Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Commanders and leaders

Can we please return the commanders and leaders to the way it was on 11:08, 17 February 2013 as shows a greater list that is currently lacking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.42.180 (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Government casualty numbers figure

The number given here is 8785, while the article infobox says 15,000. I don't know which is right. Maybe they both are, since the one in the link doesn't seem to include policemen. Esn (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the 15,000 figure is the correct one. Your figure of 8785, which is based on the VDC, also includes police forces killed. The 15,000+ figure is according to SOHR, which has been counting government troop fatalities since the start of the conflict. The VDC started counting government forces in the beginning, but stopped after a few months, saying it was not in their best interest to count deaths of security forces. They only restarted counting again in the last 2 months. So the VDC figure is incomplete and incorrect.EkoGraf (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

EkoGraf please provide sources to your claim, I feel compelled to believe that the actual number of Soldiers killed (minus police) is around 8,000 thousand. The UK based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) is an information office opposed to the Assad-led Government of Syria, which is likely to publish biased information which leans towards the rebels, minimizing rebel causalities as well as claiming them to be civilians, and maximizing government causalities.

before you can dismiss the request by starting your statement with 'No', you must examine the subject request. Now if you have compelling evidence, which is neutral and back the claim of 15,000 casualities, then do provide it, and if not then the discussion will continue until a compromise is met.

8,785-15,283 soldiers and policemen killed would then be most appropriate and fair, regards Jumada (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I did examine the subject's request and I explained it to him. Second, you say SOHR is an anti-Assad group so its figure can not be trusted, well sorry that I have to inform you but the 8,785 figure comes from the VDC which is ALSO an anti-Assad group, which has links to the LCC. Both of those were in the past stated to be extremely biased when the figures come into question, while SOHR has in fact been attacked by those other opposition groups for counting government troops killed and not counting reported but unconfirmed deaths, which they do. Also, reliable news media like Reuters, AP and BBC have been quoting SOHR and disregarding the VDC figures. Third, I have been tracking and updating the casualties of the conflict for the last two years now, you can confirm this with all of the other editors like Sopher, Future, Ellsworth, etc. Thus, I have been watching the VDC site daily, their list of government troops killed was being updated on a regular bases until June of last year, than they stopped and it stood for 8 months at the number of around 3,000. They only restarted counting again in the last two months, what prompted them to restart counting I don't know, but I tell you the VDC figure of government fatalities is at the very least not-up-to-date. However, if you are still having a hard time believing this and are dead set on verifiable sources than, I would first point out that, again, the SOHR figure of soldiers killed is mentioned monthly each time they update it by all of the notable media like AFP, Reuters, etc. While that 8,785 figure has been only mentioned by that one non-notable source. Second I would refer you to the governments own figures on the number of their dead. The director general of the main Syrian Army hospital stated waaaay back in August 2012 that up to that point 8,000 soldiers had been killed. Here is the source [1]. By all forms of logic that number has at the very least doubled since than in the last 8 months, which would be in line with SOHR's figure. Also, we have the Independent [2] which back in January also reported 12,000 dead government forces. EkoGraf (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I sit corrected. The number of causalities will remain at the 15k figure. Jumada (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem mate. :) EkoGraf (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A message from the FSA

User:Director to help you open up your eyes to the reality of the FSA. I'm going to post a message from the command of the FSA. Watch it and stop this nonsense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBHVCjxYQ0 I'm sorry but the FSA as an organisation exists.

Ps It's in English so even you should be able to understand it. Guest2625 (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Blatant propaganda is not a reliable source. Let's hear what the expert have to say:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And here is the same video referenced through the New York Times which we can all agree is a reliable source: "Remembering The Start of Syria's Uprising".Guest2625 (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of showing the above video was to make it clear that Salim Idris from his own mouth clearly identifies as the Chief of Staff of the Free Syrian Army. Also, the above video makes it clear that the Supreme Military Council also self identifies as the General Staff of the Free Syrian Army. The Free Syrian Army is the name that they use for the military organisation that they lead. So, who is on the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army? This is answered in the O'Bagley source on page 23 [4]. They are:

"With few exceptions, each member of the SMC, including

representatives and deputies, is the commander of

significant forces on the ground, and all are widely

respected for their role in leading operations against the

regime. Important field commander who are now part of

the SMC include: Abdel Qadir Salah, head of the

Tawhid Brigade in Aleppo; Mustafa Abdel Karim, head of the

Shield of the Revolution Brigade; Ahmed Issa, head of

Suqour al-Sham Brigade in Idlib; Jamal Marouf, head

of the Syrian Martyrs Brigade in idlib; Osama al-Jinidi,

head of the Farouq Battalions; and Gen. Ziad al-Fahd,

head of the Damascus Military Council."

The units that are represented in the SMC self-identify as members of the Free Syrian Army when they speak with journalist who go into Syria. I'll repeat these fighting units self-identify as units of the Free Syrian Army. For example in this excellent documentary, "Syria Behind the Lines" by the PBS show Frontline, that just came out yesterday, which I recommend that everyone watch, the Syrian Martyrs' Brigade in Idlib clearly repeatedly self-identifies as members of the Free Syrian Army. It is not possible for Wikipedia to strip this group of fighters of the name that they self-identify with. It just will not work.

And if you want to see propaganda watch the clip at 37:01 and see what nonsense the Assad government's propaganda machine indoctrinates its fighters with. Guest2625 (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Who cares? Even the SNC claims to be in control of the entire opposition, but that means nothing on the ground. "FSA" is an umbrella org, with no internal structure. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a separate column for the Kurds

The Kurds are not supporting the rebels nor government, so you should move them to a third column. During the Battle of Aleppo and Ras al-Ayn the Kurds both fought against both government forces and the terrorists groups of the FSA and Jabhat al-Nusra. The Kurds never declared which side they were on, even though they were said by the FSA to be fighting against Assad's forces.EthanKP (talk · contribs) 8 April 2013 5:49 (UTC)

The conflict is not defined as a threeway battle, and recently the YPD and the FSA has been maintaining joint-checkpoints. [5]

The Kurds deliberately helped the FSA capture Sheikh Mahsoud [6]

Also the FSA are not terrorist groups. Jabhat al Nusra is listed as a terrorist group, but so are the Shabiha. Sopher99 (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Really, I doubt that they have daily sucide bombings on civilian populations that are controlled by the government. The FSA is made up of mercenaries sent from the U.S and beyond who want to destroy a perfertly good government and replace it with a puppet of the West, like what happened to Libya. The FSA also participates in massacres and rapes of civilians who they claim work for Assad. I can say a lot more about that, but with the Kurds they are made up of many militias with some loyal to Assad and others who support the terriosts, therefore they should just be listed separately in a third column. I also feel the same for Mujahideen terriosts, cause they have also participated in skirmishes with the Kurds and FSA. There is really no "rebel" side to this civil war since everyone is aganist each other. EthanKP (talk · contribs) 8 April 2013, 23:28

Your crazy if you believe all that. The Free Syrian army was founded by colonel Harmoush, later headed by colonel Riad Assad and Brigadier Mustafa al Sheikh, and currently headed by Brigadier Salim Idress, the defected head of the Aleppo military engineering acadamy. The FSA was established by 100 defected soldiers in July 2011, and grew to over 10,000 defectors by December 2011. The FSA is now composed of around 50,000 defectors (not including another 30,000-40,000 defected soldiers who simply went home) Only a few thousand in Syria are foreign born. The Opposition has the same number of foreign troops as the government does. In case you didn't know, assad has 3000-5000 hezbollah terrorists working for him in Syria (not to mention the iranian quds force, or the Mahdi army from Iraq). As for Libya, where are the "millions" that Gaddafi promised would rise up to defend tripoli? Why is it that the Libyan people are entirely okay with the new goverment, and had a 54% voter turnout (1% below that of the egyptian parliament elections). Sopher99 (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, yes, everyone who doesn't believe Sopher's Twitter propaganda is "crazy". Get over yourself, man. Your pet-jihadis are as bad as the government, if not worse. At least have enough sense to refrain from glorifying them unconditionally. There are no good guys in this conflict, as in any civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not glorifying the Jihadis, first of all. I am defending the FSA. And if I had a choice between being ruled by the regime vs al nusra, I would easily chose al nusra. And yes there are good guys in civil wars. In the American civil war the union were the good guys. Regardless of how much good independence would have done for the south, the freedom of African Americans mattered most (Not that the union officially fought in the war because of slavery) Sopher99 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I would prefer to live under neither, but well, we can't all be true believers, like Sopher here. Tell me again, what hurts more for a civilian, being bombed by air plane, or being bombed by suicide? Or beheading, for that matter? Can you mention a single crime committed by the regime that has not been repeated by the insurgents? Yes, it is probably best for Islamists to live under the rule of Islamists, but seriously, do you think it is good for anyone else? And no, "Assad is worse" is not a valid argument, since it does not address my question. Anyhow, we now (yet again?) have confirmation that Sopher is an uncompromising POV-pusher, which should be taken into account in future discussions. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

