Rivero supports OWS, but not revolt in Syria

How does that make sense? As if Syria is more liberal and democratic than USA? As if USA is more repressive and despotic than Syria? What a joke.

BBC are reporting that "Syria protesters call for no-fly zone". Why? Because "at least 37 people have been killed in crackdowns during protests calling for the downfall of the government held across Syria after Friday prayers."

Rivero goes crazy about one person in USA being severely hurt in OWS protests. Well, sure. But in Syria 37 people died in one night! According to the BBC, "More than 3,000 people have died in the unrest since protests broke out in March."

But check WRH's Syria section? See if Rivero expresses any outrage about it? Rather he's played it down, making out it is all a western inspired movement designed to topple a legitimate Arab leader. Incredible. As if Assad is some liberal Arab leader.....

BBC says : "Foreign journalists have been largely prevented from reporting from the country, making it difficult to confirm events on the ground."

Rivero doesn't care. Surprised?

When a US Congressman expressed a desire to aid Syrian revolt, Rivero responded thus:

Ah, of course, no (Hawaiian) Americans need concern themselves with Israel....errr...I mean Syria. Dude's a total joke. Why doesn't anyone notice?

Back in June Rivero reported a story which was headlined as "Russia, China Shield Syria from Possible UN Sanctions". Rather than get outraged at repressive nations protecting Syria, Rivero's comment was : "The leadership of both Russia and China are correct on this"

Nevermind that Rivero was originally agitating for support for Libyan uprising, and still supports "the Arab Spring" in principle. But clearly, what Rivero supports is uprising and revolt in western-friendly nations, whilst he totally opposes similar revolt in nations hostile to the West (and Israel, of course.)

Rivero seeks to protect regimes hostile to America (and Israel) no matter how repressive or authoritarian they might be or how popular the revolt might be. At the same time, he supports revolt in nations which are 'friendly' to American interest and influence. That's how he determines his view - the actual conditions of the people and the regime matter not in the least.