????????????? We have evaluated the evidence presented by the news sources at that time. It was flimsy. The Pentagon had not presented any evidence at that time, and probably will not present any evidence in future too. My recommendation to you: Handle me like any other source, following my prescription for evaluating sources. What would be my result evaluating myself? You will not find any intentional lies. You will usually find a link to the sources (with some exceptions, I usually don't link here Russian sources, as well as when many different sources support a single claim, like a particular village being taken by the Syrian army or the terrorists). The language is sufficiently neutral, with some intentional exceptions (like naming "terrorists" what the Western press names "rebels"). You will not find arguments I refuse to discuss if they are relevant for claims I have made (really made, not in iceaura's fantasies). You will seldom find ad hominem attacks. Of course, there are exceptions (an ad hominem argument is not wrong, but only very weak). You will find that, say, that I ignore claims about what I think and memories about what I wrote in the past without links, with iceaura being the author being sufficient to ignore it, given that this is always wrong when checked. Information from Western media about what unknown sources from US intelligence is also ignored, and this is also ad hominem: The Western media have lied very often in this form, and what essentially never follows is that the secret services later present this evidence. So, this is for me information of type "the well-known liar XXX has claimed without presenting any evidence". So, following my own criteria I would be a sufficiently good source (once evaluated by myself, one would not expect another result Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! , so that you have to do this check yourself.) That the source which I consider as unreliable has claimed something correct in this particular case may change your personal evaluation of that source. But there is no reason to reevaluate me or MoA. We have not trusted a source which in this particular case has given correct information. And we will continue to do so, following the German proverb "Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, und wenn er auch die Wahrheit spricht." (Anyone who lies once is not believed, even if he speaks the truth.) So, I would not recommend you to trust that source too, just because the information in this case appeared to be correct. Note that neutrality is not among the important criteria I would recommend to use. It is important to recognize the political preferences, because this usually allows to identify the direction where the source tends to err. But all sources usually have particular political preferences, the neutral source is a fantasy.