> "You brutes have no idea to run a society. We'll come show you how"

And you've just proved my point about democracy and human rights being dismissed as Western colonialism.

What's your alternative to democracy and human rights? A dictatorship that can have anyone it dislikes executed?

Colonialism might have been what brought democracy to many parts of the world - but the two are not one and the same (in fact, colonialism was regarded by many in Europe as being opposed to human rights and democracy). Many former colonies have tossed democracy and the rule of law out the window before - and it hasn't worked particularly well.

> You know the history of your country so I will not have to educate you on the result of preventing people "doing what they like" with regard to their culture and customs.

Well, Australia isn't an authoritarian regime, is it? I'd say that having elections with the government's power constrained by a constitution is going quite well.

> Are you/your ways superior to the people that voted him to do EXACTLY what he is doing? You called his one week old government "totalitarian". Forgetting he was elected for a 6 year term. Is that system they like stupid and petty too? Or should they come take instructions from you? Your country?

Of course I think my political beliefs are superior - that's why they're my political beliefs. I don't go around supporting a political ideology I believe to be inferior. It just so happens that extrajudicial executions are fundamentally opposed to my belief in the goal of a liberal democratic society.

I didn't call Duterte's government totalitarian - I agree that one week is not long enough. But if he's still asking for drug dealers and addicts to be murdered in a year I'll happily call him authoritarian, totalitarian, etc.

I understand he was elected for a six year term. That doesn't justify disregarding the rule of law (the same rule of law that make those elections every six years), nor does it morally justify murder.

The Philippines shouldn't be forced to take instructions from Australia - but that doesn't magically make criticism disappear. I'll criticise Duterte all I like, and I hope the Australian government criticises him too in the future.

I assume you're referring to America. And my answer would be that yes, as abhorrent as segregation, drone strikes and backing coups in other countries is, that doesn't nullify the elections held within that country. It's still a democracy.

People voted for Obama and they got Obama. Obama may have said what he wanted to do in office back in 2008 and then not been able to achieve those things, but that doesn't make the US undemocratic. That's how representative democracy works - you vote for representatives, not policies.

Edit: Additionally, extrajudicial executions are a sign that Duterte doesn't respect the law. If he continues to encourage vigilante killings, there is precedent for him to encourage law breaking in other areas. Who's not to say there won't be electoral laws being flouted?

But not for the people living there.

By the way, I hope you realize this borders Ad Hominem. Does the US have it's issues that it needs to solve? Yes. Does that somehow void out argument that extrajudicial killings are okay? No.

As many others have pointed out, the difference is you have BLM here and Atlantic articles that point out drone strikes publishing in the US, and there is some movement (although, not as rapid as many of us would wish for) on the ground to make things better. With extrajudicial killings, it seems reasonable to assume that if there will be evil, it can be easily covered up by the powers that be, labeling critics as drugees and moving on.

One of the things about the West and the US is that you even hear about our ills and evils, while countries like China and Russia stiffle criticizing voices within their own populace. That gives the appearance of "hypocrisy" while to me, it is more like evidence of a freedom of press that we should be proud of.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria. I disagree with you that any of these events created a better ground for the next one. I would say exactly the opposite, as the US govt started to drone even their own citizens.

Again, we aren't perfect saints, and we have evils that we need to fight from certain politicians and yes segments of the population who are ignorant to the effects of our "foreign policy". I'd even argue the anti-interventionist rhetoric of Trump and Sanders is part of why they are popular, so that group of pro-interventionist, I-Don't-Give-a-Fuck-About-Non-Americans group is quickly shrinking.

But the entire point of my comment, which you seem to have filtered out in your reply is that you read in popular US media about these issues, from many in the US mainstream press. Where in Russian media will you hear about the Crimean invasion? (A negative perspective, at least) Or the plight of Tibetan monks in China?

The world isn't black and white, but the idea of liberal democracy I think is a worthy ideal, even if we fall short of it precisely with what we have done in the Middle East, towards left-ist governments in South America. At the very least, the fact we can even have this conversation is a testament to the (possibly degrading) freedom of speech that we are lucky to have in the US and one that seems to be waning now in Philippines specifically.

I'm sure some agencies of your country already knows (or may know, if they need/want) that I don't think good stuff about this "western" democracy and the US intervention in other democracies. This is not freedom of speech. This is terror.

That's quite an irrational leap from what he said... It could also be:

"We've tried all this before, we know democracy works better, so we suggest you implement it as well."

Lol

Tell that to the people who had democracy bombed into them.

The point is, there are two patterns here which should be of concern: a popular leader calls for violence and vigilante style justice. In the long term this a non-stabilizing policy and likely to do a bit of economic damage. The second is that I give it a fifty-fifty that Duarte will run through a legislation that will turn him into a president-for-life. These types of scenarios usually go bad, take Zimbabwe for example.

I'm not saying 'going tough' would not work in the short term - but there is no reason the president should concentrate on this single issue except to stir popular support. Just removing crime won't make rhe all other problems go away. I would claim 'going tough' is the ultimate cop out move by any statesman since it removes attention from other problems and does not help build anything new.

The point is, how do you rebut this without using human-right thesis ? If enlightenment is to be discarded, why should people not invade your country and reduce its population to slavery ?

Yes, people might have supported him to get results in a serious matter, but people did not (and neither they had the competence to) specify the details. Could he instead tell the masses to rattle out the drug dealers and the junkies so the law enforcement could apprehended them for future trials? No, here was a call for mass murder, plain and simple! Do the killers have to prove that the killed were drug dealers? Are the killers known at all? (You know, to be hold accountable if it happens that their victims had nothing to do with drugs?) We're talking about the difference in the means to the same desired end of drug problem. An important difference!

Not the usual bait and switch.

Like was pointed out, drug dealers are free to surrender. And some have done so.

http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/09/16/thousands-of-drug-push...

My own gripe is pontification of the west when it comes to the business of other countries.

There are no shortcuts, there is no magic authoritarian fairy dus you can apply and leapfrog the West, we have tried it all and it always ended in disaster. We have seen time and time again, both in our societies and in the developing world, that authoritarianism is self-sustaining and despite initial success will always lead to reduced political competition and an economic and social standstill.

You can do whatever you like in your countries and vote madmen, but we will always condemn such moves, we will always refuse to abed them and we will were always proved right. The cry of colonialism is exactly what these mad men need to stay in power and you are uneducated enough to fall for it.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic. But I am sorry to inform you that "development" of the west was borne out or slave labour. It is just that simple.

The was did not get developed in the past 50 years. I know, it sounds so shocking, but it is true.

In 40 years when countries are going to be invaded for industrial pollution (that's if the concept o countries still exist) the "west" and people like you would be stating, " you can be developed industrially without polluting the environment".

The facts may be unpleasant, but they remain fact.

And let's not even get started with the bullshit in the Middle East.

The west has no grounds to state they respect human rights when history clearly shows they do not.

Do as I say, not as I do?

How is this an answer to preventing the worse of what currently is? The extrajudicial killings in the name of wiping out the drug problem can (and I presume that it also will) be abused to whatever means. If murder was present before, this president just made it a whole lot easier! "Killed? Oh, well! Probably just another bunch of drug dealers who didn't surrendered when they had the chance." Is this what you're supporting?