Digong, The President

[minicarph]

Hindi ba yang mga snatchers sa kalsada driven by






desperation din? Nakaw para may ipakain sa pamilya.

Hindi yan libangan dahil bored lang sila.

How come they are labeled as criminals?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sobrang hirap naman talaga dito oh. kelangan ba i resd between the lines lahat ng sabihin ni :Du30. robin hood with his band of thieves stole from the rich and gsve to the poor. most drug lords used drug money to help the poor.

pero criminals pa din sila mag drug lords, pero si robin hood bs matatawag mo criminal?

[anonemus]

sobrang hirap naman talaga dito oh. kelangan ba i resd between the lines lahat ng sabihin ni :Du30. robin hood with his band of thieves stole from the rich and gsve to the poor. most drug lords used drug money to help the poor.

pero criminals pa din sila mag drug lords, pero si robin hood bs matatawag mo criminal?

Robin STOLE from the rich and gave to the poor. He was a thief.

STEALING or thievery is a crime.

Robin was a criminal.

Period.

[ClaNker]

sobrang hirap naman talaga dito oh. kelangan ba i resd between the lines lahat ng sabihin ni :Du30. robin hood with his band of thieves stole from the rich and gsve to the poor. most drug lords used drug money to help the poor.

pero criminals pa din sila mag drug lords, pero si robin hood bs matatawag mo criminal?

OB naku naka limutan mo nanamang uminom ng gamot. Inom ka muna ng gamot bago mag post ha? Love you.

[minicarph]

Robin STOLE from the rich and gave to the poor. He was a thief.



?
STEALING or thievery is a crime.

Robin was a criminal.

Period.

pero bakit ganun tinuturo sa mga bata at sa school? tapos ginagawan pa ng movies?

[safeorigin]

Robin STOLE from the rich and gave to the poor. He was a thief.

STEALING or thievery is a crime.

Robin was a criminal.

Period.

well, not really.

"taxation" as it was enforced at that time was no different from robbery on broad day light

robin, merely, returned the stolen money.

[anonemus]

well, not really.

"taxation" as it was enforced at that time was no different from robbery on broad day light

robin, merely, returned the stolen money.

You're sounding like Duterte.

Taking something without the other party's consent is stealing. Whatever the intent.

Robin was an outlaw, or criminal. No use fudging with the facts.

[safeorigin]

fudging facts?

Robin Hood, Friend of Liberty | Mises Institute

check your premise.

You're sounding like Duterte.

Yup, I seriously want him to shoot or order the shooting of those generals like how he ordered the killing of ordinary drug pushers.

What the fck is wrong with asking that all suspected criminals be treated equally?

[badkuk]

‘Abu Sayyaf still to pay for crime’ | Inquirer News



Hmm so ano ba talaga, are they criminals, or are they Robin Hoods?

btw, i never heard about Robin Hood and his Merry Men doing KFR, beheading hostages, or raping their female captives, pila balde style. Were they raping "out of desperation" too?

[anonemus]

fudging facts?

Robin Hood, Friend of Liberty | Mises Institute

check your premise.

Did you even read your own link? Robin Hood is described as an outlaw, a criminal, a robber, a poacher and so much more in that article.

SMH.

[Wh1stl3r2]

Why was my post deleted? Oh well, these articles echo how I feel in more sedate terms:

From Winnie Monsod:
Encomia and potshots | Inquirer Opinion

THE INCLUSION of Vice President Leni Robredo in the Cabinet of President Duterte as head of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (following in the footsteps of the unlamented VP Jojo Binay and his predecessor, VP Noli de Castro) may be explained in any one or a combination of ways.
The first, of course, is that she came, she saw, she conquered. All it needed was a face-to-face encounter for her charm to work—just as it did with the rest of the Filipino people. Apparently, she had never met him before, and when she did, her simplicity, her sincerity, and her intelligence wove their magic. She is also very easy on the eyes.
The second is that PDu30 realized how boorish his behavior to the VP had been. His mother’s admonitions to him as a youth kicked in, and the natural, courtly manners of the gentleman he was raised to be rose to the surface. All he needed was the opportunity, and his “ma’am’s” and his escorting her to the door are the marks of that gentleman.

