Has The Arab Spring Been Subverted For Geopolitical Gain?

[Heathen Hammer]

And where is the evidence then?

Multiple accounts of foreign states backing rebels and participating in combat themselves?

And realitic, as in more realistic than the people just getting fed up with the regime and doing something about it?

Maybe or maybe not. People get fed up with regimes in different places, but the coverage of their unrest depends on their political alignment and political alignment of the regime they are rebelling against. In this way rebels in Syria and Lybia are "freedom-fighters", while rebels in Colombia, Iraq and Afghanistan are "terrorists".
Another point is their motivation. It seems like new "free" regimes tend to be much more oppressive, especially when it comes to religious freedom.

[Tiberios]

Multiple accounts of foreign states backing rebels and participating in combat themselves?

Source?

Maybe or maybe not. People get fed up with regimes in different places, but the coverage of their unrest depends on their political alignment and political alignment of the regime they are rebelling against. In this way rebels in Syria and Lybia are "freedom-fighters", while rebels in Colombia, Iraq and Afghanistan are "terrorists".
Another point is their motivation. It seems like new "free" regimes tend to be much more oppressive, especially when it comes to religious freedom.

That is because FARC in Columbia are terrorists Joe. Drug sale, kidnapping and bombings, that fits the description of terrorists quite well. No matter how justified FARC and their struggle might be, they are clearly terrorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15905488



As for the Taliban, they are too along with plenty of insurgent groups in Iraq.

Suicide bombings and IED's against civilians are clearly acts of terrorism, no matter who does it or why. That should really not have to be explained.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Maybe or maybe not. People get fed up with regimes in different places, but the coverage of their unrest depends on their political alignment and political alignment of the regime they are rebelling against. In this way rebels in Syria and Lybia are "freedom-fighters", while rebels in Colombia, Iraq and Afghanistan are "terrorists".
Another point is their motivation. It seems like new "free" regimes tend to be much more oppressive, especially when it comes to religious freedom.

Lol at your comments on Latin America. In order to recognize the Military Movement known as FARC as some sort of popular rebellion one would have to make the connection between them and the public opinion on an statistical level, these stats clearly do not support their actions as that, a movement of social rebellion.

[Heathen Hammer]

Source?

Look up Libya and Syria revolutions threads.

That is because FARC in Columbia are terrorists Joe. Drug sale, kidnapping and bombings, that fits the description of terrorists quite well. No matter how justified FARC and their struggle might be, they are clearly terrorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15905488

FARC is not considered to be terrorist organization by most countries in South America thou. It has more to do with politics, then with their actual actions.

As for the Taliban, they are too along with plenty of insurgent groups in Iraq.

Suicide bombings and IED's against civilians are clearly acts of terrorism, no matter who does it or why. That should really not have to be explained.

But rebels in Libya and Syria attacked civilians as well. Why are they not called terrorists then?

[motiv-8]

Look up Libya and Syria revolutions threads.

.... That's not a source, that's just you repeating the same claims in another place despite it being well-documented that both the Syrian and Libyan revolutions began as popular protests against government corruption and abuse.

But rebels in Libya and Syria attacked civilians as well. Why are they not called terrorists then?

Because that doesn't encompass the definition of terrorism.

[Nevins]

Actually it does sound pretty realistic.

And where is the evidence then?

And realitic, as in more realistic than the people just getting fed up with the regime and doing something about it?

Well thats clearly impossible, remember all his assertions about how living under Qaddafi was pretty terrific so there was no way it could have been domestically sparked?

Because that doesn't encompass the definition of terrorism.

Additionally, irrelevant to whether or not the US was backing it.

[Tiberios]

Look up Libya and Syria revolutions threads.

Not a source. That's just a claim.

FARC is not considered to be terrorist organization by most countries in South America thou. It has more to do with politics, then with their actual actions.

And that just might be a political move, as you claim listing FARC as terrorists are. I just showed you that FARC has conducted a series of kidnappings and killings and that they finance themselves with selling drugs. Are you really saying that FARC doesn't fit the description of a terrorist group? You know, it's not everybody who judges a group on whom they fight against. I couldn't care less who FARC is fighting, they are clearly terrorists. At the very least they do employ terror tactics from time to time.

Well thats clearly impossible, remember all his assertions about how living under Qaddafi was pretty terrific so there was no way it could have been domestically sparked?

How could I forget.

[Heathen Hammer]

.... That's not a source, that's just you repeating the same claims in another place despite it being well-documented that both the Syrian and Libyan revolutions began as popular protests against government corruption and abuse.

Are you saying that rebels were not backed by foreign states?

Because that doesn't encompass the definition of terrorism.

There is no universal definition of terrorism. Most of the time it is just used to establish a negative label.

Not a source. That's just a claim.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NATO+support+for+Libyan+rebels

And that just might be a political move, as you claim listing FARC as terrorists are. I just showed you that FARC has conducted a series of kidnappings and killings and that they finance themselves with selling drugs. Are you really saying that FARC doesn't fit the description of a terrorist group? You know, it's not everybody who judges a group on whom they fight against. I couldn't care less who FARC is fighting, they are clearly terrorists. At the very least they do employ terror tactics from time to time.

But so did Syrian rebels (car bombings, etc), yet they are not being labeled as terrorists.

Well thats clearly impossible, remember all his assertions about how living under Qaddafi was pretty terrific so there was no way it could have been domestically sparked?

Yeah, clearly unlike Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other countries with highest living standards in the world, and whoever's against their government is a terrorist.

[Nevins]

Yeah, clearly unlike Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other countries with highest living standards in the world, and whoever's against their government is a terrorist.

Living conditions were pretty great in Colonial America as well, you still have yet to conclusively show that the Libyan rebellion was orchestrated by external rather than internal forces. Did external help come? Most certainly, but that doesn't mean that it was foreign born.

[motiv-8]

Are you saying that rebels were not backed by foreign states?
. . .
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NATO+support+for+Libyan+rebels

? No? I didn't even say anything at all. This is you shifting the goalposts of the conversation. Let's recap. You claimed that " the idea that the Libyan rebellion was a pre planned insurrection lead by foreign trained and financed mercenaries [and] that the current Syrian protests are in the same vein" is, in your own words, "pretty realistic." When asked for evidence that the above scenario is "pretty realistic" your referred as a "source" to forum threads, in which threads you did little than make the same "pretty realistic" claim. When pressed for actual evidence of this scenario, instead of doing so you refer to support by foreign governments of rebel movements AFTER they had already started.

It shouldn't be difficult to disseminate between identifying the idea of support for a rebellion after it's already started and the idea that the rebellion itself was crafted by foreigners as something pre-planned.

So, now you can go about providing the evidence that the insurrection in both Libya and Syria were pre-planned by foreign agents and lead by foreign trained and financed mercenaries, instead of introducing anachronistic and frankly irrelevant information. I have to say, I don't envy you given the documentary evidence amply demonstrates that both insurrections began in-country by the people themselves.


TL;DR: Either actually demonstrate that 'NATO' created these rebellions, or stop peddling it as a casual fact.

There is no universal definition of terrorism. Most of the time it is just used to establish a negative label.

Er, yeah, that's pretty damn obvious, given that regardless of the definition used it describes a negative act. But that doesn't have anything to do with what I said. What I said is that the killing of civilians does not constitute by itself terrorism. Nearly all recognizable definitions of terrorism, other than one you might make up on the spot, recognize this fact. That's the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.

But only you and Allah knows why, when discussing a definition of terrorism, you would do something as bizarre as put the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the insurgents in Libya and Syria, in the same category and treat them as the same thing. It's as if you don't understand the fact that the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq were composed of and led by members of the former (dictatorial and brutal) governments of those states who allied with an international terrorist organization and didn't come about as a result of popular protest or democracy movements.

But so did Syrian rebels (car bombings, etc), yet they are not being labeled as terrorists.

Let's get one thing out of the way. The bombings in Aleppo and Damascus are without a doubt and according to all commonly-accepted definitions of terrorism, terrorist attacks.

Now that we've established that, let's go into why your complaint is problematic.

First, the actual details around some of these bombings are really, really scanty and we don't even know for sure who perpetrated all of them. For you to simply refer to "Syrian rebels" demonstrates a reliance on Syrian state media, which, according to your own skepticist standard of analyzing media, would preclude making such a sound conclusion.

Second, in the one case in which someone amongst the rebels did actually claim responsibility for a bombing, you choose to make a sweeping statement of "they", meaning "the Syrian rebels." Now, as anyone who has followed the situation in Syria at all would know, while the Syrian government forces are coordinated, centrally-led, and generally cohesive, the Syrian rebellion is made up of quite a few factions with various motives and a leadership that up to now been comparatively nebulous and hard to identify. So then, for you to identify a terrorist act committed by some faction in the rebellion that clearly doesn't have constraints, and then apply their actions to the entirely of the rebellion is not only very ignorant of the realities on the ground, but also a violation of the standards and methods you employ elsewhere in discussing this conflict. You are always so quick to defend the Syrian regime, to condemn any and all discussion about their actions in the country as Western plotting, Western lies, Western fabrications, but anything that goes on or is mentioned with a non-state actor in the region is not only also a Western plot, but always 100% true and 100% "realistic." Frankly, your methods and standards of observation and analysis are and have been extremely poor and inconsistent, matched only by the inability to recognize those shortcomings. It's become impossible to have a reasonable conversation on Syria or anything even remotely related when you become involved. If that's the objective then, well, congratulations, you should definitely own it. But the rest of us are trying to have a real discussion free of conspiracy theories and strategies of distraction with tangents about the evils of the West.

Yeah, clearly unlike Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other countries with highest living standards in the world, and whoever's against their government is a terrorist.

And then to finish up there's a red herring, in case anyone had any doubt it was a Broseph Stalin post.

[Prosaic Visitant]

So, OP, how about post 30?

[Tiberios]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NATO+support+for+Libyan+rebels

NATO support for Libyan rebels =/= it was a planned and staged by NATO or any other Western country. That really should be obvious. Nice try Joe.

Again, I'd like a source to prove that NATO/West/US staged the uprising in Libya.

But so did Syrian rebels (car bombings, etc), yet they are not being labeled as terrorists.

And we have proof of that these clear acts of terrorism was carried out by the rebels? I'm not denying they might have done so, but I haven't seen evidence to suggest they have done so or continue to. As motiv8 said, there seems to be very little evidence to prove who carried out these attacks.

[panzer 4]

Broseph, people will never rebel if they have houses, jobs and good social needs, let alone a full blown revolution. Qaddafi constantly portrayed to the world that his nation was great where everyone had jobs and were well payed, when the revolution started however, and the mass defections in the military, only then was it evident that he was blatant liar.

[Kitsunegari]

There was always a lot of foreign support from both leftist (mostly Soros affiliated) and neocon NGOs, you know the same people who were so strongly behind the anti-Russian "revolutions" in Ukraine, Georgia, etc. That said, these things have been boiling for a while, and just needed the right catalyst.

[Heathen Hammer]

NATO support for Libyan rebels =/= it was a planned and staged by NATO or any other Western country. That really should be obvious. Nice try Joe.

Again, I'd like a source to prove that NATO/West/US staged the uprising in Libya.

I can't say that for sure, but is sounds reasonably likely since Western states have used such methods for a long while.

And we have proof of that these clear acts of terrorism was carried out by the rebels? I'm not denying they might have done so, but I haven't seen evidence to suggest they have done so or continue to. As motiv8 said, there seems to be very little evidence to prove who carried out these attacks.

Even western-based HR groups reported such acts done by rebels, i.e. car bombings in Syria or attacks on refugee camps in Libya.

Broseph, people will never rebel if they have houses, jobs and good social needs, let alone a full blown revolution. Qaddafi constantly portrayed to the world that his nation was great where everyone had jobs and were well payed, when the revolution started however, and the mass defections in the military, only then was it evident that he was blatant liar.

Revolutions are much more complex process, involving bothy internal and external factors. History shows us examples of both countries with good living standards in which revolution happened and countries with bad living standards where they didn't.

[Tiberios]

I can't say that for sure, but is sounds reasonably likely since Western states have used such methods for a long while.

So no proof. Only what you think is the likely explanation. Well that settles it I guess.

Even western-based HR groups reported such acts done by rebels, i.e. car bombings in Syria or attacks on refugee camps in Libya.

The NTC has had problems with keeping all rebels forces under control after the end of the war. Not that it is an excuse, but it can explain why some attrocities have taken place.

As for Syria, other than the state owned media, do we have any proof that the car bombings was carried out by the Free Syrian Army? It could have been one of many opposition groups.

[panzer 4]

Revolutions are much more complex process, involving bothy internal and external factors. History shows us examples of both countries with good living standards in which revolution happened and countries with bad living standards where they didn't.

so what does this say about Qaddaffi and his glorious utopia that he supposedly portrayed to the world?

[Claudius Gothicus]

Joe, you still have to prove how well does FARC do in public opinion polls.

[s.rwitt]

Add it to the list, Gothicus...

It's a very long list

[squirel]

I am not talking about Al Qaeda but the general Islamic conservative factions; I don't care democratic or not this current Sharia fever in Middle East really worry (and disgust) me.

Why does islam disgust you?