Massoud Rajavi

Totalitarian Ideological leader of MKO

If political objectives are determined in accordance with true requirements of the society, they can simply play their role in the way to achieve human rights, freedom and the ideal democracy. The investigation of MKO’s objectives, ideas, functions and political positions, clearly show that the group’s ideological leader is a totalitarian, fascist one.

The manner a political group evaluates its political goals, will justify the existence or non-existence of the group.

Therefore, the gang of Rajavi who has been engaged in terrorist acts, armed struggle policy and suicide operations, for more than three decades – to achieve power in Iran – will have no fate except removal from international political scene although they have never had a significant role.

The final objective of terrorist cult of MKO is the absolute sovereignty on human beings and the accomplishment of Rajavi’s middle-aged ideas under the cover of religion and democracy.

The investigation of MKO’s objectives, ideas, functions and political positions, clearly show that the group’s ideological leader is a totalitarian, fascist one.

The totalitarian, fascist approach of the leader is obviously represented in the internal relations of the group. Camp Ashraf, as the ideological and strategic container of MKO is the concrete symbol of totalitarianism in MKO style where the worst terrorist, manipulative approaches are performed.

The testimonies of a lot of defectors of the cult reveal physical and psychological torture of dissident members, solitary confinement, and suppression of emotional and sexual needs in the name of ideological revolution.

The mind control system which includes manipulation meetings and brainwashing sessions (Cult jargons) helps the ideological leader relate all aspects of the lives of Ashraf residents to their so-called armed struggle and terrorist strategy. When a group of individuals are isolated in a Camp in desert, under a mind control system behind physical and mental bars, for three decades and the relations are organized on the basis of an ill-minded leader’s thoughts, totalitarianism is definitely achieved. It is obvious that opposing such a horrifying system is not simply feasible.

In a totalitarian system, one can except any kind of behavior such as terror act, suicide, homicide, hunger strike … since the people in the system are some humiliated individuals without free will. They are very useful victims for their leader.

Doubtlessly, in the age of democratic evolutions, cults like MKO and Al-Qaida that prepare violent terrorist agents to accomplish their ambitious goals, will never succeed in running their ideas. The historical experiences prove the declining way of such cults as an unchangeable tradition.

By Arash Rezaiee

September 16, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

The fall of Ashraf: Collapse of Rajavi’s strategy

Years ago, when Rajavi’s strategy for “ cutting the regime’s finger tips” failed, he fled to Iraq and claimed a new strategy called “ New Liberating Struggle” and formed a tool to fulfill this strategy ; “ Iran Liberation Army”. This strategy was allegedly taken due to the particular situation ruling Iraq which was fighting Iran.

Liberation Army and Camp Ashraf were introduced by Rajavi as the symbols of the new strategy. Considering that Rajavi was always seeking for manipulating the members’ minds, labeled all his acts as ideological; he claimed himself as ideological leader; his so called Liberation Army was also the ideological aspect of his strategy.

Following the ceasefire between Iran and Iraq, the Liberating strategy and consequently, the existence of Liberation Army came under question. Thus Rajavi tried to remove the label of being remnant of the war, launching a deadly attack on Iran, through his “Eternal Light Operation”. The attack ended with heavy casualties for the group and expiration of that strategy but heavier casualties were collapsed on Massoud Rajavi as “owner of the theory.”

Rajavi couldn’t admit this fact so he continued his presence in Iraq and prolonged strategic existence of his organization in Iraqi territory. Camp Ashraf found a typical ideological aspect in Iraq.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1992, Rajavi was disappointed since he could see no more hope for another war between Iran and Iraq. His NLA theory was blocked in Iraq that was attacked by the US in the first Gulf War.

Rajavi didn’t want to admit the failure of his strategy so urging on his so called armed struggle strategy he tried to heighten pressure on Iraqi internal relations and to band members from leaving the organization in order to cover his scandalous failure.

Second American invasion to Iraq, once more, pointed out the fact that NLA and also MEK’s existence in Iraqi territory was not feasible. Massoud Rajavi insisted on the presence of his disarmed NLA in Camp Ashraf, although he and his wife fled the Camp to France.

To flatter American forces, Rajavi ordered his members in Camp to sign an agreement with US army. The MEK were engaged to condemn any act of violence, but residents of the camp continued wearing military uniforms and chanting “Viva NLA, solid arm of heroic Iranian people.” however, NLA was an army neither in form nor in content.

The last step of Iraqi government to inform Rajavi that he can’t stay in Iraq any more, was the takeover of Iraqi security by Iraqi forces but Rajavi still forces his members to maintain Camp Ashraf.

Why does Rajavi never admit the failure of the so–called Liberating struggle insisting on it?

The reason is that Ashraf is the symbol of Rajavi’s strategy and ideology. Losing Ashraf results in losing everything, at least for a few years.
If Rajavi accepted to leave Iraq, he would accept the failure of many of his claims and slogans such as:

• Being the alternative to IRI
• Being the Leadership of new revolution or resistance
• Being the president elect of resistance

Now that Iraqi government has gained the sovereignty on its territory, the recent ultimatum to MKO for its expulsion from Iraq would leave Rajavi with many questions.

Why didn’t he leave the liberating struggle strategy in 1998 after the cease-fire between Iran and Iraq?
Why did he maintain his members in Iraq despite the fact that their presence in Iraq was of no use?
Why did he capture a large number of people physically and mentally for years?
Why did he encourage the residents to resist against Iraqi forces, causing them to die?

