I have posted the link of the PBS report, the links to the two videos which have been used in this report, given the times where they were used, so that everybody can compare them, the origin of the videos were from Russia, from the Russian attacks on oil trucks, and what was said in the report was not at all about Russian attacks, but American attacks. This was, of course, an obvious misrepresentation only for me. for you this was probably an adequate representation. But because of such strange standards you are not worth to proof anything to you. Ok, let's see how to prove such things. Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that you have claimed that you like to rape and kill small children. Is this a lie? If it is, prove it. You should be able to prove it to be a lie, not? If you can't, it follows that it isn't a lie, not? If you think that, once I have made such a claim, I should be able to prove it with a quote, and it is not your job to prove that this is a lie, fine. Then you have learned a first elementary lesson about something known to be as the "burden of proof". Now start to apply this knowledge to your own claim "You were asked to produce evidence to support your claim that Assad hasn't killed 7 times more of his people". I have answered that I have not claimed that Assad hasn't killed 7 times more of his people, thus, you have lied. Now it is your job to proof, with a quote, that I have written "Assad hasn't killed 7 times more of his people". All this shows your elementary inability to understand the meaning of a proof, the concept of the burden of proof, and all what is related with supporting claims with evidence. It seems, you think that to cry "you have to prove this!!!!!111!!!" is sufficient to win all discussions. It is not.