The third is that he realized that his friendship with Bongbong Marcos is more a liability than an asset in his new job. I understand that his mother, Soledad Roa, was no admirer of the dictator Marcos. And there is Alan Peter Cayetano, his unvictorious running mate, who has been most faithful to him, but was almost vicious in his attacks on Bongbong during the campaign debates. Add to that the martial law victims and their families, and the rest of us. We don’t visit the sins of the father on the son, but we will not accept the son’s whitewashing of his parent’s faults either. There is no more divisive an issue than this one, and PDu30 has too many things on his plate already. His favoring the young Marcos over his VP did not sit well with most Filipinos.
Either one, or some combination of all three, as I said earlier, would explain PDu30’s sudden, and much welcome, turnabout. And there is an additional benefit to him: Adding Leni to the widely disparate Cabinet mix he already has might just be the ingredient that will help calm the expected troubled waters that his ship of state is sure to encounter.
* * *
Encomia having been heaped on the man, now come the potshots. This newspaper’s editorial yesterday I echo in its entirety. Five police generals, two retired—he dragged their names through the mud, and we are expected to take his word for it? Because there’s not one iota of evidence he presented.
He said he had heard about them since his mayor days. That’s not good enough, especially knowing the cesspool of wild rumors that this country is. Then his man (PNP Director General Ronald dela Rosa, or “Bato”) said there is a lot of evidence against them but he won’t show it for fear it might prejudice the people’s case. Then there was a veiled threat (from the President himself to the National Police Commission) that they better not fool around (he used the word “zarzuela”), which obviously means he wants them to turn in a guilty verdict.
I don’t know these generals. But I would have preferred that they were told why they were being relieved (in the case of the three still on active duty). And if there wasn’t enough evidence, the exposé should have been postponed until such had been gathered, don’t you think, Reader? The same should go for the retired generals, who are no longer in a position to harm the rest of the force.
Methinks the desire to show “action agad” for public applause overcame the more basic need to show fairness and the rule of law to everyone. The pity of it is, I think that if those generals had been found guilty in a process that was fair and transparent—remember, for the active ones, the case is an administrative one, so the level of evidence required is not much—the applause would be even more resounding.
Right now, PDu30 has most everyone applauding, but I think a note of apprehension is creeping in. Too many deaths of “suspected drug dealers,” including a policeman. That’s vigilante justice. Not even star chamber proceedings. Who is to say they were not killed in order to silence them? By higher-ups? By drug lords? What’s more, all of those killed will soon be replaced by others. They are too low in the supply chain. In other words, it has been all sound and fury, signifying nothing. And we Filipinos are smart enough to know it.
Bottom line: PDu30, we are behind you in cleaning up the country’s drug problem. Your shock-and-awe tactics may be impressive at first glance, but the honeymoon will soon be over. As it is, the “I will kill you” threats are no longer as resonant as they used to be.
And the people will soon realize that you have not even provided them with the means to determine whether you have succeeded or not. How will we be able to tell if you have succeeded or not? Surely not by the number of extrajudicial killings of the lowly drug dealers, who will soon be replaced? Or maybe by the number of drug lords (the top of the supply chain) “neutralized”? Tell us, please, so the public trust in you and the government will not be eroded. After all, you have said that this is the biggest problem that we face.
And while we’re at it, will you please, in the interest of transparency, make good on your campaign promise to have public officials lay bare their bank accounts? Can you start with yourself? We still don’t know if you or Sen. Antonio Trillanes is the liar. Or have you both forgotten that there is still this hanging issue?
Finally, pardon me for having such a long memory, but you did promise that if you win the presidency, you will see that Binay (Jojo) goes to jail. How about it? There is evidence galore there.


Read more: Encomia and potshots | Inquirer Opinion
Follow us: *inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

[Wh1stl3r2]

From Randy David:
The creeping normality of extrajudicial killings | Inquirer Opinion

There is no question today about the rampant character of the drug menace in our country. The public perception that the problem has far exceeded the capacity of normal law enforcement has no doubt greatly contributed to the election of Rodrigo Duterte to the presidency. The tough-talking former mayor of Davao City ran on the solitary promise that he would not hesitate to kill in order to stop the drug problem in three to six months.
The killings have already begun. In fact, they began soon after it became clear that Mayor Duterte, long known as “The Punisher,” had won the presidency. As though on cue, police agencies instantly took it upon themselves to raid the lairs of suspected drug pushers, killing their targets on the spot or on the way to the police precinct. The standard excuse is that the suspects were armed and had fired at them first, or had tried to grab their firearms.
Hardly anyone believes this yarn, but it’s amazing how police officers could tell it with a straight face. The mass media have reported at least 103 such killings under the present regime, including those done vigilante-style. These reports have swiftly sent a wave of panic across the country’s drug-infested communities, where confessed drug users have been shown surrendering en masse, ostensibly begging for rehabilitation. But if there is any public outcry over these evident summary executions, it has been largely muted.

On the contrary, the public’s thirst for decisive action could not be appeased by these police operations that seemed to target only the low-ranking members of drug syndicates. Indeed, many saw these deliberate killings as no more than a convenient way to eliminate police assets who could potentially implicate their police protectors. The public kept asking: Where are the big fish?
Before cynicism over the seriousness of the antidrug campaign could set in, President Duterte himself took the unprecedented move of publicly naming five top police generals, three of them still in active service, accusing them of being the protectors of notorious drug lords. He also named two drug lords, both of them serving time in prison, who, he said, continued to run their trade even while in detention. He vowed to have them killed on sight if they dared even for a moment to leave their prison cells.
The President’s forceful actions and threatening pronouncements have certainly amplified the resoluteness of his crusade against drugs, criminality, and corruption. But, they have also justly alarmed human rights advocates, who insist that the due process of law be followed in dealing with even the most hardened criminals and corrupt public officials who have betrayed their oath of office.
These apprehensions, however, have found little or no resonance in the public consciousness, judging from the absence of a collective uproar over these recent killings. Ordinary citizens seem to have accepted the idea that they have nothing to fear from the police or the vigilantes if they are not themselves into drugs or engaged in criminal activity. This is all too ironic, for such implicit trust ultimately rests on the presumption that our institutions are functional, and that the authorities that have power over our lives are incorruptible and incapable of using this power to kill innocent people.
It is this enabling mindset that I find truly alarming. It is just one step away from the notion that it is all right to set aside our free institutions to solve our most pressing problems. The Marcos dictatorship imposed a regime of intimidation on the Filipino people by detaining and killing critics and dissenters.
For this, it needed martial law.
The Duterte administration, in contrast, seems to mobilize public fear, resentment, and desperation in order to build a consensus around a project of national cleansing and reconstruction. This project does not require martial law; it only needs manipulated mass enthusiasm for it to succeed. How it is actually carried out appears to be determined less by the logic of existing institutions than by the trusted leader’s instincts. Its most devoted army, as we have seen, is to be found, not in the military camps, but in the social media.
Something that needs to be keenly watched in such developments is the easy resort to brutal means whose redemptive promise effectively shields them from legal or ethical scrutiny. Confronted by these daily killings, we need to constantly search ourselves for explanations for our indifference and inability to be horrified by repeated violations of fundamental constitutional rights. We must resist the tendency to accept these killings as the new normal, the final solution to the overwhelming crisis of crime and corruption that has long gripped our society.
For it is foolish to suppose that the problems demanding this kind of extraordinary response will be confined to the drug menace or the corruption of government officials. I think it is just a matter of time before anyone or anything that could be described as a threat to the wellbeing of the nation becomes fair game.
Yet, after everything has been said and done, why am I left with the uneasy feeling that what we are being served may be no more than spectacles—images that stand for realities that are too complex to engage our sustained attention? The killings do have that mesmerizing and numbing effect.
There is an ominous passage in Guy Debord’s 1967 treatise “The Society of the Spectacle” that seems to sum up that condition: “The spectacle is the guardian of sleep.” We should be vigilant.


Read more: The creeping normality of extrajudicial killings | Inquirer Opinion
Follow us: *inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

I support any LEGAL measures to curb the drug problem. But the end does not justify the means. Nearly 100% of these killings seem to have been summary executions. If one day the police mistakenly come knocking on DU30's keyboard warriors' doors, I wonder if they will be singing the same songs.

[dreamur]

Spin doctors at their best...

Mr. Duterte, the country’s first President from Mindanao where the Abu Sayyaf operates, was only putting the actions of the group in context when he said that he was not considering its activities as criminality, said Abella.

“He is not giving them a pass on their actions, he is just putting it in context, that they were forced to desperation,” Abella said in an interview over state-run Radyo ng Bayan.



Read more:*‘Abu Sayyaf still to pay for crime’ | Inquirer News
Follow us:**inquirerdotnet on Twitter*|*inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

[minicarph]

Did you even read your own link? Robin Hood is described as an outlaw, a criminal, a robber, a poacher and so much more in that article.

SMH.

given that an ancient old story of Robin hood cannot agree on what's a criminal or what's not. then it's safe that the term criminal is vsgue or grey area.

yun lang naman, so to attack Du30 based on what he thinks about the ASG is poontless be usse we ourselves cannot really detrrmine what's what.

for me, it's just screening wverything what he says and making an issue out of it. you're all sounding like teenagers. we all know what he meant, the ASG roots are from poverty and desperation, so no sense attscking him word for word ..

[anonemus]

given that an ancient old story of Robin hood cannot agree on what's a criminal or what's not. then it's safe that the term criminal is vsgue or grey area.

yun lang naman, so to attack Du30 based on what he thinks about the ASG is poontless be usse we ourselves cannot really detrrmine what's what.

for me, it's just screening wverything what he says and making an issue out of it. you're all sounding like teenagers. we all know what he meant, the ASG roots are from poverty and desperation, so no sense attscking him word for word ..

He promised to end corruption and criminality in 6 months and he knows he can't crush the ASG within 6 months or 1 or 2 years. He needs a peace agreement with MI and MNLF for this.

So this is why he's avoiding calling them as criminals and making the lame excuse about the reasons why they went into criminality AND terrorism.

Eh ano ito?

Then condones killing drug users and small time pushers, who are mostly dirt poor

[jut703]

given that an ancient old story of Robin hood cannot agree on what's a criminal or what's not. then it's safe that the term criminal is vsgue or grey area.

yun lang naman, so to attack Du30 based on what he thinks about the ASG is poontless be usse we ourselves cannot really detrrmine what's what.

for me, it's just screening wverything what he says and making an issue out of it. you're all sounding like teenagers. we all know what he meant, the ASG roots are from poverty and desperation, so no sense attscking him word for word ..

ASG = victims of circumstance/desperation
Drug addicts = criminals/scum of the Earth

You at least have to be consistent you know. 😂

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

[bulawbusiness]

ASG = victims of circumstance/desperation
Drug addicts = criminals/scum of the Earth

You at least have to be consistent you know. 😂

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

Wait walang Drug addict sa ASG? daming drugs na naiiwan sa mga kuta nila diba? o baka drug pusher?

[niky]

Radicalized and desperate persons committing crimes are still criminals.

Digong saying ASG are not criminals exempts them from his campaign promise of zero criminality by 3-6 months.

Kingina naman, not only are ASG criminals, they're also TERRORISTS.

Sa mga ugok thinking Duterte's drive versus illegal drugs will work, read this one. Thailand killed almost 3,000 ( half of which turned out to be innocent) in an anti illegal drug campaign similar to what Duterte is doing now AT WALANG NANGYARI. Only the big drug lords benefitted.

Gains from Thailand’s bloody war on drugs proved fleeting | Inquirer Global Nation

Let's not forget South America, where the drug war is literally a WAR, and where drug lords still reign.

[safeorigin]

Taking something without the other party's consent is stealing. Whatever the intent.

and taking something without the other party's consent is exactly what the supposed Sherriff of Nottingham is doing - unlimited "taxation" to fund the hundred years' war. in other words, the monarchy is squeezing dry the populace by robbing them dry in broad day light.

there's a reason why there's a peasant revolt in that era. robin hood is merely a symbolization of the populace' discontent.

Peasants' Revolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but then again, branding political dissidents as criminals isn't new to the english crown (e.g. american forefathers, australians, french, spanish, etc.)

also, legend =/= facts

but heck, I'll leave that for john cleese

[H1Tman]

Nagiging MANHID na ang lipunan.

[Ry_Tower]

The END does not justify the MEANS imho. Because ultimately, there will be repercussions aka "karma", ALWAYS. Violence breeds more violence. It 's a proven fact time and again.

Kaya nga we try to have laws implemented. To be fair.