Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Anti-Muslims and Politicians Find Common Cause with Iranian Terrorist MEK

The surreal world of anti-Muslim Islamophobia knows no bounds. Islamophobes and the political class that panders to them have been caught with their pants down–figuratively for once. Since 9/11, these traffickers in hate have profited from the development of an industry of “terror expert professionals,” consisting of so-called: “ex-terrorists,” “ex-Muslims,” “scholars,” “think tank gurus,” pontificating on the incompatibility of Islam and Democracy, the danger of a growing Muslim populace in the West, the need to be suspicious of Muslims, Muslims’ susceptibility to terrorism, etc.

This narrative belies reality, Muslims who commit terrorism are an extreme minority, in fact what is most glaring in the face of this propaganda is what Charles Kurzman terms, The Missing Martyrs (book review to come soon). For all the hackneyed anti-Muslim diatribe and hypotheses of an omnipresent and ever dangerous “Islamic terrorism,” what is remarkable is the absence of “would-be martyrs,” let alone a threat level that is blown out of all proportion. The Arab Spring has, more than anything else, dealt a stinging, if not lethal blow to the harbingers of doom.

What is most irksome is that the real radicals, the ones who draw us into endless war, increase hostilities amongst communities, and hob nob with anti-freedom organizations are the same individuals projecting their worldview onto Muslims.

Where else (with the exception of perhaps a Gabriel Garcia Marquez novel) could we witness a House Homeland Security Sub-committee Hearing being chaired by a Congressman who once was the most outspoken advocate of a terrorist organization. Rep. Peter King’s involvement with the IRA while they were targeting and murdering civilians is well known, and the hypocrisy and double standard of him chairing hearings on “American Muslim radicalization” is painfully evident.

This however is not the only, or even the most glaring example we can turn to of Congressmen or former high ranking government officials supporting or advocating on behalf of a terrorist organization.

Congressmen (including Democrats) and former government officials have met with the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an organization that was designated a terrorist group in 1997 when the list was first compiled, and is STILL ON THE LIST–for now.

MEK has a very aggressive and organized lobby effort in Washington D.C. According to one House staffer, the MEK is “the most mobilized grassroots advocacy effort in the country — AIPAC included.” Their mission is to be delisted as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), push the USA to foment war with Iran, i.e. “regime change,” and have themselves installed into power. Sound familiar?

They attempt to pass themselves off as the sole legitimate opposition to the Iranian regime, going so far as to claim that they are the Green Movement or the government in exile. Now there is a quiet push to have them delisted from the FTO list:

Members of Congress led by Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) have introduced a resolution calling on the Secretary of State and the President to throw the support of the United States behind an exiled Iranian terrorist group seeking to overthrow the Iranian regime and install themselves in power. Calling the exiled organization “Iran’s main opposition,” Filner is urging the State Department to end the blacklisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) — a group listed by the State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). The resolution currently has 83 cosponsors and is gaining significant ground.

Such a move would have disastrous repercussions for the USA, and would inevitably lead to blowback considering what the MEK is about:

This should all gives us pause. Do the elected and former government officials who support delisting the MEK know the troubling anti-American, terrorist history of the MEK? If they do, then how in good conscious can they actively push to delist them?

The scenario that keeps coming to mind is cover for war or a possible Israeli attack against Iran. A possibility that seems ever more likely as MJ Rosenburg wrote recently:
A longtime CIA officer who spent 21 years in the Middle East is predicting that Israel will bomb Iran in the fall, dragging the United States into another major war and endangering US military and civilian personnel (and other interests) throughout the Middle East and beyond.

Earlier this week, Robert Baer appeared on the provocative KPFK Los Angeles show Background Briefing, hosted by Ian Masters. It was there that he predicted that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is likely to ignite a war with Iran in the very near future.

Finally, we would be remiss if we didn’t mention Robert Spencer’s link to the MEK. Spencer frequently spewsinsults at Reza Aslan for being a board member of the NIAC. In his “expert” opinion true Iranian Freedom organizations oppose the NIAC, and view them as tools of the Iranian Regime.

A contemptuous claim if it wasn’t so laughable, considering that the NIAC has frequently spoken out against the Iranian regime and has thrown its weight completely behind the Green Movement.

Spencer comes to this conclusion based on the opinion of his friends in a group called the PDMI or Pro-Democracy Movement of Iran. No one really knows how many people are in the PDMI, all they have is a blogspot website which Spencer links. The website is quite strange, it has an image of former Iranian dictator Reza Shah, and also articles supporting the MEK. Is it another MEK front group? One recent article from July 15 is titled ”Iran, Mujahedin-e Khalq, and the US State Department,” by Hamid Yazdanpanah, who writes:

[W]hat has consistently been a go-to practice in appeasing Tehran? The harassment and terrorist listing of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK)…the terrorist designation of the MEK arose purely out of appeasement of the Iranian regime…The terrorist designation of the MEK has not only failed to appease the Iranian regime, it has resulted in severe harm and restriction for an organization devoted to the liberation of the Iranian people. The State Department has a moral and legal obligation to undo this grave error and delist the MEK.

It looks as if on top of all the conspiracies, hatred, and anti-Freedom ideas that Spencer pushes he is also linked to the terrorist MEK. Human Events, another website Spencer writes for contains articles supporting the MEK, such as this one by James Zumwalt. Can we now begin every piece on Spencer with, “The MEK linked Robert Spencer…”?

Sadly, this chimera world in which the Islamophobes and their allies turn everything upside down or sweep it under the rug hoping no one will find the truth is real. We are confronted with an organized mechanism of propaganda seeking to profit from endless war, occupation, hatred, hypocrisy and double standards. We are in an age in which the Supreme Court has upheld a “criminal prohibition on advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization,” and yet our Congressmen, and their lobbyist friends can get away with doing exactly that when it suits their purposes!

by Garibaldi – Spencerwatch.com

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Professor Paul Sheldon Foote

Paul Sheldon Foote: Terrorist groups exist because someone wants them to

Terrorist groups exist because someone wants them to. The US, England, France, Israel and Saudi Arabia finance, train, house and protect them.

Press TV talks with Paul Sheldon Foote, Professor of California State University from Irvine who provides an outline of the extent of involvement both the US, Israeli and Saudi Arabian governments and intelligence services have with terrorist group PJAK that targets Iran, Turkey and Syria. Following is a transcript of the interview.

Press TV: Would you please explain who PJAK is and what their goals are?

Paul Sheldon Foote: PJAK as was mentioned in your report is a branch of communist terrorists that includes the PKK — same leadership; the only difference is one attacks Iran, one attacks Turkey and one attacks Syria.

They have existed throughout those regions for a number of reasons: one is strong American support. Even though the American government denies it, it’s been reported by Seymour Hirsch in The New Yorker; it’s been reported by Laura Rosen in the War and Peace Blog. They can deny it all they want, but we do strongly support it — independent journalists have gone through the region and videotaped all these communist terrorist groups and they all admit they are working with the American government.

They also of course have strong support from Israel. What the American media doesn’t bother to report is that one of the two branches of the Kurdish groups is a Jewish branch. There is a large Jewish population of Kurds both in Iraq and in Israel. There used to be a pipeline that went from Iraq to Israel.

And so the Israelis have had Mossad members on the ground in Kurdistan. They have even tried to create a central bank in Kurdistan and they have been manning the terrorist attacks and directing the terrorist workers and providing weapons. And so there’s a very strong Israeli element in all of this.

Press TV: Can you describe the strength of the MKO inside Iraq? The Iraqi government doesn’t appear to be doing what should be done to counter the MKO in many respects. And how does PJAK have complete control of the Kurdistan region of Iraq, which is almost autonomous?

Paul Sheldon Foote: This goes back to December of 2002 when former US President Bush spoke at the UN and they issued a background paper specifically mentioning the Mujahidin-e Khalq (MKO) as a pretext for whenever we needed to go to war with Iraq.
In 2003 American coalition forces attacked Camp Ashraf Iraq and killed some of the terrorists there. They quickly settled and they turned around and started using them to go inside Iran to kill Iranians.

We have been using them as terrorist tools — the only question is who they work for. Terrorists exist because someone wants them to exist. Their headquarters is in Paris, France because the French government wants them to exist. They have broadcasting facilities in England because England wants them to exist.

Terrorism only exists because someone’s paying the bills and that includes America, France and England.

Press TV: We have the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia — all are trying to push, through financing and training, this group to militarily get engaged and cause instability inside Iran. Does not Iran therefore have the right to defend itself?

Paul Sheldon Foote: Yes of course. I can give you an example of this Saudi financing. You could get Massoud Khodabandeh on a future show — he owns a website called www.iran-interlink.org. Last time I was in London he told me that when he was at Camp Ashraf, Iraq in a very high position in the Mujahidin-e Khalq he personally supervised the receipt of a large shipment of gold bars from Saudi Arabia to the MKO.

The agreement they made with the Saudis is that they had to shave off the insignia and markings on the gold bars so no one could know where the gold came from. You can verify he was there at their head quarters at Camp Ashraf Iraq and a large shipment of gold came in. The Saudis fund every terrorist organization they can imagine in the region.

Press TV: Do you think if there wasn’t this interference by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia that this problem would perhaps have been resolved regionally along with the neighbors of Iran, let’s say Turkey and Syria along with the local governments there in Baghdad?

Paul Sheldon Foote: Absolutely. There is no reason for these problems. A large percentage of Iraqis are actually Iranians who have been living in Iraq for more than 100 years.

The borders of the Middle East were imposed on the Middle East after WWI by France, England and the rest of the world. These are artificial lines. My wife has relatives buried in Iraq and she is from Iran. Who’s to say that anyone outside the region should be defining the lines and imposing these kinds of conflicts on the region? The only objection to Iran is that Iran finally has a government independent; that stands up and will not tolerate having its oil stolen as it was under the Shah.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Mark Dankof: U.S. support for MEK and PKK against Algiers Accord

US not wavering from future Iran invasion

Interview with Mark Dankof, investigative journalist, San Antonio.

Enemies of Iran who profess to fight a war against terror are financing, protecting and steering major terrorist groups to create sectarian strife in Iran to pre-empt an intervention.
Press TV talks with Mark Dankof, investigative journalist from San Antonio who outlines the greater imperial game plan of the coalition of the US, Israel, France, England and Saudi Arabia against Iran. Following is a transcript of the interview.

Press TV: The US and Israel and others are supporting the MKO and the PJAK group of terrorist organizations — Doesn’t that go against the notion of the US fighting terrorism and terrorist groups while they are supporting the PJAK group in particular?

Mark Dankof: There’s no question about it. You could go back to January 1981 the so-called Algiers Accord when the US committed itself to never intervening or interfering again in the internal affairs of Iran.

Obviously when you look at what’s happened in the last 30 years we (US) have trampled all over the Algiers Accord and our support for PJAK; our support for the Mujahidin-e Khalq; and our support for Jundallah is clearly evidence of the fact that we are perpetually intervening in Iran’s business engaging in acts of terror and cross border incursions that are absolutely illegal and reprehensible. It’s a simple contra indication of everything the American government claims to stand for.

Press TV: Some political commentators are saying that this is all part of the thinking behind the US concept of a greater Middle East — Is that a factor in the scenario?

Mark Dankof: I think it is and I think the Zionist connection in this is also very instructive. Bernhard Lewis’s roadmap for what should happen in the Middle East is particularly insightful here. It seems to me that when you look at American and Israeli interests as the Neo-conservatives and the Zionists perceive that, there are a number of things going on here in supporting groups like PJAK, the Mujahidin-e Khalq and Jundallah.
It seems to me that other than the use of overt military force and the threat of overt military force, and economic sanctions in supporting NGOs and politicians in Iran who are considered to be opponents of the regime, that supporting groups like PJAK and Jundallah and the MEK serves a broader American and Zionist interest and that is to take Iran and attempt to support tribalist movements and sectarian movements that would weaken the central government in Iran.
It seems to me that this is going on with PJAK and the attempt to utilize them; to stir up ethnic trouble involving Kurds; this certainly is going on with the kind of support the US is covertly giving to sectarian groups who I think would like to create tensions between Arabs and Persians within Iran.
And clearly when you start looking at the Azeris — and there are 20-25 million Azeris in Iran; that PJAK has expressed an interest not simply in fomenting trouble against Tehran vis a vis the Kurdish route, but also trying to stir up trouble with the Azeris and the Arabs who live in Iran to create tribal divisions, sectional divisions, that would serve to weaken the central government in Iran if overt threats of military force and economic sanctions are not sufficient to do the job.

Press TV: What regional consequences might this have because as we speak this armed conflict is still going on? What are the chances of this spreading and involving other countries? We could talk about Turkey and Syria, which hold large Kurdish populations.

Mark Dankof: Well, I think the possibilities are endless in terms of an expansion of this conflict. And it seems to me that with the Neo-conservatives in Washington and the Zionist regime in Israel that’s exactly what they want — to create division; to foment unrest and instability; to fan the flames of sectarian strife and where possible to create even a false flag incident that could be blamed on Iran to justify further overt military action against your country.
This is what I’m afraid of. I’ve been warning about this for 5, 6, 7 years now; Dr. Paul Sheldon Foote as well; and it seems to me that this is the ultimate game plan. So I have no good feelings about any of this.

Press TV: When do you anticipate an all out incursion whether its direct or indirect in this case and talking about PJAK and what they are doing?

Mark Dankof: Who knows. I have no inside intelligence sources on this, but it seems to me that the dangers are obvious and when you see repeated things going on in the Western media including ex-CIA agent Robert Baer’s statements recently that he had information to the effect that the US either with or without Israel could conceivably attack Iran as early as September.
Whether or not this plays out that remains to be seen. But clearly the larger game plan is in view here and that is to create a larger situation that can be used for another overt British American and Israeli intervention in the region.
And I think Syria is at risk. Clearly they’re at risk and more importantly I think Iran is in danger — I don’t think anyone questions this who has seriously looked at the problem.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The MEK Expulsion from Iraq

Senior Tribal Leader Urges Expulsion of MKO Members from Iraq

A senior tribal leader in Iraq’s Northern Diyala province which hosts the main training camp of the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization underlined the Iraqi people’s strong support for the expulsion of the MKO members from the country.

“The al-Azzah tribe and I as the leader of the tribe welcome expulsion of the MKO,” Mazan Habib Kheizaran told FNA on Wednesday, adding that all the people of the Diyala province support the Iraqi government and parliament’s plan for expelling the MKO from the country.

He pointed to the problems that the MKO has created for the Iraqi people, and said given the fact that Iraq needs the assistance and cooperation of the neighboring and Muslim countries, hosting the enemies of Iran which has helped Iraq on various and numerous occasions is wrong.

“Iran is helping us and it is wrong to keep its enemy,” the tribal leader reiterated.

Noting the fate of the terrorist group, Habib Kheizaran said according to the information he has obtained in his rare meetings with certain members of the MKO, the members of the terrorist group are due to be sent to the European countries in small groups.

The MKO has been in Iraq’s Diyala province since the 1980s.

In an incident in January, members of the MKO attacked a group of Iraqi protestors, including tribal leaders, outside MKO’s main training camp in Northern Iraq and injured several people, including a reporter.

