Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Definition: Terrorism is Organized Crime for Political and Ideological Ends

efine terrorism. That is the challenge often heard from people who actually want to deny that the Philippines and the rest of the world have a real problem that is NOT the fault of America or "Western-style" democracy. But even if many people are unable to wrap their brains around the problem of the Communist insurgency and the global Jihad, most are sure they are against both. But the complexity of both phenomena and the supposed intractability of their "root causes" have bred a mentally lazy kind of rhetoric among pundits and intellectuals. They argue that we cannot outlaw terrorism because it cannot be defined with some kind of metaphysical certitude. This gets them stuck in the intellectual quagmire of how to define TERRORISM when it is applied to groups that by their very nature want to remain inscrutable, mysterious and little known. Groups that none of its members or adherents will publicly admit to supporting or being a part of and therefore have no face or persona or any real accountability. Today, I propose to help end that disingenuous pretense at conceptual incapacity or mental dysfunction by this simple definition of terrorism:

TERRORISM is organized crime in the service of a definite political and ideological goal to overthrow, supplant or prevent the formation of democratic regimes .

As such, jihadi terrorism has in common with movements like communism and fascism the immoral principle of justifying violent, nihilistic and indeed criminal MEANS by professing altruistic and even noble-sounding ENDS. Thus, the disingenuous liberal argument that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

In the case of the CPP-NPA and its leftist front organizations that only pretend to participate in Democracy so as to destroy it, that goal or end is crystal clear: the seizure of state power and the establishment of a totalitarian system of government and socialist command economy. Never mind that Humanity spent most of the last century debunking, defeating and eventually rejecting this concept of human society and its extant models--its last few brain-dead adherents survive in the Philippine Archipelago and in the care of Dutch welfare. Unable to win victory in a half century of trying because the Filipinos are just too smart to be won over by their empty promises of a socialist paradise under their diktat, they are content to be the sociopolitical equivalent of HIV or cancer on the body politic. Like the Mafia bosses of Hollywood fame, their leaders are legends in their own minds who are constantly deluding their soldati and comrades in the broader protest culture about their true natures and intentions. Although they cannot gain political power through normal democratic processes, they are adept at exploiting democratic freedoms and civil liberties to expand their influence, to survive while plotting and promoting revolution. Sophistication in the use of both armed strategies and parliamentary tactics has been the product of the long protracted struggle. The Maoist dictum of "surrounding the cities from the countryside" has become a cover for a permanent enterprise that involves extortion, protection rackets, collection of revolutionary taxes and campaign permits, kidnapping and assassination of local government and law enforcement officials, and indeed the terrorization of the populace into a submissive co-existence.

The Islamic Global jihad is also a form of organized criminal syndicate very similar to the communist movement, that promotes and feeds off legal front organizations in the form of madrassah schools, Muslim "charitable" organizations and fund-raising fronts that mask the deadly agenda. Far more in-depth analysis of this type of terrorism can be found on other blogs, like the Belmont Club.

I am not sure how my definition will go over in the local blogosphere, where indeed Manuel L. Quezon III has expressed "deep disagreement" with my views on the Human Security Act of 2007 the anti-terrorism bill still to be signed into law by the President. Since I called it a weak and dumb bill, I hope he will explain further what he does think of it. (How serious is this law if it is to be suspended for three months around every election period? I mean, what if we catch Dulmatin the day before the suspension? It's like decriminalizing murder and mayhem during summer vacation.)

It is an original definition so far as I know, though I am sure others have proposed it or similar ones. The main reason I have come up with it is to address the need for at least one working definition to promote discussion of why law is need to address terrorism beyond the fact that existing laws already deal with the "component crimes" that terrorism employs to further its goals. I would suggest that just like organized crime statutes have been found to be necessary and effective at suppressing La Cosa Nostra and similar organized crime syndicates, a similar law is needed to deal with groups like the CPP-NPA and its allies, as well as Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Liza Masa tells Korina Sanchez that she and the other party list members of Congress will question the law before the Supreme Court. But the Filipinos are not going to be supporting her or the Leftists until they unequivocally reject the CPP-NPA and its violent means to a terrible end. Which they categorically and suspiciously decline to do. Why?


(ABSCBN) NPA Terrorists Burn Down Mt. Province Schools:
BAGUIO CITY – New Peoples Army guerrillas burned three school buildings in Natonin, Mt. Province last month after the principal reportedly refused to give in to their extortion, the military said.

Lt. Gen. Bonifacio Ramos, chief of the Armed Forces Northern Luzon Command, said the insurgents had demanded P300,000 from Belena Gamonac, principal of the Tonglayan Elementary School, and a stop to the teaching of anti-communist doctrines to the students.

Ramos said Simon Naogsan Sr., spokesman of the Cordillera People's Democratic Front and leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines-NPA in Mt. Province, raised their demands to Gamonac sometime last November.

The principal, however, refused to give in, saying the education department lacked money, besides the fact that the whole deal was illegal.

Gamonac also explained to the CPP-NPA leader that she could not stop lectures against communism because these were part of the subject Hekasi or Heograpiya, Kasaysayan at Sibika, Ramos said.

"You will regret this if something happens here," an irate Naogsan was quoted as threatening the principal in the dialect.
This is the sort of organized criminal activity, clearly motivated by ideology and politics, that ought to be prosecuted under the the Human Security Act of 2007. Such atrocities by the NPA terrorists goes on all over the Archipelago as part of their large-scale extortion rackets, which of course the Left and partylist apologists will never, ever condemn!

Seems to me even the DepEd has a lot to explain about the intellectual infiltration of the CPPNPA into its textbooks.

Of course the leftist media covered what big story from the Mountain Province this past week? Why, it was the testimonies given by CPP NPA front organizations to Philip Alston, UN Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings. I bet Prof. Alston doesn't know anything about NPA atrocities in Natonin! Which makes me wonder how balanced his report will actually be.


engineerOFW said...

DJB.. there is a serious flaw in your definition. The matter is that it remains terrorism --- a bomb killing four or twenty-four or sixty-four civilians in a marketplace, or a hostage-taking in an elementary-school --- even if the intent is to overthrow a dictatorship or a monarchy.

Rizalist said...

Killing with a bomb is still murder in the ordinary sense. But if it is done by a member of an organization for the purpose of advancing their political or ideological cause, the murder becomes a terrorist act or murder, just like when a Mafiosi soldier kills a rival gang member, it is part of the organized crime family's activities and may be punishable as a conspiracy under RICO.

In your counter-example, if a deranged man blows up the market or school because he is suffering from a seizure, that isn't terrorism. But if he is a member of an organized group that does it for the purpose of destabilizing the govt, then I think that is terrorism.

Perhaps you misunderstood my definition?

Rizalist said...

I see where you are going though. I do agree it is still terrorism even if the govt is a monarchy or dictatorship, but that would be a WIDER definition than we need in our context.

manuelbuencamino said...


TERRORISM is organized crime in the service of a definite political and ideological goal to overthrow, supplant or prevent the formation of democratic regimes .

That definition applies as well to Gloria and her regime and everything they have done or attempted to do against our democracy.But you still insist on giving her an anti-terror law.

I don't get it. Are you so blinded by fear or anger against muslims and communists that you fail to see the danger before you? Handing Gloria all that power?

Rizalist said...

Gloria is guilty of crimes that I do not consider to be terrorism in the same sense that the CPP NPA and the jihadis are. She has not needed the anti terror law in order to commit such crimes. She may abuse the law however, and I expect she will try. But that is no reason to reject the existence of the Law, which ought to be upheld, not the least by her. But any law gives the state power over our lives and limbs if the people in govt are so inclined. Again that is no reason to oppose a law with a definite purpose that the people agree to. It does not mean we should feel powerless before them. The Law should empower the people as much as the govt, because the law is about MORAL principles that apply to all. Fascists do not need laws to do their evil.

manuelbuencamino said...

Fascists do not need laws to do their evil. So why give them one?

"Gloria is guilty of crimes that I do not consider to be terrorism in the same sense that the CPP NPA and the jihadis are."

Well, this brings us back to the question you left unanswered. Are you more concerned about politics and ideology than you are about the violent means used to advance whatever ends?

Is ideology the defining factor for you?

If that's the case we don't need an anti-terror bill. Let's just declare communists and communism illegal again and make islam and muslims illegal as well. That will save all of us the trouble of defining terrorism when what we really want to do is eliminate communists and muslims.

Anyway, this headline and excerpts from an OPS release made me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

"Anti-terrorism law to safeguard citizens' rights -- Ermita"

"Apprehensions on the passage and other components of the anti-terrorism law would be best left to the Supreme Court after its authorization by the President," he (Ermita)said.

"Ermita said one of the important features of the Human Security Act of 2007 is the creation of the Anti-Terrorism Council to be chaired by himself and with the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) as vice chairman.

Other members are the Secretaries of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of National Defense (DND), Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), Department of Finance (DOF), and the National Security Adviser (NSA)."

Gosh, it sure made me feel warm and fuzzy. Did you feel it too?


Know what Dean, I used to live in Northern Ireland and once in a while, Europa, a hotel in the center of Belfast used to be blown up by IRA and their provisional army.

These same men, terrorists of the worst degree are now part and parcel of the Northern Irish establishment.

The one of the greatest terrorists of all time is President Nelson Mandela.

Margaret Thatcher labeled him as such and recently, David Cameron, leader of the Tory Party made a public apology on behalf of his party for the harshness of the British government under Thatcher.

Of course, the other terrorist and clearly labeled as such for a long long time is Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe. He's bought himself a kind of protective mantle when he became president but he's still a terrorist.

Given the above examples, how will you classify Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who (and not by a long shot) is a terrorist of the worst degree - using state tools to terrorize a portion of the population?

Rizalist said...

I will ask you folks a question. Do you believe such a thing as "terrorism" exists or not? Or do you like Jamby claim there really isn't any problem except with us and the West? It's all in our minds. Bush invented the idea. WE're just imagining that someone is killing innocent people because they don't like the present system of the world? All you guys have said is that EVERYONE is guilty of something or that no one is. It's all America's fault there is war in the world?


Heh heh! Dean, you're out of it. Don't flatter Bush - the guy's a nignog, he didn't invent anything - he was a lousy copycat, that's all there is to him. The term existed during the time of the Roman Empire.

Also, if you care to read what I said, that should tell you that I do admit there are terrorists.

Weren't Mandela, Mugabe, Begin, Arafat and the IRA guys all called terrorists?

Rizalist said...

So what is your point? Does terrorism exist or doesn't it? Should we fight it or not? Or should we like you, look back from the present and PICK the guys that we now like and say, see, these guys aren't terrorists. That's a fallacious!

Do you believe terrorism can be defined, or are you just being argumentative? What is your definition of something you seem to admit does exist?

Or is your position just like Jamby's? If not, how does it differ?

Rizalist said...

HB--You must think that Jose Maria Sison and Osama Bin Laden and Dulmatin are just ordinary murderers right? That their movements and organizations ought to be treated the same as the OXO Sigue sigue gang or the Crips?

Again I ask, you who do you think ought to be regarded as "terrorists" under my definition? Or do you deny that anyone should be? That they can all be treated under present laws?

Is an anti terrorism law necessary because there are special kinds of criminals like them that can't be dealt with any other way?

I've tried to make a distinction in principle, but you're basic reaction seems to be "Bush is a nignog" which hardly enlightens the matter.

I think one indication of a terrorist position is when someone calls for and works toward the overthrow of a given social system, but won't do it publicly, openly and peacefully.

Just because yesterday others have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities, with whom in retrospect we may not today agree, does not mean, ipso facto, that terrorism does not exist or cannot be defined.

That is the fallacy in your position, in my opinion.

What moral principle do you stand for? Or is it all a matter of who we don't like and don't agree with?


Never said terrorism doesn't exist - seen terrorists first hand, Dean, in Belfast so don't go around preaching to the converted.

I agree all those guys you brand terrorists are terrorists in the same degree I call Bush not only a nignog but also a terrorist.

Bush's killing of so many thousand IRAQIS in the guise of a tenet "you're either with me or against me" makes him a terrorist too just like your favorite terrorist Jose Maria Sison and what's his name again, Osama bin Laden. Make no mistake about it.

The difference between terrorist Menahem Begin and terrorist George D Bush is that the former became PM of Israel after he was branded terrorist while George Bush became terrorist after he was elected president of US of A.

Show me where the fallacy is in that belief.

I never said there's no such thing as terrorism - matter of fact, I told you, terrorism and terrorists existed in both in name and more than that since the age of the Roman Empire; look up the history of Julius Caesar's battle with Gaul's terrorists.

You're funny!


And believe it or not, I agree with your definition on terrorism.

Bush's organized crime in Iraq for instance.

Believe me, once he's term is done - he's gonna be legally accused of war crimes together with his friend, Tony Blair.

OK, not exactly charged as terrorists but I think many Americans would agree that Bush is no more no less a terrorist.

Check what Americans say in

Rizalist said...

The purpose of my definition is to come up with a definition that LIMITS who gets to be considered terrorists to those that MOST people do believe fit the description.

But it's simply silly to equate the US President and US government to OBL and al Qaeda. Like I said you are just being argumentative and not trying to come up with a definition. But I think that is because you disagree with Bush, yet you cannot side with the Enemy either.

There may be something else wrong with Bush and US policy. But they are NOT terrorists and it is useless to muck around in rhetoric.

We need a definition that protects nonterrorists from the deadly label, yet calls the spades, spades, not freedom fighters!

It's okay to oppose Bush, in my book, but not at the expense of giving the terrorists a boost.

But if you agree with my definition, help me out with Engineer's comment that it ought not to specify that the target of the overthrow or violence has to be a democratic govt before it is considered "terrorism". If Al Qaeda attacks a monarchy like Jordan, I guess I have to agree with him that it is terrorism. Or even if they attack civilians in Burma, it would be terrorism though the govt there is a dictatorship.

I think he is saying that the definition in the TITLE of the post is accurate enough.

Dave Llorito said...

terrorism is nothing but the use of terror as a strategy to undermine established authority. its in a way a psychological weapon because the sole purpose is to create confusion, shock, revulsion, and panic to subvert people's trust in the established order. that is why the terrorists weapons of choice are bombs and other stuff that really create the most spectacular display of mayhem and destruction. those who employ these strategy and tactics believe that once the people are confused and paralyzed, that society is ripe for the taking. so in a way, terrorism is one great play where the terrorists are the main cast and the people are the props, victims, and audience rolled into one. seems like we havent grasped this angle yet.

Dave Llorito said...

If we use the more dispassionate descriptors of political science, terrorism is really part of the menu of strategies and options used by resistance groups, rebels, “oppressed classes,” anarchists, and malcontents in their efforts to subvert the status quo. That menu of options include guerrilla warfare, urban-oriented insurrectionist strategy a la Sandinista, or even set piece battles once the insurgent groups gather enough resources. In reality, insurgents are using a combination of all these options. In Iraq, they seem to be using terrorism (using bombs and suicide bombers) combined with an innovative urban-based guerrilla warfare using high-tech improvised explosive devices. What I’m saying is that it’s not accurate to use the word “state terrorism.” Those who use this term are actually describing actions that are just plain repression, fascism, despotism, etc.

manuelbuencamino said...

"Do you believe terrorism can be defined, or are you just being argumentative?"

My argument is terrorism cannot be defined. I'll give you an example.
Extortion and extortionists. They use terror to achieve their ends.
What disqualifies extortionists from your definition of terror? They lack a political and/or religious agenda. Their goal is purely criminal.
There is, you might say, a qualitative difference between a terrorist organization and an extortion syndicate.
And that's where the anti-terror law is exposed for what it really is - an attempt to label as enemies of civilization those organizations that pursue political and/or religious groups opposed to yours.
The methods you use to defend and advance your state ideology and/or religion are as violent as the ones terrorists use to topple it. In short, we cannot make any distinction in the quality of violence involved. Except that one comes from "the government". Never mind if that government is Robert Mugabe or little Kimi.
So one can even say those acts of violence are as immoral and illegal except that since it is the government in power, it's actions are covered with a veneer of legitimacy and authority. Again never mind if its Mugabe or Kimi
If we pursue this line of argument we will take the next step which is to start labeling sovereign states as rogue states, terrorist states or what-not. So now make the leap from terror organizations to terror states. This is what I call the neo-con leap.
Terror states or rogue regimes are now fair game for your neocons charging on their high horses to save the world from whatever the fuck it is they don't like at the moment and to bless the world with whatever the fuck it is they believe at the moment.
All that would be fine except that nobody likes or believes in the neo-con ideology except the neo-cons themselves.
So now let's go back to what you said,
"I think one indication of a terrorist position is when someone calls for and works toward the overthrow of a given social system, but won't do it publicly, openly and peacefully. "
Neo-cons have never registerd themselves as a political party, they have no card carrying members, they do not even want to be labeled as such. But they do want to overthrow the given social order for the heaven on earth they believe in. But they won't do it publicly, openly and peacefully. They disguise themselves as freedom loving, free market thinkers but like Joma they want to impose their ideology on the world.
They, like Joma. work through fronts. Think tanks, their own publications, as members of the Democratic or Republican party (they switch when convenuent) and they get themselves appointed to positions in governments whenever a "soft" government is in power (think Reagan and Dubya but his dad who is a true conservative is an enemy)
"What is your definition of something you seem to admit does exist?"
You tell me.
But shouldn't we also include neo-cons as terrorists?

Juan said...


Naming the anti-terrorism bill as the Human Security Act of 2007 is misleading and debases the term ‘Human Security’,a concept that has become necessary for man in his struggle to survive as human beings amidst and immersed in a dehumanizing culture in which terrorism has become a compelling reality. We are compelled to make a choice: to be or not to be – human beings.

What choice do we have in the anti-terrorism law?

"adopting a Human Security lens would help alleviate many of the deficiencies in a traditional, state-centered approach to this problem (of terrorism)".

pls take a look @(

Juan said...

Human security also emphasizes that the protection of human rights and respect for the rule of law are fundamental elements of genuine security. In many countries, there exist some counter-terrorist measures that violate human rights. Abuses include prolonged, incommunicado detention without judicial review; risk of subjecting to torture during the transfer, return and extradition of persons between or within countries; and the adoption of security measures that restrain the rights or freedoms of citizens and breach the principle of non-discrimination. [26] Such violations arguably serve to exacerbate rather than help combat the threat of terrorism. Human security argues that international human rights obligations do not stop at borders and a failure to respect human rights in one state may undermine international effort to cooperate to combat terrorism. While traditional international efforts to combat terrorism have focused on the need to enhance cooperation between states, human security argues for more effort be invested in the effective inclusion of human rights protection as a crucial element in that cooperation.

Rizalist said...

I think the flaw in your reasoning lies in the following. The meaning of State Power is that the State, under a Rule of Law, may use violence to maintain that Rule. It may punish people for crimes against that rule, even depriving them of life and liberty.

The difference between a legitimate state exercising legitimate state power is that it must have the democratic ratification of the people. That is why the Soviet Union was indeed called an "Evil Empire" by Ronald Reagan. Yes! the Soviet Union was "terrorist state" but since we don't yet have a "world government" no national law can be used against such "rogue states".

The argument you propound is a variant of the idea that CPPNPA terrorism is the same as "state terrorism"--it is the CPP's argument actually because since they consider themselves to be a "revolutionary govt" they are allowed to use revolutionary violence to impose their will.

What it ignores is the fact that they have not been elected into power. Neither has GMA, you will say, but that has not been proven or established under the Rule of Law. It's the same with the Commies. They accuse society of all kinds of crimes and act on it as if they were the State.

There is simply no equivalence between a lawful exercise of the state's coercive power (which we bless with the Constitution) and whatever the NPA uses to justify burning down schools and assassinating local officials.

So take my definition for what it is. It is an insistence that ALL ideologies are allowed as long as their adherents do not organize CRIMINALLY to impose it on others. But they can do anything considered to be legal to promote it. I defend that right.

Only the Armed Forces are allowed to bear arms as an organized force and to use violence to do its duty. If that principle is accepted by everyone, there are no limits to ideological advocacy.

If the CPPNPA renounces violence and lays down its arms, I will be the first to defend their rights to campaign for Joma to run for President or something. And the first to campaign against him.

But as long they don't threaten to burn my house down, that'll be okay.

Regarding "front organizations" I don't think the Heritage Foundation or other conservative think tanks DENY their ties to Bush and neocons the way the party lists deny their links to the CPP NPA.

Why do you think they do that when even Joma owns up to owning them?

manuelbuencamino said...

"The meaning of State Power is that the State, UNDER THE RULE OF LAW, may use violence to maintain that Rule."

So we're back to square one. You believe the present government is legitimate and it operates under the rule of law.

How could you oppose martial law and all the violence done to defend it ?

Rizalist said...

Thanks for trying to make the definition work by testing it. That's fair enough in my book.

Okay...martial it conceivable that one day we have a real president who is suddenly faced with a situation in which the perfectly valid and legitimate response is a declaration of martial law? Of course it is! In which case, under the Rule of Law we would continue to defend the government against violent attempts to overthrow it or to make war on the nation or to do whatever it is the declaration indeed attempts to prevent.

But suppose the Congress, after the declaration finds that it is not justified and invokes the Constitution to reject the President's declaration but the president ignores them and refuses to lift the declaration?

Now, he or she has violated the Rule of Law, in which case revolution becomes a possible option.

Do I believe the present government is legitimate. Yes I do, because we have not yet proven her guilt in anything. We have not been able to do it because we have attacked the wrong thing and jumped to unwarranted conclusions that she cheated the elections.

All I know is that some illegal recordings of the President and an elections commissioner have been made, prima facie evidence that the Anti wiretapping law has been violated. But by whom? Looks like the military. But people didn't really care about that, or its national security implications. So they went ahead and claimed it proved cheating in the elections. WRONG! That was because the opposition has no principles either and did not value the national defense and national security laws. I believe she should be impeached for violations of the anti wiretapping law.

But do we need to overthrow her by supporting the CPP NPA. NO. There are perfectly legal nonviolent means of doing so.

She has also used the law and its processes to her advantage. That's the way it is in a democracy.

manuelbuencamino said...

and you called Joker a moonbat...hahaha.

On martial law, I was being specific. Why didn't you defend Marcos?

Rizalist said...

Why didn't I defend Marcos? Because I was on the wrong side then.



I just read your comments in Manolo's blog and posted a comment but it's awaiting moderation.

manuelbuencamino said...


There. Now we know what lay beneath all that democartic rhetoric. Dropping the pretense and coming out of the closet wasn't all that difficult, was it?


Re: "Rizalist said...
Why didn't I defend Marcos? Because I was on the wrong side then."

Looks like the whole thing is in keeping with what the guys in the military like to say too: "weather-weather lang 'yan". Heh!

Rizalist said...

MB, Back on topic...

For a long time now lots of people have been claiming that it is impossible to define terrorism in a way that a law against it won't be abused.

I think the problem with that point of view is that the folks who see things that way ASSUME that the reason the govt wants this law is so they CAN abuse it for political purposes: (1) to use it against their enemies; or (2) to please George W. Bush.

I am perfectly willing to concede that possibility. But there is a longer view and the way to see it is to pose this question to yourself: Will the problem of having to "define" terrorism go away when GMA or GWB are gone from the stage of History? Whatever it is, is terrorism a mere invention of theirs? Or was it there before, during and after them?

In other words, will you not concede that there is something objective that is out there that threatens human societies and the future of mankind in a way that cannot seem to be dealt with by ordinary laws and ordinary actions?

I am myself forced to conclude that so far the measures taken have not succeeded in making that objective thing go away--however you or I define it.

That this extraordinary threat even exists is denied by those who claim "it" cannot be defined in any useful way.

In this post, I have tried to present a definition that perhaps even they will be forced to agree represents the objective reality.

If you can accept my definition, even provisionally, then we can test the law as written to see if it can be effective against the threat as defined.

Realize, this is not a "metaphysical definition" but a definition of a "set"-- a collection of people and ideas that together constitute the thing I call "terrorism."

It is a definition that combines two rather more familiar things: "organized crime" and "political ideology."

In the case of the Leftist front organizations, they are acutely aware of the criminal status of much of what the NPA does from day to day: they are basically an organized criminal syndicate. That is of course why they cannot openly support the NPA, even if they certainly do so logistically and philosophically.

IN other words, they know that the NPA is morally illegitimate in the eyes of the people because they practice organized criminality in the name of politics and ideology -- a fact quickly recognized by the masses, and rejected by them.

But Marcos' crime was not terrorism in this sense. It was a fascist dictatorship and that has a different definition.

The taxonomies of evil are many and complex. But if your purpose is to deny the very existence of a special and unique problem, presented by the CPPNPA and the global jihad, then you would be "in denial" as the recently famous phrase goes.

But correct me if I got the wrong impression. You do think there IS such a thing as "terrorism" that needs to be dealt with, right?

If you do, care to take a stab at your own definition?


By the way, the Council of Europe published an official EU book - The fight against terrorism - Council of Europe standards (2nd edition) (2004).

For info, Council of Europe groups together the Heads of State and Government of the EU members plus other European nations for a total of 46 countries.

Book Synopsis

The Council of Europe has been dedicated, since 1949, to upholding human rights, the rule of law and pluralist democracy. Terrorism repudiates these three fundamental values and the Council of Europe is determined to combat it.

The Council of Europe has drafted a number of international legal instruments and standards which reflects the importance it attaches to combating terrorism and illustrate the underlying message of the Organisation, which is that it is possible to fight efficiently against terrorism while upholding the basic values that are the common heritage of the European continent.

The updated, enriched second edition of this book contains these texts and is intended to provide a handy, comprehensive document.



You want to get Joma? Get Gloria to sign an Extradition Treaty with The Netherlands.

I've already told you many times that Pinas has no extradition treaty with The Netherlands.

Doubt very much the Dutch who have their OWN laws (nothing to do with EU here) - despite earlier posturings by Gloria that Dutch govt had assured them she could get Joma from Utrecht - would give you Joma without such treaty.

Legally complicated too because Joma had been given a political refugee status before being listed by the US State Dept as terrorist; and even if the Dutch decide to withdraw the refugee status, Joma can always go back and forth to the European courts for some kind of TRO.

Anyway, your real best bet to get him is for Pinas to push for that extradition treaty. Without that treaty, the Dutch won't even look at any of the legal charges Gloria may have against Joma.

After all, she can file criminal charges against Joma for the Plaza Miranda bombing - she's got the best ever living WITNESS who can testify that Joma ORDERED the bombing: BRIG GEN VICTOR CORPUZ!

If there's an extradition treaty, based on that charge (I'm pretty sure there's no prescription for murder in the EU), she can get Joma back to face the music!

BUT WHY IS GLORIA NOT PUSHING FOR AN EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE DUTCH? She's abolished the death penalty so there should be no more obstacle.

Know what I think? Could be because Gloria DOESN'T ACTUALLY WANT Joma IN Pinas! Could be because having him in Pinas will obliterate all her excuses for ranting against the poor sod "leading the insurgency" in Pinas.

When Joma is finally in Pinas, she'll have no more reason to heap the blame on Joma for the AFP's dismal performance and absolutely hilarious failure to do something about the 7,000 rag-tag slipper donning members of the NPA.

What a laugh!

Rizalist said...

HB--THANKS for the info and link on Council of Europe. Been reading up more on Europe and the UN lately because of Philip Alston. Regarding Joma, he just turned 70 if I am not mistaken, and ain't exactly healthy. Many of the CC members too are either dead or dying. IN actuality, their being in Utrecht has created a problem in the movement over leadership, and that is what the Military alleges is the cause of the internal purges going on. Also given the record of the Justice system in punishing people accused of the BIGGEST crimes, there may be something to what you are saying that she really doesn't want him being here at all because he could cause more trouble.

So maybe she figures, let his kidneys do the job.

But I don't think his passing will change very much about the movement. There are many ready to take his place, and many that are perhaps more aggressive than even him!



