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.

 godardc wrote:

 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

Do you have a source for this?

Of course, I should have posted it earlier, sorry:
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/145814-numbers-statistics-philippines-war-drugs

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

"Even as the death toll rose, a July poll by Pulse Asia put Duterte's approval rating at 91 percent."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/04/as-bodies-pile-up-in-philippines-many-fear-to-talk-about-dutertes-war.html

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.

Belief in democracy does not invalidate belief in the rule of law and due process.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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'.

No, I do not. I do not approve of what you are saying.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

"Even as the death toll rose, a July poll by Pulse Asia put Duterte's approval rating at 91 percent."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/04/as-bodies-pile-up-in-philippines-many-fear-to-talk-about-dutertes-war.html

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.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

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?

While you realise that drugs are not inherently 'bad', right?

The fact drug use is being conflated with terrorism shows just how stupid an idea the 'war on drugs' was.

 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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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'.

 sebster wrote:

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?

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

tneva82 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.

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.

tneva82 wrote:

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'm sure we can all remember a certain other dictator who had a mandate from the people and was very popular.

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.

For me Frazzie that was about average length for one of my replies.

 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.

The amount of mental gymnastics used to justify a leader calling for citizens to be murdered by other citizens is just astounding.

"We could just kill the drug addicts and then boom, who is going to take the drugs? Problem solved boys!"

Don't forget the part where if you question it, you're probably going to be arrested for "corruption" and running a cartel protection racket.

Just saw this article. It has some insight and commentary from a senior PNP officer who was actually involved in some of the killings.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/philippines-secret-death-squads-officer-claims-police-teams-behind-wave-of-killings/ar-BBwY249?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

 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.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/philippines-secret-death-squads-officer-claims-police-teams-behind-wave-of-killings/ar-BBwY249?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

That's a chilling read. Angels of mercy.... jeebus fething chips.

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.