Your comment raises some interesting points, but there are a few areas where the reasoning could be stronger and more precise. I’d push back on the idea that the Daily Mail is “generally reliable,” especially for science or geopolitical reporting. While it can report real events, it’s widely known for sensational headlines and for blending factual reporting with speculation. That matters here because the claim itself leans heavily on how events are framed, not just what actually happened. Your point about sources is really important. If all the evidence traces back to the same article (or the same outlet), then it’s not truly corroborated. Independent confirmation, especially from other news organizations, official statements, or on-the-ground reporting, is key for something as serious as missile strikes near a major religious site like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Without that, it’s hard to separate verified events from exaggeration or selective emphasis.
