Daniel Pipes
Mobile Edition
Regular Site

MEK: Terrorist or Legitimate Iranian Resistance
Reader comment on item: [Mujahedeen-e Khalq:] A Terrorist U.S. Ally?

Submitted by Shahin Mohammadi (Canada), May 20, 2003 at 20:19

Dear Daniel Pipes and Patric Clawson,

I read the article and I really liked it. But there are a few points that I like to mention and comment on.

(1) The presene of MEK in Iraq is only to overthrow the religious fundamentalists rulling Iran (the Islamic Republic of Iran, as you mentioned), but their presence in Iraq was based on two conditions; (a) independence, (b) no interference from the Iraqi regime, a two sided agreement as the MEK never interfered in Iraqi's affairs.

(2) Did the MEK membrs attack American two decades ago? No. One year before the attack, the leaders and most member of MEK were arrested and send to prison by the former Shah's regime intelligence services (SAVAK). A few other members then denounced the MEK leadership and policies, assasinated some other MEK members who were not arrested by SAVAK, and then attacked American. These actions then was condemned by the MEK leaders who were still in prison.

The MEK never supported terrorism. Their attack on specific targets on the Mullah's regime in Iran is a legitimate resistance against a brutal regime that has executed 120'000 of Iranian people, imprisoned a tortured thousands more, has done over 450 terrorit acts abroud, pursues WMD, and actively supports international terrorism. Was the resistance against Nazis in WWII act of terrorism? No. So neither is the action of the MEK against the Mullah's regime.

(3) Can the MEK be useful? The Mullah's regime is most affraid of their sole alternative democratic, the MEK. The MEK has strong support amoung Iranian people both inside and outside Iran. The MEK is the anti-thesis to the regilious fundamentalism. The disarmament of MEK endangers lives of thousands of Iranian, encourages the Mullahs for more terrorista attack on MEK and meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq.

Finally, placing the MEK in the list of terrorist groups by former American administration was to appease the Mullah's regime, or the so called moderates in the regime (that proved to be big fake moderates).

There is no justification for terrorist labelling of MEK. It is an insult to the Iranian people and their legitimate resistance. It distracts attention from the real terrorists, the Mullah's regime in Iran that is the Godfather of terrorism, and incites fundamentalism. It also undermines the fight against the real terrorists. There should be no good will gesture to the terrorist Mullahs by falsely labelling MEK as terrorists.

Sincerely

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (39) on this item

Title By Date
Finally the UK is taking the MEK off of the terrorist lists; can the USA be that far behind? [20 words]WhitneymuseDec 16, 2007 21:24
MEK are not terrorists [27 words]from the heart of TehranAug 11, 2007 23:31
Why we should not support the MEK [553 words]Arash PertaniSep 12, 2006 12:02
On MEK a Muslim Organization [41 words]Ali AghaDec 11, 2005 20:08
MeK; Don't worry [210 words]A SoldierJan 25, 2004 10:00
Hear, hear, shahin [71 words]Peter J. HerzOct 14, 2003 04:42
MEK-Our Ally?? [248 words]Shahin ShadmerAug 19, 2003 00:06
Terrorists or just a terrorist tag? [234 words]M. H. JazayeriJul 22, 2003 19:20
The Gullible Western Civ. [251 words]Darwin BarrettJul 6, 2003 20:21
about MEK [226 words]Max Rose RastgaranJul 3, 2003 19:48
The enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend [115 words]Temur KhanMay 31, 2003 08:15
Good terrorists? [27 words]Boris GurevichMay 26, 2003 11:45
Democratic secular government [44 words]S.C.PandaMay 26, 2003 07:27
Playing with fire? [97 words]Pat KunzMay 24, 2003 11:19
Terrorist allies or business as usual? [123 words]R.D. CrockettMay 23, 2003 11:12
MEK are terroriosts [38 words]moeMay 22, 2003 07:16
TV station. [56 words]Yousef SafaMay 22, 2003 00:48
Common Sense [81 words]Brent W. BurnetteMay 22, 2003 00:35
future allies? [38 words]Alan SullivanMay 21, 2003 21:36
Terrorism is terrorism no matter who's the target [307 words]Mike RudwianMay 21, 2003 17:32
shame!! [104 words]samNov 4, 2006 09:40
Enough machinations [187 words]endurnzMay 21, 2003 14:30
A Terrorist U.S. Ally? [14 words]TL MillerMay 21, 2003 14:21
This is too small a definition of terrorism. [107 words]Bill SmithMay 21, 2003 13:52
MEK and facts. [259 words]Yousef SafaMay 21, 2003 13:49
MEK [39 words]MassoodMay 21, 2003 12:06
Supporting the MEK, but at what expense? [199 words]Safa HaeriMay 21, 2003 10:55
The Enemy of Our Enemy is NOT Necessarily Our Friend [70 words]Kenneth StahlMay 21, 2003 10:05
Brilliant analysis, as usual [50 words]Maryallene OtisMay 21, 2003 09:50
Excellent [4 words]Maureen ThompsonMay 21, 2003 09:02
Sounds like trouble [265 words]Robert KosloverMay 21, 2003 00:49
MEK [172 words]Michael PodgoetskyMay 20, 2003 21:51
A rose is a rose is a rose..... [78 words]Roy WeeksMay 20, 2003 20:52
⇒ MEK: Terrorist or Legitimate Iranian Resistance [402 words]Shahin MohammadiMay 20, 2003 20:19
Monopoly on the use of violence [93 words]Marc BaronMay 20, 2003 20:09
A Terriorist U.S. Ally [84 words]JeanMay 20, 2003 19:49
MEK, friend or foe? [178 words]David WigotskiMay 20, 2003 18:44
On MEK [239 words]Ali JMay 20, 2003 13:11
Thank you [18 words]Dan GurtaMay 20, 2003 11:06

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

Back to top of page