Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Corrected typo in "want".
Line 147: Line 147:


Hello, everyone. I just wanted to let you all know that Afrin has completely fallen to the TFSA control so, you might waant to update the map on the article to reflect the change properly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Federation_of_Northern_Syria#/media/File:Syrian_Civil_War_map.svg. I believe this is the latest version of the map.
Hello, everyone. I just wanted to let you all know that Afrin has completely fallen to the TFSA control so, you might waant to update the map on the article to reflect the change properly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Federation_of_Northern_Syria#/media/File:Syrian_Civil_War_map.svg. I believe this is the latest version of the map.

== Afrin and Aleppo district ==

Why is it that the Kurdish territory of these regions is not counted as Syrian since they requested the entrance of army troops? [[Special:Contributions/2804:14C:5BB5:8FFF:E3A1:40C2:9BB0:50DD|2804:14C:5BB5:8FFF:E3A1:40C2:9BB0:50DD]] ([[User talk:2804:14C:5BB5:8FFF:E3A1:40C2:9BB0:50DD|talk]]) 15:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:55, 20 March 2018

Template:Hidden infoboxes

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions


Archives
Topical archives

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Belligerents : Where is Israel !?

Side which is clearly involved in this war, with many aerial and artillery assaults on Syria, with many weapons from Israel , shot down jets, drones over Syria isnt presented here ? Israel is clearly helping ISIL and antigovernment forces on Golan Heights. I would add Israel on belligerents (Support) which are siding "Syrian opposition" and "ISIL". --PetarM (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear whom Israel, if at all, is supporting and to what extent. Israel has actually shot at ISIL forces in a firefight, and has arrested and tried Israeli Arabs who have attempted (or succeeded) in joining ISIL. The cross-border raids seem to be mainly spillovers and part of a long-going Hezbollah/Iran vs. Israel war between wars - unrelated to the Syrian Civil War. An RfC on the matter was run in August 2017 - [1] - things have not changed much since then. They might change in the near future, but that's WP:BALL.Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than clear Israel is against the Syrian government, bombing Damask often and nearby places. On Golan Heights they provided help to Al-Qaeda, also medical medical treatment to Al-Qaeda and ISIL. Thats is very clear. Its disturbing do we try to hide that ? Yestarday there was movie on Youtube with captured weapons, delivered straight from Israel to rebels. What do we need to add them on belligerents list... one more shot down jet, 2, 3... ?! --PetarM (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that the Syrian government has finally shot back, and it has become more of a two-way affair, Israel should certainly be listed in the infobox. Added to their continuous attacks on the Syrian governent and support for Islamist insurgents near Golan, there is really nothing to discuss. The mental gymnastics and special pleading required to keep Israel out of the infobox is getting ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firing without ever hitting anything is not the same as shooting down a plane. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same intent. Hitting anmodern fighter jet with a SA5 (which has been fired a number of times at planes, including once last year when on of these was alegedly intercepted by an Arrow ABM) has a low probability for each shot - but fire enough and so,ething will go down.Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We follow the sources, not our personal POVs, or what we perceive to be the "intent" of the Syrian government or any other party in this conflict. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Sources state Syria has fired SA5s before at Israeli jets, e.g. in October 2017[2] or March 2017[3] in which The Syrian military claimed it responded by shooting down one of the aircraft, but no evidence subsequently emerged to corroborate this claim.[4] - so nothing new in the Syrians firing at Israeli jets or claiming to have shot them down.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz how would you describe situation on the map ? ISIL and rebels are by Israel territory and they are surounded by Govenment forces ? Do you accept fact they side them, even in hospitals and sending them back into Syria ? With arms from Israael. --PetarM (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade / Khalid ibn al-Walid Army control a very small strip of territory and were involved in firefights with Israel. Their ISIS connection is somewhat tenuous (they weren't initially affiliated, they did declare allegiance when IS was stronger), and there aren't all that many credible reports tying Israel to them (though as usual with Islamic State - everyone's favorite bogeyman in Syria - there's quite a bit of propaganda - but not credible reporting). The more credible reports tie Israel, in a minor fashion, to South-Western Syrian rebel groups (which at the moment, in confirmed and credible reports, amount to humanitarian assistance as well as minor other assistance) are to other groups - either unaffiliated local groups (of which, like in all of Syria, there are many) or Al-Nusra Front / Tahrir al-Sham. Israel, however, has also directly threatened these groups when they approached the Druze village of Hader, Quneitra Governorate too much (In Rare Move, Israel Says Ready to Protect Syrian Druze Town Under Attack by Islamic Militants).I do not think much has changed since the last RfC - there is minor reported cross-border meddling and a campaign against Iran/Hezbollah. Most analysts would not be surprised if Israel chose (or were thrust into) greater open involvement - but this hasn't happened yet.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i checked some other Wikipedias. Which don't do just translate. Israel is on Belligerents list on Spanish, Russian, Portugese, Nederland, Polish Wikipedia...among some other maybe (i havent checked all). So i see no reason not to add Israel. --PetarM (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enwiki doesn't work that way, but it actually varies quite a bit. Notably, Israel is not included in the infobox in either the Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish, or Persian Wikipedia (all languages are involved/neighbors in the war). In Russian, it is in the infobox but with a note limiting this to the described airstrikes. In a number of other Wikis it is off (e.g. Italian, Greek from a random sampling). In any event, not much has changed since the last RfC which was rather recent.Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I advocated keeping Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War in the face of erstwhile fierce opposition. But I am inclined to think that listing them under "Main belligerents" heading here would be a bit far-fetched, and more importantly, inaccurate. Israel is formally at war with Syria, hence she is not so much involved in the civil conflict per se, rather striking Iranian and Iran-backed forces, which includes Syrian forces, in a direct way.Axxxion (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their interactions with insurgent groups hint that they are indeed meddling in the civil war itself. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Israel vs Iran/Hezbollah is a long running conflict predating the SCW. Israel vs Syria is also a long running unresolved conflict not related to the SCW. If Israel wanted to get in the SCW they would do a lot more than the minimal actions against Hezbollah and firing back when so one fires at them. Israel has the capacity to do serious damage in Syria but does not use it. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: While I agree with the first two of your sentences in the posting above that deal with the matter under discussion, I believe the rest of your text above is a blatant abuse of this Resource for political propaganda (in fact, you sound like a spokesman of israel′s gov making threats to neighbouring countries, sth I do not remember ever having read on Wiki). We have a relatively exhaustive list of Israeli strikes in the relevant article: none of them was in retaliation for a strike at any Israeli targets inside Israel in her internationally recognized borders. A plain fact.Axxxion (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's pretty insulting. I have no dog in the fight. I'm simply noting that Israel has significant military capacity, which is why they (and not Syria) show up on lists of the strongest militaries in the world [5].
That was not my point. But apropos armies rankings, these are all largely speculations based on theoretical analysis of a very limited range of parameters and technicalities. When a real war is fought between major powers (and this has not happened since 1945), "strength" of an army is but one of a slew of other salient circumstances, the primary ones being: a nation′s willingness to fight to the bitter end, depth of your territory and vulnerability of major hubs, resilience of civilian population and its readiness to sacrifice, etc. Apparently, neither Israel nor the U.S. would feature prominent on these. Most of the U.S. major targets, including the capital city (let alone Israel), can be easily destroyed by a first-strike submarine-based cruise-missile attack within a few minutes after the strike, due to their proximity to the sea (just one geographical fact to illustrate my point).Axxxion (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is some twisted wordplay @Axxxion:.

none of them was in retaliation for a strike at any Israeli targets inside Israel in her internationally recognized borders. A plain fact.

No, they were in response to missiles landing in the Golan heights, which Israel considers part of itself (and has many Israeli citizens). Is it OK for Syria to shell areas of land because they're occupied (from a Syrian POV)? Because that's the logic behind Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. As for the military issue, granted, the last world war was in 1945. The last "classic" war between the two powers in question was the 1973 Yom Kippur war - which was itself a facet of the cold war. But modern wars aren't generally fought that way. Israel's capability in intelligence is a key asset in the region - hence the strikes on Hezbollah convoys. Bellezzasolo Discuss 08:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
wow, wow, wow, @Bellezzasolo:. Thanks for elaborating on/illustrating my point. Wow!Axxxion (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look carefully at the U.S. State Dpt map of Isr: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/IsraeltheWestBankandGaza.html?wcmmode=disabled Also, as far as I know, the State of Israel herself does not formally define her borders, which makes perfect sense, of course. Reminds me of Putin′s quip some months ago that Russia′s borders do not end anywhere: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-russia-border-do-not-end-anywhere-comments-quote-eu-us-tensions-a7438686.html And Isr is now very cognizant of course of the fact that she now effectively shares her undefined border with Russia whose borders do not end... (I have been trying to read putin′s psyche for years and the only thing I can say with certainty is that he is learning from Israelis every day and tries hard to emulate them).Axxxion (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Axxxion: my point being that talking about Israel's internationally recognized borders is a straw man argument. Consider, during an ongoing conflict, borders change (not internationally recognized, the war's been too short). Now, there's a ceasefire. A missile is fired into the occupied territory. Breach of the ceasefire or not? Because that's essentially the de facto situation r/e Israel/Syria, albeit over a much longer timescale. Bellezzasolo Discuss 23:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bellezzasolo:, you and me might have philosophical differences (from my observation of life for 50 odd years, it is obvious to me that once one has the ability to damage/remove/plunder one′s opponent/neighbour with relative impunity, one will always do so and create tangible arguments to demonstrate that it had been done justly, fairly, mercifully, and often obeying God′s will too), we agree on the subject matter of this thread: Israel obviously does not yet qualify to be listed in the graph in question.Axxxion (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018

With respect to the start of the civil war, the current narrative in the article is not supported by more recent information. According to an article in the American Herold Tribune, CIA-backed foreign mercenaries/terrorists were already in place ready to go prior to the outbreak of violence in Deraa in March 2011. Not only was the U.S. providing weapons and logistics support to foreign mercenaries/terrorists, including Al Qaeda, U.S. politicians, including U.S. Senator John McCain and U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford actively called for an armed uprising to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad.

[1] Tezoc49 (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ “The day before Deraa: How the war broke out in Syria,” Steven Sahiounie , American Herold Tribune, August 10, 2016.
"Reliable sources" is a really curious term if most articles are linked in from e. g. Reuters, New York Times and so forth. This shows a limitation of Wikipedia as-is. 2A02:8388:1640:9200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of articles

The article is presently not worded in a neutral manner. It starts with the word "civil war" and continues with how it is explained the conflict started, which is hugely one-sided. I think the article needs to be reworded to put all sides into it rather than singularize on only one certain world view that is being propagated as-is. 2A02:8388:1640:9200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Developments and challenges in Syria (March 2018)

Hello editors,

This article lack a granular political analysis, for example it does not acknowledge or contextualize the simple fact that due to global diplomatic hesitance, confusion, or misinformation, what we deal with here is not "one, but a whole series of wars and proxy wars, involving the Syrian government, the Syrian people, a divided opposition, Russia, Iran, Turkey, the Kurds, Saudi Arabia, Israel, IS, Hezbollah and Salafist jihadist groups such as Al Nusra and its successors, not to speak of the rights and legitimate interests of minorities like Syrian Turkmen, Circassians, Ismailis, Druze, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Yazidis, Christians and Jews. As one young refugee put it, “It is like twenty football teams playing against one another on a single pitch.”

For those interested to learn the 'real world' dynamics of Syria, have a look at this recent article by two aid-workers [here]! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:21D5:7E00:95FF:6E4A:D65A:4B91 (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is now too short

I remember the lead being too long and it was probably heavily trimmed as a result, but the current one is simply too short. Look at well established war articles of similar lengths such as World War II, World War I, Vietnam War, Korean War etc. While this article's lead would have to be updated occasionally due to ever changing factors, readers are unlikely to read the whole article and would probably benefit from more information in the lead. For example, the evolution of the war's major alliances (and therefore also major changes) could be outlined. Furthermore, the actual onset of the war and its first battles as well as the several phases (initial rebel gains, then ISIS inception + gains and international involvement, then SAA gains, then Turkish intervention ...) can be included. Major battles and agreements could get part of a paragraph now or in the future, but would be more difficult to determine because we don't know their full impact yet. Any kind of change like this would obviously need direct consensus first. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian casualties are not correct

Regarding Iranian casualties, the 2000 killed were as this article states mostly Afghans and not Iranian nationals: https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-1-100-fighters-killed-syria/28355761.html

Also the current linked source (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180307-tehran-2100-iranian-soldiers-killed-in-syria-and-iraq/) shows a picture of remains of Iranian soldiers and incorrectly describes it as "The bodies of more than 1,000 Iranian troops who were killed in Syria since intervention began". These are infact remains from Iranian soldiers killed during the Iran-Iraq war: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/iraniraq-soldiers-remains-retur — Preceding unsigned comment added by VendixDM (talkcontribs) 03:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map update, per the TFSA s total victory in the Afrin Operation.

Hello, everyone. I just wanted to let you all know that Afrin has completely fallen to the TFSA control so, you might waant to update the map on the article to reflect the change properly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Federation_of_Northern_Syria#/media/File:Syrian_Civil_War_map.svg. I believe this is the latest version of the map.

Afrin and Aleppo district

Why is it that the Kurdish territory of these regions is not counted as Syrian since they requested the entrance of army troops? 2804:14C:5BB5:8FFF:E3A1:40C2:9BB0:50DD (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]