60,000 killed by army artillery shelling, cluster bombs, scuds, tank shelling, snipers, prison torture ect hurts alot more than the 0 reported beheadings of civilians. Crimes al nusra didn't commit but Assad forces did? I dunno how about clear genocide, burning down houses, mass prison torture of civilians, mass arrest, thermobaric bombing of homes, landmines, sniping refugees, use of chemicals agents on civilian neighborhoods, the knifing and slaughtering of children, ect. Anyway, as you can see by the warning below, its not a forum. I suggest you remove our discussion to the my talkpage, or yours. Sopher99 (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Sopher99 (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And how many times does it have to be pointed out that the casualty figure applies to people killed by both sides? How far will you take the ridiculous propaganda? FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The casualty figures currently are about 80,000, with 20,000 combatants included in that toll. Figure out the rest yourself. Sopher99 (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And I repeat: The insurgents kill non-combatants too. Don't be silly. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Sopher, you don't know what you are saying. The FSA is a terriosts group proudly funded by the West, with the goal of creating another shit democracy puppet state. The FSA and their accomplices are responsible for the torture, murder, and rape of civilians across Syria. They blame Assads army for using missiles aganist residential neighborhood, with the bull shit execuse of personally targeting civilians. First of all, terriosts take refuge in peoples home to rob and kill civilians then a missile lands there killing them, with people saying it was deliberately the Army to kill women and children.?? You watch too much typical Western anti-muslim government news like Fox, NBC or SNN. For Foreign born fighters, the FSA and it's puppets proudly have the most with killers coming from all around the globe including hundreds of mercenaries from the U.S. More recently an American mercenary was caught by authorities and shipped back to the U.S where the government says he chose to fight and he's a retired soldier but really he is a spy sent by the president to help destroy a non-Zionist government. Hezbollah fighters dont have a big part in the civil war they just join for pleasure to stand up aganist the War on Terror and the Western paid FSA army. In Libya millions of people are still loyal to the courageous leader of Islam Muamar Quadafi who stood up aganist NATO and other evil West organizations. Sadly, when people are traveling on there cruises through Italy they don't want to hear missiles and gunfire from Libya, so the West does what they do best destroy a perfectly good Arab country. I don't think you can back up your stupid answers can argue with what I have to say. EthanKP (talk · contribs) April 8 2013, 2:00 (UTC) You are the one who doesn't know what your are saying. The Syrian government has tortured tens of thousands, has an estimated 200,000 people in their prisons (most of them just random civilians). The regime fired on peace protesters for nine months without any resistance. The FSA did not exist until July 2011, and did not hold any territory until January 2012. The regime has launched cluster bombs, scuds, thermobaric bombs, artillery shelling and anti-aircraft weaponry on its own people. They destroyed their third biggest city homs. 60,000 civilians have been killed by this regime. They have use tanks, aircraft, snipers, mercenary thugs (shabiha). They committed countless massacre including in Houla, Tremseh, Qubair, Hasiweah, Bustan al qusr, Zamalka, Moadamiya, Douma, Khan sheikhan, Souran, the list goes on. Assad is pro-israel whether you like it or not. He didn't recognize Palestine until 2011, didn't shoot down Israel's warplane in 2006 when it spent 6 hours bombing Deir Ezzor nuclear research facility, yet shot down Turkey's plane over the Mediterranean. Again when Israel launched a strike against a hezbollah weapons convoy in Jan 2013 assad did nothing. Assad never even attempted to take back the Golan, never gave any Humanitarian aid to Palestinians (yet Qatar gave 400 million worth of aid and investment to Gaza in 2012). Over 800 Palestinians have died so far in the Syrian army's shelling of the Yarmouk camp. All assad did in the war of resistance was give Israel assured stability and kill Palestinians in the Yarmouk camp. The Palestinian authority voted to condemn and remove assad from the arab league in 2011. Hamas has repeatedly praised the opposition, and right now is even training Free Syrian army fighters. Palestinians overwhelmingly support the opposition (85%) [7]. No one is loyal to Gaddafi. Gaddafi promised "millions" would rise up to defend tripoli. No one came. Tripoli was the shortest battle of the war. Hundreds of thousands in Tripoli celebrated the NTC's victory. Everything went back to normal in Libya the second the NTC took over. Free elections were held and power was transferred to the democratically elected parliament, who voted Magraf as the new prime minister. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sopher on this [[8]] search up videos of beheadings Syria, so you can personally see it for yourself instead of giving that *** response of 0 deaths. And you'll see terrorists commit it, and the Jewish media doesn't put a word out about it so people think the rebels are the good guysEthanKP (talk · contribs)

• What has actually happened with the Kurds recently? Doesn't seem like there's much fighting at present. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Al Nusra is officially member of Al Qaida

The strongest wing of the syrian rebellion is now officially member of Al Qaida. It should be noted in the main page. Malsius Germon (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Or more factually, Al Qaida in iraq is claiming Al Nusra as a member source. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been known for long, but good to have more confirmation. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

this is what happens when democrats stand by and watch says Jean-Pierre Filiu "La "non-intervention" des démocraties occidentales en 2011 est aussi fatale pour les démocrates de Syrie qu'elle le fut pour ceux d'Espagne en 1936.Quant aux staliniens dénoncés par Orwell à Barcelone dès 1938, ils n'ont rien à envier aux djihadistes d'aujourd'hui en Syrie." the totalitarians take the lead in resistance and the fascists with powerful allies (Nazi germany/fascist italy then, iran/russia now) are delighted. history keeps repeating itself.Sayerslle (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course, that explains why the NATO-aided rebels in Libya are all Leftist and secular today. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

not a leftist and secular country - but also no article titled 'benghazi massacre (2011)'. Sayerslle (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, could we quit the counter-factual bullshit? Instead we got stuff like the ethnic cleansing of Tawergha, which actually happened. But let's get back to the point, which is that your argument is invalid, for the reason I mentioned above. It wouldn't make any difference if the Syrian insurgents had been pampered by the west since day one, they would still be Islamist fanatics. Just like the anti-Soviet insurgents in Afghanistan. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

but is the regime getting the fanaticsfunkmonk or idiscriminate bombing civilians - Olly Lambert film - 'immersive portrait of immediate aftermath of Syrian government air strikes on a civilian population.' [9]Sayerslle (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I struggle to decipher your comment. But in any case, have you seen footage of the aftermath of al-Nusra suicide bombing? They're just as grizzly, if not more. Point is, anyone who thinks the insurgents are in any way "nobler" than the regime are fooling themselves. The arguments recycled by you and Sopher again and again amount to "but the regime is worse". Yes, that's one hell of a moral stance. The only difference is that the government has more fire-power. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

They also changed the name "We thus declare ... the cancellation of the name of the Islamic State of Iraq and the name of al-Nusra Front and grouping them together under one name, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant," leader of the Islamic State of Iraq Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (Reuters) --Liquidinsurgency (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Even the name has been changed, so we should change it in the infobox as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Al Qaida in Syria and Islamic State of Levant should be added Malsius Germon (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you guys get it, Al nusra did not change their name. We have no information that Al nusra agreed to this. Sopher99 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Who told you, Twitter? In any case, it doesn't matter what Nusra fan-boys or Twitter says, what matters is what the reliable sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources do not say al nusra confirmed this. It only tells us what Iraqis say. Please stick with the sources. Sopher99 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Al Nusra are "the Iraqis". And Chechens, Somalis, Libyans, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Those groups only make up a fraction. Its like saying the Syrian government are Hezbollah, Iranians, Mahdi army ect. Sopher99 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that analogy would work if it wasn't for the fact that al-Nusra itself is a non-Syrian organisation, it has been well-known as a branch of al-Qaeda in Iraq since its formation. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And the Syrian government is a branch of the "axis of resistance". So it works for them too. Sopher99 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

<sNo, because the Syrian government precedes the alliance, obviously, it was not formed as a part of it/from it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an hostile takeover of a company. Al Nusra was always an Al Qaida offshoot from the Iraqi wing of Al Qaida. Now they are noble and strong anough to get officially recognized. Al Qaida network continues its growth, after AQIM, Shabab, Iraq, Yemen, they have now one of the strongest force in Syria. --Malsius Germon (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"A website linked to Jabhat al-Nusra confirmed on Tuesday the merger with the Islamic State of Iraq, whose leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, first made the announcement in a 21-minute audio message posted on militant websites late Monday." Huffington post --Liquidinsurgency (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a confirmation of the merger by Nusra to me. EkoGraf (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone with the editing rights add Islamic State of Levant(Al Qaida) with al Nusra? Keeping the two is important, maybe we can add the date between brackets to make it clear --Malsius Germon (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's first see how Sopher explains away the confirmation... FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no way to explain it away. You people need to stop bickering and report the facts. Wikipedia is NOT a forum for discussing opinion. Truth of the matter is Al-Nusra has now announced it's merging with Al-Qaeda. I understand you people want to ubtly promote your views by controlling the discourse of this conflict, but do it somewhere else. Al Nusra is Al-Qaeda, Saudi state is arming the opposition, Hezbollah is in Syria, so is Iran. Stop bickering and work towards an objective view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.86.25 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies here. When the media/etc starts using the name Al-Qaeda, rather than Al Nusra, so should we. Not before. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Or more importantly, being a part of al-Qaeda does not mean that Jabhat al-Nusra is not Jabhat al-Nusra. MUJAO is still MUJAO even though it's a part of AQIM. The IRS is still the IRS even though it's a part of the US Department of the Treasury. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait and see what happens with the name, seems it's too early to make any drastic changes, other than a mere mention of the claim. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever.... All I see is you rationalizing this group. Objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.188.161 (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Jabhat al-Nusra can objectively continue to be Jabhat al-Nusra even though it is a part of al-Qaeda (which we've known for a while now anyway). I have no idea why that's such a difficult concept for you to wrap your mind around. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

israeli-arab

this should be noted somewhere.(Lihaas (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

"The service says the rebels asked Matzrawa to carry out a suicide attack against President Bashar Assad's regime and an attack in Israel, but that he refused." Lol, in that order? In any case, the key issue is that he was a threat to Israel, so I don't see why it warrants mention on this page, and not in some "foreign meddling in the Syrian conflict" page. There are a gazillion foreign fighters in Syria, this guy isn't any more notable. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is an unreliable, partisan source

A mere mouthpiece of Qatar and the US: "CAIRO -- The Al-Jazeera satellite TV channel has announced Tuesday that its director has stepped down after serving the network for eight years. Wadah Khanfar's resignation follows release of documents by Wikileaks, purporting to show he had close ties with the U.S. and agreed to remove some content in response to American objections." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/wadah-khanfar-resigns-al-jazeera_n_971774.html FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Al jazeera English is most certainly a reliable source.

I don't know why you are complaining. Go count the amount of times we use al jazeera in this article. Sopher99 (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

So can you, with citations, instead of your own interpretations as always, demonstrate why al-Jazeera English is more reliable than the Arabic language one, since both are owned and controlled by the same dictatorial family? FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Two Faces of Al Jazeera (MEQ, winter 2012):

a vast gulf still separates the channel's English iteration from the original Arabic, which fifteen years after its birth continues to inflame Arab resentments in its promotion of anti-Americanism, Sunni sectarianism and, in recent years, Islamism.

But to appreciate what Al Jazeera English is, it is critical to remember just what it is not—even a remote likeness of its Arabic-speaking progenitor.

As Al Jazeera English expands into the United States, it will need to choose one of three options. The first is to continue its present gambit of declaring a common "vision" with its parent channel while hoping the latter's indiscretions somehow do not reflect poorly on itself. The second is to pressure that same out-of-control kin to pull its act together, lest it once again cast doubt on the character of both. Failing that, Al Jazeera English will have but one alternative: to categorically and unequivocally cut its own cord.

And so. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Link doesn't work for me, but in any case, of course it isn't as overtly sectarian and biased (two-tongued Arab dictators know that they have to play nice in English), but being owned by the exact same people obviously has an impact on its biases. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep Al-Jazeera. It often reports on subjects neglected by the American mass media, such as the Arab Springs. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree Al-Jazeera should be kept, it has been a proven worldwide reliable source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

Thanks to Sopher99's continued reverts we have the page blocked. When the block finishes, can we remove the lengthy paragraph from the lead, which is just a repetition of Syrian_civil_war#United_Nations_report section? I stripped it down to a summary of most important figures, but it has been deleted since then. --Emesik (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You created the United Nations report section. It belongs in the lede because it gives general and important information about the conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I explained it to you, but I can do this again if you don't understand: The lede should be a simple and easily readable summary of the events. Now it attacks readers with too many numbers. If anyone is interested in details, (s)he will keep on reading or pick the interesting topic in the TOC. Let's keep the lede a simple digest. I did it, you simply destroyed it by reverting. And second, you are in no position to decide unilaterally what belongs where. --Emesik (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The lede we have is simple and easy to understand. It should also contain notable information that helps the reader comprehend what the reader is about to read.

Also the length is not a rule. Please see Iraq War. More lengthy articles may require lengthier ledes. This lede we have isn't lengthy anyway. Sopher99 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need to have exact numbers of casualties from both UN and SOHR, together with their change with time, in the lede? Isn't it enough if we state that estimated death toll is over 70,000? We could have a single number instead of four just for that single information. The same with human rights abuses – we can boil them down to a single sentence, while a lengthy description follows in appropriate section. Once again: summary in the lede, details below.--Emesik (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We can take out the 60,000 thing, but as for the opposition sources you would have to consult EkoGraf, who has strongly advised that provided the second numbers is of use. The talk about the human rights group and such is to reinforce what some might think as controversial. It was added because of complaints of lack of info on whose saying what. Sopher99 (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And my shortened lead referred to both sources. Once again, read before reverting.--Emesik (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The 11 reverts he made in the last 24 hours on a page under 1RR is another proof of how he plays with the rules --ErBabas (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)\

• Lol, interestingly, Sopher usually nags about increasing page size when people add something he doesn't like. Now that people are removing something he does like, he nags anyway, though it helps decrease article size. The POV is thick, folks. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Care to remind me of a time when I complained about page size? What I did complain about was notability and undue weight. Whats in the lede is by definition supposed to be in the most notable of the conflict. Sopher99 (talk)

I may have confused you with Futuretrilionaire. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats okay. Its probably cause I often shorten the article by removing double and triple references. Sopher99 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Scorched earth policy

Please, don't use the military words you don't understand.

Scorched earth policy means that you burn your agriculture, your food and all you ressources when you withdraw. This is completely different than besieging and selling somehing to destruction. Scorched earth means destroying your own assets yo avoid them being took over by the ennemy. Not destroying your ennemy positions.

I removed this big misconception from the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu87965231 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Governtment forces are indeed practicing scorched earth policy to everybody and everythin they found suspicious of funding or supporting the opposition, there are even numerous videos of SAA soldiers executing farm animals as reprisal, so the term applies. --Polmas (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The expression was referring to the battle of Hama during the late presidence of Hafez al-Assad. And what you say isn't amount of scorched earth. They destroy ennemy assets and farms, not the farms that are loyal to them.

Scorched earth policy means your destroy you own assets to avoid the capture by the ennemy when you retreat. --Manu87965231 (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a {{citation needed}} tag. If a reference doesn't come along, we'll change it to something from the cited source. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Loses

I wonder is there some estimation of loses for whole war? In infobox similar numbers have staying for more than a year but from day to day there are fierce combat across Syria.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

For now, the only comprehensive report on the number of deaths for the whole war has been from SOHR, with some 15,300 dead government troops, 14,300 dead rebels (with another estimate putting it around 14,900) and the rest, of an estimated overall 62,550, being civilians. All of the other figures floating 70,000...80,000...etc, have only been guessing estimates with no real documentation presented. EkoGraf (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that in infobox should stay that there are not precise information about casualties. This numbers are at least outdated.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 22:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Include Eric G. Harroun or trivial?

• Judge Rules Against Veteran Who Fought Alongside Syrian Rebels April 8, 2013 NYT

99.109.126.72 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

We have an article about foreign involvement. This article here is too general for mention of random individuals. FunkMonk (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Especially when introduced by a sock of a blocked IP. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Arab Spring branding - Serious Objection

answered, going offtopic, closed per WP:NOTFORUM

I object strongly to the titling of "Part of the Arab Spring" on this page. 'Arab Spring' rhetoric is western media branding. It is misleading about the reality of war. It implies the war is a good thing, it tells us whose side to be on. It implies a spontaneous uprising without foreign agitators and agents provocateurs. None of these things are true. Of course there is no such thing as 'Arab Spring' in Syria. There is only a tragic revolution and civil war in Syria. God help Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.217.85 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC) See WP:COMMONNAME. When the media/scholarship/etc renames the conflict, so will we. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Oh good. So truth is now secondary to media spin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.217.85 (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, exactly, we're a WP:TERTIARY source. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC) I suppose it is true what they say - truth is the first victim in war. At least use inverted commas if you insist on toeing the line. We are a tertiary source after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.217.85 (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC) You might as well put 'Part of the Axis of Evil' on the Syria page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.217.85 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC) And yours is the WP:TRUTHiest WP:TRUTH the world has ever known. We're done here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC) It is true that the "Arab Spring" was just a pretext for Islamist groups to mobilise (who would had staged a revolt eventually anyway), but in any case, it was provoked by preceding events in North Africa. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Deployment of elements of US 1st Armored to Lebanon

Reported here, but given that this is already controversial I am not going to edit using the World Socialist Web Site as a reference - at least, not without consensus. --Nixin06 (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That source sucks. We need to wait for multiple independent sources that don't suck. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

[10] [11] [12] You're welcome --Abbazorkzog (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You've provided a link to Iranian state TV, some online forum, and a sketchy fringe site. No thanks. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The first part of Lantier's story about the deployment, including his horror quote from Hagel about a broader war, was pretty easy to confirm on the LA Times and DoD websites. --Nixin06 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, then provide us some links. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I already have. (See the main article.) --Nixin06 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Chechen involvement

I added Chechen fighters to the Infobox, would that be the same as foreign Mujahideen or is it considered to be different?? I also added the Hezbollah flag.EthanKP (talk · contribs) 2:27 20 April 2013

• They are covered by "foreign mujahideen". Too bad the Boston brothers didn't go to Syria instead, huh? FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally we only add the biggest groups and elaborate on the rest in the support for opposition/support for Syrian government section. It would be best if you remove the chechen fighters from the infobox and add them to the support for opposition section of the article, if they haven't been talked about there already. Sopher99 (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove Chechen fighters please. They are only dozen volunteers, we havent seen an official announcement from Chechnyas Jihad movement supporting the syrian opposition either.

In this case, there are more foreign fighters from Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, if anything then we should name those guys separately too as Saudi Jihadists and Tunisian fighters. Jumada (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Mujahideen are mujahideen. Unless there is a major unit of thousands of Chechens fighting in Syria, it makes no sense whatsoever to include them; even then we'd have the unit's name and not "Chechen fighters". As it stands, most of them are probably with JN/AQS anyway. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I know but Chechnya has its own flag etc. Than Tunsian and Suadi fighters. You could add a separate part where it's describes all the fighters by nationality. Another thing is U.S and British involvement, Britian sends the Syria opposition food, weapons, armored vehicles etc. And the U.S sends mercenaries like Eric Harroum or something who was captured a month ago. So for supported by or even combatant their should be U.S or other western powers. EthanKP (talk · contribs) 20 April, 2013 16:16

"own flag"—hahaha, so does pretty much every significant ethnic and/or political group in existence. Non-argument.

Unless the armed forces of a country are actively participating, we do not add them as an infobox combatant. It doesn't matter what country a fighter comes from, it matters who they fight for. In this case, they aren't fighting for the Caucasus Emirate, they're fighting for separate groups within Syria. If your argument held any water, we'd include the flags of the UK and the British Raj (alongside countless others) under Nazi Germany on the WWII article because of the Britisches Freikorps and Indische Legion.

The fact that one American guy snuck over to fight in Syria (then came back to face the death penalty) is also a non-argument. Hey, guess what? Some Chinese guy did the same! Guess we should include one of the Syrian government's foremost diplomatic supports on the side of the rebels lol txt it ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Does Britain send weapons? "Despite the escalating civil war, growing casualty figures and a rising tide of refugees flooding out of Syria, there is little appetite for more robust action than the current approach of providing "non-lethal support" to the rebels, - thats from a yougov poll report in the guardian. you want to add chechnya and britain, but not russia, as sending weapons? Sayerslle (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A link, an author, a date? Anything? TippyGoomba (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Syrian government calling for jihad?

By early 2013 the Syrian government began promoting jihad as a national duty. — this sentence can be found in the lead section. However, it seems to be overinterpretation in the best case, or a lie in the worst. Even the source did not claim that govt had called for jihad, but clearly attributed these words to some cleric, who is even of a different Muslim denomination (Sunni) than the ruling minority (Alawi). The only relation to government is that these words have been aired by national TV. Nevertheless, it seems to be a single incident and no events suggest that the call for jihad brought any effect (WP:UNDUE).

I don't want another edit war with Sopher99, so I'm putting it here under discussion: Shall we keep it or delete? --Emesik (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is of extremely minor importance, and certainly does not belong in the lead, its inclusion is obviously undue. Furthermore, Mufti Hassoun had already made similar statements last year, after his son was murdered by insurgents. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

AI "deadly reprisals" document missing

This source doesn't exist anymore: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE24/041/2012/en/30416985-883b-4e67-b386-0df14a79f694/mde240412012en.pdf Can someone find a copy? --Emesik (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If we don't find it, we should remove the information coming from that source. --Emesik (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

can you tell me the source number? Sopher99 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the document is back online. Strange. --Emesik (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

For students of one-sided dis-information, the above mentioned AI "Report" is a good place to start. So over-the-top, it could have been penned by the US State Department. 92.16.158.132 (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly source that questions the Gulf sponsored narrative

This is a pretty damning paper, and should be cited herein: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mepo.12003/full#ss2 FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

hatting per WP:NOTFORUM

Lyk OMG! You are quoting anti-freedom propaganda, like totally from Iran or possibly the author is Bashar al-Assad's cousin twice removed. All Syrians want Assad gone and support Al-Nusra front. Don't cha know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.188.161 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC) He's actually quoting a random arab university student who put his paper on the wiley online library. Someone operating from Vancouver where there is Freedom and peace should not be belittling the situation either. Sopher99 (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Lol. One does not just "put his paper" in the Middle East Policy journal, Wiley Online Library is just a repository for published journals. Have you ever heard of peer review, Sopher? That's something your Twitter doesn't have... FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC) The issue with you Sopher is that everything with regards to this conflict is black and white, black and white, black and white. The world is a whole spectrum of colours. This war is beyond good and evil. Get that through your head now. People. are. dying. Not only by government attacks but rebel attacks too. Yes, government forces dropping artillery shells on populations, yes rebel groups are beheading Syrians who are not Sunni, yes Shia killing Sunni, yes Sunni killing Shia, yes Kurd killing Al Nusra, yes Al Nusra killing Kurd. Stop using Wikipedia as a medium to perpetuate your personal discourse on this conflict. You are the last person to be talking about neutrality. You have turned this article into a promotion of your views. So don't give me that whole "you take freedom for granted spiel." Now that you reported what city I live in to the world, care to tell us yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.82.218 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC) The fact Sopher knew what city you are from is entirely your fault for not registering an account. Newsflash: IP addresses are traceable! wOW!!!! [13] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I live in New York. And I called out your city because it is very hypocritical to defend a dictator's actions when you yourself live in a free state. But thats besides the point. The point is that the only people we seen beheaded by al nusra have been houla massacre perpetrators and syrian army commanders. 60,000 civilians have been killed by the Syrian army through artillery shelling, tankfire, warplane bombing, scuds, cluster mutions ect. The only civilians that have been killed by rebels are suspected informants and occasionally state tv reporters. The regime has 60k civilian deaths on its hands, compared to the rebels who have killed less civilians than Mubarak did during the Egyptian revolution. So yes, conflicts can come in grey, but this is not one of them. The nazis committed genocide against the Jews and Polish peoples, Pol pot killed 2 million innocents in an attempt to establish a "population-controlled agricultural state", the Rakhine massacre the Rohingya, and the Syrian army murders civilians. Sopher99 (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC) As for all your rehashed SOHR claims, please take a look at the nice, peer reviewed paper, instead of blindly following propaganda channels on Twitter. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I know IP addresses are traceable. I dunno why Sopher felt the need to disclose my city to those who don't know how to trace them. Anyways, that was more of an afterthought, the real substance is in the text that precedes that comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Anyway, the point of posting that paper is that it questions a lot of widely "accepted" claims, or well, widely circulated at least, many of which are repeated in this article. Since Middle East Policy is hardly fringe, and the article must have been accepted by a wide range of experts to be included, we can be pretty sure that the findings therein are notable and reliable. More reliable than al-Jazeera and SOHR, at the very least, since both of these are aligned with a party in the conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

that journal says reporting "on the Syrian conflict has largely taken for granted that Bashar al-Assad and his regime are unpopular in Syria, the revolution is widely supported domestically, the rebels are “winning” the war, and the fall of the regime is inevitable and imminent." but that just isnt true. the conflict has been widely reported in the WEst as totally unlikely the regime will fall imminently, or that Assad is very widely unpopular - the complex allegiances have been very often set out as happens with a free press and TV etc, the rebels have not been eported as "winning the war, rather zones of influence have been set out etc - in other words the people swallowing a black and white narrative - that of the the Assad regime " which sought from the start to portray the anti-Assad uprising as an exclusively Islamist, extremist and terrorist conspiracy fomented by Arab and western enemies." - which is funkmonks version - its just rank nonsense to keep seeking to take the splinter out Sophers eye while ignoring the log in your own. this paper in the wily journal starting out with a series of lies about how the war is reported in the west shows to me it is written by a partisan for Assad. Sayerslle (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you haven't followed the news then. For the past two years, Gulf and Western media reported almost daily that the government would fall "within weeks". That turned into "months", and now they kind of don't really state that anymore... And no, "my version" is that the "revolution" was a mixed bag from the beginning, with a tiny minority of secular Leftists, a majority of poor, rural people who just wanted something else, and then a minority of Islamists who were able to hijack the whole thing within a few months. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@FunkMOnk - its because i have been following the news I know the regime fall has not been described as imminent - BBC, Channel 4, the independent, the guardian - of course i dont look at things with your acuity of insight, so when you see this فيديو موت البوطي نتيجة التفجير مهم YouTube (Video of the death of Al-Bouti as a result of the bombing) you see what is happening like this, [14] "After the blast, his father adjusted his hat and leaned to the right. Within four seconds, Tawfiq's son, who was the Sheikh's grandson, rushed to check on the Sheikh. Following that, other injured people hurried to help out. One of the people seen, was dizzy and after going around fell due to pain. After the people tried to help the Sheikh he succumbed to his wounds. Later, the grandson also died due to injury." oh, of course. Does it ever cross your mind as you denigrate others that you might be the least bit biased yourself?Sayerslle (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol. Yes, I'm sure Bashar al-Assad also did the Boston bombings, just to blame al-Qaeda, and create sympathy for the regime. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually the gulf and western media do not report fall within weeks. Only two or three times they quoted Mustafa al sheikh in 2012 saying that. No media has ever claimed the Syrian regime's fall is imminent, in fact many times they reported on the government's (failed) claims that Opposition defeat is imminent. Second of all the islamists did not come into any significant play until January and February of 2012. And stop calling it Western and Gulf sources. Morroco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Ghana, South Africa, Nigeria, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Mayalasya, Signapore India and all the other 170 countries that voted yes or abstained during the UN general assembly's decision to condemn the regime report and repeat "western media's" "take" on the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Fijitimes, from Fiji (the most eastern country in the world) repeating and reporting in the same manner on Syria as "western media" does. http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=228230 Sopher99 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, are you joking? New Zealand is as far away for the record, and you know damn well what I mean by "the west". And yes, I remember almost daily claims of "imminent fall" last year. But whatever, that's besides the point. That article raises many questions that are of much more relevance. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean countries run by ethnic Europeans. However Fiji is not such one. Nor is any of those other countries I listed. I also remember daily claims of "imminent fall" of the rebels last year. Particularly in March and April, June and December. Sopher99 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you heard of the Commonwealth of Nations? Fiji is pretty much under Britain's thumb. And wow, can you give me even a single example of anyoen claiming the "imminent fall of the rebels"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@funmok - "Nasri claimed the Syrian army was on the verge of triumph. We are achieving massive victories on the ground and soon will declare Syria free of terrorists. Damascus now is almost clean of them. We have smashed them in Daraya and now it is a safe area. It was their stronghold, but no more." thats in todays guardian[15] - so, wow,lol etc, thats 'even a single example' i guess.Sayerslle (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not the media editorialising, that is a direct quote from someone in the conflict. Lame journalists put their own speculations into articles about the future of the conflict on a daily basis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Many times the media reported on the Syrian army's claim of rebels imminent collapses. Only in opinion peices do journalists talk about imminent fall of the regime (with just as many writing about defeat of rebels) Sopher99 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Very funny. Fiji is a suspended member of the commonwealth due to a coup in 2006. That makes the current president a de-facto enemy of the commonwealth. So if anything Fiji is the opposite of "being under Britain's thumb" Sopher99 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. Now, let's get back to the actual topic, which is that an abundance of core opposition claims are questioned by a reliable source. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No where in the wikipedia article does it state that the regime only controls 30% of Syria. No where in the article does it state that islamists are only 10%. No where does the article talk about the will of the people. The only claim that source has relevance to here is the death toll. That is why we give a variety of death tolls, specifically stating who is giving them, and mention the number of reported combatants. Sopher99 (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Are either of you suggesting a change? If so, can we see some sample text? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The scope of that paper is too far reaching to present any one text. It shouldbe used throughout to balance controversial claims. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Funkmonk is trying to convince me that this source is a game changer in how the world thinks and how we are going to view the Syrian conflict for centuries to come. Sopher99 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You're not even allowed to edit the article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you guys exchange emails and you can carry on this chat offline. This page is for discussing changes to the article, see WP:NOTFORUM. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Because this topic is not directed at Sopher specifically in any way. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Then stop having a chat with him and suggest a change to the article. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussions hashing out what to do with a source do not fall under the intent of NOTFORUM guidelines. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, then see above. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The article deals with 5 claims of which only 1 is relevant to the wikipedia article. And it looks like your already on top of that [16] Sopher99 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You give only a source as far as I can tell. Can you give a few sentences and tell us where you want to put them? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll copy what I said above: "The scope of that paper is too far reaching to present any one text. It should be used throughout to balance controversial claims." I have already added to the casualties section, and will look through the article and see if there is more that can be imprioved. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Beware wishful thinking. Assad is no€™t going soon “...He [Assad] mentioned the Syrian government army on Wednesday night. What he did not do was refer to their recent expansion of territory. His soldiers have now retaken most of rebel Deraya and are advancing into Harasta in the suburbs of Damascus. The 100-mile highway to Tartus, and thus to Latakia,€“ long closed by the armed opposition,€“ has just been reopened by Assad's divisions. For the first time in months, Syrians can now drive from Damascus to the Mediterranean coast. The rebels so beloved of Nato nations are losing their hold of Damascus. Yes, they may get it back. The road to Latakia may close again. This war may last another two, three or more years. Nobody will win...” Robert Fisk, The Independence, Thursday 18 April 2013

Was someone asking for evidence/reports that the rebel might be having problems? 78.147.85.176 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Fisk is notorious for pro-assad bias. Al nabk, Harasta, much of Adra, Qarah, Talbiseh and Rastan, Maraat al Numaan, Saraqib, Talkalak, and Salma are all rebel controlled, and controlling just 2 or 3 of these 10 cities would block the road to Latakia. Sopher99 (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, notorious to whom? Twitter rebels? Do you call this[17] "pro-Assad"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Fisk does seem kind of like an embedded reporter with the regime side, but his closeness often has a twist to it, so he reports their views , which itself can hurt them in a way - an example from his latest piece in the independent includes this- "Or simply asked an obvious question, posed to me by a Syrian intelligence man in Damascus last week: if Syria can cause infinitely worse damage with its MiG bombers (which it does) why would it want to use chemicals? " - so he is sceptical of the chemical weapons claims , but he gets across the boasting about the bombers - he seems mainly driven by hostility to American policy Sayerslle (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Islamic Front and SNC

Is the Syrian Islamic Front part of the Syrian National Coalition? That is what seems to be indicated in the infobox (under the belligerents subsection). I don't know if that is the case or not. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Most members believe themselves to be part of the Free Syrian Army as well. Many share leadership with the Supreme Military council. Sopher99 (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The SIF is not part of the SNC, nor does the infobox show it as such. The SILF/SLF is part of the same military command hierarchy as the "FSA", which is maybe what it's trying to show. But as has been established previously, these brigades do not regard themselves as FSA. I added the SLF above the mujahideen line but not directly under the SNC to show that it's aligned with but not officially part of. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Massage for Wikipedia: As well being able to change text at will, Sopher99 seems to have an uncommon degree of awareness and insight about Syria. So, who is "Sopher99"? 78.147.83.178 (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

An American college student. Sopher99 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is unwilling to answer questions about "Sopher99" - WHY? 78.147.81.86 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Because here at Wikipedia, we comment on content, not the contributor. Thanks for the "massage" (my back has been killing me as of late), but this is not how the project operates. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

House Rules. While it is clearly better to comment on the content, and not the contributor, if someone is forever deleting or putting across one-sided views, such actions should be highlighted. That said, if I have broken the rules - have not others? 92.16.157.187 (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S: By chance, the comments in the section below are worth considering. 92.16.157.187 (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No secular forces

Can someone turn this change back? I'm again blocked by Sopher99's POV reverts and 1RR rule. --Emesik (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. Mind telling me how it relates to sectarianism? Sopher99 (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sectarianism? Sunni extremism in a country with ruling Alawi minority. Does it ring a bell? --Emesik (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's Original research. You can't tie in secularism to sectarianism. Thats called Point of view pushing.Sopher99 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with original research. Sunni (a sect) extremists fighting Shi'a (a sect) or Alawis (a sub-sect of Shi'a) means sectarianism. This definitely belongs to the article. If you think it should go to another section, name it. --Emesik (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Still Original research, as you have no sources to back it up. Secular Sunnis are at conflict with Secular Shias in Bahrain, and its sectarianism. Can you explain that? Sopher99 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WTF? You have the source clearly linked there. And tell me, why should I deliberate about sectarianism in Bahrain while we focus on conflict in Syria? --Emesik (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• The important thing is what the source says, not what editors think. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why OPs source shouldn't be included. Its removal smells very political.Rail88 (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sopher is getting himself blocked at an increasing rate, so just go ahead and add whatever is properly sourced and neutral. FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I only have 2 blocks in my block log... one in 2011 for three days, another last week for 1 day. How is that an increasing rate? Sopher99 (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sopher, Sayerselle. It's hard to tell the difference these days. Sayerslle may be indef blocked eventually. FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

CONTENT not CONTRIBUTORS. you are continually attacking other editors, not edits 'twittter rebels' etc , ad nauseam that one, , now you are denigrating me here again. CONTENT not CONTRIBUTORS. eventually, we will all end up not editing.Sayerslle (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Weapons of mass destruction

Sopher99, go to Scud article and find where the missile is called a WMD. Or find me a source. Or better revert your change, because you won't find any. --Emesik (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/26/assad-holds-lethal-arsenal-of-weapons-of-mass-destruction-in-syria.html

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-13/opinions/35813096_1_scud-missiles-syrian-scuds-missile-borne

Sopher99 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't you see a difference between a Scud missile with HE payload and a Scud missile with chemical warhead? And no, "WaPo opinions" are not reliable source. Just look at the fist comment below that article. --Emesik (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to ballistic and chemical weapons. We can't use weapons and tactics because that implies we are going to talk about all weapons and all tactics used ever. Sopher99 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all, but the unusual ones. Talking about Kalashnikov use would be WP:UNDUE. I guess we can agree at least on that? --Emesik (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

So, what's the reason for the recent reorder? Hiding al-Nusra atrocities at the bottom? Don't worry, it will not fool anyone. --Emesik (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless it is fitted with a nuclear, chemical or biological warhead, a conventional Scud (with a high explosives payload) is a battle-field weapon – it is not a Weapon of Mass Destruction. So, if they have used them at all, what kind of warhead have the Syrian Army fitted to their Scuds? 78.147.83.178 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How is the website Electronic Intifada a reliable source?

Honestly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Where is it used? TippyGoomba (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of SOHR/SANA as reliable sources?

Why do some contributors feel it is acceptable to use reports from the pro-rebel SOHR but claim that the pro-Assad SANA is not a reliable source? In the section on rebel offensives user Sopher99 added a piece which used SOHR as a citation claiming rebels had entered Mennagh airbase. When I added a citation from SANA claiming the attack had been repelled the user deleted it, claiming SANA is unereliable (but SOHR is?) Can it please be clarified whether either of these sources are considered reliable (in my personal opinion they are both equally biased an unreliable). Thanks. --CommieMark (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the citation for the mennagh airbase and its the BBC. I think your getting a bit mixed up. Sopher99 (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please point out the sources you think are a problem and how they are used in the article. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the BBC and other western/Gulf sources uncritically cite SOHR for their claims. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

SOHR, LCC and SANA are definitely not neutral. While SOHR seems to be the least biased out of these three, we can't even know who they really are and whether their information is reliable. In my opinion, all information from these sources has to be confirmed somewhere else. Western news often cite SOHR but usually admit that, so just be careful. --Emesik (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Still looking for someone to point out these sources... TippyGoomba (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, western and Guld media are uncritically citing SOHR for their claims, if you look at such articles, they usually credit SOHR. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Land Destroyer as a source?

closed, a blog is not a reliable source. See WP:RS

I found Land Destroyer to have interesting insight into the Middle East conflicts. The articles there are richly sourced and look reasonable. The About LD page clearly says who the authors are, so anyone can search the web for their names. However, User:Sopher99 removed my piece based on LD, calling it a fringe site. Of course LD has never been declared as WP:FRINGE source on Wikipedia, and I found another website to confirm the same information. My question here is: Do you have anything against using Land Destroyer as a source in the future? --Emesik (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC) ...Its a blog first of all.... second of all it has no edit review,its not a reliable source or a reliable media, And it calls one side terrorists. Sopher99 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC) It calls Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists, which is fine. Even your government says so, and after the al-Qaeda connection has been revealed it is consistent with opinion of big part of the world. --Emesik (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC) I should mention the Shabiha are also blacklisted as terrorists. None of that matters anyway because it is a blog with no edit review board, no credibility, and asserts radical claims without backing it up. Just one of the three is enough for it to be an unreliable source. Its fringe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources Sopher99 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC) They use reason, first of all. Second, the articles there are richly sourced with the same media we use here on Wikipedia. I know it is not enough backing for you, while SOHR's claims seem to be perfectly OK. --Emesik (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC) .blogspot.com lol nope. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Hmm? So, how about this link being used as source in the article in six places? --Emesik (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The key difference being that SOHR is widely used in reliable media. I don't approve of its widespread use here, but it is of some limited utility—particularly in cases as you present where death tolls are concerned. Much better than LCC. You're just trying to slip in some random WP:SPS that happens to mesh with the POV you want to push. Go start your own blog if that's what you want to do. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Other than a death estimate in the infobox, we don't use SOHR as a direct source, or facebook for that matter. EkoGraf uses sohr facebook on other articles for body and casualty counts, and soley for that purpose. Sopher99 (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The widespread of SOHR info is a sad sign of how reliable the "reliable" media are. The anti-Assad bias of Western media is obvious and we are witnessing a farce similar to pre-Iraq, perhaps better veiled. That's my main drive to look for alternative media, as LD. If that goes against Wikipedia rules, I will not use it. Fortunately, articles there have enough references to "proper" media outlets. --Emesik (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Jesus Christ, again with this alternative media? And than fellas like you throw in blogs. For the record I oppose usage of both regime and rebel medias since beginning, calling for quality rather than quantity but consensus was to use both to be neutral. Your blog isn´t. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Economic effects

Perhaps there should be a section of the effects the conflict is having on the Syrian economy? This topic is not even treated within the article at present. Abductive (reasoning) 14:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Would be great to have it. --Emesik (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Blackwater is active in Syria and runs a 6,000-strong force in and out of the country

Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, an Egyptian writer and leading journalist Source:

>>There have been a high number of armed men from various Arab nationalities such as Iraqis and the Lebanese as well as the members of Qatar’s intelligence, Afghans, Turks and Europeans among rebels arrested by Syria’s government forces. The Syrian army has also seized very advanced Israeli, European and American weapons during operations in Baba Amr region. They include very sophisticated communication systems. There were also special stations on the Lebanese soil which were used to supervise military operations in Baba Amr region. It was through coordination made by those stations that British correspondents could leave Homs and cross the common border between Lebanon and Syria. The entire existing body of evidence shows that a foreign force has been equipping the Syrian opposition.

The Turkish Aydinlik newspaper carried a report on new activities of Blackwater company noting that Blackwater is currently active along the Turkey’s border with Syria. The report added that terrorists working for the company are being sent into Syria through Turkey’s Hatay Province and some Blackwater agents have also set up special training camps along the border with Syria to train Syrian terrorists and rebels on the Turkish soil.

According to the English website of al-Akhbar news network, after emails belonging to Stratfor intelligence and strategic company were released by Wikileaks website, everybody knew that Blackwater has been playing a role in the Libyan unrest. The company’s former director, Jamie Smith, had also been asked to go to Turkey in order to establish contacts with the Syrian rebels. According to the emails, after the Western countries enforced a no-fly zone over Libya, the company concluded a contract with the Libyan National Transitional Council to train revolutionaries in military tactics.

Salim Harba, a Syrian expert on strategic issues has written in an article on Al-Manar website that “a coordination office was established in Qatar under American-Gulf sponsorship. The office includes American, French, and Gulf – specifically from Qatar and Saudi Arabia – intelligence agents, as well as CIA, Mossad, and Blackwater agents and members of the Syrian Transitional Council.”<< --80.136.62.53 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Iran Review is interesting, but usually lacking any support for their claims. There are no links to external sources, which usually makes their statements unverifiable. However, a quick search for blackwater syria gives interesting results. --Emesik (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks pretty dubious. FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Like all the media reports I've managed to find. They also seem to be quite old (mid-2012) and no further confirmation of Blackwater presence. --Emesik (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We'd need confirmation from multiple, independent, reliable sources for such a huge claim. "Iran review" does not suffice. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Hatting"

This talk page is getting increasingly marred by arbitrary "hatting" of comments, often important discussions about the validity of sources. This needs to be cut down, as it destroys the coherence of the discussions, as well as simply just being annoying. Yes, I'm looking at you, TippyGoomba. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confident in my closures. Ask on WP:ANB. If they agree with you, I'll unwatch the page. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No one ever requested a policeman/judge here, and this is not about you "unwatching" the page. The problem is it's getting out of hand. Yes, you can obviously hide when editors start name calling, not when we talk about validity of sources. What do other regular editors think about this? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ, that[18] is what I'm talking about. Who elected you to supreme judge? You're disrupting discourse on this page rather than improving it, and that is important to bring up. Your conduct is affecting all regular editors. Please stop. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's summon a supreme judge and see what happens... WP:ANB#Cotting_on_Talk:Syrian_civil_war. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What a waste of everyone's time. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I responded on the main page, I'll repeat what I said there. The first two hats were right on target. The talk page was being used as a forum, that's not on at all, so I support the first two hattings. The third one was for Not RS, while that's true, and while TippyGoomba didn't comment or vote on that in any way, I thought that was a bit over the top.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The most pointless "hattings" have been reverted, so I can't show all of them. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to tone them down. FunkMonk, if you could revert and tell me about the ones you think are unhelpful, it would be appreciated. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sarin gas, the hypocrisy of the Obama administration and the deaths of Syrians

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/syria-sarin_n_3220502.html

Oh hell just look at the google search yourself: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=sarin+gas+syrian+rebels&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

So where is the game changer for Obama when opposition forces gas people? Terrorists have begun gassing Syrian people and killing them. Where is the condemnation? THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE ARTICLE. I care not for your stance in this conflict.

Cheers

Yeah...no. De la ponte only said they had "suspicions" ... in a Swiss television interview. Sopher99 (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Want to know how the US feels? Heres their response today. De la ponte is not even part of the official chem weapons investigation by the way. https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/us-no-information-syria-rebels-used-chemical-arms Sopher99 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case, we should mention that the claims against the government have been seriously questioned. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

O tht's rite, eye forgot tht the U.S. ovarydes the U.N.

Great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuddy999 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

...Only on the UN security council... which the chemical weapons investigation is not a part of ..... Sopher99 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's quite entertaining to see "suspicions" of rebels using sarin in one incident at an early juncture in the investigation (where did they get it? no CW base has yet fallen into rebel hands, only an industrial chlorine plant!) gets blown into "terrorists have begun gassing Syrian people". Force your attention span a bit past the headlines, please. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that the only way of getting CW into their hands is to overrun a Syrian military base? The suspicions of chemical weapons use, while the domestic stockpile remains in Assad's hands, is even more interesting story now. --Emesik (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Could I remind you, and this is valid for the sections above as well, that this is not a forum ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

While this is might not be a forum (or talking-shop), there are issues that need addressing. For it is not telling the way Sopher99 wants people to know "how the US feels"? Also, despite BBC Online (6 May 2013) highlighting that De la ponte was a former Swiss attorney-general and prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia - and is now a leading member of a UN commission - why did Sopher99 make an attempt at downplaying the role of this legal expert and weapons inspector? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.212.73 (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest - The UN commission, which is investigating human rights abuses in Syria since the start of the civil war, later released a statement distancing itself from the allegations. It said that investigators had “not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict”.

