Fox News’ Tucker Carlson invited Peter Ford [a retired British diplomat who was ambassador to Bahrain from 1999–2003 and to Syria from 2003–2006] to discuss the alleged chemical attack that took place in the Syrian town of Douma on April 7.
The mainstream media (MSM) has repeatedly slammed Peter Ford for being a director of the British Syrian Society, which is described by the MSM as a pro-Assad lobby group. The British Syrian Society was established in 2003 by Fawaz Akhras, father-in-law of Bashar al-Assad. But is this an enough reason to ignore the non-mainstream side of the story?
Fox News is always following the establishment line regarding foreign policy.Props to Tucker Carlson for not following it in this case
Who would have thought that Fox news allows one of its own to make dissident noises. I guess no more Faux News jokes.
Fox is the only non Jewish media outlet?
Unfortunately that is not true to an extent:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BRKbUKdCYAAlIxs.jpg:large
PS I could be wrong.
You are the last jew here Yourself.
We are comming to take You away – haha…
I would have thought Fox would. Fox is not Trumpets.
It does not say, those are correct around informations about fx Syria, more like they have a profile looking for irregularities according a lot of things Hillary, Trump, Russia a.s.o.
But as anything else You also have to use filter there. They are known for now and then being very very manipulative.
The best about USA being a free state is, that You can read several big medias. I sometimes read CBS as well as Washington post.
Fax hasnt always followed the establisment. It has mainly being republican. No wonder its sceptic supporting Trump. many are.
You seemes not to see , that the US parlament agree in the big lines about parts of the foreign policy.
Disagreemenets between them are how much You should be allowed to product You own production. You see Trump following the hardliners in protectionisme in a very random way by protectionisme.
My stomach hurts to know that Americans accuse Assad of harboring terrorists and ISSIL!! Oh we’re leaving in extremely difficult times now. That guy is unfazed. He doesn’t even blink, he’s not even shy on the idea that someone knowing the truth could be watching.
Assads did that. they were active starters of ISIL and ISIL soon after that were added ex Sunni saddams. One very good reason was Sunnis – as Kurds – did not get parts of the oil money for rebuilding.
And Yes, Assads are harbouring any support they can get. Most have been small ones, which has promised not to go to war against Baathistas anymore.
You see the same for kurds and others. You dont have to kill all only the worst kind. You certainly seemes to have forgotten all the tribers along Eufrat, which when Assads seemes to be winning, has changed side because they thing SDF`s are worse.
Until then they just have been passive for Years and comes to harvest land back fro free. Mnay of those in the beginning thought ISIS was better, but they saw ISIS was worse and kept no agreemenets. There even was a genoside – only 50 I think.
Tucker Carlson is the only sane voice in Fox,cnn,etc,etc
The last interviewers were all bad parodies of Arabs and an American, had seen another interview with Heather Nauert claimed Article two allows for the President to use extreme force to Defend US assets so seems if that is the case they are admitting Army of Islam are US assets and not Syrian people at all but Americans.
Sounds like they are openly admitting they are in the regime change business by hook or by crook.
Let me remind You arabs are minorities in the muslim world. There are more muslims in India then in the arabic one.
And let me remind you 30% of the Syrian population is not arabs. Those have to speak too – and we are not as stupid as You – denying minorities to speak by mojorising the little ones out.
And of course You have a filter to most things, but too often You read here as if Your wear niqab and sunglasses.
Let me remind You, that a newssite is more then Syrian stuff. Fox and other wites rapports from other parts of the world as well as a lot of thing.
The point could be that you bomb these targets with ostensibly righteous intentions, under special circumstances that don’t necessarily signal an intent to go to war strategically. It remains ostensibly “tactical” against specific targets, even though the actual intent is completely strategic.