• Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      The person I was replying to before you jumped in for some reason apparently without reading the context.

      I read just now on the BBC that most of the casualties were due not to gunfire

      • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well it’s actually because I read the context that made me jump in to ask the question

        That poster also said

        if what the Beeb say is true, then

        And linked an article that has different angles on these killings. I didn’t see any suggestion where he said any of the cited sources were right or wrong

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The Beeb didn’t say “most of the casualties were due no to gunfire”. They didn’t say any particular side was true. The OP just chose one side and ignored the other. They’re not trusting BBC, I don’t think any of us think the BBC is making up quotes, they’re selecting trusting a specific source among multiple relayed by BBC.

          • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            The OP was saying: “let’s also consider the other side instead of just the one before we jump to conclusions”

            By the way, if you see the aerial footage it’s very unlikely that most of the 100 casualties would not be from the trucks running over the crowd