Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions about Control of cities during the Syrian civil war. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

Al Nuara advance around Wadi al-Deif and al-Hamdia camps

Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic fighters take the checkpoints of al-Za’lan, al-Raii, al-Rab’an, al-Madakhen around Wadi al-Deif and al-Hamdia camps.SOHR SOHR And guys Islamic fighters it is not Islamic Front. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the Arabic SOHR. They write Jabhat Islamya, which means Islamic front. Both JAN and IF have the main role in these battles, videos are being published on Islamic Front youtube channels showing their fighters. Also FSA Div13 members are participating tooDuckZz (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You provide data from biased the pro-opposition sources.Archicivilians Archicivilians Archicivilians But SOHR said that Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic fighters take the checkpoints of al-Za’lan, al-Raii, al-Rab’an ariound al-Hamdia camps.SOHR SOHR also more relialbe neutral source clear said that JAN initiating the attack against Wadi-al Deyf camp in Idlib with a suicide attack followed by assaultElijah J. Magnier and later controls al-Madakhen checkpoints but didn't manage to break into Wadi al-deif camp.Elijah J. Magnier And how I earlier said when sources say about Islamic fighters they does not mean about Islamic Front. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Front belongs to Islamic fighters but they are not alone. You have Ahrar Al Sham etc. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait until they says "ISIS fighters" beacause the word islamic fighters is used for other pro-opp fighters too like islamic front etc Lindi29 (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Syrian political activist reported that Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra continues its offensive to besieged the Wadi al-Daif military base.here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying so you can understand. SOHR is a good source but translators working for them don't really care about groups in general. For example, an article from Arabic SOHR, they use the words "Jabhat Islamya" which means Islamic front or group doesn't matter, on the other hand English SOHR translates that as "Islamic batalion" which is good but .... on another article Arabic SOHR mentions again "Jabhat Islamya" , but English SOHR translates that as "Islamic fighters" WHY ? They don't care.

Here's an example on an article from today. SOHR says "JAN destroyed a tank using a TOW missile" I mean lol ? Do these guys, or these look like JAN members ? That's it.DuckZz (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

how about these guys? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliMD7176 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Why you are misrepresent data from SOHR. SOHR just said that Islamic battalions and Jabhat al-Nusra have taken over 7 checkpoints ” al-Dab’an, al-Raii, al-Za’lana in Wadi al-Deif, and al-Madajin, Habosh, Kamin, Mo’asasa al-Meyah in al-Hamedia camp.SOHR And SOHR not said about a ISF or FSA in those clashes. But we all know that moderate rebels and Al Nursa not cooperate in the Idlib province. Also data from opposition sources that you provide we cant used to display success the rebels. But you are well aware that moderate rebels lose ground in clashes against Al Nusra nevertheless noted captured objects by under the control of moderate rebels. That's not right. Also previously neutral source clear said that it is JAN initiating the attack against Wadi-al Deyf camp with a suicide attack followed by assault.Elijah J. Magnier Not moderate rebel groups. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also reliables sources said that Front Al Nusra, backed by Jund al-Aqsa, seized control of the Wadi al-Deif military base.The Daily Star Arab Today SOHR said that Al- Nusra Front supported by Jund al- Aqsa organization took control over the military camp of Wadi al- Deif and its vicinity in the countryside of city Ma’arret al- Nu’man.SOHR So maybe we need noted checkpoints around base under control by JAN. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

They are participating in every battle there but why should they take credit for everything ? This is not about if they have taken it but who is in control now, and if that's the case we can use pro-opposition sources. Islamic front members are posting pictures of their soldiers in every checkpoint they are around Marat Numan, same goes for other groups, same for JAN members. Now I'm not saying rebels (FSA) are in control of everything but it's not possible or logical that JAN controls every checkpoint SOHR or other mentions in the past 2 days ...

You know how it goes, it's more interesting for channels to post something affiliated with "Al Qaeda", doesn't matter in what numbers they were there. They don't care about other groups because they are not well known. That was the case for every bigger place that fell under rebel control in Darra province. Every channel was mentioning Al Qaeda even thought their numbers were only in few dozens, but they are well known to the readers.

My suggestion for this case is. Wadi Daif (as it's the biggest base there) should go JAN held, every other checkpoint (2 of them) to green (Islamic Front held). DuckZz (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I belive this is the best thing we can do. Wadi Daif should stay grey. We'll wait for Hamydijah and decide later. DuckZz (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

DuckZz Also of other a pro opposition source showed that Wadi al Daif base and checkpoints around this base taken the JAN but some checkpoints to south from Maarat al Numan and near to Hamidiyah base taken moderate rebels from IF.here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I know, it's a total mess, JAN is mixed with rebels. Wadi Daif should stay grey, checkpoints around to Ahrar (IF) control. Open a new section for Hamdyidah, this page is too long. DuckZz (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Listern man here SOHR reported that Al- Nusra supported by Jund al- Aqsa organization took control over the military camp of Wadi al- Deif and its vicinity.SOHR So that as said a pro opposition map JAN with allies taken Wadi Daif military camp and some checkpoints near this camp. But moderate rebels take some checkpoints south Maarat Numan and near with Hamidiyah military camp. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also reliable source Elijah J. Magnier said that Al Nusra published a new map where showed that Wadi Daif and surrounding checkpoints under control by JAN. Also in Idlib province one of the groups from IF(Ahrar ash-Sham) cooperated with JAN in they fighting against moderate rebels. See this articleAl-Nusra Front–Syria Revolutionaries Front conflict So that here we have a very confusing situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

al-Hamidiyah army base to green/grey per:

It seems that rebels have taken control of Hamidiyah base and the villages of Hamidiyah and Basidah. PetroLucem source gives a map that shows the SAA south of Khan Shaykun (interesting for the status of Khan Shaykun as a contested city), but not north of Basidah. Opposition Twitter reports also mention the capture of both villages and clashes near Ma'ar Hattit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Just when Al Nusra together with other rebels capture city or village, we note those city or village under control moderate rebels because in the Dara province moderate rebels is the main force that is fighting against the Syrian army. But in the Idlib province the main strength it is Al Nusra and its allies so that we can not noted to under control by moderate rebels checkpoints which was captured Al Nusra even if some of moderate rebels are involved in their capture. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources clear said that Al Nusra in coordination with Islamist rebels of Jund al-Aqsa and Ahrar al-Sham, seized the Hamidiyeh and Wadi Deif bases.The Daily Star Al Arabia We also know that Jund al-Aqsa and Ahrar al-Sham support Al Nusrain in fights against moderate rebels in the Idlib province. See this article Al-Nusra Front–Syria Revolutionaries Front conflict Hanibal911 (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So according to many sources all checkpoints located near Wadi al Daif military camp now under control by Al Nusra and their allied. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I Ask speak out about this issue the other editors. EkoGraf Boredwhytekid ChrissCh94 Alhanuty XJ-0461 v2 Tradedia Daki122 André437 Waiting for your suggestions. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources seem pretty straight forward to me - JAN and affiliated groups are sweeping the table right now. Wild how they are accomplishing military feats that the moderate rebels couldn't for years.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also according to government source Syrian troops evacuated from Maarat al Nouman area to the main forces to south area near city of Khan Shaykhun. Where Syrian troops now fights against rebel groups. And in many places where already troops evacuated now Al Nusra entered in those area.here So according to the pro-government source now Maar Shamshah, Maar Shamarin, Deir Sharqi, Ayn Al-Dayr, Dayr al Gharbi and Dar Basidah controlled by Al Nusra and their allies.here here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So the SAA consolidated all troops in Hish I presume? If they pulled out of everything else that's gotta be where they all holed up Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also SOHR said that Jabht al-Nusra and Islamic battalions have also took control Tal Bansara and al-Naseh to east of Besida which was a HQ for regime forces. Clashes continue in the area between the two sides.SOHR SO i think maybe we need marked Maar Shamshah, Maar Shamarin, Deir Sharqi, Ayn Al-Dayr, Dayr al Gharbi under control by Al Nusra and Dar Basidah as contested. Possible after the loss of important military bases of the Syrian army became harder to defend these territories without link to the basic forces and they have made a tactical retreat. As previously acted moderate rebels when they retreating from the provinces of Deir Ez Zor, Raqqa and Hasakah. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria and allied rebel groups have taken control of two key army bases in the northern province of Idlib, activists say. Al-Nusra Front, supported by those from Jund al-Aqsa, captured Wadi al-Deif base after launching a fierce offensive and Ahrar al-Sham later joined their assault on the nearby Hamidiya base.BBC Charles Lister of the Brookings Doha Center said the gains highlighted the rise of the jihadists in the province."The nature of the operations has served to underline the renewed prominence of more Islamically-minded forces in Idlib, with Jabhat (Front) al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham having played the dominant role in practically capturing the facilities," he said. Lister also said the advance may pave the way for "a major assault on Idlib city", which like most Syrian provincial capitals remains in regime hands. The gains give Al-Nusra firm control of much of Idlib province, limiting the chances of a challenge from potential rivals. Until September this year, Ahrar al-Sham had sought to distance itself from more hardline jihadists in Syria. But a September 9 explosion that killed its top leadership "pushed the group to align itself more openly with Al-Nusra". "Now the two are fighting side by side." On Monday, Ahrar al-Sham broke its silence on the September blast, blaming "a criminal group" with "international links". Abdel Rahman said this was an apparent reference to Western intelligence agencies.Naharnet Hanibal911 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also anti government source showed that Maar Shamshah, Maar Shamarin, Deir Sharqi, Ayn Al-Dayr, Dayr al Gharbi under control by Al Nusra and Anhar al Sham(group which was part of the Islamic Front but now joined the Al Nusra here) and Dar Basidah as contested. here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then let's get them changed over to grey, and Dar Basidah contested Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A map by Agathocles de Syracuse showing rebel advances in the past three days: http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Maarat-al-numan-rebels-offensive-UPDATE-15-Dec-2014-by-@desyracuse.png

Carefully read the reliable sources which listed above. They clearly noted that the attack is conducted Al Nusra and their allies (Jund al-Aqsa and Anhar al Sham) Hanibal911 (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I said rebels. Because that's who they are. They may be Islamist, or secular, or foreign, they remain rebels. The Islamic Front participated, the Free Syrian Army 13th Brigade, Jund al-Aqsa, Jabhat al-Nusra. Maybe more. So :) rebels, without naming a certain group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No need to invent facts. Many reliable source said that it is offencive Al Nusra and their allies against government troops.Naharnet BBC The Daily Star Arab Today Yahoo News Al Araby AD Hoc News Agency France Presse Hanibal911 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

USNEWS - Bsida (Dar Basidah) overrun as well, SAA fell back to Maar Hattat which is now besieged Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not "inventing facts" Hannibal. I merely stated that whilst Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham led the offensive, others participated. Also, I meant that Jabhat and Ahrar are rebels just like the FSA. So I only tried to reason with editors who are claiming that one group is solely responsible, for the only group acting that way in Syria is IS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In this is offencive take participate Al Nusra Jund al Aqsa and Anhar Al Sham(former members of IF) which broke off relations with moderate rebel groups and joined Al Nursi.Naharner France Press International Business Times Hanibal911 (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Hanibal. This offensive was clearly the work of Jabhat Al-Nusra. Not only have numerous sources been provided detailing their involvement, but the area around the bases is already controlled by JAN. It makes no sense for the "moderate rebels" to come out of nowhere and seize the camps, but JAN is already well established there and would have the most to gain by seizing these camps. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, all evidence points at this being primarily a JAN, Ahrar al-Sham and Jund al Aqsa affair. There is mention of a moderate group participating though Daily Star confirms that the rebel group Division 13 is taking part Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So now we clear know that if some moderate rebels also took part in this battle it is was insignificant. And about rebels from the Division 13 source just said that Islamic Front posted a video on YouTube which claimed that the fighters had captured at least two regime tanks during the battle. At least one Free Syrian Army militia, Division 13, is also taking part in the battle, and claimed it had destroyed a regime tank with a TOW missile.The Daily Star But no independent confirmation this data. And sources also indicate that it is just statement from the Islamic Front. And pro opoosition source also confirms that this is offensive by Al Nusra and their allies.World Bulletin Hanibal911 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Militants linked to Al-Qaeda dealt a major blow to Syria's regime Monday by seizing two key army bases within hours, giving them control over most of Idlib province. The gains also signaled another defeat for Western-backed rebels who were driven out of most of the northwestern province last month by the jihadi Nusra Front.The Daily Star Al Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, along with the powerful Ahrar al-Sham militia and other allies, seized the Wadi Deif base after a fierce, two-day push that sent hundreds of regime troops fleeing the area, as regime warplanes pounded the area in a bid to secure their retreat. Abdel-Rahman told Al-Arabiya that the Al Nusra Front and a number of Islamist militias, along with a small number of FSA groups, now controlled between 70 and 80 percent of Idlib province.The Daily Star So that the reliable source clearly shows that the number of moderate rebels in the Idlib province slightly. The main power in province it is Al Nusra and their allies. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

BBC also says 13th Division and Fursan Al-Haqq participated. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with the fact that some of the rebels took part in the attack but it was a minor part. But also as I earlier said that we also know from reliable sources that in the clashes against troops in Darra province Al Nusra also participates but still we noted all cities and villages which was taken under the control of moderate rebels. Because it was said that a crucial role in the capture of towns and villages play a moderate rebel groups (FSA) but Al Nusra just helps them. which had previously defeated moderate rebels and captured a large part of the province. Also Abdel-Rahman told Al-Arabiya that the Nusra Front and a number of Islamist militias, along with a small number of FSA groups, now controlled between 70 and 80 percent of Idlib province.The Daily Star So that their number (FSA) in this offensive was not significant. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, it seems that so far sources have painted a picture of Idlib and Daraa being mirror images in this respect - in Idlib the "shot-callers" are JAN, it's affiliates and the Islamic Front, with a sprinkling of FSA/"moderate" units; in Daraa it seems to be the opposite, with FSA/"moderate" units being predominant and the JAN/IF units the minority. At least that's the picture to be gleaned from the sources available.. who knows how the JAN/"moderate" rebel dynamic might change in the south.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Al Nusra and ISIS in Southern front - dpeict in colour

Think, we should depict also Southern front in colours showing affiliation to the different factions - either FSA (green), Al Nusra (grey) or just recently several groups that pledged allegiance with ISIS (black) - see http://www.chamtimes.com/278242.html

Tomas 85.226.245.213 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as JAN and FSA do not fight each other they stay green but if some FSA change to ISIL and we know the towns they control then yes they should be black .81.156.225.119 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Al Nusra has claimed an Emirate in Syria, this means they will sooner or later, or at a given opportunity claim that also in the South like they have done recently in Idlib by attacking and taken over SRF and Al-Hazm towns, also In South they have attacked and taken some sites from FSA recently there (see link above/below and also other discussions/topics above). It is also important to see the spread out and precense of JAN, since it is actually "Al Quadia" a listed global terrorist organization - and I think not represented in FSA councils and intenational summits - and thus not 'approved' part of FSA - we should keep it visible in 'grey everywhere they are.

On the ISIS afiliated groups I think now there are three factions in the South that claim ISIS allegiance, that surely control some towns - as per the included link above - http://www.chamtimes.com/278242.html

Tomas 85.226.245.213 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah

Lindi29 has raised a question about the status of the southernmost red/SAA-held towns in Hasakah: Sab'a, Taban, Burj Ghrabyiah, Sabburyiah, Hamadanyiah. desyracuse shows this area as IS held, citing a report of coalition airstrikes in the area. Everything I have come across corroborates coalition strikes Washington post, 2x, BBC, the national, dpt of defense, business insider, etc, which would mean IS control. Does anyone have additional information? Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

But these maps do not indicate who controlled these several villages. For the minor editings we need more detailed data. Also, if the we use of the data from those maps we need marked some towns and villages which was captured ISIS again under the control of those who previously controlled them. Since on the basis of these maps can be argued that the rebels still controls some areas in the province of Raqqa and YPG regain many villages which earlier was captured by ISIS. Also according to those maps ISIS almost nothing not control in the provinces of Hama and Homs. With this problem we have faced in the situation when the editor Pototo on based a similar map was trying to prove that ISIS has no control of several villages in north of Suwayda province. Let us not repeat his mistakes. We just tried to prove to him that he was wrong but now themselves act as he did. I think that in this issue we need search to more detailed data about situation in several villages in south Hasakah. But I do agree that the villages Sab' Shakur and Tall Tunaynir all the same controlled by ISIS as well according to our map which showed situation in the city Hasakah they are in the area which is under the control of ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Also for now we have data that troops leads offensive to west and to south from city of Hasakah.SOHR Elijah J. Magnier SOHR And pro opposition sources ARA News Document.Sy ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Today pro government source Press TV and SOHR reported that Syrian army liberates nine villages around Hasakah. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Weren't you earlier this month advocating that we should use desyracuse when we lack other sources here? Well, do we have a more recent/reliable sources for these specific towns? Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Because, we have desyracuse, supported by Washington Post, BBC, the Dpt of Defense, and more. Granted the Washington Post and BBC maps are not the most accurate, hence we don't use them by themselves, but in this case they are secondary sources supporting the desyracuse claim. If there are more recent pro-op or neutral sources stating that the SAA holds those towns, then let's stick with that, but if not, we can't just ignore the multitude of sources.. ESPECIALLY after all the hubbub about using desyracuse when supported by backup sources. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont mind using deSyracuse as a source. Also pro government and pro opposition sources said that village Al-Taba(or Taban) Masoom, Hanash, Uwaina, Hajj Hasan, Marouf, and Nasrat south from Hasakah taken by Syrian troops.ARA News here. But for now I dont have data about situation in other villages. So if you are sure that they are under the control of ISIS, I will not oppose. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, even though al-Masdar is pro-gov't, I'm more inclined to trust it than desyracuse. I'm not convinced either way, and am not going to make any edit until we get a clearer picture. Just playing devil's advocate. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe that ISIS earlier could grab some villages in the area. But after the army launched a major offensive in this area I can not be 100% sure that they are still under the control of ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Done With few exceptions because to according data from pro opposition source the village of al-Melabiya here and from govertnment and pro opposition sources a village Taba controlled by army.ARA News here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Jabhat al-Nusra against some rebels in Dara province

Pro opposition source said that the al-Qaeda-linked group of Nusra Front seized the headquarters of the rebel brigade of the “Yarmouk Martyrs” in the town of Taseel in Daraa province following clashes between the two parties. Also civil rights activist Mohammed Hassan said that members of al-Nusra stormed the town and took control of the headquarters of the Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade of the Free Syrian Army , as well as seizing a military vehicle. Clashes between both sides (Nusra and Yarmouk Brigade) spread to the town of Saham al-Jawlan, without causing casualties.ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade counts some 5000 fighters and is the biggest FSA faction in Daraa. It is headed by Bashar al-Zoubi himself, commander of the Southern Front. If this clash was not just some local incident, we will hear of it in the coming days. Nusra has only little power in the south. There are thousands of FSA fighters active there, highly organised (Yarmouk Army, First Corps, al-Furqlan Brigades, SRF). Nusra won't be able to take over large swaths of terretory like they did in Idlib. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Nusra have more fighters than the FSA want the rest of the world to know, they indeed are the Spearhead of the 2014 offensive since most of the advances and losses are nusra men. This could be a eco of whata happening in Idlib. However Yarmouk Martyrs are not all the FSA on the South. We should wait before any edit.200.48.214.19 (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, they are not the spearhead of the southern offensive. The Harrah battle was 100% Southern Front. Footage from Nawa shows both Nusra and Southern Front flags, just the same as in Sheikh Maskin. The operations near Nasib crossing were Southern Front. Deir al-Abas is protected by ... the Southern Front. Estimates say there are some 3000 - 5000 Nusra fighters in southern Syria, compared to some 10,000 Islamist rebels and 15,000 - 20,000 moderates. Nusra is very good at using social media and showing its fighters in the heat of battle, but that does not say everything. Especially in Daraa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Three rebel brigades in the Daraa countryside pledge allegiance to Islamic State fearing Jabhat a-Nusra.Cham Times Joshua Landis Hanibal911 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There are far more nusra members than we are being told [We saw this with ISIS, which was initially thought to have 15,000 members and now has estimates that average around 70,000]. Also, Al-Nusra has spearheaded almost every offensive in the south. It even spearheaded the qunietra border crossing attack. I remember the same was said about the rebels in the north, that JAN was just a fifth column, well not any more. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How about a new rule for youtube videos ? In most cases they are the best if not the only source besides Twitter for showing advances and contested areas. That's only my opinion, I hate sources from so called "articles" DuckZz (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Al Nusra said that Al-Yarmouk pledging allegiance to Islamic State.Elijah J. Magnier And now infighting between Al Nusra and Liwa' al-Yarmouk in Daraa.Elijah J. Magnier SOHR also said that a demonstration took place today in the town of Sahm al- Jolan demanding to transfer the conflict between al- Nusra Fron and the brigade of Shohadaa al- Yarmuk to outside of the town. And al- Nusra attacked the demonstration followed by clashes between al- Nusra and the brigade. Meanwhile, al- Nusra Front attacked al- Allan checkpoint in the west of the town of Sahm al- Jolan where fighters from the brigade of Shohadaa of al- Yarmuk exist there. Information reported that the brigade’s fighters could drag the injured fighters of al- Nusra.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Little question : why should we trust what ARA news, a kurdish news agency in the north, says about events in Daraa, in the south ? They don't likely have any direct sources in Daraa. That entire article quoted at the top of this section resembles hearsay to me. I could be mistaken, but ARA news reports a lot from areas where they have no direct contacts. But they do have direct contacts in the north, where they can be expected to be more reliable. Although then there is the question of potential bias. André437 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Al Nusra kill a senior commander from moderate rebel group accusing him that his faction it is a sleeper agents for ISIL. Mousab Ali Qarfan who also have other name Mousab Zaytouneh, was a leading figure in the powerful Shuhada Al Yarmouk Brigades. He was killed by the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra in Sahem El Golan, along with three other fighters from his group, on Monday. The Yarmouk Brigades are part of the moderate rebels alliance, still commonly referred to as the Free Syrian Army (FSA). According to opposition sources which monitoring Al Nusra, and information published on social media by some activists close to the Al Qaeda affiliate Al Nusra commanders believed that Zaytouneh was secretly in league with the extremist militant group ISIL.The Nationl Hanibal911 (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Idlib - Hish, al-Amudiyah, and Sahyan

Any specific mention on the status of these towns?

al Masdar says the SAA retreated all the way to Morek from Wadi Deif and Hamidiyah.

ISW says "JN, HASI, and several other Islamic Front and FSA affiliated groups seized the Wadi al-Deif and al-Hamidiyah military bases as well as all remaining regime-held checkpoints in southern Idlib Province, forcing regime soldiers to retreat south into Hama Province".

pro-op syriadirect also says SAA went all the way south to Morek.

SOHR report indicates the same.

As does al-Bawaba "pro-regime social media reported that a number of military personnel who fled the Wadi Deif base arrived safely in the town of Morek in next-door Hama province"

If the SAA is still holding/intent on holding Hish, al-Amudiyah, and Sahyan, why did 1000+ soldiers flee right past them and head south to Hama province? Seems more like they abandoned the area outright Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily! Maybe just decided to hold the rotation. All the above sources say only that in town of Morek arrived the military which was evacuated from two military bases. But not said that Syryan troops left villages Hish, al-Amudiyah, and Sahyan. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/KeepingtheLeith/status/544884664457252864 Pro-Regime Leith believes terrorists took Hish. Combined with the withdraw is pretty obvious that the whole pocket is on IF/Nusra hands. Anyway, we use Green to towns held by IF fighters. Most of the gains we're made by IF fighters, so isn't better to make those areas to be mixed control? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.40.14.221 (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

McClatchy Report - "Of the estimated 1,000 or more regime troops stationed at the Wadi al Deif and al Hamidiyah bases, only about 500 had reached the city of Hama – to which the troops withdrew" and also quotes commander of Division 13 "“Now we have a vast area of land extending from Aleppo to Hama province which is open,”" - again the implication is that the SAA pulled out entirely from southern Idlib. Really, if 1000+ SAA soldiers left, does it make sense that tiny Amudiyah or Sahyan are holding out? Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

DeSyracuse also reporting that the whole pocket has withdrawn: [2]. Seems pretty unanimous.Nhauer (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Some moderate rebel groups support ISIS and JAN in Darra province

Liwa' Shuhada' al-Yarmuk, Abu Mohamad al Tilawi Brigde and Beit al-Maqdes in Daraa declared to Islamic State.Elijah J. Magnier Infighting ongoing between "moderate rebels" supported by JAN and IS in Daraa. And IS getting closer to borders Israel.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think not. There have been no reports of fighting by any other rebel group in southern Syria. ISIS seems to control some desert in Suwayda and near Bir Qassab, but that's it. I doubt there is much truth in this statement. The deputy commander of Liwa Shuhada al-Yarmuk has seemingly already denied it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Three rebel brigades in the Daraa countryside pledge allegiance to Islamic State fearing Jabhat a-Nusra.Joshua Landis Cham Times Hanibal911 (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Al Nusra confirms that Liwa’ al-Yarmouk declared Ba'ya(loyalty) to the ISIS and explain that it is due to infighting between rebels in Dara.here Elijah J. Magnier Also reliable source said that Al Nusra kill a senior commander from moderate rebel group accusing him that his faction it is a sleeper agents for ISIL. Mousab Ali Qarfan who also have other name Mousab Zaytouneh, was a leading figure in the powerful Al Yarmouk Brigades. He was killed by the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra in Sahem El Golan, along with three other fighters from his group. The Yarmouk Brigades are part of the moderate rebels alliance, still commonly referred to as the Free Syrian Army (FSA). According to opposition sources which monitoring Al Nusra, and information published on social media by some activists close to the Al Qaeda affiliate Al Nusra commanders believed that Zaytouneh was secretly in league with the extremist militant group ISIL.The Nationl Hanibal911 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Kabajeb and Al-Shulah on Highway Homs - Deir Ez Zor

Here interactive map showed that a villages Kabajeb and Al-Shulah which located on Highway Homs - Deir Ez Zor controlled by Syrian troops.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Also this source showed that Menagh Air Base still under control by rebels. Also source showed that villages of Tilalyan, Tall Malid contested between moderate rebels and ISIS. And clashes inside of the Infantry School north of city Aleppo.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the road to Der Ez Zor is controlled by SAA and that was confirmed by several maps in the past.Yet somebody always found some other map stating differently. On the other map it is not obvious that the author(s) of this map has any more info that we have. If it is so, the map suggest several corrections to our map in favor of SAA.Paolowalter (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Whoever changed them to black provided no sources of them being captured and held. It might just by that these "towns" have just 10 or 20 buildings and whatever troop convoy rolls through that day ends up "in control". These are very small desert towns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.151.3 (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Qalamoun

al-Masdar "The Al-Nusra Front (Jabhat Al-Nusra) suffered a major setback on Tuesday morning, when 2 prominent field commanders in the Qalamoun Mountains were killed by the National Defense Forces (NDF) during an operation in the village of Jayroud." - the SAA is conducting combat operations against JAN IN Jayroud.

al-Monitor "There are also groups affiliated with Jabhat al-Nusra located in the eastern mountains in the town of Nasiriyah and the Jayrud Mountains and ar-Ruhaybah. However, the most significant base for the armed groups remains in Al-Batra' region, which serves as a triangle between Jayrud, Nasiriyah and ar-Ruhaybah."

So, it seems that we finally, after months of silence, have information about what cities the rebels are in in Eastern Qalamoun. Jayroud, Nasiriyah, and ar-Ruhaybah. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Source said that Al Nusra located in mountain near those cities. Also pro opposition source clear said that city Al Nasiriya under control by Syrian troops. And that area where located cities Jayroud and ar-Ruhaybah under control by army. But some rebel groups located near those cities so we just need put green semicircle on the east side cities of Jayroud and ar-Ruhaybah. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How in the world do you get that out of the above direct quotations? al-Masdar talks about JAN field commanders in Jayroud. IN Jayroud. al-Monitors says "in the eastern mountains, in the town of Nasiriyah, and the Jayrud Mountains and ar-Ruhaybah". In the mountains. In the town. And ar-Ruhaybah. That seems pretty clear cut. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Where does either sources say those 3 cities are held by the SAA? Is that a complete fabrication? It says they are in the towns, "however", their "most significant base" is the wastelands between the 3 towns. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

At least pro opposition source clear showed that Nasiriyah under control by army.here And source A; Monitor clear said that the most significant base for the armed groups remains in Al-Batra' region, which serves as a triangle between Jayrud, Nasiriyah and ar-Ruhaybah. Not inside those cities. So maybe the author made a typo and he just wanted to say that there are also groups affiliated with Jabhat al-Nusra located in the eastern mountains near the town of Nasiriyah and the Jayrud Mountains and ar-Ruhaybah.Al Minitor Hanibal911 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it says "There are also groups affiliated with Jabhat al-Nusra located in the eastern mountains in the town of Nasiriyah and the Jayrud Mountains and ar-Ruhaybah. However, the most significant base for the armed groups remains in Al-Batra' region, which serves as a triangle between Jayrud, Nasiriyah and ar-Ruhaybah." - in the towns, but the wastelands between them is their stronghold. That's what it says. Verbatim. And pietervan is an amateur map - we're not in the habit of disregarding mainstream media for an amateur map. AND al-Masdar says JAN commanders IN Jayroud. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

OK! But source said that there are also groups affiliated with Jabhat al-Nusra located in the eastern mountains in the town of Nasiriyah and the Jayrud Mountains and ar-Ruhaybah. But not said that they controlled those towns. Source said that most significant base for the armed groups remains in Al-Batra' region, which serves as a triangle between Jayrud, Nasiriyah and ar-Ruhaybah. So maybe source just meant that the some rebels to have main base in mountains but in cities they have sleeper cells or simply hidden presence. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You are all forgetting one important factor here. These fighters are INSURGENTS. They can sneak into towns and hide out, but the towns are nowhere close to being under their control. They are just infiltrating from the wastelands, like they always do. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So this would mean Jayroud to contested, Nasiriyah to green and ar-Ruhaybah to contested. It would also grearly enlargen the rebel held area, since we know that the Islamic Front is as far south as Bir Qassib, were they are fighting IS fighters coming from the Iraqi border. There also seems to be contact between Eastern Qalamoun and Lajat in northern Daraa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hold your horses here. When I checked the local coordination committees pages on Facebook, no clashes are in the towns themselves. So the situation in the towns is stable. What I understood was the following: Nasiriyya under full regime control while Ruhaybah is under a truce where only the FSA has a presence in the town itself and SAA mans checkpoints on its outskirts. Jayroud's people made a deal with the commander of the Dumair Airbase where he demanded all rebels quit the town. They accepted on condition the SAA stops shelling Jayroud and doesn't establish any military presence inside of it. All those happened between 2012 and 2013. So what I know is: Ruhaybah under FSA/SAA truce, Nasiriyya SAA held and Jayroud has NO military presence inside (No FSA No SAA). But since very few news outlets mentioned those deals, many Western activists consider those 3 towns as regime held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So what we're looking at is Nasiriyya staying red but with a green concentric to the East, Jayroud probably needs a neutral color to show no presence by any belligerent side, and Ruhaybah green but with either a full red concentric or the appropriate SAA-manned checkpoints identified and added around it, yea? We need to find locate the hill mentioned here too: "the Syrian army took control of the Umm Ruman hillside to the northeast of Dumeir" and add it in red with the abm icon. Also worthy of mention - the quote "According to sources, the region also includes groups from the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State (IS). The latter is seeking to attract militants who are not affiliated with any other group to strengthen its presence in the region, especially in the Palmyra mountain chain." - which indicates nomadic rebel presence in that big blank area on our map between Eastern Qalamoun and Palmyra (the blank space with al-Busayri dead center). Apparently the IS was able to drive to the Bir al-Qassab area, and now apparently they're recruiting independent rebel groups in the Palmyra mountain chain (that blank spot).. so, it would seem that that's a rebel-heavy barren/wasteland/mountain region. Boredwhytekid (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

We cant mark the city Jayroud as neutral because if the rebels and the army left city in therein still remains city authorities. So that the city Jayroud still is Syrian town and authorities in him is still subordinate to the government so city should remain red but with a green semicircle with right side. But the city Nasiriyya should remain without unchanged because this city surround some military bases which protect this city. And as I said earlier pro-opposition source clear showed that city Al Nasiriya under control by army.here An if opposition source confirmed that city under control by army we cant ignore this fact. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Also here new pro opposition map which also clear showed that city Nasiriyya under control by army and area wger located two other towns still controlled army. But rebels located to the east from those towns.here Hanibal911 (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the one of the opposition activists(Cédric Labrousse) 1 may 2014 published a map where clear showed that Ar Ruhaybah and Jayroud under control by army.here And also another pro opposition source published many maps and always showed this area under the control of the army.1 June 2014 15 July 1 August 18 August 15 Septemder 5 October 16 October 1 November 15November 1 December 15 December Also we know that sometimes some sources may be wrong. And here is an example. Pro opposition source reported that army captured all city Darayya here but other sources said that army captured just part this city.Syria News So that likely in this case, the source wanted said that the some rebels linked to al Nusra located in this area and their main base is located in the mountains between those cities.al-Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The al-Monitor source says the rebels are in the region between the towns, not in the towns themselves. And the Masdar source talked of the operation in a past tense, no info that its still ongoing. While we have pro-opposition deSyracuse saying all towns in that region are SAA-held while rebels are holding the mountain wilderness. EkoGraf (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I also fully agree with EkoGraf! Hanibal911 (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Every news report is in past tense. That makes no sense if it's an argument for not using it. #1 - If "Ruhaybah is under a truce where only the FSA has a presence in the town itself and SAA mans checkpoints on its outskirts," then it needs to be green with either a full red concentric or the appropriate SAA-manned checkpoint identified and added. #2 - We need to find locate the hill mentioned here too: "the Syrian army took control of the Umm Ruman hillside to the northeast of Dumeir" and add it in red with the abm icon. And #3 - the quote "According to sources, the region also includes groups from the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State (IS). The latter is seeking to attract militants who are not affiliated with any other group to strengthen its presence in the region, especially in the Palmyra mountain chain." - which indicates nomadic rebel presence in that big blank area on our map between Eastern Qalamoun and Palmyra (the blank space with al-Busayri dead center). Apparently the IS was able to drive to the Bir al-Qassab area, and now apparently they're recruiting independent rebel groups in the Palmyra mountain chain (that blank spot).. so, it would seem that that's a rebel-heavy barren/wasteland/mountain region - meaning a green "presence icon" is probably appropriate in that area.

3 easy edits to be gleaned from these reports. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What I said sadly is taken from 2012-2013 Facebook posts. I can't back it up with any source and Hanibal911 and EkoGraf did provide the only sources we have. It might not reflect actual reality but according to the rules of the talk page they are right and I have to agree with them. We should keep an eye out for any news/source that mentions this area maybe we get more info. But till now I think the towns should stay the way they were till I could find a recent source (non-Facebook) indicating otherwise. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"There are also groups affiliated with Jabhat al-Nusra located in the eastern mountains in the town of Nasiriyah and the Jayrud Mountains and ar-Ruhaybah." How can that be equivocated? "and ar-Ruhaybah" - the eastern mountains of Nasiriyah, the mountains around Jayrud, and ar-Ruhaybah. Not the mountains around ar-Ruhaybah, but, "and ar-Ruhaybah". desyracuse also shows ar-Ruhaybah green but under truce. And, ChrissCh94, Ekograf provided no sources, and the only one that Hanibal provided also shows ar-Ruhaybah in green!! though doesn't label the town. So... huh?Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I provided the deSyracuse map a few days ago in the edit history. But here you go here as well [3]. As you can see, all of the towns on our map are properly marked as SAA-held as are on the deSyracuse map. EkoGraf (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

EkoGraf, the link you just posted shows ar-Ruhaybah in green. Boredwhytekid (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid I was talking about the most recent DeSyracuse map. So the 2 options are: 1- keeping them as they are or 2-changing Ruhaybah and Jayroud to truce (Like Dumair). Shall we vote? ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And I was talking about the towns that are on our map and marked as SAA-held. As for everything else, deSyracuse is pro-opp so... EkoGraf (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

EkoGraf, ChrissCh94, Yes, desyracuse is pro-op, which is why I'm going off of the usable al-Monitor article, "and ar-Ruhaybah". And apparently according to ChrissCh94, the last mention in Facebook posts (I assume SOHR? correct me if I'm wrong) also said ar-Ruhaybah is in a truce state, and desyracuse shows it as such, and the pietervanostaeyen map as well. I apologize if I'm coming across as confrontational. I guess I don't understand the resistance to showing ar-Ruhaybah in a seige state exactly like Dumair, when we have those 4 sources, and absolutely no newer or usable information/sources at all to the contrary. al-Monitor handed us a gem for increasing the accuracy of the map by mentioning ar-Ruhaybah - beforehand the only sources/mentions of this town were years outdated or pro-op and unusable. al-Monitor, a reliable source, has now confirmed the situation.. again, forgive me if I'm coming across as abrasive, but here's an opportunity to fix a long-inaccurate site on our map and I can't grasp why brick walls are being thrown up. Unsourced brick walls.

If you're still set against it, invite the vote I guess. Boredwhytekid (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to touch on Jayroud - forget it, leave that red - Hanibal's right, if neither SAA or rebels have a presence there, I'm for leaving it as is. Boredwhytekid (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro opposition source confirmed success by army. And according to our the rules of editing we can use pro-opposition sources for that would display success by army. And source deSyracuse not showed that city ar-Ruhaybah under control by rebels, They located inside area which under control by troops. So that we have two options source or the source wanted to show that around the city there are fights or something that in the city truce. But source clearly showed that cities Al Nasiriyah and Jayroud under control by army. So I think that in order to clarify the situation in the city Ar-Ruhaybah we need more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

See, that's what I'm talking about. That is a straight lie. Look at desyracuse - it clearly DOES show ar-Ruhaybah as rebel held/under truce and you're just flat denying it like I'm color blind lol. AND so does pietervanostaeyen, AND al-Monitor said it, AND the last facebook mention by SOHR says it. More data? ALL of the data we have says the same thing, NONE says opposite. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid If I understand you correctly, you want said that we need to mark the city Ruhayba as city Dumayr. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's all. And it's not even a matter of "want", it's a matter of that is what all of the sources say - I know I get accused of a pro-op bias frequently.. but it's precisely because SOMEONE has to fight tooth and nail for edits like this. Every sources says the same thing yet it's taken days of debate and a books worth of typing. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid The Facebook posts I'm referring to are local coordination committees pages on Facebook. Not SOHR. Neither regime nor rebel sources/pages confirmed the truces but I implicitly understood the situation thanks to the comments in the Facebook pages. The situation is probably what Boredwhytekid and I said: Ruhaybah FSA controlled under truce. This was backed by a Peto Lucem map once but then he changed it. Sadly I can't find a reliable/respectable news outlet mentioning the truce deal in Ruhaybah & Jayroud. So according to the map's rules, Ruhaybah and Jayroud should stay as they are, SAA held until we find a reliable article saying otherwise. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Luckily, for the first time in months, we have such an article, that flat out says rebels are in ar-Ruhaybah. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's ANOTHER map showing ar-Ruhaybah rebel held/under truce AND Jayroud under truce too Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This map dated 19 August but pro opposition map deSyracuse dated 9 December so that its data is more relevant. And the data from the map deSyracuse also confirmed other source.here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid The Al-Monitor article you provided is a translated version of AL-Safir's article (pro-gov). I read the Al-Safir (pro-regime) article in Arabic. It states that rebels are present in Al-Nasiryya's eastern mountains, and in the mountains of Jayroud and Ruhaybah. So does this mean that they are present in Ruhayba or Ruhayba's mountains? I guess it's in Ruhayba so I suggest changing Ruhayba to truce. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus, the dawn is coming! lol sorry for agitating everybody. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hurriyah

I realy think that a village of Hurriyah in the Hasakah near of Yarubiyah border crossing under control by Kurdish forces(YPG), This confirm pro opposition map deSyeacuse and here other source also confirmed this data and show that area where located this village under control by YPG. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It confirms it so change itLindi29 (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hamidiyah and the rest.

This is not just my opinion and I want to see what other editors think about this. I belive the map has too many mistakes without being noticed by others. According to this map, Jabhat Al Nusra has an exclusive control of everything south of Marat Numan, gained in the past 3/4 days during the offensive.

I belive this is incorrect. We only have 100% source showing their control of Wadi Daif and the surrounding checkpoints. That being said I want to post my sources both neutral and pro-rebel.

First about SOHR Arabic SOHR wrote about JAN + other groups involved in some fights for whatever checkpoint/village. On some article they say "JAN and Islamic front" on other "Jund Al Aqsa, Islamic front and FSA", on some other "Islamic battalion". The only articles mentioning JAN independently is for Wadi Daif and checkpoints around. Jund Al Aqsa is part of Al Nusra, same as Ahrar Al Sham is part of the Islamic Front

We can't use pro opposition sources but I am reading official Islamic Front, Sham legion, Ahrar Al Sham twitter/youtube channels, and they are writting/talking about their fighters, their groups, not Jabhat Al Nusra, only mentioning them as those who participated too in small numbers.

I'm 100% sure about this. Step News posted a 8 minute conversation about the situation in Idlib and Alepo, mostly about Idlib. Al Nusra captured Wadi Daif and the surrounding checkpoints after Syrian army withdrew to the south. Jabhat Al Nusra captured Al Fajr checkpoint, then Al Daban, then Ayn Cari. They captured Tell Banasraf too and captured (even thought that's probably not true) 20 regime soldiers who were hidding on the hill.

Rebels attacked Hamidiyah from 3 sides and captured the east and the north. Sham legion first entered the base. Islamic front captured Dayr Gharbi after Syrian troops withdrew there. Islamic front and Sham legion pushed the Syiran army more to the south and captured Dar Basidas and a checkpoint on the highway (probably Al Nasih). They don't mention Mar Hitah but they say Islamic front pushed them more to the south and we know they left that area towards Morek.

Video showing Sham legion in Hamidiyah

Syria mubasher channel posted a video talking with an rebel reporter. JAN captured Wadi Daif while Islamic Front and Faylaq Sham captured locations around Hamidiyah. Same on Al Jazeera .

These sources below are from Islamic Front (Syria and Idlib province) and Ahrar Al Sham channels.

Islamic Front members in Hamidiyah Islamic Front flag in Hamidiyah Islamic Front in Hamidiyah IF in Mar Hitat etc etc .. dozens of pictures posted on their channel.

Tour trought the region Video showing IF members in Al Dahroj checkpoint (blown up by FSA members months ago), JAN wans't here. Jabhat Al Nusra in and arund Wadi Daif. Sham legion and Ahrar Sham in Hamidiyah.

Videos are only confirming what has been said in the conversation videos from Step News, Al Jazeera, Mubashar news

I know Hanibal doesn't agree about this, you can view the conversation on his page so I don't expect his comment here, I wan't to see other editors. DuckZz (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea this is a tough one. We know JAN, Arhar al Sham, Jund al Aqsa, Division 13, Fursan Al-Haqq, and the Islamic Front broadly participated. What we don't know, or at least I don't know, is #1 how they divided the spoils, #2 which groups are the dominant presence in which town/base/checkpoint, #3 if all of those checkpoints are even intact or manned by anyone anymore, and #4 is each group keeping what it took and not letting any other group in - wouldn't make much sense. Maybe we put green dots in the towns to show joint control? Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think giving a color for JAN was a hasty decision beacause they didn't start war with FSA they olny expelled SRF from they position in idlib i think its better to put the green dot back again.Lindi29 (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No, listen, here is what I want to do. You say "we don't know". Well of course we don't, but "they do". With they I mean the groups who participated. According to Islamic from reporters, internet channels. And according to Jabhat Al Nusra channels :

Wadi Daif, Al fajr checkpoint, Al Daban, Ajn Qari, Tell Banasrah and Al Zalana checkpoint to grey.

Hamidiyah, Basidah, Nasrih checkpoint, Al Dahroj checkpoint, Mar Hitat and Hish to green (Islamic Front, Ahrar Sham, Sham Legion, Fursan Al Haqq, 101.Division).

The more you go to the south, the more rebels there are (mostly Islamic Front). Al Nusra is concentrated on south Idlib. DuckZz (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources clear said militants linked to Al-Qaeda dealt a major blow to Syria's regime by seizing two key army bases within hours, giving them control over most of Idlib province. The gains also signaled another defeat for Western-backed rebels who were driven out of most of the northwestern province last month by the jihadi Nusra Front.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Nusra - the battered country's Al-Qaeda branch - seized Hamidieh and Wadi Deif, the regime's largest outposts in Idlib. The jihadis advanced in coordination with Islamist rebel groups Ahrar al-Sham and Jund al-Aqsa, the Observatory said, adding that a string of villages in the area also fell.The Daily Star Yahoo News BBC Charles Lister of the Brookings Doha Center said the gains highlighted the rise of the jihadists in the province."The nature of the operations has served to underline the renewed prominence of more Islamically-minded forces in Idlib, with Jabhat (Front) al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham having played the dominant role in practically capturing the facilities," he said. Lister also said the advance may pave the way for "a major assault on Idlib city", which like most Syrian provincial capitals remains in regime hands. The gains give Al-Nusra firm control of much of Idlib province, limiting the chances of a challenge from potential rivals. Until September this year, Ahrar al-Sham had sought to distance itself from more hardline jihadists in Syria. But a September 9 explosion that killed its top leadership "pushed the group to align itself more openly with Al-Nusra". "Now the two are fighting side by side." On Monday, Ahrar al-Sham broke its silence on the September blast, blaming "a criminal group" with "international links". Abdel Rahman said this was an apparent reference to Western intelligence agencies. Naharnet Also reliable source cleara said that Abdel-Rahman told Al-Arabiya television that the Nusra Front and a number of Islamist militias, along with a small number of FSA groups, now controlled between 70 and 80 percent of Idlib province.The Daily Star So that the reliable source clearly shows that the number of moderate rebels in the Idlib province slightly. The main power in province it is Al Nusra and their allies. Source also said that Al Nusra Front and its allies defeated two leading FSA groups in Idlib province last month, the Hazm Movement and the Syrian Rebel Front, both of which have benefited from U.S. training and weaponry. Some jihadi accounts of the battle claimed the weaponry was used in the assault that began Sunday.The Daily Star Also as we know from reliable sources that in the clashes against troops in Darra province Al Nusra also participates but still we noted all cities and villages which was taken under the control of moderate rebels. Also SOHR said that Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic battalions have taken over new points in the village Basida.SOHR Also SOHR said that Jabht al-Nusra and Islamic battalions also took control on Tal Bansara and al-Naseh.SOHR And later other source said that Al Nusra and Anhar Al Sham take full control over village Basida.U.S News Also reliable source said that Al Nusra controls 70 to 80 percent territory of the province of Idlib but moderate rebels have a small presence in the province.The Daily Star And many other reliable sources indicate that it is a major offensive Al Nusra with the support of their allies. But not moderate rebels.Reuters The Daily Star that the only evidence which confirm participate moderate rebels from the DIvision 13 in the battle for a Hamidiaya military base it is a video which Islamic Front posted on YouTube where claimed that the fighters had captured at least two regime tanks during the battle.here Also as I earlier said that we also know from reliable sources that in the clashes against troops in Darra province Al Nusra also participates but still we noted all cities and villages which was taken under the control of moderate rebels. Because it was said that a crucial role in the capture of towns and villages play a moderate rebel groups (FSA) but Al Nusra just helps them. which had previously defeated moderate rebels and captured a large part of the province.The Daily Star Albawaba Hanibal911 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Hanibal, I don't want to remove the grey color from Idlib because that's like 60% of your post proving that they seized large teritories, what I don't denie. You are using sources claiming one thing while the sources show something else. Most of your talk is based on opinions, I gave you their opinions. Let other editors decide. DuckZz (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources clear said that Nusra takes two Syrian bases in major blow to regime.The Daily Star France Press Middle East Eye Al Araby Hanibal911 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm on board with your suggestion DuckZz to, in this specific case, use the publications/videos from the groups themselves to discern which locations they overran, as opposed to their allies. In the interest of not overstating the JAN phenomenon/emirate, we should try not to mark any towns grey other than ones where they are the predominant force and fully control governance. Where the sources/reports claim both JAN and any other group (even the ever ambiguous "Islamic battalions"), we should mark green with grey inner circle, or vice versa to show that said location is not EXCLUSIVELY JAN held - grey circles are for EXCLUSIVELY JAN-held sites. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

DuckZz Basidah and Nasrih checkpoint shoud go grey here.Lindi29 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Also according to government source Syrian troops evacuated from Maarat al Nouman area to the main forces to south area near city of Khan Shaykhun. Where Syrian troops now fights against rebel groups. And in many places where already troops evacuated now Al Nusra entered in those area.here So according to the pro-government source now Maar Shamshah, Maar Shamarin, Deir Sharqi, Ayn Al-Dayr, Dayr al Gharbi and Dar Basidah controlled by Al Nusra and their allies.here here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm really tired so I'll try to respond quick to Hanibal. In your last post, you posted 4 sources. First 3 of them are the same, copy/paste text. Every one of them is quoting wrong, especially from SOHR. Read again my posts from above. You are really a weird guy because it's like you said "What do they know, those who participated, Ahrar Al Sham, Islamic Front, Sham legion and even Al Nusra channels, they have no idea what or who they are, they should read news channels" sounds pretty funny ? Don't respond because I have read your posts 10 times, you should read mine from start to here DuckZz (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I know, I didn't change those areas, they are grey besides Dar Basidah. DuckZz (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 (talk) Last source I want to post from ORIENT NEWS, I don't even what else to do, should I call them on my mobile lol ? DuckZz (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You are the best! You are use to edit any delirium. You completely ignored the data from reliable sources but edited in favor the rebels on based the pro-rebel sources. Orient TV it is pro opposition source. So you have grossly violated the rules of editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

DuckZz According to the reliable sources, I a little corrected map. But I left under control by rebels town Hish and villages of Maar Hitat, Al Amudiyah and Sahyan because for now we not have other sources which said that they was taken by JAN. But you are provide sources which confirms those villages taken moderate rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So long as the SOHR posts or any source citing them also mention "Islamic battalions" or any other specific group accompanying JAN, the location should be green. That's how we've marked joint JAN-anyothergroup control for the last 3 years on our map. Grey icons are only for sites where JAN is 100% in control ie:the only group there. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

BoredwhytekidBut a military base situated on the territory which at the moment is under the control of Al Nusra. Also reliable source said that Al Nusra controls 70 to 80 percent territory of the province of Idlib but moderate rebels just have a small presence in the province.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources say that though. They all say JAN "and Islamic Battalions", or "and Ahrar al-Sham". Even that dailystar article says "Abdel-Rahman told Al-Arabiya television that the Nusra Front and a number of Islamist militias, along with a small number of FSA groups, now controlled between 70 and 80 percent of Idlib province." - clearly NOT Nusra exclusively. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Halluz

According to this source SAA has captured this town.here.here Lindi29 (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Even if I believe that PetoLucem is reliable, usually we don use pro-government source to change in favor of the government. Probably it is time to change this attitude.Paolowalter (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This pro government source so we need search confirmation of this data from reliable or from opposition sources. So I'll try to find evidence. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 have you found any source for this town? Lindi29 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Abu Duhur: Synthesis of findings on sources & edit rule

I have further investigated the sources presented concerning the Abu Duhur events. Below is a synthesis of my findings:

1- The 7 links that were claimed reliable in a previous section are in reality a copy/paste of 3 pro-gov articles:

a- masdark iraqnacl afwajamal Chahed News: copy/paste Iranian Alalam

b- Cyber Aman copy/paste title from al mayadeen

c- Al-Fayhaa TV JP News copy/paste the same article calling Syria Revolutionaries Front "terrorists"

2- The only reliable source we have is Elijah J. Magnier
3- There is one detailed pro-gov source from idlib: Assad Idlib News Network (for more details about the content of the source, see here)
4- There is one pro-rebel source: al-Arabia

So to summarize, we have: 1 reliable source, 1 pro-rebel source, 1 detailed pro-gov source, and many “one-sentence” pro-gov sources.

The reliable source, the pro-rebel source, and the detailed pro-gov source say troops returned to airport.
The “one-sentence” pro-gov sources do not mention troops returning to airport.

At this point, I copy/paste the “rules of editing” for reminder and highlight in yellow the relevant part:

"1- If an event is covered by a neutral source, then we use this source and ignore all non-neutral sources.

2- If an event is not covered by a neutral source, then we can use a non-neutral source only in two cases:

a) pro-gov source talking about rebel success

b) pro-rebel source talking about gov success”

Therefore, to follow the “rules of editing”, we should use the reliable source & ignore all non-neutral sources. In addition, the only detailed pro-gov source supports the reliable source.

The picture becomes clear:

-Reality: Hit & run attack then return to airport (reliable source & detailed pro-gov source)

-Pro-gov spin: troops took villages (“one-sentence” pro-gov sources)

-Pro-rebel spin: attacks by regime troops repelled (pro-rebel source)

Notice that technically speaking, neither pro-gov nor pro-rebel spin is a lie… However they are both trying to mislead by omitting facts!

Therefore, we should follow the reliable source and revert back the towns around Abu Duhur to green. Tradedia^talk 02:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice try but your speculation is just your opinion, but dont need give out their for its reality. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

masdark it is a Qatari source and we can use him for show army advances but if he published data about which said Iranian source Alalam it is means that source considers them to be reliable.Iranian Alalam Also yesterday SOHR published data here here from pro government source Press TV Press TV so that now we will assume that SOHR also pro government or unreliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

masdark is not Qatari. On its “contact us page” you can see that its address is “مصر - القليوبية - بنها - كفر الجزار - 13111”. The first word is “مصر” which is translated into Egypt. Its phone number is 201125285640, which starts with 20. 20 is Egypt country code. masdark is a website that collects articles from other sources. It states on its “about page” that:

مصدرك هو خدمة تجميع وتصنيف للأخبار، ويتحمل كل مصدر من المصادر مسئولية الأخبار الصادرة عنه وكل ما يقوم به مصدرك" هو إعادة نشر الخبر والاشارة لمصدر المحتوى مع رابط مباشر للمصدر بالاضافة لمساحة اعلانية للمصدر.”

which google translates into:

“masdark is a compilation and classification of the news service, and each of the sources responsible for the news of him and all what masdark is the re-deployment of news and reference to the source of the content with a direct link to the source in addition to the area of advertising to the source.” (my emphasis added) Tradedia^talk 14:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

None of those sources disprove Tradedia's argument. He's clearly done the research and it's simple enough to open the links and see that he is right. No useable source - per the rules of editing - has been provided for keeping those towns red. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to mark these villages in green so lets. I will not interfere. Especially when you consider the fact that not one of the sources who provided Tradedia not say that all the soldiers retreated after they capture those village and that they again under control by rebels. Good Luck. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Also here map which showed that villages Mustarihah, Haymat at Dayir under control by army. here And this map confirms data from the pro-opposition source deSyracuse that Syriam troops still controlled several villages near the Abu ad Duhur air base. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Syrian perspective's most recent take on the area Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Taftanaz Air Base

Jabhat al-Nusra and islamic battalions take over the Taftanaz Air Base.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It was taken in January 2013. lol Sohr are idiots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Likely air base now taken by Front Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It says it is taken by JAN and islamic battalions, who are the islamic battalions? IF and ahrar? lol

The SOHR post doesn't say the base was recently taken by anyone. It was originally taken by FSA forces, who mostly left for the front, as rebels generally do when they take isolated military bases. The SOHR post suggests that it is now controlled by JaN and IF forces, but doesn't say when they may have taken control. (The arabic language page probably is clearer for native speakers of arabic, since translation is often not reliable.)

Maybe the regime bombed it in case it is being used as a training camp. Otherwise not much point, since it is surrounded by rebel held territory. André437 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Kafr Sajnah - Idlib

To grey? Clearly the firefight was an isolated incident, as JAN-Islamic Front-the largest remaining secular groups just cooperated in the recent offensive. I suggest grey instead of green because it was JAN fighting there and it is right in the "heartland" of the mini-state they carved out of the SRF Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid I marked this village as contested here on based this report.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I know, but it's been 3 weeks and the SRF is gone. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Boredwhytekid.Lindi29 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So we need again mark this village under control by JAN. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)