How I will deal with unverifiable stories from now on

Okay, I carefully read all your comments and have come to something of a conclusion.

First, almost everything I post in unverified and often unverifiable.  Which compares advantageously with the main stream media which deliberately lies and whose reporter and editors simply don't care about the truth.

Second, I really don't feel like singling out one story or source for the typical "this is an unconfirmed report" or the like like the MSM does because typically these caveats are used to cast a doubt on the info itself, or to discredit the source, and all for political ideological reasons.  Besides, this is the Internet and the blogosphere - I never met *any* of my contacts face to face, not one, nor do I personally know any of the people who are helping me with this blog (the French teams, the interpreters, the sobcors, Juan, Mindfriedo, Auslander, etc.).  My personal vetting system is based on the words of Christ "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (Matt 7:16).  If I find out that somebody deliberately lied or is a untrustworthy source I will simply not post info from that person again and I might even post a correction.

Third, I don't buy the "too far" argument.  Wars are horrible and atrocities are the norm, not the exception.  Especially wars waged on the basis of an ideology which de-humanizes the other side.  The Ukrainian Nazis call the Russians "insects" (колорады), "jackets" (ватники) while their leader called Russian subhumans.  And since on top of that, these Banderites are  ideologically a mix of Nazis, Uniat crusaders and rabid xenophobes I see absolutely no reason at all to doubt the story of Berezin.  Does it mean that I trust him?  No.  But I have no reason to dis-trust him either.  I certainly trust him more than I would trust any western newspaper or TV channel.

Fourth, in what concerns the credibility of this blog, or me personally, I think that it should not depend on a single or even a few posts.  Everybody can be mislead, and I have a long history of being wrong and I have never pretended otherwise.  I don't claim to be infallible, I only claim to be honest.

Fifth, there is a good possibility that Berezin wrote this report with a great deal of pain and distress in his heart, and it is possible that what he says is true.  Who am I to reject it on the basis that it could be false?  His text was an appeal for help, for justice, I could not sit on it and do nothing.

Sixth, in my experience all sides lie during a war.  The only exception to this rule is, as far as I know, Hassan Nasrallah.  Many continue to think that a good lie is a smart way to fight the information war.  I disagree, but I know that that notion is out there.  And, just for the record, Putin did say that no Russian troops were involved in the move to liberate Crimea while Strelkov did say that it was men under his command which wiped out the Ukrainian checkpoint even though in both cases there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  If I had to rate Putin and Strelkov as sources I would rate Putin as a 'B' and Strelkov as a 'C', which is on par with the very best corporate media.  If there is a Russian Nasrallah out there, I have not met him yet, alas.

I guess that if/when I get the new website up I might include some kind of generic warning, but that is the best I can do.  As long as a story sounds credible to me, I will have to post it, even if I cannot verify it (there will be one coming from Sweden in tomorrow's SITREP which is also very interesting, but which I cannot verify.  Still, I will post it).

Now if something is clearly wrong, fabricated, or truly non-credible, then I will include some kind of disclaimer (assuming I post it in the first place).

I hope that you guys can live with that :-)

Kind regards, thanks for the input,

The Saker