Posted on 06/26/2006 6:52:14 PM PDT by remuk
UPI: There have been many accusations against you and members of your organization that you are a Marxist group, a sect, a secretive society.
RAJAVI: This label was being used by the shah to tarnish the popularity of the Mujahedeen among the Iranian people. And Khomeni used it for the exact same purpose. Otherwise how could they justify saying that their Islam is the true Islam.
UPI: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made it very clear in Petra, in Jordan, a few days ago that Iran would not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Assuming Israel is to strike Iran, what do you think would be the consequences?
RAJAVI: The solution for the nuclear crisis is neither a foreign military intervention nor the policy of appeasement, but what we call the third option (empowering the resistance)
UPI: Do you see the United States playing a major role in the region?
RAJAVI: I think that the United States has a major role to play in adopting a firm policy. If they do not adopt a firm policy with the mullahs' regime, then they have to really hand over Iraq to the mullahs. And that will be followed by other countries in the region.
UPI: Do you see the U.S. as a catalyst in the region?
RAJAVI: The policy of appeasement has helped the mullahs to survive. The United States has really given a big service to the regime.
UPI: If you had a message to send to President Bush, what would it be?
RAJAVI: It is necessary to be firm against the mullahs' regime. To implement this firmness, not just to talk about it, but to put it in practice. And to listen to the voice of the Iranian people.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
MEK is the enemy of the Iranian people.
They wouldn't allow these traitors to take over, and the Iranian people wouldn't forgive anyone who helped MEK to even attempt it.
btw - this isn't first time I've seen a 'soft' story on MEK by UPI.
It is symptomatic of not only the Middle East but also of most of Europe.
A philosophy of, "You must be resolved to do something, but you certainly must not actually do anything... In not doing anything, however, you must make it clear that you are firmly not doing anything..."
It is a policy of impotence; a fraud mascarading as a strategy. The idea is to take no actual action, but to be firm in that taking of no action. We have the same hoaxes perpetrated here in the United States by "community advocates" who decry that their particular constituency are unprepared to succeed economically, but reject any possible measures to actually prepare those persons to succeed.
After a while most people simply tune out those persons who are unprepared to do the job in front of them, yet demand a firm response from others- as long as, of course, that firm response is nebulous, unspecified, and meaningless.
Do the job in front of you, and your grandchildren will dance in honor of your memory. Don't wait for the Marines to rescue you. You let evil into your house in 1979, and now you must expell it.
The Rajavis are crazed loons. Don't trust the MEK. They're a dangerous sect with a terrorist past who might be even worse for the Iranian people than the current regime...
The issue is not about Iranian people's choice of leadership. It is about getting rid of a tyrant system with Ahmadinejad in charge, the man who is about to get his hands on nuclear bombs.
To dismantle this dangerous system avoiding appeasement what options are on the table?
I believe changing this system ASAP will greatly benefit the Iranian people in the long run no matter who comes next. A quick look at Iraq right now shows us one thing; It is not all in shape but the process of democratization has begun. Shiites warriors and insurgents will eventually wipe out because common masses want to live peacefully and comfortably.
Don't compare Iraq, which has never known democracy, to Iran, which has.
There are several options which may be on the table, (or under) though we may not be aware of them, and from all I've read, MEK is NOT one of them.
The Iranian peoples' choice of leadership IS at issue. We need to end up with a friendly gov't there, not one that will be another dangerous headache 6 months or a year down the road. If we try to impose a despised leadership on Iran, they will never be allies of ours in the future, and that, we should realize after losing Iran as an ally 27 yrs ago, would be a huge error, for our future, theirs and the future of that part of the world. (at the least)
In this case, I think so. The group's political platform, established decades ago, affords a considerable amount of information that is right now being used to compare and contrast their actions, the most relevant of which are recent. A part of their platform is to expose WMD and terror programs of the Iranian government. The group has been exposing such details for more than a decade and indeed that work has been extremely supportive of Iranian democracy advocates from all sectors of Iranian society.
Clearly the group participated in ousting the Shah of Iran and has enemies among remnants of that regime. Clearly the group is engaged against the current Iranian government and has enemies within that regime. Clearly there are those within the US government who intend to avoid confrontation with the Iranian government at all cost; to them, the MEK and its works have made avoiding conflict with Iran extremely difficult. Maybe your question should be:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.