Hurt in combat or confrontation is not, it is if it [broken arms & shooting] is done after she became POW(assuming it was not caused by accident).
OK. Let me try to say this very carefully so as not to cause our excitable friends to climb all over me - what I was (and am) trying to say was (is) that if you wanted to torture someone, you would not break their arms & legs and you would most certainly not shoot them.
Again, I am NOT OK with torture. I am saying the following only from a scientific point of view of WHY broken legs & gunshot wound does not indicate torture. (And I resent having to write such a disclaimer, as well as being accused of supporting inhuman acts just because I questioned the speculation of their existence!)
In torture, breaking major bones is not very smart, because:
(1) People tend to faint (torturer does not want that... it's an comfortable escape from the pain, a valuable rest period)
(2) Breaking smaller bones just as much pain, and there are many of them
Shooting the person they are trying to torture is VERY stupid because:
(1) High risk of death (Duh!) (And torturer does not want that)
(2) Or excessive bleeding that could lead to fainting (torturer does not want that either)
In short, from the little information that we have available (i.e. legs & arm broken and gunshot wound) it does not look like she was tortured. It looks like she was injured in combat, or trying to run away, or something. It does not look like someone deliberately tried to cause her excruciating pain, because, frankly, you don't need much of an imagination to find more effective ways of torturing a 19-year-old girl.
That is why I asked for more detail, she would know it better.
So did I. All I got was accusations of supporting torture. For crying out loud.. |
