"Shoot them dead": Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte orders police and military to kill citizens

You realize that this is becoming more and more common. People getting arrested for parties. Dispersing funerals, massive fines for people trying to pray in churches.

 

Fines for people violating health guidelines set during a national health crisis? Guidelines meant to protect people from the stupidity of others? I’m okay with that. Your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose.

 

God Bless the 2nd Amen and the division of power the states have in America.

 

Yep, seeing the loss of liberty and freedom and some people want the federal govt to have more power to roll that crap out nationally. What a sickly bunch of weak knees.

 

You mean yo

I believe in the cause... the cause against communism

 

You think Hill-Dog is a communist? That’s a good one.

 

As it's been said before "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

Is that your argument for breaking your neighbor’s nose?

 

And that is your argument for taking your neighbors liberties away?



If you think this is a world I care to live in, then expect a fight!

 

Civil war is highly unlikely. Most sane people realize they'd never stand a chance against military grade weapons. The civil war would be over in a matter of hours once the military started dropping bombs on the opponents positions.

 

Yep, just like in Afghanistan and Vietnam.

 

You didn’t answer my question. You’re okay with doing harm to your neighbors just to prove you can swing your fists however you please?

If a person exercising their liberties does harm to their neighbor then they are not liberties.

 

Okay, lets do a comparison;

Most Americans aren't used to living in swamps, the desert, no electricity nor conditions the fighters in those two countries live in.

You don't go home at the end of the day to mama for a nice warm dinner, watch tv or go to your play station. If you looked at the fighters in Vietnam and Afghanistan, most of them are not obese like many Americans are. Going up against a trained, in shape, well armed military force against a bunch of yahoos armed with bushmaster rifles, who do you think has the best chance of winning?

Btw, the military won in Vietnam.

 

I'm fairly sure I did. Reread my post.

 

Must not have been very clear then. Care to rectify that?

 

A ridiculous statement. U.S. Military couldn't suppress a few Vietnamese peasants or piddly armed Afghanis. You think they could take on the American Civilian population? The most well armed civilians on the planet.

 

There are over 100 million sportsman in the US with 20+ million vets. At least half of those could easily live in the conditions you mention above. The people you are referring too are inner city that buy up all the freaking tissue paper during a respiratory disease outbreak.

And to think the military would side with the federal government over it's citizenry means you have little knowledge of the military.

Lastly, the US won every major military engagement but never defeated the enemy. Same could be said for Korea. The Brits won the majority of the battles during the revolutionary war, but never defeated the American rag tag militia.

 

The US Army is a paper tiger. In an open battle they destroy everything, that's not what would happen.

First I have my doubts that the US Army in mass would follow orders to attack Americans on US soil.

If you could overcome that, the battle in America would be a guerrilla war on a scale not seen before, both urban and in a massive variety of terrain that can be as bad as Vietnam.

 

Vietnam was won by the north vietnam military and not a bunch of armed civilians. Afghanistan was not a war but a police action.

 

Many of the vets are either out of shape or in nursing homes. Additionally many of the so-called 100 million sportsmen in the US who are armed, haven't picked up a rifle or pistol in years and couldn't hit the side of a barn if they tried. Remember, this isn't target practice where you go out and fire off a couple of boxes of shells, then go home to a nice warm dinner, tv and then go to bed. Additionally, not all citizens are going to back one side only; some will back side A and some Side B; it's not as cut and dried as you may think.

The military are professionals who will carry out their orders even though you think as a group they'll ignore and do what they want. Get real my friend. War is hell.

 

It's already changed. Hopefully people will realize that solutions like the one Duterte is advocating won't lead to anything good before too many people get slaughtered.

 

If you play by the rules. Both sides here would know the terrain and people. Once the government shuts down manufacturers of ammunition and weapons, things will change. Remember this isn't 1965.

 

No, but what is astonishing is the apparent ease with which the corrupt can silence the good people and manipulate the weak..
I was always of the opinion that the American People, an armed, Constitutional society, would not tolerate profound and obvious abuse. I was so wrong.
American society today seems to be of the type most susceptible to fall to authoritarian rule, given the stark discord and absence of will.
We are but one sour election away from the corrupt seizing power. Some civil unrest will follow....but maybe not enough.
And I dare say the power grabbers will not be of Rightwing, Conservative persuasion. Although the entire time the perps will point blame at the innocent.

We keep saying that "eventually all these corrupt people will be revealed and ousted"......but it could very well go the other way.

 

I highly doubt your scenario is realistic - in modern warfare the government would care about public opinion. The US military won’t be dropping bombs on civilians (or rebels) on large scale, and if they do - this action might provoke those who were sitting on the fence to join the conflict.
I think a real realistic scenario is like this - people start to get sick of being forced to stay home, so they start to rebel with parties, then things can start to go bad with riots and looting. At that point police won’t be able to handle the crowds and spike in crime and the government would face two options - stop restrictions on most people and let some die of the disease or fight the crowd and end up with destroyed infrastructure and even more people dead. The government would make a logical decision that it’s just not worth it and would just let go.

With the number of arms on the US mainland I cannot see military the US military fighting its own civilians (which is against constitution by the way). Many troops would simply refuse to follow orders and many would actually join the civilians.

 

People appear to have a collective loss of memory over the freedoms we all willingly gave up after 9/11 under President George Bush. Some will claim 'freedoms lost' and others 'freedoms preserved'. Will we allow ourselves to be governed by fear or governed by our values? Look at the PATRIOT Act, and other post-9/11 government actions. The powers of the PATRIOT Act were not in line with constitutional freedoms.

The PATRIOT Act put in place statutory authority for the government to get a court order to come into your home without your knowledge and even take property without notifying you until weeks or months later. Americans were justifiably concerned because the PATRIOT Act allowed the government to obtain many detailed, personal records - including library and bookstore records, financial and medical records, and Internet communications - without probable cause and without meaningful judicial review. And the majority of Americans just shook their heads and said "yeah, yeah, do that if it will keep us safe".

These safeguards we're being asked to comply with are temporary and real human lives depend on us maintaining them. They aren't permanent, they will end. In the now infamous words of Mick Mulvaney "get over it".