Articles

Iraq to Relocate Iran Opposition Group

U.S. Guarded Embattled Movement’s Camp

Iraq’s national security adviser said Friday that the government intends to move an Iranian opposition group from its sanctuary near the Iranian border to a location where leaders and”brainwashed cult members”will be separated and the latter”detoxified.”

Mowaffak al-Rubaie’s remarks about the future of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, or MEK, were his most detailed to date on how his government intends to deal with an issue that has been an irritant in relations between Iraq’s government, which has built close ties with Iran, and the U.S. government. The group received support from Saddam Hussein’s government and has been designated a terrorist organization by the State Department, but U.S. officials credit the MEK with providing information about Iran’s nuclear program.

The Iraqi government’s resolution of the conundrum is likely to shed light on how an increasingly sovereign Iraq will handle such vexing problems, and is likely to speak volumes about the extent to which Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is influenced by Iran.

Members of the group”should understand that their days in Iraq are numbered,”Rubaie told Western journalists at a briefing in the Green Zone.”We are literally counting them.”

Iraqi officials, including Maliki, have in recent months publicly lambasted the group, generally during or after official visits to Iran.

The U.S. military has protected the group’s camp in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. It handed over nominal control of the outer perimeter to Iraqi security forces in February but said it is keeping a contingent there to ensure that group members are treated humanely.

At one point in his remarks, Rubaie said Iraq would not forcibly deport MEK members because”we are a civilized country.”But later, he said the Iraqi government would have a”thick skin”when it came to any negative press or international outcry generated by the eventual repatriation of members.

“The party is over for them. The party is over for coalition protection for them,”he said, referring to the U.S. military.

A spokesman for the group, Mohammad Mohaddessin, said in a statement that residents of Camp Ashraf, which is 40 miles north of Baghdad,”will never leave their home”and warned that Rubaie’s plan is”setting the stage for a human catastrophe.”

Rubaie did not indicate when or how the Iraqi government will expel the people at Ashraf. He said the government is considering facilities in western and southern Iraq to house the camp’s 3,418 residents while it studies its options.

Rubaie said the government hopes to wean”brainwashed cult members”from the sway of the 25 or so leaders at Ashraf before they are repatriated.

Rubaie, citing numbers he obtained from the U.S. military, said Camp Ashraf’s population includes 11 Canadians, five Americans, four Swedes, three Dutch and three Britons. Hundreds more have legal residency permits issued by France, Germany and other Western countries, he said. But ascertaining the identity and nationality of everyone there has and will probably continue to be challenging, he said, because the group’s leaders”are obstructing us.”

Rubaie said he recently met with ambassadors from several countries whose citizens or permanent residents are at Ashraf to urge them to take the group members back following a”meticulous vetting process.”If they do not, Rubaie warned,”we will provide them with Iranian passports,”and”they will wind up on a European street.”

The group includes 900 young women but no children because members are barred from having sex, he said.

Many members are the children of Iranian exiles recruited during the 1980s and ’90s. Hussein used the heavily armed and well-trained group during his decade-long war with Iran in the ’80s, and it also reportedly played a role in Hussein’s bloody suppression of Shiite and Kurdish uprisings after the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

MEK leaders say the prospect of being forcibly repatriated to Iran would expose them to torture and execution.

Rubaie said the Iraqi government has arrest warrants for three group members and that the United States has warrants for two others. He said that Iranian officials plan to prosecute more than 50 Ashraf residents and that they recently proposed that their prosecutions be carried out in Iraq.

By Ernesto Londoño – Washington Post Foreign Service

March 30, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Hosted by terrorists?

An organization in Ottawa’s bad books wined and dined Canadian politicians

Eight current and former Canadian parliamentarians attended a conference and rally in Paris last summer that was organized by the political wing of an Iranian opposition group that Canada and the United States have designated as a terrorist organization. At least four had some of their expenses covered by supporters of the banned group. The visit shows how difficult it can be for Western politicians to navigate the confusing waters of Iranian politics, where even those opposed to the theocracy in Tehran can be tainted by accusations of violence and human rights abuses.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran staged a massive rally in Paris last June to support its now-disarmed military wing, the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, also known as the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or simply the People’s Mujahedeen. The group invited hundreds of politicians from around the world, and Maryam Rajavi, “president-elect” of the NCRI, met with many of them at her home outside Paris. Canadian politicians who attended included: Liberal MPs Carolyn Bennett, Yasmin Ratansi and Raymonde Folco; Bloc Québécois MP Meili Faille; Andrew Telegdi and Tom Wappel, who were Liberal MPs at the time but are no longer; and Liberal Senator David Smith. David Kilgour, who sat as both a Progressive Conservative and Liberal MP before leaving politics as an Independent in 2006, was also there. Bennett and Telegdi were given a little less than $2,000 each toward transportation, accommodation, and meals. Wappel’s bill for the same totalled $3,780. Smith says he was put up free of charge in a hotel.

The People’s Mujahedeen was officially designated as a terrorist group by Canada’s Liberal government in May 2005. The Conservatives upheld this decision in November 2008. The U.S. State Department considers the People’s Mujahedeen and the NCRI as simply different names for the same organization. Despite numerous requests by Maclean’s, officials with the Department of Public Safety would not say whether Canada distinguishes between the two.

Based in Iraq but with supporters all over the world, the People’s Mujahedeen seeks the overthrow of Iran’s theocracy. It has carried out numerous bombings, military raids, and assassinations in Iran since its founding in 1965. These included the murder of American military personnel and civilians in Iran during the 1970s, as part of its efforts to help overthrow the shah in 1979.

The group found safe haven in Iraq under Saddam Hussein during the 1980s and allied with Iraq in its war against Iran. Shortly after a ceasefire between the two warring nations was announced, in July 1988, the People’s Mujahedeen invaded Iran from Iraq, believing that the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse. The invaders were easily repulsed, and Iran executed as many as 5,000 political prisoners soon afterwards—most of whom were supporters of the People’s Mujahedeen. People’s Mujahedeen fighters based in Iraq also reportedly took part in the Iraqi Republican Guard’s bloody repression of Kurds and Shia Arabs in 1991.

The group has not been linked to any violent acts since 2001 and was recently removed from British and European Union lists of terrorist organizations. The National Council of Resistance of Iran says its goal is the establishment of a secular democracy in Iran. Its supporters include Iranian expatriates, as well as many Western politicians. People’s Mujahedeen members inside Iran appear to be well organized and have passed on intelligence to the United States, despite the official American position that the group is a terrorist organization. This reporter encountered little support for the People’s Mujahedeen among ordinary Iranians during a visit in 2004—though one Iranian political prisoner, in a personal letter, has since praised the kindness of People’s Mujahedeen members with whom he is jailed.

Mohamad Tavakoli, a professor of history and near and eastern civilizations at the University of Toronto, says most Iranians have never forgotten that the People’s Mujahedeen joined forces with Saddam Hussein and invaded their country. “Iranians will not forgive them for that,” Tavakoli says. “Even secular Iranians who have been in opposition to the Islamic Republic, they do not forgive the People’s Mujahedeen and the National Council of Resistance for their collaboration with Saddam Hussein. The mujahedeen and the National Council of Resistance doesn’t have credibility with the Iranian people. It does have some hard-core supporters. But that’s it.”

Critics, including other Iranian opposition groups as well as the U.S. State Department, describe the NCRI as a personality cult built around Maryam Rajavi and her husband, Massoud, who hasn’t been seen in public for years. Several of its supporters, including at least one Canadian, have set themselves on fire during public protests. A 2005 Human Rights Watch report accused the People’s Mujahedeen of severe human rights violations at its sprawling “Camp Ashraf” headquarters in Iraq, before the camp was disarmed by American forces in 2003. These violations included subjecting dissident members who wished to leave to years of solitary confinement, abuse, torture, and, in two cases, murder. (The future of the camp’s 3,500 residents, who include scores of Canadians, is unclear. The Iraqi government wants them out of the country. People’s Mujahedeen members fear they will be jailed or worse should they return to Iran.)

The Canadian delegates to Paris appear to have been aware that they would be attending NCRI events. Wappel described the purpose of his trip to the ethics commissioner as “to meet with representatives of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.” He told Maclean’s that he supports the removal of the People’s Mujahedeen from Canada’s list of banned terrorist groups. According to a press release from the NCRI’s foreign affairs committee, Wappel, Folco, and Ratansi all attended a meeting hosted by Rajavi, where they also pledged to work at getting the People’s Mujahedeen removed from Canada’s list of terrorist groups.

Tavakoli, the University of Toronto professor, says he can understand why Western politicians might want to support the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The current regime in Tehran is illiberal and often brutal. And supporters of the NCRI present themselves as the only viable alternative. “I beg to differ,” Tavakoli says. “They present themselves as a democratic alternative to the Islamic Republic, with the hope of overthrowing the regime. But democratic involvement is really being involved in building grassroots organizations, and they are not interested in that. They view themselves as a vanguard political organization, and vanguards do not have patience for doing the dirty work of democracy. I don’t think the National Council of Resistance, with any kind of stretch of imagination, represents the Iranian diaspora community and their democratic aspects.”

Bennett, Wappel and Telegdi told the ethics commissioner their expenses were covered by the “Iran Democratic Association.” Reza, a spokesperson for the group who asked that his last name not be printed to protect relatives in Iran, describes the association’s members as “supporters and sympathizers” of the NCRI but not formally part of the organization. “As far as I’m concerned and my colleagues are concerned, we believe that this group can realize what our goals are—a nuclear-free, secular Iran,” he said in an interview with Maclean’s. “There is no other alternative that stands against the barbarity of the Iranian regime.”

Carolyn Bennett, in an interview with Maclean’s, acknowledged the People’s Mujahedeen’s violent history but says it has evolved. “Obviously, some people who were involved in it in the past have been accused of, you know, acts we wouldn’t want,” she said. “But like so many of these resistance movements, whether you’re in Northern Ireland or South Africa, there are people who are victimized and who are now fighting for democracy.” David Smith, the senator, also described the People’s Mujahedeen’s terrorist designation as “a complete and utter bum rap.” Yasmin Ratansi incorrectly claimed that the People’s Mujahedeen has not been armed for more than 20 years. In fact, when Camp Ashraf was disarmed in 2003, the People’s Mujahedeen relinquished more than 2,000 tanks, armoured personnel carriers, and heavy artillery pieces.

Although no Conservative MPs attended the NCRI’s rally and meetings in Paris last summer, the group has drawn Conservative support in the past. Paul Forseth, a Conservative MP until his defeat in the 2006 election, has previously attended an NCRI rally in Paris and remains a strong supporter of the group. And in April 2006, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, then the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister for multiculturalism, spoke at a small rally on Parliament Hill held by apparent supporters of the People’s Mujahedeen. A photo of Kenney addressing the group appeared on the website of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Kenney later claimed he had been invited to give a speech by a group calling itself the Committee for Human Rights in Iran and said he had no idea the group was linked to the People’s Mujahedeen.

Denis Coderre, the Liberal defence critic, didn’t accept this explanation and called on Kenney to apologize and denounce the People’s Mujahedeen: “A terrorist group is a terrorist group,” said Coderre. “Jason Kenney, who likes to play politics and who’s as subtle as Barney Rubble in politics, he should do better than that.” Maclean’s called Coderre’s office to find out how he felt about his Liberal colleagues attending a People’s Mujahedeen rally and taking money from supporters of the group, but he did not respond to a request for an interview.

by Michael Petrou, Macleans.ca

March 28, 2009 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Imaginary invaders of Camp Ashraf

As it is the case with majority of cult leaders, they always try to warn against imaginary enemies that might be jeopardizing the life of people. In most cases they threaten to strongly react in the case of any alien invasion or government intervention. As the evidences corroborate, the real victims of these claims have always been the insiders themselves rather than the outsiders. The message of Masoud Rajavi on 27 December is out-and-out based on fabrication, perversion, fallacy, and bluff. Surprisingly enough, the apparent paradoxical points of his statements have been hidden from the European advocates of the organization as well as its numerous critics. Following the analysis of this message in preceding articles, other points are to be elaborated on here.

The western advocates of Rajavi should take necessary precautions not to pave the way for turning MKO into another al-Qaeda or Taliban as a terrible nightmare for the US and its allies. Masoud Rajavi, the cultic leader of MKO, in the conclusion of his message refers to those politicians who are steadfastly and blindly supporting the notorious group he steers saying:

Yet as confirmed by compatriots, lawyers, parliamentarians, and prominent political figures different countries in the world, it is assured that in case of any invasion against the security and rights of Ashraf residents, the world will rise in protest.

An instance of his intended rise took place after the arrest of Maryam Azdanlu in France in June 2003 when a number of MKO cult members committed self-immolation in Paris streets; however, the revolt meant by Masoud Rajavi in his messages is of a different form. He is well aware that his European advocates are different from his absolute obedient disciples and he cannot even rely on them for half a day hunger strike in his support, let alone any form of protest. They can hardly understand some phenomena common in MKO like ideological revolution, sacrifice, etc and the fact is that it is just their diplomatic objectives that necessitate supporting an opposition to the Iranian government for a while.

Unfortunately, despite all investigations carried out by the France government and monitoring of Mojahedin illegal activities in France as well as the report of DST, France officials have been subject to passivity and condonation. However, Rajavi is well aware that he can just count on his own cultic levers like terrorist and suicide activities of MKO members not his western sympathizers who grab hold to propaganda blitz on Mojahedin and their status as a political lever for furthering their own diplomatic objectives and have nothing to do with Masoud and Maryam. A brief look at a statement made by the same backers may clarify the issue that westerners had identified the true nature of Mojahedin long before when they referred to them as a wolf in sheep’s clothing *. In fact, this is the most true picture of Mojahedin drawn by westerners.

Evidently, Masoud Rajavi is aware that the support offered by westerners as well as his own warning of an imminent invasion to Camp Ashraf is baseless. Nevertheless, he pursues his common cultic procedure of inculcating the international bodies with the idea of an assumed enemy ready to attack Camp Ashraf by which he has preserved the integrity of MKO and Camp Ashraf in recent years.

Now, he claims that the world is ready to rise against those invading Ashraf but refrains to say who these invaders might be. In addition, this question arises that if he demands international bodies to solve the problem of keeping the security of Camp Ashraf and its residents and, as he claims, he recognizes international rules and conventions more than their legislators, what is the rationale behind all his fabrication, perversion and propaganda war?

* Gessler; Autopsy of an Ideological Drift, Translated byThomas R. Forstenzer, Published in France in 2004, chapter 15.

March 28, 2009 0 comments

The Ideology of the MEK

Rajavi’s ideological purges

Besides approaches applied by Rajavi to purge qualified, old veterans while in Pahlavi’s jails, he devised whatever plots afterward to exclude the remnants of MKO’s early central cadre and intimates of Hanifnejad. Soon after the victory of Iranian revolution, they criticized Rajavi for his egotistic, ambitious, and totalitarian ideals in a statement issued in an Iranian newspaper, Keyhan. Instead of giving a convincing answer to the criticisms, Rajavi took a hostile stance and asserted that they were no longer MKO members while he had introduced them as the official representatives of the organization abroad a few weeks before. Finally, they published a book entitled “The process of separation” and therein they openly declared their separation from the organization and Rajavi. In this regard, Mohammad Mehdi Jafari states:

As far as I remember, I think in 1981, Mr. Raisi Toosi and his friends detached MKO and even wrote some articles in Keyhan paper disclosing the feats done by the organization and then published a book entitled “The process of separation”. 1

He further refers to ungenerous attitudes of Rajavi in expelling a particular group of three, as they were close comrades of Hanifnejad, from MKO:

The way organization dealt with those three and Reza in particular was very ungenerous. The organization even claimed that he has never been a fighter and that he had been studying in the Europe in years before the victory of the revolution while Reza Raisi Toosi was one of the early founders of MKO. Keyhan paper referred to this issue, too; yet it was denied by Mojahedin officially. Reza and his friends were among those who bravely stood against those members that perverted from Islam in the Europe and issued a long and detailed statement on it. 2

In this regard, Anne singleton, a European member of MKO who had contact with them in the Europe introduces Raisi as follows:

Reza Raisi was one of the close friends of Mohammad Hanif-Nezhad. He had been in close contact with the Mojahedin since its inception and had escaped from Iran when they were being attacked in the early 70s. He took up residence in London, studying a PhD. in politics. Then, about two years before the 1979 revolution, Raisi started an organisation named Committee in Support of the Mojahedin. 3

Jafari also expounds on Rajavi’s mischievous adoption of the same tactics for the removal of other early members of the organization including Meisami and Mohammad Gorgani, who were experienced veterans of the organization and would criticized Rajavi’s totalitarianism and egocentrism:

I was not in prison but I heard the news that the organization had boycotted people like the engineer Meisami and Mohammad Gorgani because they had adopted a clear position toward ideological deviation and drift to Marxism and opposed to “peaceful coexistence” of the rival sides and believed in self-criticism. But the imprisoned rankings like Massoud Rajavi and Musa Khiabani did not concurred with any criticism and moved on their own way although they bragged of observing criticisms. 4

As it was mentioned before, these mechanisms were common in all phases of Rajavi’s hegemony over the organization. Parviz Yaqoubi, one of the earliest members, as well as Saeed Shahsavandi, a member of the organization’s central cadre up to late 1985, are other victims of Rajavi’s inflexibility in his views who were expelled or Rajavi claimed their expulsion despite their voluntary separation from the organization. Anne singleton refers to Parviz Yaqoubi and writes:

Parviz Yaqoubi, a member of the former Central Committee, was in Paris and married to Ashraf Rajavi’s (nee Rabii) sister. He refused to accept the marriage and Ideological Revolution and refused also to keep quiet about his objections. He was put on trial in a court, which Rajavi concocted and headed, and was condemned. He was ‘convicted’ for not taking the side of the revolution, but rather taking the side of Khomeini. Masoud in this court on one occasion refused to accept that Yaqoubi has the normal rights of a court and said this is not a court rather it is a learning session for others to listen and take note. Of course, only selected people were present. Yaqoubi was placed under severe hardship. He was isolated, his financial support from the organisation was cut and he was evicted from his home as an example to others. 5

In fact, the ideological revolution of Rajavi can be considered the final phase of extending his political purges in MKO. Expelling Ali Zarkesh, his trial and sentencing to execution, his exile to Camp Ashraf, and plotting his death in the operation Eternal Light (Forouq-e Javidan) is another instance of Rajavi’s misusing power to eliminate all members who were much more qualified than him. Also, there are a great number of MKO members who were killed after the declaration of the ideological revolution due to their disagreement and criticism. However, their exact number is unknown but a handful of them have been mentioned in Human Rights Watch report or have been referred to by eyewitnesses.

Still much remains untold of methods applied by Rajavi to purge the dissidents as well as the parameters and factors paving the way for him to achieve his egocentric objectives which have to be investigated in depth. It is up to conscience of readers to judge if these cruel acts have been deliberately planed and put into practice or regarded as common errors of Rajavi, something far beyond reality. However, the fact is that according to many early members like Meisami, things could be different if Rajavi had assumed a peaceful mannerism, goodwill, tolerance, and sincerity.

Still there are people who believe Rajavi’s grave errors can be compensated if he will resign and let more qualified people accede to the leadership. It really requires honesty and courage, which Rajavi lacks, to sacrifice oneself for the legitimate causes of a political organization and apologize for the errors made before an authorized court regardless of personal and organizational prejudices.

Resources:

1. Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Jafari’s interview with Seyed Qasem Yahosseini, MKO from inside, Negah-e Emrooz publication, 2002, p.48.

2. ibid, p.78.

3. Singleton, Anne, Saddam’s private army, Iran-Interlink, 2003.

4. Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Jafari’s interview with Seyed Qasem Yahosseini, MKO from inside, Negah-e Emrouz publication, 2002, p.84.

5. Singleton, Anne, Saddam’s private army, Iran-Interlink, 2003.

March 26, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

The intrusive tone of Rajavi’s message

In his message of 26 January 2009, Rajavi once more expressed his delight over the removal of MKO from the EU terrorist list. The message, aside from repeating the cliché discussions as before, is mostly founded on perversion, fabrication, threat, sedition, and denouncement aiming at achieving his totalitarian objectives. A brief look at the main points of this message may reveal more facts about the true nature of the cult of Mojahedin.

1. He is putting the blame of the decision made by Iraqi government and the expulsion of Mojahedin on Iranian government stating “the closure of Ashraf is demanded and dictated by the reactionary, clerical regime and thus illegally unfounded”.

This claim is in fact the most apparent form of MKO’s interference in the internal affairs of Iraq and its legal government and has certain consequences. Rajavi makes an attempt to instigate Iraqi people against their government by introducing it as an illegitimate and illegal organ. He does so to sidetrack his full cooperation with Saddam in oppressing Iraqi people and all his crimes and brutal acts as Saddam’s main supporter and ally. Also, he poses challenge to the independence and sovereignty of Iraq to intensify its internal tensions and sidetrack the attentions from the issue of the expulsion of Mojahedin.

2. Rajavi in his message declares that “I openly announce to be heared: Iranian people and resistance as well as Ashraf Mojaheds never surrender to the dictated will and policy of the religious fascism governing Iran”.

Making these statements in which he has replaced the term Iraqi government with Iranian government, he implies his decision on initiating war against the Iraqi government by gesture. In fact he has no scruples about making an all-out war against the Iraq since he has already made the ground for it by means of intensifying the internal tensions of Iraq as well as making the naively made claim of winning the support of 5.2 million Iraqi people. Undoubtedly, Mojahedin have their most hostile position toward Iraqi government and their present status in Iraq corresponds to that of 1980’s in Iran when they passed a so-called political phase and then entered the phase of armed struggle against Iranian government. All their false claims on taking a tolerant position toward Iranian government were futile. As the facts prove, as soon as Rajavi got the illusion of the possibility of his coming to power in Iran, he initiated an armed struggle the result of which was victimizing his followers in a way that now after three decades has reached a cul-de-sac. The hostile position taking of Mojahedin in a country where they are to receive political asylum well reveals Rajavi’s psychopathic ambitiousness and megalomania.

3. Rajavi quotes Mojgan Parsaee of the possibility of the occurrence of a cultic and human disaster, that is, a general “hunger strike to death”. In fact, it is a warning to Iraqi officials of an imminent war. He also refers to the decision of the EU and tries to use it as a proof on the legitimacy of MKO’s settlement in Iraq. Furthermore, he claims that the name of Mojahedin has never been in the terrorist list of the Security Council. It seems that he has forgotten the recent statement of the White House and Obama on endorsing the terrorist nature of Mojahedin. Now Rajavi has resorted to making a gap between FBI and the US state department as a new trick to pave the way for his misusing the EU decision making.

4. Rajavi in his message states “During invasion to Iraq in March and April 2003, I ordered Mojahedin and NLA warriors to tolerate and fire not against American forces despite their bombardments and firing. It has been approved and signed in a “ceasefire” contract between American forces and MKO/NLA in 15 April, 2003”.

This is the funniest part of Rajavi’s message. As used to, Rajavi petitions in a reverse form. Due to his extreme illusionist and egotistic personality, Rajavi denies his total compulsory surrender to the US forces in 2003 and considers it as a deliberate action. Whether his statement I ordered Mojahedin and NLA warriors to tolerate and fire not against American forces despite their bombardments and firing is the result of his illusion or is part of a new trick is ambiguous. However, it is evident that the claim of the Don Quixote of the third millennium is making the American forces burst into laughter more than anybody else. The only difference between Saddam and Rajavi in the course of coalition forces’ invasion to Iraq is that contrary to his ally, Rajavi and his wife had left Camp Ashraf a long time before. An act that surprised the residents of Camp Ashraf more than others when they found out that their she-guru, Maryam Azdanlu, has left Camp Ashraf for her luxurious residence in France. Rajavi’s pretending to have surrendered to disarmament willingly despite availing military and logistic superiority over coalition forces is mostly insulting for residents of Ashraf who felt the pain of failure and surrender by heart and soul and it comes only from an ill and psychopathic mind or a big charlatan.

5. Simple mindedness and naiveté of Rajavi is well-defined when he claims that Iran can no longer enforce Iraq to expel Mojahedin for their terrorist charges. It aims two objectives. First, leading to passivity and silence of Iraqi officials on the issue of MKO’s remaining in Iraq and second, in case if Iraqi officials insist on their legal decision, Rajavi may grab at international levers to provoke internal tensions of Iraq. However, the statements of Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, Iraqi national security advisor, made a few days after Rajavi’s message on the determination of Iraq to expel Mojahedin awaked Rajavi from his daydreamings. Not only he emphasized on the expulsion of Mojahedin but also asserted that Iraqi judiciary would prosecute 14 high rankings of MKO for their violations of human rights in Iraq. These statements were a telling retort to Rajavi who makes an attempt to stabilize the position of MKO in Iraq by means of fabrication, pressure, and propaganda blitz. Mowaffaq al-Rubaie stated openly that the vote of the EU has no effect on the decision making of Iraq. Also, he informed Mojahedin of Iraq’s conferring with some European countries on determining the destiny of Mojahedin and it proves further the naiveté of Rajavi since it is evident that the EU decision is never considered a must for Iraqi government. Consequently and despite all activities of Rajavi, the main issue of expelling Mojahedin from Iraq is still of effect and pursued legally.

6. Rajavi further maintains that from now on, commuting from and to Camp Ashraf is a legal right of Mojahedin and Iraqi government cannot prevent it. In fact he means that by doing so, the Iraqi government may avoid hatred and anger of Iraqi citizens. It is obvious that Rajavi is openly interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq and tries to escalate tensions. His words are in absolute contradiction with international conventions that puts the responsibility of providing security for political refugees on the country if it has ever granted asylum. Now, it is not clear what Mojahedin have to do with insurgent groups in Iraq and what are the objectives followed by them. However, it is clear that calling a number of these dissidents as Iraqi citizens, or whatever the Iraqi government is the only authorized source to call, aims at intensifying internal tension and disorder. The Iraqi government is well aware of the main objectives of Mojahedin and also its absolute right of controlling those entering and exiting Camp Ashraf.

In a nutshell, the efforts of Rajavi for misusing the war-torn and unstable conditions of Iraq for achieving his objective in keeping his ideological bastion, i.e. Camp Ashraf, are vain. He is well aware that the sole looser in this play is himself and a number of MKO members who are victims of ambitious and egocentric objectives of a cult leader.

(Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, cult leaders)

(Maryam Rajavi directly ordered the massacre of Kurdish people)

(A cult session in Ashraf Camp Iraq – under the protection of Saddam)

(Chemical attack on Halabche, Kurdistan, Iraq)

(British Lord!! Corbett promoting terrorism under the Logo of MKO for the past 25 years)

(In the streets of London with Lord Corbett!!)

(MKO members in European Countries 2003)

March 14, 2009 0 comments

European Union

Europe vs. MKO

Europe vs. MKO: West controversial act in war on terror

Foreign Ministers of EU voted for the removal of MKO from terror list. An act that shows west’s contradictory behavior in its war on terror.

Protection of human rights is going to the opposite way in the West, although MKO is still designated as a terrorist organization by many countries.

EU couldn’t declare a group’s being or not being terrorist by itself, rather a just court should announce such a ruling and determine terrorist designation. In fact, terrorism is an international crime that according to international laws and an international fair court is the only competent tribune for terrorism designation.

It seems that EU didn’t obey Vienna Convention (which is binding for all individuals) and removed the group from terror list in a political act.

MKO has committed numerous crimes worldwide especially in Iran and Iraq and its terrorist designation is perfectly documented based in true facts.

Terrorism evidences in a legal view:

In various concepts of human science and specially politics the determination of a standard is neither possible nor acceptable. Therefore, lack of a standard for terrorism definition, makes it mixed with political or sometimes beneficial interests.

According to the International law commission the below-mentioned issues are considered as terrorist acts:

(i) Any act causing death or grievous bodily harm or loss of liberty to a Head of State, persons exercising the prerogatives of the Head of State, their hereditary or designated successors, the spouse of such persons, or persons charged with public functions or holding public positions when the act is directed against them in their public capacity (A large number of Iranian politic men were assassinated by MKO after the Islamic Revolution)

(ii) Acts calculated to destroy or damage public property or property devoted to a public purpose (So many governmental or non-governmental buildings, buses, cars have been bombed by MKO or damaged in MKO mortar attacks)

(iii) Any act likely to imperil human lives through the creation of a public danger, in particular the seizure of aircraft, the taking of hostages and any form of violence directed against persons who enjoy international protection or diplomatic immunity ( MKO’s violent acts include a large range of attacks, such as their simultaneous attacks to 13 Iranian Embassies all over the world in 1992)

(iv) The manufacture, obtaining, possession or supplying of arms, ammunition, explosives or harmful substances with a view to the commission of a terrorist act.( MKO has formally declared its armed struggle to overthrow the Islamic Republic)

A lot of international conventions, acts, treaties and agreements on the terrorism phenomenon, have been signed. There are numerous international bodies involving in fighting terrorism, having various plans to control such inhumane, immoral acts.

Indeed, the most important motive to cause terrorism is political but the efforts to control terrorism have just had legal aspects.

One can claim that the international laws in this case are only a cover for the political interests of the states to whether support or condemn a terrorist incident.

It should be noted that the war on terror is caught between various paradoxes which gives the superpowers and their agents an opportunity to abuse the current atmosphere.

Evaluation

The EU’s move is violation of the international laws and implies their political benefits.

The EU’s position regarding MKO’s case will bring about heavy damages. It might become a new approach to deal with other terrorist groups.

Values like human rights and freedom are nowadays a tool for implementing political pressure by those who claim to call for freedom.

However, the West does take no position against Israelis who massacre civilians in Gaza, the EU removes MKO from the black list. The file of various crimes committed by MKO against Iranians is achieved on the so-called human rights’ table of the West.

The dual standards of the West considering terrorism and human rights is viewed as funny by the international community.

War on Terror will never be successful unless the superpowers put away their ambitions or reckless political interests. Terrorist acts of evil MKO group might continue in the safe haven of the West.

Islam Abad-Ahmad Farahani – Translated by Nejat Society

March 11, 2009 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Required recruiting tool

Love Bombing & Relationship Control; required recruiting tool

“They flatter you in a way that you don’t even realize they are doing so” says Ann Singleton who has once been an MKO member. She explains the ways the Organization treated her when it needed to recruit her;” they really put BEWARE OF “INSTANT FRIENDS”, REMEMBER TRUE FRIENDS DEVELOP OVER TIME themselves on a pedestal so that when you want to join them you feel special.”

Cults know that if they can control your relationships then they can control you. Whether we like it or not we are all profoundly affected by those around us. When you first go to a cult they will practice "love bombing", where they arrange instant friends for you. It will seem wonderful, how could such a loving group be wrong! But you soon learn that if you ever disagree with them, or ever leave the cult then you will lose all your new "friends". This unspoken threat influences your actions in the cult. Things that normally would have made you complain will pass by silently because you don’t want to be ostracized. Like in an unhealthy relationship love is turned on and off to control.

The same as all cults, MKO bombards the individuals with love and emotion while recruiting them. Mrs. Singleton was so bombed by MKO’s love that she believes :

“They replaced my family, relationship and I rejected all my old values.”

Cults also try to cut you off from your friends and family because they hate others being able to influence you. A mind control cult will seek to maneuver your life so as to maximize your contact with cult members and minimize your contact with people outside the group, especially those who oppose your involvement.

BEWARE OF “INSTANT FRIENDS”, REMEMBER TRUE FRIENDS DEVELOP OVER TIME.

BEWARE OF A GROUP THAT TELLS YOU WHO YOU CAN AND CAN NOT SEE.

Now that the members are cut off from their whole relationships and individuality, the cult of Rajavi practices mind control techniques on them. Ann Singleton says:” I loved the camp and it felt liberating to obey the orders, because you lose all your responsibility over yourself … If the leader has said kill yourself, I would have killed myself.”

Mazda Parsi

Reference: HowCultsWork

Is Iran’s MEK a Threat to the Islamist Regime?

The People’s Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI), more commonly known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (“people’s mujahideen”; MEK), is one of the most organized and controversial Iranian opposition groups. Although it maintains an armed wing—known as the National Liberation Army (NLA)—and numerous front organizations, it derives its greatest strength from the slick lobbying and propaganda machine it operates in the United States and Europe. The MEK also boasts extensive support within U.S. government and policy circles, including many of the most vocal advocates of a U.S. invasion of Iran [1].

The MEK remains on the list of banned terrorist organizations in the United States and European Union (EU). Both parties have indicated no intention of reconsidering their positions. The May 7 decision by the United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal to overrule the British government’s inclusion of the MEK on its list of banned terrorist organizations, however, may pave the way for both the United States and EU to reassess their positions regarding the MEK down the line. Given the MEK’s history of violence and its willingness to act as a proxy force against Iran, such a move would represent a major escalation in hostilities between the United States and Iran, with consequences in Iraq and beyond.

Ideology

The MEK is an obscure organization with a long history of violence and opposition activities. It emerged in the 1960s, composed of college students and leftist intellectuals loyal to Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq; the popular leftist nationalist prime minister was deposed by a U.S.- and U.K.-backed coup in 1953 that restored Mohammad Reza Shah to power. Its revolutionary zeal combined aspects of Marxist and Islamist ideologies in pursuit of its goal to overthrow the U.S.-backed shah through armed resistance and terrorism. Its primary targets in the 1970s included ranking officials and symbols of the shah’s regime, both within and outside of Iran. The regime responded in kind with brutal repression through SAVAK, the shah’s notorious domestic intelligence apparatus. Thousands of members and associates of MEK were killed, tortured and jailed during this period. Consequently, like many Iranians at the time, the MEK viewed the Islamist opposition as a positive force for change. The MEK supported the revolutionary forces and the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy and subsequent hostage crisis led by student activists in Tehran. The group’s unique brand of Marxism and Islamism, however, would bring it into conflict with the rigid Shiite Islamism espoused by the post-revolutionary government. The failure of a June 1981 coup attempt intended to oust Ayatollah Khomeini elicited a massive crackdown by the regime against the MEK, forcing the group’s leaders and thousands of members into exile in Europe. When France ousted operational elements of the group in 1986, many made their way to Iraq, where they joined Saddam Hussein’s war effort against Iran and enjoyed a safe haven [2].

Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, a charismatic husband and wife team that fled into exile in Europe, lead the MEK. From her base in France, Maryam Rajavi currently holds the position of “President-Elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)” after her husband’s disappearance sometime in 2003. He is presumed to be in hiding [3]. The Rajavis enjoy a fanatical cult-like following among MEK members and supporters [4]. The group’s cult-like character was displayed when 16 followers of the Rajavis staged dramatic public acts of self-immolation over a period of three days in June 2003 across major European and Canadian cities. The protests followed the arrest of Maryam Rajavi and 160 of her followers after a French court ruled that the MEK and its numerous front groups constituted a terrorist organization. According to former members of the group, the MEK’s “human torches” are a testament to the stranglehold the Rajavis have over their followers and the extent to which members are brainwashed and manipulated psychologically into blindly following them. The MEK is reported to maintain a list of volunteers ready and willing to perform acts of self-immolation on the orders of the leadership [5]. Like other cults, MEK members are often separated from their children and families and discouraged from maintaining contact with individuals outside of the group. Former members who defected from the MEK describe the Rajavis as autocrats who demand unquestioned loyalty from their followers (pars-iran.com, January 30, 2006).

Women make up a significant contingent of the MEK’s ranks, especially in its armed wing. In addition to its Marxist and Islamist pedigrees, the rise of the Rajavis to the group’s leadership led to the introduction of feminist ideologies into the group’s discourse. This aspect of the MEK’s ideology indicates their attempt to tap into local grievances and international sympathy regarding the position of women in the Islamic Republic [6]. In this regard, the MEK presents itself as a liberal and democratic alternative to the rigid brand of Islamism espoused by the ruling clerics, an image it has cultivated in U.S. and Western policy circles to great effect [7]. The U.K. court based its ruling on the premise that the MEK has renounced violence and terrorism, and that it currently maintains no operational capability to execute future acts of violence.

Violence and Terrorism

The MEK’s long history of violence and terrorism includes the abduction and assassination of ranking Iranian political and military officials under the shah in the 1970s, as well as attacks against the clerical establishment throughout the 1980s. Foreign-based MEK operatives also targeted Iranian embassies abroad in a series of attacks. MEK militants struck diplomatic officials and foreign business interests in Iran under both the shah and the Islamists in an effort to undermine investor confidence and regime stability. Furthermore, the MEK targeted and killed Americans living and working in Iran in the 1970s, namely U.S. military and civilian contractors working on defense-related projects in Tehran (mkowatch.com). The group has never been known to target civilians directly, though its use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties.

In addition, the MEK’s repertoire of operations includes suicide bombings, airline hijackings, ambushes, cross-border raids, RPG attacks, and artillery and tank barrages. Saddam Hussein exploited the MEK’s fervor during the Iran-Iraq war. In addition to providing the group with a sanctuary on Iraqi soil, Saddam supplied the MEK with weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, logistical support, and training at the group’s Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province near the Iranian border and other camps across Iraqi territory. In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991 [8]. MEK members also served alongside Iraq’s internal security forces and assisted in rooting out domestic opponents of the regime and other threats to Baathist rule.

Despite its history of high-profile attacks, the MEK never posed a serious threat to the Iranian regime. The group never enjoyed popular domestic support, despite its claims to the contrary. Many Iranians actively oppose the clerical regime and sympathize with segments of the opposition. At the same time, most Iranians also regard the MEK as traitorous for joining the Iraqi war effort against Iran and resent its use of violence and terrorism against Iranians at home and abroad (mkowatch.com).

Approximately 3,500 members of the MEK remain in Camp Ashraf. Following an agreement with U.S.-led Coalition forces, MEK units allowed Coalition forces to disarm the group. Decommissioned MEK units are currently under surveillance in Camp Ashraf. Their future status, however, remains a point of controversy. Despite their demobilization, Iran believes that the United States is holding on to the group as leverage in any future confrontation with the Islamic Republic (see Terrorism Monitor, February 9, 2006).

Political Activism

Although it has been disarmed, the MEK retains the capacity to remobilize, especially if it gains a state sponsor. Nevertheless, it is the MEK’s lobbying and propaganda machine in the United States and Europe that enables it to remain a relevant force in Middle East politics and a key factor in U.S.-Iranian tensions. The MEK’s political activism falls under the auspices of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)—an MEK political front organization that also serves as an umbrella movement representing various Iranian dissident groups. These efforts persist despite the fact that U.S. authorities ordered NCRI offices in Washington to shut down in 2003 (New York Observer, June 5, 2007).

From Iran’s perspective, the U.S. position on MEK is both ambiguous and at times hypocritical. On the one hand, the MEK remains on the U.S. State Department’s list of banned terrorist organizations, yet the group remains on Iraqi soil, albeit disarmed and under surveillance by Coalition forces. The MEK has cultivated a loyal following among an outspoken network of U.S. politicians, former and active government officials, members of the defense establishment, journalists and academics advocating violent regime change in Tehran. The MEK is even credited in some of these circles for disclosing aspects of the Iranian nuclear program [9]. At the same time, it is accused of fabricating intelligence information to boost its profile in the United States (Asia Times, March 4). With their call for regime change in Iran and pleas for international support, media-savvy MEK representatives based in the United States appear regularly on the cable news show circuit and other forums in Washington, DC in a campaign reminiscent of the one led by Ahmed Chalabi and the network of Iraqi exiles who mustered American support for the Iraq war [10]. The MEK has also gained legitimacy as a liberal and democratic force for positive change in Iran, despite evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion

The MEK will continue to capitalize on the ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran by enlisting the support of elements in Washington seeking a bargaining chip against Tehran. It is important, however, to see this bizarre organization for what it is; that is, to see through the façade of liberalism, democracy and human rights that it purports to represent through its propaganda. The well-documented experiences of scores of former MEK members are reason enough to consider this group and any of its claims with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Notes

1. See “U.S. Policy Options for Iran,” prepared by the Iran Policy Committee (IPC), February 10, 2005 at www.nci.org/05nci/02/IranPolicyCommittee.pdf.

2. For a historical narrative of the MEK’s formative years, see Ervand Abrahamian, The Iranian Mojahidin, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992). For an insider’s perspective on the history of the MEK from a former member, see the website of Massoud Khodabandeh at www.khodabandeh.org/.

3. See “Cult of the Chameleon,” an al-Jazeera documentary on the MEK (broadcast October 17, 2007) at www.iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=3384. For an insider’s perspective on the cult-like character of the MEK, see the website of the Dissociated Members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran at pars-iran.com.

4. For an overview of the events of 2003, including graphic photographs of the acts of self-immolation, see “MKO Human Torches” at www.mojahedin.ws/art_pdfs/MKO-HUMAN-TORCHES.pdf.

5. For an overview of the MEK’s position on women, see Shahin Torabi, “Women in the Cult of Mojahdin,” March 5, 2003 at mojahedin.ws/article/show_en.php?id=653 and Sattar Orangi, “The Strives [sic] for the Freedom of Women,” March 13, 2008 at mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=1601.

6. A. Afshar, “The Positive Force of Terrorism,” October 10, 2006 at mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=842.

7. See “MKO and Massacre of Kurd and Turkmen Iraqis,” April 19, 2006 at pars-iran.com/en/?mod=view&id=664.

By: Chris Zambelis

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4950

March 7, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Deluded Masud Rajavi demands Iraq obey European law

The first sentence of Masoud Rajavi’s message in December, 27th on MKO’s removal from the EU terrorist list referred to his ecstasy of delight for excluding the possibility of Mojahedin’s expulsion from Iraq. He resorted to the point that since the EU has removed MKO from its terrorist list, terrorist accusations of MKO are no longer of any effect and Iraqi government cannot prevent their presence in Iraq due to their terrorist charges. Surprisingly enough, from among all possible positive consequences of the decision made by the EU, this aspect is a priority and of utmost significance for Rajavi. Making a comparison between Rajavi’s new position taking and previous claims on considering MKO’s inclusion in terrorist list as their main barrier to overthrow the Iranian government and also their democratic claims and rejecting the policy of armed struggle reveals an apparent paradox.

Now, the newly made messages of Rajavi suffice to prove their false claims of stopping armed struggle since it is ambiguous that after their removal from terrorist list and their opportunity to pursue their political activities in the west, as repeatedly petitioned by Rajavi when MKO was blacklisted, why Mojahedin insist on staying in Iraq? Is the answer anything other than the fact that Rajavi seeks to misuse the tensions inside Iraq to follow his past strategy of armed struggle to fulfill his never achieved promise of overthrowing the Iranian government? This is a question to be answered by MKO’s western advocators who dared to remove the name of a notorious terrorist group from the EU blacklist.

Rajavi further expounds on his other demands like making all traffics to and from Camp Ashraf smooth and limitless. He has also warned Iraqi government of the point that any measure taken by Iraqi officials in putting bans and limits on MKO as well as their expulsion or relocation may trigger Mojahedin’s severe reaction even up to their sacrifice. His message implies that removing MKO from the EU terrorist list has solved their problems in Iraq as well as the west. However, the fact is that it has nothing to do with the decision made by Iraqi government on their expulsion since part of the blame placed on Mojahedin on the part of Iraqi government is its terrorist nature and activities during the reign of Saddam in Iraq. Evidently, the stance of the EU toward MKO in itself suffices not to recognize the legitimacy of MKO’s remaining in Iraq acquitting them of all terrorist charges.

Furthermore, it has to be noted that despite the EU’s removing MKO from its terrorist list, the US state department issued a statement in an immediate reaction on the terrorist nature of Mojahedin and asserted that there are no evidence or sign of a shift in the policy and position taking of Mojahedin. Obviously, the viewpoint and decision of the US that is present in Iraq and is considered one of the parties involved in the settlement of tensions therein is more authentic than that of the EU. Also many European countries like France, England, Italy, Czech… acknowledge the terrorist nature of MKO despite the decision of the EU and some regard it a hasty decision to be reconsidered. Therefore, the illusion of Rajavi on a shift in the policy taken by Iraq toward MKO has no rationale and is more like a kind of psychological and propaganda war initiated by him and now followed strongly in Mojahedin media.

As it was mentioned, the rationale behind the Iraqi government’s decision on expelling Mojahedin from Iraq is not limited to the terrorist accusations of MKO rather according to Iraqi officials there are many evidences on crimes and cooperative activities of MKO with Saddam against Iraqi people and also their present efforts to misuse the unstable conditions of Iraq to intensify sectarian conflicts and make contacts to Iraqi problematic groups to commit terrorist activities against Iraqi people and neighboring countries. Therefore, Rajavi’s resorting to the vote of the EU is unlikely to solve his problems and Iraqi government recognizes the obligatory settlement of Mojahedin in Iraqi soil contrary to asylum rights and conventions. In addition, whenever a country consent to offer asylum to Mojahedin, their insistence on remaining in Iraq would be of no effect.

Before, it seemed that removing MKO from blacklist would makes the ground for their transferring to a western country to pursue their political activities in security therein yet as it is evident, Rajavi prefers an unquiet and war-torn country to European countries for MKO’s settlement. In addition, according to common sense, if Mojahedin are to force a country to provide them with asylum it should be one of the members of the EU that dared to remove MKO’s terrorist label whereas Rajavi refrains to express the least inclination to do so and ever-increasingly insists on keeping Mojahedin in Iraq. The reason is clear. Rajavi has two major factors in Iraq without which the survival of MKO is unlikely. First, Camp Ashraf as the ideological container of Mojahedin and second, the Iraqi soil as a strategic lever in the hands of Rajavi to follow his struggle of armed struggle against Iran therein. The main challenge posed on Iraqi government as a result of the settlement of Mojahedin in Camp Ashraf is security considerations and the danger posed by Mojahedin for national interests and stabilization of peace and security in Iraq. Mojahedin have also warned Iraqi government that they would resort to group self-immolations in case if Iraqi government consents not to satisfy their demands. In fact, they are threatening Iraqi officials to enforce them to let Mojahedin reside in Camp Ashraf.

The Iraqi government is to be aware that even its least tolerance toward Mojahedin in the present conditions may result in the stabilization of MKO status in its soil and freedom of action therein. Iraq should engage those countries removing MKO from the EU terrorist list in this challenge and ask them to provide asylum for MKO if they have been convinced of the termination of terrorist activities of MKO rather than advocating their residence in a place too far from their soil and people where Mojahedin can pose no danger for their national interests and security considerations.

March 7, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Is Israel next option for MKO?

The People Mujahedin of Iran has a long history of treason and shifting in its belief so the settlement of MKO forces in Israel soil is not an unexpected option. There are many reasons for such a move. As in the cult of Rajavi the goal has always justified the means, the above-mentioned option could be an alternative for MEK remaining forces after their expulsion from Iraq.
Anyone who has studied the MKO’s background would also have found out that in the early years of its foundation, the MKO members were sent to Palestine to receive military training from the Palestinian armed groups such as PLO. Regarding this fact, one many think its too bizarre that the MKO takes refugee in a nation to which they have once been hostile but the truth is that shifting the believes to an opposite one is far from new in the history of MKO cult.
There are so many other examples like these: The very MKO organization that has assassinated American military personnel and civilians in the 1970’s, is now lobbying to gain the American congress support. It’s a common contradiction in MKO that the so-called former imperialism is now their savior.
The similar approach is headed by MKO towards Israel. The main supporters of MKO in the US government including Raymond Tanter are the leading promoters of the Israeli lobby, AIPAC which is the strongest lobby in the American administration and the best option to advocate MEK’s cause in US. Therefore, the former enemy of America and Israel has transferred to an ally that is the enemy of their enemy and so their friend.
MKO claims to have denounced the alleged intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program, and AliReza Jaafarzade uses it as a pretext to advocate MKO support in his shows on FoxNews, but according to various sources their intelligence had basically come from the Israelis and MKO was only a loud speaker! In case of MEK’s expulsion from Iraq and the shut down of Camp Ashraf their new safe heaven could be Israeli since no third country has accepted to grant refugee to the MKO terrorists. However, the serious violation of human rights in Camp Ashraf and the cult-like manipulation practices of MEK leaders would surely end with the defection of a large number of members. After the fall of Saddam many (about 600) members used the very small overture in the gates of Ashraf and escaped out of the bars of the cult. Thus, there won’t be a lot of people to go to the safe heaven of Israel, following the closure of Ashraf, for it will be an opportunity for those who have long been threatened and forced to stay in the cult under the physical and mental pressure of cult leaders.
By Mazda Parsi

March 5, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts