Talk:2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites

Assadists in Perpetrator box (includes discussion of SNHR's reliability as a source and the scope of the title)

I'm not sure how you can include them in the perpetrator box. It defies even simple reason that the overwhelmingly Alawite insurgents would kill their own ethnic group. The source it comes from moreover is Al Araby, a Qatari website and can not to be trusted on this topic. Fakeloser (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you simply click on the reference, you can see that SNHR has reported at least 211 civilians were killed by pro-Assadists and Baath party insurgents. Ecrusized (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized That violates Wikipedia Policy:scope. The page is called "massacres of Syrian Alawites" and not masscares in Syria full stop. It's not the place for it. Genabab (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the 211 civilians killed by pro-Assad forces are entirely non-Alawites? I find that hard to believe since the vast majority (+90%) of the population in coastal Syria are Alawites. Even if this is somehow proven, then the article would need to be moved to March 2025 massacres in Syria or something else. Ecrusized (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> Are you suggesting that the 211 civilians killed by pro-Assad forces are entirely non-Alawites?
Initial sourcing on these events reported killings of Sunni civilians and government officials (who are primarily Sunni). So yes, that is what I am suggesting. Doubly so when the source in question doesn't even say that any Alawites were killed.
Bottom line is, if the source doesn't even mention Alawites. Then I fail to see its relevance here. @Ecrusized Genabab (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an extremely dubious claim. And even in the lowest probability that there were zero Alawites, among the two hundred civilians killed by pro-Assad insurgents, not mentioning them at all in this article would clearly be an attempt to sway this article towards a certain viewpoint. Making this article extremely partisan and non-neutral. I will simply not agree with such an edit on any article where one sides atrocities are turned a blind eye towards. If your main concern is the title "Massacre of Syrian Alawites then the way to solve this issue is a simple page move to "2025 Massacres in western Syria" or something as such. Instead of removing key components of this article and misleading readers towards a viewpoint. Ecrusized (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized
> That is an extremely dubious claim
Then can you find me a source which says Ba'athist militias killed Alawites for being Alawites?
> , among the two hundred civilians killed by pro-Assad insurgents, not mentioning them at all in this article would clearly be an attempt to sway this article towards a certain viewpoint
No it wouldn't. Since the page is literally called massacres of Syrian Alawites. .
> Making this article extremely partisan and non-neutral
I'm sure that's how you see it, but to anyone else it violated WP:Scope. If you really really want to get this story out there, why don't you stick it in the Western Syria Clashes page? Or on the March 2025 Western Syria clashes page. That is infinitely more appropriate.
There is precedent for this. For example the page for the Holocaust only mentions 6,000,000 jews being killed in the infobox. And not the slavs and Roma and others that were also killed.
> then the way to solve this issue is a simple page move to "2025 Massacres in western Syria" or something as such.
Which is not something you can just do. You'd have to do an RFC for it, and you don't have the consensus for that. As it stands, WP:Scope and precedence goes aginst Ba'athis being included, so they just shouldn't.
If you want another solution, maybe open up an RFC? Genabab (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a dubious tag to this in the article to generate more discussion. Ecrusized (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea Genabab (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That dubious tag makes it seem like the report is fake, that 211 people didn't get killed by Pro Assad insurgents. Midgetman433 (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Midgetman433 If you want that to be portrayed, just add it to the clashes page. These killings are about Alawites. and thus mentioning insurgents is irrelevant Genabab (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of Course its relevant, the Assadist insurgent leader(Miqdad Fatiha, leader of the neo-Baathist 'Coastal Shield Brigade' paramilitary force) made a threat to kill Alawites who cooperated with the government. Here you can listen to his video yourself.
He says he has their names, social media accounts, and personal information, and reminded them that “tomorrow may come sooner than you might expect.”
https://x.com/amahaf2/status/1898473515105370148
Idk why this is shocking to people, The Insurgency in Iraq killed Sunnis who cooperated with the Occupation and Post Saddam Govt in Baghdad. This is not a new phenomena.
Kind of silly to say, no the Alawites killed by Miqdad Fatiha's group don't count, only those killed by other groups count. Midgetman433 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a name change, and other editors in previous sections on this page have said the same. I’d argue for “sectarian violence” rather than “massacres” or “mass killings” in order to cover all the events and not just the deaths. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'All the events'? The bulk of civilian deaths were Alawites who were killed for being Alawites, this has been documented not just by SOHR (which you evidently don't believe to be a reliable source, which is fair enough) but by fighters aligned with/linked to the Syrian transitional government responsible for the killings, a number of whom have since been arrested by said government. To change the article's name to anything else would be obfuscating what happened. Sisuvia (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The overwhelming majority of people who were killed were innocent Alawite civilians Genabab (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "all the events" I mean mass killings, attacks where individuals were killed, and attacks where nobody was killed. I also mean both the incidents in which non-Alawite civilians were killed and incidents where only Alawites were killed. Isn't it better to cover the whole situation, rather than leave stuff out because it doesn't fit the arbitrary title. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, since the overwhelming majority of those killed were Alawites as part of a repression by the state's army, no it isn't. It obfuscates what actually happened. Genabab (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I urge you to go and rename every article about the massacres towards Sunnis in Syria to "massacre of Syrian Sunnis", since non of them mention Sunni in the title. FleetingClarity (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How would it be obfuscation? Look at the list of massacres in Syria, Bayda and Baniyas massacres, Hama massacre 1982, those were exclusively anti-Sunni massacres, was it obfuscation to call these massacres by regional names instead of "1982 massacre of Sunni Syrians"? Meanwhile, both Alawites and Sunnis died in these massacres (232 by insurgents according to SNHR), why call this one specifically "Massacre of Syrian Alawites"? FleetingClarity (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reasonable grounds to cite the SNHR reporting. How they have come up with this figure, why no other source on the ground has corroborated it and why there's has been no videos of such massacres by "Pro-Assad" remnants means that for the sake of neutrality we shouldn't be referencing it.
Those articles actually do mention sectarian reasons for violence. The reason it's not in the lead or title was because that was a primarily political eruption of violence to do with Syrian islamism/the Muslim brotherhood not directly linked to ethnicity or sect. Re the Hama massacre anyways.
We are describing this as an ethnic massacre because of the fact there is 1st hand sources showing HTS and other fighters directly saying they are targeting people because they are Alawites. Fakeloser (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither SOHR nor SNHR are very reliable, but they don't usually outright lie, rather they exaggerate or downplay numbers depending on the side or have selective reporting. There absolutely have been massacres against Sunni civilians, we at least know of a massacre in a Sunni mosque in Jableh city that killed 10, and of an attack against a hospital. Are we really to believe that the regime remnants of the 4th division who are known for their atrocities are suddenly above killing civilians now? We will get more details from more reputable orgs soon, but so far both SNHR and SOHR are used in this article, so let's not be selective about using them.
These massacres are also primarily political eruption of violence to do with Assadism/Regime remnants, Alawites are targeted for the perceived association with the Assad regime just like Sunnis are targeted for their perceived association with the Muslim brotherhood, it's a perfect one-to-one scenario, I cannot understand how you cannot see it. What about the Bayda and Baniyas massacres also? Those were triggered because of the exact same scenario, rebels killed SAA/NDF soldiers which prompted them to massacre Sunnis for their perceived association with the rebels, sectarian slogans aplenty. FleetingClarity (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the points FleetingClarity has already made:
Re: How they have come up with this figure, why no other source on the ground has corroborated it and why there's has been no videos of such massacres by "Pro-Assad" remnants means that for the sake of neutrality we shouldn't be referencing it.: SNHR include a methodology section in their report on the massacres, spelling out how they come up with their figures (triangulating firm verification), in contrast to SOHR which hasn't. Where they have video or photographic evidence they say they are not publishing it for obvious reasons but will share it with any media or human rights org that asks, which seems responsible. What Fakeloser seems to be asking for is us to do original research to get primary sources (videos, fighters' voices) which is not how Wikipedia works. We have two problematic sources that are at odds with each other and should neutrally report what they both say, seek more reliable sources, and update with better sources as the dust settles. It's not complicated. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FleetingClarity As I said, the overwhelming majority of deaths have been Alawite civillians. While some Sunnis died, almost all of those Sunni deaths were attacks on military personnel. Hence, obfuscation. Genabab (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the massacres I mentioned, a 100% or close to a 100% of the deaths were Sunni, hence why we should go and rename every massacre to "massacre of Sunnis" if we are to be consistent. FleetingClarity (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FleetingClarity Feel free to do that. I have no objections to it. But I fail to see what it has to do with this. Genabab (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are claiming that naming it anything other than "Alawite massacres" is obfuscation, this is obviously not the case, The Hama, Baniyas and Bayda massacres are named after regions rather than the targeted ethnic group, was that obfuscation? clearly not, it's mentioned in the body of those articles as well as this one that the motive was sectarian.
Why insist on naming this article specifically "Alawite massacres" when all it does is prevent the mention of massacres committed by the regime remnants? That seems like actual obfuscation to me. FleetingClarity (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> The Hama, Baniyas and Bayda massacres are named after regions rather than the targeted ethnic group
@FleetingClarity that's the Common Name for those massacres (mainly because they were concentrated in one city or town). Kinda like the Babi Yar Massacre in Ukraine. It's called Babi Yar because it happened in Babi Yar.
Compare and contrast with the page Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Where the killing of Poles is highlighted alongside the region where it happened, even though non-Poles were also killed.
Not only is that the Common Name for the event, it's also used in that way to describe a series of connected massacres in a wider geographical region. That's the crucial difference.
So basically it's called this because:
1. Most sources highlight the massacres of Alawites, so it fits Common Name Wikipedia Policy
2. It was not concentrated in a specific town or city. Genabab (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like very good reasoning, but what you haven't shown is that the term "massacres of Syrian Alawites" is a common name reliable sources use. Flicking through the sources' headlines, I see "Syria/n clashes" (NYT, CNN, L'Orient Today), "Fighting in Northwest Syria", "Deadly Syria clashes" (Guardian), "deadly clashes" and "brutal clashes" (Al-Jazeera), and similar. Only one article - in the The New Arab - has "massacres" in its headline. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley I managed to find a few sources that use the term massacre in the title, or extensively in the body (or something close to it):
1. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/17/middleeast/syria-massacre-alawite-minority-intl-invs/index.html
2. https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/focus/20250321-exclusive-syria-s-latakia-province-still-reeling-from-massacres-of-alawites
3. https://newlinesmag.com/first-person/massacres-on-the-syrian-coast/
4. https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250310-massacre-of-1-500-in-alawite-heartland-casts-doubt-on-new-syrian-government-s-ability-to-rule
5. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/09/nx-s1-5322458/syria-revenge-killings-alawites-latakia "The Observatory characterized many of the killings as executions and massacres, carried out in revenge against the Alawite community, which made up Assad's traditional base of support. "
I know of quite a few more, but I should ask if you find these convincing examples first Genabab (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick correction: I meant to say use the term massacre of Alawites (or targeting Alawites, or whatever variation may have been used) Genabab (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first three are convincing. These are exactly the sort of reports that would need to predominate for us to see “massacre” or “massacres” as the common name.
The fourth is less convincing. It uses the word massacre as a verb (“hundreds massacred”) the nouns for the whole event (the subject of the article) is just “violence”. It does quote an analyst calling it a “mass killing” - but also a “coordinated attack by remnants of the Assad regime”.
The names in the fifth one are “clashes and acts of revenge”, “intense fighting between forces associated with Syria's new government and those loyal to the deposed dictator” and “the conflict”. The word massacre is firmly put into SOHR’s voice, and makes it clear that this is only some of the killings: “The Observatory characterized many of the killings as executions and massacres”.
So I think I’m more convinced now that “massacres” is not the common name; “clashes” or “violence” is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> So I think I’m more convinced now that “massacres” i
@Bobfrombrockley That doesn't make any sense. The majority of linked sources (3-4 out of 5) use terms you find more or less convincing. But the 5th one doesn't and that makes you more convinced massacre is the wrong name? Genabab (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has exceeded its scope. Y'all should start another for the massacres. Theofunny (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who we call “perpetrators” depends on what is being perpetrated. If the title demands we cover just massacres of Alawites then Assadists probably shouldn’t be in the perp list; if it’s the sectarian killings in general then of course they should. (I feel we have a somewhat sectarian article if we have a restrictive title that means we only cover killings by one side.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley The issue is the overwhelming majority of those civilians who were killed were Alawites killed by the Syrian government and its affiliates. So I'm not sure why it would be Sectarian. Genabab (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four out of five per SOHR, three out of five per SNHR, are civilians or former regime people
(including Alawites but also some Christians and some others) so maybe yes a majority -- but not so overwhelming a majority that the minority is negligible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley What if we just made a new page for massacres of Sunnis by Assadist militias? Again, even though Assadist militias killed Sunnis, the page *is* called massacres of Syrian Alawites. So listing their killings here would fall outside the article's scope.
But doing this would address both of our concerns. It makes it clear that Ba'athists did not attack Alawites, while also showing that they did attack Sunnis. Genabab (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a bad suggestion but I feel we’d have to repeat a lot of material between the two articles and I’m not sure the killing of Sunnis in this moment is notable enough for an article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley Around 200+ Sunnis have reportedly been killed. that's definitely notable. Smaller incidents have had pages made about them, so I'm not sure why the same shouldn't happen here Genabab (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And for repeating material. Oh well? That's not a big price to pay to solve a glaring problem like this Genabab (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2025_massacres_of_Syrian_Sunnis here is a link to the draft for the page. Feel free to add to it Genabab (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But these sources are just a fraction of the reliable sources. The overwhelming majority don’t use this term. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley What is this a reply to? Wiki formatting makes it very difficult to tell. At elast for me ;_; Genabab (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. It was a reply to the five sources you gave for "massacre": managed to find a few sources that use the term massacre in the title. My contention is that this is not the common name, although some RSs use it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This type of claim is called WP:crystalball JaxsonR (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it has "human rights" in the name, surely that means it is a reliable source, am I right? Besides, the Araby article that you cited here says the "Assadists" killed 211 civilians without specifying their religion, so they could very well be Sunnis, which is beyond the scope of this article as it stands.
Which brings me to my question: Are you the kind of person who would add the Armenian fedayi to the infobox on Armenian genocide just because they killed "civilians" during the genocide, or who would rename that article to Genocide in eastern Anatolia to blur the line between oppressor and oppressed whenever it is convenient for you? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s ironic to use Grayzone (a deprecated source here) to evidence SNHR being unreliable! All Syria analysts say that SNHR is the best (imperfect) source on this sort of thing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"All analysts" who ? Their work has been criticise heavily in recent months. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have posted several examples in section on SOHR below. If we want a discussion on SOHR and SNHR, probably best to create a new section for that, but if you have examples of criticism of SNHR that aren't from Grayzone you could post them there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://sdf-press.com/en/?p=18476
The sdf called them out for lying about three deaths that SNHR falsely attributed to their forces. They also said they are getting information directly from Turkey. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SDF allegations are not more reliable than SNHR allegations. They're obviously a highly biased source, and of course they'll deny allegations made by human rights groups when they commit war crimes. Meanwhile, the SDF claim that SNHR doesn't record Turkish and SNA war crimes is demonstrably false, as can be shown by a momentary glance at the SNHR website. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they're more or less reliable but it's very obvious they were lying about this. SDF has been by far the least violent party in the civil war whereas the SNA has a history littered with war crimes in Afrin and elsewhere. SNHR has deliberately downplayed SNA and opposition war crimes. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SDF is "by far" the least violent party? that's only your biased perspective, a YPG spokesperson admitted to targeting settlers in Afrin to "stop demographics change", as he put it. SNHR no doubt has a bias towards the oppositions, but you need reassess your assumptions. FleetingClarity (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And did you read how the demographics change happened? Theofunny (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is your implication is that it justifies murdering settlers - who are refugees btw - or what? FleetingClarity (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sunni Islamist fighters who displaced native Kurds are not "refugees" though murder is not justified, nor did I imply that. Theofunny (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of settlers are regular refugees who aren't linked to any fighters, your use of such dehumanizing language to cover for the murder of refugees is concerning. FleetingClarity (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unfair comparison, a million and a half Armenians were killed during the Armenian genocide. I don't know how many civilians were killed by Armenian fedayi during that period, but its clearly a much smaller percentage. However, here more than 1/3rd of all civilians killed were killed by pro-Assadist insurgents based on the SNHR estimate. So not including them is not an option. Ecrusized (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much an option, since there is nothing to suggest any Alawites were killed by Ba'athists. Again, @Ecrusized I have to ask what evidence do you have that they targeted Alawites? Genabab (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that they didn't target Alawites? Ecrusized (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a source is saying something as uncorroborated as what SNHR is saying here, then it's safe to assume what we have is not authentic reporting but an exercise in propaganda. Those who doubt this claim don't need to prove a negative. Fakeloser (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with @Fakeloser. The onus isn't on those who doubt a claim to prove a negative. This article is explicitly about the killings of Alawites and so should only mention dead Alawites. Sisuvia (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If a source is saying something as uncorroborated as what SNHR is saying here, then it's safe to assume what we have is not authentic reporting but an exercise in propaganda." If this is right, it would be no less true if you replaced SNHR with SOHR yet SOHR is being inserted into every section and table of this article, in most cases with no corroboration.
We need to attribute all claims to these groups and seek to triangulate with other sources to avoid becoming a propaganda vehicle. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized The fact that no source says they did? Genabab (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SNHR is a pro-Turkish and pro-Qatari propaganda outlet that supports Jolani’s regime and should only be cited with a disclaimer, it does not fall under the category of neutral sources at all. 98.152.126.154 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR nor SNHR. Theofunny (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You think Assadists care about anyone but themselves? They've always not cared about alawites and killed them. In this case it's in order to sow division and create chaos 2A02:908:1C50:8AC0:49E1:B074:8EA8:D1C0 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a day since any further edit was made here, while not that long, discussion has devolved from if Ba'athist insurgents should be included to if SNHR is reliable. As a result, it has been 4 days since the last serious argument was made in favour of keeping the Ba'athists around. As this discussion has lost its scope, with no arguments being made for inclusion, I think it's time to say that a de facto consensus has been reached and they should be removed. Genabab (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other RS are also stating that Assad loyalists are involved in civilian massacres and cite SNHR.
'Are you Alawite?': Killings in Syrian village of Arza raise fears of endless sectarian violence | The National
‘They killed him in cold blood’: the cycle of revenge in north-west Syria | Syria | The Guardian
‘The streets are empty, no one dares go outside’: Syria’s Alawites terrorised by revenge killings | Syria | The Guardian Theofunny (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The National wrote "A preliminary report by the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) says that 961 people were killed between March 6 and March 13, mainly Alawites, in the coastal area and Hama province.
The war monitor reported that Assad loyalists killed at least 207 government security forces and at least 225 civilians during the insurgency, while groups aligned with the new government killed at least 529 civilians – including children, women and medical personnel – and disarmed fighters."
The Guardian wrote "According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, 529 civilians and prisoners were killed by armed individuals and Syrian government forces. Two Turkish-backed factions, the Hamzat division and Abu Amsha’s Sultan Suleiman Shah division, which are officially a part of the new Syrian army but not yet under its full command, were responsible for the majority of civilians killed by Syrian government forces, according to SNHR. In addition, Assad loyalists killed 225 civilians and 207 members of Syrian government forces, the war monitor added."
and "In total, the four days of fighting left more than 1,000 people dead, including 745 civilians, many of whom were killed in revenge attacks targeting the sect. In addition, Assad loyalists killed 211 members of the Syrian security forces and 228 civilians." in the second article. Theofunny (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theofunny Do any of these sources say that Assadist insurgents killed Alawites? After all the title of the page is "massacres of Syrian Alawites" Genabab (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which other group of civilians would be killed in the Alawite heartland? Theofunny (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theofunny Sunnis and government forces? Do you think everyone in Tartus and Latakia province is an Alawite? Genabab (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That argument equally leads to changing the title as it does to changing the infobox BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is nonsense and falls in line with Turkish and HTS terrorist propaganda. If we have only the SNHR and Jolani himself claiming Ba’athist insurgents committed massacres, that’s an immediate red flag. 98.152.126.154 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The much more important question here is why are we accepting the SNHR figures here ? SNHR has very recently been the topic of extremely dubious information. They claimed in their December report, that the SDF killed 108 civilians in recent clashes with the rebels whilst only saying SNA and Turkey caused 8 and 9 civilian deaths respectively. They also wrongly attributed extrajudicial executions to the SDF that were actually done by rebels near Manbij.
In even more recent damage to their reputation also have rather sickeningly tried to excuse the recent massacres Turkey has done on Tishreen Dam against protesters. Baselessly accusing the SDF of coercing the protesters.
All these instances should give editors here more than enough reason to not include SNHR as even a reliable source on this matter. Especially as more reliable sources like SOHR or local sources haven't even mentioned the killings supposedly carried out by insurgents. Fakeloser (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fakeloser at the start of the violence there was a facebook post by an assadist page in which they threatened alawites who do not cooperate with them with death (at the assadists' hand explicitly), I think it's relevant to cite a link to it or a source that mentions it here 156.210.180.24 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware Wikipedia doesn't allow linking sources which directly come from social media. This kind of thing proves nothing in relation to the Pro-Assad insurgents actually carrying out killing on the Alawite community anyways, all the available evidence we have is of the Syrian state perpetrating these massacres.
Thats why the inclusion of the insurgents borders on denial. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. SNHR have, more than once, exaggerated figures of death based on which group/actor is committing the killings. This is fundamentally unreliable. SOHR is a more reliable source that is seen as the primary and original UN watchdog report during the Assad regime. It is more factual and it isn't funded by misinformation or a one-sided group. I agree to refrain from citing SNHR and instead use more reliable sources such as the SOHR. DX2004 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assadist insurgents have been perpetrating mass-murder of civilians and terrorist attacks targeting hospitals. They are one of the major perpetrators of the massacres in Western Syria.[1][2] Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't credible organisations when discussing this matter "In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics"
The New Arab is also just regurgitating unfounded SNHR allegations. This is only a see through attempt at attempting both sides what is very clearly an ethnic cleansing campaign.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#RfC:_Anadolu_Agency 81.139.230.168 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Anadolu Agency is a source we shouldn't use. New Arab is reliable, although this is an opinion piece, but it's by the author of one of the most highly regarded books on the Syrian civil war, so I think it's strong. SNHR is also a far better source than some that have been cited so far in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SNHR is a terrible source because they have board members who are part of the regime and have a history of deliberately underplaying or not reporting on opposition/Pro-Jolani war crimes.
They are heavily biased and should just be taken out of the article.
If they have to be included to not give the article undue weight to SOHR there should be a separate section for the SNHR allegations at the bottom.
There is no logical reason their claims should be given equal footing over more neutral or first hand sources however. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A separate section for a source is not something our manual of style would allow for.
Which Board members are "part of the regime"? Please provide evidence for your assertions, bearing in mind talk pages are covered by BLP policies. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some people do stupid things, and the Assadists only support the Alawites because the Alawites support Assad (a quid pro quo deal that isn't based on actual care for each other). Besides, your only claim as to why the source is unreliable is that it's from Qatar, but that doesn't mean that it's connected to the Qatari government and it's views or operations. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EcrusizedEcrusized
I agree with scrutinizing SNHR more. They are definitely biased. Look at their board members (Turkish backed SNC members). They aren't impartial as bad as the SOHR is. That source is never scrutinized enough. If you go on their website you barely find reports on war crimes perpetrated by the armed opposition / Nusra. They also claimed that HTS (and previously Nusra), had only committed a couple hundred civilian deaths throughout the Syrian War, which is highly dubious. 20marcor (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They also claimed that HTS (and previously Nusra), had only committed a couple hundred civilian deaths throughout the Syrian War, which is highly dubious.
That is corroborated by SOHR. Assad regime and Russia committed 90% of civilian deaths during the Syrian civil war. Casualties of the Syrian civil war#Civilian deaths Ecrusized (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not corroborated by the SOHR. The Wikipedia's numbers of SOHR needs to be updated, firstly. And the figure it gives of 165,000 civilians are ones they have documented by name. We have numerous videos and footage that have come out of massacres and many have been verified by the formerly pro-opposition Verify-Syr, yet no footage has come out (nor names of victims in their villages as a result of regime remnants). That's how people corroborate their validity. Besides, little to no scrutiny by journalists have been placed on the SNHR, despite the fact that is has rarely done reports on documented atrocities that the armed opposition/Nusra has committed during the Syrian War. SOHR, to their credit, at least tries to do that (They covered Hatla massacre, The Zara'a massacre, the Maan massacre, the massacre of Christians in Sadad and many more). The SNHR virtually only documents deaths caused by the regime and claims (without evidence) that the SDF has tortured more people to death than the Turkish-backed SNA factions. The fact that the only media outlets that cite the org are Al-Araby TV, Al-Jazeera, and Syria TV (All outlets with indirect/direct ties to Qatari or Turkish funding) is also notable.
The fact that their board members are Turkish-backed SNC means that they have a conflict of interest and they also don't disclose their funding. If we are going to scrutinize the SOHR for its bias, we should mention that the SNHR is an NGO aligned with the Turkish backed opposition in exile, because their board members are well known members. 20marcor (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Ecrusized and @Bobfrombrockley
Here is the Syrian Network for Human Rights' organizational structure. I just found it. Apparently they deleted it from their website (I guess to avoid scrutiny??). But here is the link on Wayback machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200712221428/http://sn4hr.org/public_html/wp-content/pdf/english/Organizational_Structure_en.pdf
The members of the organization are clearly pro opposition. It also says that it gets funding from "individuals, entities, and states". Again, it does not disclose what "individuals" or "states" they are. 20marcor (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
specifically the Turkish backed government in exile (SNC) 20marcor (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That document is from 2017. Maybe it is no longer on their website as the governance structure or Board members changed since then? One of the listed members left his role in the SNC after a very short period, long before 2017. In fact, by 2017 SNC had totally ceased to function. Looking for more recent references to him, he does not appear to have any affiliation with the new government, and has been critical of all factions of the former opposition. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying but it still indicates a conflict of interest. The UN themselves were also unable to verify the death tolls published by organizations like SNHR which is why they for awhile, stopped counting deaths in early 2014, citing credibility issues.
Also, given the gravity of the situation, I think we should give some sort of caveat that none of these death tolls are actually verifiable. I personally have connections on the ground from the Syrian coasts (not that it matters), and all have said that Al-Araby, Al Jazeera (who cite SNHR)'s do not represent the reality and that the death toll is likely many times higher.
If we want to corroborate this, I believe certain journalists on X (like Jenan Moussa (see here: https://x.com/jenanmoussa/status/1899150043095175282
Lindsey Snell see here: https://x.com/LindseySnell/status/1898421935400235471
and Joshua Landis see here: https://x.com/joshua_landis/status/1899944417563468065
There have also been witness testimonies reported by Lebanon's Al-Jadeed TV, as well as the new media outlets Daraj and Megaphone News. The testimonies are very detailed, but I am not sure if these sources are credible/
some European outlets have also interviewed on the ground witnesses to the massacres. Can we put a section on witness testimonies? 20marcor (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes the UN stopped counting in 2014 but not because of any issues to do with the credibility of the SNHR. They said they were unable to verify the reports of any NGOs due to chaos on the ground. Asked specifically about SOHR (the most cited source) they said they couldn't verify their data; they made no explicit comment on SNHR. "Colville said the U.N. could not endorse anyone else’s count, including the widely quoted figures from the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, whose latest tally is more than 130,000 killed in violence in Syria since March 2011."
2) "Also, given the gravity of the situation, I think we should give some sort of caveat that none of these death tolls are actually verifiable." I agree with this 100%.
3) On the journalists you mention, they are certainly no less biased than the ones I cited saying SOHR was exaggerating the numbers, just biased in the opposite direction. Moussa doesn't seem to have gotten published by anyone for a long while and has always been hostile to the former opposition; Snell mainly publishes in fringe publications if at all and understandably has an agenda, as she was kidnapped by HTS's predecessor organisation; Landis, who is married to an Alawi, is widely described as an Assadist. The journalists I mentioned are not bias-free, but these ones are certainly not better.
4) Witness testimonies that have been reported seems like an OK proposal to me, but we'd need to be very careful in attribution and note who has verified them or if they are unverified etc. My instinct would be to include them in the chronology rather than give them a section. A friendly reminder, though, that we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper so it's sometimes better to let the dust clear and use better sources after enough time for verification and triangulation. This is why we should avoid WP:Breaking news sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well why haven't they updated their website to include list new board members or governance structure ?
They are shady about their funding because they have something to hide, it's there simple. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 20marcor. During the Assad regime era, SOHR was one of the primary monitoring organization sources reporting articles to the UN about the civilian death and crimes committed by the previous regime forces. It was primarily viewed as an opposition resource. So, when it starts reporting civilian death cause by the current government, after the overthrow of the previous government, it suddenly became unreliable? There are numerous videos recorded by the militants themselves, affiliated with the current government, who proudly burned coastal and countryside houses and murdered entire families. DX2004 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most Syria-watchers, including those supportive of the former opposition, have said SOHR is unreliable for years now, due to sloppy and opaque methodology and hasty publication of unverified rumours. In recent years, it has re-aligned politically, and has been hostile to HTS and SNA for some time, and more closely aligned with SDF, which is not in itself a problem unless it affects the honesty of the reporting, which many analysts have been arguing it has for some years now. (Meanwhile, those who attacked it for years as "pro-opposition", such as Grayzone, cited above, are now using it as a reliable source, showing how people believe the sources which agree with them...) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you accuse the SOHR of being close to SDF (based off of whom?) but not the SNHR who had board members part of the SNC and is falsifying figures in East Aleppo ? 81.139.230.168 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See answers already elsewhere on this page. To clarify: neither SNHR nor SOHR are generally reliable, but most Syria analysts see SNHR as more reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then neither one of them should be cited without a disclaimer. 98.152.126.154 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No they really don't. The SOHR is referenced far more in mainstream news and scholarly journals. Fakeloser (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep on asserting "No they really don't" but I've already provided a long list of ones who do. I can add more:
Possibly SOHR is referenced more in mainstream news than SNHR, but both frequently are. The Guardian: "The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR), a human rights monitor considered independent and credible"[1], "the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR), which employs exhaustive documentation standards and is considered independent"[2] BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is very Dubious Presumtuous logic, that Assadist forces would not kill Alawites, they were literally threatening Alawites that did not support them and supported the Government or did not want to be involved in their insurgency.
The guy that is the leader of the insurgency, literally put out a video threatening alawites who supported the govt and refused to support his movement.
Here is the video where miqdad fatiha threatens alawites.
https://x.com/amahaf2/status/1898473515105370148 Midgetman433 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not dubious in the slightest. Insurgents have had their hands full dealing with the Security forces pouring in from all regions.
They would not dare to make their position among their own sect untenable.
A threat means nothing, until we see actual evidence Assad loyalists have perpetuated massacres we cannot include them in the perpetrator box. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Insurgencies kill people from their own side they think are cooperating with new govt. This is not a new phenomena the Insurgency in Iraq killed Sunnis that cooperated with the Post Saddam govt in Baghdad and the US occupation administration.
This guy is literally on video threatening people and saying he knows where they live and “tomorrow may come sooner than you might expect.”, he released that video a few days before the ambushes took place. Midgetman433 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what ? I don't see the relevance of including a random insurgent making threats to collaborators. We've seen multiple videos of Islamists fighters gloating over dead Alawis, gunning them down in the street etc. The most you can provide as far as evidence goes is barely of even a circumstantial character. If there had been mass killing of 'Collaborators' ( there aren't really many) by the Alawite insurgents we'd have seen them by now on video or some kind of testimonial. The media and regime paid influencers would be flinging it around the internet by now.
Also different situation isn't it ? Alawis are a couple million with a very heavy military presence from the regime in a small area. Iraq is a comparatively big country with a large Sunni population. The Alawite insurgents are currently attempting to evade regime patrols. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Midgetman433 Twitter is not a RS. We can't cite it Genabab (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized: the tag dubious should be removed because it is an WP:OR. The info is well sourced. Panam2014 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REUTERS, which is a generally reliable source, stated the following:
"The most recent count from the Syrian Network for Human Rights, an independent monitoring group, shows 1,662 people killed. Of that total, 1,217 were killed by government forces and armed groups while 445 were killed by pro-Assad fighters, it said. Of the 445, SNHR said about half were civilians and half were government forces. SNHR did not explain how it confirmed the identity of the perpetrators. Reuters could not confirm the SNHR toll for Alawites killed by Assad loyalists or that for the government forces"
https://www.reuters.com/investigations/syrian-forces-massacred-1500-alawites-chain-command-led-damascus-2025-06-30/ Xyz464 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here. @Bobfrombrockley@Ecrusized after the Reuters investigation we seriously need to reevaluate the SNHR's credibility. There are some journalists who are recently looking into this organization's ties to the new Syrian government. Their board members (which is a page on their website that they deleted a few years back) includes figures like Hamza al-Mustafa, who is the new Minister of Information under Ahmad Al-Sharaa's government. That is a conflict of interest and violates the ICRC's standards of neutrality for huma rights NGOs. The organization has also refused to disclose its annual tax history. There are currently journalists (2 I know personally) looking into it. But the fact that their board members include Hamza Mustafa makes it not credible.
On March 11, 2025, just two days after the Syrian government stated its public commitment to investigate the extrajudicial killings of hundreds of primarily Alawite civilians across the coastal countryside, the SNHR's preliminary report cited the extrajudicial killings of 803 “people” between March 6 and 10. But it commended the Syrian President, “considering this a positive step that seriously reflects the transitional government’s seriousness” in achieving justice, despite the fact that the killings were actively ongoing and carried out at least in part by state security forces.
The report also comes at clear odds with the norms of SNHR’s reporting over the past decade: in a May 2013 report detailing the massacres that occurred across villages in Baniyas by Alawite militias against Sunni civilians that are comparable in death tolls and in the details of the allegation, the title calls the incident a “blatant ethnic cleansing” and the term massacre appears 15 times. The report assigns motive to the attacks, describing them explicitly as collective punishment for instances of opposition to the regime. Unlike the March 2025 report, which opts to report the killing of “people” in passive voice, as a response to attacks by Assad-aligned groups, the 2013 report defined the casualties explicitly as “civilians” and managed to clearly identify and condemn the perpetrating forces. No detailed methodology is provided for either report, and both concede that they did not obtain any information from the scene(s).
Regardless of people like Anne Barnard from NYT or the Guardian giving the organization credence, its methodology, lack of transparency to its financial history, lack of definition of "civilian", and inconsistent bias at assigning motive do not adhere to ICRC standards of casualty recording:
https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/files/ehl/ehl-english-glossary.pdf
I understand the SOHR has problems. But unlike the SNHR, the SOHR does not claim to be a Human Rights NGO. It functions as a newsreporting agency that puts out preliminary reports based on sources on the ground. The SNHR claims to be a violations documentation NGO on par with organizatinos like AirWars and its standards, lack of transparency and ties with the new Syrian government puts this into serious question. I opt that we just remove them as a source altogether. There are enough investigations by CNN, Reuters, reports from SOHR, and others that assign blame on the Syrian security forces, SNA, and ex-HTS units, with no hard proof that regime "remnants" were involved in mass killings the way this article portrays it as. 20marcor (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by the argument that the Reuters investigation should lead us to re-evaluate SNHR (and only SNHR). As I keep saying, SNHR is a flawed source that we should only use with attribution (also true to SOHR, but most Syria analysts have put more faith in SNHR than SOHR in the last five years or so). In general, our policy is to present quick assessments, breaking news reports and primary sources with a large pinch of salt; and as the dust clears and more reliable sources produce more reliable investigations we should update our articles and make them more robust. The Reuters investigation is a great illustration of this. The dust has cleared and a strong independent source has produced a much more reliable picture than the SNHR, SOHR or even more partisan sources did back in March.
The Reuters article quoted above says “Reuters found nearly 1,500 Syrian Alawites were killed and dozens were missing.” It doesn’t give an exact number, but presumably something more than 1,450. A subsequent article goes into more detail: “The investigation found 1,479 Syrian Alawites were killed and dozens were missing from 40 distinct sites of revenge killings, rampages and looting against the religious minority, long associated with the Assad government.” It doesn’t give the breakdown, but in its map it’s clear that over a hundred of these were inland, so something like 1,350 were killed in the coastal areas.
Of SNHR it says: “The most recent count from the Syrian Network for Human Rights, an independent monitoring group, shows 1,662 people killed. Of that total, 1,217 were killed by government forces and armed groups while 445 were killed by pro-Assad fighters, it said. Of the 445, SNHR said about half were civilians and half were government forces. SNHR did not explain how it confirmed the identity of the perpetrators. Reuters could not confirm the SNHR toll for Alawites killed by Assad loyalists or that for the government forces.” (SNHR’s own press release words it like this: “the killing of 1,217 people, including 51 children and 63 women, by armed forces participating in the military operations in the coast ( in March). The report also documented the killing of 445 people, including 9 children and 21 women, by non-state armed groups affiliated with the Assad regime, and the killing of one child by the US-led international coalition.”) In other words, SNHR, always more conservative in its counts than SOHR because it has higher standards of verification, undercounted non-government aligned civilians by around 200.
Of SOHR, Reuters says: “On March 17, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, another civil society organization, said it had tallied 1,557 civilian deaths but did not detail how it arrived at the figure. The group also counted 273 dead among government forces and 259 among Alawite gunmen affiliated with pro-Assad forces.” So SOHR, giving no detail on its methodology, over-counted by 100. Its 273 dead government forces is close to SNHR’s 220, with the difference reflecting SNHR’s tendency to caution and SOHR’s to exaggeration.
Finally, Reuters says “President al-Sharaa has said 200 government forces died. The government has not released a tally of the dead among Alawite civilians.” So SNHR and SOHR give numbers close to the official count for government forces, but higher.
In summary, I think this shows we don’t need to re-evaluate these sources, but continue to see SNHR and SOHR as weak sources, SNHR as more cautious and SOHR as more reckless in its counting.
As for Hamza al-Mustafa, if there’s any evidence he has remained on SNHR’s board since becoming a minister in the transitional government at the end the of March, that might indicate potential conflict of interest. However, there is no such evidence. As an academic and media executive, he’s both an obvious choice for SNHR to seek out as a trustee and to be chosen as minister precisely for his reputation as wholly independent from HTS. Ironically, he’s been accused by the right-wing Zionists at MEMRI of being “pro-Iranian”.
You accuse SNHR of “commending” the president, but your quote cherry-picks from a report that clearly gives government forces responsibility for violence and makes several critical recommendations. Its role is to hold those in power to account and that’s what it does in its reports.
You say that “the SOHR does not claim to be a Human Rights NGO”, missing the fact that it’s literally called “the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights”. Reuters calls it “another civil society organization”; its Facebook and X pages describe it as a “non-governmental organization” (i.e. NGO). BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]



References

  1. ^ Yassin-Kassab, Robin (10 March 2025). "Despite coastal massacres, there is still hope for the new Syria". The New Arab.
  2. ^ Evrensel, Kouachi, Rasa, Ikram (8 March 2025). "Intense clashes erupt in Syria's Latakia after Assad loyalists attack hospitals". Anadolu Ajansi.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Reuters investigation

I cannot do this by myself, but i think it would be good if more experienced editors incorporate more of the findings of the recent Reuters investigation into the article, including the fact that they confirmed at least 1479 Alawite deaths and dozens missing. It seems to me the report is used for some parts of the article already.

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/syrian-forces-massacred-1500-alawites-chain-command-led-damascus-2025-06-30/ Domoznanets (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters Investigation, Government's own report and the UN Syria Commission's reports need to be added

The results(number of victims among other details) from the following 3 investigations need to be added to the article:

Relevant links:

Reuters

UN

Government report

The government was critizied by human rights NGO's such as Human Rights First for not releasing the full report and the partial report for "effectively ascribing no responsibility to the government" in the massacres:

"On Wednesday, July 23, a Syrian government-appointed committee that investigated massacres of civilians in Syria’s coastal regions in March announced its findings at a press conference. The disclosures of the “Impartial Investigation Committee on Coastal Crimes” (Committee) were inadequate. Human Rights First calls on President al-Shara to release the Committee’s full report.  

The Committee was charged with investigating the terrible killings, which appear to have been committed largely by militias that are aligned with and have been incorporated into Syria’s new government, with significant foreign fighter participation.  Even understanding that the Committee had a huge task and referred hundreds of names to the Syrian government for further investigation, its disclosures were simply inadequate, particularly in that it absolved the government of any responsibility.  

“Given the Committee’s determination that nearly 1,500 people died during just several days of violence and the reporting and videos implicating government forces in at least some of the violence, it is not credible for the Committee effectively to ascribe no responsibility to the government,” said Josh Colangelo-Bryan, Human Rights First’s special counsel and author of the organization’s June report on Syria,  

The only actors the Committee named as having taken part in violence were “Assad remnants” who attacked government forces and “Gypsy groups” that allegedly preyed on civilians.  Otherwise, the Committee stated that unnamed “militias” committed violence but did not name the specific militias or their leaders, even though a number of such individuals have been sanctioned by the European Union for their involvement in the attacks.  

Moreover, the Committee effectively absolved the government of any responsibility for the militias’ actions.  Specifically, the Committee said that, even though the militias have been incorporated into government forces, the integration of these groups has “in some ways only been formal.”  Continuing to distinguish between the government and militias that are officially part of it, the Committee announced that government forces had acted with a “high degree of discipline” and were “focused on protecting civilians and upholding the law.”  

Also troubling were the Committee’s seeming attempts to rationalize the violence.  The Committee spoke of perpetrators being motivated perhaps by fear that the Assad regime would return and “repeat the horrific atrocities committed against them” or “by revenge against those they believed took part in killing, torturing, or assaulting their loved ones.”  

“Even if one accepts that those who took part in mass killings were animated by these feelings,” said Colangelo-Byran, “it is axiomatic that such impulses cannot justify murder or other crimes against civilians.”

The Committee made clear that it plans no further disclosures regarding its report, which it said is now in President al-Shara’s hands, and that only the president is empowered to release additional information." Xyz464 (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources: I added the suspected perpetrators as a separate thematic section based on these reports. Boud (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_massacres_of_Syrian_Alawites