Page 699 – Nejat Society

The MEK and the Iranian Protests

The MEK or MKO is a Marxist organisation with a long history of attempts to overthrow various Iranian governments. They helped Saddam Hussein in the war against Iraq. After the US invasion they were disarmed and confined to camps in Iraq. They are on a US list of terrorist organisations even though Europe recently delisted them. They are great organisers and lobbyists for their cause and have some supporters among US politicians who also want them removed from the US terror list. The group renounced the use of force some years ago.

The Iranian govt. believes that they are involved in demonstrations in Iran. Here is a piece from
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98647.htm?sectionid=351020101

Sun, 21 Jun 2009
MKO Leader Maryam Rajavi has called the MKO as the real winner of Iran’s election. The terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) has reportedly played a major role in intensifying the recent wave of street violence in Iran.

Iranian security officials reported Saturday that they have identified and arrested a large number of MKO members who were involved in recent riots in Iran’s capital.

According to the security officials, the arrested members had confessed that they were extensively trained in Iraq’s camp Ashraf to create post-election mayhem in the country.

They had also revealed that they have been given directions by the MKO command post in Britain.
Street protests broke out after defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi rejected President Ahmadinejad’s decisive win in the June 12 election. His supporters have staged a series of illegal rallies ever since.

Iran’s deputy police commander, on Saturday, warned against the mass gatherings, asserting that those who engage in any such actions would be severely reprimanded.

Earlier on Saturday, MKO leader Maryam Rajavi had supported the recent wave of street violence in Iran during a Saturday address to supporters in Paris.

Rajavi had reportedly described the MKO terrorists as the real winners of the Iranian election.

The Mujahedin Khalq Organization is a Marxist guerilla group, which was founded in the 1960s.In the past two decades, MKO leaders have been resettled in the northern outskirts of Paris.

The terrorists are especially notorious for taking sides with former dictator Saddam Hussein during the war Iraq imposed on Iran (1980-1988).

The group masterminded a slew of terrorist operations in Iran and Iraq — one of which was the 1981 bombing of the offices of the Islamic Republic Party, in which more than 72 Iranian officials were killed.

A 2007 German intelligence report from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution has identified the MKO as a "repressive, sect-like and Stalinist authoritarian organization which centers around the personality cult of [MKO leaders] Maryam and Masoud Rajavi".

Anne Singleton, an expert on the MKO and author of ‘Saddam’s Private Army’ explains that the West aims to keep the group afloat in order to use it in efforts to stage a regime change in Iran.

"With a new Administration in the White House a pre-emptive strike on Iran looks unlikely. Instead the MKO’s backers have put together a coalition of small irritant groups, the known minority and separatist groups, along with the MKO. These groups will be garrisoned around the border with Iran and their task is to launch terrorist attacks into Iran over the next few years to keep the fire hot," she explains.

"The role of the MKO is to train and manage these groups using the expertise they acquired from Saddam’s Republican Guard," Singleton added.

A May 2005 Human Rights Watch report also condemns the MKO for running prison camps in Iraq and committing human rights violations. According to report, the outlawed group puts defectors under torture and jail terms.

———- The group has a website that looks quite professional. I wonder where the money comes from. There is a long article by Jeremy Hammond detailing numerous organisations that the US has used as a means of regime change in various countries. He mentions the MEK (or MKO for Iranians) There is also a good article describing the camps in Iraq and illustrating the cult like character of the group. There is no doubt about their total commitment to their cause: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/103/story/58809.html Here are a few sections from the Foreign Policy Journal Article:

A former specialist on the Middle East from the National Security Council, Raymond Tanter suggested the U.S. could work with an Iranian opposition group, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). “If we are serious about working with groups from within,” he said, “it will have to be with the MEK, because there’s no other opposition force the regime cares about.”

Mehdi Marand, a spokesman for the Council for Democratic Change in Iran, similarly said that some in the Congress were ready to remove the MEK from the terrorist list. “If the US really wants to help the democratic forces inside Iran,” he said, “the only way is to remove restrictions from the opposition.”

The problem is that the MEK is on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Based in Iraq, the group came under the sway of the U.S. after the 2003 invasion that overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein.

According to former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who was among a few lone voices pointing out prior to the invasion of Iraq that there was no credible evidence the country still possessed weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. was already working with the MEK. Well prior, in 2005, Ritter wrote that the Bush administration had authorized a number of covert operations inside Iran. “The most visible of these”, he wrote, “is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations.” The MEK’s CIA-backed operations within Iran included “terror bombings”, Ritter charged.

In July, Seymour Hersh repeated in an interview with NPR that the U.S. was supporting anti-regime terrorist groups including the MEK, Jundallah, and the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK). “The strategic thinking behind this covert operation is to provoke enough trouble and chaos so that the Iranian government makes the mistake of taking aggressive action which will give the impression of a country in acute turmoil”, Hersh said, in order to give the White House a casus belli.

In a July 29 article, Scott Ritter wrote that “American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed…. The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran. The recent spate of explosions in Iran … appears to be linked to an MEK operation….”

Hersh wrote another article in the New Yorker in November(note 2008) noting that the Pentagon was increasingly conducting covert operations that had traditionally been the CIA’s domain and giving further details about its activities in Iran. “In the past six months, Israel and the United States have been working together in support of a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan”, which has conducted raids into Iran. He repeated that the “Pentagon has established covert relationships with Kurdish, Azeri, and Balochi tribesman, and has encouraged their efforts to undermine the regime’s authority in northern and southeastern Iran.”

When asked whether the OIA was intended to promote regime change, a State Department senior official told CNN it was “to facilitate a change in Iranian policies and actions” before acknowledging, “Yes, one of the things we want to develop is a government that reflects the desires of the people, but that is a process for the Iranians.”
Then US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton acknowledged in October 2006 that regime change was the “ultimate objective” of the U.S. sanctions policy, and adding that it “puts pressure on them internally” and “helps democratic forces” within the country and amongst the Iranian diaspora.

Administration officials told the New York Times that then Vice President Dick Cheney was promoting the “drive to bring Iranian scholars and students to America, blanket the country with radio and television broadcasts and support Iranian political dissidents.” The program was to be “overseen by Elizabeth Cheney, a principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs, who is also the vice president’s daughter.”

These are just snippets from a very interesting article. I have seen little in the mainstream press about the Iranian charge that the MKO is involved in the demonstrations probably with the aid of the US.
Iran finds US-backed MKO fingermarks in riots
Allvoices.com -By northsunm32 Brandon
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3520863-the-mek-and-the-iranian-protests

July 8, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Suicide, the ideal means to safeguard information

Sahar Family Foundation: Mrs. Soltani, let’s talk a little about defensive suicide operation, that is to say, when someone commits suicide only because of carrying sensitive or secrete information. Particularly, of what kind are these information and what are the means through which the individuals have to annihilate themselves when the time comes?

Batool Soltani: information can be divided in two. The first are those we carried when going from a place to another which mostly happened in Iraq. There were times when we drove from a base like Camp Ashraf to a second destination to meet leadership. We had also trips to France and other European countries from Iraq or even moved about in the Europe. In all these missions, protection of information had the highest priority. The second are the concentrated ones as we are settled in a place and there is a threat from without. It might be a regular inspecting measure done by the US forces in Ashraf for instance or by the Iraqi police for whatever security objective; all these were considered a threat against our community from outsiders. Or it happened that we were strolling about and police would simply suspect us which could lead to further problems.

It had turned to be a big concern especially after the 9/11 terrorist attack when counter-terrorist police had a free hand to arrest and interrogate whoever they came to suspect. It was really a hinder for members travelling in Europe. All the information stated were of the nature a member of the organization had instructions to deface before engaging in self-destroying. I intend to explain more for it is a matter of obscurity for people out of the organization.

I give an example of the year 2001 when the members of the Leadership Council were called to have a meeting with leadership in Parsian (where Rajavi held the meetings). Although it may seem a simple drive from Ashraf to the place, it required really complicated security measures. The main focus was on how to destroy the documents we carried if any challenge hit us en route. There was a general process to follow for destruction of documents before departure.

There was a head-responsible in charge of the security-check of information who at the time was Mohsen Niknami. He had other assistants who were in charge of smaller groups of cadres. Mohsen was the one who questioned me to ensure about my plans of destroying personal information now that I was included in the group about to set off for Parsian. According to already received instructions, I had to use a can of ethanol that I carried in forewarned circumstances like hearing gun-shots, tracking downs, sensing a siege and any fake accident or any other form that could be regarded a challenge to destroy my own documents and that of other members of the Leadership Council. That how these members were transported to the meeting place is another story.

The members had to be divided into small groups and drove on different buses at non-fixed intervals that sometimes took two hours. When the first bus left, the next waited to make sure its safe arrival which was the given green light for its own leave. It was the case with other waiting buses and all had to follow the rules. There were also strict rules for the group on each bus.

There was one in charge of destroying the bus in the event of any portentous sign of danger. Besides, one in any group of three was charged with the task of destroying his/her comrades’ documents that he/she was well aware of their hidden places. In spite of all these measures, we were individually responsible to destroy our documents and information as well as that of the one next to us if anything happened to our rankings in charge. The means to destroy them, as I pointed out, was the can of ethanol we all carried. The emphasis was on the destruction of the information before self-destruction. Now a question may form in your mind that of what significance were these documents and information that required such high precautionary measures to safeguard or destroy them before anyone could have access to them?

First of all, I have to point out that these documents contained none of the contents of the highly valued book of the Leadership Council. Nobody had the permission to have a record of its details in his/her notebook and all members had to read and memorize the contents while at the meeting. They distributed it in the course of the sessions and then it would be collected and thus, all information was in our mind and nothing on the paper to fear others lay hands on it. Neither did we carry any classified information. There Then, you may ask what all these security measures were for? All was done because of the private notebooks the members had with them in which they had noted down their daily affaires, the noted dates merely to do a task, a recorded detail of a task done, some verses of the Holy Quran and other ordinary and personal notes.

