LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • RockyTron

    I'm not well versed enough on this subject to lead a substantive discussion but he seems to overstate his position without verifiable sources, for example, "The vast majority of refugees now entering Europe are fleeing Assad's murder machine, not ISIS or al-Qaida.", and, "[Assad] has been responsible for 95 percent of all 111,000 civilian deaths since 2011." Granted, he may know exactly what he's talking about as his experience and background seems to qualify him. But I'll take these assertions in particular with a grain of salt, the situation is very complex and fluid.

    Generally I agree with the premise, there is no cut and dry solution to Syria's ongoing instability and all political actors involved can be pretty much classified as "undesirables". His solution seems to equate to "anything but what Russia's doing" and therefore "anything but Assad", without actually offering an alternative solution. He gets close to advocating politicizing the "organized" resistance through suggestion but refrains from actually stating a solution based this information.

    I hate reading critical policy pieces like this that offer no alternative. It's wholly unproductive. He gets close to advocating some substantive change or solution but the substance was perhaps edited out for lack of wanting to commit to his position?