Then why bother having the conversation?
All you do is throw your propaganda at me without evidence… and if you think my facts are propaganda without evidence, then we are at a stalemate.
I don’t believe the US version because it doesn’t make sense. Why would the US ‘accidentally’ bomb the Syrian troops? What were they doing there in the first place? They’ve never assisted Syrian troops before, why did they supposedly start then? It’s well known the US wants to destroy Assad, so wouldn’t it make more sense that this attack was deliberate rather than the fanciful story that the US was suddenly trying to help them? It was supposed to be an agreed ceasefire… why does the US govt think it can flout the ceasefire agreement to take advantage to bomb an enemy they’ve agreed not to attack AND then LIE about it? Even if their story of trying to hit ISIS WAS true, they still broke the ceasefire agreement to do so.
In this case when you put all the above pieces together the Russian and Syrian versions make way more sense to me. You just want to believe your side are the good guys. You assume it is so. There is plenty of proof that when put together like this tells a different story. That’s why I don’t believe your mainstream media – because they are coming at it from the same viewpoint – the US has to be the good guy, no matter what, evidence be damned – and they go from there. If the US are the good guys then it must have been the Russians, because the ‘good guys’ have an issue with Russia, so they must be ‘bad’. It’s a pretty juvenile, to say the least.
Mainstream media journalists are not the only journalists operating in the world – I think given the evidence of the bias of the mainstream media that we’d all be wise to take them with a grain of salt. I still listen to them, but don’t automatically believe their facts. The other independent journalists give a reasoned, evidenced account that I’m willing to consider. Most of the time these independents get out of their studios, unlike mainstream media journalists who rely on Govt propaganda for their views.
Using reason and evidence I come to my conclusions. If you prefer another method that doesn’t involve looking, then so be it.

You are exclusively interested in fantasists who spin webs of conspiracies out of nothing. No, I have no interest in going down their rabbit holes.

Here are the books these people write… I’m sure their sources are in there.
Knock yourself out.
https://store.globalresearch.ca/

Your sources?
Or do you ‘just know’?

You are constantly facetiously accusing me of being Scientological… well… my turn. Why do you NEVER discuss the content of these articles rather than just attack the authors or websites? Huh?
Can’t you come up with arguments countering the details? Are they actually right but you don’t want to draw attention to them?
Go on… let’s discuss.

“Start reading/listening to that alternative media… because they do show you their proof” No, all I see are assertions not back up by anything.
“Syrian citizens appreciate Assad” Enough to revolt against him and his ugly family over and over again in the course of four decades, despite the risk to their lives.
“You know Assad is a member of a minority religion in Syria, right?” Yes, and reserves all the top jobs for his co-religionists.
“How would a ‘minority’ suppress the 60% Sunni majority” With intense violence. His father was armed by one of the superpowers. You do know that brutal dictatorship by members of a small clique is actually a rather common style of government in that part of the world?

“So did you read the article at this link… or prove yourself to be the buffoon who refuses to even look?” I did more than that. I looked up who those people are (I would have looked up their sources also, but they don’t cite to sources which is always a bad sign). It is a site dedicated to Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, believers in giant weather-controlling machines, and other insane woo. Unlike Michelle Bachmann and Pam Geller whom you linked me to before, Michael Chudokovsky is not a famous lunatic: you must have had to search to find this. It is entirely obvious that you choose your “sources” strictly on the basis of whether they agree with your preconceptions, with no regard to whether they are honest people or even sane.

Lol that’s ok and it did!!!