Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of Qalamoun (2013–2014)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Hezbollah claim

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

isnt the 15000 hezbollah fighters number deeply overestimated? there were other talk pages were something like that was told.

Yep it is a partisan source and highly dubious. They were present lall know it and no one denies it, but that is probably inflated.(Lihaas (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)).Reply

I have just noticed that the SAA and allies suffered over 1,800 losses, is there a source for that??? I have checked the source and it doesnt state that.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply


1800 casualties for the saa? are you kidding? there is no source for that and the supposed source doesn't mentio a casualty figure at all. please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.30.85 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The source is there and the source does say it. Read it more carefully. It says The activists have claimed the army and Hezbollah suffered up to 1,800 casualties in the 32-day battle, mainly in the ranks of the military, with rebel losses in the low hundreds, although precise figures are impossible to verify. Its been noted its an opposition claim. And please refrain from removing sourced material. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

1800 casualties is not even possible, because they won this battle and had air supriority. please remove this claim, it's ridiculous beyond believe, they have no fucking proof whatsoever.

Wellcome to wikipedia!! Thats my answer to the misinformation mentioned here. If the Oposition can mention its estimates why not the pro regime forces??200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

To do

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Need a background of the war, Qusayr turning the tide, and the recent pressure from the chemical weapons and it s controversy of lclaimants/.

Also the refugees slipping into Arsal in large numbers

Also there was talk of this building up some week ago , I remember reading about it and wondering itd probably take months to happen. We should mention the rumours going into this as lissttle as a few months/weeks ago.(Lihaas (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)).Reply

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[1]>> Syrian troops seize strategic town>> Fighting rages in Syria despite peace talks (Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)).Reply

Campaign Over?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How has the end date of this offensive been determined? I have not come across any other sources that suggest that this campaign specifically ended, although I have read that in mid-December SAA forces were re-deployed from the assault on Yabroud to counter a rebel offensive in East Ghouta (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/30/hezbollah-and-assad-plan-offensive-on-jihadists-in-yabrud.html). However, this page appears confused as to whether or not this particular offensive ended in December or is still ongoing - events are listed up to January 30, over a month after the info-caption has declared this offensive over, and there are indications that violence could pick again soon around Yabroud. Will this be a new offensive or part of the one this page says ended on December 15? - Neumannk (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

See the link above, its still ongoing.(Lihaas (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)).Reply

Divided the article into two phases.first phase ended when gov. Forces captured nabk,and the second phase began with the attack on Yabrud.Alhanuty (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Syrian army 'readies ground assault on Yabrud'"

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article uploaded by the AFP just 30mins ago. Article--Homan 056k (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Stalemate

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The gov. Offensive has stalled per http://www.voanews.com/content/syrian-army-assault-on-qalamoun-region-stalls/1861464.html

Should we add a stalemate sub-title.Alhanuty (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

If the situation continues as it has we should close the second phase and put the result as a stalemate because the Army has not captured the town but has almost completely severed all links Yabrud has with the outside world. We should wait a bit more to see how the situation develops. EkoGraf (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not really Yabrud is not really bisieged,there still supply line going into Lebanon.Alhanuty (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I said almost. EkoGraf (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there any information about the SAA atacking Maaloula????200.48.214.19 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lebanese army?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is the source backing the claim that the Lebanese regular army is involved in the battle? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fate of 25,000-30,000 rebels.

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Acording to a pro-rebel source, the rebels suffered low hundreds of casaulties. But the big question remains, if the regime have captured circa 90% of qalamoun, whats the fate of the nearly 30,000 Antiregime forces. Are they dead/missing/captured or simply they escaped, there must be a logical explanation, several thousands of fighters cant dissapear without a trace. There should be a section that at least try to explain this.200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

reports state some of them went to Lebanon to regroup and comeback,others went to fight in the eastern qalamoun area between dumayr and sayqal airports,other went hiding in secret mountain hideouts in the qalamoun,and their attacks are resurging now,alot of military experts stated it is impossible for the gov to have full control over the qalamoun.Alhanuty (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is a new article named 2nd Battle of Qalamoun or something else, but it stated that the opening force of Antiregime forces stood at 3,000. A very distant number for those 25k - 30k alleged fighters in the begining of this campaign. Again my question floats by. Where are those 20k aprox fighters?200.48.214.19 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected links on Battle of Qalamoun which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://justpaste.it/ereh
    Triggered by \bjustpaste\.it\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected links on Battle of Qalamoun which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://justpaste.it/ereh
    Triggered by \bjustpaste\.it\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Battle of Qalamoun (2013). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Battle of Qalamoun (2013). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Battle of Qalamoun (2013). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Qalamoun_(2013–2014)&oldid=1204934895"