• SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think few to no children were shot, but many were injured via indirect means, as I think I pretty clearly lay out.

    At the very minimum, it would be a rare occurrence for so many children to only be wounded if shot by a sniper rifle. It is unlikely, in general, that the wounds were from sniper rounds.

    • constate368@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The majority of the injured were children and two are in critical condition as a result of sniper fire targeting the hospital, a Red Crescent statement said.

      So they got injured running from sniper fire? Did the sniper pull off some James Bond shit and shoot a dangling object to fall on them?

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Idk if you know this but sniper rifles are pretty powerful and fuck things up.

            • constate368@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              They fuck up what you’re aiming at. In this case, mostly children.

              Sorry if that was unclear.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Except that’s literally not how the damage profile of such a round functions. Limbs disappear - soldiers die. Children would be slaughtered. This clearly did not happen.