• 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