Jump to content

Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GERALD710 (talk | contribs) at 06:09, 9 August 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions


Al-Khataf village just east of Manbij

Al-Khataf village was liberated by SDF/ypg on 26th of june 2016. Daesh staged at max temporarily successful at Al-Khataf,Tall Yasti, Hudhud, counterattack on 2 July 2016. By 7-8 July reports came in that SDF reppelled new attacks on the villages Tall Yasti and Hudhud. Indicating they where in SDF hands. (recaptured or where never fully captured by Daesh). But for a month there is not any news, not even a tweet about the village of Al-Khataf. Now reports and evidence comes in SDF has liberated the eastern parts of Manbij around Manbij Eastern Silos.

If Al-Khataf would be the only village in Manbij outskirts that remained in Daesh hands, there would be some news or evidence or indirect indications about Daesh still holding this village. But there aren't any. In the mean time, no other maps still shows Al-Khataf in Daesh hands. And all sources are saying Daesh is pinpoint in the center of Manbij with outskirts liberated. And it seems extremely unlikely that SDF would have a major supply route towards it's fighters inside Manbij blocked without reacting to this.

It seems Al-Khataf was re-liberated silently or never was fully captured by the Daesh in the first place. As a result of lack of sources, evidence and indirect indications or consequences of Daesh still holding one village outside Manbij, it probably begins to become time to conclude Daesh is most likely not in control of this village, if it ever was and change the colour of the dot.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this assessment and will make the change. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need to talk about truce icons

What exactly is the purpose of the truce icon? Is it to show that a town is held by 2 parties that are not actively fighting each other and have agreed to a truce? Or can it also indicate that a certain faction which controls a town is not engaging in any hostile action towards any other party near the town? I ask the community this because I believe the truce icon is now being abused beyond its original purpose. I believe its original purpose was to show that a town is held by 2 parties that have agreed to a truce, and not anything else. Let me put it this way: Kafraya and Fu'ah are held by the Syrian government, and likewise Da'el and Ibtaa are held by the rebels. And yet we use the same icon for both of these towns simply because the faction that control them has agreed not to fight nearby enemies. If this is what the truce icon is for, should we not mark most towns along the SAA/rebel frontline as being under truce? Take a look at the recent ceasefire agreement. In many places, like the Ghab plains for example, non-jihadi groups have refrained from fighting SAA for over a year now, and neither side is attempting to gain ground. Should all of these be marked purple as well?

I don't think that they should. As a bold edit, I am removing all truce icons for towns we know are held firmly by 1 group, just so people can see what that looks like. I think the situation in Kafraya/Fu'ah will be a lot clearer, for example. I believe the truce icon should only be used for towns that are actually held by more than 1 party. What do people think about this? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pbfreespace3 I have no objection on you changing color from truce to red or green . but it is obvious that Madaia, Fuah and Kufria hae to be completely incircled with enemy color stating it is besieged completely . Helmy1453 (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fu'ah/Kafraya is an interesting situation because the rebels don't have a presence between the 2 towns themselves, only on the outside of it. If we added a siege icon to both towns, it might give some viewers the impression that the regime pocket is split into 2 parts, when it isn't. I can put up siege icons if you want; this was done before and is a better way of depicting the situation. However, it is already obvious that the 2 towns are encircled, and there has been no actual shelling, car-bombing, etc. for many months now due to the truce agreement. Therefore, I think the siege icons would also be misleading, as there is no active military pressure or fighting, only static trenched and checkpoints. This paradigm also applies to Madaya, as there is no active fighting. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about Fua and kufria, maybe half circules twords the enemy. but Madaya is besieged from all directions and has no contace with any friendly are so this one is an easy fix just put red circle and everyone is happy. Helmy1453 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo Artilary Faculity !!!!

ALL pro-green sources claim green control 100% of Aleppo artilary facuility while ALL pro-red sources claim red copntrol 100% of Aleppo artilary faculity !!! I have no idea how that happens . I see even both sides already celebrating the great victory and conting the other side dead bodies. Niether side posting any meaningfull pics or videos ? what the hell ? Helmy1453 (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just put it contested and we will see tomorrow what's happened.82.233.227.191 (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do specially I saw on twitter alot of videos from both sides inside of the base/faculity/college walls. looks like it is really contested and both sides hopes to secure all buildings in it. If any for example this is a video by Jabhat Fateh al-Sham from inside. Helmy1453 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the video you can see rebels entering the base from the southwest (from the direction of the "active artillery battalion"), eventually reaching this building here (at 2:36 in the video), indicating that the rebels have been deep inside the base at some time this afternoon. From what I can extract from social media, rebels probably retreated afterwards, possibly due to heavy Russian/Syrian bombing. Pro-opposition claims are that the "military arming college" that forms the southern part of the artillery base has been captured and remains under control of rebels and that SAA-soldiers have been taken hostage there. Pro-SAA claims are that the base is calm and 100% under SAA control which seems to be somewhat unlikely, given the content of the video. As always, we cannot use videos and social media; we have to wait for the situation to settle and for reliable sources to report on the situation. 87.158.141.120 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to SOHR, "rebel and Islamic Factions, Fath al-Sham Front, the Islamic Turkestan Party and other factions" control "parts" of the Artillery Battalion. 87.158.141.120 (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like there is some kind of effective break of siege, even if it is just a siezure of part of the road. I will wait for new sources before making a judgement. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAA advance in Homs

The Syrian Army seized control of Al-Musherfy, Rajem Sawwan, and Um Suhreej which lie to the south of Jub Al-Jarrah village from ISIS.[1]Someone, please update the map. I cannot see these villages on the map at all. Can the map also show the Aliyat Hill seized by ISIS from the SAA in Northern Suweida[2]GERALD710 (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=733646295"