Saturday, 7 November 2009

Rivero and Fort Hood

Rivero's coverage is interesting.

Most recently he's linked to an Associated Press article. The AP article does not say what Rivero quotes.....what he quotes is ttaken from the comments.....which reproduce his own conspiracy view of the Fort Hood shootings.
Yesterday fellow soldiers tried to surprize the two consciencious objectors but the privates were prepared and killed 12 soldiers who tried to force their way into the privates' barracks at Fort Hood.
The link is given as:

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s1235603.shtml#disqus_thread

and once clicked it says - "(Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)"

But the quote Rivero gave is from the comments, and the quote is totally at odds with what the AP article actually says. So what's the point of it? Just manipulation to make it seem AP said what Rivero does about Fort Hood shootings? Or is it just a way to repeat his conspiracy.....try to create a sense that it's a "popular" and reasonable view? Hmm.

I've been following Rivero's pronouncements on this story. Rivero feels the story is "a setup". Here's his explanation:
here is what I think happened.

I think that a GROUP of soldiers rebelled against further deployment. This is why we had early reports of multiple shooters, numbering up to 5.

But 5 soldiers shooting their officers signals mutiny in the ranks. It recalls the "fragging" of Vietnam days. It looks really bad to the citizenry. It could even spread to other soldiers and other bases where the military are stretched to the breaking point.

So, the DC boys look around and say, "Oh, we have this dead Muslim guy; we'll just blame it on him!" And presto-chango, five shooters pissed off with the wars becomes one conveniently dead [Jordanian - crossed out] Palestinian Muslim with possible links to Al Qaeda.

Only turns out Major Hasan isn't dead. Which creates a whole new problem the instant he gets off that ventilator at the hospital.
Hmmmmmm.

November 5th Rivero claimed:
This is a staged incident.
Hmmmmm.

Rivero links to a Prisonplanet article, headlined:
Everything About Nidal Malik Hasan Screams “Patsy”
Hmmmmm.

Interestingly, Rivero links to an article which argues against allowing this incident to be viewed in "a racist" way.
Nov 06 09:05
Fort Hood Shootings: Don't Let Racism Hide Truth
Tags:

* COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS/PROPAGANDA

Back in May, an Army Sgt. stationed in Iraq and suffering from PTSD shot and killed five of his fellow soldiers. That man's name - John Russell - was Anglo Saxon. Nobody speculated on the role of his religion in the killing.
LINK
URUKnet. Hmmmm. But hold on? Religion is not a "race".........so what "racism" is there in religion? And what about all of Rivero's references to jews, the jewish, zionism, zionists?

Here is Rivero publishing an article the object of which is to suggest avoiding racism in dealing with the shooter at Fort Hood. a muslim asian? american....

Funny, considering Rivero's stance on jews etc. Usually for Rivero it's apparently the jewish religion responsible for jews' (always dreadful) behaviour......just as their race is responsible...just as zionism is responsible....all of it, whatever the occasion demands of his implacable opposition (prejudice).

A stark example of a gross double-standard.

Rivero says something else odd, too:
Remember the Gleiwitz Deception? The German Government killed a polish prisoner and left the body to be found to point the finger of blame at Poland.

Given how often the US government copies the Nazi playbook, I wonder if this Major is the sacrificial lamb to point the finger of blame at Muslims.
The Germans did not kill "A" prisoner at Gleiwitz. One would hardly have been convincing, would it? Plus there were 21 other operations involved in the deception. One prisoner killed? Come on Rivero? Get it right?
WRH/Mike Rivero: I repeat this reeks of being a setup.
Everything is a staged incident, according to Rivero. And it's all the fault of jews, of course.

2 comments:

socrates said...

I haven't read this article yet, so I will hold up in regards to that. I'd like to say I noticed predictable responses to this sad event from Rigorous Intuition and BradBlog.

RI has the typical blather about mind control theories. That's a big part of that website, and a major reason I never read there too much anyway, even before finding out Jeff Wells is a major disinfo writer. It has its own brand of goofy kookiness. All the "alternative" websites in that milieu do. With Rivero, this is all very relevant. We can tie Rivero to Wells through Tinoire. We can tie Tinoire to Brett Kimberlin.

Which takes me to the predictable response coming out of Brad Friedman. As this was a domestic terrorist event, he has gotten into it with his own slant of how the wingnuts are twisting it. He wants people to go to the Velvet Revolution page. Yet, you won't hear him mention that his buddy Brett Kimberlin was a domestic terrorist. One would think that would be an important thing to mention as they ask for donations. Hey, Brett could even say he was unfairly imprisoned for domestic terrorism, and that's a reason why he is dedicated to stopping it. But then he'd have to get into the evidence. Brett Kimberlin set bombs. It was proven beyond any reasonable doubt. One of them led to a man's death. Gullible dumbarses will miss that and give some more money. Some intrepid reporter needs to investigate these fockers. It's a ready made scoop. Someone needs to find out how much money Velvet Revolution has raked in. I bet it is in the millions.

People need to realise that neither myself nor TLNL are allowed to post at BradBlog. Even if someone else goes there and tries to discuss Kimberlin's part in domestic terrorism, they will be called mentally deranged and a sock puppet. It's pretty fried that a former domestic terrorist and his face man are begging for money to fight domestic terrorism. Will VR ever show how they spend their money? I doubt it. They are the modern day versions of snake oil salesmen. Brett Kimberlin is a convicted domestic terrorist. Brad Friedman is a joke!

socrates said...

You didn't link to Rivero, so we can see how he made a dumbarse comment appear to come from the AP. I'll take your word for it. That is pretty dodgy. Nice catch also on the double standards these guys use. I like how you keep track of these guys. You do it so others don't have to. I'm fairly burnt out from totally getting into the kind of methodology you did. I never really cared too much about Rivero and Alex Jones, because I figured they are right wing kooks. But then one can now see how they are tied to people claiming themselves as lefties and progressives, part of the so-called alternative media. The nail has already been hammered in. We have accomplished a lot. I'm no longer surprised about the convoluted cybersmear attacks on ourselves. There have only been a few of us who spoken truth to kookiness. These buggers have had more credibility than they have deserved. I think they are manufactures strawmen. They don't mind being debunked. They just want a certain type of poster to do that- by folks who also sound dogmatic and set in their ways.