Discussion UsefulNotes / TheArabSpring

Which government's actions towards Libya? And towards which Libyan government? What are you even saying?

It is quite simple. This article reads almost entirely as one-sided propaganda for Western intervention in Libya as being some kind of amazing, panacea for the people which fixed their problems and only those darn nasty Chinks and Russkies stood in their way because, lets be honest, they hate good. All they want is evil, evil, evil, unlike the Anglo-Atlantic Hegemon which proudly defends everything right with the world.

That, I believe, is what he means by 'too much'. This article is like some kind of nauseating op-ed in a online news site detailing why intervening in Libya was great, and America always wanted to do it they were just being held back, but intervening in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or, heavens forbid, Israel? Nah that would just be straight wrong.

Guh, it even has the clichéd 'Iran is once again doing evil, look at Iran, its so evil, its going to destroy all good' part thrown in. Seriously I had no idea Tv Tropes accepted such tacky and biased sentiments. Very disappointing.

I've deleted most of the article and am starting afresh, using the Gaddafi page as a rubrik to follow.

@FF Shinra I agree that deleting this was understandable, and I look foreward t whatever ocmes of it.

But that being said @doomsday524:

For the sake of the argument (and I for one did notice it was rather imperfect coverage), can you please give some actual concrete reasons detailing How this was "one-sided propaganda", how removing Gaddafi *wasn't* "some kind of amazing panacea for the people", and the like?

Because frankly, if sounds like you've got an even bigger axe to grind than this page ever did (even at the time when I felt i had to cut out an entire section of the Libyan coverage for being horrendously biased against the Iraq and Afghan wars), and the "Arab Winter" is also eyebrow raising.

So if you can provide some actual facts, reasonings, and arguments, I'd be happy to see them. But until then, you'll forgive me if your credibility isn't the best right now.

Protip: flashing hyperbole left and right isn't going to win you many favors.

I concur with the criticism of the narrative presented om the Arab Spring page. For instance: If there is common knowledge by now that Assad didn't use sarin gas, but rather that Turkey did, as a False Flag operation to slander him, should this not be adressed?

Well, that seems more like a fringe theory.

All that is common knowledge is that no one knows for certain who perpetrated the chemical attack, and the Arab Spring page has been updated to reflect that.

OK - and for further confusion, add the Wikileaks reveal that the Sarin gas was distributed to Syria from Lybian partisans, after the approval of - Hillary Clinton.

I wouldn't trust Wikileaks on that. As an organization, they have a specific axe to grind with Clinton. At the very least, that needs independant confirmation. The Ghouta incident will likely remain a mystery until the war itself is over, and that's still going to be a long time.

At the very least until the war is over...

Some things have remained mysteries even after those that might have had an interest to keep the truth from coming out were no more.

For instance did Marinus van der Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag and was he acting alone?

I took most of those tropes from the Gaddafi page. It'll get paired down over time.