La Salle Professor Lambasts Glenda Gloria of Rappler for Allegedly Sowing Intrigue Against Pres. Duterte
Veteran columnist and La Salle Professor Antonio Contreras took to social media and lambasts one of Rappler's veteran writer Glenda Gloria for allegedly sowing intrigue against the administration of Pres. Rody Duterte through her latest article published by Rappler.
According to the La Salle Professor, some people asked why on earth would Glenda Gloria of Rappler write an article titled "Where Does the Military Stand With Duterte?" which is a sign of sowing intrigue.
The article was published by Rappler who is an alleged Anti-Duterte media, the article by Gloria was published despite the fact Pres. Rody Duterte maintains high poll ratings and continue to impressed the international community with his foreign trips.
Pres. Duterte succeed in what most Presidents failed to do for the past three decades, he was responsible for the rescue of over a hundred distresed OFWs in the Middle East and the Philippine economy appears robust under the admin of Pres. Duterte.
Prof. Contreras lambasts Glenda Gloria on her three loaded hypotheticals questions intended to sow intrigues not only on social media but also in the mainstream news publication in the county. The La Salle Professor defended Pres. Duterte on the latest intriguing article from Rappler.
Here's the Complete Statement of Prof. Antonio Contreras:
According to the La Salle Professor, some people asked why on earth would Glenda Gloria of Rappler write an article titled "Where Does the Military Stand With Duterte?" which is a sign of sowing intrigue.
The article was published by Rappler who is an alleged Anti-Duterte media, the article by Gloria was published despite the fact Pres. Rody Duterte maintains high poll ratings and continue to impressed the international community with his foreign trips.
Pres. Duterte succeed in what most Presidents failed to do for the past three decades, he was responsible for the rescue of over a hundred distresed OFWs in the Middle East and the Philippine economy appears robust under the admin of Pres. Duterte.
Prof. Contreras lambasts Glenda Gloria on her three loaded hypotheticals questions intended to sow intrigues not only on social media but also in the mainstream news publication in the county. The La Salle Professor defended Pres. Duterte on the latest intriguing article from Rappler.
Here's the Complete Statement of Prof. Antonio Contreras:
RAPPLER AND GLENDA GLORIA'S WISHFUL THINKING THAT THE TAIL MIGHT WAG THE DOG
One is tempted to ask why on earth would Glenda Gloria write an article such as this. And the only conclusion one can have is that she is trying to sow intrigue.
After all, the President seems to have his way on many fronts. He still maintains high poll ratings. He is impressing the international community with his foreign trips. He did what other former Presidents failed to do -- to rescue over a hundred distressed OFWs. The economy appears robust. And for crying out loud, even Time magazine could not stop Filipinos and other admirers to make him land at the top of its poll for the most influential persons in the world.
Apparently, the all-out demonization is not working.
And so, one has to paint the existence of a crisis.
Even Ms. Gloria grants that the military has the President in their hearts, despite a defined difference in work philosophy.
So one has to ask why she has to raise three phantoms. And the answer lies in the intent to paint a looming crisis in civilian-military relationships.
Glenda Gloria asks three loaded hypotheticals.
The first two questions can be answered by resounding negatives.
"Will Duterte face mutiny?" No.
"What if Duterte declares martial law?" He will not.
It is in the third question that Glenda Gloria plays with fire.
She asks a hypothetical that invites speculation, and amounts to weaving of intrigues.
"What would make the military withdraw support from Duterte?"
Glenda Gloria wrote that it will be the civilians. Drawing from the statement of an unnamed general who spoke in a collective "we," she hinted that the military might move if the people wants it. They know that there is a problem, that the President is the problem, but he is still the commander-in-chief. And she followed this up with the cryptic reminder that the military has toppled two commanders-in-chief. One should note that both were ousted through civilian-backed popular mobilization.
Glenda Gloria may have interviewed one General, maybe a disgruntled one. But one voice does not make an army, and one frustrated general does not make a mutiny or constitute withdrawal of support.
The article is a hypothetical, masquerading as a thought piece, designed to sow intrigue, hoping that the tail may soon wag the dog.
One is forced to ask what is really the agenda of Ms. Gloria and Rappler here.
Is this that part of the plan if demonization does not work? Or is this setting the stage for a military angle in the plot to destabilize?
Source: Antonio Contreras FB Page
One is tempted to ask why on earth would Glenda Gloria write an article such as this. And the only conclusion one can have is that she is trying to sow intrigue.
After all, the President seems to have his way on many fronts. He still maintains high poll ratings. He is impressing the international community with his foreign trips. He did what other former Presidents failed to do -- to rescue over a hundred distressed OFWs. The economy appears robust. And for crying out loud, even Time magazine could not stop Filipinos and other admirers to make him land at the top of its poll for the most influential persons in the world.
Apparently, the all-out demonization is not working.
And so, one has to paint the existence of a crisis.
Even Ms. Gloria grants that the military has the President in their hearts, despite a defined difference in work philosophy.
So one has to ask why she has to raise three phantoms. And the answer lies in the intent to paint a looming crisis in civilian-military relationships.
Glenda Gloria asks three loaded hypotheticals.
The first two questions can be answered by resounding negatives.
"Will Duterte face mutiny?" No.
"What if Duterte declares martial law?" He will not.
It is in the third question that Glenda Gloria plays with fire.
She asks a hypothetical that invites speculation, and amounts to weaving of intrigues.
"What would make the military withdraw support from Duterte?"
Glenda Gloria wrote that it will be the civilians. Drawing from the statement of an unnamed general who spoke in a collective "we," she hinted that the military might move if the people wants it. They know that there is a problem, that the President is the problem, but he is still the commander-in-chief. And she followed this up with the cryptic reminder that the military has toppled two commanders-in-chief. One should note that both were ousted through civilian-backed popular mobilization.
Glenda Gloria may have interviewed one General, maybe a disgruntled one. But one voice does not make an army, and one frustrated general does not make a mutiny or constitute withdrawal of support.
The article is a hypothetical, masquerading as a thought piece, designed to sow intrigue, hoping that the tail may soon wag the dog.
One is forced to ask what is really the agenda of Ms. Gloria and Rappler here.
Is this that part of the plan if demonization does not work? Or is this setting the stage for a military angle in the plot to destabilize?
Source: Antonio Contreras FB Page