USA

The hands feeding terrorists

According to a report by Telegraph, America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic Republic to give up its nuclear program.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the northwest, the Ahwazi Arabs in the southwest, and the Baluchis in the southeast. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long said to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan.

An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and U.S.-made. John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."

The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organization that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.

A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian government.

The group is currently listed by the U.S. State Department as terrorist organization, but Mr. Pike said: "A faction in the Defense Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian government but they might cause a lot of damage."

Telegraph – 26/02/2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

The US Breakneck Move on MKO Disinformation

The arrestment of Ammar al-Hakim, the son of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, by the US troops on his return from Iran seems to be the outcome of another disinformation by MKO to American forces convincing enough, not heeding the consequences, to make them take a hasty decision. Being it a deliberate or non-deliberate move, it could lead to "a significant break between the US and its Shiite allies in Iraq", as Juan Cole brings to attention.

Released by atlanticfreepress, Juan Cole makes it clear that if it was an accident, it was inexcusable stupidity. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is the leader of the United Iraqi Alliance, the major bloc in parliament, and is enormously powerful and influential in Iraq.

He concludes that it is also possible that the MEK terrorist organization, which Saddam had given a base in Iraq from which it could blow things up in Iran, is funneling disinformation to the US military. The MEK operatives are still in Iraq and their spies monitor the border, and I have a sense that they are trying to drive a wedge between the US and SCIRI. SCIRI has repeatedly called for their expulsion from the country.

mojahedin.ws – 27/02/2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

Scooter Libby and World War III

How the Libby trial could impact US foreign policy

Cowed into funding a war neither they nor the majority of Americans believe in, congressional Democrats are taking the line that what’s needed are some "benchmarks" “ well-defined criteria by which to assess whether our efforts are paying off. The idea is to make continued U.S. support contingent on the Iraqis measuring up to these benchmarks. Hillary Clinton even says we should withdraw aid providing for the security of elected Iraqi political leaders if they fail to make the grade. Now that’s a way to kill someone off without leaving any fingerprints! (And a good lesson to any other would-be U.S. sock puppets who think they can take the money and run.)

The big problem with this approach, however, is that it fails to understand the dynamics of our continued presence in Iraq. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee given on Feb. 1, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the hawkish former national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, made a statement that should have set off alarm bells and sent everyone rushing for the lifeboats:

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

Every moment we stay in Iraq increases the likelihood of war with Iran “ that, in my view, is the most powerful argument, aside from this one, for a rapid withdrawal. No sooner had Brzezinski uttered these words than the administration began a concerted campaign to blame the Iranians for U.S. failure in Iraq, and accused Tehran of having a direct hand in the killing of American troops.

We hear much about these accusations on the front pages of American newspapers, but what we don’t hear about are acts of terrorism directed at both civilian and military targets by Iranian "dissidents," who are reportedly receiving covert U.S. assistance. These groups include the Jundallah organization in Baluchistan, said to be affiliated with al-Qaeda, and the sinister, cult-like Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), a shadowy Marxoid group that was supported by Saddam Hussein and still maintains a presence at Camp Ashraf [.pdf] in Iraq, as well as enjoying a wide array of bipartisan support in Congress.

Jundallah recently struck southeastern Iran, in Sistan-Baluchistan, with a series of attacks, including a car bomb in the provincial capital of Zahedan. The Iranians claim that the Jundallah militants are trained in Pakistan, and Iran has displayed samples of alleged captured armaments with "Made in USA" stamped all over them. The leader of Jundallah reportedly announced the attacks on MKO-TV, the satellite television station run out of Great Britain by the MEK, a few minutes before they started.

In an interview with the Telegraph, a Jundallah guerrilla fighter sounded very much like he was advertising his services to U.S. policymakers:

"Asked whether the satellite telephone he was holding might not lead to his being located, he allowed himself a smile. ‘We are not fighting against America,’ he said. Support for Jundallah was growing, he said. ‘There are hundreds of others who are desperate to sign in, but we ask them to wait because we do not have enough weapons or camps.’"

That was last year: surely by this time the Jundallah "freedom fighters" have more than enough weapons and camps, courtesy of Uncle Sam. Scott Ritter, in his book Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change, has described CIA-MEK cross-border operations, in which the Americans “ and the Israelis “ are conducting provocations that could lead to an open conflict with Iran. The focus of these efforts, he says, is on Baluchistan and Khuzestan.

With strong bipartisan support, Congress recently appropriated millions of dollars in aid to Iranian "resistance" groups, with practically no oversight as to how that money is being used “ and the scramble for American gold is on. The American front group for the MEK, the National Council of Resistance, has plenty of high-level contacts in Washington, just as Ahmed Chalabi did in the run-up to war with Iraq. The MEK and other Iranian exile groups are busily lobbying for a similar gig as the administration escalates its plans for "regime change" in Tehran.

The Iraqi government has recently reiterated its position that the MEK is a terrorist organization, an opinion shared by the European Union and the U.S. Department of State. However, not everyone in the U.S. administration agrees. And what are we to make of the near-total redaction of a mysterious document that came to light in the Libby trial “ a memo to Libby from John Hannah detailing "views of MEK leaders on continuing role in Iraq"? That’s all we’re allowed to know: aside from a reference to MEK briefing slides, the rest is blanked out.

The Office of the Vice President (OVP), which sponsored Chalabi, is just as intimately connected to the campaign to gin up a war with Iran as it was with the effort to lie us into war with Iraq. It is reasonable to assume the OVP is just as supportive of the MEK, and may even be directing its activities in collusion with its allies in the Pentagon.

Given that U.S. foreign policy is, to a large degree, driven by domestic politics, the motive on the part of the administration to escalate provocative covert actions inside Iran has never been greater. With Scooter Libby likely to be convicted and Fitzgerald’s sights increasingly turned on Cheney, the War Party, cornered, has every reason to lash out in one last desperate bid to save its political skin.

Fitzgerald, by all indications, is coming for Cheney. After the trial but before the sentencing, Fitz will make a strenuous effort to "flip" Scooter and use his testimony to target the vice president. Murray Waas reports in the National Journal that Cheney wasn’t taken in with Libby’s Tim Russert fabrication for a moment:

"At the time that Libby offered his explanation to Cheney, the vice president already had reason to know that Libby’s account to him was untrue, according to sources familiar with still-secret grand jury testimony and evidence in the CIA leak probe."

The Fitzgerald probe is a dagger pointed at the dark heart of the administration, the OVP, and the climactic moment of this epic battle is fast approaching. In the early days of the investigation, left-liberal bloggers were exulting in the possibility that they would see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House, but the trial has shown that Rove and Libby were antagonists rather than allies. Before it’s all over we may yet see the vice president frog-marched out of the White House “ at least metaphorically, in the form of an indictment with Dick Cheney’s name on it.

What better way to distract attention away from this coming political bombshell than by dropping some real bombs on Iran?

In the midst of the regional conflagration feared by Brzezinski, prosecuting the Vice President for obstruction of justice and/or perjury would be problematic, at best. In any case, the widening of the war would drive the story off the front pages “ think of this as a grand-scale version of Clinton’s bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory just as the Monica Lewinsky was returning to the grand jury.

U.S. war plans against Iran have apparently been in the making for quite some time, but the ratcheting-up of both the rhetoric and the actual war preparations indicates a new level of seriousness on the part of this administration. While most reports reassure us that the decision to go to war has not yet been made, one wonders what turn of events would push the key decision-makers, Bush and Cheney, over the line. A direct threat to one “ or both “ of them coming out of the Libby trial may be all the impetus they need. A cornered rat is dangerous.

 

by Justin Raimondo – February 21, 2007

 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO’s So-Called Legal Claims Futile

Terrorist group of Mojahedin has published a letter of its lawyers, written in protest to the comments of Iraqi government’s spokesman on group’s expulsion from Iraq.

First, this letter should be considered in the framework of a psychological war by the gang of Rajavi against the Iraqi government and also as an effort to frighten the Iraqi officials.

However, it contains some points that reveal MKO’s efforts to prevent the process of expulsion from Iraq; indeed, it shows the MKO efforts against the government that is determined to expel the group are all futile.

Since the stances of MKO spokespersons are illegal, MKO leaders use expensive lawyers to threaten Iraqi officials. This time also, their lawyer has stressed that there should be no force, but he has also resorted to other leverages that expose the illegality of MKO’s claims. Francois Serres writes:

"Deputy Commander of Coalition forces in Iraq wrote in his letter to MKO General Secretary, on Feb. 16, 2006, that "Coalition Forces in Iraq are aware of their responsibilities with civilians with respect to Geneva Convention 1949. Particularly, we are bound to the Article 45, according to which transferring a protected person to another country in which he may be bothered because of his political or religious opinions."

MKO lawyers try to hide themselves behind US forces and prevent the Iraqi government from doing their decisions by deception and fraud.

MKO and their lawyers know well that their claims are all worthless and therefore, they resort to the occupiers. However, they don’t know that despite the statements, US forces have given the last word to the MKO leaders in Camp Ashraf and have announced that they won’t be able to stop the Iraqi government.

What’s clear and has been stressed by Iraqi government spokesman Mr. Al-Dabbagh is that the Iraqi government considers international rules in its decision-making processes and by relying on these very rules, it’s emphasizing on the expulsion of Rajavi’s gang from Iraq.

 

Irandidban –  2007/02/22

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Some Westerners Support MKO; Why?!

Interview with Lord Corbett and… about Rajavi cult               

Early February, 35 British Parliament members asked the government officially to lift the name of MKO from the Britain’s list of terrorist organizations.

This group was headed by Lord Corbett, member of House of Lords from Labour Party, who’s collecting signatures to force Home Office to present its reasons for designating the MKO as a terrorist group.

        

Five years ago, the British government added the MKO to its list of terrorist organization. Now, Lord Corbett and his friends say despite MKO’s history of armed struggle, it’s now acting peacefully and is no threat to Britain or any other country.

We have interviewed Lord Corbett on the issue, and then we have discussed British government’s reasoning for designating the MKO as a terrorist entity. In the end, in an interview with Arvand Abrahamian, Iranian historian, we have asked why some Westerners support the MKO.

We asked Lord Corbett on his efforts to take out MKO from terror list. He responded as follows:

"The only reason for banning the group was that Mullahs had asked Jack Straw to do so. To sit at negotiation table, Iranians had set forth this condition."

– Don’t you think that they were added to the list because they had performed terrorist attacks against Iran? They assassinated a number of senior Iranian officials.

 

"They did it but it was done before 2001. They never targeted civilians. But about government officials; they killed a known criminal who was in charge of Evin Prison. He had been involved in killing tens of thousands of people. In such situation, the attacks are acceptable. however, the main point is that the group was added to the list in 2001 and at that time it was clear that the MKO had no organizational structure in Britain and that there was no evidence showing hostile activities by the MKO against Britain."

– But this is conventional in talks between governments. Each side asks for advantages in exchange for agreements. Don’t you think that even if Britain gave an advantage, it was right?

"This is no important whether it was conventional or not. My point is that such considerations can’t be regarded as enough reasons for designating a group. Honestly, I believe that in 2001, when the list was being provided, no one of the groups was given a chance to have a fair hearing or comment on the accusations."

-Personally, why do you think the MKO shouldn’t be on terror list?

"With Iran’s brutal regime, a group that seeks nonreligious democratic government should be supported".

– Do you think that British government’s decision was wrong? Why other European countries and the US have banned the group?

"This is a contagious issue. When the British government did this, the EU and the US also follow the example. However, this doesn’t prove that Britain’s first decision was right."

Lord Corbett said Human Rights Watch’s report on repeated cases of human rights violations in the MKO were baseless and lacked enough evidence. Former members of the group, who have repeatedly charged the group with torture and abuse in MKO’s camps in Iraq, were also accused of being tied to Iranian regime by Lord Corbett.

MKO and British Government

In 2000, a new antiterrorism law was passed in Britain.

According to this law, British government added 44 armed groups active across the world to its list of banned groups.

This list covered groups from North Africa to the Middle East, Pakistan and Sri Lanka; the MKO was among these groups.

The reasoning of British and other European government was and has been that 1990s was the era of political extremism growth and at that time many groups resorted to violence and bloody methods. Since it’s easy to immigrate and establish communication nowadays, such groups have created financial, recruiting, communication and back up networks in European countries.

The purpose of UK Terrorism Act 2000 was to ban the activities of such groups and giving more authority to the judicial system in order to prosecute these people and stop their activities.

The rules were passed by UK parliament when Jack Straw was in Home Office. Restricting the overt activities of MKO- including holding gatherings, raising money and propagandistic activities in Britain- was one of the consequences of these rules.

The MKO protested to the decision and claimed that it was done in favor of Iranian regime. Claiming that it has quitted armed opposition since 2001, the group wants the UK government to lift its name from terror list.

We called Home Office but they said they couldn’t comment on the issue since the MKO has officially asked legal institutions to review its status.

According to the rules, related to UK Terrorism Act 2000, Home Office has banned the MKO according to its own regulations and keeps the group on the list of the majority of MPs don’t protest. However, there’s an independent group called "Appealing Commission for Banned groups", to which real and legal entities can appeal.

This group has received MKO’s appeal, which would be reviewed this fall.

Meanwhile, Home Office told BBC Persian that according to British laws, the decisions of this Commission are not binding for Home Office. Therefore, even if the Commission accepts MKO’s protest, there’s no necessity for Home Office to lift MKO’s name from the list.

Interview with Arvand Abrahamian

This is not the first time the MKO’s political fate has become controversial due to its history and methods.

Islamic Republic has always considered it a terrorist group and has proposed that other countries ban the group if they wanted good relations with Tehran.

Meanwhile, 25 years after leaving Iran, the MKO is still continuing to live and sometimes creates tension.

In an interview with Arvand Abrahamian, professor of Iran’s political history and author of the first authentic book on the MKO, we asked about the MKO, about its nature, why Iranian government is sensitive towards it and how it’s identified in the Western political circles.

– How do you interpret the protest of a group of British MPs to banning the MKO?

"The term often used to describe this group is ‘terrorist’, but I believe that the concept of ‘terrorist’ has been used repeatedly and sometimes wrongly. So, it might not give a precise description of the MKO. This group is similar to a cult whose members are ready to do leaders’ orders in any way possible. So far, the group has changed its policies, methods and even internal relations several time and what has remained under the command of Massoud Rajavi is a group of people who obey the orders blindly and are ready to kill, die and even commit suicide for him; these are all signs of an organized cult."

– With these characteristics, why the MKO has a place in political equations? Why is the Iranian government sensitive about it? Is the group popular in Iran?

"No. In years leading to the revolution and in 1979, we could consider it a popular movement but after it settled in Iraq and following its cooperation with Saddam Hussein government, and with its violent methods inside Iran, I don’t think the group is popular and that it has any support in Iran. We shouldn’t forget that this group assassinated several senior Iranian officials, especially between 1981 to 1984. this wave of violence and its consequences for many Iranians has put the MKO beside the wave of horror and fear."

– If, as you say, the MKO is a cult-like group with terrorist history, lacking popularity inside Iran, why is that some Westerner politicians are supporting it and consider it as a democratic alternative for current regime?

"In an impartial view of their support for the group, we can say that they don’t know what they’re precisely supporting. Sometimes, these politicians sing petitions for the sake of humanitarian issues or democratic issues in Iran without knowing that a group like the MKO could be behind it."

–  The final issue is about their financial strength, their equipments and their propaganda!

"Financially, they’re strong and the question is that where do they receive these equipments. An organized system is acting. Many believe that when Saddam had a good benefit from oil revenues, the MKO received large amounts of financial aids from the dictator. However, some observers say that it’s likely that some Middle Eastern states help the group. I don’t think anyone in the US government or European states is doing that since the group is on terror list but I don’t reject the idea that some pro-American governments in the Middle East may be helping the group covertly."

BBC persian, February 23, 2007

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/story/2007/02/070223_mf_mko_uk.shtml#a

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

From Jaderieh Prison to Hakim’s Base!

A year and half ago, the criminal gang of Rajavi obliterated two of its members in Iraq and then claimed that agents with Iraqi Interior Ministry’s uniforms had kidnapped them (in order to accuse the Shiites) and had taken them to Jaderieh prison!

After a while, the prison was shut and prisoners were all freed. Then, MKO’s lies on the issue were exposed and it became clear that the two members had not been in that prison. MKO spread lies at that time in order to instigate the US military.

Now, a year and half on, the MKO is again repeating its claims on its two members (obliterated by the group itself) to provoke US’s news sensitivities in Iraq and pave the way for confronting the Shiites.

The terrorist MKO, resorting to its exposed tactic, has claimed:

"In the summer of last year, following the kidnapping of two MKO members, Hussein Pouyan and Mohammed Ali Zahedi, who had been taken to Iraqi interior ministry, investigations of Coalition Forces indicated that these two members had been taken to the base of SCIRI and Abdul Aziz Hakim. There, they had been interrogated by intelligence agents and forces of Qods Force. There’s no doubt that if coalition had entered Hakim’s base last year, the kidnapped MKO members would have been saved."

It’s clear that the criminal gang of Rajavi is always resorting to old tactics to hide its role in the issue and put the US forces and Shiite Iraqis in front of each other. However, with the exposure of its lies, the role of Ashraf’s Gestapo in obliterating the two members of MKO becomes more and more clear. 

Irandidban – 2007/02/21

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Bulgaria

Bulgarians’ Warning on MKO

Websites linked to the terrorist group of Mojahedin-e Khalq quoted Al-Hurra news channel saying: "Bulgaria has warned about possible provocative activities against Camp Ashraf in Iraq."

Bulgarian sources had earlier reported that the mission of Bulgarian forces for protecting Camp Ashraf has been extended for another year. However, the Gestapo of Ashraf each time denies that Bulgarian forces are guarding MKO’s camp and try to convince others that they’re under the protection of US forces!

Irandidban –  2007/02/24

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO Defends Terrorist Acts in Zahedan

Despite the condemnation of terrorist operations in Zahedan by the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council and their call for the prosecution of those behind the attacks, terrorist group of Mojahedin-e Khalq supported the terrorists under the name of "National Council of Resistance" and asked for the freedom of criminal terrorists who are seeking sectarian and religious divisions.

MKO’s statement says:

"Suppression in Sistan and Baluchistan province has taken new dimensions in recent days Meanwhile, by establishing injustice unofficial courts, regime is going to execute a number of arrested people as quickly as possible in order to frighten the people.

Iranian resistance, calls on humanitarian communities and organizations to condemn the criminal behavior of mullahs’ regime in Sistan and Baluchistan province and try to save the arrested people".

Iran didban, February 22, 2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Duplicity of the MEK nature

For Whom the Terrorists Beg Mercy

When a terrorist group wears the mask of pro-democracy, it means that temporally it holsters the gun to start a double-dealing business. In fact, there is no difference between the terrorists that directly target civilians and those that advocate the perpetrated atrocities.

For instance, following the arrestment of the members of a terrorist group that had terrorized the Iranian southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchistan killing a number of people, the blacklisted terrorist MKO, claiming to have renounced terrorist moves, has started appealing to international organization for the freedom of the arrested terrorists. Exactly the same as it usually did when its members would be captured by the Iranian security forces. The following is the NCRI’s released condemnation of the arrestment. Pay attention that the referred term of "youths" in MKO’s lexicon means terrorists.

February 21, 2007

NCRI – In past few days, the mullahs’ regime has stepped up its suppressive measures against people in unprecedented dimensions in Sistan and Baluchestan Province. The State Security Forces (SSF) arrested hundreds of youths in raids on the residents of innocent people in provincial capital, Zahedan, in south-east Iran. The barbaric attacks by SSF were such that many children were arrested with their parents.

At the same time, the regime has organized summary trials to execute some detainees with the aim of creating fear among the local population.

The Iranian Resistance calls on all international human rights organizations to condemn the suppressive measure by the Iranian regime in Sistan and Baluchestan Province and try to free all prisoners.

mojahedin.ws –  25/02/2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts