Page 787 – Nejat Society

MKO and the Aftermath of Recognizing POAC’s Judgment (2)

As stated in the previous article, if MKO insists to recognize the POAC’s judgment and is standing resolute against the renunciation of terrorism as it claims, at least it must revise its previously adopted principles to prove the earnestness in its decision. Notably, a series of the organization’s early pamphlets, designed to provide the basis for its general aspirations and systematic world-outlook, explicitly theorize and advocate the violent strategy of armed struggle. In fact, the cornerstone of its struggle when emerged as an opposition was partly the Machiavellian doctrine of the ‘end justifying the means’.

A specified catalogue of these early booklets and pamphlets that were drafted by a selected ideological team to manifest the organizational ideology and policy are still strongly valued as practicable. The specific series are entitled Takamol (Evolution), Shenakht (Epistemology), Cheguneh Quran biamuzim (How to study the Koran), Rah-e anbiya rah-e bashar (The way of the prophets: the way of humanity) and finally a book entitled An account of the formation and short history of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization from 1965 to 1975.

Explicitly stated in these works, MKO reveals the reasons for its adopted strategy of armed struggle based on Marxist-Islamic eclecticism. Mojahedin were on the belief that armed struggle was an inevitable consequent of a historical determinism; any intransigent attitude would be equal to that of a reactionary. Although at first it was hard for the Westerners to comprehend what was lying behind Mojahedin’s ideology, but some later made references indicate that they were developing a real understanding of Mojahedin’s ideological infrastructure and methodology. They are well aware of the fact that the merely stated words put no bonds upon Mojahedin that hardly respect obligations whenever an opportunity is grabbed at. As stated in POAC’s ruling, in a draft refusal letter dated September 1, 2006, the Secretary of State clearly declares his doubt on Mojahedin’s renunciation of terrorism:

Mere cessation of terrorist acts do not amount to renunciation of terrorism. Without a clear and publicly available renunciation of terrorism by the PMOI, I am entitled to fear that terrorist activity that has been suspended for pragmatic reasons will be resumed in the future. [1]

The duplicity of Mojahedin is a fact that is also referred to in the US State Department’s report. To expect Mojahedin forswear terrorism for ever is like expecting a leopard change its spots. The group’s abandonment of terrorist acts is temporal and might be retained if circumstances deem them necessary. In paragraph 46 of the POAC’s ruling we read:

However, at the heart of his submission lay the contention that the Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that the PMOI was “otherwise concerned in terrorism” within the meaning of sub-paragraph (d) of Section 3(5) of the 2000 Act because, although it was not actually committing acts of terrorism, it retained a future will to do so. In effect the Secretary of State’s case was that Section 3(5)(d) covers the category of situations such as the present, where the Secretary of State concludes that an organisation that for whatever reason is not actually committing acts of terrorism retains a future will to re-engage in future acts of terrorism if or when future circumstances permit. [2]

The conclusion by the Secretary of State asserts that MKO’s resort to militarism is not the outcome of a deliberate decision but innate in its methodology of struggle, its world-outlook and a dialectical process leading eventually to the establishment of a classless society. As Abrishamchi has point out:

We are not the ones to decide the necessity of an organized or aggressive struggle; we are not the ones to decide where to an organized or unorganized struggle leads us. It is not our mentality to decide the necessity of an armed struggle. [3]

The Organization, formed as a political group with militarist bent, naturally opposes any criticism of strategy and resists urges of modifications in general ideology and uses a variety of labels for the dissidents. They are dim-witted who cannot grasp the necessity of laws ruling over the phenomena:

To make any change in any phenomenon, one has to develop a comprehensive recognition of it. In respect to society and social movement and struggle, the recognition is of great significance because of their complexity. Thus, any change within a phenomenon, society and social movement requires recognition of the laws controlling them. [4]

Relatively, if any change is to happen within MKO concerning disavowal of terrorism, the ideological principles recognizing aggressive conduct has to be removed from its methodology of struggle, otherwise, it is hard to believe that it will be unwavering in its renunciation of terrorism. Armed strategy is the effect of the group’s principal ideological cause and source and its renunciation is totally out of question if the cause remains intact.

The change in principles is a move of such great significance that even Mojahedin themselves cannot ensure to what degree it is feasible and practical. As a testament in POAC’s ruling, the organisation states that it had to exercise extreme prudence before officially publicizing its decision since all those who had up to that point been involved in military operations or assisted the operational units, had to be fully informed of and convinced about the reasons and wisdom of the decision made by the organisation’s leadership. Not in a single occasion has the organization tried to convince the insiders that it intends to actualize the will to stop military and terrorist activities.

[1]. PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS APPEAL COMMISSION, Appeal No: PC/02/2006, p. 10.

[2]. ibid, P. 13.

[3]. Mehdi Abrishamchi’s lecture delivered on the ideological revolution for the sympathizers in Norway.

[4]. An account of the formation and short history of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization from 1965 to 1975 (originally in Persian), p. 17.

Omid Pouya, Mojahedin.ws, January 8, 2008

January 13, 2008 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Seminar on Releasing Captives of MKO Terrorist Cult

A seminar on the subject of how to release the members of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) who are held both mentally and physically captive in the Ashraf Camp in Iraq was highly attended by the families in the city of Shiraz despite the cold and snowy weather. The families of the members of the MKO who anxiously desired visiting their beloved ones after so many years had gathered in this seminar organized by the Nejat Society in the city of Shiraz on 11th of January 2008 in the Red Crescent Hall of that city.

Mr. Ebrahim Khodabandeh, Mr. Kambiz Bagherzadeh, and Miss Ronak Dashti the former members of the MKO delivered speeches in this seminar. Mr. Khodabandeh while describing the common methods used by all cults to manipulate and to brainwash the followers, gave some examples on practices applied within the MKO cult and referred to the subjects such as the family relationship, the emotional feelings, expressing opinions, make of choice, thinking independently, showing excitements, and presentation of caring, to be highly restricted and are considered as unforgivable sins. He emphasized that according to the MKO’s ideology all fondness and emotions must be entirely directed towards the leadership. He explained that inside the MKO everyone is held responsible against the leadership while he is considered as impeccable.

Mr. Khodabandeh mentioned the efforts made by the families within the framework of the Nejat Society to organize meetings with their beloved ones held in Iraq. He clarified that restoring the family emotions could lead to the savior of the member from the psychological boundaries the person is held in. Mr. Bagherzadeh referred to all mistreatments and confinements applied against discontented members inside the MKO and underlined that although his brother was in the same base with him but he did not see his brother for more than one and a half years.

Miss Dashti another former member of the MKO who had some bitter experiences while residing in the Ashraf Camp in Iraq explained how his brother and her were deceived by the MKO to be taken to Iraq and to the Ashraf Camp and how she was finally released thanks to the efforts made by her mother who traveled to Iraq and demanded the visit with his daughter. She described how the families could play a major roll to try to free their beloved ones from captivity.

She described that giving high commanding positions to the women is a sham gesture taken by the MKO while the truth is that women are expected to work even harder than men and their emotions are also systematically suppressed more. She clarified that members are expected to dislike whoever they adored before particularly the members of their family. She also explained that all discontented members are labeled as being metal cases. Miss Dashti also referred to the high level of dissatisfaction amongst the forces inside the Ashraf Camp who find no way out.

The hatred amongst the families in the hall of seminar was to the extent that they started shouting and cursing Mas’ud Rajavi the leader of the MKO who has caused all these miseries for the families and their beloved ones.

In the end the families wrote separate letters of request to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Iraqi government demanding the arrangement of a visit with their beloved ones by their own expenses without the presence of any third party as soon as possible.

The core slogan of the seminar was”the release of our children from the boundaries of the MKO terrorist cult and arranging a visit between the families and their beloved ones”

Nejat Society,11th of January 2008

January 12, 2008 0 comments

Missions of Nejat Society

Families’ gathering together

A meeting held in Shiraz under the title of”Salvation”with the participation of MKO family members as well as the former members of the Rajavis’ Cult.

January 11, 2008 0 comments

The Ideology of the MEK

Cults’ Methodology

Cults' Methodology

January 7, 2008 0 comments

France

Is France the next option for MKO to settle after Iraq?

The serious challenge MKO is facing at the present is the next soil to encamp after expulsion from Iraq with respect to the fact that Camp Ashraf is uphold as its most vital ideological reservation. So significant a site to preserve the organization, and since the Iraqi government is determined to expel the group and close up the camp, dismantlement of Camp Ashraf drives MKO into much critical situation beyond what it is suffering at the present. Its barren efforts to be removed from the lists of the proscribed organizations have made it much difficult to convince any country to accede to the group’s flow of refugees. The uncertainty, presupposes two possibilities; the whole and entire relocation of Camp Ashraf to another territory in the region, Latin America and even Africa or individual transfer under the auspices of the international bodies like UNHCR, ICRC, or other concerned humanitarian organizations.

But, MKO never consents to be dispossessed of its organizational identity and individual transfer of the members but the option of the wholesale relocation. Many assume that since some key ranking figures, including the leading cadre and its president-elect, are already situated in France and the organization is engaged in an extensive campaign aimed at winning support from among the politicians there, then, France might be the next appropriate option. However, there are evidences that corroborate unfeasibility of such a formed theory some of which are mentioned below:

1- The organization is not acquitted of its allegations of June 17 and French judicial system is still making inquiry about its file.

2- There are countless indications of alleged civil disturbances and violations against citizens and refugees, like the incident in which agents of MKO assaulted an association of Iranians in Paris and wounded 13, that makes French police and authorities to be seriously concerned about the hostile nature of the organization.

3- Organizationally instigated cult-like operations like the June 17 self-immolations with two deaths have been serious warning for repetition of similar acts; two members recently went on trial before a French court for allegedly helping a third member burn herself to death.

4- There are also corroborated evidences that led to the expulsion of Rajavi and his gang from France in 1985 that led to his alliance with Saddam and its flight to Iraq.

5- There exists a widespread public panic regarding MKO’s cult-like makeup and its potential threats against the French citizen.

From the very first days of the group’s refuge in France, strict measures were taken by French authorities to have it under surveillance. However, on occasions it found opportunities to engage in illegal activities and violation of regulations concerning refugees’ status. Although the leaders had already agreed not to engage in any form of political activities in France, its clandestine activities were juxtaposed to a snake’s progress:

Paris had required that the Iranian refugee leaders sign a written statement, containing the routine text promising to avoid all political activity on French soil. This would be respected for exactly two weeks. [1]

Following the coalition forces attack against Iraq and fall of Saddam, MKO started to move the headquarters to France again. According to the French intelligence services, the Mojahedin’s aim was to move their”world operational centre”- previously based in Baghdad – to the Val d’Oise. The head of France’s Direction for the Surveillance of the Territory (DST), Pierre de Bousquet confirmed the danger posed by the group beyond that of a campaigning political group:

The People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) has, for a long time, been going over to a terrorist logic. Despite the organisation’s rhetoric, which claims only to be fighting against a regime, it should be noted that their attacks have usually struck many civilian victims. As to the claims of the PMOI that it wants to bring democracy to Iran, this must be understood within the paradigm of the movement’s extraordinary autocracy, where a radical cult of personality is enforced. Its members must be blindly devoted to Massoud Rajavi and his wife. The slightest criticism is severely punished. The PMOI can be considered as having followed a sectarian detour which is obvious in the fanatical behaviour of it militants: the dramatic immolations of recent days show the sad truth about them. [2]

Based on confidential reports that proved the organization was engaged in terrorist and clandestine activities, produced two weeks before 17 June 2003, DST undertook a major operation against the group under the code named”Theo”. Following the operation, the Figaro could obtain and publish what was believed to be the first-hand information on MKO and was enough to spread panic among the nation:

The PMOI has carried out a number of activities on French soil that are clandestine, sectarian, delinquent, and even seriously criminal. In France, tile organisation has two or three hundred militants and sympathisers. Its ‘hard nucleus’ is made up of a few dozen militants. [3]

Even before relocation of its headquarters from Iraq to France, the organization had started expansion of its residence sites in France as a preparation to establish a second base similar to Ashraf. A report by DST asserts that:

The construction company, Algeco, was called in by the Mojahedin to add bungalows in their camp on rue Gordes. Several hundreds of square meters of housing space have been rented by the organisation in the Val d’Oise in its reorganisation on French soil”. [4]

Accordingly, the wholesome transfer of Camp Ashraf to France seems to be out of question. In respect to Germany, MKO’s situation there is not better than in France. Its trespass of law as well as financial scandals in Germany has sounded the alarm for the authorities there to keep a watchful eye on the organization’s activities. Exploitation of members’ children, after separating them from the parents forcefully, for illegal fund-raising activities was among its most noted outrageous and immoral actions there. Referring to uncovered scandals of MKO by German authorities, Anne Singleton has said:

