Originally posted by Moxie:
Here's the context again - I quote from one of the posted news
article (highlights are mine):
"According to the charges:
Pandiaraj, supervising officer of the Combat Survival Training
Course and the Officer Commanding of the Commando Training Wing of
the School of Commando, ordered the drill.
He told the instructors to hold the trainees'
heads under water four times, for up to 20 seconds each
time.
Ng and Divanandhari held the trainees' heads under water. They
repeatedly held 2nd Sgt Hu's head in a tub of water, for up to 20
seconds each time, 'digging his nose' to keep him from holding his
breath, according to court documents.
They stopped him from surfacing to breathe,
causing him to 'suffer death by asphyxia and near drowning'.
They are accused of doing the same to Capt Ho, causing him to
suffer 'near drowning with acute respiratory distress
syndrome'.
Balakrishnan, the course commander, could have stopped it,
but he did not."
Screw their "good" characters; I hope they get their comeuppence if
the charges are true.
Moxie, you're putting the wrong sections into bold here. Let me
show you where the right words are:
"According to the charges:
Pandiaraj, supervising officer of the Combat Survival Training
Course and the Officer Commanding of the Commando Training Wing of
the School of Commando, ordered the drill.
He told the instructors to hold the trainees' heads under water
four times, for up to 20 seconds each time.
Ng and Divanandhari held the trainees' heads under water. They
repeatedly held 2nd Sgt Hu's head in a tub of water, for up to 20
seconds each time, 'digging his nose' to keep him from holding his
breath, according to court documents.
They stopped him from surfacing to breathe, causing him to 'suffer
death by asphyxia and near drowning'.
They are accused of doing the same to Capt Ho, causing him to
suffer 'near drowning with acute respiratory distress
syndrome'.
Balakrishnan, the course commander, could have stopped it, but he
did not."
Screw their "good" characters; I hope they get their comeuppence
if the charges are true.
Whose perspective did that passage report? I think the preface
of "According to the charges" makes that pretty clear.
Gee, I wonder if those presenting those charges are interested in
painting the men as innocent, or guilty?
And if they're trying to present these as guilty men, would they be
trying to make things look as bad as possible? Ooh, perish the
thought!
I'm assuming your caveat "if the charges are true" indicates that
you are already aware that the tripe that you quoted is slanted
against the men being charged. Yet, your closing indicates that the
prosecution's already got you sucked in, if you're willing to
"screw the good characters" and ignore the context that truly shows
how trumped-up these charges are. Thank god we don't have a jury
system here - it would turn out to be the lynch mob that you claim
you don't want to start.
Moxie, like I said before, don't go getting caught up in the
powers-that-be's spin. Learn to read between the lines - that's how
this town operates.
