رزاق مامون در مورد نوع ترور بزرگ ارتشبند (مارشال) قسیم فهیم از قول عقــــــیل فهیم فرزند مرحوم چنین مینگـــــارد!
کوچ کشی ناگهانی کریم خرم به جای نا معلوم از جوار خانه ی مارشال فهیم
با حضور رئیس جمهور کرزی به خانه ی مارشال فهیم در بعد ازظهر روز یکشنبه هجده هم حوت 1392 عقیل یکی از پسران مارشال فهیم با حمله لفظی شدید و حرکت تند از قفای رئیس جمهور، وی را به گرفتن انتقام سخت در بدل مرگ پدرش تهدید کرده است. وی سخنان زشتی به رئیس جمهور گفته است. درحالی که تصویر بردار تلویزیون «خاور» نیز حضور داشته، دکتر عبدالله دست آقای عقیل را به سوی خود کشیده و از رسوایی رسانه ای به گونه ای جلوگیری شده است.
درمحافل خصوصی سران جمیعت اسلامی نیز که ظاهراً به هدف اعلام جایگزین آقای فهیم برگزار می شود، شک وگمان نسبت به مرگ غیرطبیعی فهیم خان به طور آشکار مطرح شده و فعلاً واکنش ها یا نظرات خود را به روز های پس از انجام مراسم دفن ودعا حواله داده اند. عقیل به روز پنجشنبه درضیافت افتخاری به گرامیداشت زاد روز مروه بهار دومین فرزند رئیس جمهور کرزی که دراقامت کرزی درارگ برپا شده بود، مارشال فهیم را همراهی می کرده است. وی به جریان مشاجره ی غیرعادی بعد از صرف غذا در ارگ اشاره کرده و نسبت به اقدامات احتمالی شماری از شخصیت های مهم سیاسی علیه جان پدرش، به شدت مظنون است.
درهمین حال گزارشنامه ی افغانستان به نقل از منابع مؤثق اطلاع گرفته است که یک روز بعد از بازگشت فهیم خان از ارگ و تغییر ناگهانی حالت بهداشتی وی، عبدالکریم خرم رئیس دفتر ریاست جمهوری، به ناگاه خانه اش را عوض کرده و از همجواری خانه ی مارشال فهیم به جای دیگری کوچ کرده است. کوچیدن کریم خرم به حدی بی صدا و سری انجام شده که حتی کسی متوجه استفاده از چرثقیل ها در نزدیک خانه اش نشده بودند. خانه ی کریم خرم در رو به روی خانه ی مارشال واقع بود و جرثقیل ها کانتینر های بزرگی را که متصل به خانه وی جا به جا بودند، بلند کرده و روی بادی موترباربری گذاشته و خانه را تخلیه کرده بودند.
مراجع خاص می گویند که اسباب کشی ناگهانی کریم خرم از کنار خانه ی مارشال ممکن است به جریاناتی که بعداً عقیل افشا کرده رابطه داشته باشد.
AS YOU read this, 46m people are being held hostage in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin has pulled Russian troops back from the country’s eastern border. But he has also demanded that the West keep out and that the new government in Kiev should once again look towards Russia. Don’t be alarmed, he says with unambiguous menace, invasion is a last resort.
Some in the West will argue that the starting point for policy is to recognise reality, however unpalatable. Let Mr Putin keep the Crimean peninsula, which he occupied just over a week ago. It has a Russian-speaking majority and was anyway part of Russia until 1954. As for Ukraine as a whole, Russia is bound to dominate it, because it cares more about the country than the West does. America and the European Union must of course protest, but they would do well to avoid a useless confrontation that would harm their own economies, threaten their energy supplies and might plunge Ukraine into war. Mr Putin has offered a way out and the West should grasp it.
That thinking is mistaken. In the past week Mr Putin has trampled over norms that buttress the international order and he has established dangerous precedents that go far beyond Ukraine (see article). Giving in to kidnappers is always dangerous: those who fail to take a stand to start with often face graver trials later on.
