Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi: from anti-Imperialism struggle to hanging onto America’s apron strings

Excerpt of Ebrahim Khodabandeh’s article published originally in Persian:

Mr. Khodabandeh says the only use of the MEK’s new Washington office near the White House is to keep the members trappeRajavi: from anti-Imperialism struggle to hanging onto America’s apron stringsd a bit longer. But that doesn’t seem to be working because they continue to run away whenever possible. He gives himself as an example of a typical member saying that he joined when the MEK believed in anti-Imperialism struggle. When they killed post-revolution government officials on 7th Tir, 1360 with a bomb, the MEK said it was ‘destroying America’s nest in Iran’ and Massoud Rajavi announced ‘we have rendered the regime without future and destroyed their contact with Imperialism by bombing this building and killing the people in it’.

The article says Rajavi lost his future when he turned his back on the people of Iran and sided with their enemy in Iraq, eventually changing sides completely and becoming a mercenary for the Americans. Khodabandeh says Rajavi will not survive by doing that. He concludes by saying that he worked for the MEK for 23 years and when he looks back now, anything else at all that he had done except that would have made him more proud.

Iran interlink weekly digest

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Tsarnaev Brothers had a CIA Connection

Tsarnaev Brothers had a CIA Connection: Two degrees of separation (US long term support for terrorists including Mojahedin Khalq.

Let’s do a little exercise. Forget nationalities and identities for a moment.

Imagine you are a police detective investigating a horrific bombing in your city — one in which several people were killed and hundreds were injured. You have a captured suspect whom you are sure was one of the bombers, and another was killed in a shootout, but both are young and not very sophisticated.

They might have acted alone, of course, but knowing how these things work, you are also looking for leads to try to determine who else might have been involved, and especially who might have been behind the incident.

As it happens, your two suspects are immigrants. They were brought to your country at a young age by parents who were refugees seeking asylum from a region of the world riven by civil war, brutal repression by a larger power, and that was a breeding ground for terrorists who had been known to have launched terrible attacks against civilians, including schools and full movie theaters in that larger power.

Now supposing you discovered that the national intelligence agency of a rival nation to that larger power had actually provided support to the terrorists that were attacking it, and that, moreover, the two young men who were your suspects were related to an uncle who had for three years been married to the daughter of a top member of that intelligence agency — the latter a man who had had a long history of active involvement in that agency’s major covert operations.

Wouldn’t you be deeply suspicious about the nature of the connections between the two young men and this intelligence agency? Of course you would!

Well, let’s put some names to this scenario.

The troubled region in question is Chechnya, a region of the former Soviet Union which sought independence from Russia after the collapse of the USSR. The Russian state crushed that secession effort with incredible violence, but found itself still fighting a long and vicious guerrilla conflict against Chechen fighters who didn’t hesitate to take their battle to the Russian heartland in the form of terror strikes. The Chechen guerrillas were supported by the CIA as the US adopted a covert policy of backing efforts by former regions of the old USSR to break free of Russia.

Just as the US long covertly supported terrorist actions by right-wing Cuban groups inside Cuba, and as it currently supports terrorist activities inside another rival state, Iran, by a terrorist organization called MEK (for People’s Mujahedin of Iran or the Mojahedin-e-Khalq), it has also supported the guerrillas in Chechnya. This explains why former federal prosecutor and arch neocon Republican Rudy Guiliani found himself sputtering in disbelief in a CBS interview a few days after the Boston Marathon bombing as it became evident that the suspected Boston bombers were two young Chechens.

As former FBI official Coleen Rowley observes, “I almost choked on my coffee listening to neoconservative Rudy Giuliani pompously claim on national TV that he was surprised about any Chechens being responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings because he’s never seen any indication that Chechen extremists harbored animosity toward the U.S.; Guiliani thought they were only focused on Russia.”

She said, “Giuliani knows full well how the Chechen ‘terrorists’ proved useful to the U.S. in keeping pressure on the Russians, much as the Afghan mujahedeen were used in the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan from 1980 to 1989. In fact, many neocons signed up as Chechnya’s ‘friends,’ including former CIA Director James Woolsey.”

Now it turns out that the two young men suspected of having placed the exploding pressure-cooker bombs at the finish line of the marathon, the slain Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, and his imprisoned younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, have an uncle, Ruslan Tsarni (he changed his name from Tsarnaev after immigrating to the US), who was until 1999 married to Samantha Ankara Fuller, daughter of a high-ranking CIA operations officer named Graham Fuller [1]. (Fuller, who has called any suggestion of links between his former son-in-law and the CIA “absurd” [2] retired from the Agency and went to work with the Rand Corp., where he focused on the Middle East.).

Fuller, reportedly at one time a CIA station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan, also worked over the years as an operations officer in such intelligence hotspots as Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, as well as Hong Kong.

Uncle Ruslan at one point during his marriage to Fuller’s daughter, was running a curious organization called the Congress of Chechen International Organizations which listed as its address Fuller’s home in Rockville, MD, a Washington DC suburb. (The CCIO ostensibly provided charity aid to Chechnya, though the true nature of that “aid” was probably something else.) Tsarni, in the organization’s Maryland registration document, listed its activity very generically (and uninformatively) as “ordinary business.” It appears that Ruslan Tsarni also, during the 1990s, reportedly worked as a consultant in Kazakhstan, another former Soviet republic, for US AID, an organization that has often served to provide cover for CIA operatives.

Maryland company registration for Ruslan Tsarni ‘company’ located at CIA honcho Graham Fuller’s home

Now I know that the world is full of coincidences, but then this is no matter of six degrees of separation. This “coincidence” puts the two Tsarnaev brothers at just two degrees of separation from the CIA household of Graham Fuller.

Going back to our imaginary police detective, I should think this would have to raise suspicions about links between the Tsarnaev brothers and the CIA.

The most charitable theory, to me, would be that this Boston bombing may have been a particularly nasty example of blowback. Certainly there is reason to look carefully at the possibility of some US effort having been made to recruit at least Tamerlan, the older Tsarnaev brother, to work against Russia — an effort that might then have backfired if he later turned against his American “handlers” for some reason, such as, perhaps, the ant-immigrant policy of the Golden Gloves organization which suddenly changed its rules about allowing legal immigrants to participate in the boxing contest, preventing him from having a second shot at the national title, or the INS, which blocked his efforts to obtain citizenship over an arrest (no conviction) for once allegedly slapping his girlfriend.

There are, of course, also darker possibilities, which an honest and thorough investigator would want to follow. A key would be knowing what if any contacts there were between either of the Tsarnaev brothers and the CIA.

As I have written earlier [3], there remains the bizarre presence at the marathon finish line, before and after the bombing, of men who appear to have been working for the Texas-based private mercenary firm Craft International.

US mercenary firms like Xe (formerly Blackwater) and Craft International have a close and incestuous relationship to the CIA. Such organizations tend to recruit their personnel from the ranks of US and foreign special forces units, which both tend to have close links to the CIA. Craft International, in particular, which was founded n 2009 by the late US Navy SEAL unit member Chris Kyle, reportedly has a number of SEAL veterans in its ranks. The CIA has increasingly relied on Navy SEALs for its covert special operations actions, most notably the assault in Pakistan on the hideout of Osama Bin Laden.

While the CIA is not supposed to engage in covert activities within the United States, its tight relationship with a para-military organization like Craft International means that the Agency could do the same thing indirectly by relying on a private contractor like Craft, which would not face the same legal restrictions. Indeed, for all we know, Craft could be simply a dummy CIA front, like Air America was during the Vietnam War era. In that regard, it is interesting that the address listed for Craft International in a Business Week listing (2101 Cedar Springs Rd., Suite 1400, Dallas, TX), is the same address given for at least four other businesses, including Hayman Capital Management, LLC, a hedgefund firm headed by a J. Kyle Bass, Japan Macro Opportunities Off-Shore Partners, a Cayman Islands-incorporated firm, a Bruce Davis, listed as “registered agent” for a firm called Solidus Bancshares, Inc., and HW GP, LLC, business unclear — suggesting that the location may be more of a “drop-box” kind of office than a functional business operation address. That would point to the possibility of a dummy corporation or front company.

I don’t have any specific information that would allow me to suggest that the CIA had anything to do with the Boston bombing. I cannot say the same thing about Craft International, however. Certainly there is some very troubling evidence in photos, visible on our site [3], showing some disturbing similarities between the markings on an exploded backpack which the FBI says contained one of the two pressure-cooker bombs and the backpacks being worn by the Craft International personnel photographed at the marathon finish line.

Our hypothetical police investigator would certainly want to look into these potential connections, as well as the suggestion of a possible link between the Tsarnaev brothers and their CIA-linked Uncle Ruslan. A good start would be to check into Uncle Ruslan’s actual historical relationship with his two nephews. Ruslan Tsarni was quick to go to the media to denounce his young kinsmen as “losers” who had “brought shame” on all Chechens, and to try and separate himself from them. But he was not always so deprecating of the children of his own brother, Anzar Tsarnaev (who is in Dagestan, where he vigorously denies his children’s guilt). In fact, Tsarni himself says it was Tamerlan’s relatively recent reported turn to Islam which led him to cut himself off from his nephew. What their relationship was prior to that is not clear and certainly bears scrutiny.

Not that I’m expecting some detective to look into all this.

The FBI, for its part, cannot be trusted here. It’s quite possible, after all, that at least Tamerlan Tsarnaev was set up by a Bureau provocateur in a plot that was meant, like many before it, to be “disrupted” by the FBI but that spiraled out of control (or got taken in a new direction by another agency?). And the Boston Police, meanwhile, have been so wrapped up in their exciting manhunt, and their “lockdown” of an entire city, that they are unlikely to want to ask probing questions about why this bombing happened. They’re too busy basking in uncritical applause from local Bostonians.

As for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, he has already endured an unconstitutional 16-hour interrogation by the FBI’s crack interrogation team, the so-called High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, all of it conducted while he was hospitalized in serious condition, sedated and chained to his bed, and despite having his repeated requests for an attorney blatantly denied [4]. He has now furthermore been arraigned for the capital crime of terrorism with a “weapon of mass destruction” for his alleged role in the bombing. Given all this, he is unlikely to tell his real story, at least for public consumption. More likely, he and his legal team will prefer to try and cut some kind of a deal, saying in open court whatever is demanded by prosecutors, in order to have the death penalty taken off the table.

So we’re left to wonder: why would two intelligent and talented young men with no particular grievances against the United States or the Americans among whom they lived much or most of their lives, have decided to blow up and kill and maim a bunch of mostly young people like themselves in an event that had no political significance?

There are leaked reports that Dzhokhar, during his FBI interrogation, said he and his brother had been “angry with the US about the Iraq and Afghan wars,” but even if he really did say what the FBI is leaking that he said, there has been nothing reported about their prior histories suggesting that either brother had been particularly exercised about those two actions — no reports for example that Dzhokhar or Tamerlan had ever participated in even one of the anti-war demonstrations which have been commonplace in liberal Boston, or attended the Occupy actions in that city. In fact, if anything, Tamerlan, allegedly the dominant figure of the pair, to the extent that he had been political at all, had seemingly been more focused on the suffering of his native Chechens and fellow Muslims in Russia, which would make an attack on the US a peculiar turn indeed.

Look, I said before I’m not a conspiracy theory fan, and maybe this bombing in Boston was just a case of two angry young brothers who flipped out, egged each other on, and decided to go out with a bang. But it would be naive and irresponsible not to make note of these bizarre links, through their Uncle Ruslan Tsarni, of the Tsarnaev brothers to the CIA, and of the apparent presence of the Craft International personnel at the marathon finish line, not to mention the uncanny similarity in attire between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the Craft mercenaries at the marathon bombing scene. (Besides, my late father, a retired electrical engineer and a Jungian analyst, used to say that many seeming coincidences are actually synchronicities, and can have much more meaning than simply being a highly improbable accident.) Also begging an answer is the question of where the two brothers, neither of whom had obvious access to wealth, got the money to spend on fancy clothes or, in the case of Tamerlan (who with his wife and small daughter, on the basis of his publicly available information, qualified until this year for welfare assistance), owned a late model Mercedes-Benz sedan.

These issues demand our attention because our increasingly national security obsessed government has been using each tragedy like this to further curtail our freedoms. We have to pay attention all the more because none of this is being investigated or even reported on at all by the corporate media, which seem content to just report on official statements and leaks and call it a day’s work well done.

Links:

[1] http://people.bu.edu/arn/CK/Speaker%20Info.htm

[2] http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/tag/samantha-ankara-fuller/

[3] http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1718

[4] http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/23/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-miranda-rights-for-tsarnaev-20130423

Dave Lindorff, Pacific Free Press

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The MEK Expulsion from Iraq

Iraqi politician: It’s impossible for the MKO to stay in Iraq

Iraq is a member of the resistance movement and that’s impossible for the terrorist MKO to exist in such a country.Iraqi politician: It’s impossible for the MKO to stay in Iraq

“Despite there are numerous documents that prove Mujahedin e-khalq organization’s crimes against the people of Iraq, the Iraqi government has only agreed with expulsion of the group.” Said a member of Iraqi national alliance in a meeting with Seyyed Mohammad Javad Hasheminejad, Habilian Association’s Secretary General.

Jomeh Al-Otvani, a member of Iraqi national alliance pointed out MKO’s crimes against the Iranian and Iraqi nations and reiterated: “The MKO has just united the two Iranian and Iraqi nations by conducting these crimes. Thousands of Iraqi people have also been martyred by the MKO just like a lot of Iranians.”

Al-Otvani referred to Iraqi people’s view on the government’s measures against the terrorist group and said: “According to the constitution, the government tried to expel the group from the country. But people believe the government has had too much flexibility towards the cult’s members and that’s because it is satisfied with their expulsion only, despite there are many documents showing their crimes against people.

He also pointed out the USA’s ongoing pressures to keep the MKO in Iraq and said: “the government has tolerated a lot of pressures from the US regarding to the MKO’s expulsion. The United States aims to tense relations between the two Iraqi and Iranian nations by doing that.”

At the end of the meeting he predicted that the terrorist cult will be disintegrated by being expelled to the western countries and said: “Iraq is a member of the resistance movement and that’s impossible for the terrorist group to exist in such a country.”

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Neocon backed MKO failed attempt to destroy an Anti-War Org

The war over war with Iran has many battlefronts. Inside Washington, the battle line is between a small coalition of peace and security, non-proliferation and religious groups opposing war and favoring a peaceful solution to the Neocon backed MKO failed attempt to destroy an Anti-War Orgstand off with Iran, and a well-funded war machine comprising neoconservative organizations who believe war with Iran should have started years ago.

A central organization within the anti-war coalition is the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), the largest Iranian-American grassroots organization. NIAC has been at the forefront of opposing war, favoring diplomacy and opposing broad sanctions that only hurt the Iranian people, while, at the same time, rebuking Tehran’s horrible human rights record.

With its access to the White House, State Department and media, NIAC has increasingly troubled the war crowd, so much so that it has become one of their favorite targets.

Its leading attack dog, Seyyed Hassan Daioleslam [MEK agent in Washington] put it like this in an internal email: “destroying” NIAC and its President Trita Parsi “is an integral part of any attack on (former Secretary of State Hillary) Clinton and President Obama.” In other words, destroying NIAC would also destroy the administration’s policy of avoiding war with Iran.

Daioleslam has engaged in a massive defamation campaign accusing NIAC of being the lobby of the Islamic Republic of Iran — a ludicrous accusation considering NIAC’s unambiguous support for the Iranian pro-democracy movement but one that would rightly destroy the organization if proven true.

NIAC responded, as it had to, by taking Daioleslam to court for defamation.

No doubt, NIAC knew that in suing Daioeslam, it was fighting a David vs. Goliath battle, since the laws are stacked against anyone suing for defamation in the U.S.

But it was worse than that. Not only were the laws stacked against it, NIAC was also significantly outspent because the neoconservatives decided to go all out to deal a death blow to the anti-war forces. In fact, the well-financed anti-Muslim, pro-war and anti-Obama activist Daniel Pipes stepped in to support Daioleslam through the legal arm of his organization, the Middle East Forum. Pipes got Daioleslam a top-notch legal team headed by George Bush’s former White House lawyer Bradford Berenson of Sidley Austin, the sixth largest law firm in the world.

At first, Daioleslam’s court room argument was that his statements were accurate and that NIAC should be compelled to open its books so that the veracity of his claim of NIAC’s control by Tehran could be assessed. NIAC complied and Daioleslam’s high-powered legal team went through thousands of emails, documents and calendar entries.

However, to their great frustration, they couldn’t find a shred of evidence supporting Daioleslam’s claims. Instead, the documents revealed a very simple truth: NIAC is an independent grassroots organization supported by the Iranian American community, and which, engages with all parties to the conflict including the U.S., Iranian and Israeli governments.

Failing to prove his main contention, Daioleslam retreated from the assertion that NIAC was the Islamic Republic’s lobby. This was a huge victory for NIAC and, if the lawsuit had been filed in any other country, the conclusion would have been: Daioleslam lost, NIAC won.

But in the U.S., the plaintiffs (in this case, NIAC) have to go one step beyond proving that they were defamed. Plaintiffs also have to prove that the other side had acted with malice. So NIAC had to prove that Daioleslam knew that he was lying — a tall order under all circumstances. And convincing the very conservative, Bush appointed Judge John Bates — the same judge that got Dick Cheney off the hook in the Valerie Plame case — that Daioleslam acted with malice was probably impossible.

NIAC could not pull that off and the judge responded by shifting some of the legal “discovery” costs ($184,000) from Daioleslam to NIAC. But that was Daioleslam’s only victory.

Not only was the claim that NIAC is a foreign lobby shattered but Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives had spent considerably more than $184,000 on their efforts to destroy NIAC. They had hoped to shift a much larger chunk of those costs to NIAC to cripple it by emptying its coffers.

But NIAC succeeded in striking out the largest item on Daioleslam’s menu of requests, leaving NIAC with an $184,000 bill, an amount it is appealing. In short, Dailoeslam’s attack backfired, apparently leaving him (or Pipes) heavily in the hole. In fact, during a press call last week, Dailoeslam actually called on reporters to donate and help defray its costs!

So at the end of this five-year process, no evidence was found to substantiate the accusation that NIAC was lobbying for the Iranian regime; the objective of “destroying NIAC” has completely failed as the organization continues to be one of the most prominent voices on Iran policy in Washington; and the vast majority of the cost of the discovery process remains with the defendant and his neo-conservative backers.

Not a good day for the pro-war lobby, but a very good one for Americans who find the idea of being embroiled in a third Middle East war – so soon after Iraq and with our troops still in Afghanistan – utterly appalling.

——————————————————————————–

M.J. Rosenberg is a Special Correspondent for The Washington Spectator. He was most recently a Foreign Policy fellow at Media Matters For America. Previously, he spent 15 years as a Senate and House aide. Early in his career he was editor of AIPAC’s newsletter Near East Report. From 1998-2009, he was director of policy at Israel Policy Forum. Follow him @MJayRosenberg and @WashSpec.

M.J. Rosenberg, Washington Spectator

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 2

++ A campaign that took root and grew among MEK supporters over the past few weeks asked for Massoud Rajavi to co-operate with the UN process to evacuate camp Liberty. The main figures in this campaign were sisters Effat and Atefeh Eghbal who started an online petition. The MEK reaction was to bring their brother Mohammad in Camp Liberty, a former publisher who is an old man now, to openly swear at his sisters in the MEK media. This only increased the criticism within the MEK against Rajavi as many denounced this reaction by the MEK against their own members and supporters who have genuine questions and concerns about what the MEK is doing. Members and supporters like Ali Naazer or the poet Ismael Yaghma’i and others have become vocal, asking “are we not allowed to talk?”

++ In a new development last week, Iraj Mesdaaghi, who has worked in support of the MEK for many years in Europe, published a 230 page open letter to Massoud Rajavi. He asks Rajavi to address this issue of internal dissatisfaction. He has gone into detail about many specific reactions Rajavi has had against current members as well as ex-members like Batul Soltani, Zahra Mir Bagheri and Ghorban Ali Hossein Nejad. Rajavi has threatened current members that he has embarrassing information about them and will expose them. Although this 230 page letter falls short of understanding a cult leader, and is still written by someone who is trying to save the soul of Rajavi, but it represents a significant development as the dissent from within is expanding.

After this letter, Rajavi issued a statement in name of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). After swearing at Mesdaaghi and linking him with the ‘agents of the Iranian regime’, Rajavi has banned every member from talking to any media or site which has made any criticism of him (he means independent mainstream media such as the BBC). It is clear to everyone that Rajavi wants to cut such people off and stop the spread of the ‘disease’ of dissent which is already rampant in the MEK and has got out of his control.

++ The equivalent of Mesdaaghi in the United States is Seyyed Hassan Daioleslam who has not arrived at this point of dissent yet, and is still wholeheartedly being used by the Israeli lobby against the anti-war people in Washington. An article by M.J. Rosenberg in the Washington Spectator describes how in a defamation challenge Daioleslam failed to produce even a shred of evidence that the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) had been the lobby of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The article highlighted the fact that Daioleslam was pay rolled by Daniel Pipes and other leading neoconservatives. The article concludes, “Not a good day for the pro-war lobby, but a very good one for Americans who find the idea of being embroiled in a third Middle East war – so soon after Iraq and with our troops still in Afghanistan – utterly appalling”.

++ Sahar Family Foundation in Baghdad published in English an important document about the current situation at Camp Liberty. The article goes into some detail describing the MEK’s obstructive behaviour toward the UN officials and the human rights abuses inflicted on the residents. The article points out that the families of the residents have the right to contact with their loved ones, but are prevented by Massoud Rajavi who calls the family the “nest of corruption” and the “worst enemy” and a “devastating bomb”. The cult leader is afraid because reconnecting with their emotional attachment to their family will lead his followers to reject their cult indoctrination and leave.

The article concludes “…at the present time there are many family members stationed in Iraq who wish to visit their loved ones no matter what the cost might be. They insist that they must be allowed to enter the camp and search for their loved ones for themselves. So far, for security reasons, the Iraqi authorities have not allowed this. They say that they cannot guarantee the safety of the families once they enter the camp. The families insist on their right to enter the camp voluntarily while accepting full responsibility for their actions in order to rescue their loved ones.

As far as we are concerned there is no other peaceful solution. It is quite obvious that Rajavi wants to drag the matter into violence and provoke further clashes in order to gain political advantages. We believe that the way everyone has tried to tiptoe around or hammer on this locked gate so far will not work at all. If there is any intention to resolve this severe humanitarian problem there should be a change of policy now; put the families first.”

++ Some ex-members have written to the UN asking for help for the people trapped in Camp Liberty. They demand that the UN does not accept Rajavi as representatives of the residents. Talking to the leaders they say will not help rescue anyone. They need to be taken as individuals.

++ Recently escaped Camp Liberty residents are reporting that Rajavi’s latest message is what he calls ‘fighting viruses inside the Mojahedin’. He calls people’s desire to leave Liberty the ‘virus of the third country’. This includes even looking at an aeroplane; you must control your gaze so as not to observe such a thing. He calls the desire of Liberty residents for the Iranian opposition to make progress against the Islamic Republic ‘the green virus’. They must also guard against this because this is against the benefit of the MEK.

++ Reports of MEK fighters working in Syria with the rebels has received quite a bit of coverage. Some reports speculate that the MEK fighters may have been involved in chemical attacks as they were trained to do this by Saddam.

Many people have commented that the presence of the MEK in Syria is not the wish of the Syrian opposition, this is Rajavi’s need. He (or rather his backers) has forced them to accept MEK involvement as a matter of survival so Rajavi can claim he is actually doing something. A leading example is an article by Reza Taghizadeh who writes his analysis about the report of the MEK being active in Syria. The title is: ‘Confrontation between the MEK and the Islamic Republic in Syria?’ At the end of his article, he comments on the daftness of this situation and reminds us that Rajavi with the backing of Saddam’s full army launched operation Forough Javidan (Eternal Light) in 1988 which ended with the massacre of around a third of his forces. Now with a fraction of those numbers and those mostly of pension age it is ridiculous to see them as a fighting force wherever they are.

++ In the last few weeks the MEK have been trying to dismiss all their problems by diverting the attention of their own people and outsiders to the opening of their office in Washington. Under this false pretence they are telling their people that the opening of the office is a sign that the US and Israel will attack Iran any time soon, and both the Iranian and Iraqi governments will collapse in the next few weeks. The message is ‘shut up and wait, let’s delay the transfer from Liberty and buy time until Iran, Iraq and Syria are handed over to the MEK’.

++ A big international book exhibition in Iran, attended by people from all over the world, included a joint stall for both the families of victims of MEK terrorism and ex-members in Iran. Mr. Ali Moradi and Mrs. Maryam Sanjabi were two of the well known ex members who were interviewed by media and also explained to the people attending about the current situation in Camp Liberty.

Friday 10 May 2013

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

A First Hand experience with the MKO

In September 2012, the steady flow of funds to US Congressmen ended with the removal of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK) from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations of the US State Department. The pro-MEK lobbying efforts in the congress have been operating for over a decade. There are numerous reports on the group’s extraordinary lobby and the large amounts of money they pay US politicians to run their cause in the US Congress.

Zahir JanMohamed is a senior foreign policy aid in US House of Representatives and the advocacy director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International. He presented his experience with the MKO propaganda immediately after the removal of the group. In his post on Open Democracy dated September 27, 2012, he finely describes the group’s manipulative lobbying campaign in the Congress. JanMohamed evidence on the MKO’s approaches to allure members of the Congress precisely demonstrates its deceitful propaganda.

He also notes the group’s violent behavior and its heavy advocacy for warmongers’ policy. As he puts, these “crazy people” have made it really hard in the congress “to have a rational discussion about Iran.”

My encounter with the MEK

Before I worked in Congress, I would have said that advocating for Palestine is the most challenging foreign policy topic on Capitol Hill. But after I worked in the House of Representatives, I realized it is harder to have a rational discussion about Iran.

The first time I encountered the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), the Iranian group recently removed by the State Department from its list of foreign terrorist organizations, was in Los Angeles in 2008. I was working for Amnesty International and I had organized an outreach event on human rights to the Iranian-American community.

When supporters of the MEK learned of the event, they objected to one of the speakers because he believed the best way to curb Iran’s human rights abuses is through engagement and interaction, not war. Supporters of the MEK proceeded to call my office line—and then my personal cell phone—so many times that I considered changing my number. Most of the messages were expletive-filled accusations that I was an “agent for the Iranian government,” “an apologist for the mullahs,” and “a terrible Iranian.

We proceeded with the event anyways.

Supporters of the MEK showed up early, filled up almost all of the seats and started shouting. One of the audience members, a former Amnesty International prisoner of conscience who had been tortured in Iran, stood up and said in Farsi that Amnesty had fought for his life and that they should be respectful of the speakers. But they continued to shout.

When they refused to lower their signs or stop yelling, over a dozen police officers intervened and insisted we cancel. The police feared the protesters would become violent. Before our first speaker could even say a word, I had to call it off. 

The group intrigued me and I started to probe their history, wanting to learn more.

It was the MEK’s involvement in terror including the killing of six Americans in the 1970s that prompted President Bill Clinton to designate the group a foreign terrorist organization in 1992.

Violence has always been a part of the MEK. The group was founded in 1965 as an armed opposition to the Shah of Iran. After the Islamic Revolution of 1979, it assassinated Iran’s first president and prime minister and later assisted Saddam Hussein in crushing the Kurdish uprising. In 2001 the MEK claimed that it renounced violence but its record showed otherwise. According to a report published by Human Rights Watch in May 2005, “The former (MEK) members reported abuses ranging from detention and persecution of ordinary members wishing to leave the organization, to lengthy solitary confinements, severe beatings, and torture of dissident members.”

I was appalled by what I learned about the MEK and I managed to steer clear of the group in Washington DC. That changed in 2009 when I began working as a foreign policy aide to a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Before I worked in Congress, I would have said that advocating for Palestine is the most challenging foreign policy topic on Capitol Hill. But after I worked in the House of Representatives, I realized it is harder to have a rational discussion of Iran than it is to have a rational discussion of Palestinian rights.

The MEK has always been smart to play off other special interest groups. When I met with a prominent pro-Israeli lobby for the first time, a college age volunteer told me his group’s first priority was Iran, its second priority was Iran, and its third priority was Iran.

I realized in Congress that it was nearly impossible to speak about human rights in Iran or about the humanitarian effects of US sanctions without another member of Congress or a special interest group accusing you of being soft on terrorism.

I tried to avoid MEK supporters in Congress but it was difficult. Most days I found MEK supporters camped out in a basement room in the Rayburn House Office Building, passing out flyers with graphic photos of human rights abuses in Iran, serving kabobs and baghali polo. They understood that to attract and to sway staffers, the promise of exotic food could always draw a crowd. One time I received a text from a staffer that the “kabobs from this Iranian group are off the hook good” and that I should come by.

I never did. I knew that MEK supporters took photos at these events and that when a staffer or a Member of Congress showed up, they would post the photos online as a sign of their growing support.

When I refused to attend, MEK supporters often shouted at me, telling me I should be ashamed for calling myself Iranian. I always loved to see their reaction when I would tell them, “Dude…I am Indian.”

Slowly I saw their influence gaining. The MEK hired powerful lobbyists, paid journalists to give lectures in their favor, and hosted lavish campaign events.

Most of all, they stoked the anti-Iran rhetoric in Congress and told staffers that the MEK is a secular alternative, a voice of human rights that would be friends with Israel if it came to power. They told us they had a special message to deliver on “behalf” of the Iranian people: we want the government overthrown. I do not know what was more chilling—their message of regime change or the fact that my colleagues in Congress believed them.

After my botched outreach event for Amnesty International in 2008, I showed up the following Monday to my office in Washington DC and noticed a large cake with my name on it. I was confused. My birthday was months away.

My boss, a seasoned veteran of the White House and the Hill, told me that she was happy that Amnesty International did not cave in.

“No one likes crazy people,” she reassured me. “No one advances that way in this town.”

I liked that quote. I wrote it down and tacked it to my bulletin board. But as this week’s de-listing of the MEK shows, that is just not true. Sometimes bullies do advance in DC, especially if they are well heeled.

Zahir Janmohamed, Opendemocracy.net

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraqi Authorities' stance on the MEK

Al Sistani denounces MEK as terrorist organization

Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani, the highest-ranking Shia marja in Iraq and the leader of the Hawza of Najaf warned Al Sistani denounces MEK as terrorist organizationagainst the activities of the MEK, stressing its militants were no less than terrorists sold to the arrogance of the West.

Founded on September 5, 1965 by a group of leftist Muslim Iranian university students as an Islamic and Marxist political mass movement, the MEK was originally devoted to armed struggle against the Shah of Iran, capitalism, and Western imperialism. However, its militants soon turned against Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Iraq and Iran designate the MEK as a terrorist organization.

Islam Times

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

The Threat of Tamerlans Trained in the MEK

Almost every day we hear of car bombing, suicide bombings and terror attacks, in news headlines. The most recent ones occurred in Baghdad and a Marathon competition in Boston. The first question to be answered is that who committed the act? To answer the question, you almost always come across a fanatic who has been involved with an extremist group, otherwise the terrorist is a lunatic person. In case of mentally ill attackers the reason is obviously explained by psychologists but in case of extremist bombers the reason is complex and sometimes bizarre which requires different specialists to clarify the issue. Extremist invader usually belongs to highly manipulative groups that exploit their members to deliberately injure or kill other individuals or even their own comrades. Such groups are called “destructive cults” or “harmful cults”. The crucial point about such groups is that the harm is not always physical; it can also include psychological harm which is often hidden to the public. The very example of such type of cults is the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO) which had been effective to manage its image as a “democratic opposition” to the Islamic Republic of Iran, not a destructive cult of personality with a long history of physical harm against its own nation and numerous reports, testimonies and interviews on the psychological harm the group carries on its own members and recruits.

Jeremiah Goulka, one of the authors of the Rand Institution report on  the MKO for US defense Department states: ”I studied the MEK (MKO) for the US military and visited Camp Ashraf, the MEK facility 40 miles north of Baghdad. I also I interviewed former MEK members. As Human Rights Watch also concluded, I saw that the MEK is a cult. It uses brainwashing, sleep deprivation and forced labor to indoctrinate members.

“It segregates men from women, mandates celibacy, forces married members to divorce (except for its leaders), and separates families and friends who must seek permission just to converse.

"MEK members must report their private sexual thoughts at group meetings and endure public shaming. In a Catch-22, those who deny having sexual thoughts are accused of hiding them and shamed, too. The cult had but one purpose: to put itself in charge in Iran.”[1]

After the Iranian Revolution and with the beginning of Massoud Rajavi’s leadership over the MKO, the introductory phase of the cult-like establishment of the group emerged. This was an intense experience for members who were enthusiastically welcomed in the group. Soon, the MKO –which has totally turned into a cult –increased the demands. Members had to devote their whole time, money and energy to the leader. Rajavi’s demands were justified as necessary to overthrow the Islamic Republic.

Relationships outside Camp Ashraf and now Camp Liberty became impossible; contact with families and friends became forbidden unless they would help the with the cause of the group. Deviation from Rajavi’s dogma ended with severe punishment and rejection. Ultimately the demands became unbearable.

The BBC correspondent Owen Benet Jones also writes of the life inside MKO Camps:

“For Example, it requires its members in Iraq to divorce. Why? Because love was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran.

"And the trouble is that people love their children too.

"So the MEK leadership asked its members to send their children away to foster families in Europe. Europe would be safer. The group explained.

"Some parents have not seen their children for 20 years and more.

"And just to all to the mix, former members consistently describe participating in regular public confession of their sexual fantasies.” [2]

Leaving the MKO is a fight because members fear sever, punitive reaction of the authorities of the group. What they began in joy – in dream of having a better life  — ends in terror and pain. They spend hours a day conducting “cleansing” sessions which are very commonly held in all destructive cults whether for exorcism or for self-criticism. There are many stories and interviews of horrible cultic practices of the MKO leaders including "Salvation Dance”, "Ideal Summit" and …Studying their stories indicates that motivations and manipulations causing cult-like behavior are present everywhere around us and ex-members of the MKO are not so different from other people. The threat of the destructive MKO cult is no impossible.

As Tamerlan Tsarnaev 27, who was a Jihadist Chechen had a great influence on his younger brother  Dzhokar, each member of a harmful cult can exert impact on people around him in order to commit crimes like Boston bombing.

Massoud Banisadr former member of the MKO speaks of the effective cult indoctrinations on members. In his interview with Steve Hassan, a cult expert explains that how a cult member can simply be radicalized to set himself on fire – as the MKO members did in June 2003 – and launch terror acts. He asserts that the MKO trained the first women suicide operators at least in Islamic history.Regarding that Banisadr was involved in the MKO for 20 years, he believes that if the MKO or Al-Qaida operatives are tried in civil trial, they welcome any sentence because as cult members they have been indoctrinated to go to heaven after death .[3] This way he explains the threat of mind control cults.

It is crucial for the world community especially the West –where the MKO is today much more active than any other time – to know about the MKO cult to avoid being caught in it. They should be aware of the hidden cult thinking operating among their politic men.

 Coleen Rowley of the Antiwar.com criticizes American Neocons including Rudy Giuliani who “pompously claim on national TV that he was surprised about any Chechens being responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings because he’s never seen any indication that Chechen extremists harbored animosity toward the US; Giuliani thought they were only focused  on Russia”.[4]

Rowley notifies that “useful” terrorists for US Neocons are not limited to Chechenya’s friends or Afghan Mujahedeen but the MKO is one of the enemies of their enemy too. "Of course, Giuliani also just happens to be one of several neocons and corrupt politicians who took hundreds of thousands of dollars from MEK sources when that Iranian group was listed by the US State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO),” He writes .”The money paid for these American politicians to lobby (illegally under the Patriot Act) US officials to get MEK off the FTO list”. [5]

Today at least 3 thousand Tamerlans are manipulated and indoctrinated in the MKO camps, Camp Liberty, Iraq and Ouver Sur d’Oise in the suburb of Paris. These brainwashed suicide operators are members of the Cult of Rajavi who a few weeks ago opened an office a block from the White House. The windows of the House open to the menace of a destructive cult.

By Mazda Parsi

References:

[1]Goulka, Jeremiah, The Cult of MEK, The American Prospect, July18, 2012

[2]Bennett Jones, Owen, An Iranian mystery: Just who are the MEK? BBC News, April15, 2012

[3]https://www.nejatngo.org/en/posts/5167

[4] Rowley, Coleen, Chechen Terrorists and the Neocons,Antiwar.com, April22, 2013

[5]ibid

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Camp Liberty

Review of the situation of the inhabitants of Camp Liberty

Our purpose in the present article is to briefly review the severe humanitarian problems of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) forces in Camp Liberty in Iraq. We intend to express our concerns, the obstacles in our way, and Review of the situation of the inhabitants of Camp Libertythe possible practical solutions to this problem.

We believe that, for obvious political reasons, at the present time there is no will to solve the problem and rescue the inhabitants of Camp Liberty from the disaster they are trapped in. We also believe that we must not adopt a passive role. It is necessary to reveal the oppression going on inside the camp by the leaders of the MEK cult and more importantly to let everyone know that not only does the cult leader Massoud Rajavi not represent the inhabitants, he is the main threat to their safety and security.

Below we initially give a short summary of the main topics and then describe the matter in length:

Concerns:

•The suffering families of the members of the MEK present in Camp Liberty, despite more than three years of sit-in demonstration in Iraq, are still deprived from visiting their loved ones.

•The security, safety, welfare, medication, physical and mental situation of the residents is disastrous due to the prevention and obstacles enforced by the leaders.

•Most members have had severe phobias instilled in them through systematic mind manipulation practices which has continued for many years in their isolated location, and are being kept within the cult contrary to their own will.

Obstacles:

•Access to the residents, even by their relatives, is almost impossible due to prevention by the leaders and their appeasement by the authorities.

•10 years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the harsh and absolute control over the residents imposed by the leaders is even more severe than ever.

•The UN monitors and the international observers do not have, or they do not wish to have, a clear image of the MEK internal cultic relationships and their methods of mind control practices.

Solutions:

•The families of the members of the Rajavi cult play the key role in rescuing and recovering their loved ones.

•Separation of the leaders from the rank and file of the cult is the most practical solution to start with.

•The international pressure and dissemination of information about the cult leaders by the families and former members can play a valuable role in resolving the situation.

One of the most basic internationally recognized human rights for every individual, even for the most dangerous prisoners, is the right to visit and be in contact with their next of kin. This obvious right has been denied to the members of the cult for many years since the cult leader Massoud Rajavi will not permit it.

The UN authorities and other international organizations do officially recognize this right, but on the other hand they say that the residents of Camp Liberty could not be forced to visit their parents or offspring or siblings when they do not wish to do so. Our question, which is still left unanswered, is what sort of internal atmosphere must be present inside the camp so that the residents who have had no access to the outside world for one, two, or even three decades unanimously have no desire to meet their next of kin of whom they have had no news for so many years.

No international official is willing to answer this question, of course for their own political reasons, but scientifically the answer is very simple. This is exactly a result of the application of destructive mind control techniques which is systematically imposed over the members who have lived in isolated, remote places such as Ashraf garrison and Camp Liberty (and even in the impenetrable collective residential bases in western countries such as in Auvers-sur-Oise, Maryam Rajavi’s base in Paris) for so many years.

The UN authorities in Iraq say that the residents of the camp and their relatives have the right to be in contact with each other, nevertheless the individuals are free to decide whether they wish to have such a relationship or not. This is entirely up to the person and it is the individual’s right to choose.

The problem is that what is described as ‘the right to choose’ does not exist inside the Rajavi cult. We must make sure that a truly free decision has been made and the mental elements, that we all know about and how they work, are not being applied.

UN officials admit that the residents of the camp become surprisingly hysterical when they hear the name of their relatives and react irrationally. It is obvious that since the brainwashing methods are applied they find the term ‘family’ equivalent to ‘Satan’ and react involuntarily and avoid the issue of family in a phobic reaction.

One UNAMI official once said: ‘even those who come to us and ask to leave, if the matter of visiting the family members is mentioned, they become angry and give up and accuse us of trying to link them to Iran’s ministry of intelligence.’

This is a common practice in cults. The minds of the people are filled with the phobia of ‘family’ using destructive mind control techniques. Therefore they immediately reject visiting them (just like refusing to visit Satan) and react irrationally. Rajavi knows full well that meeting with their families and restoring their emotional memories would take the minds of the persons out of the present situation and would overcome the effects of manipulation and their locked minds would find a link with the possibility of freedom.

At the present time, condemnatory and accusing letters are sent from the residents to the UN monitors. According to them, anyone on the other side of the camp’s walls is working for the Iranian regime, and people like the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Maliki and the Special Representative of the UN General Secretary Martin Kobler and even the German Ambassador to Baghdad are all taking instructions from Tehran and their mission is not to help but rather to capture them and hand them over to Iran where they would be tortured and executed.

We know that any time the UN monitors enter the camp they face the hostile attitude of the residents, spitting at them and chanting “death to Maliki” and “death to Kobler”. This is quite natural and they should not be expected to behave in a normal, rational manner. They have been programmed for such actions in  mind manipulation processes. In such a case a person can just as easily, on receiving the order from the leaders, commit self-immolation for no rational reason.

Behaving like this is to the advantage of Rajavi since it prevents legitimate observers from entering the camp and having free access to the residents. The missile attack on the camp was also beneficial for Rajavi and gave him the excuse he wanted to prevent anyone getting into the camp and helping the residents.

Massoud Rajavi knows full well what sort of tricks must be used to reach his goals. He is like all other cult leaders. Although he is so imprudent in strategy, he is quite a genius in tactics. Illogically the cult has stopped cooperating with UNHCR interviews with the residents claiming lack of security as the reason and insistently demanding to return to Ashraf garrison.

The cult leaders prevent meetings between UN officials and the residents of Camp Liberty using all sorts of excuses. Even the wrong people were sent in place of other people to be interviewed. Such people when meeting with the UN monitors claim that they have no ID card which is not true. They would even present western passports if needed. There have been cases that the MEK used the passports of dead people in Ashraf to relocate other people to Liberty.

The entire population of Liberty was previously officially registered and biometric information taken when the US Department of Defense granted them protected person’s status. Now when UN monitors try to do the same – finger printing or taking photos of the residents – the cult sends its thugs to threaten violent protest in order to prevent them doing so.

According to international norms, the ICRC is responsible for delivering letters from their families to the residents. But there is never any chance to find them without the observation of the MEK officials inside the camp. In some case the residents treat the letters as if they contain anthrax bacteria since they are even afraid to touch them. That is because they fear the aftermath of consequences inside the cult. The reaction of the residents is always a mixture of hatred and fear.

Our problem is that at the present time only a few number of people amongst the international officials are aware of the true nature of this cult, and of course those who do know do not wish to express it for their own reasons. As far as we know, this degree of pacification and appeasement against a cult leader is quite unique.

What is clearly known to everyone is that Rajavi has drawn a red line between the residents of Camp Liberty and the outside world, in particular the family members. This by itself proves that the MEK is a destructive mind control cult which tries to isolate its member in order to systematically manipulate them. It is obvious to everyone that Rajavi’s fear of family members meeting each other is extraordinary. The reason is evident. As all cult experts have stated, this would result in the person leaving the cult and even turning against it; therefore Rajavi prefers to leave his followers under the daily threat of bombing attacks rather than letting them visit their relatives.

Nevertheless this is the basic right of the individuals captured inside camp Liberty to have constant contact with their next of kin; and our goal is to struggle for this right although it seems quite unreachable and although there are so many obstacles, the main one of which is the cult leader Massoud Rajavi who prevents any outsiders from getting in touch with the residents.

Rajavi claims that the families are not genuine and they are all agents of Iran’s ministry of intelligence sent to harm the members. The families present here in Iraq have documents showing their relationship with the inhabitants inside the camp. The residents themselves have all been registered with the UN and some have been Iran-Iraq war POWs registered with the ICRC. At the present time up to 100 family members from all over the world with ID cards and other documents are ready to visit their loved ones in Iraq. In the past ten years since the fall of Saddam Hussein they have been struggling to gain some news of their relatives. What should we do? Should we sit and watch Rajavi let them all die one by one?

We have information in many cases that the residents are deprived from accessing necessary medication. The members have so many illnesses but the MEK officials prevent them from travelling to hospitals in Baghdad. This is done because the cult leader Massoud Rajavi wants to intentionally kill them through negligence and blame the Iraqi government for their deaths and in this way uses them as ransom to blackmail the international political community. Many kinds of violation of basic human rights are practiced daily inside the camp. We have informed the authorities and unfortunately we did not get any response. During our meetings with the Iraqi ministry of human rights they showed their deep concern about the situation inside the camp under the absolute control of Massoud Rajavi, but they cannot work in isolation.

Each former member in the hotel in Baghdad has so many stories of maltreatment by the MEK officials of the camp. They all say that they did not have the slightest idea about the situation in the outside world and found it quite contrary to what they have been told. Some escaped even while accepting the threat of being torture and executed. They all say that every move inside the camp is seriously controlled and all sorts of harsh limitations are imposed over the residents. They say they are systematically subjected to insults and accusations by the MEK officials. According to their descriptions such tight regulations over the members are not practiced in any normal army or garrison. Some even wish God to bring their death sooner to end their misery.

There is a critical concern about the situation of the residents as far as their basic rights are concerned. Most of these people are kept under such circumstances against their will. Although they talk about free choice but the meaning of this inside a cult is different. This fact has been discussed in an article in New York Times titled “The Cult of Rajavi”[1] and also mentioned in the US RAND report titled “The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq, a policy conundrum”[2].

Some people inside the camp did not wish to attend UN interviews in person and instead wrote letters objecting to going to a third country. What does this show? Can anyone give assurances that these people made a free and informed choice? Aren’t these individuals exactly those whom Rajavi fears most and does not wish the UN officials to meet?

When someone is sent to be interviewed by the authorities they are told beforehand what to say and what not to say. These people who are under severe mind manipulation do not dare to say what they actually want to say. Rajavi’s main concern is that more and more people will leave his cult and eventually the MEK be dismantled. Since the missile attack on February 9, 2013, Rajavi has prevented UN monitors from entering the camp and has even organized hostile demonstrations against them. Isn’t this a hint, marking the attack as quite suspiciously to the advantage of Rajavi?

Lately we received reports that Massoud Rajavi, despite his bravado, has lost control over a considerable part of his forces. He has clearly emphasized in his internal audio-conference with the inhabitants of Camp Liberty that he would not allow anyone to leave Iraq. So far he has blocked all possibilities of moving to third countries and this has resulted in more and more dissatisfaction inside the camp.

There are also reports that members of the Rajavi cult in western countries are sent to approach the UN offices as well as the parliaments in the guise of family members. They claim that they are the relatives of those in Camp Liberty and are concerned about their security and in the end they make the demand that they be returned to Ashraf garrison. Would the genuine families demand their relatives be moved out of Iraq for their own safety or would they ask for them to return to Ashraf where they would be at greater risk of further attack?

Several former female members of the cult have spoken out in European communities and revealed the severe mind control practices going on inside the cult. Who can have any doubt that the MEK led by Massoud Rajavi is a destructive mind control cult? Is there any doubt that the most basic human rights are violated inside the cult? Ten years of dealing with the MEK by the UN and other international organizations has certainly exposed the true nature of this cult to these and other authorities.

There have been many cases in which an individual has asked the UN monitors to help them leave but in the next meeting the person has denied making such request and has even become angry over the ‘accusation’ they did such a thing. We know that there have been cases when the UN monitors did not immediately take steps to remove the person from the camp and have left the matter to be dealt with in future. This shows that they either do not have the slightest idea about cults or do not wish the people to leave the camp. Even when Ashraf garrison was protected by American forces we had the same experience. The American military officers would leave the matter for later and send the individual back to the camp thereby placing the person in even greater jeopardy.

The UN monitors know better than anyone else that from the moment they enter the camp to the time they leave it they are escorted by MEK officials and they know full well that the cult leaders do not allow the residents to approach them. In the circumstance that the MEK produces virulent propaganda in western political circles accusing the UN of all kinds of imaginary mistreatment, the UN authorities appear to be satisfied by those residents who say how wonderful it is being with the MEK and how content they are with their situation and how much they hate their mercenary relatives. The minimum study of the practices of destructive mind control cults would show the reasons for such behavior.

The residents of the camp live under strict physical and mental control. Any contact between them is severely limited. They have no access to independent information. Some are kept in solitary confinement as punishment or are watched day and night by one or two appointed persons. The peer pressure meetings known as the “current operations” are held daily to mentally suppress discontented people. In these sessions the person chosen is subjected to every sort of harassment, insult, accusations and humiliation.

UN officials admit that those who come for interviews are obviously under psychological pressure and are by no means relaxed. It is obvious that they talk and act as they are told and nearly all use the same clichéd phrases (cult jargon). In some cases, after receiving a letter from their relatives, the person will become happy after reading it, but afterwards when they return to the camp they write condemnation letters and complain why the UN tried to give the letters of the spies of the Iranian regime to them.

One common mistake made is the illusion that the Rajavi cult has a defined belief system and that members adhere to a certain ideology. However, cult experts are clear that cults do not have any ideology except the cruel and slave like relationship between the leader and the followers. Members are enthralled, or rather enslaved, through mind manipulation techniques and physical and mental methods used to isolate them from the outside world.

A victim of a cult loses all their normal former relationships with family and friends once becoming a member and adopts the special cultic relationship with the leader. It is truly what is called “the new slavery”. Therefore once their former emotions and relationships are restored, the effects of brainwashing begin to fade away and the victim can eventually decide rationally. That is why all cult leaders wish to separate their followers from their loved ones. That is why Rajavi calls the family the “nest of corruption” and the “worst enemy” and “devastating bomb”. Family emotions would certainly disturb the reactionary cultic relationship he has imposed. So Rajavi, by no means and under no circumstances, will allow his followers to get even near to their family members.

Unfortunately the UN officials ignore the inhabitants’ total unawareness about the outside would. Most of them have been in absolute isolation for so many years and have had no access to the news of what is happening outside the cult. Their information has always passed through the cult’s filters. Many have been away from free thinking for so long that they are incapable of analyzing their surroundings and made sensible decisions. They are made to believe that they are superior to the others and they are the chosen ones in having the benefit of Rajavi as their leader and they should always be thankful of him. These and similar thoughts are cultivated in the minds of the followers in daily routines.

We have always said and we will always repeat that neither the UN nor the government of Iraq can make any progress in dealing with the MEK unless the families of the victims are given an active role as the key figures. We will also emphasize that the victims should be brought out from the control of the leaders and be placed in a situation in which they can truly decide for themselves. This solution was mentioned at length in the US RAND report. The report clearly emphasizes that the only solution to this conundrum is to separate the leaders from the rank and file. (This is, of course, if there is a will to solve the problem).

Anyway, at the present time there are many family members stationed in Iraq who wish to visit their loved ones no matter what the cost might be. They insist that they must be allowed to enter the camp and search for their loved ones for themselves. So far, for security reasons, the Iraqi authorities have not allowed this. They say that they cannot guarantee the safety of the families once they enter the camp. The families insist on their right to enter the camp voluntarily while accepting full responsibility for their actions in order to rescue their loved ones.

As far as we are concerned there is no other peaceful solution. It is quite obvious that Rajavi wants to drag the matter into violence and provoke further clashes in order to gain political advantages. We believe that the way everyone has tried to tiptoe around or hammer on this locked gate so far will not work at all. If there is any intention to resolve this severe humanitarian problem there should be a change of policy now; put the families first.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Political Uses of the Word “Terror”. Terrorized by “Terror”

“TERROR” is a word that terrorizes us. To pronounce it is to evoke fear and dread. Americans experience all the nightmarish sensations of 9/11. The visible horror of the Boston marathon bombings was intensified by the The Political Uses of the Word “Terror”. Terrorized by “Terror”event’s association with “terror” – an abstract distillation of all that is alien and evil. The mainstream media had a field day with all this. They are expert at fanning diffuse emotion; not so good at illuminating matters. Was it an act of “terrorism?” The country waited breathlessly for the word from Homeland Security, the White House, the FBI. As if the designation per se actually changed anything real. The name works like a potent drug that speeds the adrenaline flow. Acute anxiety, though, does little to clarify the danger or to sharpen our wits in The Political Uses of the Word “Terror”. Terrorized by “Terror”trying to figure out what to do.

Hence, it is important to separate the multiple strands of meaning bound together in the notion of “terror” so as better to explain the phenomenon and to interpret its implications. One aspect of “terror” pertains to a strategy for achieving political ends. Such a strategy can take either of two forms: that of an insurgent group trying to displace an existing government; that of a government or occupier trying to suppress an opposition movement. They share a key trait: targeting civilians with violent means. That tactic has a dual purpose. First, to sow fear among the populace so that they will take actions to accommodate the attacker. Those actions range from joining the insurgency, abetting it, and/or withdrawing loyalty from the existing government. The desired ancillary effect is to erode the populace’s confidence that the authorities can provide security and stability. This has been the logic behind terrorism as strategy in many places: inter alia Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Somalia, Iran, Kashmir, Sri Lanka. From the other angle, the authority in power can use violence to punish civilians who are seen as accommodating the insurgents. It aims to intimidate – to drive home the message that if the insurgents shelter with civilians (including their kin), those civilians are liable to become victims. This latter pattern has been evident in the conduct of American occupations and counter-insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia as well as massively in Vietnam. The United States, in this sense, has engaged in terror in all of those places.

The definitions of terror currently employed by Washington are far more ambiguous. The United States government has passed laws (e.g. The Patriot Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that are grounded on broad formulations of what constitutes terrorist acts. They include an encompassing category of aiding and abetting terrorism. These statutes are so loosely drawn that, as a practical matter, a terrorist is anyone the authorities want to declare a terrorist. It should be noted that the US government’s charge against the Boston bomber includes “the use of weapons of mass destruction.” Anyone want to define WMD in this context? For scholarly and analytical purposes, therefore, the term “terrorism” as widely employed has no value – unless the subject of study is its several uses and abuses. For the purpose of making ethical judgments, these broad formulations are equally pointless since they do not frame the questions of standards, responsibility and accountability in any instructive way. In the vocabulary of American officials, and most commentators, “terrorism” is used for hortatory purposes alone.

Placed against this background, the common assumption that terrorism is the characteristic asymmetric instrument of insurgents, qualitatively different from the uses of violent force by established governments/occupiers, does not hold up. Certainly, it needs significant qualification. It is true that today at the declaratory level all states denounce terrorism and condemn attacks on civilians. There is no disagreement on that score. Consensual prohibitions against launching or supporting terrorist acts, though, are of little significance absent an agreed, explicit definition – something that does not exist nor will it be forthcoming. Both terrorist acts by non-state actors, and those connected to state actions, pose daunting analytical challenges – ones that stem in part from the interest of the parties involved in avoiding crisp definitions.

The first hurdle is the dilemma encapsulated in the commonplace saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. That is to say, the cause in whose name the act is committed influences how we judge it. Few if any government leaders candidly state that. The record is clear, however. One example: the United States has just rehabilitated the Mujahedeen-e Khalq -MEK, the radical Iranian organization whose extreme acts of violence got it placed on everyone’s list of terrorist organizations some years ago. Why the turnaround? Other than MEK’s aggressive public relations campaign that involved MEK spreading around millions in speakers fees to a host of American public figures, the organization is a bitter opponent of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Washington also backs rebels in the Iranian province of Baluchistan who periodically attack both military and civilian targets. Then there are the “death squads” that the United States encouraged and, in some cases, trained which wreaked havoc in several Latin American countries in the 1980s and 1990s. A number of other states behave similarly.

A second hurdle can be posed as a question: does it matter who precisely pulls the trigger? That raises subtle issues concerning public ethics. Let it be said that it makes no difference from the perspective of the victim. Furthermore, if the agent could act thanks to someone else creating permissive or necessary conditions, then the latter shares culpability. Apportioning blame under these circumstances becomes a political exercise more than it is an analytical one. Certainly, it cannot pass as an exercise in law enforcement.

Consider drone strikes. The United States government knows full well that it is routinely killing innocent civilians. It may not target them per se, but it accepts those casualties as unavoidable trade-offs for achieving the desired objectives of the drone strikes, e.g. killing bad guys. That decision is both a practical one and a moral one. Practical in a sense that the US pays a political price on the ground, and diplomatically, which it is prepared to accept. Moral in the sense that it is advancing a crude ends/means justification in defense of its actions. Moreover, even the question of intent is not crystal clear. Why? Civilian casualties are not always just an unintentional cost – as noted above; they also can figure as a gain where there is a desired effect of discouraging civilians from sheltering bad guys – and of discouraging bad guys from putting relatives or friends at risk.

There are further delineations to be made. In ascribing responsibility for a terrorist act, should we separate planners from organizers from executants? This is an issue that often arises in more mundane criminal matters. That is why the law refers to accessories, to conspiracies, etc. The ethical issue is a variant of that which arises in cases of state sponsorship – as discussed above. The practical policy issue centers on the methods for defeating a group that employs terror, i.e. do you concentrate on decapitating it (going after the planners and instigators) or disrupting its operational capacity (going after logistics and skilled operators) or preventing individual acts. One thing can be said with confidence; if the focus of a counter-insurgency campaign flits from one to the other, failure is assured. That is part of the reason for our dismal performance in Afghanistan.

In South Vietnam, we tried all three (except for assassinating the Communist leadership in Hanoi), doing everything but incinerating the entire countryside and still failed. As for countervailing a strategy of violent intimidation by a government or occupier, the options for an insurgency are far more limited. It comes down to perseverance in wearing down the opponent – an approach that nearly always succeeds when the brunt of the counter-insurgency is being borne by foreigners. They inevitably estrange the locals and themselves get too fatigued to carry on. So they quit.

Motivation, too, varies. To start with, we should make a distinction between individual andstructural factors. Personality and personal experiences (actual or vicarious) count – although in particular cases there is considerable variations of the terrorist psychology profile. Events ‘out there’ that provoke anger and hostility can be refracted through personality in numerous ways. The activating or catalyzing factor that prompts the jump from feeling to act can be either something very personal or a particular occurrence somewhere in the world. In the case of the Boston bombers, there does not seem to have been a single, immediate proximate catalyst. Rather, Tamerlan the leader was impelled toward the brink by a combination of the two, i.e. acute life disappointments and reiterated, violent American actions in the Islamic world.

What intrigues us is the ease with which some of these people make the transition to action. The normal psychological constraints of instinctive inhibition about killing innocents/strangers, socialized norms, etc. seem unnaturally weak. The old European anarchists were loners, living in cellars, and out of touch with everyday society. They also usually targeted leaders. These two do not fit that pattern. One of course was married to an American and had a young child. That is why I wonder as to whether, to some degree, the easy resort to radical violence is not facilitated by a culture wherein so much of life is lived episodically – each event and situation only loosely connected to an established pattern of existence. Another extreme version of same is the phenomenon of people “re-inventing” themselves. Atavistic passion meets post-Modernism.

Multiple grievances against the United States are felt by millions of Muslims; they create a free-floating angst. It is an underlay of emotion and attitude conducive to acts of terrorism. That in itself tells us little about an individual’s readiness to commit a terrorist act – something that remains very rare measured against the populace of angry disaffected. To firm up our grip on this complex psychology, we would have to examine whether there are additional differences between individuals who carry out terrorist acts and those who plan insurgencies that rely on elements of terror. Furthermore, in the first category there may be a difference between suicide bombers and others who commit terrorist acts.

One last distinction: to place in a single category the Iraq or Afghan insurgencies, on the one hand, and isolated acts of terrorism, on the other, makes no sense. Primary motivation is simpler. It’s not very difficult to understand why Iraqi Sunnis took up arms against the US and the government we put in place. That the al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia faction conducted more acts of ‘terror’ is probably correct, but the main point is that they and other insurgent groups there shared a logical political calculus that incorporated violence against civilians into a strategy.

Any systematic attempt to parse the meanings of the term “terrorism” is likely to be frustrated, however earnest the effort. It is a laudable aim to clarify policy choices as a prelude to making more informed decisions more candidly explained to the public. But that is politically unrealistic in today’s climate. Our leaders thrive in obscurity. That allows ulterior motives to be concealed, contradictions to be masked, measures of succeed blurred, responsibility for failure eluded, careers to be advanced, pet ideas to be protected, ratings to rise, reputations to be burnished, elections to be won, and memoirs to appear credible. So, cries of havoc are almost certain to signal the reaction to any act of violence that they can pronounce “terrorism.”

Agitated by their leaders, the frightened pack will howl in the night.

By MICHAEL BRENNER, Counterpunch

Michael Brenner is a Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts