those Americans who supported Mojahedin Khalq, MKO, MEK, NCRI, Rajavi cult
As reported, several Bush-era officials on the last week of 2010 embraced the opportunity of
|(Captain Lewis Lee Hawkins one of the Americans murdered by Mojahedin Khalq)|
flattering the leader of a globally blacklisted terrorist cult in a symposium held in Paris and, being begged already, urged the Obama administration to strike the group from their own country’s terrorism blacklist. Some believe they were really courageous and had guts to demand unleashing of ruthless terrorists, now carrying their arms under smart suits and costumes and roaming the parliaments and statesmen’s chambers and halls freely, on their own nation. And some other insist that they have violated the country’s regulations by giving support to a terrorist group on the State Department’s list. However, what is really shocking about these participants is that they referred to the group as devoted freedom fighters and apostles of democracy for Iran rather than the terrorists that may have repented of their past atrocities.
One of these ex-officials, Michael Mukasey, an attorney general under Bush, had earlier told an audience in a Washington hotel "We should take off the list of terrorist organizations the one group that is devoted to restoring freedom in Iran". John Bolton, one of the speakers at the symposium bragged that MKO was the right movement to be supported because it "has renounced nuclear weapons unequivocally, and because it has democratic aims”. And Tom Ridge, the former Homeland Security director, said "let’s delist MKO and show the world the United States is committed to its own values of freedom”.
What are the values of freedom they believe in and were they actually contesting the crimes and allegations attributed to the organization in the strong evidences attested by the very same administration they served? To believe that a terrorist cult that started its opposition via violent approaches has devoted to restoring freedom in Iran through claimed democratic avenues oozes only out simplistic minds. From a historical point of view, almost all of struggling political movements, at least in their mottos and sketch of political objectives, chanted democratic slogans and represented the paradigms of a democratic society as a requisite to encourage supporters and to recruit parties. The history tells that the outcome was the most atrocious model of dictatorship that fought under the banner of emancipating man from class and political totalitarian systems.
Stalinism, for instance, was evolved into one of the most influential liberation movements in half of the world. The contemporary world history recognizes Stalinism as a paradigm of all practiced forms of stabilizing an authoritarian party. It theorized and exercised imprisonment, execution, political assassination, terror, and … in many ideologically justifiable forms not only against dissidents but also against the insiders. In fact, the chief victims were the movement’s linchpins rather than the foes of democracy and freedom. The expenses of Stalinism popped out only after its fall; no one denies Stalin’s role as the most fervent patriot fighting against the Nazism invasion, yet, he is indisputably the most tyrant dictator recorded in history. The paradox is the essence of a theorized ideology evolved with the wear of freedom and democracy. That is to say, the thought dealing with freedom and democracy emerged out of a counter-democratic ideology, a criterion to conduct the extent of internal and external violence. It is the ideology that legalizes the conducts and recognizes its innate terrorism as a blessed act; adherents become devotees of a cause constructed on pillars of freedom and democracy.
These are good historical evidences to prove the simplicity of considering MKO as devotees of freedom and democracy. Discrepancy between chanted mottos and actual practice of democracy is a product of disapproving the democracy itself. To bring off democracy, mottos should tally with practices. Mojahedin’s past modus operandi well depict that the group had taken a wrong direction for the cause of democracy. The autocratic structure of its leadership has depreciated it to a kind of Stalinist dictatorship. Thus, how can Mojahedin guarantee that it wouldn’t adapt claims of democracy for practice of autocracy?
That is precisely correct to say those who struggle for democracy cannot be terrorists because democracy absolutely discards any form of violence. But violence has been an innately distinguished feature of Mojahedin from its very formation. The key solution to accomplish organizational and ideological achievements was believed to be through practice of violence, the lack of which led any struggle for democracy and freedom to total failure.
The advocates of the group, particularly those backers at the symposium, are well aware that Mojahedin is at the pass of a critical juncture and in need of applicable instruments and whoever and whatever help and offer to survive. We do not know if those in the symposium were paid well or had a mission to accomplish, but they, for sure, and we know that the great challenge the world faces today is terrorism and Mojahedin has so far failed to prove any commitment to democracy. Consider that Obama’s Administration put trust in Tom Ridge’s urge to “delist MKO and show the world the United States is committed to its own values of freedom”. But, can he guarantee that MKO will also dedicate itself to democratic avenues that contradict its ideologically leftist inclination?
In representing definitions of democracy, Mojahedin oversteps those of the West. By drilling its exaggeratedly theorized democracy into the West, the group reminds the West that it has a rather more enormous capacity to overshoot the Western adopted democracy. At the same time, it has not the least respect for democracy to practice it, not even in its primitive form, neither for the insiders nor for the outsiders. Nowhere can you find so ruthless methods of brainwashing put into practice under the cover of democracy as within the group. The fact is that Mojahedin is innately a terrorist group and its keeping hold of democracy never washes its hands off its past crimes. The supporters of terrorism must keep it in mind that they too share blame if the rampant terrorists betray their trust, especially when they are walking by the side of terrorists like MKO that is the most disreputable hypocrite among others.