The amount of cognitive dissonance it takes to defend North Korea is staggering. To each his own I guess.
Whether you want Warmbier to have been physically tortured or not, the evidence of his torture is not present. Which is important, because it contradicts the media story about Warmbier's experience.
To me it's really surprising that an omission of correcting the perception that Otto was beaten on the part of the Trump administration is evidence Trump used the situation or that North Korea did not violate any of Otto's human rights.
You don't get to make up elaborate torture scenarios and then use them to rebut the article. The point that the article is making is simple: the story spread throughout the media about what happened to Otto Warmbier does not align with discoverable facts. The claim was that he was beaten, so badly that his "teeth were rearranged". That appears not to have been the case.
Saddam Hussein was a horrible person, one of the most horrible leaders in the world. The Baathist Iraqi regime was an evil on par with that of North Korea; in some ways perhaps worse. Nevertheless, our adventure in Iraq, based on false intelligence, was perhaps the greatest foreign policy blunder of the last 100 years. Nobody can pretend that discrepancies in stories about the crimes of American enemies don't have particular valence today. This is important reporting. You'll have to do better than just making up stories in message board comments to tear it down.
I see your point about Iraq and the importance of story lines.
Yes, I am hiding my name.
Yes, of saying they "tortured" him, not that they beat him. Like I said, is that totally unreasonable to say? What else would have caused a severe cardiopulmonary event to an otherwise healthy person? There isn't any solid evidence of a suicide attempt. North Korea's official explanation is almost certainly a lie and I don't know what else one can conclude besides coming to a tortured conclusion that North Korea somehow didn't directly cause this man's death under duress in order to assert that Trump must have known this and it was all an elaborate political game of showmanship he was playing.
edit: not trying to be snarky.
Even using the word 'torture' at that time doesn't seem unreasonable or part of a conspiracy. What is the proper motive? To get people to label DPRK a terror sponsoring nation?
It seems like a very high expectation to place on a president to correct any false narrative being perpetuated or else be party to promoting them for political gain.
I'm putting more weight on objective observers. People with scientific backgrounds.
You are putting weight on grieving parents who refused an autopsy and a notorious liar.