[FONT=Courier][SIZE=10] Some people asking me on how to enter in the AFP and I ask them why do they wanted to join? the reason is simple and still common to our ears.

" they wanted to join the AFP because of their dreams and ambition"...some says "nothing... I just wanted to join the AFP because they wanted to handle guns."
some says " I wanted to join because I want to protect my country and to be known as a good officer someday." and the others says " I want to join to get vengence for the death of there loveones in action."

All these answers are sometimes too deep to understand but still too presious to take with.

they are our new aspirants with different motives in joinning our Armed Forces..." do they have the quality of being our next generation fighters of our Nation?"

Let us share our thoughts and opinion to them and tell them the real opportunity of becoming our defenders of this country. :patrioticpinoy:

Pareng ghost, even the plebes entering the PMA mostly arent there because of their profound patriotism...its because of the free education.

Patriotism and dedication and loyalty , integrity and other blah blah blah are inculcated once the recruit is on training, others buy it , others don't.

Our yaya's son joined the Marines not because he was patriotic, he did because of the pay, to augment the family income.

The dreamers of the Philippines want to go where the pasture is greener. There is a minimal amount of dreamers in the Philippines, as the ones left are the ones who are immersed in nightmares. The dreamers have fled the country.

the dreamers are in the dreaming how to get money out of the AFP.

You are absolutely correct, Sir VanHorne.They just don't care, an attitude not worthy of rebuke because ours is a free country. But some rich communist NPAs live a life of comfort here and instead of helping us they exert their all out efforts to lend a hand in subverting the Philippine government. What they do here in Birmingham and New York is reflective of some kind of people who want to bring successful people down. Crabs!! One opulent NPA impulsively remarked that she "is not the richest lady in the Philippines anyway, why would I support capitalism."One NPA even remarked "babagsak din lang sa impiyerno bakit hindi ko pa isama yang mga p__ mga sundalong iyan!"

I am a dreamer but a different one. I'm living a very comfortable life here in Birmingham, Britain. And it strickens my conscience that people left behind experiencing nightmares are not being taken care of. Those 89 million Filipinos opposed to communism who will have been candidates for torture by Sison.I am exerting all of my efforts to bring temporary if not permanent relief.
HOOOAHH!!

:crawling:

Hi epigone may I ask what exactly you're doing to exert permanent or temporary relief? pardon me for my ignorance

I do these things and nothing but these things....

GUIDELINES IN DEFINING 'TERRORISM' By Epigone

Due process of law has mandated that the government must protect all the person's legal rights instead of some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty or property.'

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings in order for a judge of legislation to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty.

On October 2006, an Ontario judge struck down portions of the Anti-Terrorist Act and declared the law unconstitutional.

The judge then adhered to the dictates of the Constitution that he was not empowered to alter the fundamental character of the law of the land. Thus, invigorating the intrinsic character of the Charter that delineates the role of a "government under laws" as distinct for merely "government by laws". As well, kept the "government under laws" and the rights to due process alive and healthy.

"The defense lawyer, Greenspan further vindicated himself by reminding the law-making body to desist from passing politically-motivated legislation referrring to the flawed definition of 'terrorism' or 'terrorist activity'."

"Terrorist activity' under the Act also included 'an act or omission in or outside Canada" that causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage or work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to ©.

Generally, clauses (A) to ©include actions or omissions that are intended to cause death or serious bodily harm, endanger life or pose a risk ot health or safety of public".

"Although scrapping this part of legislation only makes it easier for the prosecution, in that there is no longer any need to engage with the question of motivation, nonetheless, legislators must beware that they are not completely assured of success should the amending or repealing law be tested for its constitutionality."

Inspite of my concerns for a clear definition of 'terrorist activity' I must leave it all to the responsibilities of the respectable legislators of Parliament Hill and all other committees in whose erudite minds rest the plausible nature of the amending law.

As the Canadian Bar Association recognized there is good reason for the fact useful definition of 'terrorism' exists, either domestically or internationally:'Defining terrorism is not a simple task while the September 11 attacks were incontrovertibly terrorist, other examples may not be so clear. Perhaps recognizing that acts constituting terrorism can depend on (among other things) social context, historical perspective and racial, religious or other group identity, "our courts have consistently refused to define the concept".

For purposes of a clear delineation of 'terrorism' or 'terrorist activity', I would like to elucidate to readers my knowledge on the "process and purposes of Political Terrorism"* which might serve as guide to our legislators.

"Terrorism is not simply violence. It includes violent acts intended to influence a wider audience, to send a message when practiced by insurgents, it maybe used to publicize a cause or to demonstrate the weakness of government so as to put pressure on government and their supporters. How the audience reacts is as important as the act itself."

"Terrorism, then, is the purposeful act or the threat of the act of violence to create fear and/ or compliant behaviour in a victim and/or audience of hte act or threat.

The keywords are "purposeful, violence, fear, victim and audience". It is crucial to understand that we must distinguish the victims of the violent act from targets ( the audience of that violence). Terrorists are primarily interested in the audience, not the victims. The process of political terrorism may be characterized (Walter, 1969) as consisting of three component parts: the act or threat of violence, the emotional reaction to such act or threat and the social effects resultant from the acts and reaction. Initiation of the process of terrorism arises for a number of quite different specific purposes that are dependent upon the position of both the agents and the targets of terror. An important key ot the understanding of terrorims is to recognize that although each of the component parts of the process is important, the emotional impact of the terrorist act and thte social effects are more important than the particular action itself. In other words, the targets of the terror are far more important for the process than are the victims of the immediate act. The act or threat of violence is but the first step. This maybe clearly seen in the misunderstanding of the CPP-NPA situation: "Some thought that when the CPP-NPA torched several buses, planted landmines and blew up communication towers, it was in order to commit those acts whereas the real CPP-NPA purpose was to lure the AFP and authorities into reacting by drawing their ire at the townfolk, trigger a wave of arrests, bomb the hamlets, and fuse themselves with Magdalo and RAM-SFP and stage a coup d'eta to faciliate an effortless overthrow of the government. (declassified)""

The ultimate purpose of terrorism are either to maintain a regime or create the conditions for a new one, but there are a number of more immediate tactical considerations for which regimes and insurgents employ terror. The first (and according to many, the principal) purpose of terrorism is advertising the cause. The violence of tthe terrorist act is not intended simply to destroy but also to be heard.

A second purpose of terrorism is the winning of specific concessions through coercive bargaining. Thomas Schelling refers to this use of terror as the 'diplomacy of violence' (i.e. Sison's political bargaining demands for Aquino, Ramos, Estrada, and Arroyo to step down from office) and Alexander George label it the 'coercive diplomacy'. It is a purpose and tactic with which governments are quite familiar in international relations. The idea of the tactic is to make the possibility of noncapitulation 'terrible beyond endurance'.

A third purpose of terrorism is to create or enforce obedience either of the population at large or within any ruling party (should Magdalo or RAM-SFP succeed in grabbing power). In our image of the movie, we remember also the NPA commander taking the lives of two villagers in retaliation for sharing information with the AFP. These actions are intended to ensure greater future reluctance to assist the opposing side and greater obedience to the wishes of the insurgent cause or the security force (i.e. Magdalo, RAM-SFP, CPP-NPA)

A fourth purpose illustrated by the case of the CPP-NPA is the provoking of indiscriminate reactions or repression to expose the true nature of the "regime" or "insurgent".

To be continued....

Yup. Mahirap nga ma-define which has a true heart in serving for the country at sino naman ang gusto lang makinabang sa pwesto. This applies to the government and private sector.

Kaya kahit weekend warrior na lang ako ay I try to cultivate the proper approach in owning a weapon (kahit laruan lang). This way, when (not if) the person transitions to real steel ay matino naman at hindi irresponsible.

Its also very difficult to make changes via the business end of a weapon. Siguro on some cases but the risks are high and the effect is mostly temporary (napapalitan naman ng ibang bwisit yun tango). Kaya doing vigilante work isn't advisable rin sa mga nabwibwisit na sa system.

Instead, we should work with the system. Dahil tama yun kasabihan na the pen is mightier than the sword (in most cases unless you know deadly martial arts :) ). Kaya ganun muna approach ko (well, once I fix the bugs on my system and why my videocard overheats even with its own fan). Make things happen ika nga kahit mahirap pagkasunduin ang pro at opposition.

Sad but true...

Some dreamers are actually DOING something

Evidence 1

Evidence 2

Some patriots believe in walking the walk.

Talk is good . . . but not if that is all the you do.