I can send you a copy of the book if you want it. Send me an e-mail if you are interested.

Meanwhile, I'm posting here Philippine Vigil's comment following yours in Manolo's blog (something to do with Pinas veering to the RIGHT) - for some reason, it's still under moderation, so here it is:

Philippine Vigil :
Your comment is awaiting moderation.


You are still harping at Joma Sison? I’ve told you time and time and again that you’re making that old sod more important than he is.

He’s a has been. Even Ka Roger doesn’t listen to him anymore. Can’t find that press release of Ka Roger’s when he announced that it wasn’t Joma’s place to tell him what to do.

Joma is a microphone piece when there’s a peace negotiation in Oslo, (coz he writes the redundant stuff for the NDFP), seconded by Louie Jalandoni, otherwise, the guy is pretty into ballroom dancing and karaoke thinggy in Utrecht.

That 20-year old video stuff of Joma’s is a laugh. My interview with him in September (published in a Philippine broadsheet and which I reported to GMA first-hand by phone) last year is far more recent. Hahahah!

Anyway, Dean, if you don’t find Alston’s report credible, what do you find credible? Melo’s report? The AFP’s Esperon report? The ISAFP report perhaps or Ermita’s verbal report? They should all contain some truth and if you’re so hung up on coming up with something that makes sense, decipher those reports and you’ll come up with something sensible - for your own peace of mind.

Either way, why are you so upset over the UN Rapporteur’s findings? You should take them as a rough guideline to help you start your own crusade for good governance, a better AFP (as if that’s possible with Esperon at the helm and Allaga as head of the Marines - ugh and ugh again!), don’t you think?

Why don’t you go over to Utrecht yourself and talk to Sison to see things for yourself - you know a la Alston in the reverse. Sison cannot and won’t do you harm - that’s a guarantee. He’s being listened to by your friends in the CIA and can’t do anything in that little house of his without the US knowing about it - I mean poor bloke I suspect can’t even go on the loo without a satellite being beamed on him. Heheheh!

Wake up, Dean! The real fight is in Pinas, with Gloria and her husband, Esperon, Allaga, Tolentino, Ka Roger and his slipper donning warriors, MILF, Ermita and the ugly, greedy sods in Congress, but not necessarily in that order.

February 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 pm

PS: Btw, In case you decide to look up the "poor sod" who, by the way is ONLY 65 years old, it might please you to know that he can cook a thoroughly mean pakbet including other sorts of dishes...

Rizalist said...

Let me answer an earlier question posed: Why is there a concerted effort to bring international pressure to bear on the controversy over “political killings”.

It is because the communists –(and I am forced to use a label because NO ONE owns up to being a communist without delivering some long lecture on political taxonomy full of disclaimers and convoluted distinctions)– are unable to scare up much outrage from what MB calls a terrorized population. The Filipinos themselves seem to disbelieve their claims of persecution because there happens to be an insurgency and internal warfare. Filipinos are not stupid enough to believe that ALL these leftists are really just peaceful civil libertarians and human rights activists, because they’ve talked like that for decades but acted very differently. And they refuse to disassociate themselves with the armed extortionists and arsonists using a bunch of gobbledygook.

Which really brings up MLQ3’s title about “swinging to the Right.”

I aver that Filipinos have always been on the Right relative to the communist insurgency. ALWAYS. There’s never been a time when the Left enjoyed any kind of popular support. It is a movement of flags and banners and streamers hiding the sparse adherents.

Their biggest problem and foil is America and the West in general, of which we are inexorably and perhaps inextricably a part. We are not Asians the way the ASEAN nations are. We are Little Brown Americans!

If you removed all recognizable references on this blog and others to the Philippines and Asia, the rhetoric, argumentation, philosophies and clash of ideas that one finds is something you would find in most American newspapers, media and blog discourses. The idiom is unmistakably American, even among the most anti-American.

Even our Leftist thinking is a form of “colonial mentality” since we learned our anti-imperialism from the US Anti-Imperialist League and Mark Twain. Of course, lately there has been some reaching out to Europe and dipping into the well of European thinking, but it is indistinguishable really from Euro-American leftist borrowing too.

But the inescapable fact is that most debates I have with so called Filipino nationalists and leftists could easily be undertaken by American leftists, who are the spiritual and philosophical sources of Philippine leftist thinking.

That is how inescapable America is for the poor Filipinos. That is why, it is to America that most of them want to, and try to escape. Once a Filipino lands in America, he actually feels more at home there than here. Most are struck by how “right” everything feels with respect to everything he has learned to expect of society, culture, politics and intellectualism.

That is the real source of much anti-American angst because the obsession of many intelligent Filipinos, paradoxically, is to be unique, to be different.

But look at language, which is fundamental to thinking and belief. Our idiom is unalterably American more than it is Spanish or European. It is certainly not Asian.

Now inasmuch as the ideology of the Philippine Left is so deeply rooted in a hatred of America (no matter how much they deny it or make fine distinctions among peoples, states and cultures) what they are really trying to get Filipinos to do is to hate themselves.

That is the essential futility of their cause, and the cause of their historic failure to win the hearts and minds of the people. All they have succeeded in doing is to create a paltry caricature of much more entertaining leftists like Mao and Lenin and Pol Pot.

manuelbuencamino said...


The topic is your advocacy of the anti-terror law. Basically what you're saying is that it can't be addressed without such a law.

Think back a few years. Remember the Japanese Red Army? Bader-Meinhoff? And the Italian group called Direct Action or something like that? Those groups were terrorists. They committed quite a number of terrorist acts, knee-capping government officials, machine-gunning people at an airport and so on.

Where are they now?

Were there anti-terror laws during their reign of terror? None. But the police got them anyway.

What makes muslim terrorists so different?

floyd said...

hi rizalist!

just a question.

if a farmer had a dying son/daughter because of poverty and his land was taken away from him by landlords through violence and his son/daughter died along with his wife. he asked help from the police but he didn't get them. he eventually joined the CPP-NPA because he saw them fighting for the lands of farmers and defending them from the goons of landlords. DOES THAT MAKE HIM A TERRORIST?

Or perhaps consider this a muslim community has no access to proper education and healthcare they tried to ask for help but the government wont give them any because the money that was supposed to be used for it were in the hands of government sponsored politicians. The people eventually realized that they cannot get any help from the government and decided to take their fate in their own hands. The government looked at it as rebellion and launched a full scale attack on them. the people joined the MNLF or the MILF because they saw these people protecting them from these landlords and military soldiers. NOW DOES THAT MAKE THEM TERRORISTS?

your definition that "TERRORISM is organized crime in the service of a definite political and ideological goal to overthrow, supplant or prevent the formation of democratic regimes." clearly doesn't match the experiences of these people.

perhaps "TERRORISM is not empowering the people through education and access to health services and their civil liberties amongst others their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

now please don't give me that reason again that these are just the consequences of a democracy where people loose some or win some. one way or the other some people would carry the cudgels of violence inflicted upon them may it be cultural or experiential and believe me when i say that a hungry heart yearning for a better life is more than willing to slay than a hungry stomach.

Perhaps you would agree with me that when your life is at risk it is never a crime to defend it and die for it.

shine on!

Rizalist said...

The way you put it, I am forced to conclude that the farmer is a saint, the NPA are a troupe of Angels, and the Muslim jihadists are all just fighting the evil infidel Devil. There. You've convinced me with just one great strawman example.

Rizalist said...

Ever since Cain killed Abel, man has enacted laws against Murder. But I guess it's time to repeal those laws since just yesterday I heard a policeman was killed by the NPA and a Marine shot by suspected Abus. The law against Murder doesn't seem to be working.

manuelbuencamino said...



First, ypu come out of the closet to apologiza for not defending matial law. No you dress up om gunny clothes.

Speaking of the anti-terror law. We had 14 years of martial law and still the terrorism ypu speak of was not eradicated. If it vouldn't be done under undisguised totalitarianism what makes you think it can be done under a new guise?

manuelbuencamino said...

Remember the rationale for martial law was a left-right conspiracy and martial law was supposed to launch the revolution from the center.

Is the anti-terror law supposed to launch the neocon revolution?

Rizalist said...

The laws against Murder have not solved the problem invented by Cain's hatred and envy of Abel. Should we repeal that law then?

Conservative politics believes the following:

"The least government is the best government, for then the people must discipline themselves." (Thomas Jefferson)

Totalitarianism, socialism and liberalism all believe the opposite: That the bigger and more active the government the better, and that the solutions to our problems lie with a government led by them.

The anti-terror will do little to curb terror because it is a lame, weak and dumb law that doesn't get the definition right (it was invented by JPE). Heck it even gets suspended for three months around election time. It will chill not the activists but the authorities who are scared of the media and are basically on the run from Alston, Melo and the PDI.

manuelbuencamino said...


I answered that funny remark already i.e. dressing up in funny clothes

Neocons are not conservatives.

The terror bill will not do it because, as I have repeatedly told you, not even martial law could.

Let's just agree to disagree. You believe that freedom is dispensible, I don't. Not under any circumstances.

Pangloss said...

Cleaner definition:

Terrorism is any war crime committed by irregular (clandestine or covert or non-uniformed) military forces, whether they are military forces reporting to a nation-state or to some other organization.

War crimes are well defined.

Irregular forces are well defined, and under the geneva convention can be summarily executed as spies when discovered.

The troublesome point will be how to make rules that allow for regular military forces that are not part of a nation-state, including the mechanisms for enforcing war crimes laws.