Talk:Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian civil war

There needs to be a page

There needs to be a page about FSA-ISIS conflict, (or rather SRF-ISIS conflict, not that the FSA has rebranded itself). Not sure where to put the news about the ISIS executing Ammar al-Wawi...for now I'll just put it on the Idlib Governorate page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrogTrain (talk • contribs) 05:13, 20 December 2013‎

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Inter-rebel conflict during 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/20141120081551/http://www.el-balad.com/1247637 to http://www.el-balad.com/1247637
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106040240/http://www.lakewyliepilot.com/2014/01/05/2238509/al-qaida-fighters-pushed-from.html to http://www.lakewyliepilot.com/2014/01/05/2238509/al-qaida-fighters-pushed-from.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://azstarnet.com/ap/international/syria-rebels-seize-al-qaida-base-in-north/article_4d277c9b-d910-5b7a-80c7-4e290b4aaad4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112155329/http://www.aawsat.net/2014/01/article55327081 to http://www.aawsat.net/2014/01/article55327081
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010194804/http://www.todayszaman.com/latest-news_16-dead-across-turkey-as-fate-of-kobani-stirs-up-tensions_360981.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/latest-news_16-dead-across-turkey-as-fate-of-kobani-stirs-up-tensions_360981.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) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Division of the article

Hello, I propose to divide this article into Rebel-ISIS conflict and Inter-rebel conflict. ISIS is not generally seen as part of the rebel opposition. It is a group opposed by basically everyone else (the few allies like Jund-al-aqsa or Yarmouk martyrs etc. shall be of course listed below them same as it is now).

FSA/Ahrar-as-sham/Jaysh-al-islam/JTS vs. Al-Nusra/Tahrir-as-sham/Al-Rahman is basically completely unrelated conflict (the only one truly inter-rebel), which still holds the same line for several years (with some name changes, defections etc.) disrupted by ceasefire periods and continuing until today (with another ceaserfire taking place between HTS and JTS right now).

The war against ISIS is generally over with rebel victory.

The current state of the article is really messed up. I might help with adding appropriate group and status info into the infobox (notice there is for example Old commanders and strength info for Islamic front, which is not listed as belligerent anymore - just one of the many small errors) as well as few references to another article if someone clears off the ISIS stuff into separate article.--217.30.64.202 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I would argue against such a split re. Rebel-ISIS conflict and Inter-rebel conflict; at the beginning of the war, ISIS was part of the rebels; it was only around January of 2014 that there was heavy infighting between the two. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with anon that the current article is problematic, but David is correct that the in the earlier part of the civil war ISIS and al-Qaeda were entangled with one another and to some extent with rebels, and subsequently al-Nusra moved in and out of alliance with other rebel groups. One way to do it might be to make a chronological split, e.g. an article about Inter-rebel conflict 2011-2014 and then two more, ISIS-FSA conflict 2014- and Inter-rebel conflict 2014+, but that might be even more messy.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

People seem to be forgetting that 1: Nusra is just an offshoot of AQ in Iraq/ISIL that went against their masters, and 2: the rebels, including FSA, welcomed ISIL for a long time, until ISIL started dishing out orders. Only after that did the "Assad created ISIL" conspiracy theories start to proliferate. This should be reflected in the infobox, like it is when other alliances broke down. As for splitting the article, I'd agree mainly on the grounds that it is getting too long. The ideology of ISIS and Nusra and most of the other rebel groups is practically the same brand of ibn Tamiyah-inspired Salafism, it is wishful thinking to split them up in "moderate" and "radical" rebels, just because one of them started becoming a threat to the west. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking again at the article, it doesn't cover pre-2014 conflicts, so my chronological suggestion doesn't make sense. There is a really long and detailed section (2) about ISIS-rebel conflict, and much shorter sections on Al-Qaeda–Free Syrian Army conflict; Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, and al-Qaeda conflict; Free Syrian Army–Islamic Front conflict; Infighting between Free Syrian Army groups; Infighting between Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam; and HTS–SLF conflict. These between them would make up a coherent article, which would be appropriately entitled Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War, so it makes sense to take the ISIS part out and make it a separate article, as proposed by anon above. The infobox would need to be copied into the new article, and both of them edited. Both articles, especially the ISIS one, would need to be updated too, as there is nothing about the extensive ISIS-rebel fighting since 2015 apart from the Jund al-Aqsa sub-section. So, I support the original proposal after all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with splitting this into an article about general rebel infighting during the war (this one will do, just summarize the ISIS sections and revise infobox & intro), and one about the ISIS conflict. Info on the rebel-ISIS conflict pre-2014 will be included in both articles. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have made the split: Rebel-ISIS conflict during the Syrian Civil War. Both articles need thorough reviewing and updating. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello guys, thanks for division of the article. Many great work has been done there. I have made few more changes into the infobox:

1) Adding the groups fighting in Ghouta (with Ahrar ash-Sham/Tahrir ash-Sham support)

2) Differentiation between Qatari and Saudi supported groups (though the relationships between so many groups over so many years is extremely complex and support differed and changed time to time, generally it was Saudis backing Ahrar and allies while Qatar backing Tahrir and allies, which was also part of their proxy conflict, therefore I added the word "occasionally" for the other side)

3) I have problems with the "Islamic front" alliance, which existed about one year only. The infobox keeps the old info of "40k-70k", who were perhaps fighting ISIS at some point, but I have serious doubts, such a strength was ever subject to some infighting. There is no source, nor date of the information, so I added "citation needed" template and it might be good to look into it in the future.

Anyway I like the current shape of this article with several brief chapters and a lot of references to another article about specific battles. Just one last think, I am a bit confused with Rif Damashq/Ghouta clashes being part of the chapter on FSA-Islamic front conflict. Is not it more likely content for the previous Ahrar ash-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam and Al-Qaeda chapter?

Is there anything needed to be done now about the article (for example moving of the mentioned Ghouta clashes), that I can help with? I am trying to reach consensus first, since I do not have much time to waste on opposed move as well as I am not experienced contributor and native speaker.--217.30.64.202 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

All good points. I've added citation and date for Islamic Front from its own article. You should feel free to make bold edits, and if they are problematic they can be discussed here, or propose changes here and make them if nobody objects. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Should this article also include pro-SDF FSA vs Turkish-backed FSA

Considering the FSA has split into numerous splinter factions, with some of whom have integrated themselves into the SDF, while others have preferred to work alongside Turkey leading to infighting between FSA splinters, I kinda am surprised how it's not mentioned in this page. Since it's pretty relevant to this article, shouldn't the conflict between pro-SDF FSA vs Turkish-backed FSA factions also get included here? 10:57, 20 March 2024 GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) (EST)