NDF: a terrorist group or not?

[mosimos]

---

Way kalainan bay. May pa communist kay naa pa asenso. under the corrupt democratic federal martial rule ala GMA style, si GMA ray mabulahan.

[LytSlpr]

Sayup kana. Kung naa may tinood nga demokrasya kana communist sopcieties kay ang gahum para man gyud sa mga tawo. Way landlord ug way capitalist.

sayup ka bai..kung naay free trade ang mahitabo manulod or mag invest ang capitalista sa nasud..pareha bitaw sa china nga naay Mc Do, kinsa mai tag iya ana ang government sa china bah?

mao nai naka defeat sa essence sa communism bai nga wala kunuhay CAPITALIST..pero in real life dili gyud muuswag ang nsaud kung walai capitalist...mao na ang punto de besta diha brod mosimos

Naay capitalist pero di sila ang nag control sa economy. Inverstor ra sila. Yes, they can doi business in my country but ON MY OWN TERMS!

Not them.

why? aren't we protected under our current consitution?

personally, i am for free trade. WHY? patriotism and nationalism aside, maayo pa ang mga companies diri sa pilipinas ang tag-iya foreigner. ngano man? para barato tanan! from food, water, electricty, clothing, etc.

the downside though is it will kill local businesses like ours coz these foreign companies are big players. so small to medium businesses will die a natural death but if it is for the common good for the majority of the filipinos then so be it.

[LytSlpr]

Way kalainan bay. May pa communist kay naa pa asenso. under the corrupt democratic federal martial rule ala GMA style, si GMA ray mabulahan.

this is not necesarily true. bisan kinsa pa ang presidente, kalu-luoy man gyud ni atong nasud so kanya2x na lang ta ug sikay2x. dili na rason para di nato tahuron ang balaod bisan kurakot pa ang nagpadagan.

it has been proven from time immemorial that democracy regardless of all its flaws, is still the best form of government.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

MOSIMOS .... ayaw ipagawas pagka SNMP , DAWN RUNNER nimo . Ma OT kaau ta ani kay ANTI PGMA na pod ka .. lets stick to CPP-NPA-NDF . Ang example nimo sa MAG-UUMA kay perfectly fits sa akong example na NO READ NO WRIGHT ( walay alamag ) . Sato si LYTSLPR .... ug wala kay makuha na tabang sa munisipyo , mayor , pulis , piskal etc ... end of the world na ? And here comes JOMA to the rescue ??

Kung nagpasabot ka na daghan posters diri na wala nakasabot unsay NPA , apil na ka other than NPA gyud ka but I doubt . Si JORED ra man ang NPA gyud LOLZ ! Ngano ang sayon lisoron man ? Ngano ang maayo gub-on ? Ngano mo enter pa man ? IDEOLOGY ?

I compare na lang gud ang mga DEMOCRATIC / FREE countries sa COMMUNIST countries and tell me the big difference ug asa ka gusto mo puyo .

[tolstoi]

Sayup kana. Kung naa may tinood nga demokrasya kana communist sopcieties kay ang gahum para man gyud sa mga tawo. Way landlord ug way capitalist.

sayup ka bai..kung naay free trade ang mahitabo manulod or mag invest ang capitalista sa nasud..pareha bitaw sa china nga naay Mc Do, kinsa mai tag iya ana ang government sa china bah?

mao nai naka defeat sa essence sa communism bai nga wala kunuhay CAPITALIST..pero in real life dili gyud muuswag ang nsaud kung walai capitalist...mao na ang punto de besta diha brod mosimos

Naay capitalist pero di sila ang nag control sa economy. Inverstor ra sila. Yes, they can doi business in my country but ON MY OWN TERMS!

Not them.

bai mosimos..look at what Ka Roger Rosal said about China

------------------------------------------------------------
“So what if it’s Chinese-owned. What’s the difference? For the Communist Party of the Philippines, China – like Russia before it – is no longer considered communist but ‘revisionist’ and ‘stinking capitalist.’

“After the death of Comrade Mao, China has abandoned the communist cause and shamefully embraced capitalism. What they now have is a revisionist political party and a capitalist socio-economic system.� (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Dec. 28, 2005.)

Ka Roger recalled how representatives of China Road had sought a meeting with the NPA. “When the Chinese finally met the emissary of the Red fighters, they asked that they be exempted from the payment of revolutionary tax on the grounds that they are also communists, that they are also comrades.�
--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.geocities.com/dapat_tapatt/stinking.html

[gareb]

flik:

ok NDF is not a terrorist group but do you think burning buses,attcking cell sites,attacking police precincts and etc are not considered an act of terror?

perhaps you have forgotten that the GRP and the NDF are actually at war with each other? police precints are legitimate military taregts sir. please acquaint yourself with international rules regarding war.

burning buses, attacking cell sites, so you mean destruction of property. i will again put up squatter shanties demolition as an example of destruction of property. is it a terroristic act then? read my previous posts regarding the definition of a terrorist act. you obviously haven't.

bcasabee:

or do I still have to enroll in a political science course just to know they are terrorist?.........

from the looks of it, i think you should.

tolstoi:

as what i've said before, whatever 'terrorist' definitions you muster will still fit on NDF's terror acts like 'Extortion'.."fear on the aggrieved individual' and 'imminent danger..." still befalls to be a terror clause because a certain individual could not feel a sense of nirvana if he/she will be collected a lump sum of 80 million pesos, and the properties will be torched to ashes if they will not be in compliance.

and btw, can you not consider the owner of the business establishments who are subject for revolutionary taxes as CIVILIANS?

hay naku. need i repeat my arguments again?

"extrotion" is a relative term, depending on whether you agree that a certain entity/group/institution has the right to ask something from you. but your agreeing or disgagreeing, should not affect a government's right to collect taxes. it enters legalese out of necessity.

if a certain chinese firm is 'afraid' of a government collecting 80 million, does that automatically constitute a "terroristic act" on the part of that government? no. if a certain chinese firm then is NOT afraid to give out 80 million, then is the government's asking for 80 million is NOT a terroristic act then. so does a terroristic act soley depend on the presence of fear? no. that is why

"fear on the aggrieved individual" as a definition of "terrorism" is not enough. it includes too many situations.

"imminent danger..." can be a definition of "terrorism" aside perhaps for the fact that the danger is yet to happen.

but the funny thing is we can say that imprisonment is also an "imminent danger" to a civilian if he/she does not pay taxes to the GRP. so i ask again, is BIR and its collection of taxes, based on this premise a terroristic organization espousing terroristic acts? NO. why? because it is exercising its right as a government on civilians. the same thing with NDF.

collection of taxes is is a right of a government on civilians. it only follows that revolutionary taxes is collected from civilians. how hard is this to understand?

demolition of squatters is very well justifiable, of course as the land owner you have the right to boot-out whoever/whatever tresspassers that sits in your property.

so we conveniently use force of guns if necessary to evict them. we use violence as a last resort. the owners of the land has the right to evict them since it is their property. these squatters anyway knew beforehand that this is going to happen if they do not go out.

same thing with the NDF. as a government, it has the right to ask taxes. these companies know beforehand what is going to happen if they do not pay their obligations. violence is last resort. it always should be.

any average citizen can point out which among the two is grossly horrific and which is not.

both can be termed as "grossly horrific" and that label of course is relative. but whatever you say, fact remains that such means are used as a last resort, and are within the legal bounds of the law, as each is defined by both governments.

i'm referring to the way your beloved NDF collects revolutionary tax

MY NDF? since when has NDF been "mine"? you presume too much.

perhaps you believe because i come here "in defense" of NDF (as you see it) then it only follows that NDF is "mine". wow. what a laughable notion. i honestly cannot blame you. it isn't a new phenomenon that just because one comes to clear certain misonceptions one is automatically associated to that which is being misconstrued. look at the previous pages of this topic and you can see who i am talking about.

mind you, i come here to do exactly that; help in clearing all these stupid propaganda that is hounding the NDF, coutesy of the US government and the GRP, so that the peace talks can continue. if you can still remember that is exactly why we had those PM's on the first place.

pandisal:

it's just all this comes to our personal definition of what a terrorist group or what not...

i disagree.

laws (as defined by governments) are not subject to your or anyone's discretion on whether you should follow them or not. when governments at war define opposing laws, international laws especially that of the laws on war (Protocol I and II), should be followed.

laws, especially international laws, have operational definitions on terms such as "terrorism". in case of absence of such definitions, it is imperative that we follow internationally accepted definitions, in the case of "terrorism" we use the 1987 Geneva Declaration.

[gareb]

mosimos, LytSlpr, SPRINGFIELD_XD_40, tolstoi

kung ganahan mo mag discuss sa merits or demerits of "communism" then do this on another thread. i have warned you about this many times. and i will not hesitate to have your usernames awared with warning signs.

stick to the topic.

and one more thing, i want RESPECT on your posts. take efforts on making constructive posts, pwede?

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

@ GAREB ...

Since when did NDF became a GOVT ? That it has a right to collect taxes on civilians and the companies should know what happens if they dont and violence is the last resort ??

but the funny thing is we can say that imprisonment is also an "imminent danger" to a civilian if he/she does not pay taxes to the GRP. so i ask again, is BIR and its collection of taxes, based on this premise a terroristic organization espousing terroristic acts? NO. why? because it is exercising its right as a government on civilians. the same thing with NDF.

wha`t Ive stated , ang taxan ra sa NDF ang mga komonista ra unta kay wala man buhisi sa govt ang mga rebelde na ga tago sa bukid . So kay wala man sila buhisi sa gobyerno , wala silay katungod mo buhis sa sibilyan ug ilang mga sakop ra under sa NDF govt ang subjected unta .

AFAIK ... si JOMA ra ga buot buot ana di ba ? Enlighten me .

[FK]

1987 Geneva Declaration

while the Geneva Declaration states what acts constitute terrorism, others don't.

I think it's better if we settle which definition we should follow. Â*As for me, i think it would be better if we follow the Geneva Declaration which I think has less bias against those groups that are clearly democratic in nature.

[tolstoi]

"extrotion" is a relative term, depending on whether you agree that a certain entity/group/institution has the right to ask something from you. but your agreeing or disgagreeing, should not affect a government's right to collect taxes. it enters legalese out of necessity.

if a certain chinese firm is 'afriad' of a government collecting 80 million, does that automatically constitute a "terroristic act" on the part of that government? no. if a certain chinese firm then is NOT afraid to give out 80 million, then is the government's asking for 80 million is NOT a terroristic act then. so does a terroristic act soley depend on the presence of fear? no. that is why

the point here is, the way NDF collects revolutionary taxes is what makes it terroristic in nature..have you heard about GRP collected that kind of amount in a form of taxation, and worst is in lump sum?. if there is then kindly provide a link..

and also the way they penalize a non-compliant establishment is too "horrific" compared to the way the GRP punish a tax evader..its just a matter of comparion between which is just and which is harsh...and just like what I stated in previous pages, there is a need to size up what tax implementation is FEARFUL in nature to an ordinary citizen's perspective, because from what i wit, all your counter arguments seems to make NDF's act as mere parallel to GRP's which i think should not be the case here.