時事ドットコム：黒人リンチの死者３９５９人＝奴隷廃止後、白人の「人種テロ」－米報告書 http://j.mp/1Cg1oB5 @jijicomさんから
返信 リツイート お気に入りに登録
その他
Going down that road would be a huge mistake for the United States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will not rescue its army and will instead lead to an escalation in the fighting. Such a step is especially dangerous because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and is seeking to defend a vital strategic interest.
To save Ukraine and eventually restore a working relationship with Moscow, the West should seek to make Ukraine a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO. It should look like Austria during the Cold War. Toward that end, the West should explicitly take European Union and NATO expansion off the table, and emphasize that its goal is a nonaligned Ukraine that does not threaten Russia. The United States and its allies should also work with Mr. Putin to rescue Ukraine’s economy, a goal that is clearly in everyone’s interest.
It is essential that Russia help end the fighting in eastern Ukraine and that Kiev regain control over that region. Still, the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk should be given substantial autonomy, and protection for Russian language rights should be a top priority.
Crimea, a casualty of the West’s attempt to march NATO and the European Union up to Russia’s doorstep, is surely lost for good. It is time to end that imprudent policy before more damage is done — to Ukraine and to relations between Russia and the West.
The Ukrainians will not accept anything that looks like “economic neutrality,” and the Russians will not accept a Ukraine with closer economic ties to Europe.Other than that, Mearsheimer’s proposed compromise looks peachy.
The point of the war is not to achieve a victory. The point is to prevent the emergence of anything resembling a prosperous, European Ukraine, because such a state would pose an ideological threat to Putinism. Following this logic, even a German-brokered cease-fire will not bring “peace,” but rather a so-called frozen conflict.
The argument goes something like this: every time Kiev’s forces have been on the verge of victory over the separatist forces, Russia has stepped in, escalated and turned the tide in favor of the rebels. We see this happening right now in the battle taking place in and around the Debaltseve junction in eastern Ukraine. We may well see something similar occur in and around Mariupol. If the West, so the argument goes, would just provide Kiev with the armaments it needs, then Kiev would have a better chance at securing a victory over the rebels. After all, if the Russians can supply their clients, why can’t we supply ours?
Besides the fact that such a program of proxy-supply rarely works, and when it has, has usually come back to haunt us (see under: bin Laden, Osama), the idea that Kiev would emerge victorious if only we act as its principal arms supplier is fallacious simply because there is nothing that we could provide them with that Russia, in turn, couldn't and more to the point, wouldn’t, supply the rebels. It would simply mean a net increase in armaments on both sides, which would almost certainly result in more and more civilian deaths. The simple fact of the matter is that Russia is so situated geographically that it has an overwhelming advantage over NATO in the region.
Further, even if the president went along with the McCain plan, and the United States did supply military aid to Kiev, are we so sure that their troops are equipped with the proper training to use these weapons? Doubtful. And if the United States then has to send in military advisers to train the Ukrainian troops, what happens if one of them gets killed by Russian forces? Is McCain willing to risk a shooting war—or possibly a nuclear war—with Russia over the fate of the Donbas? It would seem so.
Another objection to arming Kiev is the nature of the regime to which we are propping up. The government in Ukraine is still wondrously corrupt.
Vital national interests are usually defined as those you are prepared to go to war to defend. In democratic societies, partisan politics ought to be about defining means and objectives within a framework of common understanding about American vital interests, but in contemporary U.S. politics, that is not necessarily the case. For a couple of centuries, Britain had a powerful, clear-eyed, fundamentally simple definition of its vital national interests that transcended party interests: 1) prevent the emergence of any dominant land power on the European continent; 2) obtain and maintain British naval dominance. I suggest that America’s vital national interests can also be succinctly defined: 1) prevent an attack on the homeland; 2) enhance the stability of the international system; 3) fulfill our security-alliance commitments. The first of these is presumably clear enough in principle; the second and third perhaps less so. We want to maintain the stability of the international system, because we are the most powerful state in it and its structure is advantageous to us. If we are perceived as unwilling or unable to maintain our security-alliance commitments, that will have a profoundly destabilizing effect on the international system.
There are some high-level objectives that flow from this definition of our national interests. One of the most significant is to encourage the spread of our political and social values, since an international system whose participants generally accept those values is not one likely to threaten our vital interests. The reality of the world today, however, is that an injudicious pursuit of that objective can produce conditions that threaten, rather than advance, our fundamental interests. So we deal with, rather than oppose, authoritarian regimes of varying kinds in all parts of the world. In some cases, we do it because we believe that to do otherwise would increase the instability of the system. In other cases, we do it because we are not prepared to employ the resources (means) necessary to effect fundamental change. We deal with the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian military because our security interests trump our human-rights objectives, and because we are not prepared either to employ the means or incur the risks necessary to replace them.
We need to step back from this. There is a better way. Ukraine could be a bridge between the West and Russia, rather than a prize to be fought over. Ukraine must negotiate a relationship with Russia that both countries can live with. There is no reason that cannot include an economic relationship with the European Union that encourages desperately needed reform within Ukraine, while at the same time promoting trilateral economic ties beneficial to all three parties. The EU leadership can help with this. If we have no vital interests in Ukraine, European countries do have vital interests in not seeing a large-scale ground war break out on their continent.
菅義偉官房長官は１０日の記者会見で検証対象について「政治家は考えていない」と明言した。安倍晋三首相をはじめ、菅氏や岸田文雄外相、ヨルダンの現地対策本部で指揮をとった中山泰秀副外相らは除き、首相官邸や関係省庁などの事務方職員のみを対象とする意向だ。菅氏はまた、「インテリジェンス（秘密情報）にかかわる部分を除いて公表したい」と説明した。他国から得た情報は公にできないことが多く、特定秘密が含まれる可能性もあることから、検証結果の公表も限定的となりそうだ。政府関係者は「国同士で表に出さないことを条件にやりとりした情報ばかりだ」と話し、多くが公表できないとの見方を示す。
検証委は、事件対応に当たった杉田和博官房副長官を委員長とし、西村泰彦内閣危機管理監や外務省、警察庁など関係省庁の幹部がメンバー。政府の初動対応や情報収集体制のほか、首相の中東歴訪時のスピーチも検証対象に加える。
As long as news reporters stick to the script that says the U.S. military is an institution that occasionally makes mistakes but whose mission is honorable, they will stay out of trouble. Don’t dare go and provide a serious analysis of the motives of the war planners inside the White House and Pentagon.
“There are certain sacred ideas that we’re not supposed to come out against. And one of those is that the U.S. military is good,” Khalek said. “The corporate press is invested in a lot of companies that profit from militarism abroad. You’ll see an ad for defense contractor Lockheed Martin and then the next segment is on whether we should invade Iraq again.”
Even the most effective mouthpieces for the U.S. military will come under attack if they upset the sensibilities of military-first Americans. After getting accused of lying about riding in a U.S. military helicopter that was hit by “enemy fire” in Iraq, NBC News journalist Brian Williams issued an apology by employing the “support-the-troops” defense. He described his helicopter story from 2003 as a bungled attempt to thank “our brave military men and women, veterans everywhere.”
“Soldiers are revered as flawless heroes. The most sacred thing in America is the troops. You can’t criticize the troops. Even in liberal circles, it’s off limits,” Khalek explained.
In fact, Israel has built a billion-dollar homeland security industry by using Palestinians as test subjects. It then exports what it learns in Gaza and the West Bank to authoritarian regimes in other parts of the world. “What Israel does to Palestinians doesn’t stay in Palestine,” Khalek said.
Last summer, only weeks after killing more than 2,100 Palestinians in Gaza, Israel hosted an annual drone conference in partnership with the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv. “Israel held this big drone expo to advertise the products that it used to kill Palestinians in Gaza,” Khalek said. “Those products will end up being sold to other regimes around the world who want to suppress and oppress a marginalized population of their own.”
At the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Khalek was a sophomore in high school in Northern Virginia. “9/11 was difficult because of the backlash toward Arabs and Muslims. I felt like I was marginalized and discriminated against in many ways. That was my first experience with that,” she said.
Khalek remembers her high school American history teacher, the day after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, opening class by saying there would be no discussion about the war. The teacher thought open dialogue could lead to criticism of the invasion, which would upset students whose parents were in the military.
