"starting construction on the biggest federal building project in the Washington area since the Pentagon...The project will bring together more than 15,000 employees now scattered in 35 offices"

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-09/politics/homeland.security.headquarters_1_homeland-security-historic-buildings-consolidation?_s=PM:POLITICS>
> ^bmacs27:

>> ^marbles:
disgusting lying pricks. both of them.

33 new buildings eh?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

No, no, no - movie trends must be an expression of the collective unconscious. It's much more interesting. Damn you Occam. Damn you all to hell.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Occam's Razor tells me that we're seeing a lot of apocalypse stories because, years ago, someone made one that was very successful and a lot of people are still on that bandwagon. I blame Independence Day; it's practically a sub-genre now.
I also think 9/11 attuned Americans to widespread destruction. We were used to watching it happen on TV but that was the first time most of us saw it "at home". When the Pentagon was hit I can remember thinking there might be dozens of attacks in progress; that other targets would continue to be hit throughout the day. Deep down, there was a small, sick part of me that was really excited about that.

Occam's Razor tells me that we're seeing a lot of apocalypse stories because, years ago, someone made one that was very successful and a lot of people are still on that bandwagon. I blame Independence Day; it's practically a sub-genre now.

I also think 9/11 attuned Americans to widespread destruction. We were used to watching it happen on TV but that was the first time most of us saw it "at home". When the Pentagon was hit I can remember thinking there might be dozens of attacks in progress; that other targets would continue to be hit throughout the day. Deep down, there was a small, sick part of me that was really excited about that.

Being the biggest backers doesn't mean it's being done for religious purposes.

I'm not debating some see it that way. You also have a bunch of people who didn't, too.

Where in that link did Tony Blair was quoted saying this was part of a Christian struggle?! It's loosely about believing it's a good versus evil thing. It's not about killing Muslims because Muslims are evil, or demoralizing Muslim culture to make room for Christian culture.. If you believe it was about killing Muslims, or advancing the interests of Christianity at the expense of Islam, you need your head examined. At no point was Blair ever on a Christian Crusade.

A VERY small group of evangelical Christian soldiers doesn't make the case.

Now, about Obama and Christianity. You do realize Obama at this point pretty much goes to church because it's a political liability if he doesn't. He quite possibly is the least religious president to ever be in office.

He is not intentionally trying to kill Civilians. #1. The statistics you sited are skewed concerning civilian casualties, although I'm not dismissing civilian casualties. Significant civilian casualties have been a mainstay in military action since WWII on all sides, after a brief reprieve in WWI and other wars leading up to it. You do the best you can to limit them while achieving your objectives. The reality is you won't achieve anything if you try to avoid any civilian casualties.

With that said, the article is discussing Predator drone casualties only, which is a small fraction of total casualties. And even then, you have a dispute on statistics, and I agree the US military is not going to give an unbiased number either. However, it's very difficult to tell what the accurate number is at this point.

See the above about civilian casualties as collateral damage. It would be difficult to achieve anything if the primary focus was to avoid them instead of achieving objectives.

Does all this add up to terrorism? No, for several reasons:

1. It isn't intentional, not any part of the objective in conducting them. Terrorist acts are specific explicit targeting of civilians. Often, the more civilians you kill, the better when you're a terrorist.
2. You sited bombings in Tripoli. Part of the objectives in that raid is to topple the oppressive regime in Libya, is it not? And yes, I completely accept that we're not just there for that. Libya has oil resources, etc. we're interested in, but it doesn't change the fact that part of the reason we're there is to free the Libyan people from an oppressive regime. It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large.

Extreme progressives are critical of Obama for many of the things you're siting. Obama isn't an extreme progressive, socialist, communist, etc. as much as QM and WP would love for you to believe. He's a moderate politician who leans to the left. If that's the indictment, I don't think anyone would disagree he's not the most liberal progressive politician since FDR. He's not. To say however he isn't progressive at all is not true either. Honestly, as much oil as there is in Libya, it's not worth military action. There's a bit of idealist progressivism to conduct air strikes against Libya.

And again, I fail to see how that's relevant to the debate of the religion of this guy. He is a Christian, there's no doubt about it. Granted, he's got a warped Christian ideology, but it is Christian. You can't say someone isn't Christian just because you don't agree with their interpretation.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?


And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:
-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)
-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)
-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)
-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)
These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.

As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)
Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)
Is this not terrorism?
Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?
There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)
Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)
Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

>> ^heropsycho:

The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?




And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:

-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)

-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)

-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)

-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)

These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.




As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)

Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)

Is this not terrorism?

Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?

There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)

Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)

Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.

Netrunner, why are you blinded by partisan theater?
http://videosift.com/video/Obama-s-Economic-Policy-is-a-Charade-of-lies

Michael Hudson:
What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
[...]
They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.


Who's blinded by partisan theater?

I'm not gonna bother with the video clip, but not a single sentence in the entire quote from Michael Hudson was true.

That said, if you think Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security should stay as they are, and Wall Street should have to contribute more to the debt (say, with more taxes), then everything you want is antithetical to the Republican party.

Why exactly do you assume that Democrats are secretly working with the Republicans to implement the Republican policy platform?

I feel like we get the Republican party's policies no matter who's actually in office too. But my solution is to try to make sure all the Republicans lose their seats, so the Democrats will have to put up or shut up.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.


Netrunner, why are you blinded by partisan theater?

http://videosift.com/video/Obama-s-Economic-Policy-is-a-Charade-of-lies

Michael Hudson:
What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
[...]
They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.

[Interviewer]: So, what do you think? Good versus evil. We’re playing out the debt struggle and the debt ceiling issue. And if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we’ll be in the apocalypse. What do you make of it all?

HUDSON: I think it’s evil working with evil.... If you have to choose between paying Social Security and Wall Street, pay our clients, Wall Street.

***

What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
***

It’s not about the debt ceiling. It’s about making an agreement now under an emergency conditions. You remember what Obama’s staff aide Rahm Emanuel said. He said a crisis is too important to waste. They’re using this crisis as a chance to ram through a financial policy, an anti-Medicare, anti-Medicaid, anti—selling out Social Security that they could never do under the normal course of things.

***

They’re not going to cut back the war in Libya.

***

They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.

[Interviewer]: Yeah. But what–I hear you. But what I’m–I’m saying, what could be an alternative policy? For example, don’t raise the debt ceiling. Number two, raise taxes on the wealthy. Number three, cut back military spending. I mean, there are ways to do this without having to borrow more money, aren’t there?

HUDSON: Of course.
***

Of course they could cut back the fat. Of course what they should do is change the tax system. Of course they should get rid of the Bush tax cuts. And the one good thing in President Obama’s speech two days ago was he used the term spending on tax cuts. So that’s not the same thing as raising taxes. He said just cut spending by cutting spending on tax cuts for the financial sector, for the speculators who count all of their income that they get, billions of income, as capital gains, taxed at 15 percent instead of normal income at 35 percent. Let’s get rid of the tax loopholes that favor Wall Street.

***

Mr. Obama has always known who has been contributing primarily to his political campaigns. We know where his loyalties lie now. And, basically, he promised change because that’s what people would vote for, and he delivered the change constituency to the campaign contributors...

"Pentagon reveals 24k documents stolen." Bullshit.

Only documents stolen from the Pentagon were documents they wanted stolen, either to have an excuse to crack down on internet freedom or give dis-information to China, Russia, etc., or both.

If I leave a sack full of money on my front lawn and someone steals it, whose fault is it?

Not saying that hackers can't hack into big targets, but there's so much low hanging fruit out there that hackers with malintent aren't going to waste their time and expose themselves to big threats. And if the Department of Defense is so incompetent to put sensitive files on the www, then we have bigger problems to worry about than hackers.

>>@bmacs27: marbles
Who flew planes into the WTC on 9/11? By the way, I read "Which Path to Persia".
Have you heard of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"



Haha, let me guess. You have a argument to make that the "Which Path to Persia" manual is fraudulent?

So is that 9/11 question troll bait or what? Who made all the abnormal amount of Wall Street put bets on American Airlines and United between Sept 6 and 7. And on American Sept 10 at the Chicago Board of Options Exchange. Better yet, who sent US government made anthrax with hand written notes saying "Allah is great" to Congress men who were likely to oppose the Patriot Act?

Oh the alleged hijackers (courtesy of Paul Joseph Watson/Infowars.com):
Every single shred of evidence concerning the alleged 9/11 hijackers points to the fact that they were patsies controlled by informants working for the US government.
The US Special Operations Command’s Able Danger program identified the hijackers and their accomplices long before 9/11, but when the head of the program, Colonel Anthony Shaffer, tried to pass the information on to the 9/11 Commission, he was gagged and slandered and the vital information his team had passed on was ignored and buried.
Curt Weldon, Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, documented how the US government tracked the hijackers’ movements before 9/11.
Louai al-Sakka, the man who trained six of the hijackers, was a CIA informant. A number of the other alleged hijackers were trained at US air bases. In the months prior to 9/11, alleged hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were renting rooms in a house owned and lived in by an FBI informant.
In a 2002 article entitled The Hijackers We Let Escape, Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman documented how, “The CIA tracked two suspected terrorists to a Qaeda summit in Malaysia in January 2000, then looked on as they re-entered America and began preparations for September 11.”
The fact that there were numerous Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists involved in the pre-planning stages of 9/11 is unsurprising given former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds’ testimony that Bin Laden was working for the US right up until the day of 9/11.

On the very morning of 9/11, the money man behind the alleged hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials.
Indeed, even after 9/11, the so-called spiritual leader of the very hijackers who allegedly slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Anwar al-Awlaki, was himself invited to dine with Pentagon top brass mere months after the attack.

Look, I don't like this morass that Obama has led us into, but just because he's sending Marines to the theater of operations doesn't mean they're going into combat in Libya. Marines are often deployed in regions for humanitarian missions. If Gadhafi gets ousted, there will be a humanitarian crisis as infrastructure is in ruins and refugees flee this man-made disaster. If he stays in power, there will still be a humanitarian crisis on Libya's borders as refugees flee the country. That might be where the Marines are headed, but we don't know. There's certainly nothing in that Pentagon video that says those Marines are going into combat in Libya.

So he may not be deploying ground troops in combat roles, which means only the members of our ground armed forces won't be shooting at anyone. CIA paramilitary advisers on the ground technically don't count because they aren't considered part of our armed forces, though I'll be the first to admit that it's a weasel defense.

I still don't see a consistent policy about this, nor a clear exit strategy. I'd like to see the rebels win, but who knows how long that will take? How long are we willing to help them? How many wars are we supposed to be involved in at the same time?

To those who say we should help to prevent a massacre, I can only say this: How much can the United States do for the entire world? There is no doubt that we still have the most powerful military the planet has ever seen, but that doesn't mean we have the ability to step in to resolve every conflict. There are massacres of varying sizes going on throughout the Middle East right now. Can we intervene in them all?

On a separate but related note, I'm tired of our presidents getting us into wars without a vote from Congress. If some assholes show up on our shores and start shooting at us, then sure, shoot first then vote later. But this unitary executive shit has gone on for too long.

Better cowboy poets than a Nascar team.

Oh god, this shit again?

It's been 10 fucking years of this idiocy. Here is what happened:

19 Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners, smashed two of them into the WTC towers, one into the Pentagon, and one landed in a field in Pennsylvania.

If you believe anything other than that, you're fucking retarded bigtime.

>> ^bmacs27:

@Duckman33 There is no such thing of odds when discussing single-case events.
Also, what is fishy about classifying footage of our national security epicenter being successfully attacked?
"I'm asking questions." -Eric Cartman


Ok... so there's absolutely no possible way on earth to figure out the probability of that occurring then? Sorry, not a math wiz myself. Or even a novice for that matter.

What's so classified about a well known and documented event? Are you seriously trying to say the footage of the "jet" smashing into the Pentagon should be classified? What possible "National Security" secrets could it reveal that needs to be hidden from the general public?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Yes, you could post those links. I might actually pay attention to the content, unlike you. You'd apparently prefer to believe what you want in a vacuum of contrary thinking. Which is fine, it's your right, but don't expect people's opinions of you to improve.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/FOIA-Lawsuits-Cause-Release-of-New-WTC7-Collapse-Video?loadcomm=1#comment-1166922'>^Duckman33</a>:<br />
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther". Sorry to inform you "dumb fucks", but I do have a right to my opinion as much as you do. As others have already said, I don't buy 100% into the whole truther thing. Never thought Bush was behind this, simply because he's too God damn stupid to pull anything of this magnitude off. He's lucky if he can tie his own fucking shoes by himself! But there are too many inconsistencies in the official story to make it believable. There's nothing wrong with questioning things that don't add up. Don't know why you guys get so worked up about it but it's funny. <br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Drachen_Jager" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">Drachen_Jager</a> I can post just as many links to, and quotes from pages supporting questioning the official story of 9/11 as you can debunking them. Whoopty doo.<br></em>


No I don't prefer to think what I want. I prefer to think about what I have already read and watched on the subject. And I have read and watched a lot on both sides. For some reason you all assume I haven't because I still ask questions. I guess asking questions is not allowed.... Sorry, from now on I'll be a good little robot and keep my mouth shut.

There are many expert opinions on both sides of this subject. Everything from architects and engineers to firefighters. Who's to say which side's opinions are right and which are wrong? Why do you and the others here assume the links you provide to me are the end all truth of the discussion because it follows your line of thinking? Or that I haven't already read them? Much like when I watch the news on TV, or read news articles on the internet, I don't assume the information I read or watch is 100% accurate or correct. But I do give info on both sides my consideration.

Since you mentioned it, here's a link for you read away.

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

See, the problem is, this subject isn't cut and dry by any means. There's alot more to this than just WTC 1, 2 and 7. But that's what all "debunkers" always seem to focus on. And that's what you guys think I/we only focus on, because I/we make comments about them on these sifts. However, there's a lot to the official story that doesn't add up. One thing I can think of off hand is the fact that the Government still refuses to release surveillance footage of the Pentagon "attack". That is suspect, and only serves to raise questions. There was a lawsuit placed just to get what little footage has been released so far. The question has already been asked once. Why does it take a lawsuit to get this footage released if there's nothing to hide? The fact that all the material from the WTC site was rushed off to China to be recycled before anyone could analyze it is suspect as well, and only serves to raise questions. I'm sorry if it's so hard for you to accept we are being lied to, or at least not being told the entire story. However, as other have mentioned. The sad reality is it's not the first time, and it certainly won't be the last. Sadam having Weapons of Mass Destruction comes to mind....

What was to gain from this?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/transactions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

Kill a bunch of people?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/victims/index.html

These links aren't meant to be taken as gospel truth, rather something to think about.

The other two questions are harder to answer. Hence why the whole controlled demolition theory is a hard sell. That doesn't mean people shouldn't still ask questions. In all reality the bottom line is, until someone can build an exact duplicate of WTC 1 & 2, and can then smash jets into them, people can theorize all they want but we will never really know for sure why the buildings collapsed. Good thing for us that isn't the only thing fishy about this.

BTW, I could care less about your or anyone else's opinion of me. I don't know you, or anyone else on this site personally and even if I did, I still wouldn't give two shits what you think. This isn't High School, nor is it a popularity contest. My friends all think I'm nuts, so what? That doesn't change who I am as a person. They understand this and are still my friends. At least they listen to me with an open mind. I got over worrying about what other people think about me when I was 16. Perhaps you should do the same.

[Edit] P.S. No-one has yet to provide the odds of this happening, despite the evidence already produced. Which was my original question.