NDF: a terrorist group or not?

[estor_boot]

plug sa ta.. hehehe..

there will be a debate between Pastor "Jun" Alcover of National Alliance for Democracy(known anti-communist group) and Paul Rodriguez of Bayan Muna this coming Friday during the Kapamilya Media Forum at SM Entertainment Plaza. can be heard over dyAB and can be seen on channel 15 of Skycable.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

OT : Kayasa naa man commercial bwahahahahaha !!!

[arnoldsa]

edit.

(na post na diay ni estor_boot)

[tolstoi]

ot:

your silence is deafening

bumpy

[gareb]

tolstoi:

first off..you stated on previous post that NDF is currently at war with GRP and that there rights to campaign the so-called 'legitimate cause' by force are embodied in International laws..

yes.

now are you suggesting here that NDF's terror acts like burning of cellsites/buses and summary killings are just an INTERNAL legal acts and therefore not bounded by INTERNATIONAL laws?

you are *again* erroneously presuming that these indeed are 'terroristic' acts. yes they are internal legal acts, but again your irritating short-sightedness failed too see this;

This does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons, in defiance of the most elementary principles of humanity, for acts that these persons have not committed.

and you shamelessly take it out of context. what was intended as a comparison between an internal policy vis-a-vis international law, you twist (again) for it to appear as if such policies are in direct violation of international laws, without even considering as a fact that the GRP has its own set of internal policies parallel to that of the NDF.

in another repeated example of bias and exceptionalism, you point an accusing finger at the NDF for these acts you label as 'terroristic' without realizing that the very same acts, in its essence, are also being done by the GRP.

and when you say that burning of properties is not an 'act of war' with the civilians is entirely wrong, because these civilians will in turn ask for help with the government that they truely recognize [GRP] and GRP will act upon it by waging war against the perpetrators.

so for you, (no legal dictum, doctrine, tenet or dogma, just your own enlightened legal opinion) this is an act of war? so do you consider the demolition of squatters area an 'act of war' too? if these people go the the NDF and say that the GRP has committed atrocities against them? answer me.

Government is of the people, by the people, for the people

in your honest opinion, does the GRP embody this? does it represent the genuine interest of the people, is the power that is supposedly given by the people being used well?

before you brandish any maxim, political or otherwise, be very sure that it does not come back to haunt you. this discussion, anyhow is not a about self-righteous exhotrations.

see your own premise can debunk all your arguments..NDF's function and terror acts [extortion/rev tax] as separate government is prohibited by INTERNAL and INTERNATIONAL laws simply because PEOPLE DON'T SUPPORT THEM!

first, prove that taxation is prohibited by internal and international law.

second, prove that people do not support them.

you are the one forwarding these claims so the burden of proof lies on you. simple debate procedures sir. and you are obliged to comply.

as such i presented here the status quo scenario of the contending parties, both the GRP and the NDF, in this issue where a stalemate has emerged with regards to the 'terror tagging'. i have argued the status of belligerency that both parties have informally reached as a result of the acknowledgement of each other's existence as a party in this conflict, the status, in concept, acknowledge each other's policies but not necessarily agreeing to it.

both parties have their set of claims, legitimate or otherwise. whether or not you agree that the NDF constitutes a separate government is really none of my concern. what concerns me is that your argument of the legitimacy of this terror tagging relies solely on your perception that NDF is not a government by itself. it is as if the choices are left only between a group being either a governmental body or a terroristic group.

i agree with you that as a self-proclaimed liberation movement like the NDF, they have the right to carry out their objective with the use of force

first you acknowledge that a group has a right to wage an armed struggle against an oppressive regime, as stipulated in the United Nations.

NDF's function and terror acts [extortion/rev tax] as separate government is prohibited by INTERNAL and INTERNATIONAL laws simply because PEOPLE DON'T SUPPORT THEM!

but then you reneged on your previous statement by stating that it is prohibited by internal (?) and international laws. because the people do not support them.

you are contradicting yourself.

to quote (again) the Geneva Declaration

"Such lawful uses of force must not be confused with acts of international terrorism."

it is quite obvious now who is confused.

as i've said NDF has no authority to collect taxes because the civilians they ebodies are defiant of their existence as a government in the first place, therefore when NDF insist on revolutionary tax imposition, customarily these civilians will be terrorize and just be intimidated to do so.

why, have you been to the mountains and seen up close that the people there do not suppor the NDF? answer.

and also why would you insist that they are a separate government entity when NDF's leader is happily exiled in another country?, where in the world can you find a government/state with a leader presiding a thousand leagues afar?

you purposefully ignore the example that i gave you of Quezon's government in exile during World War II.

except for one very significant difference. is Jose Maria Sison still the 'leader' of the NDF, or the CPP or the NPA for that matter? very wrong assumption you have in there. you fail to see that the NDF's existence (or the GRP, for that matter), or any other government, does not rely on the existence of a single leader. except perhaps if yours is of the monarchial sort. read your political science books, sir. you might have missed those.

so you are now saying that NDF and Legal Left are one/same entity =)

see how you deliberately twist my words. and you call this an intellectual discussion? is this what the GRP can afford? a twister of words?

anywayz..what i would like to happen is for Joma SISON to run for presidency himself, and with GOD's providence that he may win, that wiould be the time that he can effectuate whatever reforms he has in mind for the Filipino people...the country is no longer in dictatorship, therefore they have now the right to run freely as public officials.

and you believe this is possible under the elite dominated political structure? dream on.

i have already reasoned out in the previous post why GRP's act of destroying the properties of SQUATTERS/ILLEgAL DWELLERS as a JUSTIFIABLE act and not a terroristic act..no need for me to repeat that again.

justifiable eh? so some acts of destruction of property can be justifiable and others cannot? or is it being 'justfiable' only if the GRP does it, as you have shown us everytime you take on the subject?

anyhow..why are you so appalled if i hitch on EXTORTION issue of NDF? when in fact this is one of the main cause why they are inaugurated to the terrorist hall of fame este list.

because sir, 'extortion' is a label that is used relatively in this political battle between two governments. being relativistic, it is meaningless.

