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.

Vaktathi said it better.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Solve those and you solve the meth problem. Killing drug users and sellers is just playing whackamole with peoples lives in a fruitless but bloody tantrum that avoids confronting the real issues and drives the industry to greater violence and deeper underground. That has been proven many times in the real world.

It is a real world solution. Yes addiction is powerful but the fear doesnt need to result in death, it can result in surrender. Surrendering is surrendering, geting registered and monitored and having the ability to take drugs taken away.

And yet, given existing historical examples, this has never once been proven true...quite the opposite.

Did mass executions by the tens of thousands solve the Opium problems in China? No. Did death squads or military execution units solve the problems in Columbia, Nicaragua, or Mexico? No. I cannot think of a single example where violence solved a drug problem, despite such having been tried many times in the past. Hell, in Mexico, those death squads ended up just taking over cartel operations themselves and dramatically escalating the violence.

This is not a hypothesis in need of testing, this is a discredited theory with a long history of damning contrary evidence.

People need to open their eyes and look at the issue clearly.

...really?

lets look at the hysterical arguements:

Yes, we'll label the mass murder by uncontrolled government elements of the civilian population "hysterics".

1. "Oh my God government death squads!"

Actually the death squads have been there for decades, and run by the cartels and there is no control or restraint involved. What the government is doing is nothing like that and the term death squads is mostly a press and political exaggeration.
By empowering the people the actual death squad culture is diminished.
What Duterte has done is enabled and empowered the people to resist the cartels.
The result is fewer 'death squads' not more.

What universe do you live in? Where on earth has this actually worked in the manner you are describing, and not just resulted in larger body counts, particularly body counts largely constituted by innocents?

Your "theory" here has been tried, again and again, in many countries in many different time periods. It's neither novel nor new, and has failed every time. I can't come up with a single example of it actually solving anything. Why anyone thinks it will do anything but rachet up the bodycount is beyond me...

2. "Violence doesnt work."

Yes it does, or the cartels themselves would not have survived. Their main tool are fear bourne by their extreme violence.

If you cant see the difference between a dealer knocking off competition or a snitch, and police just killing anyone they want as long as they can implicate drugs in some way, I dont know what to say.

Other nations seems to eventually resolve these issues without having to abandon their duties, laws, and responsibilities to engage in mass murder...

Dutente has revitalised a long practiced and worable solution to this: Frontier justice.
What is frontier justice? Frontier justice is a popular enabling and empowering in order to allow the citizenry to resist and deter large scale crime. It works where a broad unity can ber established to knit together the resultant armed populace.
there are numerous examples of this working in history. I will concentrate on one example.

If you look at what Dutente is doing its similar to the 'wild west'. The Old West in the 19th century, used frontier justice frequently. in fact there is a strong connexion between how Dutentes police/vigilante networking operates and the orginal US Marshals service. What is a posse if not a death squad? And while some Us marshals were more interested in arrest than summary execution both methods were used, often with popular support.

"Frontier Justice" is an overblown myth of the US West, largely perpetuated for dramatic effect and wannabe macho headcannon of "better times", with a dramatically lower occurrence and bodycount than is typically portrayed. It's mostly a fiction. Did some things happen? Yes. Were they commonplace or on anything near the scale ocurring in the Philippines? No. Was the West anywhere near as wild as its often portrayed? No. What eventually calmed what wild there was in the west? Economic development, not violence.

3. "This is inhumane and brutal."

When the problem is burned out the Filipino people can afford to be nice. Currently they cant. Brutality is the language of the cartel and that language is spoken on anywhere except the most affluent and well protected neighbourhoods. Compard to the populace the cartels are a tiny minority wielding extreme power, power wielded through fear. That is the inhumanity, that is the true brutality. Duterte has outsourced justice and empowered the people so instead of the multitude being afraid of the cartels the cartels can be afraid of the armed multitude. It is a workable solution. Whether it will work here is yet to be seen, but it can work and is the best chance the Filipino people have had to forge a better future in living memory.

You're assuming that only cartel members are being targeted here, and not casual harmless users or basically anyone a policeman or goverment official takes a disliking to, which very much appears to be the case. We're not talking a state vs state military engagement here, we are talking about a state engaging in the massacre of its own people. In such a case, fighting raw brutality with brutality works when you're willing to extirpate populations, and generally nothing short of that. Given that anything short is simply pointless slaughter, and taking it to such a conclusion in this case is getting into genocide and mass slaughter, I am astonished that anyone is seriously advocating for this.

Again...yeah, the Philippines has problems. Plenty of other nations manage to eventuay solve those without mass slaughter...

4. "What about the tear inducing stories."

What of them? Yes innocents will die, they do anyway. Yes people will use the new status quo to mislabel opponents and settle scores. In a cartel infested society this happens anyway. If the problem is burned away there can be a future without such tragedies on a large scale.

This is not an argument I made, but regardless, that one is willing to advocate to shed innocent lives on a mass scale and acknowledge their humanity juat to discard it on a whim as just the cost of the police doing business is both disgusting and infuriating, particularly when the dead in such events are mostly innocents and government action of this kind just escalates the bodycount and has never been shown to reduce it.


Every single one of these arguments could be, and has been, erroneously used to commit mass murder and great social harm. This is all straight out of the Franco/Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pot playbook, line for line, and that people still think it'll have some positive effect is the definition of insanity.

At this point, does anyone think Dutente is ever going to willingly leave office?

TL;DR
This approach has been tried many times and has never proven successful, and has in almost all instances simply made things worse, and often played into dictatorial power seizures. Other nations have worked through these issues without resorting to mass murder. Why anyone thinks it'll work in this instance is beyond puzzling.

On that note, I'm done with this particular thread. I need a drink.

 Orlanth wrote:

I am not ruling out the possibility of an alternate point of view. But it isn't bat-gak-crazy.
And what is all this crap about 80's movies, that is a cheap shot.. I have given example and weighting to my comments, articulating them thoroughly. You don't have to agree with the reasoning to at least have the decency to admit that the reasoning has been made. 80's movies means having a fight without a plot, you cant ever label that against me. I explain all my opinions, hence why my political posts are often longer than a sentence or two.

By 80's movies, I'm referring to this bizare idea that somehow excessive violence from sanctioned Government hit squads which operate outside the law courts and due process will somehow result in all wrongs being righted, and everyone skipping off into the distance to a happy and productive future. I mean, seriously, just to take your prior post

By empowering the people the actual death squad culture is diminished.
What Duterte has done is enabled and empowered the people to resist the cartels.
The result is fewer 'death squads' not more.

The 'people' haven't been empowered. The only ones empowered are those with the ability to commit extrajudicial killings with no consequence. Your average citizen hasn't been 'empowered', he's just been made a potential target for two factions instead of one in any negative circumstances.

In the best case scenario, one of the factions will kill and replace the other. Just because one of those factions (the government) will cheer them on if they weigh in against the other (the drug pushers), doesn't rectify that. The fact remains that there are now two groups dragging people away in the night and gunning them down in the street.You proceed to say that:-

When the problem is burned out the Filipino people can afford to be nice.

but what will happen is that the drug pushers will be eliminated, and they'll have been replaced by governmental execution squads capable of eliminating any dissent in a far more focused way with a clear political imperative.The Filipino 'people' do not win in this scenario. The execution squads won't simply dissolve into the backdrop of a Vegas club scene for retirement surrounded by beautiful ladies to leave the country to forge a brave new future (like an eighties film). The kind of people you recruit to string people up en masse illegally don't tend to be what you'd call 'good guys'. This:-

Yes innocents will die, they do anyway. Yes people will use the new status quo to mislabel opponents and settle scores. In a cartel infested society this happens anyway. If the problem is burned away there can be a future without such tragedies on a large scale.

is just so much speculatory optimistic hogwash. In real life, mass murders of tens of thousands of people don't leave you with a happy party at the closing credits, with all the remaining celebrating citizens quaffing champagne and revelling in their newly acquired freedom.What they leave you with is hundreds of thousands of people whose relatives you just murdered looking for revenge, a large number of well-organised morally deficit execution squads trained to eliminate any dissent, and someone in power whose learnt that opposition can be eliminated by force with no restraint that's suddenly risking a personal future filled with prosecutions and a vengeful populace. If you honestly look at that and see a happy positive ending, you really, really, really look at it like an eighties film; where excessive violence by hard-as-nails yet heart-of-gold fellas with the good of the people at heart kill all the baddies before fading into a backdrop of a happy ending.

In real life, that doesn't happen.

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


4. "What about the tear inducing stories."

What of them? Yes innocents will die, they do anyway. Yes people will use the new status quo to mislabel opponents and settle scores. In a cartel infested society this happens anyway. If the problem is burned away there can be a future without such tragedies on a large scale.

This is a VERY easy thing to say when you have not held your wife's hand as she dies. If you have not had to wash the blood off the floor, trying to see through the tears. I sincerely hope you never have to endure that.

Yes it is. But I have no magick wand to wave to dispel away crime. human tragedy will continue no matter what we do or not do. Large scale societal ills can be cured, contained or dispensed with with varying degree of success and yet with side effects.

People die because they are hit by police cars and ambulances answering emergency calls. Their deaths could be avoided if said ambulance drove slower, but should they? Human tragedy doesn't eliminate the dilemmas society faces, and individual calamities are not indusive to the whole. I wont sugar coat that out of sentiment.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Did mass executions by the tens of thousands solve the Opium problems in China?

Not a good comparison. China may have held mass executions, Dutente is avoiding that. Base your critique on the facts not the hysteria.

Dutente has made some very strong language and as expected the drug addicts are surrendering, a number of the drugs abusers are also surrendering. Most of the rest are running.

 Vaktathi wrote:

No. Did death squads or military execution units solve the problems in Columbia, Nicaragua, or Mexico?

Yes they do. its how the Zeta contested a quarter of the nation from other cartels in a short space of time.

Also you didnt mention Belize. It worked in Belize, not death squads per se, but Belize does have Gurkhas running around its jungles. Cartels learned quickly not to feth with them. Why is this, because they have the best singalongs or knitting bees?
Dutentes methods are to instil fear, not death, as with the Gurkhas. Yes something can be scary enough even to stop cartels.

 Vaktathi wrote:

No. I cannot think of a single example where violence solved a drug problem, despite such having been tried many times in the past.

I can. The KGB had a handle on it. Part of the reason things went vary badly when Yeltsin took over was because Russia was virgin territory for organised crime and suddenly left without strong internal security. Yes there was organised crime in the soviet Union, it happens everywhere, but it was comparatively low key.
there, one example, there are several more, and not just counting different communist countires either.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Hell, in Mexico, those death squads ended up just taking over cartel operations themselves and dramatically escalating the violence.
This is not a hypothesis in need of testing, this is a discredited theory with a long history of damning contrary evidence.

You are making up conclusions without looking for evidence, never a good sign.
A successful example was given to you, and a methodology in separation to a KGB style security police was also given to you in the form of frontier justice.

 Vaktathi wrote:

People need to open their eyes and look at the issue clearly.

...really?

lets look at the hysterical arguements:

Yes, we'll label the mass murder by uncontrolled government elements of the civilian population "hysterics".

We are seeing mass surrender, that is a defacto fact as vast numbers have been forced onto the rehabilitation programs associated with surrendered drug users and street level sellers.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Your "theory" here has been tried, again and again, in many countries in many different time periods. It's neither novel nor new, and has failed every time. I can't come up with a single example of it actually solving anything. Why anyone thinks it will do anything but rachet up the bodycount is beyond me...

You are making conclusions based on unfactual evidence backed up by an assumption without basis that there has been no successful application of the ;'theory' as you put it, despite presented researchable evidence to the contrary.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Other nations seems to eventually resolve these issues without having to abandon their duties, laws, and responsibilities to engage in mass murder...

Actually they dont. Even the US with all its might has failed. However frontier justice, that does work.

Also three facts before you repeat the mass murder hysteria message.
- Dutente made the scare message you are latching onto to get drug users to take the warning seriously which is working.
- The mass murder is already long ongoing due to the cartel violence, not armed empowered populace are no longer playing the forgotten victim.
- The hard fact is that the majority of those who are potential targets are surrendering and are thus protected.

 Vaktathi wrote:

"Frontier Justice" is an overblown myth of the US West, largely perpetuated for dramatic effect and wannabe macho headcannon of "better times", with a dramatically lower occurrence and bodycount than is typically portrayed. It's mostly a fiction.

I don't disagree with this statement with regards to the Old West, which is why caveats were given. Alternate less well known examples could be given, The British and other european powers colonial administrations used this strategy successfully in Africa.
it also worked in post colonial Africa.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Did some things happen? Yes. Were they commonplace or on anything near the scale occurring in the Philippines? No. Was the West anywhere near as wild as its often portrayed? No.

However it did occur and did work. Gangs did rise and flourish and fall apart because an armed empowered citizenry made them fail. The analogy did at that level hold. This is why its a valid example. Now the Old West didn't have a major drug cartel problem, most forms of narcotics were legal at that time and there was no equivalent to a drugs industry. Gang might was a problem but it was a small scale problem, however the analogy follows because frontier justice works at a local level. Its not the government taking on the local drug gangs but the government empowering the local people to take up arms and oppose the drug gangs. From a local point of view there isn't too much difference between a drugs cartel local death squad and a small isolated band of bandits, they are a broadly comperable threat that can be opposed the same way.

 Vaktathi wrote:

What eventually calmed what wild there was in the west? Economic development, not violence.

Actually this required hardmen to work with the corporations. Violence was a major part of the successful economic development, especially the railroads. Once infrastructure was established things changed.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Again...yeah, the Philippines has problems. Plenty of other nations manage to eventualy solve those without mass slaughter...

again the hysteria message to counteract a lack of facts.

Spelling it out for you.
- Mass murder is already ongoing, cartels do it. Dutente is stopping the mass murder, not starting it.
- The goal is to force mass surrender, not mass deaths, its even working.
- The secondary goal is to empower the populace so that they don't have to live in fear of the cartels, but the cartels must fear the consequences of brutalising the people.

The Philippines doesnt have the time or patience to wait decades for an alternate solution. There might not be an alternate solution, and any solution would have to be economic, which cant happen if the infrastructure is saturated.

 Vaktathi wrote:

This is not an argument I made, but regardless, that one is willing to advocate to shed innocent lives on a mass scale and acknowledge their humanity juat to discard it on a whim as just the cost of the police doing business is both disgusting and infuriating, particularly when the dead in such events are mostly innocents and government action of this kind just escalates the bodycount and has never been shown to reduce it.

Not willing to shed those lives, just willing to acknowledge that collateral is an ugly reality that occurs whenever force is used on a large scale.
You can be disgusted and infuriated by the comments. Go ahead. I too could share disgust, but I would share it with those, who from the safety of armchairs thousands of miles away would condemn the Philippines to remain suffering under an unending tide of drugs violence, mass killings cartels, infiltration at will into civic society. All because the needed solution to rid the nation of those evils did not meet the approval of some people on the internet. Who the feth are you to get in their way?

Last year who here or in the press was calling out for action against the mass killings gojng on perpetuated by cartels. It wasnt news in the west, partly because its commonplace year in year out and also because its just brown people dying, to criminals.

The Filipino people, have on their own accord, backed a democratically elected leader, not a dictator as the hysterics would say, and openly and continually endorsed a plan intended to rid the Philippines of cartel influence. This plan is intended to work by forcing organised crime underground and to the fringe (it is an unrealistic goal to eliminate drugs completely), starving the narcotics industry of much of its functionality by forcingly rehabilitating drug users and most of all destroying the fear infrastructure by making it dangerous for drug cartels to brutalise local populations if said local populations are encouraged and empowered to resist and fight back.

Not you, not me, but the people on the ground, the people suffering in the Philippines, the people who see this problem and live with it every day. They are asking for help and large numbers are backing Dutente here.. Its ally in the US did very little, and largely didn't give a feth when people died even in large numbers. But when someone finally does do something, now the White House is raising its arms in condemnation.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Every single one of these arguments could be, and has been, erroneously used to commit mass murder and great social harm.

Evidence please.

 Vaktathi wrote:

This is all straight out of the Franco/Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pot playbook, line for line, and that people still think it'll have some positive effect is the definition of insanity.

Is it? Did you actually try to look at the issues before you posted that hysterica nonsense. Actually frontier justice was supported by several US administrations, it was one of the benefits of the right to bear arms to be included in the US constitution. An armed empowered populace is a safeguard against centralised tyranny. Also none of the above you mentioned, wanted independent arming of the populace, as they realised it gives the populace independence from centralised government.. So despite your soundbyte it is THE EXACT OPPOSITE IN FACT to what Franco, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot actually did.

And the insanity accusation rears its ugly head again, from yet another person who will not think things through.

 Vaktathi wrote:

At this point, does anyone think Dutente is ever going to willingly leave office?

Any evidence that he wont? Or are you just basing everything on hysteria again.

 Vaktathi wrote:

This approach has been tried many times and has never proven successful, and has in almost all instances simply made things worse, and often played into dictatorial power seizures. Other nations have worked through these issues without resorting to mass murder. Why anyone thinks it'll work in this instance is beyond puzzling.

Your conclusion is baseless, you make absolute statements why something would never work and ignore that you are completely wrong because it has in fact doen so on several occassions. You can stop now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

I am not ruling out the possibility of an alternate point of view. But it isn't bat-gak-crazy.
And what is all this crap about 80's movies, that is a cheap shot.. I have given example and weighting to my comments, articulating them thoroughly. You don't have to agree with the reasoning to at least have the decency to admit that the reasoning has been made. 80's movies means having a fight without a plot, you cant ever label that against me. I explain all my opinions, hence why my political posts are often longer than a sentence or two.

By 80's movies, I'm referring to this bizare idea that somehow excessive violence from sanctioned Government hit squads which operate outside the law courts and due process will somehow result in all wrongs being righted, and everyone skipping off into the distance to a happy and productive future. I mean, seriously, just to take your prior post

Ok you can stop that right now. This is politics and I understand politics well enough and articulate it clearly enough so that it is not excusable to accuse me of seeing a 100% successful outcome, to anything.

A. If you are trolling then you are trolling. I expect that from Sebster, not from you.
B. If you actually do think that I am assuming that there are zero side efects to this policy and that it will mean everyone being happy riding off into the sunset or equivalent. Then where the feth is your evidence for it. I am not tal;king about evidence you agree with, just evidence that I dont think things through, that I don't see several outcomes or look at several perspectives. My posts are thorough enough, you know this.

 Ketara wrote:

The 'people' haven't been empowered. The only ones empowered are those with the ability to commit extrajudicial killings with no consequence. Your average citizen hasn't been 'empowered', he's just been made a potential target for two factions instead of one in any negative circumstances.

Evidence please.

 Ketara wrote:

In the best case scenario, one of the factions will kill and replace the other.

Stop you there, based on what evidence.

 Ketara wrote:

The Filipino 'people' do not win in this scenario. The execution squads won't simply dissolve into the backdrop of a Vegas club scene for retirement surrounded by beautiful ladies to leave the country to forge a brave new future (like an eighties film)..

Ok. First I dont think about this like an eighties film, you just either cant understand that or didnt be bothers to read well enough to recognise that. That isn't my fault.
Secondly this is an empowerment of the people, look at the policy. But it's in it's very early stages, so opportunists are trying their hand - the populace will both take longer to empower and will be more restrained, and the press are only really reporting the tragedies as they make the best headlines.

It is not a case of Dutente arming alternate criminals, that has already happened, its popular empowerment, so eventually the populace gets the empowerment. The 'execution squads' as you think of them (and yet you are calling me out for seeing this like an 80's movie, the hypocrisy) would have to face an empowered populace.

 Ketara wrote:

The kind of people you recruit to string people up en masse illegally don't tend to be what you'd call 'good guys'. This:-

Ok so where are the 'mass executions'? Is it backed up by evidence or assumption and hysteria.

 Ketara wrote:

is just so much speculatory optimistic hogwash. In real life, mass murders of tens of thousands of people don't leave you with a happy party at the closing credits,......

Still waiting for you to base your commentary on anything other than press hysteria.
You have jumped up in outrage at press articles without thinking through what is happening.
So, I dont think I will bother with the rest.
Sheesh, and to think that YOU are calling ME out on mental health grounds. Yet I am being rational and analytical here.

 Ketara wrote:

....In real life, that doesn't happen.

Just as well Dutente is making real life policies then, not the scaremongering you read from your favourite tabloid.

 Orlanth wrote:
The emphasis is on forcing surrender, and from what we are seeing that is working.

Whatever Duterte may choose to emphasize, the thousands murdered by extra-judicial mobs are the single stand out result.

Dutente beleives he had an answer. he explained his solution to the electorate. The Filipino people voted Dutente in in a democratic mandate and have since endorsed the policy as it is being carried out. They understand will well there has been collateral and innocent lives lost, but that was happening anyway.

His name is Duterte, not Dutente. I know you've complained about me being mean to you for not actually knowing anything about this, but there are reasons. You keep claiming you have real knowledge and insight in to the culture and politics of the Philippines, but you don't even know the name of the country's leader, a guy we've been arguing about for 9 pages.

And anyway, you've just gone back to repeating that same ridiculous argument again that Duterte won the election therefore anything goes. Democracy does not give the winner open slather, it is not the rule of the mob. Successful democracy is tempered by process and the rule of law.

Who are you to tell them they cannot fight their way out of their problem.

Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens.

Basically this. Starve the narcotics industry of its customer base, and destroy narcotics infrastructure. SAVE LIVES in the longer term. REDUCE VIOLENCE in the longer term.

This is the argument Robespierre made too.

Murder now, happy society later is a really fethed up thing, and it never works.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The emphasis is on forcing surrender, and from what we are seeing that is working.

Whatever Duterte may choose to emphasize, the thousands murdered by extra-judicial mobs are the single stand out result..

The single stand out results are the 700,000 and counting who have surrendered. That hasn't happened before. The smaller number of people who died, that was happening anyway, because it's what the cartels do.

 sebster wrote:

His name is Duterte, not Dutente. I know you've complained about me being mean to you for not actually knowing anything about this, but there are reasons. You keep claiming you have real knowledge and insight in to the culture and politics of the Philippines, but you don't even know the name of the country's leader, a guy we've been arguing about for 9 pages..

I had it right earlier, and am posting late at night. It's not a name I am familiar with yet. You misspelled Philippines earlier, just after I misspelled Guzman, I didn't call you out. Because it would be cheap to do so.

 sebster wrote:

And anyway, you've just gone back to repeating that same ridiculous argument again that Duterte won the election therefore anything goes.

No that isn't the aguement, and you are being dishonest if you say it is. Duterte explained to the electorate what his policy would be and as mayor he already done something very similar. He won a popular mandate with account to that. So its not a case of 'anything goes', which would imply that Duterte could make up policy as he goes along.

 sebster wrote:

Democracy does not give the winner open slather, it is not the rule of the mob. Successful democracy is tempered by process and the rule of law.

So the US is not a democracy then? Drone victims dont get due process.
Sorry, that doesn't follow.

 sebster wrote:

Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens.

They shouldn't, but it happens, and generally it isn't called murder but is sanitised.

 sebster wrote:

Basically this. Starve the narcotics industry of its customer base, and destroy narcotics infrastructure. SAVE LIVES in the longer term. REDUCE VIOLENCE in the longer term.

This is the argument Robespierre made too.

Robespierre is not comparable, he was a revolutionary directly appointed to a committee (to which he did not at the time volunteer) charged with internal security of a revolutionary state by any means. Duterte is a democratically elected politician with a legal term of office and mandate.
Duterte is interested in dealing with crime in a nation with its own sovereign parliament, Robespierre was interested in dealing with any form of dissent by a revolutionary government that had outlawed any opposed position.

 sebster wrote:

Murder now, happy society later is a really fethed up thing, and it never works.

Force surrender of entrenched armed opposition now, happier society later is a more plausible goal.
Besides a brutal but cautioned response to brutality has worked several times in history. Just taking the broad geographical region, Malaysia in the 50's comes to mind immediately, as it stopped a communist guerilla campaign, same in Borneo.
This is brutal but cautioned as there is a way out - surrender.
Besides this is already working, and again - it wouldn't be the first time. But why let facts get in the way of a good handwave, you can just say 'it never works', without bothering to find out if you are right or not, and its like 'lalala not listening'.

I am not saying Duterte will succeed, he may, he may not. but there is plausibility to the plan he is working on. Its neither as dumb or random as some people assume.

 Orlanth wrote:
The single stand out results are the 700,000 and counting who have surrendered. That hasn't happened before. The smaller number of people who died, that was happening anyway, because it's what the cartels do.

You treat murder as an accounting function, if x people are murdered by the state, and E(x) was equal then nothing bad has happened. You are ignoring the basic risks to the state from government sanctioning murder.

And that's before we even consider that your assumption that as many people would have been killed by the cartels is based in nothing but casual speculation.

I had it right earlier, and am posting late at night. It's not a name I am familiar with yet. You misspelled Philippines earlier, just after I misspelled Guzman, I didn't call you out. Because it would be cheap to do so.

You've spent time in this thread lecturing me that you know so much about the country and it's problems, but now you admit that you're not even very familiar with name of its president.

No that isn't the aguement, and you are being dishonest if you say it is. Duterte explained to the electorate what his policy would be and as mayor he already done something very similar. He won a popular mandate with account to that. So its not a case of 'anything goes', which would imply that Duterte could make up policy as he goes along.

That's a ridiculous reading of what I said. Anything goes is a reference to the abandonment of legal process, which should have been clear if you'd just read what I said. Instead you chop it up in to little quotes, argue each sentence and sentence fragment in isolation of the context given by the complete statement, and the result is, well, the utter nonsense we've been doing for about four pages now.

So the US is not a democracy then? Drone victims dont get due process.
Sorry, that doesn't follow.

You are trying to make the argument that ignoring due process in one democracy means it is okay for every other democracy to ignore due process. This is ridiculous.

And you continue to ignore the difference between operations outside of the US, and operations within the borders of the Philippines.

Robespierre is not comparable, he was a revolutionary directly appointed to a committee (to which he did not at the time volunteer) charged with internal security of a revolutionary state by any means. Duterte is a democratically elected politician with a legal term of office and mandate.

Yes, Robespierre had a new state in a state of high flux. If anything his position is at least somewhat sympathetic, though his response is almost universally regarded as utterly barbaric and totally self-defeating. Duterte doesn't even have the defence of a state in a high state of flux.

Meanwhile, once again you've managed to deliberately miss the argument. Whatever a person's end goal, deciding to murder everyone who stands in the way of that end goal, actually makes that person the evil dude.

Force surrender of entrenched armed opposition now, happier society later is a more plausible goal.

And the forced surrender happens... by murdering a lot of people.

I am not saying Duterte will succeed, he may, he may not. but there is plausibility to the plan he is working on. Its neither as dumb or random as some people assume.

And I am saying it is extremely unlikely he will succeed, because you cannot murder your way out of a drug problem. It is a social failing. And then on top of that there's an even stronger point, that even if his methods did succeed it wouldn't justify state sanctioned murder. There is nothing as powerful as the state, it holds almost complete power over the lives of anyone who lives there. Allowing the state to murder people inside its own borders is obviously incredibly dangerous, and I am amazed that you have so blithely ignored the risk.

 Orlanth wrote:


The single stand out results are the 700,000 and counting who have surrendered. That hasn't happened before. The smaller number of people who died, that was happening anyway, because it's what the cartels do. .

How many of those 700k people actually used or sold drugs? Are people suspected of drug offences who hand themselves into the police despite being completely innocent included in that figure?

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The single stand out results are the 700,000 and counting who have surrendered. That hasn't happened before. The smaller number of people who died, that was happening anyway, because it's what the cartels do.

You treat murder as an accounting function, if x people are murdered by the state, and E(x) was equal then nothing bad has happened. You are ignoring the basic risks to the state from government sanctioning murder.

We don't call our extraijudicial killings 'murder'. It isn't even a new policy over there, or haven't you realised this. All Duterte is doing is increasing the numbers of drug gang members being summarily shot by police, it was already happening. They even called it a drugs war. In their eyes it isn't 'murder' any more than those who get killed by drones.

 sebster wrote:

And that's before we even consider that your assumption that as many people would have been killed by the cartels is based in nothing but casual speculation..

Admittedly true, but they do have some crime data and know it is heavy and ongoing. So speculation that the trend would continue is not 'casual speculation'.

 sebster wrote:

I had it right earlier, and am posting late at night. It's not a name I am familiar with yet. You misspelled Philippines earlier, just after I misspelled Guzman, I didn't call you out. Because it would be cheap to do so.

You've spent time in this thread lecturing me that you know so much about the country and it's problems, but now you admit that you're not even very familiar with name of its president.

He is rather new, and its a letter error not a miss-attribution to someone else.
At least I can spell the country. What does it say about you if we apply your own logic to yourself. The Philippines have been around a lot longer than Duterte. Also it was late at night when I wrote this, but you had to take your cheap shot.
You are grasping.

 sebster wrote:

That's a ridiculous reading of what I said. Anything goes is a reference to the abandonment of legal process, which should have been clear if you'd just read what I said.

What abandonment? You imply that using the police to gun down drug gang members is somehow new in the Philippines. Its inherent and ongoing. Try and understand something of the situation before you post please. You are spouting random speculation out of ignorance.

 sebster wrote:

Instead you chop it up in to little quotes, argue each sentence and sentence fragment in isolation of the context given by the complete statement, and the result is, well, the utter nonsense we've been doing for about four pages now.

This is called analysis, but I don't look at it in isolation, but with reference to the situation on the ground as from what I can read of it. You should try doing the same.

 sebster wrote:

So the US is not a democracy then? Drone victims dont get due process.
Sorry, that doesn't follow.

You are trying to make the argument that ignoring due process in one democracy means it is okay for every other democracy to ignore due process. This is ridiculous.

No I am arguing a reply to your earlier comment, if you didn't remove your comment from the quote you wouldn't haver any excuse to try and make up a new inference that you can critique easier than what was actually implied. Not falling for that.

 sebster wrote:

Yes, Robespierre had a new state in a state of high flux. If anything his position is at least somewhat sympathetic, though his response is almost universally regarded as utterly barbaric and totally self-defeating. Duterte doesn't even have the defence of a state in a high state of flux.

Duterte doesnt have the need to eliminate rivals. He is instead upping the stakes in an ongoing drugs war. Still a democracy over there and Duterte's critics are loud enough in parliament. He may or many not try to suspend democracy, if he does my opinion of him will change. However I will not assume this of him, unlike others who insist it has already happened.

 sebster wrote:

Meanwhile, once again you've managed to deliberately miss the argument. Whatever a person's end goal, deciding to murder everyone who stands in the way of that end goal, actually makes that person the evil dude.

I understand, you evidently dont. The goal is not to 'murder everyone who stands in the way' or Duterte would not be forcing surrender as his primary goal. There would be no point in that. You keep avoiding the facts because facts get in the way of your preferred point of view.

 sebster wrote:

Force surrender of entrenched armed opposition now, happier society later is a more plausible goal.

And the forced surrender happens... by murdering a lot of people.

Case in point. Are police extra-judical killings in a country with a continuous history of extra-judicial killings in a drugs war 'murder'. To them it is not, and they are the law practicing the law in an internal matter.
If Filipino cops shot someone outside the Philippines thern you could definitely say murder. Even then what the Filipino government is doing is not different to what other governments do, and it is not in their cases called murder.
Your terminology is loaded.

Not only is it loaded it is inaccurate. Forced surrender happens by the threat of killing. The killings are ongoing and predate the new policy and current administration as part of the Philippines war on drugs. Then add tom that the further dynamic of empowerment of the populace to resist the cartels.

 sebster wrote:

And I am saying it is extremely unlikely he will succeed, because you cannot murder your way out of a drug problem. It is a social failing.

It worked for the Soviets. So you are definitively incorrect there.

Social failing it is though, and above a certain scale cartels saturate the infrastructure and it is destructive to society. The Us has enough money and resources to prevent that happening. Central American countries dont and thus suffer appallingly for it. The Philippines is in the same position and wants out. They either take a tried and tested hardline approach (Duterte is trying this, and has backing from Russia and China, so he has the tools to succeed), or a tried and tested have a multi-trillion dollar GDP approach (nice if they could have that), or continue with guaranteed perpetuated large scale human misery (your preferred option).

 sebster wrote:

And then on top of that there's an even stronger point, that even if his methods did succeed it wouldn't justify state sanctioned murder.

First in your ignorance, even after all these pages, you haven't realised that the extra-judiical killings are ongoing, not new. Second state sanction killing occur in a lot of places without the effects you can predict. Israel will likely survive, and the US and Uk still keep their democracies.

 sebster wrote:

There is nothing as powerful as the state, it holds almost complete power over the lives of anyone who lives there. Allowing the state to murder people inside its own borders is obviously incredibly dangerous, and I am amazed that you have so blithely ignored the risk.

You utterly fail to comprehend what was explained earlier plainly. By empowering the populace to make armed resistance to drugs infrastructure you inherently empower them against centralised control.

You are so set upon the 'state sanction murder buzzwords, because they look your arguments appear cool and heady without looking at what is actually happening. Do yourself as favour, think for yourself, rise above the press hysteria message of mods and death gangs etc and rad between the lines. see what is actually going on behind the rhetoric of both Duterte and his opponents.

Can you imagine that the Filipino people would say yes to random death squads causing large scale mass-murder with tens-of-thousands dead? - Here lumping together collage of the wild eyed hysteria and exaggeration posted by both yourself and others over the last few pages. It would be like Jews voting in the Holocaust. Give your brain a chance, read beyond the headline grabbing lines and read the articles. See how long this has been ongoing, who is being mobilised and how, what is being said, in the Philippines by whom and on what.
Remember that the people voted for this man because of what he said he would do, and has done previously as mayor, and Duterte maintains a level of popular support that would be anomalous if he had suddenly gone off the rails and not being working to a plan.
Ask yourself why vast numbers of people would surrender, if they believed surrender was a shortcut to later death camps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


The single stand out results are the 700,000 and counting who have surrendered. That hasn't happened before. The smaller number of people who died, that was happening anyway, because it's what the cartels do. .

How many of those 700k people actually used or sold drugs? Are people suspected of drug offences who hand themselves into the police despite being completely innocent included in that figure?

We dont know. I could see the possibility that innocent law abiding citizens get accused of being drug pushers so that rivals could harm them, and surrender to the police before harm occurs.
Part of the tragedy is that as with any armed conflict collateral happens. Some collateral is intentionally targeted, especially in civic unrest. This is endemic in cartel violence infest areas anyway. It is part of the inevitable symptoms of a long diseased nation state.

Drug users are the primary targets for surrender anyway, and they are easy to identify. The main problem we are seeing in reports is that so many are surrendering it is overloading the support services treating drug addiction.
Just speculation here but China could easily provide the medical muscle to help with this, and is motivated to bind stronger ties. Especially as US support is fading.

 Orlanth wrote:

Ok you can stop that right now. This is politics and I understand politics well enough and articulate it clearly enough so that it is not excusable to accuse me of seeing a 100% successful outcome, to anything...If you actually do think that I am assuming that there are zero side efects to this policy and that it will mean everyone being happy riding off into the sunset or equivalent. Then where the feth is your evidence for it. I am not tal;king about evidence you agree with, just evidence that I dont think things through, that I don't see several outcomes or look at several perspectives. My posts are thorough enough, you know this.

That's funny, because that was the picture you were busy drawing. That's why I quoted your prior post to that effect. The one where you said things like 'If the problem is burned away there can be a future without such tragedies on a large scale' or 'When the problem is burned out the Filipino people can afford to be nice.'

Statements like these imply that the problem will be solved. Finished. Completed. Job's a good 'un. That any future problems will be unrelated to these ones (having been 'burned away' and all), and what problems are around will be far smaller in scale/scope. The statements also imply that the future will be bright/positive.

If these are not the themes you are intending to communicate, you may wish to rephrase.

The 'people' haven't been empowered. The only ones empowered are those with the ability to commit extrajudicial killings with no consequence. Your average citizen hasn't been 'empowered', he's just been made a potential target for two factions instead of one in any negative circumstances.

Evidence please.

Errr.....the fact that your average citizen is now at risk from being gunned down by both the cartels and the police? Our hypothetical citizen was previously only vulnerable to extrajudicial murder as a result of extortion/manipulation/mistaken identity/etc from one faction; namely the cartels. Now they risk those things at the hands of the police (and potentially other citizens) as well. Evidence isn't really necessary, it's the core facts of the scenario being discussed. It's like asking me for proof that 2 exists in 2+2=4.

Stop you there, based on what evidence.

Well, presumably, the worst case scenario would be the continued existence of both factions able to commit extrajudicial killings? I'm assuming you'd agree with that, considering you're arguing for the elimination of one of the factions with extreme violence. So...the best case scenario is the continued existence of one of those factions? Again, I'm not sure what evidence you're after here, it's somewhat implicit in the scenario being discussed.

Ok. First I dont think about this like an eighties film, you just either cant understand that or didnt be bothers to read well enough to recognise that. That isn't my fault.

I don't know.....what are the odds of practically every other poster in here somehow lacking the communication skills to understand what you're saying? I mean, I like to think this is a reasonably well educated forum.

Secondly this is an empowerment of the people, look at the policy. But it's in it's very early stages, so opportunists are trying their hand - the populace will both take longer to empower and will be more restrained, and the press are only really reporting the tragedies as they make the best headlines.

It is not a case of Dutente arming alternate criminals, that has already happened, its popular empowerment, so eventually the populace gets the empowerment. The 'execution squads' as you think of them (and yet you are calling me out for seeing this like an 80's movie, the hypocrisy) would have to face an empowered populace.

Where do you think the 'empowered populace' gets hold of its munitions? How likely do you think it is that any government sanctioned squads will ever be prosecuted for murdering innocents for any reason it feels like? What's to stop these governmental squads from stamping out all other opposition once the cartels are gone, under the prext of continuing operations against cartels? How long do you think your 'empowered populace' will last if that occurs?

Ok so where are the 'mass executions'? Is it backed up by evidence or assumption and hysteria.

In order to stamp out the cartels, you are advocating mass executions. Whether they have happened yet or not is actually irrelevant to the point under discussion. We're discussing in future tense, not past, on the basis that what you are envisioning has occurred. And in order to envision a future where all the cartel members and drug users have been killed, we have to envision one where someone actually, well y'know....does the killing?

Still waiting for you to base your commentary on anything other than press hysteria.
You have jumped up in outrage at press articles without thinking through what is happening.
So, I dont think I will bother with the rest.
Sheesh, and to think that YOU are calling ME out on mental health grounds. Yet I am being rational and analytical here.

I never said anything about your mental health. Perhaps you wish I had, in order to vaguely justify your faux outrage/premeditated conclusions about my own own position. But I'm afraid all I'm guilty of is being amused at the idea that you can idly kill thousands of people with no legal ramifications or oversight, and then fade away into a happy backdrop. It really is the sort of thing that only occurs in movies.

 Ketara wrote:

Statements like these imply that the problem will be solved. Finished. Completed. Job's a good 'un. That any future problems will be unrelated to these ones (having been 'burned away' and all), and what problems are around will be far smaller in scale/scope. The statements also imply that the future will be bright/positive.

If these are not the themes you are intending to communicate, you may wish to rephrase.

No, that is a fair assessment. However it gives nobody room to assume the Philippines will be a resultant paradise, more like further from hell.

 Ketara wrote:

Errr.....the fact that your average citizen is now at risk from being gunned down by both the cartels and the police? Our hypothetical citizen was previously only vulnerable to extrajudicial murder as a result of extortion/manipulation/mistaken identity/etc from one faction; namely the cartels. Now they risk those things at the hands of the police (and potentially other citizens) as well. Evidence isn't really necessary, it's the core facts of the scenario being discussed. It's like asking me for proof that 2 exists in 2+2=4.

Collateral, is a side effect that ideally should be eliminated but practically cannot. The Philippines has a long ongoing drugs war, this generates collateral casualties anyway, so that hasn't changed.

 Ketara wrote:

Well, presumably, the worst case scenario would be the continued existence of both factions able to commit extrajudicial killings?

On a worst case that can happen. However the mass surrenders make that scenario less likely, as does the empowerment of the populace who were hitherto victims. War deosnt come without risk of defeat.

 Ketara wrote:

I'm assuming you'd agree with that, considering you're arguing for the elimination of one of the factions with extreme violence. So...the best case scenario is the continued existence of one of those factions? Again, I'm not sure what evidence you're after here, it's somewhat implicit in the scenario being discussed.

The continued existence of the police is not a problem, even if the police has blood ion its hands. There is a chain of command and an ongoing amnesty, this inherently includes a procedure to end both meaning that once completed the action can stop. there are historical examples in the past of such campaigns.

 Ketara wrote:

Where do you think the 'empowered populace' gets hold of its munitions? How likely do you think it is that any government sanctioned squads will ever be prosecuted for murdering innocents for any reason it feels like? What's to stop these governmental squads from stamping out all other opposition once the cartels are gone, under the pretext of continuing operations against cartels? How long do you think your 'empowered populace' will last if that occurs?

What prevents the empower populace from turning on Duterte either. When you outsource retribution to the people you empower them at expense of central government. As for the armaments, china seems an increasingly likely source. Armed citizenry with an instilled national identity are a strong deterrent to organised crime and make government oppression. Duterte doesn't need to twiddle his moustache and muhahaha to power, he is democratically elected and the people are backing him. If he delivers they will continue to vote for him. If he becomes the saviour of his nation in the eyes of his own electorate, he will be very strongly entrenched.

 Ketara wrote:

In order to stamp out the cartels, you are advocating mass executions. Whether they have happened yet or not is actually irrelevant to the point under discussion. We're discussing in future tense, not past, on the basis that what you are envisioning has occurred. And in order to envision a future where all the cartel members and drug users have been killed, we have to envision one where someone actually, well y'know....does the killing?

Correction, the ideal is still to force a general surrender. This fits all logic, including right back to Sun Tzu. Give your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across. Surrender and decent treatment is that bridge. It would hurt Dutertes policy not to keep his promises over treatment post surrender. The mass executions will not occur. Individual targeting of cartel members will occur and drug users and drugs criminals will be encouraged to surrender. Thats the plan anyway.

 Ketara wrote:

I never said anything about your mental health. Perhaps you wish I had, in order to vaguely justify your faux outrage/premeditated conclusions about my own own position..

You referred to my comments as insane.

 Ketara wrote:

But I'm afraid all I'm guilty of is being amused at the idea that you can idly kill thousands of people with no legal ramifications or oversight, and then fade away into a happy backdrop. It really is the sort of thing that only occurs in movies.

Sorry to break your amusement, but I am not calling for mass killings, and Duterte is only making such comments to show how far he is prepared to go if surrender does not occur. Surrender is occurring, as he expected.

The narcotics industry requires a product and a customer base. Deny a customer base, even if doing so with a nasty stick of reprisal can starve out the drugs industry of most of its income. The next stage will be elimination of rural narcotics infrastructure, i.e. drug farms. Normally that is whack a mole, because the accessible customer base still exists, and thus the losses are recoverable. However with starving local drug producers of their income and forcing a reinvestment of infrastructure may well be too much. The above is theory as we are still at early stages, the policies are currently only implemented in the urban areas. China has already promised assistance in materiel. There are popular movements waiting to be armed and take back rurtal areas from the cartels.

I cant fail to notice that the entire process is very ugly, and don't deny that. But it is one that is endorsed by a sovereign people as perhaps their only way out of the problem they are in. But its a necessary ugly, It is a necessary ugliness, like Bomber Command planning the annihilation of German cities in World War 2, nasty ugly decisions made for the longer term good.

 Orlanth wrote:

No, that is a fair assessment.

So you agree that you expect all issues relating to the drugs cartels and the subsequent violence used to eliminate them to simply vanish.

I suppose all those freshly armed citizens with guns you're envisioning with murdered relatives will simply issue blanket forgiveness for the good of society, any police units used to killing civilians without trial will willingly lay down their arms, and the Premier, despite his personal risk of subsequent trial and prosecution, will have faith that his future will be wonderful under any latter administration and step aside eagerly when his time comes.

What a magnificent place to live the Phillipines must be.

 Ketara wrote:

Collateral, is a side effect that ideally should be eliminated but practically cannot. The Philippines has a long ongoing drugs war, this generates collateral casualties anyway, so that hasn't changed.

Okay? So you agree that your average citizen isn't 'empowered', but rather now at risk from unwarranted murder by two armed factions instead of one. But since they were at risk of that anyway, you believe it's an acceptable state of affairs? That seems to be your reasoning, tracking your responses on this point.

 Ketara wrote:

On a worst case that can happen. However the mass surrenders make that scenario less likely, as does the empowerment of the populace who were hitherto victims. War deosnt come without risk of defeat.

One wonders why if the opposition is willing to 'surrender' so easily, extrajudicial killings are necessary. Regardless of that, we've established that no matter who wins, the 'best' result is a heavily armed police force well used to extrajudicial killing with a definite stake in maintaining power.

 Ketara wrote:

The continued existence of the police is not a problem, even if the police has blood ion its hands. There is a chain of command and an ongoing amnesty, this inherently includes a procedure to end both meaning that once completed the action can stop. there are historical examples in the past of such campaigns.

There are infinitely more of the opposite.It's not the norm, historically speaking.

 Ketara wrote:

What prevents the empower populace from turning on Duterte either.

The well armed police force used to performing extrajudicial killings? I mean, that's the logical answer there.

When you outsource retribution to the people you empower them at expense of central government.

You keep talking about the 'empowered people', but your average bloke in the street won't burst into drug cartel territory with an AK-47 even if you promise him nothing will happen to him. He values his life, and believes he pays taxes to the state to undertake jobs like that. People don't generally set out to kill unless they either feel they have no choice thanks to an immediate threat, or have a screw loose.

No 'empowered people' will be capable of resisting any sort of sustained suppression by a security force with experience in dismantling armed civilian based organisations . If they could, the police force wouldn't be capable of dealing with the cartels to begin with. Either the police has capability to destroy the cartels (through extrajuduicial killings and direct assaults), and can therefore obliterate any one of these recently 'empowered' groups of civilians you're referring to, or they can't. You can't have it both ways.

 Ketara wrote:

Correction, the ideal is still to force a general surrender. This fits all logic, including right back to Sun Tzu. Give your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across. Surrender and decent treatment is that bridge. It would hurt Dutertes policy not to keep his promises over treatment post surrender. The mass executions will not occur. Individual targeting of cartel members will occur and drug users and drugs criminals will be encouraged to surrender. Thats the plan anyway.

So rather than mass killings followed by a happy backdrop, what you're actually saying is that there will be mass executions threatened, followed by a general surrender and a happy backdrop?

The Phillipines does indeed sound like the perfect place to live.

 Ketara wrote:

You referred to my comments as insane.

Your comments. Because they are. I'll leave it to you and whoever else cares enough, to consider the question of whether only the insane can hold insane views. I have better things to do.

 Orlanth wrote:

Yes it is. But I have no magick wand to wave to dispel away crime. human tragedy will continue no matter what we do or not do. Large scale societal ills can be cured, contained or dispensed with with varying degree of success and yet with side effects.

People die because they are hit by police cars and ambulances answering emergency calls. Their deaths could be avoided if said ambulance drove slower, but should they? Human tragedy doesn't eliminate the dilemmas society faces, and individual calamities are not indusive to the whole. I wont sugar coat that out of sentiment.

These are platitudes passed off as tough, no-nonsense truth saying. This post boils down to "sometimes there is badness" and has no coherent connection to anything.

Full on Dictator, indeed. Now he's aligning himself with Russia and China...might as well learn from the best.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/duterte-says-us-has-lost-aligns-philippines-with-china/ar-AAjaEvu?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=ASUDHP

Wow. Some people are so edgy they cut like a knife.

Also, have fun with this nut, China.

Hide yo women, hide yo children, hide yo weed dealers!

Not sure how well that will do for him. The US had a 92% favrobility rate in the Philippines as of June last year. The highest of any country.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/

 kronk wrote:
Wow. Some people are so edgy they cut like a knife.

Also, have fun with this nut, China.

Hide yo women, hide yo children, hide yo weed dealers!

Do China have there hand full with Kim to take on another one lol
They have one lunatic in there book already

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not sure how well that will do for him. The US had a 92% favrobility rate in the Philippines as of June last year. The highest of any country.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/

Clearly, this man knows the will of the people.

Wow, this thread has some of the longest posts seen on Dakka.

Back to the top you go!

Philippines: Duterte confirms he personally killed three men

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38337746



Hmm, so he murders people and takes Fentanyl? Seems like the kind of guy you want in charge.

He will not solve problem if he kills just narcomans and poorer of the dealers. Drug Empire leaders are safe and maybe use that killings for their own drug wars. Without punishing the head, it's just killings for killing.

I've spoken to two Philippinos recently about this guy and both support him

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
I've spoken to two Philippinos recently about this guy and both support him

That says a lot more about them than it does about Duterte.

So, Obama lost Phillipines, too ?
This man really wasted his 8 years as president.

 godardc wrote:
So, Obama lost Phillipines, too ?
This man really wasted his 8 years as president.

What, do you expect him to change who get's elected?

It's like the ultimate "Thanks Obama". Blaming him for something he had no control over. And US popularity is still at something like 98% in the Philippines.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
That says a lot more about them than it does about Duterte.

It doesn't legitimise anything he's done, but it is a good indicator on whether he'll be able to keep winning elections and keep doing it.

While it is also a very small electoral sample, I've spoken to three Phillipinos where Duterte came up. Two were in favour, and one had no idea who he was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godardc wrote:
So, Obama lost Phillipines, too ?
This man really wasted his 8 years as president.

You so funny.

The people of the Philippines elected their government. If they choose a stinker you don't place the blame for that with Obama or anyone else in the US. Doing that is treating the people of the Philippines as children.

This violent authoritarianism seems to be a streak running across the globe. It kind of reminds me a bit of the 30's where authoritarianism was again on the rise. People in that time were dealing with rapid technology change and felt like they could not compete globally. This led to extremism and nationalism on the left and right. I would need to look closer into the time period to see further parallels.

Where's Hats when I need him?

 sebster wrote:

 godardc wrote:
So, Obama lost Phillipines, too ?
This man really wasted his 8 years as president.

You so funny.

The people of the Philippines elected their government. If they choose a stinker you don't place the blame for that with Obama or anyone else in the US. Doing that is treating the people of the Philippines as children.

Obama has done more in the region for positive promotion since 2001 when the Bush administration basically abandoned the region to pursue its War on Terror. Duterte is a demagogue who doesn't like to be questioned and is throwing a fit. While Duterte feels like China accepts him, an illusion the Chinese are all to willing to promote, they are shaking his hand with one hand and stabbing Duterte in the back with the other. Unilateral actions by an egomaniac can't be blamed on others no matter how badly people like Godardc will whitewash them, just to go thanks Obama.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com


What a cool dude.