Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war

Bias (concerning the US)

The United States support the "FSA/opposition groups". They have stated this in the past and were called out by Russia on this several times in the past. Why doesn't this get mentioned, but Russia gets its own paragraph in the pro-Assad section? This smells like western bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.24.49 (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a biased article. Great Britain and France. I do not see a paragraph on their own although they're one of the main opponents to the Syrian government. Their involvement in this conflict is being down-played in this very article by mentioning very few sentences about them. 77.53.170.188 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is totally biased. USA is supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria and they are hiding that in this article.SpidErxD (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

After the Snowden revelations, I wouldn't be surprised if Western governments (especially USA and Israel) hire shills to become Wikipedia writers and administrators. 174.93.82.159 (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Snowden Reveals NSA Intervention In Syria, Hacking Program Compelled Him To Leak Documents

“By the time he went to work for Booz Allen in the spring of 2013, Snowden was thoroughly disillusioned, yet he had not lost his capacity for shock. One day an intelligence officer told him that TAO—a division of NSA hackers—had attempted in 2012 to remotely install an exploit in one of the core routers at a major Internet service provider in Syria, which was in the midst of a prolonged civil war. This would have given the NSA access to email and other Internet traffic from much of the country. But something went wrong, and the router was bricked instead—rendered totally inoperable. The failure of this router caused Syria to suddenly lose all connection to the Internet—although the public didn’t know that the US government was responsible.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.135.197 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This issue is solved: US is mentioned in section 2 Support for Syrian opposition. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The last two paragraphs of the lead should be put into other sections or new sections, and not part of the lead. It'd need some reorganization, but they just don't fit in the lead, it seems. --Jethro B 17:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and do it. I'll be busy writing a summary for the foreign involvement section in the Syrian civil war article.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to do some of it, but a lot of it doesn't fit in any sections here. For example, the Swiss halting weapons to UAE b/c opposition got their hands on it certainly doesn't fall under support for opposition, but then again isn't support for the government. So I think we'd either need some discussion here about new sections to make, or a bright editor to go ahead and be bold and create these sections themselves. I honestly can't think of what we'd name them and organize them right now, maybe if I had more time. --Jethro B 19:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Just create a new section in the article titled "other". We can put all the unsorted information there. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sunni and Shiite in Iraq

Dear Fellow Editors,

On the map, Iraq (in yellow) is shown as "having groups that support the rebels". I suggest that the caption for yellow be changed to say "has different groups supporting the rebels and government". It seems the Shiite-government is supporting the Assad government and the Sunni-majority in Anbar Province is supporting the rebels. Then, there are the Kurds. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

International reactions to the Syrian civil war

Many entries in the 'Support for the opposition' section would fit better in the International reactions to the Syrian civil war, half the world expressed its support, but unless there is some kind of involvement(money,troops,equipment, etc) those entries shouldn't be here.--Mor2 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This article stricture could really use several more pair of eyes.--Mor2 (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Iraq

Pass a Method tried to remove Iraq from this article, despite sources stating their influence in the war. What do you guys think? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What you're doing can more accurately be described as WP:SYNTHESIS. Pass a Method talk 17:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Lebanon

The map makes no sense in its designation of Lebanon. Like Iraq, the Lebanese government is weak, and like Iraq, there are various Lebanese that support the rebels, in Sidon, Tripoli and Arsal, just as examples. In fact Arsal has pretty much become part of the civil war, with rebels camped there with local support, and Assad bombing them. Al Assir's visit to Qusayr and recent smuggling of himself to Syria should count as parties that support the rebels. Not to mention, articles about groups like Fatah al Islam fighting inside Syria have appeared in the media since over a year ago. Lebanon should be changed to yellow colour as well. NightShadeAEB (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh and recently a March 14 MP accused by Assad of funding the rebels confessed.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Apr-24/171191-fatah-al-islam-militants-killed-in-syria.ashx#axzz2XkoWCBWr

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/81574

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0618/Syrian-rebels-cling-to-enclave-in-eastern-Lebanon

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/lebanonnews/future_mp_says_hariri_not_involved_in_sakrs_weapon_contact_with_syrian_rebels1 NightShadeAEB (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Israel

Why is Israel not mentioned here except for the Golan Heights border clashes? They've also intervened several times against the Syrian government with missile strikes, most recently a few days ago when they destroyed advanced Russian missile equipment near the coast. Esn (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In light of this, I propose that Israel should be included in the map in some way. Coloring it "green" would probably make the most sense at this point. Esn (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Israel needs to be mentioned, it is hardly even controversial anymore that they are directly supporting rebels in the Golan area. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Greyshark09 removed the whole Israeli involvement section. There is a section Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel, there was an RfC back in 2013, none since, AFAK? There is a lot of water under the bridge since 2013...not to mention a lot of bombs on the ground. IMO, a RfC from 2013 is simply on relevant of the situation today, wrt Syria Huldra (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Israeli press freely report that Israel help "members of al-Qaida and Islamic State"...according to the UN,

and Israel ‘giving secret aid to Syrian rebels’, report says It is funding Fursan al-Joulan, and “Israel may be funding up to four other rebel groups which have Western backing. The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition.” This is NOT only humanitarian assistance, Huldra (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and restart the DRN, but otherwise the consensus stands.GreyShark (dibra) 05:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Greek Support

Several Greek newspapers have written for Greek volunteers fighting along with Assad's force and other Greek orthodox against terrorists. Is there any other source to confirm or not this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.109.167 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Very bad English in this article

There is some really terrible English in this article. There's misuse of prepositions, conjunctions and lack of pronouns and all other problems which range from making reading difficult to impossible. Wikipedia is open to all to edit, yes; however, if you cannot write in basic English well enough to make what you're saying understandable to others then please ask someone for help. 50.198.123.65 (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The allegiance map is incredibly wrong

Whomever created that map is flat out wrong. I of course refer to the world map showing the "allies" of each side. China an openly declared ally of Syria? The US, UK, France, etc. openly declared allies of the rebels? That is factually wrong. None of those states have said they are allies to anyone in the conflict. Who ever created that map is biased or grossly misinformed. Thus I remove will remove it. You can't have an article taken seriously with an issue like that.--173.32.93.209 (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit skeptical about the removal, but looking at the map, File:Syrieinvasie.png, it's too small to really be useful, and there are real issues about correctness and completeness too. The Middle East map that's still there is much more useful (though it would help if the countries had labels). Podiaebba (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war → Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War – The main page was just moved from "Syrian civil war" to "Syrian Civil War", there should be consistency. Charles Essie (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Organize

I agree with the recent added 'Organize' template, this article resembles to those containing list of news only sorted by country instead of date. It is confusing, not always important and hard to navigate, which is why many of the events are outdated. IMO most of it should be trimmed and summarized, because right now it looks like the place where events which were removed from the main aritcle come to die ;) --PLNR (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate any quality in depth source that covers Foreign involvement in support of the opposition.--PLNR (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think I found one[1](Funding the rebellion section), I hope it will help organize the Opposition section. (I think the Government section is much better shape at least as far as the main actor) --PLNR (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Change the name to add "2011-13"

The war has changed so damn much since a year ago, hell, the US led airstrikes have made this entire article obsolete.Ericl (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Great idea - matches the note at the top. Done. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

They reverted it back. Not cool.Ericl (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War → Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War 2011-13 – article is way behind 2014 developments which are covered in several 2014 articles --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 04:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose That is an argument for improving the article, not changing the title. PatGallacher (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me be more clear - the advent of the American-led intervention in Syria and ISIL make a logical breaking point for this section of history. Cap off this phase and deal with the new situation in the new articles. Legacypac (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment – if you decide to move it, please use an en dash in the date range, and a redirect from the hyphen version. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it would be far more sensible to merge the content of the questionably titled American-led intervention in Syria into Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Would the latter title need to be amended in any way to allow this to happen? GregKaye ✍♪ 06:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Title aside, how would you merge the two articles that are each over 100K in length? Dekimasuよ! 06:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Not unless there are parenthesis besides it is fine as it is and moving it makes zero sense. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This thing needs to be split

It's six months after the last request to move the article, and reading it again one will notice how dated it is. What we need is a curitorial conference to take up what to do with the entire Arab Winter mess, as the internets and world press go apeshit over the possible joint invasion of Syria by Jordan and Turkey. I think that this article should be split in three parts, this article with the (2011—13) added, one on the joint war in Iraq and Syria with ISIL, and one for the possible invasion this summer. I know it might be considered "crystal" but there's an article for the Iraqi retaking of Mosul, and that hasn't happened yet either. We can always change the title of the "invasion" if it doesn't come to pass. There's enough that's already happened to merit it.Ericl (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Houthis

Hello, The claim that Houthis are involved lacks sources. No source on the web refers to precise battles or to a defected Syrian brigadier. All the web sources claiming that Houthis fight or fought in Syria, including the on given, seem to be based on this 2013 article, where the information is credited to "a (Yemeni) official source, speaking on condition of anonymity". I think this is not a reliable enough encyclopedic source and that we should delete the claim in all the pages where it appears (including Syrian Civil War and Houthis, see the talk page) until better sources show up. Yet, personally I know nothing about the Houthis, does anyone here know more ? (you can talk with me on wp:fr) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandEscogriffe (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Legend colors are not accessible

Red, green, blue, yellow is a terrible palette for a visualization. I am partially color blind and cannot distinguish the red/green tones at all.

This is a good resource to generate user-friendly palettes: http://colorbrewer2.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.101.31 (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

KLA

The KLA has been disbanded for 16 years and it is therefore irrelevant to this article because this is about support from currently existing groups. It could be included in Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian Civil War, however.--Franz Brod (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC) non event

British attacks

It has been slammed d in some papers as a wast of time and minimalist. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12078395/RAF-bomb-raids-in-Syria-dismissed-as-non-event.html 89.241.81.73 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Libya?

Why Libya is marked as a country supporting rebels? It is split by a civil war itself and it's hard to say anything about their official stance. No sources here too. --Emesik (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Syrian rebels are fighting for libya GrandBotBoi (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction

Iraq

The two top maps contradict each other on Iraq's status. --Catlemur (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The contradiction has been introduced in this edit, 28Sep2015,17:14, by editor 0ali1. I've written a note to this editor, asking him to solve this contradiction caused by him/her. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The worst thing Wikipedia can do is to contradict itself within one and the same article: it would make us look ridiculous and unreliable to our visitors. It is beyond my capabilities and knowledge to amend that contradiction of those maps. Therefore, the one thing I'll have to do now, is: remove the lower of those two maps, introduced in this article Sep2015, introducing contradiction(s) in the article. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Jordan, Yemen

The two top maps also contradict on Jordan and on Yemen. The worst thing Wikipedia can do is to contradict itself within one and the same article: it would make us look ridiculous and unreliable to our visitors. It is beyond my capabilities and knowledge to amend that contradiction of those maps. Therefore, the one thing I'll have to do now, is: remove the lower of those two maps, introduced in this article Sep2015, introducing contradiction(s) in the article. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful information on China

China's position is barely mentioned even though the top map claims China supports Assad.--Catlemur (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree - i don't think China "supports" Assad. Some marginal commercial ties in present and past weapon sales are not accounted as "support".GreyShark (dibra) 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the map should be changed. The Chinese government has provided diplomatic support to Assad and promised to provide support through medical support, but it is not providing troops. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-supporting-syrias-regime-what-changed-17738 http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2133064/china-step-aid-syria-war-winds-down 86.151.100.148 (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203195849/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/229999.html to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/229999.html

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) 20:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC, discussion

We have lots of sources like:

The Israeli press freely report that Israel help "members of al-Qaida and Islamic State"...according to the UN,

and Israel ‘giving secret aid to Syrian rebels’, report says It is funding Fursan al-Joulan, and “Israel may be funding up to four other rebel groups which have Western backing. The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition.” This is NOT only humanitarian assistance, Huldra (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: Yeah I know that in Israel people are arrested for documenting the Israeli involvement, but guess what, this is Wikipedia, not Israel, and Wikipedia is not censored.[2] [3]

Also, please don’t use S. Frantzman as a RS for anything… I first met him when he started Artas, Bethlehem…as Artas, Israel!! Seriously. (I had to mv it) And I lost every respect I ever had for Hebrew Uni, after reading what they gave him a phD for, see User:Huldra/Frantzman. If I had done equally bad work on WP, I would have been long since blocked. (When reporting the population in the 19th century, he didn’t even check Socin, or Hartmann, or Schick!) Huldra (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like an invitation to travel to Israel for me. I have no idea who is Frantzman and electronicintifada is not a source for anything. Al-Jazeera may soon be officially refuted as reliable source as well, given it has been a tool of Muslim Brotherhood propaganda with no proper editorial board.GreyShark (dibra) 18:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you quoted Frantzman as if he was some oracle. And they say that truth is the first casualty of war, that has certainly been the case here, IMO. Personally, I wouldn't put much trust in media with close ties to any of the involved parties. But that, I am afraid, what we have to work with, Huldra (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, i linked to Frantzman's article (tertiary source), but the actual secondary source is al-Tamimi.GreyShark (dibra) 20:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you linked to Frantzman's article, if you find Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi article online, please feel free to link to it. Not that young Al-Tamimi seem any more reliable... If you have not any stronger evidence than an alleged ISIS sympathiser, then you might want to reconsider your position, Huldra (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Re the point above, there have been a number of BBC and ABC Australia reports documenting the treatment of wounded Syrian fighters at the Ziv Medical Centre and elsewhere, going back to 2013 (example here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08j9r62). What's not entirely clear is who; the ones in the reports are children but the BBC reporters said there also were wards full of wounded they weren't allowed to see. The Israelis are naturally concerned with what happens on their Northern border, particularly given the links between the Druse on different sides of the Golan Heights, so they have to be funding there and on the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' principle, I'd assume they're doing the same elsewhere. What many people in the West haven't figured out as yet is the Sunni v Shia civil war is now more important than the Israelis - for example, Saudi Arabia is discussing opening it's air space to El Al. If they're not funding Sunni groups in Syria, Mossad's not doing their job - so the evidence has to be there.Robinvp11 (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC

The consensus is that this article should have a separate Israel section.

Cunard (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we have a separate Israel section in this article? Huldra (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, we should have a separate Israel section, with a link to Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War Huldra (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  you are the filer of the RFC; this is not a common practice to vote "yes" for your own RFC.GreyShark (dibra) 06:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Greyshark09: Why not? Sometimes an RfC is started by somebody with no opinion themselves, to see what consensus might be. Sometimes, it's started as a test case in order to get a formal rejection of a practice (see for example my RfC here). So a "Yes" !vote by the initiator is not to be presumed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  This whole RfC procedure is flawed due to violation of RFC neutrality guideline, which includes synthesis in the quotes - aiming to mislead the reader. If the RfC proposal language would be entirely neutral - i could make a sense to make another comment by Huldra and express her opinion.GreyShark (dibra) 07:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - all arguments against pretty much amount to special pleading, and pointing to a past consensus that never existed. Even if it did, WP:consensus can change. Israel supports one side of the war financially and medically. Israel continuously attacks the side that same faction is fighting (and never any other faction of the war, even ISIL). Ergo, Israel is part of the conflict, on the side of the "rebels"/insurgents. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  The nature of Humanitarian help during the Syrian Civil War is an issue by itself, but concerning border incidents - Israelis responded to cross-fire against all Syrian factions:

  Against FSA - Free Syrian Army accuses Israel of aiding regime

  Against SAA - Israel attacks Syrian position after mortar lands in Golan Heights

  Against PIJ - Israel says kills Palestinian rocket crew in Syrian Golan

  Against ISIL - Israel Defense Forces Kill 4 ISIS-Linked Attackers in Golan Heights

  In any case, Israeli forces are not present in Syrian territories, unlike actually involved parties like US, Russia, Turkey, Hezbollah, etc.GreyShark (dibra) 07:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if we accept the Israeli claim that all these attacks (which are overwhelmingly against the pro-government forces, however way you spin it) are "defensive", that still makes them belligerents in the conflict. Remember the Iraq war was "pre-emptive", but that doesn't change the fact that it was a war. And yes, Israel is very much present in Syrian territories; they are called the Golan Heights, and they are illegally occupied by Israel according to international law. And this is, interestingly, also where they coordinate and help Syrian insurgents against the government. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. No reason not to provided there are reliable sources to back it up. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - @Huldra: this RFC is a case of synthesis and misquote, as you seemingly deliberately wrote instead "The UNDOF report, on the other hand, says they have seen Israelis treating civilians as well as insurgents, including members of al-Qaida and Islamic State", an awkward statement "The Israeli press freely report that 'Israel help members of al-Qaida and Islamic State...according to the UN'". The misquote is trying to push a certain conspiracy theory about ISIL, which is widely spread across Arab countries, but has nothing to do with reality - Israelis do admit treating Syrian civilians and they admit they cannot distinguish between FSA, SAA and Jihadists in civilian clothes; whereas the "aid" (medicine, food, etc) is strictly humanitarian - see MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ISRAEL AND SYRIAN REBELS ON THE GOLAN. Filing an RFC with misquoted "evidence" to gain support for a certain position is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Furthermore, trying to push inclusion of Israel as belligerent through this talk page, after repeated failure to do so at talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel is rather fishy - an attempt to bypass a long-standing status-quo. Indeed, status quo can change, but in this case I would recommend to procedurally close this RFC and/or go to DRN.GreyShark (dibra) 06:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

1. If you think that this RfC is wrongly worded, the please suggest any other wording

2. I normally give the first vote when i start a RfC, nobody has complained about that before,

3. I have moved discussions out of the RfC, to the above, RfC, discussion, in order not to clutter the RfC.

4. That it is not mentioned in the Syrian Civil War article is indeed an oversight, I haven’t been involved there. I will start an RfC there immediately. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the RfC there. I guess this one has to be procedurally closedGreyShark (dibra) 20:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note - this RfC was moved to talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC. Please vote there.GreyShark (dibra) 07:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Obvious.Axxxion (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting at talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 07:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) It has been stated by some that the nom expressing their opinion in the RfC query is a violation of neutrality, which of course I disagree with. Due to that, most noms will save their support !vote for underneath. It is entirely common practice for a nom to support or oppose their RfC. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting at talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 07:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This question is flawed, and this page is lightly trafficed compared to the main Syrian Civil War page where this issue has been debated and rejected over and over for years. No evidence has been presented to support the alleged conclusion. I've added this page to my watchlist. Legacypac (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The above RfC closure is absolutely flawed, in light of the decision to move and expand that RfC at the main page of the Syrian Civil War article: talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 10:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

France's change of support

Recently, the French president announced that France would no longer support the Opposition besides ISIS and SDF. Changing the map on the top right corner accordingly perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124154242/http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/05/us-russia-vladimir-putin-syria-ukraine-american-military-plans/73147344/ to http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/05/us-russia-vladimir-putin-syria-ukraine-american-military-plans/73147344/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100159613/syrian-rebels-say-turkey-is-arming-and-training-them/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.todayszaman.com/news-279187-turkish-soldiers-still-guard-sacred-tomb-in-syria.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atimes.com/article/german-general-nato-article-5-wont-apply-to-turkeys-buffer-zone-in-syria//
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist/lale-kemal/turkeys-kurdish-obsession-overshadows-war-against-isil_404423.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_russia-disappointed-by-rejection-of-anti-turkish-resolution-at-un_412854.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Hr0KsgCf?url=http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Keywords.aspx?wordId=11484 to http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Keywords.aspx?wordId=11484

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) 19:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC #2 Israeli alleged role

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is strong consensus that Israel is not specifically supporting one side. However, while A has clear majority, based on the strength of the arguments and whether they addressed points made by those supporting F, I do not see a consensus for A over F. Further discussion will be needed to determine exactly how Israel is represented in the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Recently two parallel RfC were concluded - one at the Talk:Syrian Civil War page and another one on this page above. While the long standing consensus has been not to regard to Israel as a belligerent or supporter (see talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel), several editors advocated that certain articles on the Syrian Civil War could include Israel and this page now lists Israel as "supporting the opposition". However, it is very confusing due to conflicting claims - Israelis have repeatedly refuted of supporting the Syrian opposition; the only party that Israelis vowed to protect in Syrian territories were the Druze who are mostly pro-Ba'athist (pro-Asad). Some conspiracy theories have also advocated Israeli alleged support to ISIL or to Al-Nusra Front (also refuted by Israelis) and Israeli Air Force has periodically been accused of airstrikes on Syrian territories (Israelis mostly denied or ignored). Israelis themselves admitted of being involved in some spillover border incidents and so far responded in fire against several Syrian War parties (against SAA and pro-Asad PIJ, against FSA, against ISIL), which is however very limited. Surely Israel cannot be listed as supporting all parties or fighting against all parties of that war, so this RfC should bring some order on this page considering that Israel is not included in the Syrian Civil War infobox and main page.

Please vote which option for listing Israel on this page is preferable if any:

• A Israelis are not involved in the Syrian War per Israeli own claims and their de-facto negligible role so far except relatively minor border incidents and humanitarian aid
• B Israelis support the Syrian opposition per Syrian Ba'athist government claims and independent sources
• C Israelis support the Islamic State per Syrian Ba'athist claims
• D Israelis support the al-Nusra Front per Syrian Ba'athist, opposition and other claims
• E Israelis indirectly support the Syrian Ba'athist government per Syrian opposition claims and Israeli own vowed intentions
• F Israelis are a standalone participant in the Syrian War as part of Iran-Israel proxy conflict (alleged airstrikes).