It also happened that we had written some notes while in a session, although it was absolutely forbidden, and they, with a member called Gity in the charge, would carefully explore our notebooks and personal belongings when we were about to leave the hall. But sometimes it happened that we managed to stealthy take the notes out; however, none of these notes could be considered classified information in its real concept. What they called secrete and classified information was absolutely different with its own special means of convey that we hardly knew anything about. Whatever means of transfer they used, for sure it was not by bus or other regular vehicles as they used for our transfer.

SFF: In fact, all these security measures that at end may lead to the destruction of a cadre and his/her information are due to these personal notebooks?

BS: Yes, they are. The contents of these notebooks, as I said, were nothing more than a few notes, dates, necessary phone numbers, or the date of a given pledge. I remember once in the Leadership Council I signed a paper that started with a verse from the Holy Quran which I noted down to memorize. Or details of a meeting that were of importance. The documents to be destroyed were all theses trivial notebooks containing worthless information. It was the same case even in the European countries when we were moving about and we had some written information with us. The information could be some phone number we had to contact if necessary. In our meetings there and when we were being transferred to a certain destination, it was forbidden to carry any paper or notebook that would indicate our membership in the organization or any relation with the people in our company.

The only thing we had permission to carry was some money and a phone number for an urgent call which all other companions knew where it was to destroy it if necessary. A phone number in a member’s pocket meant giving the police the opportunity to hook the first clue that well identified the connecting bridges. To thwart any attempt by police to obtain the very single phone number, we were instructed to tear it into small pieces or swallow it. It is how we destroyed information when out of Iraq. I mean to say that we were much cautious out of Iraq since at least in Iraq we had support of Saddam’s Estekhbarat (Intelligent and Information System) while we had restrictions in European countries especially after al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks that had made police to become more sensitized to terrorist threats and consequently they intensified security measures. As a result, we had to follow strict precautionary measures to protect information and relations. However, the last solution was suicide according to organizational instructions.

SFF: Undoubtedly, there should have been real reasons under these practical circumspect.

BS: Yes, to some extents they had reasons to be cautious. Once, for instance, a member called Parviz Yaqubi escaped and surrendered himself to French police and informed on inter-organizational relations. He had asked to be granted asylum reasoning that his life was in danger. Of course, he returned to the organization and later separated again and now lives in total isolation. But his act of going and reporting to police had really frustrated Masoud Rajavi. It was in 1993 or 1994 I think and it cost the organization and Rajavi a lot. Consequently, it was decided that nobody in his/her travels out of Iraq had to carry passports and fake IDs cards and on the members’ arrival in the airport all their documents were collected and kept by the organization. Well, we thought it was well decided and, from then on, any member regardless of his/her rank had to hand over his/her passport on arrival to Europe.

To be continued
Translated by Mojahedin.ws

July 8, 2009 0 comments

Auver-sur-Oise

MKO in search of an alternative Ashraf in Europe

One of the main priorities of MKO has been finding a new strategic spot after the fall of Saddam and being disarmed by the US forces. The reason why Rajavi moved to Iraq was the strategic closeness to Iranian soil that extended thousands kilometers of borders with it which facilitated an easy infiltration to launch across the border terrorist activities. The political conflict of Saddam with Iranian government as well as this strategic position led him to ally with Masoud Rajavi to exploit his so-called National Liberation Army (NLA). He also employed MKO members as infiltrators and spies to the point that Saddam and Rajavi soon recognized signs of ideological and blood kinship. However, the fall of Saddam disappointed all hopes of Rajavi and left him in a desperate attempt to look for a new place to settle his forces in a bid to accomplish his long failed objective of overthrowing the Iranian regime.

Nevertheless, the attempts of Rajavi in recent years have been futile failing in transferring MKO members from Iraq that is no more a safe haven for those who were once engaged in committing terrorist actions against Iraqi people on their own soil. The hostile position taken by Rajavi in Iraq despite his illegal settlement therein has been a warning for other countries not to let him and his organization in. Rajavi is well aware that at the time being no country consents to give refugee to Mojahedin due to their notorious terrorist nature and past history. However, he is looking to find an alternative Camp Ashraf with the same geographical merits. Turkey is a perfect options yet it is no more on the agenda of Mojahedin due to tens of political reasons. Furthermore, Pakistan and Afghanistan would never let Mojahedin enter their soil. On the other hand, Mojahedin have to leave Iraq and Masoud Rajavi must find another location for its organization and undergo a fundamental change in his policy based on the use of NLA. In the present conditions, Rajavi has to ignore the factor of geographical privilege and focuses more on finding a fixed abode wherever possible.

France may be an alternative for Mojahedin. The significance of France for Rajavi is twofold: First, a great number of MKO high rankings are refugees in France and can return there if necessary. It makes the organization pay due costs for transferring all its members to Auver-sur-Oise. Second, Auver-sur-Oise was the first residence of Mojahedin after their expulsion from Iran and now has adequate facilities to accommodate the remnant of MKO members. But it is what MKO wishes and hopes for while other factors and levers seem necessary. Will France ever risk letting a globally recognized terrorist group in? France in recent years has proved to be disinterested in MKO policies and it is highly probable that it would refrain to brook its transfer to its soil. However, Mojahedin have some levers at hand that may pave the way for their transfer to the West and France in particular. It is almost three decades that Mojahedin have misused the discords and conflicts of the western parties and leftists in particular to win the support of westerners. They have managed to expose themselves to the European countries by means of pro-democratic slogans of some leftists under the banner of supporting human rights.

The significance of Auver-sur-Oise for Rajavi lies in the fact that establishing another Camp Ashraf is almost impossible but in Auver. To this end, MKO is extending its territory therein by buying the houses next to the residence of Maryam Rajavi. It indicates that MKO is hopeful to transfer to Auver. This is a warning given in advance by many experts:
The People’s Mojahedin of Iran has hardly any choice but to begin moving their activities to Europe. To do this, they can count on active support from a certain”Progressive International”which has hoped for years to weaken the West. This ultra-Left has no roots in the traditional political currents of thought, even using the idea of”democracy”as bait to lead the unsuspecting into the maze of a kind of instinctive socialism.1
Mojahedin have other levers for paving the way for their transfer to Auver. According to an expert on terrorism:

The leaders of the PMOI have decreed what they call ‘a phase of patience’ and ‘judicial mobilisation’. This is to add the help of lawyers in assisting the PMOI members obtaining political refugee status so that they can enter Europe legally.

By small groups of five or six, they move into host countries under the cover of charitable organisations. The PMOI is reorganizing to turn itself into a machine for political combat. It would like to appear to have given up armed struggle, but it is truly incapable of thinking in any other way. For now, they want people to forget the shadow of Saddam Hussein”. 2
In a nutshell, Mojahedin can impose themselves on European countries and France in particular by means of some levers and factors. Fabricating a legal legitimacy for a terrorist group is a warning for the West that is carried out by a number of western left parties in a hostile reaction to the policy of their governments. The entrance of a terrorist group’s members to Europe not only spoils the continent’s prestige among the international community as following a double policy in combat against terrorism, but also exposes the host government to irreversible damages in its internal and external relations, not speaking of the costs that a full control over the activities of the organization will impose.

References:
1. Gessler, Antonie, Autopsy of an Ideological Drift, chapter 1: The end of tolerance.
2. ibid, chapter 24: Low Profile

July 8, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

On the occasion of American Independence Day

All kinds of interesting news has been coming out of the USA during the past couple of weeks. Not least the news of large scale organised American support for Mirhossein Mousavi the defeated Iranian presidential candidate. Notably Mr Mousavi served as the Islamic Republic’s Prime Minister in the early years of the Islamic Republic when the same Americans were calling him the henchman of Ayatollah Khomeini, etc.

It is widely believed that this support for Mirhosein Mousavi under the banner of a so-called “green revolution” has been part of a failed coup orchestrated by the regime change advocates who intended to bring a puppet Middle Eastern style “President” to rule Iran. If this had happened, President Obama would be able to make his next message to the Moslem World under the new Iranian flag rather than under the Egyptian flag alongside “President” Mobarak. But it did not happen and perhaps it could not happen taking into consideration obvious facts on the ground, which have been ignored by the USA for the last 30 years.

There are, of course, others who simply believe that the hugely expensive and costly support of the US Government for the “green revolution of the people of Iran” is down to the commitment of the US Government to bringing DEMOCRACY and HUMAN RIGHTS (yes I am talking about the US of A) to countries across the globe. Whichever way you may look at it, I am sure you would agree that the most hilarious, and at the same time, sad position has been that taken by American law makers who advocate support for the same terrorists who have killed American servicemen.

On the occasion of American Independence Day, let us remember the people who lost their lives for their country and wonder at those people who stand today under the same flag only to LOBBY for the murderers of their servicemen.

“… At a Capitol Hill press conference on June 26th, Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, declared the U.S. should explicitly side with Iranian”resistance groups”, including the MEK, which he described as a”democratic, non-nuclear, secular group fighting for freedom for all the people in Iran.”The U.S. State Department notes that the MEK”advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970’s,”and that the group maintains”the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond …”
http://iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=6613

“… Lewis Lee Hawkins, the only son of Herman and Mary Webster Hawkins, was born in Chicago, Illinois on 8 August 1930. Herman and Mary would eventually move and raise their family in Plymouth, Indiana… His final assignment came in July 1972 when he was attached to the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group to the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces in Tehran, Iran. Annette and Lee joined Lewis in Tehran where they lived in the Abass-Abad neighborhood. On the morning of 2 June 1973, as Lewis was walking from his home to a street corner to be picked up by his driver, two terrorists riding a motorcycle fired at point-blank range and fired two or three shots killing Lewis instantly. Lewis was survived by his wife Annette; three sons, Terry, Ronald, and Lee; his parents, Herman and Mary Hawkins of Rowan, Iowa; and two sisters Mary Duran of Plymouth and Mona Crocker of Belmond, Iowa. His daughter preceded him in death…”

July 5, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Suicide operation, an ultimate solution to security dilemma

Sahar Family Foundation: Can you elaborate on classified information in the organization, as it may have different definition in terms of use?

Batool Soltani: It is the kind and degree of information that every member of the organization Suicide operation, an ultimate solution to security dilemma carries concerning himself, his responsibility and his relation with other cells. More specifically, there were other ranks who, because of their organizational responsibilities, knew the residence of the leadership and his/her visiting locations. Of course, this classified information vary in terms of sensitiveness and secrecy according to the responsibility of the members and their contact with higher rankings but the importance lies on the concentration of the information in the hands of the members who form the linking ring between others.

The operation teams who came to Iran for armed operation, for instance, carried some related information, or it was the same with members residing in other European countries out of the headquarters in Auver-sur-Oise. They knew details about the location of the camps, the members and their responsibilities and even information about the launched operations or those at hand. As a result, the organization emphatically required the teams about to embark on operations to swallow their cyanide capsules as soon as they felt a risk of arrest.

The emphasis got stronger especially after the 9/11 terrorist incident when the traffic in European countries were under heavy surveillance and there was a high possibility of arrest that could lead to extraction of information under investigations. We had strict order, especially the members of the Leadership Council who carried a high volume of information, to commit suicide if anyone came to be a suspect in confrontation with Interpol.

The rankings travelling between Iraq and the Europe or between Auver-sur-Oise and other countries had strict instruction for self-annihilation. It can be said that the most secure and safest measure of protecting information devised by the organization was suicide. The important point to consider here is the cheap value of man within the organization.

SFF: Will further explain the responsibilities of the members of the Leadership Council concerning the classified information?

BS: The information that the members of the Leadership Council carried were classified as secrete. It was because of their relation with the leadership which was systematically regarded very important. It meant that they had to take the ultimate precautionary measures to protect themselves not because of their own life but as they carried foremost organizational information which made them suicide vanguards. They had always a guard accompanying them who had the responsibility of finishing the job if he/she refrained to commit suicide or possibly thought of a mischief or escape. A member of Leadership Council had to have a ready scheme of suicide being it with cyanide, gun or any other way.

But the priority was always laid on the destroying of the carried documents before doing away with yourself. The means depended on the circumstance and how you could prepare them as easy as possible. There was a time when the organization possessed no gun and cyanide was the best choice, but the time came when it was vice-versa. I was one of those who always carried a gun when in Camp Ashraf or whenever I had a trip to Baghdad. We had strict orders to shot ourselves when sensing the minimal danger of being attacked or arrested. Once I was in England and although I was not yet a member of the Leadership Council, I had instruction of committing suicide since I had second hand but sensitive information like the location of headquarters where the Rajavis lived or moved and the security measures concerning them. It was the same with the information about the headquarters in Auver-sur-Oise and in possibly in other countries.

Of course, some information were declassified within the organization as they happened to lose their secrecy and importance, but they remained classified for the outsiders. In some occasions when the carried information were of a very high secrecy, the members carried a mixed means of suicide, that is to say, both gun and cyanide because in some cases the cyanide had failed to act. Later it was decided to carry two cyanide capsules to ensure that one at least would work.

That is how they emphasized on measures of protecting information and were sensitive about them. All this complicated, systematic deeds happened in an atmosphere as if they were living in a different planet. That is why far from any rationale and logic, to guarantee the protection of the information, the organization grabs at a most secure way, suicide and self-annihilation.

SFF: You said in some cases the cyanide had failed to act. Can you explain about them?

BS: As far as I can remember it record in the related report, it was the time when Arash Sametipour had been sent to Iran for operation. He broke his cyanide when he was on the verge of arrest but the capsule failed to work and he went into a coma only to revive after a while. It had critical aftermath for the organization. Unaware of the arrest of Marjan Malek, for example, the organization first announced her martyrdom in the course of her operation and even Rajavi himself appreciated her as a heroine but later, when it was revealed that she had failed suicide and was in custody inside Iran, anything changed overnight and she was declared to be an agent of the Islamic Republic. The failure of suicides was thus very crucial and cost the organization a lot; it was commitment to these suicides that decided the organizational identity and the status of the individuals in the organization.

Noteworthy, following the reported cases of failure, there established a section whose responsibility was to check over the vehicles of suicide to ensure its efficacy. There were two kinds of check up, routinely done or case related. The former was done in a frequent period of a few months while the latter was a test of an operative’s cyanides before his dispatch to the mission. Once in Camp Ashraf, before the presence of Americans and when they had no limitation, they exclusively provided two cyanides for each member of the Leadership Council. But then everything changed and there came a time when cyanides and guns were not as abundant as before; the cyanides were all collected from among those who once had to carry them.

Instead, they innovated a new way of controlling members with sensitive and secrete information and members of the Leadership Council in particular. Now there was a special division with the responsibility of constant monitoring and surveillance of the members with highly classified information; they had the responsibility of helping them through any available means to eliminate themselves in case of facing any risk of arrest or else; the means could be a gun, cyanide, petrol, ethanol or anything else.
Translated by Mojahedin.ws

July 5, 2009 0 comments

Duplicity of the MEK nature

MKO’s version of democratic government

As s cult-like terrorist organization, Mujahidin Khalq has never believed in democracy in its long history of cult-like approaches. Despite their propaganda for democracy and human rights, they have always believed in an ideological system originated in religion of Shiite Islam [MKO’s version] and Marxism. All documents on MKO’s background prove this ideology which opposes liberalism and individualism as well as capitalism. But today in a U-turn regarding their past doctrine, MEK try to draw the attention of Western governments to themselves by their large-scale propaganda in Western lobbies, advocating a “secular democratic regime of Iran.”

The controversial title “President Elect” for Maryam Rajavi is the main example of MKO’s false propaganda. Who has elected Mrs. Rajavi as the President?
National Council of Resistance that is the umbrella organization for MKO.

Due to its atrocities against Iranian compatriots during Iran-Iraq war, as Saddam Hussein’s accomplice, and its terrorist acts against Iranian targets and civilians, MKO has never had support among Iranians. Therefore, Maryam Rajavi can never be the President-elect of Iranians except those manipulated members in the isolated cult of Rajavis.

Now, after the controversial presidential election in Iran, which was a big practice of democracy for Iranians, Maryam Rajavi is seeking an opportunity to impose her cult of personality to Iranian nation, advocating her regime change policy. All experienced practitioners of democracy argue that democracy includes sharing of power by various parties, a phenomenon that has never existed in MKO, since its foundation, the dissidents have been always suppressed by the cult leaders.

In reaction to the post-election incidents in Iran Maryam Rajavi once more proposed her solution as “democratic change” against Velayet-e-Faqih regime! And she probably sees her cult of personality as the best alternative to the ruling system.

Maryam Rajavi, the advocate of regime change is of course the best person to destroy the progressing path of democracy in Iran, since the destructive cult of hers and her husband’s is the best symbol of suppressing the freedom of expression and speech.

Masud Rajavi who has imposed himself as an idol to be worshiped by the members given that he is the leader of Iran [as an impossible option]could be the most notorious dictator, after Stalin and Hitler in the new regime that MKO is seeking to establish.
By Mazda Parsi

July 5, 2009 0 comments

A debate over Camp Ashraf

Iraq: Camp Ashraf

Question

Asked By Lord Eden of Winton

British Parliament, House of Lords – July 01, 2009

Lord Eden of Winton (Conservative)
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have recently made representations to the governments of the United States and Iraq concerning the current threats to the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf in Northern Iraq.

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, the UK ambassador to Baghdad called on the Iraqi Human Rights Minister, Widjan Salim, on 13 April this year to raise the issue of Camp Ashraf, and to remind her of the early assurances made by the Iraqi Government about the humane treatment of its residents. Officials at the British embassy in Baghdad continue to discuss Camp Ashraf with staff at the US embassy; the most recent discussion took place on 10 June 2009.

Lord Eden of Winton (Conservative)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. I recognise that the Government have no wish to intervene in matters that are the concern of other countries, but given that the Government apparently now subscribe to the culture of "responsibility to protect", should we not be doing all that we can to avert a potential humanitarian catastrophe? What precisely were the assurances given by the Iraqi Government? Will it be made clear to Mr Maliki that international opinion will hold him accountable for the safety of the citizens of Ashraf?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, the UK Government remain concerned that the fundamental human rights of all the residents of Camp Ashraf are fully observed. We particularly sought assurances from the Iraqi Government, who have given them—I now give the assurance that the noble Lord seeks—that no Ashraf residents will be forcibly transferred to a country where they have reason to fear persecution or where substantial grounds exist to believe that they would be tortured. We continue, as the noble Lord rightly says, to have no direct interest or control in this camp, but we continue to liaise with our colleagues in the United States, who are monitoring events with the Iraqi Government.

Lord Archer of Sandwell (Labour)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the citizens of Ashraf have been accorded protected person status under the fourth Geneva Convention, that the initial protecting power was the United States and that it cannot divest itself of its obligations simply by announcing that it has transferred them to the Iraqi Government? Given that the United Kingdom participated in the original invasion, have we expressed some of these concerns to our American allies?

Lord Dholakia (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, would the noble Lord accept the recent statement made by Mrs Rajavi in Paris calling for free and fair elections supervised by the United Nations? More importantly, is he aware of the intimidation of the inhabitants of Ashraf City? Would it not be right at this time to ensure that the European Union, Britain and America warn Iran that any harm, intimidation or persecution of those inhabitants will result in a reference to the International Criminal Court?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, I have no knowledge of intimidation in the manner that the noble Lord suggests. If he has such evidence, I would be pleased to receive it and pass it to authorities which can take the matter further. It is a clear indication of the Government of Iraq’s position that they have given assurances that no Ashraf residents will be forcibly transferred. That suggests that they are honouring their obligations. Our consular staff in Baghdad have talked to people in the camp and assure us that food and medicines are getting through, so there does not seem to be any lack of supply. However, I will happily take on board any evidence that the noble Lord has.

Lord Waddington (Conservative)
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree at least that Britain, being a party to the decision to hand over responsibility for Ashraf City to Iraq, now has some responsibility for recent developments and for the residents’ safety? How on earth can it be right for the Iraqi authorities to blockade Ashraf City, refusing people the right to take in food, and demanding police access to the city while asserting that those living there have no rights whatever as citizens? Surely it is time that the British Government talked again to the Iraqi Government and reminded them of their responsibilities under international law.

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, I can but repeat the invitation I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. If the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has evidence of that nature to put forward, I will happily take it on board and ensure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can inquire into it.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Crossbench)
My Lords, I am surprised that the Minister is unaware of the fact that Camp Ashraf is in essence being besieged by the Iraq authorities. As someone who had grave reservations about the sacrifice that our soldiers made to achieve democracy in Iraq, I ask how we can allow those in Camp Ashraf, who have the same objective for Iran, to be harassed in the way they are. The Minister asks for evidence; he is in a better position to know the evidence of which the rest of us speak.

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, the answer is already in the noble Lord’s question. Iraq is a democratic and independent sovereign state. The United Kingdom, and even the United States, which handed over control of the camp from 1 January, have to recognise that fact. However, that does not prevent us making representations, hence my invitation for any evidence.

British Parliament, House of Lords

July 4, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

US Lawmakers Call For Supporting Terrorists In Iran

The Obama administration should be doing more to support Iranian resistance groups — including the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK), a "cult-like" terrorist organization that has engaged in suicide attacks against their own countrymen, according to the U.S. State Department — in an all-out effort to affect regime change in Tehran, two American lawmakers said at a recent press conference in Washington, DC.

The lawmakers’ call for greater U.S. support for self-styled resistance groups opposed to Iran’s government comes as the Islamic regime has accused groups protesting the recent disputed presidential election of receiving Western backing.

At a Capitol Hill press conference on June 26th, Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, declared that the U.S. government, which has imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution and supported Iraq’s invasion of the country in the 1980s, had too often sought "to mollify or appease those in charge" of that country. Instead, Filner argued the U.S. should explicitly side with Iranian "resistance groups", including the MEK, which he described as a "democratic, non-nuclear, secular group fighting for freedom for all the people in Iran."

The U.S. State Department notes that the MEK "advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970′s," and that the group maintains "the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond."

Following the Iranian revolution the MEK fled Iran for neighboring Iraq, where it received support from Saddam Hussein’s regime to launch "suicidal, mass wave attacks against Iranian forces." The MEK’s fighting on behalf of the Iraqi regime in a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians is generally seen as undermining their credibility among the Iranian public.

Human Rights Watch has also accused the group of perpetrating serious human rights abuses, including torture, at a number of secret prison camps.

Nonetheless, citing the internal unrest in Iran over last month’s disputed presidential election and the fact that an invasion "is not an option today," Filner said the U.S. government should be doing much more to support "one of the biggest resistance groups in Iraq, the so-called MEK.
"They say, ‘Let us do the job; get out of our — just get out of our way,’ because we have not helped the internal resistance movements," Filner said. "We can help internal resistance movements in Iran, and we should not stand in their way of trying to get rid of the present regime."

Joining Filner in the call for greater U.S. support for the MEK was Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who briefly fought alongside the Afghan mujahideen in their war against the Soviet Union. Though declared "freedom fighters" by the Reagan administration, the mujahideen proved to be fertile recruiting grounds for the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Conceding that, like the Afghan mujahideen, the MEK is not "perfect," Rohrabacher said that "during the American revolution there were a lot of imperfect organizations around too. But the fact is, the mullahs are what now — they are the ones who are murdering their people. They are the ones who are threatening world peace."

Rohrabacher also rejected the premise of a question about whether overt U.S. support for terrorist groups opposed to the Iranian government might undermine future U.S.-Iran negotiations.

Filner and Rohrabacher appeared at the press conference with Soon Sansami, currently the executive director of the Women’s Freedom Forum. Previously she was the spokesperson for the National Council of Resistance, identified by Filner as "the umbrella Iranian internal resistance movement in the United States." The U.S. Treasury Department lists the group as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" organization and one of many "aliases of [the] MEK."
Antiwar .com

July 3, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

MKO provoked post-vote unrest

An Iraqi security official says the terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) triggered the recent post-election unrests in Iran.

National Security Advisor Mowaffaq al-Rubaie said in an interview with al-Hayat that certain members of the terrorist group had instigated and fomented the recent political unrest in Iran.

"We have intelligence reports available that certain elements of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) infiltrated into the crowd of protestors [after the election results were announced] and sparked the riots."

The announcement of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election sparked opposition rallies in the capital Tehran with defeated candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi rejecting the result as fraudulent and demanding a re-run.

President Ahmadinejad’s victory caused Mousavi supporters to take to the streets to protest the vote result. The rallies turned violent, resulting in the death of at least 20 people.

Al-Rubaie, however, rejected claims that MKO members had entered the country through neighboring Iraq, claiming that MKO terrorists were ‘either already in Iran or had entered it from another country’.

Iranian security officials had earlier reported that a large number of MKO members who were involved in recent riots had been identified and arrested.

According to security officials, the detained MKO members had confessed to receiving extensive training in Iraq’s camp Ashraf to create post-election mayhem in the country.

The MKO is blacklisted as a terrorist organization by many international entities and countries, including the US.

The group was exiled from Iran after the Islamic Revolution and settled in Iraq in 1986, where it enjoyed the support of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The MKO is responsible for numerous acts of violence against Iranian civilians and government officials as well as Iraqis during the reign of Saddam.

July 2, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

On MKO’s Ideological Revolution

Memoirs of Batoul Soltani – Part 17
As a high ranking member of the leadership Council, I was in charge of a series of meetings, and I received special trainings from Maryam Rajavi on how to deal with the contradictions arising from ideological divorce which forced a woman to leave her husband in order to stay loyal to the organization’s ideas.

Besides, Masud managed the meetings of the ideological revolution himself saying:”suppose that you have brought an Iranian youth to the organization and you want to explain and justify the ideological revolution to him. You should clarify it to him that he cannot be married and be a fighter at the same time. You should explain that one cannot think of sexual or emotional problems while one is struggling.

Then you should ask this question that whether one wants to be in the path of struggle and liberty or in the path of a normal life. So, this was the way we encountered the newcomers explaining that they would fail to succeed in their struggle to the extent that they are involved in external problems. For example, when we argued with an unmarried girl, we told her: ”in the core of your personal relations and emotions, there is a symbol which is the idol of the society”. Then we asked her:”what‘s your symbol and idol, as a girl in the society?” and then we answered the question ourselves: ”a good husband according to your ideals.”

Also for a married woman, there has always been a person in the heart of her emotions. I remember the example that Rajavi always used to use: ”what does a revolutionary person have to give as the price of his revolution? You have left your homes, your families, your spouses, and your children, so what do you offer to your revolution now?” Then he added “But I’d say that you have a lot to give for the revolution and that is your emotions.” They dealt with the center of emotions in individuals because it is the origin of motives and interests. Thus, they analyzed the members’ internal motives to remove all other motives from the members’ minds except the motive of struggle. On the other hand, we tried to suppress the alleged anti-revolutionary motives of the members saying that: “all your motives have to be for the organization and according to the desires of the leaders.”

If an individual has a problem with understanding such a mechanism, he will be likely to leave the group someday.” Then the officials try to guess in which phase that individual will have problems with the internal ideological revolution so they recognize if the person is an appropriate recruit or not. In fact, for Mojahedin, recruitment means total devotion to the organizational relations. They try to reach their goals by using these anti-human levers.

About the marriage of Masud and Maryam, they make some examples: they believe that Maryam’s efficiency has become much higher than the time she was Abrishamchi’s wife and when she removed the obstacle of her ex-husband and linked herself to Masud, she raised her abilities to the level of the first authority of MKO while before her ideological marriage with Masud she was just in charge of a single unit! Then they make it a practical fact in the routine life of members. They try to convince members that the only way to promote your abilities is to link yourself with Masud by abandoning your spouses, your families, and your children… For instance, they asked Maryam:”could you do your current tasks before your divorce and marriage with Masud?” she replied:”No, I was unable to do so, I was weak. I could not even manage two persons. Then my energy was liberated, my abilities flourished. I could rely on another point which was Masud Rajavi so I could accept higher responsibilities.” This has become a proof for their arguments.

I believe that Masud Rajavi has a very poor relationship with men. This aspect of his personality is very clear within his regular relations. I remember that he seriously disagreed with men to film his internal meetings. So he ordered that all leadership Council meetings should be filmed by women only. He planned a time schedule for some women to learn how to work with a camera. He hysterically opposed the men. Now, when I look back, I see the roots of this characteristic in his sensuality and jealousy. Maybe, it is natural that when a man is among a number of women, he would not like another man to be there. This is my internal feeling. That’s why Rajavi tried to choose women for all needed forces related to him. I think he couldn’t tolerate a camera man in front of himself.

He tried hard to remove the members of the political office since they were all men. Apparently he believes that women work very hard so he was always fond of women. When a new woman entered the organization, he was fascinated by her. He welcomed her by joking and having fun. In the high ranks of the hierarchy of the group he was all the time seeking to remove a man from the high ranks and replace him with a woman. Due to this personal tendency he filled up his leadership Council with a selection of female members.
Translated by Nejat Society

July 2, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts