6 ms·
The majority of those who were killed in the actual airport attack were shot by US soldiers, who in confusion and panic fired indiscriminately into the fleeing
by samvega_ 5y ago
The majority of those who were killed in the actual airport attack were shot by US soldiers, who in confusion and panic fired indiscriminately into the fleeing crowd. This is by the words of several of those who were present and whom investigated the injuries on the bodies afterwards, as interviewed by bbc reporters. The crowd was packed, and bullet wounds were on the top if their bodies (the soldiers shot them from the towers).
In fact, estimates say about 200 people died in total. But evidence also suggests the bomb may have killed only a few dozen.
- zepto 5y ago> as interviewed by bbc reporters. Do you have a link to this report? I can’t find one.
- samvega_ 5y agoThese are the sources I know of https://twitter.com/SecKermani/status/1431517279859224579 https://twitter.com/SecKermani/status/1431517279859224579 https://twitter.com/paykhar/status/1431572890521120770 https://twitter.com/paykhar/status/1431572890521120770 https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1430901536456986625 https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1430901536456986625 https://twitter.com/Samiyousafzai/status/1431590453355368450 https://twitter.com/Samiyousafzai/status/1431590453355368450 There are probably more, but atrocities such as these are rarely widely publicized.
- zepto 5y agoOk, so tweets, not ‘the BBC’
- jjulius 5y agoOP said "bbc reporters", not "the BBC", and the first Tweet is from a BBC reporter.
- zepto 5y agoEven if they do report for the BBC at other times, they aren’t reporting for the BBC in this tweet. The BBC being mentioned here is misleading. The fact remains that these are just tweets and there is no fact checked reporting of it by the BBC or any other journalistic outlet that I can find.
- jjulius 5y ago>Even if they do report for the BBC at other times, they aren’t reporting for the BBC in this tweet. Right, hence the use of the phrase, "bbc reporters" and not, "the BBC". Given how common it is for reporters to tweet like this these days, that's a natural assumption one could - and should - be making when they read phrases like that. That was the very assumption that I made when I first read the comment. >The BBC being mentioned here is misleading. Not really, it's just saying, "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." Which is to say that while a claim hasn't been confirmed, it has a higher likelihood of being true relative to if you, myself, or any old Joe Schmoe had made the claim. That doesn't necessarily mean we should automatically assume it's true, but it also doesn't necessitate a complete write-off.
- zepto 5y ago> "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." The BBC clearly has not trusted these reports. Nor has any other journalistic outlet. They are literally just the tweets of any old Joe Schmoe. It doesn’t matter who they work for, since the BBC is not taking any responsibility for the reports. Journalism has fact checkers and editors for a reason.
- samvega_ 5y agoYour argument doesn't hold water here, since it assumes that the BBC regularly makes official reports on NATO war crimes in Afghanistan. This is something they do voluntarily very, very rarely, if ever - esp. not recent ones. The BBC would have acted the same way had the reports been true or not. It's not verified because they made no attempt to verify it. We have to rely on individual journalists, wikileaks and non-MSM for such reports for the most part.