Page 840 – Nejat Society

US Agrees with Iraqi Control over MKO

Iraqi security minister said the MKO was a source of unrest in Iraq.

Shirvan al-Vaeli, Iraq’s security minister, said in an interview with London-based Al-Hayat that "the MKO had created security crisis in Iraq."

"Initial agreements have been reached between Iraqi government and the US, which is responsible for protecting MKO members in Iraq, on the issue of how to protect these people," he added.

"Some European countries as well as Iran, which have pardoned some MKO members, are ready to accept them."

Quoting this report, IRNA said:

"National Security minister of Iraq said that around 4000 MKO members in Iraq would possibly be transferred to Europe in a near future.

According to Shirvan al-Vaeli, whose comments were published on Wednesday, some European countries have announced preparedness to accept MKO members.

In addition to these countries, Islamic Republic of Iran has also pardoned MKO members, this Iraqi official added.

He said the MKO was a source of insecurity in Dyala province in Iraq.

Currently, the US forces are protecting MKO members in Camp Ashraf in Dyala province.

Although the US has always claimed to be watching all activities of MKO, preventing them from conducting political and military operations, Iraqi government and Iraqi political figures say the MKO has created unrest in Dyala.

Camp Ashraf, MKO’s main base in Iraq, has been a place for political meetings with anti-Iranian Arab groups since the invasion to Iraq in 2003.

It should be noted that Iraqi Interim Government ordered the expulsion of MKO in 2003 but Americans have so far prevented the execution of this order.

A-Hayat, London, April 25, 2007

April 26, 2007 0 comments

Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney is legally bound by the U.S Constitution

Rep. Dennis Kucinich on April 24, 2007 introduced a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate. The third article of the resolution presents evidences that Dick Cheney has been fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran and making contacts with anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK).

Article III In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

M(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:

MMM(A)”For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.

MMM(B)”But we’ve also made it clear that all options are on the table.”January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.

MMM(C)”When we—as the President did, for example, recently—deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.”January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.

MMM(D)”But I’ve also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.”February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

M(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States, as evidenced by the following:

MMM(A)”I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.”Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

MMM(B) Iran indicated its”full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council.’’ IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.

MMM(C)”… so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.”Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

M(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:

MMM(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.

MMM(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.

MMM(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.

MMM(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.

MMM(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.

M(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran.

However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S Constitution’s adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, April 24, 2007

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf

April 26, 2007 0 comments

European Union

Rajavi’s Pitiful Condition

– IAEA announced that Iran has started enriching uranium in the industrial level by installing 1300 centrifuges.

– Larijani and Solana will meet on April 26 and it can be predicted that the talks will pave the way for fresh dialogue between the EU and Iran over its nuclear program.

– US Defense Secretary stressed once again that there’s no plan for military action against Iran, although some people like to believe that Pentagon’s movements are signs of a possible military attack against Iran; however, the general condition of the US, domestically and internationally, nullifies this possibility.

– Olmert, as major enemy of Iranians, has expressed hope, despite all previous threats by Zionist regime against Iran, that Iranian nuclear issue could be solved diplomatically!

These are the most unpleasant news for the gang of Rajavi. They wish to take advantage of international developments over Iran.

What makes it worse for the MKO is EU’s preparedness to give the reasons why it has designated MKO as a terrorist organization!

This means that EU’s Ministers Council, despite the ruling of the Court of First Instance, still believes that the MKO should remain in terror list.

This Council is seemingly trying to pass a law that requires the EU to explain why it puts certain groups on terror list.

So, they’re observing a law that has not been passed yet; this is a smart legal move to block any challenges in future.

EU’s reasons for calling MKO a terrorist group, which will be published soon, strips MKO from the chance of taking advantage of maneuvering over this law itself. Although, they are ready to interpret this law as a victory for the group to boost the morale of group’s desperate members.

On the other hand, this act further blocks MKO from resorting to First Instance Court’s ruling.

Rallies held by MKO supporters in France and England prove desperate situation

Of MKO, whose activities have been restricted to efforts for the survival of the group.

That being said, one can foresee that Rajavi’s efforts against the EU will be futile and that Rajavi’s gang is too discredited to be able to reconstruct its destroyed terrorist base in Europe.

It should be noted that there’s only one major reason behind all these efforts for getting off the list: providing a safe and secure life for Rajavi. However, even if they succeeded in providing a life for him in Europe, they wouldn’t be able to change his political status as an old criminal cult leader who’s lived in hiding.

Irandidan – 2007/04/25

April 26, 2007 0 comments

The Ideology of the MEK

Why Mojahedin Shun Manifesting Contents of Ideological Revolution? (4)

As mentioned, to have a good understanding of the ideological revolution within MKO, first we have to go through its contents. But before, the importance of the phenomenon from Mojahedin’s point of view has to be necessarily asserted, a phenomenon that according to many critics and separated members was de facto manifestation of Mojahedin’s historical and ideological potential to evolve into a cult. In fact, now after nearly two decades of the events, there is not yet unanimity about its essentiality either in internal or external relations and also its applicable function in Mojahedin’s strategy. On this issue, Niyabati states:

Now eighteen years after the ideological revolution and in spite of reaching maturity, yet neither Mojahedin could themselves resolve on a non-ideological explanation in respect to the phenomenon nor those out could develop an understanding of its nature and function within Mojahedin’s internal relations and its inevitable impacts on the formation and regulation of relations with others. [1]

In this case of study, the main reference will be Bijan Niyabati’s “A look within MKO’s ideological revolution” for some reasons. First Mojahedin have not taken any position to approve or disapprove the book whereas they traditionally hardly tolerate any contradictory ideological or political criticism and react immediately. Their meaningful silence on the book can be considered a tacitly approbation of the contents.

Second, the author openly announces to be a member of Mojahedin. He is so attached to the group that in defence of its being labelled as terrorist, he declares to be proud of being a terrorist. Following the proscription of Mojahedin in the list of the EU in 2002 and in response to Rajavi’s call to protest the decision, he wrote:

It is a claim I have never made over the years neither within nor outside of your [addressing Rajavi] organization, but now talking in the position of an irreligious, secular element and keeping unto my past view-points and fully aware of the political, legal consequences I addressing you cry out that if Mojahedin are terrorist, then, I am also a Mojahed-e Khalq. [2]

Somewhere else in the same message in appreciation of the strategy and the third phase called ‘survive in the rift’, namely creeping into the created gap between the West and Iran to survive and escalate the tension to advance the overthrow, Niyabati writes:

It was only your resistance that, in the course of one the most critical chapters of Iranian history, kept the flames of an absolute resistance against one of the most tremendous forces of the contemporary history aflame and dipped the white flags of surrender one after another and, at the same time, by being entangled in complicated political sphere and the widespread political relation with all the imperialist world and by the merit of vigilance took advantage of tiny breaches to thwart their plots and to unburden the armed resistance and tried all the possibilities according to the revolutionary principles and never dissolved in them and remained revolutionary. [3]

These remarks work as reliable factors in assertion of Mojahedin’s strategically dual nature and evidences for approving it as a cult.

Third, Niyabati’s book is an acknowledgment of his debt to Mojahedin and their ideological revolution as well as being written in commemoration of his wife, Shirin Baqerabadi, who was killed in Mojahedin’s perpetrated military operation called the Eternal Light. However, it seems that many critics and the theoreticians advocating the change unanimously agree that the armed strategy and the related tactics to overthrow the Iranian regime have proved to be unproductive.

Regardless of all these views, the main focus is on the supposition that Mojahedin’s dual character and contradictory conducts in the West and within the Camp Ashraf endorse its truly cult structure. Its proximity to the same Western determined evaluation of a cult well crystallizes it as one of the most visible examples of a group that blends the characteristics of a terrorist group with a cult.

On the question of whther Mojahedin from the very initiation enjoyed latent cult inclinations or it was an imediate outcome of its ideological revolution, it should be explained that at least after the ideological revolution Mojahedin was not the same as in the past. Expounding on the point, Niyabati says:

Mojahedin organization after the ideological revolution is no more the same Mojahedin organization before the revolution. [4]

Notes

[1]. Bijan Niyabati; A look within MKO’s ideological revolution, Khavaran Publication, 2.

[2]. Niyabati’s response entitled “I am a Mojahed as well” to Rajavi’s call to protest proscription of Mojahedin as a terrorist group.

[3]. Ibid.

[4]. ]. Bijan Niyabati; A look within MKO’s ideological revolution, Khavaran Publication, 2.

Bahar Irani – Mojahedin.ws – April 23, 2007

April 26, 2007 0 comments

European Union

EU Provides Reasons for Designating the MKO

The European Union will send letters to groups and individuals on its terror register to explain why they are listed, EU diplomats said Friday.

The decision, to be adopted Monday by EU foreign ministers, was made in the wake of a ruling last year by Europe’s second-highest court annulling a freeze on the assets of the main Iranian opposition group in exile.

The Court of First Instance ruled that the EU had not respected the right to a fair hearing of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran (OMPI), when it ordered the asset freeze in May 2002.

One diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the EU’s reasoning will be posted in its official journal for the groups and individuals for whom it has no address.

Those listed have 30 days "to present their arguments" against the decision.

The terror register lists more than 50 organisations and individuals, including the armed Basque separatist group ETA, Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers and the Islamist group Hamas.

It is supposed to be revised every six months but this has not happened because of uncertainty caused by the court ruling.

An asset freeze is imposed on those who figure on the list.

The EU has already written to OMPI, recalling "the organisation’s past, notably the attacks that it has been responsible for", the diplomat said.

Evidences Dismissing MKO Mojahedin Khalq Organisation,

Rajavi cult headed by Massoud Rajavi and

Maryam Rjavi) Disclaim of Terrorism

The European Parliament Held an Assembly,

Considering the MKO’s Present

Situation (February 28, 2007)

UK Secretary of State: Mojahedin

Assets still frozen in EU and

UK (18 January 2007)

US State Department Report 1997 on

Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (Rajavi Cult

Headed by Massoud Rajavi and Maryam Rajavi)

Anne Singleton interview with BBC Radio

about Rajavi cult headed by Massoud

Rajavi and Maryam Rajavi

AFP, April 20, 2007

April 23, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MKO Terrorists Reappear in Paris Streets

No doubt, those quoted French citizens who the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq claim to have spoken in its behalf in the course of its gathering in Paris on Wednesday April 18 were given no opportunity to have access to any immediate information on the nature of the organization they were supporting. Hardly can French people sink into the oblivion the nightmare of the human-torches running it the streets of Paris nearly four years ago in June 2003.

The gathering in front of the French Parliament, one among a number of the like organized rallies in other Western countries, demanded from the French government to take MEK name off the EU terrorist list. The group also claimed that 15,000 French citizens, whose identities have never been released, had signed a petition in support of the group.

It is a question asked by many including the French people that why the government permits a proscribed terrorist group whose leaders are still facing new charges in French courts organize protesting rallies.

French prosecutor general had earlier on March 19 requested the anti-terror court to add new charges against MKO and the header of the group Maryam Rajavi. The new charges are reported to be money laundering and fraud charges added to the previous case which includes connection with terrorism and saboteur groups.

April 23, 2007 0 comments

European Union

The Proscribed Groups Be Informed Soon

Reported by Radio Farda quoting the European Union diplomats, they said on April 20 the European Union will soon inform the proscribed groups and entities through letter the reasons for being listing as terrorists.

Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) is one of the listed terrorists that the European Union is decisive to keep on the list regardless of a decree by the Court of First Instance that annulled the freeze of the group’s assets.

The European Council announced on 31st January following the 2778th Council meeting of Economic and Financial Affairs that it has "decided to provide the PMOI with a statement of reasons for keeping it on the EU’s ‘asset freeze list’ of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts, and to give the PMOI one month to present its views, together with any supporting documentation".

The Council’s decision seems to be a reaction against the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The European Union proscribed MEK on 2002 and ordered its assets to be frozen.

April 23, 2007 0 comments

Canada

MEK A Banned Group on Canadaian List

Reflecting Canada’s decisiveness in war on terrorism, the Canadian Cnews reported that the government considers MEK a terrorist organization in spite of protesting rallies orchestrated by the group.

According to the report, several hundred chanting, flag-waving demonstrators paraded on Parliament Hill on Thursday, urging the government to drop an Iranian opposition group from the formal list of banned, terrorist organizations.

The protesters, many of them Iranian emigres, said the PMOI, the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, offers secular opponents of the theocratic Iranian regime a political option for change.

The group is banned by the government as part of a larger terrorist organization called Mujahedeen-e-Khalq or MEK which was placed on the list of banned groups in May 2005 and its status was reviewed last November.

The Public Safety Department describes the group as "an Iranian terrorist organization that was based in Iraq until recently. It subscribes to an eclectic ideology that combines its own interpretation of Shiite Islamism with Marxist principles. The group aspires to overthrow the current regime in Iran and to establish a democratic, socialist, Islamic republic."

The department also says MEK is believed to have had ties to Saddam Hussein, as well as a number of Palestinian factions and is suspected of working with the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Cnews/Mojahedin.ws – 20/04/2007

April 23, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Bush’s Terrorist Allies

You can’t tell the players without a program

Of course supporting terrorism is not something that is new to the Bush Administration, nor American foreign policy. Just last year it was revealed that another terrorist group called the MEK (Mujahedeen-e Khalq) was being used by the DoD to attack Iran.

One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being “run” in two southern regional areas of Iran. They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months.

One former counterintelligence official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, describes the Pentagon as pushing MEK shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The drive to use the insurgent group was said to have been advanced by the Pentagon under the influence of the Vice President’s office and opposed by the State Department, National Security Council and then-National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.

MEK leader with SaddamIf you will recall, the MEK was one of the original backers of the Islamic Revolution in Iran whose ideology is a weird mix of fundamentalist Islamism, feminism, and Marxism. They actively supported the 1979 embassy occupation in Tehran and had conducted several assassinations against U.S. civilians working in Iran during the 1970’s. The MEK was chased out of Iran in the 1980’s, when thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) were simply executed by the Iranian government. The MEK joined with Saddam’s Iraqi government shortly before the 1988 massacre, and assisted in crushing the Shia revolt in 1991. The MEK is our leading source of information about Iran’s alleged "nuclear weapons program".

The MEK is currently lobbying to have it taken of the list of terrorist organizations, and it has friends in both the Bush Administration and in Congress.

Reps. Bob Filner, D-Calif., Tom Tancredo, R-Col., Ted Poe, R-Texas, Dennis Moore, R-Kan., and staffers for Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, and James Talent, R-Mo., spoke to MEK supporters at a convention hall just four blocks from the White House.

The MEK has been listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department since 1997, but some in Congress and close to the Administration want the group to be removed from the terrorist list. Even President Bush has called the MEK a "dissident group."

Of course that is only two of the terrorist groups fighting the Iranian government that the Bush Administration supports. Probably the most active group is the Partiya Jiyana Azad a Kurdistanê (Party of Free Life of Kurdistan, PJAK). Last November Seymour Hersch wrote about this issue.

In the past six months, Israel and the United States have also been working together in support of a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan. The group has been conducting clandestine cross-border forays into Iran, I was told by a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership, as "part of an effort to explore alternative means of applying pressure on Iran." The government consultant said that Israel is giving the Kurdish group "equipment and training." The group has also been given "a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S."

PJAK’s ideology is democratic liberalism and traces its origin to non-violent student movements. It is considerably less radical than the PKK, but its leader, Haji Ahmad, is a member of Kongra-Gel (formerly known as the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK). The PJAK is listed as a terrorist group by the American government. It is reported that the PJAK killed 120 Iranian security forces members in 2005 alone.

Of course the Bush Administration’s support for terrorist groups don’t stop here. They also back violent Azeri rebel groups and yet another Kurdish group called Komala. There may be others that I’m not aware of.

Saturday, 07 April 2007 – Written by Garrett Johnson

April 23, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Who benefits from America’s support for terrorist MKO

Who benefits from America’s support for terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (Rajavi Cult)?

It is not a secret that America has recently helped some of the smuggling gangs and terrorist cults, which have been denounced over the years throughout the civilized world, in an attempt to put more pressure on Iran to stop enriching Uranium.

The most recent support for Jondollah, which claimed the recent killings in Baluchestan province of Iran (attacking schools, etc), came in a live interview with Abdolmalek Rigi the head of Jondollah broadcast by Voice of America.

Link to the related article (Persian)

http://www.iran-interlink.org/fa/index.php?mod=view&id=2051

And the comments of American officials about the controversial Camp Ashraf (still run by the Rajavi cult and protected by the US Army in Iraq) given to CNN correspondent, leave not much question about direct support and protection given to MKO (Rajavi cult), which has been responsible for scores of murders across the globe by the order and support of Saddam Hussein.

The article, written by Michael Ware, CNN, April 05, 2007 is titled:

U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq

http://www.iran-interlink.org/index.php?mod=view&id=2084

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/

protected.terrorists/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Ambassador Javad Zarif (representative of Islamic Republic of Iran in United Nations) was interviewed by Asia Source on April 21, 2007.

http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/zarif.cfm

Part of the interview reads:

"Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

No.

Is Hezbollah?

No. Let ‘s stop here. The majority – you don’t need to ask me this question – the majority of the international community does not regard these two organizations to be a terrorist organization. Now the question that can be asked from the United States is why is it cooperating with organizations that it considers to be terrorists? Now the majority of the world do not believe that Hezbollah or Hamas are terrorist organizations. Hamas and Hezbollah are official political parties with seats in the parliament. Hamas won the majority, which the United States did not like and the United States has boycotted Hezbollah ministers in the Lebanese Parliament simply because it doesn’t like them. Now the US or Israel labeling an organization "terrorist", that organization which is involved in legitimate resistance to foreign occupation, that organization does not then automatically become terrorist. Go look at the international community. This is the problem of the US equating itself with the international community again and again. But the question that needs to be asked is the behavior of the United States vis-à-vis organizations that it considers to be terrorists. Why is it cooperating with them?

Which organizations are you thinking of?

I’m referring to MEK [Mujahideen-e-Khalq], for instance, in Iraq that the United States is actually supporting and signing agreements with. Would the United States accept any country providing the Fourth Geneva Convention protection to Al Qaeda which is another universally recognized terrorist organization? So terrorism should not become a label, a convenient label for dealing with your adversaries. You’ve got to have objective criteria. Apply those objective criteria and deal with them accordingly."

It seems once again the ball has landed permanently in the court of Bush administration to come up with an answer.

Iran Interlink, April 21, 2007

April 23, 2007 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts