Joint India Indonesian Army Exercise Garud Shakti Concludes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

There is no other global leader that promotes these changes

---

Do you really think these changes occur because they are promoted by some global leader? Did the Americans in 1776 or the French in 1848 need a global leader to tell them they wanted to be rid of what they perceived as oppressive and degenerate royal families? Did the anti-colonial rebellions that followed WW2 need some global leader to kick them off?

Is it so hard to imagine people acting of their own volition, for their own purposes, whether or not those purposes are actually achieved?

Bill,

You are absolutely correct.

In the modern context, the States' (Nation) authoritarian and might can hardly be challenged with resistance, armed or otherwise. It will be ruthlessly put down. Sri Lanka crushing the LTTE is a live and modern example of the State's might. And to a lesser extent, the problem in Chechnya.

Why did the Hungarian uprising of 1956 not succeeded?

These matters will never be in the public domain and it will he naive to believe it will be. However, if there is foreign influence and that too from an unchallenged global power, 'peoples' uprising' can effect a change. East Europe is an example. The Catholic Pope played his role as the benign 'cover'.

The same Church that lay low when the Jews were being exterminated by Hitler! Political handmaidens can come from strange sectors!

As far as the Arab Spring catching the US by surprise, maybe this can help that it was no surprise (that is why I say that if one has to keep an unbiased attitude one should Google the views and not only subscribe to those who support one's own favourite hobby horse):

http://www.demdigest.net/blog/2012/0...ushing-defeat/

Anyone who is aware of the NGOs and their funding are aware that they also are encouraged to 'assist the viewpoint' of those funding. Nothing is altruistic and it is not a falsehood that there is nothing called a Free Lunch.

Even our pro US PM who has never said a word against the US (he told Bush India loves you Mr Bush! [when the non European world was seething will anger]), was forced to state that US funded religious NGOs were behind the ruckus over the Russian Nuclear power plant being commissioned in Tamilnadu.

In many countries the US Peace Corps was accused of spying. Nothing surprising. There is nothing called a Free Lunch.

Even the Aid given to poor countries are not without strings. See the state of Pakistan. They blow hot, but then they eat crow!

Anjing menggonggong, kafilah tetap berlalu.:)

Quote:

---

RI, China ink $17.4b deals

Indonesia inked dozens of business and strategic agreements in several sectors with China, Asia’s largest economy, during the state visit of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to Beijing on Friday.

The signings were made after talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao, in which both sides reaffirmed the importance of bilateral relations.

The agreement covered cooperation in areas including trade, tourism, anti-drug efforts and fisheries management.

In the business sectors, Indonesian companies signed 15 investment agreements with Chinese corporations in Beijing on Friday worth a total of US$17.4 billion.

“The business agreements are an indication of the growing cooperation between the two countries,” President Yudhoyono said in a speech after meeting with Wan Jifei, the head of the Chinese Council for the Promotion of International Trade at a hotel in China’s capital city.

---

RI China ink 17.4B deals - Jakarta Post - March 24, 2012.

Indonesia is a great example. A nation working to solidify their hard-earned independence and sovereignty. They act in their best interests when they make deals like these with China to help them develop their own economy. They also act in their best interest when they seek to balance their relationships with powerful nations such as China, Japan, India and the US. This is what states do.

The US burned a lot of influence in the early years following 9/11 when there was so much focus on the Islamic aspect of AQ's operation. Being the largest Muslim populace on the planet, many eyes turned to Indonesia as a nation we needed focus our security efforts upon. But while certainly some Indonesians support AQ, the AQ message has largely fallen on deaf ears there. Unlike Muslim nations of the Middle East, whose quest for greater autonomy was largely held frozen through the Cold War, states like Indonesia were able to secure an independence largely free of such Western influence and chart their own path. The political message of AQ does not resonate among the Muslims of SEA as it does among Muslims of the greater Middle East. Not because of differences in Islam, but because of differences in the political landscape.

Indonesia does not want to be a radical Islamist state, nor does it want to be a Chinese satellite, nor does it want to be a ward of the US. Indonesia wants to be a sovereign state defined and governed on its own terms. Self-determination at work.

The US need not fear the economic synergy of China, that is what President Obama was talking about as to the future importance of the region. Not that it is a rising threat for the military to contain, but rather that it is rising hub of economic power that the US needs to be fully plugged into. As Chinese influence grows, states like Indonesia will naturally reach out to other partners, such as the US and India, to provide balance. It is in their interests to do so.

While Indonesia may be the largest Muslim nation, they are not the same as one would take Muslim nations to be.

To use a modern term, they are 'cool' and 'hep'.

They do not have the Islamic hangover.

I have an Indonesian Muslim relative and I also had a Muslim Indonesian maid when I was in Singapore!

If they were conservative as Muslims are said to be, then I was more conservative than them.

I would classify them as more hep and cool than us!

The Indonesians are in close defence relationship with India too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

But while certainly some Indonesians support AQ, the AQ message has largely fallen on deaf ears there. Unlike Muslim nations of the Middle East, whose quest for greater autonomy was largely held frozen through the Cold War, states like Indonesia were able to secure an independence largely free of such Western influence and chart their own path. The political message of AQ does not resonate among the Muslims of SEA as it does among Muslims of the greater Middle East. Not because of differences in Islam, but because of differences in the political landscape.

---

Indonesia had its share of issues with foreign influence during the Cold War.

Like many in the Middle East, Indonesians are willing to cheer and support AQ's fight against foreign intervention in Muslim lands. Also like many in the Middle East, they are quite willing to accept help from Islamist movements where their own local issues (traditionally involving sectarian conflict in Sulawesi et al). Also like many Muslims elsewhere, very few beyond a small core want anything to do with the idea of an Arab-ruled Calihate, or with local terrorism, or with the prospect of having an AQ-allied government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

he US need not fear the economic synergy of China, that is what President Obama was talking about as to the future importance of the region. Not that it is a rising threat for the military to contain, but rather that it is rising hub of economic power that the US needs to be fully plugged into.

---

Much of today's Sinophobia seems to me curiously unspecific... people seem convinced that we need to fear China but unsure of what they are afraid that the Chinese will do. I sometimes come away feeling that they simply feel bereft without someone to fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

While Indonesia may be the largest Muslim nation, they are not the same as one would take Muslim nations to be.

To use a modern term, they are 'cool' and 'hep'.

They do not have the Islamic hangover.

I have an Indonesian Muslim relative and I also had a Muslim Indonesian maid when I was in Singapore!

If they were conservative as Muslims are said to be, then I was more conservative than them.

I would classify them as more hep and cool than us!

The Indonesians are in close defence relationship with India too!

---

One wouldn't want to stereotype, but in general SE Asian Muslims are much less socially conservative than those in South Asia and the Middle East, even in places where Islamic radicalism has a foothold. That of course varies widely with location: an Indonesian Muslim from Jakarta is likely to be a lot less conservative than one from a rural village.

There have been some efforts to impose a more conservative outlook, notably in Malaysia and Indonesia (such as the current proposal to ban skirts above the knee) but the fact that the clerics see the need to try to force such moves is in itself testimony to the reality that the culture does not demand them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

In the modern context, the States' (Nation) authoritarian and might can hardly be challenged with resistance, armed or otherwise. It will be ruthlessly put down. Sri Lanka crushing the LTTE is a live and modern example of the State's might. And to a lesser extent, the problem in Chechnya.

Why did the Hungarian uprising of 1956 not succeeded?

These matters will never be in the public domain and it will he naive to believe it will be. However, if there is foreign influence and that too from an unchallenged global power, 'peoples' uprising' can effect a change. East Europe is an example. The Catholic Pope played his role as the benign 'cover'.

---

Again this looks like a topic for another thread, but...

I think the impact of foreign influence on domestic rebellion is being vastly overrated here. Rebellions against strong governments that have full command of their armed forces will typically fail. Foreign support will only change that if it takes the form of direct military intervention.

Rebellions succeed when governments lose their mojo. This happens: regimes age, tyrants lose their potency, the populace becomes restive, the military and police apparatus begins to waver in their loyalty. Not all states are mighty, and when the regime or the tyrant grows weak, the mighty become vulnerable. Mubarak didn't fall because foreigners conspired against him, he fell because his own armed forces wouldn't back him when push came to shove.

The presence or absence of foreign support is far from the only variable determining success or failure of a revolution, unless of course the foreign support takes the form of direct military intervention

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

As far as the Arab Spring catching the US by surprise, maybe this can help that it was no surprise (that is why I say that if one has to keep an unbiased attitude one should Google the views and not only subscribe to those who support one's own favourite hobby horse):

http://www.demdigest.net/blog/2012/0...ushing-defeat/

---

There's nothing here that even remotely suggests that the Arab Spring was a product of US intervention... this piece deals with so-called "democracy NGOs" in the post-Arab Spring environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Anyone who is aware of the NGOs and their funding are aware that they also are encouraged to 'assist the viewpoint' of those funding. Nothing is altruistic and it is not a falsehood that there is nothing called a Free Lunch.

---

Of course, but how effective are these NGOs, really? Certainly they have no capacity to create revolution, nor have they any capacity to make a revolution succeed if the government being rebelled against is not ripe for it. All the NGOs on earth wouldn't bring down a Gadaffi... it took direct military intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Even the Aid given to poor countries are not without strings. See the state of Pakistan. They blow hot, but then they eat crow!

---

A lot of countries, including Pakistan, accept the conditions for aid, take the aid, and then ignore the conditions or make nothing beyond a superficial and very nominal attempt to meet the conditions. The US is no great puppet master; they get played as often as they play others.

Posted by Dayuhan,

Quote:

---

Do you really think these changes occur because they are promoted by some global leader? Did the Americans in 1776 or the French in 1848 need a global leader to tell them they wanted to be rid of what they perceived as oppressive and degenerate royal families? Did the anti-colonial rebellions that followed WW2 need some global leader to kick them off?

Is it so hard to imagine people acting of their own volition, for their own purposes, whether or not those purposes are actually achieved?

---

My post,

Quote:

---

You're absolutely correct, and those changes are due largely the DImE in DIME, and it takes time to set the stage for these changes to take effect. There is no other global leader that promotes these changes, quite the contrary the only other legacy and current powers (USSR, China) fought against the trend in hopes of preserving their oppressive governments. You see this now with their responses to Syria, and China keeps North Korea on life support.

---

In short I agree with myself:D

Quote:

---

Do you really think these changes occur because they are promoted by some global leader?

---

Read my post carefully, I said "set conditions" for these revolutions to take place, whether we promote them or not. I would argue most of the time the consequences were unintended. I also said promote, not cause. We have promoted the ideas of freedom and democracy throughout the world, and given hope to the oppressed (intended or not). People can act out in anger, but unless they pull off a rapid coup it is unlikely they will be successful unless they receive foreign support. Much like we did during the American Revolution. Never say always, nevery say never, but generally this is the case. Most people won't act unless there is a reasonable degree of hope of being successful. We provide that with information (specified and implied). A case in point where people thought they had the support of the U.S. and acted out against a dictator was the Shi'a and Kurds after DESERT STORM.

Quote:

---

Did the anti-colonial rebellions that followed WW2 need some global leader to kick them off?

---

Yes, they needed the ideas of freedom that their educated leaders learned in the West, and they needed foreign support to sustain their revolutions.

Quote:

---

Is it so hard to imagine people acting of their own volition, for their own purposes, whether or not those purposes are actually achieved?

---

Acting on their own volition yet, especially when they believe they have a chance of succeeding. We didn't have to provide armed support to the Poles, only moral, informational and financial (along with the Catholic Church).

We should take credit where it is due, and not be overly influenced by our excessively left leaning educational institutions who find wrong in everything our nation does. We are far from perfect, and often not moral, because in the real world nations pursue their self interests, yet quite frequently and more than any other nation we have done a lot of good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

...I would argue most of the time the consequences were unintended. I also said promote, not cause. We have promoted the ideas of freedom and democracy throughout the world, and given hope to the oppressed (intended or not)...
...
We should take credit where it is due, and not be overly influenced by our excessively left leaning educational institutions who find wrong in everything our nation does. We are far from perfect, and often not moral, because in the real world nations pursue their self interests, yet quite frequently and more than any other nation we have done a lot of good.

---

Only change I'd make would be to "almost every time" in the first quoted paragraph. At least insofar as actual versus hoped for results... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Read my post carefully, I said "set conditions" for these revolutions to take place, whether we promote them or not. I would argue most of the time the consequences were unintended. I also said promote, not cause. We have promoted the ideas of freedom and democracy throughout the world, and given hope to the oppressed (intended or not).

---

Rebellion against tyranny and foreign occupation is as old as tyranny and foreign occupation, which is pretty old. Certainly rebellion against tyranny and foreign occupation dates back to well before the concept of democracy... in fact it dates back to a time when folks in "the West" were still painting themselves bright colors and bashing each other with clubs. Our ideas have likely shaped the rhetoric of rebellion to some degree (the ideas of communism, if not the substance, have also helped shape and inspire many rebellions against tyranny) but I think we're giving ourselves way too much credit if we pretend that there would be no rebellions without our ideas or our promotion of those ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

People can act out in anger, but unless they pull off a rapid coup it is unlikely they will be successful unless they receive foreign support. Much like we did during the American Revolution. Never say always, nevery say never, but generally this is the case. Most people won't act unless there is a reasonable degree of hope of being successful. We provide that with information (specified and implied).

---

Again I think this overlooks a key element in the dynamics of rebellion. Oppressive regimes are typically in a constant state of very low level rebellion. People are constantly pushing the regime. Most of these efforts fail, and most are never even noticed by outsiders, but the populace sees very clearly. They also see when the point comes when the regime fails to push back, when the security forces waver, when the people around the tyrant seem ready to break away. The key element is not foreign support, unless the foreign support comes in the form of direct military intervention. If the regime is strong, foreign support doesn't matter: all the moral support and democratic ideals on earth couldn't make Tiananmen succeed. They won't bring down Assad either.

The key to me is not the foreign support (again barring direct intervention), but rather the moment when the populace perceives that the tyrant has lost his mojo. The aura of invincibility shatters, the barons start looking for a new leader, the armed forces become reluctant to use force lest they be held accountable down the line. Once that perception hits, it snowballs very fast. It's an internal phenomenon and it has little or nothing to do with foreign support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

We should take credit where it is due, and not be overly influenced by our excessively left leaning educational institutions who find wrong in everything our nation does. We are far from perfect, and often not moral, because in the real world nations pursue their self interests, yet quite frequently and more than any other nation we have done a lot of good.

---

We sometimes take credit where it's not due, and we sometimes assume that all that happens in the world revolves around us and our influence. Recently on another thread I saw a comment that one positive outcome of the Vietnam War is that "we" prevented a communist takeover of Indonesia and Thailand. Didn't say anything, as it wasn't an appropriate venue for dispute, but definitely a bit of the "whoa, say what?" reaction...

Who decides what is an Oppressive regime?

The Chinese don't think that they are under an oppressive regime.

And yet, others do!

Tibetans feel they are oppressed, but nothing happens!

And yet, Arab Spring and Colour Revolutions happen!

And the Mali coup?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Who decides what is an Oppressive regime?

---

The people living under the regime, of course. Who else would have an opinion that means anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

The Chinese don't think that they are under an oppressive regime.

---

"The Chinese"? Obviously they don't all think the same thing. Some feel the regime is oppressive, some don't, presumably a whole lot are in between. There are Americans who think they live under an oppressive regime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Tibetans feel they are oppressed, but nothing happens!

And yet, Arab Spring and Colour Revolutions happen!

---

The Arab Spring and Color Revolutions happened when the populace not only felt it was oppressed, but perceived that the regime was vulnerable. That's obviously not the case in Tibet. Is there any specific evidence suggesting that foreign support is a key variable in any of these cases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

And the Mali coup?

---

A coup is a completely different thing, generally not connected to any popular sentiment or perception.

Media hype is what gives 'credence' to who is 'oppressed'

The west feels that Muslim women are oppressed. How come the Muslim women don't claim they are oppressed?

I would be surprised if any country will ever let it be known that it is supporting rebels or encouraging/ assisting rebellion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Media hype is what gives 'credence' to who is 'oppressed'

---

To outside observers, yes, but outside observers aren't the ones who rebel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

The west feels that Muslim women are oppressed. How come the Muslim women don't claim they are oppressed?

---

Maybe because they aren't allowed to talk? Any time you deal with a group as large as "Muslim women" or "the Chinese" there will be diversity of opinion. Some feel oppressed, some don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

I would be surprised if any country will ever let it be known that it is supporting rebels or encouraging/ assisting rebellion!

---

Lots of countries supported the rebels in Libya, and didn't try to hide it. Of course that support didn't mean much until it arrived in the form of cruise missiles and air strikes. Lots of countries openly support the rebels in Syria, but unless that support takes a much more aggressive and material form, it's not going to overthrow the regime.

Is there any actual evidence that foreign support was a critical element in the Arab Spring (other than Libya) or in the Color Revolutions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

To outside observers, yes, but outside observers aren't the ones who rebel.

---

Let us come closer home.

I presume you, as a resident of Philippines, subscribe to the fact, or should it be the idea, that the Moros are an 'oppressed lot'.

Do let us know, we 'outsiders' about how the 'insiders' opine.

Quote:

---

Maybe because they aren't allowed to talk? Any time you deal with a group as large as "Muslim women" or "the Chinese" there will be diversity of opinion. Some feel oppressed, some don't.

---

What makes you come to the conclusion that burkha-ed women don't talk or are not allowed to talk?

Where did you get that idea from?

I have Muslim friends in India, whose wives have of late taken to the burkha, they used to talk earlier and they still talk now.

They tell me that they are flaunting their Islamic identity just to cock a snook at the idea that they are a subjugated lot!

Quote:

---

Lots of countries supported the rebels in Libya, and didn't try to hide it. Of course that support didn't mean much until it arrived in the form of cruise missiles and air strikes. Lots of countries openly support the rebels in Syria, but unless that support takes a much more aggressive and material form, it's not going to overthrow the regime.

---

Lots of countries?

Like?

The West?

Quote:

---

Is there any actual evidence that foreign support was a critical element in the Arab Spring (other than Libya) or in the Color Revolutions?

---

Can there ever be?

Which country will go tomtoming that they are coming to destroy another country, unless it is a declared war.

Just for starters here is something to chew upon

The CIA School of Assassination at Fort Bragg
http://ciaschool.tripod.com/

and this:

Quote:

---

The Central Intelligence Agency has an almost unblemished record of screwing up every "secret" armed intervention it ever undertook. From the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 through the Bay of Pigs, the failed attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro of Cuba and Patrice Lumumba of the Republic of Congo, the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, the "secret war" in Laos, aid to the Greek colonels who seized power in 1967, the 1973 killing of Salvador Allende in Chile and Ronald Reagan's Iran-contra war against Nicaragua, there is not a single instance in which the agency's activities did not prove acutely embarrassing to the United States. The CIA continues to get away with this primarily because its budget and operations have always been secret and Congress is normally too indifferent to its constitutional functions to rein in a rogue bureaucracy. Therefore the tale of a purported CIA success story should be of some interest.

---

http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html

This is in the open forum.

I am sure other powers that be are doing the same, even if it does not have the US reach!

Could we not waste our time to substantiate what is obvious and true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Just for starters here is something to chew upon

The CIA School of Assassination at Fort Bragg
http://ciaschool.tripod.com/

and this:


http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html

This is in the open forum.

I am sure other powers that be are doing the same, even if it does not have the US reach!

Could we not waste our time to substantiate what is obvious and true?

---

The CIA and Fort Bragg are Apples and Breadfruit -- that 'relationship' is testy to say the least. All things considered, if you believe much that is in the first link, I have a Bridge I can sell you. That foolishness is totally laughable. Starting with the attempts to whitewash the Kennedy brothers who started a war to boost the US economy and their domestic political prospects -- and had no intention of leaving as the latter day apologists often have tried to contend. It simply gets worse from there... :rolleyes:

As for the CIA, generally speaking, try Hanlon's Razor... :D

The second link is more accurate and less politicized but is hardly and indictment of anything or anyone. Nations use fair and unfair means to achieve their aims. Who knew? :wry:

Re: your question on Libya / Syria; for the former, in addition to the west add Qatar and the UAE plus Egypt at a minimum. For Syria, the Arab League -- almost all of them -- and Turkey for starters. :cool:

Quote:

---

Re: your question on Libya / Syria; for the former, in addition to the west add Qatar and the UAE plus Egypt at a minimum. For Syria, the Arab League -- almost all of them -- and Turkey for starters.

---

Libya. Obviously Qatar would support. Its Sheik is in the minority (Sunni) and requires to be salvaged by the US and the Saudis. UAE too has been a pro West lot.

