Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Old talk

[Removed hate speech.See WP:Talk.] Tazmaniacs 06:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the "allegedly" again, as i think it is confirmed that the MKO was organising murders and bombings. The main difficulty is which murders exactly as the article linked to below points out - both the group probably claims many they had nothing to do with, and teh government blames them for a good measure more with which they had nothing to do with either. This probably leaves a fair number left over and is definetely enough to remove the 'allegedly; Refdoc 21:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you have to remove it twice, it probably means that there is a controversy. Why take sides in a controversy, when writing an encyclopedia article? Just cite sources on each side. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 11:00 (UTC)

Anon user 81.139.29.189 had this to say in the main article, which I moved here: In less than three month the wikipedia article on the terrorist organization of MKO had been substantially changed.

References to the terrorist nature of a killing machine had been changed and an obviously vicious terrorist cult have been described as a guerrilla organization.

What is happening in Wikipedia. The only explanation is: MKO as a master of political spin succeeded to access Wikipedia or there is a line by the NeoCons?

How can it be explained while U.S. persue terrorists, a terrorist cult that had killed thousands of Iranian civilians and Kurds and was supported by Saddam is being whitewashed by Wikipedia? ClockworkTroll 17:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The name "Mujahideen al-Khalq" is neither Persian nor correct Arabic, nor is it used by the organization. So I've moved it to the Persian equivalent. - Mustafaa 23:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that facts are being changed by Iranian regime for political purposes. For starters this group calls itself People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. It has done from day one, as can be seen on their website www.mojahedin.org . Iranian regime seems to be running a campaign to demonize its opposition. This should not be tolerated by Wikipedia or else they will lose their credibility which they have earnt as a powerful online encyclopedia.

my god, what a load of crap: "I noticed that facts are being changed by Iranian regime for political purposes". read this report by the U.S. government on the MKO: [1]. now are you going to say the iranian regime has changed their report too?

[removed per WP:CIVIL . ] Tazmaniacs 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You should consider your own argument here, as you criticize another's arguement for representing a group of people that have not been correctly polled for the given situation and do the same yourself. Also consider that past cooperationg with Saddam is void in terms of foreign relations with the US, as the US also cooperated with Saddam. Also, please refrain from using terms with subjective definitions, such as "cult".--Glasgallow 19:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If that is not POV I don't what is. Whoever this guy is, he clearly has a political agenda and should not be allowed to update a legitimite encylopedia. Obviously he has serious motives. He goes so far as saying that he is one of the people that hates this group (PMOI). Therefore whatever he writes is POV, and it is against the rules of Wikipedia. Opensource encylopedias are very useful, but not when they are tampered with by politically-motivated people.

Genius, I never wrote even one word in this article. But when I noticed you guys are systematically changing the article to suit your lies, I participated in helping revert your version. You will notice in history records of the article that many others have also done this.

You are reverting pages to a false version written prepared by the Iranian regime. You have already that you are biased towards this group. Therefore you should not be changing facts into fiction in this encyclopedia. I suggest everyone see www.iranterror.com, its a new site I found which exposes agents of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (both their terrorist activities and their attempts to demonize the Iranian opposition. I think it answers many people's questions in there.

Oh Mr, Hanif Jazayery!! very nice name, Hanif!! I have never known an Iranian with that name. Although it's a very common Arabic name. So what do you do at the MKO, do you serve tea to your idols Massoud and Maryam or what? Now that I wrote your IP is from France, you show up with your Wikipedia ID. Nice move Mr. Hanif !! hehe I see that you are calling EVERYBODY who has reverted your bullshit, a "member of the islamic regime's information ministry". Very classy and intelligent of you Mr. Hanif. But you know what? It is a fact that all Iranians hate you bastards. Do you forget that you used to be with Khomeini 100% ?! Did you not then do terrorist acts in Iran killing many people? Did you not then cooperate with Saddam? Don't you now cooperate with Washington? Is it a lie that Iranian PEOPLE (not just the regime) hate your guts? Is it a lie that you are prostitutes who has gone to bed with everybody from the communists, to Khomeini to Saddam to Washington politicians? You are a bunch of losers. Get a life.

I would like to point out that the average American inhabitant would not have a clue as to any common Arab name.--Glasgallow 19:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be a lot better if you could both a) refrain from personal insults and b) sign your "contributions" Refdoc 09:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I also wish to see no personal attacks. It is unfortunate that you attack him personally when you could very easily and more effectively just point out the facts about the hypocricy, deceitfulness and failures of this organization. Ardavan 10:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule

I have blocked both main articipamnts in teh recent revert war. If this continue I will get the page protected. Refdoc 09:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

To be fair I did not personally insult the person who keeps reverting the article to give a false impression of this organization. He said that he hated it. He also accused me and the other guy of being members. He said to the other guy that since he was from france that made him a member of the organization, and that is not true. Well, I too am from France, though it doesn't write my IP here, but that doesn't automatically make me someone who is lying. The realities speak for themselves. The PMOI and the National Council of Resistance of Iran have had considerable support from Parliamentarians in the following countries (the list is from an Editorial in the Washington Times - March 31, 2002):

United States

1992: 219 members of the House of Representatives endorse the NCRI.

1995: 202 members of the House endorse the NCRI.

1997: 225 House members endorse the NCRI while condemning the Iranian regime's record on human rights.

1999: 28 senators call the Mujaheedin "a legitimate resistance movement."

2000: 228 House members call the Mujaheedin "a legitimate resistance movement" and ask the State Department to amend its policies.

Britain

1995: 425 British legislators back NCRI and call for sanctions against Iran.

1999: 330 Members of Parliament endorse Mujaheedin as "a legitimate resistance movement."

2000: 335 MPs (House of Commons) and 61 members of the House of Lords announce their support of NCRI.

2001: 337 MPs and 94 in the House of Lords endorse NCRI.

Other parliaments

1995: 317 Italian deputies endorse NCRI

1995: Majority of Swedish Parliament announce support of NCRI.

1997: 326 Italian deputies announce support of NCRI and call for a new anti-mullah policy.

1997: Majority of Norwegian Parliament call for sanctions against Iran and announce support of NCRI.

1997: Majority of Swiss Parliament call for sanctions against Iran and announce support of NCRI.

1998: Majority of Belgian Parliament endorse NCRI.

1998: Majority of Luxembourg MPs endorse NCRI.

2000: 475 members of the German Bundestag condemn Tehran regime and support NCRI.

2002 and 1999: 150 members French deputies support NCRI.

2002: 300 Italian deputies endorse NCRI.

2002: Majority of Belgian Parliament reaffirms support for NCRI.

The article was from the year 2002 so it doesn't list all the more recent support they have received, including a petition by 2.8 million Iraqis which came out nearly two months ago.

Whoever this guy is that is reverting the pages should be stopped, as the facts speak for themselves. Hanifjazayeri 14:45, 27 May 2005 (GMT+1)

Saddam Hussayn was also "approved" for quite some time, and even directly supported, funded and assisted in many ways. But look at how those same people who once "approved" of him for their political game, dealt with him later. You Mojahedin are the same. You should take a good look at the history of your organization, where you were and where you are now. The person above asked you a number of legitimate questions. You did not answer any of them. Instead, you play the cheap argument of statistics based on some newspaper article. Ardavan 11:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I would hardly call the support of hundreds of parliamentarians in each of the above cases a "cheap argument of statistics". I don't think the majorities of parliamentarians in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, and many other supported Saddam Hussein, so don't make comparisons just to demonize the Iranian opposition. It seems to me that if the PMOI have this much support accross the world then there must be some legitimacy in what they stand for. What I also know is that all the countries in the above list class the Iranian regime as the biggest state-sponsor of terrorism. The Iranian regime sponsors terror abroad, but also uses it at home to supress the Iranian people. Over the past 26 years they have executed 120,000 members of the PMOI, a partial list of whose names and particulars can be found at www.iranterror.com . Hanifjazayeri 17:30, 28 May 2005 (GMT+1)

---

Page is now protected

I suggest a cool down period. I have protected the page on the last version. Please assume good faith and work together to bring in the necessary changes. I will unprotect the page once I have seen some evidence of constructive discussion here on this page Refdoc 09:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But you didnt mention that the USA supported Sadam once, and now they support the NCRI. Some of what you guys say are fact, why dont you write and leave all the crap out of here?? fjulle--212.130.112.17 22:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But you didnt mention that the USA supported Sadam once, and now they support the NCRI. Some of what you guys say are fact, why dont you write and leave all the crap out of here?? fjulle--212.130.112.17 22:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Washington, DC, Jun. 04 – A United States lawyer representing members of the main Iranian opposition group, the Iraq-based People’s Mojahedin, censured New York-based Human Rights Watch for a report that alleged the group mistreated its members in a letter to its director.

Professor Steven M. Schneebaum of Greenberg Traurig Law, who served on the Board of Directors of the International Human Rights Law Group, wrote, “I must confess that I have never before had to censure a human rights organization for procedural flaws and substantively incorrect results in its work. But I cannot conceive of how either the procedures used, or the conclusions reached, in the report on the PMOI can be justified. And the fact that something similar occurred in 1994, when Human Rights Watch last reported on the PMOI, makes me suspicious that there is a hidden agenda”.

Professor Schneebaum, who is also chairman of executive committee of the British-American Project, said that the ruling regime in Tehran had made the PMOI the target of a massive disinformation campaign. Despite this fact, he said, “no effort was exerted by your investigators, or by he authors or editors of the report, to contact PMOI members or representatives in the United States or in Paris, much less in Camp Ashraf. No effort was made to interview U.S. military officials who oversaw operations at Ashraf over months at a time, and who had looked into rumors about abuses at the Camp, and found not a shred of evidence to support the very charges that Human Rights Watch makes. Apparently, no effort was made even to conduct face-to-face interviews with the individuals who claimed that they were held by the PMOI when they wanted to leave, and who made serious allegations of mistreatment”. Schneebaum made particular note of HRW’s own admission that it relied on telephone interviews as the sole basis for its 28-page report.

“I myself visited Camp Ashraf in early 2004. What I saw was nearly 4,000 people living at a very high level of commitment and discipline. I spoke freely with many of them. I do not pretend to have expertise in interrogation, nor was that part of my mission, but I certainly observed nothing that implied to me that anyone was at Ashraf against his or her will”, he added.

Schneebaum cautioned that the HRW served two purposes, one being the Iranian regime’s justifications of its repressive policies towards the PMOI and dissidents general, and the second being to keep the PMOI and its affiliated organisations on the terrorist lists.

On the latter, he said that HRW had not conducted an investigation concluding that the PMOI was a terrorist organisation, thus he had found especially unsettling an HRW press release in which Joe Stork, Director of the Middle East and North Africa branch of HRW, stated, “The Iranian government has a dreadful record on human rights, but it would be a huge mistake to promote an opposition group that is responsible for human rights abuses”.

Schneebaum said that he was deeply troubled that HRW made such an announcement which he said was impossible to read into “anything other than advice to the United States Department of State to retain the PMOI’s terrorist designation and to ensure that no federal money might be allocated to Iranian opposition movements finds its way to that Organization”.

He said that such statement were not part of HRW’s mandate, summing up that “the timing of the report supports the inference that a political objective, not a human rights one, was in play”.

Hehe hehe hehe hehe are you people really so stupid or you always assume others are stupid?! You quote your own hired attorney in support of yourselves?! This is really funny. That shyster would not have accepted you losers as a client if he had an ounce of integrity in him. One look at your record is enough. And nothing is more repulsive to Iranian people that you terrorists claiming to be the voice of Iranian "people" and representing them. You are the same bastards who were 100% behind Khomeini and helped him all the way until he decided that it was time for you losers to go. Your group has ALWAYS been small and unpopular and Iranian people have ALWAYS disliked you (both before and after revolution) and you can ask ANY Iranian how they feel about you. You know this better than anyone that all Iranians HATE you -- especially after you losers moved to Iraq and became Saddam's Mujahedin. You used to kill Americans in Iran, what happened? You love Americans now? You used to love Khomeini. What happened? Now you cringe at hearing his name? You used to be leftist. What happened? You are not lefist anymore? Get out of here and get a life.

Please refrain from statements that have no conversational/informational value whatsoever.--Glasgallow 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

VEVAK tries to censor the truth

One other fact that I thought would be useful for everyone to know, is that the Iranian regime has to date executed over 120,000 political prisoners of the PMOI and have acknowledged this themselves. A partial list of the names and particulars of those executed can be found at www.iranterror.com . Ayatollah Montazeri, Khomeini’s right hand man wrote in his memoirs a few years ago (as published in the Sunday Times) that the regime executed over 30,000 PMOI members in a matter of a few weeks in 1988. Khomeini's henchmen, many of whom today live abroad and try to demonize the Iranian opposition, also tortured over half a million PMOI supporters inside Iran's prisons.

Yet, there is however someone who keeps vandalising the text, changing facts and even writing unsubstantiated lies. The person, whom I suspect of being an agent of the Iranian regime, also vandalises the page about the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), again deleting factual texts and writing lies.

When I added the 120,000 figure in the page about the Mojahedin, the regime's guy removed it, and again started to say that such a thing was a lie. This is how VEVAK tries to demonize the Iranian opposition.

It does not surprise me that agents on the payroll of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry (VEVAK) abroad try to white-wash their own crimes and pretend that the Iranian opposition are the "criminal", since I know that VEVAK are actively pursuing a campaign to demonize the Iranian opposition in the West. (If you read the talk section and edit sections of the Maryam Rajavi page and the Mojahedin-e Khalq page you will undoubtedly see that the guy continuously calls me and my friend "Terrorists" without even the slightest idea of who I am or who he is) What does however disappoint me is Wikipedia's inability to combat such abuse. Despite the service being an extremely valuable one, Wikipedia seems unable to control vandalism on its encyclopaedia.

The other problem is that this guy is continuously offensive and uses offending language, as one would expect from agents who are there to defend a corrupt dictatorship.--RezaKia 16:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't waste Wikipedia's database with repeats. You don't need to post your whine in a zillion places, just post if in one place and put links to it elsewhere. Anyway, you can call me a VEVAK member. The truth is I had never even heard the term VEVAK until your "and your friend!! hehe" wrote it here in Wikipedia. I have answered your rubbish here and I don't need to repeat it on this page. Just crawl back to your cave in the deserts of Iraq. Bye loser.

For everyone to see the truth

I have no intention of arguing with someone who is obviously not interested in the truth and who makes accusations without providing any proof, but for the interest of other readers and to prove that the regime lies and is running a demonization campaign against the Iranian opposition, I would like to answer the accusations.

Please, everyone reading this bear in mind that I am not myself a member of the PMOI, thus the answers I give would probably not be up to the standards of the organisation.

In response to “Didn't your organization use to kill Americans in Iran during the previous regime?”

The PMOI, (not my organisation) has never killed Americans in Iran. I understand that some 5 of 6 Americans were killed in Iran at the time of the Shah and then attributed to the Iranian opposition, however at the time the PMOI issued a statement denouncing the acts, which were later discovered to be the work of a splinter organisation, PEYKAR, who after the revolution joined Khomeini’s forces in suppressing the Iranian PMOI members, but today they are non-existent in Iran.

In response to “Were you guys not the ones who helped Khomeini come to power?”

The PMOI, (again not my organisation) fought an underground resistance against the Shah’s regime so as to free the Iranian people from tyranny. At the time Khomeini was living in France. By the time of the 1979 revolution, the entire PMOI leadership was in the Shah’s prisons, thus Khomeini was able to steal the revolution as his own and then introduced his brand of Islamic fundamentalism to suppress the Iranian people far more than the Shah did. Of course Khomeini knew that the PMOI could not be negotiated with if he were to suppress the people since they sacrificed their lives for the peoples’ freedom. Therefore most of Khomeini’s violence was directed at the PMOI, and even his number 2 man, Ayatollah Montazeri has admitted in his memoirs that in the span of only a few weeks in the summer of 1988 more than 30,000 PMOI members were executed in Khomeini’s prisons. To date Khomeini’s regime has executed over 120,000 members of the PMOI. So, I hope everyone now understands that it was not the PMOI would brought Khomeini to power. They were in prison, and when the revolution broke out Khomeini stole the momentum and pronounced himself leader, whereas before he was living in France.

In response to “Were you not involved in the takeover of the American embassy in Tehran and taking hostages?”

The PMOI never supported the regime when it took hostages in the American embassy. They gave at least a dozen statements during the 444 days denouncing the action, which in fact gave Khomeini a chance to label the Mojahedin “pro-American” and get his henchmen to attack members and supporters of the organisation.

In response to “Did you not cooperate with Saddam Hussein?”

One common charge the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (VEVAK) spreads about the PMOI is that the organisation cooperated with Saddam Hussein. After Khomeini’s regime executed tens of thousands of Mojahedin members and their supporters, the PMOI would their base to Iran-Iraq border. The Iran-Iraq war lasted from 1980-88. At the beginning, when Iraqi forces invaded Iran, the Mojahedin fought them, (ironically, while they were fighting Iraq, regime’s forces also shot at them from behind, so they really had to defend against both fronts). However in 1982, Iraq pulled its troops out of Iran, and declared a ceasefire. The Mojahedin promptly accepted a ceasefire on the grounds that over 100,000 Iranians and Iraqis had been killed in the war, however Khomeini chose not to accept the ceasefire and instead made the slogan “Capture Jerusalem through Baghdad” and continued the war for a further six years, at the end of which more than a million people were left dead. In 1986 Mojahedin set up base on the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq border, with the ceasefire they signed in effect. One of VEVAK’s usual claims is that PMOI cooperated with Iraq because it maintained an office in Baghdad throughout the years, however the reality is that Britain, France, Germany, Russia … all had and continue to have an embassy in Iraq, (even the Iranian regime has one there now). It makes perfect sense for an organisation on Iraqi soil to have a press office in Baghdad, and it doesn’t automatically mean that they cooperate with the regime.

In response to “Are you not cooperating with Washington now?” The PMOI were never enemies with the United States to begin with, their only enemy is the Iranian regime which has killed over 120,000 political prisoners and tortured over 500,000. During the U.S.-led war on Iraq, the PMOI neither assisted the Americans nor the Iraqis, thus they are now protected under the 4th Geneva Convention. The other thing the PMOI have done that is really hard to swallow for the regime is that they revealed its clandestine nuclear weapons sites. The regime had not declared these to the IAEA until the Iranian opposition revealed that, and these are not my words; these are the words of the IAEA officials and George Bush who clarified it during a recent a press conference. If this person is criticizing the PMOI for revealing to the world that the regime was secretly making nuclear weapons, then I would seriously suggest that this person’s motives are extremely suspect!

In response to “Do Iranian people like you and support you?” As an Iranian I would say the Mojahedin are supported by the vast majority of Iranians inside and outside Iran, and that is why they have so much international support too.

As I wrote in my previous post, this guy is continuously offensive and uses offending language, as one would expect from likely VEVAK agents who are there to defend a corrupt dictatorship.

Now, everyone can see that the charges this person levels are unsubstantiated and his motives are extremely suspect. For anyone wanting to learn more about the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (VEVAK) and their campaign to demonize the Iranian opposition, please take a look at this site: www.iranterror.com --RezaKia 18:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From your answers there are three things that are immediately obvious to the reader:

• One, that you don't lie.
• Two, (and this one is glaringly obvious) that you are NOT a member of the MKO.
• And three, that your are impressively intelligent (for example: "The PMOI, (again not my organisation)" -- ha ha ha ha ... this one is too funny).

And again, do not fill up several wikipedia pages with the repeat of the same long post, just post it in one place and put links to it in other places. How hard is this for you to understand, mujahed?

1988, MKO use equipment supplied by Saddam and cross into Iran, they set up AA guns on mountain sides and hills and aim them down on the highway, they open up on any vehicles, civillian or otherwise, I know this because my brother was 17 at the time, we were living in Hamedan, he heard the Basij / Pasardan vans asking for volunteers. The MKO are a terrorist organization. You are not Iranians. Real Iranians would not kill their brothers, that is something you must have learned by living with Saddam.

Usually when regime's agents blow their cover. At first their responses make no sence, and later they start to repeat all their previous lies. Just reading the note written by this "anonymous" guy, he doesn't seem to be able to reply in a way that makes sence. For other readers, I wanted to state that the reason you will find this post twice, is because this person is vandalizing two pages. (Mojahedin-e Khalq and Maryam Rajavi pages)(Note: pretty soon, I suspect, he will start to call me a terrorist again, as he has done in the past.)

Everyone cn see that this guy is empty, and is just here to demonize the Iranian opposition. He makes no constructive arguments and just levels baseless accusations of which all have been answered above.--RezaKia 08:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RezaKia, despite your frustration, please refrain from personal attacks on your fellow editors. I just had a chance to read the article and I found it strange to see the suggestion that the PMOI's name is interchangable with MKO considering the derogitory meaning of the MKO name. The United States has been called "The Great Satan" by the leader of Iran. You could find articles testifying to this. Would we list this as one of the names for the US in the US article? I understand some countries have listed the PMOI as a terrorist orgnaization and you seem to be passionate about the subject but Wikipedia's goal is for an impartial article. I don't think name calling in the article or on the talkpage is not helpful. Thanks.Citizen Don 06:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What about mojAhedin-e Khalgh?

This article is very accurate.

What about mojAhedin-e Khalgh? http://www.ghandchi.com/187-mojAhedin.htm

For over thirty years, I have written many critics of MojAhedin-e Khalgh Organization, from the time of Hanif-Nejad to the present. Before the Revolution, I wrote critics of the works of mojAhedin's founders, works like ShenAkht (Theory of Knowledge) and eghtesAd (Economics) but I also condemned that part of MojAhedin M.L., who committed atrocities against Sharif Vaghefi and others.

And after the Revolution and particularly after the 30th of Khordad of 1360, I have written extensive critics of mojAhedin's move to Iraq, state ownership in their program, the "Islamic" tag of the ideal republic in their program, the cult-like practices of their organization, and all other aspects of the program they have been advocating for future of Iran in the last 20 years :

http://www.ghandchi.com/index-Page14.html

I am not writing this article as another critic of mojAhedin, and here I would like to look objectively at what the reality of mojAhedin is today, to express my view as to how I think the Iranian opposition should deal with mojAhedin *today*.

Please see the Postscript (P.S.) of this article to see a summary of my own views on various topics, because I know there are dishonest people who would quickly label me monarchist or MKO or Zionist or whatever they can think of, when they do not like what I write, and the noted sources attached are for anyone to read for themselves, to see my standpoint on the relevant political topics.

Now let's go back to the topic of MojAhedin-e Khalgh Organization. We all know of the grave mistakes of mojAhedin after the Revolution. We all know of their sudden action of taking arms on 30th of Khodad of 1360 in meydoone Ferdowsi in Tehran, without informing other forces of opposition, and how their action caused members of many other democratic groups to get killed. We all know mojAhedin's gravest mistake of going to Iraq and staying there during all those years of Iran-Iraq War. And we know about their cultish organizational practices and their statist program which caused the failure of NCRI.

Then the question is why mojAhedin did not collapse after these many years, and after all these grave mistakes and after all the critics levied at them and why mojAhedin is still the strongest organization of Iranian opposition. In fact, outside of Kurdestan, mojAhedin is the only real organization of opposition in Iran, and if IRI was going to collapse tomorrow, they are the only force that can take power. And yes, one may wonder why?

The reality is that all these years, only two forces relentlessly raised the flag of overthrowing the Islamic Republic. The first one was mojAhedin and the second one was the Monarchists. The latter was unable to attract the kind of people who are willing to give up all they have to achieve the goal of overthrowing the regime. So basically mojAhedin organization became the only place for those who were the most serious about sacrificing all they have for the goal of overthrowing the regime.

I think the above is a reality that is missed in all critics of mojAhedin. Those who joined mojAhedin did not join it to go and work for Saddam Hossein. They joined it because they wanted to overthrow IRI. They were the people who wanted to sacrifice their money, well-being, and life to achieve their goal of regime change in Iran.

Another related question that nobody asks is that why Khomeini decided to break up with mojAhedin and call them monAafegh to wipe them out? It was not because of them being pro working class or because of being radical, although they did not hesitate to fight to achieve even smallest gains in power from the first day after the Revolution.

Nonetheless, basically there was not much of a difference between the program of Khomeini and that of mojAhedin, and it is important to note that mojAhedin were not the ones who broke the relation. I think the answer to why is very simple. Before the Revolution, Khomeini counted on mojAhedin a lot more than the clergy because the main part of clergy still was with the Shah. But after the Revolution, Khomeini had to choose between two organizations.

One organization was the traditional organization of Shi'a clergy ,with all its emAm jome's (Friday Prayer Clergy Leads), to run every city and village, and the second organization was the non-traditional organization of mojAhedin which rapidly grew in the first two years after the Revolution. Thus it was obvious that just like the Shah, Khomeini saw the former traditional organization of clergy as a proven structure to run, and with VelAyate Faghih approved, he took the role of the Shah but sitting on top of AstAne Ghodse Razavi, Feyzieh, and all the network of mosques and other traditional Shi'a organizations to run the country, and thus Mojahdein's *organization* became a competitor of that traditional organization and Khomeini made his choice to suppress mojAhedin.

Here is how on one hand traditional organization of Shi'a became the embodiment of state in Iran, and ironically by its intention to uproot mojAhedin, IRI made Mojahdein the focus for all those who wanted the overthrow of IRI. And this IRI versus Mojahdein defined the main battle of Iran for over 20 years.

Today most of the IRI opposition has reached the conclusion that Islamic Republic is not reformable and must go. As noted, this is what monarchists and mojAhedin have been saying during all these years, and mojAhedin have been sacrificing their lives to achieve this goal. I do not think even 5 percent of the people in other groups of Iranian opposition are as much dedicated to this goal, as the members of mojAhedin, in their commitment to the elimination of Islamic Republic, and when faced with a brutal Mediaeval regime, the final answer is how many people are really willing to sacrifice their lives and wellbeing to achieve a regime change, when facing a regime which is not going to leave on its own, and is ready to kill to the last of opposition to stay in power.

Even at the time of the Shah, contrary to the fairy tales around, the regime fell by those who sacrificed themselves in front of the army guns. I personally remember the riots in Yazd and Kashan almost a year before the Revolution when the Shah's soldiers were shooting at people and the demonstrators from the Mosque were still going forward while being shot. This is at the time of the chehellehs (40-day sequential anniversaries starting with Ghom).

Now today, can we see any other force that has among its followers that many dedicated people willing to go in front of the gun. Of course, forces like Jebhe Democratic of Tabarzadi are sincere forces that have come out of the Students Movement of recent years, but they are still a very small organization in comparison to mojAhedin, and frankly others including all the monarchist, jebhe melli, and leftists are nothing organizationally, to be able to take power in Iran, or to hold power in Iran after the regime change.

I believe this is the reality of mojAhedin's strength. Now in this article I did not repeat my critics of mojAhedin, which I have written enough when I even suggested dissolving mojAhedin organization to open the way for progress of Iranian movement, because unfortunately so many of the most sincere and most dedicated Iranians of the opposition are with mojAhedin, whereas the current structure and program of mojAhedin at best can make a Baathist alternative for Iran, a Baathi regime with more Islamic elements than the Baath of Iraq or Syria.

Such a future is not what Iranian people desire for and it would be another outcome like the Islamic Revolution, where the plans of those who were the most dedicated to the regime change, was not a plan of democracy and progress, and was a retrogressive plan. Then what can be done about this situation short of dissolving mojAhedin, and definitely the current top brass of mojAhedin would resist any true liquidation.

I think the alternative is to start a reform movement in mojAhedin. I think the only way to get mojAhedin to become an effective force in the Iran' upcoming change of regime, is to start a reform program inside mojAhedin, and push for it from both inside and outside. I think other forces of opposition, should set up human rights conditions, as a requirement for any cooperation with mojAhedin.

I think those inside mojAhedin who see the same needs, should become sincere reformers inside mojAhedin, and those outside, should even push mojAhedin's leadership, to open its prisons and let international and Iranian observers to visit its camps in Iraq and elsewhere. Progressive groups should ask to review the practices and processes within mojAhedin as a condition for any cultural cooperation or for any common action in demonstrations, rallies, etc. All parts of UDHR should be reviewed in interviews with their members and direct access must be demanded.

I also think the democratic Western governments should use human rights conditions as a requirement for establishing relations with mojAhedin. MojAhedin have a very strong interest to be recognized by the Western states. I think this is an opportunity to ask them for human rights condition, and it can be of mutual benefit. There is nothing achieved by calling them a terrorist organization, or punishing them for their actions against the U.S., which belong to the Shah's time. MojAhedin are the main force of Iranian opposition and it is best to help this force to go towards reform and democracy than constantly banning them.

On one side mojAhedin is the biggest organization of Iranian opposition, and on the other hand it is a legitimate concern for the rest of the opposition to see them commit to democracy, secularism, and human rights, By allowing independent observers to check their processes and their sites, mojAhedin will help themselves and others. For example, Islamic cover for women must be checked thoroughly and independently rather than getting the verdict of their leadership which says that all those women wearing the scarf do it on their choice. A complete check list with similar items should be developed to monitor reform within mojAhedin.

I do not think just writing critics of mojAhedin will answer the needs of today's IRI alternative. The same way that just negh-zadan (nagging) about IRI is not enough anymore. The goal must be *taking power* by progressive forces committed to democracy and human rights and 90% of mojAhedin are people who want democracy, secularism and human rights and want the end to the Islamic Republic.

So I think it is now time to set conditions for reform of mojAhedin. This is also to the benefit of those in mojAhedin's leadership who care for democracy and human rights, because those of them who believe on a modern 21st Century democratic organization can show their belief by internally leading the way for reform of mojAhedin and hopefully the reformers in mojAhedin's leadership will be more sincere than the so-called reformers of IRI government, who after these many years, still think democracy means democracy for the Islamists, and even non-Islamic groups that collaborate with them from abroad, cannot have their own offices in Iran and do not have their own representatives in IRI's parliament, and their papers cannot be published inside the country, where their own so-called reformist president has been ruling for six years!

Sam Ghandchi, Publisher IRANSCOPE http://www.IRANSCOPE.com February 20, 2003

RELATED ARTICLES http://www.ghandchi.com/index-Page14.html

Please learn to use a link instead of pasting the whole article in a TALK page -- especially when it is such a long article.

Restored comments

I restored a number of comments deleted by an anon. Please do not delete other people's comments from talk pages. Kelly Martin 20:09, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate that this page has information provided by agent of terrist government of Iran. Iranian Mojahedin is widely supported by member of US congress, member of EU parliment. Here are some articles:

http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ot-mojahedin20050526&ref=rss

Former French First Lady, Danielle Mitterrand, Meets Maryam Rajavi at Auvers-sur-Oise http://maryam-rajavi.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=237&Itemid=65

Right to resist oppressive regimes must be recognised in terrorism legislation http://maryam-rajavi.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=208&Itemid=73

There is a strong case for the removal of the PMOI from the British list of terrorist groups The London Declaration Symposium of Parliamentarians and Jurists 22 March 2005 http://maryam-rajavi.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=23&Itemid=73

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Archer of Sandwell QC: To remove PMOI from the terrorism list would make the world a safer place http://maryam-rajavi.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=219&Itemid=73

A Third Option for Iran http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/articles/article.php?id=16

The Need to Support the International Front Against Islamic Fundamentalism http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/articles/article.php?id=2

Psychological War: Overview - Mullahs Psychological war against the Iranian Resistance http://www.ncr-iran.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=24

Human Rights Watch Report on the Iranian Opposition: A Reward for the Iranian Regime; A Penalty for the Iranian People by Prof. Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee http://www.ncr-iran.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=78

Human Rights Watch pushes a discredited political agenda under the smokescreen of a “human rights report”

- Procedure and sources used in the Human Rights Watch report on People's Mojahedin and its content unveil a political agenda serving the Iranian regime

- In flagrant breach of recognized norms of all human rights organizations, Human Rights Watch did not make any enquiries with the Mojahedin to substantiate its accusations http://www.ncr-iran.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=76

A response to "What about mojAhedin-e Khalgh?"

Despite the author claiming not to be writing the article "as another critic of mojAhedin", this article is riddled with inacuracies. For the benefit of fellow Wikipedia users I wish to point out some of these inaccuracies to put the record straight, just as I have proven other VEVAK lies wrong previously in this talk section.

First and foremost, the author refers to "the cult-like practices of" the Mojahedin. The use of the term “cult” against a resistance movement may be justified, if a scientific and impartial study of the movement confirms the accusation. But those who are behind the propaganda to depict the PMOI as a cult are neither interested in objectivity nor precision. They seek to demonise the Iranian Resistance by stigmatizing it with a word that immediately conjures up an extremely negative meaning in most people’s minds. In “The Kingdom of Cults,” Walter Martin cites one of the many definitions of a cult as “a small, evil religious group which engages in brainwashing and other mind-control techniques.”

I am no expert on cults or sects, so in an effort to prove that the PMOI does not fall into the "cult" category, I did some research and found out that the main attributes of a cult are:

- Being introverted and isolated from the outside world;

- Limited size and geographical spread;

- Lack of leadership structure and accountability mechanism;

- Secret beliefs

- Purporting that the “Leader” has superhuman powers or is infallible;

- Brainwashing and techniques to control the mind;

- Employing deceptive or coercive means to recruit and

- In many cases propagating misogynous thinking.

Relying on these sociological criteria or any definition of a cult to accuse the PMOI of being a cult is absurd and pursues toxic political objectives.

A long-standing, extensive political movement Friend and foe concur that the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran is the largest political organization in Iran’s history. Since its inception, nearly 40 years ago, the organization defined itself as a democratic, nationalist and anti-fundamentalist Muslim organization that espoused a clear and transparent strategy, political program and objectives. It quickly became an important opposition group at the time of the Shah, whose regime executed all PMOI founders and many of its members. In the past two decades, the clerical regime has executed 120,000 of its members and activists, and imprisoned and tortured hundreds of thousands more. In 1988, Khomeini issued a fatwa, later revealed by his deposed successor Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, which called for the massacre of all PMOI political prisoners. In a matter of several months, 30,000 Mojahedin were executed in Iran’s prisons.

The PMOI announced last year that they had organised more than 1,000 demonstrations and protests in Iran, and at least twenty major demonstrations in Europe and North America in which tens of thousands of Iranians took part. (Photos of these are on the Mojahedin’s website)

A common attribute of cults is their limited dimension and a lack of deep roots in society. The PMOI enjoys extensive popular support and has deep social roots in Iran due to it four decades of extensive political and social activity against two dictatorships in Iran. No cult can organize political rallies and meetings attended by hundreds of thousands of people, as the PMOI did in Tehran and other Iranian cities in 1979-1981. In the first post-revolutionary presidential election in Iran, then-PMOI Secretary General Massoud Rajavi was endorsed by all anti-clerical opposition forces, and ethnic and religious groups such as the Kurds, the Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews, as their presidential candidate. But Khomeini issued a fatwa, barring Rajavi from running in the election because the PMOI did not vote for the regime’s constitution that was based on velayat-e faqih and the mullahs’ absolute rule.

To survive, a cult must by definition be introverted and reclusive. Quite to the contrary, the PMOI has the most extensive contacts with Iranian society and with the international community. For more than two decades, the PMOI has been a member of 550-member political coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which represents a spectrum of different, even conflicting, views and ideologies, from liberals to free-market supporters, socialists and Marxists. Acting as the Resistance’s parliament, it is the highest authority for adopting plans and programs of the Resistance.

In addition to its nationwide network inside Iran, its forces along the Iran-Iraq frontier, the Resistance is present or has offices in 200 cities around the world and enjoys widespread contacts with political parties and the media in more than 30 countries. Majorities in the United States Congress, British House of Commons and parliaments in Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg as well as thousands of other parliamentarians and political personalities support the Iranian Resistance. The offices of the movement, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, have always been open to foreign visitors, journalists, political figures and United Nations representatives. Hundreds of foreign journalists have for years visited the movement’s bases along the Iran-Iraq frontier and engaged freely with its members and activists.

Formal leadership structure and accountability A cult does not have a formal, openly-announced and institutionalized leadership structure. Generally speaking, it is a one-man show. On the contrary, the PMOI has a collective leadership structure and has been completely transparent and open in telling the Iranian people and the world at large how its leadership is elected and who its members are. In the past 16 years, despite the repression prevailing in Iran and threats of mullahs’ terrorism, the PMOI has held, according to its constitution, the bi-annual congress of its members and officials in the presence of foreign journalists and guests. It has elected five secretaries general through direct vote of all members. Members of the PMOI’s leadership councils, who are all elected to the posts and lead the organization’s different departments, are not only criticized and held accountable by lower-ranking members in congresses, but also in regular departmental meetings. So institutionalized is the collective decision-making process in the PMOI that all those involved would testify that in the past two decades, not a single decision on important matters has been taken by an individual. In all fairness, PMOI members take part in more decision-making meetings than do members of any other opposition movements to dictatorships in the contemporary world.

Despite the obvious security risks involved for an organization fighting a brutal religious tyranny, the PMOI has consistently announced the names of its officials at all times.

Rejection of reactionary interpretations of leadership A distinct feature of PMOI’s ideology has been its emphasis on collective leadership and fallibility of its leaders, who could be criticized for their errors. This viewpoint is diametrically opposed to Khomeini’s, who maintained that the Supreme Leader, the vali-e faqih, is God’s representative on earth and bestowed on him an aura of infallibility.

The PMOI was the only major Iranian political organization that did not vote for the new regime’s constitution in 1980, because it viewed the principle of velayat-e faqih (literally “guardianship of the jurisprudent,” meaning unlimited powers in the hands of the Supreme Leader, who is by definition a Shiite cleric) as reactionary and undemocratic. For this reason, Khomeini vetoed Massoud Rajavi’s candidacy in the presidential election.

The PMOI has always stressed that the leadership of a political and social movement is not and could not be infallible. The organization’s books talk candidly about mistakes committed at the highest level of the leadership at various stages of the struggle both against the Shah and the mullahs’ dictatorship. In the organization’s congresses, the Leadership Council presents its record of both achievements and failures for scrutiny and criticism of the other officials and the rank-and-file of the organization. This tradition is a carry-over from the days when Massoud Rajavi was the Secretary General.

PMOI composition and diversity A look at the composition of PMOI members, their scientific background, educational level, birthplace and other particulars shows clearly that the movement’s members come from all across Iran and from all social groupings. They are of various educational levels and ages. These attributes are a world apart from the usual composition of a cult. PMOI members include 18-year-old women and men as well as those in their seventies. Most members come from the urban areas, while others have joined from the rural regions. Before joining the movement, they were students, teachers, professors, workers, engineers, physicians, architects, army officers, artists, computer scientists, entrepreneurs and a variety of other jobs, bringing to the organization a diversity that enriches its relationships and enhances its strengths.

Committed to transparency The PMOI is profoundly committed to transparency and openness. It is engaged in a struggle against a regime, which the international community regards as “the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world”, carried out 450 terrorist attacks in the past two decades and killed or wounded hundreds of Resistance’s activists outside Iran. Despite such security risks and contrary to prevailing practice among organizations involved in a war of liberation, the PMOI has always announced the names of its officials.

The Resistance’s media outlets provide detailed reports on the activities of the PMOI to the public. It has never engaged in secretive deals, never conducted clandestine diplomacy, and has never had skeletons hidden in its closet. Extraordinary for a large political entity this may be, but it is a record that more than two decades of struggle against the mullahs’ regime readily prove. When the Resistance decided that it must promote peace in the devastating Iran-Iraq war, it announced its decision and Massoud Rajavi held a meeting with Iraq’s foreign minister in Paris and appeared with him in front of journalists. When he met Iraq’s president in Baghdad in 1986, again it was a public meeting and Rajavi did not mince his words when he wanted to remind his Iraqi interlocutors that PMOI forces fought the Iraqi army when it invaded Iran in 1980. Through public statements and press releases, the Resistance has also presented the public in Iran and around the world with facts dealing with accusations and allegations against it. The Iranian Resistance has always published in great detail its political programs, ideological views and strategic positions, more so than any other liberation movement.

Women’s status in the Resistance Sociologists have highlighted misogynous thinking and the abuse of women’s rights as a common denominator among cults. In this respect, the PMOI and the Iranian Resistance are unique not only in the Middle East but also around the world. Women are active in all levels of the Resistance, including its leadership. They comprise more than half the members of the Parliament-in-exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran. This is particularly outstanding, because the mullahs’ misogynous regime has reduced women to second-class citizens and violated their most basic human rights.

The most educated liberation army International journalists, diplomats and UN representatives who have visited PMOI bases in Iraq have noted that the movement’s members are essentially graduates of Western universities or intellectuals, who have joined the movement to liberate their country from the clutches of the ruling theocratic state.

Sociologists and cult experts often cite paranoia, nervous breakdown, indecisiveness, rigid mindset, and poor judgement as commonly found traits among cult members.

The hundreds of journalists and numerous diplomats and dignitaries who have visited Resistance camps or been in contact with PMOI officials over the years have not reported such behavioral anomalies. On the contrary, outsiders’ description of PMOI members often revolves around such characteristics as self-confidence, determination, calmness, hospitality and creativity. These attributes have been put to test repeatedly in the different arenas of the struggle against the clerical regime. Without such members, the Resistance could not have possibly survived, let alone grow, in the face of a most brutal dictatorship, a tyranny so terrorizing that many governments, meek or mighty, have tried to mollify it either to be spared from its terrorism or to obtain some trade benefits.

Coercive recruitment and treatment of members Two decades of bloody suppression sanctioned by Khomeini’s fatwa, which declared the lives and properties of PMOI members and sympathizers fair game, left 120,000 members and sympathizers executed. Thus, those who take the risks – directly to their lives – to join the PMOI are fully aware of the personal costs that such an action might entail. No one can join such a well-known organization through coercion or ignorance. Indeed, the democratic modus operandi within the PMOI is primarily attributable to the fact that PMOI members in and out of Iran have joined the fight against the mullahs’ dictatorship on their own free will. This exercise of free will remains with them throughout their struggle in the ranks of the Resistance. No one can be forced to fight against a ruthless dictatorship against his/her will. In their reports, dozens of journalists who interviewed PMOI members in Iran or along the Iran-Iraq frontier or in different countries around the world have noted this fact. Meanwhile, the PMOI has always said that while joining the organization is difficult, leaving its ranks is rather easy. The presence of hundreds of former PMOI activists, transferred with the organization’s money and resources to Europe from the Iran-Iraq border region once they said they could no longer tolerate the difficulties of the struggle, is a testament to this fact. The vast majority of these former activists have continued to lead ordinary lives.

Cult of personality “Cult of personality,” “inward-looking sect”, “leader worship” and other similar allegations against the Iranian Resistance are not based on any careful and impartial investigation. They smack of a new McCarthyism, which has no objective other than character assassination of the leaders of the Iranian Resistance. The public still remembers the memories of the McCarthy era in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Howard Zinn’s book, A People’s History of the United States, gives a feeling of what this weird period of American history looked like:

Speaking to a Republican Women's Club in Wheeling, West Virginia, in early 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy held up some papers and shouted, “I have here in my hand a list of 205 - a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”

The next day, speaking in Salt Lake City, McCarthy claimed he had a list of fifty-seven (the number kept changing) such communists in the State Department. Shortly afterward, he appeared on the floor of the Senate with photostatic copies of about a hundred dossiers from State Department loyalty files. The dossiers were three years old, and most of the people were no longer with the State Department, but McCarthy read from them anyway, inventing, adding, and changing as he read. In one case, he changed the dossier's description of “liberal” to “communistically inclined,” in another from “active fellow traveler” to “active communist,” and so on. Under pressure from Sen. McCarthy's propaganda campaign, the State Department issued directives to remove books by authors suspected of being communists from its overseas libraries. One of those removed was The Selected Works of Thomas Jefferson, author of America's Declaration of Independence.

Slanders and smear campaigns are no strangers to the treacherous world of politics, but this does not make them any less immoral or, at times, criminal. General Charles de Gaulle, France's most famous president and the leader of the Resistance during the Nazi occupation, was slandered so often that in 1958, when he ran for president, he said that although he had fought for France's liberty, some people accused him of being a dictator.

When it comes to the question of the cult of personality, how does one distinguish between a cult of personality and a political leader’s genuine popularity?

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s confidential address to the twentieth congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, continues to be the most reverberating document history has produced on the “cult of personality.” Citing Lenin, Marx and other Marxist icons, Khrushchev condemned some of the methods that took shape during Stalin’s reign as cult of personality and demanded that they be eliminated. After half a century, one is jolted by reading about atrocities, which Khrushchev described as the consequences of a “cult of personality.” For example, he referred to the purging and execution of a large number of members and officials of the Soviet Communist in the 1930s: “Many party activists who were branded in 1937-38 as ‘enemies’ were actually never enemies. spies, wreckers, etc but were always honest communists ... and often, no longer able to bear barbaric tortures, they charged themselves with all kinds of grave and unlikely crimes.”

In the book “Ambiguities of Domination” author Lisa Wedeen writes that the Syrian regime devoted “a substantial proportion of its meager resources to the ubiquitous celebration of Asad” and promoted such titles for him as “the premier pharmacist” of the country and suggested that he was immortal. She notes that his cult of personality reinforced Asad’s power by demonstrating that his regime can compel people to say the ridiculous and to avow the absurd.”

Similar examples could be found in other Third World countries. Extravagant and expensive birthday celebrations, personal fortunes, and the huge gap between a leader’s lifestyle and those of his followers have specific consequences and repercussions that the public knows about.

As far as the Iranian Resistance is concerned, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi enjoy huge support and great respect among Iranians, not as a couple, but as two distinguished figures in Iran’s recent history. With a background of unrelenting struggle against the Shah and Khomeini, the support for them goes far beyond PMOI and NCRI sympathizers. Their foes, the clerical regime’s leaders, have made it clear that they would spare no effort to undermine this movement and strike at its leadership. The movement’s leaders have been singled out for the most vicious vilification campaign by the religious dictatorship.

What is the truth? There is nothing in the conduct of this movement that would resemble a cult-like behavior towards its political leaders. In this movement, all important decisions are taken collectively. Collective leadership and long-established elected posts, such as the Secretary General, Leadership Council and the organization’s bi-annual Congress are guarantees for a democratic process and healthy decision-making.

In this movement, no birthday celebration is held for any leader; indeed, no one even knows the date! In the movement, members’ elevation has always been based on their own merits and efficiency. The plagues of other organization or large-scale institutions, such as nepotism, favoritism or elitism, have no place in the People’s Mojahedin Organization. The children of the movement’s leaders, who are among the rank-and-file, do not receive any privileges or special favors.

Compared with other movements, the leaders of this movement have taken far greater risks and paid a far heavier personal price than others in the movement. One of Maryam Rajavi’s sisters, Narges, was executed by the Shah. Her other sister, Massoumeh, pregnant at the time, was murdered under torture along with her husband. During a raid on their home in Tehran on February 8, 1982, Massoud Rajavi’s first wife, Ashraf, was killed along with Moussa Khiabani, Rajavi’s deputy. The same night, the infamous Butcher of Evin, Assadollah Lajevardi, held the Rajavis’ infant child, Mostafa, over the bullet-riddled body of his mother, Ashraf, in front of television cameras and vowed to make a “good Hezbollahi” out of the infant. Masseur’s older brother, Professor Kazemi Rajavi, was assassinated in April 1990 in Geneva. Hid sister Moiré and her husband, Asghar Kazemi, were among political prisoners massacred in 1988. His elderly parents were repeatedly arrested and savagely treated, to the point where both died under constant pressure and harassment.

The talk of “cult of personality” about Maryam Rajavi, a woman at the helm of a popular resistance against a religious fascism whose most distinct feature is misogyny, is simply absurd. Massoud Rajavi’s nearly four decades of struggle against the monarchic and religious dictatorships explains his enormous popularity. Having spent seven years in the Shah’s prisons as the symbol of defiance against torture, Rajavi was first to reject the newly established clerical dictatorship and challenged Khomeini’s policy of suppression and export of terrorism. While Khomeini issued a fatwa to veto Massoud Rajavi’s candidacy in the first presidential election, hundreds of thousands took part in meetings he addressed in Tehran, Tabriz (northwest Iran) and Rasht (northern Iran).

At the time, Le Monde’s special envoy, Eric Rouleau, who later became France’s ambassador to Tunisia and Turkey, wrote from Tehran: “One of the most important events not to be missed in Tehran is the courses on comparative philosophy, taught every Friday afternoon by Mr. Massoud Rajavi. Some 10,000 people present their admission cards to listen for three hours to the lectures by the leader of the People’s Mojahedin on Sharif University’s lawn.” He added: “The courses are published in paperback and sold by the hundreds of thousands of copies.”

Yet, Rajavi’s important role in the democratic movement never resulted in the decision-making process depart from the realm of relevant organs, collective works and formal and announced rules of procedure. In a statement, the NCRI stressed: “The NCRI’s modus operandi and decision-making process are conducted in accordance with democratic guidelines and regulations that have been formally announced. Throughout the 13 years since the NCRI’s foundation, its president has unfailingly adhered to these guidelines and regulations.”

Since 1989, Massoud Rajavi has had no executive responsibilities in the PMOI. His role in safeguarding the principles of the Mojahedin as a Muslim, democratic, nationalist and progressive organization in the 1970s, in the face of a communist coup, and more importantly, against Khomeini’s all-out assault to destroy the PMOI, have made him a historical leader for the Mojahedin.

With the formation of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, most of Mr. Rajavi’s efforts have been devoted to the council. His patient, democratic manner of managing the NCRI’s affairs has been instrumental in the council’s expansion and resilience, and has earned him the trust of NCRI’s diverse membership. Mohammad Hossein Naghdi, an Iranian diplomat, joined the council in 1982. He was assassinated by the regime’s terrorists in 1993 in Rome. Mr. Naghdi said of Massoud Rajavi in a December 1992 interview: “We in the council are hesitant to highlight the role of individuals, but compliments aside, I really think that in the world of politics, Mr. Rajavi must, more than anyone, be credited for the rise of the NCRI and the Iranian Resistance.”

Dr. Manouchehr Hezarkhani, a distinguished Iranian writer and chairman of the NCRI’s Committee on Culture and Arts, commented on the procedures of NCRI’s meetings: “When we arrive at the meetings, we do not share the same views… When we meet in session, sometimes we have serious arguments about certain matters, about political solutions. It is generally well understood that the point is to hold such meetings, where differences can be talked about and a consensus reach, but the individual capable of chairing such meetings and keeping the delicate balance of cooperation between different groups, none of whom is a career politician, is gifted with the art of leadership… We have this leadership, and I think that to a large extent, it irons out the bumps.”

Whenever the interests of the Iranian people and democracy have been at stake, political considerations or concerns about his personal prestige have never stood in the way of Massoud Rajavi to prevent him from taking a decision. The PMOI’s peace campaign in the Iran-Iraq war, launched in 1983 at the height of Khomeini’s jingoistic fever, generated venomous propaganda by the regime and its internal and external allies. It was one of many examples of risks that few are willing to take.

Mr. Rajavi has always stressed that the NCRI and the PMOI are not “writings on the wall” as far as the Resistance movement is concerned. “If at any time, any group or alternative is found to be better equipped to overthrow the regime and guarantee Iran’s independence, democracy and popular sovereignty, we will definitely and wholeheartedly support it, even if it is opposed to our way of thinking,” he said.

At one the most sensitive junctures of Iran’s history, Khomeini sought to revive an Ottoman-like Islamic caliphate by taking advantage of special circumstance and usurping both temporal and spiritual power. Massoud Rajavi launched an all-out resistance against him. For this reason, he no longer belongs to a specific group; Massoud Rajavi is a national leader, following in the footsteps of previous Iranian leaders, from Sattar-Khan to Mirza Kuchak-Khan to Dr. Mossadeq.

Saber-rattling, manipulative tactics and baseless slanders aside, those who are pursuing a premeditated propaganda scheme against the PMOI by accusing it of being a “cult” and promoting a “cult of personality” have in reality targeted the PMOI as an organization with many institutions and political and social roots in Iranian society. The PMOI has been active for nearly 40 years in the struggle against two dictatorships and paid the heaviest possible price, especially 120,000 martyrs to the cause of Iran’s freedom. In that time, it has developed deep roots in Iranian society and emerged from under the harshest repression in Iran’s entire history stronger and more resilient. The PMOI is the only major Iranian political party – whether in power or in opposition – that has not suffered from any split since the 1979 anti-monarchic revolution. Despite its vast dimensions and geographical spread Iran and in five continents, as well as its struggle against a regime that is named as the godfather of international terrorism, the PMOI has remained intact and cohesive as an organization.

Such cohesiveness could not have been maintained without a profoundly democratic set of internal relationships and without a justice-seeking ideal which has inspired the forces that have joined it in the movement against the medieval dictatorship ruling Iran. Indeed, since the start of the twentieth century, no liberation movement has been the target of so much conspiracy and propaganda. The clerical leaders have given top priority to their war against the Iranian Resistance. To this end, they have allocated tremendous political, diplomatic, military, intelligence, propaganda and economic resources and petro-dollars to this fight. Besides the crackdown and terror as well as a psychological warfare directly used against the Resistance, the regime uses its economic and political lever as well as terrorist threats to compel other governments to act against the PMOI.--RezaKia 08:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From an earlier thread

Iranian regime seems to be running a campaign to demonize its opposition. This should not be tolerated by Wikipedia or else they will lose their credibility which they have earnt as a powerful online encyclopedia.

Please allow me to express my respectful disagreement. A demonization campaign may be in progress, but Wikipedia need not oppose this campaign. It would be better for Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality, if its articles merely described the campaign. The power of accurate and neutral description is not to be underestimated. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 11:20 (UTC)

Reverts

This is last warning.

Any reverts of the current version will lead to blocking of the editor.

• If you can prove that some statements are false, disprove each statement separately in the talk page.
• If you have other facts to add, please add.
• If you have other opinions to add, please state exactly who expresses these opinions.

mikka (t) 29 June 2005 21:15 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up already, stupid ugly baboon. Two Wikipedia admins (one Iranian, and one who isn't Iranian but his edit history clearly shows he is well familiar with Iranian affairs and politics) had contributed and improved this article for a long time before the wave of revert wars started recently. Both those admins' edit history shows they are objective. Suddenly a few IP's from France show up (MKO's political office is in France) and these IP's start to massively change the article and inject in lies and propaganda. As soon as someone points out that the IP's are from France, suddenly we get two new "contributors: Hanifjazayeri, and RezaKia -- one would have to be really stupid not to see they are the same person). Edit wars start, and you out of nowhere jump in here and start supporting this bullshit. What the fuck makes you think you are qualified on this subject matter? I am going to revert the article to the last version BEFORE THE REVERT WARS STARTED. If you revert it back, I will bring this issue up on the Admins board and also will ask both those two admins to get involved. What you are doing here is utterly stupid.

I believe that I judged Wikipedia too soon by saying that they were unable to prevent Iranian regime from using the database as a means to spread negative propaganda against the Iranian opposition. I thought that regardless of how clearly the facts were written, the regime could still mis-use the database. I am happy to say that I was wrong in this regard since the admins have shown that they are capable of stopping the regime from changing the facts and therefore I would also like to make a pledge to make further positive contributions to Wikipedia articles. --RezaKia 29 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)

NPOV

For reasons that should be obvious, I slapped NPOV on a pretty egregious section of the article.

I would like to suggest that those involved quote sources. If the movement is unpopular with Iranians, then cite survey research. Otherwise, say "Some Iranians feel xxxxx, while others say xxxxx." As someone who is not a partisan in Iran's politics, I want an article that is as even-handed as possible.

Thanks! --Defenestrate 1 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

Civility

Let's not accuse each other of:

• changing the facts
• incompetence
• lying
• spreading propaganda
• stupidity

See Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 11:48 (UTC)

Name and revert war

Firstly, I would like to know why the organization is also known as Mujahideen al-Khalq (427 hits on Google). Has the MKO ever used this name itself, or did it come about after the move to Iraq? It seems like a mistransliteration of the actual name. Unless there is some valid point to this, I suggest that the references to 'al-Khalq' be removed.

I moved the English name to the head of the intro paragraph, since it gets 1,000 times as many Google hits as the Khalq variation. But out of politeness to contributors (and readers!) whose native language is not English, let's keep the local variants. I'm not even sure whether (1) there is a local language variant of the Wikipedia, (2) what that language is, or (3) whether it's safe for people to access it from Iran. Let's put others aside of ourselves, shall we? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 13:39 (UTC)

Secondly, though the issue of the MKO is hopelessly contentious (amongst not only Iranians, but Western observers as well), and further convoluted by the fact that there really aren't any truly neutral sources, this revert war cannot continue like this.

My suggestion, considering the above, is for the article to include both POV's (pro-MKO and anti-MKO). Otherwise, this issue will never be resolved and the revert war will continue indefinitely. If a neutral source can be found (unlikely), include that as well. But IMHO, the only realistic solution to NPOV will be to divide the article between these two extremes, and to avoid the MKO's own organizational propaganda as far as it's history is concerned. One should present the organizations own officially stated goals and intent, but not to veer into overt propaganda.

Other contentious articles can serve as a possible guide towards NPOV, such as Hezbollah and Scientology. SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

Clarification of MKO's intents

This sentence is vague: It is difficult to estimate the exact extent of this campaign which still continues, as both MKO and the Iranian government have been accused of exaggerating their claims. The MKO's motive is supposed to be to further fund raising, while the Iranian government has been accused of trying to shift blame for events unrelated (see Haik Hovsepian).

I changed it to: The MKO's stated motive is to raise funds in the West, while the Iranian government has been accused of trying to shift blame for unrelated events (see Haik Hovsepian).

But this is still vague. The MKO in the West focuses on fund raising (also through various front groups) and political lobbying. Those funds go (at least before the 2003 invasion) to the MKO military in Iraq, whose goal it is to overthrow the government of the Islamic Republic. This is my understanding, at least. Any sources as to the details of the MKO's strategy, both before and after the invasion of Iraq? For example, where do the MKO fund raising groups in the West send their money? Are they allowed to fund the military wing? SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

Ali Shariati

Is there any source connecting the MKO's original ideology with the philosophy of Ali Shariati? If not, I suggest the reference to Shariati be removed. Shariati was strongly dedicated to non-violence and had no connection with any militant groups in Iran. AFAIK, the MKO's own ideology was a mixture of Islamist reformism (with views similar to that of the early Khomeinist camp) and Marxism. I have never read anything that states that MKO was inspired by Ali Shariati or incorporated his ideas into their ideology. Shariati's philosophy is in stark contrast with that of both the MKO and the Khomeinists (via the Islamic Republican Party of Ayatollah Beheshti). SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

Links to possibly neutral descriptions of MKO

• Behind the Mujahideen-e-Khalq from Australian government
• MKO info from Global Security

Before the above links were added, the anonymous person revert the Mojahedin page for the third time in the past 24 hours without providing any reason. I have added these links to the neutral version of the page. --RezaKia 4 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

Militant vs terrorist status before and after the Revolution

As far as I can tell, the MKO was not designated as a terrorist organization by the United States until 1997. Prior to 1997, the American government supported (whether partially or in full) the activities of the MKO. But what about before the revolution?

"Prior to 1997, the American government supported (whether partially or in full) the activities of the MKO." - This sentence is a lie. On what grounds is this being said? The American leadership not once met with representatives of the Mojahedin prior to 2003, depite repeated calls by various U.S. Congressmen and Senators. Neither did successive U.S. governments ever "fund" the Mojahedin in any way. If they had done the Iranian regime would have said so through their official spokesmen and I'm sure the U.S. Congress would have liked to seen a receipt for the funds! --RezaKia 4 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)

It's clear that the Shah's government considered the MKO a terrorist organization during the 70s. But the Khomeinist camp and the Tudeh (Communists) and the various leftist guerilla movements all supported and defended the actions of the MKO, and considered the organization a valid militant national liberation movement. The Khomeinist camp only turned on the MKO after the collapse of the provisional revolutionary government and the institution of the Supreme Leadership (which coincided with the hostage crisis). Did the MKO strongly oppose clerical rule and the position of the Supreme Leader before they were banned?

Yes. Massoud Rajavi, leader of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, was prevented from standind in the first presidential elects after the 1979 Islamic revolution because he had "not voted" for the constitution of Valiyat-e-faqih (meaning absolute rule of the Clergy) --RezaKia 4 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)

Also, the personality cult surrounding the Rajavis only appeared after the falling out with Bani Sadr, which is what convinced him to abandon his support for the group.

This is yet another factually incorrect statement. Bani Sadr was asked to leave the National Council of Resistance of Iran (of which the PMOI is a member organization) because rather than continuing his opposition to the Khomenei regime which had executed at the time tens of thousands of PMOI members he chose to write letters to Khomeini asking to compromise and be re-instated as President of Iran. The cult charge has been answered in great detail higher up the Talk page. --RezaKia 4 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)

So how can we define the MKO? Is it "widely" considered a "militant" organization, and a "terrorist" group by some? Or is it vice versa? Or is there no clear international consensus? This is not unlike the problem in defining the Basque ETA or the IRA or Hezbollah, all of which are considered by some to be terrorists, and valid militant groups by others. But as with the IRA and ETA, the MKO is certainly not like Hamas or al-Qaeda.

This phrase is an oxymoron. One cannot say "widely considered ... by some". Either they are widely considered or they are considered by some (i.e. certain individuals) --RezaKia 4 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)

I believe we should describe the MKO as a "militant revolutionary organization that seeks the overthrow of the government of the Islamic Republic through various means, including violence." and to further state that "the government of the Islamic Republic considers the MKO a terrorist organization, and that some governments, including the United States, also list the MKO as a terrorist group." Something along those lines. You get the point.

Thoughts? SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)

I would say that the Mojahedin are "militant revolutionary organization that seeks the overthrow of the government of the Islamic Republic through various means, including armed resistance." I suspect that certain terminology is deliberately used to give a bad image of the Mohjahedin.

I also question the use of the term "MKO" since it is not what the Mojahedin call themselves. When one is producing an impartial biography of an organization, they should be called by their own name, not one used solely by the Iranian regime's propaganda apparatus. They must be called by their actual name which is the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) unless one has a political agenda in not doing so.--RezaKia 4 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)

Feel free to change all instances (except from the intro) of MKO to PMOI. In news articles, I've always read MKO, but it doesn't matter to me either way. Also, RezaKia, please do not revert the article. If there is anything you dispute, simply edit the current version or discuss here first. The previous version not only comes across as being too pro-MKO (my opinion, mind you), but the formatting is sloppy. You seem to be a supporter of this group - that's fine, and you are free to present that POV (please indicate as such where necessary in the article), but do not censor the opposing POV. I'd like to see this article resolved and wrapped up ASAP so as to avoid any potential future revert wars (I've had enough of these lately). Thanks. SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)

MKO is the right name. They are now insisting to distance themselves from that well-established name, and they try to obfuscate the simple issue that they are a terrorist organziation by creating a zillion new names (most of them just replicated cheap web sites). But MKO is MKO. Anyway, RezaKia, what do you say about the video of Massoud Rajavi and Saddam Hussein meeting? hehehe he kisses Saddam and Tariq Aziz the Arabic style (three times) and the video clearly shows their secret bound. Why don't you inform us about this so it can be included in the article? Don't you think it is important data to be included in this article, considering the video is all over the place on the web?

VEVAK websites such as Iran-Interlink and Iran Didban etc... have put a video of a meeting between Iranian Resistance leader Massoud Rajavi and Saddam Hussein, which VEVAK claims to have discovered in a secret location after the US-led war in Iraq. The reality is the complete opposite. If anyone sees the video they will notice that at the top left there is an insignia. This is the insignia of the Iranian Resistance's own satellite TV channel. You ask why? Simple. Because this was not a secret video discovered in Saddam's labs, rather it was a video of the ceasefire agreement, that Massoud Rajavi went to sign with Saddam to end the Iran-Iraq war, which was broadcast by the Iranian Resistance themselves. Khomeini wanted to continue the Iran-Iraq war which cost a million lives, though Rajavi wanted to end it to stop so many lives from being killed. So again you can see how VEVAK is taking a public video, putting false subtitles underneath it, and then using it to demonize the Iranian opposition in the West. For more information I refer you to www.iranterror.com that explains some of VEVAK's most sinister tactics.--RezaKia 09:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the video was not released by the Iranian regime, it was released by Western sources, and you know it quite well. You are not saying that the English Barouness who is talking in the video is also a VEVAK member, are you?! LOL. Secondly, even a grade school kid can tell you that this video is from a secret camera because of it's quality, angle of shot, and the fact that the camera is still and it is obvious in the video that Rajavi is unaware of the secret camera. By the way, as I told you before, I had never even heard the term VEVAK until you kept using it here. I am an Iranian living in USA and I have nothing to do with Iran's regime. The fact that you accuse Iranians who are not supporters of your organization (which is more than 99% of all Iranians) and you call them "agents of regime" (btw, learn english, it is "the regime"), you are demonstrating to the world the true nature of your organization. This behavior is also consistent with what the dissidents from MKO have reported.

Last but not least, Massoud Rajavi is either dead, or he is looking for a miracle to find an explanation to the few MKO member who have left, his failure in leadership. Now you don't have neither a political nor a military relevance. You can deny the fact all you want, but the fact is that MKO is disintegrating. One quick look at what your dissidents have said about the internals of the MKO is enough. And if it makes you happy, OK fine, the video was about Rajavi meeting Saddam to sign a peace treaty with Iran !!! LOL (and as we all know, Rajavi has always represented Iran, right?! LOL.)

Some NPOV for the time being

I've made some minor edits in an attempt to achieve NPOV, but clearly the article could still use more work and expansion. I'll try to do more later if I have time. SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 05:22 (UTC)

Before changes were made, the anonymous person revert the Mojahedin page for the third time in the past 24 hours without providing any reason. The neutral version of the page is the one that should be editted to add further information, as stated by Admins in the Maryam Rajavi Talk page. I added the two external links there. --RezaKia 4 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

Just edit the current version. Neither version is neutral, but this one contains more facts (some of which need to be sourced) and the formatting and style is better. Also read my above comments. I would suggest that you not delete anything, however, before discussion considering the contentiousness of the issue. As a rule of thumb, if something is sourced (i.e. can be referenced), then don't delete. Instead, offer an opposing source or reference. But don't censor. This article needs two POV's - for and against, as a center position seems unlikely to develop. SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)

Reza, I suggest you stop reverting to that version. SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

Dear RezaKia/Hanifjazayeri!! I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me find a proper place to put a link to the video of the secret meeting of Massoud Rajavi with Saddam Hussein which was discovered after the Americans invaded Iraq and took possession of Saddam's properties. This video was somehow leaked out and is widely available on the Internet, and I am sure you know about it. Do you think a link to it should go at the top of this article or in the middle or at the bottom? I think if we start communicating like this before changing the article, the revert wars will go away. There is no reason why we should not be able to engage in a meaningful and constructive communication.  :)

OK, I asked for communication, but what did RezaKia do instead? He didn't respond here and instead just reverted the page again. Now I have put a link in the page to the video of Massoud Rajavi and Saddam Hussein's secret meeting and hugging and kissing. Notice, Massoud Rajavi hugs and kisses Saddam Hussein who is one of the worst enemies of Iran and the Iranian people in history. And mujahed's like RezaKia claim Massoud Rajavi is popular among Iranians!! For Iranians, Massoud Rajavi is as popular as Saddam Hussein and MKO is as "popular" as the Taliban or Al-Qaeda among Iranians.

To all neutral readers, As I already explained above, VEVAK websites such as Iran-Interlink and Iran Didban etc... have put a video of a meeting between Iranian Resistance leader Massoud Rajavi and Saddam Hussein, which VEVAK claims to have discovered in a secret location after the US-led war in Iraq. The reality is the complete opposite. If anyone sees the video they will notice that at the top left there is an insignia. This is the insignia of the Iranian Resistance's own satellite TV channel. You ask why? Simple. Because this was not a secret video discovered in Saddam's labs, rather it was a video of the ceasefire agreement, that Massoud Rajavi went to sign with Saddam to end the Iran-Iraq war, which was broadcast by the Iranian Resistance themselves. Khomeini wanted to continue the Iran-Iraq war which cost a million lives, though Rajavi wanted to end it to stop so many lives from being killed. So again you can see how VEVAK is taking a public video, putting false subtitles underneath it, and then using it to demonize the Iranian opposition in the West. For more information I refer you to www.iranterror.com that explains some of VEVAK's most sinister tactics. --RezaKia 09:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What a joke!! How could Rajavi sign a "ceasefire" on behalf of Iran with Saddam Hussein?! Massoud Rajavi and his organization, the MKO, was not at war with Iraq, the war was between Iran and Iraq (started by Iraq) and Rajavi had no authority. In fact, he had escaped out of Iran and MKO had no relevance whatsoever to the Iran-Iraq war. Your claim is so strange, I am beginning to think you are on drugs. Besides, in the video the British lady who speaks about how the tape came to surface says the Americans confiscated it. Is she also a member of the Islamic regime of Iran's secret police and Information Ministry? You are not a bad entertainer, keep up the good work, mujahed.

Page protected

The repeated reverts and increasingly hostile exchanges in Farsi on the English wikipedia are a disgrace. The editwarring equally so. I do suggest some serious reading of wikipedia policies. I will unprotect this page once some sensible suggestions re edits appear on this page. Refdoc 10:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

please read 19-Hostage crisis (FYI) as an example that shows the main article is just an anti MKO comments and it is not an unbiased report about this political organization at all.

Hostage crisis (FYI)

The main article has many biased information such as this:

[[“ The MKO was the main force involved in attacking the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and taking American hostages. Khomeini then had to decide whether or not to support this action. At that time the MKO was by far the most active and powerful revolutionary militant force in Iran. Khomeini decided to support them. Nearly all the pictures of the hostage takers (if not all) are of the MKO members. Many of them later became dissidents and were involved in acts of terrorism against the Khomeini regime"]]

NOW look at the other article in Wikipedia that has real and correct information in this regard.

[[" Main article: Iran hostage crisis On November 4, 1979 a group of students, all of whom were ardent followers of Khomeini, raided the United States embassy in Tehran, and took as hostage 63 American citizens. Three additional hostages were taken at the Iranian Foreign Ministry. Thirteen of the 66 hostages were released within two weeks, and one more in July 1980. The remaining fifty men and two women were held for 444 days — an event usually referred to as the Iran hostage crisis. The hostage-takers justified this violation of long-established international law as a reaction to the American refusal to hand over the Shah for trial. Supporters of Khomeini named the embassy a “Spy Den”, and fifty volumes of official and secret documents were gathered from it. Khomeini stated on February 23, 1980 that Iran's Parliament would decide the fate of the American embassy hostages, demanding that the United States hand over the Shah for trial in Iran. President Jimmy Carter launched a commando mission to rescue the hostages, but the attempt was thwarted when the helicopters failed under unexpected desert conditions in Tabas. Some Iranians considered this to be a miracle. Many commentators point to this failure as a major cause for Carter's loss in the following elections to Ronald Reagan. See also October Surprise."]]

It is a shame that some people manipulate history just because they dislike other people. (RefDat)

Heh!! MKO *WAS* an ardent supporter of Khomeini at the beginning. What you guys didn't know, was that you were being manipulated by Khomeini just like you were trying to manipulate him yourselves and use him as an interim instrument toward your own goals and agenda. It is a fact that most of the hostage takers were MKO members. In fact, Ayatollah Beheshti, who was later killed in that huge bomb blast for which MKO took responsibility (and everybody knew it was the MKO even without accepting responsibility), once said that the MKO was one of the three main pillars on which the islamic revolution of Iran suceeded (he considered Ayatollah Khomeini to be the first pillar.) Little did he know that he was going to be blown up into pieces by an MKO bomb in near future!! Your organization has been in bed with everybody across the full political and idological spectrum; from the hard-core islamists to the marxists, maoists, nationalis, monarchists, Saddam Hussein and now Washington and pro-Zionist lobby. The only thing consistent about you guys is that as political prostitutes you don't discriminate against your customers; as long as they pay you, you satisfy their needs.

I think it would be useful to a) support such claims with evidence and b) desist from name calling. Refdoc 22:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

RefDoc is Not a Neutral Administrator

It is obvious that RefDoc is not a neutral administrator. He has reverted the Mojahedin page to a false version and then prevented further changes by other users.

Can somebody please advise on how we can suppend his account?

Thanx! --Iranian devil 12:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Any block/protection will be on the "wrong version" for some. I reverted back to the place before this rather silly editwarring started and before the use of extensive + often offensive Farsi edit comments. I suggest some reasonable discussion here on teh talk pages and then the page can be unprotected. Feel free to complain Refdoc 21:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's be fair and discuss based on known facts [RefDat]

the author says that :"Most Iranians - whether supporters of the Islamic Republic or vehemently opposed to that regime or anyone in between - are nearly unanimous in their dislike for the MKO, mostly due to their move to Iraq and alliance with Saddam Hussein. In general, the only Iranians who support this group are the members of the MKO themselves, and to a lesser degree, their family members inside Iran."

The above comments seems to be unrealistic and Pro IRI biased. Since 1981 till now (25 years!!) any person that has shown any sign of Pro MKO activities have been faced to prison, execution or kill. Hence how can we reach to this conclusion that Iranian dislikes the MKO? However, Khomeini was in Iraq for a long time and has cooperation with Radio Iraq under the Saddam's Regime and many Iranian used to love him when he came back to Iran. Let’s be fair in our comments. I don’t say many Iranian likes or dislikes MKO because under the current IRI dictatorship nobody can tell, but I suggest everybody discuss the issue based on known facts. [RefDat]

you're missing an important point in your argument that MKO's cooperation with saddam isn't necessarily a factor in the people's opinion. the point is that MKO was cooperating with saddam during the Iran-Iraq War. at the time that iranians (whether supporters of the regime or not) were being killed by saddam, the MKO were his ally. 16 March 2006

I agree with Refdat here - there are a fair number of assertions which would benefit from some sources - gut feeling and personal opinion do not count for sources. At the same time I abhorr the stupid edit warring going on on this page. I have rolled back in the last few days several "contributions" which essentially deleted parts of the text without comment or discussion. This is not endorsement of the deleted + reinstated bits, but a desire to see discussion and sourcing of assertions to happen - on the talk pages. Refdoc 19:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. Let's stick to known facts. All of the following facts are quoted word-for-word from US Department of State's April 2005 report[2]. I'm citing that as my source, because i think most people will accept it as an unbiased source. So here goes:

• MKO's primary support came from the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein starting in the late 1980s
• The MEK advocates the overthrow of the Iranian regime and its replacement with the group’s own leadership.
• During the 1970s, the MEK killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defense projects in Tehran
• MKO supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran
• In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar
• In 1991, the MEK assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia and Kurdish uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north
• In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries,
• Before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the group received all of its military assistance, and most of its financial support, from the former Iraqi regime.
• The MEK also has used front organizations to solicit contributions from expatriate Iranian communities

I hope I've been able to convince some of you that the MKO is in fact a vicious terrorist organization. Like the reports says, they have "front organizations" and seem to be doing a very good job of mis-informing the public opinion in the west about their true nature.

I have to agree that the paragraph you had refered to was not verifiable, but that doesn't mean it's not true either. Having lived in this country for all of my life, i know the truth is that very very few people in Iran support the MKO or recognize them as a proponent of democracy. But eventually i do believe the correct way to go about this (for all the people that want to prevent MKO's mis-information campaign) is to try and find verifiable information and *then* change the article with reference to it. We should all stop expressing unverifiable opinions in the article. If you're frustrated by MKO's propoganda, take the time to prove it to the world with *verifiable* information. That's the only way you can help.

Revert warring

There is very little overaall being gained by this endless revert warring. It is quitre clear that there is one version which is detailed but perceived as hostile by MKO and a second one which has not even the post ordinary detail(e.g. emblem) but appears to have MKO support. This is rather ridiculous and not to the benefit of Wikipedia. I have started to take out tidbits of information in the short MKO version and introduced it into long version. The overall aim can only be to crfeate an enzyclopaedic article, but not a propaganda artice for t this or that view. Refdoc 23:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

There is little value in deleting large chunks of this article simply becaus eit does not fit. You might well think that HUman Rights Watch has goofed up and has become the victim of Iranian governmental disinformation, but this requires then evidence to be more than your personal opinion - and then it will be mentioned. Deleting accusations though is poor show. Similarly ideology - if you think the MKO/PMOI are democratic, fine - many others do not think so, so both POVs need to be there. Refdoc 11:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was category removed?

Obviously someone objects to describing the PMI as "syncretic" but no explanation was provided so I'm reinserting the references. Mjk2357 23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete information

This article doesn't mention MKO's involvement in terrorist activities inside the country. For example terror of Rajai and a lot more.

Islamist?

Can we call them islamist,while there is no relevance to islamic fundamentalists? Harry 19:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no reference in the article to the MEK seeking to maintain Sharia law as the present Iranian regime does, so no. Jeremy Nimmo 23:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

They are obviously a secular movement, not an "Islamist" movement as stated by the intro. See "Pour une démocratie laïque en Iran" ("For a secular democracy in Iran, in the French Parliamentary review). Saying they are Islamist is like saying that the Christian-Democracy is fundamentalist and against the separation of the state & the church... Satyagit

Well maybe that's what they are claiming now. As the article points out, they have gone through several ideological shifts during the last two decades (although their leaders have not changed: Masoud and Maryam Rajavi all along). But it is worth noting that at the beginning of the islamic revolution of iran (1979) they were in fact an islamist group by all accounts including their own description of themselves. as you know, the MEK was actually the main organized group during this revolution which brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. they were the major driving force behind the establishment of a theocratic islamic regime in iran. up until the time they were expelled. personally i think they still are islamists, but they have simply found they have a better chance of surviving in the political weather of the west if they claim a change in policy and introduce themselves as seculars. even now they continue to practice strict religous code within their organization, for example if you look at pictures of their president (mrs. maryam rajavi) and all their female members at all of their meetings and gatherings they have a very strict code of hijab. i know theoretically there's nothing wrong with being religous and secular at the same time. but, you know, it gives a you hint. nothing has practically changed in their organizational behaviour. if you knew the history of this group and you had followed their policies continously for the last three decades, you would be reaaaallly suspicious of their sincerety as seculars. anyway .... what is worth mentioning in the article is that they have only recently claimed to be seculars. maybe we should drop the adjective "islamist" or "secular" from the introduction and leave this to be explained in more detail in "ideology and influence" section. i think this will give the reader the chance to form his or her opinion based on a more accurate explanation. March 14 2006

Hijab hasn't much to do with that, apart if you expect every woman to carry the hijab to be an Islamist fanatist (which would show complete lack of knowledge of the Middle-East). This said, in 20 years I sure hope they have changed, and the world also has changed. It they had the same ideology than 20 years ago, this would only show their lack of understanding of history. As you say, there is nothing wrong with being religious and secular: this is the basis of secularism, actually. You are entitled to be suspicious; as a matter of fact, suspicion is necessary in these kinds of fields. But it is quite unfair describing them as "islamists", since they refuse this; and even if you take the group in the 1970s, I would like someone to explain how this "mix of Marxism and Islam" can makes Islamism? One would automatically expect it to be secular, i.e. adaptation of marxism to a country where Islam is predominant. Satyagit 15:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

would a secular government, dictate hijab as a mandatory rule for all women? this is what's going on in the MKO right now, they have mandatory religous codes for the members. a female member will most definitely not be allowed a high position in the group if she doesn't wear hijab. is this the way of a secular group? ok. i think the main problem we have with this article is that there's very little information on the internet from independent sources (esp. in english) about the MKO from 1979 up until a few years ago. for example their public statements, speeches, interviews, news, news photos, etc. ... i will try to see if i can find some during my free time and i encourage others that are interested to do so too. i personally have read and heard a lot about them during the last two decades, mostly in persian language newspapers/TV/radio networks, and from people that were actually members of the group, etc. etc. but well, that's not verifiable information for wikipedia! i certainly think that the general public in iran recognizes the MKO as an islamist group. to give you some more background on this: before the 1979 revolution during monarchy of the Shah the political system of iran was already a secular system (that is verifiable, look it up in wikipedia or anywhere else) and this group was the strongest advocate of establishing a religous government. for example about the issue of hijab; you know that before 1979, hijab was not at all customary in iranian cities and it was considered a sign of backwardness among the more "modern" communities such as universities (again this is verifiable) but the last years before the revolution, it is known by most iranians that the only female students in Tehran university that wore hijab where from the MKO and it was kind of like a sign that said this person is an MKO supporter. specially since they had a rather strict version of hijab (for those times) which wasn't even common among regular religious families. my point is that comparing to the cultural atmosphere of that time they were definitely considered as very very religous and religion was part of their political ideology too. they were not adapting marxism to a predominantly islamic society. the foundation of their slogans was islamic values and they never directly referred to marxism but they incorporated some marxist ideas that they deemed compatible with islam in their ideology for running a country. it is not my opinion, but a fact, that during the revolution the MKO used to be famous for being a very strong advocate of a rather fundamentalist version of Islamic government (as opposed to the secular government of the Shah, at which time most islamic customs were not encouraged and even unofficially discouraged by the state). i hope i can find some more sources that go back to those years to prove these facts. again i encourage other people that are interested in making this an unbiased article to try to gather verifiable information from the 70's and the 80's on the group.

Personally, I think the term "Islamic socialist" is perfectly appropriate to describe MEK/PMOI; I don't think this whole deal of trying to re-define them as "Islamic anti-fundamentalist" makes any sense. If you want a glimpse of what Iran would probably look like if they ever came to power, Libya is probably the closest approximation (Qaddafi also calls himself an "Islamic socialist" and his ideology blends Islam with Marxism and Arab nationalism). The fact that so many neocons are now encouraging the U.S. government to support them is nothing but a sick, ridiculous joke. I should also point out that MEK is evidently aware of the neocons' support for them (their web site regularly posts Daniel Pipes' editorials supporting them); if this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if they started trying to present themselves as "crusaders for democracy" or "anti-Islamists" to get American support. I would encourage everyone here not to be fooled - if they do this, it'll be just like Jonas Savimbi in Angola when he started as a Maoist, and then re-packaged himself as a "Christian democratic anti-communist" to get American support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.174.149 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes soon?

This article reads like an opinion paper- where can I find accurate information on this topic from an unbiased source? Saintboy 17:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently some people are arguing that the Iranian regime is changing this article to portray the MKO as a brutal terrorist organization. In my personal opinion, if that's the case, then it has to be the ONE time where the Iranian regime is actually expressing the view of the majority of it's people and we should commend them for that! :-) But that's just my personal opinion. I have included a link to U.S. Department of State's April 2005 report[3] on the organization. I would imagine it will be a bit difficult to argue the Iranian regime has changed their reports too!! The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it. MKO is a terrorist organization and that's a fact that can not be changed.

Biased article

This article is incredibly biased. If you insist that it should be pro-mujahedin, shouldn't it atleast have a "neutrality of article is disputed"-tag?

Saddam's allies during the Iran-Iraq War

i think there's an important piece of information that has not received the attention it deserves in the article and also in the discussion page. we all know that it is a fact that the MKO was saddam's ally up until the american invasion of iraq. but for understanding the significance of this issue in shaping the public opinion of the iranian people towards the MKO, it needs to be emphasized that the MKO was allied with saddam during the Iran-Iraq War. that means that when iranian men, women and children (from all walks of life) were being killed and bombed by saddam, the MKO was cooperating with him. if we don't point this out, then many people might not understand the huge impact of this issue (MKO's cooperation with saddam) on the iranian public opinion. 17 March 2006

• See MEK participation in Iraq invasion of Iran below. Kiumars

Involvement in Threats Against Iran

The material on possible MEK member involvement in Iran is sourced correctly. It should not be mass deleted without discussion. Abe Froman 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

i deleted it by accident (apparently i saved my edit on an older version). i only intended to remove the word "alleged" from the first paragraph of the article. however, i just read what you have added, and i must say that in my opinion it is going to spark a new round of edit wars in this article. if you study the background and history of the edits on this article, i think you will agree that the last version of the article was the best and most stable compromise reached after a looooong period of constant reverts and edits. anyway, i've left it there. Barnetj 17:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll clean it up and move it back to under Iraq. Abe Froman 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the wikipedia article states clearly that MKO is a designated terrorist organisations. Perhaps this should be made clearer in the first paragraph. AndrewRT 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Revolutionary Marriage of the leader

Why the Revolutionary Marriage of the leader is missing here? Did it tally up with the Islamic Laws or not? In Islam women cannot re-marry for at least 90 days after divorcing the previous husband. And I understand Maryam married the new husband in a few days after her divorce! http://www.rickross.com/reference/mujahedeen/mujahedeen3.html Rajavi's meteoric ascent within the group was coupled with the dumping of her first husband and pairing off with the rugged Massoud, fuelling criticism from detractors who say the group is little more than a cult. Kiumars

MEK participation in Iraq invasion of Iran

I saw some reports on the Iraq TV at the time showing MEK Tanks and troops near Kermanshah (Iran) shelling the city! Kiumars

Terrorism denial

I just reverted an attempt to remove the word "terrorist" from the introductory paragraph. That PMOI is a terrorist organisation is an undeniable fact. That fact is referenced twice in the text to ensure there is no doubt about it. PMOI is a listed terrorist organisation in the USA, the European Union as well as in Iran itself. Should that situation change in the future feel free to remove the word "terrorist" from the description. Until then removing it is blatant vandalism. --Dave 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, there's no vandalism, you shouldn't use that term. The undeniable fact is that it's a designated terrorist organization. This is simply wikipedia policy not to call ANY organization in the world "terrorist" but only designated terorrist. See relevant articles on Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Front, PFLP and so on. This is official wikipedia policy in naming conventions. I don't mind changing it but that's the current situation. Amoruso 05:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is official Wikipedia policy you should have no trouble pointing me to an official Wikipedia policy statement to that effect. It seems to me however that calling the PMOI a designated terrorist organization instead of simple a terrorist organisation is simply an example of using weasel words. I had intended to return to this article over the next few weeks and eliminate a lot of them. --Dave 05:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you in principle, but just like X can't call Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Hizballah and the rest terrorist groups, so can't Y call PMI like that. It's not a weasel word but a factual word that solves the problem between the debate whether any group is terrorist or "freedom fighter". If the Palestinians groups for example who openly killed hundreds of children in buses, malls, pubs and markets are defined this way , so are other groups defined this way, and they do....

I have no hesitation in describing the groups you mention above as terrorist organisations. After all, they are terrorist organisations. Why is it necessary to use weasel words to avoid that unpleasant truth? --Dave 09:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy : Words to avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism

There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description, or an opinion. Arguments for both views are summarized below.

1. The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.) 2. It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are. Examples of how Wikipedia has handled terrorism can be found at:

• Al-Qaeda - "Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign... The * Provisional Irish Republican Army - "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation. The organisation has been outlawed and classified as a terrorist group in [Great Britain, Ireland, the US] and many other countries..."
• Contras - "The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction... The Contras were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas because many of their attacks targeted civilians."

Encyclopedic:

• X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.
• X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings [or "who claimed responsibility for the Z suicide bombings"], is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C [countries or bodies].
• Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group [because...]

Not encyclopedic:

• Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
• After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

---

Note : if you're talking about an individual that actually killed a child in cold blood for instance then nobody will dispute that he's a terrorist, murderer etc. But the group itself can't be labeled as such. Amoruso 06:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

---

You make the fundamental mistake right at the beginning of your response by using the word Policy when the material you provided is clearly labelled as a Guideline. In case you missed it I will include the template message here:

{{style-guideline}} and WP:WTA (template replaced with links --Quiddity 09:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

The first paragraph in the article you quoted from reads:

There are probably no words which one can say should never be used in Wikipedia articles. There are words that are good flags for text that is inappropriate for an article. These can, if misused, convey a meaning which editors may not intend. Poorly chosen words may subtly promote a point of view, may be unintentionally pejorative, or may be simply bad writing, e.g. clichés.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I did not use the word terrorist unintentionally, to promote a point of view, or as a perjorative. I used it as an accurate description, with solid references. The word did not convey a meaning the editor (me) did not intend. It was my intent there should be no confusion whatsoever about the nature of the PMOI. I have no particular views on Iranian politics (I'm Australian), but I do believe organisations should be accurately and succinctly described in their introductory paragraph. Even if that offends the POV of some readers. --Dave 09:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that can not be done. This guideline has effectively become a policy, ask any established neutral adminstrator. You can take it up upstairs or you can try to change all other wikipedia articles mentioned above. This is how all wikipedia articles in english are described... this can't be an exception. The organization is not more terrorist than Palestinian/Afghanistan/Irish/Israel/French/Sri Lankan and so on "terrorist" organizaitons. And this I say without having any bias , as I'm not sure what my position on this group is supposed to be. Lastly, don't use a tool called "vandal tool" for content disputes please. And if you think about it, it doesn't concern any other articles or policies - simply it's that famous line "one terrorist group is another's freedom fighter group" - we can object to it, but I'm surprised it hasn't been enforced already... perhaps the group doesn't enjoy many supporters on wikipedia as do others. Amoruso 00:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't be done? I did it! If the guideline had indeed become a policy you would have been able to point me to a policy document instead of merely a guideline. I agree the PMOI is no more terrorist than the organisations you mention, but the fact remains it is a terrorist organisation. Using weasel words to soften the impact of this fact breaks another Wikipedia guideline. Oh, and please don't get upset when I continue to use an anti-vandalism software to revert your edit. It just happens to be the tool I use nearly every day. Under Wikipedia policy tou have 2 reverts left today. WP:3RR So do I. Think about that. I suggest you leave that section of the article alone and we seek the assistance of a mediator on the issue. --Dave 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello all, I've taken up the case as mediator. I've read through this discussion as well as the main article's edit history. As far as I can see, both the terrorist-organization labelling and the weasel word 'rules' are BOTH guidelines. However, under the former of the two guidelines it specifically says that NO organization can be directly labelled as a terrorist one; only somebody else designating them as such is permitted. Under weasel words (the Wikipedia guideline) there are numerous examples given as to what constitutes as 'spin' and what does not. So whilst I disagree that the terrorist guideline has unofficially become Wikipedia policy, I do not agree with Dmoss/Dave labelling the organisation's activities as directly terrorist, as it may contravene not only the terrorist guideline, but also the NPOV policy.

When it comes to the actual edit disputes, I'm probably missing some point here because I don't understand the difference between the two versions for the edit under "Line 1". Can someone clarify that for me? As for the subsequent ones, avoiding any direct mention of "terrorism" without any reference to somebody else labelling them as such would be advisable (e.g. 'militant' attacks preferable to 'terrorist' attacks). Jsw663 07:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

PS Unless Dmoss/Dave can justify the weasel word guideline somehow taking preference over the terrorist + NPOV guidelines, is Amoruso's version so unacceptable? Jsw663 07:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, to a point. I have reverted the article to Amoruso's version and will leave it like that, at least until we clear this up. My point is that the PMOI is a terrorist organisation. Although some of its supporters claim it is not, there is a general consensus across the world that it is a terrorist organisation. It is possible to cite terrorist acts it has performed, and its inclusion on official lists of terrorist organisations in well respected countries such as the USA and the EU. Iran certainly considers the PMOI to be a terrorist organisation. Describing the PMOI as a terrorist organisation does not breach the NPOV requirement because it is simply a dispassionate statement of fact. We should not be afraid to state facts on Wikipedia, even if doing so makes readers with a particular POV uncomfortable. When we state facts we should do so clearly and succinctly, without using weasel words. Failing to state PMOI is a terrorist organisation, on the other hand, does fail the NPOV test. it deliberately omits a crucial fact because including it might offend people with a particular POV. I therefore believe I have WP:NPOV on my side of the argument, as well as WP:WEASEL. --Dave 08:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dave, simply if we do that, we have to change all the other organizaitons and people feel very strongly about it. The supporters of PMOI see it as a freedom fighter group I suppose, which is the reason it's not possible to label them as such in objective sense. To maintian objectivity, organizations are not called terrorist in wikipedia. See all Irish, Palestinian. Muslim, Jewish, American organizations and I gave you plenty of examples. You realise PMOI can't be an exception for this I'm sure. Amoruso 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dmoss/Dave, do you remember the phrase "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"? I believe it is because of this that Wikipedia has quite clearly stated that no organization may be called terrorist, even if it appears to some people to be "common sense". Therefore, instead of telling people an organisation is terrorist, Wikipedia simply says that so-and-so countries / states have listed this organization as terrorist. That way, when the average person reads wikipedia for encyclopedic information, they will be able to see that most countries and/or states have listed them as terrorists, even if those members consider themselves to be freedom fighters / patriots / whatever. It is only in this way that we can truly adhere to WP:NPOV - the only official Wiki policy among the three quoted above. If there are no further questions Dave, then hopefully the mediation can be concluded soon. Jsw663 19:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the reason Amoruso gave, just because something has been done incorrectly in the past is not a reason to keep doing it that way in the future. (As a systems analyst I give this advice frequently, but a but more tactfully ;-). As I am not fanatical about this topic I will accept the views of our impartial moderator though. Thanks for helping Jsw663, and thanks for improving the article to Amoruso. I think we are done with this issue now. --Dave 00:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If I'm permitted to put my grind in the debate, that the PMOI is a controversial organisation is an evidence. That it has a long history, and has evolved along time as did the world is another. But there is also a clear evidence, made appearant by the 2003 raid organised by the French police and the subsequent release of all PMOI activists: the designation of this group as a terrorist organization is clearly dependent on relationship — which varies in time according to geopolitical conjoncture — between Tehran and the various states of the Western world. The PMOI was not labelled as a terrorist organisation by the European Union until recently. And just in December, the European Court has judged this label unfounded. Furthermore, if you follow this affair closely, you will see that there is absolutely no doubt that the PMOI is a bargain chip between Tehran and the Western world. One of those bargain is even in the article. Another interesting article is this one E il Sismi tese la mano ai nemici della Cia - Un piano italiano di «approccio binario» per collaborare con i khomeinisti ha diviso i due servizi segreti alleati from the Corriere della Sera, 10 October 2005 (rough translation: And the SISMI gives its hand to the enemy of the CIA - An Italian plan for a "binary approach" to collaborate with the Khomeinisti (Italian press name for the VEVAK) has divided the two Italian allied services). European elites are aware of that, and a lot of them, from various background, very well know that this "terrorist label" is due to foreign relations between Tehran and others states. This explains why the PMOI can receive support from such different people: see UK: 2000 jurists and MPs call for the removal of PMOI from the terror list, 405 British Parliamentarians consider PMOI a legitimate resistance group, Belgian Senate unanimously calls on EU to remove PMOI from terror list, etc. etc. One can rightly be wary about the PMOI, but it would be very naive indeed to ignore the political negotiations which have been going on between European and US states and the Islamic Republic since 1979 and its influence on shaping the policies of the Western world. One can also be, and I'm more of a dove than a hawk, against war in Iran, without believing Tehran's propaganda. And one must really ignore Tehran's power and its blackmail, in particular concerning the nuclear program (which a war will not stop, IMO - too late... & remember who started providing nuclear power to the Shah...), to dismiss any manipulation concerning PMOI so-called "terrorist" status. Tell me, Dave, who supports this label: what kind of bombing did the PMOI do on Western world territory? Can you please quote me a bombing done on European or US territory, which justify this label? AFAIK, the PMOI has only engaged in attacks on Iranian territory. You may think whatever you want about the PMOI, but you automatically fall under suspicions of supporting the Mullahs if you claim that it is "terrorism" to struggle against this dictatorship. As said by our other friend, what can be said is that PMOI is labelled as a terrorist organisation, no more... Tazmaniacs 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Link

this link does not mention it clearly anyway i have not removed it but pl check and let me know.User talk:Yousaf465

National Endowment for Democracy and the National Iranian American Council

That the National Iranian American Council lobbies for, or against, the People's Mujahedin, and for, or against, Tehran, is their legal right. But, as they transparently say, they are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, which everyone knows was founded by Reagan in 1982 to give a legal appearance to the CIA support of political organisations in others countries. In other word, the Iranian American Council bears well its name, and is not just an association of Iranians exilees in the States, but has intimate links with Langley. Thus, I do not think that it qualifies as a WP:RS when it comes to the PMOI, and certainly not in the lead. For the sake of archival, here is the removed sentence:

and Nathan Hunerwadel, in an article published by the National Iranian American Council,<ref>{{cite web
  | last = Hunerwadel
  | first = Nathan
  | authorlink =
  | coauthors =
  | title =Iran Policy Committee urges covert military action against Iran, support for Mujahedin
  | work =
  | publisher =[[National Iranian American Council]]
  | date =February 16, 2006
  | url =http://www.niacouncil.org/pressreleases/press318.asp
  | format =
  | doi =
  | accessdate = 2006-12-28}}</ref>

Cheers! Tazmaniacs 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged MEK activity in Iran

I'm new to the editing process, but nearly this entire section is based on a single alternative news source. Since the claim is somewhat controversial, perhaps it should based on more reliable sources, or removed altogether. Thanks Dchall1 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq

I have a serious problem with this section, primarily the suggestion that the US broke its ceasefire agreement to disarm the group. According to all the research I've seen, disarmament was part of the ceasefire agreement. I can't find the sources cited to back up this claim, and they aren't linked. Also, I do not feel that the picture in this section adds to the article. If no objections, I will revert back to the previous version. Dchall1 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Does surrounding and forcing a surrender at gun point count as breaking a ceasefire? I am not criticizing the US government, I am just trying to accurately describe what happened. I was there when we took the MEK compound in Fallujah. We lined-up about a brigade’s worth of tanks around the compound and had F-16's do fly-bys to intimidate the MEK, then some higher-ups went and presented the head of the compound with declaration of surrender. They took all the MEK into custody, and then we went room-by-room clearing the (extremely large) compound.

Now, to me sticking a gun in someone’s face and demanding surrender is breaking a ceasefire, but feel free to change that to a more fitting term. I tried sourcing this article the best I could so as not to be accused of original research. - Atfyfe 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still disagree, simply because the term "breaking a ceasefire" is such a strong term for what is at best an ambiguous situation. I've been looking through LexisNexis for articles that support us either way, and there's not a lot there. Still, you have to admit that this was generous treatment for a group that (agree or disagree) is still on the FTO list. Anyway, I think the original version explained the situation without the controversy. Thoughts? Dchall1 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Connection between MEK and US conservatives

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/terrorism-awareness-indeed like Daniel Pipes, Patrick Clawson of the right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Right-wing commentator Max Boot; with many links to further research.

What does this sentence mean?

Although the OMPI is today the main organization of the NCRI, the latter hosted before others organizations, such as the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran.

--Filll 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work

Just to give one example, the lead says

Following the war 2003, several US agencies interviewed and screened every single resident of Ashraf,

without explain that Ashraf is the headquarters (admittedly the box does that) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Some "users" with no users pages - AlborzTaha and Tib72 - have been reverting edits I've made to made to the article. The edits are an attempt to make the article more readable and useful. If you have issues with them please discuss this here. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This and related articles have suffered a slow-burning edit war as long as I've been here. I'd really like to see it stop, and am willing to work towards a compromise version that is acceptable to both sides. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What there are so much reverts?

Dear Chris, I appreciate your objective to have undisputed articles. But it is also good to know that the Iranian regime has launched a heavy misinfrormation campaign against the PMOI which makes it very difficult to figure out the truth. You agree why a regime that is after nuclear weapon and is fomenting unrest in the region by expoting terrorism and fundamentalism and suppresses the people at home should do so. You can just refer to piles of articles and news in the media. It is good to be fair, but be careful not to be impressed by users like BoogaLouie. Tib72 (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version has better grammar, better sourcing, and fewer general mistakes. Please work off this copy rather than reverting to yours, which (through no fault of your own) is full of errors. Also, I really don't care what kind of regime is in Tehran and I don't see how it affects what is in this article. We will fight just as hard to keep Iranian propaganda out as we will fight PMOI propaganda. And please do not accuse myself and user:BoogaLouie of being Iranian agents. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I second Chris's comments and protest the idea that I am in any way doing the work of the IRI. If you have any doubts, take a look at these edits I've made to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the MeK controversial?

I sympathise with those who are attempting to make this piece impartial, but the idea that the MKO/PMOI/NCRI (or whatever they choose to call themselves on any particular day of the week) are controversial, is really wrong. They are not controversial. They are a small, aging, largely irrelevant group of brainwashed fanatics, with no relevance to the political life of Iran. The main reason they are irrelevant is because they sided with Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war (and were armed by him with heavy weapons, used by him against the Kurds and other dissident elements). Their only successes come through propaganda, and the low credibility of the current Iranian regime - hence the long list of western parliamentarians that have been taken in by them. If you are looking to make this piece impartial, consult the books dealing with this subject - eg John Simpson Lifting the Veil, Ervand Ebrahamian, etc. Look at the MKO survivors' website. Look at the writings of Massoud Khodabandeh (one of the survivors). The unhinged extremism of its partisans should not form one pole of a range of opinion, within which you attempt to take a mean. As someone once said, there can be no happy medium between the fire and the fire engine. 86.164.203.60 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't entirely agree. They may be universally detested by Iranians but they have support from american neocons, and the IRI government seems to find them enough of a nusance to make them a issue with the US government judging by an interview with a Revolutionary Guard honcho I saw on PBS TV Frontline. So you might call that controversy. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll settle for them being controversial among the ignorant, or among other crazies. Balanced people who know the facts see them as a rather sad, irrelevant remnant. 86.157.254.76 (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Continued reverts by Tom davy

User:Tom davy you been asked repeatedly to join the discussion page before reverting edits. The article lead is a place for a summary of the article, not for details of MeK's recent legal desputes. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Continued reverts by Boogalouie Dear all, I believe that some users such as Mr Dchall( Chris) and his friend Bougaloui are misusing this wikipedia by constantly making biased edits on the PMOI. For example the whole paragraphs about several resolutions or recent court victories of this group in the European Court of First Instance and the UK court have been deleted by the above gentlemen. I do not wish to accuse either of them of any thing, but this is rather un-believable of how they are so keen to repeat the allegations made by the current theocracy and by deleting such facts which are good for users to know when they want to make a study about PMOI. I hope I have not offended any one but I am really suspicious of the motives of the above. Yours sincerely, Tom Davy

(Copied from Tom davy user page) Your information about the several resolutions or recent court victories of PMOI is already in the article in the Designation as a terrorist organization section. That's where it belongs. The lead is not the place for it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page for a week whilst editors find a way to work out this dispute about the lead and other disagreements. I will lift this protection sooner if an agreement is reached. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the opening page of PMOI

About the PMOI opening page, since the present version has deleted all their court victories, one gets a very negative impression about this group which is not fair. I suggest we add this sentence : "On 7 May 2008, the UK Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, against a decision by the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission to remove the PMOI from the list of groups banned under the Terrorism Act 2000. Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, said there was no evidence that the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran was currently involved in terrorism. [6][7]"

This is a fact and is nothing to be disputed and is quite balanced. For your information the British Government has implemented the verdict by lodging a written order with the British parliament , seeking to remove the PMOI from the terrorist list.

Tom Davy Tom davy (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The lead (not an "opening page") is already quite long and already contains this half sentence: "Although the European Court of Justice has overturned the EU designation in December 2006 ..." --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "eu-fto" :
  • {{cite journal|title=Council Common Position 2005/847/Cfsp| journal=Official Journal of the European Union|year=2005|volume=L 314|url=http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_314/l_31420051130en00410045.pdf|pages=44}}
  • {{cite journal | title=Council Common Position 2005/847/Cfsp| journal=Official Journal of the European Union| year=2005| volume=L 314| url=http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_314/l_31420051130en00410045.pdf| pages=44}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

POV section

"Armed conflict with the Islamic government" section is very one-sided, and makes it seems as though MKO had no role in the campaign of violence that followed the revolution. It fails to mention that MKO refused to disarm or recognize the new government following the revolution, and that Rajavi was just as guilty as Khomeini in provoking the violence. It also fails to mention that MKO's violent activities in the early years of the revolution, the militaristic atmosphere they created, gave Khomeini an excuse to suppress otherwise non-violent leftist groups as a result. The section should be re-written by neutral editors. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality problem.

This article is like a advertisement for the PMOI. It claims that the islamic republic launched a campaing to crush them. This might have something to do with the fact that they carried out bombings. That deserves a mentioning. 84.215.32.45 (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)