Page 773 – Nejat Society

Activity at Camp Ashraf – will Rajavi cult victims be rescued soon?

The Bulgarian unit has been relocated from Camp Ashraf TIPF and now “a few of them, along with some American soldiers, are protecting only the remaining US property at the Center.” As stated by Bulgaria’s News Agency, the Bulgarian mission had been to “control the Center’s regime and provide order and protection of the property and the Iraqi [sic] citizens with refugee status temporary placed there.”

With the closure of TIPF and re-deployment of soldiers guarding it, the future of Camp Ashraf itself is under question. How many American soldiers are still protecting the foreign terrorist group in Iraq? And how long will it be before they hand over control of the camp to the Iraqi Government and military?

Perhaps the plan is to now re-locate the 3,300 uniformed militants from Camp Ashraf to other places in Iraq.

The MKO leader Massoud Rajavi is waiting to have his uniformed combatants re-armed and re-deployed against Iran by the American Administration. It may be that he will not have long to wait.

However, the moment the MKO is re-armed in Iraq it will be a legitimate target for anyone and everyone who bears a grudge against the group – and the MKO has many, many enemies in Iraq.

In these circumstances, as soon as the MKO is de-proscribed in the UK, the militants in Camp Ashraf must be given asylum there, so that they can continue what Maryam Rajavi describes as their peaceful opposition to the Iranian regime. Any other course of action will leave them vulnerable to a potential massacre. The MKO’s supporters in the British parliament who led the campaign to have the group de-proscribed now have the task of rescuing the group’s members in Iraq before they are killed.

Iran-Interlink, May 9, 2008

Bulgarian News Agency report:

Future of Bulgaria Military Mission in Iraq to Be Decided in One Week

Sofia Weekly, May 9, 2008

The decision regarding the future of the Bulgarian military contingent in Iraq could be made as early as a week from today.

This statement was made Friday by General Zlatan Stoykov, Chief of Staff of the Bulgarian Armed Forces, after the official ceremony commemorating the end of World War II.

The decision is a political one and will be made by the Bulgarian Council of Ministers, according to the General. The current government decision about the Bulgarian military mission in Iraq provides for the mission to continue till the end of 2008.

At the moment, Bulgarian rangers serving in Iraq have been relocated from the Temporary Detainee Center "Ashraf". Right now a few of them, along with some American soldiers, are protecting only the remaining US property at the Center.

According to General Stoykov, the current plans are for the Bulgarian soldiers to be withdrawn from Iraq. There is, however, another possible outcome since the US has made a proposal for the dislocation of the soldiers to two other military bases near Baghdad – "Future" and "Copper".

If Bulgaria accepts this proposal, the entire formula of the Bulgarian mission in Iraq will have to be changed since the offer provides for the Bulgarian army to take care of the complete security of either of the two bases, as Stoykov stated.

General Stoykov believes that the option to increase the number of the Bulgarian contingent in Iraq does not exist since a similar move will require additional funds.

The Bulgarian contingent in Iraq is about 150 military servicemen and women. They have been in the Temporary Detainee Center "Ashraf" since May of 2006 to control the Center’s regime and provide order and protection of the property and the Iraqi [sic] citizens with refugee status temporary placed there.

At the same time, as announced by the Bulgarian National Radio, the return of Bulgarian soldiers from Afghanistan is expected today.

These are two military companies deployed in Kandahar and Kabul, where they were executing assignments for the NATO operation in the country.

May 9, 2008 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

MKO Should Be listed a Terrorist Group

Expounded by Sattar Orangi on April 19, 2008, the poisonous Barren Land that has devastated many lives of its own inhabitants and was the main terrorist bastion in accomplice with Saddam to plot against Iranian people cannot possibly bloom flowers of peace and democracy. The piece of land the ousted dictator once granted to the vipers is still the focus of a global dispute; cooperating with Saddam Hussein ironically called a city of resistance, Camp Ashraf is now the prison of about 3,500 MKO’s members who are held against their will under the protection of the coalition forces. How can a military camp that its leaders violate and disrespect all principles of freedom and democracy can be called a bastion of freedom as Brian Binley, a Member of Parliament from the British Conservative Party, claims?

In an article published in The Middle East Times, he claims that Camp Ashraf stands as a symbol of democratic freedom in the middle of Iraq’s barren land. Surprisingly, he further states that “very little has been heard here in the West about this bastion of freedom which shines as a beacon for the Iranian people and lovers of democracy worldwide. In other words we have a duty to defend and protect Ashraf not only for the sake of the Iranians who continue to oppose the evil regime in Tehran but also for our own sake”.

He might be right that little has been heard there in the West about such forlorn bastion of freedom but the torments of a remarkable number of human souls that are putting up with the most unbearable cult-like conditions and pressures within the walls of the oddest bastion of freedom is a reality no conscious soul can ever overlook. Thus, for sure some people are concerned about the plights of these enslaved human beings under the auspices of their occupying forces when their related courts decide that it would be unjust to rule in any way that might lead to the freedom of these forgotten people.

As reported by the International Herald Tribune publishing an Associated Press news release, the British Court of Appeal on Wednesday affirmed a lower court ruling that Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI) should not be listed as a terrorist organization. Reportedly, three justices led by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Philips, rejected an appeal by the Home Office against a lower court ruling in November in favor of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran.

"An organization that has temporarily ceased from terrorist activities for tactical reasons is to be contrasted with an organization that has decided to attempt to achieve its aims by other than violent means," the judge said. "The latter cannot be said to be ‘concerned in terrorism,’ even if the possibility exists that it might decide to revert to terrorism in the future," he said.

Then, as the judges have concluded, the current act of inflicting unbearable torments by the organization in the question on its own insiders kept against their will in the heart of a desert can in no way be regarded an act of terrorism. They believe that MKO is terrorist only if it targets Westerners or blast bombs in their cities. A truth to be digested by the unaware is that terrorism is innate the organization’s ideology and it can never split the natural instinct off in the same way a leopard cannot change its spots.

Mojahedi.ws – May 8, 2008

May 8, 2008 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Camp Ashraf residents victims in latest propaganda

Camp Ashraf residents victims in latest propaganda move by Mojahedin-e Khalq

According to a Court of Appeal ruling, the UK Government is now being urged to recognize the Mojahedin-e Khalq as an organisation which does not believe in violence to achieve its political aims – although the MKO has never formally announced in either English or Farsi that it intends to renounce violence.

Iran-Interlink reported from Iraq in February about the plight of MKO members trapped in Camp Ashraf under American protection. The report highlighted the Iraqi Government’s insistence that the foreign terrorist group be expelled from Iraq. The problem was that western countries also classified the group as terrorist. With the MKO de-proscribed in the UK, moves should immediately be underway to have the Camp Ashraf militants moved to safety in the UK where they can continue their peaceful opposition to the Iranian regime. The MKO’s supporters in the UK parliament will no doubt be active in this respect. They have used the group for thirty years and cannot now abandon them.

At present, the prisoners in Camp Ashraf will be being congratulated on their huge victory over the Iranian regime and told that they will ‘soon be in Tehran’, although nobody will tell them how this is to be achieved. Iran-Interlink, May 7, 2008

———————————–

Iranian resistance wins ruling against UK ban

By Mark Trevelyan

Reuters, May 7, 2008

LONDON, May 7 (Reuters) – An Iranian resistance group claimed victory on Wednesday in a seven-year legal battle when three top judges upheld a ruling that the British government was wrong to ban it as a terrorist organisation.

The judges at the Court of Appeal threw out a government challenge to a ruling last November that its refusal to remove the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI) from its list of proscribed terrorist organisations was perverse.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Nicholas Phillips, said the appeal bid by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had "no reasonable prospect of success", and added: "The appropriate course is to dismiss her application."

Maryam Rajavi, head of the PMOI’s political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, told Reuters: "The ruling proves the terror label against the PMOI was unjust."

In a telephone interview from Paris, she said: "Western governments and the UK owe the Iranian people and the resistance an apology for this disgraceful labelling. It’s time for them to recognise the Iranian people’s struggle for democracy."

Removal from the British list will unblock frozen assets of the PMOI and enable it to raise funds from supporters in Britain, Rajavi said, adding that she hoped the ruling would lead to the end of similar sanctions by the European Union.

Britain and the EU should recognise and open negotiations with the Iranian resistance, she said.

"Regime change by the Iranian people and organised resistance is the only option to confront the increasing threat of the mullahs’ regime."

The PMOI began as a leftist-Islamist opposition to the late Shah of Iran but fell out with Shi’ite clerics who took power after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Western analysts say it has little support in Iran because it joined Iraqi forces fighting Iran during the two countries’ 1980-88 war.

Rajavi rejected that view, saying Iranians were not free to show their real support for the movement and that Tehran’s concerns about it were a sign of its strength. (Editing by Keith Weir)

May 7, 2008 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MEK and the Terror Lists

Following my response to Patrick Clawson’s piece of April 25, I received several inquiries about my views of MEK and its recent launching of a massive deceptive campaign aiming to remove the group from the list of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) published and maintained by the State Department in the United States. This article is intended to clarify my views on MEK and that why the US and EU need to maintain the group in their respective terror lists.

Whether you refer to them as MEK, MKO, PMOI, OMPI, NCR, NCRI, or NLA etc., you are essentially referring to the same entity with diverse multiple aliases. When the NCRI’s office was shut in Washington, MEK challenged the State Department in court. MEK argued that NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran) is a different entity than MEK, and that MEK’s designation as an FTO should not have been extended to the NCRI. On April 2, 2004 the US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia heard the MEK arguments, and on July 9, 2004 denied MEK’s petition for review. The court noted: “after an extensive investigation of MEK and NCRI… the NCRI is not a separate organization, but is instead, and has been, an integral part of MEK at all relevant times.” [362 U.S. App. D.C. 143; 373 F.3d 152, &158; 2004 U.S. App.]

NCRI has portrayed itself as a pervasive coalition of which MEK is just a member. In the same opinion, the above court noted: “Contrary to NCRI’s portrayal of itself as an umbrella organization, of which the MEK was just one member… it is NCRI that is the political branch of MEK.”

Much to my regret, the EU has failed to recognize this symbiotic existence of the two, and consequently has banned only the MEK. In my opinion, EU needs to recognize that NCRI is just a vanity for MEK to legitimize its existence on EU soil. I know that our president, Mr. Sarkozy, is personally aware of this fact, and has refused to meet with any representatives of the MEK under the disguise of the NCRI. Nevertheless the EU needs to understand this as well in order to enlist the NCRI in the terror list. It is also noteworthy to mention that the Farsi version of the NCRI’s constitution refers to violence as the pivotal means by which the regime change will come about.

Denouncing Terrorism!

The pivotal arguments favoring de-proscribing MEK from the terror list revolve around two factors: Alleged MEK denouncement of terrorism; and lack of violent activity in the last 5 years. To understand the trickery and even demagoguery in such arguments, one needs to be familiar with the culture and lingo of terror groups. Like many recognized cultic organizations, MEK has its own definitions of words and terms commonly used in everyday conversations. For example, MEK has never acknowledged his involvement in terrorism. Indeed it claims to be the “victim” of the regime’s terrorist operations. Therefore when MEK privately denounces terrorism, it is not referring to its own actions. Instead, it merely condemns actions deemed as terrorism in its own narrow vision. MEK has labeled its terrorist activities as “revolutionary military resistance” since June 20, 1981. This is true for almost all terror groups like MEK. They never agree with objective reviews of their actions labeled as terrorism. Even the current regime in Tehran, rightly known as the godfather of terrorism, routinely denounces terrorism, and considers itself as the “victim” of such acts. The disingenuous denouncement of terrorism by MEK and other terror groups can be easily countered by asking a few direct questions from such claimants- Do you believe that MEK was involved in terrorism in the past, say prior to 2003? If so, when, where, and how? A logical follow up question would be, has MEK publicly announced such denouncement in its Farsi Language publications? If so, where is the evidence? The truth of the matter is, not only has MEK refused to denounce violence in its Farsi publications, but a review of its recent Farsi materials reveals the opposite. A true denouncement of terrorism should start with a publicly-stated commitment to peaceful and non-violent agenda in the group’s mainstream media, and in its native language (remember that Iranians speak in Farsi as their main language, and MEK publishes its materials mainly in Farsi). To whisper anti-terror statements with non-Iranian audience without first defining terrorism, and yet publicly glorifying violence under the façade of “revolutionary military resistance” is a known deceptive tactic for those familiar with terror groups.

When PLO decided to abandon its military campaign against Israel, and before it was taken seriously by the international community, they publicly announced the shift in their views for their own people in their native tongue, Arabic. PLO also publicly vouched for its commitment to peaceful settlement of its conflicts with Israel followed by announcing its readiness to join the negotiation table. This is a good paradigm to gauge MEK’s sincerity in its non-violent and peaceful approach, if indeed such commitment exists.

With regard to the absence of terror activities by MEK in the past five years (supposedly the threshold period for removal from the FTO list), it would suffice to keep in mind the English maxim that “the wolf may lose his teeth but never his nature.” Violence is, and has always been, the MEK’s pivotal form of settling conflicts with others. A glance at the group emblem and logo make it clear what the group is all about. As seen in the picture below, there is a Koran verse that sits on top of a globe. The informal translation of this verse is that “God has given His priority and special blessings to the warriors (Mujahedin) of His path than the non-warriors (sitters).” This crystallises MEK’s core ideology to establish a world under the Islamic laws. The Earth meridian on the left side of the globe emphasises MEK’s internationalism. Also as evident in the emblem, the term Mojahed has graphically metamorphosed into an arm bearing a gun. This is meant to portray MEK’s core philosophy that military might is the only means of achieving the organization’s goals. I can’t help but to say no wonder that the MEK has reportedly been favored by individuals known to many as war-mongers, George Bush, Dick Chaney, and Dick Armey, to name just a few. In short, use of violence and terror is in the core existence of MEK as portrayed in their organizational logo. Therefore, it is natural to say that “the wolf” has kept his nature, and only the gullible would drift into its deceptive tactics.

It is prudent to maintain the MEK in the terror list to better monitor its activities. It is a naiveté to accept the group’s private statements as a real commitment to a peaceful and non-violent agenda. A true departure from violence starts with an honest review of one’s past, admitting to past mistakes, defining terrorism, and a public pledge to a peaceful and non-violent campaign.

By Ahmad Baaraan, Paris
ABaaraan@yahoo.fr

May 6, 2008 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Bush: Thou shalt kill Iranians

US President George W. Bush has reportedly authorized a covert operation to set the stage for a military offensive against Iran. According to Counterpunch magazine, President Bush signed a secret finding in March authorizing a covert offensive against Iran, which those familiar with its contents believe to be ‘unprecedented in its scope’. Actions permitted under the secret directive include ‘the assassination of targeted officials’ along with operations across an extensive geographic area from Lebanon to Afghanistan. The ruling is believed to be an initiative in line with President Bush’s sweeping chief executive powers, which will enable him to arm and fund terrorist groups such as the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) and the Jundullah (army of god) militants stationed across the Afghan border in Baluchistan. Furthermore, efforts to destabilize the Syrian government and operations against the Hezbollah Movement in Lebanon will be stepped up, the report says. An initial outlay of $300 million has reportedly been approved to finance the implementation of the clandestine operation. Observers believe the former Centcom Commander Admiral William Fallon, who fiercely opposed a Bush military strike on Iran, was the main obstacle in the way of Washington’s policies against the Islamic Republic. Following Fallon’s resignation in March and with Bush’s favorite general David Petraeus set to assume his position, speculation is high that Middle Eastern nations should prepare for yet another war in the region. May 4, 2008

May 4, 2008 0 comments

USA

The Cult of Mojahedin; Fit to Be an Alternative?

The anatomy of the contemporary political build indicates that the U.S has been always using oppositions as an internal tool in order to maintain its presence in other countries. Following a new doctrine named neocolonialism as a modern colonization, this policy has even encouraged some expansionist countries to use the oppositions as the tool in some cases. Adopting this policy mostly contributes to the abolition of various systems such as direct interference, military revolts, conducting campaigns based on true or false pretexts, and changes in military and political equilibriums and relations. In The Cult of Mojahedin;Fit to be an Alternative? contrast to the past when the U.S replaced Alende and the Chile’s legitimate government with Pinochet using direct military coup d’etat, today they replace seemingly democratic alternatives with governments and dictators under the pretext of the development of democracy or by using similar tools that are likely to be even more appealing to the public. Considering whether the U.S is in all honesty and what is lying behind, is not the subject of this article, but is to consider the various aspects of how much the U.S can count on the oppositions such as Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI) in order to subvert the Islamic Republic.

There are many instances of the US’s neo-colonialism meddling the last of which is the Iraq’s crisis; it would not be wrong to say that the existing crises in Iraq rocketed as a result of Ahmad Chalabi’s providing the US with disinformation. Not taking this case into consideration, yet there are discords within the U.S administration disputing whether to use the oppositions as a tool. In the present article it has been tried to evaluate the contingencies and hypotheses about the subject based upon the opposition’s current conditions and the U.S strategic aims in the region. Before any further discussion, it has to be pointed out that there are some factors and criterions that each opposition group should met to be appraised as an instrumental opposition by the US in the accomplishment of the objectives.

Now it has to be investigated that does MKO meet these standards to become a liable alternative to aid the US achieve its aims concerning Iran? These factors and criteria can be enumerated as the follow:

1. Having a sense of affinity with American political idealism

2. Holding a minimum of internal legitimacy

3. Being a reliable and trustful group

4. Having records of preceding collaboration with the US

5. Benefiting an international legitimacy

6. A minimum obligation of respecting the principles of human rights

7. Holding democratic capacity

8. Taking unambiguous position toward the left and Marxism

9. Standing by moral and ethical obligations

It is certain that these factors are contemplated outwardly whereas there are probably some other factors and unwritten parameters lying behind. For the present we just want to see to what degree MKO meet each of the mentioned criteria.

Having a sense of affinity with American political idealism

Considering the prolongation of the U.S interests as the first proviso of choosing an alternative, the most important proviso for the U.S or any other state is its affinity with that alternative in both politics and thoughts. In the past (dividing camps into Eastern and Western or capitalism and communism), The US was always seeking the choices which were inclined to be perceptible close in politics and thoughts with capitalism. This attitude was being adopted as opposed to leftist and radical tendencies regarding capitalism. It is worth mentioning that MKO from the very beginning recognized the US as the symbol of the capitalist camp and an imperialist. Besides, MKO ideologically considered imperialism opposing to its eclectic ideology and believed imperialism was historically doomed to annihilation.

In their early pamphlet and leader’s speeches Mojahein-e Khalq strongly denounced imperialism and capitalism. Being tried in Pahlavi’s court after his arrest, Massoud Rajavi in his testimonies stated that:

… most of the world’s problems had been created by imperialism; that the developing countries were exploited by Western banks and multinational corporations; and that the United States was propping up reactionary regimes in Vietnam, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. He continued by arguing that US imperialism was undoubtedly the main enemy of Iran, in part because it had overthrown Mosaddeq, and in part because it had armed the bloodthirsty regime that had perpetrated the crimes of June 1963. ‘Thus’, Rajavi insisted, ‘the main goal now is to free Iran of US imperialism.’ [1]

The state department of the U.S. in its first report on The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran in 1994 openly discussed the group’s ideology:

The MKO’s embrace of armed struggle flows from the group’s ideology. Its conceptual framework was painstakingly developed through years of study and discourse and aggressively disseminated throughout Tehran. A renowned scholar of the Mojahedin defines the group’s ideology as:”a combination of Muslim themes: Shi’a notions of martyrdom: classical Marxist theories of class struggle and historical determinism: and neo-Marxist concepts of armed struggle, guerrilla warfare and revolutionary heroism.”8 The adoption of Marxist tenets distinguished the Mojahedin from other Iranian opposition movements: the Mojahedin argued that the struggle against the Shah was part of a larger struggle against imperialism led by the,”world-devouring”United States. [2]

In fact, both the U.S. and Mojahedin are well aware of each other’s political and ideological orientation, that is, Imperialism and anti-Imperialism respectively. Therefore, it is self-evident that the U.S. never submits to the selection of its antithesis as an alternative and MKO hardly meets the first criterion.

Holding a minimum of internal legitimacy

In today’s international political relations, no legitimate alternative can lead on unless winning a minimum of public support. That is just the case with Iraq’s today situation. Therefore the U.S has to rely on an opposition that is in a relatively good position among the public. In addition it would be much more appreciated if the opposition is having a good position among intelligentsias and the educated class. In Iran, for sure, MKO is not the least supported by people in spite of falsely made claims. Based on the U.S. State Department’s report of 30 April,2007, Mojahedin suffer the loss of social support among Iranian people as well as other political opposition parties in Iran and abroad:

Following its participation in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the group rapidly fell out of favor with the Iranian people. The new Iranian government under Supreme Leader Khomeini systematically arrested and targeted many MEK members, causing most MEK leadership to flee to Europe. [3]

In addition, Yan Richard, an Islamic scholar in I.F.R.I centre of France, expounds on the position of Mojahedin in Iran and writes:

Very much a fringe movement on the Iranian political scene, the People’s Mojahedin of Iran have always demonstrated their incapacity to take power by classical democratic means (votes, electoral campaigns, etc,). In their political logic, there is no other way to achieve their goal but by revolution, just as Mao foresaw. [4]

Exactly under the eyes of many westerners, MKO started a bloody chapter in Iran’s contemporary history following declaration of an armed struggle since it could not tolerate a widespread public rejection. It is still under illusion to gain what has long lost:

In their frenzied rejection of what they were politically and of the things they did in the context of their fight, the Mojahedin are trying to recreate a long lost virginity. They want to appear to public opinion as acceptable and legitimate. It is precisely this legitimacy that they lack in Iran. So they do everything to find it, especially in Europe. Yet they still have to jettison a heavy past. It betrays them in the present and echoes down the future. [5]

A variety of Investigations have been done on the position of MKO among Iranian intelligentsias and technocrats; there is a consensus that for sure would not be the alternative. A casual glance at the opposition-run media outside the country reveals that in case there would be any change in Iran, the Iranian demands would be far above the capacity of MKO to fulfil. Besides, there is a general belief that the life of ideological regimes like that of MKO has ended in Iran forever As a result, it is evident that the US will never turn to such an illegitimate and cultist opposition as a capable alternative.

References:

1. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN; The Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press New Haven and London, p. 134.

2. The US State Department Report on The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, by Kenneth Katzman. Washington, Nov 1992. 6 p.

(Doc. call no.: M-U 42953-1 no.92-824F)

3. The U.S. state department report on 30 April.

4. Gessler, Antoine; the autopsy of an ideological drift, p. 116.

5. Ibid, p. 62.

Research Bureau – Mojahedin.ws – May 3, 2008

May 3, 2008 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Nejat Society Letter to Ms. Fariba Hashtroudi

Dear Ms. Hashtroudi,

Happy New Year,

First of all, we would be pleased to send you congratulations on the publication of your book about your experiences and memories within MKO, and the clear expression of the reasons of your defection. We hope you to be successful in your continual good activities.

We wrote you the letter since you spent several years with MKO and are, to some extent, familiar with its nature and function and according to your knowledge you decided to defect from NCRI. We believe that such a knowledge puts you in a position where you should do your best to help the victims of the organization, in an absolutely humane action, without any political tendency.

As you are well aware, MKO has used psychological techniques that are practiced in all cults, to recruit members, it has captured a large number of people mentally and physically in Ashraf, Iraq. These people need emergency aid and their families seek the help of those like you.

The intellectuals including you who have realized MKO’s labyrinth personally, are able to do some actions to save the captives and return them to the free and open world. The captured members of Ashraf haven’t had any contact with the outside world for years and are manipulated by the self- criticizing meetings under the sever physical control. We would like to ask you to step up your efforts regarding your possibilities in Paris, in order to solvate the true victims of the ambitions of the power worshipers. The families of those dear ones appreciate you and wish you the best.

Sincerely Yours,

Nejat Association ,April 22nd, 2008

May 3, 2008 0 comments

Nowruzi

Nowruzi family plead for justice to the Iraqi judicial authorities

Nowruzi family plead for justice to the Iraqi judicial authorities against the MKO about the mysterious murder of late Sa’id Nowruzi in camp Ashraf

Nowruzi sisters (Elham, Susan, Simin, and Soheyla) urge the Iraqi authorities to investigate on suspicious death of their brother in camp Ahsraf in Iraq

Honourable judicial authority of the Republic of Iraq Late Sa’id Nowruzi son of Taqi was born on 1965 in Tehran, Iran. He left Iran at the beginning of 1984 and went to Holland to continue his studying and he was recruited by the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organisation (MKO) in that country. His brothers Majid and Hmid were arrested and then executed in Iran for their activities with the MKO. His sisters were also jailed in this regard for many years. Sa’id’s father died when he learned about his death and his mother died some time after.

On July 1985 Sa’id moved to Paris in relation to his activities with the MKO and on 1986 he was taken to Iraq. On the year 1990 when compulsory divorce inside the organisation was introduced to him he rejected the idea. He was not married but he could not accept cultic ideas of the leadership. On June 2003 his sisters who were in constant contact with the organisation were informed about her death. He was 38 when he died. Many individuals both inside and outside Iran have observed that Sa’id was dissatisfied inside the organisation and how he was murdered. Mr Javad Firuzmand, a defected veteran member of the MKO, is one example. He is one of the persons who saw Sa’id’s body with one bullet on his chest and the other on his head. But his body was burned later and they said his car was on fire.

They first informed his sisters that he was killed as the result of bombings during the second gulf war and this was what they published in their weekly and called him a martyr. Then they said that he was killed during clashes with Iranian forces. But later they claimed that one agent of the Iranian regime who had infiltrated into the organisation hit him from the back and escaped. They even once mentioned committing suicide.

He used to send letters to his family covertly and let them know that he wants to dispatch from the MKO and sought help and of course he did not want this to be disclosed since he knew that the organisation would harass him. The letters of Sa’id Nowruzi are available and could be presented anytime anywhere. Sa’id was once sent to Europe on a task from Ashraf camp on 1994 where he managed to send some letters to his family and seek their help but he was sent back to Iraq immediately. Once he had packed his case to leave but he was threatened that if he goes his family in Iran would be killed so he changed his mind.

Once they claimed that a manual missile launcher called RPG7 was aimed to his car and his body had totally been burned and another time they said that he was lying in his car when an infiltrated person from the Iranian services shot at him and killed him. Many stories have been told about his death but his body or a picture of his body has never been shown to his family. Eyewitnesses say that the person who shot at him escaped towards inside Iraq. If he was an Iranian agent he must have fled towards the Iranian border.

According to information obtained from eyewitnesses Sa’id was murdered by direct order of his commander Zohreh Qa’emi since he was opposing the organisation. She had ordered to burn Sa’id’s body in a car. In one occasion Zohreh Qa’emi had expressed her view that it would be right to leave Sa’id’s body in the desert for the hyenas to eat. Some say that when Zohreh Qa’emi was asked about Sa’id she responded that on one should talk about him and more. He was threatened to death many times. He was imprisoned and tortured several times. They say that he had plans to escape from there.

Witnesses say that Mozhgan Parsa’i and Fahimeh Arvani with the help of some others have put Sa’id under enormous psychological pressure through inhuman sessions called”current operation”until he changed his mind about deciding to leave the organisation. Apparently Mas’ud and Maryam Rajavi were following Sa’id’s case personally and they directly ordered confining, interrogating, torturing and eventually murdering him.

His family are demanding to be able to go to his grave in Ashraf camp and take whatever left from his body to his home country to be buried. They also request that full investigation be carried out about his suspicious death.

Sahar Family Foundation, May 01, 2008

May 1, 2008 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Nejat Society visited three defectors

In April 2008, three other defectors of MKO who were installed in TIPF, returned to Iran via International Red Cross and Red Crescent. They described their adventures with MKO in a visit with Nejat Society on April 23rd.

Mr. Nasouri who was mentally captured by MKO for 18 years:

I am Hassan Nasouri, I was born in 1963, Bushehr. I got acquainted with MKO Mr. Nasouri in 1979 via journals, meetings and my friends. In 1981, when the armed struggle started, my connection was cut. In March 1988, I went to Turkey legally. Before my departure I could watch the organization’s program on their TV channel, in Bushehr. In Turkey I called the organization’s linker and asked for joining them. I could reach Iraq that June. After staying in Bagdad for a few days I arrived in Karkuk where I received military training for Chelcheragh Operation and then Eternal Light Operation. Following the operations I returned to camp Ashraf. I was tank driver in Perl Operation (in which the Iraqi Kurds were massacred in 1991) MKO used the war situation to kill the Kurds who had upraised against Saddam Hussein.

Before the American invasion my problem with MKO was focused on their ideology but I couldn’t express any opposition. We were supposed to attack Iran in case of American invasion to Iraq but instead we were absolutely submitted to Americans that caused me express my critics against MKO who was trying to find another Saddam Hussein among the Americans. Therefore, I decided to defect but I was also afraid of going to TIPF where I had a terrible imagination of. When I announced my defection they held many meetings for me during an entire month and did their best to dissuade me. Finally, I threatened them that I would escape or commit suicide or homicide and then they accepted to deliver me to Americans. At last, I could enter TIPF in the early 2007. I was in TIPF for two years and could contact my family from there and in March, 2008 I succeeded to return to Iran after 20 years.

During the period I was in MKO, I asked for contacting my family several times and I was told that it was impossible. Just two months before my defection they asked me to call my family after 18 years for the first time but later I found out that was only for recruiting new members and financial support. I told them that I had no track of my family and they brought me my family’s numbers. I wasted twenty years of my life in MKO where I saw my ideals but ultimately I figured out that MKO was not what I thought of and now, here I am in Iran and I should start from the beginning.

As a former member of MKO who has experienced the political and military stages of MKO, I believe that if the door of Ashraf was open to Europe, more than seventy percent of the members would leave the group.

I am really sure that Rajavi is well aware of such a fact so he does his best to maintain Ashraf.

In the organization, Rajavi is either a solution to problems or a problem maker. In order to show that he can solve problems, he has to work in an isolated and enclose place like Ashraf otherwise the problems are presented. He recruits the members and attracts the attention of the authorities by playing roles and even ordering the members to play roles. I can remember the time when Fariba Hashtrudi had come to Ashraf, they had done such decorations in order to satisfy her and not to show her any contradiction but they never imagined that finally there would be a day that she would stop to take look at her behind scene and leave the NCRI and finally call the MEK as liars.

May 1, 2008 0 comments

Duplicity of the MEK nature

A response to Patrick Clawson

Patrick Clawson in his article titled “ A Roadmap for the Foreign Terrorist Organization List ” dated April 25, 2008, rightfully questions a lack of objective criteria for de-listing an organization deemed at some point to be a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). A direct reference to Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization with its diverse aliases such as MEK, MKO, PMOI, OPMI, NCR, NCRI, NLA, to name just a few, draw my attention to the Clawson’s views. I was nudged by further curiosity when I noticed that a Farsi translation of Clawson’s article had appeared on MEK’s propaganda apparatus even before its seemingly original English version was published. Although MEK has a long history in using deceptive tactics, here I have no intention to draw a conclusion that Patrick Clawson is somehow linked to the MEK’s demagoguery.

My close proximity to MEK’s headquarter in Paris, France, and my direct access to inside information of this group made it hard for me not to respond to Clawson’s article and the serious flaws in his views; nor could I resist my desire to reveal the true nature of MEK and its unbridled terrorism at the core of its existence.

Clawson complains about absence of clarity in the process of revocation of an FTO designee “even after the organizations have denounced terrorism for many years….” He then goes on to contest the designation of MEK as an FTO, and in doing so refers to irrefutable evidence about the group’s history as irrelevant. [Even at this point I am still resisting the link between Clawson and MEK]. However, I feel confident to say that Clawson is much misinformed about MEK and his views of the group depict a serious lack of good judgment about its nature and deceptive tactics.

1- I challenge Clawson to produce even one credible evidence that shows MEK has publicly denounced violence and terrorism. MEK has always maintained that he has never involved in terrorism rather they use the term “revolutionary resistance.” The true question that MEK and Clawson need to answer is this: Do you believe that MEK has engaged in terrorist activities in the past? If so, when and how? And if the answer to this question is affirmative, when did MEK publicly denounce such acts?

2- MEK deserves to remain as an FTO due to its cultic and violence-loving nature evident by the treatment of its own members, its close cooperation with the former Iraqi dictator, and its participation in killing scores of innocent civilians in the name of “revolutionary resistance.

3- After the 1979 revolution in Iran MEK routinely questioned the Islamic regime for their lack of Anti US zeal. They argued that it was MEK and its supporters who took over the US embassy in Tehran but the Islamic republic took credit for it. They publicly touted their killing of US service men and wrote poems about the killing, and yet they shamelessly deny they did that today. What is even more pathetic is that Clawson has fallen for such demagogy.

4- I also challenge Clawson on his view of the European Court ruling in December 2006. I have serious doubts that if the author has bothered to read the actual ruling. In that, the Court denied MEK’s request to nullify the EU’s list of terror group in which MEK is remained for years. Yet, the group falsely claims the reverse. I have repeatedly asked MEK to translate the court’s ruling into Farsi and publish it publicly in its entirety, they have refused to do so. They have only done so for the favorable part of the ruling in which the court had ordered unfreezing of their assets due to lack of due process. The court never concluded that MEK should be removed of the EU’s terror list. To prove my point, I invite Mr. Clawson to a public debate about his views on MEK. I am confident to have little difficulty to prove Clawson’s lack of familiarity with MEK and its deceptive propaganda.

5- I support a regime change in Iran. However, I do not see a major difference between the MEK, its fanatic anti US nature, violence-driven motives, and its unbridled terrorism than those of the ruling Mullahs. Iranians historically have been a peace-loving nation. They detest the MEK.

6- The US Court of appeals has ruled many times that MEK by its own admission has been actively involved in terrorist activities. Alas and alack, Clawson has never bothered to review such legal decisions, instead has referred himself to some false information propagated by MEK with the intention to deceive its audience.

In short, de-classification of MEK from the evidence-based terror group takes more than just private whispering of anti-terrorism statements with no real substance in practice. It demands a sincere review of the past terrorist activities coupled with a public commitment to a declaration of non-violence and peaceful activities. Moreover, it requires recognizing and honoring the basic human rights of MEK’s members, and unobstructed access to the free world and family members, something that MEK has denied its members for years. MEK’s current publications are full of glorification of violence and support for terrorism for their Farsi speaking audience. This is a clear contradiction to what Clawson has claimed that the group has denounced terrorism for years. The roadmap to de-proscribing of terror list cannot be based on false and misleading information let alone demagogy.

By Ahmad Baaraan, Paris
ABaaraan@yahoo.fr

May 1, 2008 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts