RIGHT TO LIFE

Folks, below please find comments on how the massacre in Maguindanao could have been wrong moves of the victims, and of those who told them to proceed despite the threat of undergoing violence.


"I have a sneaky suspicion that this same women may have been the lawyers of the vice mayor in 2007 when the 2 sons of the Ampatuans were killed and the primary suspect was him...The political party bigwigs, the cowardly vice mayor, the lawyers, the journalists [in this order] were all one in making that "massacre" INSANE decision...All victims may not have the same reasons, but everyone by his/her act of going with the convoy signified approval to the decision as the RIGHTFUL ONE. How terribly sad.

"Be that as it may, here again, I end with a prayer for the victims and the misguided killers. All are, in truth, victims of our irresponsible society and leaders. You may not like my inclusion of the killers in my prayers, but I am just exercising my Christian faith in the best way I know how.

"Should non-Muslims be concerned about this RIDO? One friend who has never trusted a Muslim in his life said, "Hayaan natin ang mga iyon. Magtudasan na silang mga Muslim. Mabuti nga maubos na sila! I can trust only a dead Muslim."

"When a journalist goes with the enemy and acts as a bodyguard or a deterrent force, he is viewed as siding with the enemy and has declared his will to protect the life of the enemy who are known to be killers. Doing that makes him of friend of the enemy and a friend of the enemy automatically becomes an enemy himself.

"The journalists took the grave risk in siding with the enemy.without
weapons and adequate security. Without weapons and security
they were mowed down like helpless babies in a crib.

"Faced with the realities of “very serious risks,”for me it was insane to proceed. Even if it had turned out to be okay and not a massacre, I would still call it an insane decision."

The writer also brought out his suspicions of the material interest of the media persons who tried to cover the event, but got killed.

What kind of mindset is this when dead people are being blamed for what had happened? Those massacred were victims of family feuds, say, but does that absolve the murderers of their crimes? Why analyze the situation in this manner -- imputing motives on the dead, and blaming them instead of the killers?

Folks, this kind of thinking fans more hatred and anger, rather than rational view of the incident. When analyzing a negative situation like what happened in Maguindanao, we need to take stock of why this had happened, why a simple case of bringing the certificate of candidacy should cause them to get killed.

Are we to allow personal motives to get the better of us when assessing political acts? Or are we going to abide by certain democratic principles, that everyone has that right to put up his or her name as a candidate?

Now the writer imputes ill will on the victims just because two relatives of the killers had been killed before, and hence rido or vendetta was committed against the perpetrators of those killings.

This is where we need to take stock of what is called CONSERVATIVE THINKING which labels situations as "YOU AGAINST US AND WE AGAINST YOU." This philosophy really spawns trouble, and worse, as what had happened, a "do or die" attitude. This attitude or kind of thinking retards growth and closes all kinds of discussions, stops all kinds of negotiations.

I wonder if the Madrasah school teaches the students how to think in a manner by which they can distinguish what is democratic and what is undemocratic.

Yes, we have to revisit the educational curricula to find out how best to rear citizens respectful of everyone's right to life.