Duplicity of the MEK nature

MKO Betrays Iraqi people

Terrorist organization of the Mujahidin-e Khalq is illegitimately accusing Iraqi clerics of deploying Iraqi youths to Iran to be trained militarily. They have even gone further by claiming that "these youths are Iraqis and non-Iraqis from some Arab Islamic groups". Please not how roguishly the report has been prepared. About the news itself, I should say that it’s really an old trick. There are no documents or evidences for this report, but there are reasons that prove the report to be only a dream:

1. Occupying forces are watching Iraqi borders with Syria and Iran; in addition, Iraqi army is also settled along the border and intelligence agents of occupying forces and Iraqis are watching the borders closely with modern equipments.

2. To train Iraqi youths, we don’t need Iran. Resistance movement against occupiers is active in Iraq; if this claim is true that Iran trains Iraqis, then why there’s no attack against occupiers in the south? These people suffered a lot during Iran-Iraq war and they don’t wan to fight.

3. We all know that before the fall of Baghdad, the terrorist group of Mujahidin-e Khalq fought against Iraqis and killed innocent people in Abu Ghraib region only because they people passed MKO’s land to reach their farms. After the fall of Saddam, all Iraqi farmers work on their lands without any problems, but this terrorist group is under the protection of American occupiers, giving intelligence on resistance forces of Diali province to US army. In this regard, they take advantage of some simple-minded tribesmen, athletes and students; Mojahedin has established so-called "Association of Iran’s Friends" which is only an American plot to collect information on resistance forces in Diali, Mosul and Kirkuk. The MKO has also established contacts with Iraqi Lawyers Syndicate and some supporters of Ayad Allawi’s party.

4. All Iraqis declare explicitly that cooperating with clerics doesn’t mean cooperation with Islamic Republic; their positions are clear due to being Shiite. Every religious authority has Fatwas on relations with other countries and it’s unlikely for Sunni religious authorities to allow deployment of Iraqi youth to Iran for training.

The major reason for naming this group-based in Iraq- a terrorist organization is that it is the mercenary of occupiers and colonialist countries. As you know, for the time being, Iraq is not stable and the question is why this group doesn’t go to another country! The interests of occupiers convince them to keep this group in Iraq to get to their goals by using the group against Iraqis. Members of this organization in France even feed coalition forces with information on Muslim insurgents coming to Iraq to fight occupiers. Why does the group make contacts with those tribes leader who are away from political scenes? Why do MKO members leave their camp to go to Mosul and Kirkuk?

There’s no doubt for us that these mercenaries victimize Iraq to achieve their goals and that they are seeking another war against Iran. In this way, they want to blemish on the reputation of Iraqi clerics and clergymen.

Mo’taz Mohammed Jamal Al-Iraqi  –  Soutaliraq website

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

We do have a problem with MEK – Secretary Rice

“We do have a problem with MEK “ Secretary Rice

On Thursday, Jan.18th. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice had a Q & A meeting with students of George Town University, where Raymond Tanter a supporter of MEK in IPC, and the professor of George Town University asked her to use MEK against Iran and lift the terrorist designation of the group. Secretary Rice answered:” we do have a problem with MEK. It is a terrorist organization. It was engaged in killings which actually ended up on the death of even   Americans. That situation has not changed.”

The Response given by Secretary of state clearly presents the US unwillingness to use the remnants of Saddam Hussein in case of military facing with Iran.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Iranian ‘terror group’ divides Washington

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 (UPI) — An Iranian dissident group that the U.S. State Department considers a "foreign terrorist organization" continues to enjoy support in Congress while being protected by the American military in Iraq.

The Mujahedin-e-Khalq organization, sometimes called the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or PMOI, has been on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups since 1997 — even as it enjoys widespread support on Capitol Hill. In addition, the U.S. military has allowed the MeK to maintain an operational training facility in Iraq, said Gregg Sullivan, a State Department spokesman.

The facility, Camp Ashraf, is located about 60 miles northeast of Baghdad and houses approximately 3,800 Iranian exiles who are opposed to the regime in Tehran, according to experts. The MeK disarmed in 2003 as part of an agreement with the United States, the New York Times reported, but the exact conditions of that disarmament are unclear. Lt. Col. Guy Rudisill, a spokesman with the Multi-National Force-Iraq, which oversees the camp, said in an e-mail to United Press International that the MeK has disarmed and that its members have signed statements in which they "voluntarily rejected terrorism and violence." But Sullivan told UPI on Dec. 8 that the group has given up only its "heavy weaponry" while retaining small arms, and that its members "conduct training."

The State Department maintains that the MeK is a terrorist organization and should be identified alongside groups such as al-Qaida and Hamas. Sullivan discounted the suggestion, made by supporters of the MeK, that the group has not carried out terrorist attacks in more than 15 years.

"The argument from which we approach it is [that] this is a group that is engaged in terrorist activity. It’s been well-documented in the patterns of global terrorism," Sullivan said. "I would disagree with the characterization that they’ve been out of the business for a long time. I don’t think that’s an accurate assessment. From our standpoint — though there may be some folks out there who may find [the MeK’s] viewpoint appealing — we think it sends the wrong message in the war on terror to distinguish between ‘good terrorists’ and ‘bad terrorists.’"

On Capitol Hill, however, the MeK has received open support, including a statement made in early December by Rep. Ed Towns, D-N.Y., to the Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents, an advocacy group that works to protect the camp from Iranian reprisals. In the statement, which the committee posted on its website, Towns said, "We must take meaningful steps to provide safety and security to both Iraqi[s] and PMOI members in Iraq."

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., has also expressed support for the MEK in the past and has said that the Clinton administration only added the group’s name to the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations in the first place to "curry favor with the Iranian regime," according to news sources.

Repeated calls to Towns’ offices in Brooklyn and Washington concerning the MeK were not returned; nor did Tancredo return a call.

Although Towns and Tancredo have publicly expressed support for the MeK, the two representatives are far from alone on Capitol Hill, according to a second State Department official, who asked not to be identified.

"There are about 100 members of Congress that, believe it or not, find the MeK useful," the official told UPI.

At the Pentagon, meanwhile, the Defense Department does not openly support the MeK, but views the organization as "protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention," according to Mark Ballesteros, a spokesman who was not authorized to provide further details. Ballesteros said the determination that the MeK is entitled to protected status was made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The Fourth Geneva Convention guarantees a number of basic rights to MeK members in Iraq, including the right to protection from danger or violence and the right not be repatriated to Iran — where the group’s members could face torture or death — said Steven Schneebaum, counsel for the Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents.

But legal experts said the Fourth Geneva Convention does not prevent the United States from prosecuting any would-be "terrorists" at Camp Ashraf — and American authorities have not done so. The New York Times reported in 2004 that a 16-month U.S. investigation into MeK members at Camp Ashraf resulted in no prosecutions.

Now, the subject of what goes on at Camp Ashraf remains hotly contested, with conflicting reports not only about whether the MeK is completely or only partially disarmed, but also whether the group has committed human rights violations against its own members to prevent them from leaving Camp Ashraf. A Human Rights Watch report released earlier this year concluded that the MeK abused its members, but a later report by a delegation from the European Parliament called the initial findings "devoid of any truth."

While controversy surrounds Camp Ashraf and the MeK, one observer said U.S. support for the organization in its fight against the Iranian regime — whether implicit or explicit — only worsens relations between Washington and Tehran. That’s because the MeK is not an effective tool against Iran and supporting the group only subjects the United States to charges of hypocrisy in the war on terror, according to Gideon Rose, managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine.

"Realistically, I’m not opposed [to supporting the MeK]. You could make a case that if they were extremely effective and had some realistic potential for toppling or seriously undermining the regime in Iran, it might be worth using them," Rose said. "What makes it somewhat hard to understand is that nobody actually believes that. Most serious observers don’t see [the MeK] as having any significant gains to bring to the table, except for the fact that they enrage or annoy Tehran."

By John P. Gramlich, UPI, December 22, 2005

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Open Letter to U.S. Ambassador in Canada

Open Letter to U.S. Ambassador in Canada and Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Dear David H. Wilkins, U.S. Ambassador in Canada  The Embassy of the United States of America 490 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 1G8 Canada Dear Joe Volpe, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration 6th floor, 400 University Avenue Toronto, Ontario M7A 2R9

The Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), who are in U.S. Department of State Foreign Terrorist Organization list group, are forming a protest on Thursday January 19, 2006 in Washington D.C. in front of the White House. They try to gather Iranians from all over the world. In some cases, some of the Mojahedin-e- Khalq’s members enter into U.S. illegally by using fake identification. The MEK also perform this protest gathering under different names titles for their deceiving political activity protection such as:

The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA)

The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI)

National Council of Resistance (NCR)

National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)

Muslim Iranian Student’s Society (MISS)

Description:

The MEK philosophy mixes Marxism and Islam. Formed in the 1960s, the organization was expelled from after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and its primary support came from the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein starting in the late 1980s. The MEK conducted anti-Western attacks prior to the Islamic Revolution. Since then, it has conducted terrorist attacks against the interests of the clerical regime in and abroad. The MEK advocates the overthrow of the Iranian regime and its replacement with the group’s own leadership.

Activities:

Believing in violence and terrorist activities, the group’s worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government stresses propaganda and uses of terrorism. During the 1970s, the MEK killed US military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the American Embassy in Tehran. In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. Near the end of the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, Baghdad armed the MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces. In 1991, the MEK assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north. In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas. In April 1999, the MEK targeted key military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff. In April 2000, the MEK attempted to assassinate the commander of the Nasr Headquarters, Tehran’s interagency board responsible for coordinating policies. The normal pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during "Operation Great Bahman" in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran. One of those attacks included a mortar attack against the leadership complex in Tehran that housed the offices of the Supreme Leader and the President. In 2000 and 2001, the MEK was involved regularly in mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids on Iranian military and law enforcement units and Government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border, although MEK terrorism in Iran declined toward the end of 2001. After Coalition aircraft bombed MEK bases at the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the MEK leadership ordered its members not to resist Coalition forces, and a formal cease-fire arrangement was reached in May 2003.

About 3,000 MEK members are currently confined to Camp Ashraf, the MEK’s main compound north of Baghdad , where they remain under the Geneva Convention’s "protected person" status and Coalition control. As a condition of the cease-fire agreement, the group relinquished its weapons, including tanks, armored vehicles, and heavy artillery. A significant number of MEK personnel have "defected" from the Ashraf group, and several dozen of them have been voluntarily repatriated to Iran.

Location/Area of Operation:

In the 1980s, the MEK’s leaders were forced by Iranian security forces to flee to France. On resettling in Iraq in 1987, almost all of its armed units were stationed in fortified bases near the border with Iran. Since Operation Iraqi Freedom, the bulk of the group is limited to Camp Ashraf, although an overseas support structure remains with associates and supporters scattered throughout Europe and North America.

External Aid:

Before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the group received all of its military assistance, and most of its financial support, from the former Iraqi regime. The MEK invested enough money during the present of Saddam’s regime, so they are still surviving on that investment.

Unfortunately, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) skip all the above crime and are active to gain power under different names and titles while they do not have support in Iran. We strongly believe that Mojahedin still believes in violence and terrorism and are not a good choice over the present regime in Iran. However, the Mojahedin-e-Khalq are taking an advantage of the present situation in Iran and with the support of neo conservatives in the U.S. are trying to make the Pentagon, Congressmen and the Senate believe that the only way to stop the regime from attaining nuclear weapons is to refer Iran’s nuclear file to the Security Council. We would like to stop and condemn this action because by referring the nuclear file to the Security Council, which means to put Iran into a economic sanction, is not the best way to change the regime in Iran because this choice (sanctions and/or military action) will make the regime in Iran even more violent and will help the regime stay in power even longer.

We, Iranians aboard, would like to ask the Secretary for State in the U.S. to stop the Mojahedin-e- Khalq’s misleading protest gathering on Thursday January, 19, 2006 in Washington D.C. in front of the White House, and also to support the youth of Iran to change the present situation from the inside of Iran.

Sincerely,

Victims of the Mojahedin-e- Khalq

Pars-Iran

Saeed Hazrati

January 16, 2006

Saeed Hazrati, Pars-Iran, January 16, 2006

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

When Making a Revolution, Allies Matter

‘ font-size: 10pt”>An Iranian opposition group that figures prominently on the State Department’s list of international terrorist organizations will openly flaunt U.S. law today, when supporters demonstrate in Lafayette Park in Washington, DC, just across the street from the White House.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Organizers of the January 19 demonstration openly refer to the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran, banned from operating in the United States, as the "largest and most popular resistance group inside Iran."

‘ font-size: 10pt”>The former Shah called them "Marxist-Islamists," because they had been trained by the Soviet Union in guerilla warfare and supported Khomeini.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>The FBI has been tracking the activities of the Mujahedin, known in Persian as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), since the mid-1970s, when MEK members assassinated U.S. military officers then working in Iran. MEK members actively took part in the 1979 seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, according to a U.S. government report.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Despite this track record, the FBI has refused to ban demonstrations by supporters of the banned group, who have formed a variety of organizations ostensibly headed by U.S. citizens.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>An FBI spokesman in Washington, DC told FrontPage magazine on the eve of the White House protest that the demonstrators were "exercising their 1st Amendment Rights. Whether they have been acknowledged by the United States Government as a terrorist group is a separate matter. Any gathering of people to protest is Constitutionally-protected and we acknowledge that and will do nothing to quash it."

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Why does any of this matter? Because the MEK has convinced many Members of Congress that they are the "democratic alternative" to the clerical regime in Tehran and deserve U.S. government support.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>MEK supporters roam the halls of Congress asking unsuspecting twenty-something aides if their Member will sign a "Dear Colleague" letter calling for freedom and democracy in Iran. They have conducted similar influence operations in Britain, France, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, and elsewhere.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Iranian-Americans openly refer to MEK leader Massoud Rajavi as the "Pol Pot" of Iran, because they believe he would conduct wholesale massacres of his political opponents should the current regime implode and the MEK seize power through organized street violence. In the group’s "16 points" for a future "democratic" Iran, they promise political freedom to all &endash; except their political enemies.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Rajavi has insisted that MEK members divorce their spouses, and live in communist-style collective houses. In 1983, he divorced his own wife &endash; the daughter of former president Abolhassan Banisadr, with whom he had a political falling out &endash; and married the wife of a political rival.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>In 1986,the Rajavis and the top MEK leadership left France for Iraq, where Saddam Hussein extended a warm welcome to the group and gave them weapons and financial assistance.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Following the 1991 Gulf war, Saddam used MEK military forces as shock troops to attack dissident Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq, an experience that Iraq’s democratically-elected president, former Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, has never forgotten.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>According to the definitive 1993 Department of State report that led to the banning of the organization’s activities in the United States, the MEK not only killed Americans, but provided hit teams during the 1979 revolution against the Shah that allegedly assassinated thousands of senior Iranian military officers.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Members of Congress worried by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s terrorist record and its nuclear weapons programs in August 1993 (yes, 1993) petitioned then Secretary of State Warren Christopher to open an official U.S. dialogue with the main MEK front organization, the National Council of Resistance.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Christopher’s September 20, 1993 reply was devastating.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>"Concerning contacts with Iranian opposition groups, there are numerous such groups in the United States and abroad that do not espouse violence and whose political aims range from supporting a return of the monarchy to establishing a constitutional democracy. Many focus their efforts on Iranian human rights abuses, and work closely with the UN. Human Rights Committee and private human rights groups. We do meet with representatives of such groups at their request, and believe these contacts are useful as an informational exchange.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>"However, the National Council of Resistance is closely linked to the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI), also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). Both groups are led by Masud Rajavi. The Administration maintains a policy of no contacts with the PMOI and, by extension, the NCR. This decision is based on our opposition to the PMOI’s use of terrorism."

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Operating under a number of fronts following the Christopher letter, Mujahedin supporters bundled more than $204,000 in campaign contributions to U.S. Representatives Robert Torricelli (D, NJ) Gary Ackerman (D, NY) and others in Congress, in a failed effort to lift the State Department designation of the group as an international terrorist organization.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Over the past year, a new pro-MEK group known as the "Iran Policy Committee" has sought endorsements from well-known former policy makers, including respected FoxNews commentators Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely and Lt. Gen. Tom McInerny.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>IPC chairman Ray Tanter, a former Reagan administration NSC official, regularly appears at pro-MEK press conferences and has likened a proposed U.S. alliance with the MEK against the mullahs in Tehran to FDR’s alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Allying with terrorists is not just wrong for strategic reasons. It is just plain wrong. The Rajavi cult has a known track record. They have murdered Americans. They have murdered their fellow Iranians. And their dedication to democratic principles is as thin as the ether of the Internet, created for public consumption.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Promoting the Mujahedin in Iran is no different from supporting former Baathists in Iraq in the vain hope they will do the heavy lifting the U.S. policy and intelligence community is unwilling or unable to do.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Pro-democracy groups are struggling to be heard and to organize inside Iran, and they deserve urgent and massive U.S. support. President Bush has repeatedly pledged his support for their cause, but until now the State Department has blocked funds appropriated by Congress from reaching groups inside Iran.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>As we skate ever-closer to a nuclear showdown with Iran, we must not in our impatience make the mistake of helping a violent group to overthrow a dedicated and dangerous enemy, in the vain hope they will shed their violent ways once they have achieved victory.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>When making a revolution, it is critical to choose one’s allies well. The future depends on it.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>FrontPageMagazine

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Terrorism is Terrorists does

"One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter": This is one of the more fatuous opinions about terrorism. Unfortunately, too many people believe it.

While terrorism taints all those who practice it, many prefer to trust insurgents with whom they sympathize. This is always a mistake.

Terrorism has never been precisely defined. Attempts to draw a line through the gray areas where terrorists and guerrillas, or terrorists and gangsters, overlap have always failed. Terrorists often are partners in organized crime and guerrilla campaigns can use terrorism as a strategy.

Most people can recognize terrorism for what it is and general descriptions of the phenomenon have been widely accepted. These point out that terrorism is covert in practice; political in aim; and asymmetric — in that the terrorist has few resources and many targets while those opposed to them have ample resources and few targets. Terrorists are also unaccountable as they answer to no morality but their own ideological constructs.

Few insurgents care to see themselves as skulking cowards, which is why — for example — blowing up office towers, massacring civilians, or murdering off-duty soldiers are seen as heroic acts. Those who sympathize with — for example — the Tamil Tigers or the Japanese Red Army, or the Provisional Wing of the IRA, often state that these actions are regrettable but necessary.

Many of these sympathizers are less than objective. Underground movements do have parallel aboveground political arms that propagandize and raise funds. Moreover, ever since Lenin, insurgents have learned that in pursuit of the "higher" truth (their own goals), "lesser" forms of truth can be dispensed with.

Ireland, Israel and the United States are often cited as nations whose birth was facilitated by these questionable means. However, the American Revolutionary War was not a terrorist campaign — partisans on both sides behaved in ugly ways, but this was no one’s strategy. Both Ireland and Israel took hard action to suppress the IRA and Irgun respectively shortly after independence.

Terrorists might be tolerated by some freedom movements, but their penchant for atrocity and mendacity make them lousy nation-builders.

In its annual listing of international terrorists, the US State Department includes the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) and an assortment of aboveground front groups that garner support for it. These include the National Council of Resistance, the People’s Mujahadin of Iran and the Iranian Student’s Society.

The Mujahadin-e Khalq has made much of its record of action against the Iranian theocracy. However, MEK began in the 1960s as a Leftist insurgency — apparently with some Soviet backing — against the Shah.

As widespread opposition to the Shah grew in the 1970s, the Marxism of MEK became infused with Islamic ideology. MEK joined in the Islamic Revolution, but the Mullahs were certainly not prepared to tolerate them either. The survivors fled overseas, or rallied in Iraq — which was just beginning its own opportunistic war against Iran.

In the Iranian Diaspora that followed 1980, members and supporters of MEK spread throughout the Western World. In Canada, members of the group have earnestly solicited funds and preserved links with Canada’s anachronistic Marxist community. They have also attacked the Iranian embassy in Ottawa, as part of a coordinated assault on 13 embassies in Europe and the Americas.

Still, MEK has done itself few favours over the years. Its main base is still in exile in Iraq, and depends on the generosity of Saddam Hussein. By trying to fuse Islam with Marxism, it is not really embraced by Western Leftists or by Muslims. Unlike some other groups, it seems incapable of resorting to organized crime for funding. Its attacks on Iranian targets in the West have attracted little public attention.

So why won’t the Mujahadin-e Khalq call it quits? The attempt by one member, Mahnaz Samadi, to claim refugee status in Canada, suggests that she is not yet ready to give up the struggle — and the whole case rests on whether MEK is a terrorist group or not.

Perhaps her case reflects one last point about terrorist groups… that few of them know when to quit. From Ulster to Colombia to Cambodia, aging insurgencies have continued long after the conditions than generated them have vanished.

There is a trap in terrorism, the self-deception necessary to engage in it means that one can not really give up the fight without victory. To do otherwise means to accept the fact that the cause — and all the sacrifices made for it — were flawed from the beginning. Lacking the courage to do anything else, many insurgents limp on to irrelevance. So goes MEK

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter? Perhaps a more accurate statement might be one man’s terrorist is everyone’s problem.

John Thompson is President of the Mackenzie Institute which studies political instability and terrorism. He can be reached at: mailto:jt@mackenzieinstitute.com

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Bulgaria

Bulgaria to decide new Iraqi mission in 2 weeks

SOFIA, Jan. 14 (Xinhuanet) — The Bulgarian government will make a decision of sending a non-combat unit to an Iraqi refugee camp in two weeks, Defense Minister Veselin Bliznakov revealed on Saturday.

Bliznakov told the local Darik radio that there is already a consensus on this issue within the three-party ruling coalition and the government is to decide on the deployment of the non-combat unit of 154 soldiers to Ashraf in the next two weeks.

The decision is expected to be passed successfully by the Parliament later, said Bliznakov.

The unit will not stay there for more than one year, stressed the minister, nor it will be the only one sent to Iraq by Bulgariain the future.

The fifth Bulgarian peacekeeping unit in Iraq, which all returned to Bulgaria by Dec. 30, 2005, will be officially disbanded on Jan. 27, and this form of Bulgarian participation in Iraqi reconstruction will finish then, said Bliznakov.

Just one day ago, Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev also made a statement in Parliament that Bulgaria should not and can not withdraw from the process in Iraq, as its national interests require its participation in the stabilization and restoration of Iraq, within the framework of the relevant solutions of the Security Council of the United Nations.

chinaview.cn – 2006.1.5

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
UK

Open letter to the leaders of the main political Parties of Britain

Open letter from Mr. Mohammad Hossein Sobhani to the leaders of the main political Parties of Britain

January 6, 2006

Rt. Honourable Tony Blair

Rt. Honourable David Cameron

Rt. Honourable Charles Kennedy

The document published by the US Department of State on October 11, 2005 emphasised that the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organisation (aka MEK, MKO, NCR, NLA, …) has been assigned to the permanent list of terrorist organisations. As you are aware, the British government and the European Union have also continued to acknowledge the Mojahedin organisation as a terrorist entity.

This, on one side, should be celebrated as yet another victory for peace and for non-violent means to achieve political aims, and from the other side as a defeat for violence, terrorism and the “strategy of armed struggle” of the Mojahedin organisation. It is noticeable that inclusion of the Mojahedin in the lists of terrorist entities has been a decisive factor in preventing this organisation from pursuing its armed, violent activities, at least on the surface; although it is clear that they still believe in violent, armed struggle and would follow this path in the future.

Honourable leaders of the three major political parties of Great Britain.

On the 5th January 2006, some of the websites dependent on the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation issued a statement in Persian claiming it to be a “joint statement by members of both Houses of Parliament” (websites Iran Liberty and Hambastegimeli).

The writing, as well as the culture behind the writing, shows no respect for the usual political standards associated with the members of the British parliament. For me, as an ex member of the Central Committee of the Mojahedin who has had close association with this organisation for more than 30 years, there is no doubt that this so called “statement” has been fabricated (or at best meddled with) by the organisation.

It is worth noting that the statement has no date and no name or signatures with it.

Why?

Could we accept that a member of parliament would not actually sign a statement when they claim to support it? If not, then why would such statement not have any names, date or signatures?

Of course this is only one of many reasons which indicate clearly that the statement has been fabricated by the Mojahedin Khalq organisation. And of course, this is one of the reasons I am writing this letter to your good selves as there are no names to respond to.

Dear leaders of the major political parties of Great Britain,

During the time since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the forced disarmament of the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation by the American army, the Mojahedin have been trying to put a mask on their violent, terrorist faces in Europe and America in a bid to remove the organisation from the list of terrorist entities in US, EU and Canada and ….

But due to pressure from the political and diplomatic activities of disaffected members of Mojahedin and also the report ‘No Exit’ published on 18 May 2005 by Human Rights Watch on human rights abuses inside the Mojahedin, the efforts of the Mojahedin cult to be removed from the lists, faced stiff resistance. In fact, the main reason the Mojahedin started their new wave of attacks and intimidation against ex members was more than anything, the publication of the ‘No Exit’ report by Human Rights Watch, partly based on the testimony of these victims.

After the fall of Saddam and the forced disarmament of the Mojahedin, it was clear for the leaders of the organisation that they would have to cover up their strategy of “arms and terrorism” and slogans such as “Long Live the National Liberation Army”. Instead, they would have to adopt a mask and hide behind slogans like “democratic change” and/or “the third way” in front of western personalities and members of western parliaments, as well as western governments, if their bid to come out of the lists were to have any chance of success. It is not an exaggeration to say that they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and have dedicated all their human resources in the cult to this issue and have still, fortunately, not been successful.

Dear friends,

The MEK claims that a few members of British parliament together with Mr. Paolo Casaca (MEP from Portugal) who are all core supporters of the organisation travelled to Iraq in the second half of 2005 in order to ‘prove’ to HRW that during 1990 to 2002 there have been no prisons and or torture chambers in the Mojahedin organisation.

In the so called “joint statement by the members of both Houses of Parliament” on their websites, the MEK have claimed that:

“… The report by HRW has failed to acknowledge the fact that the American officials in Camp Ashraf have rejected any claim that people are being forced not to leave the camp. On March 19, 2005, the Night Ridder news agency reported from Ashraf that : ‘the American army has investigated allegations that the Mojahedin are preventing people from leaving the camp and has not found any strong evidence.’ The same news agency also quotes from a high ranking official of the American army that: ‘they are not prisoners. They are physically and logically free to leave the place…’.”

Another part of the so called “statement” quotes members of the British Parliament:

“… on August 2002 the Mojahedin revealed a confidential document from the intelligence ministry of Iran that shows that one of the key witnesses used in the HRW report, Mohammed Hussein Sobhani is a team leader and a long serving agent of the intelligence ministry of Iran. It has also been shown that most of the people interviewed by HRW have been sent to Europe with the specific aim of making an evil image for the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation…”

Dear leaders of the main political parties in Britain,

Considering the abovementioned points, may I put forward the following points for your and your colleagues’ information.

The witnesses interviewed by HRW, including myself who spent over 8 years in solitary confinement in Mojahedin prisons, have never claimed that we were imprisoned after the fall of Saddam or at any time during 2002 and 2005, but have testified that during the years 1990 and 2002 we have been variously imprisoned in Mojahedin as well as in Abu Ghraib prisons in Iraq.

Why is it that the “statement” published by the MEK under the title “joint statement by members of both Houses of Parliament” is trying to prove that after the intervention of the US Armed Forces, the Mojahedin have no prisons in Camp Ashraf? Are they trying to dismiss the HRW report with this argument?

It is clear that any dictator or torturer, including the Rajavis, after the fall of Saddam brought a new wind of freedom, had the experience and sense to strategically change the use of their prisons and torture chambers.

A month after the fall of Saddam many who had been in these prisons from one month up to 8 years raised the alarm that Rajavi is changing the use of these places. I should say that the Mojahedin’s supporters were perhaps a little bit tardy in coming to camp Ashraf!

All the MEK’s supporters should be reminded that the victims interviewed by HRW are available in Europe and are ready to testify to and be examined by them. Why did they have to go to Iraq?

I should remind you that the Mojahedin Khalq terrorist organization claims to have daily meetings in the buildings of the Houses of Parliament in Britain. Putting aside the exaggerations and propaganda for which the MEK is famous, are you, as leaders of the main political parties, aware of the presence of this terrorist organisation in the Houses of Parliament?

I ask you for the sake of peace and rejection of violence to interfere and stop admitting this terrorist organisation into the British Parliament.

Myself and my other colleagues are always ready to present ourselves to Parliament and/or your Party offices to inform about the serious human rights abuses inside the Mojahedin during the years of cooperation between Rajavi and Saddam Hussein,

Mohammad Hossein Sobhani

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts