Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip
Nejat Society
Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip
© 2003 - 2024 NEJAT Society. nejatngo.org
USA

Iranian People Don’t Want MEK says Thomas Pickering

Iranian People Don’t Want MEK says Thomas Pickering in US Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing

 WITNESSES: THOMAS PICKERING, FORMER UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS

FORMER CIA DIRECTOR JAMES WOOLSEY

Extract…

REP. TOM TANCREDO, R-COLO: It is just that, sir, and thank you.

Let me go from the strategic to the tactical in terms of the framework for our discussion here, both because of the time constraints and also because I think so much has been gained by the discussion to this point in time.

We’ve talked about the fact that the people in seem to be interested in regime change themselves. I think you put it, If the mullahs hate us as much as they seem to, then there must be something good about us, is the way many Iraqi people — I mean the Iranians — are looking at the situation today.

So if that is the case, then I hearken back to the situation we have with the MEK. And I wonder about whether or not it would not be in our best interest to take them off of the terrorist watch list, as they are certainly hated by the mullahs. And that is the one thing about which we are sure with regard to the MEK.

There are lots of, you know, gray areas, murky areas in the past, things we’re not positive about in terms of their responsibility for certain actions 30 years ago. But in the last couple of decades, anyway, it seems to me that it is pretty clear that they are, as a political — they are certainly not much of a military force, but a political force — and they may not even be that to any great extent. But to the extent that they are operating as a group of people who are articulating an opposition to the present regime, they understand the culture. They understand the language.

We are protecting them in Camp Ashraf . Here’s a group of people who are, in fact, on the terrorist watch list that we are protecting. Our troops are protecting them.

Wouldn’t it be to our advantage to somehow use these folks in pursuit of our goals? And in order to do that, wouldn’t it require their removal from that list?

LANTOS: Ambassador Pickering?

PICKERING : Yes, certainly. I’d be happy to answer the question. I think that the question is premised on the Middle East fundamental proposition, "The enemy of the enemy is my friend."

My view is that the MEK doesn’t represent the kind of government we would like to see in their past actions — and they’re all documented fairly well — in . To me, it would be a bigger burden.

And if the Iranian people knew what MEK had been doing in terms of its own activities and the way it behaved, particularly towards its own people, I think they, too, would see that as a negative rather than a positive.

LANTOS: Ambassador Woolsey?

WOOLSEY: I agree with Tom. Everybody is using Churchill quotes today, one of my favorite is, "If Hitler invaded hell, I should find a kind word to say for the devil."

(LAUGHTER)

And there’s a side of me that is tempted to cast about for anybody when can cause trouble for the Iranian regime. But I do think their being on the terrorist watch list at this point is a bar. And if somebody wants to look into the facts of all that and the history of it and exactly what they did and so on, it might be a useful review for someone to do. But I never have done it and I don’t know how it would come out. –HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HEARING ON THE NEXT STEPS IN THE CRISIS

January 18, 2007 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Former members of the MEK

An Unexpect Trip Disarrays the MEK Headquarters

The trip of Ms. Fariba Hashtroodi* to Iran and her meeting with the representatives of Habilian Association and Mr. Ibrahim Khodabandeh has overwhelmed MKO members and leaders in their headquarters in France.

People close the MKO report of disappointment of members of this organization, particularly the members of Council.

That’s why the MKO has made so much noise by its forces- through taking position against Ms. Hashtroodi.

In recent months, the cases on defection of several MKO supporters and old sympathizers as well as MKO members and their departure from Auvers have been on Maryam Rajavi’s desk.

The issue of the European-based MKO members’ differences with the group has forced the Gestapo of this terrorist organization to take measures to control the situation; however, Ms. Hashtroodi’s trip to Iran thwarted these measures and accelerated the process of defection so that some people have left the Camp in Auvers in recent days.

In the process of defection, most of focus is on the situation in Camp Ashraf, since the MKO officials there in the Camp are watching the members individually to prevent them from going to the US-run Camp (TIPF). However, the situation in Auvers is not better than that of Ashraf, especially now that MKO leaders are not able to send dissidents to Iraq to control them in better way.

————————————————————–

* Ms. Hashtroodi was formerly a senior member of NCRI

 

January 18, 2007 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Missions of Nejat Society

MEK in Iran-Iraq Security Talks

In a meeting with Shirvan Al-Vaeli, Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister for Security Affairs, Gholam Hussein Mohseni Ezhei, Iranian intelligence minister, expresses regret for unrest in Iraq and promised that Iran would help its neighbor in establishing security.

In the Meeting, the issue of Mojahedin-e Khlaq organization, major armed Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, was also discussed.

The details of discussions have not been revealed, but the Iranian government has always asked for the removal of MKO’s camps in Iraq and extradition of its forces to Iran.

MKO, founded before the revolution of 1979, had troubled relations with the new government.

In early 1981, many of its leaders left Iran and settled in Iraq, that was at that time fighting with Iran.

Since that time, this armed group with more than 4000 organized members started border-crossing attacks inside Iran. Also, in the final days of Iran-Iraq war, they initiated the huge operation of "Forough-e Javidan", in which many of the members of the group were killed or captured.

The power and abilities of this group have decreased radically in recent years and they were disarmed after the US invasion against Iraq.

During past two years, after Iran issued public pardon for those MKO members who had not committed specific crimes, several MKO members returned to Iran.

BBC –  2007/01/17

January 18, 2007 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Former members of the MEK

On the daring return of Fariba Hashtroudi to Iran

In his struggle to live on, man must preserve his honor; otherwise, he would be nothing more than a walking corpse.

The big words are not always uttered be great men. The anonymous and the less-known people can also, because of the experience they have gained, speak big words. That is the outcome of the past experiences of a man who has preserved his intellectual freedom and independence in the face of any sanctimony and quasi ideals and causes. I think the age of slavery, in any form, is nearing its last days. The few who unquestionably succumb to any title and motives of any purpose, could be possibly believing in things inferior to man’s reason and intellect and his historical experiences. These few fellows, I believe, have unknowingly been decomposed, while holding onto humanity, idealism and ideology, in the cycle of the modern slavery. So grave is the tragedy that I can hardly conceal my delight when someone in bond is unbound as a result of test and error. Moreover, this time the unbound is someone who I could hardly be convinced, from the very beginning, to be subject to entrapment. Now I am relieved of many suppositions surging inside me, and I feel relaxed to write happily.

Mrs. Hashtroudi, it might be hard for you to found somebody you hardly know talking so enthusiastically. The fact is that on account of your social status and familial background, it could not be so strange a thing. Your detachment from the NCRI, or better to say Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), as well as your unexpected return to Iran are two coincident daring acts that deserve appreciation. You deserve it first for renting asunder the bonds and then for courageous return to Iran, a quest not made to overcome the phobia the people’s quasi-opposition had inspired you with but to prevail over all the possible impeachments and accusations expected form the so-called democratic alternative called the NCRI and which you have to sustain patiently.

Instead of praising the victims that are readily led onto the cult of Mojahedin’s abattoir and ridicule the death by self-immolation and deeply bruising people, I take my hat off to admire your courageous deed and the price you have to pay for your freedom and recognition of the truth.

I do not know, as a member of the opposition, how my claim is esteemed that the opposition insisting to be accounted as the Iranians popular and legitimate alternative is the most incognizant of Iran’s social and political ambience among all contemporary political oppositions. Your journey to Iran and close inspection of the current political atmosphere and people’s want on the one hand and people’s real stance about the claimed alternative on the other hand can at least lead us out of the possible disillusions we might be caught in and open a new window for a better recognition of the truth. The dark and desperate picture of Iran depicted in our minds in the Western countries and the charlatanism that propagates to demonize it has blurred our vision to see the truth. No Iranian in any position, critics or opponents, is invulnerable to the political and media offences of this charlatanism.

You are, for certain, aware that this democratic alternative, under the illusion that no opposition but itself has the right to breathe, caused a commotion over Shohre Aghdashloo, the Iranian actress residing in the US, who announced her willingness to return to Iran regardless of being compelled to wear veiled costume in her own country. She was offended and her patriotism was questioned and Mojahedin tried to instigate the Iranian artists in exile against her. Fortunately, to the group’s great disappointment, none but three associates of the NCRI signed an issued statement.

All these were plotted against a woman who had actually nothing to do with politics and the alternative. Her sole love was cinema and play as well as writing. Of course, there can be found many of her example whose repute was blemished by the democratic alternative on baseless accusations.

Your feat is much more courageous than that of those who commit self-immolation to sacrifice themselves before the imposters of political and propagandistic activities.

Mrs. Hashtroudi, no doubt, your presence in Iran would promote us here in the West, who knowingly or unknowingly are desperately entrapped among the political charlatans, to picture a clear and true image of Iran. We believe you, because of your political status, can ply a decisive role to disillusion the opposition. It is a shame on the masters of the great media and technological revolution that victimize the truth for the interest of political superiority. That is also true of this opposition that to assume political power, creeps deep to worsen the international rifts to give rise to another Iraq in the region.

I assume that one of the main causes of your detachment was that you were cognizant of the aftermath of possible militarism predominance in the region at the cost of millions of innocent lives. You know well that the NCRI and MKO attempt to silence voices of resisting any military offence against Iran and to isolate the aware consciences by the raised communicative club of labeling them the paid agents and mercenaries of Iran. Mojahedin believe that the antithesis of any phenomenon inevitably emerges out of the same phenomenon. If true, now you can act as Mojahedin’s antithesis and echo the true face of Iran as you see it. Once more I admire your courageous option of becoming the target of the Council and Mojahedin’s offences and hope that your honest evaluation based on reason and political intellect concerns the national interests. Wish you good days in Iran.

M. Taymorian, Germany

M_Taymorian@yahoo.com

Mojahedin.ws 

January 18, 2007 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US’s New Strategy and the MKO

Bush’s new speech and his announcement that more than 20000 new troops will be deployed to Iran and repetition of his hostile stance against Iran and Syrian is not a new strategy; it’s not even a tactic. It’s a policy to advance Bush’s plans.

It’s a long time that plans such as "the Big Middle East" have been marginalized. What have caused this change were the key changes starting by removal of Rumsfeld, John Bolton, and Khalilzad, Abizaid and Negroponte.

Now we should wait to see US’s new plan, for the execution of which Bush has decided to deploy more troops to the country- despite all opposition by politicans and people.

Bush and his team have for long focused on getting out of Iraq in a proper way so as to save the face of the US.

This plan has also other dimensions including giving more authority to the Iraqi government and accepting regional policies of President Talabani and Prime Minister Maliki.

Some may think that the US wants to start more wars in the region, but the evidence doesn’t support this idea.

Harsh stances by Rice and Burns against Iran and Syria and their support for Bush’s comments and the softer stances of Robert Gates indicate that after Baker-Hamilton report, Bush’s team is centering its policies on political work. Even the recent UN resolution against Iran should be seen along with other political pressures on Iran.

Indeed, harsh gesture of Americans against Iran and Syria is a planned move to pave the way for talks with these two countries!

By accusing Iran and Syria and attributing the unrest in Iraq to these two countries, Bush is in fact reminding these two countries of their duties for establishing security in Iraq.

It’s amazing that Mr. Talabani is heading to Syria right after Mr. Bush’s comments!

US’s new plan is complex and it should be discussed at a right time. However, it can be said that it’s based on Baker’s analyses as well as on US’s intelligence on the threats from Al-Qaeda and Baathists- despite current propaganda against Iran.

Meanwhile, MKO’s position and status in Iraq is more interesting for us!

I agree with comments on MKO’s hopes about this new plan since, regarding MKO’s opportunistic nature, nothing else can be expected.

The fact, however, is that according to the advices of all security experts, US is trying to recreate the golden opportunities it lost in 2003; an opportunity according to which, it was possible to extradite MKO members in exchange for receiving privileges from Iran.

Keeping an eye on Rajavi and transferring him to another place for more protection also show that Americans are aware of the value of this exchange.

In addition, Americans have expressed their support for the security projects of Maliki’s government according to which MKO should be expelled from Iraq. However, they want to take advantage of their extradition to Iran.

So, the current process in Iraq is moving towards the strengthening of Mr. Maliki’s government and weakness of security threats on which the MKO relies. The outcomes of these plans will soon appear.

Mohammed Moradi – 2007/01/15

January 18, 2007 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Free Speech Does Not Include Terrorism

Yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from seven men charged with supporting terrorism through fund-raising for terrorist-linked organizations. The appeal came after the 9th Circuit had rejected the defense argument that their contributions to the MEK represented free speech:

The Supreme Court refused Monday to block the trial of seven Los Angeles residents charged with raising money for an Iranian opposition group that was designated a "foreign terrorist organization" by the U.S. government.

Lawyers for the seven had argued the charges were unconstitutional because they had a free-speech right to raise money for a political group.

That claim was rejected by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which noted the Iranian opposition group — the People’s Mujahedeen, also known as the MEK — had a record of supporting assassinations and bombings.

"Sometimes money serves as a proxy for speech, and sometimes it buys goods and services that are not speech. Guns and bombs are not speech," said Judge Andrew Kleinfeld for the appeals court.

This case is not over. Another defense argument, challenging the status of the MEK as a terrorist group, will get a hearing in the actual criminal trial. The MEK opposes the mullahcracy in Teheran, which makes the defense seem more sympathetic than they would otherwise be in a post-9/11 world. However, the MEK (also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq) has been on the State Department watchlist since November 2001. It will be hard to plead ignorance in this case.

Nor will it be that easy to find sympathy for the MEK, its opposition to Teheran notwithstanding. The MEK started out as a Marxist group dedicating to overthrowing the Shah, but Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini got there first. Afterwards, it has acted against the mullahcracy but also against American interests. The MEK was one of the terrorist organizations allied with Saddam Hussein, and worked with Saddam to oppress the Iraqis. It hasn’t attacked Americans since before the Shah fell, but it hardly qualifies as a freedom-fighting force in synch with our aspirations for liberty in Iraq and Iran.

The defense has good reason for its disappointment. If this goes to a jury trial, the defendants will have a very difficult time trying to win an acquittal.

The ruling represents a limit on the definition of speech that seems quite welcome after two generations of practically unlimited applications. Nude dancing, flag burning, and a variety of other behaviors have at one time or another found favor with the Supreme Court as "speech". Perhaps the Court has found a limit even for their own predilection for protecting the cornucopia of human actions through the First Amendment.

Captainquartersblog.com

January 16, 2007 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Iran Policy Committee’s latest tragi-comedy script

Iran Policy Committee (IPC), the infamous lobbying group comprising retired CIA and Arms trade employees, has been assigned to act as the mouthpiece of the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (MEK, currently on the terrorist lists of the USA, UK, European Union and Canada). Employment of the ICP came about after the Mojahedin’s alias National Council of Resistance of Iran was added to the terrorist list and its activates halted by the police.

Last week the Supreme Court of the US refused to hear the appeal by Mojahedin Lawyers against prosecution of its fundraisers since it did not consider their case even fit to be heard.

The American army bombarded the Mojahedin’s Iraqi bases and disarmed them 3 years ago. Since then about 800 of them have been helped to return home to their families. The US army is tasked with dismantling the MEK camp (Camp Ashraf) and is handing this responsibility to a small Bulgarian army unit in Iraq.

The Iraqi Government has demanded the removal of MEK terrorists from Iraqi territory as soon as is practicable. Dismantlement of the MEK’s Camp Ashraf (where about 3000 ageing men and women have been held captive from the time of fall of their benefactor Saddam Hussein) is expected to take place in the next few weeks.

The Iranian Government has made it clear on several occasions that not a penny would be paid for this dead horse.

It is widely believed that the final phase of dismantlement will take place within weeks with a new screening process which will allow the rank and file members to be freed and repatriated, leaving about 200 hard core members to be detained for further investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The group’s (aka Saddam’s Private Army) few desperate lobbyists in the Israeli lobby in Washington have long lived on the reaction of different officials announcing the group should not be approached because of its long history of violence, participation in the massacre of Iraqi Kurds on behalf of Saddam Hussein and the assassination of many civilians including American citizens in Iran. In the wake of the group’s gradual disappearance, such reactions have been muted, particularly over the last few months. The MEK is increasingly irrelevant to the political scene in Iran or in Iraq.

In this situation, Raymond Tanter is trying his best to get either the US army, or the Iraqi Government or the Iranian Government to react to his claim that there are still some people who think they could use the group. This is the only way the group can claim any credence as a viable entity – simply by reflection of any acknowledgement that it exists.

It must be said simply that this approach is ‘too little, too late’. No one expects any reaction to his ridiculous claims neither from the US, Iraq nor Iran.

The Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (Rajavi cult) died a long time ago. These tragi-comedy scripts cannot revive them, much as some wish they could.

…

SOURCE Iran Policy Committee

"…Drawing on the conclusion of the White Paper, Professor Tanter said, "Because the Iranian regime is the primary power broker in Iraq, it is necessary for the United States to devise methods of restraining Tehran’s influence. Countering the Iranian regime in Iraq requires reaching out to its main opposition-the Mujahedeen-e Khalq. But such a move is not to assist the MEK; rather, reaching out to the MEK serves as a political counterweight to the Iranian regime’s influence in Iraq, helps the United States end the sectarian violence and the insurgency, and balances the U.S. Government offer to join the international community in holding direct talks with the Iranian regime."

"Professor Tanter also said, "As the Iranian regime increases sectarian strife in Iraq, new analysis by the Iran Policy Committee suggests a role for the Iranian opposition in Iraq to help build a national compact among Iraqi factions." Professor Tanter concluded, "One way to overcome the acrimony between the U.S. Government and Sunni politicians is to utilize an interlocutor trusted by both groups. The Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) in Iraq can function in just this capacity; indeed, the MEK already engages in quiet negotiations with Iraqi factions and has excellent relations with the U.S. military.""

Massoud Khodabandeh, January 13, 2007

January 15, 2007 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The Ideology of the MEK

Mojahedin Laid Criterion for Patriotism and Democracy

Following Saddam’s execution, the MKO-run media have mainly focused on tendentious reports that reprove the dictator’s hanging. The group’s move on such a suspicious line implies that Mojahedin attempt to exculpate Saddam of his myriad crimes to compel a mentality to identify him as a national hero. They have resolved to walk on the line of the opponents to Saddam’s execution, each impelled by different motives, in an attempt to win their support to accomplish their own ends, as they did when the master was in power. No doubt, Mojahedin’s present approach has its own strategic importance but it should be noted that the reach of their siding with Saddam’s supporters lies beyond the scope of the conventional dealings which require much deeper study.

Mojahedin’s silence over Saddam and the Baath Party through the past three years for itself speaks an unspoken truth. Notably, before Saddam’s fall, the two, Saddam and Rajavi, were each other’s sole recognized supporter. Mojahedin, enjoying a strategic position in the region and hardly turning to their Western lobbies, anticipated a promising future settled on Iraq-Iran borders to play their decisive role to overthrow the Islamic regime. Although they were aware that their dream was not to be fulfilled so soon and easily as they portended, at least they could continue to survive in Iraq and keep the members waiting mesmerizing them with murmurs of an imminent victory.

Once in his meeting with Saber al-Duri, who was in charge of the Iraqi security system, Massoud Rajavi stressed that the group’s settlement in Iraq was not a temporary but a long-lasting stay:

Tell him [Saddam] on my behalf; we were and are and will remain at your home as long as possibly we can. [1]

Regardless of their sharing of strategic interests, Rajavi and Saddam’s tie was rooted in a mutual historical and ideological understanding. A passing look over Rajavi and Saber al-Duri’s interlocution reveals the kernel points that ties one to the other. In many parts, Rajavi’s references are an analyzed synthesis of Mojahedin’s ideology with that of Baath Party:

 – We share the same destiny.

– Our bloods are intermingled.

– The tie between we and you, be it either the government or the Baath Party whose leader and symbol is Mr. President, is not merely a political tie. It is an absolute brotherhood.

– Anything that is against you is against us as well and vise aersa.

– Our security and the strikes we receive are the same.

– Our progresses are also the same.

– Neither in my mind nor in my heart can I distinguish between our collective interests and losses.

– Our interests are closely associated.

– Our principles have got us together to be side by side in a front. [2]

The Iraq now turned into a country vulnerable to fluctuations with Mojahedin’s facing stalemate indicates that Rajavi was well aware of the grave consequences of Saddam’s fall and its aftermath effects on MKO. Thus, sensing his unquestioning liquidation, Mojahedin took a different turn to tie a destiny with Iraqi people at least to secure their stay in Iraq. In a sudden shift, they tried to establish the same conduct paradigm with Iraqi people, this time chanting slogans of democracy rather than brotherhood. Interestingly, knowingly or unknowingly, Mojahedin somehow consider Saddam and the Baath Party, compared with the present government in power, more democrat and patriot. Sediqeh Husseini, a ranking member of MKO, in a speech made at Camp Ashraf stated that:

Talking of democracy and a democratic Iraq, a key parameter is this same conduct with Mojahedin. [3]

She further stressed her claim in a message sent to Dayali Province Sheikhs but with a different tone:

Thus, we appraise the degree of patriotism and popularity of any movement according to the scale of opposition to interferences and, consequently, friendship with and respect for Mojahedin. [4]

It is easy to have a sound judgment on Iraq’s past situation and Saddam himself. Mojahedin’s contradictory position after the dictator’s execution and indirect expression of sympathy on his death with pro-Saddam factions that appreciate him as a hero helps a good deal to have a just analysis of Mojahedin on condition the fog of doubt has not completely evaporated. If the establishment of democracy in Iraq, as Mojahedin define, reconciles with their stay in Iraq, then, on account of Saddam’s granting them the bliss of settlement in Iraq, Saddam can be identified as the most democratic person. Consequently, not only the Baath Party represented democracy but also, compared with the current government, occupied a much higher platform of democracy. Mojahedin’s proximity to Saddam in behalf of the mentioned factors on the one hand, and their proposed criterion of democracy on the other hand are actually two sides of a coin that Mojahedin, under the vicissitude of fortune, avail themselves of it only with a little change of tone and literature.

Notes

[1]. To be judged by the history.

[2]. Ibid.

[3]. Sediqeh Husseini’s speech made at Camp Ashraf on the anniversary of Iran’s century long Constitutional Revolution.

[4]. MKO’s message to Dayali Province Sheikhs

Bahar Irani – January 10, 2007

January 15, 2007 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Paulo Casaca

Paulo Casaca visits Camp Ashraf and the MEK of Iran

This week Mr. Paulo Casaca (Member of the European Parliament for Portugal’s Socialist Party) and André Brie (member of Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left of Germany) both members of the European Parliament paid a 4 day “good will” tour of Camp Ashraf in the outskirts of Baghdad.

Camp Ashraf is operated by the terrorist organization of Mojahedin-e Khalq of Iran.

Mojahedin-e Khalq of Iran, also known as MKO, is listed on the terrorism list of many countries such as U.S.A, UK, Canada as well as the European Union.

MKO described the visit of Mr. Casaca and Brie to Camp Ashraf as a visit by an “Official” delegation from EU parliament, with the approval of EU union. However false these claims are this still puts into doubt the intentions and respect that the EU Parliament holds when they let members of their own organization visit a known terrorist group in their home base.

The presence of Paulo Casaca and André Brie in Camp Ashraf goes against the listing of MKO in EU parliament list of Terrorist Organizations.

During the current chaotic and violent conditions in Iraq, the MKO have been dealing and continuing their close relationship with Baathist party members in contributing to destabilize and undermine the Iraqi government.

The MKO uses the hundreds of millions of dollars that the former Iraqi regime delegated from Iraqi Oil-for-Food program, to fund and support former Baath party members in setting up numerous Newspapers, TV stations and Radio Channels in order to fight against an extradition from Iraq.

The Mojahedin also share their diplomatic and international connections with the groups that they fund in order to get more publicity and support.

By backing up these groups who in the past used to be part of the Iraqi regime, they now seek to gain mainstream support by the Iraqi people.

During the visit to Camp Ashraf by Paulo Casaca and André Brie, the Mojahedin gathered more then 4000 poor and hungry Iraqis to a lavishly set up dinner and food buffet where their presence provided the seemingly public support among ordinary Iraqis.

Back when Taliban controlled and ruled over Afghanistan, you could hire a soldier for no more then 3 Dollars a day and unfortunately the same applies in today’s Iraq where because of dire conditions and extreme poverty among Iraqi people, it doesn’t take a lot of effort to buy yourself the support from the hungry masses.

The close connection of Mr. Paulo Casaca with the terrorist organization of Mojahedin raises suspicion towards the credibility of his goals of a free and democratic Iran, and also the credibility of the European Parliament who until now have chosen to look the other way in regards to Mr. Casaca.

We’re asking the EU parliament anti-Terror department and delegation to make a statement in regards to Mr. Casacas visit to Camp Ashraf.

Please do not ignore this shameful act by Mr. Paulo Casaca.

Last but not least we are adding a short clip of Mr. Paulo Casacas visit to Camp Ashraf where he dined and danced with members of MKO.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPQ0zlJyu98

12 Jan 2007  – By Karim Haghi – iranpeyvand.com

January 15, 2007 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

US’s New Strategy and MKO’s Position

It seems that the early slogans of US warmongers on the spread of democracy in the Middle East is an issue even the US’s failed politicians are too tired to repeat in their speeches.

Drawing a goal as "spread of democracy" was from the beginning a hollow slogan and what was important for Neocons was to impose US’s hegemony on region’s country and people and to get the oil resources. That’s why this goal is followed by deploying more US troops and threatening the countries of the region, and not by respecting the will of majority of Iraqis (who ask for the exit of occupiers).Warmongers’ obstinate competition with democrats, now representing the Americans’ requests on US’s foreign policy (particularly putting and end to the war), is another factor for the insistence of Bush’s team on killing Iraqis and others in the region.

Warmongers are well aware they have totally failed and that changing the strategy can’t help them. While experts had suggested their ideas on different solutions, warmongers still stress the spread of violence only to satisfy their hatreds.

In this way, they have resorted to the policy of creating tension between Arabs-Persians and Shiite-Sunnis to take advantage of the situation.

Their reliance on such a policy, with its whole negative consequences for the people of region, means "committing suicide" and getting more entangled in the quagmire. This will also intensify negative reactions in US’s domestic political scene.

US’s new approach, which will certainly be accompanied by more bloodshed and violence in Iraq and the region, would be welcomed only by anti-Islamic and anti-human movements whose lives are tied to setting up the fire of war and US invasions against other countries.

Among those who will welcome this are Israel and its followers in the region (those who, like warmongers, claimed of spreading democracy); failed from achieving their goals by the slogan of peace, they are in dire need for such policy by the US.

The terrorist group of MKO should also be included in this group. Lacking a clear strategy and surviving only by the support of Saddam Hussein, this group is now facing the strong opposition by Iraqi government and people and is also at the threshold of being deported from Iraq.

Believing only in bloodshed and violence and weakening the government of Iraq as the only ways to survive, Rajavi’s cult hopes it would be used by warmongers as an influential force.

It doesn’t seem the warmongers (who see the best solution as deploying 21000 troops) are interested in using 3000 desperate members of MKO who’ve been disarmed by the Americans themselves. However, if the warmongers are stupid enough to use bankrupt forces of Rajavi, it will be proved that Rajavi’s murderous gang is unable to do anything and that part of US forces should take care of these people. This has been proved during past 20 years when Saddam was taking care of the group.

Apart from this reality, what’s important and should be paid attention by MKO members and supporters is MKO’s recent stance, which exposes the depth of this group’s crimes.

Now, it can be said that Mojahedin-e Khalq is proudly paving the way for policies of the most hated parties of Imperialism all over the world the crimes of whom are known to everyone.

Today, another black page should be added to the treacherous records of this group- after cooperating with Saddam against Iranians. The crimes of the cult will never help the group survive but it will add more problems for the group.

Irandidban –  2007/01/14

January 15, 2007 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Recent Posts

  • Rebranding, too Difficult for the MEK

    December 27, 2025
  • The black box of the torture camps of the MEK

    December 24, 2025
  • Pregnancy was taboo in the MEK

    December 22, 2025
  • MEPs who lack awareness about the MEK’s nature

    December 20, 2025
  • Why did Massoud Rajavi enforce divorces in the MEK?

    December 15, 2025
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Youtube

© 2003 - 2025 NEJAT Society . All Rights Reserved. NejatNGO.org


Back To Top
Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip