Dead MI6 agent also worked in Washington

Did the agent kill Matt simmons RIP?? Was Matt simmons correct on his inside information on the gom oil spill, since his death people are scared of the administration, and the reporting on the oil spill has been extremely quiet since his death!!!, has the ptb plan worked to shut up the public??? only time will tell.

LONDON, Sept. 25 (UPI) -- The FBI is helping British police in their investigation into the death of an intelligence analyst who had worked in the United States, officials say.
Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6, the British military intelligence agency, attended Gareth Williams' funeral Friday at the Bethel Methodist Chapel in Anglesey, Wales, The Daily Telegraph reported.
Williams' body was found in his London apartment locked into a sports bag on Aug. 23. Investigators had not determined a cause of death.
Williams, 31, made several trips to the United States to work with the National Security Agency at Fort Meade in Maryland, the Telegraph said. He returned from his final trip on Aug. 10.
A couple reportedly visited Williams in London. The FBI has been using face recognition technology to determine if the couple were with Williams on any of his flights into or out of the United States.
Agents have also asked baggage handlers in Washington if they remember a bag like the one where the body was found and have searched an apartment where he stayed in the city, the Telegraph said.

 

 

Barack Obama hits back at 'hateful' Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 9/11 row

Barack Obama has reacted angrily to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claims that the US government was responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks. He lies the evidence is there if u are willing to look, it was an inside job to save the us economy and to start the war on terror, but the only terrorists are the US government!!! 

President Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN General Assembly in New York on Thursday sparked a walkout from the US delegation and representatives of other western nations.

Barack Obama is furious with the Iranian president

The US president has now used an interview with the BBC Persian service, which will be broadcast in Iran, to hit back at the allegations.
Asked about the speech, President Obama said: 'Well, it was offensive. It was hateful.
'And particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation, for him to make a statement like that was inexcusable.'

The Al-Qaeda terror network has admitted responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001, which claimed the lives of around 3,000 people and triggered the war in Afghanistan.
Conspiracy theorists have long linked the US and Israeli governments to the attacks, but President Ahmadinejad's attempts to give those claims credence by repeating them as fact during a speech to the UN stunned many onlookers.
'Some segments within the US government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grip on the Middle East, in order also to save the Zionist regime,' he said.
The Iranian president, who has a long track record of making outrageous statements about the US and Israel, also claimed that the 'majority of the American people' agreed with him about who was responsible for 9/11.

 

Blockbuster bankruptcy: Are DVD stores out of touch?

On the heel of the Canadian debut of the online streaming video service Netflix, movie rental company Blockbuster is filing for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. The company claims to have lost market share as more consumers turn to the internet for their entertainment.link

Unison threatens industrial action over quango axe plans

Public sector union Unison has threatened strike action over rumoured government plans to axe the School Support Staff Negotiating Body (SSSNB).

  ( 0 )

Related Tags:

government

unison

action

school

union

A coalition proposal to close 180 quangos was leaked to the press on Friday, with the SSSNB one of the organisations said to be under threat.

Unison is ready to take more action (PA)

The body is in charge of ensuring consistency in the salaries of school staff such as dinner ladies, teaching assistants and secretaries, and Unison's head of education Christina McAnea said its abolition could lead to more issues with pay inequality.
She revealed the union had asked the government for a meeting to discuss the future of the SSSNB, but that the request had been rejected.
'School support staff are predominantly low-paid women who are committed and passionate about their job and this government demonstrates their utter contempt for them by refusing to even meet the unions to discuss this,' said Ms McAnea.

'If these threats become a reality Unison will consult its members on industrial action and demand that the government carry out an Equality Impact Assessment.'
Communities secretary Eric Pickles had earlier told the BBC he was not sure whether the leaked list would prove to be an accurate reflection of the government's plans.
He reiterated that reducing the number of 'unaccountable quangos' in order to cut public spending is government policy, but insisted the list of bodies to be axed had not yet been finalised.link

Media Disinformation: The Facts About Ahmadinejad's UN Speechlink

 

The Iranian leader did not accuse the U.S. of conspiring to murder thousands of its own people to create a pretext for launching wars as conveyed by the US media.

A large portion of the American people, on  the basis of media reports, probably think that during his UN speech Sept. 23 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that the U.S. government secretly arranged for the 9/11 attacks. He did not say that, however.

In its Sept. 24 article about the speech The New York Times headline read: "Iran Leader Says U.S. Planned 9/11 Attacks." The first paragraph declared: "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran made a series of incendiary remarks in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, notably the claim that the United States orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks to rescue its declining economy, to reassert its weakening grip on the Middle East and to save Israel."

On the basis of his remarks the U.S. led 33 nations in theatrical walk out from the General Assembly while he was talking. And the next day, in an interview with the BBC's Persian service, President Barack Obama said Ahmadinejad's 9/11 remarks were "offensive. It was hateful. And particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation, for him to make a statement like that was inexcusable.”

On Sept. 25, the Times published a correction: "A headline on Friday with an article about an incendiary speech in the United Nations General Assembly by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran summarized his remarks about the Sept. 11 terror attacks incorrectly. In his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted various theories about the origin of the attacks, including the possibility that they had been planned by the United States. He did not say that the United States had planned the attacks."

The Times was one of many U.S. newspapers, TV and radio news reports that suggested Ahmadinejad accused the U.S. government of secretly instigating the attack — a conspiracy theory believed by some Americans and others. Following are the few paragraphs pertaining to this matter from the Iranian leader's text:

"It was said that some three thousands people were killed on the 11 September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.

"In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.

"1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.

"2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.

"3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents. The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found."

Ahmadinejad did not suggest these were his views. He was incorrect to claim that a majority of Americans subscribe to a well known conspiracy theory that is strongly held by a l minority in the United States.

In a 2009 poll conducted by Public Policy Polling, 14% of the American people believe "President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.” Many of the people who hold this view are war opponents, but it is not the perspective of the large majority of the U.S. peace movement.

In 2006, a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll reported that "more than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East."

In a 2008 poll conducted in 17 countries by WorldPublicOpinion.org, majorities in nine countries blamed al-Qaeda. In all countries there were minorities which blamed the U.S. The percentage of many who blamed Washington was in single digits or teens but in Germany, for instance, it was 23%, South Korea 17%, Mexico, 30%, and Turkey 36%. The average of all countries as to the responsible party was al-Qaeda 46%, U.S. 15%, Israel 7%, Other 7% and Don't Know 25%.

So while not putting forward such arguments himself, Ahmadinejad exaggerated or misspoke regarding the proportion of those who think that the Bush Administration was involved in a 9/11 conspiracy that is evidently being covered up by the Obama Administration. If it was true, how could Obama not know? Many Americans, accustomed to Washington's long demonization campaign against Ahmadinejad and Iran, now believe the Iranian leader grotesquely accused  the U.S. of conspiring to murder thousands of its own people to create a pretext for launching wars.

We have never believed the conspiracy theory, not least for two reasons:

• Washington hardly needs an excuse of such magnitude to launch a war against small and basically defenseless nations. U.S. governments frequently attack such countries, and the usual excuses of  "spreading democracy" or "humanitarian intervention" suffice to deceive the majority of Americans time and again.

• If Washington sought to stage a pretext for invading poor, bedraggled Afghanistan it didn't have to engage in one of the most complex and dangerous conspiracies ever devised in history. It would take thousands of government operatives from many departments to plan and execute the attacks on the Pentagon, World Trade Center and the failed attempt on the White House. And if just one conspirator talked, out of all the people involved, the blowback would have destroyed the Bush Administration, the Republican Party, the cover-up Obama Administration, and completely discombobulate the entire country for decades. It's simply unnecessary and  illogical.

But there was a "conspiracy," of course.  It was a state conspiracy to dominate the entire oil-rich Middle East, overthrowing regimes in Iraq, Iran and possibly Syria in the process, and also extend U.S. hegemony into Central Asia to compete geopolitically with China and Russia. This conspiracy is known as U.S. foreign and military policy, and most of the details are available in a great many public government and media reports, assuming one has enough knowledge to read between the lines when necessary.

It is a fact the Bush Administration used 9/11 as an immediate rationale for gaining a foothold in Central Asia, and partially used 9/11 to replace the Ba'athist regime in Iraq with a government responsive to Washington's diktat in preparation for regime change in Iran. But the U.S. had been active in Afghanistan since 1979, and could have found any number of pretexts to take out the Taliban. And the planning to overthrow the Baghdad government began during the Clinton Administration in the 1990s, and would have taken place with or without 9/11, especially after Iraq was so weakened by U.S./British/UN sanctions that it was a military pushover, until the unexpected guerrilla insurgency forced a stalemate.

From time to time President Ahmadinejad is his own worst enemy because of his incautious remarks. In judging him it's more important to watch what he does than what he sometimes says. He has taken no aggressive foreign action and there is no proof Iran is building nuclear weapons. His government's military strategy is entirely defensive.

While the Obama Administration continues to complain about Ahmadinejad's 9/11 remarks, little is said about his simultaneous call for early negotiations about swapping enriched uranium. And his agreement with Brazil and Turkey earlier this year to achieve the uranium swap Obama was demanding encountered derision from Washington when it was announced, followed by the increased sanctions the U.S. and Israel considered more important than a settlement.

For different reasons, the U.S. even more so must be judged by its performance, not its words. While Washington talks peace, it is fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, vastly increasing its drone attacks, and is now deploying Special Operations forces in 75 countries, 15 more than last year. And while Obama usually speaks softly. he constantly wields — directly in Ahmadinejad's face — the big stick of a potential crushing attack by the U.S. and Israel.

Russia pushing back on tougher sanctions against Iran
Moscow is rallying developing countries to oppose unilateral sanctions on Tehran by the U.S. and its allies. The move raises questions about efforts against Iran, and U.S. ties with the Kremlin.link

Reporting from the United Nations — Even as the White House praised Russia for declining to sell antiaircraft missiles to Iran in violation of U.N. sanctions, Russian diplomats were quietly recruiting other countries this week to undercut tougher penalties imposed on the Islamic Republic.

Russia supported weak United Nations sanctions approved in June to pressure Iran over its nuclear program. But it has strongly objected to tougher sanctions added individually by the United States, the European Union and four other countries. It fears those sanctions may end up hurting Russian companies that do business in Iran.

It is unclear whether Russia's effort at the U.N. this week to rally major developing countries will bear fruit. But Moscow's pushback sends a troubling signal about the prospects for more rigorous efforts to force Iran to bend. And it raises questions about whether the Obama administration has much to show for its highly publicized effort to "reset" relations with the Kremlin.

Although Tehran insists it is interested only in generating electricity, the U.S. and many other countries believe Iran's nuclear program is aimed at trying to build a bomb. Frustrated at the relatively weak sanctions approved in June that targeted arms sales, Iran's nuclear sector and the Revolutionary Guard, the Obama administration and its allies imposed their own sanctions aimed at crimping trade and cutting off foreign investment in Iran's vital energy sector.

As diplomats from around the world convened in New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly meetings this week, Russian diplomats tried to enlist like-minded countries to make a stand against those unilateral sanctions.

In a Wednesday meeting with diplomats from China, India and Brazil, the Russians raised the prospect of a U.N. General Assembly resolution that, while not binding, would send a loud signal from countries eager to seize opportunities in Iran's energy sector — and probably weaken the ability of the U.S. and its allies to get other nations to go along with their tougher approach.

All four countries oppose the unilateral sanctions. Another important opponent is Turkey, which has signaled a keen interest in additional energy deals with its neighbor Iran.

Among members of this group, "there is a broad agreement on principles," said a diplomat from a nation involved in the talks. The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the group is not yet ready to offer a specific resolution.

Sergei Ryabkov, the deputy Russian foreign minister, said it was unfair for the U.S. and Western allies to unilaterally impose tough measures after they had failed to persuade other U.N. Security Council members to accept them.

"They adopt precisely the same elements that we were unable to agree with at the United Nations," Ryabkov said in an interview. "This is really a question of political ethics, political morality."

Russia, which has just completed construction of Iran's first nuclear power plant in Bushehr, sees large business opportunities in the Islamic Republic. But Moscow fears that the U.S. sanctions could prevent Russian companies from doing business with the United States if they also are doing business in Iran. Another concern is that multinational companies based in other countries might shy away from dealings with their Russian counterparts for fear that they too will face punishment from Washington.

Since the U.N. resolution was adopted, Turkey and China have sold huge cargoes of gasoline to Iran, energy traders say. Russia signed a long-term partnership with Iran's Energy Ministry, and China has increased its commitment to invest in the energy sector to $40 billion.

Although those actions do not violate the U.N. sanctions, they underscore a vulnerability for the U.S. and its allies. If some countries continue to do business with the Iranian energy sector, Western companies may pressure their governments to drop the sanctions, which put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Senior U.S. State Department officials said they were aware that some countries were talking about resisting the sanctions, but downplayed the threat.

Diplomats say that one potential way out of the dispute is to open discussions on a plan to limit how far individual nations can go in imposing their own penalties on a country that already is under U.N. sanctions.

Russia's maneuver also raises questions about the Obama administration's claims of improved ties with Moscow, suggesting that the relationship remains more complicated than the administration is ready to acknowledge.

On Wednesday, the White House praised Russia for deciding against a sale of antiaircraft missiles to Iran, saying Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had "shown leadership in holding Iran accountable for its actions, from start to finish."

Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a research organization that advocates tough sanctions, said Russia has been playing a "double game, voicing a kind of tepid support" for the Western effort, even while continuing to build economic ties with Tehran.

He said that a U.N. resolution from this group would be a "shot across the bow" of the U.S. and its allies.

Dubowitz said that Russia and China have done little to enforce any of the sanctions, and that major Russian and Chinese companies continue to pursue business with Iran as Western companies pull back to avoid being punished.

China has been "even more active in the energy sector, scooping up deals left by others," he said.

Dubowitz said that Robert Einhorn, the senior State Department official responsible for organizing international enforcement of the sanctions, has yet to meet top Chinese officials although he sought a meeting more than a month ago. U.S. officials say it is a scheduling problem; Dubowitz said it reflects Chinese resistance.

Paul Saunders, a Russia specialist at the Nixon Center in Washington, said Russia's actions "make clear Russian ambivalence, and suggest it's going to be difficult, if it's possible at all, to get Russia to do much on the sanctions."

He said Russian officials had promised the Iranians during the U.N. Security Council negotiations leading to imposition of the sanctions that "we'll take care of you." But Moscow was put in an awkward position when the U.S. and several allies added their own tougher sanctions within two months.

Saunders said another reason for the resistance of Russian and Chinese officials to the sanctions is that many senior officials in those countries have personal financial ties to the big energy companies.

Ryabkov, the Russian diplomat, said Moscow and its allies were objecting not only to the sanctions, but also to the pattern of Western countries trying to win mild sanctions at the U.N. to establish the international legitimacy of the effort, only to follow up with much tougher unilateral punishments