The MKO terrorist cult threatened Iraqi newsmen who had released documents indicating that the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) had a hand in suppressing Iraqi Shiites’ Intifada [in 1991]. According to Albayyenah newspaper, the MKO terrorist group made death threats to Iraqi newsmen through the internet and their mobile phones as well. These newsmen had published documents on the MKO having a hand in suppressing the Intifada of Iraqi Shiites. Albayyenah also adds: As a result of these open threats, the Iraqi Newsmen’s Union will condemn the MKO’s recent measure through issuing a formal statement. The MKO terrorist cult has also already threatened Ali Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman who is also responsible for Iraq’s Research Center, with death because of opposing the Monafeghin’s remaining in Iraq.
Mujahedin Khalq Terror group
EU human rights and civil foundations despite Zionist lobby’s efforts aimed at removal of MKO’s name from international terror organs, stress need for maintaining grouplet’s name in that list. Political and media circles within the European Union reflected those foundations’ demand during the Tuesday session of the European Parliament at that body’s EU-IRI Parliamentary Relations Commission. Among the other issues addressed at the session, there were discussions on a recent visit by an EU parliamentary delegation to the Islamic Republic of Iran. At the session which was held in the presence of the members of Iran-EU Parliamentary Relations Commission, EC representatives, EP members, and the head of the MKO, one more time the terrorist nature of that anti-Iranian organization was stressed. The head of MKO had attended the session on an invitation sent to her by a pro-Zionist EP member, but was seriously humiliated due to the heavy anti-MKO atmosphere of the meeting.
Americans bizarre approach in arming proscribe terrorist organisations like Mojahedin Khalq Full report: Solana, Al-Baradi’i and China good for Iran’s active diplomacy Ali Larijani said that Iran, Javier Solana and International Atomic Energy Agency are the three angles of a triangle that has brought fruitful results for the Islamic Republic’s diplomacy while stressing the importance of using China as a potentially important card to play for future diplomatic engagements. At 1913 gmt the Iranian television started broadcasting a live interview with Ali Larijani, the former head of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran. Reacting to the National Intelligence Estimate report on Iran’s nuclear policy Larijani said:”This is in effect a triangle one of the angles of which is Iran, another which is Solana and the third is Al-Baradi’i… The Chinese have significant economic ties with us, while at he same time we have common interests. In other words, if a certain problem arises and becomes complex then the principle country within the group of 5+1 to be affected by this will be the Chinese”
The presenter, Morteza Heydari, asked for the overall reaction of Ali Larijani who said that ”this is a great fiasco for the Americans. The Americans must be impeached for this”. He added that although there are many ifs and buts in the report the main contention of the report is that the basis of all allegations against Iran is false. He pointed to the fact that the report says that ”we can say with great confidence that Iran does not have a military programme in its nuclear project”.
Larijani added: they do leave the door open with certain ambiguities in their report to allow US adventurism.
He went on to add that three issues come out in the overall analysis: Firstly that Iran has no nuclear arms. Secondly, that between 2003 and 2007 it has not pursued a military programme in its nuclear project and finally that it will not be able to do that until 2015.
He stressed that the report makes some erroneous statements notably that Iran has been pressurised into its cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency. He dismissed these saying that they have misunderstood Iran’s confidence building and good will measures.
Presenter asked him why is it that out of the 150 page report they have only published 9 pages of it. Is it because the Americans are saying that Iran has stopped its military programmes when pressures increased on Iran or is it that the Democrats have put pressure on the Bush Administration to publish these nine pages.
Larijani said that this is no accidental leak or due to Democratic pressure. He continued that the Americans are facing a ”crisis of honesty”.
The former Supreme National Security General-Secretary and present advisor to the leader added that Bush had, also, said that it is due to the reforms of the intelligence apparatus that these sorts of reports come out. He dismissed it as disingenuous and dishonest.
He conjectured another possibility on the so called ”Zionist lobby”. 1930
The National Security advisor to the leader added: The other possibility is that they may try to manipulate some members of the 5+1 saying that although we accept that there may be no military aspect to Iran’s nuclear programme it nevertheless shows that pressures on Iran have worked which is why no military pursuit of the nuclear programme has been detected.
Larijani, also, paid tribute to the Iranian nation’s resolute stance against ”bullying” by USA and this is what has caused the report to be leaked.
Presenter asked why is it that the ”Zionists” have firmly rejected the report despite the fact that many of the European countries have reserved judgment.
Larijani said that ”Zionist” leaders have been shocked by this report. He said that he doubts that the ”Zionists” will be able to make great capital out of this.
Larijani added that the Chinese are playing a more active role which is positive and must be welcome.
Larijani said that there is no guarantee that the Americans will come to their senses and stop their policies against Iran. They have to understand that through putting pressures on Iran they can not dissuade Iranian people from their nuclear policies.
He added that as Iran is a democratic country then Iran must be engaged diplomatically:”If there is a country with a sustainable democracy in the region it is Iran. The influential aspect of Iran is important in the region. It is obvious that they can have a proper engagement with this country. It is in the interests of the 5+1 countries. When I spoke to some leaders of Europe they used to tell me that they want to use Iran’s potential to create security in the region and for extending economic relations. You can use this potential. It will be in your own interests. And, naturally you will achieve more in the realm of regional interests and energy security and comprehensive economic relations with Iran. This is our suggestions.”
Asked about President Bush’s statement that ”Iran is a danger” Larijani said that ever since September 11, 2001, there is an air of savagery in American attitudes.
Presenter asked that one of the reasons cited for the subsiding of tensions in Iraq is due to Iran meddling less in Iraq affairs, how true is this?
Larijani said that talks were held three times with Iran. Iran has presented a coherent programme to help Iraq but the Americans are conducting certain bizarre approaches such as arming non-military groups some 70,000 in number. He drew parallels between this policy and arming the Mojahedin Khalq fighters and Pezhak in Kordestan. He called this serious. He said that this tactic will not change the realities of Iraq.
He went on to say that Iran has always helped the Iraqi government while knowing its own obligations and duties.
He dismissed the war-peace dichotomy of some of the discourses in the West adding that these are for internal consumption and they are false, no one wants to see war and things must not be seen in such black and white terms.
Presenter asked him what the realistic scenario for Iran’s dossier to be closed in the Security Council?
Larijani said that by rights Iran’s dossier must be closed. He added, however, that what is right is not necessarily what will happen in reality.
Larijani added:”We have to pursue an active and smart diplomacy in order to block their adventurism. It is obvious that the Americans are pursuing a policy of creating nuisance. This particular avenue [The nuclear dossier] has been blocked now but they will pursue another agenda. It is clear what this new agenda is going to be. It is not very complex. I believe that if Iran pursues a several-pronged approach – which at any rate it is doing already – it can be quite effective. One of these is cooperation with the Agency. We have said that we will follow this line up. Mr Al-Baradi’i’s report was a good one. Of course I have made criticisms of it saying that it had to be written in a more precise way. Some of its statements are not the sort which is at the level of the Agency’s function. It suffers the same problems as this present report [The Intelligence Estimate] saying, for example, that Iran’s cooperation has been reactive. This has no technical or legal characteristic but can turn into a pretext for trouble-making entities.”
He also emphasised the negotiations with Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief saying:”The talks with Mr Solana are quite helpful. Please pay attention to the fact that the Modality approach was the fruit of the debates that we had with Mr Solana. In reality we made an agreement in Lisbon on the basis of which the modality of cooperation with Mr Al-Baradi’i was formulated and an agreement was reached with him. This is in effect a triangle one of the angles of which is Iran, another which is Solana and the third is Al-Baradi’i. This will really help.”
He further pointed to cooperation with the Chinese saying:”I believe that the Chinese constitute a good potential in this too. And my understanding that there are countries who are interested in China playing a useful role. The Chinese have significant economic ties with us, while at he same time we have common interests. In other words, if a certain problem arises and becomes complex then the principle country within the group of 5+1 to be affected by this will be the Chinese… I see that the future is generally bright but we need to pursue a smart diplomacy.” BBC Monitoring Middle East, December 07, 2007 Source: Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 2, Tehran, in Persian 1900 gmt 4 Dec 07
Adm Gregory Smith: US military does not support terrorist Mojahedin Khalq (MKO) Interview with MEHR News, November 25, 2007 BBC Monitoring Middle East Text of report by Iranian conservative news agency Mehr
Tehran, 25 Nov: Rear Adm Gregory Smith, Communication Division Chief for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, who has repeatedly – and without proof – accused the Islamic Republic of Iran of engaging in negative activities in Iraq responded to questions form Mehr news agency concerning US military support to the Monafeghin terrorist group [pejorative meaning hypocrites used by the Iranian government to refer to the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MKO)]. The group has been placed on the list of terrorist groups. He claimed that the US military does not support any terrorist group including the MKO. He admitted: The American government considers the MKO group to be a terrorist group and once again claimed that the US military was not supporting them. Responding to a question from Mehr asking if the US government and the American military would assist the Iraqi government should it expel these individuals – or at the very not interfere with the expulsions, he answered in generalities, saying: We don’t respond to questions that are based on conjecture. This question is speculative, we don’t work on speculations.
Gregory Smith said he had no knowledge of plans for a new round of Iran-US talks on Iraq, saying: Issues relating to these talks are handled by the US embassy in Iraq.
The official spokesperson for the American forces in Iraq commented on the fate of Iranian diplomats who have been held captive by the occupiers since they were taken in Dey last year [Iranian month starts on 22 December], saying: As far as US officials are concerned these individuals are not diplomats. They shall remain in detention for as long as US official believe them to be a threat to Iraq.
Smith went on to say: A committee made up of representatives form the coalition [forces] and the Iraqi government is reviewing this issue.
Iraqi MP Ali al-Adib contradicts claims by this American military official that his country does not support the MKO group, saying: Even though the Iraqi constitution has banned the activities of opposition groups and organization form neighbouring countries, the US military supports the presence of mko terrorist group
In a recent interview with Mehr, Iraq’s Prosecutor General Ja’far al-Musavi confirmed that the file of the mojahedin terrorist group was under review and would not rule out the possibility of an agreement between Tehran and Baghdad that would include provisions for the extradition of the criminals.
He said that members of the mko terrorist group were guilty of participating in the massacre of innocent Iraqis, adding: The judicial process for the prosecution of these this group has started.
During the early days of the revolution, the mojahedin terrorist group acted to the great determent of our nation. They based themselves in camp Ashraf in the Iraqi province of Diala east of Bagdad. The former Ba’th government under the leadership of the executed dictator Saddam cooperated with this group during the imposed war against Iran in the early eighties [Iran-Iraq war 1980-88] and supported them extensively.
The current elected government of Iraq is attempting to remove traces of this terrorist group from its territorial borders because of their role in the massacre of Iraqi dissidents and the genocide against the shi’i uprising in 1991.
Claims made by this American official about Iranian diplomats that were abducted in Arbil this past Dey are being made while the Iraqi government and officials of the Kurdish Regional Government stress that these individuals were engaged in legal activities the Iranian consulate in Arbil. The Americans have only released two of the diplomats.
According to the Iraqi Al Sabah newspaper, the US and Iran are expected to discuss weapons leaked from Iran to groups termed “terrorist” by the US, the Mujahedin Al Khalq organization, US manoeuvres in the Gulf and the US forces’ pull-out from Iraq.
The US allegation posed against Iran in helping what the US calls terrorist and insurgent groups before anything calls down the US dual manner in its war against terrorism, the made excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
The US is well aware of the fact that MKO, long supported by Saddam and his accomplice in many crimes, surrendered its arms only when it was forced to and had no other choice. The group has been on the State Department’s list of Terrorist Organizations since it was first initiated in 1997. However, the group is under the US protection at a time when Iran is rebuked for helping the groups with no terrorist identity on the State Department.
The US has to convince the Iraqis calling for the expulsion of MKO. The US should convince the Iranian part to have confidence in its claims of waging a war against terrorism. But can you convince others that you are concerned about the threat of terrorism and intend to uproot it while you take a most hated terrorist group under your cloak to protect it against any harm?
Following unconventional practices in its power struggle, MKO’s current choice of tactic is ‘survival in split’, that is, taking advantage of the existing political gap between Iran and other countries for its own political survival and the fulfillment of the cult-like objectives. Any instance of meeting between Iranian authorities and the West provide an opportunity for the terrorist Mojahedin to intrude so as to escalate the tension.
For instance, now with the beginning of a recent meeting between Javier Solana and Ali Larijani in Ankara to further negotiation on the issue of Iran’s nuclear programs, the cultist Mohammad Mohaddessin, on behalf of MKO, grabs the chance to condemn the event. It is not because he is concerned about the regime’s nuclear threat; rather it is a precious opportunity to correlate an internationally concerned dispute with the just proscription of a terrorist group with a notorious, bloody past.
Inducing the EU to take a rather harsh policy in dealing with Iran, as compelled by its violent nature, MKO’s foreign chair challenges its inclusion in the EU terror list at a time when the EU intends to declare the reasons for blacklisting it and the like groups. In a part of his message of condemnation we read:
A firm policy would include the imposition of comprehensive technological, military, diplomatic and oil embargo on the clerical regime and by removing obstacles that EU has created for change in Iran, the most important of which is the inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran in the EU terror list and the refusal to remove the PMOI from the watch list despite the clear ruling of the EU Court of Justice in annulling the designation.
Reported by Radio Farda quoting the European Union diplomats, they said on April 20 the European Union will soon inform the proscribed groups and entities through letter the reasons for being listing as terrorists.
Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) is one of the listed terrorists that the European Union is decisive to keep on the list regardless of a decree by the Court of First Instance that annulled the freeze of the group’s assets.
The European Council announced on 31st January following the 2778th Council meeting of Economic and Financial Affairs that it has "decided to provide the PMOI with a statement of reasons for keeping it on the EU’s ‘asset freeze list’ of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts, and to give the PMOI one month to present its views, together with any supporting documentation".
The Council’s decision seems to be a reaction against the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The European Union proscribed MEK on 2002 and ordered its assets to be frozen.
Despite the condemnation of terrorist operations in Zahedan by the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council and their call for the prosecution of those behind the attacks, terrorist group of Mojahedin-e Khalq supported the terrorists under the name of "National Council of Resistance" and asked for the freedom of criminal terrorists who are seeking sectarian and religious divisions.
MKO’s statement says:
"Suppression in Sistan and Baluchistan province has taken new dimensions in recent days Meanwhile, by establishing injustice unofficial courts, regime is going to execute a number of arrested people as quickly as possible in order to frighten the people.
Iranian resistance, calls on humanitarian communities and organizations to condemn the criminal behavior of mullahs’ regime in Sistan and Baluchistan province and try to save the arrested people".
Iran didban, February 22, 2007
Yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from seven men charged with supporting terrorism through fund-raising for terrorist-linked organizations. The appeal came after the 9th Circuit had rejected the defense argument that their contributions to the MEK represented free speech:
The Supreme Court refused Monday to block the trial of seven Los Angeles residents charged with raising money for an Iranian opposition group that was designated a "foreign terrorist organization" by the U.S. government.
Lawyers for the seven had argued the charges were unconstitutional because they had a free-speech right to raise money for a political group.
That claim was rejected by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which noted the Iranian opposition group — the People’s Mujahedeen, also known as the MEK — had a record of supporting assassinations and bombings.
"Sometimes money serves as a proxy for speech, and sometimes it buys goods and services that are not speech. Guns and bombs are not speech," said Judge Andrew Kleinfeld for the appeals court.
This case is not over. Another defense argument, challenging the status of the MEK as a terrorist group, will get a hearing in the actual criminal trial. The MEK opposes the mullahcracy in Teheran, which makes the defense seem more sympathetic than they would otherwise be in a post-9/11 world. However, the MEK (also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq) has been on the State Department watchlist since November 2001. It will be hard to plead ignorance in this case.
Nor will it be that easy to find sympathy for the MEK, its opposition to Teheran notwithstanding. The MEK started out as a Marxist group dedicating to overthrowing the Shah, but Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini got there first. Afterwards, it has acted against the mullahcracy but also against American interests. The MEK was one of the terrorist organizations allied with Saddam Hussein, and worked with Saddam to oppress the Iraqis. It hasn’t attacked Americans since before the Shah fell, but it hardly qualifies as a freedom-fighting force in synch with our aspirations for liberty in Iraq and Iran.
The defense has good reason for its disappointment. If this goes to a jury trial, the defendants will have a very difficult time trying to win an acquittal.
The ruling represents a limit on the definition of speech that seems quite welcome after two generations of practically unlimited applications. Nude dancing, flag burning, and a variety of other behaviors have at one time or another found favor with the Supreme Court as "speech". Perhaps the Court has found a limit even for their own predilection for protecting the cornucopia of human actions through the First Amendment.
Captainquartersblog.com
In a report on Iranian refugees and also on the occasion of the anniversary of approving Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Brussels, Radio Farda said:
"Ms. Sabin Mayer, Director of Human Rights and International Relations of EU’s Greens, pointed to the process of talks between Europe and Iran since the government of Khatami and said: "Geopolitically, Iran is important and European Union believes that Iran can be taken out of isolation only by dialogue. Parliament knows that along with talking with Iranian officials, more activity is needed in the field of talking with Iranian opposition, writers and citizens."
She stressed: "Iran criticized invitation of Maryam Rajavi to Strasburg. Iranian officials said that it was an indication that we were backing the idea of regime change. But we denied it. We know that the MKO has not been a democratic group and that it is a closed group. However, in terms of legal issues, EU’s laws were needed to change and therefore, restriction on MKO’s bank accounts in Europe were lifted."
Radio Farda, December 19, 2006