Page 880 – Nejat Society

Ashraf, A Refugee Camp or A City

The practical determination of whether a person is a refugee or not is most often left to certain government agencies within the host country. Resettlement is approved based on the conditions of the host country and after reconsiderations about the refugees manner of conduct if the country comes to notice the refugees are escalating the tension it tries to defuse.

It is not mandatory for any country to accept refugees that fail to recognize the accepted standards of the host, and it is a common practice in many Western countries to deport applicants sometimes after imprisonment or detention for certain security causes.

Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), settled in Iraq as guests and men of Saddam, was never required nor felt a need to apply to be housed as political refugees. At least, no evidence exist to verify the group’s claim. Besides, a refugee camp is a camp built up by governments or NGOs to meet basic human needs for a short time. Has Iraqi government built or controls Ashraf, where Mojahedin reside, or has the group ever referred to it as a refugee camp? They call it Ashraf City governed with their own overall control.

The presnt Iraqi government has the lagal right to reconsider about MKO’s resettlement even though the group might be right in its claim. Periodically, some expert in law is reported by MKO to have advocated the group’s right to political refugee. For instance, a Swiss lawyer, Marc Henzelin, is quoted by NCRI to have stated “PMOI members are all political refugees according to international instruments and it is not just up to the Iraqi government to deliver the status, but to recognize the status which is legally binding”. It seems he talks before he thinks.

The supervising international agencies like UNHCR cannot force a host country but may ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum with the option to return home voluntarily or to resettle in a third country. Neither has the Iraqi government been required nor have the members, as individuals to decide for their fate, been interviwed. It seems to be a serious business for responsible agencies to interfer since the Iraqi government does mean to expel MKO.

mojahedin.ws – 14/08/2006

August 16, 2006 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Leaving the Cult

No Comments

August 15, 2006 0 comments

Iraq

Roots of MKO Problems in Iraq

MKO’s irresolvable crisis- that has happened to this group after the fall of Saddam- has nothing to do with the new Iraqi government or the pressures from Iran (despite all propaganda by the MKO); instead, the presence of terrorist and murderous gang of Rajavi in Iraq, which received legitimacy from the toppled dictator, is illegal from international viewpoints and should be reviewed.

In other words, the presence of MKO in Iraq was a part of Saddam’s plans against Iran and was not related to the world’s refugee regulations. Everyone knows that the relations of the MKO with the former regime was not an ordinary relationship; in fact, as Rajavi says himself "there were strategic ties between the two".

So, regime change in Iraq (in any case) could lead to the current situation for the MKO; it could also lead to reviewing the status of MKO. Even, according to some reports, some Baathist commanders and Saddam deputies didn’t agree with MKO’s staying in Iraq after the war and believed they should be extradited to Iran; the only person who prevented this was Saddam Hussein himself.

However, now that Saddam has been ousted and occupying forces are protecting the MKO, the situation is a bit different:

1. The legal status granted to the MKO by occupiers doesn’t meant that the MKO members are refugees in Iraq; in fact, this status prevents their extradition and helps them ask the UNHCR for refugee status.

2. Requests for getting refugee status should be handled by UNHCR, which reviews the requests and tries to find another country for the people. It can’t decide independently on the issue.

3. Only in the case of the agreement of Iraqi government, and only through the UNHCR, MKO members may be given refuge in Iraq.

4. MKO presence in Iraq is not legal at all, and this is the major problem for this group.

What has happened now in this regard is as follows:

1. Iraqi government has expressed its absolute disagreement with the presence of MKO in Iraq.

2. International organizations are waiting for the right time to come in order to start determining the fate of MKO members in Camp Ashraf.

3. Terrorist MKO, witnessing the imminent expulsion from Iraq, claims that its presence in Iraq is legal so as to put Iraqi government before international organizations in order to take advantage of the situation.

When forcing the occupying forces to stand before the Iraqi government proved to be of no use for the MKO, this terrorist group tried to force international organizations to stand before the government.

Shortly, the roots of MKO’s current problems in Iraq should be sought in its 25-year illegal presence in Iraq, which can’t be justified at all.

Irandidban – 2006/08/12

August 14, 2006 0 comments

Daniel M.Zucker

Ravings of MKO’s Zionist Supporter

Distorting history and producing different versions of a same historical event is an illness, with long history in the MKO.

For different reasons, including whitewashing the crimes of the past or to win the attraction of new supporters, MKO distorts the history and broadcast new versions of it through its propagandistic outlets.

It was determined recently that this kind of illness is contagious and that MKO supporters also get this illness following their deals with this group.

During past few days, MKO websites published an article by Zionist supporter of Mojahedin, Rabbi Daniel Zucker, who’s responsible for protecting Israeli interests in the US. After meeting Maryam Rajavi a few months ago, he officially asked the Israeli government to recognize his real friends (terrorist MKO) and support it.

His recent article is ridiculously full of lies and distortions so that the MKO itself has refused to publish the article in full, because it knows that all Iranians would find the lies in the article.

However, since the Rajavi’s gang is opportunist, it has taken only one sentence of the article, which says that " The MEK is the grandchild of Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, the popular nationalist prime minister".

Zucker stresses at the beginning of his article that:

"Most Americans have no idea who and what the Mojahedin-e Khalq is, and for what it stands."

In fact, the secret behind MKO’s claims and distortions should be sought in this very fact.

However, like the MKO itself, Zucker relates this to the efforts of Islamic Republic and to prove this cliché, he resorts to very naïve lies:

"The reason for this difficulty is that the Iranian regime has disseminated a highly successful disinformation campaign about the MEK, a trick that the mullahs learned from studying with the Soviet Union’s KGB. In the period before the fall of the shah, many of the student followers of Ayatollah Khomeini spent time in the USSR learning revolutionary tactics and strategy. One such individual is the present Supreme Leader of Iran, the Faqih, Ayatollah Ali Khameneí, a graduate of Patrice Lumumba Friendship University in Moscow, the Oxford of terrorism."

There’s no doubt that the paragraph above needs no explanation. The only thing worthy of note is that such lies are expressed to pave the way for other lies, in order to decorate and hide the real face of MKO in the West.

When the Israeli regime is massacring the innocent people of Lebanon, Zionist supporter of MKO comes to prepare broader cooperation fo MKO with Israel; to win the support of Zionist lobby in the US, he writes:

"One of the errors about the MEK is the allegation that they were involved in assassinating U.S. Army personal and military contractors in the early and mid-1970’s. The accusation derives from the fact that little was known about the MEK by American intelligence at the time, and not much has been learned until recently. In 1971 the leadership of the MEK was arrested by SAVAK, the shah’s secret police for their pro-democracy activities. While the leadership was in prison, a dissident group broke away from the Muslim Mojahedin and formed a Marxist faction. It was this latter group which used the Mojahedin name but violated its principles and attacked and killed Americans."

After 25 years, Mr. Zucker wants to distort the documented history; It would be good for him to study MKO’s own journals published at that time, claiming and admitting the killing of Americans in order to get political advantages.

Elsewhere in his article, Zucker tries to distort the realty on the role of MKO in takeover of US embassy in Tehran. His efforts are aimed at showing the MKO members as good and polite boys, while he roguishly points to the name of Iranian president:

"Another false accusation against the MEK is the allegation that the MEK supported the student takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran in February 1979, and subsequent 444 day hostage crisis. MEK members actually tried to protect the U.S. Embassy from the street gang Komitehs that sought to take control of it for the Islamist faction of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini’s student followers, including people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, clashed with the MEK, and forbade their entrance to the embassy. Indeed, the Islamist leaders of the embassy-takeover themselves have written that the MEK was not part of their group and would not have been allowed to participate because of major doctrinal differences."

It seems that Zucker thinks Sate Dpartment and the White House officials are stupid when he even ignores the fact that they have access to the archive of MKO journals; that’s why he calls MKO "the protectors of US embassy"!

Then, he writes:

"The claim, heard occasionally around Washington, that the MEK is unpopular with the masses in Iran does not add up. If the MEK is so unpopular, why has the regime’s media attacked the MEK 350% more than any other group?"

It’s not clear whether the popular support should be recognized from popular gatherings and demonstrations or (according to MKO’s logic) from those who curse this group!

Zucker asks:

"Why is Teheran scared of the MEK, but not of Reza Pahlavi and the monarchists, the Tudeh Party or Ibrahim Yazdi’s Freedom Movement of Iran? How is it possible for the MEK to uncover details of the regime’s nuclear and missile programs if the people don’t trust and respect the MEK?"

However, the question is "if the people are aware of the details of nuclear program that MKO’s awareness- if true at all- can bring them popular support"!?

In his article, Zucker enters the battlefield of MKO and Monarchists on getting the support of the US. In several occasions, he takes position against monarchists:

"Dr. Michael Rubin’s testimony on the sins of the Islamic regime in Teheran is always first rate. However, Rubin is a supporter of Reza Pahlavi and the monarchists. As a result, his views on the MEK must be held as suspect. I have written elsewhere about Dr. Rubin’s sympathies and those of his colleague Dr. Kenneth Timmerman for the monarchists. I would again ask, how reliable is the opinion of those who support the Iranian monarchy? …Timmerman and Rubin are fine scholars about the regime, but their biases must be recognized when one talks about the Iranian resistance and the question of regime change. The MEK is the grandchild of Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, the popular nationalist prime minister that the CIA toppled in 1953 so as to bring the shah back to power. The Iranian masses have shown a decided preference for the MEK over any possible return to a Pahlavi monarchy."

In the end, Zucker points to MKO’s main problem, namely being unpopular and lacking popular base; he asks the US government to support the MKO:

"It would be prudent for the State Department to de-list the MEK and the NCRI to allow them to lead the Iranian people to make the necessary changes to bring about a secular democracy in Iran."

That’s why the MKO efforts during past 10 years to get out of terror list have all failed, because they are wholly based on lies and distortions.

MKO thought all other politicians and government officials are stupid to believe in lies and distortions of realities.

Irandidban – 2006/08/13

August 14, 2006 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Protected Status Guarantees no Political Asylum

Desperately struggling with its hard days in Iraq, MKO does not deem it prudent to take direct position against the Iraqi government authorities’ recent reiteration of MKO’s expulsion from Iraq. On the other hand, the Iraqi personalities are careful not to play into MKO’ hands whenever turning on the issue of MKO. Mojahedin, however, take advantage of these statements as tokens of support that postulate the organization’s rights in Iraq.

According to NCRI’s news propaganda quoting some Iraqi press, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister for Security and Services, Dr. Salam al-Zubai, in referring to the issue of Mojahedin has said, “They enjoy the special status of protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention and are protected by United States forces”. Mojahedin published his words as an evidence of his advocating “PMOI members’ right to political asylum in Iraq”.

It is obvious to the world that Mojahedin are enjoying the special status of protected persons granted by the US forces and nothing more. The words in no way denote any support for MKO. Although Mojahedin are maters of playing with the words, but nothing can change the wills of a nation determined to reconstruct a country devoid of terror and disorder.

mojahedin.ws – 12/08/2006

August 14, 2006 0 comments

Iraqi Authorities' stance on the MEK

Iraqi Ambassador: MKO Should Leave Iraq

"From Iraqi government’s viewpoint, MKO should not stay in Iraq," said Iraqi ambassador to Iran, Mohammed Majid Al-Sheikh.

In an interview with ILNA, he added: "Mojahedin-e khalq should leave the soil of Iraq as soon as possible."

"However, there are problems in this regard; for instance, no other country is likely to accept these people."

Supreme representative of Iraqi in Iran also said: "We have had negotiations with the international Red Cross to pave the way for their exit."

He said the relations between the two countries are positive, adding: "The authorities of the two countries are determined to expand cooperative ties."

ILNA – 2006/08/12

August 14, 2006 0 comments

Iraqi Authorities' stance on the MEK

An End to the Presence of Terrorists in Iraq

Iraqi Prime Minister Dr. Nuri al-Maliki, in an interview with Al-Iraqia TV channel, pointed to the presence of some foreign terrorist groups in Iraq and reported of his government’s decision to crack on these groups: "in the process of rooting out terrorists, there are difficulties and complexities but we are determined to finish their presence in Iraq with the help of our security services."

In this interview, broadcast on August 7, 2006, al-Maliki referred to his government’s security strategies on terrorist groups, and in response to the question that "what are the achievements in the field of security?" he said: "in fact, we have not achieved all our goals because the plan has different phases. In the first phase, we achieved what we wanted, the most important of which was the destruction of safe houses of terrorists and arresting them. This was a very large scale operation and its message for terrorist was that we are determined in our work and that we will root them out with our national plan."

"In the second phase of this plan, we go to different regions to clean them from terrorist groups and then we rebuild the place to make it suitable for living," he added.

"This plan will be followed by security services and terrorist will be hunted. In the past, they were able to stay in our country. Some of these terrorists are Iraqis and some others are foreigners. Of course, there are difficulties and complexities in the way of fighting terrorism but we are determined to end the presence of terrorists by the help of our security services. Some of these terrorist groups try to occupy some parts of Iraq but our security services are able to be successful in their operations against terrorists.

IranDidban – 2006/08/12

August 14, 2006 0 comments

Daniel M.Zucker

Mr. Zucker, more Mojahed than Mojahedin

Daniel M. Zucker, a Chairman of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, in his recent article, Setting the Record Straight About the Mojahedin-e Khalq of Iran, which is more a comeback to Jay Solomon’s article published in the Wall Street Journal ("Iranian Exile Group Aims to Build Bridges; Some in Congress See a Role For an Organization Listed as a Terrorist Group", May 22, 2006), regards Solomon’s article valuable “as most Americans have no idea who and what the Mojahedin-e Khalq is, and for what it stands”. To the point, there is nothing wrong with the idea. The chief problem emerges at the point where Mr. Zucker, a partisan of Mojahedin, takes the responsibility to bring up “important errors and oversights in his essay that need correction and clarification”.

Enumerating these errors one by one to correct them, Mr. Zucker begins: “One of the errors about the MEK is the allegation that they were involved in assassinating U.S. Army personal and military contractors in the early and mid-1970’s. The accusation derives from the fact that little was known about the MEK by American intelligence at the time, and not much has been learned until recently”. He seems to have read Mojahedin’s Democracy Betrayed, a response to U.S. State Department on the Mojahedin and the Iranian Resistance, because his attempt to acquit Mojahedin of being involved in assassination of the American citizens follows the baseless justification of Mojahedin themselves. It is up to U.S. State Department to defend itself against Mr. Zucker’s allegations but, for sure, it has never refuted what it had acknowledged earlier about Mojahedin’s engagement in the murder of Americans. Here is the excerpt dealing with the issue:

MKO Assassinations

In the period leading up to the revolution and its immediate aftermath, the Mojahedin carried out their strategy of armed struggle. The results included the murder of Americans, support for the seizure of the U.S. embassy, and opposition to the release of U.S. hostages. The Mojahedin are known to have assassinated the following Americans in Iran during the 1970s:

Lt. Colonel Lewis L. Hawkins Killed: June 2, 1973

Air Force Colonel Paul Schaeffer Killed: May 21, 1975

Air Force Lt. Colonel Jack Turner Killed: May 21, 1975

Donald G. Smith, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976

Robert R. Krongrad, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976

William C. Cottrell, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976

Reza Reza’i, a member of the Mojahedin’s Ideological Team, was arrested and executed by the Shah’s government for the murder of Colonel Hawkins. The attacks on the Rockwell employees occurred on the anniversary of the arrest of a Mojahedin member, Rahman vahid Afrakhteh, for the murder of Colonels Schaeffer and Turner. In addition. Air Force Brigadier General Harold price was wounded in a 1972 attack Planned by Mojahedin Central committee member, Kazem Zul Al-Anvar. Widely credited in Tehran for these attacks at the time, the Mojahedin themselves claimed responsibility for these murders in their publications.

While Mojahedin have recurrently insisted that they were among the firsts to support the occupation of the US embassy, their own published statements and evidences are more than enough, Mr. Zucker refers to the incident as the next error: “Another false accusation against the MEK is the allegation that the MEK supported the student takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran in February 1979, and subsequent 444 day hostage crisis”.

At the time, Mojhedin even criticized the Iranian authorities for any probable future relations with the US. In “Mojahed” 18 issued on Jan.8, 1980 Mojahedin stated:

Recent recession in our anti-Imperialist struggle after the Shah’s downfall is one of (Mojahedin) Organization’s criticisms of government and officials. Of course, the reactionaries call this criticism, "uncalled for criticism" or "opposing revolutionary government". Fortunately by revolutionary move of the Students following Imam’s Line, and specially decisive position of Imam(Khomeini) to resist and face U.S. imperialism our revolution is about to get on the track.

From the very moment the U.S spy den was occupied, the organization welcomed the move and used all its facilities to mobilize masses. Especially the historical decree of Imam on general, politico-military mobilization, the Mojahedin sent their military units to support the Students following Imam’s Line, and to guard and monitor the Embassy round the clock.

Mr. Zucker fails to remember, or he may have never heard, that Mojahedin were the most enthusiastic in making anti-imperialism slogans and encouraged others to chant them as well as bearing tracts and banners. In “Mojahed” 10 issued on Nov.12, 1979 they admitted their role in making and chanting a variety of slogans:

The slogans before the American Embassy remind us of the days of the revolution.

Integral, joyful mottos of the people remind us of the days, we together with our martyrs shouted against the Shah’s dictatorship. The people and the students joint slogans like "Khomeini Combats, the U.S. retreats" could be heard in and out of the Embassy.

Expulsion of Americans is an act to follow Imam (Khomeini)’s "Death to Imperialism” which is the most beautiful slogan. We also chanted: “Extradition of traitor Shah is our people’s demand”, “Struggling with the U.S. builds our unity”, “Carter must be killed either by gun or by feast”, “Savage Imperialism is the enemy of the mankind”.

If Mr. Zucker is in any doubt about MEK unpopularity among Iranian people, we gladly invite him to have a short visit to Iran to writ down some notes for himself. Can he ever name the other Iranian opposition and diaspora talking in support of Mojahedin? The exaggerated numbers of the supporters he refers to are the same baseless statistics computed and advertised by Mojahedin’s own propaganda machine. We will be also pleased to see Mr. Zucker, on behalf of Mojahedin, exhibit the documents and evidences of “over 120,000 MEK members and sympathizers” claimed to have been tortured and murdered. At the present, MKO claims the Islamic Republic has so far executed 120,000 members of the group. Their claimed number of the executed in 1987, the year they settled in Iraq, did not exceeded 20,000 which was an overstatement at the time.

Mr. Zucker furthers to say “The MEK, under the leadership of theoretician Massoud Rajavi, did not take up arms against the Islamic Republic of Iran until June 21, 1981, the day after a peaceful demonstration of over 500,000 individuals in Teheran was attacked.… Following these incidents, the MEK leadership decided to take up arms against the Khomeini regime, launching attacks that killed several high officials of the regime”.

Every now and then, we hear the news of some dissidents in some countries, especially in developed Western countries, organizing protesting rallies in demand of some right or objection to an adopted policy or else. We are also disappointed to see some of these mobs are scattered by anti-riot forces’ violent crackdown that, in some cases, ends in some killings. Do all the organizers and plotters of these quashed rallies take up arms and announce armed struggle against the government or assassinate the authorities?

Furthermore, have you ever thought of the Mojahedin’s claimed number of over 500,000 sympathizers marching in Tehran’s streets and the destructive potentialities of such a crowd if they really existed? Sensibly, could such a big mob be easily dispersed by a number of not yet organized paramilitary forces as Mojahedin, and you as well, claim?

Mr. Zucker argues that “The MEK is the grandchild of Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, the popular nationalist prime minister that the CIA toppled in 1953 so as to bring the shah back to power”. That is too amazing that the grandchild of a once popular figure toppled by a US orchestrated coup are urged to be de-listed and protected “to allow them to lead the Iranian people to make the necessary changes to bring about a secular democracy in Iran”. It seems that Mr. Zucker, one among many others, is misguided by Mojahedin’s expropriating Mosaddeq’s name and repute. Mojahedin’s present struggle manner might in no way beguile those who are familiar with Iranians contemporary history.

Last but not least, blacklisting Mojahedin is the result of no tradeoff between the US and Iran as Mr. Zucker believes. The political breach between the two countries is broad clear to the world and the US seems to be much more prudent not to trade the security of its nation for trifle advantages. Besides, the US is not the sole country to have blacklisted Mojahedin. Reading Mr. Zucker’s article one may conclude a question; is his commendation of terrorists a newly developed approach of establishing democracy, preferably in Iran?

A. Afshar – mojahedin.ws – August 9, 2006

August 13, 2006 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

MKO’s Desperation

Terrorist group of MKO, when in the form of NCRI, claims to be the most inclusive collection of opposition groups and sometimes calls itself "Iranian resistance".

In a realistic view, this is an invalid claim than can get no attention and independent newswires, governments, political institutions and parliamentarians approach such claims with scoff.

On the other hand, MKO with a few non-MKO members of the council (called NCRI), faces a major problem: having no supporter in Iran.

When an organization expresses such claims, it should present examples of its influence on political and social scenes in Iran in order to get validity for its claims. However, we have seen in the past 18 years that it (MKO) has been able to perform a number of terrorist operations and in other cases, it has followed other political movements; movements that don’t accept MKO’s line. MKO has also tried stupidly to use Iran’s social events in order to feed it’s propaganda machine.

To cover political invalidity, lacking popular support and having no influence in political issues, MKO leaders claim that Iranian regime suppresses popular protests otherwise all Iranians will support the MKO!

This claim is also ridiculous, but the MKO even resorts to occasional reports in the Iranian press and present them in sarcastic way in order to prove it.

One such example can be seen in MKO’s recent statement:

"According to the state media, Morteza Talayee, the head of suppressing forces in Tehran said 6000 have been arrested in Tehran under the name of fighting drugs. He called the youths and opposition ‘hoodlums’ and reported of special operations to purify different regions in the following weeks".

To get the support of addicts by supporting smugglers, MKO’s propaganda system adds:

"These suppressing operations, that have wider range in Tehran, Azerbaijan, Sistan and Baluchistan, Khuzestan and Kerman, indicate that large mass protests and demonstrations have weakened mullahs’ medieval regime."

During 80s, when MKO members and supporters were arrested for terrorist operations and immediately expressed regret, addicts and smugglers protested that "why don’t they resist? We have fought for years and we have been jailed several times, but we don’t quit!"

Now, after 25 years, MKO leadership has got the message of those vets, promising of more "wider popular demonstrations".

However, in this case, it also seems that Mojahedin have been late because some of their competitors in the opposition movement have already taken advantage of the addicts!

Irandidban – 2006/08/05

August 13, 2006 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Role of Terrorist Groups in US Plan

According to Newswires, Iraqi president Mr. Jalal Talabani has announced that Iraq has reached an agreement with Ankara to stop the penetration of PKK paramilitary forces to Turkey.

Following reports on the closure of some PKK offices in Iraq, Turkish foreign minister said: "PKK will be dismantled and we will see this very soon".

There’s no doubt that Iraq’s agreement to stop the activities of PKK and preventing this group from threatening Turkey from the soil of Iraq is a result of Iraq’s new policies (having good relations with neighboring countries and cleansing Iraq from terrorist groups). However, the amazing point is that PKK, like the terrorist MKO, sends messages for the US that it can serve it in the region and that it can be a good servant for US’s plan of New Middle East.

In this regard, Jamil Bayik, an activist from Iraqi Kurdistan, has told Americans that they can’t advance their plan without considering the issue of PKK and Kurds.

This is not strange that such groups resort to the US, since they are well aware that the US has come to the region for invading the countries of the region, not for fighting against terrorism and that they should eventually play the role of protectors for Israel.

Irandidban – 2006/08/06-09

August 13, 2006 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts