Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

US support of al-Qaeda

This is just ridiculous. There is no reliable source that confirms US support for al-Nusra. If surrendering weapons means anything then Russia, Iraq, and Syria would be the biggest supporters of rebels, al-Qaeda, and ISIL since they lost a huge chunk of their weapons to them.

US-trained rebels defecting doesn't mean anything either, otherwise Syria would be listed as a supporter of the FSA since it was literally founded by defected Syrian officers and soldiers. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I added this to the al-Qaeda support list because the footnote suits it much better there than on the opposition/SNC support list. There's large amounts of open speculation that the US directly supports al-Qaeda by sources such as The Independent, advocacy for this by former CIA Director David Petraeus, whose term included the beginning of the Civil War, and of course the information in the footnote at present. Perhaps it should say "(alleged)", similar to how Iran is handled in the Yemeni Civil War infobox. Nuke (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just noting that David Petraeus himself recently suggested arming the Nusra Front, so it isn't too far off.[1][2] FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• • There is a HUGE gulf between a suggestion from one retired high-ranking American military officer, and US policy. Especially in the context of known US reluctance, for years, to provide adequate anti-tank and anti-missile gear to the rebels that ARE supported by US, for fear that they would eventually fall into Islamist hands. Bottom line: radical Islamists, including al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, are widely considered to be a long term threat to US interests. Bashar al-Assad, not so much. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The US sends weapons to Gulf states, which send them to the Nusra Front umbrella group "Army of Conquest". The US sends nothing to the Syrian government. FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

He was also very likely involved in the Syrian Civil War when he was in charge of the CIA that led covert operations in Syria. Nuke (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

And the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and China created all these wonderful weapons used by all sides of this war, so should their successor states be listed as supporting all sides?

Syria also supported al-Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor of ISIL and al-Nusra, back in 2005-6, but it doesn't count as combat support. We should keep allegations, tolerations, defections, speculations, "suggestions" to arm, and other forms of indirect support out of this and only list countries that purposely and directly provided lethal weapons as support. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The US knows full well that Turkey and the Gulf states send the weapons they get from the US to the Nusra Front. The point is, if the US wanted to stop this, they could. Not comparable to weapons that end up in Syria after circulating on the markets for years (don't forget all the weapons given by the US to Islamist rebels in Libya which are now in Syria too). Also, it was never more than allegations that the Syrian government somehow helped Sunni jihadis in Iraq. Inferred based on the fact that many of them crossed the gigantic border to Iraq, though the US can't even control its border with Mexico. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The situation is complex. It is NOT clear that the US could EASILY stop those weapon transfers. If it was a high enough priority, could they? Sure. But that is VERY different than claiming "The US supports al-Nusra". "The US does not interfere with some US allies providing weapons to al-Nusra." OK, that I can see. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Compare this to how zealous the US is when it comes to sanctioning anyone who supports groups like Hezbollah in any way. FunkMonk (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the US also sanctions al-Qaeda and all of their 247 known individuals and 72 affiliates as part of the UNSC. Plus, Israeli drones play a significant role in supporting the Russian intervention in support of Syria and Hezbollah, and Israel sold some of them as late as September 2015 with full knowledge that they will be used in the Middle East. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Mind you that the Israelis have been bombing the Syrian army and Hezbollah throughout the war IN Syria (and is treating wounded rebels of all stripes), WHILE Russia was bombing, so they obviously have some agreement that Israel gets carte blanche in return. The US warplanes in Turkey is of course the reason why the Turks can get away with their onslaught of the Kurds, but is that also the reason why they get no flack for supporting Nusra directly, and ISIL indirectly (perhaps directly)? FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You're ignoring that the US bombed al-Nusra and Khorasan, which are probably the same groups, multiple times in late 2014 and 2015, and even Ahrar ash-Sham in one case.

The US is at war with al-Qaeda since 2001 the same way Israel is at war with Syria since 1948, the only difference is that the former conflict is much more active today. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

They're obviously not allies, but it is bizarre how close the US has been to supporting the group, directly or indirectly. My coments are mainly in response to: "including al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, are widely considered to be a long term threat to US interests. Bashar al-Assad, not so much." If that was the case, the obvious thing would be to not sanction the government and send weapons to Salafist groups. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

'We know ISIS has a discreet arrangement with a neighbor, but it’s not Turkey. The Syrian regime has done business with ISIS from day one, just as it did with al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and other rebels who took over energy assets early in the war. President Bashar al-Assad’s point man for ISIS deals, George Haswani, was first designated by the European Union in March' -[3] Funk Monk you are just an ultra-sectarian POV pusher for Shia Hezbollah or Iran or whatever, all your edits are so fucking biased. 92.3.11.136 (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

And you are obviously the blocked POV-warrior Sayerslle, still pushing your ridiculous conspiracy theories despite an indef ban. Let's not forget it was the US who released Caliph Baghdadi and advocated for a "Salafist state in east Syria" back in 2012.[4] And lets not forget that Hillary herself admitted the war is basically a tool to weaken the Syrian Army and Iran so they are less of a threat to Israel.[5] FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can take sources out of context to reach sensational conclusions. Despite its tabloid-worthy headline, The Daily Beast article in question is actually evidence of the exact opposite of what FunkMonk would lead readers to believe: "'We should under no circumstances try to use or co-opt Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, as an organization against ISIL,' Petraeus said. 'But some individual fighters, and perhaps some elements, within Nusra today have undoubtedly joined for opportunistic rather than ideological reasons: they saw Nusra as a strong horse, and they haven't seen a credible alternative, as the moderate opposition has yet to be adequately resourced.' Petraeus said the U.S. should try 'splintering (Al Nusra's) ranks by offering a credible alternative to those 'reconcilable' elements of those organizations." While no-one can claim the U.S. or the other Western powers have any coherent strategy for resolving this quagmire, the lack of expertise and the tendency to overreach make this article perfectly emblematic of the pseudo-scholarly (and invariably anti-American) nature of so much of Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, "using al Qaeda fighters" of course doesn't mean "using al Qaeda fighters". I'm not the one "taking things out of context", look at the various expert reactions to his statements quoted in the article. And yeah, the US hired countless Nazi scientists after WW2, so I guess it's ok. FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

al-Ra'i captured by FSA, need to update map

The town of al-Ra'i that is near to the border of Turkey has been captured by FSA from ISIS. I want to update the map to reflect that. Can anyone tell me how to do it? Lolitician (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

SSNP

Hi. I can't find the 'edit' button for the Syrian Civil War box to the right. I would like to add the Syrian Social Nationalist Party in the list of main belligerents. According to Foreign Policy (see article 'Eagles of the whirlwind' at their website) they have 6,000-8,000 militants on the ground, making it one of the most relevant groups siding with the government. Besides, I think that the 'allied groups' column should be aligned either alfabetically or by number of militants, apparently there is no criteria now?. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 18:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Seymour Hersch - "The Rat Line and the Red Line" Report on the interconnections between Syria, Lybia, US, etc Turns out we/US has known that Assad didn't gas his own people for a long time. The Turks appear to have done it - sarin (except made by terrorists) has chemical markers. Darn it all, guess whose markers showed up. 2601:181:8000:D6D0:B13E:F8FD:E444:3FAF (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Missing Persons = 65,000

The infobox claims that 34,500 are missing according to the SOHR. However in Nov 2015, Amnesty International claimed in fact 65,000 had disappeared, including 58,000 civilians. This is a more accurate figure than SOHR. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/11/syria-state-profits-from-crimes-against-humanity-as-policy-of-enforced-disappearances-drives-black-market/82.153.117.172 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Other forms of casualty

Question: This article does not talk about the losses other than human casualties. For example, what is the number for the losses in economy, infrastructure, military equipment and tools... etc. Since the last 5 years, I often see or read how tanks and jets are crashed. This article should address this too. I am sorry if my question is presented in a wrong location as my knowledge about Wikipedia tools is very limited.

There's a couple issues with this. We have a hard enough time finding sources for all these casualties in the first place, but also we're trying to save room in the infobox. While in theory, we could count up all of it without it all being compiled in one source, this is too hard to maintain and I doubt there is the willpower to do such a thing. Nuke (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Front placed under the SNC

In the infobox, the Islamic Front is listed as part of the SNC. However, all three major components of the IF, Ahrar ash-Sham, al-Tawhid Brigade, and Jaysh al-Islam, do not recognize the National Coalition. Either that IF be listed under the line with al-Qaeda (which could be inaccurate, since they equally cooperate with both the FSA and AQ) or some other coalition be listed to represent the opposition.

One such coalition could be the SRCC, since most FSA and IF units are part of it. Editor abcdef (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Originally it was SRCC (Syrian Revolutionary Command Council), where most of Islamic Front members are parts of, but somebody changed to SNC in bad faith and wrongly.GreyShark (dibra) 14:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Placing CJTF-OIR under both opposition and Rojava

The CJTF-OIR supports both the rebels in northern Aleppo (who are also fighting the SDF) and the SDF east of the Euphrates, so shouldn't it be placed under both the opposition and Rojava, the same way Russia is placed under both the government and Rojava? This way, Turkey can be omitted from the latter column and included in the former. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Denmark to infobox

[6] Add Denmark under the US Coalition 199.195.226.171 (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Denmark is part of the coalition against ISIS in Syria.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate "Support" lists

I think you should change the support lists, Turkey is supporting ISIS, not Rojava or Syrian Opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Username That's Not Already in Use (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

what alternTe universe do you live in? Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

North Korea

• Comment - if a semi-belligerent like Israel isn't going into the infobox, countries like North Korea, which have comparativley no role, should be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • North Korea should not be there. At best they may be a weapons vendor, but they will sell arms to anyone with cash. . Legacypac (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree - North Korea is not a notable supporter of belligerent.GreyShark (dibra) 15:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree to remove North Korea - It is not a vocal supporter of the Syrian Government--Opdire657 (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hummm I went and looked and found sources listed in the infobox saying North Korea has two special forces battalions fighting in Syria plus "thousands" of missile and weapons experts. They are also an arms supplier. If the sources are correct, North Korea is a flat out belligerent with boots on the ground, not just a supporter. What think you? Should we post up the sources and debate them? Legacypac (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like propaganda BS. If North Korea had forces on the ground, it would be all over the news. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds extremely awkward to me, even though some sources state such claims. By the way, having advisors on the ground is still considered support not belligerency.GreyShark (dibra) 16:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Should Belgium be added to the infobox?

Belgium is planning on joining the coalition air campaign against ISIS, according to various sources, including the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/world/europe/belgiums-anti-isis-airstrikes-expand-from-iraq-into-syria.html?_r=0). Should they be added to the infobox for this article? BDR77777 (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• No - Messiah is also supposed to come in some religions. Until Messiah comes and until Belgium puts forces on the grounds it is WP:CRISTALLBALL.GreyShark (dibra) 16:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The map

The map currently shows a large sway of land in the Syrian south controlled by the opposition, can we get any sources fir that? It's doubtful they control anything other than an encircled region up north.

Yeah I agree, the large sect of land in southern syria controlled by the opposition rebels should definitely be smaller, I don't think I ever saw it that large. Edpark717 (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to include Israel in the infobox

Netanyahu has recently acknowledged that Israel has carried out "dozens of airstrikes" in Syria.[7] There are also a number of mentions in the current article of other Israeli involvement, such as healing wounded rebels, always in support of the "opposition" side. I propose including Israel in the infobox under that column, perhaps under "support". Esn (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

no he didn't. Faulty translation - he said "Israel stopped Hezbollah from receiving advanced weapons", but someone decided it means airstrikes. Netanyahu referred to activities of the navy and special forces in Mediterranean and Red Sea, arresting weapon smuggling from Iran, such as Francop Affair. A similar thing is also done by US navy concerning Iranian weapon supplies to Houthis in Yemen [8].GreyShark (dibra) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You're partly right, the article I linked says that the type of strikes (whether air, naval, etc.) was not specified. However, according to the article he did say "in Syria", not "in international waters" (it would help if I could find an exact quote, though...). And also, there are already several other mentions in this article specifying Israeli involvement on the side of the "opposition". Esn (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - long overdue. Israel is supporting the rebels by own admission, while bombing the government and their allies inside Syria. They are clearly involved. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Per arguments raised by FunkMonk. There has been covert assistance offered by the Israelis to Syrian opposition factions. See sources from the Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz and the United Nations. --Donenne (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think a fair compromise would be to add Israel under rebel support whilst saying 'Against Hezbollah only', or 'airstrikes against/on Hezbollah only' alongside it. For example Israel (Against Hezbollah only)--PaulPGwiki (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be wrong, though, Israel has bombed the Syrian army itself on many occasions throughout this war. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That's true i suppose, we can both agree that Israel has attacked both the SAA and Hezbollah, but its wrong that Israel should be shown as supporting the rebels directly. Just because Israel attacked the SAA and Hezbollah doesn't mean that they suddenly support the rebels and their cause. It is part of the separate conflict between Israel and Hezbollah/Syria and Iran too.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Israel has both treated wounded rebels (under the guise of "humanitarianism", though they of course never treat wounded Syrian army or Hezbollah soldiers) and supplied them with material, see the links by Donenne above. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Some editors have argued that Israel's attacks are not part of this conflict, but a separate conflict with the Syrian Army and Hezbollah only, and is therefore not part of the Syrian civil war. But that seems preposterous, when they are at the same time supporting one side in the same civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The several alleged attacks have mostly been denied to even happening by the Syrian Baathist regime and Israeli Zionist regime alike. Even when something happened there were typically conflicting claims on responsibility and never Israeli confirmations. There are about 7 air forces operating in Syrian territories' skies - Baathist Syria, US, Russia, Turkey, Jordan (briefly), Canada (briefly), France (briefly). There have been around 100,000 air strikes made by those forces on the course of the war. The 5-10 incidents which are claimed to possibly involve Israel are ridiculously negligible and mostly not confirmed to be done by the Israelis. I don't mind you guys take this to DRN again, but come on - this is a tough case for you to win.GreyShark (dibra) 15:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Netanyahu himself admitted to dozens of attacks a few days ago.[9] If a complete non-belligerent like North Korea can be in the infobox as a supporter, so can Israel with their repeated attacks on one side of the war, easily. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• @PaulPGwiki: In any case, if you want to go forward including Israel on behalf of one of the parties (it has so far been claimed that Israel supports Assad, Opposition, Jabhat al-Nusra and even ISIS, but with no actual proofs regarding any of those) - you need to restart the DRN. I would be however surprised if anything is decided, especially considering the conflicting claims and stubborn Israeli denial of any involvement in the Syrian War. I suggest you first take a look at the history of such claims in Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 18:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose no way we add Israel. They have done humanitarian help to wounded and continue the fight against Hezzbolah but Israel has no reason to help the rebels as many of them would prefer to wipe Israel off the map. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

They have provided material support to rebels as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Israel has been actively supporting terrorist groups in Syria as revealed by a VICE documentary and the incidents where an Israeli ambulance where stopped by locals in Majdal Shams carrying a terrorist. And also Israel is occupying a part of Syria and Israel is directly involved in the conflict, carrying out airstrikes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Greyshark09: Oppose Thank you, that's exactly what i think and what i have always been trying to say. That's why ive always been against adding Israel to the infobox, for the reason you gave and a couple of others. In this particular discussion, I was just trying to get a balance between those that are in support or in opposition of adding them. That's why Israel should not be added to the infobox.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Supreme Deliciousness: That would constitute 'medical aid' NOT armed support. This is already shown in the List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War article.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Legacypac: Exactly, i couldn't have said it better!--PaulPGwiki (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose At this point I still believe Israel is only verifiably fighting Hezbollah as part of the Iranian-Israeli proxy war. For me, a note to this effect is fine or saying vs Hezbollah. Banak (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, please do your homework before commenting. Israel has attacked the Syrian army itself numerous times during this war. Latest of such attacks: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Report-Israel-strikes-Syrian-army-outpost-south-of-Damascus-monitor-says-445301 FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me quote your source: "Pro-Syrian government military sources reportedly deny any armed Israeli strike in Syrian territory". Exactly my point.GreyShark (dibra) 16:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because the Syrians officially deny events doesn't mean they don't happen (officially acknowledging Israel's involvement would mean they'd have to respond, and they may feel they have enough enemies to fight right now). Here are quotes featuring Israeli involvement that are currently in the article: "On 18 March [2014], Israel used artillery against a Syrian Army base, after four of its soldiers had been wounded by a roadside bomb while patrolling Golan Heights", "On 14 August [2014], the Free Syrian Army commander Sharif As-Safouri admitted working with Israel and receiving anti-tank weapons from Israel and FSA soldiers also received medical treatment inside Israel" (concerning weapons from Israel to the rebels, see also these recent articles from AMN: [10], [11].), "The same day [23 September 2014], Israel shot down a Syrian warplane after it entered the Golan area from Quneitra", "Israel has provided treatment to 750 Syrians in a field hospital located in Golan Heights. Rebels say that 250 of their fighters received medical treatment there.". Plus the above-mentioned newer stories (including Netanyahu himself speaking of "dozens of strikes" in Syria), which for some reason are not in the article yet. There are a few other mentions in Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War.

What these quotes seem to point to is a history of infrequent but consistent support by Israel for the "rebels" and against Hezbollah and the SAA. It is plain that all sides of the conflict want to keep Israel's involvement secret for their own reasons, but enough stories have accumulated over the last few years (from many different places) that it would be disingenuous to keep pretending that there's no involvement. Esn (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Israeli and Syrian "denials" mean next to nothing. The Israelis denied killing Imad Mugniyeh in Damascus too, though US officials later outed them.[12] FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your beliefs mean nothing as well in terms of proper sourcing.GreyShark (dibra) 12:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140125191923/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/syria-massacres_n_3905323.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/syria-massacres_n_3905323.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

IS>YPG>rebels oil route

This article details a new oil route that is now operational. The rebels in Idlib province are dependent on oil passing through the Kurdish Afron pocket, which ultimately comes from ISIS territory through the town of Ahras just north of Aleppo. I think it would be good to mention this in the article somewhere, as these economic relations seem to be an important piece of the puzzle. Esn (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Bias in the Syrian Civil War infobox.

The Infobox only display Russian Casualties, not Turkish losses. When adding Turkish servicemen killed in the Syrian Civil War, an editor errases my edits with nonsense arguments. Please someone keep an eye on this.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no bias or nonsense in regards to this. And accusing a fellow editor (me) of this isn't really keeping with WPs policy on civility and assuming good faith.
1. There is a difference between Russian and Turkish soldiers who died as a consequence of the Syrian civil war. Russian soldiers died IN Syria while fighting alongside the Syrian government. Turkish soldiers died OUTSIDE Syria in Turkey on the border and were not fighting alongside the rebels.
2. A few of the Turkish soldiers in fact died in clashes with rebels on the border, so its missleading to list them in the rebel column.
3. All of the Turkish soldiers died BEFORE they started providing air-strikes and artillery fire in support of the rebels, which they only started earlier this year. You can not retroactively add all those that died in the years before to the rebel column when they were not fighting in support of the rebels at the time of their deaths.
4. Incorrect Infobox displays only Russian casualties. It displays US, Jordanian (as part of SDF column) and Iranian (as part of government column) fatalities. All of these were fighting alongside/in support of their respective main beligerents.
5. The 80 OTHER foreign soldiers killed does not include the Russian (fighting alongside the government), American and Jordanian (fighting alongside the SDF) fatalities.

If any Turkish soldiers die as of this point (after they started direct involvement in Syria) and in direct support of the rebels and alongside them (just like the Russians and US-led Coalition) than THOSE we will list in the rebel column. I would not have a problem with that. Made an attempt at compromise, included in brackets the number of Turkish servicemen beside the other foreign soldier deaths, but alongside everyone else since it would be undueweight to list just the Turks. EkoGraf (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Russia from support of Rojava in infobox

Russia is only supporting the Syrian government only, not Rojava. Please state Russia as only supporting the Syrian government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.46.91 (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Russia began to support Rojava as a means of countering Turkish influence in Syria. This has been cited. Thank you. Nuke (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the map

The map is very innacurate. For example, in the map the Syrian Army is quite far from Tabqa however they are much closer than depicted on the map. Here's a reference to the area under their control which is consistent with their progress: http://en.abna24.com/cache/image/2016/06/08/6c43c4ff674d95f76d45b93781a89489.jpg

Additionally another error is that the SDF is shown controlling large areas east of Manbij though it has taken very little area around of Manbij dince it encircled the town. You can see the article of Manbij offensive (2016) for area under their control.

Therefore please make corrections to the map to make it accurate. Thank you. 117.214.243.12 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization

Since when is the Syrian Civil War not a proper title and thus not deserving of capitalization? It should be reverted back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8001:28EB:AC92:773:D180:DBA2 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely! We've already had this conversation! Charles Essie (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2016

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: Moved for consistency with other "Civil War" articles. See Vivaporius's message. (non-admin closure) (closed by a page mover). Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War – Per above. Charles Essie (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Not a proper name. Baking Soda (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Do you have anything to back that up? Charles Essie (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Don't need one. The default is lower case, per our own MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, and the advice of virtually every style guide in existence when it comes to capitalization. The burden of proof is on those who support the notion that this has somehow become a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Wars are usually regarded as proper names and are therefore capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. This is not a proper name unless the overwhelming majority of RS in English use this exact phrase, and capitalize it. What this actually is is a descriptive title, per WP:DESCRIPTDIS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Actually sources are using the caps; (CNN), (Aljazeera) (More to come...). Seeing this makes me lean towards support. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sources given above use "Syrian civil war", with the exception of the title... Baking Soda (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• For the most part they were using "Syria's civil war" (a descriptive title, like how some would say "the civil war in Lebanon in '70s and '80s" in reference to the Lebanese Civil War) so it doesn't really count. Charles Essie (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absent evidence to the contrary, this is a descriptive title and therefore not capitalized.  Sandstein  15:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support – The topic was debated at length a just two and half years ago, and the evidence presented was that "Syrian Civil War" was a proper noun and that countless articles using "civil war" in the name were capitalized. Media sites use the capitalized version, and it is commonly understood that capitalization of the term helps to distinguish it from the more generic "civil war". Currently, there is no rhyme or reason to the logic behind using "Syrian civil war" rather than "Syrian Civil War". Unless this is just a common thing that happens, there is no convincing proof that using the non-capitalized version of the name makes any sense. The subject has been beaten to death, and there is simply no reason not to use the proper version of the name. You would be hard-pressed to explain why changing all civil wars throughout history to lower-case letters has any merit to it. Why this is even a discussion is beyond me. Vivaporius (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per Vivaporius' reasoning. Applodion (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2016 (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.

• Oppose. @Anarchyte: - It is not a proper name, this is a descriptive title. @Baking Soda:'s evidence above, that the sources don't generally capitalise it except in the title is telling. The fact that other articles are incorrectly titled doesn't mean this one should be too.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – Agree with Amakuru's comment above. Anarchyte, will you consider relisting discussion? No evidence presented that "Syrian Civil War" is a proper name, most sources, scholarly ones included, use lower caps. Baking Soda (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Most people refer to WWII as simply The War, that doesn't mean we rename that article too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8001:28EB:9DD0:ED66:F9B6:4A91 (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - @Amakuru, Baking Soda, and 2601:CB:8001:28EB:9DD0:ED66:F9B6:4A91: I see no reason to reopen this. It's written as Civil War everywhere else; Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War, Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (including all the sub pages of the timeline), Syrian reactions to the Syrian Civil War, List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War, etc (more are linked in the article if you wish to do some parusing around). I'd like to see some uninvolved opinions on this one, so if you wish to take this close to Move Reviews and it gets overturned due to consensus, I'm more than happy to agree with the new consensus and move it back/get someone to move it back. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Anarchyte: the benchmark to compare against is not other articles on Wikipedia, which most likely are similarly mistitled to the original one, but to sources out there on the interweb. The burden of proof necessary for making an article a proper name rather than a descriptive name is actually quite high: MOS:CAPS says words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia, a condition that is clearly not met here. The sources are anything but consistent on how they capitalise and name this thing, therefore we should default to our preferred sentence case, as we do now for Rwandan genocide, Montgomery bus boycott etc. which were all downcased in recent RMs. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  The problem with this is whose point of view are we going on here when it comes to "consistently"? What threshold was reached with lets say American Civil War? Do you have numbers or statistics to back up your claim? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Knowledgekid87: American Civil War is much easier, because we have an ngram available for us: [13] showing that there is an overwhelming majority of sources capitalising it. For Syrian Civil War though, the terms aren't even recognised by ngram [14] which in itself adds a lot of evidence that this is *not* the commonly used proper name for this war, but is instead a minority or Wikipedia made up title, which is fine, as long as you write it in sentence case to show that it's a descriptive title not a proper name. This is a civil war that is taking place in Syria, it is not the Syrian Civil War.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  Take a look at Google books searches for "syrian civil war is" - which eliminates title matches, showing those occurring in a sentence, but in any case: [15]. You'll see that most of the books have "civil war" in lower case. Now do the same thing for "american civil war is": [16], and you'll see that all capitalise it. That's what's meant by consistently.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I moved the page back to Syrian Civil War and I endorse the close. The page was moved out of process to "Syrian civil war" as a "technical move" on 14 May, when it was not uncontroversial. The nominator had a restriction from moving pages without discussion, which they breached. The move above restored the status quo and it is a move to "Syrian civil war" that would need to establish grounds and consensus, with reference to the 2013 RM that established "Syrian Civil War" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_31#Requested_move_.28again.29. Fences&Windows 12:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Move review

The above RM discussion and move is under review at Wikipedia:Move_review#Syrian_Civil_War. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte, Baking Soda, Fences and windows, SmokeyJoe, Jenks24, and Amakuru: I closed the MRV here. Thanks. If there's anything problematic about the closure, I'll learn from any feedback. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 09:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 09:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Really good closure I thought. The only thing I would have done slightly differently is start the new RM as a procedural step (I've now done this below) because it's a bit unfair to effectively close as relist without giving those who want to express further opinion a clear avenue to do so. Jenks24 (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That was a very good closure, thanks Andy M. Wang for cutting through what had become a bit of a mess with this common sense approach. It's barely even IAR in my opinion, as the relist called for will take place. The article is now at its longish term title, and we have an opportunity to try to move it the right way. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

China

Why is China listed under "Belligerents"? According to this, the story about sending ships was false. If it is true, there should be reports of the Liaoning reaching Syria.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Nuke it. And North Korea. Seems to be BS propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the China section as it is obviously out of date. There probably needs to be more discussion about North Korea. It's been discussed twice before, so there seems to be some support for mentioning it.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2016

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: Move to the lowercase variant. Before closing this particular request, I took into account arguments expressed in the many move debates since 2012 and in the recent move review. Note that I have never been involved in any of those discussions and I pledge a fully neutral stance about "the way it should be". Reliable sources quoted by editors have been demonstrated to be mixed between lowercase and uppercase (when excluding title capitalization). In the absence of an overwhelming majority spelling in RS, we should follow Wikipedia's house style per MOS:TITLE, MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, viz. in a nutshell Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization, hence lowercase. Many editors compared this title to other civil wars, either pledging to enforce caps everywhere for consistency or arguing that we should defer to the most frequent spelling in reliable sources. Some also complained that switching to lowercase here would impact several other articles. Such considerations are outside the scope of this move closure, although I would encourage editors to review the capitalization of other civil wars based on general policy and current sourcing. Finally, arguments about preserving the long-term title were discarded because the title has been switched several times over four years, with or without appropriate debates, so there is no longstanding stable version. — JFG ^talk 14:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Syrian Civil War → Syrian civil war – Procedural nomination following on from Talk:Syrian Civil War#Requested move 24 May 2016 and Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 June#Syrian Civil War (closed). Note that the long-term consensus title for this page has been the captialised version, "Syrian Civil War". Note also that this is a solely procedural nomination and I am neutral. Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Charles Essie, Baking Soda, SMcCandlish, Necrothesp, Knowledgekid87, Anarchyte, Sandstein, Vivaporius, Applodion, Amakuru, Fences and windows, Andy M. Wang, SmokeyJoe, Insertcleverphrasehere, Dicklyon, and Tony1: pinging all potentially interested parties, even if they've only been involved in procedural/administrative capacities thus far. Jenks24 (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral, but I'd like to apologise for the mess that closure made. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Anarchyte, you don't need to apologize; it was the prior "uncontroversial" move that caused the mess and I would not have completed the move back if I felt the close was wrong. The move review close took the context into account, which the move review discussion failed to, and this relist has no real reflection on your close. Fences&Windows 11:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  Very true, I second this. I actually did ask you to reopen the move, but given that the original move was "the wrong way round", because it called for a bold undiscussed title to be moved to the long term title, this eventual outcome is better than it would have been if you'd reopened it. Now we have a clean slate, and the proposal is to move away from the long term title.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, and the fact that properly constructed news searches shows that reliable sources rarely capitalize this phrase except in title case headlines [17], and do not even use this construction consistently, with various alternatives [18], case questions aside. We default to lower case when source usage is inconsistent. And it is, so it clearly does not have linguistic proper noun or philosophical proper name status; it is simply a descriptive term. It may become a proper noun some day like the English Civil War (among a markably large number of English civil wars) and the American Civil War, but this has not happened yet, and may never (for all we know, it will end up being called the Syrian Revolution, Syrian Revolt, or whatever). Previous attempts to source capitalization of this are riddled with false positives that are article, chapter and section headings written in title case, where even "A Recipe for Chicken with Polenta" would come out capitalized. The claim that this specific phrase, for a new and still-ongoing series of events, has globally hardened into a consistent proper name is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sourcing, of that actual alleged fact, not just someone's style-activism general impression derived from original research in manipulating cherry-picked search results. Good luck finding such overwhelming evidence, since I've already disproven the case in about 30 seconds on Google News.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is evidence (see other move requests) that Syrian Civil War is a proper noun, used as such by quite a lot of sources, although not all. DO a google books search for "syrian Civil War, and scroll through a few pages and you will find that about a third of sources use it as a proper noun. Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk • contribs)

  A third is nowhere near enough for us to treat it as a proper name. Per MOS:CAPS: words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia. Something that is capitalized a third of the time is hardly "consistently" capitalized. :)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Amakuru. Noting apology for weird closure by Anarchytel. Tony (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per the MOS:CAPS text I've quoted above, and the fact that all presented evidence suggests that sources do not capitalize this consistently, and usage varies between "Syria's civil war", "Syrian civil war", "civil war in Syria" etc. This is still a descriptive title, it hasn't taken hold as a proper name yet, unlike American Civil War. I understand the consistency argument, but actually I think a lot of the other articles of this type are incorrectly named too. Rwandan Civil War, an article I largely wrote, is another example that should probably be downcased. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Applodion (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Essentially neutral. I'm willing to go with consensus on this one. If lowercasing is consensus, I suggest that a number of other "Civil War" pages be moved. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY. I see the title being used in both upper, and lower case when it come to sources we should move on and focus on article content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per my previous assessment on the issue. Vivaporius (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support – This conflict is called many things, and when it is referred as the Syrian civil war, it is frequently lowercase. WP is not in the business of defining proper names for things; rather, we take our cue from sources on what things are called, and interpret as proper names those things that are consistently capitalized in sources. This is not one of those, and "consistency" is not an argument that's relevant here, since other such wars appear both ways (see disambig pages Afghan civil war and Iraqi civil war for some examples). Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Every "civil war" article in those disambiguation pages is capitalized. If you ask me, that validates the "consistency" arguement instead of discrediting it. Charles Essie (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Technical note. If this page is moved, please move Template:Editnotices/Page/Syrian Civil War as well. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Using google searches to determine consistant capitalization when the majority of anything on the net is not properly capitalized is a bad measure to use. I oppose the practice in general on this site and I oppose its use here. The article has been perfectly fine for years as the capitalized Syrian Civil War. The only reason we're even having this discussion again is because someone went too bold and changed it without discussion, kicking the proverbial hornets nest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8001:28EB:E5FD:FC8:E274:5446 (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2016 (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.

ISIS troop deaths

Is the number of troops that ISIS have lost up-to-date? Is there any way we could get an updated death toll, because ISIS have lost large numbers of troops in recent battles.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20121005152440/http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/4383/sowing-the-seeds-of-dissent_economic-grievances-an to http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/4383/sowing-the-seeds-of-dissent_economic-grievances-an
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141006083709/http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/photo-gallery/syria-army-defectors-photos to http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/photo-gallery/syria-army-defectors-photos

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Disagreements on page ‘Free Syrian Army’

Controversy seems to have arisen on page Free Syrian Army (FSA) as to whether certain information should be presented to Wiki readers or should be withheld from those readers. For those interested: please go and have a look at Talk:Free Syrian Army#Strength and doubts about its existence (as army), and comment overthere. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Battle dropdown is skewed

I dunno why it is, nor do I know how to fix it, but when the battle list is dropped down, it skews to the side slightly. Can anyone fix it who knows how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8080:C11C:419E:6F61:FDB:1F37 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

FARC

Per https://mobile.twitter.com/todayinsyria/status/757201902836785152 and http://ninovanews.co.uk/2016/07/24/farc-gerillalari-rojavada-iside-karsi-savasacak/, the FARC intends to support Rojava in the war against ISIL. Should this be added to the infobox now, or do we need more evidence of FARC's participation first? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If it is not fighting on the ground, it is not a belligerent. FunkMonk (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarian arming rebels

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/bulgaria-sells-arms-saudi-and-uae-likely-use-syria-war-1612827818 FPSTurkey (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Weapon transfer to third party, which is redirecting weapons to rebels is not supporting the rebels. This is nonsense, because rebels are fighting with Russian Kalachnikovs against Russian-supported Ba'ath regime, while Russia is certainly not supporting rebels.GreyShark (dibra) 11:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not "Bulgaria arming the rebels," but the story might be correct. -Darouet (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Battle list box still skewed

Seriously, when the box is expanded, parts of it shift to the right, into the margins.

Any idea why this is happening or how to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:F9D7:DBA1:C358:4F24 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

How to color Turkish controlled territory on the map

Turkey has just launched an offensive into northern Syria and has taken control of some territory and will likely take some more. How should Turkish occupied areas be represented on the map?12.10.199.11 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is already taking place at Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Turkish_involvement. The default color for Turkey is dark green, but some users question whether we should add it to the map or not.GreyShark (dibra) 15:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Iraq should be included as a supporter of Syria

There are many Iraqi Shia militia such as Nujaba and Imam Ali fighting in Syria.

172.98.153.246 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the "Support" label is truly baffling. One the one hand, Template:Syrian Civil War infobox states dramatically: "DO NOT ADD COUNTRIES PROVIDING NON-LETHAL SUPPORT. THIS WAS AGREED UPON AT THE TALK PAGE." Yet on the other hand, entities providing "lethal" support (Iran, Russia, Hezbollah) are generally listed as combatants; meanwhile Iraq, which has provided ground troops in the form of militias and various other forms of support, is nowhere to be found. This is even more surreal in light of the fact that Cuba and North Korea are listed as supporters when there isn't a shred of evidence to back up those claims—the citations in question are clickbait articles citing "unnamed officials" and the notorious "SOHR", which has been exposed as a London-based rumour mill. Truly disheartening. Albrecht (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The Iraqi government is not a belligerent in this conflict, only non-governmental shia Iraqi militias are. Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah are active belligerents in the war, they actively have combat troops engaging in warfare in the theatre.XavierGreen (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

XavierGreen - precisely.GreyShark (dibra) 21:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

All well and good, but the suggestion was never to list Iraq as a combatant, but as a supporter of the Syrian government. This, to me, seems indisputable. Albrecht (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How is Iraq not a belligerent? Iraq is an Islamic republic dominated by Shia Arabs. These militia are state sponsored. These militia are in Syria with the full blessing of the Iraqi government in Baghdad. Iraq should be listed as a belligerent. 172.98.148.68 (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this view (the militias are deployed with the full complicity of the Iraqi state; how could it be otherwise?), but there's a thing called plausible deniability. It is, however, all the more reason to list Iraq as a supporter. Albrecht (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)