Mujahedin Khalq in the List of terrorist Organizations

London’s new policy of using terrorists in the region

Iran: British overt support for Mojahedin Khalq (Rajavi cult) terrorists is in line with London’s new policy of using terrorists in the region

Iran to UK: MKO ruling will isolate you

Iran says a decision by the British court to remove a ban on Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) would only isolate the UK government.

(MKO cult members in Camp Ashraf!!)

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini condemned the decision to remove the MKO from the blacklist of terrorist organizations, saying, "Britain has distanced itself from the international community.”

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

“This ruling will without a doubt isolate the UK," Hosseini cautioned, adding that the move was in line with London’s new policy ‘to use the terrorist card’ to step up pressure on regional nations and governments.

"By adopting a policy of supporting terrorist groups, it (Britain) is pursuing certain provisional interests."

The Iranian spokesman called on European institutions not to be affected by the politically motivated, illegitimate verdict of the British court in favor of the terrorist cell.

The MKO has claimed responsibility for hundreds of bombings and assassinations in Iran, including the assassination of a president, a prime minister and 80 senior officials as well as thousands of civilians.

Press TV, June 25, 2008

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=61399&sectionid=351020101

June 25, 2008 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq out of Iraq, into Britain

Labour stands up to judges by backing Tehran on dissidents

Gordon Brown is preparing to defy Britain’s most senior judge to keep an Iranian opposition group on the list of proscribed terrorist organisations.

Ministers will begin moves to lift a ban on the People’s Mujahidin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) tomorrow after Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, found that there was no evidence it was “concerned in terrorism”.

However, Mr Brown has ordered Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, to ban the PMOI’s military wing instead, The Times has learnt. The Prime Minister is said to be keen to take on the courts following the decision to free the radical cleric, Abu Qatada, on bail.

Critics say that his determination to keep the PMOI on the list of outlawed organisations owes more to diplomatic pressure from Iran than with the fight against terrorism.

The dissident group, which claims to be working for a democratic, socialist, Islamic government in Iran, was first banned in Britain in 2001 by Jack Straw, then Home Secretary. He later admitted that it was included “at the request of the Tehran Government”. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to or to encourage support for a proscribed organisation.

Supporters say that the PMOI gave up violence five years ago and point out that it helped to provide evidence of Iran’s nuclear programme in 2002. Last month the Court of Appeal, led by Lord Phillips, upheld a previous ruling that the ban was perverse. The Court of Appeal stated that the Home Secretary “could not reasonably have formed the view” that the PMOI intended to revert to terrorism.

A Whitehall official has told The Times that the Government will seek to ban the PMOI’s military wing, the National Resistance Army of Iran (NLA) — even though the group says that it is defunct. Ministers are also considering changing the law to expand the grounds on which groups can be banned.

The Home Secretary hinted at further action immediately after last month’s ruling by the Court of Appeal. “The PMOI has a long history of terrorism and this is why it was proscribed both in the UK and by other countries around the world,” she said.

Iran has been exerting pressure on ministers to keep the ban on the PMOI, which is part of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. “They have threatened to withdraw diplomats over this unless the ban stays,” one well-placed figure said

Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor,

June 22, 2008 0 comments

Errors in UK Court Decision

A recent UK Court of Appeals decision to uphold a lower court ruling that PMOI (MEK, or MKO) is no longer “concerned in terrorism” revealed serious flaws and a lack of sophistication in the UK legal framework when it comes to combating terrorism. In addition to other vital means, a serious fight against terrorism requires a mature legal system that could not be easily manipulated by deceptive tactics and faulty reasoning developed by terrorist organisations in their efforts to take advantage of our legal apparatus with its pre-911 outlook and structure. After all, leaders of such organisations are known to be masters of deception and PMOI’s leaders are no exception.

Paragraph 38 of the above ruling that has been quoted by the press appears to be the pivotal wisdom behind the UK Appeals Court decision

[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/443.html]

38- An organisation that has temporarily ceased from terrorist activities for tactical reasons is to be contrasted with an organisation that has decided to attempt to achieve its aims by other than violent means. The latter cannot be said to be ‘concerned in terrorism’, even if the possibility exists that it might decide to revert to terrorism in the future.

In Paragraph 16, the Court takes note of the PMOI statement that: “The PMOI’s permanent cessation of any military activity is the result of a deliberate choice to abandon all military action and instead to use political will as a means of bringing about freedom and democracy in Iran. Taking account of domestic and international circumstances, the PMOI decided at an extraordinary Congress held in Iraq in June 2001, to put an end to its military activities in Iran (i.e. to all its military activities). The decision taken by the extraordinary Congress was ratified by the two ordinary congresses organised in early September 2001 and 2003. This policy has been stated publicly and the PMOI’s leadership and membership signed statements to this effect.”

The Court then quotes several other statements purported to be made by the PMOI and its representatives “denouncing terrorism.” To better illustrate the flaws in the Court’s thinking that led to its erroneous decision, I have quoted most of these statements below directly from the Court’s ruling:

29. On 6 September 2004, in a public and formal address, then PMOI Secretary General, Mrs Moj[g]an Parsai, announced, ‘As it has declared on many occasions, the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran condemns all forms of terrorism and has played a major role in a combating terrorism and fundamentalism under the banner of Islam – inspired by the clerical regime…

In February 2006, in her speech on the anniversary of the fall of the Shah, the PMOI’s current Secretary-General, Ms Sedigheh Hosseini, who was elected in September 2005, again condemned violence and called for a peaceful solution. She said ‘We have said before and reiterate now that we are categorically opposed to and condemn any type of violence.’ She added, ‘We announced our commitment to the call by the Iranian Resistance’s President-elect in October 2003 for a referendum… ”

…

49- (a) there was a significant change in the nature of the PMOI’s activities in 2001 and thereafter, and…

(c) the nature of the rhetoric employed in their publications and propaganda by the PMOI and other, related, organisations such as NCRI, changed significantly during 2001 and 2002 such that, from 2002, we were not shown any material which either claimed responsibility for any acts that could fall within the definition of terrorism for the purposes of the Act or even reported the actions of others carrying out such activities

Denouncing Terrorism!

To realise the manipulations and deceptive tactics that led to PMOI/Mek outsmarting the UK Courts, one needs to understand the language behind the statement attributed to the organisation. Just like any other cultic group, PMOI has its own lingo with self-serving definitions of words and phrases. This is even more true when it comes to defining loaded terms such as “terrorism.” The following arguments can be made to illustrate the disingenuous and demagoguery nature of the group’s statements to the court in “denouncing terrorism.” They also show the lack of sophistication in the EU legal system PMOI has taken advantage of.

The truth of the matter is, not only has MEK refused to denounce violence in its Farsi (Persian) publications, but a review of its recent Farsi materials reveals the opposite. A true denouncement of terrorism should start with a publicly-stated commitment to peaceful and non-violent agenda in the group’s mainstream media, and in its native language. To whisper anti-terror statements to non-Iranian audience without first defining terrorism, and yet publicly glorifying violence under the façade of “revolutionary military resistance” is a known deceptive tactic for those familiar with terror groups. When PLO decided to abandon its military campaign against Israel, and before it was taken seriously by the international community, they publicly announced the shift in their views for their own people in their native tongue, Arabic. PLO also publicly vouched for its commitment to peaceful settlement of its conflicts with Israel followed by announcing its readiness to join the negotiation table.

This is a good paradigm to gauge MEK’s sincerity in its non-violent and peaceful approach, if indeed such commitment exists. PMOI has never believed that its past and present actions have amounted to terrorism. Therefore, when they make private statements denouncing terrorism, what they actually mean is denouncing the actions of others deemed to fall under the definition of “terrorism” in the group’s own dictionary.

The mullahs in Iran, rightly branded as the godfather of international terrorism, have done exactly the same. They too denounce terrorism, and even see themselves as the “victim” of such acts. They do this because they see the actions of others (their opponents) as terrorist activities, not their own. It seems as though the term terrorism is defined by the subjective underlying beliefs and causes of its perpetrators. PMOI claims whatever they do is aimed at the toppling of an oppressive regime, therefore it is justified. Consequently, violence and killing of others is not labelled as terrorism, it is worded as “revolutionary military resistance” as stated in the PMOI’s various Farsi (Persian) publications.

To make my point even clearer, I pose the following key, yet simple question to those who seem to have believed PMOI’s private statement in denouncing terrorism. Does PMOI believe that its military actions in the past fit the definition of terrorism? Any answer but a definitive “yes” to this question leads to a logical conclusion that relying on the PMOI’s private remarks in denouncing what the group considers as terrorism is akin to believing Hitler’s orations in endorsing friendship and cooperation among neighbours. It is a pure manipulation.

The core philosophy of PMOI’s existence is based on violence and terrorism. This is depicted in the group’s emblem as well as the logo of the group’s Farsi (Persian) weekly, the Mojahed.

As seen in the pictures above (left), there is a Koran verse that sits on top of a globe. The informal translation of this verse reads “God has given His priority and special blessings to the warriors (Mujahedin) of His path than the non-warriors (sitters).” This crystallises MEK’s core ideology to establish a world under the Islamic laws. The Earth meridian on the left side of the globe emphasises MEK’s beliefs in internationalism. Also as evident in the emblem, the term Mojahed has graphically metamorphosed into an arm bearing a rifle. This is meant to portray MEK’s core philosophy that military might is the only means of achieving the organization’s goals. The picture on the right is the PMOI’s weekly logo. In this logo, a mirror image of the word MOJAHED in projected as a rifle (April 30, 2008), again, to depict the group’s core view that violence and terrorism is the way to go. The Farsi statement at the bottom of the pictures above refers to National Liberation Army (NLA), the group’s main apparatus of violence and terrorism, and reads “long live NLA as the mighty arm of the heroic people of Iran.” (Mojahed weekly, No. 906, May 7, 2008).

Once again, emphasizing violence and terrorism as the PMOI’s main artery of its existence. With regard to the absence of terror activities by MEK in the past five years (supposedly the threshold period for removal from the FTO list), it would suffice to remind the English maxim that “the wolf may lose his teeth but never his nature.” The group was disarmed after the coalition forces raided Camp Ashraf in 2003, effectively pulling the teeth of its terror machine. The savage nature of PMOI has remained intact, however.

A strong court system is needed if we are serious in combating terrorism. The UK court fell short of a mature legal framework when it was manipulated by the PMOI. This should teach other courts in EU to be alert and cognizant of terror groups tactics. Terror groups like PMOI are capable of deceiving politicians and the public. They take advantage of a porous legal system and waylay for the due time to show their true barbaric nature.

Ahmad Baaraan – Paris, May 19, 2008 – ABaaraan@yahoo.fr

May 19, 2008 0 comments

Lord Corbett

Lord Colbert does not do his title justice

(Robin Corbett, who promoted terrorism in Iran and Iraq under the logo of MKO for the past 25 years!!)

For centuries the colonizers exploited and dominated the third world. Today, one of the more subtle tools of imperialism is the use of value-laden language that seeks to define the Arab and Muslim world. With labels such as ‘terrorists’ and ‘Islamofascism’, they wish to establish an ‘Orientalist’ perspective of otherness denoting barbarism as set apart from Israel and the West which represents admirable qualities. It is imperative to reject this imperial imposition of characterization and for each state, individually and collectively, to self-rule, foremost through self-definition.

The case of Mojahedeen-e Khalg (MEK) showcases the ever present imperial influence of the West in defining the ‘other’ due to the ownership of language. The hypocrisy is stark given that the U.S. with the help of her ally the British waged a ‘war on terror’ which has resulted in the death of over a million people to date. Yet, a certain Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, a member of the House of Lords from Gordon Brown’s ruling Labor Party, has coauthored an opinion piece with Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA), both of whom promote the terrorist organization of the MEK. In their opinion, these two argue that engagement with Iran would risk, among other things, a “support for international terrorism”[i].

Lord Corbet Lord Colbert does not do his title justice; to paraphrase Samuel Butler, a degenerate nobleman is like a turnip. There is nothing good of him but that which is under ground. Else how can he explain throwing in his lot with terrorists who are in the employ of Israel?”Israel is said to have had a relationship with the M.E.K at least since the late nineties, and to have supplied a satellite signal for N.C.RI. broadcasts from Paris into Iran” [ii]. Their servitude to the Israelis was after they had committed treason, murder, and terrorism while under the tutelage of Saddam Hossein – the man that the Americans and the British considered a threat to world peace, and whose demise and the invasion of Iraq has now caused a threat to world peace.

While innocent Iraqis were being killed en masse in the ‘war on terror’, the Commander in Chief gave ‘special persons status’ to Saddam’s pet terrorists in Camp Ashraf while an associate from the powerful Republican lobbying group of Barbour Griffith & Rogers invited Neil Livingstone, the C.E.O. of Global Options, an international risk-management firm, and Gregory Minjack, who was an executive at Public Strategies, a Washington-based crisis-management company” to remove the group from the FTO designation. The lobby group was not without help. Congressman Filner has been on the Hill promoting the group. But perhaps one of their most ardent admirers is Cuban-born Congresswoman Senator Ros-Lehtinen who is not new to the game.

In February 1988, Orlando Bosch had been arrested in Miami and implicated in the 1976 Cubana plot, a terrorist act which had resulted in the downing of flight 455 killing 73 passengers. Joe D. Whitley, associate United States Attorney General at the time, called Bosch “a terrorist, unfettered by laws or human decency, threatening and inflicting violence without regard to the identity of his victims”[iii], had the distinct advantage of having Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) Bosch’s release as one of the cornerstones of her 1989 congressional campaign. This murderer of 73 innocent lives had the more good luck. Ros-Lehtinen’s campaign manager was Jed Bush, the President’s son. In July 1989, a month after meeting his son Jed and Ros-Lehtinen to discuss the Bosch case, President Bush rejected his Justice Department’s recommendation and authorized Bosch’s release who became a resident of the United States two years later.[iv] In granting the MEK terrorists asylum in Iraq, George W. is following a family trend.

Bosch’s terrorist partner, Cuban-born, Luis Posada Carriles dedicated his life to the over throw of Fidel Castro and was a CIA recruit who participated in the calamitous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, “he was part of Operation Southern Front…and he worked for the Hammer [Oliver North]…From 1967 to 1986, Luis was a compensated agent of the CIA. And George Bush, the vice president, knew what he was doing.”[v] Yet for blowing up a plane and causing 73 people to be killed, he was arrested in 2005 on immigration charges and released in 2007[vi] . It is interesting to note that George H.W. Bush was director of the CIA when the Cubana airliner exploded. What makes the Cuban-born Ros-Lehtinen support the MEK terrorists, does she have a fatal attraction towards assassins and murderers? Or are she and the rest of Congress following the leader of nation that has waged ‘war on terror’?

Perhaps they believe that by imposing the colonial language of calling the ‘other’ ‘uncivilized’ and state sponsor of terrorists, their mass murder and moral annihilation will go unnoticed. “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” – J.F. Kennedy.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an Iranian-American studying at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She is a member of World Association of International Studies society, Stanford. Her research focus is U.S. foreign policy towards Iran, Iran’s nuclear program, and the influence of lobby groups. She is a peace activist, essayist, radio commentator and public speaker.

[i] http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-world-press/

dont-enable-irans-offenses.html

[ii] Connie Bruck, “A reporter at large: Exiles; How Iran’s expatriates are gaming the nuclear threat”. The New Yorker, March 6, 2006

[iii] Quoted in Weiner, “Case of Cuban Exile Could Test the U.S. Definition of Terrorist,” p. A1.

[iv] Bardach, “Twilight of the Assassins.”

[v] Bardach, “Ibid

[vi] “The Good Terrorist: The United States and Cuba,” The Economist vol. 383, iss. 8526. 28 April 2007. p. 44.

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, Counter Currents, May 17, 2008

http://www.countercurrents.org/ulrich170508.htm

May 17, 2008 0 comments

Open Letter to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Dear Prime Minister,

The ruling of the UK court of appeal on May 7 indicates that the government has failed to win an appeal against a previous court ruling to keep the terrorist MKO on its proscribed list. However, the ruling has led to an increased tension that may face your country with new challenges. Although your government has insisted that it will ensure that public safety is not endangered by de-proscription of the terrorist MKO, and as the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith reiterated "We will ensure that the safety of the public is not in any way jeopardised by this and tighten legislation if necessary”, it might imply that the government and the judiciary system walk on opposite lines.

We come to understand that you are well aware of the four past decades’ notorious activities of MKO and its future terrorist potentialities when we hear the Home Secretary saying the group has "a long history of terrorism and this is why it was proscribed both in the UK and by other countries around the world”. For sure, such a perception is based on confidential intelligences that for security reasons the public opinion has to be uninformed but are raison d’être for keeping MKO on the list.

In contrast, the court relies only on some partial evidences of the past four years for its judgment. MKO cessation of militarism and terrorism claimed by the group and to which the court refers as an evidence has never been the result of a deliberate choice but forced on it following the coalition forces attack to Iraq as part of fulfilling a mission of uprooting terrorism. There are clear evidences to show that MKO military activities continued right up to the allied invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Even right now they are openly promoting terrorism and threatening their critics in the EU and US.

How is that a globally blacklisted terrorist group decides overnight to abandon all military action and instead to use political will as a means of bringing about freedom and democracy to Iranian people while majority of its fighters are still active in a military camp, many of them held against their will. Furthermore, have you ever received any officially issued statement concerning MKO’s forswearing terrorism?

It is an undeniable fact that MKO remains a terrorist group and will retain its terrorist potentialities even if removed from all countries’ lists. It might only question credibility of claims to combat terrorist threats. MKO’s resort to militarism is not the outcome of a once deliberate decision to abandon it deliberately but innate in its early ideology and methodology of struggle. As once openly asserted by Mehdi Abrishamchi, Maryam Rajavi’s first husband, military infrastructure of the organization stems from its ideology; “We are not the ones to decide the necessity of an organized or aggressive struggle; we are not the ones to decide where to an organized or unorganized struggle leads us. It is not our mentality to decide the necessity of an armed struggle”.

At the time when the terrorist cult of Mojahedin has to be prosecuted for countless instances of terrorist operations against Iranian and Iraqi people, we are shocked to see it is nearly acquitted of its crimes and orders to unleash it of its controlling tag, and somehow, apologized for the injustice done against it by its proscription! It won’t be out of the blue to picture MKO and Maryam Rajavi in particular insisting on an official apology from the UK government, Ministry of Justice and even Her Majesty’s Court.

There are some speculations for the reasons behind the court’s ruling; political reasons, ties of some kind and lack of knowledge about the group’s terrorist nature. No doubt, the escalated tension between Iran and the West plays a role to keep MKO on the scene for instrumental use against Iran. That is the case with a number of the US politicians causing challenges among the country’s administration. It is also the same with some British MPs. It has to be studied to what extent such condemned relations can influence and benefit a country’s national interests and solve internal as well as global problems if the politicians feel a responsibility to have a share.

The stigma of conducting ties with proscribed terrorists is too bad for the advocates of a nation. For any political or maybe personal reasons, ties with the individuals and entities that threaten people’s security is a blameworthy act.

It has to be also pointed out that MKO manipulate sophisticated techniques to establish close friendly ties with politicians who are in dark about the true nature of the organization and fail to have access to accurate evidences on the group’s past history. It is mostly because MKO’s history is a mess of complexity and hardly any outsider can become acquainted with the complexities of its history. Presented evidences on the group’s history in the three past court rulings are good examples to notice.

MKO only believe in a black and white world and whoever walks in the former side is the foe and has to be confronted. If the supposed foe is too powerful to confront, the language of profanity and threat will substitute. MKO’s blasphemous and threatening tone in reaction to the EU Council of Ministers’ decision and other international and humanitarian organizations that disclosed truths on violent nature of the group portend heavy costs that the European states have to sustain. Your country, as a member of European Union, can well prevent unexpected violent moves by MKO agents if well ordered countermeasures are taken and the members are put under close surveillance. Any remiss in close monitoring and investigating of MKO’s activities results in irreparable damages that make statesmen confront great challenges regardless of the heavy price that will be imposed on Western citizens.

Long known as a globally blacklisted terrorist group, MKO is transformed into a destructive cult and a cult of personality as proscribed by the US state Department report in May 2007. In many cases, MKO is referred to as second to al-Qaeda for its globally threatening features and, in spite of being expelled from Iraq, majority of Western countries’ security apparatus are cautious about penetration of its members since they know they would have a hard task to deal with the organization. And your country is not an exception.

The killing of a Brazilian man by armed plainclothes Metropolitan police who shot him as a preventive measure to guarantee the national security is a plain evidence that you are concerned about further possible violent, terrorist operations. It has to be taken into consideration that MKO is a bigger threat since it has merged terrorism with cultism, the latter being the second modern world’s nightmare along the former. Regardless of any court’s ruling, security systems have to be necessarily more watchful of the organization since it will be too late to deal with it after it has struck. A look at Iranian’s contemporary history depicting countless instances of MKO atrocities will be sufficient to remove any subsisting doubts.

Mojahedin.ws – May 17, 2008

May 17, 2008 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

MKO Should Be listed a Terrorist Group

Expounded by Sattar Orangi on April 19, 2008, the poisonous Barren Land that has devastated many lives of its own inhabitants and was the main terrorist bastion in accomplice with Saddam to plot against Iranian people cannot possibly bloom flowers of peace and democracy. The piece of land the ousted dictator once granted to the vipers is still the focus of a global dispute; cooperating with Saddam Hussein ironically called a city of resistance, Camp Ashraf is now the prison of about 3,500 MKO’s members who are held against their will under the protection of the coalition forces. How can a military camp that its leaders violate and disrespect all principles of freedom and democracy can be called a bastion of freedom as Brian Binley, a Member of Parliament from the British Conservative Party, claims?

In an article published in The Middle East Times, he claims that Camp Ashraf stands as a symbol of democratic freedom in the middle of Iraq’s barren land. Surprisingly, he further states that “very little has been heard here in the West about this bastion of freedom which shines as a beacon for the Iranian people and lovers of democracy worldwide. In other words we have a duty to defend and protect Ashraf not only for the sake of the Iranians who continue to oppose the evil regime in Tehran but also for our own sake”.

He might be right that little has been heard there in the West about such forlorn bastion of freedom but the torments of a remarkable number of human souls that are putting up with the most unbearable cult-like conditions and pressures within the walls of the oddest bastion of freedom is a reality no conscious soul can ever overlook. Thus, for sure some people are concerned about the plights of these enslaved human beings under the auspices of their occupying forces when their related courts decide that it would be unjust to rule in any way that might lead to the freedom of these forgotten people.

As reported by the International Herald Tribune publishing an Associated Press news release, the British Court of Appeal on Wednesday affirmed a lower court ruling that Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI) should not be listed as a terrorist organization. Reportedly, three justices led by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Philips, rejected an appeal by the Home Office against a lower court ruling in November in favor of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran.

"An organization that has temporarily ceased from terrorist activities for tactical reasons is to be contrasted with an organization that has decided to attempt to achieve its aims by other than violent means," the judge said. "The latter cannot be said to be ‘concerned in terrorism,’ even if the possibility exists that it might decide to revert to terrorism in the future," he said.

Then, as the judges have concluded, the current act of inflicting unbearable torments by the organization in the question on its own insiders kept against their will in the heart of a desert can in no way be regarded an act of terrorism. They believe that MKO is terrorist only if it targets Westerners or blast bombs in their cities. A truth to be digested by the unaware is that terrorism is innate the organization’s ideology and it can never split the natural instinct off in the same way a leopard cannot change its spots.

Mojahedi.ws – May 8, 2008

May 8, 2008 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MEK and the Terror Lists

Following my response to Patrick Clawson’s piece of April 25, I received several inquiries about my views of MEK and its recent launching of a massive deceptive campaign aiming to remove the group from the list of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) published and maintained by the State Department in the United States. This article is intended to clarify my views on MEK and that why the US and EU need to maintain the group in their respective terror lists.

Whether you refer to them as MEK, MKO, PMOI, OMPI, NCR, NCRI, or NLA etc., you are essentially referring to the same entity with diverse multiple aliases. When the NCRI’s office was shut in Washington, MEK challenged the State Department in court. MEK argued that NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran) is a different entity than MEK, and that MEK’s designation as an FTO should not have been extended to the NCRI. On April 2, 2004 the US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia heard the MEK arguments, and on July 9, 2004 denied MEK’s petition for review. The court noted: “after an extensive investigation of MEK and NCRI… the NCRI is not a separate organization, but is instead, and has been, an integral part of MEK at all relevant times.” [362 U.S. App. D.C. 143; 373 F.3d 152, &158; 2004 U.S. App.]

NCRI has portrayed itself as a pervasive coalition of which MEK is just a member. In the same opinion, the above court noted: “Contrary to NCRI’s portrayal of itself as an umbrella organization, of which the MEK was just one member… it is NCRI that is the political branch of MEK.”

Much to my regret, the EU has failed to recognize this symbiotic existence of the two, and consequently has banned only the MEK. In my opinion, EU needs to recognize that NCRI is just a vanity for MEK to legitimize its existence on EU soil. I know that our president, Mr. Sarkozy, is personally aware of this fact, and has refused to meet with any representatives of the MEK under the disguise of the NCRI. Nevertheless the EU needs to understand this as well in order to enlist the NCRI in the terror list. It is also noteworthy to mention that the Farsi version of the NCRI’s constitution refers to violence as the pivotal means by which the regime change will come about.

Denouncing Terrorism!

The pivotal arguments favoring de-proscribing MEK from the terror list revolve around two factors: Alleged MEK denouncement of terrorism; and lack of violent activity in the last 5 years. To understand the trickery and even demagoguery in such arguments, one needs to be familiar with the culture and lingo of terror groups. Like many recognized cultic organizations, MEK has its own definitions of words and terms commonly used in everyday conversations. For example, MEK has never acknowledged his involvement in terrorism. Indeed it claims to be the “victim” of the regime’s terrorist operations. Therefore when MEK privately denounces terrorism, it is not referring to its own actions. Instead, it merely condemns actions deemed as terrorism in its own narrow vision. MEK has labeled its terrorist activities as “revolutionary military resistance” since June 20, 1981. This is true for almost all terror groups like MEK. They never agree with objective reviews of their actions labeled as terrorism. Even the current regime in Tehran, rightly known as the godfather of terrorism, routinely denounces terrorism, and considers itself as the “victim” of such acts. The disingenuous denouncement of terrorism by MEK and other terror groups can be easily countered by asking a few direct questions from such claimants- Do you believe that MEK was involved in terrorism in the past, say prior to 2003? If so, when, where, and how? A logical follow up question would be, has MEK publicly announced such denouncement in its Farsi Language publications? If so, where is the evidence? The truth of the matter is, not only has MEK refused to denounce violence in its Farsi publications, but a review of its recent Farsi materials reveals the opposite. A true denouncement of terrorism should start with a publicly-stated commitment to peaceful and non-violent agenda in the group’s mainstream media, and in its native language (remember that Iranians speak in Farsi as their main language, and MEK publishes its materials mainly in Farsi). To whisper anti-terror statements with non-Iranian audience without first defining terrorism, and yet publicly glorifying violence under the façade of “revolutionary military resistance” is a known deceptive tactic for those familiar with terror groups.

When PLO decided to abandon its military campaign against Israel, and before it was taken seriously by the international community, they publicly announced the shift in their views for their own people in their native tongue, Arabic. PLO also publicly vouched for its commitment to peaceful settlement of its conflicts with Israel followed by announcing its readiness to join the negotiation table. This is a good paradigm to gauge MEK’s sincerity in its non-violent and peaceful approach, if indeed such commitment exists.

With regard to the absence of terror activities by MEK in the past five years (supposedly the threshold period for removal from the FTO list), it would suffice to keep in mind the English maxim that “the wolf may lose his teeth but never his nature.” Violence is, and has always been, the MEK’s pivotal form of settling conflicts with others. A glance at the group emblem and logo make it clear what the group is all about. As seen in the picture below, there is a Koran verse that sits on top of a globe. The informal translation of this verse is that “God has given His priority and special blessings to the warriors (Mujahedin) of His path than the non-warriors (sitters).” This crystallises MEK’s core ideology to establish a world under the Islamic laws. The Earth meridian on the left side of the globe emphasises MEK’s internationalism. Also as evident in the emblem, the term Mojahed has graphically metamorphosed into an arm bearing a gun. This is meant to portray MEK’s core philosophy that military might is the only means of achieving the organization’s goals. I can’t help but to say no wonder that the MEK has reportedly been favored by individuals known to many as war-mongers, George Bush, Dick Chaney, and Dick Armey, to name just a few. In short, use of violence and terror is in the core existence of MEK as portrayed in their organizational logo. Therefore, it is natural to say that “the wolf” has kept his nature, and only the gullible would drift into its deceptive tactics.

It is prudent to maintain the MEK in the terror list to better monitor its activities. It is a naiveté to accept the group’s private statements as a real commitment to a peaceful and non-violent agenda. A true departure from violence starts with an honest review of one’s past, admitting to past mistakes, defining terrorism, and a public pledge to a peaceful and non-violent campaign.

By Ahmad Baaraan, Paris
ABaaraan@yahoo.fr

May 6, 2008 0 comments

France

The EU Presidency and Terrorism

France is already preparing for its EU Presidency which is scheduled for July-December 2008. For sure, France has identified a number of key policy areas on which to focus when it assumes the presidency. The first issue that is of great importance for the country members of the EU is security and preventive measures against terrorism and its global threat, a responsibility all the countries have a share to fulfill. The first measure is to identify any group that may pose even a minimum of threat and the sensible precautionary measure is not to unleash those already under the control.

Residing long in France, the blacklisted MKO has proven how dangerous it will be if granted a bit of freedom. France never forgets the group’s cult-like self-immolation operations in June 2003 with the case of terrorist allegation still open and investigated in French courts. The recently held seminar in Strasburg organized by the terrorist MKO was not merely an attempt to gather support for the removal of its terrorist tag. MKO’s she-guru Maryam Rajavi anticipated that there are signs that France has adopted a firm policy against Iran, particularly on the nuclear issue. As a result, it has fostered hope in her that France will show more leniency toward Iranian opposition.

Even if France for any reason has adopted a hard policy against Iran, it does not necessarily mean that it consents to the rule of terrorism and prescribes it for another country as a trusted means to establish democracy. No doubt, the French presidency of the EU from 1 July will not be a backsliding to the appeasement of terrorism particularly one of the most notorious ones that France is well acquainted with its nature.

Self Immolation

The EU presidency and Terrorism

Mojahedin.ws – April 27, 2008

April 27, 2008 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

Sister Hillary

It seems Hillary Clinton has sacrificed her conscience to ambition. Chinese proverb has it that “he who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes”. She announced her readiness to reduce 70 million Sister Hillary innocent Iranian lives to ashes so that she could imagine her picture in the White House. Her lust for ambition will never be satisfied; on the contrary, it seems to grow more inflamed with the prospect of mass murder. After all, this is nothing new to her.

Hillary knowingly supported the Iraq war to defend the “future of freedom”. In her drive for the Iraq war, she was supported by the Progressive Policy Institute, a self-described think-tank of the Democratic Leadership Council[i]. Perhaps no one describes the group better than former neoconservative Jacob Heilbrunn who wrote: “Don’t look now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback-and not among the Republicans who have made it famous, but in the Democratic Party,”[ii]. Indeed, many of them supported the war for the purpose of promoting democracy.

Her ideology has contributed to the nation’s moral bankruptcy, the loss of over one million lives, and the depletion of America’s treasury. These neoliberals who have driven us into a quagmire, elaborated it would serve America’s interest to promote the Democratic peace theory. Scholars, university professors, and neoliberal jurists presented the concept that sovereignty, as it stood in international law did not provide immunity from attack to states engaging in systematic human rights abuses or amassing weapons of mass destruction. These would be considered ‘pariah’ states to be attacked by democratic coalitions with a warrant to liberalize them.[iii] Candidate Hillary comes from this stock. It seems that the only thing which differentiates her from McCain is the conduct of the war in Iraq, not the immoral and illegal war itself.

One can see why she would oppose the Bush conduct in this war by understanding the PPI. A book entitled “With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty” edited by Will Marshall (President of PPI) outlines the strategy difference the ‘progressives’ (neoliberals) and the Bush unilateralism. The war in Iraq is part of a strategy for”building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy.”[iv]. She has endorsed the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based on her belief that she holds a superior ideology which must be imposed on others, regardless of the cost and the consequences.

No doubt a person’s character is never so well disclosed as when it is seen through the company he/she keeps. It appears that Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D -Texas), co-chair of Hillary’s presidential campaign, not only shares her friendship with America’s presidential hopeful, but she also promotes America’s terrorists[v]. The Mojaheden-e Khalgh (MEK) were put on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list by President Clinton for they were responsible for the assassination of Americans in Iran in the 1970’s, as well as for their role in the US embassy takeover[vi], yet their leader and Hillary have a common friend and promoter. Congresswoman Jackson Lee went as far as calling Rajavi “Sister Maryam,[vii]. Are Hillary and Maryam ‘sisters’ too? Is our presidential candidate ‘sister’ to a notorious cult leader?

Raymond Tanter, a former National Security Agency staffer who led the IPC, predicted that the MEK would be removed from the terrorist list and be used by the US against the regime.”I foresee a situation where Laura Bush, Condi Rice, Karen Hughes, and Maryam Rajavi are posing for a picture in the White House,”[viii]. Tanter was not far off. The MEK is certainly being used, and in all likelihood they will be moved from the terrorist list. However, Maryam Rajavi may have to wait for the photo op and take it with Sister Hillary.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an Iranian-American studying at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Her research focus is US foreign policy towards Iran, Iran’s nuclear program, and influence of lobby groups. She is a peace activist, essayist, radio commentator and public speaker.

Notes:

[i] Tony Smith, “A Pact with the Devil. Washington’s bid for world supremacy and the betrayal of the American promise’. Routledge 2007.

[ii] Jacob Heilbrunn,”Neocons in the Democratic Party,”Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2006.

[iii] Tony Smith. Ibid.

[iv] Will Marshall, editor, With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty, PPI (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006).

[v] http://www.maryam-rajavi.com/content/view/168/66/

[vi] http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/

[vii] Financial Times, October 6, 2005.

[viii] Connie Bruck, “A reporter at large: Exiles; How Iran’s expatriates are gaming the nuclear threat”. The New Yorker, March 6, 2006.

Middle-east-online – Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Terrorists Among Us

Mojahedin’s Khalgh’s foothold in U.S. Congress and the mass media

In recent months, there has been significant activity by a terrorist group lobbying Senators and Congressmen on Capitol Hill.

The Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an Islamic socialist organization listed on the State Department list of terrorists, has launched a widespread lobbying campaign to persuade US politicians to unfreeze bank accounts associated with the MEK and to promote war with Iran. In pursuit of these objectives, the MEK and its affiliate, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), have created numerous front groups, with the express aim to lobby prominent California members of Congress. Their targets include Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi—all individuals who urge high-level diplomacy with Iran.

The MEK identify themselves as representatives of the Iranian American community in order to persuade Congress that the Iranian Americans support a foreign invasion. As a result, the MEK have falsely represented the perspectives of the Iranian-American community. Iranian Americans have no association with the MEK have largely condemned the group’s activities. The MEK was formed in the 1960s as an opposition group to the Shah and, since then, has been responsible for killing numerous Iranians and Americans throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

Following the Islamic Revolution in 1979, members of the MEK assisted Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guards suppress the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings in Iraq, and are responsible for assassinating several political and military figures inside Iran.As a result of these actions, the MEK are widely condemned by all Iranians around the world as an extremist Islamist cult.

To the Iranian community, the MEK represent the same threatening extremism that al-Qaeda poses to the general American public. It is disturbing, to say the least, that such an organization is utilizing the name of Iranian Americans to justify its political ideology.

It is equally disturbing that a terrorist organization is being allowed a foothold in both Congress and the mass media.

In addition to lobbying Congress, the MEK have held themselves out as representatives of Iranian Americans on major news networks. For example, Alireza Jafarzadeh, a former spokesman for the MEK, currently works as a FOX News Channel Foreign Affairs Analyst.

Fox News has also invited MEK Secretary General, Mojgan Parsai, to discuss Iranian affairs as an expert. Nevertheless, Iranian-Americans throughout the United States, including California, do not subscribe to the political beliefs of the MEK.

In fact, according to a recent poll by the University of California at Berkeley on the political attitudes of Iranian Americans, over 66% of California Iranian-Americans believe that the US should establish diplomatic relations with Iran. In fact, only 13% maintain that the US should engage in strategic bombings of Iran’s nuclear targets; and only 8% favor the bombings of Iranian military and oil installations.

This stands in stark contrast with the perspectives of the MEK and its front organization. As part of its propaganda campaign, the MEK publish newspapers and websites like IranTerror.com and IranFocus.com. As an Iranian American, I am outraged that the MEK is attempting to hijack the perspectives of my community. The MEK do not represent Iranian-Americans in California – or anywhere else for that matter.

Our politicians and media officials should be wary that the MEK and its fringe organizations have their own political beliefs, and that these political beliefs do not reflect mainstream attitudes. The Iranian-American community wishes peace between Iran and the United States with an eye toward diplomacy, democracy, and human rights. by nmilaninia , Iranian.com, April 14, 2008 – http://www.iranian.com/main/2008/terrorists-among-us

April 14, 2008 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts