Talk:2014 Hama offensive

Untitled
I changed the outcome as indecisive. Really it was a strong rebel victory, in the sense that it helped the rebels capture Khan Shaykoun, lifted major pressure off Aleppo, and forced the regime to leave Taqba airbase. It also forced them to rely on Iranian reinforcements, again. The goal does not appear as if it was ever to make major progress in Hama, but to hurt and then run.

That being said, since its hard to guage the intentions of the offensive, which may be different for different groups, I put indecisive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantBud (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to have mixed some things up. First, the Khan Shaykoun capture was part of a separate offensive which is the subject of a different article here 2014 Idlib offensive. Second, the rebels lost all territory they previously seized in Hama during the offensive. Third, their stated aim of the offensive was to capture or destroy Hama airport and reach Hama city, both of which they failed. Fourth, your assertion that the airport was heavily damaged is unsourced. So when summed up, the rebels lost all territory seized and did not achieve their offensive's objective, result: Syrian Army victory. Just like the 2013 and 2014 Latakia offensives which were of an almost same nature. EkoGraf (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Outcome
Khan Shaikoun was captured in May, this offensive started in July, so how is capturing Khan Shaykoun a result of this offensive? Do you have any sources that the regime left Tabqa airbase because of this offensive? The rebels made it clear that the goal was to put Hama airport out of action, and they failed. The airport is still running. And there are also no sources that the airport was even "heavily damaged". Change the outcome back to Syrian army victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.162.96 (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Why this batle is written as over?
Granted the rebels retreaed to their previous positions, but the governement hasn't stopped their counter attack. Kafr Zita is under heavy airstrike and will be the target of a ground assault soon.

The battle should be described as over, not when the rebel stop their attack, but when all ground fighting stop or slow down. This is not the case, governement advances are coming quickly at the moment. --Major Grad (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Even though I am the one who closed the article/battle I am inclined to agree with you since today it has been reported the SAA captured three more villages. If they launche an assault on Kafr Zita I will reopen the article. EkoGraf (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In my oppinion the result should be like this: "Rebel offensive is stopped, continued Army counter-attack". It would be more wise, because it may look like the Army started the offensive not the rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka (talk • contribs) 09:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Very poor referencing
A large number of the 'references' for the information in this article are Facebook posts, as ssuch they should be treated with a very high level of suspicion. YSSYguy (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replaced all the Facebook posts with Citation Needed tags. YSSYguy (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 Hama offensive. 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/20141020014318/http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23188&Itemid=2&task=displaynews to http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23188&Itemid=2&task=displaynews
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-troops-capture-major-central-town/2014/09/12/c899be5e-3a79-11e4-a023-1d61f7f31a05_story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)