started as a demonstration 
   against the corrupt Assad

It's unlikely that this was spontaneous, and most likely the first public result of a planned and well-funded regime-change operation.

There's no conclusive proof it wasn't spontaneous and in both cases it was legitimate.

Yeah, never in the history of mankind has anyone protested without being paid by George Soros, right?

I'm not sure in what sense your answer is a constructive contribution.

There is a long history of engineering 'grassroots movements' toward overthrowing governments. All powers have been engaging in this practise, and you can find how-to manuals -- I recommend reading some, it's highly enlightening. For example many of the de-colonialisation movements in the second part of the 20th century were actively run by the Soviet Union, leading to such absurdities as Cabo Verde becoming an independent state.

Clearly various powers had strategic interests in destabilisation of Assad. [1] is an interesting document in this direction.

[1] https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

That document doesn't prove anything. It's clearly an email send to Clinton, so it doesn't reflect her views any more than whatever spam she got. Plus there's actually nothing nefarious in there. Nobody is disputing that the US government's position is and has always been that Assad needs to go.

If it were written with more than public knowledge, it would actually proof that the US and Clinton did not organise any sorts of fake-grassroots protests, considering the document is arguing for US engagement against Assad a full year after the war started,

   doesn't prove anything.

The world of regime change isn't one where things are "proved". The Wikileaks mail I cited gives evidence, plausibility. That's the best we can hope for.

Your counterevidence is not going to be a proof in ZFC set theory either ...

And even before that. A few examples:

- Lenin famously had to ride a train through half of Europe to get back into Russia and stir up trouble. The involved countries knew very well who he was and what he was going to do (he was under surveillance, like most activists before and since), but they let him pass in order to help destabilise a neighbouring power.

- Italian unification was aided by the British, which controlled most of the Mediterranean at the time. Whenever this or that bunch of "united Italy" guerrilla left a port directed to the country, the British would help them by providing cover and supplies. This was done in order to create new headaches for France and Austria, then the dominant powers in fractured Italy.

- The Spanish civil war was heavily influenced by foreign powers, with Germany and Italy instigating and materially supporting Franco, the USSR helping the Republic, and everyone else providing covert support for this or that faction.

Etc etc.

> - The Spanish civil war was heavily influenced by foreign powers, with Germany and Italy instigating and materially supporting Franco, the USSR helping the Republic, and everyone else providing covert support for this or that faction.

There's a pretty high jump from "Hitler helped the rebels during the war" to "the Civil War was orchestrated and triggered by foreign powers".

If I tell you that I'll give you weapons and support "should you decide to rebel", am I "orchestrating" or "helping"?

Semantics.

If you don't tell me such a thing during the months of planning before the war starts, you aren't orchestrating anything.

It's not semantics, sometimes people happen to rebel without it being the machinations of a foreign power.

I think most people would strongly disagree if these things make the difference between success and failure of a rebellion.

I would strongly disagree regardless of that factor. If there's a realistic chance it'll make a difference, I would say you're orchestrating things. Even if not, it still is.

There are always people looking to rebel. For all sorts of reasons. Injustice. Ethnic alliances (esp. popular in Africa). Regional alliances (e.g. Catalonia, and the Balkans in general: the cities want to secede from their countries). Religious differences (esp. one particular religion, but not exclusively). And some want to purely for personal gain (famously in South America).

Even when there is no chance of making a difference. You could say yesterday's attack in Manchester was carried out as a rebel act, to get the UK to govern itself according to the islamic religion. That is certainly a true statement, even if very unpopular. Providing material support for such things is definitely orchestrating, even though it has essentially zero chance for success.

The Spanish Civil War wasn't, to quote OP, a "grass-root movement engineered" by Hitler; it was a failed coup.

Both Hitler and the British intelligence offered logistical help to the rebels. The coup was already planned for months by the generals, and they were just waiting for the appropriate time to strike. The moment came when the police murdered Calvo Sotelo, not when the Nazis and British encouraged them.

Excellent summary. One addition: The Kurdish vs. ISIS conflicts are, or at least were, mostly in northern Iraq, where ISIS started back when Syria was still a stable Dicktatorship, but the Iraqi government was (and still is) weak and hated.