Talk:National Defence Forces

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

Michael Weiss is not reliable. Remove his articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.172.4 (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox war faction[edit]

Is this the best infobox for the group? It would seem to me that the due to the strong organisation and links to the government the NDF is more tantamount to a territorial force, rather than some kind of militia or faction, especially when you consider the groups that the page compares it to - the Swedish Home Guard or the American National Guard. Thoughts? MrPenguin20 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been stated very clear in several sources (neutral, pro-opposition and pro-government ones) that the NDF is a militia, and a force separated from the Syrian Army. The comparison of the NDF with the Swedish Home Guard or the American National Guard can only be attributed to a personal bias from some user, as that units are part of their respective armies, while the NDF is not part of the Syrian Army. The Syrian Republican Guard could be compared with the Swedish or American corps, but not the NDF. Unless other users had sources wich indicates that NDF is part of the Syrian Army, please stop adding the military unit infobox, as that one is used for military units part of an army, something the NDF is clearly not.--HCPUNXKID 16:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
your own sources are proof it's a hastily trained citizen force. it's not an insurgent/rebel unit with an ideology. it takes orders from the government and has an infantry/support role, Similar to other government sanctioned part time citizen forces. It's a separate branch of the Syrian ARMED FORCES not SYRIAN ARAB ARMY. big difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.186.19.222 (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, please sign your posts. Then, take a look at in what cases is the Template:Infobox_military_unit used, and realize that it cannot be used for the NDF. IT IS NOT A BRANCH OF THE SYRIAN ARMED FORCES, IT IS STATED CLEARLY IN THE SOURCES GIVEN. If, for example, as in one source is stated, they dont have to wait from orders from Damascus (as the SAA has to) is because they arent part of the army, but a militia, with their a chain of command different from the Armed Forces. And finally, as you mentioned the Syrian Armed Forces, that shows you're wrong, as you claim that NDF is a branch of them. Well, the Syrian Armed Forces article states very clearly that it has only 3 branches: Army, Navy and Air Force. No mention of NDF as part of it, as no sources affirm that. And about the ideology, sources says that they have it, Syrian nationalism and Secularism. So please, leave you POV aside and accept the fact exposed by the sources, the military infobox is used only for units from an army, and the NDF is not an army unit.--HCPUNXKID 20:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fairly new construct. Besides, the information about the SAA isn't always accurate for ex, the 80th brigade has been called 80th battalion(in your source), the 17th division has been mistaken for the 2nd armored(which does not exist), etc. Other militias like the US national guard isn't part of the active US armed forces either, but it's obviously part of the US military. Same with the Swedish Home Guard (on the swedish page). The points that make it a military organization are, it's militarily trained, popular insurgency is not, it is on government payroll, popular militia is not. But most importantly, it is SANCTIONED by the government, which give it legality. It is a military unit IMO. 85.186.19.222 (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following that twisted reasoning, Syrian Resistance, Palestine Liberation Army, PFLP-GC, Shabiha, etc...should be also military units. And what about "it is SANCTIONED by the government, which give it legality." Do you have any proof of that, any source, or just your word?--HCPUNXKID 23:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/21/us-syria-crisis-paramilitary-insight-idUSBRE93K02R20130421. It's a volunteer reserve army. Plus army officers making a comment how he prefers NDF over SAA. It's also highlighted that they receive military training.Lugnuthemvar (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/02/pyd-kurds-syria-regime-assad-autonomy.html. It's a "pro-regime militia", with a chain of command differenced from the SAA.--HCPUNXKID 21:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt "Paramilitary" be a more accurate moniker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:403:201:4010:8DB1:3716:F4D2:49A9 (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Defence Forces (Syria). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]