Rajavis and Cult Leadership

Maryam Rajavi is a Slaughterer of Democracy

I was thinking in my privacy about the violent assault on MR. MOHAMMMAD HOSSEIN SOBHANI, in CITY of Koln, in Germany which happened few days ago. Maryam Rajavi orders her followers to assault on innocent people who stopped following her and her husband’s ideology

I was asking myself why they assaulted him. As far as I know he had spent many years of his life in that notorious cult, called PMOI. Long time ago, He decided to separate from that cult and start over his normal life in Germany as a free man.

So what is wrong with it? why do they not tolerate him to be free and live freely? I think MRS. MARYAM should step forward and answer this question. She should be accountable for her followers attitude and their behaviors in European countries. She orders her followers to assault on innocent people who stopped following her and her husband’s ideology and shamelessly she says nothing as if nothing has happened.

She calls herself the president elect, so she should be responsible and accountable for her insurgents’ violent attitude who assault people just because they do not worship her and her cult anymore.

The funny thing is while she speaks about democracy which she has in her mind. I want to ask her, is it the model- democracy which you have in your mind?

Giving orders and permission to your followers to assault people and beat them up just because they have chosen not to continue your cultish rules and regulations? These deeds shows your democracy perfectly.

Tagging people, who have rescued themselves from your hellish cult , as members of Iranian intelligence service , is your democracy? You cannot even tolerate and bear the smallest criticism against you and your husband , so how do you allow yourself to speak about freedom and democracy?

Let me translate the meaning of your democracy for your followers. Democracy in your logic means “ everybody who is with me is my friend otherwise is my enemy”

By the way , I heard you have said that you are against execution and you have urged all governmental organizations and none governmental organizations to stop Iranian government from hanging convicts. It is funny for me to hear such a statement from you, why?

Do you not remember while you and your husband declared that if someone wanted to leave your cult should have been executed and your insurgents in ASHRAF GARRISON were shouting execution , execution in different gatherings in ASHRAF and BAGHERZADEH GARRISON. Please do not tell me that you have forgotten that!!!!

Do you not remember in a big gathering called “HOZ”, in 1994 that your husband declared code” if and if we are defeated , providing money and passport is my responsibility, finding gun and ammunition and locating our opponents , dissidents , and separated people from our organization in Europe and western countries is your responsibility, find and kill them.”

MRS . MARYAM , please explain and define the word democracy for your followers and advocates. I believe you are not able to explain those words because I am sure you do not know what democracy means.

I am a witness from your cult and I know everything about the crimes which occurred in your garrisons specially in the worst one , ASHRAF during SADDAM HOSSEIN’s reign .cooperation and participation in killing Iraqi people and suppressing , torturing , killing your own members is the definition of the democracy which you have in your mind.

So far everything you have said in favor of democracy are preposterous and absurd because you and your husband have slaughtered democracy and freedom in your hellish garrison , ASHRAF.

I hope someday your followers find out the real face of you and your cult .I believe that day will come soon .

I declare that I am fully ready to participate in any court of law to testify against the hideous crimes which have been perpetrated by the leaders of this cult.

Best Regards

HASSAN- PIRANSAR/PARIS

April 23, 2009 0 comment

Maryam Rajavi

Open letter of Mohammad Sobhani to Maryam Rajavi

About the attacks against him by the terrorists and henchmen of the Mojahedin Khalq Cult in Cologne, Germany

(Mr. Sobhani in the European Parliament)

Mrs. Maryam Rajavi,

With regards.

Without the usual introductions, let me get to the point concerning the attack I suffered from your cult’s henchmen and terrorists in the city of Cologne.

I was walking down a street in Cologne, Germany, where I reside, when one of your henchmen – or rather a victim of your cult – started swearing at me and physically attacking me. It was evident that some other henchmen of yours were encouraging him while still others were engaged in surveillance of the situation from distance. He approached me and started kicking me while swearing and using words which could only be descriptions of you and your husband. He was, as you usually used to call it, trying to “punish” me or as Massoud Rajavi used to call it, trying to “eliminate” me. He was demanding that I stop writing and stop talking about what is going on inside your cult. He said that I should not have been talking against the Mojahedin Cult in the European Parliament or in other international communities and was adamant and emphatic that if I either write or talk publicly one more time, then the biggest part of my body would be my ear.

I tried my best to keep calm and remind myself that the henchman you have sent is himself a victim of your cult. I managed to stop myself from giving any reaction to your terrorist agent who had been sent by you to Germany. This henchman of yours was, of course, trying the same route that your other terrorists took in FIAP in June 2007 where they attacked me and severely injured me. Of course he tried his best to stop me calling the police on my mobile phone and took it from me. He then started swearing at me and my family when I appealed to the people in the street to call the police, saying, “I will get you where and when you will not be able to ask anyone for help or try to find witnesses and…”

I have of course reported the incident to the relevant authorities who have promised to follow this attack by your terrorists thoroughly. Therefore I am not going to get into detail for the time being.

Mrs. Rajavi,

The word with you and your husband as the joint commanders of the terrorist cult of Mojahedin Khalq and the ones who are desperately bringing the violent, trained terrorists of Saddam’s private army to the streets of European countries is this:

You remember of course when I wrote on the walls of my solitary confinement cell that “your armed struggle will not work” and do you now see that it did not work? You did not have the ear to listen that day did you?

And do you remember when I wrote to you from prison that cooperation with Saddam the Iraqi dictator is an historical act of treachery? And now who is the one who is left desperate in Iraq? What do you want in Iraq? What is the point of more and more imprisonment of the victims of the cult there? Are you not responsible for the lives of the men and women who gave everything they had for you and your husbands’ sick ambitions?

And now you are sending your henchmen to stop people talking about it, whether in June 2007 in Paris, or today in Cologne?

I finish this letter with a clear announcement to the authorities of Germany where I live. The responsibility for my life and the life of my family against such terrorist actions anywhere in Europe is with the leadership of the Mojahedin Khalq Cult (Maryam Rajavi and Massoud Rajavi) and the trained henchmen who they employ for such attacks.

Mohammad Hossein Sobhani

14.09.2009

Postfach 90 06 63

51116 Köln – Deutschland

Telefon: +49 (0) 1774829905

Email: sobhani_m_h@hotmail.com

Cc:

The Interior Ministers of European Union countries

The Foreign Ministers of European Union countries

Mohammad Hossein Sobhani, Iran Ghalam, Cologne, April 14, 2009

http://www.iran-ghalam.de/2Haupt/3650-Tahajom%20be%20Sobhani-Koln-Deutschland13.04.09.HTM

April 15, 2009 0 comment

Maryam Rajavi

MARYAM AZDANLO leads a very dangerous cult

I was thinking about the years which I spent in this so called organization, the PMOI. Actually I had better say I wasted all those years of my life spent in that inhumane cult.

I was thinking about all those men and women who trusted the leaders of this cult and joined them to bring peace and democracy back to our motherland, Iran. Now as a result of the wrong and mistaken strategy which is a production of the medieval ideology and lack of brain of MASSOUD RAJAVI, all those men and women are in a terrible situation in Iraq right now.

The leaders of this cult put all kind of obstacles and hurdles so as not to allow Iraqi officials to enter that notorious garrison. The Iraqi officials who are in charge of their motherland, Iraq, after overthrowing the dictatorship of SADDAM HUSSEIN, want to help the stranded and hopeless captives of this cult to be released and rescued from this barbaric and inhumane cult after many decades. But the PMOI’s officials and its leader MARYAM RAJAVI are totally against such a humanitarian act and even threaten that in case of pressure, human catastrophe will occur in their Iraqi garrison called ASHRAF.

MARYAM RAJAVI sees her cultic survival in the remaining of the obscure and notorious ASHRAF GARRISON with all those men and women captives in it.

She is a very cruel tyrant, because she wants to keep all those men and women captive in that garrison just because she wants to keep the cult and the cultic ideology alive, why?

Why is she so dedicated and loyal to this cult?

Why is she trying her best to deny the right of freedom and right of having access to a normal life for all those people who have been stranded in that organization for a long period of time?

The only answer I can think about is, because she wants to continue her barbaric cult no matter of its cost and consequences. The lives of all those people are worthless for her.

She has been in Paris/France for a long time and she controls all the cultish ideology directly and exactly from Paris. She has made and established a deadly organization in Paris to export her cultish ideology to European countries and throughout the world, and this is the dangerous part, because MARYAM RAJAVI is taking advantage of the freedom and democracy in European countries cunningly to propagandize her cultic ideology.

This is the cultic ideology which, in complicity with the dictator of Iraq, massacred Iraqi people during the popular uprising of Iraqi people, and suppressed and oppressed the cult’s dissidents inside of the cult as well.

The French people have experienced the catastrophic burning to death of desperate members of this cult in Paris in 2003, who were ideologically forced to set themselves on fire.

These kind of violent and inhuman acts are the least that this ideology and cultish thoughts can do, especially while their cultish benefits are in danger.

All those inhumane and violent orders are declared directly from MARYAM’s cultish castle in Paris. The French Government should be aware of the real character and personality of this cult. The cult leaders in Paris pretend to be freedom lovers, peace and democracy advocates, but they are not.

I am one of their victims. I spent more than twenty years of my life there, so when I say something about this cult, it is based on facts and realities. Whether you believe or not, this cult is very dangerous and carries a very obscure and grim past.

I am fully ready to participate in any court of law to testify about the crimes which the leaders of this organization have done against the people of Iraq and the members of this cult.

Best Regards

HASSAN PIRANSAR

Iran Payvand, Paris, April 13, 2009

April 14, 2009 0 comment

Germany

Germany will not take in MKO members

A German official says the Berlin government will not house members of the terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) currently based in Iraq. The Mujahedeen Khalq Organization (MKO) has claimed responsibility for numerous acts of terrorism against Iranian nationals and officials.

“No MKO member in Camp Ashraf is awarded with German residency. There are currently no plans to receive members of the group in Germany,” the German Foreign Ministry spokesperson was quoted saying by IRNA.

This is while Mohammad Javad Hasheminejad, head of the Habilian Association – an Iranian-based human rights group – says the MKO chiefs are systematically eliminating the disgruntled members.

“In his addresses to international circles, the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) leader, Masoud Rajavi has spoken of a looming humanitarian crisis in case Baghdad pushes further for the expulsion of the terror group,” Hasheminejad said.

“What the MKO leader was referring to as ‘humanitarian crisis’ was actually forced self-immolation.”

The human rights activist underlined that The MKO seeks to persuade international as well as Iraqi officials to forgo the drive for the group’s expulsion from the country.

The Mujahedin Khalq Organization, which identifies itself as a Marxist-Islamist guerilla army, was founded in Iran in the 1960s.

The terror group was exiled twenty years later for carrying out numerous acts of terrorism in the country and targeting Iranian government officials and civilians within the country and abroad.

Outlawed in Iran, the group was relocated in France before being expelled at the order of the then-prime minister Jacques Chirac. The organization, eventually, moved to Iraq, where it allegedly assisted former dictator Saddam Hussein in the massacre of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the 1990s.

Many countries including the US have blacklisted the MKO as a”terrorist”organization. The US State Department says that the MKO assassinated at least six US citizens in Iran, prior to the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

This is while earlier in January, the 27-nation European Union ruled against the MKO’s seven-year inclusion in the blacklist. The ruling is widely believed to be politically motivated and the result of legal developments combined with intense lobbying by the terrorist group.

April 12, 2009 0 comment

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 comment

MEK Camp Ashraf

Iranian dissidents in Iraq. Where will they all go?

Iranians in Iraq who fought against the Islamic Republic face a shaky future

“IT WAS one of the strangest places I’d ever seen,” says one of the few Farsi-speaking Westerners to have spent weeks in Camp Ashraf, 65km (40 miles) Members are completely cut off from contact with their families. When wavering group members was enabled to talk to their some of their parents refused to believe it was their children, for they had been told by the PMOI that they were dead north-east of Baghdad, where some 3,400 Iranian dissidents are hunkered down and are now threatened with expulsion from Iraq, perhaps even back to Iran. It was “like a spiffy midsized town in Iran”, with parks, offices and buildings—but no children. It was “sterile, soulless and sad”. Nearly two decades ago, families living in the camp were “dissolved”, couples were forcibly divorced, and their children sent away, many of them to live with supporters living in the West, to be brought up in the faith of a movement widely described by independent observers as a cult.

For the past six years, the Americans have protected the camp, whose raison d’être is generally opposed by the surrounding Iraqi communities and by most Iranians, whether or not they are for or against the clerical regime in Tehran. But as American troops prepare to go home, the Iraqi government, which wants cosy ties with Iran, now says the camp must be closed and its inhabitants dispersed, probably back to Iran, where they would face an uncertain future, to put it mildly.

The group is variously known as the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran (PMOI) or the Mujahedeen-e Khalq Organisation (abbreviated as both MEK and MKO). Founded in 1965 as a youthful underground opposition to Iran’s Shah, it was usually described as “Islamic Marxist”. When the Shah fell it at first backed Ayatollah Khomeini but soon fell out with him, embarking on a campaign of violence and bombings which, on a single occasion, is reckoned to have killed 70 civilians, including several senior clerics; the withered arm of Iran’s current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was a result of that bomb. The group’s political umbrella is called the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

The PMOI’s leader, Massoud Rajavi, fled to France in 1981 but he and his followers, many of them women, relocated in 1986 to Iraq, where Saddam Hussein gave them a big base at Camp Ashraf, which is thought to be around 20km in circumference. Saddam abundantly supplied the PMOI with Brazilian and British tanks (captured from Iran during the war of 1980-1988) and Russian armoured personnel carriers, among other arms. In return, the PMOI made attacks on Iran itself, which is why Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors. It is also said to have spearheaded Saddam’s attacks on rebellious Iraqi Kurds and Shias in 1991, after the first Gulf war, a charge it strongly denies.

Follow my leader

No less controversially, the PMOI is widely reviled by human-rights groups for nurturing a messianic cult of personality around Mr Rajavi and his wife, Maryam, and for enforcing a totalitarian discipline on its adherents. Several defectors testify, in the words of one of them, to a “constant bombardment of indoctrination” and a requirement to submit utterly and unquestioningly to the cause. No sources of news are allowed without the PMOI’s say-so. According to one defector, around 50 members who rebelled were sent to Saddam’s prison in Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad.

Members are completely cut off from contact with their families. When the above-mentioned Farsi-speaking Westerner, who visited Ashraf in 2004, enabled wavering group members to talk to their families in Iran by satellite telephone, some of their parents refused to believe it was their children, for they had been told by the PMOI that they were dead.

No one is sure whether Mr Rajavi is alive but most think not; he has not been heard of since the American invasion of 2003. His wife, known as “the president-elect”, travels the world, soliciting support from a wide range of sympathisers, including some in the American Congress, the European Parliament and the British House of Lords. No one is sure who really controls the PMOI in Camp Ashraf. It is thought that nearly 400 residents have voluntarily returned to Iran, where they are said to have been treated adequately so far. But who can really tell? Several hundred more are seeking refugee status elsewhere. A few dozen have—or rather had—passports to Western countries, some of which have verified their bona fides.

In the past year, the European Parliament and Britain’s courts have removed the label of “terrorist” from the PMOI, mainly on the ground that the group says it has disavowed violence, is not known to have carried out any acts of terror since, at the latest, 2002, and surrendered its weapons (at any rate, its heavier ones) at Camp Ashraf after the American invasion. This has irritated several national governments, especially the British and French ones, which think the PMOI is a nasty nuisance and its presence on their soil bad for relations with both Iraq and Iran.

The outfit is still officially deemed a terrorist organisation in the United States but has a fierce lobby there too, backed by a mix of neoconservatives and leftists, that accepts at face value the group’s insistence that it is a secular and democratic movement with mass support in Iran and a real chance of eventually displacing the mullahs’ regime. Its lobby in Europe is much exercised by recent statements of Muwafaq al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser, who makes it plain he wants the camp disbanded and its people sent abroad, mostly to Iran, whose rulers have become more vociferous in calling its fellow reigning Shias in Baghdad to send them back.

The PMOI has a sophisticated network of ardent supporters. Without a doubt, its voice of despairing outrage will rise to a squeal if the Americans give way to Iraqi and Iranian demands to cut the movement loose. But it may happen.

The Economist print edition

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13447429

April 11, 2009 0 comment

The cult of Rajavi

Information Control within MKO Cult

To control cult members, cult leadership has to control the atmosphere surrounding the members. The primary step to control their environment is to monitor and control the information they get because if the members’ mind could get any new information, the world the cult leaders have created for them should be damaged. According to cult leaders the truth is only what the cult leaders say.

CultWatch website gives a very clear picture of the way the cults control the information.

Those who control the information control the person. In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true. One cult labels any information against it as”persecution”or”spiritual pornography”, another cult calls it”apostate literature”and will expel you from the group if you are caught with it. Cults train their members to instantly destroy any critical information given to them, and to not even entertain the thought that the information could be true.

If you are instructed by a group not to read information critical of the group,then that is a sign of a cult.

As a mind control cult, Mujahedin Khalq has a long history of information control over its members, according to the testimonies of most former members of MKO Cult.

Ms. Batoul Soltani, former member of MKO leadership Council describes the information system in her memoirs:

“After you entered the organization you couldn’t even have a pocket radio because it links you to the outside world. You cannot use any mass media except that of MKO. They never let the news of the other Media broadcast in the hall. Sometimes they even record, edit and censure the news and then show them, just to claim that they broadcast the news of CNN or Al Jazeera. They are very careful about the relationships between the members and people of the outside world such as Iraqis who come to the Camp.”

The way MKO leadership filters and censures the information demonizing the Iranian Regime, makes the MKO members think along with the objectives of the cult. So the information that supports the cult’s line is used to keep the members in.

Common sense tells us that a person who does not consider all information may make an unbalanced decision. Filtering the information available or trying to discredit it not on the basis of how true it is, but rather on the basis of how it supports the party line, is a common control method used throughout history.

Legitimate groups have nothing to fear from their members reading critical information about them.

In the cult of Rajavi, criticizing the organization’s ideology, its decisions and approaches will end the members with mental and physical torture, solitary confinement, and imprisonment, most former members like, Masud Khodabande, Mohamamd Hussein Sobhani tolerated years of imprisonment just because they criticized the organization’s policies.

For the Rajavis any critical information equals with the loss of many members. Therefore, the principal method to control the members’ mind is to control the information they learn.

Mazda Parsi

Reference: Howcultswork

An Interview with Iraq’s National Security Advisor about Camp Ashraf

An Interview with Iraq’s National Security Advisor Dr. Mowaffak al Rubaie

about Camp Ashraf by Anne Singleton

After 2003 the disarmed Iranian terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) organisation Rubaie: mko is an indoctrinated and tightly disciplined organization of extremist zealots who have employed terrorism and at times even self-immolation to secure their aims. was consolidated from various locales in Iraq and protected by US forces at Camp Ashraf in Diyala province; a bizarre anomaly in Iraqi and coalition efforts to bring unity and peace to the country. The Government of Iraq has long regarded the MEK as a foreign terrorist group which continues to threaten internal security and is culpable for aiding Saddam Hussein in the violent suppression of Kurdish and Shia uprisings in 1991. Successive announcements in 2008 by President Jalal Talabani and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari made clear their government’s determination to expel all the MEK members as soon as possible.

But solving the conundrum as to why the group has been protected and promoted by western interests for all this time has become clearer since January this year when responsibility for Camp Ashraf was handed over to the Government of Iraq by the Coalition Forces. As the Government of Iraq has moved swiftly to fulfil its decision to expel members of the MEK from the country, so the protests by those who have a stake in the continued presence of the group have intensified.

During March, three debates were held in the UK parliament by members supporting the MEK. In spite of being on the US terrorism list since 1997, CBS and CNN news channels have broadcast MEK films showing its personnel obstructing Iraqi authorities as they try to perform their duties. Additionally, the Washington Post has quoted an MEK spokesman in which he is threatening the Government of Iraq that “a human catastrophe" will follow further action.

Even though Europe and the UK have un-proscribed the group as it claims to no longer believe in violence, no moves have been made to have European and British citizens and those with residency rights removed from Camp Ashraf to safety. Instead, powerful lobbies who have used the MEK for their own interests are continuing their efforts to force the Government of Iraq to maintain the infrastructure of a terrorist organisation in its country. Keeping the group in Iraq can only serve the interests of those Saddamists who still believe the group will give them leverage over the Government of Iraq.

Spearheading Government plans to remove the MEK is Iraq’s national security advisor Dr. Mowaffak al Rubaie. His role is to advise the Government of Iraq and coordinate policies and activity in relation to national security and intelligence matters.

Over several months Dr. al Rubaie has fielded criticisms and attacks with repeated assurances that the residents of Camp Ashraf will be treated according to international human rights standards and that none would be forcibly repatriated. To date, nothing has occurred at Camp Ashraf to give any cause for concern to human rights organisations. In recent weeks two MEK members departed Camp Ashraf voluntarily. One confessed that he had been instructed to commit suicide in order to implicate Iraq’s Army. These two men, who were protected and comfortably accommodated by the Iraqi Government under observation by the ICRC and the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights, spoke openly of the human rights violations perpetrated by the leaders on MEK members. It was partly in response to this information that Dr. al Rubaie has focused efforts to protect the individuals inside the camp.

Indeed Dr. al Rubaie’s plan for the difficult task of dismantling an extremist cult has revealed an enlightened, humanitarian approach which could become a blueprint for tackling similar organisations worldwide.

However, as the clamour continues, I asked Dr. al Rubaie for an interview in order to further clarify his Government’s approach to events at Camp Ashraf.

Anne Singleton: You want to move the residents from Camp Ashraf for their own protection, yet the MEK commanders say they must remain in Camp Ashraf. What do you think motivates them?

Mowaffak al Rubaie: The self-appointed leaders at Camp Ashraf will have to speak for themselves. What I will address is how the residents of Camp Ashraf have cooperated or not cooperated with the policies and decisions of the Government of Iraq. The GOI does not deal with the MEK as an organization. We deal with the residents as individuals. The GOI has informed them that as members of a foreign terrorist organization they cannot remain in Iraq and must choose whether to return to their country of citizenship or some other country. Remaining in Iraq is not an option. The GOI has taken steps to assure their security while beginning to exercise sovereignty at Camp Ashraf as we do in every other part of our country. Ashraf is not above the law. Any infractions of Iraqi law will be handled by the GOI authorities with attention to due process and humanitarian standards. To date, the residents of Camp Ashraf have created a series of obstacles to the legitimate exercise of sovereignty by the GOI and this will not be tolerated. They must cooperate in order to avoid obstructing our authorities carrying out their legitimate duties.

AS: Some observers speculate that MEK leader Massoud Rajavi is in the anti-nuclear bunker inside Camp Ashraf and that is why the commanders refuse to move. Do you think this is possible?

MR: We do not know exactly what is within the bounds of Camp Ashraf. The GOI has informed the residents that we will diligently and progressively examine all areas of Ashraf to ensure there is no contraband, that there are no illegal activities taking place, and that they must cooperate with this legitimate exercise of Iraqi sovereignty and enforcement of the rule of law.

AS: You have spoken of ‘detoxifying’ the people in Camp Ashraf. Could you explain what this means and why you feel it is necessary? What do you hope to achieve?

MR: As you know from observing the behavior of the MEK and from their history, this is an indoctrinated and tightly disciplined organization of extremist zealots who have employed terrorism and at times even self-immolation to secure their aims. In normal everyday language we can say that they have been "brainwashed". As is common in organizations of this type, the indoctrination and discipline rely on the continuous pressure of their leaders and the total control by them of their environment. Therefore, individuals have little ability to exercise their free will because they exist in this closed environment and fear for personal reprisals if they are discovered to have deviated from the approved line of responses. As we strive to determine from each individual where they wish to go since they cannot remain in Iraq, we are conducting individual surveys and a census which are open to oversight by the ICRC and the UN. We believe that if we can separate individuals from the all-encompassing domination by their leaders, we can allow them to begin to exercise their rights as individuals and make appropriate choices. That is, we hope to remove them from the toxic effects of their indoctrination and leaders.

AS: CBS and CNN have been broadcasting clips showing women shouting at and insulting Iraqi soldiers from behind closed gates. Could tell us more about what these scenes depict.

MR: You will have to ask CBS and CNN when and under what circumstances they obtained their filmed scenes. What I can tell you is that the Iraqi Army unit posted to defend and secure Camp Ashraf has been in full control since 20 February and has exercised patience and extreme restraint in spite of the staged provocations and demonstrations that Ashraf’s self-appointed leaders have launched in defiance of the legitimate exercise by the GOI of its sovereignty.

AS: Families are concerned about having access to their relatives without MEK minders being present. Do you see a time in the near future that such visits can be facilitated?

MR: The GOI has already facilitated visits by families and has provided the residents of Camp Ashraf written procedures which are fully permissive. Our security forces at Camp Ashraf have and will continue to facilitate legitimate family visits with no interference by either the MEK or anyone else. These visits are also completely open to ICRC and UN observation. The MEK have been the obstacle to establishing a comfortable facility for such family visits.

AS: The MEK claim that the Government of Iraq has not allowed medical personnel or medical supplies into the camp and that this has resulted in the deaths of some women and that others are dying. They want ICRC and UNHCR intervention. What is your response to this allegation?

MR: These allegations are false and baseless.

AS: The MEK’s supporters have paid millions in legal fees to have the group removed from the UK and European Council terrorism lists. Have any of the group’s western supporters offered to help remove these people to their countries?

MR: The GOI has communicated with ambassadors from the European Union and all other countries we suspect have citizens or persons with some claim to residency in their countries. We have asked them to offer to allow those with status in their countries to return and to consider hosting others who may want to reside in their countries. We have facilitated visits by representatives of these countries to Camp Ashraf. We are hopeful that this level of openness and transparency by the GOI will persuade these countries to allow such returns.

AS: In your view, what can the UK, European and other western governments do to help resettle the MEK?

MR: These governments can agree to allow their citizens and others who have status in their country to return.

AS: The Washington Post quoted MEK member Mohammad Mohaddessin clearly threatening that self-immolations similar to 2003 and other suicide acts would be performed by the residents of Camp Ashraf. What is your response to this?

MR: We have and will continue to treat the residents of Camp Ashraf humanely and in accordance with Iraqi law and international law and conventions. We will not initiate acts of violence against them. We do expect them to cooperate in our efforts to exercise our sovereignty according to the rule of law. Should they choose extremist acts such as self-immolation, it will be their decision which we would regret.

Anne Singleton

April 7, 2009 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Fighting back illegitimate claims

Masoud Rajavi has repeatedly reiterated, as done in his message of December 27, that the rights of Ashraf residents in particular have to be recognized according to international conventions. After the fall of Saddam in Iraq, and Mojahedin’s disarmament in particular, this has been the focal point of all Rajavi’s messages as well as the feed of the group’s propaganda machine mainly to deter the decision taken by the Iraqi government to expel Mojahedin. In fact, the organization seeks to force itself on Iraq as recognized refugees with granted rights far beyond those conventionally granted. However, the question is that is it actually possible to grant asylum to MKO members and is the Iraqi government forced under any convention to recognize the group as refugees?

Unfortunately, no judicial organ has either confirmed or rejected the claims made by Rajavi to suggest a legal solution for the crisis posed by Mojahedin in Iraq. Furthermore, the position takings of Masoud Rajavi and Maryam Azdanlu imply that their main concern is hardly asylum seeking. For instance, Rajavi in his stated message refers to some points that are to be pursued legally. He refers to his motivation of entering Iraqi soil and says:

NCRI, in which MKO has membership, in its formal letter of February 4, 2003 to Colin Powel, the US Secretary of State, and also to the UK Defense Minister once more declared that the presence of a division of MKO forces in Iraqi soil aims just at fighting against the religious and terrorist dictatorship governing Iran and has pointed out that this organization had not taken part in any war in Iraq in the past neither would do it in the future.

This claim in itself puts the following questions to international bodies including the UNHCR:

1. What is the role of NCRI that is claimed to be legal defender of MKO in this issue? If NCRI was recognized as a legitimate group and political refugee in Iraq, this statement was relevant. It seems that Masoud Rajavi pretends the issue of asylum application of MKO as a subcategory of that of NCRI and gives first priority to it. He further states that Mojahedin have entered Iraq under the support of NCRI whereas neither at that time nor in the present, NCRI has nothing to do with MKO-Iraq conflict and it has not even been recognized as a formal group to qualify as refugees.

NCRI consists of real entities whose right of seeking refuge is recognized legitimate in many countries and is different from that of an opposition group. In contrast to Rajavi’s words, NCRI is an alias to MKO and any movement of its members from the Europe to Iraq and vice versa came about under Rajavi’s command. What Rajavi is after by reversing the relationship of NCRI and MKO is a significant issue to be investigated.

2. Rajavi reiterates that “The presence of a division of MKO forces in Iraqi soil aims just at fighting against the religious and terrorist dictatorship governing Iran”. Here Rajavi intentionally makes a false claim of the obligatory presence of just a division of MKO members in Iraq. He refrains to clarify what he means by a part of MKO members while it is evident that for example, in the “Operation Eternal Light” all MKO members as well as a number of NCRI members had to take part. What he aims by pretending that not all but some MKO members participated in terrorist activities of Mojahedin in Iraq is another issue to be the subject of a thorough investigation.

3. Rajavi acknowledges that Mojahedin have entered Iraq just for overthrowing the Iranian government and they aim to follow the same path in the future. According to the organizational manifesto and strategy of MKO, the achievement of this objective is possible just by means of armed struggle. Now the question arises that whether political refugees can initiate armed struggle against an independent country that is also a member of the UN and enjoys international legitimacy from the soil of a country that has provided them with asylum? What are the international rules and conventions that justify committing terrorist activities by a group of refugees?

4. Even if terrorist activities of MKO against Iran through Iran-Iraq war under the command of Saddam are justified, is the present legal government of Iraq enforced to bear the presence of Mojahedin based on the same mechanisms in a condition when the fighting parties are in a state of peace and have to hew to clauses of piece agreement? Is Iraqi government to let Mojahedin misuse its soil to pursue its strategy of overthrow by means of armed struggle and terrorist activities? Rajavi insists on saying that their settlement in Iraq aims at overthrowing Iranian government and nothing else:

If even mountains quake, the greathearted children of Iran would not move from their position of supporting freedom, democracy and legalism aiming at overthrowing religious fascism.

This is the direct warning of Masoud Rajavi in Mojahedin’s using of Iraqi soil for fighting against the Iranian government that in itself gives due subterfuge to Iraqi government to insist on its decision of expelling Mojahedin from Iraq otherwise it means contravening piece agreement signed by Iran.

Further, Rajavi refers to Camp Ashraf, the ideological and strategic bastion of Mojahedin in Iraq, and writes:

Ashraf, as expounded on below, and as confirmed by multinational forces in the last 5.5 years, is a disarmed non-military zone to which no armed person or military force can enter. Therefore, we have called it Ashraf city since 2004.

Rajavi’s replacing the title Camp Ashraf with that of Ashraf city is just a propagandist and formal gesture that has nothing to do with the present challenge posed to them in Iraq. In addition, as it is evident, there occurred no change in the strategy of armed struggle followed by Mojahedin for furthering the objective of overthrowing the Iranian government without which, as Rajavi states, their settlement in Iraq is futile and of no use. Therefore, in the present conditions, the presence of Mojahedin in Iraq poses a danger for the piece and security of the region, and Iraq in particular, the keeping of which has been repeatedly referred to as the main goal of the presence of American forces therein.

Rajavi openly declares that MKO is not a political group seeking refuge in Iraq rather it is an opposition group pursuing a way to overthrow the Iranian regime. It is on the part of international organs and European advocators of MKO to evaluate the legitimacy of their insistence on remaining in Iraq based on international rules and conventions. Furthermore, the Iraqi government is to strengthen its security measures concerning Mojahedin and their stronghold. In addition, Rajavi has repeatedly warned Iraqi officials of the possibility of the occurrence of an imminent cultic reaction by MKO members that might lead to destabilizing the relative peace and security of Iraq.

Years ago, France banned the presence of Mojahedin in France and expelled it as it was an official decision that no other power could question its execution. Now it is repeating again with the same notorious terrorist group but in Iraq for the restoration of security in the war-torn soil. Is actually anything going against the international conventions or are people dispossessed of any right? Just a country is determined to clean its soil of unwanted particles that are jeopardizing the security of the country in particular and the region in general.

April 6, 2009 0 comment

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 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts