Articles

A “Red Cleric” who loves terrorists

Jacques Jean Edmond Georges Gaillot (born 11 September 1935 generally known in French as Monseigneur Gaillot) is a French Catholic clergyman and social activist. He was Bishop of Évreux in France from 1982 to 1995. In 1995, by decision of Pope John Paul II, he was demoted to be Titular Bishop of Partenia, an extinct diocese, for having expressed too controversial and heterodox positions on religious, political and social matters.

Throughout 1989, Gaillot continued to cause considerable tension within the French Bishops’ Conference, to the extent that the members of the episcopate voted to censure him. This disciplinary action came after Gaillot gave an interview to the publication Lui, the French equivalent of Playboy. Furthermore, he also gave interviews to leading gay magazines and lambasted the incompetence of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to judge the circumstances of homosexuality. At this point, the bishop offered his resignation to the Pope, should he feel it necessary to remove him; no such action was taken however. [1] He has expressed his publical support for euthanasia [citation needed] and same-sex marriage, when it was legalized in France.

In 2004 Bishop Gaillot met with Maryam Rajavi, MKO’s leader. Rajavi publicly thanked the bishop and expressed that his support had been very effective in promoting the cause of what she calls “Iran resistance”. Jacques Gaillot has praised the terrorists in Camp Liberty in Iraq for their brutal activities, what he calls it fighting for “bring freedom and democracy to Iran.” Camp Liberty in Iraq houses thousands of members of the terrorist group MKO.

The People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, also known as the Mujahedin e-Khalq organization (MKO, MEK, …) in its Persian acronym, is a terrorist organization, that has carried out decades of brutal terrorist attacks, assassinations, and espionage against the Iranian government and its people, as well as targeting Americans. The group used to seek to overthrow the Iranian revolutionary government with the help of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War.

Founded in 1963 by a group of leftist Muslim Iranian university students as an Islamic and Marxist political mass movement, the MKO was originally devoted to armed struggle against the shah, capitalism, and Western imperialism. However, according to a report by the Christian Science Monitor, it was the only group that used violence against Americans in the run-up to the revolution, launching a string of assassinations and attacks against American military and diplomatic officers in Iran in the 1970s.

The US Department of State describes MKO’s terrorist activities as follows:

The group’s worldwide campaign against the Iranian government uses propaganda and terrorism to achieve its objectives. During the 1970s, the MKO staged terrorist attacks inside Iran and killed several U.S. military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran. In 1972, the MKO set off bombs in Tehran at the U.S. Information Service office (part of the U.S. Embassy), the Iran-American Society, and the offices of several U.S. companies to protest the visit of President Nixon to Iran. In 1973, the MKO assassinated the deputy chief of the U.S. Military Mission in Tehran and bombed several businesses, including Shell Oil. In 1974, the MKO set off bombs in Tehran at the offices of U.S. companies to protest the visit of then U.S. Secretary of State Kissinger. In 1975, the MKO assassinated two U.S. military officers who were members of the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group in Tehran. In 1976, the MKO assassinated two U.S. citizens who were employees of Rockwell International in Tehran. In 1979, the group claimed responsibility for the murder of an American Texaco executive. Though denied by the MKO, analysis based on eyewitness accounts and MKO documents demonstrates that MKO members participated in and supported the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and that the MKO later argued against the early release the American hostages. The MKO also provided personnel to guard and defend the site of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, following the takeover of the Embassy.

In 1981, MKO leadership attempted to overthrow the newly installed Islamic regime; Iranian security forces subsequently initiated a crackdown on the group. The MKO instigated a bombing campaign, including an attack against the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Prime Minister’s office, which killed some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. These attacks resulted in an expanded Iranian government crackdown that forced MKO leaders to flee to France. For five years, the MKO continued to wage its terrorist campaign from its Paris headquarters. Expelled by France in 1986, MKO leaders turned to Saddam Hussein’s regime for basing, financial support, and training. Near the end of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Baghdad armed the MKO with heavy military equipment and deployed thousands of MKO fighters in suicidal, mass wave attacks against Iranian forces.

The MKO’s relationship with the former Iraqi regime continued through the 1990s. In 1991, the group reportedly assisted the Iraqi Republican Guard’s bloody crackdown on Iraqi Shia and Kurds who rose up against Saddam Hussein’s regime. In April 1992, the MKO conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and consular missions in 13 countries, including against the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas. In June 1998, the MKO was implicated in a series of bombing and mortar attacks in Iran that killed at least 15 and injured several others. The MKO also assassinated the former Iranian Minister of Prisons in 1998. In April 1999, the MKO targeted key Iranian military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff, Brigadier General Ali Sayyaad Shirazi.

In April 2000, the MKO attempted to assassinate the commander of the Nasr Headquarters, Tehran’s interagency board responsible for coordinating policies on Iraq. The pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during “Operation Great Bahman” in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran. One attack included a mortar attack against a major Iranian leadership complex in Tehran that housed the offices of the Supreme Leader and the President. The attack killed one person and injured six other individuals. In March 2000, the MKO launched mortars into a residential district in Tehran, injuring four people and damaging property. In 2000 and 2001, the MKO was involved in regular mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids against Iranian military and law enforcement personnel, as well as government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border. Following an initial Coalition bombardment of the MKO’s facilities in Iraq at the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, MKO leadership negotiated a cease-fire with Coalition Forces and surrendered their heavy-arms to Coalition control. Since 2003, roughly 3,400 MKO members have been encamped at Ashraf in Iraq.

