Page 697 – Nejat Society

The Continuing Story of Camp Ashraf

According to multiple news sources and Iranian exiles with contacts in the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) camp in Iraq known as Camp Ashraf, the camp was attacked by Iraqi forces on July 28 and 28, 2009. The MKO camp was attacked by Iraqi forces on July 28 and 28, 2009

At least eleven camp residents were killed. Also, according to these same sources, the attack was witnessed by US forces who sat by and did nothing, despite pleas from wounded Iranians. It is believed that the reason for the attack was a promise made by the al-Maliki government in Baghdad to Tehran that they would close the camp down. Iraqi officials have denied this, saying simply that they wished to establish a police post there. Meanwhile, the camp residents have asked for US protection.

The PMOI and the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI) are the modern day representatives of an Iranian resistance group that goes back to the days of the Shah. Their beginnings are in the student movement that rose up against the Shah and US imperialism, ultimately throwing the Shah out of the country. The group itself has undergone several ideological changes since its inception and is currently best typified as a secular organization opposed to the social conservatism of the theocratic government in Tehran. To go beyond this general description requires considerably more space than is available here.

Unfortunately for the PMOI, it was categorized as a terrorist organization by the Bill Clinton administration. It continues to carry this designation in the US, although the designation was removed by the European Union earlier in 2009. On top of this label, which has certainly isolated the NCRI and PMOI from potential support among certain elements of the US power structure, the PMOI and NCRI have found their friendliest allies in the US amongst the pro-Zionist wing of the neoconservative movement. Although one can conceive of this support as simply a cynical move by the neocons to gain Iranian intelligence available to the NCRI in their never-ending drumbeat towards an attack on Iran, the other side of the coin is that the NCRI and PMOI have curried this favor. This fact alone has made it next to impossible for the members of these groups to get any positive press or support from the US left and antiwar movement. Indeed, this coziness was enough to convince this writer to view these organizations with considerable caution, despite professing guarded support for them in the past. After all, in the US, it does matter who one shares their political bed with.

This attack and its aftermath is not about the PMOI’s all too apparent coziness with elements of the neoconservative establishment in the United States. It is about a human rights violation by Washington’s client government in Iraq. This is also not the recent elections in Iran and whether or not they were fair. It is about a group of dissidents who appear to be somewhat isolated from their natural constituency while also being surrounded by well-armed US and Iraqi military with instructions to keep them penned where they are.

It is wrong that the members of the PMOI were attacked by forces of the Maliki government in Baghdad on July 28 and 29, 2009 while US forces looked on. It is the right thing to expose this action and to ask that it not be repeated. The attack exists as a human rights violation in a country that is a vast ocean of human rights violations, many of them the result of the US invasion. It should be condemned. Yet, for some reason, the PMOI is asking one of the greatest human rights violators in Iraq and elsewhere around the world–the US government–to protect them.

Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. His most recent novel Short Order Frame Up is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net. Read other articles by Ron, or visit Ron’s website.

Andres Kargar replies to the article:
While I agree that the Iraqi attack on Mujahedin was a violation of the human rights of the residents of the camp, I should also state a few other facts that are missing from this article.
Firstly, the decision of the leadership of the Mujahedin to remain in Iraq was made in order to continue their activities to destabilize the Islamic Republic regime in Iran.
Today, the political orientation of the Mujahedin Organization is no longer what it used to be when they employed a mix of religion and Marxism to struggle against the dictatorial regime of the Shah. They have remained in Iraq to serve the interests of Israel and the United States. Prior to that, they were serving as the propaganda tool of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein against Iran. That was the mistake that eroded any degree of support they might have enjoyed among Iranians.
Many of the residents of camp Ashraf are there against their will. There are many teams of husbands and wives in that camp who have been kept totally separated from one another, since men and women there live in totally separate quarters.
Eager to disband the threat of Mujahedin, the Iranian regime has offered asylum to those members who desert their posts and turn themselves in. Some who have managed to get away have sought and been granted asylum in Iran.
And finally, many (but perhaps not the majority) of those in Camp Ashraf are also citizens of the United States or one of the European countries. If they wanted to and were allowed, they could be repatriated to those countries.
by Ron Jacobs

August 23, 2009 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

A clash at Camp Ashraf left 11 MEK members Camp Ashraf dead

In a letter to a British parliamentarian last month, a senior State Department official insisted that the United States was “doing its utmost” to ensure that Iraq’s government would treat 3,400 Iranian exiles living at Camp Ashraf in eastern Iraq “humanely.” Two weeks later, a clash The Iraqi government claims the exiles threw stones and Molotov cocktails when Iraqi forces entered the camp, ostensibly to establish a police post. The exiles have video showing Iraqi forces beating people between the exiles and Iraqi police left 11 Iranians dead, and 36 were taken into custody by Iraqi forces.

Americans troops had guarded the camp since 2003, but recently handed over responsibility to Iraqi forces. Baghdad promised that the exiles would be protected.

There is no authoritative version of events, but it does not look as if that promise is being kept. The Iraqi government claims the exiles threw stones and Molotov cocktails when Iraqi forces entered the camp, ostensibly to establish a police post. The exiles have video showing Iraqi forces beating people with clubs and charging them with vehicles. The administration’s response has been weak. Officials say they will press Iraq to fulfill its promises but can only do so much now that Iraq is in charge.

The camp’s residents are members of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran (MEK), which is committed to overthrowing Tehran’s government. Saddam Hussein welcomed them to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war and they have lived at the camp ever since.

Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government now has good relations with Iran and little enthusiasm for the MEK. The Americans are at best ambivalent. The group, which some consider a cult, is on the American terrorism list for attacks against the United States (in the distant past) and more recently against Iran. In 2004, the United States — seeking to stabilize Iraq — recognized the camp’s residents as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, after they signed statements renouncing terrorism and gave up their weapons.

Residents say that Washington has now betrayed that commitment. They have a legitimate complaint. But the MEK has also made no effort to reduce tensions with the Iraqis.

The United States should not retake control of Camp Ashraf. But it must warn Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that it will more closely monitor how the exiles are treated. Iraq’s government must formally charge those arrested, give them a fair trial and take steps to avoid a repeat of last month’s bloodshed. If Iraq is determined to close the camp, Washington, Baghdad and the United Nations should develop a process.

Residents are barred from resettling in many third countries because of the group’s terrorist designation. Finding a solution will not be easy, but none of the exiles should be forcibly returned to Iran.

August 23, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi’s leadership, the criterion to legitimize the ideology

Sahar Family Foundation: We continue with the question, in all aspects of the discussed suicide operations, what were the ideological foundations and historical backgrounds that theorized and justified application of such operations? Were there any reliable historical facts to refer to or Rajavi relied only on his own inferences to justify such deeds? As Rajavi usually theorizes anything before putting it into action, it has to be necessarily true in this case as well. I believe these are key issues, hardly discussed in detail, to help develop a better understanding of such reprehensibly ideological mannerism. So I think you can better disclose untold aspects since you have been so close to the nucleus of decision makings.

Batool Soltani: Naturally, as they stated, anything was founded on and done according to a series of presented justifications. That is to say, any resolution had to be justifiably fitted in an ideological apparatus to be practically conceivable. I myself believe that we cannot possibly develop an understanding of the mechanisms that are products of an egocentric will, and in many cases self-instigated, unless we can well analyze fundamental principles. Concerning your question, I will give some details of what I have observed in the different levels and in the level of the Leadership Council in particular.

Regardless of many subjects already discussed, once in 2002 we had a long discourse on the subject you broached. I have to point out that there was a especial book of the Leadership Council wherein you could find the questions, duties and responsibilities of the members of the Leadership Council. Particularly, an article exclusively concerned the subject. Of course, the book was only circulating among the members of the Leadership Council and none of the lower ranks were permitted to touch it. It was exclusively edited for the members of the Leadership Council and would be also referred to as “the Book of Guidance”. The book contained extended degrees of responsibilities as well as the limitations and whatever was considered to be an act of sin. In one of the meetings of the Leadership Council it was enthusiastically debated about the mentioned subject and the historical backgrounds of the suicide operation. In his speech Rajavi underlined that the act of suicide in itself was a big sin and homicide in Islamic teachings. He would say if according to Quran suicide was known to be a big sin then, why we were stressing on suicide and related operations as a working approach. Of course, it was before the widespread self-immolations of June 17.

He would continue focusing on the point that while it was a big sin then, why we took advantage of it for organizational interests and to defend Ashraf. In answer to his own raised question some stood to justify that the suicides were ideologically rooted and done for organizational and revolutionary interests that eventually benefitted masses. He taunted them all about whatever they thought to be serious remarks. He explained that it was all beyond our understanding since we lacked the sound political-ideological capacity needed to reach the accurate answer. The rationalized answer to his own posed question was that in all the wars and battles to which the prophets and imams dispatched their disciples to and also the armed struggle the organization was engaged in some people were inevitably killed. Then, was there any difference between the former warriors called martyrs and the latter combatants killed in the course of suicide operations? Both of the groups he explained to be of help to their leaders to carry out their responsibilities to affect their societies and the revolution they led. He meant that there was no difference between the two groups since both were killed in a battlefront to which they had been dispatched by the order of leaders who intended to accomplish the same cause.

Giving further explanations, he focused on Ahmed Rezai’s suicide act as a sacred feat beyond any regular suicide operation saying his act was sacred and distinguished because he, as the suicide-man, had reached a point where he had detached from his own self and had attached himself to a source without. Any act in any form, being suicide, self-immolation or else, done when the suicide detaches himself from his within and relies on a pivot without not only distances himself from any territory of sin but also transcends himself to a status even above the martyrs. He would interpret that the Quran regards suicide an act of sin because the perpetrator does it in the sphere of observing only his own self and as a result of failing to satiate his own personal will and whim. Then, it would be considered no sin if committed far from selfish tendencies and for a sacred causes to achieve some social and historical ends.

The Quran condemns suicide when motivated by individual urges and the suicide sees no obligation to follow the orders of a leader who intends to alleviate social problems and solve social controversies. It is no more a sin as it relies on and is guided by a pivotal element without who controls deflection when attached to. In fact, Rajavi was commenting on the application of one of the articles of his forced ideological revolution referred to as article F, Fardiyat (individual). The article in particular asserts the relation between the individuals and the leader meaning that it is the leader who legitimizes anything said or done by the individuals. He is the pivot on whom the individuals have to relay and attach themselves for interpretation of anything that happens to be practical and the criterion to assess the accuracy and soundness of thoughts.
SFF: What did Rajavi actually mean, attachment to leadership or ideology? Since it is the ideology, however, that crystallizes the values than the leader whose main role is to interpret and foster them. What did he really mean?

BS: He exactly intended attachment to leadership himself. There were controversies at the beginning on the ideological aspect and some would say that suicide draw its legitimacy from the ideology while Rajavi had a different opinion stressing on the leader as the matrix to which the individual had to secure a liaison. Although it may generally be considered the very same ideology, Rajavi believes that it is the leader who is the spirit without whom anything lacks legitimacy. It is main cause of his strife with the Islamic Republic regime. Attachment to ideology in his opinion is a general perception that actualizes by attaching to the leadership. Then, the matrix one attaches himself to far from his own self is the leader rather than the ideology since from the very beginning the leader has crystallized the ideology itself. As a matter of fact, both are regarded identical with the priority of the former over the latter to justify suicide tantamount to a de facto recognition of a sacred act wherever and whenever the leader wills. Looking it from the angle of Rajavi’s interpretation, the leader is the criterion and the grounds to judge what is lawful, permissible, prohibited and ideologically acceptable. That is where one’s suicide turns to be a big and unforgivable sin if it is unauthorized by the leader regardless of him being directly or indirectly attached.

SFF: What do you mean by directly or indirectly?

BS: By directly I mean a reaction against any direct attempt on the leader’s life when an individual risks his life to save the leader. Any reaction to protect the interests of the leader anywhere on the earth by risking one’s life is an indication of indirect attachment, a responsibility the individuals claim to defend the leadership, his security and interests. In both cases, whether the leader is exposed to direct attempts of assassination or indirect character assassination, one has to protect and defend the leadership and sacrifice himself. To actualize his justifications, he did not even shrink from identifying himself with the prophets and imams. He would say the one who sacrificed himself to protect the Prophet against the harms of the adversaries was identical with the same faithful follower who committed suicide or self-immolation away in the distance to defend his status and interests. Again the criterion was the leadership and his unlimited protection directly or indirectly.
I believe that Rajavi intended to completely remove the doubts formed in the minds of the members of the Leadership Council that suicide was in no way an act of sin and even sacred and glorified if it was committed under the command of the leadership in any form. The suicide who sacrificed himself for the cause of the leadership and his interests anywhere in the world would be rewarded far beyond that of a martyr who had been killed under the command of the Prophet or the leader of the organization.

SFF: At the first look, it seems that the priority is first to guarantee maintenance of the leadership’s interests and then survival of the organization. Can it be the basis for all justifications?

BS: Of course, in one aspect that is to guarantee the interests of both leadership and the organization. But there is one important point to notice, that is, the two are intermingled and inseparable with the priority of the former. The organizational interests can never be discussed separately unless accredited to the leader just as it is with the ideology that draws its legitimacy from the leadership.

To be continued
Translated by Mojahedin.ws

August 22, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MEK: The Peril of Paradox in American Middle East Policy

One thing is abundantly clear about American policy in the Middle East–it is based on a series of paradoxical, internally contradictory goals and alliances which typically end in tragic results for friend and foe alike.

Nowhere is this conundrum clearer than in the present U. S. quandary over the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), or People’s Holy Wvarriors, as chronicled by Ed Blanche, Beirut correspondent for The Middle East, in that publication’s June 2009 issue.

As Blanche capably summarizes what is known of the MEK, the organization was formed in Iran in 1965 by leftist students, subsequently adopting a “bizarre ideology that embraced by Islam and Marxism.” The ideology soon became linked to urban revolutionary guerrilla violence. In the final years of Pahlavi Iran, the MEK conducted a series of attacks and assassinations on American military and diplomatic personnel, as it sought the overthrow of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

The MEK joined forces with Khomeini’s revolutionaries in this ultimately successful effort, only to be expelled by the IRI regime itself in Tehran once its usefulness had expired after the Shah’s departure. The MEK began to conduct guerrilla operations against the Islamic Regime as they had against the monarchy previously, with considerable success. But the IRI applied a level of retaliatory force the “Islamic-Marxists” could not endure. They fled to France, and later joined forces with Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 1980-1988 war between the Gulf rivals.

The shifting paradoxes would continue, as the MEK established a headquarters at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, largely under American and Israeli protection. The one-time adversaries of both Persian monarchy and its American military and intelligence allies, had now become a tool of the United States and the Europeans against the Islamic theocratic regime they helped to usher in 3 decades ago.

And the ultimate paradoxes are these: First, Mr. Bush’s Operation Iraqi Freedom has resulted in the installation of a central government in Baghdad largely sympathetic to the IRI regime in Tehran, and with identical animosity to the MEK’s presence within its borders.

Second, while Ed Blanche notes that it “was the MEK that disclosed the existence of Iran’s nuclear program in August 2002, stunning the U. S. intelligence and military establishments,” he fails to note credible information provided by Barry O’Connell and IPS’s Gareth Porter that the MEK’s role in “disclosing the existence of Iran’s nuclear program,” has been to serve as a clandestine conduit of information on the subject supplied by the Israeli intelligence community.

Hello, Mossad, meet your new allies in the “Islamic-Marxist” network worldwide.

There you have it. The Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), or People’s Holy Warriors, is an “Islamic-Marxist” terror organization, which assisted in implementing the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979; was subsequently involved in guerrilla warfare operations against the very Iranian Islamic Regime they helped to bring to power; fought on the side of Saddam Hussein for 8 years in the Iran-Iraq war between 1980-1988; and now, according to Barry O’Connell and Gareth Porter, is working with Jewish neo-conservatives and Israeli intelligence in planting false “intelligence” on Iran’s nuclear program with the American National Security State and Western news media, itching for a confrontation between Tehran and Tel Aviv—even as it now possesses an adversarial role with the very regime in Baghdad installed by Mr. Bush’s War. Confused?

You should be. The global international establishment can’t figure out what its position on the MEK is supposed to be, either. Hence, according to Blanche, Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Directorate is trying to find the organization a new place to live; the U. S. State Department continues to maintain a place for the MEK on its terrorism blacklist, as does the European Union; American and Jewish neo-conservatives in the defense and intelligence communities of the United States advocate an alliance with the MEK against Tehran; even as Britain’s Court of Appeal ruled in May of 2008 that the MEK “should not be deemed a terrorist organization.”

Oh, yes. One other thing. Even as Israeli intelligence and the Pentagon pursue an anti-Tehran alliance with the MEK, Tehran, according to Blanche, offered the United States in December of 2003 several senior Al Qaeda operatives in exchange for MEK commanders under U. S. control at Camp Ashraf. The U. S. could have had Saif Al Adel and Mahfouz Ould Walid (Abu Hafs the Mauritanian), even as it avenged the deaths of murdered American personnel from the days of Pahlavi Iran in the 1970s.

Why was there no deal?

Better ask the Mossad, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Kenneth R. Timmerman, and the Project for the New American Century crowd.

Isn’t paradox wonderful?

August 22, 2009 0 comments

Iran

Iran Calls on Iraq to Extradite Interpol-Wanted MKO Members

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki urged Iraqi officials to extradite to Iran those criminal members of the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) wanted by the Interpol.

Speaking in a meeting with Iraqi Ambassador to Tehran Majid Sheikh, Mottaki referred to the friendly relations between Tehran and Baghdad and reiterated that such relations show that the terrorist camp (Camp Ashraf) should not be present in the Iraqi soil.

Iraqi security forces took control of the training base of the MKO at Camp Ashraf – about 60km (37 miles) north of Baghdad – last month 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.

The MKO has been in Iraq’s Diyala province since the 1980s. The Iraqi government and parliament has announced that it would not tolerate the group anymore and is seeking to expel the group from the country in the near future.

The anti-Iran terror group has been blacklisted as a terrorist organization by many international entities and countries.

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 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.
The MKO was put on the US terror list in 1997 by the then President, Bill Clinton, but since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the group has been strongly backed by the Washington Neocons, who also argue for the MKO to be taken off the US terror list.
Fars News, August 19, 2009
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8805270758

August 20, 2009 0 comments

Iraq

Iraq Conferring with UN on Expulsion of MKO Members

Iraqi Ambassador to Tehran Mohammad Majid Sheikh announced on Tuesday that the Baghdad government is consulting with the UN over the expulsion of the terrorist Envoy : Iraq Conferring with UN on Expulsion of MKO Members Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) members from the country.

"We have had consultations with the UN to find a place for transferring the members of the group and we have announced that the Iraqi soil will not be a platform for terrorist operations against other countries, specially the neighbors including Iran," Sheikh told FNA.

Referring to the official announcement of the Iraqi government that the members of the MKO can go to a third country or return to Iran, he underlined, "The Iraqi government will not grant political asylum to these people."

As regards a number of MKO members who have committed crimes against the Iraqi people, he said that they will be tried in an Iraqi court.

He stressed that no country is ready to accept the MKO members, and said they will be transferred to a place far from Iranian borders until their fate is decided.

The anti-Iran terror group has been blacklisted as a terrorist organization by many international entities and countries.

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 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 Sadd
am 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.

The MKO was put on the US terror list in 1997 by the then President, Bill Clinton, but since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the group has been strongly backed by the Washington Neocons, who also argue for the MKO to be taken off the US terror list.

August 20, 2009 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

Agents of crimes in Ashraf held solidarity in Paris

Holding ceremonies on ridiculous occasions, with the presence of tarnished guests in Auver Sur d’Oise is just a resort for political show-off and it is never worth to discuss but Maryam Rajavi and her flatterers’ speeches are worth to discuss, while Ashraf residents are at the edge of Rajavi’s armed strategy (treason and spying);in the worst possible situation, they are compensating for Maryam Rajavi and her clandestine husband.

The most controversial statement in Maryam Rajavi’s speech on the occasion of solidarity ceremony for the killed residents of Ashraf is this one:”I wish I were with you”. This statement was said in the most deceitful manner in order to incite the audience’s emotions. She is absolutely the best student of Massoud Rajavi’s class. For further complaining, in her show, she continues:
“These days, in every minute and every moment, I wonder what I am doing here; why I am not in Ashraf with you to accompany you in this prideful, sacred, splendid struggle.”

Definitely the question that is posed here is that: what stops you (Maryam and Massoud) going to Ashraf? Why did you prefer to escape from the camp rather than staying with other residents after American invasion to Iraq?

Do you really wish to be in Ashraf now?!!!

Don’t you remember what you said in your last meeting in Ashraf before all the residents (a few days before American invasion to Iraq in 2003) ? Didn’t you say that you should stay with your fighters until the last moment? But a few months later you were in France?

The residents of Ashraf didn’t know that you fled to France until you were arrested by French police.

Although your so-called respectful foreign guests have no idea of your unstable strategy during four–decade history of your cult and they are good sympathizers for you, as an ex-member of MKO,I would like to clarify that your insistence to stay in Camp Ashraf is not for the lives of the member but for the survival of your last executive arm since the loss of Ashraf base in Iraq equals the political death of Rajavi’s cult. And those rented respectful European and African audience will not accept your nonsense any more.

By the way, if you are so concerned about Khalq’s children in Ashraf, why haven’t you planned for their respectful departure from Iraq months after Iraqi government’s ultimatum for their expulsion from Iraq?

If you feel so pity for Ashraf residents, why did you order them to go on hunger strike?

Why didn’t you order your companions in Auver to go on hunger strike?

We declare that despite your claims of support for Ashraf residents, you are ready to cause more members to die for political survival of your cult and for achievement of your notorious intentions. The massacre of Ashraf residents is because of suicide operations, hunger strike or Iraqi Police raid …

Based on our past experiences, we reveal that for MKO leaders, members’ lives have no value!!!
Unfortunately, the proof of our testimony is the mass murders of a large number of MKO members during political phase which ended with the acceptance of Velayat – e- Faqih (Islamic Republic Regime) by Massoud Rajavi and his letter to Majles-e-Khobregan (Experts Council) and Maryam Rajavi’s suggestion for returning to Iran. The whole MKO’s strategy ended with Massoud and Maryam’s confession that they have been in the wrong way for thirty years, while they were victimizing Iranian children.

August 20, 2009 0 comments

Iraq

Iraq ready to receive Iran’s complaints about MKO

The Iraqi ambassador to Iran says his country is ready to receive Iran’s complaints against the Iraqi ambassador to Iran Mohammad Majid al-Sheikh Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO).

"Should there be evidence implicating the members of the terrorist group in operations against the Iraqi nation, the members in question would be prosecuted according to international regulations," Mohammad Majid al-Sheikh said in an interview with the Mehr news agency.

The comments followed reports that the Baghdad government would try 36 MKO members responsible for the recent unrest in Camp Ashraf, which resulted in an Iraqi crackdown on the base.

"The Iranian government may also present their complaints against the [MKO] criminals to us," the Iraqi envoy added.

Al-Sheikh stated that the Iraqi cabinet has urged the MKO members to leave the Iraqi soil, but they are free to go back to Iran or to a third country of their choosing.

"We have discussed the issue with the UN [officials] and they have also acknowledged that the MKO presence in Iraq is not a possibility anymore," the Iraqi official said.

Talks with the UN about the issue continue but so far, no country has accepted to host the terrorist group, Al-Sheikh said

On 28 July, Iraqi security forces stormed the base of the anti-Iranian terrorist group, Camp Ashraf, and seized its control.

The MKO was founded in Iran in the 1960s, but its top leadership and members fled the country in the 1980s after carrying out a series of assassinations and bombings inside the country.

August 19, 2009 0 comments

Iran

Iran urges Iraq to extradite ‘criminal’ MKO members

Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki calls on Baghdad to extradite the criminal members of the Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MKO).

In a Monday meeting with the Iraqi ambassador to Iran, Majid Sheikh, Mottaki said that considering the friendly relations between Tehran and Baghdad, the MKO presence in Iraq was not appropriate.

"We view Iraqi honor, security and development as a cause for joy in Iran, and believe that those who are trying to fuel insecurity in Iraq are committing a great sin," said the foreign minister.

He then called on the Iraqi government to extradite MKO criminals "who are wanted by Interpol" back to Iran so that they can face trial for the crimes they have committed against the Iranian people over the past three decades.

"The continuing presence of Camp Ashraf in Iraq did not suit the growing and friendly ties between the two countries," Mottaki explained.

"Tehran would like those MKO members who are responsible for series crimes and who are wanted by the Interpol to be sent back to Iran," he added.

Late in July, Iraqi security forces stormed Camp Ashraf in Iraq’s Diyala province near the Iranian border and shut it down. Camp Ashraf had been housing some 3,500 members of the terrorist group for years.

Iraq is reportedly preparing to try 36 MKO members who were responsible for the recent unrest in Camp Ashraf, in the near future.

Tehran hailed the move as a step forward in relations between the two neighboring countries.

August 19, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

No member of Leadership council dares to tell his personal problems

Memoirs of Batoul Soltani –Part 21

The affairs of the Leadership Council including marrying Masud are never revealed to lower ranks, due to the fact that Maryam and Masud believe :”the lower ranks will not understand it because the pupils of their eyes are sexual.”

“Pupils of the eyes are sexual” is a jargon expression in the organization which is used for those who allegedly judge the affairs sexually. In their opinion the case of such marriages is something that the others are not able to realize.
No member of Leadership council dares to tell his personal problems
I don’t think that anyone in lower ranks know about the marriage agreement announced for women of the Leadership Council and Masud Rajavi. As a high ranking member who was responsible for meetings of lower ranks,

I don’t remember (at least as far as I was involved) the case of marriages was presented. Maryam and Masud insist that there is no need to present such a case in lower ranking meetings and also they do not have the capacity to realize it. They said:” we set such an arrangement to solve a historical problem. For me and other members of the Leadership Council, everything presented by Rajavi was acceptable. We had to discuss the most detailed problems of our minor members for Rajavi, For example we talked about their health problems or other problems, based on the content of reports of weekly cleansing meetings (cult jargon) for male members. The reports included their sexual problems or many other problems that no one dare to propose.

Of course, the men’s problems were never presented in front of us (as female members). Their contradictions were not told directly to us. At first, they were presented in men’s meetings, under particular regulations because these contradictions shouldn’t be presented in public meetings unless it was a public case. If the contradiction was sexual, it should be written to the male superior. The latter would add the names. The name had to be written on a separate paper and attached to the report [The name of the female member whom he had emotional or sexual feelings for]. If a man wrote the name of a woman in his report, he would be punished.

At the end of the day, the male superior handed the reports to the female in charge and ultimately the reports were handed over to the highest ranking member in the highest level. There, the reports were investigated and the names were read. Then they immediately changed the position of that female member and moved her to another unit. So, even the lowest ranking members could guess that she had some problem.

Sometimes the problem had happen between two male members. Then the superiors organized both to change their positions. After the changes were done, the two men became subjects of a series of meetings. They had to deal with a project with its specific outcomes.

There is no female member under the supervision of a male member. All women of course were only under the supervision of a single man, Massoud Rajavi. Before the evolutions in the leadership Council, the meetings were held with the presence of both men and women, but later Rajavi said that he didn’t want any female member to be under the responsibility of a male member. He believed that men’s hegemony upon women would definitely end in sexual problems. The relations were managed in a way that all reports were presented and discussed with Rajavi in daily meetings. For example the members reported that such and such person had emotional and sexual thoughts about such and such person.

Before marrying Massoud, none of the female members had the nerve to present such cases in the meetings with Massoud or Maryam. Therefore marrying Massoud was proposed. They told us:”You are all Massoud’s wives, so you could easily speak of everything to get the solution.” If someone didn’t accept the marriage, she would automatically drop from that level.

August 19, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts