The reporting parts of this @thetimes article about the Mojahedeen-e-Khalq (#MEK) are interesting, but ultimately it is very disappointing and misleading about the nature of a truly sinister organisation that helped enthrone #Iran's Islamist Republic: thetimes.co.uk/article/people…
The Times piece asks about #MEK's money, noting the allegations of Saudi finance, but pretty much takes the Mojahedeen at their word that "Our funding comes from the Iranian diaspora". This is the least problematic aspect, however.
"'I can't be married and have children and also dedicate myself to the cause,' she replies. I get the same response from the sisters Shiva and Azedeh Mamabani."
Should this bizarre answer and the repetition of it not tip-off the Times that #MEK is, in fact, a cult?
Should this bizarre answer and the repetition of it not tip-off the Times that #MEK is, in fact, a cult?
Instead, the Times says:
"[#MEK] is now more centrist in its politics, calling for a separation of state and religion, gender equality and freedom of expression."
This is an absurd description of this Islamist cult.
"[#MEK] is now more centrist in its politics, calling for a separation of state and religion, gender equality and freedom of expression."
This is an absurd description of this Islamist cult.
It gets worse.
The Times reports: "Those who leave [#MEK] continue to receive a monthly allowance if they sign an agreement promising not to reveal the group’s secrets to the [Iranian] regime."
The treatment of MEK defectors is well-documented; this ain't it.
The Times reports: "Those who leave [#MEK] continue to receive a monthly allowance if they sign an agreement promising not to reveal the group’s secrets to the [Iranian] regime."
The treatment of MEK defectors is well-documented; this ain't it.
But then, the Times introduces #MEK defectors as "self-styled 'defector'" [scare quotes original] and essentially allows the MEK leadership allegations - which they make against all opponents - that he is an Iranian regime agent to stand.
Even little things are troublesome.
The Times journalist writes: "MEK officials tell me that 100,000 of their members have been killed fighting the regime over the past four decades"
This figure is self-evidently absurd, but there is no hint that this is understood to be a lie.
The Times journalist writes: "MEK officials tell me that 100,000 of their members have been killed fighting the regime over the past four decades"
This figure is self-evidently absurd, but there is no hint that this is understood to be a lie.
The Times conclusion is: "I am left with the view that [#MEK] are animated by nothing more sinister than revulsion for the Iranian regime and the torment it has inflicted on them and their families."
Where to even begin ...
Where to even begin ...
What is *not* in the Times piece, for example, is any proper follow-up when given the standard lines about where Masud Rajavi is, nor is the question even put to the #MEK officials about their assistance to #Saddam in crushing the Kurdish uprising in 1991.
MEK has drawn in several Tory MPs—former Environment Minister Theresa Villiers, former Speaker John Bercow, Matthew Offord, David Amess, and David Jones—plus (most disappointingly) Betty Boothroyd. Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Rudy Giuliani have long been known as supporters.
Will leave it there. Only add: this use of "dissident" and "opposition" to describe #MEK's relationship with the clerical regime in #Iran is highly problematic; they are at most opposition *within* the regime, and by no means obviously the lesser evil.
https://twitter.com/KyleWOrton/status/1243575517066002432
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
