InterView

Rajavi’s interpretation of the holy and foul suicide

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part thirteen

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms. Soltani, in our last session, you mainly focused on theoretic and tenable aspects of suicide operations. Your explanations were nice but it would be much better if you elucidate the practical instances of suicides and self-immolations you have personally witnessed. There are reports of some cases committed for a variety of reasons. I mean how Rajavi reacted to these acts and analyzed them. Your explanations will shed light on ambiguities especially if the names of the victims are mentioned.

Batool Soltani: Well, many of these cases can be found happened within the organization. In many cases Rajavi exclusively referred to some instances as proofs when trying to inoculate his mentalities.

Of course, as I have already pointed out, such discourses were held only in the meetings of the Leadership Council and never leaked out. Bear it in mind that he never intended to compare anything with the opponent side or infer anything from these instances of suicide when referring to them. It was an issue discussed within the organizational sphere and, of course, deductions were generally related to internal relations. The main focus was differentiating between the holy and sinful kinds of suicide with the emphasis on romanticizing the suicide and describing it as a noble act which Rajavi theorized according to his interpretations.

I have to point out that some of these suicides were committed just following these meetings like the suicide done by Mehri Moussavi just as some had been recorded before. Of the significance was his skill in presenting examples that could well help to differentiate between the two, that is to say, the presented standards and motivations, which the ranking members were well aware of, behind these suicides could well help to identify whether it was esteemed a holy suicide for the cause of the leader and interests of the organization or despised a sinful suicide for individual weaknesses, flaws and ambitions. Of the suicides that offended Rajavi and made him erupt furiously to hold consequent lengthy meeting with the members of the Leadership Council was the suicide committed by Kamal Haddadi long after the beginning of these discourses. He was a ranking member of the Central Council and that was the cause for Rajavi to be sensitive about the incident.

A look at the list of the members of the Central Council at the time, dissolved after the initiation of the ideological revolution, indicate that he was a ranking commander deposed of his responsibility after the ideological revolution. The emphasis on him as an officer of high ranking is to know how Rajavi degraded such people when treating them for organizational concerns. Kamal was reported to have established a relation with a woman under his command.

The relation could be any organizationally unauthorized relation regardless of being ideological, emotional, moral or even a love affair. They said it was a love affair and the case was sent to Rajavi and Maryam to be dealt with. At the time Rajavi was stationed in Camp Parsian. Before transferring Kamal to Camp Parsian, Mahvash Sepehri began further investigation of the case and put Kamal in a prison cell called ‘Bangal’, an isolated, solitary confinement where they kept the culpable to be judged. She pressed him with recriminations and accused him of immoral relations with the woman. So harsh and disdainfully she treated Kamal that he could easily anticipate what awaited him before Rajavi. He could tolerate no more and committed suicide in his cell.

At the time, I was a ranking deputy in the Leadership Council and was present in the meetings particularly dealing with such cases. I remember the first words stated by Rajavi concerning Kamal’s suicide. He was much enraged by Kamal’s act and said he threw his corpse on the leadership’s table. I have to point out that Kamal’s suicide was never mentioned among the rank and file who thought he had died of a natural death. But all the members of the Leadership Council knew that he had died of psychological pressures impressed by Sepehri. In the very same meeting, Rajavi appreciated Sepehri and said Kamal deserved to be treated so contemptibly and unworthy way to commit suicide. Rajavi never mentioned anything about ideological deviation that could have affected Kamal because it could raise questions. Kamal was shown to have no ideological problem and that he had chosen his path rightfully; his death had to be looked and analyzed from a different angle to preserve the good image of the organization.

What Rajavi depicted was so easy to perceive. Among the members are those who set themselves on fire for the sake of the organization and leader’s interests; in contrast, some others commit suicide for deviant, immoral causes and threw their corpses on the table before the leader. Then he compared the different motivations behind the two acts. Those who committed suicide for selfish causes not only committed sin but also led the organization to the midst of a big problem hard to deal with. The former suicides solved a problem in the course of accomplishing a holy cause while the latter suicides burdened problems on the shoulder of the leader. People from each group lose their lives on their own but it is the contradictory motives that decides who is blessed or condemned; the former has succeeded to release himself of his own self to become selfless and attach to an ideological source without; the latter is a slave of his own self and is reluctant to discharge introspections in the arranged weekly ablution sessions to clean his inside.

Taking opportunity of Kamal’s case to illustrate intended motives of suicide, Rajavi presupposed that following the US invasion, the destiny of Mojahedin would be vague. We would be dispersed and sent to different parts of the world; a group to Iran, another to France, America or any other place. In that case, could we possibly carry the potentiality of being a mobile bomb ready to detonate to safeguard the interests of the leadership? To ideologically justify the suicide operations, he again referred to Kamal’s case and other similar cases of suicide for personal motivations; one killing himself for sexual impulses, another disappointed, flawed and depressed, and Kamal Haddadi who was in contradiction with himself and failed to appear before other members to confess his sins and purge himself. None of them, he said, had committed suicide for the sake of leader and their attachment to him. No status and value could be so noble as compared to that of setting oneself on fire for the leadership and Maryam.

Although motives for suicide varied, what differentiated between the individual and ideological motives, the former described as a sin in the Quran and the latter romanticized and glorified for organizational causes, was the pivotal point where one’s self met and attached itself with that of the leader who well directed the act onto the right path. It was no more suicide but martyrdom and even exceeded it in value. To give further explanation, he said; consider in this very moment something suddenly threatens my life as your leader. One of you may imagine that the threat is removed if you set yourself on fire. In his opinion, the suicide had committed a sin in risking his life to save the leader because the act was non-ideological and performed under no command by the leader; the suicide was now a foul corpse cast before the leader.

It was one of the instances Rajavi delineated and formulated the ideological suicide that differentiated it with a foul and sinful one; the holy suicide has to be performed only and purely by the permission and the command of the leader, otherwise it will be considered a big sin the ideological motives have spurred it. Thus, it can be concluded that the 17 June self-immolations, in contrast to Maryam Rajavi’s rejection to be instigated by the organization, were organizationally planned and orchestrated and approved by the leadership. None of the volunteers set themselves on fire entirely of their own volition; their acts to be esteemed holy, they had to follow the decree and command of the leadership. Does it mean anything else when they glorified the acts of Neda (Hassani) and Marzeh (Mojaveri), both died of the burning injuries, as holy feats? Their self-immolation before anything indicated the degree of their loyalty and submission to the leadership. These instances along with Rajavi’s ideological interpretation as well as his reference to the Quran as a subterfuge to justify his egocentric ambitions may lead us to the bottom of truth.

To be continued

September 3, 2009 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

Sobhani broaches US ties with Rajavi cult

Sobhani was separated from his daughter and wife for more than eight years.

A former member of the terrorist Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) claims the US turned a blind eye to the terrorist nature of the ‘Rajavi cult’.

Mohammad-Hossein Sobhani, 49, from the central Iranian town of Saveh, came into contact with the MKO two years before the 1979 revolution in Iran, which overthrew the pro-US Iranian monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Five year later, after working in the organization’s administrative and student departments, he was whisked away to Iraq to assume his role”as a unit commander at the training school for urban guerrilla warfare.”

After questioning the organization’s”armed struggle and presence in Iraq”, Sobhani claims he was beaten, tortured and”held in solitary confinement for eight-and-a-half years, from September 1992 to January 2001.”

“The reason why I started to raise my objection was that I believed that the strategies employed by Masoud Rajavi were meant to secure his domination on its members,”Sobhani said in an exclusive interview with Press TV.

The former senior MKO official said Rajavi resorted to”cult-like”practices, including forced divorce and celibacy.

He would separate couples claiming that”such practices would liberate the members”from competing loyalties. Their children were also sent to European countries, Sobhani said.

“Rajavi would justify forced divorces by claiming that these practices would free a member, and pave the way to transform a micro society into a macro one and overthrow the Islamic Republic,”Sobhani said.

During his interview, he also claimed that because”the organization forbids matrimony, for the past 25 years no child has been born to a man and woman inside the organization.”
He said the US had committed a colossal mistake in not dealing with the residents of the MKO training camp in eastern Iraq, known as Camp Ashraf.

The camp, home to 3,400 Iranians loyal to Rajavi, was the base for operations against the Tehran government during the eight-year war as well as operations against Iraqi Kurds and Shias during the 1991 uprising against former dictator Saddam Hussein.

“Rajavi maintained a mercenary-like relationship with Saddam Hossein, after Iraq’s invasion he wanted to forge the same relationship with the Americans so he announced that he was ready to [willingly] lay dawn his arms,”Sobhani explained.

“Although the Americans were fully aware of the fact that the MKO was a terrorist organization, they still cooperated with Rajavi,”he claimed.

Americans in Iran were one of the primary targets of the group throughout the 1970s. They assassinated a number of American citizens, namely William C. Cottrell, Colonel Lewis L. Hawkins, Donald G. Smith, and Colonel Jack Turner inside Iran.

“As a former member of the group, I feel that the Americans have made a grave mistake with regards to the organization. Six years after overthrowing Saddam, the MKO is still brainwashing the residents of Ashraf Camp with the help of the Americans,”Sobhani said.

The MKO was founded in Iran in the 1960s, but its top leadership and members fled the country some twenty years later after carrying out numerous acts of terror inside the country.

The group masterminded a series of assassinations and bombings inside Iran, including the 1981 bombing of the offices of the Islamic Republic Party, in which more than 72 senior Iranian officials were killed, including the then Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti.

Click here to view the video file Download MKO dissident broaches US ties with Rajavi cult

August 27, 2009 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

Weekly sessions, a process to secure obedience to Rajavi

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part twelve

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms, Soltani, you pointed out something interesting concerning the Weekly sessions, a process to secure obedience to Rajavi mechanism of suicide operations and self-immolations, that is, how easily one can carry out these organizationally inculcated operations just by making a liaison with a point out of one’s own self. That is, one overruns his individuality and will for a greater cause crystallized in another person called leader. The logic, regardless of its justifiably luring virtue, does not end here because any thought and attitude can easily justify itself through such a logic. That is true about many adherents of cults who do anything for the guru, preaching right or wrong notwithstanding. Following such logic, any group can claim to be rightfully on the right path and it has nothing to do at all with the nature of the source of liaison. There were people on the side of Yazid (a reference to a historical event when the army of Yazid massacred all forces on the side of Imam Hussein, the third Shi’it imam) who had accepted the leadership of Yazid and fought against Imam Hussein with a gesture of goodwill and for the sake of God. Is it right to say that liaison with a source of leadership justifies a truth? If so, there are many antitheses to discuss. Was there any opportunity to discuss these discrepancies and what were Rajavi’s responses?

Batool Soltani: Indeed there were many controversies and, of course, Rajavi insisted that the members of the Leadership Council take their time to solve any ambiguity and raised question. But his answer to these ambiguities was that first it had to be discovered why people had joined the side of the wrong. He insisted on recognition of what had motivated them to join. There was no question if they had joined for worldly and ambitious causes but it was different if they were fighting on the wrong front for the cause of truth. Then it turned to be a matter of the ideologically polluted system of the opposite front. He mainly focused on the polluted ideology of the followers of the opposite front. He gave example of the operation Eternal Light saying that we would call our killed forces martyrs as did the Islamic Republic and strongly contradicted its claims to be on the right path; he believed that the IR had deceived and misled who had come to confront the rightful Mojahedin’s forces. The IR forces had not erred in attaching themselves to the IR leadership but it was the wrong ideology that had misled them.

SFF: Then it was not totally a matter of ambitions since they too fought for ideological causes and had attached themselves to someone out of their own self.

BS: That is why he would say they had ideologically been misled and anybody following Khomein’s ideology failed to be accounted as our forces who could never be ideologically affiliated with the regime. None of the either sides could possibly agree on the oriented ideology of the opponent, but there were those who walked a middle path and dodged seeing their interests in danger. He would call them compromisers who never walked in a fixed front and changed their position whenever sensed danger from any side. Thos who shunned, for example, committing suicide or self-immolation when it was necessary belonged to this very same group. They are people of ambitions and opportunists who are enslaved by their whims and avarice and infiltrate into both sides to fill their pack and have nothing to do at all with the ideology and the leadership. In fact, he believed, they were attached to nobody but themselves while the real forces adherent to either ideology resisted to the end and never changed their positions.

Those who stood on Rajavi’s side were known to be the true believers of a right ideology while the others on the opposite front were perverted and aberrant. He would adduced the Quran as his proof for his theory and would say the Quran classifies people into four groups; the righteous, the martyrs, the faithful and the prophets. Nothing was to be told about the last group that was an exception. One way to recognize the sincere who assented to commit suicide operations was to see his frequent attendances of weekly hold sessions of ablution and confession*. It was the recognized boundary between the true ideological believers and the opportunists. It was Rajavi’s instructions preached in the meetings of the members of the Leadership Council and insisted that those who refused and dodged to attend weekly sessions of cleansing and confession would certainly stop midway in the path of struggle while others, who attended sessions, continued to the end.

These instructions were all included in the especial book prepared by himself for the members of the Leadership Council who had to attend weekly sessions as well to prove their sincerity. He would call the weekly ablutions a ‘great crusade’ through which one could unite his within with without and dared to outpour all counter-values that hindered when the time came to sacrifice to defend the leader and his interests. These were the faithful who had even outstripped the martyrs, that is what he believed in. There were sympathizers who came to take part in the demonstrations and would donate sums of money to help but never risked their life in practical struggle. They were the righteous but still lagged far behind the martyrs. Unlike them, the faithful risked their life anywhere in the world just to defend and safeguard the interests of the leadership by setting themselves on fire. They outshined the martyrs.

Now, what was the touchstone to distinguish them? They could be recognized in the frequency of taking part in the weekly sessions of ablution and who cleaned their selves by pouring out what was passing within them; their personal penchants, lust, insincere tendencies, and whatever hindered them to be unified with Rajavi. The ones that merged with Rajavi made no attempt to conceal anything from him and if they had to, it was a matter of submission to his order. Nothing could come between them and the leader and they had fused into one. No doubt, such devoted people never disappointed their leader when the time came to commit suicide and set themselves on fire. Thus, this is an answer to existing contradiction within Rajavi’s system. But I can give more details to resolve these contradictions. I think Rajavi followed a model that he had theorized in its most extreme form.

At times in inter-organizational relations and meetings, Rajavi would decry the idea of being touched by Khomeini. He meant that we should not do things to be afraid of being condemned of following the models and ideological guidelines of Ayatollah Khomeini. But then it changed. Rajavi resolved that his relation with the members and sympathizers had to be set on such pattern that was further explained in a speech by Mehdi Abrishamchi. What he said in general was that the organization should have no reluctance in abandoning fears of condemnation and following a pattern in its struggle to topple the regime. The best pattern at hand he recommended to adhere to and practice within the organization was Ayatollah Khomein’s relation with his followers, mainly founded on people’s compliance with him. Of course, they disregarded his charismatic influence on his followers that goes far beyond ordinary logic or self-interest and since Rajavi failed to understand and explain such devotional relationship, he tried to interpret it within the terms like detachment from the self and attaching to a source without; that is, the members have to be completely devoted to their leader and prepared to do anything he commands- even kill others, or themselves.

The more the time passed, the more he was obsessed with plans to become a magnet to draw devoted members and insisted to exactly, even if forcibly, accomplish the pattern he was holding onto. He was merging the principle of guidance with its authoritative aspects and opportunism to create a holy man of himself called the ideological leader. He dissolved all those assemblies and bodies whose role was to supervise the leadership and became the egocentric leader and center of all decision makings and identical to nobody in the modern world; a morally, ideologically and politically infallible leader who was even exceeding the pattern he had chosen. Thus, he became a leader from whom even the ideology drew its legitimacy.

To be continued

*. According to a recently published official report by RAND, the MeK holds daily, weekly, and monthly “sessions” that involve forced public confessions aimed at expelling deviant thoughts and behaviors that are believed to undermine group coherence. MeK members are required to keep daily records of their thoughts and nighttime dreams, particularly sexual thoughts and desires (which are, of course, forbidden), as well as observations about their fellow members. They must submit their journals to their supervisors. During large meetings, members often are forced to read their reports aloud and to make self-critical statements. MeK members are often required to admit to sexual thoughts.

August 24, 2009 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi’s leadership, the criterion to legitimize the ideology

Sahar Family Foundation: We continue with the question, in all aspects of the discussed suicide operations, what were the ideological foundations and historical backgrounds that theorized and justified application of such operations? Were there any reliable historical facts to refer to or Rajavi relied only on his own inferences to justify such deeds? As Rajavi usually theorizes anything before putting it into action, it has to be necessarily true in this case as well. I believe these are key issues, hardly discussed in detail, to help develop a better understanding of such reprehensibly ideological mannerism. So I think you can better disclose untold aspects since you have been so close to the nucleus of decision makings.

Batool Soltani: Naturally, as they stated, anything was founded on and done according to a series of presented justifications. That is to say, any resolution had to be justifiably fitted in an ideological apparatus to be practically conceivable. I myself believe that we cannot possibly develop an understanding of the mechanisms that are products of an egocentric will, and in many cases self-instigated, unless we can well analyze fundamental principles. Concerning your question, I will give some details of what I have observed in the different levels and in the level of the Leadership Council in particular.

Regardless of many subjects already discussed, once in 2002 we had a long discourse on the subject you broached. I have to point out that there was a especial book of the Leadership Council wherein you could find the questions, duties and responsibilities of the members of the Leadership Council. Particularly, an article exclusively concerned the subject. Of course, the book was only circulating among the members of the Leadership Council and none of the lower ranks were permitted to touch it. It was exclusively edited for the members of the Leadership Council and would be also referred to as “the Book of Guidance”. The book contained extended degrees of responsibilities as well as the limitations and whatever was considered to be an act of sin. In one of the meetings of the Leadership Council it was enthusiastically debated about the mentioned subject and the historical backgrounds of the suicide operation. In his speech Rajavi underlined that the act of suicide in itself was a big sin and homicide in Islamic teachings. He would say if according to Quran suicide was known to be a big sin then, why we were stressing on suicide and related operations as a working approach. Of course, it was before the widespread self-immolations of June 17.

He would continue focusing on the point that while it was a big sin then, why we took advantage of it for organizational interests and to defend Ashraf. In answer to his own raised question some stood to justify that the suicides were ideologically rooted and done for organizational and revolutionary interests that eventually benefitted masses. He taunted them all about whatever they thought to be serious remarks. He explained that it was all beyond our understanding since we lacked the sound political-ideological capacity needed to reach the accurate answer. The rationalized answer to his own posed question was that in all the wars and battles to which the prophets and imams dispatched their disciples to and also the armed struggle the organization was engaged in some people were inevitably killed. Then, was there any difference between the former warriors called martyrs and the latter combatants killed in the course of suicide operations? Both of the groups he explained to be of help to their leaders to carry out their responsibilities to affect their societies and the revolution they led. He meant that there was no difference between the two groups since both were killed in a battlefront to which they had been dispatched by the order of leaders who intended to accomplish the same cause.

Giving further explanations, he focused on Ahmed Rezai’s suicide act as a sacred feat beyond any regular suicide operation saying his act was sacred and distinguished because he, as the suicide-man, had reached a point where he had detached from his own self and had attached himself to a source without. Any act in any form, being suicide, self-immolation or else, done when the suicide detaches himself from his within and relies on a pivot without not only distances himself from any territory of sin but also transcends himself to a status even above the martyrs. He would interpret that the Quran regards suicide an act of sin because the perpetrator does it in the sphere of observing only his own self and as a result of failing to satiate his own personal will and whim. Then, it would be considered no sin if committed far from selfish tendencies and for a sacred causes to achieve some social and historical ends.

The Quran condemns suicide when motivated by individual urges and the suicide sees no obligation to follow the orders of a leader who intends to alleviate social problems and solve social controversies. It is no more a sin as it relies on and is guided by a pivotal element without who controls deflection when attached to. In fact, Rajavi was commenting on the application of one of the articles of his forced ideological revolution referred to as article F, Fardiyat (individual). The article in particular asserts the relation between the individuals and the leader meaning that it is the leader who legitimizes anything said or done by the individuals. He is the pivot on whom the individuals have to relay and attach themselves for interpretation of anything that happens to be practical and the criterion to assess the accuracy and soundness of thoughts.
SFF: What did Rajavi actually mean, attachment to leadership or ideology? Since it is the ideology, however, that crystallizes the values than the leader whose main role is to interpret and foster them. What did he really mean?

BS: He exactly intended attachment to leadership himself. There were controversies at the beginning on the ideological aspect and some would say that suicide draw its legitimacy from the ideology while Rajavi had a different opinion stressing on the leader as the matrix to which the individual had to secure a liaison. Although it may generally be considered the very same ideology, Rajavi believes that it is the leader who is the spirit without whom anything lacks legitimacy. It is main cause of his strife with the Islamic Republic regime. Attachment to ideology in his opinion is a general perception that actualizes by attaching to the leadership. Then, the matrix one attaches himself to far from his own self is the leader rather than the ideology since from the very beginning the leader has crystallized the ideology itself. As a matter of fact, both are regarded identical with the priority of the former over the latter to justify suicide tantamount to a de facto recognition of a sacred act wherever and whenever the leader wills. Looking it from the angle of Rajavi’s interpretation, the leader is the criterion and the grounds to judge what is lawful, permissible, prohibited and ideologically acceptable. That is where one’s suicide turns to be a big and unforgivable sin if it is unauthorized by the leader regardless of him being directly or indirectly attached.

SFF: What do you mean by directly or indirectly?

BS: By directly I mean a reaction against any direct attempt on the leader’s life when an individual risks his life to save the leader. Any reaction to protect the interests of the leader anywhere on the earth by risking one’s life is an indication of indirect attachment, a responsibility the individuals claim to defend the leadership, his security and interests. In both cases, whether the leader is exposed to direct attempts of assassination or indirect character assassination, one has to protect and defend the leadership and sacrifice himself. To actualize his justifications, he did not even shrink from identifying himself with the prophets and imams. He would say the one who sacrificed himself to protect the Prophet against the harms of the adversaries was identical with the same faithful follower who committed suicide or self-immolation away in the distance to defend his status and interests. Again the criterion was the leadership and his unlimited protection directly or indirectly.
I believe that Rajavi intended to completely remove the doubts formed in the minds of the members of the Leadership Council that suicide was in no way an act of sin and even sacred and glorified if it was committed under the command of the leadership in any form. The suicide who sacrificed himself for the cause of the leadership and his interests anywhere in the world would be rewarded far beyond that of a martyr who had been killed under the command of the Prophet or the leader of the organization.

SFF: At the first look, it seems that the priority is first to guarantee maintenance of the leadership’s interests and then survival of the organization. Can it be the basis for all justifications?

BS: Of course, in one aspect that is to guarantee the interests of both leadership and the organization. But there is one important point to notice, that is, the two are intermingled and inseparable with the priority of the former. The organizational interests can never be discussed separately unless accredited to the leader just as it is with the ideology that draws its legitimacy from the leadership.

To be continued
Translated by Mojahedin.ws

August 22, 2009 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

Execution, the approach to repel dissenters

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part ten

Sahar Family Foundation: since the deployment of the American forces in the region and even before that the serious agenda before the organization has been the resistance of Camp Ashraf. That why it is of such significance for the organization is another issue to deal with. But the question here is implementation of the means, explicitly suicide operations, to defend Ashraf as the strategic bastion. That is the fact we have already talked about when referring to human tragedy and human shield, the members’ risking their life in defense of Ashraf. Rajavi has reiterated that ‘if Ashraf resist, the whole world resist’, in fact, such mottos show clear dispositions of the leadership and other rankings towards Ashraf for its strategic importance. Will you give further details on anything untold concerning this issue and even what approaches did Rajavi take to deal with those members who would resist against plotted suicides in defense of Ashraf?

Execution, the approach to repel dissenters Batool Soltani: well, here are a nexus of issues that can be discussed separately. One is the vow to defend Ashraf through any possible means. First it was resolved to fight in defense of Ashraf tooth and nail but circumstances proved to be more serious and they had to think of a different approach to resist, that is to say, human shield. Once they resolved on urgent transfer of the cadres of the Leadership Council from Iraq to France and they even provided passports for high rankings to get them out of Iraq. In 2003, Massoud Rajavi, the beating heart of the organization, made a call insisting that Auvers-sur-Oise, Maryam’s residence, was the brain of the organization while Ashraf was naturally the heart; the brain would naturally collapse if the heart’s beating declined, and it is a question of how the brain and heart interrelate.

You know, after the fall of Saddam, the organization concentrated all its propaganda capacity on Auvers-sur-Oise to present it, along with Maryam, as the organization’s headquarters of the political leadership in the West. They began to maneuver on Maryam as a political engine there just after experiencing the failed tactic of electing her as the president-elect. Just after her sham election, she was sent to France to play her role there but it proved to be a big failure and she was returned to Camp Ashraf to be conveyed back right before the fall of Saddam. A new round of propagation began since they were of the opinion that now,

After the political fluctuations in the region, the West would have a differently positive opinion of Mojahedin. They targeted two aims simultaneously; to stabilize their political bastion in the West by attracting attentions to Auvers-sur-Oise, and second, to continue an increasing protection in favor of Camp Ashraf for two reasons. First, it has been regarded the organization’s ideological receptacle that has the potentiality of rendering members’ ideological readiness.

Second, it is observed to be a potential armed force just within the reach of the coalition forces to be used against Iran if they had any plan. The organization’s analysis of the regional crises had convinced it that American’s military interference against Iran was decisively inevitable and was planning to fan the fire to accelerate what it imagined had to happen sooner or later. Thus it was all conditioned on the preservation of Ashraf as a future lever for America against Iran that could possibly lead to Mojahedin’s seizing of power, the key issue on the back burner that required the organization to be disarmed but remain under the protection of a second patron and to unwillingly consent to the wills of the Iraqi government until the due time came. So Ashraf had to be preserved to invest the organization with a promising future. After the 17 June tragic incidents, Massoud Rajavi insisted on a new role play for the Leadership Council, the human shield to defend Ashraf. It was just coincident with Rajavi’s two-year pledge that ended with Bush’s presidency.

Rajavi knew well that out of Iraq would be the end of road for the organization and insisted on staying in Iraq at any cost in hope of a miracle that could open the gate to drive through into Iran. In an earlier analysis he had stated that the organization’s permanent stay in Iraq meant destruction of the organization in whole; it was only a short stay to move to Iran. But now there was another analysis that contradicted the previous; to leave Iraq was equal to complete annihilation. The sole solution was to preserve Ashraf; they could either wait to fish in the troubled waters of intensified crises in the region or all would be buried in Camp Ashraf. The approach for the latter choice was a mass suicide. But then they conjectured that there could be other solutions as well. On was based on the promise that because of the Geneva’s fourth article they could not be forcefully repatriated. Then they draw a picture that they would fight tooth and nail if there was any plan to relocate them forcefully.

The last proposed resolution was a mass suicide; two deaths were the outcome of this decision. A number of members dispersed after the invasion of the coalition forces were returning to the camp when en route they were informed of the camp’s siege by American forces. Two members the Leadership Council, Marzieh Ali-ahmadi and Nazhat Arzbeigi, immediately set themselves on fire to execute their organizational duty. In fact, they carried out the mission Rajavi had assigned members to do in case American forces occupied the camp. On two conditions members were told to commit mass suicide; the incursion of either Americans or Iraqi Shi’its into the camp. Just when Americans were behind the wall of Ashraf, many members the Leadership Council were preparing to commit suicide. Rajavi had even issued an ultimate for the disobedient who refrained to commit suicide, it was revolutionary execution. No doubt, no outsider could draw any distinction between a voluntary suicide and revolutionary execution following a mass suicide. Rajavi has thought of slightest details concerning his mass suicide program at Ashraf; nobody has to be survived, the willing and the unwilling have to be burn together.

Notably, there were other deterrent decrees issued by Rajavi in private and in a meeting of higher echelons; the lower echelons were unaware of the decrees. The escapees had to be targeted and executed by others; it was the same fate that befell the disloyal and betrayers. The deserters for the opposite front would also face the same destiny. Interestingly, if anybody failed to commit suicide, others had the responsibility to help him/her accomplish the job. Thus, the human tragedy in defense of Ashraf is a program that has to be possibly brought into actuality and there are a variety of approaches that will act to remove deterrents.

August 16, 2009 0 comment

Iraq

Iraqi government bound to expel MKO

The Iraqi government is legally bound to expel Mojahedin Khalq Organization members from the country, the political advisor to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq Chairman Seyyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, said.

There are two reasons why MKO group cannot stay in Iraq: from the legal point of view these persons are terrorists and the Iraqi government does not have the right to let them stay in Iraq, and the political reason is that the MKO members have perpetrated criminal acts against the Iraqi nation, Mohsen Hakim told the Mehr News Agency on Tuesday.

The MKO began a campaign of assassinations and bombings in Iran shortly after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

The group moved to Iraq in the early 1980s and it fought Iran from there until the United States invaded in 2003 and until recently the MKO members were guarded by U.S. troops in their base of Camp Ashraf, northeast of Baghdad.

Hakim also said that the Iraqi government has changed Camp Ashraf’s name to Camp of New Iraq.

On July 29 Iraqi security forces stormed Camp of New Iraq that housed MKO and took control of it.

Not only is it the legal right of the Iraqi government but it is the government’s duty to exercise sovereignty over its territory, he explained.

Mohsen Hakim said Iraqi forces were in charge of the camp according to a security deal between the U.S. and Iraq but when the Iraqi forces entered the camp to set up checkpoints they were violently attacked by the group.

“The Iraqi government and nation condemn such actions and will never tolerate the presence of these terrorists in their territory,” he added.

Except for 98 MKO members who have been blacklisted by Iran, the Islamic Republic has declared an amnesty for other members and said they can return to Iran just like 500 members of the group did in the recent years, he added.

Commenting on reports that the senior MKO members have said they will not leave the Iraqi soil, he said the MKO members are neither Iraqi citizens nor defectors, and the Iraqi government will never grant them asylum because they are terrorists, Hakim stated.

The executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein used the heavily armed group during his decade-long war with Iran in the 80s, and it also played a role in Saddam”s bloody suppression of Shia and Kurdish uprisings after the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

The MKO was founded in Iran in the 1960s, but its top leadership and members fled the country in the 1980s after carrying out a series of assassinations and bombings inside the country.
The group is especially notorious in Iran because they allied with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

The United States, Canada, Iraq, and Iran have all designated the MKO as a terrorist organization.

The European Union had also designated the MKO as a terrorist organization but inexplicably removed it from the EU terror list in January 2009.

August 15, 2009 0 comment

MEK Camp Ashraf

Police general, analyst discuss Iraqi takeover of camp Ashraf

Iraqi government-controlled Al-Iraqiyah TV, at 1910 gmt on 29 July carries a new episode of its "Al-Iraqiyah and the Event" talk show featuring a live 41-minute discussion, moderated by Nusayr Lazim and hosting, in the studio, Major General Abd-al-Husayn al-Shammari, chief of police in the Diyala Governorate; and Dr Adnan al-Sarraj, director of the Iraqi Centre for Media Development, on the legitimacy or otherwise of the presence of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) on Iraqi territory and the Iraqi military operation at Camp Ashraf, home to the MKO followers, to impose Iraqi forces control over the camp.

Introducing the discussion, Lazim gives a brief history of the MKO, saying that the Iraqi government had discovered that the existence of this organization on Iraqi territory is illegal "because this presence contravenes article 7 of the Iraqi constitution, which stipulates that the state shall be committed to fighting all forms of terrorism and preventing the Iraqi territory from being a launch pad, a passageway, or an arena for terrorist activities." He says "the government had decided not to use force to evict them but to encourage them to leave Iraq for any other country that grants them asylum or to return to Iran voluntarily."

Lazim begins the discussion by asking General al-Shammari "when negotiations began to enter Camp Ashraf and impose Iraqi control," he replies: "After the Cabinet’s decision No 216 of 16 June 2008, a committee was formed under Dr Muwaffaq al-Rubay’i and a number of representatives of the security ministries and it decided to establish contacts with the residents of Camp Ashraf." General al-Shammari notes that a number of meetings and conferences have been held since then, and they continue to be held. He notes that given the fact that the organization is considered a terrorist organization, it was decided that it would be considered a political organization and must leave Iraq, "but not by force or by violating human rights but by understanding and dialogue and based on human rights, even though the MKO members are not considered political refugees." He adds: "International organizations, such as the UN High Commission for Refugees, declined to visit the camp because it is of a military nature."

Asked if there were "direct negotiations" with the leaders in the camp, he says the negotiations were direct and were held at Camp Ashraf, noting that the talks took normal course, adding that the camp was searched for weapons and the camp’s population was counted. He adds that the Human Rights Ministry was involved and special forms were distributed to the inmates to fill, indicating whether they wanted to return to Iran or to go to a European state. They were asked who wanted to leave the camp, "which is considered a prison." Asked about the "third option," allowing them to stay on Iraqi territory, General al-Shammari replies that this option was "introduced later on."

He says that many meetings were held with them "but they presented impossible demands, as though this land belongs to them, subjecting it to haggling." He adds: "They claimed that the government wanted to force them out of the camp, that it did not treat them as human beings." He says the US forces representatives attended all meetings with the representatives of the camp. Asked if the US forces were active participants in the talks or only observers, he says: "At the beginning they supported, sponsored, and defended them based on the principles of human rights and freedom, telling us: You are a new state and should behave in different way. They forgot that they themselves considered this organization a terrorist organization in 1997."

General al-Shammari says: "Thus, after 30 June, a decision was made that they must leave or they have to be moved to another place," and adds: "There was a proposal to send them to other places in Iraq, because this place is really unsafe to them. If they come under Iranian aerial bombardment or missiles we will not be able to protect them."

He says the Iraqis considered that this is an Iraqi territory and the facilities on the camp are Iraqi property and must be managed by the Iraqis. He says that state employees started to send water into the camp and a healthcare centre was opened.

Turning to Dr al-Sarraj, Lazim asks him if he agrees that they should leave Iraq based on international law, he says: "The MKO is a terrorist organization, and this was reaffirmed by the Iraqi Governing Council, which obligated the MKO to leave Iraq and hand over their weapons and all their facilities that are on Iraqi territory, and this decision was binding on all successive Iraqi governments. However, the national unity government under Mr Nuri al-Maliki, who is the supreme commander of the Armed Forces, wanted to resolve the Camp Ashraf issue as soon as possible. It issued a number of decisions demanding that the organization either leave or find refugee in other countries and outside the Iraqi borders." He says the organization has a "long history" of deplorable and "heinous" deeds. He says that MKO has been described as a "terrorist organization since the 1980s." He says it supported Saddam and helped him quell the Sha’ban uprising in 1991.

He says that the Iraqi government cannot tolerate the existence of such an organization on its soil, adding that MKO members are trained on most modern weapons, combat operations, guerrilla warfare, and the use of explosives, and they can act as human bombs, noting that there are 3,500 of them in this camp.

Lazim then asks General al-Shammari to give a briefing on the negotiations that were held on this issue from 30 June to 28 July. General al-Shammari says that the area of the camp is about 48 square kilometres, of which 180 donums [ 0.18 square kilometres] is arable land, which they have been "usurping for the past 23 years." He says the Army was responsible for the area around the camp and the police was responsible for the internal area. He adds: "When negotiations began, they agreed to let the Army be deployed outside but they prevented the police from entering the camp. We were negotiating with them and we, the police, wanted to protect and serve them and provide security for them because the US forces left all the towns." He says "it took three meetings of negotiations to allow us to enter a building inside the camp, which is on Iraqi territory." He says a decision was made ordering "the police to enter the camp and establish a police station."

General al-Shammari says that the inmates of the camp prevented the establishment of the station and the raising of the Iraqi flag. He adds: "Then we held further negotiations and a decision was made that the police force must go inside, basically to protect them." He says after two hours of talks, they rejected the demand of the police forces to enter and open a police station. He adds: "Thus, our command told us to open the gates. We drew up a plan and wanted to go in peacefully but we found thousands – there are 3,428 inside – confronting us." He says they placed obstacles on the gates from which we might enter, noting that some were armed with sticks, some with knives, and some even with swords.

General al-Shammari says: "The police force was composed of two squads of a mechanized regiment – there were only nine Hummers," adding that about 325 entered the camp and "we faced stiff and sustained resistance, and you know they are experienced in terrorist operations." Al-Shammari says: "We were forced to enter the camp, occupy our target, raise the Iraqi flag, and open the police station. We sustained losses, including the injury of six of our best officers and 66 other personnel. We had been instructed to adhere to human rights principles and to avoid any friction or clashes with them. However, they staged a stiff attack and they wanted to jump over the wall, and indeed some of them crossed the wall and arrived at us, and we were positioned 200 meters from the wall. Some of them wanted to do something to us but we arrested them. We now have 33 detainees."

Lazim says that the media blew what happened out of proportion and described the operation as a "grinding battle." He asks Al-Sarraj to comment on media reports. Al-Sarraj says the MKO is known for its cunning in using the media and exploiting its international relations, and has always exploited the media to achieve its purposes. He says that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has failed to provide a full report on Camp Ashraf, noting that not a single international organization has reported that the camp had been exposed to Iraqi violations, noting that "the MKO has tried time and again to give the impression that the Iraqis are oppressing them," and adds: "They are continuing to do that. Look at these dramatic actions that they have taken, such as confronting the police and carrying sticks." He says "they give the impression to the world that an annihilation campaign has been launched, even though the security forces did not fire a single bullet."

He says Iraq is always wronged and adds: "There are agendas against the political process in Iraq and there are states that have not yet made a decision to recognize the political process in Iraq."

Lazim asks General al-Shammari if it is true that some of the inmates of the camp were killed and that 350 were injured, he replies: "We have no information on how many were injured. We heard this on the media. We informed our men to avoid any friction." He says: "Our police and army personnel responded only in self-defence because the occupants of the camp were reckless and terrorists, prepared to burn themselves or throw themselves into our vehicles." He says the Iraqi police and army were surprised by their resistance, "because we had wanted to open a police centre on Iraqi territory and raise the Iraqi flag, in order to protect them, and apparently they were not convinced." He adds that the security forces received instructions from the prime minister and Dr Ali al-Yasir, to remove the magazines of our weapons to avoid any possible impulsive action by any policeman or soldier in case there were provocations."

General al-Shammari says that the police had not been certain about the existence of weapons inside the camp, and adds that "when we entered they put up an excellent military plan to prevent us," adding that they expected us from a certain gate but we move in from another direction. There have been no human rights violations. He adds: "We heard on the media yesterday that two of them died. Our own physician in the health centre inside the camp, Dr Ammar I believe, said that no dead bodies were brought to him. We told him to ask them to give us the names of the dead so we can prepare death certificates for them." He adds: "They refused to give names and we are not certain that there were fatalities among them." Al-Shammari says: "If there were fatalities, I would expect that it was one of their ploys. I remember that in the past they planned to kill a woman in order to tell the media that the Iraqi forces killed her. They are adept at such ploys. We did not use weapons and the Army did not use weapons."

He says the inmates of the camp used "stun grenades, smoke bombs, and burned tires and threw them in front of the police." And adds: "They used chlorine and we had three casualties and they are in hospital, cases of poisoning."

Asked if he thinks that a solution to this problem exists, Al-Sarraj say that some of the inmates, 22 of them, returned to Iran through the ICRC and were pardoned and the Iraqi government received a report that they were living a normal life without any harassment." He says MKO leader Rajavi’s "terms to Iran" prove that "she has lost the battle." Asked if they are going to leave, he says: "They will not leave easily because there are international measures to be taken. They want guarantees and Rajavi’s letter mentioned guarantees from the United Nations, the ICRC, the Iraqi government, and the US government."

Al-Sarraj is asked if Iraq will wait until Iran accepts Rajavi’s terms, he replies: "No, I think the problem will be resolved over the next few months. I believe that the Iranians are serious in receiving them but they themselves are not serious. This is one of their ploys. They want world nations to accept them as political refugees." He says not all of these people support the MKO, adding that "half of them are under the influence of the other half." He says: "For Iraq, this is neither a military nor a political problem. This is a terrorist organization and it is over politically. Militarily, the Iraqi army is capable of overcoming them."

In conclusion, General al-Shammari is asked who he thinks is controlling the Camp Ashraf now. He asserts that "Camp Ashraf is under the supervision of the Iraqi security forces." He denies that the inmates are oppressed by the Iraqi forces, and adds: "They have no other option except to ask for asylum or leave for Iran, benefiting from the amnesty decision, and we are resolved to solve this problem because it causes trouble to the Iraqis and has political and economic consequences." General al-Shammari adds: "At 1500 today, the Diyala Operations Commander and his delegation started another round of negotiations with them – they refused to negotiate at the beginning – and the negotiations continued until 1700 and they are still recalcitrant and refusing to yield." He says "God willing, this will eventually prove to be a very simple problem."
Al-Iraqiyah TV, Baghdad, in Arabic – Translated by: BBC Monitoring Middle East

August 8, 2009 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi; set your body on fire to defend Ashraf

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part nine

Sahar Family Foundation: In our last talk you pointed out that the prerequisite for membership in Rajavi; set your body on fire to defend Ashraf the organization is to volunteer for self-immolation. Does it mean that the organization reacts against the reluctant and how does it deal with such instances?

Batool Soltani: The organization takes no clear position to directly confront in such instances. To answer the question, we need to conduct a deep analysis of a whole organizational reaction against already confronted cases. There was a female colleague who had refused to volunteer for self-immolation but the organization showed no antagonistic attitude towards her before others. It was not the end of the story and the organization commanded me to watch her closely since they believed that she was in trouble with herself and cared not the least for the organization. They would justify that now even ten days after the detention of Maryam in France, she had refrained to be an abstentious volunteer. In fact, the organization avoided to tackle with these members just before the eyes of others and pretended to overlook them. In this way, many others would be impressed to join the side of majority since the impartiality proved to be a working propaganda to attract more than to repel. Furthermore, nobody could accuse the organization of coercing members into acts of suicide and the acts would be propagated as personal outbursts of passion and consequent of strong devotion to the ideology, Maryam and Massoud. The process of indirect control of the disobedient would continue until through an excuse they would be seriously censured. There were some among the rankings of the Leadership Council who refused to volunteer for suicide operations but after a while were suddenly evanesced from the council. In my opinion, the use of clever mechanisms of control to undermine the dissidents functioned much better than exploiting levers of pressure and coercion. And so far it has succeeded to expand glorification of suicide operation as a token of devotion among the insiders.

SFF: You have already stated that self-immolation as a kind of suicide operation has been innovated by the organization. Can you say exactly when the organization selected it as a working lever, and who was the first to suggest it and for what reason?

BS: Well, I have already explained that the suicide operation is not new but was innate in An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations organization from its very formation.

SFF: I mean in its novel form of self-immolation.

BS: Well, it was first conducted to be committed in 17 June operations. We have never witnessed it before.
SFF: To make it more clear, when it was first suggested as a solution and by whom?

BS: It returns to Massoud Rajavi’s last meeting in Camp Ahraf before the fall of Saddam. It was a well known meeting called ‘the meeting of flag’. Of course, the issue was not explicitly mentioned there but it was later discussed in a meeting of the Leadership Council that what should have to be done to defend if Saddam collapsed and Camp Ashraf came under unexpected threat from the outside. For the first time Massoud suggested self-burning as a defensive advantage to safeguard Ashraf. He frankly stated that to repel any threat intended to dismantle Camp Ashraf all had to sacrifice and set themselves on fire. Of course, at the time the organization was not suffering the deteriorating condition of being disarmed and it was still equipped with a variety of heavy and light weapons that could defend itself to some extent. But it seemed that Rajavi was anticipating a near future of invasion that could seriously challenge the organization before it could use its arms. So the best defensive measure was resolved by Rajavi to be suicide through self-immolation. We never saw Massoud again till the manifestation of his novel suggestion in the incidents of 17 June.

SFF: To remind you, I have to point out that the issue of self-immolation emerged for the first time in the letters of the members who wrote them to Massoud Rajavi following his ideological revolution as an indication of devotion to him and his revolution. I remember a letter in Jafarzadeh’s handwriting published by a website in which he had volunteered to commit self-immolation to show his loyalty. These letters date back to 1985 and I mean to say that the issue was first proposed at that time as the letters indicate. Furthermore, even when France was expelling some members to Gabon, Maryam Rajavi is quoted to have said Massoud Rajavi had stopped remonstrant self-immolations as a raised objection against the decision taken by France. Your reference to the meeting dates back to 2002, then, can you remember any earlier occasion when the issue came under notice?

BS: To correct, I was not in the organization at the time you are referring to. I joined in mid 1980s and I have seen none of the things you say in the sources published by the organization.

SFF: All of the instances I stated you can find in the publications of the organization if you have access to them.

BS: It seems that my information as a member of the organization fails to surpass that of yours. I would be grateful if you could give me the address to these sources.

August 6, 2009 0 comment

Habilian Foundation

Camp Ashraf attack was the MKO criminals ending

Mr.Hahsemi Nezhad in an interview with Fars News Agency:
Camp Ashraf attack was the MKO criminals ending

Fars News Agency: pointing out the recent attack on camp Ashraf Secretary General of Habilian Association said: This is the end of criminal MKO work because Americans have abandoned them too.

In an interview with political correspondent of Fars news club Seyyed Mohammad Javad Hashemi Nezhad pointed out the unambiguous fate of MKO and said: They wanted to impose their conditions on the Iraqi government, but no country would be ready to allow a part of its soil be occupied by a number of terrorists.

He underlined the necessity of exerting sovereignty by the Iraqi government and said: So far, the Iraqi government has taken a soft line because of Americans.

Secretary General of Habilian Association underlined the Iraqi government’s willpower for putting an end to the existence of this terrorist group in this country and said: MKO is a terrorist organization and no government is willing to accept it.

He added: "These terrorists have committed numerous crimes in Iraq’s soil which is no less than their terrorist operations in Iran and now Iraqis demand with strong motivation their expulsion from Iraq.

Son of martyr Hashemi Nezhad then referred to MKO lack of any bases among Iranian people and said: Iran never considers MKO important and wants it be dissolved like any other criminal organization and its criminal leaders be tried.

The expert in the affairs of MKO also referred to the statements of one of MKO leaders in France who had asked for guarantee from the Iranian government for the entrance of MKO members in the country in groups and said: MKO is not in a position it could determine any conditions.
Hashemi Nezhad added: Even the sponsors of this organization refrain from accepting them in their countries let alone Iran.

He pointed to conditions for granting asylum by the Red Cross and added: MKO was disarmed by Americans by violence and today encounter Iraqi forces with violence which shows their evil nature of violence and terrorism.

He continued: They want to impose themselves on the Iraqi government but as an independent government the Iraqi government seriously demands return of occupied garrison of Ashraf.
Hashemi Nezhad also pointed to the recent statements of American officials and said: these statements are merely propaganda.

He added: MKO tried after the occupation of Iraq to impose themselves on Americans as efficient espionage force; But Americans have now understood that this group has no place in Iran and won’t be useful for Americans too.

He also underlined the necessity of keeping alive MKO brutalities and crimes and said: those who have suffered from MKO terrorist operations must be provided with facilities to reflect these crimes in the world and let the public opinion understand that what shocking crimes in Iran and Iraq has happened due to their support for terrorism.

Son of martyr Hashemi Nezhad went on and said: The activities in the field of disclosing MKO crimes should continue to prevent the terrorist elements of this group be present in different communities in any disguise or under the cover of any front organizations.

He added: Western countries’ neglect is the main cause of MKO presence in different communities; but there are some who are totally unaware of MKO crimes and nature and support this terrorist cult merely for their own political purposes and because they lack better leverage to pressure Iran.

August 2, 2009 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

Human tragedy in prospect; Mojgan Parsai the first volunteer

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part 8

Sahar Family Foundation: In our last session we talked about the possibility of a human tragedy. You said that all volunteers had signed a written pledge for self-immolation. The question is to what degree the organization can exploit these signed pledges to stage a human tragedy?

Batool Soltani: This is an issue of high potentiality. In fact, these letters helped the organization have an effective evaluation to plot its future scenarios. They are substructures on which the organization will lay the groundwork for its political strategies. But regardless of these potential means and developing a true assessment of the devoted on whom it can relay, it shows the organization’s own fascination in such activities that are some true aspects of cultic relations. Admittedly, most cults behave according to pre-planned scenarios in their relations with the outside world. It is also the same with Mojahedin.

When a member like Sedigheh Mojaveri commits self-immolation, for sure her feat has been already discussed in detail in higher echelons of the organization. It fails to be an arbitrary decision, not even one percent, to step into the street and set oneself on fire; any instance of unbridled passion is absolutely rejected by the organization and fails to be accounted as an organizationally directed objective.

Frankly speaking, no member of the organization with whatever ranking, being in charge of any post or else, hardly takes a step uncontrolled and uncoordinated by the organization. In a hierarchical order within an organization with tight discipline and very limited internal democracy, the responsible ranks have to be aware of the slightest overt and covert things about the members under their authority and there is nothing kept secret about the members in respect to their status.

For example, I was in England for four years and my massul (the one in charge) was aware of the single moments of my stay there; it was the same with the members under my authority. Hardly can you find an organization with so strong sense of cohesion and tight internal discipline. Consequently, no decision of self-immolation remains concealed from the ranks in charge and nobody ever dares to disobey the organization to engage in any self-motivated act of suicide.

SFF: From what layer of the organization were specifically the first volunteers of self-immolation in Camp Ashraf? Can you, for instance, name the first volunteer?

BS: You know, anything in an organization emerges from the top layers and gradually, through a well orchestrated mechanism, is spread to lower layers. It is done so skillfully that after a while those in the top can hardly believe that what is so easily embraced and theorized among the lower ranks is a magnified reflex of what had been originated in the top.

SFF: Now, can you name the first volunteer for self-immolation in Camp Ashraf when it was resolved on the act?

BS: In the department I was, Mojgan Parsai was the first who broached the subject and she was also the first volunteer. Her first sentence to begin was ‘It is worthwhile to set on fire whatever we have in Camp Ashraf for Maryam’s freedom’. Of course, what she said was another interpretation of Massoud Rajavi’s message stating that we had to make use of all our facilities and potentialities wherever we were to set Maryam free. He would say any Mojahed breathing on this planet had to be ready to sincerely sacrifice and set on fire whatever he had for the sake of Maryam. Thus, it all began in the echelon of the Leadership Council and the enthusiast slid down to the lower layers. It is also the same with other issues. Consider, for instance, they want to elect a first secretary.

The candidate would be elected in the first layers of the Leadership Council but remained secret. Idiomatically they would say ‘let the string of anything loose and it will unwind to the lowest layers’. They meant that whatever they decided on would be indirectly conveyed to the lesser ranks down to the bottom where it again quickly and energetically bounces back to the top layers as something new. Now it was our time to galvanize them into action and arrange a formal meeting to elect the one we had already decided on. None of the members present at the meeting knew what was really going on and how they had been inculcated to vote for Mojgan Parsai or Sedigheh Hussaini for example. Anything would end happily. On the one hand the top layers had picked up their favorite one and on the other hand, it would be propagated that a candidate had been elected through a totally democratic process. Everyone thought that his/her has been respectfully accomplished. Now suppose that somebody from the top layers had decided to commit self-immolation.

The decision had to be discussed in detail in all three layers of the Leadership Council before being approved by the first secretary and the leadership. I mean to say again that nobody with whatever ranking and organizational status, even if a proxy for the leadership, could take a perverse and decisive action or decision for whatever personal and organizational objective. Only those familiar with the layers of the Leadership Council can understand what I mean.

Systematically, when one from the top volunteers for self-immolation, as I did, it denotes that the person has grabbed at the loosed string whether he accedes to it or not. When I myself unwillingly volunteered for the act, in fact, I was sizing the string Mojgan Parsai had let down to let it pass to lower levels. It was only a reaction to what the organization tried to instill into the members. When I saw how devoted Mojgan was when she announced her readiness to burn herself for the sake of Maryam, although I did not know how sincere she was in what she claimed, naturally it could impress me to be the second to volunteer. Of course the sincerity is not at all a matter of any significance but the enthusiast and incitement such an atmosphere created among others.

Now the question is how the incitement could provoke the human tragedy you mentioned. Through the same mechanism of the idea being passed down from the top to the down, the crystallized ideas in the lesser layers very easily generate actions and the created enthusiast erupt into actions that may lead to human tragedy. It is much expected among the lower layer than the top since the rank and file are more emotive and impulses from the top easily impress themselves on them. Of course, you may notice that the top layers never fail to show off their emotions but for sure they are rational and reasonable when they have to act.

That is why they are the first to volunteer but hardly the last to put the words into action; unlike them, the lesser layers are resolute not only to do what they volunteer themselves for but also enter a compete and try to outstrip each other. That is how it may end to a human tragedy in its worst form. When I see that a ranking member like Mojgan Parsai volunteers for self-immolation, what do you expect of me as a subordinate! To be sure, as I have been already notified, I will not be the one to set myself on fire when the time comes because I know they will never let me harm myself as one belonging to the higher echelon. However, the occurrence of a human tragedy inside Camp Ashraf depends on Massoud Rajavi’s will and a number of other factors well identified by him to trigger the disaster. And it is all because of the strategically decisive role Camp Ashraf plays in Mojahedin’s existence and survival. So important an issue it is for Mojahedin that it requires a long discourse.

To be continued

Translated by Mojahedin.ws

July 22, 2009 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts