NDF: a terrorist group or not?

[bcasabee]

---

Ok...I'm very sori for posting my opinion regarding the merits and demerits of communism....someone complained about NDF bashing.....and we ended up trying to figure out what NDF is fighting for which is communism to end this NDF bashing......so unsa pa may istoryahan nato? NDF as terrorist jud per se? then they are terrorist... they terrorize owners of businesses who don't support their organization by burning their buses and cellsites
.....kung ikaw tag-iya sa business, is it fair nga i hostage ang imong property by these people whom you don't recognize as a government authorities? Take note ha, you don't recognize as government authorities... Yeah yeah NDF is a government which is coexisting with GRP...but is it fair for bus companies to give tax when this NDF doesn't even lift a finger maintaining roads for them?
....I have other definition of terrorism by the way....kanang magpahimulos sa kahuyang sa ubang tawo unya wala juy ikabalos nga kaayohan ngadto kaniya...mao nay terrorism.....gets?

[Wind Shear]

NDF as terrorists?

I gonna say, Yes.

[gareb]

bcasabee:

as long as you have a valid reason, you can always point out every mistake that you can see. a pre-requisite is an open mind to accept clarifications and answers, and a critical mind to further dissect them until you can ferret the truth out. but all of this in its proper context, proper time and proper place.

kung ikaw tag-iya sa business, is it fair nga i hostage ang imong property by these people whom you don't recognize as a government authorities? Take note ha, you don't recognize as government authorities... Yeah yeah NDF is a government which is coexisting with GRP...but is it fair for bus companies to give tax when this NDF doesn't even lift a finger maintaining roads for them?

we can also do the reverse. we can also not acknowledge the legitimacy of the government(GRP). does that remove it's right to Â*tax us? no, it does not. the power and right to tax is inherent. pol sci 1 teaches you that. whether or not you acknowledge this, as long as you are operating in its defined territory, you are liable to follow it or face consequences.

as to the proceeds of the said 'revolutionary tax' the NDF claims that it goes to social projects mainly focused on the rural areas in the hinterlands (their bases), a part of that goes to buying arms (for the NPA). you and i know that it is hard to confirm the first claim. we have to actually go to their bases to confirm if such social projects do exist.

as to the proceeds to the 'regular tax' (that the BIR collects) the GRP claims that it goes to social projects mainly focused on urban areas (their bases), a part goes to buying of arms (for the AFP, PNP and the CAFGUs), a huge part goes to the IMF and World Bank for debt servicing. you and i know that it is hard to confirm the first claim. we have to actually audit it all, and even then graft and corruption might still escape us.

so you see, from this level, there really is no difference between both.

I have other definition of terrorism by the way....kanang magpahimulos sa kahuyang sa ubang tawo unya wala juy ikabalos nga kaayohan ngadto kaniya...mao nay terrorism.....gets?

sounds like you are tailoring the definition of terrorism to fit your need.

if your definition is to be followed, then include in the list your next door neighbors, some of your friends(or 'frienemies' as people call em nowadaysÂ* ), certain relatives perhaps, friendly politicians, person down the street...

the list can go on and on and on and we cannot stop. this is your list of 'terrorists'? hmmm... we might have to reconsider our definition.

[bcasabee]

well, regarding my definition of terrorism, that is exactly my point........kanang tanan nga na ligsan ana nga definition are terrorists....trapos, opportunists capitalists and so on and so forth......on the other hand...you are actually tailoring the defintion of terrorism to fit the needs of the NDF para ma justify ang ilang terroristic activity...oh not terroristic but barbaric diay...you know...civilize governments confiscate properties(naa pay chance ma kuha ug balik) while barbarians burn them....that's the difference you've missed to tell me.....

[gareb]

you are actually tailoring the defintion of terrorism to fit the needs of the NDF para ma justify ang ilang terroristic activity...

nope, not me sir but the 1987 Geneva Declaration on Terrorism (please read the whole text). another baseless assumption again eh? a collusion between those at the United Nations and the NDF during 1987 with regards to terrorism, a concept that became popularized with the 9-11-2001 attacks which later led the United States to do a blanket label during 2002 at those who oppose it's policies all over the world as 'terrorists'.

the United Nations tailoring it's definition of terrorism for the NDF? considering everything, that's a pretty far fetched idea, don't you think? another assumption again?

that is exactly my point........kanang tanan nga na ligsan ana nga definition are terrorists....trapos, opportunists capitalists and so on and so forth......

in that case, precisely why does the GRP or the United States government for that matter, not label your friends, or relatives, and the rest on this list as 'terrorists'? simply because they do not share your definition, sir.

and since we are talking about and issue using their definition of terminologies, don't you think it is best that we use a credible institution's definition of the word 'terrorism'? and what more credible institution is there when it comes to these kinds of things than the United Nations?

oh not terroristic but barbaric diay...you know...civilize governments confiscate properties(naa pay chance ma kuha ug balik) while barbarians burn them....that's the difference you've missed to tell me.....

Yeah yeah NDF is a government which is coexisting with GRP...

so the issue now comes to 'barbarism' and no longer 'terrorism' eh? such very quick turn of events.

we posit the GRP and the NDF, pitting a 'civilized' government against a 'barbaric' one on the basis on how they carry out punishments. so now the question is; how would you like the NDF, which you acknowledge, but do not accept, as a government that coexists with the GRP, punish those who fail to do their obligations with regards to tax?

take over a cell site/bus/etc. and say that that is the property of the government (NDF)? take into custody the head of the said company, let him undergo trial and once convicted imprison him? or burn the said infrastructure? let us use the elimination method to solve this dilemma.

naturally the NDF is a 'government on the run' and it cannot have any non-mobile infrastructure lest it be a target for reprisals rendering the said infrastructure useless anyway. buses are no use since their lairs are at the mountains. take into custody certain people and it will be deemed as 'kidnapping'.Â* besides it is illegal to use civilians during conflicts under the international laws. that leaves with, surprise, the last option.

the GRP may call it 'terrorism'. you can call it 'barbarism'. the NDF calls it a 'police power' (refer to Pol Sci 1 lessons again).

really, we can use all kinds of labels as much as we want. and most of the time we use them to tailor our needs.

the GRP calls the NDF 'terrorists' and 'extortionists' because it wants to lump all of its critics and enemies(legitimate or illegitimate, legal or underground) under one label, for easy round up when emergency time comes (re: PP 1017) and when the Anti-Terrorism Act gets passed, all of this in the name of preserving itself.

the NDF calls it a 'police power' and that other issue as 'revolutionary tax' because it deems it to be inherent rights of a government that it thinks it is. all of this in the name of preserving itself.

now for calling it 'barbarism', well you can define your own need on why.

[tolstoi]

gareb:

first off, wether it be 'revolutionary tax' or our own plain tax from the BIR, the 'fear' is still there. we know the consequences of not filing correct income tax returns, etc. which is either confiscation of property or imprisonment. is this not enough reason to 'fear' not doing so? so with Wordweb calling the shots on the definition of terrorism, is BIR a terrorist group too?

that is why i believe that it is imperative that we include 'violence perpetrated against civilians' as a main clause in our definition of terrorism. if not, then we might as well include mothers 'terrorizing' little children against the mumu, abat, wakwak and what have you in our list of known terrorist.

well i guess we need to size up our definition of fear/terror then ..mothers terrorizing little children about abat is totally different from an NPA rebels terrorizing a certain individual to pay revolutionary tax..the latter has a greater magnitude when it comes to fear becoz it involves life and death situation while the former is plainly kid's stuff

trully your imperative suggestion on including 'violence perpetrated against civilians' as main clause for terrorism fits well on NDF's act like collecting revolutionary tax bcoz the mere thoughts of burning a property if a person is unable to pay is a clear act of violence..it is not an offset to the governments way of collecting taxes as what you suppose because tax offender will be treated fairly and squarely for he/she will have a day in court..and also the amount of dread felt by a tax offender is very different to a person who can't pay a revolutionary tax..go figure

[bcasabee]

@gareb

ok, since I think you seem to know everything and you seem to have done all the research in which I didn't do and for me to avoid giving further assumptions.

...I'll just ask questions nalang...makaayo ba sa nasud nga naay 2 or more governments competing each other in one location? If not, asa imong i prefer, NDF or GRP?

[tolstoi]

you can say it is 'horrifying and violent' if you do not consider the fact that excercising other forms of 'punishment' (e.g. taking into custody and imprisonment, as the GRP does things ) may also be deemed as 'kidnapping'. between destroying property and 'kidnapping', id rather have them choose the former.

hmmm..so that boils down to personal preferences then ...if you'll be taken into custody by the government then that means you will be interrogated with your choice of lawyer on your side..if ever you'll be deprive of rights to defend yourself then you can file human rights charges on that particular government official..that means equating it to kidnapping as you say is false.

the abuses of the AFP and the PNP are real. i've provided the links of the US State Department Report and the United Nations Human Rights Committe Report on my first post. kindly read them. the Commission on Human Rights acknowledges if reluctantly, this fact.

with regards to your so-called 'military scalawags', well, they aren't really scalawags at all, but decorated officers. try to google the words "Palparan human rights violations", or you can try reading why Conrado de Quiros of the Inquirer calls him a "Scourge"

wow when i searched the Palparan thing in google like you suggest, all top ten searches belongs to an NDF related sites

how about reading the other side of the story about Gen. Palparan's offensive in Samar

Palparan portrayed himself as the object of a "smear campaign," which he said was launched in December 2004 by militant groups including Bayan Muna.

http://news.inq7.net/regions/index.p...story_id=38882

[franklin]

ndf is a government in the making but they dont have a territory. why pay taxes to these people when in fact they dont have their own territory? They have no right to collect taxes and practice your so called police power. and isnt it a violation of human rights to kill those who realize that they made a big mistake in joining the ndf? these ambitious people is a burnden to our country; traitors, and should be eliminated

[FK]

did the Katipuneros claim revolutionary tax? did they also burn Spanish settlements. In which the Spanish also did this to the Filipinos... now karon kinsa man ang terrorista nila?