The MEK; the Hypocrites

MKO pays US figures to get off blacklist

Former US Rep. Lee Hamilton calls for the removal of the MKO from the US blacklist at a conference in Washington, on February 19, 2011. The anti-Iran terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) is reportedly paying tens of thousands of dollars to US heavyweights to advocate the group’s removal from the US list of foreign terrorist groups.

In a surprisingly well-funded lobbying campaign, dozens of former political officials have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak at events organized by supporters of the terrorist organization in the US, The Financial Times reported Friday.

The individuals include John Bolton, George W. Bush’s ambassador to the UN; Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee chairman; Rudy Giuliani, former New York mayor; Jim Jones, President Barack Obama’s first national security adviser; Wesley Clark, retired army general, and Tom Ridge, the first Homeland Security Secretary, the report added.

Lee Hamilton, former Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, and Michael Mukasey, Attorney-General for the last Bush administration, both revealed that they had been paid for speaking at such events.

General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration, also confirmed he was paid, along with other officials, including Louis Freeh, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and General James Conway, the former Marine Corps commandant, to speak at an MKO-linked conference in Washington.

Several people familiar with MKO’s offers said that the pay scale ranged from $20,000 to $100,000 per speech, plus travel expenses.

Ed Rendell, the former Pennsylvania governor, said he received $20,000 for an 11-minute speech while a former US official said he was offered $30,000 plus first-class air fare to show up at an MKO-linked event in Europe.

The group has also hired Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm, to persuade members of US Congress to support the terrorist organization’s objectives. Several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements had been taken out, FT added.

The MKO is listed as a terrorist organization by much of the international community and is responsible for numerous acts of terror and violence against Iranian civilians and government officials.

The United States designated the MKO a foreign terrorist organization in 1997.

The group has appealed to be taken off the list, claiming that it renounced terrorism in 2001. This is while the group has been confirmed to be involved in or behind several terrorist attacks against Iranian citizens since then.

The US Department of State is due to make a ruling on the status of the group next month.
PressTV – Sat Jul 30, 2011
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/191469.html

July 31, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Iranian exiles pay US figures as advocates

Luminaries lobby for ‘Washington’s favourite terrorists’ to be removed from a list of foreign terrorist organisations

An Iranian exile group is spending millions of dollars in a lobbying effort to be removed from the US’s list of foreign terrorist organisations, recruiting a group of US national security luminaries to be its advocates.

Dozens of former officials across the political spectrum – from conservative John Bolton to liberal Howard Dean – have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak at events organised by supporters of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or People’s Mujahedin, in the US, the Financial Times has learnt.

Washington designated the MEK, a Marxist-Islamist group that supported the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, as a terrorist organisation in 1997. But the group says it renounced terrorism in 2001 and has appealed to be taken off the list, which also includes al-Qaeda and Hizbollah. It fell out with Iran’s Islamic government after the 1979 revolution.

The group has also hired Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm, to persuade members of Congress to support its cause and has taken out several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements. The Department of State is due to make a ruling next month.

To help advance its cause, groups linked to the MEK have recruited more than 40 former officials to speak on their behalf. They include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor; Jim Jones, President Barack Obama’s first national security adviser; Wesley Clark, the retired army general; and Tom Ridge, the first homeland security secretary.

One Iran analyst, Trita Parsi, has dubbed the group “Washington’s favourite terrorists”.

Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic chairman of the House foreign relations committee, and Michael Mukasey, attorney-general in the last Bush administration, both told the FT they were paid for speaking at MEK-linked events.

Mr Bolton, George W. Bush’s ambassador to the UN, said he did not see the fact he was being paid “as an issue”, while Mr Dean, the former Democratic national committee chairman, dismissed the question as a “sideshow”.

None would disclose how much they had been paid but Ed Rendell, the former Pennsylvania governor, said he received $20,000 for an 11-minute speech. “But even if I was paid $50,000, I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t believe in it,” he said.

A former US official said he was offered $30,000 and first class air fares to appear at an MEK-linked event in Europe. Several people familiar with the MEK’s offers described a sliding pay scale of $20,000 to $100,000 per speech, plus travel costs, and that four-speech packages were common. Ahmad Moein, executive director of the Iranian American Community of Northern California, one of the groups behind the lobbying effort, said the figures were “greatly exaggerated”.

