![]() | 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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Wesley Clark talks about it. 178.148.10.191 ( talk) 14:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
change required minimum work. We have the word taking already in header
the word 'place' may be used in
Even assuming the list is completely true and valid, still, there is still nothing to suggest that this list of seven countries is relevant to this specific war in Syria. For all the reader knows, war in Syria would be inevitable even if the US never made this list in 2001. Original research is being committed in suggesting that this war has to do with that list, without evidence of that specific fact. Perhaps Clark's list is more relevant in one of these articles:
-- BurritoBazooka ( talk) 01:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Also we cant go anywhere if you will use antysemantic conspiracy theory phrase. The corect term is de conspiracy. The Clark show existing secret conspiracy, as any army conspire , do not forward its plan in open. This should be obvious and such empty argument discounted from any serious dispute. Again any army conspire and do not have plan open to public. So confirm you will use semantic or put dictionary of your antisemantic terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 03:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Topic being discussed here is very relevant for the Foreign involvement section of this article.. so no need to talk about delegating it to other (maybe also relevant) articles. 178.148.10.191 ( talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the current casualty figures need updating - Daesh especially has almost certainly lost far more than around 8k fighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.79.15.18 ( talk) 13:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
While several times oil fields are mentioned there is no info where the oil go. Us saying they knew about it for years but did not bombed pipelines on wells (the oil truck convoys) because this will release carbon dioxide to atmosphere. The free also media mention US didn’t bomb the terrorist convoy because it they bombs may mutilate someone. US is on record saying they bombed it on 15 but saying this after Ru bombed it on 18 Nov. By this lie is confirmed by Us and RU sides fact that oil tankers roll the deash stolen oil somewhere. This info is missing. So it is lie by omission [2] [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 10:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Aren't they on the government's side and not part of the coalition. Tony Abigail ( talk) 22:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:German involvement in the Syrian Civil War, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. GreyShark ( dibra) 17:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Under the leaders section it has Stephan Harper. This should be updated to Justin Trudeau. Can't edit because the page is locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.145.18 ( talk) 07:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking at the article right now, and I see a good 20 subsections for just the "Course of Events" section. Given the number of involved parties, as well as vastly differing objectives of various actors, I would suggest the partitioning of this article into several smaller ones documenting individual phases of the conflict (similarly to the group of articles on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which contains separate articles for the initial unrest (Euromaidan), pro-Russian protest, seizure of Crimea, and armed intervention, while designating yet another batch of articles to international reactions and responses). As it stands right now, this article is somewhat taxing to read, which contravenes Wikipedia's basic goals of information accessibility. The infobox itself should demonstrate the necessity of partitioning this article, due to there being an inordinate amount of involved parties listed as belligerents. At the very least, the important people should be kept, but I believe that listing (as an example) the emir, deputy, military chief, spokesperson, and eastern emir of the Nusra Front is a little excessive for an article on the Syrian Civil War as a whole. Having an inbobox listing belligerents and an entire 10-part section on the belligerents in an article intended to cover the overarching Syrian Civil War also seems a little excessive; perhaps a separate article entitled "international involvement in the Syrian Civil War" or similar phrasing should be created for this particular type of information. In addition, I do not feel that the section on "advanced weaponry and tactics" belongs in this particular article; it may merit its own, separate article documenting "weapons used in the Syrian Civil War" or something along those lines. I would appreciate any thoughts/comments/suggestions on any of the above. Helmut von Moltke ( talk) 19:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest creating an article for the failed January 2014 rebel assault on Raqqa, as some sort of "second battle" over the control of that city. LlegóelBigotee ( talk) 03:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Syrian Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Uyghur)) to ((Uyghurs|Uyghur))
HR4108, the Gabbard Bill, should also be included in the relevant Wiki articles about Syrian Civil War, and in the list of U.S. Congressional opposition to war. /info/en/?search=Template:U.S._Congressional_opposition_to_war
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4108 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr4108 http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/520-reps-tulsi-gabbard-austin-scott-introduce-legislation-to-end-illegal-u-s-war-to-overthrow-syrian-government-of-assad http://syrianamericanforum.org/index.php/saf-in-action/117-call-to-support-h-r-4108
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities, or to the National Security Council or its staff may not be obligated or expended to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, stipends, construction of training and associated facilities, and sustainment, to any element of the Syrian opposition or to any other Syrian group or individual seeking to overthrow the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, unless, after the date of the enactment of this Act, funds are specifically authorized to be appropriated and appropriated by law for such purpose."
HR4108 has two components:
(a) to stop all support by the USA government to groups aiming to 'destabilize' Syria and to overthrow its internationally recognized government. (b) If, however, the USA government wants to overthrow the internationally recognized government of Syria, a law (= /info/en/?search=War_Powers_Clause) for such purpose must be enacted by Congress.
The USA government has been involved in the 'destabilizing' of Syria since "early 2012" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html , which was formulated as a policy goal back in 2001: 1:47 min in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSL3JqorkdU "This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” ... So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”" http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk ec ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
GlobalResearch is not a reliable source. Jewnited ( talk) 11:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
But is it not well known that a major US policy in the Middle-East to destabilize and overthrow the (internationally recognized)government of Syria? To this end, are not the US Government funding, supporting and building the 'good' terror groups? And what about the statement: "we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran” - was not that from a reliable source?
I am just curious who makes these maps? I have seen some maps and all of them show the regime to control the West and South parts of Syria but in this map, ISIS has went deep on two places to regime-held areas. Can we confirm these attacks please? Jewnited ( talk) 11:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
We have already agreed on the talk page that only countries currently providing lethal support should be included in the infobox. This is why countries providing non-lethal support to various sides (China, Netherlands, Germany) are not included. The current source states that rebels were trained by U.S. forces on Jordanian territory. In my opinion, this is insufficient to warrant inclusion in the infobox. A source was then also added stating that Jordanian participation in CJTF-OIR was evidence of lethal support to the Syrian opposition. Jordan's participation in CJTF-OIR is already noted elsewhere in the infobox, so I do not believe this alone warrants inclusion as a lethal supporter of the Syrian opposition. Although it is very clear that Jordan does support the Syrian opposition, the government's official policy on the conflict is neutrality. [1] [2] [3] This is unlike the position of the other nations stated in this infobox to be providing lethal support to the Syrian opposition. In addition, Jordan has also cooperated with Russia during the Russian military intervention in Syria, and did not sign the statement condemning Russia for its actions in Syria. [4] Whilst Jordan has closely cooperated with the Syrian opposition and permitted the training of the opposition on their soil, there is very little to suggest they are a substantial provider of lethal support to the Syrian opposition in the same way as the other countries listed. Jordan's position on the crisis seems to be more similar to that of Egypt, the UAE and Israel than to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. -- 109.157.228.211 ( talk) 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Jordan should show in the right column, not the second from the left. Legacypac ( talk) 11:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
References
From looking over the article, it appears that the tag regarding excessive length is highly appropriate. Given the multifaceted nature of this conflict, I would propose that the general moniker "Syrian Civil War" cannot adequately be used to describe the entire conflict currently happening. For this reason, I propose the following changes:
1. Splitting the subject of the article along the line of the "course of events" section (perhaps separate articles on a. the initial pro-democracy movement and subsequent repression, b. the escalation of conflict and increasing confrontation between government forces and militants, c. degeneration into a full-blown war, d. rise of IS in Syria, e. counteroffensive against IS by international coalition)
2. The infobox needs to be drastically reduced in size. For the sake of readability and accessibility of information, we should not have a "Commanders and Leaders" section that has 10 entries for the Syrian army, 7 for the FSA, 5 for the Nusra Front, and 8 for ISIL. We should also consider which groups have made a significant enough impact on the course of the conflict to be mentioned in an introductory infobox which is placed at the header of an article.
3. We should try to balance the sections which have additional links to dedicated articles. At the moment, a lot of those sections are rendering their links superfluous by serving as mini-articles in and of themselves. As an example, the section on "Foreign Involvement", while containing two distinct links to dedicated articles, nevertheless has 730 words altogether, which seems a little excessive.
Any additions to the above would be appreciated; I will proceed to implement these edits over the coming few weeks. Please leave a message on my talk page if you would like to help. Helmut von Moltke ( talk) 03:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Why not include the war map the rest of Daesh territories in neighboring countries? 2804:14C:5BB6:44C:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 11:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The talk page for the template redirects here.
The template has nearly 100 references and growing daily, meaning every article that uses the template is immediately a very large ref'd article. More so the template is attempting to justify causality figures using refs alone with no prose explanation - this is a problem since causality figures are always contested and need explanation showing multiple POVs, who said it and when. Overall it's not a good setup.
Suggest creating a new article called Syrian Civil War casualties and reducing to a single ref in the template linking to the relevant section of that article where there is unlimited space to explain and add as many refs as needed. Create charts and graphs showing changes over time etc.. -- Green C 15:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Staberinde: - I agree it's too big for what it is trying to do. The problem is solvable by moving all the causality refs into the article Syrian Civil War casualties and then linking to that article from the infobox (as a Note). That would be a start to reducing the size of the infobox, and more accurately accounting for casualties. -- Green C 15:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, first I should put forth the fact that Turkey is fighting with PKK for 30 years( Al Jazeera, BBC World). Second, I should also put forth the fact that Turkey doesn't want PYD on its borders( Reuters, BBC News) and in order to co-operate, Turkey agreed with USA on that PYD won't be able to have ground west of Euphrates( WSJ, HurriyetDaily). Turkey stroke YPG three times for attempting to cross the river ( BBC, BBC2, UPI, WSJ) and also hit YPG with tanks on borderline once because they helped PKK with weapon supplies ( Guardian).
So it is really like an absolute joke to put Turkey side-to-side with PKK and PYD, which are listed as the "black-list of terrorist organizations" by Turkey, alongside DAESH( Al Jazeera Turk). Berkaysnklf ( talk), 13 December 2015, 12:15 (UTC)
Statement at Bruxelles
Statement to Consul Generals
Statement about opposing YPG's further advance
Berkaysnklf ( talk), 13:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Turkey is part of the US-led coalition, however it does not actively support Kurd fighters, as Edogan has repetedly called YPG and PYD as terrorists and has criticized the West for backing Syrian Kurds. [5] [6] -- Z 10:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The explanation is out there that this is not primarily a Civil War but a struggle taking place in & around Syria based on foreign interests, with foreign mercenaries fighting, and geopolitical goals of other nations primary -- chiefly outsiders meddling in Syria. What would be an objective, substitute title? I am not sure what is the procedure for changing the title of an article. How about "The Early 21st Century War in Syria"? ( EnochBethany ( talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC))
Headline writers will compress war names. Clearly there is a war in Syria. We use the most common precise title - and your suggestion is neither. Legacypac ( talk) 15:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
War is Syria is a topic that covers thousands of years of recorded history. As far as we know this is the first Civil WR in Syria. WWII was called the 'War in Europe' by contemporary newspapers because a newspaper does not need to distinguish - they are printing New(s) info even though there have been wars through recorded history in Europe. Legacypac ( talk) 02:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Horrific images and stories of starving children have suddenly flooded the media as the reality of life in the town of Madaya in Syria, besieged by Syrian regime sources and Hezbollah, has surfaced. But what is perhaps more shocking than the images is how the deliberate targeting of the population of Madaya has been taking place since July 2015 without the international community noticing.
This is despite activists in Madaya desperately trying to direct global attention to the atrocities committed there by the Syrian regime and its ally Hezbollah. It is only when the situation in Madaya reached the level of mass starvation that the international media have paid attention. [10]
Madaya: Syrian regime supporters share food photos to taunt starving civilians trapped in town A hashtag meaning "solidarity with the siege of Madaya" was being used to support the Syrian army [11]
Over 3,000
Syrian Turkmen have fled to
Turkey in recent days: official More than 3,000 members of Syria's Turkmen minority have fled across the Turkish border over the past three days to escape an offensive by pro-government forces in Syria's northwest, a Turkish official said Sunday.
"To date, over 3,100 Turkmen have entered Turkey where they are being supported by the authorities" in southern Hatay province, the official told AFP on condition of anonymity. Russian heavy shelling , Syria has launched a new influx of refugees — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.146.3 ( talk) 20:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No Daesh in Bayırbucak Turkmen region bombed by Russians, only civilians, Erdoğan says
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Wednesday dismissed Russia's claims and underscored that there are no Daesh terrorists in Bayırbucak region of Latakia Governorate in Syria and underscored that Turkmen civilians were there. "Some say there is Daesh in that area. There are no Daesh terrorists in Bayırbucak region of Latakia, Daesh is in Jarablous" Erdoğan said at a meeting of the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC) Russian no daesh in Bayirbucak Turkmen bombing
Syria’s Bayir Bucak area has witnessed mass displacement of Turkmen who fled their homes Saturday following attacks by Syrian and Russian forces, local sources told News Agencys. Bombing Bayirbucak
More than 6,000 flee besieged Bayırbucak take shelter in Turkey Syrian Turkmen Refuguee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.225.59 ( talk) 13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The US has been supporting the YPG with airstrikes since late September 2014 and reportedly supplied weapons to them and their FSA allies, while also arming other anti-YPG FSA groups. The US also recently, along with France, another major coalition member, called on Turkey to stop shelling the YPG.
On the other hand Russia only started airstrikes a year later and supported Rojava even more later. Is it accurate to include Russia but not the coalition in the Rojava column? Editor abcdef ( talk) 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I notice that recently there have been some unilateral changes made to Template:Syrian Civil War infobox which haven't been discussed here. As a result, the Syrian Kurds & Syrian Democratic Forces and the US-led (CJTF-OIR) coalition have been separated. It now appears that the CJTF–OIR coalition (which includes most of the "Western world") has no allies on the ground in Syria at all, while the Syrian Kurds are supported only by Russia (which is obviously false, as the US has been supporting them throughout). Compounding the confusion is that the CJTF-OIR coalition itself has been conflicted about the Syrian Kurds almost from the beginning, with Turkey currently performing cross-border artillery strikes on them while the US and France are urging Turkey to stop. Perhaps the obvious question is: is the CJTF-OIR coalition actually a "side" to the conflict, or is it just an umbrella organization with no coherent ideology whose different members support different sides in the civil war? Esn ( talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi folks. So I sometimes view this article to get updated on things and I can swear I used to be able to read in the info box that among others Cuba and Angola were supplying weapons and expertise to the Syrian government, I think other nations too like Belarus. Now I know various sides and probably FSB/CIA/Whatevs operatives here have various missions and goals with removing that information. But this is not the primary question. The primary question is that even though I clearly remember seeing these flags in the info box just a few weeks ago, not even moving back to the start of January do I find them anymore.
So my question is two fold: Isn't it true that they were there? Why were they removed? Here are two articles from US press that suggest that Cuban officers are assisting the Government: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/14/cuban-military-forces-deployed-to-syria-to-operate-russian-tanks-say-sources.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/14/leopoldo-cintras-frias-cuban-military-chief-visits/
Second part: If this was indeed the case, and I remember finding out about it through the wiki here somewhere, how the hell have they not only been removed but removed from the history of the page?
Thank you PS; Please explain this to me I'm going crazy more over the second question than the first, though it would be prudent to add these flags and supporters back... 92.251.63.47 ( talk) 13:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
What's the criteria for listing rebel groups above or below the line that separates the "opposition" and al-Qaeda? For example Soldiers of the Levant is placed below the line and Alwiya al-Furqan above, despite that they are allies and share the same ideology. Editor abcdef ( talk) 06:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Turkey became directly involved in fighting. It might be of lesser significance but still a fact: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Default.aspx?pageID=238&nID=95143&NewsCatID=352 Isn't that right time to include Turkey in the infobox? -- Emesik ( talk) 08:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The media are misleading the public on Syria
“…Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.” Stephen Kinzer, Boston Globe, February 18, 2016
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.236.30 ( talk) 12:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Iraq has deployed state sanctioned Shia militia such as the Badr Organisation Military Wing, Kata'ib Hezbollah, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, Liwa Abu al-Fadhal al-Abbas to fight in Syria.
204.197.177.213 ( talk) 23:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
2620:101:F000:700:74E7:437D:D706:5D6A ( talk) 16:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
162.221.125.161 ( talk) 01:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Wrong. The Kurds have clashed with both Rebel factions and the Syrian government on a number of occasions. There was even an incident this year where a Pro-Assad militia ended up provoking a fight with the Kurds that left several dead and injured, including civilians. Plus, in recent offensives around Aleppo, the Kurds and the Syrian military wouldn't let each other cross their lines, and several checkpoints had to be set up in order to prevent fights from breaking out. The Kurds are fighting for themselves in the civil war. They have their own reasons to fight, and have their own goals, which sets them apart from other sides in this conflict. Anasaitis ( talk) 19:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
As the subject says. The government and the army are keeping Damascus stable and safe and yet they are red. Meanwhile the extremist Sunni rebels are green. What is this? Maybe the colors don't matter too much. But I have this suspicion that Wikipedia is trying put off the Syrian government as the bad guys even though they aren't. Oh and please don't try and say that they are. Most American news that reports on the matter is extremely propagandized. I'm a Syrian and I have family living in Syria. My father and mother currently live in the US, and all of us support President Bashar. It's a shame really. America helps the extremist rebels who will oppress women, Christians, atheists, homosexuals, etc, and yet they are the good guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:301:A090:C4F3:1833:C3FF:1B1D ( talk) 19:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Re "The Russian involvement has helped turn the tide against the Islamic State and in favour of the Syrian government.".
This sentence is a distortion of the facts. It is what Putin says to justify his involvement. Two of the three quoted sources appear to be directly parroting the Russian line; they are not sources worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, except perhaps in the later Russian involvement section, as part of the Russian POV. Reputable Western press consistently finds that the primary effect of Russian airstrikes has been against the weaker independent rebels, NOT against ISIS. For example, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/russian-bombs-trigger-mass-aleppo-exodus-syria-conference-told "The Russian defence ministry said ... While Moscow’s intervention has the declared aim of battling the Islamic State terror group, military observers claim at least 70% of airstrikes have targeted opposition groups fighting to oust Assad." ... "The Russian air attacks in the area around Aleppo have succeeded in clearing rebel strongholds that had defied two earlier regime pushes..."
The Syrian government's stated aim is to re-gain control of Aleppo, and seal the border with Turkey. These aims would nullify the rebels backed by Western powers, but would have little effect on ISIS. A look at BBC map of Russian air strikes confirms that the vast majority are on rebel-held areas both north and south of Damascus, not on ISIS to the east and north-east.
I think this sentence should be replaced with something like "Since September 2015, Russian air strikes have allowed the Syrian government to take the offensive on all fronts, especially against rebel factions in and around Aleppo.
I have made this change, and removed the two low-quality references. ("on all fronts" because it *is* true that the government is making headway against ISIS; it just isn't the primary consequence. "Aleppo", because that area has been the most significant advance, and is the heart of non-Islamic rebel opposition) ToolmakerSteve ( talk) 03:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The Russian military should put on the side of the Syrian government, not Rojava.
Under the combatants section we have the FSA strength at 40 - 50,000. However the article is from 2013. Is it possible to get more up to date numbers? A large portion of these have joined al-Nusra or Islamic State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 ( talk) 03:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
[ Claim ]
There have only been 6 Russian casualties in the Syrian Civil War. Sources: Source 1 Source 2 -- 6 (soldiers contractors).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.91.194.173 ( talk) 01:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) 80.91.194.173 ( talk) 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
6+2http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2961899=8 12 4 2016
as usual - the United States brazenly lying all over the world)))
total losses to date only 8 (all kinds of troops). Bole of you deny as all the ref article on casualties among the volunteers outside the army. Your total losses of more than 8 is a pure lie. It may be worth to take into account the US losses in Iraq, taking into account the mercenaries? + Afghanistan, it will be another 10 000 =) lol
There is already quite enough evidence for North Korean military personnel fighting alongside Syrian troops. Maybe include them alongside Russia, Iran and Hezbollah ? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC) This page has some good text already. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War Washington Post has an article too today. Legacypac ( talk) 22:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The "Kurds" in the map should be replaced by either YPG Kurds or SDF. The "Kurds" are not a homogeneous group. There are Kurds on the side of the Syrian government, Syrian opposition as awell as ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liesbeth98 ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Leader of YPJ says that YPG hasn't supported by Russia. They say that Russia hasn't supported them militarily. [1]. Just adding this source here so if later find other similar source, we can discuss about Russian role. Ferakp ( talk) 17:54, 27 March 2016 (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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Wesley Clark talks about it. 178.148.10.191 ( talk) 14:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
change required minimum work. We have the word taking already in header
the word 'place' may be used in
Even assuming the list is completely true and valid, still, there is still nothing to suggest that this list of seven countries is relevant to this specific war in Syria. For all the reader knows, war in Syria would be inevitable even if the US never made this list in 2001. Original research is being committed in suggesting that this war has to do with that list, without evidence of that specific fact. Perhaps Clark's list is more relevant in one of these articles:
-- BurritoBazooka ( talk) 01:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Also we cant go anywhere if you will use antysemantic conspiracy theory phrase. The corect term is de conspiracy. The Clark show existing secret conspiracy, as any army conspire , do not forward its plan in open. This should be obvious and such empty argument discounted from any serious dispute. Again any army conspire and do not have plan open to public. So confirm you will use semantic or put dictionary of your antisemantic terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 03:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Topic being discussed here is very relevant for the Foreign involvement section of this article.. so no need to talk about delegating it to other (maybe also relevant) articles. 178.148.10.191 ( talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the current casualty figures need updating - Daesh especially has almost certainly lost far more than around 8k fighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.79.15.18 ( talk) 13:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
While several times oil fields are mentioned there is no info where the oil go. Us saying they knew about it for years but did not bombed pipelines on wells (the oil truck convoys) because this will release carbon dioxide to atmosphere. The free also media mention US didn’t bomb the terrorist convoy because it they bombs may mutilate someone. US is on record saying they bombed it on 15 but saying this after Ru bombed it on 18 Nov. By this lie is confirmed by Us and RU sides fact that oil tankers roll the deash stolen oil somewhere. This info is missing. So it is lie by omission [2] [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 10:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Aren't they on the government's side and not part of the coalition. Tony Abigail ( talk) 22:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:German involvement in the Syrian Civil War, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. GreyShark ( dibra) 17:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Under the leaders section it has Stephan Harper. This should be updated to Justin Trudeau. Can't edit because the page is locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.145.18 ( talk) 07:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking at the article right now, and I see a good 20 subsections for just the "Course of Events" section. Given the number of involved parties, as well as vastly differing objectives of various actors, I would suggest the partitioning of this article into several smaller ones documenting individual phases of the conflict (similarly to the group of articles on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which contains separate articles for the initial unrest (Euromaidan), pro-Russian protest, seizure of Crimea, and armed intervention, while designating yet another batch of articles to international reactions and responses). As it stands right now, this article is somewhat taxing to read, which contravenes Wikipedia's basic goals of information accessibility. The infobox itself should demonstrate the necessity of partitioning this article, due to there being an inordinate amount of involved parties listed as belligerents. At the very least, the important people should be kept, but I believe that listing (as an example) the emir, deputy, military chief, spokesperson, and eastern emir of the Nusra Front is a little excessive for an article on the Syrian Civil War as a whole. Having an inbobox listing belligerents and an entire 10-part section on the belligerents in an article intended to cover the overarching Syrian Civil War also seems a little excessive; perhaps a separate article entitled "international involvement in the Syrian Civil War" or similar phrasing should be created for this particular type of information. In addition, I do not feel that the section on "advanced weaponry and tactics" belongs in this particular article; it may merit its own, separate article documenting "weapons used in the Syrian Civil War" or something along those lines. I would appreciate any thoughts/comments/suggestions on any of the above. Helmut von Moltke ( talk) 19:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest creating an article for the failed January 2014 rebel assault on Raqqa, as some sort of "second battle" over the control of that city. LlegóelBigotee ( talk) 03:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Syrian Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Uyghur)) to ((Uyghurs|Uyghur))
HR4108, the Gabbard Bill, should also be included in the relevant Wiki articles about Syrian Civil War, and in the list of U.S. Congressional opposition to war. /info/en/?search=Template:U.S._Congressional_opposition_to_war
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4108 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr4108 http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/520-reps-tulsi-gabbard-austin-scott-introduce-legislation-to-end-illegal-u-s-war-to-overthrow-syrian-government-of-assad http://syrianamericanforum.org/index.php/saf-in-action/117-call-to-support-h-r-4108
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities, or to the National Security Council or its staff may not be obligated or expended to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, stipends, construction of training and associated facilities, and sustainment, to any element of the Syrian opposition or to any other Syrian group or individual seeking to overthrow the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, unless, after the date of the enactment of this Act, funds are specifically authorized to be appropriated and appropriated by law for such purpose."
HR4108 has two components:
(a) to stop all support by the USA government to groups aiming to 'destabilize' Syria and to overthrow its internationally recognized government. (b) If, however, the USA government wants to overthrow the internationally recognized government of Syria, a law (= /info/en/?search=War_Powers_Clause) for such purpose must be enacted by Congress.
The USA government has been involved in the 'destabilizing' of Syria since "early 2012" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html , which was formulated as a policy goal back in 2001: 1:47 min in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSL3JqorkdU "This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” ... So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”" http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk ec ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
GlobalResearch is not a reliable source. Jewnited ( talk) 11:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
But is it not well known that a major US policy in the Middle-East to destabilize and overthrow the (internationally recognized)government of Syria? To this end, are not the US Government funding, supporting and building the 'good' terror groups? And what about the statement: "we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran” - was not that from a reliable source?
I am just curious who makes these maps? I have seen some maps and all of them show the regime to control the West and South parts of Syria but in this map, ISIS has went deep on two places to regime-held areas. Can we confirm these attacks please? Jewnited ( talk) 11:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
We have already agreed on the talk page that only countries currently providing lethal support should be included in the infobox. This is why countries providing non-lethal support to various sides (China, Netherlands, Germany) are not included. The current source states that rebels were trained by U.S. forces on Jordanian territory. In my opinion, this is insufficient to warrant inclusion in the infobox. A source was then also added stating that Jordanian participation in CJTF-OIR was evidence of lethal support to the Syrian opposition. Jordan's participation in CJTF-OIR is already noted elsewhere in the infobox, so I do not believe this alone warrants inclusion as a lethal supporter of the Syrian opposition. Although it is very clear that Jordan does support the Syrian opposition, the government's official policy on the conflict is neutrality. [1] [2] [3] This is unlike the position of the other nations stated in this infobox to be providing lethal support to the Syrian opposition. In addition, Jordan has also cooperated with Russia during the Russian military intervention in Syria, and did not sign the statement condemning Russia for its actions in Syria. [4] Whilst Jordan has closely cooperated with the Syrian opposition and permitted the training of the opposition on their soil, there is very little to suggest they are a substantial provider of lethal support to the Syrian opposition in the same way as the other countries listed. Jordan's position on the crisis seems to be more similar to that of Egypt, the UAE and Israel than to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. -- 109.157.228.211 ( talk) 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Jordan should show in the right column, not the second from the left. Legacypac ( talk) 11:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
References
From looking over the article, it appears that the tag regarding excessive length is highly appropriate. Given the multifaceted nature of this conflict, I would propose that the general moniker "Syrian Civil War" cannot adequately be used to describe the entire conflict currently happening. For this reason, I propose the following changes:
1. Splitting the subject of the article along the line of the "course of events" section (perhaps separate articles on a. the initial pro-democracy movement and subsequent repression, b. the escalation of conflict and increasing confrontation between government forces and militants, c. degeneration into a full-blown war, d. rise of IS in Syria, e. counteroffensive against IS by international coalition)
2. The infobox needs to be drastically reduced in size. For the sake of readability and accessibility of information, we should not have a "Commanders and Leaders" section that has 10 entries for the Syrian army, 7 for the FSA, 5 for the Nusra Front, and 8 for ISIL. We should also consider which groups have made a significant enough impact on the course of the conflict to be mentioned in an introductory infobox which is placed at the header of an article.
3. We should try to balance the sections which have additional links to dedicated articles. At the moment, a lot of those sections are rendering their links superfluous by serving as mini-articles in and of themselves. As an example, the section on "Foreign Involvement", while containing two distinct links to dedicated articles, nevertheless has 730 words altogether, which seems a little excessive.
Any additions to the above would be appreciated; I will proceed to implement these edits over the coming few weeks. Please leave a message on my talk page if you would like to help. Helmut von Moltke ( talk) 03:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Why not include the war map the rest of Daesh territories in neighboring countries? 2804:14C:5BB6:44C:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 11:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The talk page for the template redirects here.
The template has nearly 100 references and growing daily, meaning every article that uses the template is immediately a very large ref'd article. More so the template is attempting to justify causality figures using refs alone with no prose explanation - this is a problem since causality figures are always contested and need explanation showing multiple POVs, who said it and when. Overall it's not a good setup.
Suggest creating a new article called Syrian Civil War casualties and reducing to a single ref in the template linking to the relevant section of that article where there is unlimited space to explain and add as many refs as needed. Create charts and graphs showing changes over time etc.. -- Green C 15:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Staberinde: - I agree it's too big for what it is trying to do. The problem is solvable by moving all the causality refs into the article Syrian Civil War casualties and then linking to that article from the infobox (as a Note). That would be a start to reducing the size of the infobox, and more accurately accounting for casualties. -- Green C 15:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, first I should put forth the fact that Turkey is fighting with PKK for 30 years( Al Jazeera, BBC World). Second, I should also put forth the fact that Turkey doesn't want PYD on its borders( Reuters, BBC News) and in order to co-operate, Turkey agreed with USA on that PYD won't be able to have ground west of Euphrates( WSJ, HurriyetDaily). Turkey stroke YPG three times for attempting to cross the river ( BBC, BBC2, UPI, WSJ) and also hit YPG with tanks on borderline once because they helped PKK with weapon supplies ( Guardian).
So it is really like an absolute joke to put Turkey side-to-side with PKK and PYD, which are listed as the "black-list of terrorist organizations" by Turkey, alongside DAESH( Al Jazeera Turk). Berkaysnklf ( talk), 13 December 2015, 12:15 (UTC)
Statement at Bruxelles
Statement to Consul Generals
Statement about opposing YPG's further advance
Berkaysnklf ( talk), 13:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Turkey is part of the US-led coalition, however it does not actively support Kurd fighters, as Edogan has repetedly called YPG and PYD as terrorists and has criticized the West for backing Syrian Kurds. [5] [6] -- Z 10:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The explanation is out there that this is not primarily a Civil War but a struggle taking place in & around Syria based on foreign interests, with foreign mercenaries fighting, and geopolitical goals of other nations primary -- chiefly outsiders meddling in Syria. What would be an objective, substitute title? I am not sure what is the procedure for changing the title of an article. How about "The Early 21st Century War in Syria"? ( EnochBethany ( talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC))
Headline writers will compress war names. Clearly there is a war in Syria. We use the most common precise title - and your suggestion is neither. Legacypac ( talk) 15:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
War is Syria is a topic that covers thousands of years of recorded history. As far as we know this is the first Civil WR in Syria. WWII was called the 'War in Europe' by contemporary newspapers because a newspaper does not need to distinguish - they are printing New(s) info even though there have been wars through recorded history in Europe. Legacypac ( talk) 02:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Horrific images and stories of starving children have suddenly flooded the media as the reality of life in the town of Madaya in Syria, besieged by Syrian regime sources and Hezbollah, has surfaced. But what is perhaps more shocking than the images is how the deliberate targeting of the population of Madaya has been taking place since July 2015 without the international community noticing.
This is despite activists in Madaya desperately trying to direct global attention to the atrocities committed there by the Syrian regime and its ally Hezbollah. It is only when the situation in Madaya reached the level of mass starvation that the international media have paid attention. [10]
Madaya: Syrian regime supporters share food photos to taunt starving civilians trapped in town A hashtag meaning "solidarity with the siege of Madaya" was being used to support the Syrian army [11]
Over 3,000
Syrian Turkmen have fled to
Turkey in recent days: official More than 3,000 members of Syria's Turkmen minority have fled across the Turkish border over the past three days to escape an offensive by pro-government forces in Syria's northwest, a Turkish official said Sunday.
"To date, over 3,100 Turkmen have entered Turkey where they are being supported by the authorities" in southern Hatay province, the official told AFP on condition of anonymity. Russian heavy shelling , Syria has launched a new influx of refugees — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.146.3 ( talk) 20:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No Daesh in Bayırbucak Turkmen region bombed by Russians, only civilians, Erdoğan says
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Wednesday dismissed Russia's claims and underscored that there are no Daesh terrorists in Bayırbucak region of Latakia Governorate in Syria and underscored that Turkmen civilians were there. "Some say there is Daesh in that area. There are no Daesh terrorists in Bayırbucak region of Latakia, Daesh is in Jarablous" Erdoğan said at a meeting of the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC) Russian no daesh in Bayirbucak Turkmen bombing
Syria’s Bayir Bucak area has witnessed mass displacement of Turkmen who fled their homes Saturday following attacks by Syrian and Russian forces, local sources told News Agencys. Bombing Bayirbucak
More than 6,000 flee besieged Bayırbucak take shelter in Turkey Syrian Turkmen Refuguee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.225.59 ( talk) 13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The US has been supporting the YPG with airstrikes since late September 2014 and reportedly supplied weapons to them and their FSA allies, while also arming other anti-YPG FSA groups. The US also recently, along with France, another major coalition member, called on Turkey to stop shelling the YPG.
On the other hand Russia only started airstrikes a year later and supported Rojava even more later. Is it accurate to include Russia but not the coalition in the Rojava column? Editor abcdef ( talk) 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I notice that recently there have been some unilateral changes made to Template:Syrian Civil War infobox which haven't been discussed here. As a result, the Syrian Kurds & Syrian Democratic Forces and the US-led (CJTF-OIR) coalition have been separated. It now appears that the CJTF–OIR coalition (which includes most of the "Western world") has no allies on the ground in Syria at all, while the Syrian Kurds are supported only by Russia (which is obviously false, as the US has been supporting them throughout). Compounding the confusion is that the CJTF-OIR coalition itself has been conflicted about the Syrian Kurds almost from the beginning, with Turkey currently performing cross-border artillery strikes on them while the US and France are urging Turkey to stop. Perhaps the obvious question is: is the CJTF-OIR coalition actually a "side" to the conflict, or is it just an umbrella organization with no coherent ideology whose different members support different sides in the civil war? Esn ( talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi folks. So I sometimes view this article to get updated on things and I can swear I used to be able to read in the info box that among others Cuba and Angola were supplying weapons and expertise to the Syrian government, I think other nations too like Belarus. Now I know various sides and probably FSB/CIA/Whatevs operatives here have various missions and goals with removing that information. But this is not the primary question. The primary question is that even though I clearly remember seeing these flags in the info box just a few weeks ago, not even moving back to the start of January do I find them anymore.
So my question is two fold: Isn't it true that they were there? Why were they removed? Here are two articles from US press that suggest that Cuban officers are assisting the Government: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/14/cuban-military-forces-deployed-to-syria-to-operate-russian-tanks-say-sources.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/14/leopoldo-cintras-frias-cuban-military-chief-visits/
Second part: If this was indeed the case, and I remember finding out about it through the wiki here somewhere, how the hell have they not only been removed but removed from the history of the page?
Thank you PS; Please explain this to me I'm going crazy more over the second question than the first, though it would be prudent to add these flags and supporters back... 92.251.63.47 ( talk) 13:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
What's the criteria for listing rebel groups above or below the line that separates the "opposition" and al-Qaeda? For example Soldiers of the Levant is placed below the line and Alwiya al-Furqan above, despite that they are allies and share the same ideology. Editor abcdef ( talk) 06:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Turkey became directly involved in fighting. It might be of lesser significance but still a fact: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Default.aspx?pageID=238&nID=95143&NewsCatID=352 Isn't that right time to include Turkey in the infobox? -- Emesik ( talk) 08:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The media are misleading the public on Syria
“…Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.” Stephen Kinzer, Boston Globe, February 18, 2016
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.236.30 ( talk) 12:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Iraq has deployed state sanctioned Shia militia such as the Badr Organisation Military Wing, Kata'ib Hezbollah, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, Liwa Abu al-Fadhal al-Abbas to fight in Syria.
204.197.177.213 ( talk) 23:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
2620:101:F000:700:74E7:437D:D706:5D6A ( talk) 16:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
162.221.125.161 ( talk) 01:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Wrong. The Kurds have clashed with both Rebel factions and the Syrian government on a number of occasions. There was even an incident this year where a Pro-Assad militia ended up provoking a fight with the Kurds that left several dead and injured, including civilians. Plus, in recent offensives around Aleppo, the Kurds and the Syrian military wouldn't let each other cross their lines, and several checkpoints had to be set up in order to prevent fights from breaking out. The Kurds are fighting for themselves in the civil war. They have their own reasons to fight, and have their own goals, which sets them apart from other sides in this conflict. Anasaitis ( talk) 19:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
As the subject says. The government and the army are keeping Damascus stable and safe and yet they are red. Meanwhile the extremist Sunni rebels are green. What is this? Maybe the colors don't matter too much. But I have this suspicion that Wikipedia is trying put off the Syrian government as the bad guys even though they aren't. Oh and please don't try and say that they are. Most American news that reports on the matter is extremely propagandized. I'm a Syrian and I have family living in Syria. My father and mother currently live in the US, and all of us support President Bashar. It's a shame really. America helps the extremist rebels who will oppress women, Christians, atheists, homosexuals, etc, and yet they are the good guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:301:A090:C4F3:1833:C3FF:1B1D ( talk) 19:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Re "The Russian involvement has helped turn the tide against the Islamic State and in favour of the Syrian government.".
This sentence is a distortion of the facts. It is what Putin says to justify his involvement. Two of the three quoted sources appear to be directly parroting the Russian line; they are not sources worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, except perhaps in the later Russian involvement section, as part of the Russian POV. Reputable Western press consistently finds that the primary effect of Russian airstrikes has been against the weaker independent rebels, NOT against ISIS. For example, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/russian-bombs-trigger-mass-aleppo-exodus-syria-conference-told "The Russian defence ministry said ... While Moscow’s intervention has the declared aim of battling the Islamic State terror group, military observers claim at least 70% of airstrikes have targeted opposition groups fighting to oust Assad." ... "The Russian air attacks in the area around Aleppo have succeeded in clearing rebel strongholds that had defied two earlier regime pushes..."
The Syrian government's stated aim is to re-gain control of Aleppo, and seal the border with Turkey. These aims would nullify the rebels backed by Western powers, but would have little effect on ISIS. A look at BBC map of Russian air strikes confirms that the vast majority are on rebel-held areas both north and south of Damascus, not on ISIS to the east and north-east.
I think this sentence should be replaced with something like "Since September 2015, Russian air strikes have allowed the Syrian government to take the offensive on all fronts, especially against rebel factions in and around Aleppo.
I have made this change, and removed the two low-quality references. ("on all fronts" because it *is* true that the government is making headway against ISIS; it just isn't the primary consequence. "Aleppo", because that area has been the most significant advance, and is the heart of non-Islamic rebel opposition) ToolmakerSteve ( talk) 03:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The Russian military should put on the side of the Syrian government, not Rojava.
Under the combatants section we have the FSA strength at 40 - 50,000. However the article is from 2013. Is it possible to get more up to date numbers? A large portion of these have joined al-Nusra or Islamic State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 ( talk) 03:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
[ Claim ]
There have only been 6 Russian casualties in the Syrian Civil War. Sources: Source 1 Source 2 -- 6 (soldiers contractors).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.91.194.173 ( talk) 01:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) 80.91.194.173 ( talk) 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
6+2http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2961899=8 12 4 2016
as usual - the United States brazenly lying all over the world)))
total losses to date only 8 (all kinds of troops). Bole of you deny as all the ref article on casualties among the volunteers outside the army. Your total losses of more than 8 is a pure lie. It may be worth to take into account the US losses in Iraq, taking into account the mercenaries? + Afghanistan, it will be another 10 000 =) lol
There is already quite enough evidence for North Korean military personnel fighting alongside Syrian troops. Maybe include them alongside Russia, Iran and Hezbollah ? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC) This page has some good text already. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War Washington Post has an article too today. Legacypac ( talk) 22:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The "Kurds" in the map should be replaced by either YPG Kurds or SDF. The "Kurds" are not a homogeneous group. There are Kurds on the side of the Syrian government, Syrian opposition as awell as ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liesbeth98 ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Leader of YPJ says that YPG hasn't supported by Russia. They say that Russia hasn't supported them militarily. [1]. Just adding this source here so if later find other similar source, we can discuss about Russian role. Ferakp ( talk) 17:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)