“The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend”…US to Remove MEK from Terrorist List?
If asked to name a terrorist organization most Americans could likely name Al Qaeda, Al Shabbab, and a few others. Few are probably familiar with the Mujahedin-e Khalq or Peoples Mujaheddin of Iran known by its initials MEK. Accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980 the MEK has been designated a terrorist group by the
US State Department since 1995. The MEK, however do not simply attack Americans. According to The American Muslim: “The M.E.K. are terrorists. They were driven out of Iran and given a home at a place called Camp Ashraf in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, who they supported. Saddam Hussein used the M.E.K. to carry out terrorist acts in Iran.” In 2001, the MEK “renounced” terrorism. Irrespective of this renunciation, a 2004 FBI report on the MEK which was revealed in June 2011 states that the MEK The long and short is that the MEK are current terrorists not former terrorists. So why would the US consider removing the designation from the group?
Many people are likely familiar with some of the more recent activities of the MEK. The MEK is responsible for assassination of 5 Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and possibly destroyed a missile site. Trained, financed and supported by Isreal, the MEK has been used to disrupt the Iranian nuclear operations causing a delay of years to Iran’s objective of creating a nuclear weapon. In March 2012 Richard Engel & Robert Windrem of NBC News reported that:
“Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.” And then “”… Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News the MEK’s role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, “All your inclinations are correct.” A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet.” All the officials denied any U.S. involvement in the assassinations.”"
It is certainly interesting that a terrorist organization that is now taking action which supports the US’ agenda may suddenly be reclassified as not being a terrorist organization. This post is not intended to question the validity of the decision simply educate and highlight the point that in world politics “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
By Chris Mark ,Globalriskinfo
then the group has focused its multi-million propaganda and lobbying campaign in the US and Europe on spreading the same undocumented intelligence.


a terrorist organization, French anti-terrorist police raided various MEK offices in and around Paris, including its garrison at Auvers-sur-Oise, arresting 160 members of the MEK and confiscating millions of euros. Nicolas Sarkozy, Interior Minister at the time, expressed concern that the MEK "wanted to make France its support base, notably after the intervention in Iraq," while Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, head of France’s domestic intelligence service, warned that the group was "transforming its Val d’Oise centre into an international terrorist base."












on organizations deemed ‘terrorist’ by the US government.
freedom fighter” is a cliche because the truth it conveys is so banal and obvious that it often seems redundant to mention it. A group can employ terrorist tactics while also seeking to achieve self-determination for the people it claims to represent. While the phrase may sometimes be used to justify terrorist attacks, it expresses a truth about the nature of political violence that partly explains but does not excuse the atrocious acts carried out by “liberation” groups. 
"One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter," writing, "It is simply absurd to contend that because people may argue over who is or is not a terrorist that it is therefore impossible to make meaningful distinctions between terrorists and freedom fighters." Is that what those who invoke the phrase are saying? Like a lot of cliches, it doesn’t really make literal sense and is probably best avoided, but I suspect what many people mean when they use it is something like, "As a descriptor, terrorist is almost never applied rigorously and consistently to describe the tactics a group is using — rather, it is invoked as a pejorative to vilify the actions only of groups one wishes to discredit. People who agree with the ends of the very same groups often don’t think of them as terrorists, the negative connotation of which causes them to focus on what they regard as the noble ends of allies they’re more likely to dub freedom fighters."