");

I read a leftist propaganda piece on Alternet called “Neocons embrace Islamic Terror Group.” It’s by Daniel Postel. It’s actually for tompain.com. Though I found and read it on alternet. Here, I will take apart his claims.Daniel claims:

Daniel Pipes, one of America’s premiere Islamophobes, has a soft spot for one deadly deadly Islamic terrorist organization.

The author’s first error is in describing Daniel Pipes an islamophobe, which is a classic leftist and Islamist thing to do to someone who exposes radical Islam. Mr. Pipes actually favors the term ”moderate Islam.” You figure that when Daniel Postel here says “one deadly Islamic terrorist organization” [as shown above Daniel here said deadly twice] that he means the MEK [Mujahideen-e-Khalq] and the NCRI [National Council on Resistance in Iran]. The MEK is the main group in the NCRI. As I’ll show later, Daniel considers NCRI to be an alias for MEK. By the way, neither the NCRI nor MEK, it’s main group, are a “deadly Islamic terrorist group.” The MEK and NCRI seeks to liberate Iran from the Islamo-fascist regime in Iran. “One deadly Islamic terrorist organization” is the Iranian revolutionary Guards, which is commanded by Supreme leader Ali Khamenei and Supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini before him. The Iranian revolutionary Guards is one of the groups that carries out Iran’s state terrorism at home and abroad and helps Iran export its Islamo-fascist revolution around the world. It was the terrorist government in Iran that carried out a terrorist attack on the Asociacion Mutual Israel Argentina [AMIA], a Jewish community center in Argentina.  According to Hezbollah deputy, Naim Qassem, Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy, only carries out its terrorist attacks with apporval from Iran. Hezbollah did kill the most Americans before al Quada and started a war with Israel in 2006 by kidnapping and killing IDF [Israel Defense Force] soldiers and launching rockets at Israeli cities. So, Daniel, want to talk to me about who’s  ”one deadly Islamic terrorist organization?”  If Daniel Pipes has “a soft spot for one deadly Islamic terrorist group,” how does that make him Islamophobic?Daniel Postel claims:

During the week of October 22-26, an official announcement effuses, “The nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever - Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses.” Ringmastered by David Horowitz, this circus will be performing under the tent of something called the “Terrorism Awareness Project.”

The purpose of this ballyhoolooza, we are told, is to confront the “Big Lies” of the Left regarding terrorism and militant Islam. Worthy subjects, to be sure. Indeed I would like to help the sponsors of the “wake-up call” promote awareness of them. Toward this end, let’s consider the American Right’s “special relationship” with one group of terrorists.

Correction, let’s consider the right’s relationship with one group of freedom fighters. This is a pethetic attempt to distract people so they won’t see the left’s relationship with terrorists by throwing mud at the right [including Islamo-fascism Awareness Week] and the Iranian freedom fighters, who want to free their country. What about the Muslim Association of Britain [MAB], the British wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. The MAB is also a member group of Stop the War coalition. What about George Galloway’s [Galloway is a vice president of Stop the War coalition] praise for Hezbollah and the International Solidarity Movement’s [ISM] inclusion in the United with Peace and Justice, another extreme leftist anti-war movement. I documented in my last article ISM, peace group or terrorist front, that the ISM is a front for Palestinian terrorists and takes part in the secret covert terrorist war on Israel, which is war that was launched to destroy Israel. Not all of the left supports terrorists. But too much of it does. Even most of the ones in the left who don’t support terrorism whitewash or deny the Islamo-fascist threat. To be fair, I do admit that some leftists do understand the Islamo-fascist terrorist threat. I showed much of the left’s support for terrorists. Islamo-fascism awareness week was a heroic event. It sought to fight Islamist infiltration, supported victims of Islamism and supported democracy and freedom in the Middle East. Daniel claims:

The U.S. State Department officially considers the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) a Foreign Terrorist Organization. While those honors date back to 1994, they’ve been renewed during the Bush years. Indeed in 2003 Foggy Bottom went further, including the National Council of Resistance of Iran – an MEK alias — under the terrorist designation. (The MEK is also known as the People’s Mujahedeen.)

Yes, they were put on the State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations to appease the terrorist regime in Iran. But guess what? The US gets its information on Iran from those groups.  They get good intelligence information on Iran and were the ones who revealed Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Many American soldiers in Iraq  consider them as useful allies. Daniel claims:

To make a long and bizarre story short, the MEK got its start in early 1960s Iran, helped overthrow the Shah in 1979, but quickly turned on the revolutionary government it helped bring to power. Employing an ideological blend of Stalinism and Islamism, the tactics of a paramilitary guerilla faction, and the organizational structure of a cult, the group went into exile, eventually making their home in Iraq in the mid-1980s. Not only did Saddam give the organization cover: he armed, funded, and utilized them for a variety of ends over two decades.

Yes, the MEK may [or may not] have started off as radical. But now, the NCRI and its main group MEK seek to free Iran and democratize it. He claims that MEK helped the revolutionary government come to power. MEK has reformed. However, according to Alireza Jafarzadeh, MEK was the only organization that knew Khomeini’s true colors, meaning that they didn’t collude with the Islamists in Iran. Anyway, many democrats collaborated with totalitarian movements and discovered they were duped. Many democrats in the Fidel Castro’s July 26th movement discovered that Castro was a dictator and were executed by Ernesto [Che] Guevara in La Cabana. Daniel claims that the MEK was “employing an ideological blend of Stalinism and Islamism.” They weren’t. They sought to free Iran from the terrorist government in Iran. He complains that Saddam gave them support. Saddam only allowed the MEK to have bases in Iraq. He didn’t arm them or give them any other kind of material support. But guess what? During the 1980’s, the US supported Iraq against Iran. America’s alienation of MEK as a concession to the terrorist regime was what brought them closer to Saddam. By the way, Saddam was overthrown in 2003 and executed three years later. Iran was a bigger threat than Saddam’s Iraq. I’m no defender of Saddam. He was a mass-murderer. I defended the Iraqi government’s right to execute him in my article ”liberal’s blind hatred of Bush”, saying that the Iraqi government has the right to execute of imprison him because he committed his crimes in Iraq.  Also, many liberals deny that Saddam supported terrorists, while this liberal contradicts them in falsely calling the MEK a terrorist group and saying that Saddam supported them. Saddam did support terrorist groups such as the Abu Nidal group, Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Front [PLF] and other terrorist groups. Also, Saddam gave at first then thousands dollars and then twenty five thousand dollars to families of suicide bombers.

Daniel claims:

The group’s wicked political brew was on spectacular display on theold MEK flag (since abandoned), with its sickle and Kalashnikov positioned beneath a Koranic verse. (Not — to state the obvious — that the mere presence of a Koranic verse in and of itself implies Islamist political commitments, but in this case the shoe very much fits.)

Since abandoned said Daniel. If it’s abandoned, what’s the point of including what’s on the MEK flag? Daniel goes on:

Here you have virtually everything the Right claims to oppose all rolled into one: Islamism, Marxism, terrorism, and Saddam. Naturally, then, neoconservatives would utterly deplore the MEK and everything it stands for, right? The MEK would in fact make an ideal target for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week and Terrorism Awareness efforts, no?

The MEK is not a Marxist group. As I said, it seeks to democratize Iran and free Iran. It seeks to free the world from the threat from Iran. The MEK is targeted military forces from the terrorist regime in Iran. Is that terrorism? No. Daniel, the MEK is fighting an Islamist government, the one in Iran. The MEK is not Islamist. Didn’t the ANC [African National Congress] freedom fighters use violence on the apartheid regime in South Africa to win rights for the black majoirty? Yet they’re rightly considered freeodm fighters for that. The MEK is fighting  regime far worse than the Apartheid regimes, a regime that exports terror to impose their backwards interpretation of Islam. The MEK stopped using violence since 2001.

Daniel claims:

Well, no. At least one of the carnival’s acts, it turns out, is rather fond of the Islamo-Stalinist-terrorist cult group, and has repeatedly argued for the removal of the MEK from the State Department’s list of terrorist groups and indeed urged the U.S. government to embrace it. Daniel Pipes, who will be speaking at Tufts on October 24th as part of the Horowitz high jinks, has made the MEK a recurring theme in his writings going back several years: here,here, and here.

The MEK is not an Islamo-Stalinist group. The MEK’s “crime” right now is fighting the Islamo-fascist Nazified terrorist regime in Iran. Daniel claims:

Pipes has also gone to bat for the MEK right in the pages of Horowitz’shouse organ.
But Pipes is far from alone on the Right in championing the MEK. He co-authored the first piece linked to above with Patrick Clawson of the right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Right-wing commentator Max Boot has argued not merely for the removal of the MEK from the terrorist list but for funding and unleashing it to do battle with Iranian forces — this while casually acknowledging that it is a “political cult.” (More on Boot’s disfigured views here.)

Daniel here complains about Mr. Pipes and a lot on the right championing the MEK. We champion the MEK because it is the main opposition group to the terrorist regime in Iran and is fighting to democratize Iran. Funding MEK to do battles with the Iranian terorrist regime is something I agree with. The MEK being a cult is a myth from the Iranian regime and those who fall for that claim.Daniel claims:

In some cases the MEK plays a stealth role in the media machinery of the American Right. What the FOX News Channel tells viewers aboutAlireza Jafarzadeh when he appears on its airwaves is that he is an “FNC Foreign Affairs Analyst.” What you have to go to the FOX Newswebsite to discover, however, is that Jafarzadeh served “for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S. representative office of Iran’s parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.” But it is scarcely known that the sonorous-sounding National Council of Resistance of Iran is in fact a front name for the MEK.

Alireza Jafarzadeh himself admits he was the spokesman for MEK. He is one of the biggest heroes in the struggle to free Iran from the terrorist regime. In fact, it was Alireza Jafazadeh himself, who, in 2002, exposed Iran’s nuclear weapons program, using MEK sources to do it.Daniel claims:

Now, it’s true that Jafarzadeh discontinued his post with the National Council of Resistance of Iran–but only when (and only because) its Washington office was forced to close in 2003 as a result of the State Department decision about it being a front for the MEK. It’s not like he had a change of heart.

By change of heart, does Daniel mean what he calls “Islamo-Stalinist?” Yes, I agree Alireza Jafarzadeh hasn’t changed his heart. He did, and still does, want to free Iran from the Islamo-fascist regime in Iran. But no, Jafarzadeh is not an “Islamo-Stalinist.”Daniel said:

If you attend an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” event, you might want to ask the speakers about this terrorist cult and whether they condemn it. Some of them might — not all neoconservatives agree on the MEK. (See here and here for examples of right-wing criticism of the outfit — though the lines of argumentation are sometimes bizarrely convoluted.)

Maybe, you do want to ask them. But still, why should they condemn a movement that seeks to remove the threat from Iran and free the Iranian people? MEK and NCRI represent the Iranian people’s desire to be free from the Islamo-fascist regime. Mr. Postel admits that many conservatives condemn the MEK, but the next paragraph will show that he says that the fact that prominent conservatives embrace it puts questions as to the “right’s bedfellows.” I may not agree with MEK on every issue. But they are fighting to free Iran form the Islamo-Nazi regime in Iran. For that, they, along with the NCRI, should be praised.Daniel said:

But the fact that several prominent American conservatives have cozied up to an Islamist-Stalinist cult that was on Saddam’s payroll and the State Department considers a terrorist organization — this raises serious questions (to put it mildly) about the Right’s bedfellows and the calculus that determines them.
It suggests the need for a little more terrorism awareness.

I get it. We need “more terrorism awareness” from this leftist propagandist while many of his fellow leftists truly do support terrorists, including Islamo-fascists, and do support America totalitarian enemies, including Castro and Chavez. Daniel wants to cite the State Department foreign terrorist organization list. Guess what, Cuba, that’s right, where the regime is embraced by many leftists, is on the US State department list of states that sponsor terrorism [using Daniel's terminology there, "If the show fits,'' because Cuba really does support international terrorism].Daniel’s article is another desperate attempt from the left to make us in the right seem hypocritical. This article debunks Daniel’s distorted article.