Following the publication of reports on the then Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton’s decision to delist the
Mujahedin Khalq Organization from the US State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations in September 2012, one of the group’s high profile advocates, Congressman Ted Poe welcomed the Secretary’s intention stating that, the group “has been actively working with US intelligence agencies” (!)
”Some believe that one factor to facilitate the MKO’s removal from terror list was the amounts of money paid to groups like the MKO in order to destabilize the Iranian government,” suggested Mohammad Alavi a blogger of anti-MKO Aria Association "before the MKO was delisted, there was legal prohibition to use the group for that goal". He notices that the US Congress has approved a 3 billion dollar budget for influential efforts to overthrow the states labeled as "rebel" by the United State. The money is paid in cash or for example in exchange for the MKO’s social and political activities.
The fact leads us to the conclusion that the speaking fees the neo-con figures received for their speeches in pro-MKO rallies – which mounted from 3000$ to 16000 $ for a ten minute speech– were actually guaranteed by the US intelligence services that have already fed the MKO for its spying operations against Iran!
Indeed, American warmonger efforts to delist the MKO and the NCRI were useful in many ways. The dirty business of the MKO and its sponsors is now legally (!) registered under the guise of Democracy for Iran. The MKO opened its office across from the White House to facilitate such financial deals with its intelligence masters and congressional sponsors.
Following the confessions and reports on large amounts of money circulated and laundered among American donors and sponsors of the MKO ,the group so-called analysts assert that lobbying activities and paying money to Guiliani, Tep Poe ,Kennedy, Michael Mukasey , Bob Filner and … will stop bloodshed in the MKO camps. They claim that it will be a move for the sake of "people" and we should regard such payments as the Blood Money of "people"!
Speaking of “people”, you may remind the group propaganda that the MKO and NCR have not been on the side of “people” for over 35 years; the MKO is stranger to the “ people” of Iran. By regarding the MKO on People’s side, the MKO has to answer many questions over its cooperation with the Israeli and American Intelligence Service and over the 25 years of Massoud Rajavi’s obedience to Iraqi Intelligence chief under Saddam Hussein, General Taher Al Jalil Haboush.
Thus, Labeling the MKO as a popular group and assuming its acts as struggle for people is no honest as well as its paid advocates’ support for “Ashraf” and “Democracy in Iran”. As Michael Rubin former Pentagon official puts, "Mujahedin Alkhalq is a dishonest creepy cult". Even the opposition to Islamic Republic views the MKO as atraitors, spies, terrorists and mercenaries. Based on significant evidences and confessions of the group sponsors, the most meaningful term to address the so-called People’s Mujahedin is "Intel’s Mujahedin".
Rohrabacher, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, has never been shy about promoting ethnic separatism and supporting violent groups as a way to pressure Iran. In addition to his support for groups like Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), he has championed resolutions promoting Azeri and Balochi ethnic separatism in Iran.
"One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter," writing, "It is simply absurd to contend that because people may argue over who is or is not a terrorist that it is therefore impossible to make meaningful distinctions between terrorists and freedom fighters." Is that what those who invoke the phrase are saying? Like a lot of cliches, it doesn’t really make literal sense and is probably best avoided, but I suspect what many people mean when they use it is something like, "As a descriptor, terrorist is almost never applied rigorously and consistently to describe the tactics a group is using — rather, it is invoked as a pejorative to vilify the actions only of groups one wishes to discredit. People who agree with the ends of the very same groups often don’t think of them as terrorists, the negative connotation of which causes them to focus on what they regard as the noble ends of allies they’re more likely to dub freedom fighters."
2003 in order to promote his own personal political and economic fortunes.
