Duterte Vows to ‘Forget About Human Rights’ If Islamic State Attacks Philippines

[Ghostpanther]

You're making the assumption that you can kill terrorists with no collateral damage and that the act of killing them will not serve to radicalize their families and friends. People aren't terrorists for no reason, you can't "thin" them out of the population without creating more terrorists. One persons terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It's a mistake not to factor this into your policies for dealing with terrorism. I think the past 15 years have proven this pretty well.

No, you are assuming that I do. I know any war will always have collateral damage. It is the nature of war. And we are at war with terrorism. :P

- - - Updated - - -

And I've already mentioned before in this thread that using anything pig or pork related as a scare tactic does not work ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

And I was not suggesting it was. But there is a collation between pork and some religions to the extent some animals blood and meat is to be avoided.

[Easo]

Where does the dead innocents come from, do you think there have to be dead innocents when hunting jihadis?, if anything the jihadis stands for the innocent dead as they have been so far. Sure there could be as the jihadis is taking hostages as they have been doing already in churces etc, same as the middleeast there will be dead innocents as they use people as human shields.

Now the military does not have to just bomb at random in the philippines.

We will see what they do but so far any innocents dead are on them and probably more to come with people they hide behind.

“I’m appealing to residents of Marawi City to stay home, drop on the ground if they hear gunshots,” Mamintal Adiong Jr, the governor of the ​Lanao del Sur province told The Philippine Star newspaper. “They have to lock their doors and gates too.”

So they are atleast trying to avoid it and i think they will do good job cleaning up

No, it does not work that way, by putting all responsibility on jihadis. It does not somehow remove responsibility of keeping civilians safe from the goverment.
And yes, there will be dead innocents, because Duterte doesnt seem to care that someone might get in the way. Exactly like with the drug war.

[Zmaniac17]

No, you are assuming that I do. I know any war will always have collateral damage. It is the nature of war. And we are at war with terrorism. :P

Then you wouldn't see that as a solution because collateral damage has a destabilizing effect and creates more terrorists. That's why we're no closer to solving these problems than we were 15 years ago. Terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. You can't have a war against a tactic.

[xChurch]

Assuming he only targeted known ISIS members I wouldn't see much of a problem with it. Given how his drug war is going though, I highly doubt that would be the case.

[Zmaniac17]

Actually, history shows it to be a very effective method of dealing with terrorists. Because they don't understand peace, but do understand a strong show of power.

Here's an article from LA Time showing how the Soviets dealt with Hezbollah effectively during the Beirut crysis when 5 of their diplomats were kidnapped.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-...3892_1_soviets

Well I disagree. 15 years of bombing terrorist has not led to less terrorists, only more extreme terrorist groups. It's pretty much impossible to intimidate someone who is willing to blow themselves up for their political and religious cause.

What he's essentially saying is he will create a police state and disregard citizens rights in order to fight back. By trying to do that you are doing the terrorist's work for them by causing terror in your own countries population. If you think it can somehow only target terrorists you're naive.

[Berengil]

You're making the assumption that you can kill terrorists with no collateral damage and that the act of killing them will not serve to radicalize their families and friends. People aren't terrorists for no reason, you can't "thin" them out of the population without creating more terrorists. One persons terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

And you kill the next one who stands up after the last one you killed.

And the next one after him.

And so on.

They must realize that everyone they love, and everything they cherish about their culture and the places they grew up and enjoyed is in danger if they dare f with Uncle Sam.

There's one solution for terrorism: kill them. And anyone who supports them.

" I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." --- US Secretary of Defense James Mattis

[Zandalarian Paladin]

What human rights would that be, seeing how he has already approved vigilante killings with zero proof requirement?

My thoughts as well. He has already shown that human lives does not matter to him.

[Zmaniac17]

And you kill the next one who stands up after the last one you killed.

And the next one after him.

And so on.

They must realize that everyone they love, and everything they cherish about their culture and the places they grew up and enjoyed is in danger if they dare f with Uncle Sam.

There's one solution for terrorism: kill them. And anyone who supports them.

" I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." --- US Secretary of Defense James Mattis

I don't think you understand quite what you're saying here. Let's set aside the fact that doing this would be against international law and morally pretty despicable. You're basically saying that you want to invade the middle east and kill anyone who commits an act of terror and anyone who supports them. You would need a massive army to do that and a huge budget. There's no other way to do that. You can't control a population in the hundreds of millions with a couple hundred thousand troops, no mater how well armed they are. It's essentially the equivalent of kicking a hornets nest and hanging around to see what happens.

[ranzino]

I don't think you understand quite what you're saying here. Let's set aside the fact that doing this would be against international law and morally pretty despicable. You're basically saying that you want to invade the middle east and kill anyone who commits an act of terror and anyone who supports them. You would need a massive army to do that and a huge budget. There's no other way to do that. You can't control a population in the hundreds of millions with a couple hundred thousand troops, no mater how well armed they are. It's essentially the equivalent of kicking a hornets nest and hanging around to see what happens.

Nobody says invasion. USA is very well able to drop a nice bomb anywhere they please, because they got airbases or a CVN in the vincinity of middle east all the time. Or just launch some cruise missiles and level the area.

[Berengil]

I don't think you understand quite what you're saying here. Let's set aside the fact that doing this would be against international law and morally pretty despicable.

Irrelevant. Who has the power to enforce international law against the US? God? /snort

And high-minded talk of morals in a fight for survival? /snort again : " Is it better to out-monster the monster, or to be devoured by him?" ---Nietzsche

You're basically saying that you want to invade the middle east and kill anyone who commits an act of terror and anyone who supports them.

Yes. Though not invasion in all areas; drones, bombs, CIA assassins, etc., also.

Again, Secretary Mattis: " Be polite, be professional, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

[Fincayra]

Kill and harm innocents to kill people who want to kill and harm innocents.

Isnt that a meme?

the islamic world has proven that they aren't going to deal with their own, so they really aren't innocent in my eyes.

[PACOX]

the islamic world has proven that they aren't going to deal with their own, so they really aren't innocent in my eyes.

You have a strange way of proclaiming innocence and guilt.

Like a jihadi saying Western civilians are guilty because they don't stop their governments from destabilizing the Middle East.

[Fincayra]

You have a strange way of proclaiming innocence and guilt.

Like a jihadi saying Western civilians are guilty because they don't stop their governments from destabilizing the Middle East.

I agree, the shoe does go on the other foot. We continue to vote them in election after election, so we're not exactly innocent either.

[Zmaniac17]

Irrelevant. Who has the power to enforce international law against the US? God? /snort

And high-minded talk of morals in a fight for survival? /snort again : " Is it better to out-monster the monster, or to be devoured by him?" ---Nietzsche





Yes. Though not invasion in all areas; drones, bombs, CIA assassins, etc., also.

Again, Secretary Mattis: " Be polite, be professional, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

None of that will do anything. Bomb the hell out of everything in that region and you'll still have terrorists. You could invade and occupy the area for years and still have terrorists. You overestimate the effects of drones and bombs and special ops. They only serve as a reprisal and not a very good one at that.

BTW In the first sentence of your post you ask who can overpower the United States, then you call it a fight for survival in the next sentence. I think you need to make up your mind about the kind of threat this actually is to the United States. U.S. citizens are more likely to be hit by lightning then killed by terrorism. We're more likely to bring ourselves down by overspending on military operations against it. Even that is highly unlikely.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody says invasion. USA is very well able to drop a nice bomb anywhere they please, because they got airbases or a CVN in the vincinity of middle east all the time. Or just launch some cruise missiles and level the area.

Like I said to Berengil, you can't bomb the area to get rid of terrorists. It just doesn't work. Even if you had a large occupying army you would still have terrorists.

[Astalnar]

My point is you can't call for a blanket extermination of an entire group based on your narrow perceptions of said group. It's the exact same mentality that leads to genocide. If you're willing to kill all ISIS, why not just kill all Muslim? It's the next logical step to preventing the next ISIS, Al Qaeda, from getting started. As said it's dangerous and stupid way of thinking.

My second point was to point out the faults with how Russians handle certain situation. If the end goal is to save as many lives as possible the hard line tactics aren't always the best course of action.

Do you understand the fact that killing terrorists is not tantamount to killing everyone else? No, it's your way of thinking. You're building a strawman and then atributing it to me.
There are other methods to deal with, let's call them potential terrorists for the sake of argument, such as deportations and stopping the immigration.

As for what is allowed, please do take a look in the past:

"Thirty years ago, in the interests of stopping IRA terrorism, the British state was not above preventing the internal movement within its borders of unconvicted, uncharged, unarrested Republican sympathizers seeking to take a ferry from Belfast to Liverpool."
source

and in regards to that statement:

"I disagree profoundly that Islam as a whole is the source of our terrorism problem; but the fact that the terrorists are overwhelmingly fundamentalist Muslims undermines my argument, because it's almost impossible to tell them apart from Muslims who are not terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. If you can't distinguish the dangerous from the harmless, you're left with only one alternative to ensure your safety. You have to regard all of them as dangerous until proven otherwise."
source

Now, in light of that, how can you say that stopping immigration would be a step too far for example, when it was proved to be an effective method of fighting terrorism. And in the same breath, what is wrong with deportation if you truly cannot distinguish between a "moderate" muslim and a terrorist?

[Shinra1]

I'm not surprised that the general consensus in this thread is to celebrate the abrogation of Human rights. The Philippines is a country that still practices slavery, I think Human rights have been thrown out of the window a while ago where they're concerned.

[falagar112]

You can be at war with a country or a person, but not with an ideology.
After the "war on communism", and "war on drugs", think people should know better.

Best way to get rid of it, ignore it (they are like kids in classroom shouting for attention, stop giving them the attention, it's what makes terrorism effective)
And just stop supporting your governments that keep the bombs falling down in the ME.

Never forget that since Jan 2015 we (Europe and America) had 658 casualties from terrorism in 48 attacks. Meanwhile from that same date, 28031 casualties from 2063 attacks in the middle east, asia and africa. You can't even compare the two, lol. We're responsible for far more shit then they are over here, it really is no wonder why they hate the west so much and have such an easy time brainwashing kids to blow themselves up.

The solution lies within ourselves. Stop supporting those that want to wage war over there for resources. Before we started, most of these countries hardly had any refugees coming over, and, especially Syria, was pretty much a western society. Help those who want to get out (and with helping I am not talking about them coming over by leaky boats an mass) and let the middle east sort the middle east.

In the end, they will either catch up with their morals and values, or they will eradicate their own culture (just look at those numbers again) - the only reason why they target the west, is because we have given them ample reason to do so.

[Ghostpanther]

Then you wouldn't see that as a solution because collateral damage has a destabilizing effect and creates more terrorists. That's why we're no closer to solving these problems than we were 15 years ago. Terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. You can't have a war against a tactic.

It is the only realistic solution. Which is to reduce their numbers and thus reduce how much damage they can do. We are at war with a ideology. You can not control it by negotiation or changing their minds. Civilian casualties of course need to be avoided as much as possible. But when the enemy hides among- est them, it is not possible to never have civilian casualties. But if you do not reduce the damage they can do, the civilian casualties will be even worse.

[Noradin]

Again, Secretary Mattis: " Be polite, be professional, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

Yes, sounds like somebody who should be either be called out for his lies or if they turn out to be their honest beliefs should get intensive mental care, certainly not somebody who should be given any opportunity to act on them or have any authority at all.

[Azadina]

Yes, sounds like somebody who should be either be called out for his lies or if they turn out to be their honest beliefs should get intensive mental care, certainly not somebody who should be given any opportunity to act on them or have any authority at all.

If he's true to that word, then indeed he should have plans on how to assassinate Trump. I doubt even planning that is very legal in the slightest.