Talk:Syrian Armed Forces

Russia Presence

It should be updated with russia new military and intellegence support for Syria and a New naval base there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mescovic (talk • contribs) 06:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Defensive weapons

I'm not sure what this sentence means: "In addition, Syria is trying to develop defensive weapons to limit the Israeli abilities to attack it." It's not clear what a "defensive weapon" is. A source would be helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with SlimVirgin. Expression "defensive weapon" seems to be at least suspicious. --83.240.4.195 12:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Jara

Syrian forces acquire nuclear missiles and a new fleet of 400 f-16s via pakistan. War on syria would constitute self made genocide for the zionist israelis

"Defensive Weapons" as fast deploying minefields, buried T55 tanks as fire-posts, fortification, AA missile arrays and other such weapons intended to deter Israel form further aggression against Syria, as the Doctrine of the Syrian Arab Army suggests strongly that undertaking offensive action against Israel to return the Quneytra Province (Golan Heights to Israel) would not be effective, or even feasible use of it's army (And quite reasonable of them, taking the current technical gap between the aging equipment of the SyAA and the IDF). The source for this is, woefully, confidential.

Also of the Chemical Weapons, in 1973 stockpiles of Chem Shells for 100mm tank cannons and 130mm Artillery cannons was captured during the Yom Kipur War by Israel on the outskirts of Damascus, since then it's mostly assumed that they still have some of it. Well, it has legs as much as it had in the Iraq case, but we aren't talking about the sanest and most humane regimes on Earth. Better safe then sorry.

---

Merge of Syrian Air Force proposed

Syrian Army has now been merged into this page as suggested 2005-12-15 and unopposed.
It is now suggested that Syrian Air Force should likewise be merged.
Boson 21:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Done.Boson 17:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Middle East

Good Article

This is a good article, well-written.

Syria and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Why doesn't this article mention Syria's development of chemical and biological weapons? Who removed it? I'm putting it back.

No.

Find a credible source that says Syria xzchemical and biological weapons and no one will have an issue with it.

STOP

Yeah um, wanna stop editing that 'militant and terrorists' part, it has already been discussed as a POV issue.

Where?Ingsoc 09:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is POV to call them terrorist organizations, as that is simply an opinion. Asabbagh 09:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not POV when official governments and the UN have labelled them as such.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

POV Issue

Would someone like to correct this howler: "Syria is buying additional weapons to either counter Israel's abilities to attack it or more likely as preparation to take back the Golan Heights at some point in the future." First, there is absolutely no need to interject uninformed predictions about Syrian foreign policy in an article about Syria's military. Second, what evidence there is points the other way -- to Syria's build-up as a defensive, deterring force. This is just anti-Arab POV without a shred of justification for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.140.12 (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Chiefs of Staff

Can someone please add a list of the Chiefs of Staff of the Syrian armed forces? I cannot find such a list anywhere else on the internet. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Syriaaflogo.gif

The image Image:Syriaaflogo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Active units

I miss some information on the amount of active soldiers. 83.108.193.157 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I inserted the numbers. 83.108.193.157 (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Women in the Syrian military!

I've read somewhere that; and seen videos of women serving in the Syrian military at the time of Hafez el Assad! I saw some syrian military women on parade eating snakes and such, was that a product of the socialist nationalist ideals of Hafez's time?? is it over?

I mean for an Arab country it is somewhat of a rare find and worth mentioning to dispel our image of women oppressors!Zakster22` (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

To force women to eate snakes is oppression. --46.115.23.77 (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Update

This page needs updating.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Syrian Army in Daraa 9 April 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Syrian Army in Daraa 9 April 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing in lead

The Reuters article says: ""The commission has concluded, based on its findings, that members of the Syrian army and security forces have committed crimes again humanity in their repression of a largely civilian population in the context of a peaceful protest movement," Paulo Pinheiro, chairman of the three-member panel, told a news conference."

