This post, motivated as usual by the contents of my Twitter feed, which is - for reasons I won't go into here - partially populated by a lot of very belligerent partisans.
This week, those people's burning question appears to be - how come lots of internet fannies immediately call bullshit on the Israelis when they start rubbing out civvies, but don't spend long hours debunking the nonsense of the Syrian regime?
It's a reasonable question and it deserves an answer, so here it is: by and large, it's just not necessary for internet fannies like me to debunk the Syrian regime's propaganda.
Does this seem like an odd assertion? Well, here are two reasons why it's accurate:
1) We already have a vast, intricate system that painstakingly assails every deceit that sneaks out of Damascus, and we call it the mainstream broadcast and print media. These organisations beam a whacking deluge of content into every home in the land daily, and most of them have expended huge amounts of energy on - correctly - attacking the Syrian government.
2) When the Syrian government makes grand, bullshitty claims about its own virtue and the villainy of the civilians it kills, you very rarely see the nation's intellectuals, pundits, public figures and bloggers leaping to their feet to angrily repeat its loopy propaganda*.
To pick one relevant example: Let's say that Bashar al-Assad announces tomorrow that, if he informs the people that he's about to bomb that they should immediately relocate or die, then any civilians that end up getting killed because they didn't heed his warning are wholly responsible for their own destruction.
What would happen? Well, many people who follow current affairs would be outraged at the suggestion. The papers would denounce Bashar at great length and you wouldn't have to go far to find a seething hive of sulphorous condemnation on social media, with links.
If Al-Assad further announced that actually, people who don't get out of the way of his bombs are not only to blame for their own deaths, but that they're also actually engaged in despicable acts of terrorism aimed at blackening his name, out of malice...
Well, people would just laugh, wouldn't they? They'd laugh, because it would be ludicrously obvious and insane propaganda, barely meriting refutation.
People aren't obliged to get out of the way of your missiles and mortars, you madman, folk would say. It's your responsibility to not deliberately kill them. And those folk would be correct.
And yet, if you re-read this example while replacing the name Bashar Al-Assad with Benjamin Netanyahu, you wind up with the kind of thing I've seen vast amounts of this week - many otherwise sensible people coming to exactly the opposite conclusion, very angrily and insistently so.
And this is just one extreme example, for illustrative purposes. If we dial it back down to merely accepting as factual a lot of extremely dubious propositions advanced from Tel Aviv, well, you can find endless repetition of that from the most powerful media conglomerates on Earth...
...But you'll very rarely see e.g. News Corp or the BBC repeating pronouncements from Damascus as if they were facts, and you won't often hear them echoed and reinforced by public figures and pundits elsewhere.
So let me finish with another short but obvious point - there's an even more pertinent reason why it's not really necessary for me to get up on my high-horse every time the Assads barrel-bomb a neighbourhood, and it's this:
I'd like to think that people would have the basic decency to just assume that I disapprove of barrel-bombing crowded urban areas, rather than seeking proof of it.
And you have to admit that it's damn odd, that it's necessary to point this out.
*Some idiot somewhere will but then, you can always guarantee that whatever the loony proposition, some idiot somewhere will be making it.