This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Just so we are clear, we don't put the size of the protests in the infobox. I7laseral ( talk) 21:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Syria Casualty Map March To December.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
2 weeks ago on friday, when the arab league observers first arrived, the Syrian government put on a show trying to vindicate its claims that it is fighting terrorists by showing twin suicide bombings at a security building heavily guarded by security forces. Within 15 minutes they blamed it on Al-qaeda, the fastest accusation ever. The FSA and the opposition denied they did the attack. Alqaeda and other groups never claimed responsibility for it either, even though those groups always take credit for their actions. When the regime saw that the alqaeda thing was failing to convince people, they used a fake Muslim brotherhood site that they themselves created to try to make it seem like the Muslim brotherhood did it. That failed too. While the Lebanese defense minister said alqaeda had crossed the border, the prime minister and interior minister refuted his claims.
Now today on another Friday, the Syrian government is claiming these unnamed "terrorists" did it, (learning not to accuse Alqaeda as it is an already hard to believe claim), except this time we have video of Syrian State TV workers placing objects at the scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmkak8eReY4&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYm91zdTgcs&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuMdNDTbR_k&feature=youtu.be injured man at Damascus blast site gets up, walks when shoot finished
True nothing is verified, but it all seems way to suspicious to me, and I just want to make the point of being careful with what the Syrian government says on this issue. Sopher99 ( talk) 12:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The opposition wouldn't be stupid enough to bomb Damascus, especially in front of arab leauge observers which would push Assad's point of veiw that it is "armed terrorist gangs" that are directly responisble for killing people. The timing of the first bombs seems very, very suspicous, ESPECIALLY when it was a Syrian DAY OFF so the security buildings were mostly EMPTY, amd when some reporters said the casulaties were detained protesters. And this recent attack was in the "central district of al-Maidan, a hub for anti-government protests," and there was due to be a large anti-Government protest there that the opposition had organised. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/01/20121610858777140.html Whoever was behind this attack it seems VERY unlikely that it was perpertrated by the opposition. Goltak ( talk) 18:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Aleppo is next http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/06/186757.html If the Syrian regime does foolishly attack Aleppo now even though the leak is out that they Will attack Aleppo next, this almost proves it. Sopher99 ( talk) 18:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Where is the proof? Looks like the opposition want to cover their next suicide bombings by announcing a fake conspiracy before. The islamists are behind that no doubt about it, they are the only one who do suicide bombings. Damascus is a very calm city with no clashs. The regime has no interest to spice things up there.--
ChronicalUsual (
talk) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
2 weeks ago on friday, when the arab league observers first arrived, the Syrian government put on a show trying to vindicate its claims that it is fighting terrorists by showing twin suicide bombings at a security building heavily guarded by security forces. Within 15 minutes they blamed it on Al-qaeda, the fastest accusation ever. The FSA and the opposition denied they did the attack. Alqaeda and other groups never claimed responsibility for it either, even though those groups always take credit for their actions. When the regime saw that the alqaeda thing was failing to convince people, they used a fake Muslim brotherhood site that they themselves created to try to make it seem like the Muslim brotherhood did it. That failed too. While the Lebanese defense minister said alqaeda had crossed the border, the prime minister and interior minister refuted his claims.
Now today on another Friday, the Syrian government is claiming these unnamed "terrorists" did it, (learning not to accuse Alqaeda as it is an already hard to believe claim), except this time we have video of Syrian State TV workers placing objects at the scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmkak8eReY4&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYm91zdTgcs&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuMdNDTbR_k&feature=youtu.be injured man at Damascus blast site gets up, walks when shoot finished
WP:NOTAFORUM. Come on, guys. We include verifiable information based off reliable sources in this article. That's it. Personally, I think Assad is lying his tush off; but if SANA reports something relevant to this topic, it goes in the article with attribution. I also think Asaad is probably lying about being in control of the FSA and the FSA being made up entirely of defected soldiers with no elements of Islamist militancy whatsoever; but if he says something or does something relevant to this topic, it goes in the article with attribution. This isn't the place for discussing our personal feelings on this event, and I think it reflects poorly on certain editors here that their personal biases are glaringly apparent from the way they edit and the content they choose to include or exclude. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
So far I think its best we should not put any evidence about suicide bombings in Damascus. What I see is that both sides are trading blames. So, who's behind the bombing? 60.49.63.145 ( talk) 16:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to second (third?) the comments by Epeefleche and Kudzu1 that this discussion be wrapped up. Talk pages are for discussing and resolving changes to articles, not for discussing the topic of the article itself. Robinr22 ( talk) 16:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
A, you guys are using such great amount of WP:OR that I already lost a trace of it. B, Youtube is not a WP:RS. C, WP:NOTAFORUM. Next - all you mentioned was written in loads of articles which can be very well used as sources for the main article or Damascus clashes article. Add it if you want but dont write a poem about it on talk page. As for whose behind the bombing we dont know, period. Assad blames AQ linked unnamed group, opposition blames Assad and not single one entity has already taken responsibility. Easy enough. EllsworthSK ( talk) 21:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Might be the start of some critical thinking in regards to the many opposition claims: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/sharmine-narwani/stratfor-challenges-narra_b_1158710.html "most of the opposition's more serious claims have turned out to be grossly exaggerated or simply untrue, thereby revealing more about the opposition's weaknesses than the level of instability inside the Syrian regime." I can't access the article itself, but I'm sure information from it could be used. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
