His narrative ran that the uprisings were an overthrow of 'the zionist world order'. Supposedly America and Israel opposed all the uprisings because they were a threat to Israel.
Rivero agitated for support for the uprisings - because they were an attack on the Zionist NWO. When the unrest spread to Libya Rivero claimed Israel was supplying mercenaries to Gadaffi, and therefore no international action could be taken against the regime. "It's the same old, same old!", Rivero claimed. He assured his readers that no action could be taken against Libya because Israel wouldn't allow it. (!)
That all changed when the UN voted for military intervention. HAving been proven completely wrong Rivero flipped 180, and began claiming the intervention was a war-crime, an act of aggression, another chapter in the Zionist World Order blah blah.
I wrote about this previously. And here.
Some time has passed, we have a few extra things to consider.
First of all we jave the notable absence of Syria from Rivero's rhetoric.
Syria is facing uprisings too, but is closely allied with Iran. Rivero's notably silent.
Also during the earlier Iranian uprisings Rivero was dead-set that in Iran the uprisings were a result of outside intervention - he pushed memes about it being the coloured revolution stuff, Albert Einstein Institute, USAID, etc. He thought the uprising were illegitimate in Iran.
And now Rivero's again silent over uprisings - this time in Syria. Or rather, he's even posting things saying it isn't as bad there as one might think. A pro-regime response?
Look at Rivero's new Syria section? Unsurprisingly Rivero's Syria section only opened very recently - he's never cared about the place before. Just 3 pages. And there's no criticism of the regime.
Here's the only news on Syria at WRH on the MAIN page today:
Nevermind that mainstream press is reporting that Thousands of people took to the streets of the Syrian city of Hama on Saturday to mourn the deaths of at least 64 protesters gunned down by security forces the day before,Those protests never happened, nor did the killings, according to WRH? Easy enough to imagine Rivero's response if that had been the Israel regime killing 65 protesters?
As expected, the short section on Syria is entirely absent any of Rivero's outrage at the killing of protesters, the likes of which get Rivero fuming when Israel is his target.
It's also absent any of his calls for intervention.
Rivero is responding just as he did when Iran was undergoing uprisings and protests - he defends the regime. So he's defending Iran and Syria?
Cclearly Rivero supports uprisings only in nations suffering under regimes in the American/Zionist orbit (as he would see it.) Otherwise he supports the regime, no matter how dreadful - Syria, Iran, Hamas, whatever. That's a pretty shocking position to be in.
Rivero's Syria section is a bit of a joke. It's absent any condemnation of Syrian regime, and half the content seems to be attacks on Jews, Israel, Zionism. Nothing about Syria really....just an excuse to attack Jews.
This fits with Rivero's wider position, where he exonerates Al Qaida and extreme Islam from any guilt for 911, Bali, London, Paris, Madrid, Afghanistan etc.
It's all 'false-flag', and wrongly blamed on Islam, apparently. Well, what a let-off that is, eh? The real culprits are the Jews, and Zionism....... Islam can do no wrong, Jews nothing right. And so Rivero twists in the wind, whatever is needed to keep his delusion alive.
And hence social unrest is legitimate only in pro-Western regimes, not amongst Islamic regimes.
Here's Rivero's Syria section, back in May:
See? Uprisings in Syria are American-led efforts at destabilisation. Just like Rivero said about Iran. The uprisings are illegitimate. Whereas uprisings in states considered pro-American/Western then they are real uprisings and legitimate, according to Rivero.
Here's Rivero speaking before intervention in Libya passed a UN vote:
Somehow Syria isn't presently "crushing freedom and democracy", eh Rivero? What completely contrary attitudes Rivero holds? And all dependent only on whether Rivero decides the country is pro-Zionist or not. And nNo other evidence or conditions are required for Rivero. Notice how local conditions are completely irrelevant to Rivero? Why was Egypt legitimate but not Syria? Why Tunisia but not Iran? Because they were considered relatively pro-western bulwarks against Islam whilst the opposite is true of Iran and Syria.
Rivero doesn't even mention the murder of protesters......in anti-Israeli Syria. Whereas in (a supposedly Israeli-backed) Libya Rivero accused the world of standing by and doing nothing whilst democracy and freedom were murdered. "A bunch o pussies!" he said. But not about Syria.
Hypocrite.
