Hacker News Reader

Comment by starik36 | Hacker News Reader

Overall I agree with your assessment, but you are inaccurate on a couple of counts. None of these "revolutions" started as US+European backed. The western powers only got involved after the brutal crackdowns (and not at all in Egypt).

Recall that rebellion against Qaddafi started in Benghazi and then spread and then he fought back and was about to put the insurrection down when a no-fly zone was imposed.

With Syria, it all started as more or less peaceful demonstrations as a part of the Arab spring. The financing of rebel groups by western powers started much later once the war already commenced.

View on HN

'None of these "revolutions" started as US+European backed.'

Really? Clinton on Qaddafi: https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI

ADDENDUM regarding "US+European" involvement in Libya and Syria (as I was on mobile and had time constraints as I wrote the above):

Libya

'The Libyans were emotional because the U.S. and its allies had toppled leader Moammar Kadafi in a military campaign that averted a feared slaughter of Kadafi's foes. Obama administration officials called the international effort, accomplished with no Western casualties, a "model intervention."' (http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-libya-20140...)

Syria

This USG cable (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html) written in 2006 (!) lists a number of "vulnerabilities" and "possible actions" - almost like a playbook - on how to change Syrian regime. (background info and analysis of the cable: http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikilea...)

The Libyan campaign did not start well until Ghaddafi's threats to decimate Benghazi, months into the conflict. Mind you, spearheaded by France (for once). It's an open question would humanitarian toll been the same in the case of non-intervention. One thing is certain: the West would still have been blamed for it.

In case of Syria, Asssad blamed the protests that followed the execution of the teens squarely on Israel, so you can't be right.

> (for once)

For once? France is one of the most trigger happy developed nations next to the US. They've been involved in more than two dozen major conflicts since Korea, and far more smaller operations, many in which they were they main or only foreign force.

The difference is that the conflicts France tends to get involved in are less flashy and/or shorter and more targeted. E.g. a standing counter-insurgency force of 3,000 in the Sahel, isn't very flashy. Helicopters and fighter planes and a few thousand troops in Côte d'Ivoire got some coverage when they helped depose the former president, but it was over quickly, and so on. But they have active combat troops in at least a dozen countries right now.

I was more about their unusual role in leading a major coalition intervention (in lieu of the USA), but I concur you have a point.

(1) Has Ghaddafi really threatend to "decimate Benghazi"?

"Contrary to Western media reports, Qaddafi did not initiate Libya’s violence by targeting peaceful protesters. The United Nations and Amnesty International have documented that in all four Libyan cities initially consumed by civil conflict in mid-February 2011 — Benghazi, Al Bayda, Tripoli, and Misurata — violence was actually initiated by the protesters. The government responded to the rebels militarily but never intentionally targeted civilians or resorted to “indiscriminate” force, as Western media claimed. Early press accounts exaggerated the death toll by a factor of ten, citing “more than 2,000 deaths” in Benghazi during the initial days of the uprising, whereas Human Rights Watch (HRW) later documented only 233 deaths across all of Libya in that period."

http://journal-neo.org/2014/06/22/the-truth-of-libya-finally...

And who has armed protesters/rebels there in early 2011... those same rebels who have stormed the US embassy on September, 11th 2012? (interesting date... it must be a coincidence)

America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas...

You may be asking yourself, why would USG and its NATO allies (yes, French government primarily) do such thing (topple Ghaddafi)? One hint is hidden in recently published Clinton e-mails:

FRANCE'S CLIENT & QADDAFI'S GOLD

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12659

[...]

Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli.

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals, Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:

a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

b. Increase French influence in North Africa,

c. Improve his internal political situation in France,

d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.)

[...]

So much for "the West" just trying to avoid being blamed for atrocities in Libya.

More interesting e-mails: H: LOTS NEW. FRENCH ECONOMIC GRAB/LEVY/Q & OBL/AQ BASE IN ALGERIA. SID

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/11647

H: LOTS OF NEW INTEL; POSSIBLE LIBYAN COLLAPSE. SID

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/6551

[...]

French, British and Egyptian Special Forces troops are training the rebels inside of western Egypt, and to a limited degree in the western suburbs of Benghazi.

[...]

GERMANY LOANING $144 MILLION TO LIBYAN REBELS (AP)

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/27323

(2) On Syria: I assume you are referring to Daraa protest and arrested children (who were released afterwards)? Not even MSM (mainstream media) spoke of an execution. Information about that came from Rami Abdul Rahman, a guy who heads up the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and sits in London! Not the most credible source. A more balanced view:

Syria: The Hidden Massacre

http://mideastshuffle.com/2014/05/16/syria-the-hidden-massac...

Besides (and this relates to Libya, as well), do you really think that a protest and arrest lead to a civil war? For a war to be fought you need weapons, trained people, communication equipment, structure, food and medical supplies, organizational structure. We are to believe the protesters had all that? Another hint of the real cause for the war in Syria is this:

Newly-Declassified U.S. Government Documents: The West Supported the Creation of ISIS

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-...

Very true. Gadaffi stirred too many pots at once, his plan to establish a gold backed currency was the final straw.

Funnily enough the first target NATO bombed was the man made "river" to the desert aquifers. So much for bringing democracy to Libya.

There's also the Clinton Secretary of State emails where phony protests were shilled as a solution to Israel being unwilling to negotiate, seems like staging and encouraging dissent is regular policy http://www.timesofisrael.com/clinton-received-plan-to-secret...

I think it's also important to point out the the timeline for all these events is murky at best. We know when the West announced their support for these various movements, but that doesn't always represent the exact time or size of the support given..

As someone living in one of these places, I strongly disagree. Yes, it started natural. But then a massive media campaign was started, and there is evidence that early on there was money (and people) flowing to nurture the revolution.

I hardly doubt that the US is clean of this.

I don't disagree, but I am not claiming that these revolutions have been initiated by the West, but that they have been backed (and as you point, often decisively) by the West.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com