By Anna Fifield in Washington

July 30, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

More Talks to Remove MEK from Terror List

In yet another attempt at destabilizing Iran, Hillary Clinton will soon announce a decision by US State Department on whether or not to remove Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), or “the people’s holy warriors,” from its terrorism registry. Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), cautioned that doing so “would allow the Mujahedin to receive US funding and become a powerful force in support of war with Iran, just like the Iraqi exiles who deceived us into war with Iraq did.”

In an age where the word terrorism or bomb is enough to get you arrested and thrown out of the airport, why are American officials and policy wonks pressing for the removal of MEK from terror watch list? They, just like the Taliban and the Contras, are valuable pawns, or so they think, in the quest for American dominance of the Middle East. MEK is so highly valued by the war-with-Iran crowd because they were the group that “revealed” the Natanz nuclear site and brought to light documents concerning the Iranian nuclear program in 2002. As Gareth Porter argued, the documents provided by MEK and their political extension, the National Council of Resistance in Iran, were fabricated:

The German source said he did not know whether the documents were authentic or not. However, CIA analysts, and European and IAEA officials who were given access to the laptop documents in 2005 were very sceptical about their authenticity.
The Guardian’s Julian Borger last February quoted an IAEA official as saying there is “doubt over the provenance of the computer”.
A senior European diplomat who had examined the documents was quoted by the New York Times in November 2005 as saying, “I can fabricate that data. It looks beautiful, but is open to doubt.”
Scott Ritter, the former U.S. military intelligence officer who was chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, noted in an interview that the CIA has the capability test the authenticity of laptop documents through forensic tests that would reveal when different versions of different documents were created.
The fact that the agency could not rule out the possibility of fabrication, according to Ritter, indicates that it had either chosen not to do such tests or that the tests had revealed fraud.

Additionally, MEK’s “discovery” of the Natanz site was doubted by many keen observers of Iranian politics who noted the groups friendly relationship with Israel, as well as their lack of key posts in government positions that would have made any relevant information hard to come by.

Since 2002, new information has emerged indicating that the MEK did not obtain the 2002 data on Natanz itself but received it from the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. Yossi Melman and Meier Javadanfar, who co-authored a book on the Iranian nuclear programme last year, write that they were told by “very senior Israeli Intelligence officials” in late 2006 that Israeli intelligence had known about Natanz for a full year before the Iranian group’s press conference. They explained that they had chosen not to reveal it to the public “because of safety concerns for the sources that provided the information”.
…
Israel has maintained a relationship with the MEK since the late 1990s, according to Bruck, including assistance to the organisation in beaming broadcasts by the NCRI from Paris into Iran. An Israeli diplomat confirmed that Israel had found the MEK “useful”, Bruck reported, but the official declined to elaborate.

Not only can MEK not be trusted as an objective source of information, but the violence carried out against Americans in the past by this terrorist group should give great pause to anyone, especially members of government, considering supporting this group. Additionally, the bipolar nature of American-MEK relations, from the worst of enemies to best of friends and back again, gives absolutely zero assurance that this group would be conducive to American interests even in the near future.

While the War Party is hoping that MEK will be a valuable propaganda tool in initiating an attack on Iran, they ought not fool themselves into thinking that MEK will bring about regime change nternally. Universally hated in Iran for siding with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, Iranians have little tolerance for this troublemaking group.

It’s best the US just stayed out of the whole brouhaha.

Brian Beyer

July 30, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Filner’s Road to Paris

Bob Filner took a first-class trip to Paris, courtesy of an Iranian-American group with ties to alleged terrorists .

Democratic Congressman Bob Filner, who has declared his candidacy for mayor of San Diego, took a free trip to Paris last month courtesy of a group of Iranian-Americans from Colorado tied to a controversial organization on the U.S. State Department’s roster of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.”

According to Filner’s disclosure report, dated July 5 and posted by the website Legistorm.com, the congressman departed Washington, D.C. on June 16 and returned June 21. His activities in the French capital included a “Grand meeting of Iranians in support of human rights and democracy for Iran.” The document adds that the congressman also “met with women’s right and religious right leaders.”

Total transportation expenses, including first class commercial airfare, were given as $4203.77. Total lodging expenses were said to be $2385.85. No separate meal or drink costs were listed. In response to a section of the form that reads, “Explain why participation in the trip is connected to your individual official or representational duties,” the disclosure reads, “Advocate Iranian Human Rights.” An accompanying “Private Sponsor Travel Certification Form” was signed by Tim Mehdi Ghaemi of “Colorado’s Iranian American Community.”

Back in November 2007, we wrote about a similar trip Filner made to Paris in June of that year, paid for by the same sponsor. Ghaemi told us then that the funds for the $7949 trip came from “Iranian-American community members in Colorado” but would not identify individual donors. Filner didn’t return calls for that story.

Ghaemi has ties to the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), which has long been fighting to get the U.S. to stop calling it a terrorist organization. Begun as a 1960s left-wing group opposed to the Shah of Iran, the organization turned against the Islamic revolution that succeeded the Shah, waging a deadly bombing campaign inside that country and allying itself with president Saddam Hussein of Iraq, where the group based attacks against Iran during the Iraq-Iran war.

Since the fall of Saddam, the group’s political allies in the U.S., many of whom are members of the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, have argued that, as an opponent of Iran, the MEK should be removed from the American terrorist list. Critics, on the other hand, claim that the group remains a threat to international order. Some have called it a cult that conducts “ideological cleansings” of its members. First designated a terrorist organization in 1997 during the Clinton Administration, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization has remained on the list ever since, including during the administration of George W. Bush.

A major MEK advocate has been ex-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a one-time lobbyist with the law and lobbying firm of DLA Piper in Washington. In January 2008, the National Journal reported Armey had written op-eds and other material on MEK’s behalf. According to that story, “DLA Piper has received $860,000 in fees over the past four and a half years from Saeid Ghaemi, whom the firm identifies as an ‘Iranian-American businessman who works closely with the Iranian-American community in the U.S. to promote human rights and democracy in Iran.’” The publication identified Tim Mehdi Ghaemi as Saeid Ghaemi’s brother.

In 2007, Filner teamed up with Colorado conservative GOP House member Tom Tancredo to coauthor an op-ed piece for the Washington Times: “From its base in Iraq, where 3800 MEK members live under the protection of coalition forces, the organization has provided intelligence on Iran’s support for terrorism in Iraq,” the pair wrote. “Listing the MEK as ‘terrorists’ is both an injustice and manifestly contrary to U.S. interests.”

In January of this year, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, and ex-Bush homeland security advisor Frances Fragos Townsend took up the cause in the National Review: “MEK, which opposes the current regime in Tehran and has provided valuable intelligence to the United States on Iranian nuclear plans, was placed on the State Department list during the Clinton administration as a purported goodwill gesture to the mullahs, in aid of furthering dialogue. Regrettably, it was kept on during the administration of George W. Bush, in part out of fear that Iran would provide IEDs to our enemies in Iraq, which of course the mullahs are doing anyway.”

Three weeks ago, following his latest trip to Paris as a guest of the Iranian-Americans, Filner reiterated to the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations — chaired by California GOP congressman Dana Rohrabacher — that the MEK should be removed from the terrorist list.

“The MEK and its leader have come up with, it seems to me, the one legitimate policy that is best for us as Americans,” Filner said. “They call it the ‘third way.’ That means we do not invade Iran, but we do not appease the existing mullahs. We get out of the way and let the resistance do what it — what it can and should and wants to do. The listing of the — of the MEK as a terrorist organization is getting in the way, so we ought to delist.”

Filner did not respond to a telephone message left with an aide at his congressional office in Washington.

By Matt Potter – Sandiego Reader

July 30, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Washington’s favorite Terrorists

Since early January 2011, the MEK has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists, PR agents and communications firms to build up pressure on Secretary Hillary Clinton to take the group off of the terrorist list. Their argument is that the MEK rejected violence and terrorism in 2001 and as a result should be de-listed.

Sometime in August, Secretary Clinton will decide whether to keep the Mujahedin-e Khalq on the US’s terrorist list.

Former senior U.S. officials have called Mujahedin “Iran’s hope.” They have said Mujahedin leader Maryam Rajavi “should be recognized as the President of Iran.” Some have already acknowledged received cash to support the organization.

In Congress, massive lobbying efforts have convinced many that Mujahedin is the “main opposition in Iran” and that the Mujahedin speaks for the Iranian people and the Iranian-American community.

Of course, it isn’t true that the MEK has really abandoned its old ways. Ray Takeyh testified before Congress on the subject of the MEK earlier this month, and he addressed the idea that the MEK has changed:

The core of MEK’s ideology has always been anti-imperialism which it has historically defined as opposition to U.S. interests. The MEK opposed the Shah partly because of his close associations with the United States. MEK’s anti-American compulsions propelled it toward embracing an entire spectrum of radical forces ranging from the Vietcong to the PLO. Given its mission of liberating the working class and expunging the influence of predatory capitalism, the United States has traditionally been identified as a source of exploitation and injustice in MEK literature. As the organization has lost its Iraqi patron and finds itself without any reliable allies, it has somehow modulated its language and sought to moderate its anti-American tone.

A recently disclosed FBI report from 2004 reveals Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) continued to plan terrorist acts years after they claimed to renounce terrorism. The State Department has documented the MEK’s disturbing record: killing Americans and Iranians in terrorist attacks; fighting for Saddam Hussein against Iran and assisting Saddam’s brutal campaign against Iraq’s Kurds and Shia; its”cult-like”behavior; the abuses and even torture it commits against its own members; and its support for the U.S. embassy takeover and calls for executing the hostages …

In 1991, Iraqi exiles set up the Iraq National Congress (INC) with funding from the CIA. Under the leadership of Ahmad Chalabi, and flush with tens of millions dollars in US government funding, the INC allied itself with the neoconservatives in Washington and unceasingly beat the drums of war, presenting itself as the popular democratic alternative to Saddam Hussein and feeding faulty intelligence to an eager media and Bush administration. Eventually, they succeeded in dragging the United States into disastrous war that cost Americans and Iraqis their lives and caused incalculable damage to American prestige and power.

Now, history may be repeating itself.
A segment of our political establishment that is chafing at the bit for a military attack on Iran has found their INC, in the form of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (also known as the MEK, or MKO),Download Washington Favorite Terrorists

July 23, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Non-Iranian nationals to validate the MEK’s”Largest gathering of Iranians”claim

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) held their annual conference in Villepinte, North of Paris.
Non-Iranian nationals to validate the MEK’s "Largest gathering of Iranians" claim
The participants, friends and supporters of the NCRI and exiled Iranians, mainly belonging to the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), traveled to Paris from all over Europe, the United States and Canada to the gathering, held annually since 2004, which this year had special significance after the April attack by the Iraqi army against Camp Ashraf.

While the meeting, where Iranians seemed vastly outnumbered by non-Iranian nationals, was attended by an impressive number of people, the criticisms, aimed at previous such events, remain. It appeared that a lot of effort had gone into attracting people to the carefully orchestrated, family, race and gender-friendly event, in order to validate the coveted "Largest gathering of Iranians" claim. Strategically positioned cheerleaders, careful video editing, proliferation of flags, placards and vests all seemed choreographed for a spectacle.

As expected, Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the NCRI, made all the right noises in her speech. It was the NCRI, the Iranian Resistance’s parliament-in-exile, largely constituting of PMOI, that elected her as Iran’s future president for the transitional period following the Iranian Regime’s overthrow. Massoud Rajavi, heavily present in the branding of the event, although clearly second to his wife, was conspicuous by his absence from both the event and any new or informative mention in the speech.

Mrs. Rajavi talked with enthusiasm about the Arab Spring and with passion about the Iranian uprising two years ago. [..] The appropriation of the concept of "Resistance of Iran", to the exclusion of all the other numerous and varied Iranian dissident organisations and campaigns, both within and outside of Iran, further reaffirmed their critics’ accusations of sectarianism.

It is true that the Mojahedin were once a powerful popular movement inside Iran, but it is now hard to imagine people in Iran accepting the leadership of PMOI and Mrs Rajavi as their president, while their collusion with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war is still fresh in the nation’s memory.[…]Reports of cruel treatments of PMOI apostates, coupled with the story of the Rajavis’ union, further fuel the accusations of the sect-like nature of PMOI.

Most of the criticisms of the PMOI today converge on what is perceived to be their pursuit of power. The event in Paris did nothing to dispel such criticisms. It was undoubtedly led and orchestrated by genuine PMOI activists, but it is less certain how convinced the others present were about the gathering – people who had been offered an inclusive free trip to Paris.

Non-Iranian nationals to validate the MEK’s "Largest gathering of Iranians" claim

What they discovered when they got there was that they would not see Paris, but only a huge exhibition hall in Villepinte, with no shops, kiosks or even benches to sit on in the visible vicinity. While remaining sympathetic to the plight of the Iranian people, many seemed disappointed at being used to make up the numbers, as the trip did not include anything other than getting to the conference hall and back…

demotix.com

July 20, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MEK Has Not Changed

Daniel Pipes asks:

How should Western governments deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Washington labels “the most active state sponsor of terrorism”?

If you guessed that his answer is to lend support to an anti-Iranian terrorist group, you would be right. This is Pipes’ example of meting out “tough” treatment to Tehran. Like all other American boosters of the MEK, he fails to understand that aligning the U.S. with a group that the vast majority of Iranians hates is a gift to the Iranian regime. Even if it were true that the MEK is no longer a terrorist group, that wouldn’t make it a useful ally in building up opposition to the Iranian regime. As far as most Iranians are concerned, the MEK will always be tainted by its violent and fanatical past. Providing any kind of help to them, including removal from the list of terrorist organizations, will be taken as an insult by Iranians regardless of their support for the regime. […]

The core of MEK’s ideology has always been anti-imperialism which it has historically defined as opposition to U.S. interests. The MEK opposed the Shah partly because of his close associations with the United States. MEK’s anti-American compulsions propelled it toward embracing an entire spectrum of radical forces ranging from the Vietcong to the PLO. Given its mission of liberating the working class and expunging the influence of predatory capitalism, the United States has traditionally been identified as a source of exploitation and injustice in MEK literature. As the organization has lost its Iraqi patron and finds itself without any reliable allies, it has somehow modulated its language and sought to moderate its anti-American tone. Such convenient posturing should not distract attention from its well-honed ideological animus to the United States [bold mine-DL].

Terror has always been a hallmark of MEK’s strategy for assuming power. Through much of its past, the party exulted violence as a heroic expression of legitimate dissent. One of the central precepts of the party is that a highly-dedicated group of militants could spark a mass revolution by bravely confronting superior power of the state and assaulting its authority. Once, the masses observe that the state is vulnerable to violence, than they will shed their inhibitions and join the protest, thus sparking the larger revolution. Thus, the most suitable means of affecting political change is necessarily violence. Although in its advocacy in Western capitals, the MEK emphasizes its commitment to democracy and free expression, in neither deed nor word has it forsworn it violent pedigree [bold mine-DL].

[..]
Update: One-time Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr has joined the pro-MEK bandwagon:

In fact, the past three U.S. administrations have seriously and expressly weakened the ability of opposition forces in Iran to effect positive change. All three have done this by abusing U.S. law that permits the State Department to designate entities as “terrorist organizations” and thereby deny them recognition and access to resources. This is precisely what the federal government for 14 years has done to the single most important and best organized Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK).

Like Pipes, Barr puts great emphasis on the supposed preeminence of the MEK among Iranian opposition groups[…]. No doubt the MEK believes it is the “single most important” opposition group, but why are so many Americans repeating this nonsense? If the MEK is well-organized, this is no coincidence: it is a fanatical political cult.

Second Update: Takeyh also had this to say in his testimony on Iranian attitudes towards the MEK:

Despite its activism in Western capitals, the MEK commands very little support within Iran. Its alliance with Saddam and its cult-like dispositions have alienated even the radical segments of intelligentsia that once found its ideological template attractive.

I suppose one could argue that Iranian public opinion shouldn’t affect what the U.S. government decides to do, but the MEK’s lack of support inside the country where it is supposedly the “most important” opposition group shows that the advocates for the MEK are just repeating falsehoods they’ve been told to say. [..]

Third Update: The key legal criterion for continuing to designate the MEK as a terrorist organization is this one:

The organization engages in terrorist activity or terrorism, or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism [bold mine-DL].

Daniel Larison

July 20, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Journalism versus Terrorism – Part 2

He was wearing a military uniform, sitting on his knees. This was the first picture I saw of Ali Safavi after I was keenly aroused to know him and his agenda. I had noticed his name as the author of an article in favor of Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI) some years ago. After a quick Google search, I came across with his photograph in military uniform. Another photo portrayed him in a visit between Maryam Rajavi and the Israeli Rabbi Daniel Zucker.

Shockingly, on the Huffington Post, Safavi is introduced as a member of Iran’s parliament in Exile which is the elegant, polished title for NCR. According to the US State Department NCR is an alias for the MKO, thereby it is a terrorist organization –the State Department added NCR to the list in 1999. [1] Only the fact that Safavi is a member of a terrorist designated organization, writing on a professional media leads to the idea of shady journalism which is manipulating the ignorant audience.

How Safavi uses shady journalism to meaningfully distract public opinion? What are his rhetorical strategies to thrust his poorly stated ideas on the readers?
His sophistical arguments help Safavi convince people to think in unethical ways or draw false conclusion. The NCR member uses quibbling arguments to deceive his intended audience as what the first teachers of the history, the Sophists did.

As it was analytically described in the first part of these articles, “Repetition” is the very tool Safavi exploits to promote his cause – let’s say the cause of terrorist designated Mujahedin Khalq Organization. This major rhetorical strategy is used to produce emphasis, magnification and sometime moving effect.

The use of several synonymous or parallel words together and in various intervals helps him amplify his argument. For instance, the company of Iranian “regime” with “execution” in more than 50 cases implies what Safavi is strongly determined to do: demonizing Islamic Republic.

Repeating the name of MKO and its aliases for over 340 times, Safavi dwells on or returns to his strongest argument which is to promote MKO in Washington and its removal from the list of FTOs of the State Department. He gives excessive coverage to the group, its leaders and its activities. He exaggerates about their achievements. For instance, as I mentioned before, he describes MKO as the main Iranian opposition for over twenty times – although the group has no significant popular support inside Iran according to the recent unclassified report ” IRANIAN POPULAR ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE MEK" published in May 2011. The cable was based on input from State Department Iran-watchers and consular interviewing officers in the main posts that interact with Iranians on a regular basis. [2]

By going over a word or phrase like “democracy “or “democratic change” for about 40 times, in different parts of his writings, he pushes the audience to recognize fake importance of the MKO agenda. He portrays the Rajavis as heroes to bring "democratic change" by giving them extraordinary attention. However, the Rajavis are hardly ever known by the Iranian majority. "In speaking to hundreds of Iranians both in the preceding two months and before, ordinary Iranians were almost uniformly dismissive of the MEK, reacting with either disdain or apathy", according to the report.[3]

Ali Safavi vigorously pushes for on his partial allegation that his organization was blacklisted as a terrorist entity by Clinton administration as ”a good will gesture" to IRI, in almost all of his articles, although MKO was listed as a terror group at least three years prior to 1997. The DOS’s fourteen-page report on the group was published in 1994. [4]

Calling MKO opponents as “Tehran apologists” or “Intelligence agents” in a variety of cases, suggests that Safavi‘s unethical journalism is never free from bias. According to him, anyone who disagrees with the MKO deserves to be called Iranian “lobbyist” or “ agent “ but his own biased journalism to boost a terrorist designated group is professional! His most recent reaction[5] against Michael Rubin’s Commentary[6] is a significant evidence for my assertion.

The few mentioned examples of Safavi’s subtle and often unsound reasoning and his irresponsible coverage of a terrorist designated group poses a question in our mind: How can a journalist promote, encourage and endorse the cause of terrorists? His malpractices in support of a terrorist destructive cult prove his shady_ if not dirty_ journalism. That’s when journalism becomes a tool to advocate terrorism.

By Mazda Parsi

References:
[1]US Department of State, Country Report on Terrorism 2006
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82738.htm
[2] U.S. State Department document released in May 2011 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act http://iran.org/news/2010_05_25-10MEKdocs-DOC10.pdf
[3]ibid
[4]U.S. Department of State, Patterns on Global Terrorism. The 1994 report http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_94/append.html
[5] Nejat bloggers are either former MKO members or have a family member who is currently held in Camp Ashraf. They have suffered deeply because of Massoud Rajavi’s crimes. While the Nejat Bloggers recognize that citing sources of information is essential ,we, as a society feel so strongly against the MKO that we have agreed to not include the group’s websites or links in our articles because we consider it as kind of publicity for the cult.
[6] Rubin, Michael, Bachmann and the Mujahideen–e-khalq, Commentary Magazine, July 3,2011
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/03/michele-bachmann-and-the-mujahideen-e-khalq/

July 19, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Congressional Leaders Voice Support for MEK Violence

Supporters of removing the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the U.S. terrorism list convened a hearing on Capitol Hill last week in which they justified the MEK’s use of violence and even cult-like behavior in support of toppling the Iranian regime.

Ali Safavi, a senior member of the MEK’s political wing, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), coached witnesses before and during the hearing. The NCRI is designated as a terrorist affiliate of the MEK.

Washington, DC – Congressional supporters of the drive to remove the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the U.S. terrorism list defended the organization’s use of violence at a hearing on Capitol Hill last week. The hearing was also remarkable in that senior leaders of the designated foreign terrorist organization were caught counseling some of the witnesses before the hearing. It is illegal to coordinate with a foreign terrorist organization to advocate on behalf of the terrorist group.

Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, compared the use of terrorism by MEK to violence employed during the American Revolutionary War. He justified the “cult-like” behavior of the MEK, saying American revolutionaries included "religious fanatics and Christian cults.”

Rohrabacher called for the MEK to be removed from the Foreign Terrorist Organization list, which

Alireza Jafarzadeh, who has served as NCRI spokesman, counseled former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey prior to his testimony.

prevents the group from receiving government funding and makes it illegal for MEK to operate in the U.S. "Any group that chooses to use violence to resist doesn’t make them right or wrong,” Rohrabacher stated. “Backing people who fight against tyranny is also something the U.S. should be doing.”

Despite the terrorist listing, Ali Safavi, a senior member of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, was at the hearing, where he openly counseled witnesses before and during their testimony. The NCRI is the MEK’s political wing and is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

The hearing’s witnesses included three former U.S. officials who have actively participated in pro-MEK conferences, including former Bush Administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

All three witnesses who previously appeared at MEK conferences unanimously called for the MEK to be removed from the terror list, though none were asked to disclose whether they had received money to support the organization, as have other officials who have advocated for delisting the group.

The lone dissenting voice among the witnesses, former Obama Administration advisor Ray Takeyh, was subjected to an intense back and forth with Representatives on the panel.

Individuals wearing yellow jerseys featuring pro-MEK slogans filled the hearing room to capacity.

Takeyh warned panelists who viewed MEK as a viable alternative to the Iranian regime that the organization has no support in Iran.

“I don’t agree," responded Representative Bob Filner (D-CA). "Even if you’re right, so what?”

Filner laughed off evidence that MEK President Maryam Rajavi is a cult leader, despite reports from the State Department and FBI of “cult-like” practices by MEK that include indoctrination rituals and torture. "She is as intelligent, humorous, humane and humble as anyone I’ve ever met," Filner observed, recounting what he said have been numerous meetings he has held in Paris with Rajavi.

Filner accused Takeyh of justifying violence against the MEK by highlighting the group’s history of terrorism, and said the U.S. should be supporting the organization as a “third way” alternative in Iran because it opposes the Iranian regime.

“These are our friends! We should be getting out of their way and de-list them,” Filner exclaimed. “Let them do what they can! Why are we helping Iran by not helping the MEK?”

Rohrabacher defended the MEK’s history of violence, saying, “This is a territory that’s filled with violence—I would be surprised if there wasn’t any organization that wasn’t in some way involved with using force to protect themselves.”

"Oh I would disagree with that," responded Takeyh. "Within Iran there are many opposition movements, such as the Green Movement, that explicitly reject violence.”

But Rohrabacher was adamant in his support for MEK. “I will have to admit the thing that attracts me to this movement is that it is willing to fight," he responded. “It won’t just be pacifists," Rohrabacher said, referring dismissively to the Green Movement, "it will be people with courage and people who stand up.”

Mukasey, in addition to calling for the MEK to be removed from the terrorism list, urged that MEK members be allowed to resettle in the United States. Mukasey acknowledged that members of terrorist organizations are legally barred from entering the U.S., and suggested legislation be introduced to change the law for MEK members.

Prior to the hearing, Mukasey was witnessed receiving coaching from Alireza Jafarzadeh, who served as the official spokesman for the NCRI before it was declared a terrorist group and its offices raided by the FBI in 2003.

Meanwhile, many were turned away from the hearing or sent to the overflow room to watch the proceedings because the hearing room was at capacity. It was filled with individuals in yellow jerseys emblazoned with the slogans, “De-list the MEK,” “Protect Ashraf,” and “Ramp up sanctions.”

July 14, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Journalism versus Terrorism – Part 1

Former spokesman of, National Council of Resistance in London – member of parliament in exile according to the Huffingtonpost – has posted 19 articles on the Huffingtonpost since February 2010. Reading through the whole articles, I looked for the salient features. Surprisingly I came across with a common pattern in them that might lead the audience to wonder if Safavi, Former spokesman of, National Council of Resistance in London – member of parliament in exile according to the Huffingtonpost was pushing the idea of the Foreign Terrorist designated entity, Mujahedin Khalq (MKO/MEK/PMOI) for which NCR is an alias, according to the State Department.[1]

In at least 18 articles out of 19 he just mentions the words or phrases: MEK, Mojahedin Khalq , PMOI and National Council of Resistance for more than 340 times.(!) Out of this big number more than 20 times, he claims MEK as “the main organized opposition” that represents the Iranian people against the “regime”.

He uses the term “regime” to refer to Islamic Republic government for over 102 times. Out of these 102, about half of them (at least 50 times) he portrays the “regime” by notorious acts including “execution”, “massacre” , “torture” , “ crack down” ,”suppression” , describing “the regime “ by adjectives like “suppressive”, “inhumane”, “deadly”.

He proposes the allegedly “Iranian “,”popular resistance” as the force to bring “democratic change” and eventually ”democracy" in Iran for about 40 times. This “democratic change” will guarantee “human rights” ,”freedom” ,”women rights” and “democracy” for the so-called suffering Iranian people under the current “regime”, according to Ali Safavi.

Besides, he uses the term “nuclear weapon” about 10 times to warn about the “threat “of a “nuclear bomb” made by the “regime”.

In the entire articles, out of those 340 that he mentions MKO and its other names, at least 58 times he asserts that “terrorist designation” of the group by the State Department has been a “good will gesture” to the “regime” in Tehran and the result of the ”regime” ‘s propaganda against the group. He calls the group’s opponents in the West as “Tehran apologists” who apply “appeasement “policy regarding Islamic Republic.

Safavi proposes the group’s “third option” which includes support for them to run their so-called “peaceful overthrow” of “the regime” in Tehran. He uses the verbs like “should”, ”must”, ”need to”, ”can” – boldly used in near 30 statements – to give advice ,make recommendation and even order the US administration, particularly President Obama to “immediately end shackling the MEK”.

Member of the allegedly parliament in exile mentions the name of MEK’s leader – in hiding now- Massoud Rajavi as the leader of the movement that wants to replace the “current regime” in at least 15 cases. He also introduces Mayram Rajavi (6 times) as the “president elect of Iran’s parliament in exile”.

Out of those 21 cases that he mentions the name of the Rajavis ,in 11 cases he refers to their speeches, messages and letters to prove their legitimacy, claiming MKO as “a Muslim organization” that believes in a “tolerant and democratic interoperation of Islam”.

The essence of Ali Safavi’s writings taken out of the particular patterns he applies to propose his arguments proves the hypotheses that he is promoting the cause of MEK in an apparently moderated media like the Huffington Post. That’s kind of biased journalism.

By Mazda Parsi

References:
[1] Chapter 6 — Terrorist Organizations, U.S Department of State < http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82738.htm >

July 11, 2011 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts