Britain removes terrorist group MKO (Rajavi cult) from her lists as Iraq puts them firmly on the list A report by Kristiane Backer (World Week Watch) An interview with Massoud Khodabandeh 
World Watch Week, Press TV, June 29, 2008
The controversial People’s Mujahedeen of Iran (PMOI) held a grand assembly in the Paris suburbs Saturday. It used the opportunity to call for removal from the European list of terrorist organizations.(Report: C.Westerheide) Since Monday, the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran (PMOI) is no longer considered a terrorist organization in Great Britain. The group would like the European Union to do the same. That is the message they hoped to get across at their annual assembly, held Saturday in the city of Villepinte, in the Paris region. “The Iranians, who will be coming from across France, Europe and North America will call on Europe to adopt a new and decisive policy towards the
Iranian regime”, explains Afchine Alavi of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the public face of the PMOI.
The movement, which claims to have welcomed 50,000 people last year, had some 60,000 guests this year. Figures which journalist Alain Chevalerias doubts. The author of Brûlé Vif (Burned Alive) spent one year observing the Mujahedeen and their leaders Maryam and Massoud Radjavi. “In their meetings, there are usually more chairs than guests. They boost their numbers by recruiting Afghani extras who are paid for the day.” This was confirmed by Karim Hakiki, a FRANCE 24 journalist who was on the scene and noticed the presence of 3,000 Polish people. 
The PMOI is a very controversial organization in France and in the world. The movement, also know as Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK), started in 1969 in Iran. According to one of its former members, it was originally founded on “an eclectic mixture of Shiism and Marxism”, to fight against the politics of Shah. Saddam Hussein’s Support In 1979, the organization took part in the overthrowing of the monarchy but ended up being pushed aside by the Ayatollah Khomeini in the upheaval. In 1981, the movement was considered outlaw and its members were forced to leave the territory. Their leader, Massoud Radjavi, moved to Auvers-sur-Oise, in France, where he was able to obtain political refugee status. During the war between Iran and Iraq, PMOI forces, financially supported by Saddam Hussein, attack from France and Iraq Iranian troops along the border. “At this time, the Mujahedeen took refuge in Iraq” explains Alain Chevalérias. In 1997, after the election of President Mohammad Khatami in Iran, the countries of the European Union opt for a policy of moderate reconciliation with Iran in economic and political areas. At Tehran’s demand, PMOI is placed on the United State’s list of terrorist organizations. Great Britain and the EU follow suit in 2002. After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the American army signed a cease-fire with the PMOI, who maintained bases on Iraqi soil, the most famous of which was the Achraf, north of Bagdad. Suspicion of cult practices The same year, in France as Nicolas Sarkozy became Interior minister, the French authorities search the headquarters of the PMOI in Auvers-sur-Oise, suspected of cult practices. Maryam Radjavi is arrested. As a protest, several members of the PMOI set themselves on fire. “They are using psychological manipulation, the same method used in cults,” said Alain Chevalérias. The PMOI defends itself with weighty support: Alain Vivien, Minister of state of Foreign Affairs, known for having directed the inter-ministerial mission fighting against cults. In 2005, a new document against them further burdens the PMOI. A report published by Human Rights Watch denounces poor treatment by the organization of dissident members in its camps in Iraq. This report is later strongly criticized several months later by an investigatory mission composed of European parliament deputies who traveled to the Iraqi base in Ashraf. “HRW made the mistake of not questioning people directly,” Chevalérias acknowledged . A new report would be published one year later to repair these errors. The PMOI continually tries to improve its image and in particular remove this terrorist organization label that has been hung around its neck. “To do that, it’s knocking on a lot of doors, particularly at the National Assembly,” says Chevalérias. The association boasts about the number of supporters it has, people like Daniel Mitterrand [former French first lady], but also many parliamentary deputies in Europe. “We are waiting for an evolution in relations with France” The British decision to remove it from their blacklist followed seven years of legal battles between the PMOI and the EU. This act was undertaken by 15 English lords, sympathizers of the cause. “It must be pointed out that there was never any proof to justify the accusation of terrorism,” says Alain Vivien. For his part, Chevalérias notes that « the movement used terrorist methods, in particular using mortars in Iran. This was information that the People’s Mujahedeen claimed in its publications.” “This inscription on the British blacklist formed the legal base for the inscription of the PMOI on the European list. Today, keeping the PMOI on this list has no place,” notes Afchine Alavi. Unless another member state decided to put it on its blacklist. The responsibility of this choice will come back to France, which will take over the rotating presidency of the EU beginning July 1st. Relations between the government and the association have been cut since the events of 2003. “We expect an evolution of our contacts with France, hopes Alavi.
WASHINGTON (AP)–A cult to some and freedom fighters to others, the National Council of Resistance of Iran and its affiliate groups typify the gray areas in the often black-and-white world of the war on terror. While they’ve been designated foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department, the groups’ members still maneuver between the restrictions aimed at disabling them.
The organization’s former U.S. representative freely walks the streets and has a contract with Fox News as a foreign affairs analyst. Lawmakers write letters on the group’s behalf. And former intelligence officials say the group maintains contacts in defense circles, although the Pentagon denies it.
The former U.S. representative for the council, Alireza Jafarzadeh, says the U.S. government listed his organization as terrorists to appease moderate elements within the Iranian government. He’s hoping the Bush administration will lift the terrorist designation…
The mission of the National Council and its military wing – the Mujahedin-e-Khalq or MEK – is to overthrow the Iranian regime, an aim increasingly in line with the Bush administration. Yet the administration has stopped short of calling for regime change.
Yet the MEK is far from a U.S. ally.
As soon as the State Department created a list of terror organizations in 1997, it named the MEK, putting it in a club that includes al-Qaida and barring anyone in the United States from providing material support. By 1999, the department designated the MEK’s political arm, the National Council of Resistance, and related affiliates.
The State Department says the MEK groups were funded by Saddam Hussein, supported the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and are responsible for the deaths of Americans in the 1970s.
Despite the listing, the council and a related offshoot continued to file foreign agent registration documents with the Justice Department, cataloging meetings with dozens of members of Congress, media interviews, rallies and speeches.
It saw successes. In 2002, 150 members of Congress wrote a letter to the State Department advocating the organization be removed from the terror list.
But 2003 was a rocky year. After Saddam was toppled, the administration struggled with how to handle MEK fighters detained at training camps in eastern Iraq. They were eventually disarmed, but remain in limbo today at the camps.
In August of that year, the State and Treasury departments also froze the council’s assets and shut down their Washington offices, blocks from the White House.
A State Department official said U.S. policy toward the MEK and its affiliates has not changed. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the group is still considered a threat because of its history of launching terrorist attacks.
But others find the sometimes soft approach to the MEK alarming. Further complicating the issue, the report from the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq said the group received oil as part of the scandal-tainted oil-for-food program, earning it millions of dollars in profits.
The MEK calls the appearance of its name in seized documents a smear campaign.
As U.S. focus on Iran increases, some wonder whether the MEK will play a role. A former senior intelligence official said some in the Pentagon see the MEK as a potential ally in their efforts against the Iranian regime.
But a defense official denied contacts with the MEK are occurring. Michael Rubin, who used to handle Iran issues at the Pentagon, said those he knew there hated the group.
"Even if they are not terrorists, although I believe they are, any group that tells its members who to marry and when to divorce, the United States should not be doing business with. They are very cult-like," Rubin said.
Rubin notes that, while council officials revealed the existence of two secret Iranian nuclear sites in 2002, they nevertheless have an inconsistent intelligence record, often getting information "dead wrong."
Yet the council’s former U.S. representative, Jafarzadeh, highlights the intelligence successes as evidence that the U.S. should support the Iranian opposition and advocate a policy of regime change in Iran. In an hour-long presentation this month, he laid out details of Iran’s nuclear program at an intellgence conference in Northern Virginia.
"There is a lot of serious searching, to find the best options in dealing with Iran," he said. "I can sense it in different government agencies. I can sense it among the think tanks. I sense it among the U.S. Congress."
In response to the British Parliament’s removal, on June 23, of the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists from the United Kingdom’s list of banned terrorist organizations, Amir Taheri (“Iran’s Troubling Opposition”, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2008, page A15) posed this question: “Does all of this mean that the British decision is morally wrong and perhaps politically counterproductive?” Taheri’s answer was “an unequivocal yes” if this had happened in January 2003 but “not so sure” today. Taheri’s change in position was based upon his questionable claim that the MEK has not committed any terrorist acts since it attacked an Iranian village in January 2003.
Taheri failed to explain that American and coalition military forces attacked Camp Ashraf , Iraq in 2003. Since April 2003, American and other military forces have protected Camp Ashraf , Iraq . The MEK terrorists could not continue terrorist activities from Camp Ashraf , Iraq without the approval of American military forces. There have been numerous reports in the American media of the use of the MEK terrorists by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and by the American Special Forces in Iran and in areas surrounding Iran for spying and for terrorist activities. There have been additional reports of MEK terrorist activities since 2003 in the Iranian media, such as:
http://www.presstv.com/
irandidban.com
Taheri failed also to explain where the terrorist leader, Massoud Rajavi, is being held now. There have been media reports that the American military has been holding Massoud Rajavi in Iraq since 2003. Amazingly, Taheri has suggested that the MEK must hand over to the Iraqi prosecutors those in the MEK responsible for the atrocities committed against the Shiites and Kurds in Iraq to please Saddam Hussein. The American military is holding or protecting many of these terrorist criminals in Iraq . France provides a safe harbor for other MEK terrorists.
For different views, read Massoud Khodabandeh and Anne Singleton’s views at http://iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=4701
Taheri noted that the British Parliament’s action will enable the terrorists to recruit members and to raise money in Britain . Taheri failed to address the issue raised by Massoud Khodabandeh and by Anne Singleton about permitting MEK members at Camp Ashraf , Iraq to leave Iraq .
Anne Singleton has provided the following links for researchers who want to read the discussions in the British Parliament leading to this decision:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm0806
23/debtext/80623-0015.htm#08062346000001
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708
/cmhansrd/cm080623/debtext/8 0623-0016.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708
/cmhansrd/cm080623/debtext/80623-0017.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm2007
08/cmhansrd/cm080623/debtext/80623-0018.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld2007
08/ldhansrd/text/80623-0013.htm#08062349000003
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/
ldhansrd/text/80623-0014.htm
Paul Sheldon Foote, June 26, 2008
http://360.yahoo.com/paulsheldonfoote
Link to the Article”Iran’s Troubling Opposition”by Amir Taheri (WSJ)
http://iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=4720
Would it ever acquit a criminal of his committed crime if he merely washed off his blood-stained hands? In the same way, the removal of a terror tag from a notorious terrorist group with a long history of perpetrated terrorist atrocities against a nation will not change anything. Some may congratulate Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI) for the ruling to be removed from the UK terror list and some may be shocked and dismayed. But the truth is that there are enough telling evidences on the group’s appalling terrorist deeds against Iranian people to make its supporters ashamed of giving the group an iota of backing.
Far beyond joking, MKO’s leaders are mocking Iranian government and people when they grin to congratulate the so-called victory since they know better than anybody else what they have done. They call it the outcome of a seven-year-battle between advocates of democracy and Iranian regime but, unnoticed as it may go, the supposed victory emerges exactly on the anniversary of one the group’s most outrageous terrorist operation in Iran. On 27 June 1981, the late Ayatollah Beheshti, then Iranian judiciary chief, and 72 other senior officials were perished in a bomb explosion planted in the Islamic Republic Party’s main building by MKO.
Can the incident be erased from the history or sank into oblivion? Or maybe the group’s advocates have justifiable explanation up their sleeves for Iranian people for whom they are trying to suggest the once expelled terrorists for the accomplishment of democracy! Who knows, maybe they have concluded that if they succeeded to wash the blood off their protégés, the Machiavellianists would be granted an extra opportunity to jump on the scene under a false pro-democratic disguise.
Of course, it will not take long for its advocates to be disappointed because neither is it a political weight nor has it any publicity among Iranian people to start over a new political career. Besides, the ruling faces the organization with further internal crises; being removed from the terror list, it has no other way but to respect democratic principles and let its unwilling members decide for themselves
Mojahedin.ws, June 26, 2008
http://www.mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=1722
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§ionid=351020101
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,
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
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
(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 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
