I'm sure Russian propaganda could be more reliable than American propaganda when it comes to Middle East :)

My sources are not media and propaganda though. I read & also travel a lot. Before the war my cousin and I were importing carpet from Syria. During the war I traveled along Turkey - Syria border twice, also to the south side, Jordan.

And since the beginning of this war, I think about it almost every day, feel deeply sad about how a beautiful country got ruined by some dickheads for no reason...

> I'm sure Russian propaganda could be more reliable than American propaganda

Propaganda is rarely reliable, from any side.

However, your conflation of the consensus view of the free world’s press with “propaganda” of the type explicitly pumped out by state-controlled Russian outlets is disingenuous to the extreme.

I believe that people are also affected by local propaganda and they told you propaganda instead of something real. Same is happening with Russia and Ukraine. My ex-wife have Ukranian roots and i am from russia. Ukranian part of her family stopped to talk to russian one and both sides always turn on propaganda when talking to other side. No one of them know what's happening and the truth as always somewhere in the middle.

> the truth as always somewhere in the middle

This is a common logical fallacy used by propagandists.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

From the link itself: "Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points"

That's the problem with all these fallacies lists: things are a fallacy, except when they are not. So most often, they are just used as rhetoric weapons in verbal jousts.

> That's the problem with all these fallacies lists: things are a fallacy, except when they are not.

No, fallacies are always fallacy, but a fallacy is an error in logic that does not imply that the conclusion is wrong [0], only that the argument offered fails to establish the truth of the conclusion it seeks to justify.

[0] An argument for the negation of a conclusion based solely on a fallacy in an argument offered for that conclusion is the definition of the fallacy fallacy.

Fair, but establishing the truth from a mathematical standpoint and navigating in life, which involves a huge amount of (most often serviceable) rules of thumbs, are two different things. So there seems to be some arbitrary threshold where the rules of thumb is deemed good enough (eg. my toddler has chocolate all over him near the empty cookie jar) and when it's not (eg. put-up job). And from my experience, people will very, very often set that arbitrary threshold according to their own opinions.

I wonder how often you consider “the truth as always somewhere in the middle” and decide that your toddler has been partially framed by the cat, while also having stolen some of the cookies.

I suspect not often.

Hardly anyone ever seriously accuses the cat, which is why the rule of thumb works in the first place. That's pretty much my point.