In the news today...

[DiamondGooner]

Ah yes, calling me deluded because I ask for facts instead of your own personal beliefs. The arab spring was the name given to a revolutionary wave in arab countries that occurred in 2010 and 2011, starting in Tunisia and spreading to among others Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Bahrein. You arguing it didn't exist is beyond retarded.

The winners and losers? Dafuq does that have to do with my point. I wasn't talking about the result or if it benefitted said countries in the end (decidedly not). I simply indicated this movement was an instigator for the Syrian uprising against Assad. Whether they were a good thing for the region is besides the point. I am not advocating for US interference here.

Yes, the US supported the rebels in Syria after Assad killed protestors en masse, I'm not denying any of that. But there's a big difference between supporting an existing revolution and creating it yourself.

EliteKillers point is that regardless of sections of the public protesting because the milenial generation convinced some that democracy mean't sunshine and rainbows is a bit different to armed insurgents turning up to rallies with RPG's and armoured vehicles.
We have protests Yago France have mass protests annually, they don't result in funded terrorists showing up and Uncle Sam flying F18's overhead.

Also Bahrain (which I know about first hand) was not in anyway connected politically to other uprisings.

All the "Arab spring" had in common was that it encouraged rabble rousers to get active.

America used and helped fan the flames in countries it had interest in, you'll know which countries they were because US Fighter jets start turning up.

The only thing that annoys me about your comments Yago are things like you asking EK "where are your facts" regarding American involvement.

Without sounding too condescending .......... you do know what the CIA do for a living right?

You'll also note then that if every time a covert mission was under taken for regime change and it was headline news of their involvement then they wouldn't be very good at their jobs then would they?

As I said a big flashing indicator of US involvement are when jets and military start turning up waiting to finish off and pick up the pieces of the situation like vultures over a carcass.

Libya, Iraq, Syria = American involvement

Bahrain, Egypt = No American involvement

Iran = Not sure, possibly

As I mentioned Bahrain had nothing to do with an "Arab spring" half my family are Bahraini, I've met the Prince and my dad is an old friend of the Crown Prince, so I could tell you first hand what that was about start to finish if you wanted to know, more factual than your 10 oclock news anyway.

[Yago]

Ah yes, calling me deluded because I ask for facts instead of your own personal beliefs. The arab spring was the name given to a revolutionary wave in arab countries that occurred in 2010 and 2011, starting in Tunisia and spreading to among others Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Bahrein. You arguing it didn't exist is beyond retarded.

The winners and losers? Dafuq does that have to do with my point. I wasn't talking about the result or if it benefitted said countries in the end (decidedly not). I simply indicated this movement was an instigator for the Syrian uprising against Assad. Whether they were a good thing for the region is besides the point. I am not advocating for US interference here.

Yes, the US supported the rebels in Syria after Assad killed protestors en masse, I'm not denying any of that. But there's a big difference between supporting an existing revolution and creating it yourself.

EliteKillers point is that regardless of sections of the public protesting because the milenial generation convinced some that democracy mean't sunshine and rainbows is a bit different to armed insurgents turning up to rallies with RPG's and armoured vehicles.
We have protests Yago France have mass protests annually, they don't result in funded terrorists showing up and Uncle Sam flying F18's overhead.

True enough, but I think you'll agree there's a vital difference between France and those countries explaining why it doesn't turn violent in France: In France, they protest for better working conditions, more vacation, and whatnot, and the government gives them the freedom to do so. In Syria, they protested against a dictator who imprisoned political opponents and journalists, who committed crimes against his own people and oppressed the population. Said dictator then reacted by having those protestors killed, which of course didn't please them very much.

Also Bahrain (which I know about first hand) was not in anyway connected politically to other uprisings.

All the "Arab spring" had in common was that it encouraged rabble rousers to get active.

America used and helped fan the flames in countries it had interest in, you'll know which countries they were because US Fighter jets start turning up.

The only thing that annoys me about your comments Yago are things like you asking EK "where are your facts" regarding American involvement.

Without sounding too condescending .......... you do know what the CIA do for a living right?

You'll also note then that if every time a covert mission was under taken for regime change and it was headline news of their involvement then they wouldn't be very good at their jobs then would they?

As I said a big flashing indicator of US involvement are when jets and military start turning up waiting to finish off and pick up the pieces of the situation like vultures over a carcass.

Libya, Iraq, Syria = American involvement

Bahrain, Egypt = No American involvement

Iran = Not sure, possibly

As I mentioned Bahrain had nothing to do with an "Arab spring" half my family are Bahraini, I've met the Prince and my dad is an old friend of the Crown Prince, so I could tell you first hand what that was about start to finish if you wanted to know, more factual than your 10 oclock news anyway.

I don't know anything about the situation in Bahrein, so I'll happily believe you on that account. Was just mentioning them for context, as it was one of the places were protests occurred. Let's leave it at that.

And the CIA is involved in a whole lot of things. For instance, we can state with some certainty they sometimes kill "enemies of the USA" abroad (Bin Laden), compile huge amounts of intelligence on possible threats to the USA, and have been known to instigate coups (Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia...) or to train and arm rebel forces when a revolution is already underway, and also spied on their own population (Nixon...).
I do however not think it's strange of me to ask for sources on specific claims he's making.

Now, looking at history, it's possible the CIA instigated a rebellion in one or more of the previously discussed countries, and I will grudgingly accept your opinion if you state that's what you think happened. But I do think it's preposterous to claim this as a proven fact, like it looked EK was doing, without citing any sources.

[EliteKiller]

I've tried to respond so you understand, it's not a personal attack on you just on all the people taking in by media brainwashing from both sides

Ah yes, calling me deluded because I ask for facts instead of your own personal beliefs. The arab spring was the name given to a revolutionary wave in arab countries that occurred in 2010 and 2011, starting in Tunisia and spreading to among others Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Bahrein. You arguing it didn't exist is beyond retarded.

The term 'Arab Spring' was probably coined by journalist Mark Lynch in 2011 ... of course it exists but as you can see the name was applied well after the events took place ... you laughed at a 'conspiracy theory' but then you immediately linked the events in various Arab countries together under the term 'Arab Spring' ... so what was it? ... a joint action (ergo working together as in a conspiracy) or a series of unrelated events ... you can't have it both ways ...

The winners and losers? Dafuq does that have to do with my point. I wasn't talking about the result or if it benefited said countries in the end (decidedly not). I simply indicated this movement was an instigator for the Syrian uprising against Assad. Whether they were a good thing for the region is besides the point. I am not advocating for US interference here.

You say that the 'movement' was the instigator for revolt in Syria, so we must accept that this was a co-ordinated series of actions, which of course it was, who do you believe was behind those actions ... a clandestine US department that supplied millions of dollars, arms and ammunition to the 'rebels' ... or a group of bearded locals who met in a pub and thought 'nice day for a revolution' .... go watch Charlie Wilson's War it looks at Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan ... a covert US operation that spent 4.5 billion dollars supporting the Afghan rebels ... before you say 'just a film' it's based on the evidence given to a congressional hearing where the CIA confirmed it's 4.5 billion dollar involvement in Afghanistan .... just as it has since confirmed it's involvement in Iran and Iraq, and no doubt will in time confirm it's involvement in Lybia and Syria ... to not accept that the CIA lends financial and military support to rebel groups is as you put it 'delusional' ... after all that is there job ....

Yes, the US supported the rebels in Syria after Assad killed protesters en masse, I'm not denying any of that. But there's a big difference between supporting an existing revolution and creating it yourself.

Yes there is, but when that 'revolution' started where do you think all the weapons and ammunition had come from? ... they didn't take several cities in Syria with pitchforks and wooden clubs ... instead they had machine guns, RPG's and anti tank missiles ... who do you think supplied all those?

To believe that an un-armed civilian force suddenly rose up against a very well armed military regime that's plain crazy ... to believe that a civilian force, armed and promised backing by the world's only superpower, rose up against it's oppressors ... now that works .... just a shame the US didn't follow through with proper support and instead abandoned it's new found friends to be trampled by Assad, Putin and Co.

[Yago]

Will respond tomorrow, although may be better if we move this to a new topic, as this isn't exactly news anymore.

[Yago]

Woops, forgot about that. Before I begin: if you want to reply with a post longer than a couple of lines, please make a topic in the big debate forum as I've got the feeling we're clogging this thread up a bit. We can then proceed to discuss it further there.

Reacting to your points without quoting them as that would become a huge mess:

a) I don't see these events as a joint action, but neither are they of course unrelated. That's a very black and white way of thinking you're adopting. Of course they're related. I'm saying people can very well be inspired by the uprisings in their neighbouring countries. They see Tunisia being successful in overthrowing their dictator and start thinking it might be time to do the same at home, and so forth. This is quite logical, and I feel confident you get the gist of it without needing to explain every little detail about why movements may transcend borders.

b) I don't give a shit about some movie about Afghanistan. I'm asking for sources supporting your own claims, about Syria. I'll ask it again, as I've been doing for some posts now: give me some reliable source, so that I can apologise and tell you how wrong I was.

c) Actually, yes, I do think civilians can successfully stage an uprising without foreign aid. It's not unheard of in history. That aside, there were already a shit ton of weapons in the region. It was clear for some time before the rebellion really "started" things would turn violent. I don't think it impossible for some protestors to be armed at that time. On top of that, by June 2011 a large number of military personnel had also defected. The rebels proceeded to conquer territory and resources, including military equipment. The FSA was created soon after. I don't see why this is so hard to believe for you: during the first months of the conflict, the rebels weren't well armed at all. There were tons of reports of protestors being slaughtered. When the army moved in their direction, they either fled or were butchered. This isn't a case of there suddenly being an organised force with lots of weapons. It took quite a long time for them to get organised.

[EliteKiller]

a) That's a fair assessment ... no doubt the success of civilian uprisings in one Arab Country, coupled with external support from the West, did indeed create a domino effect ...

b) As in all clandestine operations full details do not emerge until many years after the event, that's why I recommended you look at the now published information on Afghanistan as a good 'role-model' for events in Syria ... There are several in depth reports on the US Operations in Syria both admitted and eluded to ... here's a couple of substantive pieces, the second from April is particularly interesting as the failure by the Obama government to follow through with 'Plan A' is what rapidly allowed the Russians to become the dominant force ...

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/as-the-white-house-dithers-aleppo-burns-cia-backed-syrian-rebels-cant-get-heavy-weapons-from-u-s

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-readies-plan-b-to-arm-syria-rebels-1460509400

I'm sure you have a view on the 'morals' behind wiki-leaks, but the fact is that nobody in the US Government (or indeed any other government) is denying the validity of the leaked documents ... here's just a few on Syria

http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath

c) Sorry but you are just plain wrong ... no Arab uprisings have been successful without military assistance from an external source ... it may work in movies but in real life unless it's a 'military coup' whereby the army changes sides, it's simply impossible for a civilian population to beat a military force ... remember these are states ruled by Dictators who have no problem with firing on civilians ... I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that these were revolutions years in the making, you can't arm a civilian population, create a command structure, attempt to implement regime change without a lot of preparation ... yet today after all that suffering and loss of life, the ruling parties still remain almost entirely unchanged ... many now have an even stronger more ruthless grip on their citizens than they had before ... so the whole misguided strategy has backfired horribly, leaving Dictators in place, giving Russia a far greater influence, and leading to the creation of IS and an Islamic Caliphate ...

As anyone in the State Department or the Military will (off the record) tell you, the US policy in the Middle East has for the last decade been a muddled, hesitant, and in the end a totally unmitigated disaster ....

Or do you see it another way? if so I'd like to hear it .....

[Nuggets]

Richard Adams, author of Watership Down, has died

RIP

What an awesome novel it is.

I've lost count of the amount of times I watched the cartoon as a kid, loved it.

I read the book a few times and watched the film brilliant, R.I.P Bigwig.

[RowdyRoddyPoppins]

What an interesting article and I think I am going to track down this guys book. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38497767

From the man who interrogated Saddam Hussein - President Bush, he says, was "isolated from reality", with advisers that would "rally around him regardless and nod in agreement".

"I used to think what we said at the CIA mattered and the president would listen, but it doesn't matter what we say, politics trumps intelligence."

Mr Nixon says he is "ashamed" of what has happened in Iraq since the ousting of Saddam Hussein.

He says the Bush administration gave no thought as to what events might take place after Saddam's removal, and - in light of the rise of extremist groups such as the so-called "Islamic State" - believes the region would have been better off had he remained in place.

Such claims have been dismissed by former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the country at the time of the invasion.

[Marsbar100]

That is f***ing ridiculous

[Cripps]

Someone had too much time on their hands

[LMAO]

El Chapo extradited to the US.

I hope he enjoys ADX for the rest of his life—don't think he'll be escaping this one.

[Sims]

I packed Ronaldo on Ultimate Team

[Royal Gooner]

In other news, President Trump gets inaugurated today.

Just thought I'd mention it in case anyone missed it on the news.

[GoonerAlexandre]

Today is a great day for racists.

[Big17]

I packed Ronaldo on Ultimate Team

Which version?