Each side in Syria’s two-year-old conflict has accused the other of using chemical weapons – an action that which would constitute a war crime under international law. Two of the alleged attacks took place in Aleppo in March and Homs in December. An investigation looking specifically into claims of chemical weapons use in Syria was ordered by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, in late March. The Syrian government wants the UN team to investigate only the Aleppo attack, but the UN has insisted that the inquiry cover both incidents.An official involved with the investigation into chemical weapons in Syria use told The Independent yesterday that a two-person advance team was waiting in Cyprus to enter Syria and perform onsite inspections. But nearly six weeks after Syria initially asked for such an inquiry, investigators have been unable to enter the country. “The Syrian government wants an inspection of just one site in Aleppo, we have asked for inspections for two places,” the official said. The official added: “There is no substitute to onsite inspections and that is what we are waiting for.”Sayerslle (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is "no substitute to onsite inspections", what about the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq? They appeared to be little more than a (sexed-up) pretext for an illegal war. And they say history does not repeat itself. 88.107.53.155 (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S: While some are a little keen to accept SOHR claims that the Syrian government used WMD, how unwilling they are to accept any evidence of rebel use. And how quick some downplay the role of a top UN legal experts. Anyone willing to reply? 88.107.53.155 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Israle not involved

No edit suggested, closed per WP:NOTFORUM

The Israeli Airstrikes have nothing to do with the war. The airstrikes to do with preventing Hezbollah from obtaining weapons from Iran. Pug6666 01:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Please don't start redundant threads. This is already being discussed above. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Are you suggesting an edit? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Israeli government murdered 44+ people, and destroyed an ENTIRE storage facility for the government. This has an impact on the government and its ability in the region Israeli is attacking. -G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.206.40 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC) See , Tippy, this is where you could come in handy. Redundant threads could be hatted, or merged with existing threads. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

SNC and FSA relationship

I believe the Free Syrian Army should not be listed as a subordinate organisation of the Syrian National Coalition. All those "exile" authorities have little control over what is happening on the ground. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what the sources say, and then there's the wider question of "what the hell is the FSA anyway"? A more problematic issue is that the terms "rebel/fighter" and FSA" are used interchangeably throughout the article. Nusra are not FSA, and FSA are not Nusra, so we need to be specific. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Free Syrian Army" in the sense of all rebel forces, be it Nusra, individual brigades, mujahideen, or whomever call themselves "Free Syrian Army". Only a fraction of the rebellion claims allegiance to the SNC, namely Salim Idris and his associates, so it's not very correct to list the National Coalition/Council as a commanding body IMO. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nusra and other Islamst groups are not part of the FSA. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am aware, I just lumped them together for the purpose of illustration. And Sopher, further below your source states the exact opposite: "The National Coalition has also been unable to assert overall command over Syria's many rebel groups. The local leaderships of the Military Council and Free Syrian Army did not order the recent offensives in Aleppo, Damascus and Raqqa province. Instead, they were initiated by jihadist groups, which have refused to recognise the coalition's primacy.". Also, ...the new government faces huge challenges, starting with its ability to gain recognition from rebel factions on the ground. Up until now there's two quality sources affirming that the governing bodies are not exactly governing anything. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source saying the National Coalition has the support of the Free Syrian Army. You can find the statements under the section titled "serious step" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218 We can switch it around too. Make Free Syrian Army the top, and national coalition the supporter. I am in favor of keeping it how it is. Sopher99 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Turkey

Is one border clash enough to list Turkey under Belligerents? Iraq had a couple border clashes but is not listed. I think it would be more appropriate to list as under support. Pug6666 19:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of adding in Iraq. In fact Iraq WAS added, but some user removed it. I would revert it, but I think done one revert today already. If you can revert Jumada and re-add iraq that would be great. Sopher99 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Both have killed less than Israel. So either both should be removed, or Israel added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Funkmonk nobody touched Israel also please provide proof that Israel has as large of a role as you claim it does. I have proof of my claim about the Israeli statement about propose. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE9460C720130507 Pug6666 20:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Both have killed less than Israel". It's a competition now? The winner gets a spot on the infobox? Iraq and Turkey killed less syrians than Israel directly, but indirectly they have killed far more people. Iraq has helped Iran to send weapons to Syria (weapons that killed thousands) and Turkey is one of the largest weapons suppliers to Syrian rebels (weapons that also killed thousands). There is a huge gap in Funkmonk's logic here. Coltsfan (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also it was implied that Israel was not listed at that point it was. So I don't know what Funkmunk is referring to. Also I was proposing we list turkey and Irag the way Suadi Arabia and Qatar are listed. Pug6666 20:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pug6666 (talk • contribs)

"indirect killing" is hypothetical speculation, and uncitable. Not so with direct killing. Please, keep this useless mumbo jumbo out. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Is mere speculation"? The guy who puts the gun in your hands, knowing your intentions, is just as guilty as you are. Imagine if nor Iraq nor Turkey were helping the government and the rebels, respectively. Do you still believe that the number of casualties in the war would have stayed the same? I'm no expert, but to fight a total war, you need weapons. Coltsfan (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The point is that there is no way in hell you can determine how many people have ben "indirectly killed" by this. With Israel, it is an entirely different matter. The numbers are citable. We only report what sources say, not what you think. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Citable? Most sources in this article are only speculative. Including those that says that "42 syrian soldiers died in the attack". The sources that support that also say that they can't verify the accuracy of those informations. All the numbers in this conflit are ALL speculative. And Turkey had an airplane shotdown, they retaliated by attacking targets of military importance, not bombing some research facility. And 14 Iraqi soldiers have died (problably many others) from direct gunfire in the borders. And they also send tons of weapons to Syria. They play a far bigger role in the conflict. But Iraq it's not listed as a combatant. Coltsfan (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel has killed more Syrian soldiers than either Turkey or Jordan, more than both together even. Yet it is not in the infobox. So why should those two countries be? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

How many casualties are there in Turkish, Iraqi, Jordanian and Israeli cases?Greyshark09 (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel has killed about 50-60 Syrian soldiers by now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

According to your own logic, if you kill someone you are then immediately aligning yourself with the opposite side. Or this logic is only valid with Israel? Coltsfan (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, but if you only attack one faction repeatedly, that is a pretty good indication that you are not against the opposite faction. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

please dont compare turkey with israel or any other country for that matter..has turkey saudi usa etc entered syrian airspace and bombarded syrian troops? thats a no!..petty border clashes need to be removed. Baboon43 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Turkey has bombarded syrian troops on syrian ground. Coltsfan (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In retaliation of stuff that is not directly related to the civil war either (downing of Turkish jet that flew over Syrian teritory). That was your rationale for excluding Israel, no? FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! A fighter flying close to Syrian territory for purposes of espionage has nothing to do with the civil war in Syria. Sure. Coltsfan (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to know more than everyone else. Who says the purpose was espionage? Please, keep the speculation for yourself. Israel attacked the interests of Syria and Hezbollah on Syrian ground, both are factions within the Syrian conflict. If they had attacked Hezbollah's interests in Lebanon, it would had been another matter. But all this is irrelevant: several reliable sources state Israel has entered the conflict. That is what you have to deal with. Your personal objections and speculations are beyond irrelevant. As for Turkey, their direct involvement is minimal in comparison. Yes, they harbour insurgents, but that is not actively fighting. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the Turkish reason, the plane didn't "accidentally" fly into syrian territory. Israel attacked syria a couple of times. Turkey has sent tons of weapons to the rebels, they are harboring almost the entire leadership of the political oposition, is training FSA rebels, Turkish intelligence is actively operating near syrian borders... it's minimal, for sure. Coltsfan (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, Syria should be in the infobox of both the 2006 Lebanon war and the 2009 Gaza war, for harbouring and equipping Hamas and Hezbollah members. So tell me, are they? Nope. Only direct actors are. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If we add Iraq to the infobox we might as well add Jordan, Russia, Libya, USA, UK, Sudan, and half the world since they are somehow directly or indirectly involed in the conflict.

Iraq didnt cross its borders and fight/attack inside Syrian territories like Turkey or Israel respectively. Both turkey and Israel attacked targets within Syria, Turkey harbors the rebels and they have confirmed this. Iraq was made to retake its part of the border checkpoint, as well as respond to attacks from FSA militiamen, Al qaeda and FSA sympathizers within Iraq. The Iraqis governemnt did not officially declare support to any side, they have stood as lebanon in this conficlt, in the same manner, Unlike Turkey, Iran, Hezbollah and Qatar whom have officially declared their support and allegiance to either side.

On another note, Jordan is even more involved in the Syrian conflict than Iraq, yet I dont see it in the infobox. This article is becoming one sided and misleading as the same people revert and edit as they wish Jumada (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)