Duterte continues to fascinate me. I’m an anti-gun liberal but I am a rational man and I have to admit that his kill-the-drug-dealers agenda seems to be working. Every Filipina I know loves him.
Interesting, I wonder what will happen if a well armed populace grows to dislike him.
1 Like
That would be a bad day for him, but until then he appears to enjoy overwhelming support in the Philippines. The people there have grown weary of watching their children lose their futures to hard drugs.
1 Like
much different place than when I was there a lifetime ago.
Duterte is going to run as VP after his presidential term is up. That’s going to be another Putin/Medvedev thing.
they should try kill-the-drug-user
because everybody seems to know the death penalty is an effective deterrent
make luzon great again
my mother is fat
This ended badly for him. And it’s likely going to get worse. Unfortunate. I think he did some good. I wonder if this bodes ill for Nayib Bukele.
I read this yesterday and while I have no clue what his works are, good or bad, I am against the ICC playing world judge and jury over anyone beyond who lives in the Netherlands. For that reason, I’m inclined to believe he is a good person. They are treating him like he advertised a cure for cancer.
He killed a lot of drug dealers.
Okay, what good did he do?
That was the good.
thousands of those “durg dealers” were children…
1 Like
ChatGPT: There is no credible evidence that former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte personally killed thousands of children. However, during his tenure as mayor of Davao City and later as president, his administration’s war on drugs led to thousands of extrajudicial killings, including reports of minors being among the casualties.
Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented cases where children were killed, either as unintended victims or due to suspected involvement in the drug trade. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been investigating Duterte’s drug war for possible crimes against humanity.
If you’re referring to a specific claim, I can check for updates.
uh huh, hitler didnt gass any jews personally either
1 Like
Again, ChatGPT:
There is no credible evidence that Rodrigo Duterte specifically ordered the killing of children as part of his drug war or any other policy. However, human rights organizations and media reports have documented cases where children were killed as collateral damage in police operations or were mistakenly targeted due to their association with drug suspects.
Key Points:
-
Extrajudicial Killings (EJKs) – Under Duterte’s anti-drug campaign (2016–2022), thousands of people were killed, mostly suspected drug users and small-time dealers. While the exact number varies, estimates range from 6,000+ (official police figures) to 30,000+ (rights groups).
-
Children as Victims – Reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and UNICEF confirm that minors were among those killed. Some were caught in crossfire, while others were allegedly deliberately targeted if suspected of being involved in drugs.
-
Duterte’s Public Statements – Duterte made incendiary remarks about killing criminals, but there is no proven directive targeting children. His statements encouraged police and vigilante actions, which may have led to indiscriminate killings.
-
ICC Investigation – The International Criminal Court (ICC) is investigating Duterte for possible crimes against humanity, but their focus is on systematic extrajudicial killings, not a specific policy of targeting children.
Conclusion:
While Duterte’s policies enabled a climate of violence that resulted in child casualties, there is no direct evidence that he ordered their killing. However, his rhetoric and the unchecked actions of security forces led to widespread abuses, including the deaths of minors.
Also this:
No, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has never convicted a white person. All individuals convicted so far have been from African nations, primarily warlords and military leaders. While the ICC has investigated and issued arrest warrants for non-African individuals (such as Vladimir Putin for war crimes in Ukraine), no white person has been successfully prosecuted and convicted by the court as of now.
lol are you talking to a maga ai? ofcourse he didnt specifically ordered to kill only children but fact is that children were killed because of his orders…
my non-racist ai says icc has convicted white people too:
Yes, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has convicted individuals of various ethnic backgrounds, including both non-white and white individuals. The ICC is an international tribunal designed to prosecute individuals for crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression, and it does not discriminate based on the race or ethnicity of the accused.
However, it is important to note a few things when discussing the ICC’s record:
1. Focus on African Leaders:
- The ICC has been criticized for disproportionately focusing on African leaders and crimes committed in African countries. Critics have argued that the court has not pursued cases involving leaders from other parts of the world (such as the West or the global North) as aggressively. This has led to claims of bias and accusations that the ICC is seen as disproportionately targeting non-white individuals.
- Some of the prominent individuals convicted by the ICC have been from African countries, such as Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, Thomas Lubanga from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Jean-Pierre Bemba from the Central African Republic. There are also ongoing investigations into the situation in other African countries, such as Sudan and Uganda.
2. Cases Outside of Africa:
- While much attention has been given to the ICC’s focus on Africa, the court has also prosecuted individuals from outside Africa. For example, the ICC has investigated and prosecuted cases involving individuals from the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, and Afghanistan, though these cases are relatively fewer in comparison.
- In the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal, a predecessor of the ICC, Slobodan Milošević (a white Serbian leader) was tried for war crimes, although he died before the trial concluded. Similarly, the Bosnian War led to convictions for individuals like Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić, who were both convicted for their roles in war crimes committed during the conflict.
3. Criticism and Calls for Reform:
- Critics argue that the ICC has not done enough to address crimes committed by powerful leaders in other regions, such as the United States, Europe, or other parts of the world. Some countries, including the United States, Russia, and China, have not ratified the Rome Statute (the treaty that established the ICC), which limits the court’s jurisdiction over individuals from those countries.
- There are also calls to broaden the scope of the ICC’s investigations to include more cases outside of Africa to ensure fair and equal justice.
4. Ongoing Cases:
- The ICC is currently investigating situations in places like Afghanistan, Myanmar (for the treatment of Rohingya Muslims), and the Philippines (under former president Duterte’s war on drugs), which involve non-African individuals and non-white populations.
Conclusion:
While the ICC has convicted individuals from a variety of backgrounds, the court’s early focus on African leaders has led to claims of racial bias. However, the ICC’s jurisdiction is meant to be impartial, and it is actively working on cases involving individuals from different regions and ethnic groups. The issue of race and ethnicity remains a contentious one, and the court continues to face criticism and calls for reform in how it handles cases across the globe.
interesting my deepseek buddy explains it:
you are absolutely correct to point out Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić—both of whom are white individuals convicted of serious international crimes. However, it’s important to clarify that they were not convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Instead, they were tried and convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), a separate court established by the United Nations to address crimes committed during the conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990s.
Why Not the ICC?
The ICC was established in 2002 by the Rome Statute, and it only has jurisdiction over crimes committed after its creation. The crimes committed by Karadžić and Mladić occurred in the 1990s, before the ICC existed. Therefore, the ICTY, which was established in 1993, handled their cases.
1 Like