He might have left his slogans and accepted the failure of his strategy and ideology. Maryam Rajavi’s statement, on her conditional return to Iran, Massoud Rajavi’s letter to Experts Assembly, are signs of deviation in MKO’s strategy. The outcome of this deviation will end the Rajavis with disastrous problems including denouncification of the cruelty they impose on Ashraf residents, capturing them behind bars of their cult-like organization.

September 3, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi enjoys the smell of blood and death

The clash between the members of MKO settled in Camp Ashraf and the Iraqi police on July 28-29 that left remarkable casualties is a proven indication of Rajavi’s earlier serious forewarnings to convert Ashraf residents to human shields to resist any threat. His never ceasing insistence on the possible occurrence of a human tragedy in Ashraf following the Iraqi government determination to expel the group and close the camp was considered to be a token of concerns about forced repatriation of members to Iran. In contrast, he really meant what he said about human tragedy by lining members before Iraqi forces as human shields and to resist against the lawful execution of a government’s decision. Once, when surrendering arms to the coalition forces, Rajavi had said he preferred ‘arms carriers to the arms themselves’. He knew well how his forces were potential, trained under his ideological instructions, to become formidable barriers to pass over even when disarmed.

The strategy of preferring ‘arms carriers to the arms’ is the continuation of a theory adopted from the very beginning of the organization’s formation known as the theory of crossing the death, a strategy enabling the organization to have the upper hand in its struggle with the Pahlavi’s notorious security forces. Of course, the theory has since undergone a fundamental change in the course of Rajavi’s egocentric authority over the organization but the impressive consequences of such a theory can never be overlooked. In fact, when Rajavi consented to surrender arms to American forces, he was anticipating a future when the arms carriers needed no arms to be more effective than any arms. And he did his well to educate them as well as he could to take the leading role in a propaganda and psychological war to attract all international attention the organization needed. Having such an ideal in prospect, Rajavi’s ideological apparatus inaugurated a new fashion of training armless combatants to be exploited as walking weapons who instead of targeting the enemy stood as targets themselves to show another side of an innate brutality.

It makes no difference for Rajavi to sacrifice from any side; the emphasis is on the applied brutality to lead on. What he needs is some victims; by provoking the forces of the challenging side, he is sure that the outcome would be nothing less than some bodies from the both sides rolling in their blood. To what degree the other side can take self-control and tolerate the provocation is of no significance since he knows how he can easily break their tolerance and incite them to engage in an inevitably harsh react. What has happened in Camp Ashraf is in fact some aspect of the long adopted theory of crossing the death, an inspired, invisible strategy that takes advantage of vulnerabilities of armed forces when coming to confront armless forces.

Rajavi’s adversaries have been regarded remarkably helpful themselves and forthcoming in the scene of potential emerging threats that happen to threaten the organization. For him, political struggle and survival are two sides of a coin; when prevailing over adversaries, the highest possible amount of lives fall victim to its brutality and, again, when it feels entrapped and overcome by the antagonist side, it is victims of the suicide and self-immolation operations that piles bodies on bodies. The novel form of the latter is formation of human shield that sends members to their death under the pretention of defending Ashraf. The objective in all these is death and well plotted scenarios to send individuals to their death.

In all past years what has helped Rajavi to maintain his organization and the stability and effectiveness of his leadership as well as propelling his failed tactics is the blood of victims from the within and without. He has recurrently reiterated that his antagonists have to either stay for or against him. His exploited approach against the opposite front is use of lethal arms to take victims or turning those staying with him to lethal arms themselves to be sacrificed to the last one. And Ashraf is a depot of such lethal weapons.

Unlike the past that the innocent people were coerced by their captors into lining as the human walls and human shields against the opposite forces, here in Rajavi’s cult it is through ideological instillations and brainwashing that the insiders volunteer to stand vulnerable to any threat as human shields. Even beyond that, they can turn into aggressive beings that capitalize on the opposite front’s humane manner and incite them to react in a harsh manner. Now it is blood that is shed and spilled with the consequent cries that insiders have been tyrannized, the human rights violated and a tragedy taken place. And behind this entire bloodbath, regardless of all those leading rankings having the control of Ashraf in their hands, stands Rajavi who enjoys the smell of blood and death.

August 11, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Outcome of Rajavi’s Ambitions

In any cult-like culture, cult leaders generally seek their own ambitions by enslaving a group of individuals who have left their ordinary life behind to achieve the goals of the cult leader. These members are prepared by the cult leader to run his ambitions. That’s why today the world is very crucial about groups that represent cult culture, as what the world saw in September 11th The leaders of Rajavi’s cult always consider the list of their victims as their honor. disastrous act that was committed by cult ( Al Qaida ) members who were able to perform the most unthinkable act of suicide.

In the cult of Rajavi, Massoud Rajavi’s extreme ambition for power has already taken the lives of a large number of people including the organization’s members, Iraqi and Iranian civilians and authorities. The shameful part is that the leaders of Rajavi’s cult always consider the list of their victims as their honor.

More important is the danger linked with MKO which endangers today’s international community.

As an ambitious cult leader, Massoud Rajavi and his co-leader Maryam “make the members believe that Massoud is the only one who is always ready for change and revolution; the only one who sacrifices himself to solve other people’s problems; the only one who assumes every responsibility. Therefore he is not an ordinary man! This is what the organization makes us believe” according to Batoul Soltani, former member of MEK’s Leadership Council. The figure that the cult draws of Massoud presents him as the master and owner of members, so they just obey the internal dynamic that dominates the cult.

The position Massoud considers for himself is the one of a person who is “the bridge between people and God. Now from that position he can more or less order his followers to do anything” , says Ann Singleton an MKO ex-member. And this position is the one that convinces the members to set themselves on fire following the arrest of Maryam Rajavi in June 2003.

Marjan Malek, another defector of MKO who was arrested by Iranian Police when she was supposed to carry out a mortar attack in Tehran, says that “the MEK tells members that Massoud Rajavi is not only your leader, but also your husband, father and brother. He is the only one who should matter in your life and you shouldn’t think about any one else.”

Marjan Malek left her children, and husband after she joined MKO .she was trained in Camp Ashraf, sent to Iran where she launched mortar attacks against her own compatriots. She defected from the cult after her arrest and as one of the founders of Nejat Society, she could join her children in Sweden where they were kept by MKO supporters after they were separated from their mother. See how the ambitions of a cult leader change a mother to an assassin who leaves her family to kill the civilians of her own nation. And Massoud Rajavi is personally accountable for everything his cult members do.

Nowadays, while Camp Ashraf is completely going under the control of Iraqi Police, Massoud Rajavi is the only responsible for lives of those six members who were killed during riots at Ashraf gates. Those members are only some brainwashed manipulated individuals who were ordered by their leader to defend their Camp by rocks or knives.
By Mazda Parsi

August 6, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Masud Rajavi and his Forth Option

Once more, Masud Rajavi, runaway leader of MKO Cult, brought his head out of his shelter to issue a new statement. This is not the first time Rajavi tries to present himself and his organization as a powerful, effective weight in Iranian political scene but the surprising thing about his letter is that, this time he addressed the Iranian government, particularly the Assembly of Experts (of which the duty is to surprise the supreme leader, to dismiss or to install him).

Although, in his letter, Rajavi makes too much effort to claim that he doesn’t consider the IRI regime as legitimate, he views them deserved enough to offer them two suggestions and an advice! After three decades of denouncing Iranian regime, now Rajavi is addressing the Assembly of Experts, recognizing its duty and also the principal of Velayat-e-Faqih; his suggestions include the dismissal of Ayatollah Khamenei (Supreme Leader) and installation of Ayatollah Montazari as the supreme Leader. In a new U-turn in his strategy and also ideology, not only he accepts Velayat Faqih but also he assigns a particular candidate for this position. The fact that contradicts the whole history of Mujahedin-e-Khalq.

Disappointed by his Western supporters and following the fall of his ex-land-lord, Saddam Hussein, Rajavi finds his third option a failed tactic, so he is seeking the solution within the regime itself, even though he prefaces his message by saying that he finds it “extremely difficult to be addressing the Assembly of Experts which symbolizes the usurpation of the right to people’s sovereignty “. This claim seems very bizarre due to its contradictory concept. How can Mr. Rajavi offer suggestions to Assembly of Experts that he basically views illegal?!

The leader of MKO cult claims that he offered his suggestions and advice on behalf of the Iranian people and all those sentenced to death and tortured as well as political prisoners, but how does he reply those who are captured in Camp Ashraf under heavy psychological manipulation of his personality cult? How can he explain the contradictions of his message to the members who have always been told that Velayat Faqih is rejected by MKO’s ideology? Of course in the suppressive isolating atmosphere of Rajavi’s Cult nothing is analyzing or explained. The members don’t dare to think of these contradictions. U –turns in Rajavis’ strategies is a common fact and there is no right to members to ask why?

Mazda Parsi

July 18, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Elevation of Rajavi from charismatic leadership to cult of personality

A common characteristic among all cult leaders is charisma which by itself is not evil but when the leader’s charisma is used as a tool to exploit members including their whole-hearted After his release, Rajavi tried to represent himself as a charismatic leader devotion to the charismatic leader and their fanatical submission to his orders. To achieve such an objective, the charisma should be combined with mind control techniques since the members would not submit to the leader automatically. So the charisma leader uses this powerful attribute together with manipulation practices. This mixture will end with the total devotion of members to the cult and its goal. The brainwashed members are always ready to run the cult’s objectives.

In the early years of the foundation of Mujahedin Khalq Organization, Masud Rajavi was not as experienced as most members including founders of the movement or those who were more related to the founders, but after the Islamic Revolution he could assume leadership in MKO despite he didn’t have qualifications of a leader since he was among those few people who were not executed by Shah’s Savak and there were allegations on his cooperation with Savak when he was interrogated by them. Therefore after his release he tried to represent himself as a charismatic leader because despite his expectations, he couldn’t achieve any powerful position in Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Republic.

As a good lecturer, he started holding meetings, publishing articles, attending interviews to elevate himself as a charisma personality and of course he succeeded to accomplish this goal and his success was actually originated in his ambitious, egotic characteristics. Thus he began to eliminate all his rivals in the organization by criticizing them. In 1980, when he fled Iran to France, he had partly achieved his primary goal: being accepted by his sympathizers as a charisma leader. In France he pursued his ambitions by establishing his so –called National Council of Resistance in which he and his group were the dominating elements. In 1986 after the settlement of the organization in Iraq, most of the way was paved to establish a cult of personality. Their landlord, Saddam Hussein offered them the very isolated Camp Ashraf to perform all cult-like practices Rajavi needed for his cult of personality.

During the Iran-Iraq war, due to Rajavi’s cooperation with the invading enemy, Saddam Hussein, MKO lost its little support among its Iranian compatriots, and also its supporters in other parts of the world.

Now, Rajavi had to launch a new trick to keep his cult of personality that was his ideological marriage with Maryam Qajar Azdanloo and then the so-called ideological revolution. It was firstly accepted by high-ranking members who were indoctrinated by himself. These members showed passionately their complete devotion to Masud Rajavi. Therefore, the others who still hesitated to agree with Ideological Revolution were convinced and even forced by their superior officials.

Rajavi, since then continued his egocentric activities in a more convenient situation. The public power had reached its least level and the atmosphere was prepared for Rajavi’s Megalomania.
By Mazda Parsi

May 14, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

People’s court; Rajavi’s favored form of impeachment

Introduction

In the article “Who are the targets of Rajavi’s retaliation?” a brief look was taken on the connotation and meaning of the terms “trial” and “retaliation” as well as their structural contradiction compared to democratic views, and Masoud Rajavi was asked to elaborate more on this words and clarify what he meat by them. It is evident that Masoud Rajavi never clarify his statements; however, those familiar with the cultic literature of Mojahedin and those who have understood the ideological revolution by heart need no further explanation. Yet there are some who want to know what is the meaning and definition of terms like trial, retaliation, court, punishment, defendant, prosecutor from the viewpoint of Rajavi and his ideological revolution and how they are opposite to the culture and literature of democratic societies.

Or maybe some think that Masoud Rajavi might forget about his ideological past and look at the world from a different angle. However, as seen in his messages and statements, this matter is unlikely to happen. There have already some questions and paradoxes found in his message about threatening to trial and retaliation been elaborated on yet they never suffice for understanding the real intention of Rajavi behind these words. I acknowledge that no one but Mojahedin themselves can expound on the intended meaning of these terms. Therefore, it is necessary to return to three decades ago when after the fall of Pahlavi’s regime in Iran some courts were formed to investigate the crimes of its agents. The position taken by Mojahedin at that time, and one of them in particular, may represent a typical instance of justice and tribunal from their viewpoint.

In this instance, what Mojahedin mean by court, defendant, crime, judge, ruling and its credits, defendant and its rights, and everything on this issue is referred to and elaborated on. This is an ideological article titled “People’s court; a step toward masses governing their own destiny” published in the journal of Mojahed No.3, dated August 1979, less than 7 months after the victory of Iranian revolution, in complaint to the formed legal tribunals. Mojahedin strongly stressed that the courts had to be harsh and relentless when trying the criminal agents and figures of the collapsed regime and acted much revolutionary in the rulings rather than paying humanistic aspects. It was not actually a suggestion but rater enforcing their own revolutionary view they strictly believe, and still believe, in. even in some cases they threatened to be executors of the rules they deemed justifiable. Their preferred form of the court was a revolutionary court apart from the legally adopted civil laws where some self-appointed representatives of people, of course presiding or supervised and attended by Mojahedin, could freely try the adversaries therein with nobody holding them accountable for the rulings.

The following is Mojahedin’s general idea of such courts published in the form of an article. It has to be noted that the introductory part of the article has been omitted since it is irrelevant to the discussion.

****

Quoted from the Journal of Mojahed No. 3, dated August 1979

People’s court relies on the masses

People’s court as its title impels is a tribunal whose judges are representatives of different strata of the society and the issues investigated therein are related to all peoples and their destiny. The function of these tribunals relies on the revolutionary conscience of the masses and their judgment rather than following codified legal and statutory rules. Consequently, the judges of these courts are not only experts of legal and statutory affairs but also a combination of people’s representatives some of whom lack even the required skill and expertise in jurisdiction since in these courts more attention is paid to investigating the political and social responsibility of the trend to which the defendant is related to than the legal trial. The orders issued in these tribunals take the revolutionary interests of the society into consideration and it is likely that they fail to correspond with the compiled legal and statutory disciplines and rules. It happens that people’s courts sentence a convict to execution whereas the civil law issues a much lenient verdict when a crime has the punishment of execution; it may happen that according to the interests of people or political and ideological issues the people’s court refrains to be lenient and acts much harsher. It can be said that in people’s court, the angel of justice determines her votes according to people’s interests rather than predetermined inflexible disciplines.

The function of people’s court

Giving some instances may help us to clarify the above statements. These instances are seen in all revolutions and we have selected them from Palestinian revolution:

During the internal wars of Lebanon, Palestinian guerillas took part in wars actively beside Lebanese. In this war, all intellectual and leftist Muslims confronted with reactionary rightists. Once in a mission, a Palestinian guerilla fighter arrested a Christian family and raped their daughter. Subsequently, the leader of Palestinian revolution formed a people’s court, tried him at the site of his crime and sentenced him to death and immediately executed the order.

Another example is the revolutionary tribunal of Abu-Nazzal, a high ranking of Al-Fatah. Despite his definite and unquestionable betrayal that led to a hindrance in Palestinian revolution and the fact that the court sentenced him to execution, the vote was not pursued and executed. Why? Since enforcement of the issued order might result in spreading the perverted and non-revolutionary fabricated trend of Abu-Nazzal. The study of the above instances of revolutionary tribunals may give us a deep understanding of the real content and function of people’s courts.

If we look at the above instances with regard to the interests of Palestinian people, we can find out some significant points. In the first case, if we take into consideration the conditions like the singlehood of the felon, his tough living conditions and a life full of deprivation, his wicked past full of defeats and ethnical and family problems, and tens of internal and external factors that intermingled with his strong lust and in a lunatic mood made him commit this action, we can find out that he did not deserve execution. However, what is insisted by the revolutionary tribunal is the political repute of the revolution of Palestinian people. This action done by one of the soldiers of the revolution may turn to a danger polluting the revolutionary honor of this movement. The reason behind the determination of the people’’ court to order and put it into execution was thus well justified.

In respect to the latter case, the people’s court refrained to enforce the execution sentence of Abu-Nazzal. His execution seemed to be performing justice for a betrayer; however, the consequent would not be in any way helping the long-term interests of people; rather, his execution not only failed to annihilate his fabricated trend but also it was very likely that it turned him to a saint and hero that would increase the longevity of this trend and thus threatening the future interests of Palestinian revolutionary masses.

When the people’s court is formed and who are its members?

As it was said, people’s court is a court whose judges are representatives of people. To this definition it has to be added that: According to circumstances, the way of forming these courts may vary. It means that in the reign of a dictator, these tribunals are hidden and qualified members of a revolutionary organization constitute its members since such an organization is the upshot of the demands of the masses and aims to hear miserable people’s problems. In a democratic environment and particularly after the victory of [Iranian] revolution, people’s court is formed with the presence of different strata of the society and representatives of revolutionary-leading organizations. What are of interest in people’s court are the political and social aspects of crimes and less attention is paid to their legal and statutory aspect. Jurisdiction in penal code and law observes predetermined issues and has the same reaction to various instances of the same crime. The process of common trials is also based on a pre-made trend whereas people’s court aims to preserve and guarantee the interests of people and shows much dynamism and flexibility in this regard, therefore its members are representatives of different strata and classes of the society and the issue of juridiciary expertise and skill is replaced by the qualification in recognizing and understanding the interests of the masses that can only be done by their real and true representatives.

What are the crimes investigated in people’s court?

In people’s courts, the plaintiff is people; the crime is the injustice committed against people. The crimes investigated in this tribunal are various depending on the features of that phase of the revolution. However, their commonality is the political and social aspects of the committed action that has polluted the honor and political repute of the revolutionary society disregarding whether the mentioned action in the compiled laws has the title of crime or guilt. It means that the political significance of the committed action is so high that it affects other aspects of that crime and even an action that is not considered a crime in normal circumstances, may be regarded a crime due to its negative consequences and may sentence the criminal even to death to eradicate those negative consequences. Likewise, the person who leads ideologically to the creation of a perverted trend in the society and debar the original and natural movement of the society or slows its movement is to be tried for that perverted trend and the judgment of the tribunal is more concerned with the political and social effects of this trend rather than the individual penal conviction of the committed person. Execution of the tribunal’s order is not for revenging a certain person yet it is the enforcement of the penal conviction of that perverted trend. The rulling of the tribunal is the inevitable ruling of people who can recognize their own interests in any period of time and enforce it through their most trusted and faithful representatives.

Contemporary revolutionary experiences

The history of the revolutions in China, Algeria, Vietnam, Libya, and Palestine proves the necessity of forming a people’s court after the victory of the revolution to prevent any disagreement, disunity and split and has shown its efficiency since in people’s court it is the representatives of all strata of the society that try a perverted trend and agents of that trend not the ruling system that may constitute the representatives of a certain stratum. Moreover, if condemnation of a perverted trend is carried out through the representatives of all strata of people, the possibility of its survival and revival is negated; whereas, the same order on the part of the ruling system and its juridiciary may fail to annihilate the perverted trend and also it may result in arising of doubts and pessimism that may finally led to split and disintegration of the united lines of peoples. Taking this fact into consideration may confirm the necessity of the forming an open people’s court in this phase of our revolution.

****

Conclusion

What was mentioned above, clearly represents the ideas and viewpoints of Masoud Rajavi and MKO on the issue of trial, court, crime, criminal, judge, legal qualification, the right of plaintiff, law, punishment, etc. Surprisingly enough, Masoud Rajavi as the ideological leader of Mojahedin has been reminded of his past ideas calling international bodies and his audience to form people’s courts under the title of trial and retaliation in less than one month after the removal of MKO from the EU terrorist list. Furthermore, Maryam Azdanlu, the false pro-democratic leader of MKO in her recent speech on the 30th anniversary of Iranian anti-monarchy revolution uses the same words and expressions of Masoud Rajavi for threatening the global society despite the fact that she has repeatedly promised the Iranians to remove the sentence of execution from the judicial system of Iran in case of coming to power. Now, the judgment is on the clear conscience of international bodies and all those concerned with the destiny of MKO.

April 12, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi depicts truth at will

A further review of the message given by Masoud Rajavi on December 27 reveals more contradictory and threatening points to be elaborated on. For instance, somewhere in this message, it has been stated:

[Iranian] regime wants to take his chance once more in the gap of the replacement of the last US administration with the new one for evacuating Ashraf and getting a more stable position in its next negotiation with the US.

Evidently due to Rajavi’s illusionary ideas and megalomania that seems to be intensified after the fall of Saddam, he assumes a major role for Mojahedin in the future of the US-Iran conflict. Likewise, he even dares to tie global security with his decision makings. Doing so, he aims to deceive the public opinion and make the ground for the settlement of Mojahedin in camp Ashraf. In fact, he makes an attempt to inculcate his advocators with the idea that any political decision making in the challenge posed by Mojahedin for Iraqi government is unlikely without taking his will into consideration. However, he is well aware that there are significant issues on the agenda of the US-Iran to be discussed in which the issue of Mojahedin is beside the point. This claim is made in a condition when despite the removal of MKO from the EU terrorist list provided Mojahedin stop terrorist activities, the US shows no turnabout and still recognizes MKO as a terrorist organization. Although in recent years, Rajavi has made considerable effort to exaggerate his trivial political victories and by means of fabrication and perversion has pretended that the US position toward MKO has changed, all his efforts have been futile and he failed to ensure the security and stabilization of camp Ashraf and its residents. He knows that the US would never bet a dead horse like him for thousands of reasons.

Rajavi is to determine the factors based on which he predicts that the issue of Mojahedin would be the focal point of the US-Iran negotiation; a point that he refrains to elaborate on clearly. It seems that his claims of enjoying a determining role in the region are mostly baseless aimed at deceiving his European advocators and sympathizers. He is aware that pursuing the strategy of “survival in gap” toward Americans is useless for thousands of reasons one of which is the familiarity of the US with the true terrorist nature of Mojahedin. In case the US decides to select an alternative for the Iranian government, it would be a democratic one hew to human rights and international conventions not Mojahedin whose internal as well as external relations are based on the most reactionary and non-democratic doctrines. In this regard, the statement of the US department state in April 2007 can be referred to in which the terrorist nature of Mojahedin and the US unwillingness to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran have been focused on.

In another part of his message, Rajavi addresses Ashraf residents and says:

If Iraq is a legalized country and has a legal government, rules of civilization necessitate it that firstly, the lawyers of two parties sit together and express their reasons and explanations in a peaceful and logical environment according to international rules to find out the rights Iraqi government recognizes legitimate for Ashraf residents. As I said, 27 European countries have removed Mojahedin from their terrorist list up to now. The US has also declared that Ashraf residents have been interrogated one by one and it has been concluded that they are not terrorist. In addition, the name of MKO has not been in the terrorist list of the UN. Therefore, I say once more that there is no longer any subterfuge at the hands of the dictator regime of Iran and its leader to put Iraqi government under pressure. It’s better that justice and law win in the dialogue of the lawyers of two parties, yet if religious dictatorship of Iran annulled the decision of Iraq and dictated its own will, then you will see.

Rajavi ignores the sovereignty of the legal Iraqi government and overtly states that its decisions are under the effect of the Iranian and also perverts the clear position of the US on the terrorist nature of Mojahedin. He further warns that in case he fails to achieve his objectives, an all-out war would be waged against Iraqi government. His emphasis on “then you will see” is an instance of his cultic literature and jargon used at the end of all his statements as a warning to those against him. The peak of his perverted claims is where he calls Ashraf residents both as real and legal entities at his own will. Furthermore, he claims that Ashraf residents have been interrogated one by one and it has been concluded that they no longer support terrorism; however, somewhere else he depends their rearming on the will and decision of the US:

All Ashraf residents dismissed the support of violence and terrorism and asserted that they would never get armed illegally.

Although he equals carrying arms to terrorism and states that Mojahedin no longer have access to their arms hence it is proved that they have stopped their terrorist activities, he contradicts his own statement and declares that they never get armed illegally. In other words, their legal equipment with the arms is likely. Non-refulement that is recognized by Rajavi as an international convention necessitates individual asylum seeking of MKO members whereas Rajavi refrains to accept this international rule. Iraqi government has repeatedly asserted that if Ashraf residents seek individual refuge, it may prepare the ground for their transfer to a European country and would recognize the legitimacy of their temporary presence in Iraq despite their terrorist activities; however, Rajavi avoids recognizing Ashraf residents as individuals rightful to be master of their own destiny.

As it was mentioned, in case of Mojahedin’s rearming for any reason, it is likely that the EU nullify its vote on the removal of MKO from blacklist. Therefore, Rajavi tries to draw a boundary between terrorist activities and legitimate defense and openly considers the group’s arsenal in Iraq as their absolute and legal right. He further points out that MKO has been initiated its activities based on two factors of ideological and strategic armed struggle since 1967 and insists on their recognition as such. Surprisingly enough, he refers to this point as the red line between them and Iraqi government as well as international bodies. He also quotes Mrs. Claire Miskin, the prominent English judge: “A very interesting point about MKO is that it is not only a legitimate resistance movement but has been under the full control of law more than any other movement”.

Then he concludes that:

Keeping the securing of Ashraf and its residents is on American forces up to the time when their destiny is determined.

The way the interests, rights, sovereignty, and legal demands of Iraqi people are to be achieved despite the possibility of Mojahedin’s committing terrorist activities is an issue to be answered by Rajavi. The fact is that Rajavi solicit the US for paving the ground for its rearming and cares not for Iraqi government. His remarks concerning the US are suppliant and as concerned with Iraqi government are threatening as a result of the temporal removal of MKO from the terrorist list of the EU. Now, we understand what Rajavi meant by a barrier in his way of achieving his objectives in Iraq. It seems that the removal of MKO from the EU list has led to the destabilization of the region and endangering the peace and security of Iraq rather than posing a threat to the Iranian government. It takes too much time for MKO advocators and sympathizers to understand the true terrorist nature of Mojahedin.

April 4, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

The intrusive tone of Rajavi’s message

In his message of 26 January 2009, Rajavi once more expressed his delight over the removal of MKO from the EU terrorist list. The message, aside from repeating the cliché discussions as before, is mostly founded on perversion, fabrication, threat, sedition, and denouncement aiming at achieving his totalitarian objectives. A brief look at the main points of this message may reveal more facts about the true nature of the cult of Mojahedin.

1. He is putting the blame of the decision made by Iraqi government and the expulsion of Mojahedin on Iranian government stating “the closure of Ashraf is demanded and dictated by the reactionary, clerical regime and thus illegally unfounded”.

This claim is in fact the most apparent form of MKO’s interference in the internal affairs of Iraq and its legal government and has certain consequences. Rajavi makes an attempt to instigate Iraqi people against their government by introducing it as an illegitimate and illegal organ. He does so to sidetrack his full cooperation with Saddam in oppressing Iraqi people and all his crimes and brutal acts as Saddam’s main supporter and ally. Also, he poses challenge to the independence and sovereignty of Iraq to intensify its internal tensions and sidetrack the attentions from the issue of the expulsion of Mojahedin.

2. Rajavi in his message declares that “I openly announce to be heared: Iranian people and resistance as well as Ashraf Mojaheds never surrender to the dictated will and policy of the religious fascism governing Iran”.

Making these statements in which he has replaced the term Iraqi government with Iranian government, he implies his decision on initiating war against the Iraqi government by gesture. In fact he has no scruples about making an all-out war against the Iraq since he has already made the ground for it by means of intensifying the internal tensions of Iraq as well as making the naively made claim of winning the support of 5.2 million Iraqi people. Undoubtedly, Mojahedin have their most hostile position toward Iraqi government and their present status in Iraq corresponds to that of 1980’s in Iran when they passed a so-called political phase and then entered the phase of armed struggle against Iranian government. All their false claims on taking a tolerant position toward Iranian government were futile. As the facts prove, as soon as Rajavi got the illusion of the possibility of his coming to power in Iran, he initiated an armed struggle the result of which was victimizing his followers in a way that now after three decades has reached a cul-de-sac. The hostile position taking of Mojahedin in a country where they are to receive political asylum well reveals Rajavi’s psychopathic ambitiousness and megalomania.

3. Rajavi quotes Mojgan Parsaee of the possibility of the occurrence of a cultic and human disaster, that is, a general “hunger strike to death”. In fact, it is a warning to Iraqi officials of an imminent war. He also refers to the decision of the EU and tries to use it as a proof on the legitimacy of MKO’s settlement in Iraq. Furthermore, he claims that the name of Mojahedin has never been in the terrorist list of the Security Council. It seems that he has forgotten the recent statement of the White House and Obama on endorsing the terrorist nature of Mojahedin. Now Rajavi has resorted to making a gap between FBI and the US state department as a new trick to pave the way for his misusing the EU decision making.

4. Rajavi in his message states “During invasion to Iraq in March and April 2003, I ordered Mojahedin and NLA warriors to tolerate and fire not against American forces despite their bombardments and firing. It has been approved and signed in a “ceasefire” contract between American forces and MKO/NLA in 15 April, 2003”.

This is the funniest part of Rajavi’s message. As used to, Rajavi petitions in a reverse form. Due to his extreme illusionist and egotistic personality, Rajavi denies his total compulsory surrender to the US forces in 2003 and considers it as a deliberate action. Whether his statement I ordered Mojahedin and NLA warriors to tolerate and fire not against American forces despite their bombardments and firing is the result of his illusion or is part of a new trick is ambiguous. However, it is evident that the claim of the Don Quixote of the third millennium is making the American forces burst into laughter more than anybody else. The only difference between Saddam and Rajavi in the course of coalition forces’ invasion to Iraq is that contrary to his ally, Rajavi and his wife had left Camp Ashraf a long time before. An act that surprised the residents of Camp Ashraf more than others when they found out that their she-guru, Maryam Azdanlu, has left Camp Ashraf for her luxurious residence in France. Rajavi’s pretending to have surrendered to disarmament willingly despite availing military and logistic superiority over coalition forces is mostly insulting for residents of Ashraf who felt the pain of failure and surrender by heart and soul and it comes only from an ill and psychopathic mind or a big charlatan.

5. Simple mindedness and naiveté of Rajavi is well-defined when he claims that Iran can no longer enforce Iraq to expel Mojahedin for their terrorist charges. It aims two objectives. First, leading to passivity and silence of Iraqi officials on the issue of MKO’s remaining in Iraq and second, in case if Iraqi officials insist on their legal decision, Rajavi may grab at international levers to provoke internal tensions of Iraq. However, the statements of Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, Iraqi national security advisor, made a few days after Rajavi’s message on the determination of Iraq to expel Mojahedin awaked Rajavi from his daydreamings. Not only he emphasized on the expulsion of Mojahedin but also asserted that Iraqi judiciary would prosecute 14 high rankings of MKO for their violations of human rights in Iraq. These statements were a telling retort to Rajavi who makes an attempt to stabilize the position of MKO in Iraq by means of fabrication, pressure, and propaganda blitz. Mowaffaq al-Rubaie stated openly that the vote of the EU has no effect on the decision making of Iraq. Also, he informed Mojahedin of Iraq’s conferring with some European countries on determining the destiny of Mojahedin and it proves further the naiveté of Rajavi since it is evident that the EU decision is never considered a must for Iraqi government. Consequently and despite all activities of Rajavi, the main issue of expelling Mojahedin from Iraq is still of effect and pursued legally.

6. Rajavi further maintains that from now on, commuting from and to Camp Ashraf is a legal right of Mojahedin and Iraqi government cannot prevent it. In fact he means that by doing so, the Iraqi government may avoid hatred and anger of Iraqi citizens. It is obvious that Rajavi is openly interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq and tries to escalate tensions. His words are in absolute contradiction with international conventions that puts the responsibility of providing security for political refugees on the country if it has ever granted asylum. Now, it is not clear what Mojahedin have to do with insurgent groups in Iraq and what are the objectives followed by them. However, it is clear that calling a number of these dissidents as Iraqi citizens, or whatever the Iraqi government is the only authorized source to call, aims at intensifying internal tension and disorder. The Iraqi government is well aware of the main objectives of Mojahedin and also its absolute right of controlling those entering and exiting Camp Ashraf.

In a nutshell, the efforts of Rajavi for misusing the war-torn and unstable conditions of Iraq for achieving his objective in keeping his ideological bastion, i.e. Camp Ashraf, are vain. He is well aware that the sole looser in this play is himself and a number of MKO members who are victims of ambitious and egocentric objectives of a cult leader.

(Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, cult leaders)

(Maryam Rajavi directly ordered the massacre of Kurdish people)

(A cult session in Ashraf Camp Iraq – under the protection of Saddam)

(Chemical attack on Halabche, Kurdistan, Iraq)

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

(In the streets of London with Lord Corbett!!)

(MKO members in European Countries 2003)

March 14, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Deluded Masud Rajavi demands Iraq obey European law

The first sentence of Masoud Rajavi’s message in December, 27th on MKO’s removal from the EU terrorist list referred to his ecstasy of delight for excluding the possibility of Mojahedin’s expulsion from Iraq. He resorted to the point that since the EU has removed MKO from its terrorist list, terrorist accusations of MKO are no longer of any effect and Iraqi government cannot prevent their presence in Iraq due to their terrorist charges. Surprisingly enough, from among all possible positive consequences of the decision made by the EU, this aspect is a priority and of utmost significance for Rajavi. Making a comparison between Rajavi’s new position taking and previous claims on considering MKO’s inclusion in terrorist list as their main barrier to overthrow the Iranian government and also their democratic claims and rejecting the policy of armed struggle reveals an apparent paradox.

Now, the newly made messages of Rajavi suffice to prove their false claims of stopping armed struggle since it is ambiguous that after their removal from terrorist list and their opportunity to pursue their political activities in the west, as repeatedly petitioned by Rajavi when MKO was blacklisted, why Mojahedin insist on staying in Iraq? Is the answer anything other than the fact that Rajavi seeks to misuse the tensions inside Iraq to follow his past strategy of armed struggle to fulfill his never achieved promise of overthrowing the Iranian government? This is a question to be answered by MKO’s western advocators who dared to remove the name of a notorious terrorist group from the EU blacklist.

Rajavi further expounds on his other demands like making all traffics to and from Camp Ashraf smooth and limitless. He has also warned Iraqi government of the point that any measure taken by Iraqi officials in putting bans and limits on MKO as well as their expulsion or relocation may trigger Mojahedin’s severe reaction even up to their sacrifice. His message implies that removing MKO from the EU terrorist list has solved their problems in Iraq as well as the west. However, the fact is that it has nothing to do with the decision made by Iraqi government on their expulsion since part of the blame placed on Mojahedin on the part of Iraqi government is its terrorist nature and activities during the reign of Saddam in Iraq. Evidently, the stance of the EU toward MKO in itself suffices not to recognize the legitimacy of MKO’s remaining in Iraq acquitting them of all terrorist charges.

Furthermore, it has to be noted that despite the EU’s removing MKO from its terrorist list, the US state department issued a statement in an immediate reaction on the terrorist nature of Mojahedin and asserted that there are no evidence or sign of a shift in the policy and position taking of Mojahedin. Obviously, the viewpoint and decision of the US that is present in Iraq and is considered one of the parties involved in the settlement of tensions therein is more authentic than that of the EU. Also many European countries like France, England, Italy, Czech… acknowledge the terrorist nature of MKO despite the decision of the EU and some regard it a hasty decision to be reconsidered. Therefore, the illusion of Rajavi on a shift in the policy taken by Iraq toward MKO has no rationale and is more like a kind of psychological and propaganda war initiated by him and now followed strongly in Mojahedin media.

As it was mentioned, the rationale behind the Iraqi government’s decision on expelling Mojahedin from Iraq is not limited to the terrorist accusations of MKO rather according to Iraqi officials there are many evidences on crimes and cooperative activities of MKO with Saddam against Iraqi people and also their present efforts to misuse the unstable conditions of Iraq to intensify sectarian conflicts and make contacts to Iraqi problematic groups to commit terrorist activities against Iraqi people and neighboring countries. Therefore, Rajavi’s resorting to the vote of the EU is unlikely to solve his problems and Iraqi government recognizes the obligatory settlement of Mojahedin in Iraqi soil contrary to asylum rights and conventions. In addition, whenever a country consent to offer asylum to Mojahedin, their insistence on remaining in Iraq would be of no effect.

Before, it seemed that removing MKO from blacklist would makes the ground for their transferring to a western country to pursue their political activities in security therein yet as it is evident, Rajavi prefers an unquiet and war-torn country to European countries for MKO’s settlement. In addition, according to common sense, if Mojahedin are to force a country to provide them with asylum it should be one of the members of the EU that dared to remove MKO’s terrorist label whereas Rajavi refrains to express the least inclination to do so and ever-increasingly insists on keeping Mojahedin in Iraq. The reason is clear. Rajavi has two major factors in Iraq without which the survival of MKO is unlikely. First, Camp Ashraf as the ideological container of Mojahedin and second, the Iraqi soil as a strategic lever in the hands of Rajavi to follow his struggle of armed struggle against Iran therein. The main challenge posed on Iraqi government as a result of the settlement of Mojahedin in Camp Ashraf is security considerations and the danger posed by Mojahedin for national interests and stabilization of peace and security in Iraq. Mojahedin have also warned Iraqi government that they would resort to group self-immolations in case if Iraqi government consents not to satisfy their demands. In fact, they are threatening Iraqi officials to enforce them to let Mojahedin reside in Camp Ashraf.

The Iraqi government is to be aware that even its least tolerance toward Mojahedin in the present conditions may result in the stabilization of MKO status in its soil and freedom of action therein. Iraq should engage those countries removing MKO from the EU terrorist list in this challenge and ask them to provide asylum for MKO if they have been convinced of the termination of terrorist activities of MKO rather than advocating their residence in a place too far from their soil and people where Mojahedin can pose no danger for their national interests and security considerations.

March 7, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts