[samvega_]

Your argument doesn't hold water here, since it assumes that the BBC regularly makes official reports on NATO war crimes in Afghanistan. This is something they do voluntarily very, very rarely, if ever - esp. not recent ones. The BBC would have acted the same way had the reports been true or not. It's not verified because they made no attempt to verify it. We have to rely on individual journalists, wikileaks and non-MSM for such reports for the most part.

[zepto]

My argument is that these are unverified tweets, and nothing more.

It holds water perfectly.

Your argument seems vaguely conspiratorial.

[samvega_]

No, you're also using the fact that they're unverified as an argument against their credibility. However, that only makes sense if the BBC did make attempts to verify it and would publicize it if true. The fact is that BBC and western MSM hardly if ever cover such news. There's nothing conspiratorial about my argument, it's a simple, practical application of Bayes' rule in probability.

In fact, it's your doubt that is conspiratorial thinking, because you think it's more likely that many different sources and media reporters conspire to form a false narrative about this.