Negros NPA

that's were renting instead of buying a house comes in play!

 

What people are called always seems to change. In America the "Negroes" decided they wanted to be called "Blacks", "American Indians" decided on "Native Americans". My dog and cat like "Canine American" and "Feline American". According to what I read the island is named Negros because when the Spanish first came they saw black natives so they named the island "Negros". Also according to what I read they are properly called, and I quote Wikipedia, " Residents of Negros are called "Negrenses" (and less often "Negrosanons"). I myself just call them filipinos.

 

Let's look at this away, If you don't go looking for them, They will not come looking for you

 

One definition of a "terrorist" is 'a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims'. If the NPA threatens to burn down buildings unless certain 'taxes' are paid then I would say they do fit the description of 'terrorists'. This is similar to the extortion of the Mafia "Take out our 'fire insurance' or your place may (WILL) burn down." Often terrorist groups lose their 'cause' and become indistinguishable from criminals. But then again, Nelson Mandela was seen as a 'terrorist' under a repressive minority government and then elected President under a majority government of his own people. So was he ever a 'terrorist'? I felt that the IRA had a valid cause to re-unite Ireland, but as soon as they targeted civilians I changed my attitude and despised them.

My view, therefore, is that The Philippines has a democratically elected government (we can think what we want about HOW some get elected, but Duterte has a massive majority and I think his right to be President cannot be disputed) and those who disagree with the rule of law need to go to the ballot box - if they think threatening ordinary innocent people is the right way then they are misguided. Who wants to be governed by people who use threats to gain their objectives? They would just bring that MO into government to fill their own pockets with property stolen from the innocent.

 

Certainly huge areas of grey, black and white (am I allowed to say those colours now?) ... Is 'collateral damage' any more acceptable if it results from government action rather than terrorist action? Is 'collateral damage' acceptable if the main target is hit and that prevents more deaths than those lost in the 'collateral damage'?

Which side do you come down on in a situation like that portrayed in 'Eye in the Sky' (2015)? I have to admit that I wanted them to hit the target at once and accept the loss of the young girl's life. I just weighed up the certain death of one against the likely deaths of very many. Other people will differ, of course, and thankfully they do.