Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label, Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction

Food for Thought: U.S. military domination of the Persian Gulf has spread beyond the Straits of Hormuz to the Horn of Africa, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.. The media, which have continued to glorify U.S. military violence and demonize Saddam Hussein and certain other regional leaders, make scarce comment while the U.N. Charter and the U.S. Constitution are violated by the powerful.
Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time

U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf
There is no logic in the skies above the Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. The villagers are protected from air attack by Saddam Hussein - but at the same time are being bombed by the Turkish air force. The aircraft protecting them may be taking off from the same Turkish airfields. . . . The war between the P.K.K. and the army in the south east of Turkey, in which at least 15,000 have died and 2 million Kurds have been forced from their homes has been little reported compared with the coverage of the miseries of Iraqi Kurds since the end of the Gulf War. The Independent on Sunday, 26th March, 1995.

What Worsthorne [The Sunday Telegraph] does not understand is that the "mock moderation" and other examples of cheating were a most essential component of the entire exercise. There was no way in which the cheating could have been dispensed with because there are long-term purposes being promoted which cannot be explained and justified and must, therefore, be closely concealed. . . . So much for the fig leaf of legality provided by U.N. sponsorship of the use of force in the Gulf. The late Ivor Benson, the Spotlight, 1st April, 1991.


Published in Two Parts - Part 1

EDITORIAL NOTE Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used when relevant, and refer to membership of three important, but little publicised organisations. All three are massively influential in shaping the course of world affairs.
* The Bilderberg Group - "Bild". Founded in 1954, this is a group of the West's leading bankers, politicians, industrialists and other businessmen - the world's "Movers and Shakers". Meetings are held in conditions of strict confidentiality at a different location each year(2).
* The Trilateral Commission - "T.C.". This is a development from the Bilderberg Group on a zonal basis; America, Europe and Japan. It was founded by David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.(3).
* The Council on Foreign Relations - "C.F.R.". The C.F.R. evolved from the aspiration. of Cecil Rhodes for an Anglo Saxon-Celtic global imperium. The Royal Institute of International Affairs (R.I.I.A.), was the original focus for these ideals. As Power leaches Westwards across the Atlantic, the C.F.R. was founded as a sister organisation(4).


An Introduction To Fact, Fiction And Fancy
When we study the Middle East and the role played by Iraq and, inevitably and concurrently, Israel, and their leaderships, we encounter a catalogue of hypocrisy, double-standards and the sacrifice of human life of almost unbelievable dimensions in a so-called enlightened and civilized world. To achieve this state there are two major objectives. One is to anaesthetise and divert public opinion, and to generate false perspectives. The other is to raise the levels at which Power is exercised such that the Nation, or Nation State, becomes irrelevant along with the erosion of democratic government of the people, by the people and for the people. In the first case we need to control information and offer the diversion of entertainment. This objective has also been served by the Marxist World Revolution, to destroy the Existing Order. From the 1920s this was given the form of Cultural Communism by Max Horkheimer, Antonio Gramsci and others, who worked to destabilise the social and moral fabric of Western society(5).

The second objective has been achieved by the Globalisation of Power. Superficially, this a natural human tendency to consolidate business. In practice, at the heart of the drive to expand - "Growth" - lies the Power of Money, and those who control it. Under the present system of money "creation" on a debt-usury basis, we are all, from the individual to the largest multinational, driven to work and produce ever harder, and to spend forward into debt in order to service the collective indebtedness that chases its own tail. The precarious balance of Western standards of living based on this economic process - rampant materialist consumerism - can only be sustained by exploiting others.

President George W. Bush has made no secret of this imperative in the interests of the United States alone. We were warned as early as 1968 of the second objective, that of Power on a Global scale, at a meeting of the Bilderberg Group at Mont Tremblant, in Canada. At this meeting two papers were tabled in which it was postulated that multinational corporations were becoming more powerful than individual national governments. This now finds its expression in the so-called "International Community" that purports to reflect the conscience of a democratic society in the developed world. In practice this means the United States and the rest. Such genuine democracy as ever existed, truly vested in the people, not least ordinary people in the United States, has become an illusion.

Electoral power of the people - abandoned rather than delegated - is vested in party-political systems; in the United Kingdom that are controlled by the Party Whips. Individual politicians are all-too-often complaisant mutants of this system. Governments, and the Ruling Elites they serve, serve in turn this New World Order. International laws and conventions are made up as they go along. Control of virtually every essential from our food supplies to natural resources, such as oil, is effectively beyond our reach. The world is now controlled largely by the Global Power Brokers through the World Trade Organisation (W.T.O.), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.). The United Nations Organisation is empowered only when it suits the objectives of the International Community - namely the United States.

In the aftermath of the devastating attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in the United States, on the 11th September, 2001, President George W. Bush declared his war on "Terrorism" and the "Axis of Evil". In other words Iran, Iraq North Korea as Nations not prepared to submit to the hegemony of the United States-led "International Community". The Soviet Union and the surrogate Communist system had already collapsed politically and economically in the face of this Power.

From the 1960s there were genuine and serious public concerns about the Apartheid Regime in a resource-rich and economically self-sufficient South Africa. But it also suited the Global Power Brokers to allow the mainly Black-upon-Black genocide of the Armed Struggle by the Communist controlled African National Congress (A.N.C.), which began in 1984, to run its course until the multicultural elections of April, 1994. This was the stage at which the country was ripe for re-integration in the Global Economy; thus for inward investment, privatisation, the free market - and debt slavery!

The illegal United States-driven "United Nations-NATO" campaign against Serbia, as part of Yugoslavia, was ostensibly in defence of Albanian population of Kosovo against the Serbian armed forces. The reality was that the invading forces went on to bomb innocent Serbian civilians and destroy the Serbian infrastructure against all earlier assurances. If one studies the map one can understand why. Serbia represented a missing piece in the middle of the jigsaw of an expanding Federal European Union; a Nation resolutely outside the Global Economy. Serbia is now being drawn into this Global Economy of the free market, reconstruction loans, "development" and privatisation; in other words, debt slavery.
Iraq, its infrastructure already destroyed, can be expected to follow in its turn if Saddam Hussein can be removed.

What Do We Know, Who Is Telling It, And Why?
The average person gets his - or her - news from one, perhaps two, newspapers selected on the basis of perceived social class and party-political alignment. Observe what is being purchased in any newsagent or read in any pub, club, or crowded commuter environment. Most people obtain a complementary impression from radio, or from television for those who can find any serious coverage in an almost ceaseless diet of game shows, telly-soaps, hospital series, travelogues and other mind-numbing diversionary trash. Few, if any, pause to consider the influences that lie behind these sources of information - and disinformation. Before we put pen to paper for this analysis, a full 10 days were devoted to assembling, reading and marking up our reference material. We do not, therefore, base On Target on the car radio in rush hour traffic, and a quick read of a news-paper over the breakfast table, on the train, or at the end of a busy day. Yet it is surprising how many individuals, typically the chattering classes, have been conditioned and become opinionated by superficial contact with the Media such that intelligent conversation is impossible. Others, of course, recognise the depths and complexities only too well, but most shy away from any closer involvement.

Israel-Palestine remains pivotal to the situation in the Middle East as a whole and a useful barometer in the balance of news coverage. Many paid commentators are careful to play the card of moral equivalence in the current short term scenario. Thus to attempt to balance the long-standing record of Israeli oppression and genocide, employing state-of-the-art military equipment funded by the United States taxpayer, with the a desperate Palestinian population with nothing to lose and a beleaguered Palestine Liberation Organisation (P.L.O.), rendered impotent by the systematic destruction of its administrative infrastructure. In the same way, an attempt, promptly attributed to the P.L.O., to "smuggle in" a small consignment of weaponry raised an immediate furore.
Corresponding United States support for Israel to the tune of $2-5,000,000,000 annually passes virtually without comment, and certainly without any significant media exposure or thunder of criticism from any leading British political source. In the case of Iraq, what little is published about the plight of the Iraqi population and ten-year genocide inflicted by the "United Nations", but largely manipulated by United States and the United Kingdom, is invariably justified by reference to the complicity of a ruthless Saddam Hussein whose dangerous militaristic ambitions threaten "stability" in the Middle East. In others words like Iran in its turn, Iraq challenges economic, and therefore political subservience to the Global Power Brokers. This is the real nature of the coverage of Middle East affairs as a whole with few honourable exceptions.

We do not have inside sources or official links with the Foreign Office or the Security and Intelligence Services. These obviously function in the perceived "National Interests", that is the official line of governments and those in Power behind governments. Very few commentators - journalists and "talking heads" - will have access to these privileged links except to serve these "National Interests". Most skitter around on the periphery; some with reliable, confidential sources of their own. Wire services such as Reuters or Associated Press (A.P.), will be used, especially by the provincial press. Within the limitations of our own resources we monitor a range of newspapers and other material across the political spectrum. Taken over a long period - "yesterday's news" - interesting patterns emerge. The Media publish largely and consistently from a single viewpoint, but it is also necessary to cater for perceived a range of social and political perspectives of the readership in a competitive market. What matters is the balance of coverage and the omissions. As part of this analysis it is also important to ascertain the provenance of the Media; who owns and controls it.

We also saw during the Middle East Wars of 1967 and 1973 how ruthless high-level pressure was brought to bear on the Media and in Parliament whenever a view sympathetic to the Palestinians was published; something that continues today, but with less conviction(6). The ownership and control of the vital advertising agencies, upon which newspapers and magazines are heavily dependent, also plays a key role. It can be no accident that the Government of Prime Minister Blair has appointed Goldman Sachs director Gavyn Davies to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. Davies' wife, Sue Nye, is an adviser to Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. Davies brings us immediately into contact with British Petroleum, B.P.-Amoco (adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (C.F.R., Bild., T.C.)), through former Government Minister and B.P. Chairman, Lord Simon. This leads in turn to Peter Sutherland (Bild, T.C..), current Chairman of Goldman Sachs and B.P.-Amoco, and an architect of the World Trade Organisation (W.T.O.). Along with Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell, B.P.-Amoco is in the top 15 of the 500 worlds largest companies (the Financial Times, 11th May, 2001). Now we may see the patterns forming; not least around oil and, of course, Iraq.

We have yet to see Gavyn Davies' influence evolve. But with the exception of Channel 4 Television, neither radio or television services have apparently been prepared consistently to expose the history of oppression and genocide of the Palestinian people, which suggests where perceptions in the case of Iraq are coming from. Indeed, Israeli sympathies are subliminally massaged by a constant diet of Holocaust oriented material, and allusions to the Holocaust in unrelated transmissions, such as radio plays. "Outraged" complaints are promptly made whenever this bias is perceived to have been infringed.

Of the press, only Independent newspapers, with journalists like Robert Fisk, who are hands-on experts on the Middle East, are the Palestinian and Iraqi cases covered in depth. In The Guardian and its Sunday variant, The Observer, rather less so; The Guardian a newspaper attacked in the past which seems careful to guard its back as a result. The excellent Weekly Guardian draws on Le Monde and The Washington Post. Of recent times The Mirror has followed The Independent's lead, and featured hard-hitting material by John Pilger. The Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch, takes a more or less diametrically opposite stance.

Commercial rivalry aside, Murdoch's vast News Corporation is heavily indebted to the banks. Murdoch is now also an American citizen who has to co-habit with a media and entertainment business into which are woven powerful American-Jewish influences. Comprehensive coverage comes with the Financial Times. This is conveyed with the impartiality of a stern faced headmaster, but one whose eye is on the reputation of his "school"; in this case the City of London and big business! The Times and Telegraph newspapers take a consistently pro-Israeli line, with only the occasional counter-balancing feature. Coverage of Iraq is tactical and reflects the line of the Global Power Brokers. Times newspapers are owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Controlled by Lord Black, the Telegraph's parent corporation, Hollinger International Plc., is a microcosm of the Ruling Elite. This we shall examine in more detail later in these pages. Indeed, as we collated our material, we annotated reports on Iraq from the Telegraph "T.T.U." - "Telegraph Talk Up"! The Daily Mail offers first class domestic coverage as the only truly "Conservative" newspaper of the bunch. However, the Mail tends to be strongly pro-Zionist, although it includes sound features by experts like Correlli Barnett.

Remarkable in this line-up is the Communist Morning Star. Only in this newspaper do we find regular coverage of the effects of decade-long United States-United Kingdom-driven United Nations Sanctions on the ordinary people of Iraq and the Iraqi infrastructure. Similarly, the Morning Star is the only source of regular reports of the illegal and unilateral air attacks by the United States and the United Kingdom, the damage caused, and the deaths, and injuries inflicted on innocent people.
The Jewish Chronicle
naturally represents the views of the Anglo-Jewish community, with a little-publicised and inexplicable link to the Hard-Left race hate magazine Searchlight. Nevertheless reportage and reader correspondence are commendably balanced in the case of the Palestinian problem. The International Herald Tribune draws on The Washington Post and The New York Times. The general tenor is therefore biassed towards Israel follows the line of the "Inter-national Community" in the case of Iraq. Another American source, the populist tabloid, American Free Press, resurrected from the Spotlight, carries important exposures in the case of both Israel and Iraq that tend to restore the balance of reportage.

Misinformation and Disinformation Before the Gulf War of 1991, American Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, worked hard to improve United States trade relations with Iraq. However, she is also known to have "tipped the wink" to Saddam Hussein that the United States had no particular position about a possible the Iraqi incursion into Kuwait. Thus Saddam Hussein was lured into a military campaign against the United States acting in the name of the "United Nations" that President George Bush insisted in launching although the scope for peaceful negotiations was far from exhausted. This ought to have been a matter for serious and open public debate, but control of the Media has been evident in the virtual absence of any mention, let alone debate. After Glaspie had denied this episode before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, she was found to have lied.(7)(8)

A further fabrication was deliberately promoted by President George Bush, although it was known to be completely untrue and even when Amnesty International had withdrawn support for the story. This was the myth that Iraqi troops had removed some 300 Kuwaiti babies from hospital incubators and left them to die so that the equipment could be backloaded to Iraq. The girl who had testified to this fable transpired later to have been the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States!(9)("Revealed: myth of Kuwaiti babies left to die by Iraq", The Independent on Sunday, 12th January, 1991).

We shall proceed to examine the tactics of "talking up" the "threat" posed by Iraq and the ad hominem attack on Saddam Hussein in more detail. However, it is important at this stage to realise the existence of this form of psychological warfare. We have to assume, of course, that there is a valid and just cause for this attrition in the first place.

Diversion - "Diversiya" was a formal component of Soviet Military Doctrine in the interdependent Armed and ideological Struggles. Diversion included the use of Agitation, Propaganda and Provocation (April Glaspie perhaps?). This involved control of the means of communication. In the aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Centre on the 11th September, 2001, definitive evidence against Osama bin Laden and al Qa'eda was not forthcoming. Certain of those allegedly responsible for the aircraft hijacking were later discovered to be alive and well in the Middle East.
During the subsequent campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan we read of a succession of incriminating documents and other material - even computer files - conveniently "abandoned" in caves and safe houses. Now, the issue of a six-page dossier of "evidence" against Iraq compiled by the Cabinet Office has had to be delayed ("Blair refuses to release dossier on Iraq threat", The Sunday Times, 31st March, 2002).
"Evidence" released in the press is frequently based on the word of Iraqi defectors. Clearly, these individuals may well have been coerced or otherwise induced, or have an axe to grind. Definitive headlines are frequently followed by terms such as "It is suspected that . . . ", "It is believed that . . . ", "There is growing evidence that . . . ", "A growing body of opinion . . . ", "Reports indicate that . . . " and "There is mounting suspicion that . . . ". None of which can have any validity without objective, expert analysis supported by fact.

It is impossible to do justice to such a complex subject in a news-letter. For an overview of issues of On Target since Volume 22, from July 1992, the reader is referred to the Indexes. These are currently available from Volume 22 to Volume 29, and contain a brief summary of the content of each edition. Details are to be found on the last page of On Target. Editions covering events since the bombing of Iraq, in 2000, are:
* Vol. 29, Nos. 19 & 20, 11th & 25th March, 2000. The consequences of United nations sanctions against Iraq.
* Vol. 31, Nos. 5 & 6. This deals with the importance of oil behind the events of September, 2001.
* Vol. 31, Nos 8 - 13, 6th October - 29th December, 2001. In 2 parts; Part 1 and part 2 Sections A & B. These deal with the events of the 11th September, 2001, and subsequent developments as they evolved.


Decline, Fall And Growth
For those brought up in the classroom of the early post-war years, Great Britain, "Land of Hope and Glory", together with her Empire, now the Commonwealth, was a symbol of enormous pride and imagined Power. In his aptly named The Collapse of British Power, published in 1972, Correlli Barnett asked us to face facts, and symptoms evident throughout the Twentieth Century(10). In a fast expanding world an Island Nation living on its laurels had long lost any wherewithal to control others across the world. What was history was history, a legacy by no means bad in the context of the times. Of the Middle East, Barnett wrote of an emotionally and strategically hostile United States as it flexed its muscles: Nor had the brief association between England and America during the Great War for long halted American expansion at British expense. U.S. relief teams in Asia Minor, for example, served as a cloak for pushing American influence and trade. When the senior American naval officer in the eastern Mediterranean [Admiral Chester] arrived in a Turkish port he was accompanied by representatives of [Rockefeller's] Standard Oil and the National City Bank of New York. In Iraq, a major battle for oil concessions was under way between American and British interests.
The final lines of the final chapter in The Collapse of British Power ran almost poignantly: For, unlike the collapse of French power in 1940 and German power in 1945, the collapse of British power had not been made evident by defeat in the field; its historical moment was not fixed by the entry of conquering troops into the capital, or by well-filmed and photographed ceremonies of surrender. Instead, British power had quietly vanished amid the stupendous events of the Second World War, like a ship-of-the-line going down unperceived in the smoke and confusion of battle.

Some 40 years before Correlli Barnett, Ludwell Denny had written prophetically from the American viewpoint in his America Conquers Britain of the growth of American Power and the nature of that Power. This had more of the coming British subservience to this Power than any exclusive future "special relationship", just as the powerful United States Council on Foreign Relations had evolved from original concept of the Royal Institute of Foreign Relations(11): We were Britain's colony once. She will be our colony before she is done; not in name, but in fact. Machines gave Britain power over the world. Now better American machines are giving America power over the world and Britain. We are not content with the richest country on earth. Geniuses of mechanical efficiency, we can not organise an equitable distribution of our national wealth. Instead we exploit nations less rich. There may have been some excuse for Britain on her poor island to go imperialist. There is none for us with a near-continent upon which to thrive. But we are not without cunning. We shall not make Britain's mistake. Too wise to try to govern the world, we shall merely own it. Nothing can stop us. Nothing until our financial empire rots at its heart, as empires have a way of doing. If Britain if foolish enough to fight us, she will go down more quickly, that is all.

Of course American world supremacy is rather horrible to think about - quite unthinkable, as they say of an Anglo-American war. But American supremacy can hardly be worse than British and others gone before. Our weapons are money and machines. But the other nations of the world want money and machines. Our materialism, though not our power, is matched by theirs. That is why our conquest is so easy, so inevitable. Denny described the intrigues in the Middle East in the first decades of the Twentieth Century to control oil resources and pipeline routes. These involved Great Britain, already with substantial interests in the region, and the European Powers in competition with each other, and the United States. Turkey, Persia (later Iran), the emergent Iraq already under the British Mandate, and oil deposits in the Kurdish areas and Mosul. Thus the stage was being set for the present struggle for Power.

Design For Decline
Money as the life blood of all else was the financial "power grid"; the commodity without which nothing else could move. In The Grip of Death, Michael Rowbotham described in compelling detail the growth and the mechanisms of Money Power. The people of the United States, as the richest country in the world, are also paradoxically the most indebted people in the world(12). In Goodbye America Rowbotham extended his analysis to the Power of the dollar and the exploitation of the developing world in a global debt structure that is virtually irreversible under the present conventions(13). At the wartime Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the more equitable proposals by the British representative, John Maynard Keynes, for a world "Currency" or "Clearing Union", were rejected under the influence of Harry Dexter White and Henry Morgenthau for a dollar oriented "Free" Market. The United States not only intended to resume its pre-war ambitions; the end of the war would see the run-down of the military-industrial complex concurrently with a huge increase in the labour market from demobilised servicemen. Out of this grew the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.), each inevitably dominated by the United States.

We also saw the Cold War and NATO as essential "safety valves" for this United States expansion, and a foothold in the European economy. In 1947 the British Design for Freedom Committee published a pamphlet titled Design for Europe(14). The Committee of 24 public figures, including 10 M.P.s, under the chairmanship of Peter (later, Lord), Thornycroft, could hardly be dismissed as conspirators or traitors. Yet it was written that the British people would have to be led "slowly and unconsciously" away from the old Imperial Preference and trade barriers towards the new Global Economy. Moreover, the text included all the preliminary indications for some form of a "united" Europe. The arguments did not seem to be those of an economic or politically "integrated" federal "State" as the concept rapidly became under covert tactics of Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath. Unlike Heath's deceits(15), Design for Europe was on sale for the price of one shilling, and appeared to be a study of the inevitable long-term destiny of an island nation shorn of its Empire.

The signs had already been there as early as 1942, when Lewis Ord reported United States post-war intentions to the British Ministry of Aircraft Production in a paper titled American Developments. These intentions to penetrate the global markets, also came to us in a later document kindly passed to us by the veteran commentator, Hilaire du Berrier. This was a letter dated 9th March, 1960, from the President of the International Union, United automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Walter P. Reuther, to The Honorable Christian A. Herter, the Secretary of States. In this letter it made clear United States intentions to use the international labour organisations to "muscle in" on South Africa.

Truths Of Contemporary Power
The Hon. James E. Akins (C.F.R.), (emphasis added).

In early 1975 some twelve articles appeared in American newspapers and magazines on "How we can solve our economic problems." The basic idea was that we would occupy the Arab oil fields from Kuwait to Dubai (not Iraq), expel the indigenous populations, "not more than 2 million", bring in Texan and Oklahoma oil men who would produce the oil. The inevitable cries of "imperialism" from the third world would be immediately stilled by our selling them oil for $2.50 a barrel. The reaction of the Soviet Union and the Arabs themselves was conveniently ignored. It was clear that the articles came from a single "deep background" briefing. I assumed it was given by some idiot in the Pentagon or the C.I.A. (Central Intelligence Agency), and said on American television that "anyone who proposes solving our domestic economic problems in this manner is a madman, a criminal or an agent of the Soviet Union." The oil fields would have been destroyed by the Arabs and, under the best of circumstances, they could not have been restored to production for two years during which the economies of Europe, Japan and the United States would have collapsed.
I wrote a long report on the subject; . . . Congress subsequently did a study on the same subject and backed me at every point. Subsequently several of those who were present at the briefing revealed that Henry Kissinger was the one who gave it. Many assumed that I was fully aware of this when I made my statement on the subject. This was untrue; I may be daring but I am not suicidal; had I known the identity of the briefer I would still have opposed the idea but I would have been more cautious in my choice of words. Kissinger was not amused and my diplomatic career was terminated shortly thereafter. In 1990 in the run up to the Gulf War, I said publicly - perhaps in England as well - that Saddam, through his invasion of Kuwait, had given the United States the opportunity to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq which I considered the most important Arab country and, as a bonus to occupy the Arab oil fields as recommended in 1975, but with no losses, indeed, with the cooperation of the Gulf Arabs. . . . Ms. (Dr. Kitty) Little did not invent the story about Israeli plans to occupy all the lands "from the Nile to the Euphrates. Including all Medina in Saudi Arabia . . . The Zionists at the Versailles Conference [1919] presented a map of Eretz Israel; its borders would include all of Palestine, all of southern Lebanon up to Sidon, all of southern Syria, not just the Golan, including the entire Jebel Druze, and all of inhabitable Trans-Jordan. The Herut Party (now part of the Likud [of Ariel Sharon]), uses as its logo this map superimposed by an arm carrying a rifle and the word "Kahk" - only thus.
This concept has never been disavowed by Herut-Likud. . . . The late Rabbi Kahane said that within three months of his becoming defense minister, Israel will be "free" of its Arab population - by this he meant Arabs in Israel as well as those in the occupied territories. And the main area of settlement of these Arabs would be Iraq, with its adequate land, water and oil. Even Kahane never talked about Israel occupying Iraq. I served in Iraq for 4 years and have a great affection and admiration for its people. They have the great misfortune to be governed by a monster. I have long said that within 10 years of the overthrow of Saddam a demilitarised Iraq would be known as the "Japan of the Middle east". I'm no longer sure of this; some of the best Iraqi minds are out of the country and many will never return; Iraq's education and health systems - comparable in many ways to the best in the West - have been destroyed; children who are near starvation cannot learn much at school.


The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 with only 8 abstentions; Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the Communist countries.
The official United States definition of Human Rights, released in 1968, reads: Freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, torture, unfair trial, cruel and unusual punishment, and invasion of privacy. Rights to food, shelter, health care, and education; and Freedom of thought, speech, assembly, religion, press, movement, and participation in government.
No concern for Zaire, Angola or Zimbabwe.


Power of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (A.I.P.A.C.).
("Big bucks keep U.S. politicians lined up in pro-Israeli camp", The Independent on Sunday, 21st May 1995)
Hilaire du Berrier newsletter H du B Reports, February, 2002. Headlined: "Press guns for vendetta man", the London Times of September 21st, 1991, published an article on how various American newspapers treated the President's father [George Bush Snr.]:
"The Washington Times caricatured the President, for daring to seek a congressional delay on Israel's $10,000,000,000 load guarantee request until Arab-Israeli peace talks have begun . . . President Bush is a man cast as a man risking all to pursue a personal vendetta against a leader who has double-crossed him by continuing to settle the occupied territories. Mr Shamir, the Israeli Prime Minister, on the other hand, is the ultimate ingrate, beggar and chooser, deliberately provoking Israel's greatest benefactor even as he seeks to dictate the terms of its astonishing largess."

The London paper quoted Richard Cohen's column in Washington Post: "What's at stake here is the President's nose. It's been out of joint ever since Secretary of State James Baker was three times greeted in Israel by the cacophonous establishment of more West Bank settlements. Every settlement is a personal challenge . . . an expression of contempt for a President who's not that favourably disposed to Israel anyway"

Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (C.A.A.B.U.) Director, Sir Cyril Townsend, We share with the Arab community concern over the important diplomatic role given to Lord Levy in the Middle East; he has been given a room within the Foreign Office. It seems to be the Prime Minister, not the new Foreign Secretary, the Rt. Hon Jack Straw M.P., who is running British policy on the Arab-Israel dispute and Iraq. C.A.A.B.U. has thought for many years that British policy on the Middle East is too close to that of the United States, and not close enough to that of the European Union, particularly France. Unlike the United States, Britain used to have responsibility for Egypt, Sudan, Iraq and Palestine - as well as other parts of the area - and we have different past experiences, and today different interests. The United States is primarily concerned with safeguarding Israel and oil supplies. The Pentagon, rather than the State Department, is frequently given the leading role, especially in the Gulf. . . . History will surely agree that it was a great blunder to maintain sanctions [against Iraq] for so long.

Of course, the diplomats knew of the problems but were unable to persuade ministers year by year to make the necessary changes. It was not good enough for ministers just to put the blame on the evil regime in Baghdad. C.A.A.B.U. was always surprised and disappointed that so few Members of the House of Commons were prepared to challenge the government's weak arguments.

Tim Llewellyn after Sep 11th, on reporting and a B.B.C. Television Panorama programme:
We are firmly in the age of flak-jacket reporting. Much is said, but little is explained. Television producers and editors love the smell of napalm in the morning. Television news, on whichever domestic channel you tuned to, was not offering much in the way of analysis; the Middle East, Afghanistan, "terror" remained firmly in a British focus. . . . The menacing Richard Perle, the far right-wing [No! - Zionist] American defence analyst known to his colleagues in Washington as the Prince of Darkness, was allowed to preach his sermon unchallenged.:
"We do what we like, to whom we like, how we like. So shut up and take it" is roughly his approach; a polite Pakistani diplomat lady was no match for him.

Chris Doyle on coverage of the Intifada. C.A.A.B.U's media work has had to move to a different level over the last 12 months. This is in part because New labour and the Prime Minister seem more concerned about the editorials of the Daily Mail or The Times than the views of the elected representatives of this country. This is also reflected in the highly energetic and exhaustive media lobbying in which the pro-Israeli lobby engages which, at its worst, has descended into crude bullying of editors and correspondents. Prior to the Al Aqsa intifada, this lobby had been largely dormant at least as a force for justifying Israeli actions in the Occupied territories. The peace process and the [delusion of] warm relations established between Blair and Barak had made active lobbying irrelevant. Hence the Britain-Israel Public Affairs Committee (B.I.P.A.C. [carbon copy of the United States body]) had folded. Yet, within weeks of the intifada, new organisations were being established to press Israel's case. It was the media that was being targeted. The Israeli government and the Israeli Defence Forces had even taken on image consultants. Unprecedented pressure was placed on the broadcasting media in particular, but also any newspaper or journalist who questioned Israel's right to put down Palestinian demonstrations in whatever fashion they chose.


Draft of a speech by Philip Agee. Z Pullout, November, 1990.

This history [of Iraqi claims against Kuwait], Saddam Hussein's justification for annexing Kuwait, is in the books for anyone to see. But weeks went by as I waited and wondered why the International Herald Tribune, which publishes major articles from the Washington Post, New York Times and wire services, failed to carry the background. Finally, a month after the invasion, the Herald Tribune carried a Washington Post article on the historical context written by Glenn Frankel. I've yet to find this history in Time or Newsweek. Time, in fact, went so far as to say that Iraq's claims to Kuwait were "without any historical basis". Hardly surprising, since giving exposure to the Iraqi side might weaken the campaign to Hitlerize Saddam Hussein.

Also absent from current accounts is the C.I.A.'s role in the early 1970s to foment and support armed Kurdish rebellion in Iraq. The Agency, in league with the Shah of Iran, provided $16,000,000 in arms and other supplies to the Kurds, leading to Iraqi capitulation to the Shah in 1975 over control of the Shat al Arab. This is the estuary of the Tigris and Euphrates, that separates the two countries and is Iraq's only access to Basra, its upriver port. Five years later, in 1980, Iraq invaded Iran to redress the C.I.A.-assisted humiliation of 1975, and regain control of the estuary, beginning the eight year war that cost a million lives.

U.S. Security And Iraqi Power (emphasis added)
In September 1988, however - a month after the war [precipitated by the Western Powers between Iraq and Iran] had ended - the State department abruptly, and in what many viewed in a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq's relations with the Kurds. It is beyond the scope of this study to go deeply into this matter; suffice it to say that throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies - Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Iran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of this operation - according to the U.S. State Department - gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State George Shultz stood by the U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights. Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organisations who examined the Kurds - in Turkey where they had gone for asylum - failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on the testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraq-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds. Thus in our view, the Congress had acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action. . . . Human Rights. This issue relates to the Kurds. The Iraqi government undertook to relocate broad sectors of its Kurdish community after the war. The intent was to clear a security belt along the border with Iran. Initially, reports circulated that the Kurds were being forcibly driven from their mountain homes and relocated in the desert lands of the south. Subsequently it developed that this was not the case. In fact, they were being directed to new towns which the Iraqi government had built throughout the Kurdish area. The forced relocation galvanised various human rights groups into conducting investigations - all of which could be the prelude for a move in the Congress to revive sanctions.

Hansard (Emphasis added)Ended when Galloway called a mouthpiece Tam Dalyell

The idea that we could attack and that there would be a Northern Alliance situation [as occurred in Afghanistan] - the Northern Alliance might be Shia - is a crackpot one. Those of us who visited the great mosque of the Shi'ites at Kerbala and have been elsewhere in Iraq know that it is not that kind of society. I deeply regret that no British Minister and, as far as I know, few in the current diplomatic service have been to Iraq. I say this to the Foreign Office: for pity's sake, listen to some of the former British ambassadors, including Sir Stephen Edgerton and Sir John Moberly, who urge great caution. If people do not have direct experience of Baghdad, they should at least speak to those who served there with distinction for many years.
George Galloway I say to my hon Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Mr Simpson) that in the list of countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, that occupy other people's land and disobey United Nations Security Council resolutions, the one country that he forgot to mention was Israel. It is sitting on top of a mountain of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, which we know about thanks to the brave Jew, Mordechai Vanunu, now in his 15th year in solitary confinement in an Israeli prison. As well as sitting on top of the land of other people, in defiance for decades of international resolutions of the Security Council, Israel is also sitting on top of a mountain of weapons of mass destruction. Yet the only sanction contemplated against Israel is forcing it to take part in the Eurovision Song Contest. What sort of Labour Member of Parliament will support in the Lobby a war launched by such a grizzly crew [in the White House]? What justification is there for launching such a war? Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorism on 11th September. Ministers repeatedly made that clear. They said that they had seen no evidence linking Iraq to the terrorism of 11th September - but they tried so hard, did they not? There were anthrax flasks, and meetings with Mohamed Atta in Prague Airport that turn out never to have happened. Whatever happened to the anthrax flask that Atta was supposed to have been given? We know now that the anthrax used in the attacks on the United States was American anthrax sent by an American lunatic who was probably a former employee of the U.S. Government. The propaganda canards are being dragged out. We have seen them all.
You will recall, Mr deputy Speaker, that we were told in the Chamber about the five-year-old boy who was imprisoned for throwing a stone at a picture of the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein. When we asked for further details, the Foreign Secretary referred us to the Defence secretary. When we asked the defence secretary, he referred us to the Minister of State. When we asked the Minister of State, he took shelter behind the protection of intelligence sources.
We all know about the babies in the incubators in Kuwait city and the professional public relations firm that was hired in the U.S. to build the propaganda case for war. The daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador posed as a nurse. She said that she had watched Iraqis in a Kuwaiti hospital unplugging incubators from the wall, which killed the babies, ands shipping those incubators North to Iraq. We found out only later that she was a professional actress and that the whole stunt had been paid for as part of the war propaganda. We remember the presidential palaces. The former Member for Hamilton, South [Lord Robertson], now the Secretary-General of N.A.T.O., held up a map of my constituency in the Chamber and said that the palaces were larger than the area of Paris. However, when they were mapped, they turned out to be smaller than Paddington. We were told that all sorts of weapons of mass destruction could be found in them. When the U.N. inspectors searched them, they found not so much as a bow and arrow. . . .
Scott Ritter - the former senior official of the arms inspectorate - who spent years in Iraq destroying weapons, told an audience in this Chamber that Iraq had been effectively disarmed by 1998. . . . Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow [Tam Dalyell] nor I know what weapons exist in Iraq or in any other country. However, Scott Ritter is in a better position than either of us to know whether Iraq has such weapons, as he spent years destroying them as an employee of the United Nations Special Commission.

Mr Alan Duncan (Conservative; Rutland and Melton) Saddam Hussein's Iraq refuses to acknowledge international norms [whatever those are!] or its own international agreements [sic! and Israel?]].. It is run be a regime that oppresses its own people and appears intent on developing weapons of mass destruction - we should be naive in seeing them as being merely defensive in purpose. Iraq under Saddam Hussein represents a clear danger to international [sic] security and regional stability and represents a clear affront to human rights [sic!, vis., Israel] - a point about which I would have thought Labour Members would feel especially strongly. Containment has been our first aim in tackling Saddam Hussein. It is the policy that we have followed so far - with some success - but we must face the reality that containment alone is no enough to defeat the evil of the Iraqi regime and its [assumed] weapons programme. Saddam Hussein is abusing the patience of the world [whatever the "world" implies] and is [assumption now fact] developing far more destructive potential than he has yet possessed [proof]. . . There are those who question Saddam's capacity to produce the chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons that we feel are a growing threat. I say to them, where are the thousands of tonnes of precursor chemicals, suitable for chemical weapons use [source, or proof of figures?], that are unaccounted for? [on whose evidence]. Saddam Hussein has not yet complied with U.N. Security Council resolution 687 regarding inspection [used by the USA for spying], so what is he hiding? If we or the Americans were to use the Kurds as pawns [we have done!], they would be massacred. It would be wrong and reckless to sacrifice them [we have!] on the altar of our ambitions to topple Saddam Hussein.

Mr Ben Bradshaw. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr Simpson) made the point that this has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. We do not quite agree; Iraq is a sponsor of terrorism. But we make no secret of the fact that our main concern about that country is its determination [proof?] to build weapons os mass destruction capability and the threat that it poses, not just tom its neighbours, but to the rest of the world [the rest of the world being?]. . . . My hon. Friend questioned whether there would be any legal base in the hypothetical circumstances that there is military action. The legal view, with which I have much sympathy, is that Iraq is in flagrant breach, not just of United nations resolutions [as for Israel?], but of the cease-fire agreement that it entered into at the end of the Gulf war, which makes that cease-fire no longer valid. [and illegal over-flying?].

Hollinger International Inc. Black(Bild., T.C.) & Amiel(Bild.)
* Dwayne O. Andreas(T.C.): Archer Daniels Midland grain trading con-glomerate.
* The Hon. Henry A. Kissinger(C.F.R.,. Bild, T.C.): Kissinger Associates; Cargill food trading conglomerate.
* The Rt. Hon. The Baroness Thatcher, L.G., O.M., F.R.S.
* The Hon. Richard N. Perle (Bild.): United States Government security and defence appointments since 1969. On record as passing classified material to Israel, and close associate of current hard-line pro-Israel United States Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
* The Lord Weidenfeld of Chelsea: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, publishers; one time Political Adviser and Chief of cabinet to President Chaim Weizmann.
* Dr Giovanni Agnelli(Bild., T.C.). Fiat Sp.A.; Chase Manhattan Bank.
* The Hon. Newton (Newt) Gingrich(C.F.R.): Pro-Israeli Republican Con-gressman.
* The Lord Rothschild, G.B.E.: Five Arrows; St James Place Capital.
* The Hon. Paul A. Volcker(C.F.R., T.C.): Chairman United States Federal Reserve Board; Nestlé; Chase Manhattan Bank; James D. Wolfensohn Inc.
* The Hon. Zbigniew Brzezinski(C.F.R., Bild., T.C.): United States National Security Affairs Adviser.
*The Rt Hon. Lord Carrington, K.G., C.H., G.C.M.G., M.C.(Bild.): Kissinger Associates, Chase Manhattan Bank..
* The Rt. Hon. Viscount Cranbourne: Leader of the Conservative Opposition of the House of Lords, 1997-1998.
* Sir Evelyn de Rothschild(Bild.); N.M. Rothschild.
* Rupert N. Hambro: Hambros Bank.
* Henry L. Keswick. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance, Wife, Tessa Keswick, Conservative Government Adviser.
* The Hon. Raymond Seitz(T.C.): United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom; Lehman Brothers Bank.
* Marc Belzberg: Chairman and Chief Executive, e-Sim, Jerusalem, Israel.
* Major General Shlomo Gazit: Former Chief of Israeli Military Intelligence.
* Avi Goland: Vice Chairman and managing Director, The Jerusalem Post.
* Shmuel Meitar: Vice Chairman, Aurec Ltd., Israel.
* Schlomo Recht: Bank of Hapoalim Ltd., Israel.
* Yoram Ziv: Tmurah T.N. Investment Company Ltd., Israel.
* The Rt. Hon. Francis Maude, M.P: Former Conservative Party Shadow Foreign Secretary. Aurec - telephone tapping??????????

Note: Prices are shown where available from Bloomfield Books, and represent only a selection relevant to the theme of this edition of On Target. A wide range of reading may be found in the Stock Price List (S.P.L.), which may be obtained post free on request from the address on the last page. Books temporarily out of stock are annotated*. Out of print, or older works, may be obtained through the Book Search Service, or the Second-Hand Book Service, both of which are operated by Mr. T.G. Turner, for which details are available as for the S.P.L. Material geared to the text is listed numerically, and that of a general interest to the subject is listed at the end. (Please see Part 2 of this two-part issue for continuation of the References).
(1) Clark, Ramsey. The Fire This Time - U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf. Thunder's Mouth Press, 1994.
(2) Eringer, Robert. The Global Manipulators - The Bilderberg Group . . . the Trilateral Commission . . . covert power groups of the West. Pentacle Books, 1980. £6.00.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Quigley, Carroll. The Anglo-American Establishment. Books in Focus, Inc., 1981. £21.95.
(5) On Target, Vol. 29, Nos. 6 & 7, 11th & 25th September and Nos. 8 & 9, 9th & 23rd October, 1999.
(6) Mayhew, Christopher, & Michael Adams. Publish it not ... The Middle East Cover-Up. Longman Group Ltd., 1975.
(7) Timmerman, Kenneth R. The Death Lobby - How the West Armed Iraq. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991.
(8) Ramsey. Op. cit.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Barnett, Correlli. The Collapse of British Power. Alan Sutton, 1984. £13.55.
(11) Denny, Ludwell. America Conquers Britain - A Record Of Economic War. Alfred A. Kopf, 1930.
(12) Rowbotham, Michael. The Grip of Death - A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive economics. Jon Carpenter, 1998. £17.95.
(13) Rowbotham, Michael. Goodbye America! - Globalisation, debt and the dollar empire. Jon Carpenter, 2000. £1325.
(14) Design for Europe. A Report prepared by the Design for Freedom Committee, 1947
(15) On Target, Vol. 31, Nos. 3 & 4, 11th & 25th August, 2001.
(x) Pelletiere, Stephen C., Douglas V. Johnson II & Leif R. Rosenberger.
Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East.
Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania 17013-5050, 1990.
(x) Goldberg, J.J. Jewish Power - Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Perseus Books, 1997.
(x) Findley, Paul. The Dare to Speak Out - People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby. Lawrence Hill & Company, 1985. O/P.