Islamic Party Of Britain
Return To Text Only Menu | Return To Graphics Version
Political Background to the Genocide in Iraq
Below is the text of an article in Common Sense issue 25 on the topic of the political background to the genocide in Iraq.
Iraq - New Background
The Islamic Party of Britain has come across interesting background information relating to the continuing genocidal onslaught against the Iraqi people by the USA. Dr. Kitty Little, a chemical scientist from Oxford, had written to the Attorney General to demand the indictment of the prime minister and foreign secretary under the 1969 genocide act. Kitty Little, who made her name in medical and atomic research also holds a degree in philosophy and has written the book "Mammon Versus God - The Bankers' New World Dis-order". In her submission she claimed that "in the Gulf War the American, Israelis and British air forces had as their primary targets water and sewage treatment plant, power stations, hospitals and clinics, food warehouses and distribution, churches and mosques, civilians and the civilian infrastructure. A variety of anti-personnel weapons were tried out. During the land advance the order was to kill everyone they met. Instead the British sector of the line took prisoners, while British air crews began to refuse to bomb defenceless people. As a result then war had to be aborted, with only about a million people killed.
Sanctions were introduced, with hospital and medical supplies blocked, since they were allegedly intended for "biological weapons". The other main target for sanctions has been food. Only perhaps the minimum needed for normal health is allowed. The UN inspectors, allegedly looking for evidence of the manufacture of "weapons of mass destruction" would seem to have been acting as spies. All this suggests that the British and American forces will again be targeted by subversive agents. So far the result of sanctions has been the death of about another million people - half of them children under 5 years of age.
The intended Gulf War II has as its primary objective the killing off of the rest of the Iraqi population - genocide. The 1969 Genocide Act specifies that not only the actual killing, but also "...any attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit such an offices". That means that Blair and his associates have already committed a major criminal offence." She makes the following comment about casualty figures: "Pentagon propaganda gave the total number of civilian death sin Iraq as 5,000. The U.S. Census Bureau figures were: 40,000 Military deaths; 13,000 immediate Civilian deaths; 70,000 public health consequences of war damage to electricity and sewage treatment plants; 123,000 Total. They also gave 35,000 deaths in Kurdish and Shiite "rebellions" immediately following this war. Independent observers including the Red Crescent gave totals varying from 300,000 to 50,000. In the circumstances it would have been impossible to make any accurate counts. As well as the deaths, a large number of people would have been injured, many seriously, and there was a shortage of medical supplies and equipment, while hospitals had also been targets. How many of those died of their wounds? The numbers seem disproportionately high for such a short campaign, until one remembers that extermination the population was one of the primary objects of the exercise." To support this contention, she further stated:
"I have known since late 1990 that the reasons the Gulf War was planned by Kissinger and Bush were not only to seize the Iraqi oil for the international oil cartel, but also to "exterminate" the indigenous population to make way for Soviet Jews (see paras 3 to abstract, and paras 47 to 52). At that time James Akins, a former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, came over to warn the government of Kissinger's 1975 plans (4 years before Saddam Hussein became President). He was accompanied to London by a mutual friend".
The James Akins to whom she refers is described in the 1986-87 International edition of Who's Who as an: "American diplomatist, writer and lecturer. Born in 1926; educated at Akron University.; U.S. Navy 1945-46; undertook relief work with non-profit organisation. 1948-50; taught in Lebanon 1951-52; held numerous diplomatic posts in Paris 1954-55, Strasbourg 1955-56, Damascus 1956-57, Kuwait 1958-60, Baghdad 1961-64; with Secr., Washington, D.C. 1965-67, Dir. Fuels and Energy Office 1968-72; Ambassador. To Saudi Arabia 1973-75. Publications: numerous articles on oil and energy policy and the Middle East. (our emphasis)
Dr. Kitty Little's account is highly opinionated, and it would be rash to follow her conclusions without corroboration. However, the leader of the Islamic Party of Britain, David Musa Pidcock, has had the good fortune of being able to speak and correspond directly with Mr. Akins in Washington, and has received, in writing, verifiable facts which clearly help us to understand the historical origins of past and present confrontations in the Gulf.
It is clear from his disclosures that Mr. Akins does not conform to the traditional definition of a diplomat as being: "An honest man sent abroad to lie for his country," - far from it. As far as he is concerned the policy currently being pursued by America and her coadjutors is one devised by Henry Kissinger back in the 1970's which, according to Mr. Akins called for the re-population of the entire area between Kuwait and Dubai with Oklahoma and Texas oilmen (bad enough) but, not as Dr.Little has suggested with Russian Jews. He states in his facsimile letter dated February 20th 1998:
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 CIA 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; it had low classification and should be available from the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act. Congress subsequently did a study on the same subject and backed me on 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 US 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. I never suggested nor did I believe then or now that our plan was to exterminate the Iraqi people to make way for the settlement of Soviet Jews. In fact, until I read your account of Ms.Little's paper, I had no idea that anyone held such ideas.
Ms.Little did not invent the story about Israeli plans to occupy all the lands "from the Nile to the Euphrates, including Medina in Saudi Arabia...The Zionists at the Versailles conference 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 Likud) 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 the Herut/Likud.
Israeli expansionist aims were and are bad enough; there is no need to exaggerate them. As for Iraq as a place for settlement of Soviet Jews, I believe Ms' Little is confused...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 demilitarized 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.
I would like to see sanctions lifted; they have failed completely in their stated goal of removing Saddam who is stronger, internally, than he was in 1990. Starving, desperate peoples do not make revolutions; their only concerned is finding enough calories to survive the day.
Many in the Middle East believe the US needs Saddam in power to retain its hold on the Arabs of the peninsula. While I am not privy to the workings of official American political circles I doubt if there is any such intention. Americans don't think in such terms, at least those currently in power don't. I myself believe Saddam must go - and the sooner the better - before [the] resurrection of Iraq can begin. But the bombing of Iraq, currently planned, will not bring about his fall."
As Noam Chomsky wrote in the Observer of February 21,t 1998: "Nor should it be forgotten that before August 1990 Saddam Hussein was a favoured friend and trading partner of the US and UK. He was 'our kind of guy' Saddam Hussein remains a monster and a serious threat as he was when he conducted his most awful crimes with US/UK support. But the reaction of his former backers reeks of cynicism and hypocrisy. And their current designs - even putting aside considerations of international Law - may well make a terrible situation even worse.
As might is right in the jungle of world politics, Henry Kissinger and his Bilderberg cronies - David Rockfeller, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Margaret Thatcher, et al are unlikely to be put in the dock and tried for crimes against humanity. The track record for miscarriages of justice under previous administrations is truly legendary but the Birmingham 6 would pale into insignificance at the side of the Baghdad 6 million.Back To Top