When presented with conflicting stories about important events, I resort to the following:
- I prefer credible reports on the ground rather than those of visiting outsiders.
- I like to listen to multiple sources, even conflicting ones, rather that relying on single sources that may be dominated by ideology.
- I put more trust in verifiable facts rather than opinions. Here are some facts about Syria:
1. The rebels have no air force. It is well documented that hospitals and schools have been systematically bombed. Who might have done that?
2. In 2015 Assad’s regime was about to collapse due to widespread opposition victories. Russia than stepped in with a massive bombing campaign on Syria’s behalf.
3. Syria is obviously a strategically placed country. Gulf oil could be shipped through it to Europe and beyond. It is Russia’s sole exit point to the Mediterranean Sea.
4. During the Obama time, Syria promised to get rid of gas weapons. This was a tacit admission that they had these weapons.
5. After over six years of dreadful warfare in which all kinds of war crimes have been committed, I think the best news sources are the people on the ground who have suffered through all of this and know the results first hand.
Now with regard to the recent nerve gas attack and the US response, I have seen Paul Jay’s interview with Lawrence Wilkerson, and I have read the reports that a rebel nerve gas factory or holding station has been bombed. On the other hand, I have been following the situation carefully in Syria over many months. My primary source is Al Jazeera news (AJ). They have Arabic speakers on the ground. They have developed a reputation for objectivity. They have offended many Arabic countries (i.e. Egypt, Syria etc.) and their journalists have been harassed by countries who do not like their reporting. I also look at other news sources, BBC, RT, PBS, CBC. CNN.
