Category talk:Counterterrorism in Syria

Contested deletion

This category should not be speedy deleted as being unpopulated, because it's populated with Syrian Civil War— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Aright, what IP wanted to say is that it goes against NPOV. It clearky just takes every article about the Syrian civil war and adds it as CT, in line with government propaganda about combating terrorism that was debunked by vast majority of reliable sources, including some such as UN etc. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the speedy deletion. With a lot of terrorism going on lately in Syria targeting the governement and the civilians with suicide bombings, and the attempt of the syrian governement to restore security this is a good new category. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with Ellsworth. The category is extremely biased by nature. One side claims it is counter-terrorism, the other side says they are killing civilians and rebels equally. If this category stays around, then all the articles should also be added to Category:Mass murder in Syria, in order to be unbiased. Jeancey (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the speedy deletion, and I really don't have anything more to add to DanielUmel's words. I completely support what he said, so I can only repeat his words. --Sundostund (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am For the speedy deletion. This Category greatly violates NPOV. Sopher99 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• All speedy needs is one person to oppose and its done. I have nominated it for deletion via the Categories for discussion. If you would take the discussion there, it would be most useful. Jeancey (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This category is insane and POV. It is just an attempt to brand one side in the Syrian Civil War as "terrorists". Unbelievable. حرية (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a very good category, because it group together all current and recent counter-terrorist operations conducted by the Syrian government. Of course they are terrorists, there is no difference between this wave of terrorist and mercenary violence in Syria and Islamic uprising in Syria, in late 1970s and early 1980s. This terrorists have only one goal - to depose current Syrian government, and to bring the country back to chaos and instability which lasted in Syria from independence in 1946 to 1963 (when Ba'ath Party took control of the country) and, to some extent, to 1970 (when Hafez al-Assad came to power). Only with his ascent to power, order and stability were restored in Syria. --Sundostund (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually the view of most countries is the the Assad regime is terroristic, actively committing war crimes against its own people. Regardless, your comment Sundostund makes no further case for this cat, and this is not a talk page for pro-regime screeds. حرية (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am really sorry if you think that "reporting" of CNN and BBC, as well as stance of Western or pro-Western governments, represent "the view of most countries". Next, I did not make any "pro-regime screeds" here, I only noted easy verifiable historical facts about modern Syrian history. As for this category, I can only repeat myself - it should remain because it group together all current and recent counter-terrorist operations conducted by the Syrian government. --Sundostund (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I always find it funny when someone brands Assad as fighter against terrorism. The same Assad that has performed terrorist acts in Lebanon, the same Assad that was sending jihadists to Iraq and the same Assad who supported Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine. Anyway, there is no speedy deletion proposal. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

President Assad is a fighter against terrorism. Further more, recent events show that he is the most fiercest fighter against terrorism at this point in time in the world. Next, EllsworthSK, President Assad supported (and still supports) those movements in Middle East as part of wider foreign policy interests of Syria. USA protected (and still protects) its foreign policy interests in the same way. The best examples are Vietnam and other parts of South East Asia in the 1960s and 1970s, Nicaragua in the 1980s with the Contras, not to mention that USA fully supported Iraq in the 1980s when President Saddam acted according to American foreign policy interests and invaded Khomeini's Iran... Lets not be hypocritical. --Sundostund (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, President this, hero against this, that and that. Tell that to Lebanese that were tortured by mukhabarat. And to those who were murdered by him and his papa. Tell that to Israeli civilians which were killed by weapons he provided to Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, tell that to Iraqi civilians and troopers who were killed in suicide blasts sponsored by this "fighter". As a result of his actions thousands upon thousands of civilians died even before this in terrorist attacks. Hamas turned his back on him sicne he is hated in both Gaza strip and West Bank and since Palestinians are sunnis. Nasrallah meanwhile can say goodbye to his little state within the state if Assad falls. Fighter agaisnt terrorism...And this is funny, I never mentioned USA once in my post. But usual defence when someone shows a darker side of the Junior is "but USA did this". Also USA supported both sides (Oliver North, anyone?), they wanted both to loose. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything what you mentioned as "crimes" of President Assad and his late father, was done as part of wider foreign policy interests of Syria. Bad things? Good things? Crimes? Who cares! Every country in the world do things that are considered essential for its national, security, and foreign policy interests. USA is not, by no means, the only country that do dirty things to protect its interests (just remember USSR and its invasions of Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Afghanistan in 1979, etc)... I just mentioned USA as an example in my previous post. As for Iran-Iraq War, USA wanted to be secure that "their side" would win the war, so they supported both sides! Very simple, isn't it? If they arm President Saddam and he win, they can "do business" with him; if they arm Khomeini (through Iran–Contra affair) and he win, they can "do business" with him. Very hypocritical stance, but hey, interests of the country are above all! As for "Jesus Christ", keep him for yourself, I am an atheist :) --Sundostund (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And now it is biting him back. And state-sponsored terrorism is proof of contrary what you claim. Assad was never fighter against terrorism, he supported it. And you just agreed on that, although indirectly. USA wanted as great casualties as possible, in the end no one won, Iraq and Iran were both weakened and Iraq payed for it when they´ve got wrecked by Coalition after Saddam little adventure in Kuwait. And I wrote Jesus Christ, since Buddha doesnt have that much of a punch. Shame. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not "state-sponsored terrorism", but operations conducted by Syrian security services to ensure national and foreign policy interests of Syria. Every country has a right to do that... Country in which I was born (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) did the same thing, when its government ordered its secret services to conduct operations of killings of war criminals who fled abroad, etc... As for President Assad, he is a fighter against terrorism - he defends his country against terrorists and mercenaries who are financed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, etc. Not to mention Al-Qaeda, whose fighters are in Syria at this very moment (hopefully, President Assad will defeat them all). As for Jesus and Buddha, keep both of them for yourself, thank you. --Sundostund (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Policy of state to support terrorism in order to increase their influence and secure their interests is now not state-sponsored terrorism? Care to evaluate? Extra-judical killing is not terrorism, bombing marketplaces in order to terrorize civilian population to submission is. Something that all groups I mentioned have in common. Yeah, sure. Mercenaries, he is fighting Blackwater. What a relevation. And I see that you are more of a Shiva guy. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want my opinion so much, I'll say you this: I don't believe in so-called "state-sponsored terrorism" at all. I only believe in a country's right to protect its national and foreign policy interests, at any costs. I don't care at all about "collateral damage". If Syrian government think its in the best interest of their country to conduct secret operations abroad, they should do it. As for Blackwater, I'm sure its a part of this current terrorist-mercenary gang in Syria (as it was in Iraq), so President Assad fights against them too, as well as other terrorists and mercenaries, and Al-Qaeda. Anyone who act against President Assad and his government, support terrorists, mercenaries and Al-Qaeda. As for Shiva, you're wrong again. I said very clearly that I'm an atheist (if you don't know, that means I have no religion and I don't believe in existence of God at all). --Sundostund (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly don't believe in sarcasm, either.... [1] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good observation, Lothar. I don't believe in sarcasm either. I never liked it... Beside that, this subject is very important and serous and there is no room for sarcasm, jokes etc in it. --Sundostund (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)