This article is about Syrian Army. There are number of armies in the world, where members have committed crimes, such as US army or Russian army. This does not mean that we should put such members deeds into the lead of articles about aforementioned armies. What would US army article lead look if we put all the human rights abuses in different wars into the beginning of articles? There are relevant articles about human rights in different countries. --Magabund (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I was the 'anon' that readded this statement to the lead, based on previous editors. Please see Talk:Syrian Army, where the issue was initially raised (it also occurs there). Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

History - Insurgency

This section is so badly written:

"Since the uprising began, the Armed Forces are sent to crash the protestors. As the uprising progressed growing number of soldiers began to defect from the Syrian Armed Forces and formed the rebels army called Free Syrian Army.[9] On March 2012 the Syrian government issued new travel restrictions for military-aged males. Under the new restrictions, reported by local Syrian news outlets, all males between 18 and 42 were banned from traveling outside the country.[10]

In late June, in an interview given by the rebels chief to Ashark Al-Awsat, Riad al-Asaad said that in recent time about 20-30 Syrian officers defect to Turkey each day.[11]"

Can someone fix the English and link it to other articles that concern the Syrian insurrection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.161.116 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Leadership section corrected to show Sunni majority in rank and file military

74% of the Syrian population are Sunni. Military service is mandatory for all males over the age of 18. Mathematics indicates that the military must be majority Sunni, but the article stated that they are majority Alawite. The cited references, 17 and 18, do not support this conclusion. In fact, State.gov said the opposite: "Military leadership is heavily dominated by Alawi officers, but the vast majority of troops in uniform are Sunni."

One sentence was changed to indicate the Sunni majority in the military.

Becalmed (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusing Edits

Why is this edit being reverted?Gobbleygook (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you are duplicating sections, links, and already existing content. Please work with the article sections already in place. Of course, this would involve actually reading the article and not copying and pasting content from another article here in a haphazard fashion. This would involve doing actual research and writing actual content. Please don't continue to copy and paste what you find from other articles over here. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read the title of the section, you'd know why it's being put there. Gobbleygook (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You are duplicating sections that already exists and you are copying material from other articles that you did not write for no reason. If you want to work on a section, then you need to work on the current section already in the article. Is this making sense? We now have two sections about the civil war. Further, you dishonestly claimed in your edit summary that there was an "unexplained removal of sourced material" when quite clearly, the explanation had been sitting here all along. Viriditas (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, there is no rule banning material from being copied from one article to another in Wikipedia. If the material helpfully explains and elaborates on the subject of the article, and is attributed through the proper talkpage attribution templates, there's no problem - instead it should be encouraged. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

National Defense Force to Armed forces branches

According to reports [|1], [|2], the NDF has been established and branded as a volunteer reserve army to augment the regular army (similar to the US national Guard), while under army control. I propose adding it to the Armed Forces branches. Anyone share my views? Lugnuthemvar (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been reported [1] by several media that the NDF is a militia wich is not part of the Army, having a different chain of command (so its not under army control). The comparison with the US National Guard is your POV, not backed by any source. So please, stop insisting in something wich is not true.--HCPUNXKID 16:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Armed Forces size during Civil War Contradictions.

Try to explain how 220,000(Army) plus 100,000(Air force) results on 295,000. The wikipedian behind this edits thinks readers are idiots? This is an insult, please a little of math woudnt be bad, if thats a propaganda lie (100 % posible) do a better job next time.200.48.214.19 (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC) lol it"s US freedom/real/good we trast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.183.192 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC) § =)80.91.194.173 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Syrian Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111120171332/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sky-News-Analysis-Tim-Marshall-Looks-At-Why-The-Bashir-Al-Assad-Regime-Has-Not-Collapsed/Article/201105115987446?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15987446_Sky_News_Analysis%3A_Tim_Marshall_Looks_At_Why_The_Bashir_Al_Assad_Regime_Has_Not_Collapsed_ to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sky-News-Analysis-Tim-Marshall-Looks-At-Why-The-Bashir-Al-Assad-Regime-Has-Not-Collapsed/Article/201105115987446?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15987446_Sky_News_Analysis%3A_Tim_Marshall_Looks_At_Why_The_Bashir_Al_Assad_Regime_Has_Not_Collapsed_
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141009195423/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20040928%2FCOSYRIA28%2FTPComment%2FTopStories&ord=2674524&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20040928%2FCOSYRIA28%2FTPComment%2FTopStories&ord=2674524&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Foreign suppliers

There is continuous adding and replacing of foreign suppliers section in the infobox. I have reverted to a version where there is a source next to the elements. I am not sure about whether that source is reliable or not. In any case unsourced contents should not be added.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Foreign suppliers

Bulgaria had supplied the Syrian rebels, not the ex-Syrian government. The source said that, not me! Datawikiperson (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

SAAF is now a historical (defunct) organisation

This should be split from the article just like the likes of the Soviet Armed Forces, the new article covering the period between the establishment of the Syrian Arab Republic and its fall. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This was not done for the Afghan Armed Force. Thus far the country is still called the Syrian Arab Republic, so there is no reason why the name of the armed forces should change unless further specified. It is too early to tell at this point. 75.102.237.167 (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

No it was done in the case of Afghanistan where an entire page is dedicated to the military history of the country during the American presence. Just see: History of the Afghan Armed Forces (2002–2021). Hamza A. Durrani (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes to split: I think there should be a split. Because I can see other pages that are dedicated to armed forces of overthrown or deposed governments, like the Armed Forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. In my opinion the page should be renamed as the Armed Forces of Ba'athist Syria or Syrian Arab Armed Forces (1963/1966/1970–2024) Hamza A. Durrani (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Support of a split: The new Syrian leadership has already confirmed that the new military will be formed from rebel militias. Whether any parts of the old military (including division names etc.) will be kept at all has to be seen, but the SAF has largely ceased to exist either way. The next Syrian military will be a new formation. Applodion (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose a split - this is the baseline Military of Syria page, which serves as the root page for all Syrian MOD forces under all regimes since Syria was created by the French and British. It is *not* just about Hafaz and BAshir Al-Assad's time. There is not enough reliable information about any new force to create a separate article that would match WP:SIZERULE - over 30 kB of readable prose size. If more information takes the size of this page over 150 kB readable prose size, there could be a *separate*, split out page for the Syrian Arab Armed Forces, but that would *not* be a move because we need a root page for all the Syrian Armed Forces since the country was created. We would copy over text and separate the SAAF page. Libya is an unfortunate exception that occurs nowhere else - not for Germany; not for Afghanistan; not for Congo; not for Iraq (see Iraqi Armed Forces); not for France; etc. The Soviet Armed Forces are *not* a comparable example, as many borders moved, creating Russia, Ukraine, etc.
• I created History of the Afghan Armed Forces (2002–2021) which is a *sub-page* for a specific period of the Afghan Armed Forces, rather like British Army during the Second World War or United States Army in World War II. But these pages are only justified because there is enough new text - right now there is barely a paragraph about the new armed forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• 'Support a split - Seems much cleaner imho Cononsense (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Support a split - since this is a consistent title as argued by Hamza A. Durrani.

The most precise title would be "Armed Forces of Ba'athist Syria", as this would avoid confusion to the readers. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

How would you say it was WP:CONSISTENT? Can you show any references anywhere for "Armed Forces of Ba'athist Syria"? WP strives for usage of WP:RELIABLE sources; we should not create titles that have never existed. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Upon consideration I have split out Syrian Arab Armed Forces, which is a subperiod of the history of the Syrian Armed Forces in toto; I suggest that further discussion can take place on the new talkpage Talk:Syrian Arab Armed Forces#Split made December 2024. Unreferenced material does not have a place in Wikipedia and can be removed speedily without discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Content should be actually moved out from there, not just copied over and then duplicating itself in 2 articles. That should also include almost all of the old (not just current) infobox.

That's incorrect. Everything at Syrian Arab Armed Forces, a subperiod of the SAF's history, has every right to remain at Syrian Armed Forces; infoboxes belong at national military articles, not subperiod articles. The title "Syrian Arab Armed Forces" also needs to be referenced for the time period claimed, whichever that is. Unreferenced material can be removed. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)