A. Afshar

Terrorists Disinformation

It is too flagrant to see there yet exist people who advert to ambiguous sources to release what they believe to be “Newly obtained intelligence reports”. Previously proven disinformation of a source should caution alert minds to be heedful of the authenticity of the intelligence and the quoter.

Claude Salhani in an article published in Monstersandcritics uses a pro-terrorist like Jafarezadeh as a source for his article. Being a member of the blacklisted terrorist MKO, the world has come to know that Jafarezadeh can never be trusted as a source of intelligence.

Being the kind of people who fish in troubled water, MKO does whatever mischief to escalate the tension concerning Iraq to survive. Quoting Jafarzadeh who talked at a conference organized by the Iran Policy Committee, a lobby group pushing to get the MKO off the State Department’s terrorist list, the article intends to support the idea that Iran is advocating a special force to spread disorder and terrorism in its neighboring country Iraq.

It was only ten days ago that, following the detention of two Iranians in Iraq, Maryam Rajavi, the head of the terrorist MKO, claimed that the two Iranians were senior members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and had coordinated attacks against coalition troops and Iraqi civilians. She cited the group’s intelligence agents as the source of the information. However, the two were released because Rajavi’s allegations proved to be purely baseless and false.

Any just appraise of intelligence and information depends on the soundness of the source wherein they emerge. Of course, the public opinion pays not the least attention to what terrorists release, and any reporter of good repute should be careful of the pitfalls of the smart terrorists.

A. Afshar – 09/01/2007

January 11, 2007 0 comment

European Union

People Caught in Hallucination

I believe that hallucination not only might have destructive effects on the people who suffer from it but also on whom they have contact with. It is no problem so far as the harm affects the individuals themselves. It turns into a predicament when they start to prescribe a malady to get over another complaint.

The ruling by European Court of First Instance was not a verdict against listing MKO as a terrorist organization, as the group publicizes it. Let them think so. Does it change anything? The world was, and is, well aware of the innate violent nature of MKO when it was put on the list for certain reasons; people hardly leash a dog unless they develop the idea that it might attack others.

The parliamentarian advocates of MKO are not, no doubt, nai’ve about the violent nature of the group and the reasons that led it onto the black list of the proscribed terrorists. Few of them, for certain political, or maybe personal, reasons prefer to close their eyes on reality for the time being. The main issue for them is to deal with Iran utilizing some kind of leverage of pressure, which in this case they have mistakenly concluded to be MKO.

The NCRI’s site reported that in a press conference at the European Parliament on December 12, Mr. Alejo Vidal Quadras, First Vice-president of the European Parliament welcomed the ruling by European Court of First Instance against listing MKO as a terrorist organization. In his mad speech, Mr. Vidal Quadras is quoted to have stated:

In my view, the European Union should change its approach to Iran. The most striking aspect of this change should be in our approach to the Iranian opposition movement, the National Council of Resistance of Iran and the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

EU should engage in dialogue and cooperation with the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The EPP-ED group invitation to Mrs. Rajavi is a move in this direction. We should send a clear message to Ahamadinejad “

Does this message indicate that these parliamentarians have developed the idea that Mojahedin are non-violent, democratic people? The invitation to Mrs. Rajavi serves more as to "send a clear message", or better to say a threat, to Iran. I believe both MKO and these parliamentarians are under the influence of some hallucination, especially the latter that might ascribe significant weight to the former. What do you think?

A. Afshar – December 21, 2006

December 26, 2006 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq 's Terrorism

A Humanitarian Negligence in Favor of Terrorists

Maziar Bahari, a Newsweek correspondent in Iran, in an article published in blog.washingtonpost under the title of “An Iranian Dissects U.S.-Iran Talks” states that both the US and Iran have lost opportunities to get engaged in a dialog about issues of interest that matter to both countries. He believes that “There are four issues Americans can start having a dialog about with Iran to get the ball rolling”, the first of which is “Disbanding the Iraqi-based Iranian terrorist group PMOI (People’s Mujaheddin of Iran aka MKO aka NCRI)”.

He further elucidates facts about the terrorist nature of the group and the terrorist atrocities its members perpetrated in Iran and the Iraq under Saddam.

The Iraqi-based PMOI is a terrorist organization that killed an American citizen in the 1970’s and helped Saddam to massacre the Kurds after the First Gulf War. If you think Al Qaeda or Hezbollah came up with the idea of suicide bombing you should know that PMOI pioneered suicide bombing in Iran in the early 80’s when they killed a number of Iranian senior officials as well as innocent people. PMOI was in turn ruthlessly punished by the Iranian government. In the mid-80’s PMOI moved to Saddam’s Iraq and became part of his army. Since then they have been regarded as traitors and lost any sympathy inside Iran. But through a powerful public relations campaign and focused lobbying in Washington they managed to present themselves as a viable alternative to the "regime of mullahs." PMOI was put on the American government’s list of foreign terrorist organizations in 1997. But the neo-cons thought that following their success in Iraq they could conquer Tehran with the help of PMOI. As a result the U.S. government gave the members of the terrorist group protection.

As things stand today PMOI members in their base north of Baghdad became more of liability than help to the American forces in Iraq. These days the Kurdish president of Iraq, Jalal Talibani, whose people were killed by the PMOI want them out of there and the Shia Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri Al Maliki, last September asked PMOI to find a new base within six months. It’s difficult to prescribe to anything to do with three and something thousand Shia Iranians stuck in the middle of Sunni Triangle but it’s time to at least start talking to Iran about the fate of PMOI members. If not for political reasons at least for humanitarian reasons.

Maziar Bahari’s conclusion is a fact that all Western supporters of MKO should pay some attention to; Mojahedin are most detested both in Iran and Iraq regardless of their public relations potentiality to establish close identification with mavericks and intransigents.

The Iraqi people, especially the Kurdish people, in no wise forget Mojahedin’s collaboration with the ousted Saddam against the innocent Iraqi people, neither do the world. Dr. Amir Matin in his comment on Mr. Bahari’s article expounds that:

PMOI exemplifies terrorism. They acted as professional militia in Iraq to help Saddam massacre Kurdish innocent people. They killed civilian Kurds on large scales in most brutal ways possible. An ex-member of PMOI reported that they used tanks to overrun bodies of old Kurdish villagers and could hear their scream while they were being crushed! There is a tape of Massud Rajavi reporting on these massacres. With pride, in a meeting with Iraqi officials, he was describing it as only fulfilling his duties and also saying "your enemies are my enemies".

Besides, the issue of those members who reside in Camp Ashraf in Iraq should be taken into consideration as a humanitarian issue rather than political. Nearly 3000 members are living under harsh conditions in the camp while the group’s leaders are concerned about the refugee state and insisting to stay in Iraq. No body cares the less about these members as individuals who have rights to decide for their own destiny.

The international bodies should act before it is too late because Mojahedin, as a terrorist cult, do not exempt their own insiders from the innate violence to pave the way towards the fulfillment of the goals.

A. Afshar – Mojahedin.ws – November 28, 2006

November 30, 2006 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq 's Terrorism

The Positive Force of Terrorism

According to Newswire, in a press briefing hosted by the ‘Colorado’s Iranian American Community’, a bi- partisan Congressional Caucus recognized the indispensable role of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) at Camp Ashraf in Iraq as a natural ally for Iraq’s anti-fundamentalist and democratic forces. Congressmen Bob Filner and Thomas Tancredo the Co-Chairs of Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives, presented the Caucus’s bi-partisan policy recommendations.

The US was the fist to blacklist MKO as a terrorist group and closed all its American located offices. While over 3,000 disarmed members of MKO are currently confined to Camp Ashraf under the Geneva Convention’s “protected persons” status and the coalition forces’ control, the organization is active in Western countries and in the US under various aliases. The ‘Colorado’s Iranian American Community’ is one out of the many.

It seems that some supporters of MKO in the Congress consider violence as positive and the terrorists as positive forces to establish democracy. The US State Department in the first sentence to describe MEK as a terrorist group states “The MEK advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime”; the group’s conduction of terrorist activities in the past twenty-five years well accredits the description. Congressman Bob Filner, however, believes that the US must unleash the terrorists that have the potentiality of establishing freedom and democracy in a country where they are most despised:

The terror tag has put several thousand volunteer dissidents in Camp Ashraf in a virtual house-arrest at a time when they could be a much needed positive force for helping Iranians in their quest for freedom and democratic change

It is odd to see that the US blacklists a certain terrorist group on pretext of global war on terror and to safeguard its nation and citizens against the possible terrorist threats, while, at the same time, some Congressmen take part in the same terrorist group’s meetings and recommend it as beneficial to institute peace and democracy in another country. What a democracy would it be if the terrorist were to establish it!

A. Afshar – mojahedin.ws – 31/10/2006

November 7, 2006 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

A Shameful Support of pro-Saddam Faction

Michael Carmichael, a British professional public affairs consultant, author and broadcaster, in a recently published article World War W, discusses the ridiculous decisions flowing from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice administration to design, launch and wage World War W. The article further discusses that as the repercussions of a US attack on Iran could well be dire, they are trying a well-financed fifth column of support in Iran, the pro-Saddam faction of Mujaheddin-e-Khalq.

With a budget estimated in published accounts of circa eighty-five million dollars ($85,000,000) per year, the US State Department funds a covert pro-democracy movement inside Ahmadinejad’s Iran. This US-Iran project has been roundly criticized in the US and in the international media for its financial support of the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq (MEK)–an independent militia that has been labeled a terrorist organization for the past twelve years because of its overt links to Saddam Hussein. That dubious distinction does not prevent the MEK from finding warm support in the Republican-dominated Congress. While the right-wing extremists, Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) are the most vocal supporters of the MEK, at least four more members of Congress have also voiced their support for the terrorist militia. Astonishingly and shamefully, three of them are Democrats. These Republican-leaning Democrats are: Edolphus Towns (D-NY); Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). In addition to these Republicrats, the rabid Republican right-winger Lincoln Diaz Balart of Florida is known to be a supporter of the pro-Saddam faction in Iran.

“The bureaucrat in charge of the vast budget for support of the MEK and other insurgents in Iran”, as he states, “is none other than Dick Cheney’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth Cheney”.

mojahedin.ws – A. Afshar – October 12, 2006

October 16, 2006 0 comment

Open Activities of a Proscribed Organization

Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act, the UK Home Secretary has the power to proscribe organizations believed to be “concerned in terrorism”. Both the wide definition of terrorism and the vagueness of the grounds for proscription could lead to abuse the law in support of the illegitimate organizations rather than their proscription.

Proscription does not need to be proved in court. The organization does not get to defend itself against the proscription. It can only appeal against proscription after it occurs and the Home Secretary can in effect criminalize the members and supporters of an organization without even having to prove any wrongdoing on their part.

Terrorist organizations proscribed under this Act are banned to operate in the UK and the following are also illegal in relation to them:

– Membership of a proscribed organisation.

– Inviting support and fundraising for the proscribed association.

– Managing or assisting in the arranging of meeting to support or further the activities, or to be addressed by a member of a proscribed organisation.

– Addressing a meeting where the address encourages support for the proscribed organisation.

The UK proscribed Mujahedin Khalq (MKO) a terrorist organization in 2001. The application of the law seems, however, to be heavily influenced by political considerations. Nevertheless, the MKO operates freely in the UK without any hindrance while according to the Terrorism Act, its activities are considered outlawed. It produces and publishes a freely available newspaper ‘Mojahed’ in the UK as well as operating a TV station, ‘IranNTV’, in London. Both of these are regularly used to fundraise for the MKO and advertise bank accounts based in the UK. The authorities never seized the organization’s assets and arrested none of its members and supporters.

According to MKO’s own publications, nearly twenty related associations and communities are active in the UK and it freely holds supporting rallies and arranges meetings with some parliamentarians. On 22 March 2005, the Anglo-Iranian Community co-chaired a symposium in support of the organization at Church House, Westminster. The gathering was attended and supported by dozens of members of both Houses of Parliament from the three major political parties.

On 7 July 2005, the very day London was attacked by terrorists, a meeting of parliamentarians and lawyers was held in the House of Lords to announce the formation of a group of British lawyers to challenge the proscription of the PMOI. Any Londoner could easily read a flier advertising a meeting to be held on 27 October 2005 at House of Commons, Committee Rome 10 with the speakers Andrew Mackinlay MP, Dr Rudi Vis MP, pro. Alison Assiter, Ms. Christine Aziz, and Ayatollah Jalal Ganjei, chairman of the Religious Tolerance Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a front for the terrorist MKO.

On 16 December 2005, NCRI, MKO’s political wing, website announced a statement by 405 Parliamentarians from both houses (279 MPs and 126 Peers) and all three main parties in Britain who called on the government to remove the terror label against the PMOI as a move for democratic change in Iran. Again, on 30 November 2005 the same NCRI website released: “Over 1,300 British lawyers signed a statement, ‘Iran: A Call for Justice,’ calling upon the Home Secretary to de-proscribe Iran’s main opposition, the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (“the PMOI”). This was announced in a symposium held today at the House of Lords’ Moses hall. The text of the statement is as follows”.

Again, NCRI in a Persian language communiqué, announced that the Mojahedin had arranged for a ‘Plaque of Support’ to be presented by some unelected members of the House of Lords, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Russell-Johnston and Baroness Harris of Richmond on July 1, 2006, to Maryam Rajavi, the self-elected head of the terrorist MKO.

Although Jack Straw nearly two months ago in response to demands of de-proscribing the MKO gave a definite ‘no’, yet the question is why the UK government fails to be a good observant of the full implementation of the Terrorism Act? It is outrageous that a proscribed terrorist organization can openly hold a bank account and fundraise with the support of members of the UK Houses of Parliament.

Mojahedin.ws – A. Afshar – August 30, 2006

September 2, 2006 0 comment

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 comment

Iraq

Iraqi Lawyer Advocates Rights of Terrorists

In an interview published in Washington Post on 10 June 2006, Kamal Hamdoun, the head of Iraq’s lawyers’ union, deplored the dominant anarchy in Iraq saying: "We are living in terror. For example, I’m unable to move around freely. And there’s a gun in my drawer". He had further explained that "The control of the jungle is for those who have claws and fangs".

Now, nearly 50 days after his complaint against the Iraq’s chaotic situation, Mr. Hamdoun leaps forward enthusiastically to advocate Mojahedin Khalq’s presence in Iraq saying “No one can strip them of this right without a legitimate legal argument”.

Reported by NCRI website, Mr. Kamal Hamdoon, in an interview with Mojahedin’s television station, announced:

The rights of PMOI members have been recognized based on international conventions and the UN Charter, and we at the Iraqi lawyers’ League are with them to the end… The Mojahedin were granted political asylum status in the past. No one can strip them of this right without a legitimate legal argument. Recent remarks by some Iraqi officials against the Mojahedin have no legal or religious basis.

Mr. Hamdoun has to be reminded that the “recent remarks by some Iraqi officials against the Mojahedin” do have legal basis because they are the words of the Iraqi legal Prime Minister and the cabinet. For sure, not all honorable, Iraqi lawyers share your opinion because they are well aware that the only way to end conflict and disorder in a war-torn country is to disband the terrorist groups. Mr. Hamdoun is recommended to refer to the list of the proscribed groups and entities for more information if he is in doubt.

If Mr. Hamdoun still insists on his previously stated comment that "The control of the jungle is for those who have claws and fangs", let’s imagine he is living in a depicted jungle of himself, and advocates the law of the jungle over the canon and sanctioned laws for the practice of justice, then, we should congratulate Mr. Hamdoun for having found the best ones with “claws and fangs" to have along. Mojahedin’s atrocities against Iraqi people in Saddam’s time prove them to be the most prefect choice to cause chaos and to fan the flames of turbulence. Be tolerant of the Iraqi authorities’ wisely made decision.

mojahedin.ws – A. Afshar – August 6, 2006

August 9, 2006 0 comment

Duplicity of the MEK nature

A Record of High Treason

Reported by NCRI website, the self-elect Maryam Rajavi congratulated the Iranian nation on the UN Security Council’s first resolution against Iran demanding a halt to all uranium enrichment activities. She did not even hesitate to call on the UN Security Council to impose comprehensive sanctions against Iran.

None of the other Iranian opposition groups and dissidents, in spite of being vigorous opponents to the Islamic Republic, endorse Mojahedin Khalq’s position taken against Iran’s nuclear program because they are well aware of the fact that the right of taking advantage of peaceful nuclear technology belongs to Iranian nation rather than the ruling power.

Mojahedin heartily approve the UN Security Council’s resolution while they believe themselves to be the successors of the late Dr. Mosaddeq, the Iranian Prime Minister who led the Oil Nationalization struggle in 1950s, who intended to free Iran from foreign exploitation of its oil resources. At that time, too, some European countries along with the United States disapproved Iran’s right to nationalize its resources. Their objection was followed by a coup d’etat, organized by the US and the UK, against Mosaddeq’s legal government to safeguard their interests.

The Iranian people, for the second time in the history and in a similar occasion to that of the Oil Nationalization struggle, are pioneering a courageous movement in the developing world to demand their inalienable right to exercise sovereignty over their natural resources. All patriots advocate the will of nation; it is an act of high treason to congratulate a nation on possibility of being deprived of their right. Nevertheless, it is typical of an expelled terrorist group. It is not Mojahedin’s first time to take side with enemies against the nation.

mojahedin.ws – A. Afshar – 01/08/2006

August 2, 2006 0 comment

Maryam Rajavi

Repetition of an Appeal

“Imposing comprehensive oil, weapons, technological and diplomatic sanctions on the Iranian regime through the United Nations Security Council in order to deprive it from the resources that enable it to obtain nuclear weapons and dominate Iraq and removing the terrorist label from the People’s Mojahedin Organization play an important role in bringing democratic change in Iran”, said Maryam Rajavi in a part of her letter to sent to the leaders of the G8 holding a summit in St. Petersburg.

Why is she so heated on Iran’s nuclear file at a time when the world seeks to find peaceful solution to the issue? Is she the leader of an international body concerned about the threat of something the world is in doubt to curb? Not at all. She is waving to the world to say here is a mole to move the mountains in your deal with Iran!

She proposes sanctions knowing it is Iranian people who have to pay the price. She propounds the Security Council while the file is a task of the IAEA to monitor nuclear proliferation, something not yet proved about Iran. These suggestions, not new in the ears of the Western countries, are made to appease them for the final demand; please, remove “the terrorist label from the People’s Mojahedin Organization”. Why? Because then they would be free to give a helping hand to “play an important role in bringing democratic change in Iran”, namely, aiming to assume power at all costs. Then, what about the Iranian people she claims to preside? Who cares about people!

mojahedin.ws – A. Afshar – 18/07/2006

July 19, 2006 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts