> During the campaign, Duterte said 100,000 people would die in his crackdown, with so many dead bodies dumped in Manila Bay that fish there would grow fat from feeding on them.
This isn't a joke. This is real. What a sick bastard.
This isn't a joke. This is real. What a sick bastard.
They really want their country cleaned up. Have you ever been there. His city before he cleaned it up, you could not safely walk down the streets, you would be stabbed in broad daylight. Now you can safely walk down the streets at night without being mugged.
Call him sick all you want, guy is bloody awesome from where I'm standing.
Give everyone a license to kill, give everyone a gun, and after that you think everything would just sort itself out? Do you believe that only the right people will survive and then everything will be fine?
Absolutely no risk of a violent degradation into chaos, looting, riots?
..I hope.
If you're not safe in your own homes because of the drug lords you don't have a drug lord problem, you have a law enforcement problem and a corruption issue.
Civilization does not magically arrive by killing a large number of people (and probably plenty of them innocent).
When the uncivilised people control a large amount of money, they control the power, and there's simply no hope of just fixing corruption as you propose.
I think what this guy is proposing will prove to be a good idea with time, and you have his time as a mayor as an example. Even if a few innocents die. To make an omelette you have to break some eggs.
Citation fairly urgently needed.
Does that mean we will have to get rid of the killers as well? They're uncivilized people as well, after all.
> Even if a few innocents die.
Ah, that's too bad.
> To make an omelette you have to break some eggs.
You've got to be kidding.
Think of African or American colonisation for example. Local opposition had to be removed.
Think of the war on drugs in the USA, which was a covert operation to kill blacks.
Etc
>Does that mean we will have to get rid of the killers as well? They're uncivilized people as well, after all.
No they are not. They earned the right to kill drug lords and junkies through democracy. With all due respect did you read the article? This isn't some kind of evil tyrant, that guy earned his position through the electorate because he's been using that plan to do away with scum in his own city and it worked well. Citizens are looking forward to cleanse their country and that's what they'll do, I hope.
Sorry for the brevity as I am typing this from my mobile.
Right, let's just say that that is probably not the strongest argument you could have made.
> Think of the war on drugs in the USA, which was a covert operation to kill blacks.
That's an interesting alternative reading. The 'war on drugs' was a misguided attempt at solving a societal problem through confrontational means. Roughly what the article is all about.
It's also an abject failure, and a textbook case of why these things do not work long term. Kill all the criminals is only a good idea if don't want to have a civilized country.
> No they are not. They earned the right to kill drug lords and junkies through democracy.
Ah ok. That makes them lily white.
> With all due respect did you read the article?
Yes. Now with the same respect: Did you study history? At all?
> This isn't some kind of evil tyrant, that guy earned his position through the electorate because he's been using that plan to do away with scum in his own city and it worked well. Citizens are looking forward to cleanse their country and that's what they'll do, I hope.
Oh, you hope. Well, I hope with you. But the fact is that rather than having a bunch of drug criminals and junkies we will now have a population with a large fraction involved in extra-judicial murder. That's not necessarily a preferably situation over the original one and it leaves in place the biggest problem the country had to begin with: corrupt government officials and police force.
See, when you tackle a problem you should tackle the root cause, not the symptoms.
> Sorry for the brevity as I am typing this from my mobile.
That's fine. I'm not sure more of it would make it any better.
>Right, let's just say that that is probably not the strongest argument you could have made.
Are many of those countries being run better now?
One of my older servants here in Guatemala used to speak fondly of the "genocidal" general Rios Montt. During his time, she said, things were so safe. If someone robbed you, say, grabbed a purse, he'd be shot on the spot! Even now, I hear people express desire for summary execution. They're just so sick of the shittiness of these countries that due process doesn't get consideration.
I don't think many of these countries are very capable of attacking the root problems (which seems to mostly be just sheer incompetence at every conceivable level). At least not on any useful timeframes. It's almost certainly a better deal for them to become protectorates/colonies of properly run countries. Maybe on a 50-year term.
It's fairly obvious you have no frame of reference to judge the people that elected this president, for better or for worse, and what conditions have led them to such measures.
You'd be surprised what thoughts enter your mind when you live in conditions with constant danger and stark prospects. But you'd have to have experienced it, which you obviously haven't.
Really, this whole thread is a testimony to how easy it is to slide into a dictatorship or fascism.
The only time when morality matters is when it is challenged. If you de-humanize others - no matter who - you are also de-humanizing yourself and that road leads fairly directly into hell.
I've spent enough time with people who spent time in those hells to recognize the prelude to one.
I strongly suggest you study up on the person of 'El Presidente' a little bit more before you come out in defense of this person. A couple of hours reading might sway you to the position that this person is going to cause absolutely nothing but trouble (and in fact, is already causing it).
I was merely mentioning that you might not win the argument with the way you were responding before.
> I strongly suggest you study up on the person of 'El Presidente' a little bit more before you come out in defense of this person.
I'm assuming here you're talking about some particular South American dictator, but perhaps you could elaborate?
>> Citation fairly urgently needed
> colonisation for example. Local opposition had to be removed. Think of the war on drugs in the USA, which was a covert operation to kill blacks.
Umm.. I'm assuming I'm misreading this. It sounds like you have just claimed that colonisation and an operation to kill blacks in the US were both ways to do away with uncivilised people and make society better(?!?). What did you mean?
I'm sorry, WHAT?!
Please please expound.
Nuremberg Trials, and thus the international community, said otherwise. Being given the green light or the order to commit crimes against humanity by your government doesn't mean it's right or absolvable.
Regarding crimes against humanity
>Unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity can be committed during peace or war. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder, massacres, dehumanization, extermination, human experimentation, extrajudicial punishments, death squads, forced disappearances, military use of children, kidnappings, unjust imprisonment, slavery, cannibalism, torture, rape, and political or racial repression may reach the threshold of crimes against humanity if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. [0]