Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by samvega_ 1734 days 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.
1 comments
zepto 1734 days ago
> as interviewed by bbc reporters.

Do you have a link to this report? I can’t find one.

link
samvega_ 1734 days ago
These are the sources I know of

https://twitter.com/SecKermani/status/1431517279859224579

https://twitter.com/paykhar/status/1431572890521120770

https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1430901536456986625

https://twitter.com/Samiyousafzai/status/1431590453355368450

There are probably more, but atrocities such as these are rarely widely publicized.

link
zepto 1734 days ago
Ok, so tweets, not ‘the BBC’
link
jjulius 1734 days ago
OP said "bbc reporters", not "the BBC", and the first Tweet is from a BBC reporter.
link
zepto 1734 days ago
Even 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.

link
jjulius 1734 days 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.

link