1. Kingdom offers no haven for Iran opposition group – Judeh 2. MKO under investigation in Iraq 3. Belgium donates half million Euros to assist an anti drug project 4. The Internet as a Terrorist Propaganda Tool 5. Witnesses To Testify Against Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (Rajavi Cult) 6. MKO Behind Karbala Massacre? 7. 11th of September 2001 and the MKO
Download Pars Brief – Issue No.36
Download Pars Brief – Issue No.36
In this issue:
– Open letter to King Abdullah of Jordan
– 11th of September 2001 and the MKO
– 11 September and MKO’s Tactic of Duplicity
– Why the US granted ‘protected’ status to Iranian terrorists
– MKO Behind Karbala Massacre?
– The highest pitch of stupidity!
(Mojahedin Khalq Organsation vow to continue violance and terrorism)
– many Iranians conclude the U.S. is supporting a terrorist organization
– EXCLUSIVE US TRIP PAID FOR BY IRANIAN ORGANISATION
Midland MP (Mr. Binley) lobbies for terrorist group
– France to Probe Killing of Iranian
———-
Publikation des AAWA-Vereins e.V.
Verantwortlich:
Dipl.-Ing. Ali-A. Rastgou
Postfach 90 31 73
D-51124 Köln
Phone: +49-163-18 49 145
E-mail: info@iran-aawa.com
Awaa Association, September 2007
http://www.iran-aawa.com/arch-pub/arch-aatuell/aawa-akt-25.PDF
In an interview with Al-Ahali newspaper, Jafar al-Mousawi, the chief prosecutor of Iraq’s high criminal court said: "The court has documents proving the involvement of Mojahedin-e Khalq organization in killing and assassinating 35 Iraqi citizens in southern Iraq in 1991."
"The court has witnesses testifying on the involvement of this organization in killing Iraqi people," he said.
Mousawi added: "Trial of MKO leaders would be held in near future."
He didn’t mention the names of the accused or how they were supposed to be summoned.
Al-Ahali newspaper/Iraq
Iran’s Parliament has issued a statement condemning the terrorist acts committed by the US Army and the Central Intelligence Agency.
215 MP’s have signed the statement which cites several crimes committed by the US Military and CIA as blatant examples of terrorist acts.
The statement condemns the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II and using depleted uranium ammunition in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan.
It also slams the US for harboring terrorist groups like the MKO and training al-Qaeda and Taliban militants during the occupation of Afghanistan by the USSR.
The MPs have also cited the massacre of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, the torture of detainees in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons, and running secret detention facilities in Europe as examples of the US army and CIA’s crimes.
The statement calls on the UN to intervene to halt the atrocities committed by the United States across the world.
Today’s Sunday Times throws more crude propaganda at us to condition public opinion for an attack on Iran. In ‘Pentagon”three-day blitz”plan for Iran’, Sarah Baxter writes that “The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.’ Baxter then goes on to make her own little contribution to smoothing the way. She notes, for example, that
“The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.”
Not only does Iran maintain it but so does the IAEA in its report. There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and, crucially, no evidence of “diversion” of nuclear material. Note also that “Washington” (ie the Bush Administration) is taken at its word -the Times reports it as “fearing” rather than ‘claiming to fear’. Nor is there any mention that Iran is exercising its legal rights within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
‘Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA, he said. They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.’
The Times does not see fit to mention that Jafarzadeh is a Washington insider with close links to the anti-Iranian Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK), which the US lists as a terrorist group. Jafarzadeh heads the blandly named Strategic Policy Consulting Inc., an organisation that some believe was set up to circumvent the laws prohibiting the existence of the MEK on US soil. As I’ve written before, according to ABC News, Jafarzadeh is credited with having aired Iranian military secrets in the past but US officials ‘considered some of his past assertions inaccurate’(indeed, NCRI’s claim to have discovered Natanz is questionable).
The MEK are, reportedly, being used by the US at the moment as a terrorist proxy within Iran (after officially taking an oath to democracy, apparently). In other words, Jafazadeh is closely linked with an organisation long engaged in armed conflict with Iran and currently working for the US. The Times feels no need to mention any of this in order to let the reader judge his credibility. For anyone with a nagging sense of de ja vu, just think ‘Ahmed Chalabi’. It’s another classic example of what in Public Relations is known as the ‘Third Party Technique’ -have your message come out of as many apparently unconnected and (ideally) apparently disinterested sources as possible.
‘Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a “power vacuum†in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.
Ahmadinejad’s comments are edited for effect. In fact, what he said was ‘Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbours and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation.’Which sounds rather less threatening, so needs to be edited. Washington’s beliefs are once more presented without comment -not even the obvious one, that there’™s no evidence to support them. Again, there is no mention that, with its aid to the MEK, the US is likely already fighting a proxy war with Iran in Iran.
Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq.
Once again, US allegations are presented as fact. Bush did not ‘note’-he alleged. They do not mention, for instance, that even the British Foreign Secretary conceded recently that there is no evidence of Iranian complicity in Iraqi attacks on British forces -who are the ones closest to the Iranian border. Nor is there any mention that, the last time the Bush Administration span this line in a big way, in March 2006, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs himself came out and claimed that he knew of no evidence of Iranian involvement. The Times further endorses the Bush view of the world with the next line of the article: It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. Once again, the official line is swallowed whole and US Government is assumed to be honest, transparent and straightforward in its stance towards Iran. There is no mention of Iraq, for example, as if the US’s recent track record of outright lies and deception have no bearing on their allegations against Iran. They simply did not happen. Nor is there even a hint that what the US Government is apparently contemplating is a monstrous and entirely criminal act. Instead we get the usual recitation, distortion, suppression and insinuation. It’s a different kind of blitz but it’s just as lethal.
many angry gerbils – Sunday, 02 September 2007
From the beginning (1965) up to the time being, the issue of leadership in MKO, in spite of stressing on democratic centralism, has actually faced sever challenges. During the early formation years, from 1965 to 1972 when Mohammad Hanifnejad was executed, Hanifnejad’s hegemonic political leadership was known to be the main cause behind the demise of almost 80 percent of the organization’s cadres. So crushing was the strike over the body of the organization that, as Meisami explains, he was held responsible and was inter-organizationally sentenced to death. Concurrently, a court martial sentenced him to death and it was all settled. In the second phase, 1972-75, following the first ideological revolution that led to the ideological schism of the organization, Taqi Shahram assumed Mojahedin leadership; it was due to a power vacuum and his personal potentialities that he could succeed to an autocratic leadership.
In the third phase, 1975 up to now, Rajavi has occasionally ignored the council leadership and developed his hegemonic leadership. Rajavi was regarded as the political leader of Mojahedin before the ideological revolution in 1985 but since then he has been appointed as both the political and the ideological leader of MKO. From the beginning, such a process in the internal relations of MKO has been criticized by the members. After the ideological revolution that started Rajavi’s autocratic political and ideological leadership, a greater number of MKO members, including Parviz Yaqubi and Saeed Shahsavandi, quitted the organization compared with the earlier two phases.
The aim here is, based on the organization’s own sources and acknowledgments made by defectors, to investigate the process of the appointment of the ideological leadership, the reasons behind members’ separation and the disposition of the ideological leadership. Democratic centralism was regarded as the best approach for leading MKO as asserted in the organization’s original documents and sources:
The complexity of social issues and the fundamental differences between a revolutionary organization and society necessitates a council leadership particularly when the organization aims at bringing about fundamental changes within social institutions. In such a situation, an individual can not resolve all the problems. Moreover, council leadership prevents the interference of an individual’s shortcomings to have any impact on the organization; in council leadership an individual’s weakness is thwarted by others’ talent which reduces any possible risks. [1]
As such, some factors such as the complexity of social and political conditions as well as individual features make council leadership to be the first priority. The internal ideological revolution within Mojahedin replaced council leadership, both theoretically and politically, with that of Rajavi’s autocratic ideological leadership. As admitted by a majority of defectors, it was modeled on the Soviet Union’s Communist Party in the reign of Stalin. As Saeid Shahsavandi elaborates:
The Ideological revolution began in 1985. As I said before, I worked in the political department up to 1986 coincident to the transitions made in the Soviet Union. Since I had lived in France for many years, I could read French books and be informed of the events. Then I found that the course of events in our organization was in fact a miniature model of Soviet Union’s communist party particularly during Stalinism reign following the war. Such a mental awareness got me into more problems since I began holding inter-organizational discourses and expressing limited oppositions and finding some other like-minded. [2]
Interestingly, Abrishamchi has the same opinion when justifying the ideological revolution:
It is a reality that in MKO Massoud’s thoughts is problem solving ideologically and determine the ideological boundary. It is not surprising since every ideology has its own ideologue. For all Marxists, there can be found a person’s name next to their ideology; then for Leninists, Maoists and much more. [3]
According to Niyabati and other MKO ex-members, such a leadership as well as the ideological revolution, in contrast to internal discourses that ideological and political leadership is sequel to an evolutionary course, were the outcome of Rajavi’s subsequent strategic failures and were aiming at thwarting probable organizational split. In such a system, leadership is deified. Niyabati considers ideological revolution and the issue of leadership as the upshot of the political and strategic failures of the organization. He believes that the solution to such failures is either retreating from armed warfare or, as he calls it, resorting to ultra-left and revolutionary radicalism:
We had to either submit to the existing conditions and resort to politics or, by embracing all internal, external, and international consequences of resorting to armed warfare and violent overthrow of the regime, lean to the left and yield to radicalism. [4]
According to him, leaning toward the left and radicalism before anything necessitates a fundamental change of mentality on the issue of the leadership. He believes that the status of the leader should be beyond the reach of any criticism and challenge:
In the ancient grasp, Hanif and Massoud are the first founders of the organization, but here Massoud is the connecting point. In the ancient grasp, leader is so accessible that could be easily challenged. But here the ideological leadership is out of reach and to access him, one needs passing through Maryam who is a warrant. [5]
Niyabati resorts to imamate theory in Shiite in order to justify the state of the leadership of Mojahedin:
The core of the ideological revolution was to resolve Massoud’s ideological leadership. The sole solution to the issue which has long been the Achilles’ heel of all the contemporary movements and revolutions lied in the development and the maintenance of the theory of imamate in the organization. [6]
Furthermore, he makes it clear that the leader is held only accountable to God:
For the first time in the history of contemporary revolutions an organization disclaimed its adopted principle of democratic centralism, a several hundred year-long achievement of the organized revolutionary struggle, and (correctly or incorrectly) hands over the leadership to a leader who is accountable only to God. [7]
Mehdi Abrishamchi expounds on the theory of leadership in much simpler words:
The leadership bears no accountability downward. His accountability is determined by the ideological-political principles of the organization. [8]
Unlike Niyabati, Abrishamchi denies Rajavi’s being even accountable to God:
Everybody in the organization is a subordinate except for the leader. Neither is Maryam who is not inferior to Massoud. Both of them are responsible for themselves and not accountable to anybody. They solve problems relying on ideology and their own power of reflection. [9]
All the statements made by MKO ex-members in addition to that of the theoreticians of the ideological revolution and Abrishamchi denote the same fact: denying the council leadership and democratic centralism and the acceptance of the ideological leadership of Rajavi as the symbol of the organizational, ideological and political legitimacy. In a nutshell, Shahsavandi describes the ideological
revolution and the ideological leadership of Rajavi in the following terms:
The ideological revolution aims at proving the fact that it makes no difference who you are, who you were, what you did, how long you spent in the prison, what torments you suffered, and how long you were active in the organization; if you are not connected to Mr. and Mrs. Rajavi and fail to be their believers and absolutely committed to them, whatever you have done is worth nothing. Thus, Massoud can easily demote or promote ranks overnight. [10]
Resources
1. Investigation of the possibility of deviation in democratic centralism (1979), Mojahedin Publication, p. 43.
2. Interview by Saeid Shahsavandi: Radio Voice of Iran.
3. The lecture delivered by Mehdi Abrishamchi on the internal ideological revolution within MKO. Taleqani Publication, 1985.
4. Niyabati, Bijan; A Different Look at Ideological Revolution within MKO, Khavaran Publication, 17.
5. Ibid, 57.
6. Ibid, 90.
7. Ibid, 35.
8. 3. The lecture delivered by Mehdi Abrishamchi on the internal ideological revolution within MKO. Taleqani Publication, 1985.
9. Ibid.
10. Interview by Saeid Shahsavandi: Radio Voice of Iran, session 123.
Bahar Irani – Mojahedin.ws – Sep. 30, 2007
ISSUE No 15, SEPTEMBER 2007
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
1. Why the US granted protected status to Iranian terrorists
2. Another assassination attempt by MKO in Paris
3. Witnesses to testify against MKO
4. 11th of Sept 200l and the MKO
5. MKO from resistance to treachery
6. France to probe killing of Iranian
7. 11 Sept and MKO’s tactic of duplicity
8. Many Iranians conclude the US is supporting a terrorist organization
9. The highest pitch of stupidity
10. MKO henchmen in western countries
11. Cult leader Massoud Rajavi gives go ahead to kill witnesses in European countries
12. MKO behind Karbela massacre?
13. MKO, a tool in US’s psychological war on Iran
14. Iraqi government seriously angered by the US
15. Psychological techniques to cultivate ideology
16. Some useful sites on MKO
17. Elaheh obituary Times On Line
Congressman Bob Filner (Democrat—California) has succeeded for many years in duping conservative voters in his district. Now, he can add to his list of successes the duping of the left wing in the posted video interview with Marc Ash, Executive Director, Truthout.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092507J.shtml
Bob Filner’s father ran honestly and unsuccessfully as a communist party candidate for Congress. Bob Filner learned that dishonesty pays. Filner ran successfully for Congress as a Democrat and joined the Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives. Obviously, there are no entrance examinations for joining the Progressive Caucus. Even the supporter of Iranian communist totalitarian terrorists can join the Progressive Caucus.
Filner revealed his secret in this interview:“I learned how to frame issues.”
Voters should watch this video so that they can learn how to avoid being duped by political candidates in the future. Filner is truly a master of the art of duping voters.
Filner revealed in this interview that he has taken a consistent position on the Iraq War since the war started in 2003. The Iraq War is based upon lies. The Iraq War is illegitimate. America should not have invaded Iraq. America should withdraw most of the American military troops from Iraq immediately. America started the Iraq War for economic and strategic reasons. The presence of an American occupying force provokes most of the violence in Iraq today. The Iraq War has displaced 2 million Iraqis who have left Iraq and 2 million more Iraqis who have become refugees in Iraq. Large numbers of Iraqis and Americans are dying needlessly.
Filner noted that he is the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Unlike Hanoi Jane Fonda, who made ten radio broadcasts from North Vietnam attacking American soldiers during the Vietnam War, Filner has learned to take the position of supporting all wounded American soldiers who return from America’s illegitimate wars.
In framing his position on the Iraq War, Filner did not disclose these truths:
1. Filner is a supporter of the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists at Camp Ashraf, Iraq.
2. Supporters of this communist terrorist organization have committed terrorist acts in many countries, including in America.
3. The MEK has been on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations since the administration of former President Bill Clinton.
4. In September 2002, the White House’s background paper included the MEK as a pretext for the Iraq War.
5. In January 2003, Filner’s name appeared in a full-page advertisement in the New York Times as a supporter of America’s communist terrorist enemies—the murders of American military officers and Rockwell International employees.
6. In 2003, American and coalition military forces attacked the communist terrorists at Camp Ashraf, Iraq.
7. In June 2003, some members of the Rajavi Cult burned themselves to death to protest the arrest in France of a cult leader, Maryam Rajavi.
8. In 2003, the American government ordered American military forces to protect America’s communist terrorist enemies.
9. In 2007, supporters of the MEK communist terrorists paid for Filner’s trip to France so that he could meet cult leader Maryam Rajavi and speak at a rally of America’s communist terrorist enemies while American soldiers are dying in Iraq.
If you are searching for the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, you will not find the truth at Truthout.
Paul Sheldon Foote
http://360.yahoo.com/paulsheldonfoote
September 25, 2007
Focusing on the subject of members’ suicide fafter the organization’s internal ideological revolution within MKO, Saeed Shahsavandi in his session 129 of interview with the Voice of Iran, originally in Farsi, said that it was all an outcome of the ideological revolution. He asserted that following the revolution, the true believers were those who unquestionably submitted to Rajavi and blindly carried out his orders. Whoever stood on an opposite line was the traitor:
In such a system you are either a critic, who is a traitor in their opinion, or a true believer as Hoffer explains. True believers are in fact those who set themselves on fire without question.
Quoting Rajavi, Shahsavandi asserted that after the ideological revolution nothing could be included in the organization’s fixed bipolar thought; be either committed to the leader or be called a traitor. However, the ideological revolution is not a process to be ceased ever, since committed suicides and self-immolation might raise doubts which are dangerous and has to be prevented:
At the same time when a number of the insane set themselves on fire, there are others in whose minds doubts are formed. The revolution has to be continued to stop formation of doubts.
Mojahedin.ws – Sep. 27, 2007
Deputy Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has denied allegations about the existence of a secret nuclear site.
Javad Vaidi said that the new round of Iran- IAEA cooperation and President Ahmadinejad’s active role in the UN Security Council has created a positive political atmosphere for Iran.
"The new allegations ahead of the 5+1 foreign ministerial meeting aim to change this positive atmosphere and exert more pressure on Iran,” he added.
Earlier this week, the terrorist group, the MKO alleged at a news conference in Paris, that Tehran was constructing a secret underground nuclear facility for military purposes in central Iran.
The MKO is accused of assisting Saddam in the massacre of thousands of innocent Iraqis, as well as carrying out countless terrorist attacks inside Iran.
PressTV – 28 Sep 2007