Joint India Indonesian Army Exercise Garud Shakti Concludes.

[Dayuhan]

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.

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

What "universal truth" would that be?

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?

Events seem to suggest external encouragement.

How so?

[Ray]

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.

What "universal truth" would that be?

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

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?

How so?

All know about it.

[Dayuhan]

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.

[Ray]

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?

[Dayuhan]

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.

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.

Marcos was getting too hot to handle.

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

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.

[Ray]

No bed time stories, please!

[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?