That is a blog and op-ed peace by an individual reporter with an inherent bias against anything perceived as "ant-Syrian government" or "anti iranian". We have no sources or evidence backing her statement. It is a clear NPOV violation. Especially because it does to put fair pressure onto the Syrian government, who only this week agreed to allow monitors into country, but only under the threat of it being sent to the UN sec council. The Syrian government overtly prevents independent media from investigating, and only allows once-a-month government monitored visits to pro-assad rallies. It is very hard for on-lookers to the situation such as myself to deny that it is the Syrian government who are exaggerating their claims. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I happened to have read the "article that it is about", after submitting my email. The article is still a blog which only claims that the syrian opposition is exaggerating the alawite splintering off from the government. The articles only entails a story about how the Syrian opposition claims that an alawite general defected, but the blogger claims to have evidence to the contrary. The article is still a blog, and still does not attribute any sources, and only provides a source to one sentence in the hufington post article. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I am just saying that the stratfor article does not give enough criteria to support the claims of the writer for that Huffington post article. Of course i think both he SNC and the Syrian government exaggerate, just as the the rebels and gaddafi exaggerated stuff during the Libya conflict, just that the stratfor article does not provide adequate criteria for any claim for or against this issue. Sopher99 ( talk) 20:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I came across news reports about the Stratfor report myself yesterday and I wholly support its inclusion in the article. Stratfor is considered an authority on strategic and tactical intelligence issues and their view on the Syrian situation is therefore notable. To avoid claims that we're using blogs to source our articles, the information included should come directly from the Stratfor report and not from the Huffington Post article. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 10:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I hav begun a discussion here about using pro-government and anti-government organizations as sources on Wikipedia. Please share your thoughts. ~Asarlaí 22:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I hav counted over 20 articles about events during this uprizing. One set of articles deal with specific incidents (like the 2011 Damascus bombings). The other set deals with events that hav happened in a certain city/province over a long timespan. I think the articles in this second set need to be renamed. A lot of them hav names such as " Siege of Homs" and " Siege of Idlib province", which arn't very accurate and seem to lack sources. We shouldn't be uzing such names unless they'v been widely uzed in the media. Furthermore, how can a whole province be under siege? To me, a more sensible name for theze articles would be "Homs during the Syrian uprising" or "Idlib in the Syrian uprising".
I think the articles should be organized like this:
One set of articles about specific incidents that hav a definit start time and end time. This inholds the following:
One set of articles dealing with all major events in each city. This inholds the following:
Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 01:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's keep on topic everyone. You should start a new discussion if you wish to talk about the length of the article. ~Asarlaí 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The uprising has already produced some advances of the opposition in the Idlib and Rif Dimashq provinces, taking over some villages and towns, as well as 1 city. The battle for Douma is ongoing. I think instead of protests image in the infobox we need a more descriptive conflict map, as it was in the Libyan civil war. I must emphasize that it doesn't mean the article must be renamed to civil war or anything. Greyshark09 ( talk) 16:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to write a section on this topic. But have found myself writing a rather long piece (sort of 6 paragraphs) just around these 2 main articles One Two What does everyone think? Does this merit a section of it's own? Or simply a mention somewhere? AKhani84 ( talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It was 111 people actually. Goltak ( talk) 16:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a question for the editors of this page to start thinking about, at what point, or ever, does an "uprising" turn to a "civil war"? I was reading an article in the New York Times [1] which is calling the uprising a "fledgling civil war." What rubric should be used to determine when, if ever, this page should be renamed. Thinking this out now may save alot of frustration later.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 05:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
We use the name that reliable sources use for the conflict. Organizations such as the Red Cross have explicitly said that according to their definitions, this is not a civil war. Other authorities such as the UN, and major media outlets such as CNN, do not use the term 'civil war' for this conflict either. Therefore, neither does Wikipedia. EllsworthSK, we've already had numerous move requests to this effect and they have all been turned down for the reason I just gave. I do not believe it is wise to encourage people do make another such request because that will inevitably fail as well. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It should be renamed into civil war. Because it is a civil war now basically. Protests are now a footnote compared to armed clashes. The situation has developped into a full insurgensy, with opponent regrouping in divers militia and insurgents groups. A new move request is necessary-- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The Hama Massacre was not called a civil war yet the muslim brotherhood held the city of Hama before the massacre began. 40,000 civilans, mbs, and soldiers died, all in the period of 1 month. Here 7,000 died, in the period of 11 months. I7laseral ( talk) 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
There are a big reason to make a new vote on a possible change of name. During the observer missions, the FSA gained ground while the Syrian Army had to leave the cities in order to comply with the plan. Now, they are holding some quarters in various cities. But it seems that this time the Syrian army is lauching a massive attack to retake full control, in Douma, Hama, Damascus suburbs , Homs. It clearly becomes more and more a civil war.--
ChronicalUsual (
talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The opposition have used armoured vehicles in Homs, and there are clashes between the FSA and government forces all the time. How can it not be a civil war when armed Syrian factions are battling each other? ( talk 08:09, 4th February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, this one will benefit from some aging in the wine rack for a while. Mike Cline ( talk) 18:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
A lot of sources are now calling it a civil war as much as an uprising.
[4]
Recently, with the arab league mission, FSA gained ground and went bolder in their attacks. Now the Syrian army is responding with counter offensives and vowed to crush the rebels.
Protests are now a footnote to armed clashes. The FSA is an umbrella for various insurgent groups across the countries. There are reports as well of sectarian violence in Homs. I think that calling it a civil war would be more logic.-- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 10:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
In AFP article: "Analysts warn that the conflict, between a guerrilla movement backed by growing numbers of army deserters and a regime increasingly bent on repression, has largely eclipsed the peaceful protests seen at the start of the uprising.
"It is the beginning of an all-out armed conflict," said Joshua Landis, head of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma."
The change of name would only follow the change on the ground
Another point of a civil war, is fight between part of the populations. There are a lot of reports on Alawis vs Sunni killind and revenge killings. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-syria-alawites-idUSTRE81024G20120201 -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 20:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Count of Support/Oppose : For the moment I counted 17 supports and 16 opposes. It looks like consensus will be hard to achieve and only a small majority will happen. We will probably have to start a separate page for civil war. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 10:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Battles ongoing all across Syria, there is no sense using the "civil conflict" infobox anymore. Greyshark09 ( talk) 18:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Please don't add sectarian killings to the characteristics/methods. That is neither part of the protest nor the fight against the government. Sectarian killings happen in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen, but are not part of the uprisings there. The characteristics of the uprising are definitive and conventional methods of protest and armed opposition. Sectarian killings is not accepted by the opposition, and we have no way to prove that the opposition carries out sectarian killings. You can carry out sectarian killings against alawites and not be a person against the government, just a racist. Sopher99 ( talk) 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Also don't divide the sectarianism section into different ethnicities. That is biased, and strongly makes it look like the article is trying ot say Christians and Alawites as a whole aren't involved in protests. Sopher99 ( talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
or religion for that matter. Sopher99 ( talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Please read the link I provided :
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-syria-alawites-idUSTRE81024G20120201
There are Alawis who are clearly being killed because of their religion. There are sunnis civilians that have been targeted as well. It did not exist before the uprising/civil war, the last time it existed was in the islamic uprising before.
Some oppositions leaders are endorsing it, like the islamist cleric in Saudi Arabia who wants "to feed Alawis to the dogs", or the one saying that all Alawis men are murderers. And there are Alawis who said that they will fight for their community.
We should not try to hide it. It is an encyclopedia, it does not mean all opposition members want that, just that sectarian killings are among the things happenning in this uprising/civil war. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"Al Arabiya was created to be a direct competitor of the Qatar-based Al Jazeera.[3] As a response to Al-Jazeera's criticism of the Saudi royal family throughout the 1990s, members of the Saudi royal family established Al-Arabiya in Dubai in 2002."
58.210.98.226 ( talk) 03:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Al-Arabiya is an Arabic-language satellite news channel based in Dubai. It was launched in February 2003 by a group of Arab investors including the pan-Arab satellite TV pioneer MBC and Lebanon's Hariri Group. MBC is owned by Sheikh Walid al-Ibrahim, a brother-in-law of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd.
58.210.98.226 ( talk) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf
SHADY ARMED GANGS FINGERED FOR VIOLENCE, NOT ASSAD. FROM A REPORT SIGNED BY ALL BUT ONE GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL NATIONS (LESS QATAR). SAUDIS AND QATARIS MADE ALL EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS REPORT BUT WAS LEAKED ANYWAY. Drimidiri ( talk) 01:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
"In some cities, the Mission sensed the extreme tension, oppression and injustice from which the Syrian people are suffering. However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire. The Mission was informed by the opposition, particularly in Dar‘a, Homs, Hama and Idlib, that some of its members had taken up arms in response to the suffering of the Syrian people as a result of the regime’s oppression and tyranny; corruption, which affects all sectors of society; the use of torture by the security agencies; and human rights violations."
1 - The observers observe what is going on during their STAY, they are not authorized to investigate event PRIOR.
2 - The Arab League and its head Nabil Arabi confirms the killing of protesters by the Assad Regime. The UN, Human rights watch, and Amnesty International also confirm it. Journalists on the ground also confirm repression, including BBC journalists and CNN journalists. Yes journalists were allowed in this month.
3- over 100,000 videos posted on youtube and shared with conventional media confirms protests and violent repression of protests.
4 - The Arab League's observer mission head is a Sudanese intelligence general, with connection to the Darfur genocide. He was only chosen as the mission head ot calm Syrian government's fears of the mission. Arab League observers themselves said that the observer mission is just being used to "serve the regime". The observer mission was intentionally skewed as to be lenient on the Syrian government.
5 - The free syrian army only began taking territory and escalating attacks in JANUARY. What do you think happened from March 15 - December, when there was no major armed gang presence? Protesters were killed in mass by the Syrian army. And protesters they are still being by the Syrian army. Sopher99 ( talk) 02:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The content of the Arab League observers report should have its own section as it is the first serious work done about the situation in Syria with people on the ground.--
ChronicalUsual (
talk) 09:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Pointless discussion as wikipedia does not use primary but secondary sources. per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC EllsworthSK ( talk) 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Since people were almost equally divided between moving this page to a civil war page, the status quo was achieved and the move stopped.
Instead, I created a new page, called Syria civil war, which has for goal to be the much needed article linking all military operations in the country, separated from the popular uprising, as it was the main objection for people again a move of this page. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 12:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Creating a new article with a title for which there is no consensus is considered POV-forking and is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The deletion discussion for the fork can be found here. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 22:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:A Collage of Syrian Martyrs.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Lenny Silver, Please stop. That quote only refers to further suffering of children. Unicef theorizes that more children could have died in Homs, but Unicef has too much difficulty entering Homs to confirm. The 400 children dead does not mean they all died in Homs.
http://news.yahoo.com/unicef-says-400-children-killed-syria-unrest-162328551.html
The article clearly states that its inability to conclude definitive facts in Homs only refers to the speculation of more children dead in the February Homs Bombardment. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore the children were killed by Security forces, not "through the conflict". Stop trying to defend the regime.
Sopher99 ( talk) 21:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll just remove the second reference. Sopher99 ( talk) 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There was a major gun battle, in which three were killed and dozens wounded between pro-Assad and anti-Assad people in Tripoli, Lebanon. Is this part of the Syrian uprising or not? Ericl ( talk)
Its a ripple effect. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
To keep this article neutral, and since nothing can be verified, we should provide counterclaims to every claim. As is, opposition claims are overrepresented throughout the article, which makes it POV. For example the "allegations of rape". Not a shred of evidence, apart from the claims of involved characters. But it stands unchallenged. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I do not know much at all about the topic of your article, I just dropped by to add the following template for you, which you may like
Rtne|syria-unrest-assad-opposition/ (text inserted into archive) This template has been deleted or changed. Penyulap ☏ 15:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyhow, I notice that your lead section is a bit out of hand, may I suggest just add a new section called 'overview' to the top of the article, then cut and paste the lot into that new section, then write a plain language summary of the article as the lede. That may help. I added a redirect also, maybe there are others that are needed. Have fun ! Penyulap talk 05:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
* Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
I just want to remind anyone eager to add alqaeda back into this page that we already had a long and fruitful discussion about this on the talk page. The discussion went on so long it was deleted by moderators. We concluded that all claims of alqaeda were unverified and did not belong in the Syrian uprising page, not least because we determined that even if alqaeda was present, it does count as part of the opposition or the uprising, as the protesters and FSA have taken positions against alqaeda. In the same way alqaeda opposes the Yemeni government but is not part of Yemeni opposition or the uprising taking place, so too did we conclude alqaeda in Syria, if confirmed (which it is not), is not part of the opposition r the uprising.
I say this because Mcclatchy, a new source which I don't even know if it is reliable or not, has caught attention for writing an article in which it claims US Intelligence members believe Zarqawi (alqaeda's new leader) is behind directly behind the Midan damascus bombing.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/10/138593/us-officials-al-qaida-behind-syria.html
One should not that the officials are unnamed, and therefore this report can be considered dubious.
Furthermore it is only what those officials suspect. Nothing is verified.
Lets just leave it in the protests and armed clashes sections. Sopher99 ( talk) 23:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed then, we will keep any such occurrences in the historical event sections. Sopher99 ( talk) 00:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Part of the opposition or not Al Qaeda is involved in this conflict, wether some politicians want to admit it or not. So they are part of this historical event as Harel has put it. If their involvement in this conflict continues to grow than the issue can simply be resolved by putting in a third coloumn for beligerents in the infobox. One the opposition, second the government and third Al Qaeda. Since both the opposition and the government are against them. Problem solved. EkoGraf ( talk) 00:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, discussion over. Sopher99 ( talk) 12:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Not for us to decide if its important or not. Our obligation is to add it if its part of the historical event. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
We already know salifis are involved. Duh. Salifis make up 20% the entire adult arab population. But just like the Yemeni uprising, alqaeda is not part of the uprising, just part of the historical events. For example, the battle of Zinjibar. Sopher99 ( talk) 15:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually the government does not hate them, because they released alqaeda's number one leader for operations against Europe from prison. SO i guess alqaeda is on the government's side. Pershmega supports the rebels, Hamas supports the rebels. Hezbollah supports the Syrian government. iran supports the Syrian government. If we put Alqaeda, we put in Iran and Hezbollah, and Pershmega.
Please. Enough is Enough. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh so now you believe american officials? Didn't american officials confirm that the syrian government was killing innocent civilians? I guess now it is 100% confirmed that government is killing protesters. I already knew it was true, but now we have to post it as fact.
Also we have dozens of sources, including propaganda new site russia today, saying iran and hezbollah are actively fighting the opposition. If we put in Alqaeda, We put in Hezbolah and Iran. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
First of all I am removing that small tag someone added. Secondly, fact that there are salafists in Syria means nothing. They are also in France. Doesnt make them AQ members now, does it. Salafi are religious group, not an militia network under command of Zawahri. Thirdly - misintepreting original article, or even lack of reading it seems to be common here. Yes, we have report from reliable source. That one quotes suspistion of unnamed US officials (what could be basiclly anyone in US beuroctatic army), it does not say wether they are from DoD, WH, MoD, army or otherwise. Worth adding to article, but using as proof of AQ beeing side of the conflict? Hardly. As far as I remember, official US stance is that there is no concrete proof of AQ involvement. And lastly - Zawahri statement. Where exactly did Zawahri said that there are AQ operatives in Syria? Because I missed that part. Al Queda was supporting revolution in Egypt, in Libya and in Yemen. In one of these countries group linked to them has taken control over capital of Aden district. However when I look into Yemeni uprising page I dont see AQAP as part of the conflict. And good that you started with Hizbollah and IRGC discussion, number of reliable sources talking about their involvement is uncountable and its pretty obvious that HA and Iranian government deny this, AQ never said that they are operating in Syria either. So it´s seems little hypocritical from ChronicalUsual to write was he has written in this context. EllsworthSK ( talk) 18:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you are just using bad faith here. Zawahiri never denied involvments of Al Qaida, and top Iraki official said that the iraki jihadists were moving into Syria. Rumors of Hezbollah come from opposition and Hezbollah denied it.-- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Just so we are clear, we don't put the size of the protests in the infobox. I7laseral ( talk) 21:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Syria Casualty Map March To December.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
2 weeks ago on friday, when the arab league observers first arrived, the Syrian government put on a show trying to vindicate its claims that it is fighting terrorists by showing twin suicide bombings at a security building heavily guarded by security forces. Within 15 minutes they blamed it on Al-qaeda, the fastest accusation ever. The FSA and the opposition denied they did the attack. Alqaeda and other groups never claimed responsibility for it either, even though those groups always take credit for their actions. When the regime saw that the alqaeda thing was failing to convince people, they used a fake Muslim brotherhood site that they themselves created to try to make it seem like the Muslim brotherhood did it. That failed too. While the Lebanese defense minister said alqaeda had crossed the border, the prime minister and interior minister refuted his claims.
Now today on another Friday, the Syrian government is claiming these unnamed "terrorists" did it, (learning not to accuse Alqaeda as it is an already hard to believe claim), except this time we have video of Syrian State TV workers placing objects at the scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmkak8eReY4&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYm91zdTgcs&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuMdNDTbR_k&feature=youtu.be injured man at Damascus blast site gets up, walks when shoot finished
True nothing is verified, but it all seems way to suspicious to me, and I just want to make the point of being careful with what the Syrian government says on this issue. Sopher99 ( talk) 12:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The opposition wouldn't be stupid enough to bomb Damascus, especially in front of arab leauge observers which would push Assad's point of veiw that it is "armed terrorist gangs" that are directly responisble for killing people. The timing of the first bombs seems very, very suspicous, ESPECIALLY when it was a Syrian DAY OFF so the security buildings were mostly EMPTY, amd when some reporters said the casulaties were detained protesters. And this recent attack was in the "central district of al-Maidan, a hub for anti-government protests," and there was due to be a large anti-Government protest there that the opposition had organised. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/01/20121610858777140.html Whoever was behind this attack it seems VERY unlikely that it was perpertrated by the opposition. Goltak ( talk) 18:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Aleppo is next http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/06/186757.html If the Syrian regime does foolishly attack Aleppo now even though the leak is out that they Will attack Aleppo next, this almost proves it. Sopher99 ( talk) 18:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Where is the proof? Looks like the opposition want to cover their next suicide bombings by announcing a fake conspiracy before. The islamists are behind that no doubt about it, they are the only one who do suicide bombings. Damascus is a very calm city with no clashs. The regime has no interest to spice things up there.--
ChronicalUsual (
talk) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
2 weeks ago on friday, when the arab league observers first arrived, the Syrian government put on a show trying to vindicate its claims that it is fighting terrorists by showing twin suicide bombings at a security building heavily guarded by security forces. Within 15 minutes they blamed it on Al-qaeda, the fastest accusation ever. The FSA and the opposition denied they did the attack. Alqaeda and other groups never claimed responsibility for it either, even though those groups always take credit for their actions. When the regime saw that the alqaeda thing was failing to convince people, they used a fake Muslim brotherhood site that they themselves created to try to make it seem like the Muslim brotherhood did it. That failed too. While the Lebanese defense minister said alqaeda had crossed the border, the prime minister and interior minister refuted his claims.
Now today on another Friday, the Syrian government is claiming these unnamed "terrorists" did it, (learning not to accuse Alqaeda as it is an already hard to believe claim), except this time we have video of Syrian State TV workers placing objects at the scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmkak8eReY4&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYm91zdTgcs&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuMdNDTbR_k&feature=youtu.be injured man at Damascus blast site gets up, walks when shoot finished
WP:NOTAFORUM. Come on, guys. We include verifiable information based off reliable sources in this article. That's it. Personally, I think Assad is lying his tush off; but if SANA reports something relevant to this topic, it goes in the article with attribution. I also think Asaad is probably lying about being in control of the FSA and the FSA being made up entirely of defected soldiers with no elements of Islamist militancy whatsoever; but if he says something or does something relevant to this topic, it goes in the article with attribution. This isn't the place for discussing our personal feelings on this event, and I think it reflects poorly on certain editors here that their personal biases are glaringly apparent from the way they edit and the content they choose to include or exclude. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
So far I think its best we should not put any evidence about suicide bombings in Damascus. What I see is that both sides are trading blames. So, who's behind the bombing? 60.49.63.145 ( talk) 16:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to second (third?) the comments by Epeefleche and Kudzu1 that this discussion be wrapped up. Talk pages are for discussing and resolving changes to articles, not for discussing the topic of the article itself. Robinr22 ( talk) 16:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
A, you guys are using such great amount of WP:OR that I already lost a trace of it. B, Youtube is not a WP:RS. C, WP:NOTAFORUM. Next - all you mentioned was written in loads of articles which can be very well used as sources for the main article or Damascus clashes article. Add it if you want but dont write a poem about it on talk page. As for whose behind the bombing we dont know, period. Assad blames AQ linked unnamed group, opposition blames Assad and not single one entity has already taken responsibility. Easy enough. EllsworthSK ( talk) 21:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Might be the start of some critical thinking in regards to the many opposition claims: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/sharmine-narwani/stratfor-challenges-narra_b_1158710.html "most of the opposition's more serious claims have turned out to be grossly exaggerated or simply untrue, thereby revealing more about the opposition's weaknesses than the level of instability inside the Syrian regime." I can't access the article itself, but I'm sure information from it could be used. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
That is a blog and op-ed peace by an individual reporter with an inherent bias against anything perceived as "ant-Syrian government" or "anti iranian". We have no sources or evidence backing her statement. It is a clear NPOV violation. Especially because it does to put fair pressure onto the Syrian government, who only this week agreed to allow monitors into country, but only under the threat of it being sent to the UN sec council. The Syrian government overtly prevents independent media from investigating, and only allows once-a-month government monitored visits to pro-assad rallies. It is very hard for on-lookers to the situation such as myself to deny that it is the Syrian government who are exaggerating their claims. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I happened to have read the "article that it is about", after submitting my email. The article is still a blog which only claims that the syrian opposition is exaggerating the alawite splintering off from the government. The articles only entails a story about how the Syrian opposition claims that an alawite general defected, but the blogger claims to have evidence to the contrary. The article is still a blog, and still does not attribute any sources, and only provides a source to one sentence in the hufington post article. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I am just saying that the stratfor article does not give enough criteria to support the claims of the writer for that Huffington post article. Of course i think both he SNC and the Syrian government exaggerate, just as the the rebels and gaddafi exaggerated stuff during the Libya conflict, just that the stratfor article does not provide adequate criteria for any claim for or against this issue. Sopher99 ( talk) 20:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I came across news reports about the Stratfor report myself yesterday and I wholly support its inclusion in the article. Stratfor is considered an authority on strategic and tactical intelligence issues and their view on the Syrian situation is therefore notable. To avoid claims that we're using blogs to source our articles, the information included should come directly from the Stratfor report and not from the Huffington Post article. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 10:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I hav begun a discussion here about using pro-government and anti-government organizations as sources on Wikipedia. Please share your thoughts. ~Asarlaí 22:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I hav counted over 20 articles about events during this uprizing. One set of articles deal with specific incidents (like the 2011 Damascus bombings). The other set deals with events that hav happened in a certain city/province over a long timespan. I think the articles in this second set need to be renamed. A lot of them hav names such as " Siege of Homs" and " Siege of Idlib province", which arn't very accurate and seem to lack sources. We shouldn't be uzing such names unless they'v been widely uzed in the media. Furthermore, how can a whole province be under siege? To me, a more sensible name for theze articles would be "Homs during the Syrian uprising" or "Idlib in the Syrian uprising".
I think the articles should be organized like this:
One set of articles about specific incidents that hav a definit start time and end time. This inholds the following:
One set of articles dealing with all major events in each city. This inholds the following:
Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 01:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's keep on topic everyone. You should start a new discussion if you wish to talk about the length of the article. ~Asarlaí 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The uprising has already produced some advances of the opposition in the Idlib and Rif Dimashq provinces, taking over some villages and towns, as well as 1 city. The battle for Douma is ongoing. I think instead of protests image in the infobox we need a more descriptive conflict map, as it was in the Libyan civil war. I must emphasize that it doesn't mean the article must be renamed to civil war or anything. Greyshark09 ( talk) 16:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to write a section on this topic. But have found myself writing a rather long piece (sort of 6 paragraphs) just around these 2 main articles One Two What does everyone think? Does this merit a section of it's own? Or simply a mention somewhere? AKhani84 ( talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It was 111 people actually. Goltak ( talk) 16:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a question for the editors of this page to start thinking about, at what point, or ever, does an "uprising" turn to a "civil war"? I was reading an article in the New York Times [1] which is calling the uprising a "fledgling civil war." What rubric should be used to determine when, if ever, this page should be renamed. Thinking this out now may save alot of frustration later.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 05:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
We use the name that reliable sources use for the conflict. Organizations such as the Red Cross have explicitly said that according to their definitions, this is not a civil war. Other authorities such as the UN, and major media outlets such as CNN, do not use the term 'civil war' for this conflict either. Therefore, neither does Wikipedia. EllsworthSK, we've already had numerous move requests to this effect and they have all been turned down for the reason I just gave. I do not believe it is wise to encourage people do make another such request because that will inevitably fail as well. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It should be renamed into civil war. Because it is a civil war now basically. Protests are now a footnote compared to armed clashes. The situation has developped into a full insurgensy, with opponent regrouping in divers militia and insurgents groups. A new move request is necessary-- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The Hama Massacre was not called a civil war yet the muslim brotherhood held the city of Hama before the massacre began. 40,000 civilans, mbs, and soldiers died, all in the period of 1 month. Here 7,000 died, in the period of 11 months. I7laseral ( talk) 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
There are a big reason to make a new vote on a possible change of name. During the observer missions, the FSA gained ground while the Syrian Army had to leave the cities in order to comply with the plan. Now, they are holding some quarters in various cities. But it seems that this time the Syrian army is lauching a massive attack to retake full control, in Douma, Hama, Damascus suburbs , Homs. It clearly becomes more and more a civil war.--
ChronicalUsual (
talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The opposition have used armoured vehicles in Homs, and there are clashes between the FSA and government forces all the time. How can it not be a civil war when armed Syrian factions are battling each other? ( talk 08:09, 4th February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, this one will benefit from some aging in the wine rack for a while. Mike Cline ( talk) 18:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
A lot of sources are now calling it a civil war as much as an uprising.
[4]
Recently, with the arab league mission, FSA gained ground and went bolder in their attacks. Now the Syrian army is responding with counter offensives and vowed to crush the rebels.
Protests are now a footnote to armed clashes. The FSA is an umbrella for various insurgent groups across the countries. There are reports as well of sectarian violence in Homs. I think that calling it a civil war would be more logic.-- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 10:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
In AFP article: "Analysts warn that the conflict, between a guerrilla movement backed by growing numbers of army deserters and a regime increasingly bent on repression, has largely eclipsed the peaceful protests seen at the start of the uprising.
"It is the beginning of an all-out armed conflict," said Joshua Landis, head of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma."
The change of name would only follow the change on the ground
Another point of a civil war, is fight between part of the populations. There are a lot of reports on Alawis vs Sunni killind and revenge killings. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-syria-alawites-idUSTRE81024G20120201 -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 20:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Count of Support/Oppose : For the moment I counted 17 supports and 16 opposes. It looks like consensus will be hard to achieve and only a small majority will happen. We will probably have to start a separate page for civil war. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 10:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Battles ongoing all across Syria, there is no sense using the "civil conflict" infobox anymore. Greyshark09 ( talk) 18:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Please don't add sectarian killings to the characteristics/methods. That is neither part of the protest nor the fight against the government. Sectarian killings happen in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen, but are not part of the uprisings there. The characteristics of the uprising are definitive and conventional methods of protest and armed opposition. Sectarian killings is not accepted by the opposition, and we have no way to prove that the opposition carries out sectarian killings. You can carry out sectarian killings against alawites and not be a person against the government, just a racist. Sopher99 ( talk) 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Also don't divide the sectarianism section into different ethnicities. That is biased, and strongly makes it look like the article is trying ot say Christians and Alawites as a whole aren't involved in protests. Sopher99 ( talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
or religion for that matter. Sopher99 ( talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Please read the link I provided :
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-syria-alawites-idUSTRE81024G20120201
There are Alawis who are clearly being killed because of their religion. There are sunnis civilians that have been targeted as well. It did not exist before the uprising/civil war, the last time it existed was in the islamic uprising before.
Some oppositions leaders are endorsing it, like the islamist cleric in Saudi Arabia who wants "to feed Alawis to the dogs", or the one saying that all Alawis men are murderers. And there are Alawis who said that they will fight for their community.
We should not try to hide it. It is an encyclopedia, it does not mean all opposition members want that, just that sectarian killings are among the things happenning in this uprising/civil war. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"Al Arabiya was created to be a direct competitor of the Qatar-based Al Jazeera.[3] As a response to Al-Jazeera's criticism of the Saudi royal family throughout the 1990s, members of the Saudi royal family established Al-Arabiya in Dubai in 2002."
58.210.98.226 ( talk) 03:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Al-Arabiya is an Arabic-language satellite news channel based in Dubai. It was launched in February 2003 by a group of Arab investors including the pan-Arab satellite TV pioneer MBC and Lebanon's Hariri Group. MBC is owned by Sheikh Walid al-Ibrahim, a brother-in-law of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd.
58.210.98.226 ( talk) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf
SHADY ARMED GANGS FINGERED FOR VIOLENCE, NOT ASSAD. FROM A REPORT SIGNED BY ALL BUT ONE GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL NATIONS (LESS QATAR). SAUDIS AND QATARIS MADE ALL EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS REPORT BUT WAS LEAKED ANYWAY. Drimidiri ( talk) 01:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
"In some cities, the Mission sensed the extreme tension, oppression and injustice from which the Syrian people are suffering. However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire. The Mission was informed by the opposition, particularly in Dar‘a, Homs, Hama and Idlib, that some of its members had taken up arms in response to the suffering of the Syrian people as a result of the regime’s oppression and tyranny; corruption, which affects all sectors of society; the use of torture by the security agencies; and human rights violations."
1 - The observers observe what is going on during their STAY, they are not authorized to investigate event PRIOR.
2 - The Arab League and its head Nabil Arabi confirms the killing of protesters by the Assad Regime. The UN, Human rights watch, and Amnesty International also confirm it. Journalists on the ground also confirm repression, including BBC journalists and CNN journalists. Yes journalists were allowed in this month.
3- over 100,000 videos posted on youtube and shared with conventional media confirms protests and violent repression of protests.
4 - The Arab League's observer mission head is a Sudanese intelligence general, with connection to the Darfur genocide. He was only chosen as the mission head ot calm Syrian government's fears of the mission. Arab League observers themselves said that the observer mission is just being used to "serve the regime". The observer mission was intentionally skewed as to be lenient on the Syrian government.
5 - The free syrian army only began taking territory and escalating attacks in JANUARY. What do you think happened from March 15 - December, when there was no major armed gang presence? Protesters were killed in mass by the Syrian army. And protesters they are still being by the Syrian army. Sopher99 ( talk) 02:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The content of the Arab League observers report should have its own section as it is the first serious work done about the situation in Syria with people on the ground.--
ChronicalUsual (
talk) 09:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Pointless discussion as wikipedia does not use primary but secondary sources. per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC EllsworthSK ( talk) 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Since people were almost equally divided between moving this page to a civil war page, the status quo was achieved and the move stopped.
Instead, I created a new page, called Syria civil war, which has for goal to be the much needed article linking all military operations in the country, separated from the popular uprising, as it was the main objection for people again a move of this page. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 12:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Creating a new article with a title for which there is no consensus is considered POV-forking and is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The deletion discussion for the fork can be found here. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 22:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:A Collage of Syrian Martyrs.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Lenny Silver, Please stop. That quote only refers to further suffering of children. Unicef theorizes that more children could have died in Homs, but Unicef has too much difficulty entering Homs to confirm. The 400 children dead does not mean they all died in Homs.
http://news.yahoo.com/unicef-says-400-children-killed-syria-unrest-162328551.html
The article clearly states that its inability to conclude definitive facts in Homs only refers to the speculation of more children dead in the February Homs Bombardment. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore the children were killed by Security forces, not "through the conflict". Stop trying to defend the regime.
Sopher99 ( talk) 21:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll just remove the second reference. Sopher99 ( talk) 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There was a major gun battle, in which three were killed and dozens wounded between pro-Assad and anti-Assad people in Tripoli, Lebanon. Is this part of the Syrian uprising or not? Ericl ( talk)
Its a ripple effect. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
To keep this article neutral, and since nothing can be verified, we should provide counterclaims to every claim. As is, opposition claims are overrepresented throughout the article, which makes it POV. For example the "allegations of rape". Not a shred of evidence, apart from the claims of involved characters. But it stands unchallenged. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I do not know much at all about the topic of your article, I just dropped by to add the following template for you, which you may like
Rtne|syria-unrest-assad-opposition/ (text inserted into archive) This template has been deleted or changed. Penyulap ☏ 15:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyhow, I notice that your lead section is a bit out of hand, may I suggest just add a new section called 'overview' to the top of the article, then cut and paste the lot into that new section, then write a plain language summary of the article as the lede. That may help. I added a redirect also, maybe there are others that are needed. Have fun ! Penyulap talk 05:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
* Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
I just want to remind anyone eager to add alqaeda back into this page that we already had a long and fruitful discussion about this on the talk page. The discussion went on so long it was deleted by moderators. We concluded that all claims of alqaeda were unverified and did not belong in the Syrian uprising page, not least because we determined that even if alqaeda was present, it does count as part of the opposition or the uprising, as the protesters and FSA have taken positions against alqaeda. In the same way alqaeda opposes the Yemeni government but is not part of Yemeni opposition or the uprising taking place, so too did we conclude alqaeda in Syria, if confirmed (which it is not), is not part of the opposition r the uprising.
I say this because Mcclatchy, a new source which I don't even know if it is reliable or not, has caught attention for writing an article in which it claims US Intelligence members believe Zarqawi (alqaeda's new leader) is behind directly behind the Midan damascus bombing.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/10/138593/us-officials-al-qaida-behind-syria.html
One should not that the officials are unnamed, and therefore this report can be considered dubious.
Furthermore it is only what those officials suspect. Nothing is verified.
Lets just leave it in the protests and armed clashes sections. Sopher99 ( talk) 23:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed then, we will keep any such occurrences in the historical event sections. Sopher99 ( talk) 00:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Part of the opposition or not Al Qaeda is involved in this conflict, wether some politicians want to admit it or not. So they are part of this historical event as Harel has put it. If their involvement in this conflict continues to grow than the issue can simply be resolved by putting in a third coloumn for beligerents in the infobox. One the opposition, second the government and third Al Qaeda. Since both the opposition and the government are against them. Problem solved. EkoGraf ( talk) 00:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, discussion over. Sopher99 ( talk) 12:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Not for us to decide if its important or not. Our obligation is to add it if its part of the historical event. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
We already know salifis are involved. Duh. Salifis make up 20% the entire adult arab population. But just like the Yemeni uprising, alqaeda is not part of the uprising, just part of the historical events. For example, the battle of Zinjibar. Sopher99 ( talk) 15:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually the government does not hate them, because they released alqaeda's number one leader for operations against Europe from prison. SO i guess alqaeda is on the government's side. Pershmega supports the rebels, Hamas supports the rebels. Hezbollah supports the Syrian government. iran supports the Syrian government. If we put Alqaeda, we put in Iran and Hezbollah, and Pershmega.
Please. Enough is Enough. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh so now you believe american officials? Didn't american officials confirm that the syrian government was killing innocent civilians? I guess now it is 100% confirmed that government is killing protesters. I already knew it was true, but now we have to post it as fact.
Also we have dozens of sources, including propaganda new site russia today, saying iran and hezbollah are actively fighting the opposition. If we put in Alqaeda, We put in Hezbolah and Iran. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
First of all I am removing that small tag someone added. Secondly, fact that there are salafists in Syria means nothing. They are also in France. Doesnt make them AQ members now, does it. Salafi are religious group, not an militia network under command of Zawahri. Thirdly - misintepreting original article, or even lack of reading it seems to be common here. Yes, we have report from reliable source. That one quotes suspistion of unnamed US officials (what could be basiclly anyone in US beuroctatic army), it does not say wether they are from DoD, WH, MoD, army or otherwise. Worth adding to article, but using as proof of AQ beeing side of the conflict? Hardly. As far as I remember, official US stance is that there is no concrete proof of AQ involvement. And lastly - Zawahri statement. Where exactly did Zawahri said that there are AQ operatives in Syria? Because I missed that part. Al Queda was supporting revolution in Egypt, in Libya and in Yemen. In one of these countries group linked to them has taken control over capital of Aden district. However when I look into Yemeni uprising page I dont see AQAP as part of the conflict. And good that you started with Hizbollah and IRGC discussion, number of reliable sources talking about their involvement is uncountable and its pretty obvious that HA and Iranian government deny this, AQ never said that they are operating in Syria either. So it´s seems little hypocritical from ChronicalUsual to write was he has written in this context. EllsworthSK ( talk) 18:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you are just using bad faith here. Zawahiri never denied involvments of Al Qaida, and top Iraki official said that the iraki jihadists were moving into Syria. Rumors of Hezbollah come from opposition and Hezbollah denied it.-- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)