The incident occurred after thousands of Iraqi tribal leaders and figures along with a number of reporters had gathered outside the Camp of New Iraq (formerly known as Camp Ashraf) in Iraq’s Northern province of Diyala to call for the expulsion of the terrorist group from the country’s soil.

The MKO, whose main stronghold is in Iraq, is blacklisted by much of the international community, including the United States.

Before an overture by the EU, the MKO was on the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations subject to an EU-wide assets freeze. Yet, the MKO puppet leader, Maryam Rajavi, who has residency in France, regularly visited Brussels and despite the ban enjoyed full freedom in Europe.

The MKO is behind a slew of assassinations and bombings inside Iran, a number of EU parliamentarians said in a recent letter in which they slammed a British court decision to remove the MKO from the British terror list. The EU officials also added that the group has no public support within Iran because of their role in helping Saddam Hussein in the Iraqi imposed war on Iran (1980-1988).

Many of the MKO members abandoned the terrorist organization while most of those still remaining in the camp are said to be willing to quit but are under pressure and torture not to do so.

A May 2005 Human Rights Watch report accused the MKO of running prison camps in Iraq and committing human rights violations.

According to the Human Rights Watch report, the outlawed group puts defectors under torture and jail terms.

The group, founded in the 1960s, blended elements of Islamism and Stalinism and participated in the overthrow of the US-backed Shah of Iran in 1979. Ahead of the revolution, the MKO conducted attacks and assassinations against both Iranian and Western targets.

The group started assassination of the citizens and officials after the revolution in a bid to take control of the newly established Islamic Republic. It killed several of Iran’s new leaders in the early years after the revolution, including the then President, Mohammad Ali Rajayee, Prime Minister, Mohammad Javad Bahonar and the Judiciary Chief, Mohammad Hossein Beheshti who were killed in bomb attacks by MKO members in 1981.

The group fled to Iraq in 1986, where it was protected by Saddam Hussein and where it helped the Iraqi dictator suppress Shiite and Kurd uprisings in the country.

The terrorist group joined Saddam’s army during the Iraqi imposed war on Iran (1980-1988) and helped Saddam and killed thousands of Iranian civilians and soldiers during the US-backed Iraqi imposed war on Iran.

Since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the group, which now adheres to a pro-free-market philosophy, has been strongly backed by neo-conservatives in the United States, who also argue for the MKO to be taken off the US terror list.

Iraqi security forces took control of the training base of the MKO at Camp Ashraf – about 60km (37 miles) north of Baghdad – last year and detained dozens of the members of the terrorist group.

The Iraqi authority also changed the name of the military center from Camp Ashraf to the Camp of New Iraq.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MEK Militant Group Seeks Removal From Terrorism List, Has Lawmaker Support

Is 10 years enough time for a historically violent group to change its ways and persuade the State Department to remove its name from their list of foreign terrorist organizations? The Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit thinks so. So much so that a year ago this week, it ordered the State Department to review the designation for Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). Supporters of MEK say the group ended terrorist attacks in 2001, but government documents and news reports suggest the group was still active in planning attacks as recently as 2010.

MEK is the largest and most active armed Iranian dissident group, according to the State Department. It was founded in the 1960s from a mix of Marxist and Islam ideologies. One thing is clear, MEK, in the past, was willing to launch attacks against Iran regardless of location. The group was responsible for numerous attacks in the 1960s and 1970s, but their activities peaked in the early 1990s, punctuated by attacks on 13 Iranian embassies in 1994. Two attacks in 1981 and 1992 focused on Iranian targets in the United States. For decades they took refuge under Saddam Hussein in Iraq until the U.S. invaded in 2002 and disarmed the group.

Friday, hundreds of protestors demonstrated outside of the State Department to mark a year since the court’s ruling and a missed 180-day deadline to examine the designation.

“The State Department has failed to provide any, either classified or declassified, information that states why the MEK should have been placed on the list in the first place,” general Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday at a symposium to address the issue. (See below for FBI information on why MEK should be on the list.) The symposium featured a number of former government officials calling for the removal of MEK from the list. Shelton suggested MEK’s worth as a U.S. ally against Iran, calling the group “the most formidable opposition to the current Iranian regime.”

The New York Times reported that MEK was added to the list in 1997 “as a goodwill gesture toward Iran’s newly elected reform-minded president, Mohammad Khatami.” Supporters argue that MEK gave up arms in 2001, but in April of 2001 the State Department said Iraq was still actively supporting MEK operations against Iran and at a press briefing last October, then current assistant secretary of state for public affairs P.J. Crowley said he didn’t know of any plans to remove MEK from the list.

The State Department “looks not only at the actual terrorist attacks that a group has carried out, but also at whether the group has engaged in planning and preparations for possible future acts of terrorism or retains the capability and intent to carry out such acts,” a statement on its Web site says.

And in 2004 MEK was still actively involved in planning and executing attacks according to FBI investigation documents released in May under the Freedom of Information Act. A joint investigation between Los Angeles-based agents and German police recorded phone calls where MEK members discussed operations. The report tells of a scheme by MEK where the group used children with multiple identities to collect social benefits in Germany, then used the money to purchase large quantities of night vision goggles and GPS systems to improve accuracy of mortar attacks in Tehran. The report said MEK has an extensive support network in both Europe and the United States. A year after the United States claimed to have disarmed MEK in Iraq the group was operational in Los Angeles, Washington, Paris, and Colonge, Germany.

The FBI report says the group’s political wing often uses demonstrations like Friday’s to gain support from government officials and members of Congress “under the pretext of human rights issues in Iran.” A major theme in Friday’s demonstration was the treatment of 3,400 MEK refugees at Camp Ashraf, a refugee camp in Iraq.

In a column on Monday, Atlanta Journal Constitution columnist Bob Barr says by designating MEK a terrorist organization, the United States “expressly weakened the ability of opposition forces in Iran” to make positive changes. Barr argues MEK is not a terrorist organization, but a tool the United States could embrace to affect policy in Iran. “83 members of the House have co-sponsored a resolution encouraging the State Department to delist the organization,” he added.

However, just last June, Iran said it arrested members of MEK who were planning a bombing on the anniversary of Iran’s elections.

“They’re no more terrorists than the people here on the panel… We asked those people to disarm. They’re the only people in Iraq who are disarmed. And yet, these people complied willingly and have done what we asked them to do," former Commandant of the Marine Corps general James Conway said at the conference on Monday.

See a database of known MEK attacks since 1972 from the Global Terrorism Database.

By Carlton Purvis – Security Management

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MEK Has Not Changed

Daniel Pipes asks:

How should Western governments deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Washington labels “the most active state sponsor of terrorism”?

If you guessed that his answer is to lend support to an anti-Iranian terrorist group, you would be right. This is Pipes’ example of meting out “tough” treatment to Tehran. Like all other American boosters of the MEK, he fails to understand that aligning the U.S. with a group that the vast majority of Iranians hates is a gift to the Iranian regime. Even if it were true that the MEK is no longer a terrorist group, that wouldn’t make it a useful ally in building up opposition to the Iranian regime. As far as most Iranians are concerned, the MEK will always be tainted by its violent and fanatical past. Providing any kind of help to them, including removal from the list of terrorist organizations, will be taken as an insult by Iranians regardless of their support for the regime. […]

Of course, it isn’t true that the MEK has really abandoned its old ways. Ray Takeyh testified before Congress on the subject of the MEK earlier this month, and he addressed the idea that the MEK has changed:

The core of MEK’s ideology has always been anti-imperialism which it has historically defined as opposition to U.S. interests. The MEK opposed the Shah partly because of his close associations with the United States. MEK’s anti-American compulsions propelled it toward embracing an entire spectrum of radical forces ranging from the Vietcong to the PLO. Given its mission of liberating the working class and expunging the influence of predatory capitalism, the United States has traditionally been identified as a source of exploitation and injustice in MEK literature. As the organization has lost its Iraqi patron and finds itself without any reliable allies, it has somehow modulated its language and sought to moderate its anti-American tone. Such convenient posturing should not distract attention from its well-honed ideological animus to the United States [bold mine-DL].

Terror has always been a hallmark of MEK’s strategy for assuming power. Through much of its past, the party exulted violence as a heroic expression of legitimate dissent. One of the central precepts of the party is that a highly-dedicated group of militants could spark a mass revolution by bravely confronting superior power of the state and assaulting its authority. Once, the masses observe that the state is vulnerable to violence, than they will shed their inhibitions and join the protest, thus sparking the larger revolution. Thus, the most suitable means of affecting political change is necessarily violence. Although in its advocacy in Western capitals, the MEK emphasizes its commitment to democracy and free expression, in neither deed nor word has it forsworn it violent pedigree [bold mine-DL].

[..]
Update: One-time Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr has joined the pro-MEK bandwagon:

In fact, the past three U.S. administrations have seriously and expressly weakened the ability of opposition forces in Iran to effect positive change. All three have done this by abusing U.S. law that permits the State Department to designate entities as “terrorist organizations” and thereby deny them recognition and access to resources. This is precisely what the federal government for 14 years has done to the single most important and best organized Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK).

Like Pipes, Barr puts great emphasis on the supposed preeminence of the MEK among Iranian opposition groups[…]. No doubt the MEK believes it is the “single most important” opposition group, but why are so many Americans repeating this nonsense? If the MEK is well-organized, this is no coincidence: it is a fanatical political cult.

Second Update: Takeyh also had this to say in his testimony on Iranian attitudes towards the MEK:

Despite its activism in Western capitals, the MEK commands very little support within Iran. Its alliance with Saddam and its cult-like dispositions have alienated even the radical segments of intelligentsia that once found its ideological template attractive.

I suppose one could argue that Iranian public opinion shouldn’t affect what the U.S. government decides to do, but the MEK’s lack of support inside the country where it is supposedly the “most important” opposition group shows that the advocates for the MEK are just repeating falsehoods they’ve been told to say. [..]

Third Update: The key legal criterion for continuing to designate the MEK as a terrorist organization is this one:

The organization engages in terrorist activity or terrorism, or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism [bold mine-DL].

Daniel Larison

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Non-Iranian nationals to validate the MEK’s”Largest gathering of Iranians”claim

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) held their annual conference in Villepinte, North of Paris.
Non-Iranian nationals to validate the MEK’s "Largest gathering of Iranians" claim
The participants, friends and supporters of the NCRI and exiled Iranians, mainly belonging to the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), traveled to Paris from all over Europe, the United States and Canada to the gathering, held annually since 2004, which this year had special significance after the April attack by the Iraqi army against Camp Ashraf.

 
While the meeting, where Iranians seemed vastly outnumbered by non-Iranian nationals, was attended by an impressive number of people, the criticisms, aimed at previous such events, remain. It appeared that a lot of effort had gone into attracting people to the carefully orchestrated, family, race and gender-friendly event, in order to validate the coveted "Largest gathering of Iranians" claim. Strategically positioned cheerleaders, careful video editing, proliferation of flags, placards and vests all seemed choreographed for a spectacle.

As expected, Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the NCRI, made all the right noises in her speech. It was the NCRI, the Iranian Resistance’s parliament-in-exile, largely constituting of PMOI, that elected her as Iran’s future president for the transitional period following the Iranian Regime’s overthrow. Massoud Rajavi, heavily present in the branding of the event, although clearly second to his wife, was conspicuous by his absence from both the event and any new or informative mention in the speech.

 

Mrs. Rajavi talked with enthusiasm about the Arab Spring and with passion about the Iranian uprising two years ago. [..] The appropriation of the concept of "Resistance of Iran", to the exclusion of all the other numerous and varied Iranian dissident organisations and campaigns, both within and outside of Iran, further reaffirmed their critics’ accusations of sectarianism.

It is true that the Mojahedin were once a powerful popular movement inside Iran, but it is now hard to imagine people in Iran accepting the leadership of PMOI and Mrs Rajavi as their president, while their collusion with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war is still fresh in the nation’s memory.[…]Reports of cruel treatments of PMOI apostates, coupled with the story of the Rajavis’ union, further fuel the accusations of the sect-like nature of PMOI.

Most of the criticisms of the PMOI today converge on what is perceived to be their pursuit of power. The event in Paris did nothing to dispel such criticisms. It was undoubtedly led and orchestrated by genuine PMOI activists, but it is less certain how convinced the others present were about the gathering – people who had been offered an inclusive free trip to Paris.

 
Non-Iranian nationals to validate the MEK’s "Largest gathering of Iranians" claim Non-Iranian nationals to validate the MEK’s "Largest gathering of Iranians" claim
 
What they discovered when they got there was that they would not see Paris, but only a huge exhibition hall in Villepinte, with no shops, kiosks or even benches to sit on in the visible vicinity. While remaining sympathetic to the plight of the Iranian people, many seemed disappointed at being used to make up the numbers, as the trip did not include anything other than getting to the conference hall and back…

demotix.com

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The MEK Expulsion from Iraq

SIIC rep: MKO members should leave Iraq end of 2011

Members of Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) should completely leave Iraq by the end of 2011, said Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC) representative in Tehran, Majed Ghamas.
"MKO members should leave Iraq and Ashraf Camp based on Iraqi government’s official stance and there should be no trace of them inside Iraq by the end of 2011. There are minority of people who are against withdrawal of the group from Iraq, but Kurds, Shiites and overwhelming majority of Sunnis are against presence of MKO members inside Iraq," he told ISNA.

Ghamas then added, "the US forces took control of Ashraf Camp after Saddam’s collapse and prevented Iraqi forces to become close to the camp. This was not only a military but a political support as well."

Regarding failure in evacuation of the terrorist group from the camp, he said, "Iraq forces tried to take control of the camp after withdrawal of the US forces from Iraqi cities, but they faced MKO heads’ swift reaction which led to killing and injury of 60 Iraqi forces."

He added the US pressures to block the move currently as well as third countries’ refusal to host the MKO members are other reasons behind the issue.

As to formation of a trilateral committee of Iran, Iraq and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for expulsion of the group, he said, "the basis of formation of the committee is a positive measure and assists Iraq for expulsion of the group from its soil."

Regarding ways through which MKO members are supplied with military equipment, he said, "the organization has lacked military entity after occupation of Iraq by the US forces since Americans have taken large amount of their weapons. But MKO members are working closely with al-Qaeda and Baathist terrorists and they have particular bilateral intelligence cooperation."

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Journalism versus Terrorism – Part 2

He was wearing a military uniform, sitting on his knees. This was the first picture I saw of Ali Safavi after I was keenly aroused to know him and his agenda. I had noticed his name as the author of an article in favor of Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI) some years ago. After a quick Google search, I came across with his photograph in military uniform. Another photo portrayed him in a visit between Maryam Rajavi and the Israeli Rabbi Daniel Zucker.

Shockingly, on the Huffington Post, Safavi is introduced as a member of Iran’s parliament in Exile which is the elegant, polished title for NCR. According to the US State Department NCR is an alias for the MKO, thereby it is a terrorist organization –the State Department added NCR to the list in 1999. [1] Only the fact that Safavi is a member of a terrorist designated organization, writing on a professional media leads to the idea of shady journalism which is manipulating the ignorant audience.

How Safavi uses shady journalism to meaningfully distract public opinion? What are his rhetorical strategies to thrust his poorly stated ideas on the readers?
His sophistical arguments help Safavi convince people to think in unethical ways or draw false conclusion. The NCR member uses quibbling arguments to deceive his intended audience as what the first teachers of the history, the Sophists did.

As it was analytically described in the first part of these articles, “Repetition” is the very tool Safavi exploits to promote his cause – let’s say the cause of terrorist designated Mujahedin Khalq Organization. This major rhetorical strategy is used to produce emphasis, magnification and sometime moving effect.

The use of several synonymous or parallel words together and in various intervals helps him amplify his argument. For instance, the company of Iranian “regime” with “execution” in more than 50 cases implies what Safavi is strongly determined to do: demonizing Islamic Republic.

Repeating the name of MKO and its aliases for over 340 times, Safavi dwells on or returns to his strongest argument which is to promote MKO in Washington and its removal from the list of FTOs of the State Department. He gives excessive coverage to the group, its leaders and its activities. He exaggerates about their achievements. For instance, as I mentioned before, he describes MKO as the main Iranian opposition for over twenty times – although the group has no significant popular support inside Iran according to the recent unclassified report ” IRANIAN POPULAR ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE MEK" published in May 2011. The cable was based on input from State Department Iran-watchers and consular interviewing officers in the main posts that interact with Iranians on a regular basis. [2]

By going over a word or phrase like “democracy “or “democratic change” for about 40 times, in different parts of his writings, he pushes the audience to recognize fake importance of the MKO agenda. He portrays the Rajavis as heroes to bring "democratic change" by giving them extraordinary attention. However, the Rajavis are hardly ever known by the Iranian majority. "In speaking to hundreds of Iranians both in the preceding two months and before, ordinary Iranians were almost uniformly dismissive of the MEK, reacting with either disdain or apathy", according to the report.[3]

Ali Safavi vigorously pushes for on his partial allegation that his organization was blacklisted as a terrorist entity by Clinton administration as ”a good will gesture" to IRI, in almost all of his articles, although MKO was listed as a terror group at least three years prior to 1997. The DOS’s fourteen-page report on the group was published in 1994. [4]

Calling MKO opponents as “Tehran apologists” or “Intelligence agents” in a variety of cases, suggests that Safavi‘s unethical journalism is never free from bias. According to him, anyone who disagrees with the MKO deserves to be called Iranian “lobbyist” or “ agent “ but his own biased journalism to boost a terrorist designated group is professional! His most recent reaction[5] against Michael Rubin’s Commentary[6] is a significant evidence for my assertion.

The few mentioned examples of Safavi’s subtle and often unsound reasoning and his irresponsible coverage of a terrorist designated group poses a question in our mind: How can a journalist promote, encourage and endorse the cause of terrorists? His malpractices in support of a terrorist destructive cult prove his shady_ if not dirty_ journalism. That’s when journalism becomes a tool to advocate terrorism.

By Mazda Parsi

References:
[1]US Department of State, Country Report on Terrorism 2006
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82738.htm
[2] U.S. State Department document released in May 2011 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act http://iran.org/news/2010_05_25-10MEKdocs-DOC10.pdf
[3]ibid
[4]U.S. Department of State, Patterns on Global Terrorism. The 1994 report http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_94/append.html
[5] Nejat bloggers are either former MKO members or have a family member who is currently held in Camp Ashraf. They have suffered deeply because of Massoud Rajavi’s crimes. While the Nejat Bloggers recognize that citing sources of information is essential ,we, as a society feel so strongly against the MKO that we have agreed to not include the group’s websites or links in our articles because we consider it as kind of publicity for the cult.
[6] Rubin, Michael, Bachmann and the Mujahideen–e-khalq, Commentary Magazine, July 3,2011
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/03/michele-bachmann-and-the-mujahideen-e-khalq/

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
France step nearer to putting MKO back on EU list
France

France step nearer to putting MKO back on EU list

PRESS RELEASE No 73/11
Luxembourg, 14 July 2011
Press and Information
Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-27/09 P

France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran
Advocate General Sharpston suggests that the Court reject France’s appeal against the General Court’s judgment removing PMOI from the EU terrorist list

France step nearer to putting MKO back on EU list

In so doing she suggests a number of improvements that could be made to procedures so as to ensure an appropriate balance between the need to combat terrorism and the respect of fundamental rights

In December 2008, the Court of First Instance (now called the General Court), annulled a Council Decision including the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran on the European list of terrorist organisations whose funds and other financial assets were to be frozen1. This was the third occasion on which that Court had annulled a decision of this kind.
The previous decisions that had been annulled by the General Court2 had been based on the existence of a UK decision proscribing PMOI, the existence of such a decision by a competent authority at national level being a prerequisite for including an organisation on the EU list. However, PMOI was removed from the list of proscribed organisations in the UK on 24 June 2008, following a ruling of a national court in November 2007 which described that listing as “perverse” and “unreasonable”.

When, on 15 July 2008, the Council adopted a new decision3 updating the EU list, it nevertheless maintained PMOI on the list. The inclusion of PMOI was based on information provided by the French Government as to (i) the opening of a judicial inquiry by the anti-terrorist prosecutor’s office of the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (Regional Court, Paris) in 2001 and (ii) two supplementary charges brought in 2007 against persons presumed to be members of PMOI. Information to this effect was communicated by the Council to PMOI on the day the decision was adopted.

Annulling this decision, the General Court found that the Council had violated the rights of defence of PMOI by not communicating this new information before adopting the decision.
Whilst this in itself was sufficient to annul the decision, the General Court, for the sake of completeness, also examined the other arguments put forward by PMOI. In particular it found that the opening of a judicial inquiry and the two supplementary charges did not constitute a decision by a competent authority, in respect of PMOI itself, noting that no reasons were advanced as to why the acts ascribed to the alleged members of PMOI should be attributed to that organisation itself. Furthermore, the Court found that by failing to communicate to the Court certain information about the case which the French authorities refused to declassify, the Council had equally infringed the fundamental right of PMOI to effective judicial protection.

France appealed against this judgment to the Court of Justice.
1 Case T-284/08 People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran II (see also Press Release 84/08)
2 Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran (see also Press Release 97/06) and Case T-256/07 People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (see also Press Release 79/08)
3 Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21).

www.curia.europa.eu

In her Opinion issued today, Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston suggests that the Court dismiss France’s appeal.

As regards the failure by the Council to communicate, prior to the adoption of its decision, the new information to PMOI which resulted in that organisation being maintained on the list, Advocate General Sharpston disagrees with the General Court that the Council had ample time between receiving the information from the French Government on 9 June and adopting its decision on 15 July to communicate that information to PMOI, taking into account the internal procedures of the Council.

However, in her view, this should not have prevented the Council from providing the information to PMOI before adopting a decision maintaining it on the list, as required by the Court’s case law. Whether or not issues of urgency arise, it is simply not open to the Council to ride roughshod over a party’s rights of defence.
So as to balance the interests of the Council, PMOI and the other persons on the list who have a right to have that list reviewed every six months, Miss Sharpston suggests that the Council should have adopted a decision as regards the other persons on the list within the timescale required but deferred adopting a decision in relation to PMOI until such time as it had had the opportunity to notify PMOI and consider that organisation’s response. The error made by the Council was in assuming that it had to adopt a single decision dealing simultaneously with all the persons and organisations on the list. This was not the case.

Consequently, Advocate General Sharpston concurs with the conclusion of the General Court that the Council’s decision had been adopted in violation of PMOI’s rights of defence. As this was the sole reason for the annulment of the decision by the General Court, the Advocate General suggests that the Court dismiss the appeal.
Mindful of the fact that the remaining arguments ought to have no bearing on the outcome of the case, Advocate General Sharpston nevertheless considers it important that they be addressed. Failing to do so would, in her opinion, leave France faced with precisely the same uncertainty that led it to appeal in the first place, an uncertainty which may well be shared by other Member States.

As to whether the opening of a judicial inquiry in 2001 and the supplementary charges brought against individuals suspected of being members of PMOI in 2007 constituted a decision by a competent authority, Miss Sharpston first considers that, given that terrorists are unlikely to assist the authorities by establishing themselves in an easily identifiable manner, the requirement that a national decision be taken “in respect of the persons, groups or entities concerned” must be interpreted broadly. As such it is, in her view, not necessary that the national decision name precisely the same persons or organisations as the EU decision. It is sufficient that there exist serious and credible evidence and clues that the persons named are essentially the same.

As to the nature of the national decision, the Advocate General takes the view that a simple decision to initiate investigations is not, of its own, enough. On the other hand, requiring the national decision to be taken by a court would be too strict a requirement. In her opinion there needs to be serious and credible evidence or clues which are strongly suggestive of a terrorist act and significantly more than mere suspicion or hypothesis.

Taking this into account, Advocate General Sharpston considers that the opening of a judicial inquiry in 2001, which led to further proceedings in 2003 (under French law known as a mise en examen) would meet this test but that the supplementary charges brought in 2007, which were not subject to a mise en examen, would not. As the two were taken together as a whole by the Council, this leads to the conclusion that the French decisions could not form the basis of the Council’s decision.
Furthermore, the Advocate General agrees with the General Court that no proof was provided that the investigations launched in 2007 against alleged members of PMOI could be said to be directed against PMOI itself.

Finally, as regards the withholding of confidential information from the General Court, Advocate General Sharpston takes no issue with that Court’s finding that the Council’s refusal to communicate the information in question resulted in the General Court being unable to review the lawfulness of the decision. However, given the absence of any specific provisions in that Court’s Rules of Procedure for dealing with information that needs to be communicated to the Court but not to the other party to the case, the Advocate General, nevertheless, does not find France’s position unreasonable. In strict accordance with the General Court’s Rules of Procedure it was not possible for that Court to offer the Council any assurance that the confidential information would not, at some point, have to be communicated to PMOI. As a result Advocate General Sharpston suggests that changes be made to the Rules of Procedure and principles be outlined so as to allow the use of such confidential information where necessary to combat terrorism whilst simultaneously ensuring respect of the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.
NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are contrary to European Union law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well founded, the act is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act.

Court of Justice of the European Union

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts