This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The United States support the "FSA/opposition groups". They have stated this in the past and were called out by Russia on this several times in the past. Why doesn't this get mentioned, but Russia gets its own paragraph in the pro-Assad section? This smells like western bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.24.49 ( talk) 10:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Snowden Reveals NSA Intervention In Syria, Hacking Program Compelled Him To Leak Documents
“By the time he went to work for Booz Allen in the spring of 2013, Snowden was thoroughly disillusioned, yet he had not lost his capacity for shock. One day an intelligence officer told him that TAO—a division of NSA hackers—had attempted in 2012 to remotely install an exploit in one of the core routers at a major Internet service provider in Syria, which was in the midst of a prolonged civil war. This would have given the NSA access to email and other Internet traffic from much of the country. But something went wrong, and the router was bricked instead—rendered totally inoperable. The failure of this router caused Syria to suddenly lose all connection to the Internet—although the public didn’t know that the US government was responsible.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.135.197 ( talk) 19:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs of the lead should be put into other sections or new sections, and not part of the lead. It'd need some reorganization, but they just don't fit in the lead, it seems. -- Jethro B 17:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Fellow Editors,
On the map, Iraq (in yellow) is shown as "having groups that support the rebels". I suggest that the caption for yellow be changed to say "has different groups supporting the rebels and government". It seems the Shiite-government is supporting the Assad government and the Sunni-majority in Anbar Province is supporting the rebels. Then, there are the Kurds. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 20:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Many entries in the 'Support for the opposition' section would fit better in the International reactions to the Syrian civil war, half the world expressed its support, but unless there is some kind of involvement(money,troops,equipment, etc) those entries shouldn't be here.-- Mor2 ( talk) 04:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This article stricture could really use several more pair of eyes.-- Mor2 ( talk) 04:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Pass a Method tried to remove Iraq from this article, despite sources stating their influence in the war. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The map makes no sense in its designation of Lebanon. Like Iraq, the Lebanese government is weak, and like Iraq, there are various Lebanese that support the rebels, in Sidon, Tripoli and Arsal, just as examples. In fact Arsal has pretty much become part of the civil war, with rebels camped there with local support, and Assad bombing them. Al Assir's visit to Qusayr and recent smuggling of himself to Syria should count as parties that support the rebels. Not to mention, articles about groups like Fatah al Islam fighting inside Syria have appeared in the media since over a year ago. Lebanon should be changed to yellow colour as well. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 01:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is Israel not mentioned here except for the Golan Heights border clashes? They've also intervened several times against the Syrian government with missile strikes, most recently a few days ago when they destroyed advanced Russian missile equipment near the coast. Esn ( talk) 09:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Several Greek newspapers have written for Greek volunteers fighting along with Assad's force and other Greek orthodox against terrorists. Is there any other source to confirm or not this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.109.167 ( talk) 12:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There is some really terrible English in this article. There's misuse of prepositions, conjunctions and lack of pronouns and all other problems which range from making reading difficult to impossible. Wikipedia is open to all to edit, yes; however, if you cannot write in basic English well enough to make what you're saying understandable to others then please ask someone for help. 50.198.123.65 ( talk) 03:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Whomever created that map is flat out wrong. I of course refer to the world map showing the "allies" of each side. China an openly declared ally of Syria? The US, UK, France, etc. openly declared allies of the rebels? That is factually wrong. None of those states have said they are allies to anyone in the conflict. Who ever created that map is biased or grossly misinformed. Thus I remove will remove it. You can't have an article taken seriously with an issue like that.-- 173.32.93.209 ( talk) 02:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 23:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war → Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War – The main page was just moved from "Syrian civil war" to "Syrian Civil War", there should be consistency. Charles Essie ( talk) 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the recent added 'Organize' template, this article resembles to those containing list of news only sorted by country instead of date. It is confusing, not always important and hard to navigate, which is why many of the events are outdated. IMO most of it should be trimmed and summarized, because right now it looks like the place where events which were removed from the main aritcle come to die ;) -- PLNR ( talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate any quality in depth source that covers Foreign involvement in support of the opposition.-- PLNR ( talk) 20:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The war has changed so damn much since a year ago, hell, the US led airstrikes have made this entire article obsolete. Ericl ( talk) 13:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 5 7 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War → Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War 2011-13 – article is way behind 2014 developments which are covered in several 2014 articles --Relisted. Dekimasu よ! 04:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Legacypac ( talk) 09:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It's six months after the last request to move the article, and reading it again one will notice how dated it is. What we need is a curitorial conference to take up what to do with the entire Arab Winter mess, as the internets and world press go apeshit over the possible joint invasion of Syria by Jordan and Turkey. I think that this article should be split in three parts, this article with the (2011—13) added, one on the joint war in Iraq and Syria with ISIL, and one for the possible invasion this summer. I know it might be considered "crystal" but there's an article for the Iraqi retaking of Mosul, and that hasn't happened yet either. We can always change the title of the "invasion" if it doesn't come to pass. There's enough that's already happened to merit it. Ericl ( talk) 13:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, The claim that Houthis are involved lacks sources. No source on the web refers to precise battles or to a defected Syrian brigadier. All the web sources claiming that Houthis fight or fought in Syria, including the on given, seem to be based on this 2013 article, where the information is credited to "a (Yemeni) official source, speaking on condition of anonymity". I think this is not a reliable enough encyclopedic source and that we should delete the claim in all the pages where it appears (including Syrian Civil War and Houthis, see the talk page) until better sources show up. Yet, personally I know nothing about the Houthis, does anyone here know more ? (you can talk with me on wp:fr) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandEscogriffe ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Red, green, blue, yellow is a terrible palette for a visualization. I am partially color blind and cannot distinguish the red/green tones at all.
This is a good resource to generate user-friendly palettes: http://colorbrewer2.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.101.31 ( talk) 19:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The KLA has been disbanded for 16 years and it is therefore irrelevant to this article because this is about support from currently existing groups. It could be included in Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian Civil War, however.-- Franz Brod ( talk) 03:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC) non event
It has been slammed d in some papers as a wast of time and minimalist. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12078395/RAF-bomb-raids-in-Syria-dismissed-as-non-event.html 89.241.81.73 ( talk) 22:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Why Libya is marked as a country supporting rebels? It is split by a civil war itself and it's hard to say anything about their official stance. No sources here too. -- Emesik ( talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Syrian rebels are fighting for libya GrandBotBoi ( talk) 05:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The two top maps contradict each other on Iraq's status. -- Catlemur ( talk) 18:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The two top maps also contradict on Jordan and on Yemen. The worst thing Wikipedia can do is to contradict itself within one and the same article: it would make us look ridiculous and unreliable to our visitors. It is beyond my capabilities and knowledge to amend that contradiction of those maps. Therefore, the one thing I'll have to do now, is: remove the lower of those two maps, introduced in this article Sep2015, introducing contradiction(s) in the article. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 15:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
China's position is barely mentioned even though the top map claims China supports Assad.-- Catlemur ( talk) 18:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the map should be changed. The Chinese government has provided diplomatic support to Assad and promised to provide support through medical support, but it is not providing troops. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-supporting-syrias-regime-what-changed-17738 http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2133064/china-step-aid-syria-war-winds-down 86.151.100.148 ( talk) 05:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
We have lots of sources like:
The consensus is that this article should have a separate Israel section.
Should we have a separate Israel section in this article? Huldra ( talk) 21:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This question is flawed, and this page is lightly trafficed compared to the main Syrian Civil War page where this issue has been debated and rejected over and over for years. No evidence has been presented to support the alleged conclusion. I've added this page to my watchlist. Legacypac ( talk) 10:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Recently, the French president announced that France would no longer support the Opposition besides ISIS and SDF. Changing the map on the top right corner accordingly perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Recently two parallel RfC were concluded - one at the Talk:Syrian Civil War page and another one on this page above. While the long standing consensus has been not to regard to Israel as a belligerent or supporter (see talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel), several editors advocated that certain articles on the Syrian Civil War could include Israel and this page now lists Israel as "supporting the opposition". However, it is very confusing due to conflicting claims - Israelis have repeatedly refuted of supporting the Syrian opposition; the only party that Israelis vowed to protect in Syrian territories were the Druze who are mostly pro-Ba'athist (pro-Asad). Some conspiracy theories have also advocated Israeli alleged support to ISIL or to Al-Nusra Front (also refuted by Israelis) and Israeli Air Force has periodically been accused of airstrikes on Syrian territories (Israelis mostly denied or ignored). Israelis themselves admitted of being involved in some spillover border incidents and so far responded in fire against several Syrian War parties ( against SAA and pro-Asad PIJ, against FSA, against ISIL), which is however very limited. Surely Israel cannot be listed as supporting all parties or fighting against all parties of that war, so this RfC should bring some order on this page considering that Israel is not included in the Syrian Civil War infobox and main page.
Please vote which option for listing Israel on this page is preferable if any:
Add your vote below. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that we do have Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve as an active belligerent in the infobox but it is not listed here as one of the active sides. There is some info on CJTF-OIR activity in sections regarding US and UK support to the opposition, but this certainly requires a separate section in my opinion. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please fix the broken link in this footnote (the following code copied below contains the correct link):
</ref> Turkey became increasingly hostile to the Assad government's policies and came to encourage reconciliation among dissident factions. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has tried to "cultivate a favorable relationship with whatever government would take the place of Assad." [1] Editor abcdefgh ( talk) 12:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I'm not a Wikipedia writer but I was searching for the reason why Wikipedia is banned in Turkey and I think the article is biased indeed. Here's what's written:
"On 2 December 2015, Russia′s military officials presented what they referred to as "only part of the available facts" that proved that Turkey′s president Recep Erdogan and his family were personally involved in a multimillion-dollar oil smuggling operation that funded ISIL terrorists. The accusations were seen as further drastic escalation of tensions between Turkey and Russia that has its military personnel and advanced weapons openly deployed in Syria. Both the Turkish government and the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) denied this. Commenting on the allegations, John R. Bass, the US Ambassador to Turkey, told the press that the claims about the Turkish government's involvement in ISIL oil trade were unfounded, citing the official apology issued by the CIA with regards to the allegations in 2014."
If Turkey, KRG, and US denied this claim, and if CIA even officially apologized, then how is it fair to start this paragraph with "...proved that Turkey′s president Recep Erdogan and his family were personally involved in a multimillion-dollar oil smuggling operation that funded ISIL terrorists."?
I believe "proved" should be changed to "claimed" or "claimed to have proved" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.168.22 ( talk) 00:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
[4] by User:GPRamirez5.
The sentence under dispute is: it was known to have extensive relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.
Two sources are listed.
This source says "Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists". "Some work with" is very different than "extensive relationships with". This is obviously characterizing the source to push a POV.
Second source doesn't even mention Ahrar al-Sham. Al-Qaeda is mentioned but NOT in any connection with SMC.
User:GPRamirez5 please self revert, and please keep in mind that the article is under discretionary sanctions. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, please don't mark non-minor edits as minor, as that itself can be seen as disruptive. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Colonel Abdul-Jabbar Agaydee, the top F.S.A. commander in the northern city of Aleppo and a man who doesn’t spend his time in hotel lobbies, has lambasted the Supreme Military Council, of which he himself is a member, saying it is “completely disconnected from reality.” (Still, on Thursday, he issued a video statement calling for unity.) In August, after the fall of the Menagh air base in the countryside near Aleppo, Colonel Agaydee was videotaped standing in front of a damaged helicopter, thanking all of the fighters who took part, including “the foreign fighters, the sons of the city, and of the area.” He then invited the man on his left, “our brother Abu Jandal,” to speak. Abu Jandal was the local commander of al-Nusra’s even fiercer parent organization, Al Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS (which was not one of the eleven signatories). GPRamirez5 ( talk) 02:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The New Yorker source says three groups shifted allegiance from SMC to an alliance with al-Nusra. It also doesn't mention Ahrar al-Sham. Here's another, more clearly written, article about Communique No.1, which does mention Ahrar al-Sham, but makes it clear alignment with them was a break with SMC, so supports a statement almost opposite to the text in dispute. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 22:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
it was known to have extensive relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadistsis a blatant misrepresentation. As this is an article about Foreign involvement, going into this would be undue weight. I have added a link to the SMC article, and I think that's sufficient. Anything more feels like pushing a POV. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 08:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"The SMC is a rebel command structure that includes representatives from most major rebel groups, and excludes the Islamic extremist elements"—better summarizes the main thrust of RS reporting on this matter? Really??? TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
It sickens me the way some people insult fellow editors by expecting them not to read the sources. User:Bobfrombrockley, you are blatantly misrepresenting the New Yorker article. You want to talk about what the article is "mainly" about?
There has long been a disconnect between those fighting and bleeding inside Syria and the political and diplomatic machinations of those in exile. What is new here is that at least three of the eleven groups—Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Islam, and Suqour al-Sham—are aligned with the military wing of the National Coalition, the Supreme Military Council, which is supported by the West and is what passes for the leadership of the loose franchise outfit known as the Free Syrian Army (F.S.A.). Now they have publicly thrown in their lot with Jabhat al-Nusra, which also signed on to the statement and is connected to Al Qaeda.
This public alliance of affiliates of the F.S.A. and of Al Qaeda, however, is more of a shift on paper than a marked change in how things work on the ground. There has long been operational coordination on a local level—for a particular battle or in a certain geographic area. All that has really happened at this stage is that a fig leaf has dropped.
— "The Syrian Opposition Groups Stop Pretending", The New Yorker (September 26, 2013)
}}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do you support this? GPRamirez5 ( talk) 23:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [1]However, it was known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, [2] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists. [3] [4]
SMC-aligned brigades retain separate identities, agendas and commands. Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists(emphasis added). In other words, it is not the SMC that had operational relationships with these hardline groups, but brigades within it that retained autonomy. The New Yorker source is hard to summarise, but I think the quote in the footnote is misleading out of context. The article is not about the SMC, but mentions it three times, once to say that 3 Islamist groups ( Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Islam and Suqour al-Sham) were realigning from the SMC to al-Nusra, once to mention,the colonel (Agaydee - actually Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi) SMC member who had operational connections with al-Nusra "lambasting" the SMC, and once to mention leaders of FSA groups were threatening to resign from the SMC for reasons unrelated to Islamism. This is all quite complicated, and given that this is an article about Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War and not about the SMC it seems undue to spend so many words and footnotes on this rather tangential issue, unless it is to push a particular POV. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 20:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry I missed the fourth source, which is a useful study, but again doesn't say what the summary above says. It says that groups such as Liwa al-Tawhid left SMC to join the Army of Islam and started fighting against the SMC and against against ISIL and al-Nusra. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Bobfrombrockley's comments are misleading in that the FSA/SMC only exists as a cohesive entity on paper. In reality, it is a loose coalition of militants united only by shared opposition to Assad, with no centralized command structure. The FSA/SMC can therefore only be judged by the actions of its affiliates, not by official statements intended for Western consumption. In fact, if anything we should be far more explicit than even GPRamirez5 has proposed about the reality that any moderates within the FSA/SMC were purged or defected to the Islamist camp a long, long time ago, and that the FSA/SMC label is largely a fiction. Bobfrombrockley's contention that there is a single FSA/SMC distinct from its "autonomous brigades"
betrays a serious lack of understanding of what is actually happening on the ground in Syria.
TheTimesAreAChanging (
talk) 21:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"almost impossible to make general statements about the SMC,"what do you think about the current version of this article's contention that
"The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and excluded the more Islamist extremist elements"? TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 03:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [5]However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham [6] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists, [7] some of which later fought against it. [8]
The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [9] However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham [10] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in 2013. [11] Islamist groups left the SMC to form the Saudi-backed Islamic Front (Syria), which engaged in combat with SMC brigades. [12] As US policy shifted to combating ISIS, the SMC declared war on ISIS in late 2014. [12]
By early 2015, voices in the US foreign policy establishment were pushing for an abandonment of the rebels due to their operational weakness and collaboration with Islamist hardliners. [13]What do you think? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [14]However, it was known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, [15] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists. [16] [17]. I proposed
The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [18] However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham [19] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in 2013. [20]The differences are I didn't include the long, misleading quote from the New Yorker piece in the footnote, that I clarified that it was elements in it not the whole thing that had operational links (which I think you've agreed in the discussion), and that I have added a date. If the sources clearly show 2012, can we agree on
The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [21] However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham [22] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in 2012-2013. [23]? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
There is mention of Islamists being involved in the foundation of SMC in 2012 in Atwan's book, which has been mysteriously disappeared from your sources. All of SILF was also involved with SMC from 2012. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 20:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The extract is included in the main article as a prime example, a non-isolated incident, illustrating the failure of SMC at a high level to marginalize hardline Islamists, or even functionally distance itself from al Qaeda. We have already been through this. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 21:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The BBC article states: "The Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF) is a loose alliance formed in September 2012..Most of the groups, which ranged from moderate Islamist to ultraconservative Salafist in outlook, recognised the SMC and made up the bulk of its fighting force. In November 2013, Liwa al-Tawhid and Suqour al-Sham declared that they were joining the new Islamic Front, significantly reducing the SILF's military strength..." The significant part of SILF were ultraconservative Salafists who had an informal alliance with Ahrar al-Sham while SILF were in SMC, an alliance which was merely formalized when Tawid and Suquor joined IF. This is also the "main thesis" of The New Yorker article.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 01:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Lots of media have now reported on the joint statement based mainly on this blog post. Unfortunately, some have shed all the “what if” and caution. ... many commenters ran with the idea of a radical group called the “Islamic Coalition” (or “Alliance”) that has been formed to oppose the West. I don’t think this is true, at least not yet... it is not – as far as we know – an organized structure at all. It is a “bloc” or an “alliance” mainly in the sense that several groups now share a position and may continue to collaborate politically. ... In fact, I contacted the Tawhid Brigade spokesperson I talked to earlier, who had spoken of this as a gathering (tajammou) or bloc (takattul) that might have more lasting significance. He says there is so far nothing in the way of a common organization.... When I pointed out that Abdulqader Saleh’s rather offhand comment on Twitter using the phrase “Islamic Alliance” or “Islamic Coalition” (al-tahaluf al-islami) could be interpreted as the name of a new group, and that this version is now gaining currency in the media, he responded “it could become that, but so far there’s nothing”." So, I think your reliable source would be cancelled out by most other more specialist reliable sources. Why are you so insistent this article about Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War mentions some connection between the SMC and al-Nusra? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
"The inclusion of the core of [the National Coalition's] force... effectively depletes [its] armed wing, the Supreme Military Council," he told the Reuters news agency. "It is likely that the moderate Islamist coalition has ceased to exist as a single organisation structure."The square brackets are there in the BBC article; the italicisation is mine. Lister is clearly saying that the move of these groups to the temporary alliance represented by Communique No.1 was a pivot away from the SMC. He contradicts the fringe analysis presented by the two defence wonks in that Routledge book, who seem to think Communique No.1 formed some entity called "the Islamic Coalition". The "Coalition" was massively more unstable and ill-defined than the FSA, SNC and SMC; it was an ephemeral grouping whose paper existence ceased within weeks. Whatever the details of this complex picture, we cannot summarise it as anything like "the SMC had operational relationships with al-Nusra". We are still left with something like "elements in the SMC had operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra; these elements left the SMC in late 2013". BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The new alliance stressed that it was not abandoning Idriss’s council, only the exiled political opposition coalition, which, it said in a statement, “does not represent us.”...In a statement Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that officials had “seen the reports” and were “discussing with the moderate opposition what impact this will have going forward..." U.S. aid would continue, she said, “taking into account that alliances and associations often change on the ground based on resources and needs of the moment.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPRamirez5 ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
References
FYI, Block of Wikipedia in Turkey is related to this article, which has been cited by the Turkish government for blocking Wikipedia in Turkey since 29 April 2017.
Certainly the Wikimedia Foundation objects to censorship and the blocking of access to Wikipedia in Turkey. In no way should the Turkish government's action dissuade us from article content and editing following our normal policies of NPOV, verifiability, etc.... JGHowes talk 23:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
North East Syria is currently administered by the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES). European countries are still reluctant to repatriate their foreign fighters and families, leaving them in the area under control of AANES. Simultaneously, prosecution by Syrian and Iraqi courts is not considered as meeting international human rights standards. It is unlikely that an international tribunal will be established in the region, so the AANES have prosecuted local ISIS fighters in temporary courts and tribunals. [1] This raises issues of legitimacy, but since it seems the only viable option for now, European countries and the United Nations could contribute to the functioning of these courts. [1]
ICCT.nl ( talk) 11:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Article doesn’t mention anywhere that the religious Shi’ite authorities never issued fatwa for jihad in Syria nor any high ranking scholars ever encouraged Shi’ite to fight in Syria. In fact, many ulama accused Assad of butchering his own people while Iraqi al Sadr even urged him to step down. The only Shiites that went to Syria to fight on Assad’s behalf are followers of Khamene’i. In fact a lot of pro-Sistani militias broke off from mainstream Popular Mobilisation Units over pro-Khamene’i groups going to Syria against the wishes of Najaf scholarship.
“In fact, Sadr’s stance on the Syrian regime is not new, as other clerics have criticized the Syrian regime for its atrocities against its own people. They have also criticized Shiite militias for backing Assad in the fight against the Syrian opposition. After the popular uprising against Assad when it broke out in March 2011, Sadr expressed his support in a November statement. Despite accusations that the Sadrist Movement, which is highly influential among Iraqi Shiites, was taking part in the Syrian conflict, he has denied any involvement by members of his party. He has also voiced his disapproval of other Shiite militias going to Syria to fight for Assad. [..] Many prominent Najaf clerics have never supported the Syrian regime, with some even forbidding their followers to fight in Syria. Four prominent Najaf clergymen — Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Sheikh Ishaq al-Fayyad, Seyed Mohammad Sa’id al-Hakim and Sheikh Bashir al-Najafi — were quoted by Asharq Alawsat as adopting a unified stance in 2013: “Individuals who go to Syria for jihad are disobeying the commands of religious authorities.” In Qom, no prominent clerics have issued fatwas in support of sending Shiite fighters to Syria.” Source: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E003:A23:8801:7995:58F0:CC9A:3A8C ( talk) 17:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The United States support the "FSA/opposition groups". They have stated this in the past and were called out by Russia on this several times in the past. Why doesn't this get mentioned, but Russia gets its own paragraph in the pro-Assad section? This smells like western bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.24.49 ( talk) 10:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Snowden Reveals NSA Intervention In Syria, Hacking Program Compelled Him To Leak Documents
“By the time he went to work for Booz Allen in the spring of 2013, Snowden was thoroughly disillusioned, yet he had not lost his capacity for shock. One day an intelligence officer told him that TAO—a division of NSA hackers—had attempted in 2012 to remotely install an exploit in one of the core routers at a major Internet service provider in Syria, which was in the midst of a prolonged civil war. This would have given the NSA access to email and other Internet traffic from much of the country. But something went wrong, and the router was bricked instead—rendered totally inoperable. The failure of this router caused Syria to suddenly lose all connection to the Internet—although the public didn’t know that the US government was responsible.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.135.197 ( talk) 19:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs of the lead should be put into other sections or new sections, and not part of the lead. It'd need some reorganization, but they just don't fit in the lead, it seems. -- Jethro B 17:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Fellow Editors,
On the map, Iraq (in yellow) is shown as "having groups that support the rebels". I suggest that the caption for yellow be changed to say "has different groups supporting the rebels and government". It seems the Shiite-government is supporting the Assad government and the Sunni-majority in Anbar Province is supporting the rebels. Then, there are the Kurds. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 20:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Many entries in the 'Support for the opposition' section would fit better in the International reactions to the Syrian civil war, half the world expressed its support, but unless there is some kind of involvement(money,troops,equipment, etc) those entries shouldn't be here.-- Mor2 ( talk) 04:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This article stricture could really use several more pair of eyes.-- Mor2 ( talk) 04:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Pass a Method tried to remove Iraq from this article, despite sources stating their influence in the war. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The map makes no sense in its designation of Lebanon. Like Iraq, the Lebanese government is weak, and like Iraq, there are various Lebanese that support the rebels, in Sidon, Tripoli and Arsal, just as examples. In fact Arsal has pretty much become part of the civil war, with rebels camped there with local support, and Assad bombing them. Al Assir's visit to Qusayr and recent smuggling of himself to Syria should count as parties that support the rebels. Not to mention, articles about groups like Fatah al Islam fighting inside Syria have appeared in the media since over a year ago. Lebanon should be changed to yellow colour as well. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 01:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is Israel not mentioned here except for the Golan Heights border clashes? They've also intervened several times against the Syrian government with missile strikes, most recently a few days ago when they destroyed advanced Russian missile equipment near the coast. Esn ( talk) 09:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Several Greek newspapers have written for Greek volunteers fighting along with Assad's force and other Greek orthodox against terrorists. Is there any other source to confirm or not this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.109.167 ( talk) 12:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There is some really terrible English in this article. There's misuse of prepositions, conjunctions and lack of pronouns and all other problems which range from making reading difficult to impossible. Wikipedia is open to all to edit, yes; however, if you cannot write in basic English well enough to make what you're saying understandable to others then please ask someone for help. 50.198.123.65 ( talk) 03:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Whomever created that map is flat out wrong. I of course refer to the world map showing the "allies" of each side. China an openly declared ally of Syria? The US, UK, France, etc. openly declared allies of the rebels? That is factually wrong. None of those states have said they are allies to anyone in the conflict. Who ever created that map is biased or grossly misinformed. Thus I remove will remove it. You can't have an article taken seriously with an issue like that.-- 173.32.93.209 ( talk) 02:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 23:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war → Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War – The main page was just moved from "Syrian civil war" to "Syrian Civil War", there should be consistency. Charles Essie ( talk) 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the recent added 'Organize' template, this article resembles to those containing list of news only sorted by country instead of date. It is confusing, not always important and hard to navigate, which is why many of the events are outdated. IMO most of it should be trimmed and summarized, because right now it looks like the place where events which were removed from the main aritcle come to die ;) -- PLNR ( talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate any quality in depth source that covers Foreign involvement in support of the opposition.-- PLNR ( talk) 20:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The war has changed so damn much since a year ago, hell, the US led airstrikes have made this entire article obsolete. Ericl ( talk) 13:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 5 7 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War → Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War 2011-13 – article is way behind 2014 developments which are covered in several 2014 articles --Relisted. Dekimasu よ! 04:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Legacypac ( talk) 09:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It's six months after the last request to move the article, and reading it again one will notice how dated it is. What we need is a curitorial conference to take up what to do with the entire Arab Winter mess, as the internets and world press go apeshit over the possible joint invasion of Syria by Jordan and Turkey. I think that this article should be split in three parts, this article with the (2011—13) added, one on the joint war in Iraq and Syria with ISIL, and one for the possible invasion this summer. I know it might be considered "crystal" but there's an article for the Iraqi retaking of Mosul, and that hasn't happened yet either. We can always change the title of the "invasion" if it doesn't come to pass. There's enough that's already happened to merit it. Ericl ( talk) 13:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, The claim that Houthis are involved lacks sources. No source on the web refers to precise battles or to a defected Syrian brigadier. All the web sources claiming that Houthis fight or fought in Syria, including the on given, seem to be based on this 2013 article, where the information is credited to "a (Yemeni) official source, speaking on condition of anonymity". I think this is not a reliable enough encyclopedic source and that we should delete the claim in all the pages where it appears (including Syrian Civil War and Houthis, see the talk page) until better sources show up. Yet, personally I know nothing about the Houthis, does anyone here know more ? (you can talk with me on wp:fr) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandEscogriffe ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Red, green, blue, yellow is a terrible palette for a visualization. I am partially color blind and cannot distinguish the red/green tones at all.
This is a good resource to generate user-friendly palettes: http://colorbrewer2.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.101.31 ( talk) 19:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The KLA has been disbanded for 16 years and it is therefore irrelevant to this article because this is about support from currently existing groups. It could be included in Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian Civil War, however.-- Franz Brod ( talk) 03:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC) non event
It has been slammed d in some papers as a wast of time and minimalist. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12078395/RAF-bomb-raids-in-Syria-dismissed-as-non-event.html 89.241.81.73 ( talk) 22:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Why Libya is marked as a country supporting rebels? It is split by a civil war itself and it's hard to say anything about their official stance. No sources here too. -- Emesik ( talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Syrian rebels are fighting for libya GrandBotBoi ( talk) 05:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The two top maps contradict each other on Iraq's status. -- Catlemur ( talk) 18:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The two top maps also contradict on Jordan and on Yemen. The worst thing Wikipedia can do is to contradict itself within one and the same article: it would make us look ridiculous and unreliable to our visitors. It is beyond my capabilities and knowledge to amend that contradiction of those maps. Therefore, the one thing I'll have to do now, is: remove the lower of those two maps, introduced in this article Sep2015, introducing contradiction(s) in the article. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 15:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
China's position is barely mentioned even though the top map claims China supports Assad.-- Catlemur ( talk) 18:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the map should be changed. The Chinese government has provided diplomatic support to Assad and promised to provide support through medical support, but it is not providing troops. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-supporting-syrias-regime-what-changed-17738 http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2133064/china-step-aid-syria-war-winds-down 86.151.100.148 ( talk) 05:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
We have lots of sources like:
The consensus is that this article should have a separate Israel section.
Should we have a separate Israel section in this article? Huldra ( talk) 21:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This question is flawed, and this page is lightly trafficed compared to the main Syrian Civil War page where this issue has been debated and rejected over and over for years. No evidence has been presented to support the alleged conclusion. I've added this page to my watchlist. Legacypac ( talk) 10:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Recently, the French president announced that France would no longer support the Opposition besides ISIS and SDF. Changing the map on the top right corner accordingly perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Recently two parallel RfC were concluded - one at the Talk:Syrian Civil War page and another one on this page above. While the long standing consensus has been not to regard to Israel as a belligerent or supporter (see talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel), several editors advocated that certain articles on the Syrian Civil War could include Israel and this page now lists Israel as "supporting the opposition". However, it is very confusing due to conflicting claims - Israelis have repeatedly refuted of supporting the Syrian opposition; the only party that Israelis vowed to protect in Syrian territories were the Druze who are mostly pro-Ba'athist (pro-Asad). Some conspiracy theories have also advocated Israeli alleged support to ISIL or to Al-Nusra Front (also refuted by Israelis) and Israeli Air Force has periodically been accused of airstrikes on Syrian territories (Israelis mostly denied or ignored). Israelis themselves admitted of being involved in some spillover border incidents and so far responded in fire against several Syrian War parties ( against SAA and pro-Asad PIJ, against FSA, against ISIL), which is however very limited. Surely Israel cannot be listed as supporting all parties or fighting against all parties of that war, so this RfC should bring some order on this page considering that Israel is not included in the Syrian Civil War infobox and main page.
Please vote which option for listing Israel on this page is preferable if any:
Add your vote below. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that we do have Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve as an active belligerent in the infobox but it is not listed here as one of the active sides. There is some info on CJTF-OIR activity in sections regarding US and UK support to the opposition, but this certainly requires a separate section in my opinion. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please fix the broken link in this footnote (the following code copied below contains the correct link):
</ref> Turkey became increasingly hostile to the Assad government's policies and came to encourage reconciliation among dissident factions. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has tried to "cultivate a favorable relationship with whatever government would take the place of Assad." [1] Editor abcdefgh ( talk) 12:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I'm not a Wikipedia writer but I was searching for the reason why Wikipedia is banned in Turkey and I think the article is biased indeed. Here's what's written:
"On 2 December 2015, Russia′s military officials presented what they referred to as "only part of the available facts" that proved that Turkey′s president Recep Erdogan and his family were personally involved in a multimillion-dollar oil smuggling operation that funded ISIL terrorists. The accusations were seen as further drastic escalation of tensions between Turkey and Russia that has its military personnel and advanced weapons openly deployed in Syria. Both the Turkish government and the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) denied this. Commenting on the allegations, John R. Bass, the US Ambassador to Turkey, told the press that the claims about the Turkish government's involvement in ISIL oil trade were unfounded, citing the official apology issued by the CIA with regards to the allegations in 2014."
If Turkey, KRG, and US denied this claim, and if CIA even officially apologized, then how is it fair to start this paragraph with "...proved that Turkey′s president Recep Erdogan and his family were personally involved in a multimillion-dollar oil smuggling operation that funded ISIL terrorists."?
I believe "proved" should be changed to "claimed" or "claimed to have proved" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.168.22 ( talk) 00:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
[4] by User:GPRamirez5.
The sentence under dispute is: it was known to have extensive relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.
Two sources are listed.
This source says "Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists". "Some work with" is very different than "extensive relationships with". This is obviously characterizing the source to push a POV.
Second source doesn't even mention Ahrar al-Sham. Al-Qaeda is mentioned but NOT in any connection with SMC.
User:GPRamirez5 please self revert, and please keep in mind that the article is under discretionary sanctions. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, please don't mark non-minor edits as minor, as that itself can be seen as disruptive. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Colonel Abdul-Jabbar Agaydee, the top F.S.A. commander in the northern city of Aleppo and a man who doesn’t spend his time in hotel lobbies, has lambasted the Supreme Military Council, of which he himself is a member, saying it is “completely disconnected from reality.” (Still, on Thursday, he issued a video statement calling for unity.) In August, after the fall of the Menagh air base in the countryside near Aleppo, Colonel Agaydee was videotaped standing in front of a damaged helicopter, thanking all of the fighters who took part, including “the foreign fighters, the sons of the city, and of the area.” He then invited the man on his left, “our brother Abu Jandal,” to speak. Abu Jandal was the local commander of al-Nusra’s even fiercer parent organization, Al Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS (which was not one of the eleven signatories). GPRamirez5 ( talk) 02:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The New Yorker source says three groups shifted allegiance from SMC to an alliance with al-Nusra. It also doesn't mention Ahrar al-Sham. Here's another, more clearly written, article about Communique No.1, which does mention Ahrar al-Sham, but makes it clear alignment with them was a break with SMC, so supports a statement almost opposite to the text in dispute. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 22:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
it was known to have extensive relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadistsis a blatant misrepresentation. As this is an article about Foreign involvement, going into this would be undue weight. I have added a link to the SMC article, and I think that's sufficient. Anything more feels like pushing a POV. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 08:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"The SMC is a rebel command structure that includes representatives from most major rebel groups, and excludes the Islamic extremist elements"—better summarizes the main thrust of RS reporting on this matter? Really??? TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
It sickens me the way some people insult fellow editors by expecting them not to read the sources. User:Bobfrombrockley, you are blatantly misrepresenting the New Yorker article. You want to talk about what the article is "mainly" about?
There has long been a disconnect between those fighting and bleeding inside Syria and the political and diplomatic machinations of those in exile. What is new here is that at least three of the eleven groups—Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Islam, and Suqour al-Sham—are aligned with the military wing of the National Coalition, the Supreme Military Council, which is supported by the West and is what passes for the leadership of the loose franchise outfit known as the Free Syrian Army (F.S.A.). Now they have publicly thrown in their lot with Jabhat al-Nusra, which also signed on to the statement and is connected to Al Qaeda.
This public alliance of affiliates of the F.S.A. and of Al Qaeda, however, is more of a shift on paper than a marked change in how things work on the ground. There has long been operational coordination on a local level—for a particular battle or in a certain geographic area. All that has really happened at this stage is that a fig leaf has dropped.
— "The Syrian Opposition Groups Stop Pretending", The New Yorker (September 26, 2013)
}}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do you support this? GPRamirez5 ( talk) 23:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [1]However, it was known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, [2] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists. [3] [4]
SMC-aligned brigades retain separate identities, agendas and commands. Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists(emphasis added). In other words, it is not the SMC that had operational relationships with these hardline groups, but brigades within it that retained autonomy. The New Yorker source is hard to summarise, but I think the quote in the footnote is misleading out of context. The article is not about the SMC, but mentions it three times, once to say that 3 Islamist groups ( Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Islam and Suqour al-Sham) were realigning from the SMC to al-Nusra, once to mention,the colonel (Agaydee - actually Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi) SMC member who had operational connections with al-Nusra "lambasting" the SMC, and once to mention leaders of FSA groups were threatening to resign from the SMC for reasons unrelated to Islamism. This is all quite complicated, and given that this is an article about Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War and not about the SMC it seems undue to spend so many words and footnotes on this rather tangential issue, unless it is to push a particular POV. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 20:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry I missed the fourth source, which is a useful study, but again doesn't say what the summary above says. It says that groups such as Liwa al-Tawhid left SMC to join the Army of Islam and started fighting against the SMC and against against ISIL and al-Nusra. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Bobfrombrockley's comments are misleading in that the FSA/SMC only exists as a cohesive entity on paper. In reality, it is a loose coalition of militants united only by shared opposition to Assad, with no centralized command structure. The FSA/SMC can therefore only be judged by the actions of its affiliates, not by official statements intended for Western consumption. In fact, if anything we should be far more explicit than even GPRamirez5 has proposed about the reality that any moderates within the FSA/SMC were purged or defected to the Islamist camp a long, long time ago, and that the FSA/SMC label is largely a fiction. Bobfrombrockley's contention that there is a single FSA/SMC distinct from its "autonomous brigades"
betrays a serious lack of understanding of what is actually happening on the ground in Syria.
TheTimesAreAChanging (
talk) 21:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"almost impossible to make general statements about the SMC,"what do you think about the current version of this article's contention that
"The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and excluded the more Islamist extremist elements"? TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 03:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [5]However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham [6] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists, [7] some of which later fought against it. [8]
The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [9] However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham [10] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in 2013. [11] Islamist groups left the SMC to form the Saudi-backed Islamic Front (Syria), which engaged in combat with SMC brigades. [12] As US policy shifted to combating ISIS, the SMC declared war on ISIS in late 2014. [12]
By early 2015, voices in the US foreign policy establishment were pushing for an abandonment of the rebels due to their operational weakness and collaboration with Islamist hardliners. [13]What do you think? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [14]However, it was known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, [15] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists. [16] [17]. I proposed
The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [18] However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham [19] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in 2013. [20]The differences are I didn't include the long, misleading quote from the New Yorker piece in the footnote, that I clarified that it was elements in it not the whole thing that had operational links (which I think you've agreed in the discussion), and that I have added a date. If the sources clearly show 2012, can we agree on
The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. [21] However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham [22] and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in 2012-2013. [23]? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
There is mention of Islamists being involved in the foundation of SMC in 2012 in Atwan's book, which has been mysteriously disappeared from your sources. All of SILF was also involved with SMC from 2012. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 20:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The extract is included in the main article as a prime example, a non-isolated incident, illustrating the failure of SMC at a high level to marginalize hardline Islamists, or even functionally distance itself from al Qaeda. We have already been through this. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 21:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The BBC article states: "The Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF) is a loose alliance formed in September 2012..Most of the groups, which ranged from moderate Islamist to ultraconservative Salafist in outlook, recognised the SMC and made up the bulk of its fighting force. In November 2013, Liwa al-Tawhid and Suqour al-Sham declared that they were joining the new Islamic Front, significantly reducing the SILF's military strength..." The significant part of SILF were ultraconservative Salafists who had an informal alliance with Ahrar al-Sham while SILF were in SMC, an alliance which was merely formalized when Tawid and Suquor joined IF. This is also the "main thesis" of The New Yorker article.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 01:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Lots of media have now reported on the joint statement based mainly on this blog post. Unfortunately, some have shed all the “what if” and caution. ... many commenters ran with the idea of a radical group called the “Islamic Coalition” (or “Alliance”) that has been formed to oppose the West. I don’t think this is true, at least not yet... it is not – as far as we know – an organized structure at all. It is a “bloc” or an “alliance” mainly in the sense that several groups now share a position and may continue to collaborate politically. ... In fact, I contacted the Tawhid Brigade spokesperson I talked to earlier, who had spoken of this as a gathering (tajammou) or bloc (takattul) that might have more lasting significance. He says there is so far nothing in the way of a common organization.... When I pointed out that Abdulqader Saleh’s rather offhand comment on Twitter using the phrase “Islamic Alliance” or “Islamic Coalition” (al-tahaluf al-islami) could be interpreted as the name of a new group, and that this version is now gaining currency in the media, he responded “it could become that, but so far there’s nothing”." So, I think your reliable source would be cancelled out by most other more specialist reliable sources. Why are you so insistent this article about Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War mentions some connection between the SMC and al-Nusra? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
"The inclusion of the core of [the National Coalition's] force... effectively depletes [its] armed wing, the Supreme Military Council," he told the Reuters news agency. "It is likely that the moderate Islamist coalition has ceased to exist as a single organisation structure."The square brackets are there in the BBC article; the italicisation is mine. Lister is clearly saying that the move of these groups to the temporary alliance represented by Communique No.1 was a pivot away from the SMC. He contradicts the fringe analysis presented by the two defence wonks in that Routledge book, who seem to think Communique No.1 formed some entity called "the Islamic Coalition". The "Coalition" was massively more unstable and ill-defined than the FSA, SNC and SMC; it was an ephemeral grouping whose paper existence ceased within weeks. Whatever the details of this complex picture, we cannot summarise it as anything like "the SMC had operational relationships with al-Nusra". We are still left with something like "elements in the SMC had operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra; these elements left the SMC in late 2013". BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The new alliance stressed that it was not abandoning Idriss’s council, only the exiled political opposition coalition, which, it said in a statement, “does not represent us.”...In a statement Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that officials had “seen the reports” and were “discussing with the moderate opposition what impact this will have going forward..." U.S. aid would continue, she said, “taking into account that alliances and associations often change on the ground based on resources and needs of the moment.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPRamirez5 ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
References
FYI, Block of Wikipedia in Turkey is related to this article, which has been cited by the Turkish government for blocking Wikipedia in Turkey since 29 April 2017.
Certainly the Wikimedia Foundation objects to censorship and the blocking of access to Wikipedia in Turkey. In no way should the Turkish government's action dissuade us from article content and editing following our normal policies of NPOV, verifiability, etc.... JGHowes talk 23:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
North East Syria is currently administered by the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES). European countries are still reluctant to repatriate their foreign fighters and families, leaving them in the area under control of AANES. Simultaneously, prosecution by Syrian and Iraqi courts is not considered as meeting international human rights standards. It is unlikely that an international tribunal will be established in the region, so the AANES have prosecuted local ISIS fighters in temporary courts and tribunals. [1] This raises issues of legitimacy, but since it seems the only viable option for now, European countries and the United Nations could contribute to the functioning of these courts. [1]
ICCT.nl ( talk) 11:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Article doesn’t mention anywhere that the religious Shi’ite authorities never issued fatwa for jihad in Syria nor any high ranking scholars ever encouraged Shi’ite to fight in Syria. In fact, many ulama accused Assad of butchering his own people while Iraqi al Sadr even urged him to step down. The only Shiites that went to Syria to fight on Assad’s behalf are followers of Khamene’i. In fact a lot of pro-Sistani militias broke off from mainstream Popular Mobilisation Units over pro-Khamene’i groups going to Syria against the wishes of Najaf scholarship.
“In fact, Sadr’s stance on the Syrian regime is not new, as other clerics have criticized the Syrian regime for its atrocities against its own people. They have also criticized Shiite militias for backing Assad in the fight against the Syrian opposition. After the popular uprising against Assad when it broke out in March 2011, Sadr expressed his support in a November statement. Despite accusations that the Sadrist Movement, which is highly influential among Iraqi Shiites, was taking part in the Syrian conflict, he has denied any involvement by members of his party. He has also voiced his disapproval of other Shiite militias going to Syria to fight for Assad. [..] Many prominent Najaf clerics have never supported the Syrian regime, with some even forbidding their followers to fight in Syria. Four prominent Najaf clergymen — Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Sheikh Ishaq al-Fayyad, Seyed Mohammad Sa’id al-Hakim and Sheikh Bashir al-Najafi — were quoted by Asharq Alawsat as adopting a unified stance in 2013: “Individuals who go to Syria for jihad are disobeying the commands of religious authorities.” In Qom, no prominent clerics have issued fatwas in support of sending Shiite fighters to Syria.” Source: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E003:A23:8801:7995:58F0:CC9A:3A8C ( talk) 17:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)