No both your answers are wrong. The reason why it’s not a revolution is because the Americans support the Revolutionary Forces. That’s it.
You know what, that does touch upon how media coverage of the Libyan civil war has never mentioned them as revolutionaries though that is a proper term. Rebels is one you hear very often. But not revolutionaries since it carries that anti-western leftist feeling to it that the American media just despises.
Odd how little cues in our language can mean so much
Which would be true if 1) US media was the only media reporting on the matter, 2) there weren’t a semantic distinction between a rebellion and a revolution, and 3) a revolution can only be determined through the gaze of history, not through the present perception.
For example, note that the English Civil War saw the monarch beheaded and a change in the hands of power, however Cromwell went and died and the monarch was reinstated. The American Revolution saw the United States liberated from British control, while the American Civil War was a conflict within the civil society that after resolution retained the same power paradigms.
Indeed the notion that it’s because NATO forces are involved would contradict the usage of civil war, because then it’s no longer a war within the civil society but has outside involvement.
Now I’m not saying there aren’t ulterior motives as to why the various medias avoid using the term revolution, however at the moment they are correct not to do so. If you think the long and short of it comes down to “American [sic] forces are involved” then that’s a horridly naive way to look at it.