Rodrigo Duterte compares himself to Hitler and pledges to 'slaughter three million drug addicts'. - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Rodrigo Duterte compares himself to Hitler and pledges to 'slaughter three million drug addicts'.

£0.00 @ Three
The Philippine President has likened his national crackdown on drug crime to the Holocaust, saying he would be "happy" to kill as many addicts as Hitler slaughtered Jews. Rodrigo Duterte said he h… Read More
Predikuesi Avatar
9m, 3w agoPosted 9 months, 3 weeks ago
The Philippine President has likened his national crackdown on drug crime to the Holocaust, saying he would be "happy" to kill as many addicts as Hitler slaughtered Jews.

Rodrigo Duterte said he had been compared to a "cousin of Hitler" by critics during a press conference in southern Davao city on Friday.

"Hitler massacred three million Jews... there's three million drug addicts. I'd be happy to slaughter them," he said. At least six million Jews and other minority groups are known to have been killed by Nazis before and during the second world war.

Since taking up office in June, Mr Duterte has overseen a vicious anti-drug campaign in which more than 3,000 suspected drug dealers and users are understood to have been killed by police operations or plain clothed assassins.

The bodies of those killed are often left in the streets with signs listing their crimes, the BBC reports.

During his presidential campaign and short time in office Mr Duterte has threatened to drown drug suspects to fatten the fish in Manila Bay.

He has also threatened to execute drug traffickers by hanging until their heads were severed from their bodies.

“You know my victims. I would like [them] to be all criminals to finish the problem of my country and save the next generation from perdition,” he said on Friday.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/rodrigo-duterte-compares-himself-to-hitler-and-pledges-to-slaughter-three-million-drug-addicts-a7338786.html
Other Links From Three:
Predikuesi Avatar
9m, 3w agoPosted 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Options

Top Comments

(2)
10 Likes
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
7 Likes
Leave them alone and let them deal with their own issues their way. We need to be looking after number 1 and not sticking out noses in where it is not wanted.
Maybe an approach like that here would help to deal with the UK's growing drug problem.

All Comments

(87) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Will any nation bother to intervene if he starts doing this?
1 Like #2
This guy is scary. He has instructed his country's police force and encouraged the civilian population to indiscriminately kill 'drug dealers' and 'addicts' without evidence or a trial being needed to justify the killing.


Edited By: RossD89 on Sep 30, 2016 10:39
2 Likes #3
The Philippines is a totally different country. Yes maybe he is OTT with his policy for getting the drug crimes removed from his country but lets face facts. Drugs cause (especially in The Philippines) more crimes than anything else which includes many homicides (If he isn't doing it other drug gangs/cartels are doing it). Only Indonesia or Malaysia (can't remember which one) is as proactive towards the cartels, drug lords, drug dealers and users. Addiction is mostly self inflicted.

They have other issues and I suppose this is one way of distracting from those other issues including corruption, the faith, over population etc. As a tourist you can visit some lovely well maintained beautiful sites around The Philippines but look beyond this and into the real Philippines and you'll find homes worse than the favelas of Brazil.

So yes he's killing "law breakers" but most would be killed anyway by the gangs.

I was attacked by a drug dealer just because I was a foreigner nothing more but I put him down and told him to think again about his actions. On another occasion I was threatened by some youths from another baranguay and I went to that baranguay and asked to speak to the elders I explained my situation and politely asked for the same respect that thy got from their young.

Let's not also mention the issues within the southern island (specifically Mindanao and surrounding areas) where a certain specific "race" cause terror and death because they want their own law/area within The Philippines

TMI?


Edited By: philphil61 on Sep 30, 2016 11:37
2 Likes #4
obviously this guy is on drugs X)
#5
This guy is a lunatic and genocidal maniac. I'm pretty sure he will be dealt with - but why the international community is just sitting back I've no idea.

He's allowing the general public to act as judge, jury and executioner - insane.
10 Likes #6
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
#7
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)

Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.

Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
4 Likes #8
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.

We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
#9
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.

You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?

Um, ok.

No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
4 Likes #10
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
1 Like #11
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.

Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?

What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
2 Likes #12
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
1 Like #13
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.

What do you mean by "we"?
Aren't "we" all the same species?
2 Likes #14
dtovey89
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
What do you mean by "we"?
Aren't "we" all the same species?
Sometimes you have to wonder if we are.
You know fully well that when I say we, I speak of the United Kingdom.
2 Likes #15
moob

He's allowing the general public to act as judge, jury and executioner - insane.
But if your country's judges, juries and executioners are owned by the drug barons then the general public are more likely to get it right.

It's very easy to criticise from the luxury of our developed nation.
#16
Another couch potato navel gazing critical thread. If there were to be philippino scale of problem in England there would emerge an extreme version of Farage here that would Crimexit exit all these criminals and people voting hot as they do in Philippines.
#17
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
What do you mean by "we"?
Aren't "we" all the same species?
Sometimes you have to wonder if we are.
You know fully well that when I say we, I speak of the United Kingdom.

I know there are a lot of differences and we shouldn't always get involved as this causes more problems then good a lot of them.

However, we should be able to at least recognise wrongings around the globe and not shut up shop under some sort of Little England mentality.
1 Like #18
The problem with allowing this dictator to threaten genocide against his own people might mean that innocents get caught up in the culling. We can't naively expect a despot to abide by any rule of law, even one which he imposes. It may start with drug addicts and dealers, but killing will not be limited to them, for the law will be extended to those committing lesser offences, such as opposers of the extermination of drug users. Basically, all dictators make it up as they go along, so we have to look at the logical (illogical) outcome proposing such acts against people. We all agree that the man is a crackpot dictator, but left alone to do what he wants, he will quickly become psychopathic.
2 Likes #19
dtovey89
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
What do you mean by "we"?
Aren't "we" all the same species?
Sometimes you have to wonder if we are.
You know fully well that when I say we, I speak of the United Kingdom.
I know there are a lot of differences and we shouldn't always get involved as this causes more problems then good a lot of them.
However, we should be able to at least recognise wrongings around the globe and not shut up shop under some sort of Little England mentality.
Yes, I agree. Recognise wrong doing. Disagree with wrong doing. Condemn wrong doing.
Monitor it.
Keep our noses out of it.
#20
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
What do you mean by "we"?
Aren't "we" all the same species?
Sometimes you have to wonder if we are.
You know fully well that when I say we, I speak of the United Kingdom.
I know there are a lot of differences and we shouldn't always get involved as this causes more problems then good a lot of them.
However, we should be able to at least recognise wrongings around the globe and not shut up shop under some sort of Little England mentality.
Yes, I agree. Recognise wrong doing. Disagree with wrong doing. Condemn wrong doing.
Monitor it.
Keep our noses out of it.

Monitor it and act accordingly.

I wouldn't say the Iraq/Libya scenarios were acting accordingly especially considered what was presented to the Public and what actually happened.

However, there have been cases and will be future cases where assistance/intervention is better than doing nothing.
1 Like #21
dtovey89
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
What do you mean by "we"?
Aren't "we" all the same species?
Sometimes you have to wonder if we are.
You know fully well that when I say we, I speak of the United Kingdom.
I know there are a lot of differences and we shouldn't always get involved as this causes more problems then good a lot of them.
However, we should be able to at least recognise wrongings around the globe and not shut up shop under some sort of Little England mentality.
Yes, I agree. Recognise wrong doing. Disagree with wrong doing. Condemn wrong doing.
Monitor it.
Keep our noses out of it.
Monitor it and act accordingly.
I wouldn't say the Iraq/Libya scenarios were acting accordingly especially considered what was presented to the Public and what actually happened.
However, there have been cases and will be future cases where assistance/intervention is better than doing nothing.
Its the "acting accordingly" that we always get wrong.
#22
Predikuesi
The problem with allowing this dictator to threaten genocide against his own people might mean that innocents get caught up in the culling. We can't naively expect a despot to abide by any rule of law, even one which he imposes. It may start with drug addicts and dealers, but killing will not be limited to them, for the law will be extended to those committing lesser offences, such as opposers of the extermination of drug users. Basically, all dictators make it up as they go along, so we have to look at the logical (illogical) outcome proposing such acts against people. We all agree that the man is a crackpot dictator, but left alone to do what he wants, he will quickly become psychopathic.

Reading that post, it almost seems like you're ok with him killing drug addicts but not 'innocents'.

I'm not tying to misrepresent your post, just trying to clarify this line.
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.

So you have a guy talking about genocide of his own citizens, but your stance is one of isolationism.

Thank the Lord my grandfather's generation bore no resemblance to this.
#23
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Predikuesi
The problem with allowing this dictator to threaten genocide against his own people might mean that innocents get caught up in the culling. We can't naively expect a despot to abide by any rule of law, even one which he imposes. It may start with drug addicts and dealers, but killing will not be limited to them, for the law will be extended to those committing lesser offences, such as opposers of the extermination of drug users. Basically, all dictators make it up as they go along, so we have to look at the logical (illogical) outcome proposing such acts against people. We all agree that the man is a crackpot dictator, but left alone to do what he wants, he will quickly become psychopathic.
Reading that post, it almost seems like you're ok with him killing drug addicts but not 'innocents'.
I'm not tying to misrepresent your post, just trying to clarify this line.
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
So you have a guy talking about genocide of his own citizens, but your stance is one of isolationism.
Thank the Lord my grandfather's generation bore no resemblance to this.
No, we have a guy talking about using capital punishment on criminals.
#24
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Predikuesi
The problem with allowing this dictator to threaten genocide against his own people might mean that innocents get caught up in the culling. We can't naively expect a despot to abide by any rule of law, even one which he imposes. It may start with drug addicts and dealers, but killing will not be limited to them, for the law will be extended to those committing lesser offences, such as opposers of the extermination of drug users. Basically, all dictators make it up as they go along, so we have to look at the logical (illogical) outcome proposing such acts against people. We all agree that the man is a crackpot dictator, but left alone to do what he wants, he will quickly become psychopathic.
Reading that post, it almost seems like you're ok with him killing drug addicts but not 'innocents'.
I'm not tying to misrepresent your post, just trying to clarify this line.
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
So you have a guy talking about genocide of his own citizens, but your stance is one of isolationism.
Thank the Lord my grandfather's generation bore no resemblance to this.


I thinking, as I walked home from the post office, I wonder if someone highlights one part of my comment to twist the point I was making. Drug addicts need help, not death. Drug dealers need to be punished, not exterminated.
#25
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Predikuesi
The problem with allowing this dictator to threaten genocide against his own people might mean that innocents get caught up in the culling. We can't naively expect a despot to abide by any rule of law, even one which he imposes. It may start with drug addicts and dealers, but killing will not be limited to them, for the law will be extended to those committing lesser offences, such as opposers of the extermination of drug users. Basically, all dictators make it up as they go along, so we have to look at the logical (illogical) outcome proposing such acts against people. We all agree that the man is a crackpot dictator, but left alone to do what he wants, he will quickly become psychopathic.
Reading that post, it almost seems like you're ok with him killing drug addicts but not 'innocents'.
I'm not tying to misrepresent your post, just trying to clarify this line.
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
So you have a guy talking about genocide of his own citizens, but your stance is one of isolationism.
Thank the Lord my grandfather's generation bore no resemblance to this.
No, we have a guy talking about using capital punishment on criminals.

No, he's talking about (and committing) extrajudicial executions. I'm not entirely sure what values you think you have, but I can assure you that if you don't see something wrong with that then they certainly aren't British values.
1 Like #26
Predikuesi
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Predikuesi
The problem with allowing this dictator to threaten genocide against his own people might mean that innocents get caught up in the culling. We can't naively expect a despot to abide by any rule of law, even one which he imposes. It may start with drug addicts and dealers, but killing will not be limited to them, for the law will be extended to those committing lesser offences, such as opposers of the extermination of drug users. Basically, all dictators make it up as they go along, so we have to look at the logical (illogical) outcome proposing such acts against people. We all agree that the man is a crackpot dictator, but left alone to do what he wants, he will quickly become psychopathic.
Reading that post, it almost seems like you're ok with him killing drug addicts but not 'innocents'.
I'm not tying to misrepresent your post, just trying to clarify this line.
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
So you have a guy talking about genocide of his own citizens, but your stance is one of isolationism.
Thank the Lord my grandfather's generation bore no resemblance to this.

I thinking, as I walked home from the post office, I wonder if someone highlights one part of my comment to twist the point I was making. Drug addicts need help, not death. Drug dealers need to be punished, not exterminated.

I wasn't trying to twist it. In fact I made it very clear that I didn't want to misrepresent your point, simplify clarify the language.

You've done that. Thanks.
#27
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Predikuesi
The problem with allowing this dictator to threaten genocide against his own people might mean that innocents get caught up in the culling. We can't naively expect a despot to abide by any rule of law, even one which he imposes. It may start with drug addicts and dealers, but killing will not be limited to them, for the law will be extended to those committing lesser offences, such as opposers of the extermination of drug users. Basically, all dictators make it up as they go along, so we have to look at the logical (illogical) outcome proposing such acts against people. We all agree that the man is a crackpot dictator, but left alone to do what he wants, he will quickly become psychopathic.
Reading that post, it almost seems like you're ok with him killing drug addicts but not 'innocents'.
I'm not tying to misrepresent your post, just trying to clarify this line.
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
So you have a guy talking about genocide of his own citizens, but your stance is one of isolationism.
Thank the Lord my grandfather's generation bore no resemblance to this.
No, we have a guy talking about using capital punishment on criminals.
No, he's talking about (and committing) extrajudicial executions. I'm not entirely sure what values you think you have, but I can assure you that if you don't see something wrong with that then they certainly aren't British values.
Realistic and sensible values
#28
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Predikuesi
The problem with allowing this dictator to threaten genocide against his own people might mean that innocents get caught up in the culling. We can't naively expect a despot to abide by any rule of law, even one which he imposes. It may start with drug addicts and dealers, but killing will not be limited to them, for the law will be extended to those committing lesser offences, such as opposers of the extermination of drug users. Basically, all dictators make it up as they go along, so we have to look at the logical (illogical) outcome proposing such acts against people. We all agree that the man is a crackpot dictator, but left alone to do what he wants, he will quickly become psychopathic.
Reading that post, it almost seems like you're ok with him killing drug addicts but not 'innocents'.
I'm not tying to misrepresent your post, just trying to clarify this line.
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
So you have a guy talking about genocide of his own citizens, but your stance is one of isolationism.
Thank the Lord my grandfather's generation bore no resemblance to this.
No, we have a guy talking about using capital punishment on criminals.
No, he's talking about (and committing) extrajudicial executions. I'm not entirely sure what values you think you have, but I can assure you that if you don't see something wrong with that then they certainly aren't British values.
Realistic and sensible values

You can label them whatever you want, but decent, British people won't recognise them as the fundemental principles that have underpinned this country for generations.

If you'd like to learn about British values then I'd point you toward habeas corpus (it's Latin) and go from there.
2 Likes #29
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Predikuesi
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Predikuesi
The problem with allowing this dictator to threaten genocide against his own people might mean that innocents get caught up in the culling. We can't naively expect a despot to abide by any rule of law, even one which he imposes. It may start with drug addicts and dealers, but killing will not be limited to them, for the law will be extended to those committing lesser offences, such as opposers of the extermination of drug users. Basically, all dictators make it up as they go along, so we have to look at the logical (illogical) outcome proposing such acts against people. We all agree that the man is a crackpot dictator, but left alone to do what he wants, he will quickly become psychopathic.
Reading that post, it almost seems like you're ok with him killing drug addicts but not 'innocents'.
I'm not tying to misrepresent your post, just trying to clarify this line.
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
So you have a guy talking about genocide of his own citizens, but your stance is one of isolationism.
Thank the Lord my grandfather's generation bore no resemblance to this.
I thinking, as I walked home from the post office, I wonder if someone highlights one part of my comment to twist the point I was making. Drug addicts need help, not death. Drug dealers need to be punished, not exterminated.
I wasn't trying to twist it. In fact I made it very clear that I didn't want to misrepresent your point, simplify clarify the language.
You've done that. Thanks.

We should celebrate that we agree on this issue ;)
#30
Predikuesi
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Predikuesi
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Predikuesi
The problem with allowing this dictator to threaten genocide against his own people might mean that innocents get caught up in the culling. We can't naively expect a despot to abide by any rule of law, even one which he imposes. It may start with drug addicts and dealers, but killing will not be limited to them, for the law will be extended to those committing lesser offences, such as opposers of the extermination of drug users. Basically, all dictators make it up as they go along, so we have to look at the logical (illogical) outcome proposing such acts against people. We all agree that the man is a crackpot dictator, but left alone to do what he wants, he will quickly become psychopathic.
Reading that post, it almost seems like you're ok with him killing drug addicts but not 'innocents'.
I'm not tying to misrepresent your post, just trying to clarify this line.
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
So you have a guy talking about genocide of his own citizens, but your stance is one of isolationism.
Thank the Lord my grandfather's generation bore no resemblance to this.
I thinking, as I walked home from the post office, I wonder if someone highlights one part of my comment to twist the point I was making. Drug addicts need help, not death. Drug dealers need to be punished, not exterminated.
I wasn't trying to twist it. In fact I made it very clear that I didn't want to misrepresent your point, simplify clarify the language.
You've done that. Thanks.
We should celebrate that we agree on this issue ;)

To be fair it'd be hard to disagree on an issue involving a man invoking both Hitler and genocides. But it's a start. X)
7 Likes #31
Leave them alone and let them deal with their own issues their way. We need to be looking after number 1 and not sticking out noses in where it is not wanted.
Maybe an approach like that here would help to deal with the UK's growing drug problem.
3 Likes #32
Dominatez
Leave them alone and let them deal with their own issues their way. We need to be looking after number 1 and not sticking out noses in where it is not wanted.
Maybe an approach like that here would help to deal with the UK's growing drug problem.
We're British. We have to meddle. It's in our values (apparently) ;)
1 Like #33
Dominatez
Leave them alone and let them deal with their own issues their way. We need to be looking after number 1 and not sticking out noses in where it is not wanted.
Maybe an approach like that here would help to deal with the UK's growing drug problem.

That's probably the same mentality of those who watched Hitler's rise to power and listened to his speeches about the extermination of the Jews. It was only at the close of the war that Britain realised the full extent of the genocide. Beforehand the British, largely, refused to believe that Hitler would commit such evil, so we kept our noses out of it. Then 6 million plus deaths later, the British were horrified to learn the truth.

Edited By: Predikuesi on Sep 30, 2016 15:46
#34
Predikuesi
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Predikuesi
The problem with allowing this dictator to threaten genocide against his own people might mean that innocents get caught up in the culling. We can't naively expect a despot to abide by any rule of law, even one which he imposes. It may start with drug addicts and dealers, but killing will not be limited to them, for the law will be extended to those committing lesser offences, such as opposers of the extermination of drug users. Basically, all dictators make it up as they go along, so we have to look at the logical (illogical) outcome proposing such acts against people. We all agree that the man is a crackpot dictator, but left alone to do what he wants, he will quickly become psychopathic.
Reading that post, it almost seems like you're ok with him killing drug addicts but not 'innocents'.
I'm not tying to misrepresent your post, just trying to clarify this line.
stuarthanley
dtovey89
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
stuarthanley
Here we go again. The UK meddling in other folks affairs.
If that's the way he wants to run his country, let it be. Otherwise we'll end up with even more asylum seekers (with crack habits)
Asking that a leader respect the rule of law isn't meddling, it's being a decent international citizen.
Not sure what condition one would require to be okay with anyone committing a genocide to be honest.
But it doesn't stop at asking, does it.
We ask, they refuse. We demand, they refuse. We threaten, they refuse. We send in troops, our lads & lasses are killed/maimed and then we have to clothe, water and feed their people to make amends.
We need to just stick to trying to Govern ourselves.
You think we're going to send troops into the Philippines?
Um, ok.
No this is just diplomacy. There's nothing about the Philippines or his actions that would suggest we'd ever send troops in. That doesn't mean a despot gets a free pass on killing people because it might inconvenience us or because 'they'd get killed by gangs anyway' (seriously phil).
It only inconveniences us if we let it inconvenience us.
If some crackpot dictator wants to slaughter all the bagheads and crack heads in his own country, let him get on with it. It's nothing to do with the UK.
Aren't we all humans at the end of the day?
What's wrong should be wrong regardless if it is on the other side of the world.
Without causing offence it was attitudes such as the one you've demonstrated in the thread that allowed the Jews to be massacred as it wasn't "our" problem.
And yet we got involved and countless British lives were lost or ruined trying to change things.
We aren't talking about a dictator trying to take over the world. We got involved when it became obvious that there was a real threat to the UK.
Nowadays it seems that we want to police the world without any thought to the consequences.
So you have a guy talking about genocide of his own citizens, but your stance is one of isolationism.
Thank the Lord my grandfather's generation bore no resemblance to this.
I thinking, as I walked home from the post office, I wonder if someone highlights one part of my comment to twist the point I was making. Drug addicts need help, not death. Drug dealers need to be punished, not exterminated.
What is he supposed to do instead? Say "pretty please drug dealers let us punish you"?

They simply don't have the police and judicial establishment that we have.
#35
stuarthanley
Dominatez
Leave them alone and let them deal with their own issues their way. We need to be looking after number 1 and not sticking out noses in where it is not wanted.
Maybe an approach like that here would help to deal with the UK's growing drug problem.
We're British. We have to meddle. It's in our values (apparently) ;)

I'm not sure where you are getting the information that the UK is meddling in the affairs of the Philippine President or its people.

Edited By: RossD89 on Sep 30, 2016 15:52
#36
RossD89
stuarthanley
Dominatez
Leave them alone and let them deal with their own issues their way. We need to be looking after number 1 and not sticking out noses in where it is not wanted.
Maybe an approach like that here would help to deal with the UK's growing drug problem.
We're British. We have to meddle. It's in our values (apparently) ;)
I'm not sure where you are getting the information that the UK is meddling in the affairs of the Philippine President or its people.
We aren't, yet. Then we'll have marches, petitions and lobbyists on the case. Next thing you know, we're involved.
1 Like #37
I don't get it
We do nothing about all the drug cartels and corruption and killings that go off on a daily basis in south Americas yet we want to criticise and attack a President who's taking action
We do nothing about Russia and Putin with all the crimes (including war crimes) and abuse to religious and LGBT groups but we want to criticise and attack a President who's taking action
I won't mention China, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Middle East, India too name a few who have all broken human rights laws yet we want to criticise and attack a President who's taking action

I'm not saying what he's doing is right but from what I've learnt and understand nothing, including the billions of dollars and military lives lost by America, has fixed the problem yet.
#38
Rubisco
What is he supposed to do instead? Say "pretty please drug dealers let us punish you"?
They simply don't have the police and judicial establishment that we have.

If that is his final solution in eradicating drug dealers and their victims, then where should he draw the line in deciding who should be eliminated? There will be those on the fringes who would be caught up in the purge. Then he will extend the death penalty to others he deems to be a threat. It's the way despotism works.
I believe in capital punishment under certain circumstances, but I do not accept that this is one of them. I accept that the Philippines is a poor nation and does not have the resources to deal with the issue, but mass murder isn't the answer to its problems.
3 Likes #39
Difference is Hitler was killing innocent people on a massive scale, This guy just wants to kill bad people, yeah the odd innocent will probably be murdered but on the whole if we were to intervene we'd probably end up with another Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan etc.. and much more blood on our hands, If the people of the Philippines aren't happy then they can either elect someone else, revolt or don't be a drug dealer etc..

You wouldn't go to Dubai naked and request an alcoholic beverage would you?

Keep our noses out.
#40
shauneco
Difference is Hitler was killing innocent people on a massive scale, This guy just wants to kill bad people, yeah the odd innocent will probably be murdered but on the whole if we were to intervene we'd probably end up with another Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan etc.. and much more blood on our hands, If the people of the Philippines aren't happy then they can either elect someone else, revolt or don't be a drug dealer etc..
You wouldn't go to Dubai naked and request an alcoholic beverage would you?
Keep our noses out.

It's such a cliche, but people like you who beat their chest about making this country great don't have the first clue about the underlying principles that made this country what it is in the first place.

You don't have British values.

I think maybe you need to read up on habeas corpus too. It'll help you integrate into British society.

Edited By: HotEnglishAndWelshDeals on Sep 30, 2016 17:01

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!