In another world
The Ukrainian citizens who protested in Maidan did not drive out a home-grown autocrat only to become beholden to the one next door; many of the youths on the streets of Donetsk and Kharkiv, in the Russian-speaking east, are as eager to belong to a sovereign Ukraine as are their compatriots in Kiev and Lviv. They know that under Russia’s sway Ukraine would be weak and dependent. They look westward to Europe, which offers their country its best hope of overcoming chronic corruption and bolstering the economy.
Crimea seems inclined to turn eastward instead; and if its people voted for an orderly secession, it might well get the backing of the outside world. But the referendum that has been announced for March 16th is being held at the point of a Kalashnikov. Moreover, the justification Mr Putin claims for sending in troops is not Crimea’s unique history, but the principle that the Kremlin has a duty to protect Russians and Russian-speakers wherever they may be—the logic that Hitler used when he seized parts of Europe in the 1930s. If the West implicitly accepts this line, Mr Putin will have a pretext for intervening to protect Russians scattered across the former Soviet Union, from Central Asia to the Baltic.
Many powers, not least Britain, France and the United States, have sometimes broken international law. But Mr Putin has emptied the law of significance, by warping reality to mean whatever he chooses. He has argued that fascists threaten the safety of Russian-speakers in Ukraine; that the elite troops surrounding Ukrainian bases are not Russian, but irregulars who bought their uniforms in the shops; that the Budapest memorandum, which Russia signed in 1994 and guarantees Ukraine’s borders, is no longer valid because the government in Kiev has been overthrown. Such preposterous claims are not meant to be taken at face value. Instead they communicate a truth that ordinary Russians understand only too well: the law is there not to restrain power, but to serve it. Unchallenged, this is a licence for Russian aggression.
So do not bet on Mr Putin being content to stop at Ukraine. In 2008 he fought Georgia to assert control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He has said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the 20th century’s greatest geopolitical catastrophe. He is armed with a self-proclaimed mission to rebuild the Russian empire and now with a pretext to intervene abroad. Unconstrained by law or the fear that the West will stand up to him, Mr Putin would pose a grave threat to his neighbours.
You say Kiev, I say Kyiv
The West is not about to go to war over Ukraine, nor should it. Not enough of its interests are at stake to risk a nuclear conflict. But the occupation of Crimea must be punished, and Mr Putin must be discouraged from invading anywhere else.
Mr Putin expects a slap on the wrist. Sanctions must exceed his expectations. Shunning the G8 summit, which he is due to host in June, is not enough. It is time to impose visa bans and asset freezes on regime-connected Russians (the craven parliamentarians who rubber-stamped their army’s deployment should be among the first batch); to stop arms sales and cut Kremlin-friendly financial firms from the global financial system; to prepare for an embargo on Russian oil and gas, in case Ukrainian troops are slaughtered in Crimea or Russia invades eastern Ukraine. And the West should strengthen its ability to resist the Kremlin’s revanchism: Europe should reduce its dependence on Russian gas (see article); America should bin restrictions on energy exports; NATO should be invigorated.
Ukraine needs aid, not only because it is bankrupt, but also because Russia can gravely harm its economy and will want to undermine any independent-minded government. America and the EU have found some billions in emergency funds, but Ukraine also needs the prospect, however distant, of EU membership and a big IMF package along with the technical assistance to meet its conditions. A vital start is a monitored election to replace today’s interim government and the parliament, which is for sale to the highest bidder.
As things stand, mindful of their fragile economies, and with the Kremlin hinting at revenge against sanctions, many Europeans worry about the cost of all this (see article). But Mr Putin will gauge whether the West is resolute about its eastern borders partly by the price it is prepared to pay. Others argue that the West needs Russia to help deal with Syria and Iran’s nuclear programme. But Russia is fuelling the war in Syria, and it has just torn up the deal that promised Ukraine security after it surrendered its nuclear weapons—a terrible precedent. For too long Western leaders have hoped that their countries’ economic ties with Russia could be impervious to the Kremlin’s belligerence. This week Mr Putin proved them wrong.
The Ministry of Defense (MoD) said early Thursday morning foreign security forces mistakenly attacked an Afghan Army check-post in Logar province. Five Afghan National Army (ANA) officers were killed and eight others injured.
The bodies of the deceased soldiers have been transported to Kabul along with those who were injured seeking emergency care, according to officials. The injured soldiers are said to be in stable condition.
"This morning, around 3:30AM, an ISAF bombarded Charkh Logar District of Logar province, as a result of which five members of the ANA were killed and 8 others were injured," MoD spokesman Zahir Azimi said. "A committee has been sent to the area for an investigation, the results of which will be made known later."
An hour after the incident, International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) officials confirmed the incident in a press release and reportedly paid condolences to the families of the victims. ISAF said the ANA soldiers were killed unintentionally, and that an investigation was underway to find out exactly what happened.
Air support from the NATO coalition has been a contentious issue between Afghan and U.S. government officials recently, with Afghan President Hamid Karzai ordering his military leaders not to ask for air support from the foreign forces.
Military experts and security officials have often spoken about how crucial coalition air support is for the Afghan military, which lacks adequate equipment and capabilities to provide the same quality and extent of air cover NATO can. Afghan troops have taken on greater responsibilities this year, making coalition air support relatively standard operating procedure.
President Karzai has derided NATO and the U.S. for causing civilian deaths in operations with growing frequency over the years. But the issue is just one of an increasing number of points of tension between Karzai's administration and Washington.
این که سیاست در افغانستان تابع تعقل سیاسی متعارف نباشد، امر تازهای نیست. در کمتر دورهای در افغانستان قدیم و جدید سیاستمداران این کشور از اصول مشخص و سنجیدهای برای تصمیمگیریهای سیاسی پیروی کردهاند.
برخورد رئیس جمهور کرزی در ارتباط با طالبان نیز از این قاعده مستثنی نیست و اغلب به دشواری میتوان قبول کرد که سخنان او، به ویژه در رابطه با صلح با طالبان، بدیههگویی آنی نباشد و واقعا هدف و پیامدهای سخنان خود را از قبل سنجیده باشد.تیم انتخاباتى زلمى رسول تیم حامد کرزى است.
رای به زلمى رسول رای به آدامه روند طالب سازى، آدامه فساد، قطع روابط با جهان متمدن و مدرن و نهایتاً حاکمیت تعصب و تحجر است.
زلمى رسول براى تنوع شخصیت ها و فریب مردم احمد ضیا را به معاونیت خود گماریده است،
ما احمد ضیا را منحیث برادر أمر صاحب و همچنان مواضع قبل از پیوستن شان به تیم تداوم فساد ، احترام داریم !
أما پیوستن شان به تیم تداوم فساد انتخاب شخصى خود شان است و نباید زیر نام امر صاحب شهید حتى یک راى ببرد.
انتخابات بسیار روشن است
اشرف غنى براى کم کردن راى عبدالله به میدان کشیده شد تا جبهه ملى را بشکند.
انتخابات بین داکتر عبدالله و کرزى بر گذار میشود!
ما همه یکصدا، متحد و یکپارچه، پیر و جوان، مرد و زن، در فرصت باقى مانده کارت راى دهى میگیریم و این تیم فاسد را از ارگ بیرون میندازیم!
دوستان عزیز و ارجمند!
مدتی زیادی از وبلاگم فاصله داشتم و نمیتوانستم نوشته هایم را ذخیره کنم. ولی امروز تصمیم گرفتم که وبلاگم را فعال کنم و فعالیت های اجتماعی خویش را از همین طریق دوباره آغاز کنم. امیدوارم بتوانم به کمک و یاری پروردگار و شما دوستان درین راستا موفق شوم.