No, Occam didn't say that was the point. I acknowledge this as being true at times. I remember seeing Alex Jones claim that Snowden said he had information that would bring down the government, when in fact Snowden had said that the government was acting like he had information that would bring them down. Big difference.No, the point is going back and actually reading the source material for Alex Jones articles. They often don't say what he says they do.
If the US military were planning on invading, would they say so in public documents? It'd kinda defeat the purpose.
In this case though, Occam claimed that Infowars was "stirring the rumours that this exercise is nothing more than a 'disinfo psyop' in order to bring around the public perception of military occupation being normal." and that it was not reasonable to believe that the excercise is an "attempt to acclimate the public to seeing military personnel on American streets, but to also condition troops to feel comfortable operating domestically."
But then in the Infowars articles he linked, they were substantiating their belief that the excercise is an attempt to acclimate the public to seeing military personnel on American streets, by linking to American military documents planning scenarios in which they would be on American streets, which scenarios included "Civil disturbances".
An American has right and reason to be disturbed by such scenarios and thus wary of training operations like Jade Helm.