@etong
1. LOL! You mean to say you can't fact-check yourself?! Haha! You asked for a rebuttal, I gave you a rebuttal. It never was and never will be my intention to try and convince you. You think they're misleading? Then by all means refute it! The internet's at your disposal. Otherwise I'd say they're accurate.
-I can sure but id have to search hour long videos and i have no time for that now. Just think about this for now. 1hr more or less ang videos mostly speeches ni duterte. Naniniwala ka in that 1hr yung title na ang pinaka essence ng messages nya? Or just a way to make people click on their news. I never refuted he said those but there is more to it and if you are basing your judgment on those few clearly chosen statements e talagang magiiba ang perception mo thats why im asking you to watch videos of him actually talking rather than reading a few notes and clips from the article.
2. Rhetorical question: A couple of days ago, a dog in Cebu bit 20 people. Would you say that dogs are bad in general? That people should be barred from owning dogs? I asked that because it shows the danger of owning dogs and it was recent. Would you dismiss it? Sabagay hindi naman ikaw nakagat no? -Sounds stupid diba?
-ill respond anyway because you think you are giving a smart comparison but really not. And yes it sounds stupid... on your part.
You cant compare something with a mind of its own to an action. Come on. If you are trying to act smart do it right. Seriously? Kinocompare mo ang hayop sa airstrike? Airstrike that is meant to kill and a dog? Lol
3. & 4. Wooosh! Completely missed the point. Haha! Are you really this dense? Haha! Tagalugin ko nalang para maintindihan mo. Ayon sa'yo "isolated incidents" sila kasi iilang balita lang ang naririnig mo na ganyan ang outcome. Tama? Pero, nung sinubukan mong patotohanan yuung pahayag mo na "bad in general" ang mga airstrikes, ginamit mong halimbawa eh yung pinakamalalang insidente na nangyari 6 na buwan na ang nakalipas. Doon pumasok yung cherry-picking mo. Kasi araw-araw nagsasagawa nang airstrike ang Amerika pero pinili mo yung araw na pinakamarami yung nadamay na sibilyan. Kuha mo na? Ngayon, ako naman nagbigay nang mga halimbawa. Sabi ko tignan mo yung mga binigay na halimbawa ni Ginoong tigerwing. Kung masama talaga ang mga airstrikes, bakit walang namatay na sibilyan sa Zamboanga Siege? Nailigtas pa nila lahat nang mga bihag. Ganun din sa Maute Group. Gumamit din sila nang airstrikes pero bakit walang nadamay na mga sibilyan?
-Well i did acknowledge tigerwings links. I never refuted that. But as i have shown. There are cases that even if it was well planned the are still factors that you can never avoid. Again thats what im pointing out that there could be bad consequences on using it. Mali ba? Sige dagdagan kona lang next time yun examples ko. Gusto mo ata kasi pantayan ko yung mga sinubmit ni tiger... pasesnya na ha busy din ako ngayon.
-Ankulet lang e... Well duh! alangan naman ibigay kong example yung walang nadamay e ang pinopoint out ko e may instances na meron. Baliw kaba?
Yamang nandito narin lang naman tayo, eto ang problema ko sa'yo. Pagdating sa mga pulis nakatuon ang atensyon mo sa mga tingin mong magagandang nagagawa nila at pinapasawalang bahala mo yung mga pangit na bagay dahil ayon sa'yo eh madalang lang silang mangyari. Pero pagdating sa ibang bagay kagaya nang mga airstrikes nakatuon lang ang atensyon mo sa mga masasamang naidudulot nila at hindi mo kinokonsidera ang mas madaming bentahe na ibinibigay nila. Ipokrito diba?
-i refused to acknowledge yung mga pangit? Bulag kaba? I acknowledged na meron masasamang pulis and there is indeed an ejk but to connect it all to the admin is just wrong when you see the evidences and the numbers. Paulit ulit nalang ako ah.
-again i acknowledged the links of sir tigerwing, ano masama kung pakita ko rin na may masaman epekto din ng paggamit? Thats my view on it. He showed his view i showed mine. Its all good now on that part. Ano pa problema mo ngayon? As far as im concerned we agree to disagree on that.
Wooosh! Again, you're missing the point. Hina-highlight ko yung contradiction mo and apparent flexibility nang morals mo. Pagdating sa mga addict/pushers hindi na bale kung mapatay sila or mahuli, pinaka-importante na maprotektahan ng mga pulis ang mga buhay nila. Tama? Pero pagdating sa mga rebelde okay lang sa'yo na pinapaputukan mga tropa natin dahil hindi naman unli yung mga bala nang mga rebelde. Ayan o inulit mo pa nga "let them exhaust ammunition". Para lang masabi mo na hindi sila kailangang gamitan ng airstrikes diba? Kuha mo?
-since when did i say ok lang na mapatay sila? I said it was justifiable because its self preservation and self defense. And its common and legal response already. Ano contradiction pinagsasabi mo?
-I never said it was ok too. I said its an option. And yung scenario lang ang binigay kong example of what possible thing to do other than airstrike just rebutting that airstrike is not the only option from that angle. Malinaw na?