One America's Pearson Sharp has been on the ground in Syria for the past week where he has been investigating the alleged chemical attack in Douma.
Last week, April 12 2018, French president Macron said "We have proof that last week, now nearly ten days ago, that chemical weapons were used, at least chlorine, and that they were used by Bashar al Assad's regime."
So who is lying?
The Syrian doctors in Douma or Emmanuel "Trump's Tony Blair" Macron?
UPDATE: OAN (producers of the first video) minimize criticism of Russia, according to the Washington Post. (link)
The number one most trusted name in news...you know its name, I know its name...it's...
Damn, I was expecting ONN. Need to get glasses.
LOL ^ That's all they have...
I keep hearing about this disreputable news org called OAN and how we're not supposed to pay attention to any of their reporting because it's OAN. Well this calls for the most trusted name in factual verification as chosen by YouTube - Wikipedia. Wiki says OAN is a conservative news network that has run "pro-Trump content" in the past and wrote some positive stories about Roy Moore, and was accused of spreading fake news about one of his accusers. So that's it then - can't trust anything their on-the-ground-reporter showed in the video. It's highly likely this video wasn't even taken in Syria - green screen studio in Moscow for sure.
Thanks guys for keeping it real....
Nah they're right. This is pro-Trump propaganda. Obviously.
If not killing thousands of people for money is pro-Trump then I'm pro-Trump. If not killing thousands of people for money is anti-Trump then I'm anti-Trump. But I don't think pro-Trump or anti-Trump has anything to do with a position on Syria. If being anti-Trump has become being pro-war then, as Jimmy says, the left has left the building.
You surely don't expect OAN to be regarded as a credible source. Just the fact that you have to reach this deep into the bias pot mus tell you something?
Herring, the owner of the channel, has urged producers to withhold stories critical of Russia. Everything falls into place.
"urged producers to withhold stories critical of Russia"
Edit: Nevermind, I found it.
(although they don't provide any sources for this claim)
It's starting to make sense how these OAN guys got into Douma.
I read this in an article about him. I admit it might be a bit unreliable. I looked through his tweets and in between Seth Rich tweets I found some interesting ones, e.g.. He also owns a streaming company that has RT in its offered package. Take this as you will, but factual reporting is certainly not a strong suit of OAN.
"Wouldn't it be better if we started working with Russia, than to keep blaming them for everything. Lift sanctions, no NATO on their borders."
- I agree with that tweet 100%
I found that WashPost hitpiece on them too & updated my comment & the post to link to it.
KlowdTV has several packages. One of which offers it's own channels + RT.
The owner married a Russian lady I think... that might explain his warm views towards Russia, maybe there's more to it.
I didn't doubt you would.
Washington Post has journalistic integrity and I have no doubt that their stories are airtight. By using the phrase "hit piece" you imply that it is based on biased and/or false information to the public. Psychological projection seems to be a strong common denominator.
Do you agree with that tweet?
In part I do. I think a diplomatic solution is always better than war, so if by "working" he meant trying to solve problems through diplomacy then great. But the reality is much more dim and a diplomatic solution relies on both parties participating. The methods with which Russia operates should not be tolerated and criticism of them should be strict and met with responses that they understand, i.e. sanctions.
Russia, during the past 20 years, has proven to be an authoritarian regime, which invades neighbouring countries using hybrid warfare. They regard talking as a sign of weakness. I think it is normal for countries near warmongering Russia to want to insure themselves and join NATO. The alliance is founded upon collective defense and not offence.
Russia, by the way, has yet to apologize for the atrocities of the Soviet regime and has been whitewashing their history. I think this speaks volumes. This is one of the very few independent media sources in Russia.
Have a think about what the US has done in the last 20 years and read the comment you just made. Do you think Iraq will ever receive an apology?
Here's an idea of what the US has been up to since WWII.
Oh, ok. But what about America?? Come on now, you can't be missing the irony of saying this?!
Take care, buddy.
We're talking about Russia-US relations and you're claiming some kind of moral high ground based on Russian crimes of the past 20 years and for some crazy reason you've dragged the USSR into it. Of course I'm going to compare those countries to the US.
You know you're backed into a corner here. You are dismmissed.
Are we talking about relations though? You just presumed that I am talking in the name of the US and taking some sort of moral high ground. The world is not black and white. You just used Russias get out of jail free card and started talking about US foreign affairs. Classic.
All the sources you provided were far from factual and were presented with a very clear bias. If you think they proved anything else other than that you are gullible, you are very wrong.
Good riddens. I can take only that much of deluded at a time.
The question was "do you agree with the tweet"
The Washington Post's balanced stories are 100% airtight.
Your journalistic integrity link takes me to a webpage with the following headline:
The Washington Post won a Pulitzer for fighting “fake news” with facts
And here is the first paragraph - If there were a Pulitzer for journalism ethics, it would go to the Washington Post for radical transparency of its rigorous reporting exposing Senate candidate Roy Moore’s alleged past pursuit of teenage girls and the failed attempt by Project Veritas to entrap the Post into writing about a fake victim.
And here is what they actually won the Pulitzer for: For purposeful and relentless reporting that changed the course of a Senate race in Alabama by revealing a candidate’s alleged past sexual harassment of teenage girls and subsequent efforts to undermine the journalism that exposed it.
You are very selective in terms of the data points you choose to acknowledge vs. the data points you pretend don't exist. Roy Moore was a T-ball story - they actually did their jobs and the reporting was so unusually competent that they won a Pulitzer for it. You love that the Washington Post spoonfeeds you exactly what you want to hear to feel okay about bombing the shit out of brown people and tempting war with Russia because I'm guessing you don't like at all that they went from horrifying example of the failures and crimes of communism to a Tsarist quasi-Democrazy that has rediscovered its Orthodox Christian roots. Answer me this: What needs to happen for Russia to finally be exactly what you think it should be?
Sounds like a conservative news network to me. But you surely don't expect the Washington Post to be regarded as a credible source.
I think it is safe to say.. Trump and Macron are not the kind of guys to eye to eye on a lot of things.