Talk:Syrian Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Syrian civil war)
Jump to: navigation, search

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Syria (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Arab world (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Topical archives

Israel support Insurgents[edit]

Tons of sources confirmed that since 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talkcontribs) 16:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC) --LogFTW (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. But no source will be good enough, as long as the Israelis don't confirm it themselves. That's the double standards of western media. Any half-baked rumour about Putin, Kim Jong Un or Assad are front page news, though. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Jews killed severals Syrians troops and helping Al Qaeda take severals positions in south of Syria they shot down warplane too - Israel must be added in the Insurgent side --LogFTW (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Jews" -- really? This kind of discourse has no place on Wikipedia, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
That's right, but the point remains, Israel supports at least the Nusra Front. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"At least the Nusra Front". Not only is there no evidence for that, all available sources point to them cooridinating on an extremely limited basis with the moderate Free Syrian Army (medical aid, etc.). If you are just going to parrot POV garbage you should troll Twitter with Partisangirl, and not bother contributing to this subject on Wikipedia.Nulla Taciti (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice try, but empty barking doesn't change the facts. "Israel’s health ministry says around 1,000 Syrians have received treatment in Golan hospitals, but maintains that only civilians are treated. The UNDOF report, on the other hand, says they have seen Israelis treating civilians as well as insurgents, including members of al-Qaida and Islamic State." FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice try, but rendering medical aid to individuals who's alleged militant affiliations are unknown by the people rendering aid proves nothing. Nulla Taciti (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Said like a true IDF spokesman. So how do you know the Israelis, who are monitoring their border and everything that happens across it, knew less about the affiliations of people that they LET IN and interact with on a daily basis, than UN people who only observed them doing it? But well, I should just stop myself here, Israel can do no wrong. Assad is to blame, and Israelis are just benevolent angels who treat every wounded Arab they come across, as long as they are not Gazan children. FunkMonk (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
From the horse's mouth: "“Those Sunni elements who control some two-thirds to 90% of the border on the Golan aren't attacking Israel. This gives you some basis to think that they understand who is their real enemy - maybe it isn’t Israel,” Yadlin is quoted by The Wall Street Journal as saying."[1] FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've seen claims that the differing directions of shadows in the commonly circulated pictures show that they were doctored, and that Iran is trying to promote the idea of Syrian non-gov forces being Israeli-backed. No idea how true. Banak (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

WSJ is a RS. Israel should be added as a supporter to Al Nusra Front in the infobox. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree theres ton of RS Israeli support of Al Nusra Front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star72 (talkcontribs) 23:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Er, shadows of what? Of the UN reports and Jerusalem Post articles? And former Israeli defence personnel quotes? I'm sure Iran forced them all. Please, let's keep this serious, and please read the comments. No one has posted photos or videos here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for slow response, forgot my own previous comment here. I meant this widespread picture and the shadows of the people in it, though they don't look fake to me. Though as to what this photo actually shows... Banak (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
So the numerous reliable sources that announce cooperation between Israel and insurgents based on UN reports are invalidated by a photo that the reports don't refer to? What's the point? FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I support adding Israel to the infobox. There are multiple confirmed reports of direct and indirect Israeli support to rebels by targeting Syrian government and allies, providing intelligence and logistical support to rebels, etc. It's ridiculous North Korea is included in infobox but Israel not.--Kathovo talk 09:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, reports =/= evidence. So far, Israel is retaliating for attacks on its territory and bombing weapons supplies sent to Hezbollah. Some people seems to forget, that Israel and Syria are still in the state of war. Besides if Israel really supported rebels, IAF would have turned lots of SAA positions to dust a long time ago. Rebell44 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
So which attacks are the Israelis responding to? They've attacked Syria/Hezbollah positions many times the last few years without real provocation. They only stopped when Hezbollah blasted a bunch of IDF a few weeks ago. As for turning "SAA positions to dust", which other foreign state which supports the insurgents has done that? Your point is moot. The Israelis want the insurgents to weaken the SSA and Hezbollah, they don't have to do much other than patch them up and send them back, as well as act as their airforce once in a while. That'll keep Nusra and friends from their door. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
majority of incidents were IDF shelling SAA positions after SAA fired artilery shells hitting israeli territory + SAA troops shooting at IDF patrols. Airstrikes targeted weapons which were being sent to Hezbollah - who as a terrorist group are legitimate target, especially in the country with which Israel is at war. Israel treats every injured person that gets to their border - that hardly counts as military support for either side.Rebell44 (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Just like a true IDF spokesperson would explain it... No, "Israeli territory" has not been targeted, the Golan is Syrian according to international law. And even when it has been hit, the IDF has only attacked SSA forces, even when they did now know the source of fire. Israel has attacked Syrian targets many more times than Turkey has, which is the main backer of the terrorists. And Israel treats all wounded at the border? Are you joking? How many SSA and Hezbollah soldiers have they treated? Or Gazan children, for that matter? All they do is patch up al Qaeda insurgents so they can go back and kill more Arabs for them. Anyhow what you "hardly count" is irrelevant, all that matters is reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - just like most previous discussions on this topic there is not much new in LogFTW's statement about Israeli so called "involvement", which relies on WP:SYNTH theories running around social networks - connecting various loosely related events, which are "rumored" to be related to Israel. Aside to that there is indeed a constant Israel-Hezbollah tension, as part of the Iran-Israel proxy conflict, which is not directly related with the Syrian Civil War (even if Israel was indeed behind some of the ascribed attacks, which is not so evident, as Syrian air and ground is full of foreign forces of various nature and loyalty). I do give a credit however to LogFTW for successfully showing a sectarian nature of the Middle East in one of the most conspiracy-style and in a way racist announcements "The Jews killed severals Syrians troops and helping Al Qaeda"; spectacular!GreyShark (dibra) 17:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
So which of the links above are synth theories from social networks? The UN reports? The Jerusalem Post article? Could we stick to discussing the reliable sources provided here instead of red herrings? FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Just look below - while you claim "Israel supports Al-Nusra", Emesik suggests that "Israel supports FSA" and brings a "proof" that Al-Nusra caught an FSA commander who "confessed of cooperating with Israel". Now i ask - what is going on here? Whom is Israel "supporting"?GreyShark (dibra) 15:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Just about anyone who is willing to fight Iran's allies. The UN states delegations from several groups, not just Nusra, have been meeting Israeli military. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There's enough evidence to say that Israel has provided non-lethal support to rebels. This is clear, but if I understand it well, in the infobox we are including only those who provide armaments or direct support in military actions. These two sources claim that lethal support also has been provided:

For me it is enough to include Israel in the infobox, perhaps with an (alleged) note. --Emesik (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - please notice that the initiator of this discussion is now blocked.GreyShark (dibra) 16:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
And keep in mind that all his links are reliable sources. The messenger is completely irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There's no evidence that Israel is providing military aid to rebel groups (except maybe the Kurds), but they are definitely treating militants in Israeli hospitals. But with this in mind, lots of Syrians, mostly civillians, are treated in Israel so this can't be called support. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
What kind of "evidence" do you expect? AFAIK we rely on sources, not evidence material. --Emesik (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If we aren't adding Israel cause its support is logistal/indirect, why is North Korea there? --Monochrome_Monitor 23:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
So how does that explain that they're meeting up with Nusra (al Qaeda) and other Islamist delegations, and letting them into their bases? Surely for humanitarian reasons? And who says they're treating "mostly civilians"? And if they're benevolent enough to treat al Qaeda terrorists, why not Hamas and Hezbollah members? You guessed it, because they're cosy with the former group. Furthermore, why have they not exchanged fire with Syrian Islamist insurgents even once? FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Everyone knows Israel prefers Sunni terrorists to Shia terrorists, that's no secret. They probably do have some sort of temporary truce, but they're definitely not allies. Right now both are more threatened by Assad/Iran than eachother. Once Assad goes, they will turn on eachother. Saying Israel is "cozy" with al Nursra is like saying that America was "cozy" with Stalin by fighting Hitler. Also, there's no evidence that Al Quaeda is meeting in IDF bases, where did you hear that? As for Israel treating Syrians, this is very[1] well[2] documented[3] [4], even in arabic media. The vast majority of those treated are civillians, though some are combatants. As for Hamas and Hezbollah, they treat them too, albeit less often since the situation in Syria is much worse.[5] Here's more links on Israel treating Syrians: [6] [7] [8] As for exchanging fire with Islamists, it's foolish for them to open a new front, especially with the strongest military in the region. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hamas, and all Palestinians apart from a few Christians and Druze, are Sunnis, so I wouldn't be too sure about your first point. Israel just likes to play Arabs out against each other, they don't care what sect they belong to. They're just more afraid of Iran and Hezbollah than by al Qaeda and any Sunni state, but that is not because of their sects. They had fine relations with the Shah after all (so did the Saudis), and he was of course Shia. Same goes with their relations to Azerbaijan, a Shia state. As for cosy ties with al Qaeda, you do know that the Nusra Front is the official branch of al Qaeda in Syria, right? And again, I didn't ask whether Israel treats Syrians or not, but how you know that "most" of those they treat are civilians? FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
They don't have any ideological problem with Shia, they just see them as more of a threat because Shia militants are generally backed by Iran, and Iran is far more of a threat to Israel than the Gulf States. As for playing Arabs against eachother, what is the Syrian war about? It's sectarian. Arabs have been fighting Arabs since Muhammad died. What Syrians are worried about isn't Arab unity, its Assad, Hezbollah, and to a lesser extent ISIS. Also, you have yet to show me any concrete evidence that Israel supports al-Nusra beyond treating some of their fighters. As for whether the Syrians they treat are mostly civilians, its a numbers game. The number of militants they have reportedly treated is dwarfed by the total number of Syrians. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Even articles about Israel treating militants admit that the majority are civilians [14].--Monochrome_Monitor 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So which of the articles you linked states the majority of the Syrians treated were civilians? None, as far as I could see, they only state Israel once claimed they only treated civilians, which was obviously a lie. And if the Syrian civil war was merely sectarian, I wonder why Sunni Islamist groups fight each other and likewise Sunni Kurdish and tribal Arab groups as much as they fight Shia factions. Also, much of Syria's government and army is Sunni (secular Baathists). And yes, Israel is only afraid of Iran and its allies because all other states in the region are aligned with the US, not because they're Sunni or Shia. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Israel has treated over 1500 Syrians on their dime, its pure speculation to say that the majority are combatants, speculation which is completely unsupported by evidence. You of course ignore all evidence that doesn't conform to your belief that Israel is inherently evil. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Spare us the red herrings. You said "The vast majority of those treated are civillians". You haven't backed it up with anything. So who here is "speculating"? FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
[15]"Most of the patients are believed to have been civilians, though Ziv Hospital staff say many of the men treated are rebel fighters. When I ask Yousef if he’s with the Free Syrian Army, he denies it, but one nurse says he has privately confided this fact to hospital staff." Almost all sources indicate that only a minority are combatants, with the exception maybe of Press TV. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel doesn't support Insurgents, Israel fights against Assad, and as result, it helps the Insurgents. Isael should be added to the infobox. Guyhaddad (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, Monochrome, you say "almost all sources", then provide a single source that says nothing of the sort. All it says is that one of the "civilians" was lying, and that the hospital staff only "believe" most treated are civilians. So certainly not a very confident claim. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: This report [2] gives a comprehensive account of support Israel is giving to Nusra, with links to various reliable news sources who also corroborate this. One notable report is by UNDOF where their observers saw and I quote “Israeli soldiers ‘handing over two boxes to armed members of the opposition’ from the Israeli-occupied side to the Syrian-controlled side” on one occasion. Also, one other source notes “the remnants of bombs with labels in Hebrew were found” in the area of conflict. So, based on all of these reports, I also support adding Israel to the infobox in the supported by section (as most editors here seem to agree). EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Spillover of the Iraqi Insurgency"[edit]

This line in the infobox is a bit confusing, considering the Iraqi Insurgency is called "Spillover of the Syrian Civil War" on its own article. It basically makes an endless "see also" loop. I'm guessing this confusion is because it is referring to two different Iraqi insurgences, the one from 2003-2011 and the one from 2013ish-ongoing. Any thoughts?--Monochrome_Monitor 02:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed it accordingly. Personally I don't think the Syrian Civil war is exactly spillover of the Iraqi Insurgency at all, unless you refer to ISIS specifically, though the conflict itself was more of an Arab Spring thing. In broad terms you could say they are sort of related, but I think it's tenuous. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Even the Nusra Front is an offshoot of al Qaeda in Iraq. Only the Free Syrian Army appears to be strictly indigenous. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The Free Syrian Army was much more relevant in 2011, but now the conflict is basically government vs Iraqi-born terrorist groups (also Kurds). --Monochrome_Monitor 15:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Does the FSA is actually native? The Muslim Brotherhood (linked to Hamas) is the major force behind the FSA. (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The party is pan-Sunni I guess, wasn't founded in Syria, but that does not mean it's members aren't Syrian. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Monochrome Monitor, that isn't accurate. The Free Syrian Army's Southern Front is one of the strongest military opposition forces in Syria. The regime is basically fighting on three fronts; the FSA in the South, hardline Islamist opposition in the North, and ISIS in the East and central Syria. Granted Assad is losing on all three fronts so it is hard to tell, but these fronts are distinct. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Constant underestimation and predictions of imminent demise is part of what has kept Assad in power the last few years. Everyone in this war is fighting several fronts against numerous players, including the FSA, which is probably the weakest player in Syria. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying FSA is totally irrelevant, I'm saying it's far weaker than the Islamist opposition. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Again, that is a false generalization. Different factions are stronger depending on the region, I would encourage you to stick to WP:RS and read beyond the headlines. And thanks for your opinionated (and unsolicited) screed FunkMonk, always a pleasure. Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but as a whole, ISIS is stronger than the FSA. That's a fact. I overgeneralized though. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I think we're getting off topic. This was about the Syrian Civil War being attributed to the Iraqi Insurgency (2011-ongoing), which has since been changed. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're quite welcome, Nully. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
ISIS originated in Iraq. This is confirmed by a host of reliable sources. This group spread to Syria, originating from the Iraqi insurgency. If it were not for the Iraqi insurgency, ISIS would not exist, and the Syrian Civil War would be very different. Therefore it warrants inclusion. DylanLacey (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed DylanLacey, ISIS is essentially a foreign entity operating within Syria — the clue is in the title. Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Note that the group changed its name when it entered Syria, hence the S/L (Sham/Levant) in ISIS/L, therefore the name isn't really an argument. The membership in Syria includes a lot of Syrians (including former Nusra etc. members), not just Iraqis/other foreigners. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Usage of File:InfoboxHez.PNG image[edit]

I don't know the usual policy in Wikipedia-en, but I feel a bit strange to promote in a real article a fake image of a logo. What do you think about it. Loreleil (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Real logo is : File:Hezbollah_Flag.jpg which is "protected". Loreleil (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

New interview with Bashar al-Assad[edit]

An interview with Bashar al-Assad was published by Expressen, one of Sweden’s biggest newspapers, today. Should it be mention in the article? (After the 1 minute Swedish intro, the interview is in English.) Link to the interview Erlbaeko (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably more appropriate on his in his own article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It is about the civil war, so I believe it is more natural to include her, but I don't know if it pases the notability test (time will show). Anyway, sometimes it is wise just to listen, and consider what he is saying. The second part of the interwiev can be found here. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

More human rights violations by Assad than IS? Really?[edit]

Despite all the evidence that IS are carrying out an increasing number outrages and terror attacks, Wikipedia continue to maintain the fiction that 'vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government'. Given widespread reports of events on ground, could not this one-sided comment be corrected to reflect the truth of what is really happening inside Syria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a simple fact that the crimes of the Assad regime are still FAR greater than those of IS or any other faction in Syria. The number of civilians murdered by the regime is possibly ten times greater than by everyone else combined. IS has mainly only been killing civilians by executions. [The greatest IS crimes have been in Iraq.] What "terror attacks" carried out by IS inside Syria are you talking about? Dropping barrels full of shrapnel and high explosives on civilians definitely constitutes terror attacks (thousands of them), but you know who is doing this. The regime's terrorism against its own people has been massive. Or the untold abuses in regime prisons, in which hundreds of thousands unfortunate people have disappeared? All the apologists for this appalling, murderous tyranny will be very soon put in shame. (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
So could you please document this "simple fact"? According to the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, half of those killed in the war are pro-government fighters.[3][4] The second half are opposition fighters as well as civilians. And among these civilians are of course also a large amount who were pro-government. So please, keep your "simple facts" out of here if you can't back them up. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)