In 2003, French authorities arrested 160 MKO members at operational bases they believed the MKO was using to coordinate financing and planning for terrorist attacks. Upon the arrest of MKO leader Maryam Rajavi, MKO members took to Paris’ streets and engaged in self-immolation. French authorities eventually released Rajavi.

The group formally renounced the use of violence in 2001, but an FBI investigation found MKO members to be “actively involved in planning and executing acts of terrorism” as recently as 2004. In February 2012, NBC News reported that the Israeli government had coordinated with MKO to launch a series of assassinations against Iranian nuclear scientists. The group’s delisting may open the door to future cooperation with the United States as well.

The MKO was removed from the State Department’s terrorism list three years ago after a concerted lobbying campaign, which featured some of the most prominent politicians and officials in the U.S., including John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; Tom Ridge, former director of Homeland Security; and Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City.

the MKO is a kind of cult, according to the FBI, Human Rights Watch, the Rand Corporation, and just about every other organization which has investigated the group. It is precisely the kind of organization that should not testify about Islamic extremism.

Jeremiah Goulka, author of “The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum,” a report published by the Rand Corporation in 2009, told MintPress, “At the MKO camps, there’s a whole set of practices that are all textbook out of cult theory – sleep deprivation, make-work projects… forced celibacy, forced divorce, [and] gender segregation.”

Masoud Banisadr, a former member of the MKO, who had served as the group’s representative to the United Nations and the U.S., confirmed that forced divorces were common in the group. Banisadr told MintPress: “All members were forced to divorce their spouses, and later they have to send their children abroad to Europe and United States to be adopted by supporters and other members.”

Two former members of the MKO, Anne Singleton and Massoud Khodabandeh, published a book last September detailing coercive tactics used by the group’s leaders to maintain control and suppress dissent. A Human Rights Watch report also revealed a similarly questionable organization in Camp Ashraf.

The group currently has an office on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, where they launch campaigns related to Iran, attend congressional legislative hearings about the country, and attempt to influence public perception of Iranian government.

1. Englund, Steven (October 6, 1995). "Provocateur or Prophet? the French Church & Bishop Gaillot". Commonweal

April 20, 2016 0 comments

Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

I was lucky that I didn’t get back to the MKO!

Hanif Bali was only three years old when he was separated from his parents in Camp Ashraf and was sent to Sweden. The 29-year-old Hanif is now a member of parliament for Sweden’s Moderate Party.

“I was lucky that I didn’t get back to Iraq”, he said in a documentary that was filmed from a day of his life by Manoto TV. When in 1991, Massoud Rajavi ordered his rank and file to leave their children under the pretext of the Gulf War, Hanif and many other children were transferred to Europe where they were kept in the MKO’s team houses or by Swedish families or Iranian sympathizers of the MKO.

“I have had seven to eight mother,” Hanif said about his childhood as an immigrant. His biological mother was not allowed to call him except once a year on his birthday. “About my father I have very few memoires,” he said with a regretful look.

A large number of children of the MKO members were then brought back to the MKO’s camp in Iraq, Camp Ashraf. Some of them were eventually killed. Hanif was determined not to get back to the unpleasant life of the group in Iraq although the group recruiters tried to convince him to join the group when he was eighteen. The recruiter showed him a film of his father. In the film, Hanif’s father tried to indoctrinate him to go to Iraq and to allegedly fight just like his childhood friends who had gone to Ashraf and had been killed for the group’s cause. “I was shocked by the film because it was the first time to see my father,” he stated. He was lucky that his aunt was with him in that recruitment meeting. ”We won’t discuss it now”, she said. So, Hanif who felt angry with his father went home. He was very angry with him that after long years of no call and no contact, his father was just asking him to join the group. “Today, when I think of that day, I still get angry”, he told Manoto.

“This was a hard decision for a young boy to take”, he asserted. ”If I had accepted to join the group at that day, I would have been in a camp in the midst of war, in the midst of misery.”

Hanif was grown up in a democracy far from the cult-like totalitarian system that brainwashed parents to leave their beloved children behind for their leaders’ ambitions. He defines the big gap between his life and that of his parents, “The big difference between me and my parents is that I don’t see the world as black and white”.

April 20, 2016 0 comments

Albania

Clinton-Albania deal ensures MEK members stay as terrorists

When is a terrorist, who is not a terrorist, still a terrorist?

The answer to this complicated riddle can be surprisingly simple: When they are forced to remain in a terrorist group because there is no safe way for them to escape.

Image: Ehsan Bidi and Siavosh Rastar – who have no accommodation or money because this is supposed to be provided by Mojahedin Khalq terrorist group which they left

There is an ongoing debate in Europe and North America about how defectors from terrorism should be treated as they try to return to their homes in the West. Some say that on security grounds they should be either banned from re-entry or prosecuted and where possible imprisoned as an example to others. Others, usually practitioners who understand that deceptive recruitment is a huge factor in people’s involvement in terrorism, advocate for a more humanitarian and redemptive approach: allow these people home, albeit with severe restrictions imposed on their lives and activities, and get them to undergo re-programming.

What this debate does not address, however, is just how possible it is to actually escape a terrorist group in the first place. If you are in Raqqa, how do you step outside the group and remain safe?

In this context the fate of a handful of Iranians, stranded in Albania without any financial support or accommodation and unable to access refugee services, shines a spotlight on this aspect of the West’s approach to terrorism.

It would be easy to dismiss former MEK members Ehsan Bidi and Siavosh Rastar’s case as a local, individual problem. But when we look in more detail, it has everything to do with whether America and the West are complicit in forcing people to remain in terrorist groups because we do not see the need to help them leave at all. Certainly this is not a solution to terrorism – Plan B: get them all to leave – but a more facilitating approach toward genuine defectors could be a major factor in undermining the hold such groups have on their members.

Three years ago, Ehsan Bidi was brought to Albania along with other members of the Mojahedin Khalq (MEK). But Bidi was already a separated member when he arrived; it had just not been possible for him to escape them while in Iraq. As soon as he arrived he left them. Since then, he had been living on a small financial contribution from the UNHCR along with basic accommodation which they had provided. Suddenly at the end of March this year all this support ended. He and others like him were left destitute.

What Bidi and another handful of defectors didn’t know was that under the 2013 deal struck between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the then Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha, the MEK members transferred to Tirana from Camp Liberty in Iraq would not be given official UN refugee status and would be dependent on Maryam Rajavi’s MEK for all their accommodation and costs while in Albania. Amazingly, neither the government of Albania nor the UNHCR has any obligation to treat them as refugees. All of these people are being transferred not as refugees but as the active members of a terrorist entity. In fact, part of the deal struck by Clinton was that the MEK would be removed from the US terrorism list specifically to allow this deal even though every active member remains radicalised to the core and capable of committing acts of terrorism.

This means that when people like Bidi and Rastar choose to reject membership of this terrorist group, they not only face the wrath of the MEK – which has promised to kill Bidi in particular because he is so vocal about this predicament – but they are also left destitute because the state doesn’t recognise them except as members of that terrorist group. After the UNHCR pulled the plug on its support, Bidi and the others were told ‘you must ask Rajavi to allow you back in the MEK or ask the Iranian embassy to send you back to Iran’. Clearly an impossible choice. It is a conundrum which was created by America and must be resolved by America.

A similar situation arose in Iraq after 2003 when the MEK were captured, disarmed and kept in Camp Ashraf. Within weeks the American army was being approached by defectors begging them for help to escape the clutches of the cult. After trying to send them back or ignore them, the army was eventually obliged, under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to establish a separate Temporary Internment and Protection Facility (TIPF) within their own compound to house the defectors. This allowed many others to escape and return to their families and to civilian life.

It is necessary now for the American administration to acknowledge that it has the same obligation toward the people it transferred to Albania under Clinton’s 2013 deal. It must give them the same opportunity to leave the MEK as was granted to people while in Iraq. Safe, alternative accommodation and social support must be given to those who, on principle, reject membership of a terrorist group. It’s almost unthinkable that this isn’t happening already.But while nobody imagines that in among the chaos of war in the Middle East and the massive refugee crisis that has engulfed Western countries, there can be a TIPF or something similar for ex-terrorists, we also know that Daesh kills defectors. They do this under the principle of ownership – we own our fighters and can dispose of them as we see fit.

In this case, if we stand by and allow Daesh, like the MEK, to dictate the conditions of how a defector is treated without making any effort to facilitate their safe exit, if we cannot offer a helping hand to those who wish to redeem themselves, then we are no better than the terrorists ourselves.

toptopic.com

Khodabandeh: The article has been translated and published in Albania ; The issue is of course important for the Albanians too:

gazetaimpakt.com/lajm/6997/marreveshja-klinton-shqiperi-i-detyron-anetaret-e-mek-kulti-raxhavi-te-qendrojne-si-terroriste/

April 19, 2016 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Why MeK keeps making the promise of overthrowing Iran’s gov’t

After Maryam Rajavi in 2010 and Parviz Khazaei in 2012, now is the MeK’s European patron Struan Stevenson to predict the overthrow of Iranian government.

Each time that the group makes a promise, they resort to a ground to reiterate their unending promises over and over again.

The MeK leadership’s excuse for this time is deepening the "cracks" among political parties in Iran, which has been stated by Stevenson.

"But his gerrymandering of the election lists may turn out to be the last straw for people who have had enough of fascist oppression, terrorism, corruption and brutality. The fault lines continue to deepen as more and more cracks appear. 2016 will be a pivotal year for Iran and it may well be the year that sees an end to the world’s most dangerous regime."

The reason that the hiding leader of MeK does not make such a promise is mainly because what he said in a public meeting years before his breakout. He said, "I withdraw all my remarks as regards the overthrowing. I’ve made a ghastly mistake."

Of course he intended to fool the members by this as he found it necessary that all the members accept to remain in Iraq with a long-term vision and with no hope. But this strategy did not hinder MeK leadership to resort to false promises in order to keep the frustrated and disappointed members in the camps in Iraq.

In 2007, for example, Rajavi assured the members that US Republicans would definitely attack Iran and that year was Iranian government’s final year.

So why such claims are repeated and the deadline for overthrowing Iranian government is being extended?

The truth is that the disillusioned members of MeK need a beacon of hope. They need to know that they will be released from that miserable condition one day and that they can take their revenge on the Iranian people after Rajavi’s gaining power.

Misinformation on the conditions in Iran is also like that. The Rajavi and his members are interested in misrepresenting the conditions in Iran and claim that Iran is a crisis-stricken country.

Of course the MeK leader intends to wage a so-called psychological warfare against the supporters of the other party with these claims.

But the major function of these promises is for the Rajavi to keep the miserable members and convince them not to leave the Rajavi’s organization and look forward to the day that the regime is "overthrown by itself."

2016 will be over and we should look forward to the next grounds of the MeK to repeat the promise!

April 18, 2016 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Elimination projects in the MKO – Alan Mohammadi

Alan was 14 years old when she was brought to Camp Ashraf to visit her parents who were members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization. She had been sent to Europe after the so-called ideological revolution in the MKO that forced couples to divorce and eventually to leave their children. Alan and her peers had been sent to Germany where they were kept in pensions or by Iranian families who were sympathizers of the MKO.

Alan who was supposed to come to Camp Ashraf to visit her parents could not accept that she would not be allowed to leave the Camp anymore. Ms. Nasrin Ebrahimi former member of the MKO writes about Alan’s sad story inside the MKO,” As I knew the group’s reality, I realized that Alan and other children like her would never get back to Europe and the group would force them to stay in Ashraf, Iraq.” The teenagers were first told by the leaders to stay in the Camp to get to know more about the “Organization”. They were treated friendly and given present. High-ranking officials used to receive them in private meetings.

“This tactic was effective. Some of the children were deceived by the group and stayed in Camp Ashraf,” writes Ms. Ebrahimi.”Some others including Alan still insisted on leaving Iraq.”

But, one crucial sentence was repeated by the MKO leaders on various occasions: “Entry doors of Camp Ashraf are open but exit doors are closed.”

Consequently, children were forced to attend indoctrination meetings. ”I remember what happened to Alan during the meetings,”Ebrahimi writes. “I remember her with her innocent face and her small body that had become the topic of their so-called ideological arguments.” Alan was ordered to divorce her parents, her friends and her normal life in Europe! She was told not to think of the opposite sex. The MKO leaders tried to indoctrinate her to admit their main cult jargon: “Long Life Divorce”!

After dozens of brainwashing sessions, Alan still asked to let her leave the camp. She resisted against the indoctrination process. So, she endured the most severe psychological tortures. Commandants abused her verbally and humiliated her before her peers in the meetings but Alan did not obey Massoud Rajavi’s mind controlling system. Thus, she was no more tolerated by the system.

One day in 2001, the group announced her death. There are different accounts about Alan’s tragic fate. The group’s propaganda told that Alan had shot herself by a machinegun unintentionally. Nasrin Ebrahimi wonders,” How that little girl could shoot herself by such heavy weapon?” Another version says that Alan committed suicide. Given that the second version is true, it shows the extremely brutal atmosphere ruling the MKO.

“Yes, a lot of people committed suicide in Camp Ashraf including me but I’m sure that the 16-year-old Alan was murdered by the MKO”, asserts Nasrin Ebrahimi.

April 17, 2016 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The West’s Terrorist “Catch and Release” Program

Virtually every suspect involved in recent Brussels bombing had been tracked, arrested, in custody – either by European security agencies or the agencies of their allies – but inexplicably released and allowed to carry out both the Brussels attack as well as the Paris attack that preceded it.

So obvious is this fact, that the Western media itself admits it, but simply dismisses the obvious and deeper implications such facts pose by claiming it is merely systemic incompetence.

The Wall Street Journal would admit that the recently arrested “man in the hat” also known as Mohamed Abrini, was also arrested for suspected terrorist activity – allegedly scoping out potential targets in the UK – but also – like his collaborators – inexplicably released. His brother had been to Syria where he fought and died alongside the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS), and Abrini himself too appears to have been in Syria.

The Wall Street Journal’s article, “Brussels Suspect Mohamed Abrini: What We Know,” reports that:

After the U.K., Mr. Abrini traveled to Paris and then Brussels, where he was arrested but then released, according to the two people. But Belgian authorities passed the information about his U.K. trip, including images found on his phone, to the British, the sources said.

Abrini’s case of “catch and release” before carrying out a successful string of deadly attacks across Europe, is just the latest.

West’s ISIS Catch & Release Program

Germany’s largest press agency, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, reported in their article, “Reports: Brothers known to police were among Brussels suicide bombers,” that:

Two Brussels brothers who were known to police are among the suicide bombers who carried out deadly terrorist attacks on the international airport and subway in the Belgian capital, local media reported Wednesday.

And that:

[Khalid El Bakraoui] had been sentenced in early 2011 to five years in prison for carjackings, after having been arrested in possession of Kalashnikov rifles, according to the Belga news agency.

His brother, 30-year-old Brahim, had been sentenced in 2010 to nine years in prison for having shot at police with a Kalashnikov rifle during a hold-up, Belga said.

The New York Times, in their article, “Brussels Attack Lapses Acknowledged by Belgian Officials,” would report regarding another Brussels bombing suspect, Brahim El Bakraoui, and his arrest and deportation from Turkey that:

The Belgian justice and interior ministers acknowledged that their departments should have acted on a Turkish alert about a convicted Belgian criminal briefly arrested in Turkey last year on suspicion of terrorist activity, who turned out to be one of the suicide bombers. And the Belgian prosecutor’s office said that person’s brother — another suicide bomber — had been wanted since December in connection with the Paris attacks.

That makes 4 suspects who were known to European security agencies for violent crimes and/or terrorism, with each and every one of them in custody before the attacks unfolded.

For fisheries around the world, the concept of “catch and release” allows anglers to enjoy the fishing experience while preserving the numbers and health of fish populations. The concept of “catch and release” for Western security and intelligence agencies appears very similar – to maintain the illusion of counterterrorism operations, while maintaining the numbers and health of terrorist organizations around the world.

Answering “to what end” the West is allowing terrorists to successfully carry out attacks against Western targets, the answer is quite simple. It allows for the expansion of power and control at home while justifying endless and profitable wars abroad.

The creation and perpetuation of terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS by the West and its allies serve another, admitted purpose. In the 1980′s it was admitted that Al Qaeda was created to wage proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. In 2011, the US and its NATO and Persian Gulf allies used terrorists linked to Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria in an attempt to overthrow their respective governments.

Today, ISIS serves both as an armed proxy waging full-scale war on the governments of Syria, Iraq, and more indirectly Iran and Russia, as well as a means to threaten and coerce nations around the world.

Political impasses in Southeast Asia revolving around America’s waning influence in the region have been met with the sudden and otherwise inexplicable appearance of ISIS. In one case, Indonesia signed a large rail deal while pursuing other economic and military partnerships with Beijing, before suffering its fist ISIS attack in its capital, Jakarta.

Thailand was likewise threatened by the US of an imminent ISIS attack, amid attempts by Bangkok to uproot the political networks of US-backed political proxy, Thaksin Shinawatra. Bangkok has also shown hesitation to sign the unpopular US-sponsored Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement.

Bangkok was already hit by terrorism last year after returning suspected terrorists to China to face justice against America’s repeated protests. Just months later, groups tied to NATO terrorist front, the Turkish Grey Wolves, carried out a bombing in the center of Bangkok.

ISIS, its counterparts, and peripheral groups like NATO’s Grey Wolves, serve multiple roles for the West. They are a pretext to invade and occupy foreign nations, a proxy army to wage war against its enemies with, and a means of maintaining fear and obedience at home under the auspices of an increasing police state. It is difficult to believe the West could maintain its current foreign and domestic policy without this menace – it has become an integral part of Western geopolitical strategy.

Would a Signed Confession Convince You?

Many are quick to dismiss evidence of Western special interests’ use of terrorists and terrorism to project geopolitical power abroad and maintain control at home. This is despite the admitted nature of the West’s role in the creation and utilization of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan during the 1980s, and signed and dated policy papers like the Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” document which openly advocated using listed-terrorist organization, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), to wage a proxy campaign of violence against the Iranian people and their government.

MEK, it should be noted, is guilty of killing American civilians and military personnel, as well as continuing a campaign of terrorism against civilian and political targets in Iran. Brookings in fact, admits this while proposing the US’ use of the terrorist organization to carry out US foreign policy objectives. If MEK is a suitable candidate for Western sponsorship, why not ISIS?

Considering this, and the “coincidental” arming and funding of “rebels” in Libya by the US and its allies in 2011 who are now verifiably members of listed terrorist organizations, revelations of US involvement behind the rise of ISIS should come as little surprise.

And beyond mere speculation, a 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report leaked to the public, admits that the US and its allies sought the creation of a “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) in eastern Syria, precisely where ISIS now resides.

The US DIA admitted:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

The DIA document then explains exactly who this “Salafist principality’s” supporters are (and who its true enemies are):

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

All that’s left is for the Pentagon to perhaps, disclose payslips for ISIS leaders or logistical documents regarding US-NATO resupply operations for ISIS along the Turkish-Syrian border – and perhaps even such a disclosure would still not be enough to convince some in the West that the special interests posing as their leaders are complicit in creating not only ISIS, but organizing and ensuring the chaos they cause unfolding at home and abroad wherever and whenever needed.The fact that literally ever Brussels and Paris attack suspect was known to and in many cases detained by Western security agencies before the attacks, yet were released before being allowed to carry out their attacks successfully, proves that the West is enjoying the “experience” of maintaining a war on terror, but like good fishery conservationists, is ensuring the populations of their quarry remain healthy and numerous.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.

The original source of this article is New Eastern Outlook

Tony Cartalucci,

April 16, 2016 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

An impossible dream

The desire for a military invasion against Iran and destroying the country has turned to a terrible nightmare haunting the MeK all the time. The ongoing crisis in the Middle East particularly in Iran’s neighboring countries during the past two decades have increased the desire and made the MeK leadership drowned in vain desires.

Once using violence on the Iranian streets to topple the Islamic Republic, the MeK is now looking for allies in the region. MeK’s efforts in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen suggests that they are hoping to break the axis of resistance and bring the war to the Iranian frontlines. It shows that the MeK knows no enemy except the Islamic Republic of Iran and their enmity with other states and groups is because of their animosity with Iran. Simply put, they are against the Islamic Republic’s strategy. A strategy which is accepted by the US and European powers. After 3 decades they found out that force is not the solution and thus they sat at the negotiation table.

Using a mixture of stupidity and imagination for analyzing political issues, the MeK leadership resorts to militarism to gain power, or rather, to help release its organization from a deadlock.

Hence, the MeK leadership views the regional developments as in Syria and Yemen not as they really are, but as he wishes them to be. In their calculations, the international players are the winner and Iran will be the loser.

Their foolish understanding is that Iran’s regional power is connected to Assad’s fate. Iran wanted to keep Assad in power 5 years ago when its regional and international enemies intended to topple Assad in less than a month. Having flexed their muscles, they saw fit to negotiate with Iran. The MeK leadership’s assumption that the Islamic Republic consented Assad’s removal (if there is such a consent) again suggests the mixture of stupidity and imagination of their analyzing political issues. That is why they are misrepresenting the regional developments and define them as they wish.

For example, in an article published on the MeK website titled Prospects for Syria and its Loser and Winner an unidentified author asserts:

“addressing a press conference in his recent official visit to Pakistan, Hassan Rouhani said, “negotiations are a basis to achieve a solution and a transitional period in order to determine the future of Syria.” His remarks were so eye catching as the Iranian regime has always been backing Syria’s murderous dictator. As the Syrian opposition and regional countries as well as the western parties emphasized, the transition period means removal of Bashar Assad from power. Thus Hassan Rouhani’s remarks are a step towards going through the motions of the region.”

Finally, the author concludes that, “the confession shows the starting point of an inevitable ending to the Islamic Republic’s strategy.” However, the author censors Rouhani’s remarks during a phone conversation with his Russian counterpart.

President Rouhani reiterated that more cooperation and coordination between Tehran and Moscow contributes to peace and stability in Syria.

He also maintained that ceasefire is necessary to be preserved simultaneously with keeping talks between oppositions.

The Syrian nation is the only authority to decide over the destiny of Syria, highlighted Rouhani in his dialogue with Mr. Putin while insisting upon the principle approaches of the Islamic Republic of Iran toward the crisis in Syria.

During the same dialogue, President Putin of Russia pledged his country’s commitment to peaceful resolution of the Syrian crisis and reiterated that the Russian Federation shares the same approach to the issue.

He also underlined the need for the practice of full control over the Syrian borders to prevent the re-arming of terrorists or dispatch of financial and logistical aid to them,” he added.

The conversation clearly shows that who has provided the Syrian oppositionists with the opportunity of negotiation and what the political future of Syria will be. But the MeK leadership still hopes that the Saudi Arabia gains the victory in the battle.

April 14, 2016 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

A Lobbyist for terrorism; Michael Mukasey

Born on July 28, 1941, Michael Bernard Mukasey is a lawyer and former judge who served as the 81st Attorney General of the United States. He was appointed following the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. Mukasey also served for 18 years as a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, six of those years as Chief Judge. He was the second Jewish U.S. Attorney General and currently he is a partner at the international law firm Debevoise & Plimpton.

On November 8, 2007, After two months of controversy, and a round of sporadically contentious Senate confirmation hearings, former judge Michael Mukasey narrowly won the Senate’s approval to become the next attorney general, by an almost-party line 53-40 vote. Musakey replaced Alberto Gonzales, who resigned under fire in September 2007. Many Democrats voted against Mukasey because of his refusal to categorize the interrogation technique of waterboarding as torture, and his refusal to say that he would oppose President Bush’s insistence on eavesdropping on US citizens. [CNN, 11/8/2007]

Notable issues and comments

Support for the MeK

Alireza Jafarzadeh, counseled former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey prior to his testimony

Mukasey is among the former high profile political officials who were apparently investigated over their financial transactions with the terrorists in the Mujahidin e Khalq aka “MEK” and paid advocacy on behalf of them. (Top Democrat’s speeches for terrorist group probed; The Washington Times – Friday, March 9, 2012)

Mukasey has admitted being paid by MEK and admitted he and his friends have helped the terrorist group by advocating for their removal from the FTO list. This admission by Mukasey contradicted his support for the 2009 Holder v Humanitarian Law Project Supreme Court Decision which held that such advice and assistance as he has admittedly provided in coordination with a designated foreign terrorist organization falls within “material support of terrorism” even if it is nothing but speech.

Mukasey has admitted he was paid handsomely by the MEK to advocate for them. He didn’t deny that his “expert advice and assistance” to MEK was coordinated, only that the designated terrorist group did not dictate what he said. He insisted that as long as the MEK did not write his speech, his acceptance of the terrorist organization’s money and his meetings with MEK members to coordinate his appearances and advocacy are not enough to get him into trouble.

Further, Mukasey accused the Treasury of improperly targeting him and his political friends by looking into the handsome amounts of money they have all been paid by the MEK. He claimed that the Treasury’s subpoenas looking into his and other high-level former politicians’ payments from MEK stemmed from the filing of their amicus brief arguing for MEK to be removed from the terrorist organization list.

What is worse is that Mukasey and his MEK-paid friends scoff at the laws and government terrorist designations they insist on applying to others. As Attorney General, Mukasey undoubtedly ordered prosecutions of many Muslims for financial transactions with FTOs involving far less money than he has been paid.

In their January 2011 opinion piece “MEK Is Not a Terrorist Group,” Mukasey’s group disclosed the perhaps bigger reason for their support of MEK than the thousands of dollars they were each paid, claiming that MEK “has provided valuable intelligence to the United States on Iranian nuclear plans.”

(Dear Department of Justice: Please Investigate Your Old Boss for Material Support of Terrorism! Coleen Rowley Former FBI Special Agent. Huffingtonpost, 03/20/2012 Updated May 20, 2012)

Eavesdropping

On December 12, 2007, Michael Mukasey, the new Attorney General, wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times pushing for Congressional immunity for US telecommunications firms over their cooperation with the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program. Mukasey supported the NSA program, echoing the administration’s long insistence that the surveillance program is “crucial” in protecting the country against terrorist attacks. He also reiterated the administration’s criticism of the “outdated” Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which he said hampers the government’s ability to collect needed intelligence and does little to protect the privacy of US citizens. Mukasey called for Congress to pass a Senate bill that would grant the telecommunications firms retroactive immunity to civil lawsuits and criminal charges surrounding their cooperation with the NSA, and would no longer require court orders for the government to “direct surveillance at foreign targets overseas”—surveillance that would target US citizens. Mukasey also asked for full cooperation of private companies in intelligence activities and strongly opposed another Senate bill that would grant no immunity and would continue to require the government to obtain FISA Court warrants before wiretapping domestic communications. [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 12/12/2007]

Relationship with Giuliani

Mukasey and Giuliani have been friends since working at the same law firm in the early 1970s. [46] In 1985, when Rudolph W. Giuliani, the then U.S. ?????????, was coming under intense criticism for his aggressive tactics in prosecuting organized crime in attorney for the Southern District of New York, his former colleague, Michael B. Mukasey sprang to his defense. Mukasey wrote a strongly worded opinion piece in New York Times arguing that Giuliani’s tough tactics were justified to defeat “dangerous and powerful enemies”. Alec MacGillis, a senior editor at The New Republic magazine and former Washington Post staff writer, had described Mukasey’s public defense of Giuliani as “one example of the strong and lasting bond between President Bush’s nominee for attorney general and the man leading in the GOP polls to replace Bush.” In 1994, Giuliani selected Mukasey, then a federal judge, to preside over his inauguration as mayor. The ties only strengthened after Giuliani left City Hall. Mukasey’s son, Marc, a former assistant U.S. attorney himself, works as a partner at Giuliani’s consulting firm, and Giuliani named Mukasey and his son to one of his presidential campaign advisory committees. Dov Hikind, Democratic New York State Assemblyman has said about Mukasey and Giuliani that they “are two people who are extremely close — extremely, extremely close — and everybody knows that.” ]Washington Post [September 18, 2007

Waterboarding

On December 11, 2014, Mukasey publicly stated on CNN that he believed waterboarding could not be called torture. [ “Mukasey: Waterboarding is not torture”. YouTube. December 11, 2014.] In a 2008 hearing, he said waterboarding would feel like torture if he were subjected to it. [ “At Senate Hearing, Attorney General Michael Mukasey Refuses to Say if Waterboarding is Torture, Illegal”. Democracy Now!] In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy on January 29, 2008, Mukasey said he finished a review of Justice Department memos about the CIA’s current methods of interrogating terror suspects and finds them to be lawful. He claimed waterboarding currently is not used by the CIA. ]Chicago Tribune, January 30, 2008 [ Attorney General Mukasey on February 7, 2008 said he will Not investigate US government’s use of waterboarding [MOTHER JONES, 2/7/2008].

Remarks about pre-9/11 terrorist phone call

Speaking in San Francisco to the California Commonwealth Club on March 27, 2008, Mukasey defended President Bush’s program of wiretapping calls between Americans and suspected foreign terrorists without court authorization, and implied that the government might have been able to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001, if it had been able to wiretap a specific call to the U.S. from Afghanistan. Before September 11, 2001, Mukasey said, “We knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan, and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went.” He paused, seemed to stifle tears or at least suppress emotion, then continued, “You’ve got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn’t come home, to show for that.” In a subsequent letter to Mukasey, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers questioned whether any such phone call had ever actually occurred and, if so, why the government hadn’t been able to use its then-existing legal authority and technological capabilities to monitor it. Also, Some media outlets pick up on the Mukasey’s claim. For example, the San Francisco Chronicle notes that Mukasey “did not explain why the government, if it knew of telephone calls from suspected foreign terrorists, hadn’t sought a wiretapping warrant from a court established by Congress to authorize terrorist surveillance, or hadn’t monitored all such calls without a warrant for 72 hours as allowed by law.” [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 3/28/2008].

Boston College Law School Won’t Honor Mukasey

John Garvey, the dean of Boston College Law School announced on March 28, 2008 that the school will not award its highest honor to US Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey at its May commencement amid sharp criticism from some students, faculty, and alumni over his invitation as graduation speaker. The move reflects broad discontent with Mukasey’s controversial refusal to declare that a prison-interrogation technique known as waterboarding constitutes torture. [Huffington Post, 03/28/2008[

Violations of the law are not always crimes

On August 12, 2008, Mukasey told American Bar Association annual meeting delegates that “not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,” with “only violations of the civil service laws” being found among hiring practices during Gonzales’ tenure as Attorney General.

April 13, 2016 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Maryam Rajavi’s lobbyist convicted for child sexual abuse

Dennis Hastert ‘paid hush money to cover up sex abuse’

Dennis Hastert alongside other American paid speakers in Mojahedin Khalq terrorists gathering in Paris

Prosecutors are seeking a six-month jail sentence for disgraced former US House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is alleged to have paid hush money to cover up sex abuse.

Court documents say Hastert agreed to pay $3.5m (£2.5m) to a person he sexually abused when the victim was aged 14 and Hastert was working as a teacher and wrestling coach.

Prosecutors allege he abused five boys.

The 74-year-old has admitted lying and breaking financial laws.

The plea represents a dramatic fall for the former senior Republican politician, who has had his portrait removed from the House of Representatives in the US Congress.

The alleged abuse happened while Hastert was working in Yorkville, a suburb of Chicago, between 1965 and 1981. Three of the victims were wrestlers on a team he coached.

He cannot be charged with sexual abuse as the statute of limitations has expired in the cases.

One of the victims – referred to in court documents as Individual A – said Hastert had stayed with him in a motel room on the way back from a trip to a wrestling camp and touched him inappropriately.

Two of the others, aged 14 and 17, said Hastert had performed sex acts on them in the locker room at the high school in Yorkville.

All the victims “struggled and are still struggling” with what Hastert did to them, prosecutors argue. Hastert made them feel “alone, ashamed, guilty and devoid of dignity”, they say.

Hastert, who retired in 2007 after serving as House Speaker for eight years, will be sentenced later this month for concealing the large sums of money he paid to Individual A to buy his silence.

Between 2010 and 2012 he withdrew $750,000 in lump sums of $50,000 before learning of rules requiring banks to report large transactions.

After that he withdrew a further $952,000 in lump sums of less than $10,000 between 2012 and 2014.

He was able to pay Individual A $1.7m in payments of $100,000 before being questioned by the FBI in 2014 about his withdrawals.

One of the reasons he gave for the large withdrawals was that he was being blackmailed by someone making a false claim of sex abuse.

He agreed to let investigators record phone conversations he had with Individual A, but prosecutors said the “tone and comments” of Individual A in the conversations were “inconsistent with someone committing extortion”.

In a deal with prosecutors, he admitted the charge of “structuring and assisting in structuring currency transactions” by removing small sums of money to avoid the transactions being reported.

However, the charge of lying to FBI investigators is set to be dropped.

Defence lawyers want Hastert to be spared jail because they say he is suffering from ill health.

He is due to be sentenced on 27 April.

April 12, 2016 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Gender Segregation Everywhere in the MKO Cult

Gender segregation has always been a controversial issue depending on social, religious and legal structure. Critics of gender segregation argue that it is a violation of human rights and denial of capabilities of a specific sex. This phenomenon is a very iconic aspect of the life inside the Mujahedin Khalq Organizatin (the MKO) as a cult-like group. However, the group makes efforts to launch pro-democracy propaganda, chanting slogans of human rights, gender equality and feminism and condemning the Iranian Government for human rights violation and gender segregation.

A short news on the MKO propaganda website reports what it calls “a religious decree issued for segregation of sexes in transport systems.” The alleged report quotes from the state source website ‘hamshahrionline.ir that ”according to the train company schedule, and in cooperation with the Islamic republic’s train service, a special section has been assigned to women for traveling between Tehran and Mashhad on Nour Railways’ for the first time.”

The MKO propaganda accuses the Islamic Republic of continuing “to implement gender segregation across the country” while its own record on gender segregation is notoriously known to the world. The MKO’s abusive structure has been discussed by various bodies. Independent reports from Human Rights Watch and from the RAND Corporation have gathered facts on the group’s cult-like control over members, which according to RAND, include “a near-religious devotion to the Rajavis … public self-deprecation sessions, mandatory divorce, celibacy, enforced separation from family and friends and gender segregation.” [1]

The women only passenger wagons in widely customary across the world. In many countries like, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, and Indonesia gender segregated transport system is used to create a more relaxing and peaceful journey for women. A recent report says that, a central German regional railway is also launching a special women and children only area for their trains “. [2] Regardless the controversial arguments that gender segregated carriages on trains are effective to prevent sexual harassments against women or not, the MKO –also known as the Cult of Rajavi—lacks the least competency to argue about such issues.

The freelance British journalist Owen Bennet Jones in his book, “Terrorists? Us?” defines how the MKO destructive cult turned in to the “Cherished ally” of the West. He accurately describes the development of Rajavi’s cult-like control system in the MKO after the disastrous failure in his Saddam-backed military operation against Iran called “Eternal Light”. “Rajavi had to come up with an explanation for the defeat,” he writes.” His unorthodox solution was to tell his fighters they had lost because they had been distracted by love and sex. He commanded members to divorce, become celibate and live in communal, single-sex accommodation, just like soldiers in a regular army. Filled with ideas of self-sacrifice and martyrdom, they did as they were told. (The celibacy rule is to this day so tightly enforced that there are separate times for men and women to use Camp Ashraf’s petrol station.) Members were urged to transfer their passions from their former spouses to their leaders, the Rajavis. Aware that people were becoming sexually frustrated, meetings were organized where members were obliged to confess their sexual fantasies in public. If you did confess to something, other members spat at you. Friendships were also discouraged at Camp Ashraf, and so were children. From the mid-1980s, citing safety concerns, the leadership ordered that several hundred children living in the camp be moved to pro-MEK foster families in Europe and Canada. Some parents have not seen their children for more than twenty years.” [3]

Gender segregation in the MKO is mandatory. It is neither permissive –ordered by law— nor voluntary. Inside Camp Ashraf eating places, dormitories, gas stations and even streets were sex-segregated. The couple, both defectors of the MKO, Ann Singleton and Massoud Khodabandeh described the violations committed against members of the MKO cult in their book “The Life of Camp Ashraf Mojahedin-e Khalq – Victims of Many Masters” :

“Over the years former members who escaped from Camp Ashraf have told their stories to a world unwilling or unable to listen. Thousands of them consistently and courageously described the conditions of the internal revolutions and Rajavi’s bizarre requirements for members to divorce and to remove all the children from the camp; to undergo the daily humiliations of public self-confessions which enforce the celibacy and gender apartheid; to suffer micro-management of their every waking moment which imposed deliberately exhausting work schedules and disorienting indoctrination sessions; to be deprived of any information from and contact with the outside world and their families. Rajavi did all this to keep his members from leaving. When this failed, he imprisoned them.”[4]

Rania Abouzeid of the Time also provides a comprehensive account on the MKO’s hypocrisy: “Camp Ashraf, with its gender-segregated dormitories, manicured lawns, flower beds and tree-lined streets, is the only home many of the residents have known. The MEK maintains firm control over its members, preventing them from marrying and restricting or preventing contact with family elsewhere.” [5]

Constant human rights violation and gender segregation are in the essence of the MKO as terrorist destructive cult even if it is relocated in Europe in the heart of democracy; and even if its propaganda resorts to each and every means possible.

Mazda Parsi

Sources:

1] Goulka, Jeremiah, Hansell, Lydia, Wilke, Elizabeth, Larson, Judith, The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq, A Policy Conundrum, RAND, 2009

[2] Lane, JJ, Oliver, German Railway Launches Gender Segregated Carriages In Wake Of Sex Attacks, breitbart.com, March26, 2016

[3] Jones, Owen Bennett, Terrorists? Us?, Vol. 34 No. 11 · 7 ,London Review of Books, June 2012

[4] Khodabandeh, Anne, Khodabandeh, Massoud, The Life of Camp Ashraf Mojahedin-e Khalq – Victims of Many Masters, IRAN-INTERLINK, September 2011

[5] Abouzeid, Rania, Why Is the Iraqi Military Cracking Down on an Iranian Camp?, The Time, April 15, 2011

April 12, 2016 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts