Opinion

The world’s two big nuclear militaries are in the same war now in Syria and, if not on opposite sides exactly, certainly not on the same side. A primary, if not the primary, goal of the United States in Syria is overthrowing the Syrian government. A primary, if not the primary, goal of Russia is maintaining the Syrian government. Hostilities are building in each nation toward the other. Republican candidates for president are trying to outdo a certain Democratic candidate for president in bellicosity toward Russia. Forces armed by the U.S. in Syria are eager to shoot down Russian planes. Russia and the U.S. and its allies are clearly unhappy about each other’s flights. Hillary Clinton wants a no-fly zone. Israeli and Russian planes have already come close to fighting. Israel has attacked the base Russia is using, or at least Russia says it has.

Imagine the Syrian war from the point of view of ordinary Syrians from a variety of backgrounds. They are most likely to offer a different perspective and to hold entirely different expectations than most other parties involved.  

A resident of Idlib, a villager from Deraa, a housewife, a teacher, a nurse or an unemployed ex-prisoner from anywhere else in Syria would distinguish their relationship to the war in terminology and overall understanding that is partially, or entirely, opposed to the narrative communicated by CNN, Al-Jazeera, Russia Today, the BBC, Press TV, and every available media platform that is concerned with the outcomes of the war.  

These media tailor their coverage and, when necessary - as is often the case - slant their focus in ways that would communicate their designated editorial agendas, which, unsurprisingly, is often linked to the larger political agenda of their respective governments. They may purport to speak in accordance with some imaginary moral line, but, frankly, none of them do.  

When Malala Yousafzai took a bullet after standing up for the cause of girls’ education, she became a feminist hero. It seems a little odd, then, that a new documentary about the Pakistani teen is titled He Named Me Malala.

Just who is this “he,” and why is he sharing top billing?

Turns out he’s her father, and the meaning of the title soon becomes clear. In the first of several animated segments sprinkled throughout the film, we learn that Ziauddin Yousafzai named his daughter after a legendary Afghan woman who was killed in battle while encouraging her country’s troops to repel a foreign invader.

This raises a question that director Davis Guggenheim and his subjects address: Did Malala’s name predestine her to suffer for a heroic cause?

In case you’ve forgotten the details of Malala’s rise to international fame, she was shot by a Taliban gunman in 2012 because she’d spoken up against the group’s attempt to prevent girls from being educated. Though she miraculously survived, the wound left permanent damage to her face and hearing.

http://davidswanson.org/node/4933

Life is a very jumbled mixture. The pain of it, if you're awake and thinking, brings into your mind the happiest moments you can remember and transforms them into agony unless you resist bitterness with every drop of strength you have left, if not more. Physical pain makes clear-thinking and generous thinking more difficult, until death appears in front of you, and then the physical pain is as nothing.

I know that I'm not supposed to be bitter, and yet that somehow makes it harder not to be. When my father and sister and two cousins were blown into little pieces last year, it was the action of some distant office worker pushing a switch on a remote-controlled airplane. And I'm supposed to believe that they meant well. And this is supposed to make it better. But somehow it makes it worse.

The Pentagon is promising an investigation today after it was revealed that an AC-130 warplane carried out sustained fire against a Doctors Without Borders-run hospital on the outskirts of the Taliban-held city of Kunduz, killing 19 including 12 staffers and three children.

The hospital was already overwhelmed by the huge number of casualties from the past week of fighting over Kunduz, which the Taliban seized Monday. Doctors Without Borders is demanding clarification on what happened, noting they contacted the US after the first strike near their hospital to warn them it was so close, and sustained attacks against the hospital continued for over 30 minutes after that.

In the week since it was announced that Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in Guantánamo, is to be released, to be returned to his family in the UK, there has been a huge sigh of relief from the many, many people who campaigned for his release — supporters of the long-standing Save Shaker Aamer Campaign, which I have been involved with for many years, attending protests and speaking at events, of We Stand With Shaker, the campaign I established with Joanne MacInnes last November, which drew huge support for photos of celebrities and MPs standing with a giant inflatable figure of Shaker, and supporters of the Shaker Aamer Parliamentary Group, established last November by John McDonnell MP, who, at the time, was a persistent supporter of worthy causes and fighter against injustice, and, with Caroline Lucas (our sole Green MP), Jeremy Corbyn and Shaker’s constituency MP, Jane Ellison, the most consistent MP suppor

Americans may find Syria a bit confusing. David Petraeus, sainted hero, has proposed arming al Qaeda, organized devil. Vladimir Putin, reincarnated Hitler, is bombing either ISIS or al Qaeda or their friendly democratic allies, but he shouldn't be because he's against overthrowing the Syrian government, also run by Hitler living under the name Assad. Hillary Clinton, liberal socialist, wants to create a no-fly zone, but wouldn't that make it hard to bomb all the scary Muslims? Wait, are we against Assad or the scary Muslims or both? Aaaaaarrrrgghh! How does this make any sense?

Let's start over, shall we?

Some basic facts?

We'll start with the most uncomfortable fact, but one that helps begin to make sense of everything, OK?

   Perhaps the greatest law enforcement officer in Ohio history died on September 18, 2015. David Sturtz served for 31 years with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, retiring as a major. In 1988, Governor Richard Celeste appointed him the state’s first Inspector General to investigate public corruption plaguing Ohio’s state agencies. Republican Governor Voinovich, elected in ’91, retained Sturtz as Inspector General until he began to uncover serious scandals involving the Governor’s family business in 1994.
   Sturtz uncovered a vast network of corruption in Ohio involving unbid jail contracts going to the so-called “V” Company owned by Voinovich’s family; ties between Les Wexner and Carl Lindner, Jr., organized crime and the CIA; the “Coingate” scandal connected to the Ohio Bureau of Worker’s Compensation and their money laundering into the George W. Bush campaign. As a result of these investigations, Voinovich fired Sturtz in 1994