In Germany, the government uncovered the Mojahedin’s financial activities. After a two year investigation, the German High Court on 21st December 2001 closed the Mojahedin ‘shop’ – twenty-five houses and bases – after evidence was found of misuse of Social Security and fraud. Disturbingly, the Mojahedin had used the members’ children who had been evacuated during the Gulf War of 1991. These children, whilst they lived in the Mojahedin’s bases in Germany, were required to undertake work in the base and take part in fund-raising activities, collecting money in the street. At the same time, the Mojahedin were abusing every possible avenue of Social Security in Germany in order to claim benefits for these children. Documents in Germany showed that ten to twelve million Marks had been used by the Mojahedin to buy weapons. Considering that a Social Security claim of 130 – 260 Marks could be made per child per day, this is a conservative figure of the amount that the Mojahedin collected on account of these children. [5]

Of course, MKO’s situation in other European countries is just the same. Its proscription as a terrorist group in England makes it even worse and erects impassable barrier since England, as a member of European Union, has adopted strict rules against terrorist threats under its enacted Terrorism Act. Besides, any asylum granted to MKO by the European countries raises suspicions on their claim of their engage in war against terrorism. Then, will the US welcome the opposition that might be exploited against Iran? Let’s discuss it. References: [1]. Antoine Gessler; Autopsy of an Ideological Drift, Translated by Thomas R. Forstenzer, 2004, p. 103.

[2]. Ibid, 93

[3]. Ibid, 95

[4]. Ibid, 100

[5]. Anne Singleton; Saddam’s Private Army, Iran-Interlink, 2003.

Bahar Irani,December 31, 2007

January 6, 2008 0 comments

USA

Iran’s Nuclear Program Never Existed

Editor’s note: The recently released National Intelligence Estimate says Iran had “suspended its nuclear weapon program.” But Iran’s purported nuclear weapons program never existed, writes NAM contributing editor William O. Beeman. Beeman is professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota and author of “The ‘Great Satan’ vs. the ‘Mad Mullahs’: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other.”

Iran has never had a proven nuclear weapons program. Ever. This inconvenient fact stands as an indictment of the Bush administration’s stance on Iran.

The recently released 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran “suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003” caught the Bush administration flat-footed. In his panic, Bush grasped desperately at the idea that the weapons program may have once existed. However, the report does not offer a scintilla of evidence that the weapons program was ever an established fact.

Designating 2003 as the date that Iran “stopped” its program is telling:
this is the year the Bush administration first decided to create a case for attacking Iran based on the purported danger of its nuclear program.

In February 2003, the U.S. government-designated terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq, better known as the MEK (or MKO) “revealed” the existence of Iran’s nuclear facilities to Washington. The MEK, which had been purged from Iran during the period following the 1979 revolution, took up residence in Iraq under the protection of Saddam Hussein. The MEK, sometimes identified as an “Islamic Marxist” organization, is dedicated to the overthrow of the current Iranian government. It has been assiduous in courting American lawmakers to recruit U.S. support for its cause. Legislators such as Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Florida Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen have championed this cause, and neoconservatives Patrick Clawson and Daniel Pipes lobbied for its removal from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations in order to use the MEK in the Bush White House drive for regime change in Iran.

Subsequently, the Bush administration claimed that Iran had “concealed” its weapons program for decades, and began a campaign to shut down all nuclear development.

In fact, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) grants all nations the “inalienable right” to peaceful nuclear development. Further, it does not require any nation to report its facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until fissile material, such as uranium, is actually introduced into the facility.

Iran did indeed have a brief reporting lapse. It revealed the start of its nuclear enrichment experiments at the time they began, rather than announcing this to the IAEA 180 days before experimentation as was required. This was in 2003, and it was the only serious breech of protocol.

The National Intelligence Estimate now identifies 2003 as the date when the weapons program stopped — literally at the point when the Bush administration first became aware of it.

2003 was two years before the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It was more than a year before the United States began to lobby for U.N. economic sanctions against Iran. Claiming that “international pressure” had caused Iran to modify its behavior, the Bush administration tried desperately to justify its exaggerated characterizations of the danger Iran posed to the world. The only event that the Bush administration can now claim as constituting “international pressure” is the May 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

If the international community understands that Iran never had a weapons program, President George W. Bush’s statement that Iran could start the program up “again” is clearly absurd.

It is now clear that the Bush administration’s campaign to convince the world of the danger of Iran’s purported immanent nuclear weapons was a sham. The campaign was one in a series of public pretexts to effect regime change in the Islamic Republic. No amount of equivocation, or bluster about Iran’s “continuing” danger can mask the fact that American credibility on this issue has been irrevocably damaged.

The only positive outcome of this debacle may be that the Bush administration may finally accept that differences with Iran can only be solved by actually talking to the leaders of the Islamic Republic. Restoration of diplomatic relations, even at a low level, will begin the process of reducing the hostile atmosphere that has been created, and will start the long, slow process toward the restoration of productive and peaceful relations.

New America Media, News Analysis, William O. Beeman

January 5, 2008 0 comments

Nejat Publications

Pars Brief – Issue No.38

1. Department Spokesman Sean McCormack :the MEK, the Mujahedin-e Khalq is considered a terrorist organization

2. Baroness Nicholson:Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (MKO) still on terrorist list in UK

3. EP Delegation to Iran visits Nejat Society

4. Mojahedin Khalq supporter "Struan Stevenson" undermines efforts to promote democratic Values

5. Gordon Brown: No evidence that MKO has given up terrorism

6. Adm Gregory Smith: US military does not support terrorist Mojahedin Khalq (MKO)

7. Home office to take the case of MKO to the Court of Appeal

8. Terrorist groups says Iran NIE wrong…

Download Pars Brief – Issue No.38
Download Pars Brief – Issue No.38

January 5, 2008 0 comments

Britain: State Sponsor of Terrorism

In June 1981, Iran’s Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, then Tehran’s Friday Prayer Leader, survived an assassination attempt at Abudhar mosque, which left him permanently disabled in his right arm.

The group responsible were the Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO), who are responsible for the deaths of 16,000 victims, including a president, a prime minister, 80 parliamentarians, but more importantly, 80% of their victims were innocent civillians.

Although barely reported in the West this month: an English court ruled the British government’s decision to put this terrorist group on the proscribed organisations list was perverse; the Iraqi Attorney General Jafar al-Mousavi, has appointed a judge and prosecutor to bring the leadership of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization to justice for their role in war crimes and crimes against humanity under Saddam; and Members of European Parliament met with Members of Justice Advocacy Group (an Iranian victims NGO) in Tehran, to express European commitment to keep the group on the EU proscribed organisations list.

A representative of the Members of Justice Advocacy Group told the MEPs:

If the MKO which embarked on terrorism as its tactic, strategy and ideology, are used as tools, be sure that they would use this opportunity to launch terrorist operations against the European citizens too, because, terrorism is the innate nature of the group

Prime Minister Gordon Brown agrees, he refused to reverse the decision to put the anti Iranian MKO on the terror list, pointing out that it had been involved in terrorism before and there was “no evidence” that the organisation had changed, and Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said ”I am disappointed at this judgement. We don’t accept it and we intend to appeal,” adding the list will remain on the MKO would remain on the list during the appeal.

So why would a British court decide that it was “perverse” to put this terrorist organisation that has tried to assassinate a serving head of state and religious leader? Is the judge a terrorist sympathiser or raging Iranophobe, like some of the terror cult’s supporters in the Houses of Parliament?

I doubt it, it’s probably because the Government didn’t make its case, it declined to say that it knows full well the cult is still actively involved in terrorism in Iraq, because it does it with the full knowledge and assistance of the American occupation army, whose custody the MKO in Iraq is supposed to be in. America won’t hand over these terrorists to the Iraqi government, even though there is Interpol arrest warrants out for them.

But then Britain is sponsoring terrorist attacks in Iran’s Khuzestan province, through neo-fascist, Anti Iranian, Arab supremacists, including the Al-Ahwaz Liberation Front. Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked whether the Government will ”proscribe the Al-Ahwaz Liberation Front on the ground that it is a terrorist organisation” — to date they’ve refused, which is worth bearing in mind the next time Britain accuses Iran of being a state sponsor of terrorism, a charge which Britain is both overtly and tacitly guilty of.

Stephiblog.wordpress.com

January 4, 2008 0 comments

European Union

The EU keeps MKO on its terror list

On Thursday, December20nd, the European Union updated the Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repeated Common Position 2007/448/CFSP.

The document published the official Journal of the European Union on Dec 22nd included the list of persons, groups and entities referred to in Article 1 of the document.

On page 113 of Legislation 340, you can consider Muajhedin-e-Khalq listed as a proscribed Organization by the EU. However on Dec.18th Maryam Rajavi addressed the European Parliament urging on the removal of her terror cult from the EU terror list. The EU listed MKO as a terrorist entity once more.

January 1, 2008 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts