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.

This guy is going full crazy.

Self hitler comparison is not a good idea.
Hitlers 1000 year empire was anything but long lived.

 jhe90 wrote:
This guy is going full crazy.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
This guy is going full crazy.

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.

 Spinner wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
This guy is going full crazy.

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.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
This guy is going full crazy.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
This guy is going full crazy.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
This guy is going full crazy.

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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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......

That line of thinking is what creates genocides.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
This guy is going full crazy.

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?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
This guy is going full crazy.

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.

From how things look, Duterte is a psychopath.

If someone finds themselves agreeing with psychopaths... well.

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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 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..

But War on Terror was not like that? Sending drones into neutral sovereign countries was not like that?

 sebster wrote:

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.

Ignorance is bliss.

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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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!

No evidence of that here.

 Spinner wrote:

Sebster's absolutely right. It's like the people supporting him think we're living in an eighties action movie.

As opposed to a cops and robbers TV show where the 'good guys' always win with no consequence.

 Spinner wrote:

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.

 Spinner wrote:

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