No, you're also using the fact that they're unverified as an argument against their credibility. However, that only makes sense if the BBC did make attempts to verify it and would publicize it if true. The fact is that BBC and western MSM hardly if ever cover such news. There's nothing conspiratorial about my argument, it's a simple, practical application of Bayes' rule in probability.
In fact, it's your doubt that is conspiratorial thinking, because you think it's more likely that many different sources and media reporters conspire to form a false narrative about this.
> No, you're also using the fact that they're unverified as an argument against their credibility.
Yes, a series of unverified tweets are not very credible as news.
If you think tweets should be taken as credible without verification, that certainly isn’t unusual in the population, but I don’t recommend it.
> because you think it's more likely that many different sources and media reporters conspire to form a false narrative about this.
No - that’s your position. The false narrative is your claim that what you are calling ”Nato war crimes” are ignored for some reason by western media.
That’s clearly false. Today for example, New York Times posted an analysis of how the drone attack against isis-k probably just killed the wrong target, and the BBC picked the story up and reported it too.
Your argument rests solely on completely unverified tweets, and your conspiratorial claim that the media isn’t interested in the story.
It’s more likely that the story just isn’t substantiated.
In fact, it's your doubt that is conspiratorial thinking, because you think it's more likely that many different sources and media reporters conspire to form a false narrative about this.