More than 10 years later, Khalek looks back at her experience in high school as yet another example of how Americans are taught to embrace dangerous forms of nationalism. This closed mindset is why Khalek believes some Americans reacted so viciously to her reporting on the Clint Eastwood-directed movie “American Sniper.”
In her reporting for Electronic Intifada and on social media, Khalek highlighted the actual words that former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle used in his autobiography of the same name.” Kyle, in the book, boasts of killing 160 Iraqi “savages” during his four deployments in Iraq. “Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq,” Kyle writes in his book. “I only wish I had killed more,” he writes, adding, “I loved what I did … It was fun. I had the time of my life.”
In an article about the movie, Khalek writes that “American Sniper,” the movie, is “brilliant propaganda that valorizes American military aggression while delivering Hollywood’s most racist depiction of Arabs in recent memory, effectively legitimizing America’s ongoing bombing campaigns across the Middle East.”
While watching the movie, Khalek said she understood that it was propaganda, but at the same time she found the story line compelling. “That’s what makes me so mad. This is a good movie and it’s going to be effective,” she said in the interview. “It re-writes the Iraq war that makes Americans feel good about it. It dresses up the whitewashing of the Iraq war with this story about soldiers and how hard war is for soldiers and their families.”
Many Americans did not appreciate Khalek’s frank reporting on “American Sniper” and they let her know how they felt on social media. “I am a little rattled when people say, ‘I’m going to come shoot you.’ It is a little bit overwhelming when people say, ‘I hope ISIS rapes you and cuts your head off,'” she said. But Khalek emphasized that she doesn’t let the attacks on social media change how she lives her life. “I don’t physically feel threatened,” she said.
Unlike the establishment-friendly Chait, Khalek might have trouble getting a job at The New York Times or other mainstream outlets for her honest reporting on Israel and the military
However you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
■フリージャーナリスト 土井敏邦さん
中東でパレスチナ・イスラエル問題の取材を３０年近く続けています。フリージャーナリストの役割の一つは、組織ジャーナリストが入れない地域にも入って被害者たちの現状と痛みを伝えることだと思います。人質となり殺害されたとみられる後藤健二さんも同じ思いだったはずです。
今回も後藤さんが本当に伝えたかったであろう、内戦に巻き込まれて苦しむシリアの女性や子ども、寒さと飢えに苦しむ何十万人というシリア人避難民のことはどこかへ行ってしまった。日本人の命は、ビルマ人の、イラク人の、シリア人の何千倍も重いのでしょうか。これは日本人の国際感覚の問題だと思います。
私はジャーナリストとして、どうしたら遠いパレスチナの問題を日本人に近づけられるかとずっと悩んできました。国際感覚とは、外国のことばや文化に精通することだけではないと思います。言葉も文化も肌の色も違う遠い国の人たちと、同じ人間としての痛みを感じる感性と想像力を持つことができるかどうか。それはこのグローバル化の時代に、なおさら日本人に求められていることだと思うのです。
紛争の現場に行くと、遠い日本では見えなかった、現地の視点が見えてきます。今回の事件の最中、積極的平和主義を唱える安倍晋三首相は、イスラエルの首相と握手をして「テロとの戦い」を宣言した。しかし「テロ」とは何か。私は去年夏、イスラエルが「テロの殲滅（せんめつ）」を大義名分に猛攻撃をかけたガザ地区にいました。Ｆ１６戦闘機や戦車など最先端の武器が投入され、２１００人のパレスチナ人が殺されました。１４６０人は一般住民で子供が５２０人、女性が２６０人です。現地のパレスチナ人は私に「これは国家によるテロだ」と語りました。
そのイスラエルの首相と「テロ対策」で連携する安倍首相と日本を、パレスチナ人などアラブ世界の人々はどう見るでしょうか。それは、現場の空気に触れてはじめて実感できることです。
自民党の高村正彦副総裁は、後藤さんの行動は政府の３度の警告を無視した「蛮勇」だと非難しています。しかし政府の警告に従っているばかりでは「伝えられない事実を伝える」仕事はできません
More significantly—and Keck’s omission here is glaring—China pursued a policy until the early 1990s of supporting Pakistan’s nascent nuclear program, a move very much directed at containing India. In fact, Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons with Chinese assistance proved an impetus for India’s nuclear-weapon pursuit, not the other way around.
As with his casual dismissal of China’s ambitions, Keck characterization of Pakistan’s objectives vis-à-vis India as purely territorial is a gross oversimplification. Pakistani adventurism directed at India was not enabled by a nuclear deterrent, but in fact predated it
Keck’s argument that India’s pursuit of nuclear weaponry allowed Pakistan to provoke it from under a nuclear umbrella simply does not hold water.
Given its adverse security environment in the early 1990s, India’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Chinese and Pakistani adventurism would have appeared not only wise but necessary, particularly when considered in conjunction with the relatively low costs of a nuclear program, a multilateral order that threatened to recognize China’s nuclear status in perpetuity while denying India entry, and an enabling domestic political environment.
Yet India’s experience is by no means unique in this respect, for it mirrors that of other countries facing chronic provocations by state and nonstate actors. When nuclear weapons have not deterred Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, or North Korean provocations against U.S. forces in South Korea, why should India’s struggles against Chinese infantry patrols and Pakistan-based terrorists be singled out for condemnation?
Furthermore, Indian security planners have long been appreciative of the limitations of nuclear deterrence. India’s official nuclear doctrine, released in 2003, stipulates only that India would use nuclear weapons only in response to “a nuclear attack” or “a major attack…by biological or chemical weapons.”
How has India benefited from its nuclear weapons? India’s semi-official Draft Nuclear Doctrine of 1999 spelled out the political objective of India’s nuclear arsenal: to preserve “an environment of durable peace and insurance against potential risks to peace and stability.” By that measure, India’s nuclear weapons have delivered largely positive results. Consider the fact that in 1998, economic relations between China and India were negligible, with trade under $2 billion. Today, economic ties are robust, if imbalanced, there are new stakeholders for improved relations on both sides of the border, and the prospects of major conflict are ever more remote. Nuclear weapons cannot be credited with these developments, but they certainly helped create an enabling environment for them.
Similarly, despite regular terrorist attacks and military provocations on the border, conflict with Pakistan has remained limited since 1998. And that stability has been largely to India’s benefit
ISLAMABAD: Yousaf al Salafi – allegedly the Pakistan commander of Islamic State (IS) or Daish – has confessed during investigations that he has been receiving funds through the United States.
Law enforcing agencies on January 22 claimed that they arrested al Salafi, along with his two companions, during a joint raid in Lahore. However, sources revealed that al Salafi was actually arrested sometimes in December last year and it was only disclosed on January 22.
“During the investigations, Yousaf al Salafi revealed that he was getting funding – routed through America – to run the organisation in Pakistan and recruit young people to fight in Syria,” a source privy to the investigations revealed to Daily Express on the condition of anonymity.
“The US has been condemning the IS activities but unfortunately has not been able to stop funding of these organisations, which is being routed through the US,” a source said.
“The US had to dispel the impression that it is financing the group for its own interests and that is why it launched offensive against the organisation in Iraq but not in Syria,” he added.
There are reports that citizens from Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India besides other countries are being recruited by the IS to fight in Syria. Posters and wall chalking in favour of the IS have also been seen in various cities in Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 28th, 2015.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday confirmed the death of Kayla Mueller, a U.S. aid worker who had been held hostage by Islamic State militants, saying the United States would "find and bring to justice the terrorists who are responsible."
米オバマ政権は１０日、過激派組織「イスラム国」に拘束されていた米国人のケイラ・ミューラーさんが死亡したことを確認したと発表した。オバマ大統領は声明を発表し、「彼女の死に責任を持つテロリストに裁きを受けさせる」と強く非難した。
［東京 ２日 ロイター］ - 安倍晋三首相は２日の参議院予算委員会で、日本人の人質２人を殺害した「イスラム国」とみられる過激派組織について、法によって裁くとの考えを表明した。安倍首相は「どれだけ時間がかかろうとも、国際社会と連携し、追いつめて法の裁きを受けさせる」と語った。警視庁と千葉県警は１日、合同捜査本部を立ち上げた。
民主党の大塚耕平氏への答弁。
In reply to Otsuka, Abe made it clear that Japan is going to bring the murders of Japanese hostages to justice. "However long it takes, working with international community, we'll run them down and make them stand trial" Abe said. He set up the police investigation headquarters to look into the case on Feb.1st.
