of the motorcycle death squads and the extrajudicial murder.

The drug lords are bad. The religious extremists are bad. The government-sponsored murders are bad. Executing someone with a sword is not inherently worse than executing someone with a drive-by. These are all murderers.

Particularly when the police are alleged to have murdered orders of magnitude more people in recent months than any terrorists have.

Frazzled has a point. Is all wonderfull in western land, but theres parts of the world that don't follow our rules and one can argue aren't in the same "historic period" as us.

We can't expect from them the same ethics and morals as us. Obviously, I'm not endorsing what they do. But I can understand why they do it.

We absolutely can. There's no excuse for overturning the rule of law.

 Spinner wrote:
We absolutely can. There's no excuse for overturning the rule of law.

Not even if we really, really want to? Trust me, these bad guys are just the worst. Trust me. /s

Maybe if you pinky-swear that you won't send your hit squads after inconvenient journalists or political opponents...but you have to cross your heart!

 Galas wrote:
Frazzled has a point. Is all wonderfull in western land, but theres parts of the world that don't follow our rules and one can argue aren't in the same "historic period" as us.

We can't expect from them the same ethics and morals as us. Obviously, I'm not endorsing what they do. But I can understand why they do it.

This is effectively no different than if Brazil or Mexico suddenly were dealing with ISIL. Evidently, nonWestern democracies have to match a certain standard for some before they are better than ISIL. Good thing this standard wasn't applied to Australia, or the US, or France, or the UK.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Frazzled has a point. Is all wonderfull in western land, but theres parts of the world that don't follow our rules and one can argue aren't in the same "historic period" as us.

We can't expect from them the same ethics and morals as us. Obviously, I'm not endorsing what they do. But I can understand why they do it.

This is effectively no different than if Brazil or Mexico suddenly were dealing with ISIL. Evidently, nonWestern democracies have to match a certain standard for some before they are better than ISIL. Good thing this standard wasn't applied to Australia, or the US, or France, or the UK.

Yeah, the standard is "don't allow extrajuridical killings". It's the foundation of modern civilization.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Frazzled has a point. Is all wonderfull in western land, but theres parts of the world that don't follow our rules and one can argue aren't in the same "historic period" as us.

We can't expect from them the same ethics and morals as us. Obviously, I'm not endorsing what they do. But I can understand why they do it.

This is effectively no different than if Brazil or Mexico suddenly were dealing with ISIL. Evidently, nonWestern democracies have to match a certain standard for some before they are better than ISIL. Good thing this standard wasn't applied to Australia, or the US, or France, or the UK.

large numbers of alleged extrajudicial killings amongst the civilian population by state forces, long precedging and completely unrelated to this latest terrorism flareup, with body counts orders of magnitude larger than anything the IS afilliate has inflicted, usually will illicit strong reactions.

For good reason too.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Frazzled has a point. Is all wonderfull in western land, but theres parts of the world that don't follow our rules and one can argue aren't in the same "historic period" as us.

We can't expect from them the same ethics and morals as us. Obviously, I'm not endorsing what they do. But I can understand why they do it.

This is effectively no different than if Brazil or Mexico suddenly were dealing with ISIL. Evidently, nonWestern democracies have to match a certain standard for some before they are better than ISIL. Good thing this standard wasn't applied to Australia, or the US, or France, or the UK.

Yeah, the standard is "don't allow extrajuridical killings". It's the foundation of modern civilization.

Thats pretty high and mighty from an isolated country that doesn't have ISIL, drug cartels, or cat lovers to deal with. Very few democracies meet that standard. Canada doesn't. The UK doesn't. The US doesn't. Liechtenstein does but we all know thats just a cover for their nefarious activities.

 Galas wrote:
Frazzled has a point. Is all wonderfull in western land, but theres parts of the world that don't follow our rules and one can argue aren't in the same "historic period" as us.

We can't expect from them the same ethics and morals as us. Obviously, I'm not endorsing what they do. But I can understand why they do it.

I'm all for cultural reativity, but the government is breaking it's own laws that previous elected representatives put in place. We don't have to decide if it's wrong to perform these actions because they already did. Also, what Seb stated is not at all what Fraz claimed he stated. I'm inclined to believe that Frazz knows that and is (successfully) deflecting the part where Seb completely overturned his argument.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Frazzled has a point. Is all wonderfull in western land, but theres parts of the world that don't follow our rules and one can argue aren't in the same "historic period" as us.

We can't expect from them the same ethics and morals as us. Obviously, I'm not endorsing what they do. But I can understand why they do it.

I'm all for cultural reativity, but the government is breaking it's own laws that previous elected representatives put in place. We don't have to decide if it's wrong to perform these actions because they already did. Also, what Seb stated is not at all what Fraz claimed he stated. I'm inclined to believe that Frazz knows that and is (successfully) deflecting the part where Seb completely overturned his argument.

Sebster stated he wasn't sure which is worse. Thats directly comparing one of the worst terrorist entities in the last 100 years with an elected government. Does Dutarte suck? Potentially.
Comparing the Filipino ELECTED government to ISIL? Wow.

Dutarte goes away when his time expires. When does ISIL go away? oh yea, after you kill them all.

After all, following this logic, the US which has turned extrajudicial killings into a high tech video game, would be no better than ISIL. Thats patently false and offensive.

 Frazzled wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Frazzled has a point. Is all wonderfull in western land, but theres parts of the world that don't follow our rules and one can argue aren't in the same "historic period" as us.

We can't expect from them the same ethics and morals as us. Obviously, I'm not endorsing what they do. But I can understand why they do it.

I'm all for cultural reativity, but the government is breaking it's own laws that previous elected representatives put in place. We don't have to decide if it's wrong to perform these actions because they already did. Also, what Seb stated is not at all what Fraz claimed he stated. I'm inclined to believe that Frazz knows that and is (successfully) deflecting the part where Seb completely overturned his argument.

Sebster stated he wasn't sure which is worse. Thats directly comparing one of the worst terrorist entities in the last 100 years with an elected government. Does Dutarte suck? Potentially.
Comparing the Filipino ELECTED government to ISIL? Wow.

Dutarte goes away when his time expires. When does ISIL go away? oh yea, after you kill them all.

After all, following this logic, the US which has turned extrajudicial killings into a high tech video game, would be no better than ISIL. Thats patently false and offensive.

Much as he ain't nice. And what he done is not. He is however the elected president and is acting in the defense of his people against them.

ISIS is a cancer on mankind that needs to be driven into the dust with all due speed.

 Frazzled wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Frazzled has a point. Is all wonderfull in western land, but theres parts of the world that don't follow our rules and one can argue aren't in the same "historic period" as us.

We can't expect from them the same ethics and morals as us. Obviously, I'm not endorsing what they do. But I can understand why they do it.

I'm all for cultural reativity, but the government is breaking it's own laws that previous elected representatives put in place. We don't have to decide if it's wrong to perform these actions because they already did. Also, what Seb stated is not at all what Fraz claimed he stated. I'm inclined to believe that Frazz knows that and is (successfully) deflecting the part where Seb completely overturned his argument.

Sebster stated he wasn't sure which is worse. Thats directly comparing one of the worst terrorist entities in the last 100 years with an elected government. Does Dutarte suck? Potentially.
Comparing the Filipino ELECTED government to ISIL? Wow.

Looking at the bodycount in the nation, well, you have a lot more to fear from the elected government and its security forces than ISIL.

Dutarte goes away when his time expires. When does ISIL go away? oh yea, after you kill them all.

That's a big *maybe* there, leaders with hands in large numbers of killings dont tend to leave office peacefully (at least not for anything but higher positions), as has been seen before in the Philippines.

After all, following this logic, the US which has turned extrajudicial killings into a high tech video game, would be no better than ISIL. Thats patently false and offensive.

The US has faced much (and deserved) criticism for it, but also isnt doing it to its own people (barring a couple notable examples that have earned much ire).

And, in many parts of the world and the eyes of many, the US isnt any different from ISIL. That's not an opinion I hold personally, but is not by any means a viewpoint that is unheard of around the world.

“Looking at the bodycount in the nation, well, you have a lot more to fear from the elected government and its security forces than ISIL.”
If you are a drug dealer yes. Mexico is doing the same. Are they no worse than ISIL?
“That's a big *maybe* there, leaders with hands in large numbers of killings dont tend to leave office peacefully (at least not for anything but higher positions), as has been seen before in the Philippines. “
Agreed, however, that argument can be made about any elected politician, anywhere, at any time. Isn’t that the Democrat’s fear about Trump? As Erdogan has taught us, no democracy is more than one step away. Again, it appears we limit our criticism to “those people” however.
“The US has faced much (and deserved) criticism for it, but also isnt doing it to its own people (barring a couple notable examples that have earned much ire).”
BLM would like to politely disagree with you on that.
#nolivesmatter
“And, in many parts of the world and the eyes of many, the US isnt any different from ISIL.”
To paraphrase the immortal bard: the bombings will continue until morale improves!

Is obvious that Dutarte, in his "anti drug war" has play the typical trick of killing political oppositors or reporters that he don't like for being crytical to his regime.

I don't think anybody is defending that. But personally, I think that unstable countrys can't be expected to have a western peacefull society.

Is what they should try to be, but Indonesia and Afrika aren't Europe or North America.

 Frazzled wrote:
“
If you are a drug dealer yes.

Only if we assume theyre all drug dealers, and assuming large numbers of people who either were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or have nothing to do with dealing drugs arent being killed under such cover, or that "drug dealer" isnt just a convenient excuse to knock off a pesky journalist or or any number of other such things? Such appears to have been the case in a great many of these killings.

Mexico is doing the same. Are they no worse than ISIL?

Mexico gets tons of flak for it (and for failing to protect people from cartel violence too) and rightfully so, but it's also not something driven publicly in the same.way by Mexico's president, and Mexican security forces are only racking up bodycounts at about 20% the annual rate the Philippines are.

Agreed, however, that argument can be made about any elected politician, anywhere, at any time. Isn’t that the Democrat’s fear about Trump? As Erdogan has taught us, no democracy is more than one step away. Again, it appears we limit our criticism to “those people” however.

In some ways, sure, but either way, leaders that directly endorse and engage in this sort of thing dont tend to leave power peacefully or on time.

BLM would like to politely disagree with you on that.

I'm sure they would, and in some instances they have a point and that is a matter that is being taken increasingly seriously and police/public interactions are undergoing intense scrutiny and review these days as a result.

 Galas wrote:
Is obvious that Dutarte, in his "anti drug war" has play the typical trick of killing political oppositors or reporters that he don't like for being crytical to his regime.

I don't think anybody is defending that. But personally, I think that unstable countrys can't be expected to have a western peacefull society.

Is what they should try to be, but Indonesia and Afrika aren't Europe or North America.

agreed.

 Frazzled wrote:
I didn't miss it, its just asininely stupid and borderline racist. "The little peon 3rd world country […]

 Galas wrote:
Frazzled has a point. Is all wonderfull in western land, but theres parts of the world that don't follow our rules and one can argue aren't in the same "historic period" as us.

We can't expect from them the same ethics and morals as us.

Is this some kind of attempt at humor .

This thread has the some of the best trolling I have seen in the OT in a long time..... perhaps since the death of the US Politics thread.

What's really interesting is to see all the blind-eye-turning toward government-sponsored terrorism.

 Spinner wrote:
What's really interesting is to see all the blind-eye-turning toward government-sponsored terrorism.

Is that not war in general? To make your enemies fear you for a goal? Ie terrorism that we class as legal.

Is not a A10 thunder bolt and its iconic brapppppp of death a terror weapon to enemies when they see ots distinctive shape in the sky?

Late night dakka posting inspires odd thought avenues...

So...you're saying all soldiers are terrorists?

We arm them with weapons of war.
We make propoganda so our enemies fear them, we give them a image of strong warrors, defenders, a aura of fear and respect.

Wr use tactics and heavy ordnance to shock and make people flee.


Not terrorists as uch but we do share some of the tactics of it.
Shock and awe, blitzkrieg, it's all designed to overwhelm a enemy both in body and mind. When a enemy is afraid of you, you won the battle. Agressive infantry assult is meant to trhow someone off be sheer speed and aggression, shouting, outnumbering, breaking someone's resolve to resist.

Thee oen mind works against them.

Its not just the material results. It's a psychological battle and display of dominance over another group you have asigned your enemy.

Seems we and terrorists work off the same base ideas, fear, agression, control via intimidation in combat situations. To best attack a enemy in mind and body .
Just use very different methods to achive the goals however

 Spinner wrote:
What's really interesting is to see all the blind-eye-turning toward government-sponsored terrorism.

Being from Spain I know well from first hand about the GRAPO and ETA so... I suppose that government-sponsored terrorism is more recent here.

But well. As people play the "acknowledging the reality= Supporting that reality" card, I don't think people is interested in having a honest debate here. I haven't supported or stated that what Dutarte does something acceptable for us.

This thread seems to have run its course...

I wish best of luck to the innocent citizens caught up in the mess.