Terrorist groups and the MEK

Inconspicuous Affinity between Al-Qaeda and MKO

A careful and close scrutiny of al-Qaeda and MKO’s organizational infrastructures reveals surprising similarities in their theorizing of terrorist operations. That is much because the two nearly show great interest in the same ideological teachings of terrorism theoreticians. It should be pointed out that these outdated and despised teachings attracts no attention today, but at least in two or three past decades they worked as applicable revolutionary approaches especially for the third world revolutionaries. Following the same line, Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization from its very formation in four decades ago adopted militia warfare as the doctrine of its struggle. MKO’s knack to survive out of dire and serious conditions singles it out as a complex terrorist organization that readily adapts itself to global relations because of its ideologically based interest-seeking and pragmatist visions. Thus, it proves to be much harder a task to confront terrorists like MKO compared with al-Qaeda.

The prime problem lies in the fact that MKO cannot be easily compared to and considered as soldiers of fortune, anarchists, or psychopaths who under some melancholic influences engage in violent practices. Mojahedin cannot even be equals to the rebels and insurgents who rise to confront cultural, social, economic, and ethnic discriminations. The problem is that the organization deems it a duty and responsibility when perpetrating atrocious, terrorist operations, and indeed Mojahedin believe in what they do. Here is the proof when they demarcate a rebel from a revolutionary:

A rebel conducts blind insurgency against the ruling regime while a revolutionary element knows well whereto conduct the insurgency. [1]

The main feature that distinguishes MKO from other similar groups is its remarkable potentiality in practice of ideologically justified activities. The revolutionary ideology of the group enables it to develop a revolutionized philosophical world outlook. In an attempt to rationalize the group’s revolutionary ideology, Rajavi in an ideological handbook that represents the main ideological teachings of MKO stated:

Without a revolutionary ideology, it is impossible to have a revolutionary movement, organization and man because ideology works as our source of light and guide to lead us on. I have to assert that ideology is one of the most outstanding manifestations of man’s life. That is to say, man is the only creature that lives with ideology; his life and death relay on a belief and ideology that he is bond to it in all conditions and communes with it. [2]

Forging such a mentality, Mojahedin can not only control their suppressed primitive feelings but also organize them and put them into practice quantitatively and qualitatively whenever and wherever they will. They are ideological terrorists who deliberately parlay democratic approaches to aggravate the tensions and mount obstacles amidst any non-violent dialogue. In theorizing their relation with the world, they divide it into a two-dimensional sphere of black and white, the foes and friends, and develop no comprehension beyond that. Both al-Qaeda and MKO have the opinion that these are inevitable approaches to solve the encountered would-be disputes.

The difference between the two is that al-Qaeda perpetrates its terrorist operations based on the impact of its ostensible ideological inclinations while Mojahedin-e Khalq justify them based on deep interpretation of their ideology. MKO’s methodology before relying on ideology originates from its scientific look at the world. Mojahedin develop the idea that struggle is not necessarily a man-willed drive but is more the result of knowing the laws and evolutionary advance of the history:

To further a successful social revolution one must develop a more optimistic comprehension of the laws governing the general move of the world, society and man which can simply be defined as ideology. [3]

The view point induces that unpredicted parameters and catalysts work as aspects of influential material laws and thus, it is required to advance according to these laws. The practical and fundamental difference between al-Qaeda and Mojahedi-e Khalq is exactly the same difference between a rebel and a revolutionary, that is, to best control, organize and conduct terrorist operations. Parallel to these precepts, Mojahedin, in regulation of their relations with the members, strive to infuse them with ideological teachings rather than engaging them in practical orders. Accordingly, it might be a rightly made claim by Mojahedin that the organization never enforced orders on the members to commit self-immolations in June 2003 following the arrest of Maryam Rajavi in France and they were deliberate actions.

The people who commit these loathsome acts are no doubt the byproducts of MKO’s adopted ideology. Explicitly putting in the words, they are slaves of a deeply imbued ideology that can be put into practice even in the absence of the leaders. As stated by Rajavi when drawing the organization’s ideological principles:

Everybody has to be a legist and interpreter of the given principal cues of principles. [4]

Also asserted in Nechayev’s The Revolutionary Catechism, revolutionary ideology draws the border-line between a rebel and a revolutionary:

The revolutionary is a dedicated man. He has no interests of his own, no affairs, no feelings, no attachments, no belongings, not even a name. Everything in him is absorbed by a single exclusive interest, a single thought, a single passion – the revolution… Hard towards himself, he must be hard towards others also. All the tender and effeminate emotions of kinship, friendship, love, gratitude and even honor must be stifled in him by a cold and single-minded passion for the revolutionary cause. There exists for him only one delight, one consolation, one reward and one gratification – the success of the revolution. Night and day he must have but one thought, one aim – merciless destruction. In cold-blooded and tireless pursuit of this aim, he must be prepared both to die himself and to destroy with his own hands everything that stands in the way of its achievement.[5]

As indicated by Rajavi, al-Qaeda has a formalistic understanding of ideology. Mojahedin believe that although al-Qaeda is on the front line of launching daring operations, but fails to have a good understanding of their impacts and the aftermath essential calculations. Structural similarities between al-Qaeda and MKO regardless of minor differences well expose the global threat of Mojahedin-e Khalq far beyond the potentialities of al-Qaeda. If there are still optimistic people who foster hope that Mojahedin would undergo a radically ideological and structural change, they are under the spell of some ignorance they have to break before it is too late.

Sources:

Lectures of Mahdi Abrishamchi on the Ideological Revolution in MKO. (1985). Taleghani Publication.

Explining the world -the rules and the concept of evolution: the ideological teachings of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization, vol. II, 5.

Lectures of Mahdi Abrishamchi on the Ideological Revolution in MKO. (1985). Taleghani Publication.

Explining the world -the rules and the concept of evolution: the ideological teachings of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization, vol. II, pp.5-7.

Nechayev; The Revolutionary Catechism

http://spectrum332034.tripod.com/Texte/1.htm

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The Ideology of the MEK

Women, Objects of a Similar Reactionary Vision in Al-Qaeda and MKO

On the anniversary of 9/11 terrorist attacks perpetrated by al-Qaeda makes it absolutely necessary to have a review over the hideous phenomena of terrorism and the identical political and ideological features shared by the notorious terrorist groups. It might be of a great aid to diagnose the threat of the groups that are scattered among the societies under the pretext of pro-democracy activists. Al-Qaeda being a potent threat at the present relying heavily on its military and ideological potentialities, other groups that share similar characteristics with it can give rise to even more alarming terrorist threats to destabilize the global security.

The found ideological similarities between al-Qaeda and the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), also known as Mojahedin cult, and the comparable approaches for fund-raising activities and identical goals the both seek to accomplish make it necessary to have a much deeper scrutiny of MKO. Although there might be some minor disagreements between the two, but a close study reveals shocking similarities in their position taken against America and capitalism, organizational structure and their ideological outlook on the social and organizational status of women. MKO unlike al-Qaeda exploits women within the organization and even promotes their status, but like al-Qaeda imparts no telling viewpoint on women. However, assertions made by many MKO’s separated members reveal that both groups ideologically hold homogenous views on women.

Following its internal ideological revolution, MKO partly surfaced its ideologically based value standpoint on women. Annihilation of family foundations inside the organization, forced divorces, escalation of hatred among espouses and encouraging them to remain celibate for the rest of their lives were all unprecedented achievements that Rajavi, as Mojahedin’s modern revolutionary leader, enforced. At the first look the revolution reaffirmed restoration of women’s historically violated rights, but underneath women were viewed to be impediments for the accomplishment of MKO’s ideal revolution for which the group had already dedicated itself. Forced marriages followed by forced divorces in no way could theorize restoration of any violated right but could make women totally dependent on Rajavi, intimidate the men and control any possible rivals for leadership.

The evidences indicate that the instrumental use of women and male chauvinism do not infuse Mojahedin alone. Assented by the majority of ex-members who were present at Rajavi’s regular meetings, Rajavi had repeatedly stated that ‘we made the revolution but al-Qaeda is reaping all the corps. In many instance he had referred to Mohammad Atta, the al-Qaeda suspected ringleader behind 9/11 plot who held misogynistic attitudes, had developed a better understanding of MKO’s ideological revolution compared with the group’s own members. Mohammad Atta’s misogyny is well acknowledged in his will which has been released in English by the FBI:

I don’t want women to come to my house to apologize for my death. I don’t want any women to come at my grave at all during my funeral or any occasion thereafter. [1]

The dogmatically misogynistic ideology dominates both groups by some differences; in contrast to al-Qaeda that avows physical repellent of women, MKO more advocates curbing and elimination of the insiders lust for women. In fact, Mojahedin’s outlook is much more reactionary and outrageous than al-Qaeda. At least Atta promised the al-Qaeda operatives when encouraging them before the attacks that the day will come, after the death, when ‘you spend with the women of paradise. [2] Rajavi’s internal revolution completely deprives the members of thinking erotic tendencies and even making fantasies termed as big sins:

Following the divorce meetings, the families residential were evacuated and it was known to be a big sin if anyone thought of home. The residences being evacuated, they had them environed by walls of earth so the memory of home eluded the members minds. [3]

Oddly enough, there is no difference in the nature of al-Qaeda and MKO’s outlook on women but in organizational relations. For an organization that posture a pro-feminism, pursuing the reactionary line of repelling women, as al-Qaeda does, means depriving itself of a noticeably potential human force. Mohammad Atta removes the barrier that comes between him and his goal by physical denial of women even after his death. In contrast, Rajavi deprived all male and female insiders of their human instincts and emotions which were known to be barriers to the main cause and promoted women’s organizational status to exploit the strong, endurable human potentialities in them.

In both al-Qaeda and MKO, the picture and idea of women have to be completely cleaned from the minds of veterans. MKO requires all male members to avoid all sexual thoughts and to liberate themselves from their instincts, particularly sexual drives. Rajavi in regularly organized gatherings recurrently reminded members of their uncontrolled lust and even insulted them:

Massoud Rajavi in an ideological meeting for members of executive committee, before saying anything else, he surprised everybody by saying: “I have heard from Dr . . . that your pee has bubble. Strangely according to what I heard from him, our “HE” [member of executive committee] member’s pee has bubble while our ordinary member’s pee is bubble-less. Then when he faced strange and puzzled look of members said: “Don’t look at me with surprise, like you don’t know what that means. It means, few years after ‘ideological revolution, still you have not been able to neutralise your sexual desires and still you have ejaculation of semen, which creates bubble in your urine. [4]

For Rajavi, women are merely playthings who, devoid of all womanish fleeing and desires, should develop a dual personality who is neither a woman nor a man but at the service of leadership. She is a depersonalized creature that is deprived of freedom of thought and lifestyle running a slavery life in the bond of Rajavi’s ambitions.

In fact, women are identical problems in al-Qaeda and MKO with two different solutions. Mohammad Atta considers women as obstacles that impede accomplishment of his goals while to rajavi women are encumbrances to his leadership. The solution for Atta is resorting to reactionary fashion of physical riddance of women; rajavi takes advantage of sophisticated, modern psychological techniques to kill their fleeing and emotions and turn them into absolute machines and robots. Oddly enough, to the world MKO are proclaimed to be a pro-feminist group but inside feminism is believed to be a manifest of the crummy slough of bourgeoisie. As Mehdi Abrishamchi states:

Women’s right fails to be restored out of men and women’s direct conflict but is restored through a deep anti-exploitation struggle wherein women equally play a role. The climax of a bourgeois thought is feminism. That is, it develops the idea of female superiority which in itself maintains an opposition because in social balance the female gender occupies a second status and the opposition works for the interest of the superior gender. Preservation of social classes absolutely benefits capitalism. Capitalism attempts socially and ideologically to theorize everlasting stability of classes; that is why it tries to bolster class conflict to exploit easily and in various forms. The gender exploitation continues for ever unless a jointly male and female anti-exploitation struggle is initiated to solve the problem historically. [5]

Then, what demarcates al-Qaeda and MKO is in the quantity of two unified observation of today’s world phenomena. The former holds an extremely reactionary view that resorts to blind terrorist operations showing no consideration for others and freely revealing its ideological and tribalist teachings. The latter takes shelter behind the contradictions and utilizes the most radical political and social inclinations and sophisticated cult techniques to promulgate the same al-Qaeda cult-like, reactionary teachings. Abrishamchi explicitly draws the line between al-Qaeda and MKO by using the terms of rebel and revolutionary:

A sine qua non of revolution is the thought that completely sees the needed ordinance for such a necessity. As a result, a rebel provided with an ideology undergoes a change to become a revolutionary. A rebel conducts blind insurgency against the ruling regime while a revolutionary element knows well whereto conduct the insurgency. [6]

 

Sources:

[1]. English version of Mohammad Atta’s will:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/will1.htm

[2]. observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,560773,00.html

[3]. Shams-Haeri, Hadi; Mordab (The Swamp), Abroad publication, p.193.

[4]. Masoud Banisadr; Memoirs of an Iranian Rebel, 386.

[5]. Mehdi Abrishamchi’s speech made on the ideological revolution within MKO, published by Muslim Student Association, 1985.

[6]. Ibid.

 

Bahar Irani – Mojahedin.ws – Sep. 10, 2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

The Terrorists’ Job of Waging War

Many from among the Americans believe that it would be irrational and the height of irresponsibility to go to war against a country based on the claims of an opposition group that is securely leashed by the State Department as a dangerous terrorist group. Barton Kunstler’s article, Why We Cannot – and Will Not – Attack Iran contributed for opednews, well explains illogicality of such a plan and irrationality of relying on disinformation by a terrorist group that through parlaying its baseless exposure on various mainstream media outlets in world tries to escalate the already existing tensions.

Flames of war notwithstanding many lives it might claim, rises the troubled water for the terrorist MKO to fish as it did during Iran-Iraq war. Besides, it is a proven fact that only trough a chaotic atmosphere the group survives and assumes the power to accomplish its inhuman ambitions. Although not any more a weighty threat for Iranian inside, MKO might, if it can gain the ears of politicians with bellicose nature, get others into some deep, inextricable mire. Excerpts from Kunstler’s article expound the role of MKO in the war scenario.

As in the run-up to the Iraq War, a favored dissident has caught the attention of the D.C. neo-cons and has found a platform from which to harangue the American public into bombing Iran. In this case, the job of driving America into another war belongs to Alireza Jafarzadeh. Wikipedia.com’s extensive entry on Jafarzadeh reads like a brochure for his consulting firm. Before establishing the firm, Jafarzadeh belonged to a dissident group called The National Council of Resistance on Iran (NCRI), which is the political wing of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK). The MeK was a leftist anti-shah organization until the 1979 Revolution brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. MeK opposed the Ayatollah and went into exile, but its politics shifted as well. MeK organized a military force based over the border in Iraq that raided Iranian targets in the 1980s. Eventually, MeK was placed on several lists of terrorist organizations.

Despite this – or as a result – MeK and the NCRI have put together a high-powered lobbying group in Washington D.C. that includes the Iran Policy Committee (IPC), headed by a former Reagan administration official, Professor Raymond Tanter, and comprising a group of Beltway military, intelligence, and right-wing political figures, which works closely with Jafarzadeh who, incidentally, is also a Foreign Affairs Analyst for Fox News.

Jafarzadeh takes credit for revealing the existence of several underground uranium enrichment plants and other WMD projects and for triggering an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigation of Iran’s nuclear program. However, the IAEA contradicted the claims of Jafarzadeh, and now the Bush administration, that Iran is pursuing a policy of nuclear armament. And it is not just the IAEA that disagrees with Jafarzadeh’s and Bush’s assessments. Many members of the U.S. intelligence community have publicly questioned Bush’s view of Iran’s nuclear intentions, and even within Bush’s closest circle Condoleeza Rice has apparently emerged as the voice of reason against Dick Cheney who, predictably, is all set to bomb Iran.

Remember Ahmed Chalabi? He was the Iraqi dissident who claimed Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. By parlaying his exposure on various mainstream media outlets in the U.S., and gaining the ear of the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, Chalabi managed to turn his unfounded claims into a gospel truth to which the Washington Post and New York Times, among others, offered a devout chorus of “amens”. In short, Chalabi played an important role in winning acceptance for the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. Chalabi also claimed his goal was a democratic government in his homeland.

Jafarzadeh is currently playing the Chalabi-role. MeK and the NCRI are claiming they too favor a secular, democratic Iraq. However, as described in interviews on a Dateline show directed by Bronwyn Adcock (see http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&daysum=2006-10-04# and click on the link, “Gunning for Iran” for the transcript) aired on October 4, 2006, former MeK members describe the organization as focused strictly on its own ambitions and those of its money-hungry leaders, with cult-like indoctrination techniques.

(link to "Gunnig for Iran" -Video file: Gunning for Iran. SBS television )

It would be the height of irresponsibility to go to war based on the claims of a man tied to groups so invested in attacking Iran. It is bad enough that a Jafarzadeh can manipulate his way into a position of influence over national policy. It is truly insane that we might actually go to war due to his influence. Lest this seems to overstate the case, the Iran Policy Committee’s web page features an article by Lt. General (Ret.) Tom McInerney and Fred Gedrich arguing for a “series of measures designed to modify Iranian behavior including (1) selective air-strikes in the face of continued Iranian support for terrorism, WMD development, and the Iraqi insurgency;(2) support for Iranian political opposition; and (3) delisting the main Iranian opposition groups – the NCRI and MEK – from the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.” This is based on “Tehran’s past intransigence and continuing hostility.” In their view, Iran has “waged a one-sided war with the U.S. for 28 years”. Their evidence is selective and devoid of political context: they cite the seizure of our embassy in 1979 (a political act that engendered negotiations, including Ronald Reagan’s aides working with the Iranians to postpone the hostages’ release till after the November presidential elections) and Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents in the current war as the real clincher.

 

Sent by Sattar Orangi, Mojahedin.ws, Sep. 7, 2007

 

 

(Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, cult leaders)

 

 

(Maryam Rajavi directly ordered the massacar of Kurdish people)

 

 

(A Cult session in Ashraf camp Iraq – under protection of Saddam)

 

 

(Chemical attack on Halabche, Kurdistan, Iraq)

 

 

(MKO mebers in European Countries 2003)

 

 

 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraqi Authorities' stance on the MEK

Iraqi Turkmen, Victims of Terrorist Monafeghin

The head of Iraqi Turkmen Assembly: "No group or country could disrupt Iran-Iraqi ties and friendship."

"No terrorist group or hostile country could damage historical friendship between Iran and Iraq," said Dr. Feizallah Mohammed Saleh.

In a meeting between Habilian Association officials and high-ranking Iraqi delegation, comprised of representatives of Iraqi Turkmen and the members of the Islamic Movement of Iraqi Turkmen, Dr. Feizallah Mohammed Saleh added: "We are proud of close relations between the two countries and thank Iran for supporting Iraqi people."

"With Baathists in power, Turkmen lived an innocent life and a very difficult situation was crated by Bathist regime."

"During the uprising of 1991, a number of Turkmen from Kirkuk were also killed by the organization of Monafeghin. So, besides the suppression of the uprising in the north, different ethnicities faced the risk of becoming totally destroyed," he added.

In the meeting, Secretary General of Habilian Association, Mohamad Jawad Hasheminezhad, stressed the common concerns of the two sides and said: "Unity and solidarity of Iran and Iraq is so deep that big powers try to destroy it. This policy has continued during the ruling of corrupted rulers in Iraq and Iran."

 "As they entered Iraq, Americans noted that they have never seen such unity between the two countries. Therefore, they occupied Iraq under the name of democracy while their end goal is to divide the two nations," he added.

"It is a crucial time for Iranians and Iraqis because the occupiers and terrorists try to divide them. This plan is supposed to be led by terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and the organization of Mojahedine Khalgh," Mr. Hasheminezhad went on to say.

"With its 40 years of history, MKO has numerous experiences in the field of massacre, terrorism and destruction. However, the question is "what does American democracy mean when Iraqis want to expel the ones who killed their children and they oppose it?"

He added: "Sixteen thousands Iranians have been killed by this terrorist group and Monafeghin’s own documents prove this."

Dr. Saami, deputy head of Iraqi Turkmen Assembly also stressed the history of Iranians’ friendship with Iraq and said: "Many of terrorist blows to Iraq have been from neighboring countries. However, the West and the US in particular have directed their attacks at Iran and Syrian. This shows their double standards in dealing with terrorism and human rights. 

"Years ago we saw that Imam Khomeini warned Arab countries that after the war with Iran, Iraq would not respect them. We all witnessed that six days after the end of war with Iran, Saddam attacked Kuwait and occupied that country," he said.

He said Al-Qaeda and Mojahedine Khalgh are two notorious terrorist groups, adding: "They have close ties with CIA and Mossad. We have solid documents on this and are ready to publish them."

Hasheminezhad also said: "Persians and Arabs couldn’t ignore each other but they should respect each other in order to live a peaceful life. In this way, we should avoid illogical hostilities and therefore, the mercenary group of Mojahedine khalgh should be expelled from Iraq."

Stressing that the issue of martyrs of Iran-Iraq war should be resolved between the two countries, he said: "Many families in both Iran and Iraq still have problems regarding this issue and we won’t quit efforts for finding our martyrs according to agreements."

Secretary General of Habilian Association underlined the request of Iranians and Iraqis, stating: "Although disarmed, MKO is still training and organizing terrorists, enjoying good logistical support and financial aid. Iraqis will be harmed more if the group could stay in their country."

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Debacle of the so-called press conference by Rajavi cult under the name of NCR

On Thursday 30 August 2007, the office of the National Council of Resistance (another name for the Mojahedin Khalq organisation or Rajavi cult) in Germany organised a ‘Press Conference’ in Berlin. The reporters, who had been privately invited, left the salon soon after they discovered they had been lied to and that there was no news whatsoever presented in the conference. One reporter later said: "we soon found that we had been invited to a propaganda show by the Mojahedin Khalq to help their campaign of revenge against their critics among human rights activists". The bulk of the audience and reporters left the conference raising their disgust about the way they had been brought there by deception.

The so-called press conference was managed by Mrs Massoumeh Boloorchi who introduced herself as the ‘Representative of the National Council of Resistance in Germany’ but who maintains her position as a leading member of the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (a proscribed terrorist organisation in the USA, UK, Canada and the EU). She tried with desperation to calm the angry reporters who had been brought there by deception.

Three days after the press conference only one German newspaper mentioned the event in passing in an article about Iran.

‘Sister Fereshteh’, (Mrs Boloorchi, who is a member of the Mojahedin’s all-women Leadership Council personally selected by Rajavi) has a reputation within the cult for being a clumsy person. It seems that this disastrous press conference and the overt ridicule they received from the media and journalists could be the last nail in her coffin and we will soon witness her losing her position in the Leadership Council. Of course, we believe that the problem for Rajavi and the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation does not lie in the hands of this woman and they really should search deeper.

The disastrous result of this latest press conference, which died even before starting, shows that the efforts by the cult over the last four years to be removed from western terrorist lists without rejecting terror and violence has not and will not fool people in those countries.

The leaders of the Rajavi cult, as they have stressed over and over in their internal meetings, are now going back to what they have been trained for by Saddam’s Republican guards, and that is physical assassination and physical terror. It is now clear that the cult leaders have changed their recent tactics and have chosen to resort to open violence and terror in European countries and, as they have always instructed, this starts with the human rights activists, critics and ex-members who are blamed for the failure of the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation to find a new benefactor after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

One should not forget that the cult leaders, by referring to the 2003 self-burnings by cult members which resulted in two deaths and several disabled, have on many occasions emphasised that those who are capable of burning themselves on instant instruction, could kill anyone at anytime and anyplace when they receive this instruction.

Aawa Association would like to bring to the attention of the authorities in Germany the great danger which threatens the survivors of this cult in European countries.

AAWA Association e.V.  Postfach 90 31 73  D – 51124 Köln  Phone: +49 (0) 163 1849145  Email: info@iran-aawa.com Email: aawa_association@web.de

Aawa Association, Cologne, Germany, September 01, 2007

http://www.iran-aawa.com/b035.htm

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Hypocrisy and state-sponsored terrorism

In recent months, the U.S. government has initiated a series of provocative policies directed at the Islamic Republic of Iran with the intention of drawing the country into the vortex of political and economic isolation.

George W. Bush has frequently threatened Iran, but everyone knows that his bark is worse than his bite.

It seems that Bush believes the policy of threats and intimidation is the only one that is effective. Now that he has realized that such threats cannot influence Iran’s policy in the least, he has resorted to economic levers, which can affect only the Iranian people. U.S. officials have defined the U.S. policy toward Iran as a cold war front through which they are attempting to exert pressure on the Iranian people in the vain hope that they may let out a cry of protest.

As in all cold wars, it is the average citizen who suffers the most.

In this context, “We are confronting Iranian behavior across a variety of different fronts, on a number of different, quote and unquote, battlefields, if you will,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington recently.

McCormack’s choice of the word ‘battlefields’ shows his mind-set. Washington’s hawks believe they must start a war against Iran, either militarily or psychologically. This is their mission: to confront a government that that sees no reason to capitulate to their demands or become their lackey.

However, the first option failed so now the U.S. is resorting to the second option, a psyops campaign.

“I was trying to illustrate that you don’t just confront Iran with guns and soldiers; sometimes you do it with lawyers and accountants and diplomats,” McCormack said.

These are odd words issuing from the mouth of a man who seems to only know the language of threats and confrontation.

The strategy envisaged by the U.S. government includes sanctions prohibiting foreign investment in Iran and barring foreign companies from conducting business with Iranian companies in order to decrease the country’s capital inflows.

Along the same lines, the U.S. Treasury Department has prevented Iranian banks and other institutions from dealing with the U.S. financial system. Many banks in Europe and other parts of the world have stopped their transactions with Iran. Over 40 major international banks and institutions have either cut off or cut back business with the Iranian government and/or private sector.

Iranian families are facing enormous problems in remitting money to their loved ones abroad. The remitted money is either confiscated or gets “lost” in the Byzantine labyrinth of modern finance. Iranian students living abroad find that they are unable to pay their rent and tuition simply because there is no way they can receive money from their parents.

The Iranian economy is also having some difficulties, partly due to Washington’s pressure.

In the latest step, Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are considering designating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization. The IRGC is a popular army that fought bravely during the eight-year war of aggression that Iraq imposed on Iran. The State Department is trying to sully the reputation of an Iranian military organization whose members made supreme sacrifices in defending their homeland.

 

Bush and his aides say Iran has made few contributions to efforts to improve the security situation in Afghanistan. Well, it seems that the White house needs a reality check since Afghan President Hamid Karzai praised Iran for its constructive role in Afghanistan during a recent meeting with his Iranian counterpart Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Even in his meeting with George W. Bush, Karzai described Iran’s’ role in Afghanistan as positive.

“So far, Iran has been a helper,” Karzai said in an interview with CNN.

However, Bush sounded a far harsher tone.

“From my perspective, the burden of proof is on the Iranian government to show us that they’re a positive force,” Bush said.

Furthermore, he threatened to continue efforts to isolate the country “because they’re not a force for good, as far as we can see.”

Washington also accuses Iran of providing the militias in Iraq with weapons in order to create chaos and insecurity in the war-ravaged country. The absurdity of such an allegation becomes apparent when one considers the fact that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani recently thanked Iran for its herculean efforts to help establish security in the volatile country.

In late July, Rice and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates traveled to the Middle East and offered billions in weapons sales packages to Arab nations and a $30-billion, 10-year military aid package to Israel, which is actually the source of insecurity in the Middle East. The rationale: to reduce Iran’s influence in the region.

In addition, Washington is currently supporting the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organization. The MKO is arguably the most controversial and perplexing topic in terrorism. Created in 1965, the organization is now protected by the U.S. government. U.S. officials are backing a terrorist organization only because they think the MKO can be employed as a useful tool against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thus, terrorism is being sponsored by a government that claims to be waging a campaign against the phenomenon.

Words lose their meaning in an Orwellian haze, and hardly a soul seems to have noticed.

Apparently, to George W. Bush, a terrorist in need is a friend indeed.

(Sept. 5 Tehran Times Opinion Column, by Ismail Salami)

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The Ideology of the MEK

9/11 Attacks & MKO’s Ideal Ideological Enterprise

It is not so hard a task to prove that al-Qaeda’s 9/11 terrorist operation is a depiction of MKO’s ideal political, ideological and strategic yearning. Regardless of revelling a full night away in Camp Ashraf after the terrorist incident and beating drums of jubilance for days after, MKO’s early ideological pamphlets contain evidences of advocating armed techniques to combat, as one of the most potent adversaries of the US, against the US imperialism. If al-Qaeda’s terrorist moves like 9/11 attacks relied heavily on religiously theorized teachings, MKO considers armed struggle and application of violence a historical necessity that is strongly imbued with its ideology.

Mojahedin’s early ideological series of pamphlets, especially Takamol (Evolution) and Shenakht (Epistemology) that were designed to translate their general aspirations into a more systematic world-outlook and the pamphlet Rah-e anbiya rah-e bashar (The way of the prophets, the way of humanity) which was much a philosophical and historical work, absolutely asserted the armed and violent strategy in the curse of campaign. Mojahedin claimed to have discovered new laws ruling over the existence and believed that the law of evolution worked as a dominant law termed as ‘jabr-e tarikhi’ (historical determinism), an integral part of existence. In the same way, confrontation with the US imperialism and its elimination through violent means was believed to be an inevitable outcome of historical determinism rather than being regarded merely as a rebellion. Demarcating a rebel and a revolutionary Mehdi Abrishamchi explains:

A sine qua non of revolution is the thought that completely sees the needed ordinance for such a necessity. As a result, a rebel provided with an ideology undergoes a change to become a revolutionary. A rebel conducts blind insurgency against the ruling regime while a revolutionary element knows well whereto conduct the insurgency. [1]

If there has to be any difference between MKO and al-Qaeda, it is the fundamentally ideological viewpoint on the violence. Besides ideologically advocating application of violence and armed activities, Mojahedin consider the use of violence as a pragmatic approach for physical annihilation and resolving contradictions:

Common approaches to resolve contradictions have to be compatible to the features of each case. For instance, the only way to resolve contradictions between imperialism and the nations is through the armed struggle. The armed struggle is the common approach to resolve the mentioned contradiction. [2]

Based on such a methodology, Mojahedin’s aggressive attitudes are defined as the natural laws that even man’s own will has no role to prevent them:

Man’s will cannot resolve the contradictions against the current move of the phenomenon but in a very limited and temporary scale and with the exhaustion of much energy and impeding the general move of the phenomenon. For instance, imperialism is unable to durably resolve the existing contradiction between its own interests and those of the nations. It is against the rule of creation. [3]

In fact, Mojahedin’s favourite utopia has to be reached through a pass of adopted aggression and violence and America is believed to be the most obvious impediment on the path of social and historical evolution:

We have determined the global imperialism led by the imperialist America as the chief enemy. [4]

That is how MKO looks at the world surrounding it. Being wrapped in such a dogmatic and systematic world-outlook, MKO resorts to violence to resolve contradictions before thinking of any peaceful and democratic solution. The most explicit evidence of the group’s aggressive attitude toward the US imperialism out of America’s borders was the assassination of American employees and army personnel working in Iran during 1970’s. The 9/11 terrorist plot is the embodiment of the same anti-American attitudes within the American borders although not perpetrated by MKO:

Imperialism is vulnerable from the within and outside. Imperialism is a paper tiger. [5]

Although MKO showed no clear position concerning the 9/11 attacks, but in itself the group advocates the terrorist feat since its political and ideological principles from its very initiation have been founded on antagonistic and anti-imperialism attitudes.

 

Sources:

 

[1]. Mehdi Abrishamchi’s speech made on the ideological revolution within MKO, published by Muslim Student Association, 1985.

[2]. Shenakht (Epistemology), edited and published by MKO.

[3]. ibid.

[4]. An account of the formation and short history of Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization of Iran, 1965-1971.

[5]. Ibid.

 

Bahar Irani – Mojahedin.ws – Sep. 3, 2007

 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Zucker’s List: Enemies of the Rajavi Cult Terrorists

Professor Rabbi Daniel Zucker, a promoter of the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists, has made a new list of the enemies of this evil cult.

It is a high honor to be placed on a list of enemies of these communist terrorists who have murdered American military officers, Rockwell International employees, and large numbers of Iranians and Iraqis.

Supporters of the MEK have committed terrorist acts in many countries, including in America in 1992. In September 2002, the White House published a background paper listing the MEK as a Saddam Hussein-supported terrorist organization. In 2003, American and coalition forces attacked the MEK terrorists at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. During a period of war with American soldiers dying in Iraq, Zucker is promoting a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), a Marxist terrorist organization as classified by the State Department. Currently, the Federal Government is prosecuting MEK supporters who duped large numbers of persons at Los Angeles International Airport into donating money to the MEK terrorists.

Even the New York Times, with its long history of promoting communists, reported the following about the Pol Pot of Iran terrorists:

“This past winter in Iran, when such a popular outburst among students and others was still just a dream, if you mentioned the Mujahedeen, those who knew and remembered the group laughed at the notion of it spearheading a democracy movement. Instead, they said, the Rajavis, given the chance, would have been the Pol Pot of Iran.”

–Elizabeth Rubin, "The Cult of Rajavi", New York Times Magazine, July 13, 2003

Zucker can demonstrate his knowledge of the MEK by revealing the location of Massoud Rajavi, leader of the MEK. Is Rajavi being held as a prisoner in Iraq for a future war crimes trial or being protected until the American military invades Iran?

It is a pleasure to correct the following false characterizations and to repeat requests that Zucker makes honest disclosures about himself and his sources of funds for his organizations.

Disinformation Campaign in Overdrive: Iran’s VEVAK in High-Gear

Professor Daniel M. Zucker – 9/3/2007

“Professor Paul Sheldon Foote of California State University at Fullerton (Accounting)[lxiii] spent time in pre-revolutionary Iran where he met his wife Badri. A self-styled old school conservative (he likes to call neo-conservatives “Neo-Trotskyites”), he is a frequent contributor to VEVAK sites such as Iran-Interlink,[lxiv] hambastegimeli.net,[lxv] and Mojahedin.ws.[lxvi] Foote serves as the regime’s “attack-dog” against the Iranian resistance organizations NCRI and MEK and their supporters, and is also an apologist for the Tehran regime. Now, not everyone needs to like the NCRI and MEK; we do live in a free country and have a right to pick whom we support and whom we don’t. But unlike Dr. Kenneth Timmerman who is a vocal opponent of the MEK but even more vociferous critic of the Tehran regime, Foote defends the IRI. I guess that being as conservative as he claims to be allows him to be comfortable with the conservatism of Iran’s radical Islamist clerks.”

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3386&cid=2&sid=4

Conservative Credentials

This article is not the first time that Zucker has questioned my conservative credentials without establishing his own conservative credentials. Please see Zucker’s comment and my reply at The Conservative Voice:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/forum/read.html?id=2075

I have been a registered Republican for my entire voting life. My political party registration is a matter of public record. Anyone can verify my political party registration by researching the records at:

Neal Kelley, Orange County Registrar of Voters

1300 South Grand Avenue | Building C | Santa Ana CA 92705 | 714.567.7600

http://www.ocvote.com/

It is also a matter of public record in Los Angeles County, California that Republican voters elected me to the Republican County Central Committee in 1990 and that I was a Republican candidate for State Assembly in 1992. The California Republican Assembly (CRA) endorsed me in 1992. United Republicans of California (UROC) co-endorsed me in 1992.

My political contributions to conservative Republican candidates are posted at the Web site of California’s Secretary of State.

Is Zucker a registered Republican?

Military Service

During 1968 and 1969, I served in the American Army in Vietnam. I volunteered to fight against the communists.

In which military organization has Zucker served? Has Zucker fought in any way against communists at any time?

By contrast, one of the strongest supporters of the MEK in Congress is Congressman Tom Tancredo (Republican—Colorado and 2008 presidential candidate). Tancredo is a chickenhawk neoconservative who avoided service in Vietnam using a mental excuse. See:

Crazy for You

By Patricia Calhoun

Published: December 3, 1998

http://www.westword.com/1998-12-03/news/crazy-for-you/

Tancredo is the co-chairperson of the Iran caucus in Congress with Congressman Bob Filner (Democrat—California and son of a communist party candidate for Congress).

Living and Working Experiences in Iran

Zucker claimed wrongly that I met my wife, Badri, in Iran. I met my wife in London, England. We were working in the Chief Foreign Branch of Barclays Bank in 1967. Badri, who became a manager at Bank Melli Iran, received her international banking training from Barclays Bank.

My first trip to Iran was in 1968 for our wedding in Tehran. The Bureau of International Commerce of the United States Department of Commerce sent me to work at the American Embassy in Tehran during the summer of 1970 (between my first and second years of studies at Harvard Business School). From 1971 to 1972, I studied Persian (Farsi) at Harvard University. Later, Singer Sewing Machine Company sent me on assignments to Tehran and to other locations in the Middle East and North Africa. Our daughter was born in Iran. Our son attended his first schools in Iran. My last trip to Iran during the reign of the Shah of Iran was during the summer of 1976. To my shock, the Shah of Iran abolished all political parties and created a new, single-party state. I predicted to my wife and to others in Iran that the Shah of Iran had made a fatal blunder and would be forced from power.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 ended my plans to live and work in Iran for my entire career. Events in Iran have placed tremendous strains upon our family, such as: Iran hostage crisis, the American navy’s shooting down of an Iran Air jet, the Iran-Iraq War, and current neoconservative warmonger plots to bomb Iran.

Contrary to Zucker’s implication that I have not returned to Iran during the period of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I have visited Iran in 1995 and in 1996. During my vacations from work as a professor at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman, I taught at an English language institute in Iran.

Zucker has failed to disclose if he has ever been to Iran or has ever studied Persian (Farsi). If Zucker has never been to Iran, then why has he chosen to promote the Pol Pot of Iran terrorists? Why does Zucker want to see the killing fields of Cambodia repeated in Iran by another communist?

My Iranian wife has lost relatives who died fighting for the Rajavi Cult. How many family members of victims of the Rajavi Cult has Zucker met? How many funeral services for Rajavi Cult victims has he attended?

Neo-Trotskyites

Zucker implied that I am the only person to use neo-Trotskyites in writing about the neo-conservatives. Today, there were 1,030 Google hits for neo-Trotskyite and 112 Google hits for neo-Trotskyite with Foote.

Those who have studied the neo-conservative literature know that that neoconservatives prefer to use Trotskyist. See, for example, Irving Kristol’s “Memoirs of a Trotskyist” in his book, Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea.

While dishonest neoconservatives deny connections to Trotskyism, neoconservative writer Jacob Heilbrunn explained the connections in “The Neoconservative Journey” (Chapter 5 of Varieties of Conservatism in America, edited by Peter Berkowitz).

Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com), another writer of many articles critical of the MEK and of neo-conservatives, prefers to use Trotsky-cons. See:

“Today’s Conservatives Are Fascists”

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4245

The neo-conservatives were able to dupe many Americans by supporting President Reagan’s hard line foreign policies against the Soviet Union. Casual observers assumed that neo-conservatives are anti-communists. Neo-conservatives were anti-Stalin and those who followed Stalin in the Soviet Union. Admirers of Trotsky believe that Stalin was responsible for the murder of Trotsky in Mexico.

If the neo-conservatives were truly anti-communists, then they would focus on the gains of communists in many countries. Their focus would not be upon toppling anti-communist Islamic leaders in the world.

Neo-conservatives are not conservatives. Anyone who does not understand this should read: Justin Raimondo’s Reclaiming the American Right and Patrick J. Buchanan’s A Republic, Not an Empire.

Contributor to Web Sites

Zucker claimed that some of my articles have been posted at VEVAK-supported Web sites. Zucker offered no evidence of VEVAK’s financial support for any of the Web sites he listed.

Zucker failed to note that some of my articles have been published at Web sites in many countries representing the entire political spectrum. Web sites are free to copy my articles posted at my blog and at my Yahoo! Group, Traitors USA. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/

I welcome the postings of my articles at Web sites anywhere in the world, even at Mossad-supported Web sites in Israel or elsewhere.

http://www.mossad.gov.il/default.aspx

Zucker failed to note that the MEK operates a spoof Web site with the same name: Iran-Interlink.

Zucker failed to note that the Web sites he listed do not publish all of my articles.

Iran-Interlink

Zucker did not disclose his failure to meet with victims of this evil cult:

Nejat Association’s appeal to Rabbi Professor Daniel M. Zucker –

"the time for ignorance is past"

Nejat Association, September 21, 2006

We noted with interest your recent article ‘Iran’s VEVAK: Disinformation, Inc.’ which was written in collaboration with the Mojahedin Khalq.

Regardless of this article, the seven member delegation from Nejat Association which is currently in Paris, would very much like to meet with you to share our concerns about the human rights violations inside the Mojahedin’s Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

After a twenty year absence, why is a mother not able to visit her son for two hours? This is her only request. Why will the Mojahedin not allow her this simple request, which under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention on Protected Persons, is a basic right.

Article 116 – Every internee shall be allowed to receive visitors, especially near relatives, at regular intervals and as frequently as possible.

If you are unable to visit Paris to meet with the delegation, we will be happy to meet with you in Washington where we will be arriving shortly.

Rabbi Zucker, the time for ignorance is past.

http://iran-interlink.org/index.php?mod=view&id=1339

Zucker did not disclose that many of the opponents of the Rajavi Cult are former cult members, including Anne Singleton (author of the book, Saddam’s Private Army):

‘Agents of the Intelligence Ministry of Iran’ – Understanding Mojahedin Activity from a Cult Perspective

.

Anne Singleton, June 26, 2007

www.cultsandterror.org

On Sunday 17 June I was scheduled to speak on this subject at a public meeting in Paris. The meeting was unfortunately disrupted by an unusually large number of Mojahedin cult members who had lain in wait at the venue in order to prevent people speaking. Regardless of the implications for freedom of speech in a European country, this kind of disruption has become emblematic of the Mojahedin’s inability to even vaguely disguise its cult nature. Similar disruption has taken place in meeting after meeting held by former members of the cult; Paris, April 2005, Amsterdam, October 2005, Washington, D.C., October 2005, London, November 2005. (click here to see a montage of these meetings)

During the disruptions, charged-up cult members rant at former members accusing them of being ‘agents of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry’, ‘agents of the regime’, ‘mercenaries of the Iranian regime’. In my speech I explain the reason this is done and why, even though I was unable to speak at the time, I and other former cult members, rather than feeling angry or intimidated, have nothing but the greatest sympathy for those victims who are still trapped inside this dangerous, destructive cult.

http://iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=2658

Masoud Banisadr’s book, Masoud: Memoirs of an Iranian Rebel, provided details of the cult’s bizarre practices, including: mandatory divorces, wife assignments, urine analyses to ensure that no one is masturbating, torture, and killing of cult members. Does Zucker dare to disclose how Maryam Rajavi became a “wife” of Massoud Rajavi? Which Islamic religious leader performed the wedding ceremony? To whom was Maryam Rajavi married previously? How many other wives did Massoud Rajavi have? Does Rabbi Zucker condone the evil practices of the Rajavi Cult?

In June 2003, some of the cult members burned themselves to death in protest of Maryam Rajavi’s arrest in France.

Does a rabbi condone having cult members burn themselves to death?

Religious Conservatism

Zucker is a rabbi at

Congregation Beth Sholom

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(CONSERVATIVE)

516-432-7464

315 Roosevelt Blvd., Long Beach, NY 11561

fax: 516-889-1015

Rabbi Daniel Zucker

S,DM,L,RS,AE email: bethsholom@peoplepc.com

http://cojonc.org/_wsn/page5.html

Zucker needs to explain how it is possible for a conservative rabbi to promote communist terrorists while conservative clerks oppose communist terrorists.

Regardless of whether someone is religious, an agnostic, or an atheist, I remain anti-communist.

Theocracy

In March 2006, I debated on the “Power of One” satellite television program on NITV with Zia Atabay and with Manook Khodabakhshian, strong supporters of regime change in Iran. In this program and in many of my writings, I have covered the topic of theocracy. I have noted that my Foote ancestors left England nearly 400 years ago seeking religious and political freedoms.

While England remains a Christian theocracy and a monarchy, I do not advocate an American military invasion of England.

While Israel is a Jewish theocracy, I do not advocate an American military invasion of Israel. Please note the problem of Israel and theocracy posted at the Jewish Virtual Library:

“Israel is confronted with the dilemma of how to exist as a pluralistic, democratic state and, simultaneously, retain its Jewish character. Although there is now a growing sentiment in Israel that an Israeli nationality can be distinguished, no such distinction has been acknowledged to exist in the past. In a landmark Supreme Court decision, Justice Agranat ruled against a man who wanted to have his nationality registration changed from ‘Jewish’ to ‘Israeli’ saying: "There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people." He asserted further that "the Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry.”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/theocracy.html

Is Zucker an American?

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocracy. Fortunately, Iran is no longer a monarchy. That is more than you can claim for many countries in Europe. While I am opposed to any theocracy, I am opposed to any American military invasion of Iran to satisfy neo-Trotskyite or Zionist insanities.

Neoconservatives Opposing the MEK and the Islamic Republic of Iran

Zucker is correct that a few of the neoconservatives oppose both the MEK and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In addition to Kenneth Timmerman, he could have added: Michael Rubin and Michael Ledeen. See:

Monsters of the Left: The Mujahedin al-Khalq

by Michael Rubin

FrontPageMagazine.com

January 13, 2006

http://www.meforum.org/article/888

Hitting the Mark on Iran

by Michael Rubin

FrontPageMagazine.com

January 27, 2006

http://www.meforum.org/article/893

Apologist

In many of my posted writings, you can find a reference to my question for everyone: In 1981, would the world have been better if the MEK had defeated the Islamic leaders?

While I did not vote for President Jimmy Carter, I agreed with his strategy that the world would be better with a zone of Islamic nations than with an expansion of the Soviet Union.

When the Shah of Iran fled from Iran, the nationalists were able to hold power for only 37 days. Given the two choices of the Pol Pot of Iran or of Islamic leaders, I am delighted that the Pol Pot of Iran had to flee to France. Only very sick people would like to see the scenes of the killing fields of Cambodia repeated in any other country.

Is Zucker an apologist for Israel? Which of Zucker’s articles have been critical of Israel?

Zucker’s Funding

The Web site of Americans for Democracy in the Middle East (ADME) does not include any financial disclosures:

http://www.adme.ws/

When will Zucker make a full disclosure of his sources of funds? When will Zucker disclose if he has received any money or expense-paid trips from the MEK?

KGB

For an account of a KGB agent stationed in Iran familiar with dealings with the MEK, read: Vladimir Kuzichkin’s Inside the KGB.

On page 203, he described the MEK as: Islamic Marxist, anti-imperialist, anti-American, and anti-Israel.

Why does a rabbi support an Islamic Marxist, anti-American, and anti-Israel terrorist organization?

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

Note that Zucker was not critical of Max Boot at the CFR. For a critical evaluation of the CFR, read James Perloff’s The Shadows of Power.

Stop War on Iran

Zucker has failed to explain why Americans across the political spectrum have signed petitions opposed to war with Iran. Neoconservative liars have duped many Americans into believing that only leftists are anti-war.

Please note the signers of one statement at:

http://www.stopwaroniran.org/

Prof. Paul Sheldon Foote teaches at California State University-Fullerton.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts