“state of lawlessness”

06 September 2016

late friday night when the news of the davao explosion broke — 10 dead, 60 wounded was the first count — and as we waited for more facts, i was of course thinking abu sayyaf:  who else would dare hit out at the president’s beloved davao, especially since he had recently ordered the armed forces to destroy the terrorist group down to the last man.  i imagined that duterte must be livid with anger, all his strongman threats for nought.

by the time i woke up saturday the president had declared a state of lawlessness across the length and breadth of the archipelago, which only means daw that he is calling out the military to help police suppress the violence and terrorism.  but this raises so many questions.  is the threat of terrorism — whether from the abu sayyaf or, as the bandit group alleged later, from its ally daulat ul islamiya — nationwide?

if yes, why are we not being told unequivocally about these threats and why are we not being properly advised?  to avoid sowing panic?  but we have seen enough of ISIS terrorism in europe, and threats in america, via cable tv — people are properly warned and advised to be vigilant, and it is for the people to decide whether to stay home and avoid crowds, or to refuse to be frightened or cowed.

listening closely to the president and his men, it’s clear that that they choose not to dignify the claim by the abu sayyaf or to acknowledge its ally, daulal ul islamiya, as though that would be to glorify them, or dahil ba ayaw rin nilang i-acknowledge na naisahan sila?  they had been warned pala, as vice mayor paolo duterte admitted, but we don’t know by whom, or what the extent of the threat is, as he continues to keep it all secret.  i suppose they didn’t take it seriously — macho bravado?  these terrorists, isis-linked or not, wouldn’t dare?

because otherwise that davao night market would could should have been better secured, with more police and plainclothes peeps hanging around, keeping an eye on things, and the populace would have been vigilant rather than relaxed, as in, pamasahe-pamasahe.

and then i saw this, thanks to raissa robles.  a facebook status by one of the president’s men, peter tiu lavina, saturday afternoon.

Early this morning I wrote that three groups were likely behind the bombing in Davao City last night that left 14 dead and 67 injuredt: 1) drug lords, 2) terrorist ASG, and 3) political opposition. I stand corrected. There is a fourth group. One that is a collusion of these three suspects. An alliance of all anti-Duterte forces. Drug lords providing the funds, Abu Sayyaf providing the muscle, and the political opposition providing the brains and hecklers. Not farfetched, don’t you think even if the ASG has claimed the wrongdoing? Let this 0.2% do their evil worst. The rigtheous many will always be victorious.#SulongDabaw #SulongPilipinas!

it’s quite a conspiracy theory — clearly a barefaced attempt to connect the davao blast to EJKs allegedly perpetrated by drug lords — that so far has no basis in fact, or we’re simply not being told the facts?  maybe it’s pure speculation, pang-distract, but we’re expected to swallow it all, hook line and sinker?  by the way, guys, you left out the CIA.  but never mind, your new ally, the CPP, has not.  read Reds blame US for Davao blast.

i agree with rene saguisag (just heard him on tv) that we do not have a state of lawlessness nationwide, chaos and anarchy do not reign.  well, except perhaps in the wishful minds and hearts of the duterte admin.  and i agree with teddy locsin jr. that the abu sayyaf are not terrorists of the same blend as al qaeda, hamas, IRA, or ETA.  nor do they seem to be of the diehard islamic terrorist kind.

They do not have a serious political aim. They are bandits whose aim is the extortion of anything within reach. And that reach goes only as far as the weakness of national government is deep.

But there is no hatred—like Bin Laden’s for America’s desecration of Islam’s holy lands by American physical presence there.

Not yet.

So the ASG can be talked to.

But that requires keeping a tight rein on our rhetoric. (That is, shutting the f*** up.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twitter

follow @stuartsantiago on twitter

recent comments

  • © Angela Stuart-Santiago