Add your vote below.GreyShark (dibra) 09:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• A Seems to be the only option we have sourcing for, although this YouTube video makes a compelling case for option C or option F. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• A. Israel has been involved in strategic airstrikes against Hezbollah supplies to Lebanon - but that's not part of this conflict. It has also been involved in various cross-Golan local issues - on multiple sides (against the local ISIS affilate Shuhada al-Yarmouk which is however tolerated, supposed small scale support for local Sunni groups, support for the Druze pro-Baath Hader, Quneitra Governorate village (most recently - this week - a direct threat to the Sunnis Israel will intervene to prevent the village's capture). However both the local meddling on the Golan border and the on-going strikes against Hezbollah supplies (and possibly facilities) to Lebanon do not rise to actual involvement in the Syrian Civil, as of yet, per reliable sources at the moment - the Golan involvement is "small change" and muddled (and includes return fire). The Hezbollah/Iran issues are (currently!) disjointed from the actual civil war.Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• A As Isreal is not involved, and certainly cannot be supporting and fighting all belligerents at the same time. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• A Previous participant pinged below. A is supported by the sources.L3X1 (distænt write) 14:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• A If Isreal wanted to get involved in the SCW they would do something significant like say, bomb something back to the stone age. The IDF is a very capable fighting force. Legacypac (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• F I believe Israel should not be listed as a belligerent in the main Syrian Civil War page, but this article is about foreign involvement in the war and it seems to me that Israel has intervened - albeit in very limited and localised ways (see e.g. Quneitra offensive (June 2017)) - too many times to exclude it from the page. However, it has pursued a very independent agenda and only co-operated with some rebel groups in very ad hoc ways, so it would be utterly wrong to include it as on the rebel side. So, I would absolutely exclude options B-E. (A and possibly G (below) would be as alternatives if I am in a minority position!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• F Per @Bobfrombrockley Israel's actions during the war are not notable enough to list them as a belligerent in the main Syrian Civil War page. However, they have had a confirmed involvement during the years in the form of dozens of air-strikes against SAA/IRGC/Hezbollah military targets, as well as constant strikes (as retaliation or otherwise) against the SAA in the border region that is a direct result of the conflict. So they should have their own separate section in this article on the foreign involvement in the civil war.
• A. Israel's own security concerns (as it shares a border with Syria) should not be construed with being involved in the Syrian civil war, as Israel does not purposely look for unrest along its border with Syria. Israel is intent on ensuring that arms and weapons deliveries to Hezbollah in Lebanon are not used in a future war against Israel, something that Israel has always been doing, long before the Syrian conflict erupted.Davidbena (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• F per Bobfrombrockley. I don't see the conflict between not listing Israel in the main SCW page because their scale of involvement is not that great, but mentioning their actions in an article specifically on Foreign Intervention in the SCW, that they have indeed carried out certain things in Syria to further their own, longstanding interests. We have an entire article about their actions: Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - @Huldra, Darkness Shines, Icewhiz, Legacypac, Davidbena, FunkMonk, Bobfrombrockley, Sgisright, L3X1, Axxxion, Chris troutman, and GeneralizationsAreBad: participants of Syrian Civil War page RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 09:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - none of these points accurately reflect the situation. Israel has direct contacts with Syrian rebels around the Golan area. It is well known by Israeli admittance that they treat wounded rebel soldiers from there, and other reliable source state they also support those rebels with weapons and finances. At the same time, the Israelis only ever attack the Syrian government, and have admitted they prefer ISIS over Iranian influence. Basically "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". As for point E. that it is even being considered here kind of undermines the seriousness of this discussion. We should add an option G. Israel directly supports rebels around the Golan area while only attacking the Syrian government and its allies throughout Syria, both to counter Iranian influence. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Israel was involved in a firefight with Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade which is not regime (it is loosely ISIS) ISIS Fighters Killed by Israeli Airstrikes After Opening Fire on IDF Soldiers in Golan Heights. And also threatened (officially - spokesperson statement) with force the rebels around the Golan not to attack regime controlled Hader - IDF VOWS TO PROTECT SYRIAN DRUZE VILLAGE AFTER SYRIAN SPILLOVER. The degree of published alleged support to rebels is quite limited (medical, food, very small amounts of cash). Things are not so simple as you present above.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The Yarmouk Brigade are Palestinians, not Syrian rebels, so big surprise, the Israelis don't like them either. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

What you are saying is that G=B+D (or G=B+C+D), right?GreyShark (dibra) 10:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - also @Robinvp11, Patar knight, and Redrose64: participants of the previous RfC on this page, who have not yet been summoned.GreyShark (dibra) 15:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I realise this is a sensitive topic but it is extremely difficult to make sweeping comments and if anyone can figure out exactly who is fighting who in different parts of Syria, they should probably be running for UN President. It's like Bosnia in the 90s; if you travelled five kms down the same road, you went through sectors that were Bosniaks v Serb/Croats, Croats v Bosnians/Serbs, Serbs v Bosnians etc. The Golan Heights is largely a Druse area, many of whom have relatives in both Israel (where they are the only non-Jews in the IDF) and Lebanon. It was one of the few areas of Syria which was relatively peaceful and the Israelis don't want anyone to disturb that situation. 'Anyone' means the Syrian government, ISIS, Al Qaeda or Hezbollah. Yes, the IDF supports Al Nusra (which depending on who you talk to is Al Qaeda, not ISIS) in the Golan Heights with money and medical treatment (as per Priti Patel) to keep Syrian government forces and Hezbollah out of the area. Yes, there is an informal Saudi/Israeli alliance against Iranian influence (e.g. El Al now being allowed to use Saudi airspace). In the 80s, Oliver North used the Israeli Air Force to deliver spare parts to Iran for their US equipment in the war against Iraq. There is a difference between local tactical alliances and consistent policy ie 'only ever attacking the Syrian government.'Robinvp11 (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• COMMENT: I think the whole issue is absurd: Israel is formally recognised by the UNSC as an occupying power of a part of Syria′s territory (the Syrian Golans, in the UN terminology). This alone qualifies this state as a belligerent against Syria. Probably in its own right, not "in support" of any side. Yes, this is technically a different conflict, but as we state the Syrian Civil War is a bunch of overlapping conflicts.Axxxion (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• COMMENT: What are you proposing to do with the content already in the article? Three points here, first the RfC above closed in favor of including Israel on this page. Does it make sense to include Israel only to say they are not involved?Should we include Zimbabwe and Mali also? Second, I think we may need to discuss modifying WP:RFC to make it clear to editors that RfCs should not be used to place for broad, sweeping content restrictions on article, but to resolve particularized disputes between editors that have been discussed on the talk page (recently). I don't see any discussion between the last RfC and this one. Third The article should not have one position, and it would violate our policies for it to have one position, it should discuss all the available sources for each different option. This goes to my second point about the RfC process being abused to make non-policy based edits on contentious or political articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems you missed the latest discussion at Talk:Syrian Civil War, which came in direct consequence of the RfC above.GreyShark (dibra) 08:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Is that where I closed the second RfC? because I really remember mentioning in my close that there was no consensus to extend that discussion to other articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus that Israel is not to be included in the Syrian Civil War infobox and the main page, while the second RfC was issued with no consensus to extend that community consensus to other Syrian Civil War topic articles, with each article having its own discussion. As a a result this separate RfC comes to clear the things at Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War article. Note that editors in previous discussions were notified so the discussion is pretty much continuous.GreyShark (dibra) 08:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And if I'm not mistake there is consensus to include Israel in this article, so how is this not rearguing the same point? Can you clarify this: are you are proposing that we add a "Countries not Involved in the War" section to this article or is this just a repeat after the last RfC, and the attempt to override its consensus with the Syrian Civil War RfC #2 both failed - this is my understanding based on what you have told me: RfC #1 closed with support to include Israel in this article, but does not specify as a belligerent, explicitly (though is strongly implied). Then RfC #1 at Syrian Civil War closed against including the Israeli flag in the infobox. The RfC #2 closed against your proposal to not count Israel as a belligerent on this article, and this RfC proposes a separate section to explain that Israel is not a belligerent - have I understood the history and proposal correctly? [[Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And you can find more prequel at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel, where some users are periodically (about once per month for the past 5 years) trying to change the consensus vote under pretext that "consensus can change". Now that is something which may raise a brow concerning the conduct on this topic.GreyShark (dibra) 09:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

No what I want to know is whether the proposal is asking for consensus to be changed on the prior RfC by removing the Israel section entirely which is already in the article, or whether you are proposing that we keep the close from RfC #1 and add a section to the article for countries that are not involved? Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The RfC is asking for clarification to current situation (Israel listed as "supporter to the Syrian Opposition") and it is up to editors to make up the decision whom Israel does or doesn't support; obviously the previous RfC above wasn't clear on this. Here, I proposed all the options without taking a clear side on this issue. If you would like to keep a sub-paragraph on Israel but mainly explain there the complexity of its exact role, then i guess you should choose option F (standalone party in the war) with proper explanations.GreyShark (dibra) 16:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess if Israel is added here despite its low involvement or non-involvement, then there is also a strong case to add Lebanon to the list, due to Lebanon's complex role in the Syrian conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 07:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - we have a very interesting happening here as there is almost no support to the current situation (Israel listed as supporting the Syrian opposition). This indeed supports the notion that the outcome of previous RfC was flawed.GreyShark (dibra) 16:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Not sure if it means the outcome of the previous RfC was flawed, as the previous RfC did not commit to placing Israel on a side, only to its mention on the page, right? But certainly it seems to me the consensus here is clear that the current situation needs to be changed; Israel should not be listed as supporting the opposition. Can we at least move Israel into a different section for now, whatever the ultimate decision is on how it should be described? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Previous RfC was flawed for two reasons - first because it came in parallel with broader RfC on Syrian Civil War page but was concluded differently and second because the implementation of RfC outcome to "include Israel on the page" as if Israel supports Syrian opposition was an opinion of the editor who initiated the both RfCs. In any case, in regard your idea to move Israel to a separate section - i think it is too early because we are not even sure whether separate section should list Israel as belligerent (some editors support this notion) or should the new section refer to countries with a role in the Syrian War, but who are not active belligerents per definition (see remarks above by Seraphim System above). For instance Lebanon's role in the Syrian Civil War might also be subject to inclusion in such paragraph in case Israel is listed. Let's see the outcome of this RfC by a neutral administrator before we take any action.GreyShark (dibra) 07:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the implementation of previous RfC seems to be flawed. In theory, though, outcomes of the two RfCs were not necessarily contradictory: the Syria war page RfC concluded Israel is not a primary belligerent while the one here concluded it was one of the foreign countries "involved". The outcome of the former (in which more people participated) should have indicated that even if there was consensus Israel is "involved" it should not have been listed on one of the sides. That's why I voted F above, as an option that allows for both RfC results. But, I agree, let's wait and see what a neutral admin says. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding CJTF-OIR

I noticed that we do have Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve as an active belligerent in the infobox but it is not listed here as one of the active sides. There is some info on CJTF-OIR activity in sections regarding US and UK support to the opposition, but this certainly requires a separate section in my opinion.GreyShark (dibra) 07:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2018

Please fix the broken link in this footnote (the following code copied below contains the correct link):

</ref> Turkey became increasingly hostile to the Assad government's policies and came to encourage reconciliation among dissident factions. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has tried to "cultivate a favorable relationship with whatever government would take the place of Assad." Editor abcdefgh (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done –72 (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Turkish ISIL Oil Smuggling

I'm not a Wikipedia writer but I was searching for the reason why Wikipedia is banned in Turkey and I think the article is biased indeed. Here's what's written:

"On 2 December 2015, Russia′s military officials presented what they referred to as "only part of the available facts" that proved that Turkey′s president Recep Erdogan and his family were personally involved in a multimillion-dollar oil smuggling operation that funded ISIL terrorists. The accusations were seen as further drastic escalation of tensions between Turkey and Russia that has its military personnel and advanced weapons openly deployed in Syria. Both the Turkish government and the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) denied this. Commenting on the allegations, John R. Bass, the US Ambassador to Turkey, told the press that the claims about the Turkish government's involvement in ISIL oil trade were unfounded, citing the official apology issued by the CIA with regards to the allegations in 2014."

If Turkey, KRG, and US denied this claim, and if CIA even officially apologized, then how is it fair to start this paragraph with "...proved that Turkey′s president Recep Erdogan and his family were personally involved in a multimillion-dollar oil smuggling operation that funded ISIL terrorists."?

I believe "proved" should be changed to "claimed" or "claimed to have proved" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.168.22 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Blatant misrepresentation of sources

[4] by User:GPRamirez5.

The sentence under dispute is: it was known to have extensive relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.

Two sources are listed.

This source says "Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists". "Some work with" is very different than "extensive relationships with". This is obviously characterizing the source to push a POV.

Second source doesn't even mention Ahrar al-Sham. Al-Qaeda is mentioned but NOT in any connection with SMC.

User:GPRamirez5 please self revert, and please keep in mind that the article is under discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, please don't mark non-minor edits as minor, as that itself can be seen as disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If the Foreign Policy article is really not specific enough for you, then I have replaced it with a New Yorker article by Rania Abouzeid, which is quite specific about the extensive relationship between SMC and the Islamists. But really, the BBC article was enough by itself.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And that source doesn't say " known to have extensive relationship" either. Just like BBC and Foreign Policy doesn't, whatever you might wish to pretend.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Paraphrase and summary is standard to avoid copyright violation. You very seldom contribute anything to articles I've noticed, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you don't know how text is produced. I've actually been very conservative in not mentioning the SMC's relationship with ISIS, as discussed in The New Yorker article:

Colonel Abdul-Jabbar Agaydee, the top F.S.A. commander in the northern city of Aleppo and a man who doesn’t spend his time in hotel lobbies, has lambasted the Supreme Military Council, of which he himself is a member, saying it is “completely disconnected from reality.” (Still, on Thursday, he issued a video statement calling for unity.) In August, after the fall of the Menagh air base in the countryside near Aleppo, Colonel Agaydee was videotaped standing in front of a damaged helicopter, thanking all of the fighters who took part, including “the foreign fighters, the sons of the city, and of the area.” He then invited the man on his left, “our brother Abu Jandal,” to speak. Abu Jandal was the local commander of al-Nusra’s even fiercer parent organization, Al Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS (which was not one of the eleven signatories). GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Changing "some work with" to "had extensive relationships" is NOT "paraphrase and summary". It's misrepresentation and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you're splitting hairs. GPRamirez5's text is a perfectly good summation of what the cited sources say. Perhaps you should rephrase it rather than deleting it outright if your objections are limited to a semantic quibble.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker source says three groups shifted allegiance from SMC to an alliance with al-Nusra. It also doesn't mention Ahrar al-Sham. Here's another, more clearly written, article about Communique No.1, which does mention Ahrar al-Sham, but makes it clear alignment with them was a break with SMC, so supports a statement almost opposite to the text in dispute. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

...None of which negates the same New Yorker article's account of a SMC colonel calling a known ISIS commander "our brother." -GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

So we have three sources here. First, the New Yorker is referring to the Aleppo Military Council's Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi and says that he lambasted the SMC, that he called an ISIS commander "our brother" at the end of a battle on which they had been on the same side, so that is ONE instance of a group aligned in 2012/13 to the SMC having contact with ISIS in 2013. He left the SMC almost immediately after, due to the disunity. The article is mainly about Islamist elements leaving the SMC to align with al-Nusra. No mention of Ahrar al-Sham. The Foreign Policy piece, also from 2013, describes the FSA as "fragmenting": elements of the SMC were breaking with the SMC to align with Islamists including al-Nusra. No mention of Ahrar al-Sham. The BBC says: "SMC-aligned brigades retain separate identities, agendas and commands. Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists." So, a very complex situation, with a decentralised, fragmented SMC. To summarise that as it was known to have extensive relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists is a blatant misrepresentation. As this is an article about Foreign involvement, going into this would be undue weight. I have added a link to the SMC article, and I think that's sufficient. Anything more feels like pushing a POV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

So you think that the version Volunteer Marek restored—"The SMC is a rebel command structure that includes representatives from most major rebel groups, and excludes the Islamic extremist elements"—better summarizes the main thrust of RS reporting on this matter? Really???TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that's ideal, but it's better. I might be inclined to not open the Islamist issue at all. SMC formally excluded extremist elements, and one reason it collapsed was elements within it preferred to work with Islamists. But I'm not sure how relevant that complex issue is for this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It sickens me the way some people insult fellow editors by expecting them not to read the sources. User:Bobfrombrockley, you are blatantly misrepresenting the New Yorker article. You want to talk about what the article is "mainly" about?

There has long been a disconnect between those fighting and bleeding inside Syria and the political and diplomatic machinations of those in exile. What is new here is that at least three of the eleven groups—Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Islam, and Suqour al-Sham—are aligned with the military wing of the National Coalition, the Supreme Military Council, which is supported by the West and is what passes for the leadership of the loose franchise outfit known as the Free Syrian Army (F.S.A.). Now they have publicly thrown in their lot with Jabhat al-Nusra, which also signed on to the statement and is connected to Al Qaeda.

This public alliance of affiliates of the F.S.A. and of Al Qaeda, however, is more of a shift on paper than a marked change in how things work on the ground. There has long been operational coordination on a local level—for a particular battle or in a certain geographic area. All that has really happened at this stage is that a fig leaf has dropped.

— "The Syrian Opposition Groups Stop Pretending", The New Yorker (September 26, 2013)

}}

RfC:SMC and Islamists

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose adding the following text

The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements.However, it was known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.

Do you support this? GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support It would be absurd not to note the clear distance between the SMC-FSA's original policy toward Islamist extremists and the actual practice-GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Support per GPRamirez5. This is well-sourced and notable. Focusing only on the SMC's official statements while ignoring the de facto reality on the ground in Syria is seriously misleading.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Support per sources. I don't see why this info should be hidden from our readers. Khirurg (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Support per sources. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Per sources presented. Operational relationship is a vague qualifier which is inline with the sources, and includes coordination by units within the command.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This is not really supported by cited sources. The BBC article tells: "The SMC's chief-of-staff, Gen Idris, wants it to be a more moderate and stronger alternative to the jihadist rebel groups in Syria." Article in New Yorker tells something different. What exactly it tells is debatable (see comments by BobFromBrockley above). Therefore, telling in WP voice "however, they [in fact] work together with al-Qaeda" would not be appropriate. This is based solely on sources provided in the RfC. If there are more sources, they need to be examined to produce something else. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I think this is a misrepresentation of the sources. The text is taken from the ISW report, which is a good source, but says the following: SMC-aligned brigades retain separate identities, agendas and commands. Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists (emphasis added). In other words, it is not the SMC that had operational relationships with these hardline groups, but brigades within it that retained autonomy. The New Yorker source is hard to summarise, but I think the quote in the footnote is misleading out of context. The article is not about the SMC, but mentions it three times, once to say that 3 Islamist groups (Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Islam and Suqour al-Sham) were realigning from the SMC to al-Nusra, once to mention,the colonel (Agaydee - actually Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi) SMC member who had operational connections with al-Nusra "lambasting" the SMC, and once to mention leaders of FSA groups were threatening to resign from the SMC for reasons unrelated to Islamism. This is all quite complicated, and given that this is an article about Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War and not about the SMC it seems undue to spend so many words and footnotes on this rather tangential issue, unless it is to push a particular POV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry I missed the fourth source, which is a useful study, but again doesn't say what the summary above says. It says that groups such as Liwa al-Tawhid left SMC to join the Army of Islam and started fighting against the SMC and against against ISIL and al-Nusra.BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose This indeed appears to be a misrepresentation of sources with a heavy wallup of original research thrown in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Bobfrombrockley's comments are misleading in that the FSA/SMC only exists as a cohesive entity on paper. In reality, it is a loose coalition of militants united only by shared opposition to Assad, with no centralized command structure. The FSA/SMC can therefore only be judged by the actions of its affiliates, not by official statements intended for Western consumption. In fact, if anything we should be far more explicit than even GPRamirez5 has proposed about the reality that any moderates within the FSA/SMC were purged or defected to the Islamist camp a long, long time ago, and that the FSA/SMC label is largely a fiction. Bobfrombrockley's contention that there is a single FSA/SMC distinct from its "autonomous brigades" betrays a serious lack of understanding of what is actually happening on the ground in Syria.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

My contention is almost the opposite of what you are saying. The fact that the brigades operated autonomously and that its composition shifted so rapidly makes it almost impossible to make general statements about the SMC, rather than about its affiliated brigades and particular moments in time. (A version of GPRamirez5's text that spoke about SMC affiliates rather than about SMC might work better.) In any event, this discussion is arcane and complex for an article about a big topic (Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War); these details belong in the SMC article, where they can be treated with adequate care in enough words. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I am relieved that we appear to be in agreement on the general facts on the ground in Syria. If it is, as you suggest, "almost impossible to make general statements about the SMC," what do you think about the current version of this article's contention that "The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and excluded the more Islamist extremist elements"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's ideal. I'd keep it as simply and concise as possible, and let readers go to the SMC page for the detail. It's striking that the SMC page itself is pretty skimpy, and most of these refs aren't there. I think we should focus on improving that page with these refs. For this page, how about a compromise such as:

The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements.However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists, some of which later fought against it.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's an improvement. When even the US ambassador admits that the moderates and al Nusra regularly collaborated, it really can't be minimized. And what's the source that all the moderates in question fought Nusra? On an individual basis many "moderate" soldiers defected to Nusra and ISIS.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC) GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The article about Robert Ford changing his mind is not about the SMC. I'm not objecting to this article including reliably sourced mention of US-backed rebels collaborating at times with al-Nusra. I'm simply objecting to shoehorning that in to the description of the SMC, for all of the reasons above. My "some of which later fought against it" is badly worded, as not clear what the "it" is (SMC or al-Nusra). The source is the [one I think you added, GPRamirez5, which says that the FSA, after the departure of the Islamist groups, declared war on IS in late 2014 (i.e. the operational relationships some elements had in 2013 came to an end) and also that the Islamist groups who left to form the Islamic Front (Syria) (formed, accorrding to the source, to counter IS and al-Nusra) then began fighting against SMC (see bottom of p.106). If we can say all that concisely in this article, fine. (Remember, it's an article about foreign involvement, not about the rebels.) If we can't, leave it to the more specific articles this one links to, such as the SMC one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's another go at some compromise wording which reflects the sources and also the topic of the article

The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in 2013. Islamist groups left the SMC to form the Saudi-backed Islamic Front (Syria), which engaged in combat with SMC brigades. As US policy shifted to combating ISIS, the SMC declared war on ISIS in late 2014.

That's more accurate, but might give undue weight to the ins and outs (in which case, we should avoid discussion of this altogether). If it's important to include the Ford comment, could then add a sentence along the lines of By early 2015, voices in the US foreign policy establishment were pushing for an abandonment of the rebels due to their operational weakness and collaboration with Islamist hardliners. What do you think? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this wording would throw the chronology of the section out, so if we go with text like this, it'd probably need to have its sentences chopped apart from each other and put in chronologically in to the section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes BobFromBrockley, you at are correct that your version disrupts the chronology of the section. My original proposal however, does not. You are perfectly welcome to add appropriate material further down in the appropriate point in the chronology. Your addition of "in 2013" to my sentence is not appropriate however, because these jihadists were involved with SMC in 2012 as well.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

If it was 2012 and 2013, I wouldn't have a problem with it saying that - although the sources given don't say anything about 2012 that I can see, so ideally it'd need to be sourced (although as I said before I'm not sure the proliferation of details and sources is due here, given the topic of the article is not the SMC). So, I will add the appropriate material further down, and we are close to consensus on the opening two sentences of this passage. You proposed: The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements.However, it was known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists. . I proposed The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in 2013. The differences are I didn't include the long, misleading quote from the New Yorker piece in the footnote, that I clarified that it was elements in it not the whole thing that had operational links (which I think you've agreed in the discussion), and that I have added a date. If the sources clearly show 2012, can we agree on The SMC was a rebel command structure that included representatives from most major rebel groups, and officially excluded the more Islamist extremist elements. However, elements in it were known to have operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in 2012-2013.? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about The New Yorker quote, and it illustrates that "top" commanders of SMC had brotherly relations with the worst of the worst, in this case ISIS. "Elements" is not a sufficient description of that.

There is mention of Islamists being involved in the foundation of SMC in 2012 in Atwan's book, which has been mysteriously disappeared from your sources. All of SILF was also involved with SMC from 2012.GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I still don't get why this article needs to go into such detail while the SMC article itself is so skimpy. That's where the ins and outs of this should be set out carefully, for readers to follow properly, not shoehorned into an article about foreign involvement. The case the New Yorker article is making is not straightforward, and the extract quoted does not adequately summarise the main thesis, let alone what it is saying in terms of the SMC. It illustrates that one "top" local commander fought alongside al-Qaeda in one 2013 battle but that he criticised the SMC, which proceeded to splinter, with Islamist elements leaving it. He also then left it. I think the long quotation is confusing rather than clarifying in a footnote. Atwan's book was in two of my footnotes, but not for referencing SMC elements being linked to Ahrar al-Sham or al-Qaeda, because the part of the book visible online doesn't mention that; rather, it mentions SMC declaring war on ISIS, and the more moderate Islamist elements leaving SMC and turning against it. The SILF point seems irrelevant to the al-Qaeda/Ahrar al-Sham issue. The SILF groups represent the more moderate Islamists, who left SMC within a year, and fought against the SMC as well as against ISIS. The SMC was only formed at the end of 2012, so it might be hard to find sources saying it co-operated with Ahrar al-Sham or al-Qaeda that year. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The case the New Yorker article is making is not straightforward, and the extract quoted does not adequately summarise the main thesis...

The extract is included in the main article as a prime example, a non-isolated incident, illustrating the failure of SMC at a high level to marginalize hardline Islamists, or even functionally distance itself from al Qaeda. We have already been through this.GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The BBC article states: "The Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF) is a loose alliance formed in September 2012..Most of the groups, which ranged from moderate Islamist to ultraconservative Salafist in outlook, recognised the SMC and made up the bulk of its fighting force. In November 2013, Liwa al-Tawhid and Suqour al-Sham declared that they were joining the new Islamic Front, significantly reducing the SILF's military strength..." The significant part of SILF were ultraconservative Salafists who had an informal alliance with Ahrar al-Sham while SILF were in SMC, an alliance which was merely formalized when Tawid and Suquor joined IF. This is also the "main thesis" of The New Yorker article.- GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess this turns on what you consider extremist Islamist etc, and suggests that sort of wording is problematic and best avoided in favour of actual facts. I disagree with your interpretations here, but don’t have time now to go into it. In the meantime, how relevant is all of this detail and debate, how due, in an article which is not about the SMC? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

1. I am not the one who introduced the SMC into the article, their inclusion pre-dated my involvement. 2. There isn't any "detail" added in the edit. My contribution is one single sentence. 3. There wouldn't be any "debate" if you hadn't been stonewalling that single sentence for five weeks.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

From a Taylor & Francis publication: "...in September 2013, the Western-backed SMC formed an Islamic coalition with the al Nusra front, with the purported aim of establishing an Islamic state in Syria." Doesn't get much more straight forward than that.GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed a reliable source - it's a generalist introduction to Islamism, published by Routledge, written by some defence establishment types who are not Syria specialists - but it would be contradicted by any number of other reliable sources. They call the SMC the "Syrian Military Council" not the "Supreme Military Council". They put "Islamist Coalition" in capital letters, as if it's a proper noun, but there was no such thing. Are they referring to Jaysh al-Islam, which was formed at the end that month? Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaysh_al-Islam#Merger_to_form_Jaysh_al-Islam and the following section, to see how badly their sentence summarises a complex reality. The Jaysh groups broke with the SMC a few weeks later, and didn't involve al-Nusra, so maybe not. They don't provide a footnote to their source, so I have no idea what they're talking about. Can you point me to another source about this September 2013 Coalition? Neither the SMC article nor the al-Nusra article mentions it. Again, it almost looks like you are either cherry-picking for sources for a fringe view, or are summarising complex details into reductive, simplistic and misleading sentences, or trying to shoehorn a lot of detail into an article which is not about the SMC but about foreign involvement in the SCW. If you think this level of detail is important, wouldn't it be better to edit the SMC article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There was "no such thing" as the Islamic Coalition, yet they have a long-standing and well-documented Wikipedia page? Let's get it together BobFromBrockley.GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, OK. My bad. But that WP article is not linked to from either the SMC or al-Nusra articles. And the article seems slightly at odds with the Hopkinson/Lindley-France claim that the Islamic Coalition was a coalition of the SMC and al-Nusra, given our article says its rejected the SNC and only "remained supportive" of the SMC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, looking at our article and realising this is about the "Communique No.1" we already discussed above), I'm even more doubtful about the "Islamic Coalition". Of the sources cited on the page that are visible (i.e not behind a paywall or on a private blog), not only do none of them suggest it was any kind of initiative of the SMC (it was a first step in the pivot away from the SMC by some of its more moderate Islamist signatories), but none of them use the name "Islamic Coalition" as a proper noun. In fact, one of the sources includes an update by its author, Aron Lund, saying: "Lots of media have now reported on the joint statement based mainly on this blog post. Unfortunately, some have shed all the “what if” and caution. ... many commenters ran with the idea of a radical group called the “Islamic Coalition” (or “Alliance”) that has been formed to oppose the West. I don’t think this is true, at least not yet... it is not – as far as we know – an organized structure at all. It is a “bloc” or an “alliance” mainly in the sense that several groups now share a position and may continue to collaborate politically. ... In fact, I contacted the Tawhid Brigade spokesperson I talked to earlier, who had spoken of this as a gathering (tajammou) or bloc (takattul) that might have more lasting significance. He says there is so far nothing in the way of a common organization.... When I pointed out that Abdulqader Saleh’s rather offhand comment on Twitter using the phrase “Islamic Alliance” or “Islamic Coalition” (al-tahaluf al-islami) could be interpreted as the name of a new group, and that this version is now gaining currency in the media, he responded “it could become that, but so far there’s nothing”." So, I think your reliable source would be cancelled out by most other more specialist reliable sources. Why are you so insistent this article about Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War mentions some connection between the SMC and al-Nusra? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason it's been equated with the FSA-SMC is because, as Charles Lister told BBC, the three FSA "Islamist groups which signed the statement - Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Islam and Suqur al-Sham" comprised "the core" of SMC on the ground. Was the Islamic Coalition unstable and ill-defined? No more so than the FSA, SNC, and SMC itself.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at what Lister actually said: "The inclusion of the core of [the National Coalition's] force... effectively depletes [its] armed wing, the Supreme Military Council," he told the Reuters news agency. "It is likely that the moderate Islamist coalition has ceased to exist as a single organisation structure." The square brackets are there in the BBC article; the italicisation is mine. Lister is clearly saying that the move of these groups to the temporary alliance represented by Communique No.1 was a pivot away from the SMC. He contradicts the fringe analysis presented by the two defence wonks in that Routledge book, who seem to think Communique No.1 formed some entity called "the Islamic Coalition". The "Coalition" was massively more unstable and ill-defined than the FSA, SNC and SMC; it was an ephemeral grouping whose paper existence ceased within weeks. Whatever the details of this complex picture, we cannot summarise it as anything like "the SMC had operational relationships with al-Nusra". We are still left with something like "elements in the SMC had operational relationships with hardline Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra; these elements left the SMC in late 2013". BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the forest for the trees in this discussion. Charles Lister, a very non-fringe, pro-opposition writer, acknowledges that three Islamist militias, Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Islam and Suqur al-Sham comprise the core of SMC, and these militias had a formal relationship with al Nusra for a time (complementing their longer-standing informal work with Nusra) The "core", the groups who represented the majority of SMC fighters on the ground, are not mere elements.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to work out a good tree/forest metaphor for my response but failed. ;) The point is, however significant these three forces (all themselves to some extent coalitions of smaller groups, rather than homogeneous command structures) were, they were never more than elements of the SMC because, to quote TheTimesAreAChanging, the SMC only exists as a cohesive entity on paper, so we have no licence to make general statements about the SMC, and the fact they left the SMC to briefly join another even looser coalition before going in various directions was, as Lister argues, a depletion of the SMC - these groups chose temporary alliance with Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra over continued affiliation with the SMC. It is absurd to say the SMC was the active subject of their anti-SMC actions. Again, though, what has this got to do with Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The Islamic Coalition considered themselves to be affiliated with SMC. From the Post:

The new alliance stressed that it was not abandoning Idriss’s council, only the exiled political opposition coalition, which, it said in a statement, “does not represent us.”...In a statement Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that officials had “seen the reports” and were “discussing with the moderate opposition what impact this will have going forward..." U.S. aid would continue, she said, “taking into account that alliances and associations often change on the ground based on resources and needs of the moment.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPRamirez5 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, but that's a different claim to the claim that the SMC somehow formed or created the "Islamic coalition". At any rate, it ceased to exist within a few weeks and its more extremist members broke completely from the SMC, so really why is it relevant here in an article about foreign involvement in the SCW? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

PS, have been prompted by this discussion to make some small changes to the Islamic Coalition (Syria) page as it is quite poor, just to make sure the text follows the sources. Just wanted to be transparent. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article blocked in Turkey, along with all of Wikipedia

FYI, Block of Wikipedia in Turkey is related to this article, which has been cited by the Turkish government for blocking Wikipedia in Turkey since 29 April 2017.

Certainly the Wikimedia Foundation objects to censorship and the blocking of access to Wikipedia in Turkey. In no way should the Turkish government's action dissuade us from article content and editing following our normal policies of NPOV, verifiability, etc.... JGHowes  ^talk 23:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Prosecution of Foreign Fighters

North East Syria is currently administered by the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES). European countries are still reluctant to repatriate their foreign fighters and families, leaving them in the area under control of AANES. Simultaneously, prosecution by Syrian and Iraqi courts is not considered as meeting international human rights standards. It is unlikely that an international tribunal will be established in the region, so the AANES have prosecuted local ISIS fighters in temporary courts and tribunals. [1] This raises issues of legitimacy, but since it seems the only viable option for now, European countries and the United Nations could contribute to the functioning of these courts. [1]

ICCT.nl (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Foreign involvement- Shia involvement

Article doesn’t mention anywhere that the religious Shi’ite authorities never issued fatwa for jihad in Syria nor any high ranking scholars ever encouraged Shi’ite to fight in Syria. In fact, many ulama accused Assad of butchering his own people while Iraqi al Sadr even urged him to step down. The only Shiites that went to Syria to fight on Assad’s behalf are followers of Khamene’i. In fact a lot of pro-Sistani militias broke off from mainstream Popular Mobilisation Units over pro-Khamene’i groups going to Syria against the wishes of Najaf scholarship.

“In fact, Sadr’s stance on the Syrian regime is not new, as other clerics have criticized the Syrian regime for its atrocities against its own people. They have also criticized Shiite militias for backing Assad in the fight against the Syrian opposition. After the popular uprising against Assad when it broke out in March 2011, Sadr expressed his support in a November statement. Despite accusations that the Sadrist Movement, which is highly influential among Iraqi Shiites, was taking part in the Syrian conflict, he has denied any involvement by members of his party. He has also voiced his disapproval of other Shiite militias going to Syria to fight for Assad. [..] Many prominent Najaf clerics have never supported the Syrian regime, with some even forbidding their followers to fight in Syria. Four prominent Najaf clergymen — Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Sheikh Ishaq al-Fayyad, Seyed Mohammad Sa’id al-Hakim and Sheikh Bashir al-Najafi — were quoted by Asharq Alawsat as adopting a unified stance in 2013: “Individuals who go to Syria for jihad are disobeying the commands of religious authorities.” In Qom, no prominent clerics have issued fatwas in support of sending Shiite fighters to Syria.” Source: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E003:A23:8801:7995:58F0:CC9A:3A8C (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine

Can you guys add Ukraines support of fsa with troops now I’m very happy with Ukraines decisions against the fascist brutal regimes of Putin and assad.

Changes should be made to the diagram

For starters, ISIS and the FSA are enemies and should be marked as such.

I also feel like “Free Syrian Army” should be changed to “Syrian Opposition” or “Syrian National Army” as a more general and accurate label for the moderate anti-Assad groups.

I also feel like HTS is powerful enough to be classified as it’s own group and not just under “other Islamist groups.” LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)