Can tell not everyone is alert enough to the weasel wording and PR speak when they're saying shit like "no casualties" here.
There were at least 15 reported casualties here, just no fatalities. Propagandist spin maestros love to use those two like they're synonymous so they can switch at will to selectively down-play or overstate the harm through careful phrasing. And they've done it so much now that the confusion has even seeped into common usage.
And yes some of those casualties are probably going to have their lives changed forever. Permanent deafness, missing limbs, brain damage, they're all pretty likely outcomes for anyone in that car at the very least.
I am quite sure that confusion is partially by design too, the number of times I've seen media productions do a quick verbal slight of hand switch from fatalities to casualties whilst using both technically correctly is too damn high to be a coincidence.
Honestly, I didn't even take "no casualties" to mean that - I thought FrozeInFear meant the casualties were currently unknown. It wouldn't make sense to say no injuries have occurred yet, since if injuries were going to occur it would be when they got bombed.
According to Websters 1828 dictionary "casualty" always referred to accidental death. So this is not a case of them changing definitions, but definitely trying to downplay things.
Can tell not everyone is alert enough to the weasel wording and PR speak when they're saying shit like "no casualties" here.
There were at least 15 reported casualties here, just no fatalities. Propagandist spin maestros love to use those two like they're synonymous so they can switch at will to selectively down-play or overstate the harm through careful phrasing. And they've done it so much now that the confusion has even seeped into common usage.
And yes some of those casualties are probably going to have their lives changed forever. Permanent deafness, missing limbs, brain damage, they're all pretty likely outcomes for anyone in that car at the very least.
That's on me. I thought 'casualties' was more or less interchangeable with deaths.
Hasn't been the case as long as I've been alive, but most people think it's the case.
Trying to look over historical battles and watching people get confused between deaths and injured is effectively a recreational sport for me.
I am quite sure that confusion is partially by design too, the number of times I've seen media productions do a quick verbal slight of hand switch from fatalities to casualties whilst using both technically correctly is too damn high to be a coincidence.
Honestly, I didn't even take "no casualties" to mean that - I thought FrozeInFear meant the casualties were currently unknown. It wouldn't make sense to say no injuries have occurred yet, since if injuries were going to occur it would be when they got bombed.
According to Websters 1828 dictionary "casualty" always referred to accidental death. So this is not a case of them changing definitions, but definitely trying to downplay things.