NDF: a terrorist group or not?

[bcasabee]

---

hahahahaha......why don't you tell it to her?......the topic is about NDF a terrorist or not... why drag GRP into the brawl...........whether or not GRP is a terrorist organization or not, it has no bearing on the status of the NDF, it is still a terrorist organization................

[gareb]

hahahahaha......why don't you tell it to her?......the topic is about NDF a terrorist or not... why drag GRP into the brawl...........whether or not GRP is a terrorist organization or not, it has no bearing on the status of the NDF, it is still a terrorist organization................

if i remember it rightly, YOU dragged the GRP into your own list of terrorists, not me. what then does that make you?

[bcasabee]

hahahahaha......did I really dragged GRP into this thread? But anyway.....regardless of GRP.....NDF is still terrorist.............or do I still have to enroll in a political science course just to know they are terrorist?.........

[mosimos]

@bcasbee: Naunsa man ka do? Wa man ka klaro. Ingon ka GRP is a terrorist org unya later on molimod ka. Pastilan. Natakdan na ka ni GMA do? Bakakon.

Anyway tarunga imo post do kay di baya nindot tan awon nga nag bali bali imo istorya. Ok

.. show some class and dignity on your post. read your own in this topic.

[RuSteD]

@bcasbee: Naunsa man ka do? Wa man ka klaro. Ingon ka GRP is a terrorist org unya later on molimod ka. Pastilan. Natakdan na ka ni GMA do? Bakakon.

Anyway tarunga imo post do kay di baya nindot tan awon nga nag bali bali imo istorya. Ok

OT
stop mud slinging as what mod gareb said...

[tolstoi]

GAREB

sir, you specifically said (and i quote), "FEAR on the aggrieved individual" NOT "imminent danger on the aggrieved individual". please do not try and change the rules of the game at the middle of it all so that an error of argumentation can stand as if it is not.

but are you aware that by re-defining your idea of 'terrorism' as "imminent danger on the aggrieved individual", that it sits well with the definition provided by the Geneva Declaration? violence against civilian populations is almost equal to "imminent danger on the aggrieved individual" provided that the individual is a civilian.

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?

very well. guns and firepower? how about the demolition of squatters' shanties? you have the right ingredients here. destruction of private property (houses as the land that these are standing on isn't exactly 'destroyed'), disruption of civilian lives, guns and firepower (during the demolition day), ultimatum, etc. if you can call these acts by the GRP as terrorist acts, and be held accountable for it, then i believe that for fairness' sake, the excercise of the NDF can also be labelled 'terroristic'.

the things you said about 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. this process is also within the boundary of the constitution because the individual/squatters are given months ultimatum to vacate the land they tresspassed..and these squatters already knew in the first place the imminent danger of dwelling into a private land therefore they have the full knowledge of what's coming to them if they wont heed the ultimatum.

[tolstoi]

GAREB

i have to ask, in this latest usage of the word in the phrase 'more terroristic in terms of implementation', what do you mean?

i'm referring to the way your beloved NDF collects revolutionary tax and the way GRP implements its taxation..

i have given you the link above about that Chinese establishment who was apathetically torched-down by the commies for you to contrast it to the way the GRP implements its taxation..any average citizen can point out which among the two is grossly horrific and which is not.

[opps another term again..hope you wont feel dizzy ]

first off, did you get the information on how much the GRP actually asked as tax for those Chinese operations? second, how did the GRP actually collect the said amount of tax? because i simply cannot 'contrast' anything if there is nothing to 'contrast' your given details against.

hmm..mind if you give us concrete info about your claims?..i can't find such article on the net =)

[FK]

the way i see the definition of being a terrorist... all forces who carries guns and ammunitions are terrorist. Kong gahatag ka og kahadlok sa mga taw meaning terrorist na ka?

A definition of a terrorist should be properly define.

[LytSlpr]

Ayaw na lang mo ug react kay nagpa-klaro na ni ug samot ang uban mga tawo diri. in short, there is no light at the end of their tunnel.

[pandisal]

Ayaw na lang mo ug react kay nagpa-klaro na ni ug samot ang uban mga tawo diri. in short, there is no light at the end of their tunnel.

but I should... -> lol <- my response!

it's just all this comes to our personal definition of what a terrorist group or what not... it seems like what I saw on this thread that people who are against with the GMA presidency are on the side "NDF is NOT a terrorist" while those who are not against or neutral to GMA presidencey says "NDF is terrorist group"... so same to most of the thread it boils to GMA vs OPPOSITION thread.