Syria. Indeed the Sunni Arab League would be against Shia governed Syria with links to Shia Iran! Nothing out of the ordinary.

Quote:

---

Nations use fair and unfair means to achieve their aims. Who knew?

---

Just the point.

If one has the capability and it is in the Nation's interest, then it would surely be used!

And why not?

But it will never be officially acknowledged.

Do nations acknowledge they have spies operating in foreign countries?

Even when they are caught, they are disowned!

Do nations acknowledge that the NGOs are funded and nurtured for ulterior motives?

The Peace Corps, which otherwise was a good idea, have been accused of being spies!

Ministers of foreign countries, including mine, have been allegedly recruited by foreign countries. Anyone will acknowledge that?

Covert operations would be overt operations if one acknowledged that such things were happening!

Was Raymond Davis a mere innocent security contractor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

...Nothing out of the ordinary.

---

True; the point was merely that your allegation was incorrect.

Quote:

---

Covert operations would be overt operations if one acknowledged that such things were happening!

---

Also true -- and nothing out of the ordinary. ;)

Quote:

---

Was Raymond Davis a mere innocent security contractor?

---

Almost certainly not. Nor, apparently and so far as is known, was he a a very good whatever he was... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Libya. Obviously Qatar would support. Its Sheik is in the minority (Sunni) and requires to be salvaged by the US and the Saudis. UAE too has been a pro West lot.

Syria. Indeed the Sunni Arab League would be against Shia governed Syria with links to Shia Iran! Nothing out of the ordinary.

---

Of course it's nothing out of the ordinary. The sanctions and verbal support coming from the US and Europe are also nothing out of the ordinary. Given Syria's close relationship with Iran, we can also expect that there's a bit of covert skullduggery going on. That's not likely to make any difference if the regime and its armed forces hold together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Ministers of foreign countries, including mine, have been allegedly recruited by foreign countries. Anyone will acknowledge that?

Covert operations would be overt operations if one acknowledged that such things were happening!

Was Raymond Davis a mere innocent security contractor?

---

We all know that covert operations happen. That doesn't mean that any given event was necessarily the outcome of a covert operation. Certainly I see no credible reason to suppose that the Arab Spring or the Color Revolutions were the outcome of US covert operations.

Quote:

---

We all know that covert operations happen. That doesn't mean that any given event was necessarily the outcome of a covert operation. Certainly I see no credible reason to suppose that the Arab Spring or the Color Revolutions were the outcome of US covert operations.

---

True.

Collective conscience of different peoples but of the same region/ area ignites simultaneously.

Referring to communism in Indochina, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower put the Domino effect theory into words during an April 7, 1954 news conference:

Quote:

---

Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.

---

So, it is but a Domino Effect happening all around in the 'oppressed world'!

The issue still remains - how did Indo China or even China get influenced by Communism for the Domino effect to happen, when it was an European and Russian phenomenon and not a Oriental One? How was a foreign concept injected in Oriental societies? Surely, there would have been some 'encouragement' by interested foreign elements. Or not?

You feel that the historical distaste that Sunnis have for Shias and vice versa is not at play when the Sunni Arab League gangs up on Shia Syria duly supported by Shia Iran?

Quote:

---

Is there any actual evidence that foreign support was a critical element in the Arab Spring (other than Libya) or in the Color Revolutions?

---

While I have no problem with the Colour Revolution or the Arab Spring or the Iraq War or the US reasserting itself in the Asia Pacific Region because each is a geostrategic necessity, if seen from the US standpoint, I do find it difficult to credit the 'purer than driven snow' justifications as wholesome truths.

Each nation has to look after its own interests. It is easier, if not axiomatic, for Nations that are powerful. And because they are powerful, they have larger number and more sophisticated instruments to pursue their strategic and political aims, at times with total disdain for international opinion. Therefore, to feel that events around the world is self driven or self combustible, is a bit artful.

Therefore, in my limited knowledge of geostrategy and geopolitics, I believe that the momentous events are not solely self driven or self ignited.

Just as one found the spread of Communism and the 'struggle of the proletariat' and such things, which were foreign to cultures and political ideology of many countries that was affected, were not an instant upheaval caused by domestic philosophy, I find that it is too simplistic to believe that the Colour Revolution, Arab Spring, Iraq War etc are but a self expression of 'oppressed people' revolting against the shackles of modern slavery!

Since you are from the Philippines, you would be aware that the Hilarion del Rosario aka ahmed Santos is a Filipino who converted to Islam while working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1991. Therefore, for a staunch Catholic to convert to Islam without Saudi Mullahs' encouragement would be too hard to believe. Further, such a man would proselytise and convert many more Catholics and organise, fund, arm such Catholic converts into a radical Islamic terrorist organisation without Wahabbi backing would also be a bit extraordinary a phenomenon to believe.

But ask a Wahabbi. He will deny any connection or support! He will claim it is but a natural, home-grown reaction to Catholic domination and historical US subjugation of the Muslims, especially the Moros or some such wild justification!

Those who seek to address perceived social-political grievances will typically seek/need some degree of support to advance their goals. There will always be those who see that that their own goals can be advanced by such changes as well, and will provide that support.

The provision of support does not cause the unrest and instability, nor does any ideology that might come attached to that support (be it Wahabbi, Democracy or Communism or any other such message).

Arab Spring is not caused by AQ, it is caused by how various populace groups feel about their conditions of governance and lives, and their belief that new governance is the key to better lives. AQ has worked to leverage that energy for years, but does not cause that energy. The same is true elsewhere.

This is an uncomfortable reality for governments to come to grips with. Far easier to blame some bogeyman or ideology, or source of funding and weapons. US Stinger missiles did not cause the resistance against the Soviets in Afghanistan, they just helped the movement to be successful. Thank god the Russians have not seen it in their interests to similarly accelerate the resistance to our presence there now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

While I have no problem with the Colour Revolution or the Arab Spring or the Iraq War or the US reasserting itself in the Asia Pacific Region because each is a geostrategic necessity, if seen from the US standpoint, I do find it difficult to credit the 'purer than driven snow' justifications as wholesome truths.

---

I certainly wouldn't accuse the US of purity; I just don't think they have the capacity to generate revolutions on demand.

RCJ made this comment:

Quote:

---

Those who seek to address perceived social-political grievances will typically seek/need some degree of support to advance their goals. There will always be those who see that that their own goals can be advanced by such changes as well, and will provide that support.

---

and it's true to some extent, It's important to realize, though, that many of these "flash revolutions" are not the product of some organized movements to redress grievances. They can emerge independently of any such movement and there's rarely enough time for anyone to try to leverage them. In the instance with with I'm most familiar, the Manila uprising in '86, bothe the NPA and the USA failed to anticipate the form events would take and were forced into reactive positions. I see evidence of the same phenomenon in Tunisia and Egypt, and in the Color Revolutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Therefore, in my limited knowledge of geostrategy and geopolitics, I believe that the momentous events are not solely self driven or self ignited.

---

Of course all powers pursue their own interests, but it's a fallacy to assume that all that happens is therefore a product of great powers pursuing their interests. The efforts of the great powers may prove redundant, and events may emerge that bypass them. They can also have a wide range of unintended consequences.

I'd say that any attempt to attribute the Arab Spring or Color Revolutions to US agency has to have a stronger basis than the simple assumption that the US must have been involved because it must have been involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Since you are from the Philippines, you would be aware that the Hilarion del Rosario aka ahmed Santos is a Filipino who converted to Islam while working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1991. Therefore, for a staunch Catholic to convert to Islam without Saudi Mullahs' encouragement would be too hard to believe. Further, such a man would proselytise and convert many more Catholics and organise, fund, arm such Catholic converts into a radical Islamic terrorist organisation without Wahabbi backing would also be a bit extraordinary a phenomenon to believe.

---

I'm very familiar with the Balik-Islam movement, the short and less than happy life of the Rajah Solaiman Group, and the career of Ahmed Santos. I did a fair bit of research on the subject at one point, including fairly extensive interviews. I haven't time to discourse on the subject now, especially as I tend to go verbose on such things, but I think you're misreading it in some quite substantial ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Those who seek to address perceived social-political grievances will typically seek/need some degree of support to advance their goals. There will always be those who see that that their own goals can be advanced by such changes as well, and will provide that support.

The provision of support does not cause the unrest and instability, nor does any ideology that might come attached to that support (be it Wahabbi, Democracy or Communism or any other such message).

Arab Spring is not caused by AQ, it is caused by how various populace groups feel about their conditions of governance and lives, and their belief that new governance is the key to better lives. AQ has worked to leverage that energy for years, but does not cause that energy. The same is true elsewhere.

This is an uncomfortable reality for governments to come to grips with. Far easier to blame some bogeyman or ideology, or source of funding and weapons. US Stinger missiles did not cause the resistance against the Soviets in Afghanistan, they just helped the movement to be successful. Thank god the Russians have not seen it in their interests to similarly accelerate the resistance to our presence there now.

---

I have not said AQ is involved. Arab League is not AQ.

I merely stated that the Sunni Arab League is naturally not very comfortable with Shia regimes around them, given their historical sectarian temporal rivalries, inspite of having the same God and Prophet.

In so far as the paragraph in bold.

Have you read Unholy Wars by Cooley?

Or the Bear Trap by Brig Yousaf of the ISI, who organised the Mujahideens?

Quote:

---

The Anglo-American support apparatus
behind the Afghani mujahideen

by Adam K. East

Following the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in December 1979, the U.S. administration, first under Carter and then under Reagan, launched a massive support and training campaign for the Afghan freedom fighters, or "mujahideen" (holy warriors), as they came to be known. In addition to overt and covert funding operations by various U.S. governmental agencies for the mujahideen, a plethora of private "aid" agencies, think-tanks, and other odd outfits joined the fray, with the ostensible aim of helping the Afghans to liberate their nation from the clutches of the Soviet invaders.

However, a closer look at the activities of these private agencies reveals that there was much more at stake. As the profiles below show, the source of policy for most of these groups was British intelligence. As such, these groups lobbied the U.S. Congress, set up conferences, launched pro-mujahideen propaganda campaigns, and, in some cases, even provided military training for various mujahideen groups. U.S. policy toward Afghanistan, and the region, was largely determined by the aims of these "committees," which also represented the controlling "mediators" between the mujahideen and British policy.

Some of the members and leaders of the organizations profiled below were also involved with some of the figures in the drugs-for-guns related Iran-Contra networks of then-Vice President George Bush and his sidekick Oliver North.
Afghan Aid U.K./Radio Free Kabul

Afghan Aid U.K. (AIUK), together with Radio Free Kabul of London, were the two most important coordinators of Afghan mujahideen aid efforts internationally throughout the Afghan War.

Afghan Aid U.K. was set up in Peshawar, Pakistan, by Romy Fullerton, in the early stages of the war. She was the wife of the British journalist John Fullerton, who has written extensively on Afghanistan, and the Afghan War. The main sponsor and funder of the group was Viscount Cranbourne, currently Lord Privy Seal (chief of the Queen's Privy Council), and Leader of the House of Lords.

Viscount Cranbourne is a member of the Cecil family, one of the oldest and most powerful oligarchical families in Britain, whose ancestor, Lord Burghley, was the Lord Privy Seal and Lord Treasurer of Queen Elizabeth I. Viscount Cranbourne is the son and heir to the current Sixth Marquis of Salisbury. His grandfather, the Fifth Marquis, had been a British colonial secretary in World War II, and a postwar foreign minister, as well as having been Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords. His great-great-grandfather, the famous Third Marquis of Salisbury, had been the British prime minister and foreign minister from 1878-87, and again 1900-02; he helped lay the basis for World War I. The family motto is, "Late, but seriously."

AIUK's initial refugee aid programs were soon expanded to include numerous other services, including medical and agricultural aid, and it even offered a hostel for British journalists. According to one U.S. journalist, AIUK received "considerable British government funding" in addition to "massive amounts of money" from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In order to solicit U.S. government funds for this British operation, Viscount Cranbourne once appeared before the U.S. Congress Special Joint Task Force on Afghanistan, where he attracted considerable attention by twirling his full-length cape around his chair before seating himself to testify.

AIUK funneled much of its support to Masood in the north of the country, to the Tajiks (as opposed to the Pushtuns in the south). Masood's brother is currently the Afghan "ambassador" to London.
Radio Free Kabul

Radio Free Kabul was formed almost immediately after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, by Lord Nicholas Bethell, a former lord-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth II. A career British intelligence official with a specialization in Iranian and Arab affairs, Lord Bethell had served in the Mideast and Soviet sections of official British intelligence, MI6. Lord Bethell had been a decades-long friend and colleague of British intelligence operative Kim Philby, who "defected" to the Soviet Union in 1963.

Radio Free Kabul, which was formed virtually single-handedly by Lord Bethell, was run out of Coutts and Co., the private banker to Queen Elizabeth.

In 1981, Lord Bethell accompanied British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on a tour of the United States dedicated to drumming up support for the mujahideen. Thatcher and Lord Bethell met over 60 congressmen and senators, and aided in organizing the Committee for a Free Afghanistan, the de facto U.S. arm of Radio Free Kabul. In 1983, Radio Free Kabul sponsored the formation of Resistance International, which pulled together various "freedom movements" sponsored by the Thatcher and Reagan-Bush administrations, including the Afghan mujahideen, the Nicaraguan Contras, anti-Castro Cubans, and various anti-communist eastern European and African movements.

Lord Bethell was also the British sponsor of the operations of Jon Speller, a former aide to CIA director Allen Dulles, who played an instrumental role, as did Bethell, in coordinating the operations of the Sikh independence movement (Khalistan), which was allied to the Afghan mujahideen.

Other figures on the board of Radio Free Kabul included:

Ray Whitney, a former British intelligence official who had for years run the disinformation operations unit of the Foreign Office, the so-called Information Research Department. Whitney's outfit was the model for the Reagan administration's new creation, the National Endowment for Democracy.

Winston Churchill III, the grandson of Prime Minister Winston Churchill and a leader of Britain's Conservative Party, who was reportedly the main financial backer of the group.

Lord Morrison of Lambeth, the former head of the British Foreign Office when two of his employees, Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess of the Philby ring, fled to Moscow.

Baron Chalfont, the former British foreign secretary and longtime defense correspondent, with a particular expertise in Mideast affairs.

---

Continued

Quote:

---

Afghanistan Relief Commitee

The Afghan Relief Committee was established in 1980 by Wall Street investment banker and spook John Train, who handles the family fortunes of some of the oldest and most powerful U.S. establishment families, such as the Mellons. The organization was housed in Train's investment consultant office. Train was the president of the group, and, according to a 1980 Washington Post article, "its financial whiz." Simultaneous with his founding of ARC, Train was organizing a "media salon" of press prostitutes to launch a massive slander attack on EIR's founder, Lyndon LaRouche.

The stated purpose of the ARC was to raise "seed money" for medical organizations treating casualties among the mujahideen. After receiving the Relief Committee's seed money, the medical organizations were expected to go elsewhere for financing. The ARC was especially fond of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami group (see article, p. 26).

Also operative were Leo Cherne's International Rescue Committee (IRC), whose Peshawar-based office was staffed mostly with Hekmatyar's gang; the National Endowment for Democracy (NED); and the State Department's Agency for International Development. CIA director William Casey was on the IRC's board of directors, and served as its president at one time. Cherne was then vice-director of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), with offices at the White House.

From its inception, the ARC worked closely with Freedom House, which had been chaired by Cherne since the 1940s, and whose treasurer, Walter Schloss, was a longtime business associate of Train. Rosanne Klass, vice president of the ARC, was also the director of Freedom House's Afghanistan Information Center, and had formerly been the founding director of the Afghanistan Council of the Asia Society.

Founders of the ARC, in addition to Train, included four former U.S. ambassadors to Afghanistan: Francis L. Kellogg, a decades-long associate of Train from the prominent grain-interest family; Train's cousin Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.); and the ubiquitous professors Louis Dupree and Thomas Gouttierre, both longstanding Afghan hands for U.S. intelligence. Jeane Kirkpatrick, later the Reagan administration ambassador to the U.N., was co-chairman of the group.

The main known financial beneficiaries of the group were:

Doctors Without Borders, run by Ronny Brauman in Paris. This organization, whose most prominent representative was Danielle Mitterrand, wife of President François Mitterrand of France, also received money from the National Endowment for Democracy.

Freedom Medical of Washington, D.C.

Aide Medicale International

Sainte Sud of Marseilles

Most money to such groups, although not these specifically, originated with the International Rescue Committee or Relief International. The first two listed received almost all of ARC's funds.

ARC on-the-ground operations (like those of many other western organizations) were based in Peshawar, Pakistan, the main Pakistani base of the mujahideen. ARC-funded physicians were smuggled into Afghanistan from this base. Foreign national physicians were preferred for this function.

ARC also worked with the National Endowment for Democracy, the congressionally created funding conduit for Project Democracy, on two NED Afghan projects: the Writers Union of Free Afghanis and Freedom House's Afghan Information Center. The two groups were dedicated to training Afghan mujahideen spokesmen in "communication skills." Additionally, the group received NED grants to operate schools inside Afghanistan.

Honorary co-chairmen of the group drawn from the Congress included: Senators Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana, Alfonse D'Amato (R) and Daniel Moynihan (D) of New York, Claiborne Pell, Gordon Humphrey (R) of New Hampshire, Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah, and Representatives Charles Rangel (D) of New York and Bill McCollum (R) of Florida.
Committee for a Free Afghanistan

CFA was founded in 1981 in the aftermath of a trip by Prime Minister Thatcher and Radio Free Kabul founder Lord Bethell to the United States, dedicated to building U.S. support for the mujahideen. The founding executive director of CFA, Karen McKay, was reputed to be the mistress of Lord Bethell. From its inception, the CFA acted as the U.S. arm of Bethell's London-based Radio Free Kabul.

McKay, a major in the Rapid Deployment Force reserves, had spent four years in the U.S. Army's Delta Force, studying unconventional warfare in the 1960s. Following active duty, McKay spent nine years in Greece and Israel as a freelance journalist, during which time she also studied for a doctorate in history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. She returned from Israel shortly before taking over CFA.

CFA's publicly known funding came largely from the Heritage Foundation, an offshoot of the British Fabian Society, the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation headed by Paul Weyrich, and Accuracy in Media, of which CFA was a formal arm.

CFA also held numerous conferences and other events throughout the early and mid-1980s, which attempted to organize Americans to support the Afghan mujahideen cause, while simultaneously raising funds. It also put out a publication called the Free Afghanistan Report.

The committee actively lobbied Congress. In addition, it managed to gain the sympathy of some high-ranking military officials.

Although the CFA provided funds for almost all of the "Peshawar Seven" groups of mujahideen, the Jamiat-e-Islami, of Burhanudeen Rabbani and his military commander Ahmad Shah Masood, was CFA's favored group. It brought various mujahideen leaders to Washington in order to influence the decision-making regarding aid for the Afghan War.

In late 1981, McKay took part in a conference in Paris organized by Lord Bethell aimed at patching together an alliance of the more traditionalist groups of the mujahideen, under the banner of the Islamic Federation of Mujahideen. The groups included the National Islamic Front of Afghanistan of Pir Sayed Ahmad Gailani—the group most patronized by Lord Bethell; the Afghan National Liberation Front of Sebghatullah Mojaddidi; and the Islamic Revolutionary Movement of Mohammed Nabi Mohammedi.

CFA was also engaged in raising funds for Radio Free Kabul, International Medical Aid, and Doctors Without Borders.

---

Continued

Quote:

---

Some of CFA's key figures included:

Maj. Gen J. Milnor Roberts, chairman of the CFA board of directors, a member of the board of the U.S. branch of World Anti-Communist League (WACL) during the 1980s, and executive director of the Reserve Officers Association. In 1984, Roberts expressed satisfaction over the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, which he stated benefited the Afghan War against the Soviets. He also later told a journalist that the 1991 assassination of Rajiv Gandhi would help western interests in the region.

Charles Moser, professor of Slavic Studies at George Washington University.

David Isby, author of a book for Jane's Defense Weekly of Britain, which analyzed Soviet weaponry. Isby was working for Rep. Bobbi Fiedler (R-Calif.) when he joined the CFA. He later became a contributing editor and Soviet analyst for Soldier of Fortune magazine.

Brig. Gen. Theodore Mataxis, who served as a "military adviser" to the mujahideen, and also paid regular visits to the Salvadoran-based Contras, and the Cambodian rebels in Thailand. From 1986-70, Mataxis was a senior officer with the Army's Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Iran.

The list of CFA's Council of Advisers also included Gen. John Singlaub, the former international president of WACL who was deeply involved in various Iran-Contra operations; former U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency head Gen. Daniel Graham; former Reagan-Bush administration National Security Adviser Richard V. Allen; Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Claiborne Pell, Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), and Paul Simon (D-Ill.); and Representatives Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.), Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), and Charles Wilson (D-Tex.).

Other members of its advisory council included Washington Times editor Arnaud de Borchgrave, whose cousin Alexander de Marenches was then running French intelligence; and two known CIA operatives, Louis Dupree and Thomas Goutierre. A Peace Corps veteran of Afghanistan, Goutierre is now the director of the Center for Afghan Studies at the University of Nebraska. Dupree, formerly with the U.S. Military Academy, has written a book on Afghanistan and also authored many articles for Soldier of Fortune during the Afghan War.

Fundraisers for the CFA included the Bush-linked televangelist Pat Robertson, former Ambassador Angier Biddle Duke, and former U.S. Attorney General Eliot Richardson.
Federation for American Afghan Action

The FAAA was founded in 1983, with the help of Paul Weyrich and his Coalition for America, the Heritage Foundation, and the Committee for a Free Afghanistan, of which it was a de facto arm. The first executive director of the Federation for American Afghan Action, which was based at the Heritage Foundation, was Andrew Eiva. Eiva's career started at West Point; upon graduation in 1972, he went on to command paratroopers in the 82nd Airborne Division in North Carolina. While with the 82nd, Eiva also led a detachment of Green Berets which specialized in Soviet weapons, tactics, and languages.

Eiva officially gave up his West Point commission in 1980, and went to Afghanistan and other places in order to train the mujahideen. He reportedly trained Afghan guerrillas in bases in West Germany and the United States. Later that year, Eiva came to know Louis Dupree of the Committee for a Free Afghanistan, and soon became president of the Free Afghanistan Alliance in Massachusetts. In that capacity, he came in contact with the CFA's Charles Moser, who brought him to Washington, D.C.

A few notable figures who were on the FAAA board of directors include:

Louis Dupree of the Committee for a Free Afghanistan.

Don Weidenweber, who founded American Aid for Afghans (AAA) in 1980, which organized the delivery of combat supplies to the Afghan mujahideen, and which worked closely with Lord Bethell's Radio Free Kabul.

Matthew D. Erulkar, formerly with the Peace Corps in Zaire, who worked as the legislative director of FAAA, and executive director of its American Afghan Education Fund. In 1985, he formed an organization called the Afghan Support Team in Washington, D.C. That same year he claims to have covertly penetrated the Soviet Union with the Afghan mujahideen, "carrying Korans and other Islamic texts."

In cooperation with Senator Tsongas and others, FAAA introduced legislation in Congress to provide funds for the mujahideen in 1984-85. Its May 1985 International Conference on Afghanistan, held in Virginia, was attended, among others, by:

Louis Dupree, FAAA board member.

Edward Luttwak, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Col. Robert Downs (USAF, ret.), an expert in "clandestine air resupply operations," according to Karen McKay.

Anthony Arnold, a former CIA officer and author of Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion in Perspective, whose overseas service included two years in Afghanistan.

Ralph Magnus, a former United States Information Service (USIS) official in Kabul (1962-65). From 1983-84, Magnus served as the original project director of "Americares For Afghans," a project of the Americares Foundation, with responsibility for establishing ties between Americares and the Peshawar offices of the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, and the Belgian group Solidarité Afghanistan. Americares was created by George Bush's career-long associate, Robert C. Macauley, and included the president's brother, Prescott Bush, on its board.

Angelo Codevilla, legislative assistant to Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo.).

Mike Utter, executive director of the International Medical Corps. IMC worked closely with the American Aid for Afghans and was also contracted by the USAID to help resupply the Nicaraguan Contras. IMC was instrumental in the effort to send Stinger missiles to the Afghan mujahideen, and also helped to force CIA Deputy Director John McMahon out of office. McMahon had reportedly displayed hesitancy in sending Stingers to the Afghans.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/199...n_control.html

---

This should indicate what can be done without the world knowing it!

It had to be done for strategic interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

This should indicate what can be done without the world knowing it!

It had to be done for strategic interests.

---

Yes, we all know about US support for the Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation. It was not exactly secret at the time. What I don't see is how you jump from there to the assumption that the Arab Spring and Color Revolutions were caused by US interventions.

Quote:

---

It was not exactly secret at the time.

---

It is good to know that.

However, Yousaf and Cooley seem to suggest that it was hush hush.

Why live in denial?

Check this:

link



If Pakistan was denying, how come the US was active and it was no secret.

What was the route that the US was assisting, if not with Pakistan's assistance?

For discussion, one cannot ignore the universal truth, just to deflect an issue!

In my country such a way of squashing discussion is in Punjabi Maine Dasiya. That means - I am saying so. Period!

You maybe saying so, but the facts prove otherwise!

Quote:

---

What I don't see is how you jump from there to the assumption that the Arab Spring and Color Revolutions were caused by US interventions.

---

Maybe later in time, this too would be claimed as not to be a secret.

Events seem to suggest external encouragement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

If Pakistan was denying, how come the US was active and it was no secret.

What was the route that the US was assisting, if not with Pakistan's assistance?

---

Official denials don't make a thing secret. The US denied that it was aiding the Contras in Nicaragua, but the subject was still widely discussed and reported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

For discussion, one cannot ignore the universal truth, just to deflect an issue!

---

What "universal truth" would that be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

In my country such a way of squashing discussion is in Punjabi Maine Dasiya. That means - I am saying so. Period!

You maybe saying so, but the facts prove otherwise!

---

Are you not saying exactly that when you declare that the Arab Spring and Color Revolutions were caused by the US, without citing any specific evidence to support the claim? What "facts" prove this claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Events seem to suggest external encouragement.

---

How so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Official denials don't make a thing secret. The US denied that it was aiding the Contras in Nicaragua, but the subject was still widely discussed and reported.

---

A very ingenious explanation - everyone knew of it except the Govt which kept denying it!

What can one say with that type of an explanation.

Quote:

---

What "universal truth" would that be?

---

Apparently, you don't seem to be in the loop.

Quote:

---

Are you not saying exactly that when you declare that the Arab Spring and Color Revolutions were caused by the US, without citing any specific evidence to support the claim? What "facts" prove this claim?

---

Should we say all know of it and official denial makes no difference?

Quote:

---

How so?

---

All know about it.

This is getting silly.

Of course there are times when governments do things and deny them. Often the denials don't hold up for long: there's informed speculation, then leaks, then evidence. In the case of aid to the Contras the denials were eventually exposed, in the case of Afghanistan the aid was eventually admitted, in each case the truth was widely known before the denials ended.

In the cases of the Arab Spring or the Color Revolutions, is there any evidence, even informed and credible speculation or analytical opinion suggesting that events were a consequence of American action? Or do you simply assume that there must have been American action because no dictatorial regime, however decrepit, can possibly be overthrown from within without foreign assistance?

I can tell you for certain that the 1986 overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos, generally acknowledged as the first of the "Color Revolutions", was not an outcome of any US action... if it's possible in one place, why should it not be possible in others?

I don't see any "universal truth" in this picture at all.

Indeed it is getting silly.

The unknown unknowns when the events were occurring are being emphatically declared as known unknowns even when they were happening!

What a Govt does covertly is never known immediately. Events that occur can never be pinpointed then. They remain conjectures. The reality is uncovered later! To believe that there is no external influences is being naive.

Interesting isn't it that the existence of MI6 was not officially acknowledged until 1994.
http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/52...first-website/

Take the Khampa rebellion against the Chinese. It was believed then that it was a spontaneous rebellion and none had any hand. Later it was revealed that though it was a spontaneous uprising, but it was also CIA assisted!

Why only the US being in the game of regime change. Though the US officially recognises it as a policy! How does one change regimes? Every time with wars?

USSR too have toppled/ influence rebellion dotting modern contemporary history. Marcos is just one along the line. Marcos was getting too hot to handle. Just like that loyal stooge, Zia, who dies in a mysterious air crash! Ask the Pakistanis and they have a different tale to tell than what the US, Israel, USSR or even India has to tell!

How about Patrice Lumumba? Gone by the writ of Fate?

Isn't it interesting that resource rich areas of newly independent nations are never stable? Their peoples are stupid and want turmoil and not a stable life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

The unknown unknowns when the events were occurring are being emphatically declared as known unknowns even when they were happening!

---

They were known, they just weren't publicly admitted. this is not at all uncommon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Take the Khampa rebellion against the Chinese. It was believed then that it was a spontaneous rebellion and none had any hand. Later it was revealed that though it was a spontaneous uprising, but it was also CIA assisted!

---

Assisting a spontaneous rebellion and initiating a rebellion are entirely different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Marcos was getting too hot to handle.

---

Possibly so, but his removal was not a product of any US action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Isn't it interesting that resource rich areas of newly independent nations are never stable? Their peoples are stupid and want turmoil and not a stable life?

---

Newly independent nations are very rarely stable, regardless of what their people want.

The argument so far seems to be that the US conducts covert operations, therefore any event that seems to favor the US must be the product of a US covert operation. Surely you see the fallacy.

Have you any actual evidence suggesting that the Arab Spring or the Color Revolutions are consequences of US policy or strategy? Any credible scholars or analysts arguing that they were?

If not, perhaps we should simply accept that many things happen in the world without US initiation or involvement, and get back to the thread topic.

No bed time stories, please!

Good... so we can stop pretending that the Arab Spring, the Color Revolutions, and/or Vietnam or ASEAN's position re China are/were made in the USA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Good... so we can stop pretending that the Arab Spring, the Color Revolutions, and/or Vietnam or ASEAN's position re China are/were made in the USA?

---

You are welcome to pretend that it is not!

Given the absence of any evidence or body of credible informed opinion to suggest that these events were/are consequences of US action, it's pretty clear which position involves pretense.

We are all aware of evidence.

Heard of Iraq and Saddam bristling with WMD (like Uncle Scrooge with bank notes) that another chamcha (poodle) felt that it would be delivered in 45 minutes?! That to some was 'solid' evidence and go to town about!

What a pity that one selectively finds evidence and then discards the events as they unfold without a whiff of suspicion since it does not suit the temperament and the agenda.

Like China is in a phase of Peaceful Rise and the confrontations in the South China Sea is a mirage, or at least, just routine and fun and games!

Nations are tumbling down because of a writ from God!!

Quote:

---

Newly independent nations are very rarely stable, regardless of what their people want.

---

Really?

India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq etc are so unstable that they are changing their boundaries because they are unstable?!

If you will contrive to state that they are unstable, who created that instability if indeed they are unstable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq etc are so unstable that they are changing their boundaries because they are unstable?!

If you will contrive to state that they are unstable, who created that instability if indeed they are unstable?

---

Malaysia, Indonesia, and India are hardly "newly independent".

When a nation achieves independence, or when a long-lasting dictator is removed, a power vacuum is created. Often the government that takes over is weak and unable to fully fill that vacuum. Various parties and factions compete to fill the vacuum and seize power for themselves, creating instability. Foreign powers may try to exploit that instability to advance their own agendas, typically by backing factions they see as amenable to their interests. That may exacerbate instability, but it doesn't create the instability.

Foreign powers do meddle and conduct covert operations. That doesn't mean that everything that happens in the world is a consequence of external meddling and covert operations: many things happen that are not controlled and even engaged foreign powers are often taken by surprise. Whatever has happened in any given case must be assessed on the basis of evidence specific to that case. Just because the US has supported coups in Latin America does not mean that every coup everywhere has support from the US or any other outside power.

Quote:

---

Foreign powers may try to exploit that instability to advance their own agendas, typically by backing factions they see as amenable to their interests. That may exacerbate instability, but it doesn't create the instability.

---

Interesting is all one can say.

Analyse Congo to start with!

Blood Diamonds is a fiction?

It is just that the wild blokes running in the bush?!

It just may exacerbate instability, but it doesn't create the instability!

I like Carl's -Your quote is another variation of the "Oh yeah!" argument. ;)

Quote:

---

Malaysia, Indonesia, and India are hardly "newly independent".

---

And when they were?

And if they weren't, then who did it to them?

And why?

If they are stable now, why were they unstable then and how did they quickly recover for you to say that they are not unstable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

And when they were?

And if they weren't, then who did it to them?

And why?

If they are stable now, why were they unstable then and how did they quickly recover for you to say that they are not unstable?

---

They did go through periods of instability after independence, as of course you know. There's still some going on, though much less than there once was. I don't see any reason to assume that this must be something anyone did to them. As I said above, in general the primary cause of instability in newly independent countries and post-dictatorship environment is local factions struggling to fill the power vacuum and dominate the new political environment. Sometimes one faction gains control and suppresses the others, creating a new dictatorship, sometimes the contending factions work out a balance.

The period in which various factions are contending creates instability and opens the door for outsiders to push in, often by offering support to different factions. This is a major factor in some cases, minor in others. Post-colonial and post-dictatorship environments span a huge range of circumstances and events, and there will of course be exceptions to any general rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

They did go through periods of instability after independence, as of course you know. There's still some going on, though much less than there once was. I don't see any reason to assume that this must be something anyone did to them. As I said above, in general the primary cause of instability in newly independent countries and post-dictatorship environment is local factions struggling to fill the power vacuum and dominate the new political environment. Sometimes one faction gains control and suppresses the others, creating a new dictatorship, sometimes the contending factions work out a balance.

The period in which various factions are contending creates instability and opens the door for outsiders to push in, often by offering support to different factions. This is a major factor in some cases, minor in others. Post-colonial and post-dictatorship environments span a huge range of circumstances and events, and there will of course be exceptions to any general rule.

---

If Kashmir, Communists in Indonesia, the internal issues of Bhumiputra are not instability, then one wonders what is! They came into being how? A peep into history will indicate that the environment that was left by those who ruled left fertile ground for instability to happen.