Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

israeli troops in syria

is this not enough evidence? [1] Baboon43 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A youtube video is not a reliable source. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Fox News is a "reliable source". I posted the original report some time back, FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
the reporter says 'the Israelis have been worried about the groups linked to al Q...' -so does that mean they've come back from a mission against those fighters? do you want Israel in the infobox on the assad side now? Sayerslle (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
^ Lol, that must be your most far off "analysis" so far. I am worried about American actions in Afghanistan. Does that make me pro-Taliban? FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Israeli troops have been in Syria for decades as part of the illegal occupation of Quneitra aside, the video isn't really that helpful. "Evidence"? Evidence of what? That Israeli commandos have crossed the ceasefire line, sure, but not of anything else. Doesn't even mention who—if anyone—they were fighting. Lot of heat, not much light. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Lothar has made part of the point I was going to make. As I have said before the Israel-Syria conflict predates the Syrian Civil war. Two armed conflicts that are completely separate can involve a country at the same time. Pug6666 19:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Israeli troops have been in Syria for over 40 years: [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Syria related clashes in West Iraq

Can we consider the ongoing clashes between Iraqi Army and Sunni insurgents (see [3]), who allegedly en-route to enter Syria, a part of the Syrian civil war? or a spillover of Syrian civil war in Iraq? (like the Spillover of Syrian civil war in Lebanon).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It was listed before but than removed. Personally I do support restoring it.Pug6666 18:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The militants targeted are ISI, not Syrian rebels. So it's more part of the Iraqi insurgency conflict than Syrian conflict.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What about the recent border clashes between Al Nusra and Iraq? The Iraqi army is attempting to cut off Al Quaeda supply lines. Pug6666 21:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I get the uneasy feeling that we shall soon face the dilemma of how to treat the violent spillovers in Lebanon and Iraq - the war is increasingly penetrating into those two countries especially.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

In regard to this issue, I am of the opinion that the border clashes in which the Iraqi Army is involved are directly linked to the Syrian conflict. As such I have created the article May 2013 Iraqi border operation. EkoGraf (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The Syrian and Iraqi jihadis are part of the same organisation. So no, everything Iraq does against al-Qaeda within its own borders is not important here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a spillover so yes it is relevant. Also the Akashat ambush allegedly had Al-Nusra involvement. Pug6666 20:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily "spillover", the Iraqi government has been fighting these guys long before the war in Syria, they would be fighting regardless of that today. FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Human rights violations

'The "vast majority" of human rights violations documented in Syria, including numerous international crimes, have been committed by the Syrian military and security forces and their allied militia.'

In light of the ever-growing number of Human rights violations and war crimes carried out by rebels, should the above statement be updated/corrected? 89.240.218.208 (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a slightly different problem with that sentence. It should read something like "source x said in 201# that the vast majority, etc etc". Of course it should be corrected/updated as sources dictate. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with that. As of late there has been a rising number of rebel human rights violations as well. EkoGraf (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

An "archipelago of torture centers"?

Given the nature of the loaded and over-the-top statement "archipelago of torture centers", should Wikipedia continue to use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.116.73 (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Such wording does not belong here. FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints."

What is unbalanced in this article? I'm creating this section so it can be discussed if this article is really in need of rewritten. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, only to mention some examples, the overwhelming difference between the number of photos of the so-called "opposition" and the pro-government ones? The use of non-neutral, non-journalist, partisan sources as the so-called "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights"? But I recognize, it could be worst, at least Facebook is not used at a source...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
its not easy for journalists "Reporters labored under stifling restrictions even before the protests erupted in Syria in March 2011. Many were attacked, kidnapped, or killed as the protest movement morphed into an armed uprising, turning Syria into the world's deadliest country for journalists, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists" - and its 'it could be worse' , not 'it could be worst'-you used the superlative there instead of the comparative.Sayerslle (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your corrections, as a non-native, my english is not very good, so any help is welcomed. But about the journalists issue, what you say its not a justification for using activists instead of journalist as source. For example, many journalists are killed every year in Colombia or México, yet activists aint used as a source in that countries, as it is logic. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should read this talk page before making redundant threads. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone point me to policy regarding this tag (ie. <Template:Unbalanced)? I thought there was a requirement for there to exist specific objections in the talk page. I see none. Would anyone oppose it's removal? TippyGoomba (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. Tags need a purpose. This tag isn't helpful at all.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Uhm, have you guys forgot the Kurd issue? The Israel issue? The foreign fighters issues? These are not resolved, so the tag stays. Until those issues are fixed, the article is unbalanced in favour of FSA interests. FunkMonk (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Have you considered doing a WP:RfC to address these issues? I'd start one myself, but I don't feel capable of presenting both sides properly. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
We already tried. See Talk:Syrian civil war/Israel#Request for Comment and Talk:Syrian civil war/Kurds#RfC: Third row for Kurdish forces --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I mean a formal WP:RFC. That is, adding the {{rfc|pol}} tag at creation. The purpose is to bring in outside editors. Maybe you'd consider trying again? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies

For stomping on other peoples edits here But when women and children are involved, it warants a friging mention Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Can fighters from other countries on the rebel side be mentioned in the infobox?

Hi, this article says that there are about 2000 Tunisians fighting in Syria on the rebel side, can that info be added to the infobox somehow? Esn (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are mujihideen. Also those 2000 fighters are part of other Islamist brigades like Al Nusrs and Ahrar al Sham, which are already listed. Sopher99 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but can there be some sort of collapsed table showing the countries where those fighters come from, if that information is available? This seems kind of important, I would think. Esn (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There's going to be like 100 countries in that list...--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, then, maybe a link in the infobox (something like "from these X-number-of countries") to a separate article listing all those countries and the best info on the number of fighters from each. Does such an article already exist? Esn (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

100 from the Netherlands. Does anyone object to starting an article with a list of these figures? I haven't been looking, I just happened to find these two by chance. I'd want the list to have more than 2 countries to start with, so does anyone know of any other links where these numbers are listed? Esn (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That would indeed be very interesting. However, I would suggest you make it a footnote rather than a collapsible list. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We have an entire section called for support for opposition which describes which countries the foreigners come from. All foreigners join a brigade or organization like FSA Ahrar or Nusra, so you can't put ti in the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about a footnote leading to a section which could look somewhat like this;

  • Tunisia 2000 volunteers [source]
  • Libya X volunteers [source]
  • etc. etc.

--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course not, we need to keep up the illusion that the Syrian government forces are comprised of foreigners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.204.212 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher99, there aren't any such numbers in the "support for opposition" section; I think you meant the section below it called "Mujahideen involvement". I really like Mikrobølgeovn's idea. A simple infobox-like structure, just the country flag and the numbers (low to high ranges), for easy reference. Maybe something like that could be added to the existing "Mujahideen involvement" section, linked to in the infobox with a footnote. The problem is that the section already mentions many of those numbers, but in paragraphs. I think that something like Mikrobølgeovn's suggestion would have a lot of value because it would be much quicker to scan for the reader. Why exactly are you guys opposed to making it a collapsible list? There's already one of those in the infobox, the "Supported by:" under the Syrian national coalition. Another one could be added under "Foreign Mujahideen" called "Made up of:" or "From these countries:". Anyway, it doesn't look like we have 100 countries so far. There are only a few that we have numbers for. If it gets out of hand, it can be moved. Esn (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • On this note, a female American "freedom fighter" (read: confused convert) has just been killed in Syria.[4] I imagine random people will try to add this to the article soon, but it doesn't belong here. So Tippy, no reason to ask "are you suggesting an edit", nope, I'm doing the opposite. FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

200 from the Russian Federation fighting on the rebel side. Esn (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Most citizens in U.S. do not support arming the opposition

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/22/fox-news-poll-voters-say-us-should-not-intervene-in-syria/

I think we should mention that there is a major discrepancy in how the U.S. government views the crisis and how its people view the crisis. Seems to undermine democracy in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no breach of democracy or discrepancy
America has yet to lethally arm the opposition
Your clause is original research and Pov Pushing.

I'll add it anyway. Whatever Sopher99 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There's enough proof to say that US has already armed the rebels, even if indirectly. CIA shipments from Croatia - does it ring a bell? However, wars are usually not a matter of democratic discussion, so this doesn't seem to be important news anyway. --Emesik (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I added it anyway. Sopher99 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok Sopher I usually agree with you but at least source some polls supporting you so these arguments don't happen. Sending in troops and arming a party in a conflict are very diffrent things. Pug6666 16:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing? The U.S. government is at a crossroads with Syria. The E.U. is at a crossroads with Syria. They are seriously looking at arming the opposition. I know they haven't yet but this is a real possibly. The population of the U.S. anyways doesn't support this. It'd be important to provide at least one sentence mentioning this discrepancy. Perhaps in the foreign support column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

More than 80 Conservative backbenchers demanded opportunity to block supply of weapons

The Independent, Thursday, 06 June, 2013.

At last, the Tory Party (if not its leader) is waking up to the dangers of arming the rebels. 88.107.54.78 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

SOHR and other unreliable sources

As far as I remember, we agreed on citing the unreliable sources for the death toll only. However, today the article reports many military events basing only on SOHR reports. This might be useful in a situation where independent news coverage is scarce. However, we should set some rules and keep to them. The options I see are:

  1. Reliable sources only. Everything else goes to the trash, no matter how many times it was cited by a secondary source.
  2. We allow SOHR/SANA/LCC for the death tolls only, with clear attribution.
  3. We allow these sources to report events where the coverage in other news is not enough, and only if the information was cited in a "reliable" secondary source.

I'm still in favor of the solution number 2. --Emesik (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Until we have a better source, solution 2 seems best, or else too much will need to be removed. But, if we do include SOHR/SANA/LCC death tolls, the attribution must clearly state that the figures are not independently verified, a la BBC.D2306 (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with solution number 2 is that we can't verify the reliability of the numbers that SOHR give (most of it is shown to us via facebook). And SANA, well, they don't even recognize/acknowledge that their country is at a full scale civil war. Coltsfan (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

SOHR is a primary source, we should never use them except indirectly via a reliable secondary source. If you see parts of the article that violate this, let's discuss them. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Which basically means that you prefer (3)? --Emesik (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy dictates some variation of 1, with some exceptions. I wouldn't call it my preference. It would make more sense to discuss actual citations, rather than talk is such generality. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
There are pieces describing military situation in the timeline section. And there are two reports of Scud attacks, also based on SOHR claims. --Emesik (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you quote directly or give me the urls so I can search? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Ctrl-F? :)
  1. By 3 March, rebels had overrun Raqqa's central prison, allowing them to free hundreds of prisoners, according to the SOHR. The SOHR also claimed that rebel fighters were now in control of most of an Aleppo police academy in Khan al-Asal, and that over 200 rebels and government troops had been killed fighting for control of it.
  2. The SOHR director described the Army takeover of the town by saying that it will hamper rebel movements between al-Qusayr and Homs city. According to him, the capture of the airport would have relieved the pressure on the rebels in the area, but their loss of Abel made the situation more complicated.
  3. SOHR claimed government forces were supported by Hezbollah.
  4. However, later in the day, a opposition commander claimed that the retreat was part of a rebel plan to set up a trap for government forces and that the opposition fighters managed to recapture the town. Still, this was denied by the opposition group SOHR which stated that the rebels had managed only to recapture one neighborhood and fighting was still ongoing in the town.
  5. Meanwhile SOHR reported that the Syrian army was at the area by the western neighborhood of al-Quseir in order to lay siege on the city itself.
  6. On 28 April, a Scud missile landed on Tel Rifaat, killing four, two of them women and two of them children, SOHR reported.
  7. On 3 June a surface to surface missile, not confirmed as a Scud, hit the village of Kfar Hamra around midnight killing 26 people including six women and eight children according to SOHR.
--Emesik (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to collect these. I'll take a look at the sourcing shortly. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you do a quick google search for these news reports and simply replace the direct SOHR source with a news source you find. It shouldn't be hard to find them using google. Sopher99 (talk)
Yep. And the mainstream media say that "ant-government activists reported", which doesn't make the news more true. --Emesik (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-Hezbollah Lebanese Shia fighters?

Pass a Method is trying to add non-Hezbollah Shia fighters into the infobox. I don't see any sources that support this. What do you guys think? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the edit, he changed Iraqi and Iranian Shia militants to Yemeni, Lebanese, Iraqi Shia militants in the infobox. FutureTrillionaire removed the entry entirely. This source is an opinion piece, it shouldn't be referenced. This source defends the Iraqi and Iranian Shia militants version, no mention of Yemeni fighters, Lebanese/Hezbollah is already represented. I say restore the pre-"Pass a Method" version with the op-ed removed. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. If there are Yemeni fighters, they're probably Houthi, which is already listed. However, I've already used up my revert for the day.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and restored the entry without the op-ed. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Truth is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. References are. Having said that Im sure in time all sorts of people who are fighting there will be referencable. People sent by the international supporters of both sides. Im waiting to see a CIA or Mossad operative, a citizen of the USA / Israel killed there, in a reference. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you're sure about a lot of things. You should collect those thoughts in a blog, not here. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I have aded the details to the footnote section. I have added a source for that. Pass a Method talk 06:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This is does not address the original problem. None of your sources specify that the Shia fighters from Yemen are distinct from Houthis. Also, since "multinational shia fighters" not a specific group and haven't been reported to be involved in any fighting (just guarding a shrine), we can't list them in the infobox per undue weight. We don't list "multinational Sunni fighters" either. I've changed the listing to "others" as a compromise.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

FSA part of SMC?

According to this report, the FSA is part of the Supreme Military Council: "The council of leaders includes representatives from the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian Liberation Front, the Syrian Islamic Front, independent brigades..." If this is accurate, we need to change how the infobox presents the rebel forces.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Old news and already extensively discussed with no conclusive decision. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this particular aspect was discussed. What was discussed was the existence of the FSA.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Nope, it definitely came up repeatedly in the discussion; see the "Organization of opposition" subheader. Also you have presented it wrong in the infobox—SIF is not at all fully integrated into the SMC, only marginally. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Casualties

Casualties and losses Syrian government 24,617 soldiers and policemen killed[42] 17,031 militiamen killed[42] 1,000 government officials killed[43] 2,500 government forces and supporters captured[44] Hezbollah 145 killed[42]

Ok you guys are on drugs 43% are supportes of the government but not soldiers does numbers are for civilians as well by this math you do that means that the rest are opposition fighters make up the rest of the death (57%)that means that around 55 000 killed opposition fighters so please correct the numbers so you dont give missleading info to other readers on wikipedia.

put back the numbers as previous also for the opposition as well

why i no one including the airforce in the combat force of the government it is composed of 60 000 men and it has seen the lowest defection but its not on the list

also stop promoting this as a secterian conflict 70% of the syrian army are sunni most of the pilots are also sunni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiki works off cited Reliable Sources. Provide proof for your claims. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Air_Force there is the airforce strenght it is a separate branch from the ground army and has some elite airborne units among it and it has seen the least defection and is active in combat since june last year.Also SOHR pro opposition source claims that the casulties between the government are split almost 50-50 with the government having slightly more on their side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This has already been factored in. Based on SOHR's estimations an upper estimate of rebel fatalities has been established to be 41,800 and this has been included in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2013

Part: of War on Terror? This is a highly problematic juxtaposition as the Assad regime claim is that the war is part of this, when the conflict only began after increasingly brutal and violent crackdowns of protests in the Arab Spring. Please edit that section to reflect this. Thank you. 76.118.249.161 (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide sources that support your claim.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Portal

Portal:Syrian civil war was created - contributions are welcome.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is there a specific reason as to why "civil war" is not capitalized in the article title? Given the other major ongoing civil war named as such, the Somali Civil War, is capitalized, I am rather confused. AuburnAttack21 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk archives are generally a good thing to search: [5] [6] [7]. Bottom line is that reliable sources generally don't capitalise "civil war" at the moment. Maybe when real historiography develops for it and settles on a Proper Common Name, we can discuss trivial things like this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost half of the killed are Alawites

The SOHR itself claims that "94,000" people have been killed during the conflict, and that "at least 41,000 of those confirmed killed were Alawites".[8] This means that half of those killed in the conflict are pro-regime, since many Sunnis, as well as Christians, are fighting in the Syrian army. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

More specifically half of the dead are pro-regime militia and soldiers.

"We have been informed by 8 long-standing political activists from Tartous, Banias, Jablah, Latakia, Misyaf, Qadmous, and Homs, many of whom active during the Hafez al-Assad regime and imprisoned by him. They report that losses of regular soldiers from these areas alone exceeds 24,000 and that the number of casualties from the non-military combatants (Popular Committees, National Defence Forces, Shabiha) exceeds 17,000. they have documented the full names of more than 35,000 of these casualties, the rest are documented by photos."

http://supportkurds.org/news/tuesday-14-may-2013/

https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/369140923194252

Ten there's also the 120,000 figure.

Sopher99 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The "120,000 figure" is unconfirmed. The 41,000 number is not. And even if we say half of the dead are "pro-regime militia and soldiers", then there must be more dead pro-regime civilians, which means over half of those killed in the war are pro-regime. So much for "Assad killed 80.000 people" a few weeks back, huh Sopher? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The LCC documented 60,000 civilian deaths + 15k rebels and FSA. The LCC is a more widespread organization than SOHR. So 75k + 41k regime = 116k, pretty close to 120k. Not to mention the 60k force disappearances. Besides of which, I was outraged at the 1k 2k 5k 10k 20k 40k mark, so saying "so much for 80k people" doesn't mean much because even just 1k makes Assad illegitimate and brutal. Sopher99 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Great, but it makes the opposition just as brutal. And that's the point. Both parties are equally murderous, unlike what you and Gulf media tries to portray. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Completely untrue. I just told you before the 41k dead is soldiers and shabiha. I also already told you, just about every country from Mexico to India to Japan concurs with "gulf media", and 130/190 UN voting countries condemn specifically the regime, (along with 20 abstains, 20 no votes, and 20 non-voters due to lack of UN dues). Sopher99 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
You know what? Your own interpretation of numbers (original research) is irrelevant. If the sources don't state these 41,000 Alawites are all fighters, then there is no indication that they are. Furthermore, far from all of the government fighters are Alawites, which means a significant number of these are Sunnis and Christians. As for your constant cheerleading for insurgents: Rule number one: don't mess with other people's civil wars. Rule number two: no one is "bad or good" in a civil war. Why are you so zealously involved in a conflict that doesn't concern you in any way? And don't give me bogus moral reasons, if you had any morals, you wouldn't support either side. What lies beneath? I know that is off-tangent, but I'm baffled by your recurring need to pull numbers out of your ass just to spin everything that could be bad PR for the insurgents. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
...But sohr DOES state that all 41k recorded Alawites that died are fighters....
There is no rule that says "not to mess with someone elses civil war". (especially considering this is wikipedia). Iran and Russia are messing around millions of times more than I am, I don't see you complaining. There are good guys and bad guys. In this case, its dictatorship vs revolutionaries, that was atleast in mid 2012, when now its dictatorship vs Revolutionaries and Islamists (who by the way, I would much rather have exsist than the baathists in general). I only started editing this page because of other people's vandalism, as and I kept on editing I found a huge disparity with how the media was portraying the conflict. Additionally there is so much info to edit and s many attempts by other to push the core theme into something that its not.
Being a Lebanese Alawite does not give you the credentials to accurately define the conflict. By your vague logic, since I am a Christian and therefore would be classified as a minority in Syria, whatever I say, no matter how inaccurate and wacky it is, I am right. Sopher99 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Lol, there are no good guys. I give up, it is futile arguing with you. Today's "regime" was yesterdays "revolutionaries", It never ends. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. This is common knowledge, and there is no black and white. Do you understand? Nothing worse than bored western kids who think they can somehow be part of history by wiki-warring for "rebels" they blindly follow on Twitter. I bet none of these types could even point out Syria on a map or knew what an "Alawite" (or even a shi'ite) was before this "uprising". And I, like most Lebanese, have close family ties to Syria, so no, being an American Christian is irrelevant in this context. But if it was relevant, you should support Christians, not jihadis, no? FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
No, todays "revolutionaries" are not the same as today regime. That was only the case with the French revolution and the Russian revolution, no others. The Taliban are not fighting for freedom, and neither are Hezbollah, so neither of your summary statements are true. You may have family in this conflict but so does the tens of thousands killed by tank and artillery shelling, the 100,000+ jailed, and the 1.5 million refugees, so if you want to use family as an excuse your position is still inferior in that section. Wikipedia and Donating is what little I can do, and as Edmund Burke said "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
On the topic of "supporting Christians" - I don't have to explain this one much: Italians, Germans, and Austria during world war 2, Franco of Spain, French genocide of Algerians, Trail of tears and American-Indians wars of the late 1800s, the list goes on. Being part of an ethnicity that is traditionally Christian does not make them true Christians.
Its kind of funny people are so afraid of Islamists when now the number 1 killer of Muslims (other than Muslims themselves) are Bhudists. Bhudists monks are now patrolling the streets of Burma burning muslims alive, and yet the world awards their political leader with a nobel peace prize, and even the Burmese opposition is practically silent. Sopher99 (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not a political debate here, counting of death and jailed will be much more accurately years after the end of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klinfran (talk • contribs) 07:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Is someone suggesting an edit here? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That it is mentioned that halfof those killed are pro-government, contrary to the claim that "Assad is killing his own people". FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Iran and Russia may be messing about but the Gulf states, Turkey, the US and the UK are also messing in...its the name of the game. Always has been and always will be. As for the caracterisation that its a dictatorship vs revolutionaries I am not sure about that. The Assad government may be a dictatorship yes, but the opposition is anything but revolutionaries. A revolution, per Wikipedia itself, is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. I would not call more than two years of brutal war a relatively short period. Also, a revolution is backed by an overwhelming popularity, while in Syria there is no such case. In Syria the opposition is backed by at least 50 percent of the population. Because you got 13 percent Alawites, 10 percent Christians and 3 percent Druze who are pro-government, 10 percent Kurds who have taken a neutral stance and than, don't forget, there are the Sunni Assad government loyalists who would make up at least another 10 percent. Thus they are best described simply as rebels. So, this is not a revolution, its a battle between world powers at the expense of smaller countries like Syria who end up as the ones who will loose the most. I said my piece, not trying to make a forum out of this, lets return to editing shall we. :) EkoGraf (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You're getting away from the dictatorship part. The war started because Assad was mowing innocent protestors down in the streets so it is confusing why you're talking about Turkey, the US and the UK "messing in." But as you say, let's return to editing... Gobbleygook (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"The war started because Assad was mowing innocent protestors down in the streets"

Talking of ways to undermine a case? For only the most pro-rebel supporter would dare use such a (sub-standard US State Department) comment. 84.13.13.222 (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Islamist groups have been waiting for a pretext to start a rebellion in Syria since the Muslim Brotherhood uprising in the late 70s. Everyone knew it would happen eventually. Yes, there were protesters with good intentions, but they were merely pawns in the larger picture. And opposition elements were armed right from the beginning, contrary to opposition propaganda parroted by western media. FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about what edit you are suggesting? "Assad is killing hisown people" does not appear in the article. TippyGoomba (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It needs to be specified that most of the army is still Sunni, and that most of the killed aren't pro-opposition by a long shot. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't getting away from the dictatorship part. I said it was a dictatorship plain and simple. I don't see what could have been said any more than that? As for the messing in part, I was talking in reply to Sopher who pointed out how Russia and Iran were involving themselves. I only wanted to remind that it wasn't just those two that were interfering. Nether the US, UK, Turkey, Gulf states, Russia or Iran have a right to be meddling in the internal affairs of another sovereign country. The Syrians should be left alone to deal with their own affairs. I didn't see all those countries jumping in to help the people of Sudan when 500,000 people were killed due to genocide and famine. Did you? Its simply a matter of the strategic importance that Syria has in the middle east to all those countries, nothing more. As for the protesters, like Funky says, yes they were probably people with good intentions and good ideas, but in the end they were naive in thinking that they would change anything and were just used by higher powers. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? What exact text do you want? Where do you want to put it? What are the sources? TippyGoomba (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The real country to blame for the destruction of syria is Iran then Russia ,they supported Assad from day one ,Iran helped Assad to brutally crush the protests,with intelligence,and the other countries used the Syrians, Russia gave Assad cover,the only country that acted on moral causes was turkey.Alhanuty (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. So, no. If Qatar and Turkey had not armed the insurgents early on, it would never had become a war in the first place. FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It was the syrian who decided to bear arms,turkey didn't support them with arms till the fall of the border passes of bab alhawa and bab alsalam,and 5,000 Syrians died during the peaceful protest and thousands more unknown,1000 syrian were dying a month during the peaceful protest,if the protests continued till today 40,000 would have been dead and more missing, Iran helped Assad since the beginning with intelligence and everything,and the sectarian buildup of the syrian army helped the conflict to grow,and sending the alawites only, sectarianized it and Assad sectarianized the protest by propagandizing that the foreign jihadist were in syria in 2011 threatening the minorities which was a plain lie at that time,if the Sunni troops were send out the majority of them would have defected,and a less bloodshed would have happened or maybe they might have made a coup against him but they were kept till today in their barracks, the syrian found protesting not getting anywhere after the Ramadan 2011 crush of the protests so they went in arms and notice Assad is no 1 responsible for the Destruction of syria. Alhanuty (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There were armed elements of the opposition since the beginning, this is partially why the army overreacted. Turkey and Egypt, see, those are true, peaceful revolts. As many people died within a month in Egypt as died in six months in Syria, yet they never armed themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"1000 syrian were dying a month during the peaceful protest". "Assad is no 1 responsible for the Destruction of syria". Wikipedia allows this BS from in-house FSA cheer-leaders, yet blocks/deletes questions about the US policy and Syria. For it is also unwilling to admit any US responsible for the Destruction of Syria. Why is Wikipedia anti-Assad, yet pro-FSA? 78.147.87.172 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is fact 5,000 syrian died during the protests,and their wasn't any armed group at all from march till October of 2011, and all fighters from october till july 2012 where army defectors and syrian civilians ,and yes Assad is no 1 responsible of sending The army to quell protests, and his could be seen in the August 2011 mass quelling of protest,he is responsible for dividing syria in sectarian lines, destroying infrastructure of syria, only 846 died in Egypt ,5,000 in Syria,the egyptian army was built on national grounds,the syrian army was built based on sectarian background,the egyptian army refused to use force on protesters,they even forced Mubarak to resign,syrian army different ,they obeyed assad's order to shooting protesters,use heavy artillery ,and most who were committing the atrocities where the alawite soldiers,and Assad is really throwing the alawites into the abyss,Assad has led the region to the doors of sectarian war,especially after Hezbollah interference in the fighting,there is really no longer a syrian army it is really now militia vs militia,IP WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE AND STOP VANDALIZING MY PAGE Alhanuty (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Very early on, it was no different from what we see in Turkey today, but shortly after, a group of policemen were ambushed and killed, and armed groups were reported in Syria, but ignored in western media. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

there was no armed opposition from march to october 2011 it was only peaceful protesting , and notice only assad's media only said there was an armed opposition to sectarianize the protest and scare the alawites from participating in the protest,because you had cities as latikia and baniyas protesting in the beginning of there protest,when he was able to sectarianize the protest,the alawites stopped protesting Alhanuty (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Funky is right. Russia and Iran have been supporting Assad yes. However, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have also been supporting the opposition from the very start. Turkish logistical support and Gulf arms support was reported by reliable sources as early as the autumn of 2011, while Turkey/Erdogan incited and cheered on the protesters from the very beginning. So its not just Russia and Iran's fault, its also theirs too. Also, its not true armed opposition didn't exist before October 2011 Alhanuty, the FSA itself was formed at the end of July of that year. If both East and West had not meddled in Syrian internal affairs things would have probably settled down by now. Hundreds would have been killed yes, but it would more than likely had ended at just that, hundreds, maybe just a few thousand. Now, its almost 100,000 dead and counting. Now the EU has lifted the arms embargo on the rebels and Hezbollah has sent in fighters and the fighting will just intensify. And we will hit the 200,000 mark probably by the third anniversary of the war next year. EkoGraf (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Yup, Syria will likely end up like Yugoslavia, and balkanize into 2 or 3 states. One for Alawites and other minorities in West Syria, one for the Sunnis in the North and East, and maybe one for the Kurds in the northeast.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
As things are going now, there would probably be a large state with all minorities represented, including secular Sunnis, and perhaps Eastern deserts for the Salafits. If Erdogan falls, the "uprising" diminishes to FARC-like status.FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like we're firmly in WP:NOTFORUM territory now. Is anyone still suggesting an edit? TippyGoomba (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
collapsing per WP:NOTFORUM

I know the FSA has been formed in July but it was ineffective till October and September where it became effective but funk is saying that the armed opposition existed in march 2011 and maybe before that,which is false. Alhanuty (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) IRAN is so responsible ,actually they are the most responsible for how the event went,and Assad is responsible for ordering the army to quell the protest,and the August crackdown best demonstrates that,turkey only gave moral support,the military support began to arrive after the fall of bab al Hawa and al Salam border point, but Iran was sending weapons way before that, for the alawite state,if rebel forces unify and fight with each other they might be able to defeat the alawite state because the alawites will be very exhausted to continue fighting and they already lost human power in the conflict,the Kurds state will be inevitable and the rebels will have to allow self rule for Kurds or other wise the Kurd will separate,and the Kurds will not be exhausted as the alawites Alhanuty (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Are you suggesting a change to the article? TippyGoomba (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I know the FSA has been formed in July but it was ineffective till October and September where it became effective but funk is saying that the armed opposition existed in march 2011 and maybe before that,which is false. Alhanuty (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) IRAN is so responsible ,actually they are the most responsible for how the event went,and Assad is responsible for ordering the army to quell the protest,and the August crackdown best demonstrates that,turkey only gave moral support,the military support began to arrive after the fall of bab al Hawa and al Salam border point, but Iran was sending weapons way before that, for the alawite state,if rebel forces unify and fight with each other they might be able to defeat the alawite state because the alawites will be very exhausted to continue fighting and they already lost human power in the conflict,the Kurds state will be inevitable and the rebels will have to allow self rule for Kurds or other wise the Kurd will separate,and the Kurds will not be exhausted as the alawites Alhanuty (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The Geneva 2 will fail,but most likely, the moderate fighters will be armed if the Geneva 2 fails maybe some interference,but most likely the combined Hezbollah government attack will stall after the rebels are armed,and the rebels will be back on the offense by August 2013 Alhanuty (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Come on. The absolutely peaceful protests in Syria are at least exaggeration, more likely a myth, and perhaps even a lie. There is evidence that since the early days arms and fighters were pouring into the country. Ali Hashem's unpublished report is an example that things were getting suspicious. Somehow you won't learn about that from so-called reliable sources (calling al-Jazeera "reliable" in the context of this conflict is a joke). So far there isn't enough information to include it in the article, but I hope we will get to the truth one day. --Emesik (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a Pseudo article Alhanuty (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Is an edit still being suggested? I can't tell from the most-recent chatter. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Before any edit, and to put this "debate" into some kind of context, would not a few simple pointers be most useful? 88.107.54.78 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

israel providing arms to fsa

its not a secret israel is involved in this war [9] Baboon43 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to refresh yourself on WP:RS. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
& you need to stop trying to censor material. Baboon43 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hm. Yes. Do note that I support Israel's inclusion in the infobox—just not on the basis of non-evidence and propaganda drivel scraped up from the far corners of the web. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTTRUTH lololol. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
A video showing weapons with hebrew inscriptions onto it is not enough, it's that easy to put some few hebrew words on mortar. Why didn't they explode? Why Israel would use mortar?Propaganda is on both sidesKlinfran (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Amount of popular support for each side

The article doesn't seem to have much about the amount of support each side has. This article can be a starting point for adding such information: http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

PS: To the user who removed this section: I don't understand why you removed this section. I am suggesting a new section about the amount of popular support for each side. Your reason for removal doesn't make any sense. 24.212.193.99 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

worldtribune.com? more fringe trash Sayerslle (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. Maybe. So we need a more reliable source? Is that your point? That is much better than the comment posted for removing the section. I will try to find a more reliable source. 24.212.193.99 (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Based on previous articles which I've seen for levels of support, none of them can be seen as reliable because conducting an accurate, unbiased survey during a civil war is nigh impossible. Trying to estimate support for either side is conjecture at this point and even if information was accurate, it serves next to no purpose in the long run, as the greater effect on the war is who on the outside supports which side, not who supports which side on the inside past sectarian divides of allegiance. --Respite From Revision (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to check their truth, right? If there are estimates of the amount of support reported by reliable sources that should be enough to include them as estimates by those parties. E.g. the article can say something like "a NATO report estimated the amount of support for the government to be x%". Surely there are such estimates. About this particular estimate: there are many articles about this NATO report. However, I haven't been able to find a mainstream newspaper reporting it yet. The closest I have found so far is this article in LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/06/world/la-fg-syria-damascus-mood-20130607 This article states something similar but does not give any figures: **Assad still maintains considerable popular support, his backing seemingly bolstered by the military advances and reports of rebel atrocities. Instead of weakening resolve, the lengthy conflict may have hardened solidarity among those who view the president as holding back a wave of Islamic extremists funded by Turkey, Arab states and the West.** I think information about the (estimated) amount of support for each side is more important than many other issues stated in the article. Both sides are claiming to be representative of (the majority of) the Syrian population and that is a major part of their rhetoric and proves that this kind of information is very important. We should look and find reliable sources reporting such estimates from various perspectives. 24.212.193.99 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
the LA times article is about a group of pro-regime people, so it says regime supporters - support the regime, and swallow its propaganda wholesale. notnews. - more interesting perhaps is if the growth of a third way takes hold - Syrians looking for a Syrian solution rejecting all foreign powers undue influence - newsnight tonight had a profile of such a group , neither pro the regime nor the extreme islamists. Sayerslle (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The cited article was not originally from Worldtribune.com, but from Middleeastnewsline.com, but I suppose that doesnt matter as long it doesnt make the so-called "rebels" look like "freedom fighters for liberty and democracy". I would bet a hand that some editors would oppose to add this anyway, it doesnt matter where it was published. And if they dont like what they read but its published on a reliable source, they would say that this aint news but propaganda, everything goes to impose their POV, including double standards. For example, the same people who say that would assure seriously and without LOL that the so-called "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" is a neutral and reliable source. Its incredible, isnt it?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
the writer is someone who writes for Press TV and is clearly an avid pro-regime guy , - the journal seems RS enough though - in the guardian today it says Nick Griffin is in Damascus and that "Damascus has the full support of Russia and Iran but in recent months the government has stepped up efforts to win sympathy in western countries to capitalise on waning support for the rebels," - so the general picture certainly seems to be growing popularity for assad, or at least, falling popularity for his opponents -putin, griffin, iran - , all the democratic, progressive forces you could want together at last, funkmonk Sayerslle (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't matter who the writer is, only that the venue is reliable. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
well I said it looked ok - its not like Oxford University Press though is it - Wiley? - is he as popular as hafez yet? - "about 1991, he had just been re-elected for another 6 year term - an incredible election victory - 99.66% of the vote - very popular. Sayerslle (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Better yet, is he as popular as Radwan Ziadeh?[10] FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

odd sparking

Hello, looking deeply to the sources that claim to know how the revolt started in Deraa I found inconsistent and troubling allegations with only one well known source. For inconsistent, one of the source talk about a no named boy of 17 years old who made a graffiti "now it's your turn bashar". I want to point out this is very weird the name of the boy can not be known of some revolts have been made on the behalf of him. This is preposterous, more if he left the country. And one could ask if it's not an unreliable story. Maybe a rumor spread among people a boy were tortured, I found it very weird a name didn't circulate. The second source, who is not even a journalist, but a kind of blogger with only one article, and of whom you can find no traces around the web states it was a 15 year old boy who made a graffiti "the regime must go down" Which is not exactly the same. So it really looks like a rumor. We call it the Arabic phone, imagine if facts happen a long time ago, thousands of kilometres from here.Klinfran (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Are suggesting an edit? We just go by what the sources say.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hamas involvement

Hamas is allegedly involved in the Syrian civil war now; it is fighting on the side of the FSA. I've been looking for other sources to confirm. Source:[11] I did not add it to the infobox as I suppose it might be controversial and should be discussed first.David O. Johnson (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting, but I don't think there's enough evidence for Hamas involvement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is another article claiming that a few hundred Hamas fighters are fighting with the FSA [12]; however, Hamas denies it. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It has been widely reported that Hamas are at least been training the FSA, and that Iran has cut their aid to Hamas as a result. FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So should Hamas be added to the infobox or not? David O. Johnson (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

At this moment, I don't think so no. There are several some sources saying Hamas is giving some training to the FSA, but if we include them then we should include the United States. Several sources have noted the CIA and special forces have been training "secular-minded" FSA forces from Jordan. What warrants inclusion in the infobox? Israel has launched a number of targeted attacks against the Syrian military and have clashed with Syrian forces (on a minor scale) in the Golan Heights area, but they also have not been included. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There is more evidence of Hamas involvement: ""Some of the rebels IEDs, as well as the tunnels they built had the markings of Hamas," said Beirut-based journalist Nicholas Blanford, author of Warriors of God: Inside Hezbollah's Thirty-year Struggle Against Israel."" [13] David O. Johnson (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I think there is now enough evidence to justify adding Hamas to the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Is Hamas fighting in Syria or they are just providing support? There is a difference. If they are just providing support, then it should go to this article, and not to this one here. As far as I know, the infobox is just for notorious combatants. Coltsfan (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There are some preliminary reports saying many Hamas fighters (who had been trained by Hezbollah) were captured in Quayr, which is why Iran, Syria and Hezbollah will/has cut all aid to them. No western sources yet, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there anything concrete about Hamas involvement in Syria? And if there is, what kind of involvement is it? So far there appears to be suspicions by various actors, including Hezbollah fighters on the ground, that Hamas had been training the rebels with tactics that they themselves learned from Hezbollah. Unless I'm wrong, there's no definitive Hamas involvement and no definitive Hamas deployment in Syria. If we have RS that confirm Hamas training, then I agree with Coltsfan that we should add it to the Foreign involvement article and not in this infobox. Or else we would be required to include all the forces or countries that have been training or supplying the rebels or the state forces. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, yeah. The US has been training secular rebels in Jordan for months. The Hamas training, if true, is probably not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox. Turkey has provided vital logistical support, while the Gulf has provided tons of weapons. These are far more significant than just training.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, there is a report of a few hundred Hamas fighters being involved directly with the war by fighting alongside the FSA. [14] David O. Johnson (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Your source says that they are just helping the rebels with their trainging and, again according to your own source, Osama Hamdan, a leading Hamas official based in Lebanon, denied the claims that his group is helping the rebels in any shape or form. Coltsfan (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The article also states that "A Palestinian source from Lebanon’s Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp said that it was common knowledge that a few hundred Hamas operatives were fighting alongside the FSA in the Yarmouk and Neirab Palestinian camps in Damascus and Aleppo, Syria’s commercial capital." David O. Johnson (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A Palestinian source in a Lebanese refugee camp is not sufficient enough for us to include Hamas as a combatant in the Syrian civil war. The party fiercely denies it. We need better confirmation from a wider selection of RS that state as much. The same goes for the Yemeni Houthis. As an encyclopedia we need to be more responsible with what sources we use and what we present in our articles. I feel like we're far too loose and uncritical when editing this and associated articles. But that's a discussion for a separate section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

One more source is here: [15] David O. Johnson (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Size yet again...

Almost 300k now! i did cut down about 1kb, but that is nothing - we need some serious effort on the structure of the article. I suggest we cut down the initial part of the rebellion (the protests and uprising stage); we may keep the info as a split sub-article - something like "First phase of the Syrian civil war". This would decrease 10-20kb. Suggestions?Greyshark09 (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The main part of the article is more like a timeline with little connection between various events. Much of this information should be moved to some specific sub-articles or deleted. As an example the article has:

Now on the scale of the article about the civil war in general, this is far too much detail and unnecessary information. "Russia and China vetoed a United Nations resolution that would impose sanctions" - yes important fact. "Russia and China, who are major trade allies with Syria" - that has been stated many times already and has already a devoted subsection under "Foreign reaction and involvement" (which also needs to be trimmed and the extra information to be in the linked articles). "FSA had gained control of all four border checkpoints" - too minor to be included in the main article.

And pretty much any part of article can trimmed in this way.D2306 (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. In the timeline section, there shouldn't be any diplomatic stuff, because they never led to anything significant. We should only include significant territorial gains/losses.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I've brought it back down to 281k.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Good work, indeed for the diplomatic issues - there are already enough subarticles (international reactions to the Syrian civil war, Syrian conflict peace proposals etc. etc.). We may briefly mention perhaps only the Arab League observers in 2011-2012 and the UN mission in 2012, who led some kind of actual actions, but still failed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The lead is still too detailed, could need a trim. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that currently, without knowledge of the future, it's impossible to know which details in the article will become pertinent and so trimming the article is complex in that something deleted may later become important. Should it not be figured that the article should be larger than the average article due to new facts coming out every day? Surely we won't trim it down every single time something new happens. --Respite From Revision (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This article should not turn into a long list of small events. The main article should focus of the major flow of the conflict. The article is several times over the recommended guidelines for article length. It's longer than the articles on WW1 and WW2! It simply too long, poorly structured with the central part looking like a list of events. The article on the Lybian civil war is substantially smaller, while still covering all the info. And it has been regularly trimmed to prevent it from growing too large.D2306 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright where do we put daily events? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(from_May_2013) is scheduled for deletion, so please advise me accordingly. Cjblair (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

@Cjblair: In the battle articles, such as Battle of Aleppo, Rif Dimashq offensive, etc. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Iraq, once more

In light of Operation al-Shabah, I think it's time to add Iraq on the government side, but as a co-belligerent or something along those lines. Thoughts ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

They're not really fighting on the government's side, per se, but are more cleaning up whatever falls into their territory. They may have similar enemies in the form of Islamist jihadis, but that's the closest link you'll find. As their only opponents are "rebels" who wish to form Islamic states, they cannot be said to be fighting the Syrian opposition as a whole. Therefore, I object to placing them with the government or the opposition or really, anywhere but where they currently are. --Respite From Revision (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
They're not fighting on the government side, but they are actively fighting al-Nusra, which is one of (if not the) core groups of the armed opposition and by far the most successful one. "Al-Shabah" is not just any anti-insurgency operation, it's an operation against Al-Qaeda's Syrian wing and its associated Iraqi group. I think there's serious reasons to view this as a form of co-belligerence. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Same logic that we used with Israel: they have attacked one of the sides, but that doesn't necessarily means that they are siding with the other one. In this case, it's even more clear. The iraqis are not fighting with or in behalf of the syrian government, unless a RS proves otherwise. Coltsfan (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Chemical weapons

There has been reports of Turkish security forces finding 2 kilograms of Sarin gas in the hands of Syrian rebels in Turkish media (e.g. http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/sarin_gazi_sonrasi_3_supheli_arac_alarmi-1135662) and also on Russia Today (http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/).

Does it worth including in the section about chemical weapons? It seems relevant since the section seems to heavy implying that there is no hard evidence of Syrian rebels having access to chemical weapons.

There were also reports about Iraqi security forces finding chemical weapons in the hands of Syrian rebels in some newspapers. 24.212.193.99 (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read about both the Turkish and Iraqi find as well, this should maybe be included in the same paragraph in which Carla del Ponte stated she had indications during her investigation that rebels had also used chemical weapons. EkoGraf (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
It has been reported by mainstream Turkish media. Not hard to find. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
For Iraq, it was reported by AJE (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/20136117362322130.html). For Turkey, I gave one reliable source (radikal is one of the mainstream Turkish newspapers) but it is also reported in almost every major Turkish newspaper. It is quite easy to find reliable sources. 24.212.193.99 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This al jazeera source says that the poisonous gas were found in Iraq, in possesion of iraqis and to be used inside Iraq. It only mentions Syria when it talks about the proximity of the countries, that both sides (in the syrian conflict) have accused each other of using nerve gas and then shows a link between the violent groups in both countries. Now I have a question: since both sides are accusing each other of using chemical weapons on a regular basis, are we gonna put every single accusation that is made (by either side)? Coltsfan (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that is relevant combined with the fact that Turkish police also found the gas with Al Nusra fighters. There is no dispute about that I think. So that should be there. For Iraq, the Iraqi government claims that Al Qaeda in Iraq has it and if we remember Al Nusra officially become part of Al Qaeda in Iraq sometime ago. That I think makes it relevant enough to include in the section. As I wrote before, the section's perspective is that there is no hard evidence that rebels has access to chemical weapons which is false as demonstrated by these two. 24.212.193.99 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

SNC

On the left hand side is members of the SNC under "commanders and leaders", but why is this?.

What influence do members of the SNC actually have in Syria?.Is there evidence of any?.70.48.209.147 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

US Military aid to rebels

Now that the United States has officially announced that they will be providing military support to the rebels shouldn't they be added to the combatant menu at the top of the page as supporters of the rebel-side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.14.145 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we should wait until they actually provide the arms. Right now, it's just words.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hezbollah casualties

Israeli defence minister Yaalon says more than 1000 hezbollah fighters heve been killed in Syria.[16] I think the infobox must be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.138.217 (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks. 1,000 is probably a lot more accurate than 146.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, first the source does not say 1,000 killed, it says 1,000 casualties. Casualties can mean/include both dead and wounded. Second, the claim came from an Israeli government source, the Israeli defense minister, and considering the hostile nature between Israel and Syria I don't think he can be counted as a reliable source. Third, SOHR (which has been proven reliable in the past) has put out a figure which is for the most part consistent with the number of Hezbollah deaths documented by an Israeli non-government independent research group and with a claim that Hezbollah itself has stated on how many of their fighters have died. So we should stick to what has been verified/documented by reliable or semi-reliable and independent sources, and to what for now seems consistent. EkoGraf (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. I guess that makes sense.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Cool, also, even if the 1,000 number was accurate it also includes wounded, and up until now we have not included the numbers of wounded in the conflict, only confirmed and semi-confirmed killed. EkoGraf (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Typo or inaccurate claim?

Under demographics, >generating resentment among some Sunni Muslims,[96] a sect that makes up about three-quarters of Syria's population. However, in the ethno-religious graph right next to this, only 60% are Arab-Sunni. Even when adding in all other Sunnis, it doesn't rise above 70%. I think it'd be more accurate to call it "two thirds", if only by a few percentage points. 70.78.8.194 (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Under 'Strength' in the infobox, the Syrian Islamic Front was accompanied by the Syrian opposition flag until recently, since it has largely pledged its allegiance to the SMC, but there have been claims by some users that it doesn't operate under that flag, so it has been replaced with its logo, a non-free file, which has since been removed (logically). I think we should figure out whether or not the Syrian Islamic Front is using the opposition flag in the field and how we should mention them in the infobox. Terrortank (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The simplest solution is probably to just not use any flag for SIF. If we want to be consistent, we can remove all the flags on the rebel side in the "strength" section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I think at the very least if we can not use their own logo if it is non-free than we should maybe use the jihadist black flag because they have themselves described as Islamic jihadist Salafists who want to establish an Islamic state in Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure. We could do that.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No Iranian troops in Syria - yet

Latest news, the infobox needs fixing: "The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-will-send-4000-troops-to-aid-bashar-alassads-forces-in-syria-8660358.html FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've removed it for now. We should wait for evidence of their arrival at Syria before adding this to the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

New massacre has occured,

Do we create a new page or just mention on this page?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-60-shia-muslims-massacred-in-rebel-cleansing-of-hatla-8656301.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's already in the article. In the government offensives section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch/Amnesty International cite

The intro reads:

However, human rights groups report that the majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government's forces, and UN investigations have concluded that the government's abuses are the greatest in both gravity and scale.[84][85]

This information is from over a year ago and the situation may have changed considerably since then. For example, the jihadist elements within the FSA have strengthened and the organization controls more territory and is better able to carry out atrocities, eg the cannibalism incident.

Please amend the intro paragraph to a neutral statement, such as "both sides have been accused of human rights violations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.248.182 (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This comment still hasn't received a response.

{{edit semi-protected}}

I also would like an investigation of Sopher99 for protecting the page to avoid NPOV disputes. 71.163.248.182 (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

And the problem with the request is? For it seems to be asking to change X (concerning, the vast majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government) to Y ("both sides have been accused of human rights violations."). Yet again, it appears that someone wants to retain one-sided statements. Is not this a reason to investigate? 78.147.87.49 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S: A short while back it was requested that the statement, "archipelago of torture centers", be deleted - since it was one-sided and over the top. Yet again, there was no reply. 78.147.87.49 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

14 March 2013 : "Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director Ann Harrison said:

“While the vast majority of war crimes and other gross violations continue to be committed by government forces, our research also points to an escalation in abuses by armed opposition groups. " - vast majority- March 2013.[17] Sayerslle (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Amnesty International is not an independent source and shares executive staff with the State Department. There is no recent evidence to support the claim that a "vast majority" of atrocities are performed by the government. In any case please at least amend the closing paragaph to "While the majority of war crimes and other gross violations continue to be committed by government forces, research also points to an escalation in abuses by armed opposition groups."

78.147, please explain how "both sides have been accused of human rights violations" is a one-sided statement.

Finally, even if we assume that the sentence in question is correct, it's still a POV violation to include it in the introduction without balancing information on the FSA, for instance the fact that the majority of Syrians consider the FSA incapable of governing and support Assad.

New York Times:

"There’s good reason why 55 percent of Syrians polled recently still support Assad. They prefer his (flawed) promise of security and stability to the (untested) opposition’s offer of a democracy enveloped in blood. Assad’s appeal is not that he offers freedom, but security. And by killing mercilessly he illustrates that, like his father’s regime, he will use an iron fist to try to control Syria."

71.163.248.182 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Since "both sides have been accused of human rights violations" is a balanced remark, the one-sided statement is the one claiming that the "vast majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government." And yet, despite growing evidence of FSA human rights violations, this statement remains unchanged. 2.96.115.55 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The statement appears to have been changed by now. Thank you, Sopher.

However you are still deleting the New York times cite provided above, claiming it cites Syrian state TV when it clearly does not. This is dishonest and improper behavior for a moderator, warranting suspension of admin privileges. 71.163.248.182 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The obsolete UN report from 2012 has been re-added by someone into the article without discussion on the talk page. Here are the latest UN statements, which do not directly support their previous claims.

GENEVA — Reporting “new levels of brutality” in Syria’s more than two-year-old conflict, United Nations investigators said on Tuesday that they believed that chemical weapons and more indiscriminate bombing had been used in recent weeks and urged world powers to cut off supplies of weapons that could only result in more civilian casualties.

This more recent report should replace the outdated one. Mustang19 (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Human rights violations Main article: Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war Weekly deaths over the course of the conflict in Syria (18 March 2011 – 1 March 2013) Human rights violations Main article: Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war Weekly deaths over the course of the conflict in Syria (18 March 2011 – 1 March 2013)

From careful reading of the article on Human Rights Violations, it is clear that the vast majority of the section is out-dated and one-sided. And yet no amount of comments or questioning has led to improvements. Why is this document being protected? 78.147.83.33 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration 1RR for Syrian civil war articles

Greyshark09 has proposed that we submit a request to Arbcom to create a 1RR Syrian civil war arbitration tool. Does anyone oppose this proposal? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me, but I'm not taking part in edit-warring, so won't affect me any way. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we are not seeking for "someone to oppose", but rather a majority of supporters in order to reduce edit-warring. I'm not edit-warring as well as a rule, but it seems the subject is too "hot" and we might need to cool it down by 1RR.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way, anyone to reply in this thread would be invited for the arbitration request (now including FunkMonk).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am going to oppose on the grounds that this article is already subject to arbitration. Pug6666 16:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is not the only one about the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

rebel groups

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/freedom-fighters-cannibals-the-truth-about-syrias-rebels-8662618.html

A good recent article on the various rebel groups, including strength estimations. Machinarium (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the terrible map, though.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

YPG strength

The source [18] for 4000-4500, is for those who allegedely were transported from Qandil to Syrian Kurdistan, not total number of YPG fighters. It is also from early July 2012, as YPG has been intensively training large numbers of new recruits ever since. Recently Salih Muslim said the number is over 15000 [19]. Roboskiye (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

assad victory

lets call it a wrap and add "decisive syrian government forces victory" in the infobox. [20] Baboon43 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Even without western help for the insurgents, a possible "victory" (Syria is smashed, so not much to win) would take a few years from now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
A blog is not a reliable source. See also WP:NOTFORUM. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
and even, if this would come from reliable Source, it would be far too soon, to give anyone a victory. Nobody had "won" until the war ist over - and this war will probaly going on for some Years. So just stick to the news.--134.91.144.134 (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Few things: this is a WP:NEWSBLOG, which is treated as more reliable than a self-published blog on wordpress, blogspot, or tumblr. TG needs to do some more policy reading. Also, nowhere in the source does it state that Assad has won, only that Syrian Christians are "praying" that he does eventually. The author even states that "this sort of ghastly stalemate can go on for years" and that Aleppo remains divided (though civilians can and do cross from side to side). I'm really not sure in what universe that means that the war is over with a "decisive" victory for Assad. Either adjust your eyeglass prescription or put down the crazy pipe. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

While a little early to call it a decisive victory, this newsblog gives a strong indication that the Syrian government forces are not doing that badly - thank you. It also points out that, had Assad lost the level support claimed, he would have gone by now. Clearly, this view is not welcome by the FSA cheer-leaders. 78.147.86.72 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Aggressive Archiving of Threads on Talk Page

Why are the threads on the talk page being archived so aggressively? This is the most aggressive archiving that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Is there a guideline about when it is appropriate to use such aggressive automatic archiving? 24.212.193.99 (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TALKCOND says: It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections.. This is mainly for people with slow or constrained devices. However, it is also useful to prevent thread necromancy. Currently, the box is set to 7 days leaving a minimum of 5 threads. Personally, I think it's fine given the currently level of activity. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
And yet, despite any need to reduce it in size, the archiving of this section remains overly aggressive - almost as if certain remarks are less than welcome? Consider the ever-growing evidence of rebel groups having carried out human rights violations. Despite this, Wikipedia continue to state that the "Vast majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government's forces”. Just what is preventing any changes being made? 78.147.86.72 (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Archiving is automated. We can set the number of days, but I think 7 is appropriate. It's true that "certain remarks are less than welcome", namely those which are not directly related to improving the article, see WP:NOTFORUM. If you want specific changes made the article, state them explicitly and I'll make or discuss them. Alternatively, consider creating an account so you can address these concerns yourself. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

PKK in infobox?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/us-syria-crisis-kurds-idUSBRE95J0TH20130620

more and more proof of PKK involvement (specially after ceasefire with Turkey) --Reader1987 (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Or rather proof that journalists can't be bothered to distinguish between the PYD and the PKK. PKK properly refers to the Turkey-based organisation, while the PYD is its ideological offshoot in Syria. "PKK" is sometimes used interchangeably with "PYD" in Syria, particularly amongst opponents of the PYD, but that doesn't mean Karayılan is shipping his guerillas into Syria. Given how Efrin is several hundred kilometres away from the PKK's strongholds in Qandil and totally isolated even from other PYD-held enclaves, their presence (as opposed to PYD/YPG) seems highly unlikely. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
In other words, it's already in the infobox under a different name and that name is more appropriate than "PKK". Did I understand correctly? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Correct. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why only "non-state parties" listed?

I think the usual case is to list all belligerents, and there is no reason to omit participation of Syrian and Iranian governments here. For example in North Yemen Civil War article, all participants are listed as "opposing forces".Greyshark09 (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Heading for Azadi Party

Shouldn't the Azadi Party have their own heading? The way the infobox is setup currently makes it seem as though it is part of the mujahideen, though that is not the case. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, there's already horizontal dividing line. That's good enough.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What is the status of the party today? Doesn't seem to be mentioned much in the media. Our sources are several months old FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Gladstone, Rick (19 July 2012). "Russia and China Veto Resolution on Syria". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 July 2012.
  2. ^ "Fighting Embroils in Syria Preview". CNN. 20 July 2012. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
  3. ^ Arango, Tim (19 July 2012). "Iraq Says Rebels in Syria Control Border Posts". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 July 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_27&oldid=1142315527"