SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law Tuesday in the southern region of Mindanao, after deadly clashes between security forces and Islamic State group-linked militants in a major city there.
The announcement, made by his spokesman at a press conference in Moscow where Duterte was on an official visit, fulfills an often-repeated warning by the president that he would enforce military rule to quell security threats. "As of 10:00pm Manila time (1400 GMT) Duterte has declared martial law for the entire island of Mindanao," spokesman Ernesto Abella said in the nationally televised briefing. Abella said martial law would be in place for 60 days, in line with constitutional limits on the use of military rule.
Martial law is particularly sensitive in the Philippines because it was used by dictator Ferdinand Marcos to remain in power during his two-decade reign, which ended in 1986 with a "People Power" revolution.
Mindanao is made up of a large island of the same name, plus smaller islands, and the region of about 20 million people makes up roughly one third of the mainly Catholic country.
[...] The announcement came after security forces battled dozens of IS-linked gunmen in a built-up area of Marawi, a city of about 200,000 people in Mindanao, on Tuesday.
Source: Yahoo! News
In the Philippines, concerns are mounting over the proliferation of Islamic State affiliates on the southern islands of Mindanao. Jihadist groups in the region have been coalescing under the extremist group's flag since the head of Abu Sayyaf, Isnilon Hapilon, declared his allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2014. Less than a decade earlier, Mindanao's various Islamic State affiliates were a jumble of local gangs engaged in criminal activity under the dubious banner of jihad.
By adopting the Islamic State's moniker and mimicking some of its tactics, Hapilon and other jihadist leaders in the Philippines have gained legitimacy, along with notoriety, as part of a well-known, transnational movement. But beyond that, the benefits of taking up the Islamic State banner have been marginal.
Source: Stratfor article published earlier this year.
Additional coverage:
Previous stories:
G20 Summit Roundup
The Woman Who Kills Drug Dealers for a Living
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 26 2017, @06:23PM (6 children)
Dictators are good for U.S. interests 😎💰💰💰💰
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Friday May 26 2017, @06:44PM (5 children)
Only in the short term.
Take Iran for example. We are now dealing with a country that hates us, in part because western nations helped to overthrow a democracy then install and prop up a dictator.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @08:25PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday May 26 2017, @11:43PM
The problem:US is running out of taxable population,need to reduce health/social spending and environment protection costs to continue feeding the MIC.
Won't take long to get to weak population, incapable to sustain the complex anymore. The most likely outcome: fully declared fascism (with other name, of course).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 26 2017, @08:56PM (2 children)
The shah was already in power; the U.S. didn't install shit.* Their government was falling apart due to the British being dicks about oil. Go back and read the history.
Then in the revolution years later, the guy who came out on top promised democracy and then "oops backsies we're a theocracy now."
*The shah actually constitutionally had the power to dismiss the PM, but of course he didn't like that. And the PM had recently dissolved parliament so blaming us for "overthrowing democracy" is, if not an outright lie, incredibly misleading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Final_months_of_Mossadegh.27s_government [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Friday May 26 2017, @09:51PM (1 child)
> Their government was falling apart due to the British being dicks about oil.
Yes, exactly: the British feared that Iran's oil industry would be nationalised, and decided to destabilise Mr. Mossadegh's government to prevent that. From your linked Wikipedia article:
The British called upon the Americans, who agreed to assist in destabilising Mossadegh's government. From an article linked from the Wikipedia article (emphasis mine):
In case you can't open the National Security Archive page, it is archived at:
https://www.webcitation.org/6ql0FDJpD [webcitation.org]
The summary from the CIA's internal report, which is titled "Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran: November 1952 - August 1953," tells the story quite plainly.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/summary.pdf [gwu.edu]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday May 28 2017, @02:43AM
> From an article linked from the Wikipedia article [...]
I meant to provide a link:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup [theguardian.com]