Conquer Club

Prosecutors: U.S. Soldiers Plotted to Kill President Obama



More details are surfacing about the four soldiers accused of stockpiling assault weapons and bomb components and plotting to assassinate the president. According to the AP's Russ Bynum, the group calls itself F.E.A.R., which stands for Forever Enduring Always Ready. While authorities don't know how many members are in the group, they did accuse it of plotting some ambitious domestic terrorist plots:

The prosecutor said the militia group had big plans. It plotted to take over Fort Stewart by seizing its ammunition control point and talked of bombing the Forsyth Park fountain in nearby Savannah, she said. In Washington state, she added, the group plotted to bomb a dam and poison the state’s apple crop. Ultimately, prosecutors said, the militia’s goal was to overthrow the government and assassinate the president.

All are charged by state authorities with malice murder, felony murder, criminal gang activity, aggravated assault and using a firearm while committing a felony. A hearing for the three soldiers was scheduled Thursday.

The above photo shows U.S. Army Sgt. Anthony Peden, 25, left, and Pvt. Isaac Aguigui, 19, right, after appearing before a magistrate judge at the Long County Sheriffs Office in Ludowici Ga. More details to come...

Original post: In a disturbing report out of Georgia, prosecutors say four U.S. soldiers plotted to overthrow the government and assassinate President Obama. Details remain slim about the case, but the AP's Russ Bynum says the soldiers allegedly bought $87,000 worth of "guns and bomb-making materials and plotted to take over Fort Stewart, bomb targets in nearby Savannah and Washington state, as well as assassinate the president." The plot was apparently uncovered in relation to a murder case surrounding the killing of former soldier Michael Roark and his girlfriend Tiffany York in December. On Monday, Pfc. Michael Burnett, one of the accused soldiers, plead guilty to manslaughter and gang charges in the murder case. "Burnett told a Long County judge that Roark, who had just left the Army, knew of the militia group's plans and was killed because he was 'a loose end,'" reports Bynum.

As The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jay Bookman notes, "Sometimes these things get blown out of proportion, but $87,000 in weaponry suggests otherwise. And when you’re willing to murder two people to keep the plot secret, you’re pretty serious about it." The news follows a controversial report published by Reuters' Daniel Trotta last week that the U.S. Army is battling soldiers within its ranks who enlist in the Army and Marine Corps "to acquire the skills to overthrow what some call the ZOG - the Zionist Occupation Government. Get in, get trained and get out to brace for the coming race war." At the time, Business Insider's Geoffrey Ingersoll pushed back against the report in a piece titled "Don't Believe the Report Going Around About Veterans Flocking to Right Wing Extremist Groups." The AP report doesn't say if the motivations to overthrow the government were racial or anti-semitic in nature in this case but much more details are likely to come.

President Joe Biden.

Holy shit.

Remember during Panetta's trip to Afghanistan, they made all the troops disarm before he spoke?

It's a tough situation for Obama. On the one hand he needs the military to bomb the bejeesus out of daycares in Pakistan to make that part of the world safe for the American corporations who own him, on the other hand he risks being toppled in a coup d'etat by junior ranks who aren't with the program.

In the words of Major-General Smedley Butler --

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.

More evidence Obama is a wonderful and successful Commander-in-Chief......

Phatscotty wrote:More evidence Obama is a wonderful and successful Commander-in-Chief......

So you're saying that this latest Tea Party Death Squad to be apprehended was justified in their mission?

Phatscotty wrote:More evidence Obama is a wonderful and successful Commander-in-Chief......

-rd

Phatscotty wrote:More evidence Obama is a wonderful and successful Commander-in-Chief......

Because some nutjobs wanted to try to do something that other nutjobs wanted to do to every President we've ever had? This is clearly a brand new issue that has never happened before in the history of the country.

Sometimes I wonder if you ever think before you post.

Bones2484 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:More evidence Obama is a wonderful and successful Commander-in-Chief......

Because some nutjobs wanted to try to do something that other nutjobs wanted to do to every President we've ever had? This is clearly a brand new issue that has never happened before in the history of the country.

Sometimes I wonder if you ever think before you post.

Maybe you should think about what a Commander-in-Chief failing to gain the respect of his own military looks like.

Earlier this year, political scientists at UCSD identified three effective strategies embattled regimes should use to "coup-proof" - insulate themselves against possible military coups.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1991257

1. Create a strong paramilitary or internal security force to balance military power.
2. Stack the military leadership with members of the ruler's own ethnic group.
3. Give major pay raises or other promises of material reward to senior military leadership.

Obama has only done #3 and he didn't even innovate that, only continued it (American generals and admirals make decent salaries but, after retirement, become millionaires serving on boards of directors of defense contractors, positions secured for them by the civil government as part of an unspoken arrangement). Now that he's dodged this bullet, is it possible for Obama to do more to protect his regime from future military coups and putsches (I mean other than end his Permanent State of War and draw down the armed forces)?

Bones2484 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:More evidence Obama is a wonderful and successful Commander-in-Chief......

Because some nutjobs wanted to try to do something that other nutjobs wanted to do to every President we've ever had? This is clearly a brand new issue that has never happened before in the history of the country.

I hear ya.

It's kinda like when the democrats assasinated Lincoln.

saxitoxin wrote:Earlier this year, political scientists at UCSD identified three effective strategies embattled regimes should use to "coup-proof" - insulate themselves against possible military coups.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1991257

1. Create a strong paramilitary or internal security force to balance military power.
2. Stack the military leadership with members of the ruler's own ethnic group.
3. Give major pay raises or other promises of material reward to senior military leadership.

Obama has only done #3 and he didn't even innovate that, only continued it (American generals and admirals make decent salaries but, after retirement, become millionaires serving on boards of directors of defense contractors, positions secured for them by the civil government as part of an unspoken arrangement). Now that he's dodged this bullet, is it possible for Obama to do more to protect his regime from future military coups and putsches (I mean other than end his Permanent State of War and draw down the armed forces)?

I wouldn't view this as strictly part of Obama's strategy, but more of a strategy continued by the current and past executives--and more importantly, a strategy pursued by the bureaucracies which stand the most to lose. Priority #1 for any State is the survival of the State. So, what has been done?

(1) A very healthy and wealthy military-industrial complex; Expanding militarization of local police departments (or so I've gleaned from news reports about the sale of military equipment and drones to police departments). But I don't see much of #1 happening. Sure, there's the FBI, DEA, FTA, etc., but I'm not sure that they're enough to counter-balance the military, and even if counter-balancing is necessary for the US to maintain its survival.

(2) A system which heavily filters out "non-hackers"/unenthusiastic nationalists/"patriots" from elite positions within the State Dept, DoD, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc., so in regard to your #2, implanting one's own ethnic group need not apply to the US.

(3) That's pretty much been on the rise over the decades, but the empirical data would be fun to see.
(3b) Punish those who do not comply--regardless of rank. For example, burn books and heavily revise them for matters of "national interest." (See: The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda (written by a former FBI agent), Operation Dark Heart, and more and also including those which cannot be published--otherwise, the writers will be breaking their contract and subject to treason and/or imprisonment, etc.).

Army Capt. William Swenson criticized his superiors and somehow his Medal of Honor was lost in the fog of bureaucracy. After a year (or two), he still has yet to receive it. Maybe Obama will make it happen by Sept. 9th... Maybe! It's up to his discretion.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Earlier this year, political scientists at UCSD identified three effective strategies embattled regimes should use to "coup-proof" - insulate themselves against possible military coups.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1991257

1. Create a strong paramilitary or internal security force to balance military power.
2. Stack the military leadership with members of the ruler's own ethnic group.
3. Give major pay raises or other promises of material reward to senior military leadership.

Obama has only done #3 and he didn't even innovate that, only continued it (American generals and admirals make decent salaries but, after retirement, become millionaires serving on boards of directors of defense contractors, positions secured for them by the civil government as part of an unspoken arrangement). Now that he's dodged this bullet, is it possible for Obama to do more to protect his regime from future military coups and putsches (I mean other than end his Permanent State of War and draw down the armed forces)?

I wouldn't view this as strictly part of Obama's strategy, but more of a strategy continued by the current and past executives--and more importantly, a strategy pursued by the bureaucracies which stand the most to lose. Priority #1 for any State is the survival of the State. So, what has been done?

(1) A very healthy and wealthy military-industrial complex; Expanding militarization of local police departments (or so I've gleaned from news reports about the sale of military equipment and drones to police departments). But I don't see much of #1 happening. Sure, there's the FBI, DEA, FTA, etc., but I'm not sure that they're enough to counter-balance the military, and even if counter-balancing is necessary for the US to maintain its survival.

(2) A system which heavily filters out "non-hackers"/unenthusiastic nationalists/"patriots" from elite positions within the State Dept, DoD, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc., so in regard to your #2, implanting one's own ethnic group need not apply to the US.

(3) That's pretty much been on the rise over the decades, but the empirical data would be fun to see.
(3b) Punish those who do not comply--regardless of rank. For example, burn books and heavily revise them for matters of "national interest." (See: The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda (written by a former FBI agent), Operation Dark Heart, and more and also including those which cannot be published--otherwise, the writers will be breaking their contract and subject to treason and/or imprisonment, etc.).

Army Capt. William Swenson criticized his superiors and somehow his Medal of Honor was lost in the fog of bureaucracy. After a year (or two), he still has yet to receive it. Maybe Obama will make it happen by Sept. 9th... Maybe! It's up to his discretion.

These are all good points.

It's interesting to note the U.S. Army's August 27 Coup d'Etat and the Osama bin Laden 2008 planto attack the U.S. both called for direct action to stop once Joe Biden was President. Bin Laden reasoned that Biden left in charge would cause more destruction to the United States than Al Qaeda could ever engineer. I assume the coup plotters similarly thought a Biden presidency would create such chaos and confusion that they could then initiate a more methodical and less urgent takeover in the leadership vacuum.

Phatscotty wrote:Maybe you should think about what a Commander-in-Chief failing to gain the respect of his own military looks like.

I have more respect for him than I do for you right now... but what do I know, I'm just a nobody Sargent in the military...

fadedpsychosis wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Maybe you should think about what a Commander-in-Chief failing to gain the respect of his own military looks like.

I have more respect for him than I do for you right now... but what do I know, I'm just a nobody Sargent in the military...

and this looks really bad, which is why a thread is made about "US soldiers". Do you respect this thread????

I'm talking about the Commander in Chief. Are you the Commander in Chief?

No. I'm a US soldier.

fadedpsychosis wrote:No. I'm a US soldier.

How does this thread make US soldiers look?

Let me put it to you this way: there's nutjobs everywhere. Painting the entire US military with the same brush as those @$$ wipes is in my view disrespectful to the rest of us. My personal views on my head boss have nothing to do with it.

Our military has like, 100 bajillion members. It's more populous than many country's. I agree that there's gonna be a lot of nutjobs hidden in there. It's unavoidable.

Before dismissing them as "nutjobs," would it not be more reasonable to hear them out, so that they could explain their line of reasoning?

It could be the case that they know something which we do not. Their conclusion probably is not justified, but their premises would be interesting to know before we jump to a conclusion of our own. Don't you agree?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Before dismissing them as "nutjobs," would it not be more reasonable to hear them out, so that they could explain their line of reasoning?

It could be the case that they know something which we do not. Their conclusion probably is not justified, but their premises would be interesting to know before we jump to a conclusion of our own. Don't you agree?

These are excellent questions.

Have they served 3+ tours or been retained through stop-loss such that they feel they are virtual slaves with no way forward in life short of inevitable death on the field of battle? In that situation, wouldn't toppling the government whose policy of Permanent War had devalued your life in this way simply be a rational act of personal self-defense?

Of course we'll never hear their reasoning. They'll be tried in a closed court martial, offered a deal in exchange for guilty pleas so there's no court record made, then thrown into Leavenworth where reporters aren't allowed and their outgoing mail is screened. This is probably Obama's best way to address the military coups being plotted against him. If sympathy is gained then there's a chance of a second attempt. Four months before Pinochet overthrew the Chilean government, there was an unsuccessful attempt by the a different faction in the Army to kill Allende that Pinochet actually helped quash.

Arguably, they signed a contract which impressed them into a form of voluntary slavery, but without the legal redress to force the employers to be more fair, you could have a point.

Gee, why didn't these guys go to the monopolized courts? Surely, they would have received a fair trial from an impartial judge, right?

Juan_Bottom wrote:Our military has like, 100 bajillion members. It's more populous than many country's. I agree that there's gonna be a lot of nutjobs hidden in there. It's unavoidable.

This x 1,000. Most US Soldiers are good men and women doing a great job but with an army that large there will be a few dangerous idiots getting through the selection. Also I am not aware of anything Obama to the military that would particularly upset soldiers.

aad0906 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Our military has like, 100 bajillion members. It's more populous than many country's. I agree that there's gonna be a lot of nutjobs hidden in there. It's unavoidable.

This x 1,000. Most US Soldiers are good men and women doing a great job but with an army that large there will be a few dangerous idiots getting through the selection. Also I am not aware of anything Obama to the military that would particularly upset soldiers.

Something like similar to Bush's policy, "I know you signed up for 4 years, but you actually have to do more."


Yeahhh, aad0906, I know you're going to leave from work today at 5:30PM, but we're gonna have you stay until 11PM. Yeahh, Oh! If you could do the same everyday including Saturdays and Sundays for the next year or so, then that would great. If you disagree, you'll go to jail. Okay... Yeahhh...

Surely, if you chose to attack me, you must be a nutjob. There's no possible explanation for your crazy behavior!

Honestly, if you don't like it, don't enlist. Stop loss hasn't been implimented that I know of SINCE Bush's time. They offer huge incentives to stay in certain jobs, but right now the military is drawing down, not holding people in against their will. Oh, and lets not forget the civilian equivalent; salary workers often have to work extended hours or loose their job, which right now would be disasterous considering the job market. The military works long hard hours it's true, but everyone in the military knows that up front. We are very well compensated for it (completely free medical, we are paid for our housing and food on top of base pay, etc.) and if we don't like it, you do your time in the service then get out. To me BBS it seems like you're looking for a reason to hate on the military, and I for the life of me can't see why.

fadedpsychosis wrote:Honestly, if you don't like it, don't enlist. Stop loss hasn't been implimented that I know of SINCE Bush's time. They offer huge incentives to stay in certain jobs, but right now the military is drawing down, not holding people in against their will. Oh, and lets not forget the civilian equivalent; salary workers often have to work extended hours or loose their job, which right now would be disasterous considering the job market. The military works long hard hours it's true, but everyone in the military knows that up front. We are very well compensated for it (completely free medical, we are paid for our housing and food on top of base pay, etc.) and if we don't like it, you do your time in the service then get out. To me BBS it seems like you're looking for a reason to hate on the military, and I for the life of me can't see why.

I'm not. I'm just offering possible reasons for their discontent.


Oh, a contract with the military isn't analogous to a civilian's--who doesn't work for the government. They can still leave. It's legal to do so. What would happen if you left the military before serving your time? You know, you just got on a plane and went back home. Wouldn't that be desertion? Surely, there would be no punishment, right? Because as a civilian, you're free to do so--if your analogy holds true.


Which reminds me! It must be demoralizing to be in the military, fixing helicopters for $30,000 a year, while the civilian contractor next to you is doing the exact job, works less hours and makes $100,000+.