"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.

or do i need to reapeat myself over and over again?

your silence is deafening

apologies. unlike you, i do not sit in front of the computer everyday.

[gareb]

bcasabee

Is it valid to recognize "tong" syndicates as governments too since they also got their own territories to operate........they collect tongs from their territories and if their subjects won't cooperate, their properties will be destroyed....................well i think this only happens in movies......but i find it interesting to discuss also..........

before you talk about 'governments and criminal 'syndicates', you, at best, should know the characteristics and the functions of both; how they come to be at the first place, what sustains them, the institutions (if any) that support them, and from where they derive their power.

to simplistically compare a government to a criminal syndicate that collects 'tong', at best, is misleading. but to use a candid word, the most appropriate would be 'stupid'.

foxtrot:
they wage an armed revolution because of the the belief that the socio-economic status quo cannot and will not give in to the demands of the majority because the elite would lose its own status in the process. this conflagration exists on cultural, economic and social aspects. read Karl Marx.

that is why there is a peace process so that we can peacefully resolve this conflict once and for all. unfortuantely, a certain sector of this society still lets themselves be haunted silly by the communist bogey and equates everything anti-government as either 'terroristic' or 'communistic'.

tolstoi & SPRINGFIELD_XD_40:

you seem to agree with everything that is posted in those sites you shared.

tell me, is their definition of terrorism in line with the Geneva Declaration's? and if not, how do you suppose do they define 'terrorism'?

we speak of one word but we use it differently to mean different things. isn't this sort of misleading the readers? an Orwellian tendency, eh?

[bcasabee]

ok ok.......call them whatever you want........sayon ra man ko ka istorya ba...............ang ako lang is..........maayo unta ug mangahanaw na nasila.........ka hasol ba ana nila.................Mura sad na sila ug correct da.......buhat buhat ug ilang pundok kay bati kuno ang dominant groupa.............hilas hilas lang, sila nalang juy bright?................Abi kay naka basa man sa sinulat ni mao tse tong ug ni karl marx gi bati na ug ka bright ang mga ..........

[tolstoi]

GAREB:

now are you suggesting here that NDF's terror acts like burning of cellsites/buses and summary killings are just an INTERNAL legal acts and therefore not bounded by INTERNATIONAL laws?

you are *again* erroneously presuming that these indeed are 'terroristic' acts. yes they are internal legal acts, but again your irritating short-sightedness failed too see this;

This does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons, in defiance of the most elementary principles of humanity, for acts that these persons have not committed.

and you shamelessly take it out of context. what was intended as a comparison between an internal policy vis-a-vis international law, you twist (again) for it to appear as if such policies are in direct violation of international laws, without even considering as a fact that the GRP has its own set of internal policies parallel to that of the NDF.

in another repeated example of bias and exceptionalism, you point an accusing finger at the NDF for these acts you label as 'terroristic' without realizing that the very same acts, in its essence, are also being done by the GRP.

wow..when was it dawned on everyone that the justice system of NDF/CPP-NPA exercise DUE PROCESS?, especially those aggrieved organization or indiviual who have been subjected to revolutionary taxes..say for example, IF YOU were one of the owner of that Chinese establishment whose equipment were torched down, then would you ever accepted those kind of penalty as a DUE PROCESS and just rejoice for the sake of it? answer me!

you are always insinuating that GRP's internal policies are parallel to that of the NDF, now tell me WHO DRAFTED NDF's POLICY?, does the drafting body ENCOMPASSES the majority of the people of the Phils. similar to that of the GRP's CONGRESS

or could have been JOMA just drafted this policy?, if that will be the case then the CPP-NPA don't have the right to impose this policy on the people..simply because it was not created by DUE PROCESS..clear enuf?

[tolstoi]

so for you, (no legal dictum, doctrine, tenet or dogma, just your own enlightened legal opinion) this is an act of war? so do you consider the demolition of squatters area an 'act of war' too? if these people go the the NDF and say that the GRP has committed atrocities against them? answer me.

whew..where in the world can a SQUATTER be given the RIGHT to dwell on somebody else's ABODE?..to make this clear let's say you have this piece of property and suddenly a stranger happens to build a hut in there without your consent, won't you get infuriated knowing that somebody else's had tresspassed in your property?..customarily you will report this to whatever AUTHORITY you recognize and request for a demolition order..now will you consider that as a form of ATROCITIES on the part of those who carry out the demolition??

[tolstoi]

Government is of the people, by the people, for the people

in your honest opinion, does the GRP embody this? does it represent the genuine interest of the people, is the power that is supposedly given by the people being used well?

before you brandish any maxim, political or otherwise, be very sure that it does not come back to haunt you. this discussion, anyhow is not a about self-righteous exhotrations.

ahhh..in your hunches also, will the NDF [if ever vested the power to govern the Phil] be the RIGHTEOUS government and represents the GENIUNE interest of the people?..meaning corruption free throughout its governance?..although a dream-like as may seem, if ever NDF-CPP could make it happen then that would be the time i will support this group.

mind if i give you another maxim =) ..."Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton

reflect that on what power a communist leader cud get if ever vested the right to govern the country.