zlacker

>>mhb+(OP)
The simple absence of on the ground reports from a variety of independent sources tells me that these numbers should not be simply ignored.

If there’s nothing happening, then the obvious way for the authorities to prove that is to let observers in, and let independent information out. They do not do this, so I will take these reports of deaths more seriously.

>>curiou+J4
After WMDs i honestly thought america learned to be a bit more skeptical of poorly sourced "pretext for war" stories which emerge in the context of a military build up.

E.g. like reading the sentence:

>TIME has been unable to independently verify these figures.

And going "hmmm".

>>pydry+4c
> E.g. like reading the sentence:

> >TIME has been unable to independently verify these figures.

> And going "hmmm".

Journalists couldn’t possibly independently verify large scale death counts, especially at this point.

That doesn’t mean they’re wrong or propaganda.

If you start “going hmmm” when journalists honestly report their own limitations then that’s just going to leave you more vulnerable to the psy-op peddlers who never give such disclaimers.