Ga. Murder Case Uncovers Terror Plot by Soldiers

There is no point whatsoever to kill the current POTUS in an overthrow situation, except for perhaps satiating racially charged hate. The POTUS, regardless of his ethnicity or religious alignment, is nothing but a talking head, a puppet, a focus for the mouth breathing idiots to dump all their hate onto, and away from the REAL power.

That "real power" lies in the hands and bank accounts of the Legislature, the Lobbyists, and the Corporation heads. The "1%". It is a legitimate shadow government, operating right under our noses. None of this cloak and dagger Illuminati red-herring garbage.

If anyone or any group were to ever attempt to overthrow the Government, it would have to be done on a very large, coordinated scale, taking hostage of or eliminating (read: murdering) all of the members of the aforementioned groups, all at once.

Revolution on that scale is virtually impossible at this point, with all of the surveillance and invasive policies. And that isn't coincidence. That is by design, and things are going exactly to plan.

Thankfully,we have men like Julian Assange and Ron Paul, militant groups like the Oathkeepers, and subversive groups like Anonymous on "our" side.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
Just goes to show you whats on the horizon.
I’m certain that this will not be the last story of this type.

U.S Government is pulling the revolution card and watching from a safe distance. Self destruction then NWO.

reply to post by buddha


Yeah

Right

I remember being in the army drinking with some buddies and talking about what it would take to start a revolution and how we could go about it but it was stupid drunk talk and I never gave it a second thought. Just talking about it was probably violating some rule of the UCMJ now that I think about it and I am glad no one heard us talking. What these guys did is serious stuff and I will be paying close attention to this story as it develops. I do not know why anyone is surprised though just look at the rhetoric that is being thrown around on a daily basis.

[yvid]

The story sound like a fable. People in the media already said months ago from their NSA connections that Obama would stage his own assassination attempt to gain public support. I chuckled when I saw this article. These guys are so predictable to a awake person.

reply to post by Maxmars


When I was stationed at H.A.A.F. there were a couple people in my unite that were affiliated with gangs and one that was in a militia that I knew about. This was many years ago but there was a big problem with gangs, racism is quite rampant in that area on both sides so this could very likely be a neo nazi or skinhead militia. The base was run down the soldiers barracks were like slums it was the worst duty station I had ever served at. The base was over crowded but I was lucky enough to be able to live off base otherwise it would have been even worse. The ammunition point that was talked about in the article could very well be overtaken by an armed group they are called ASPs ammunition supply point and there is no armed guard. We often did group maneuvers at FT Stuart and their ASP was not under armed guard either.
Most people do not realize that unless soldiers are actively training at a range they do not carry weapons and even if they are they are not issued live ammo. M.P.s are the only ones armed. I will also mention we had several shootings on the base while I was there. One soldier tried to kill the 1stSgt by rigging his office door with a grenade and managed to get off Scott free because of a technicality. The place was bad enough that I decided to ETS instead of re upping for another tour because I would have to stay there for another year even when I volunteered for another combat tour.(I got out for 4 months then re-enlisted from another state. I am sure some things have changed but both H.A.A.F. and FT Stuart were both pretty rough. The town around Ft Stuart is little more than pawnshops, strip joints and bars with a few shady car dealerships in between the closest real town is Savannah where H.A.A.F. is and I am sure many people know about the darker side of that city. I am sure some things have changed but more than likely it is still a rat hole.

Military funding hardly ever goes to standard of living especially for the Army or Marines (Marines have it worse) but that does not justify in any way what these soldiers did or planed but what I am trying to convey is that many soldiers are disillusioned at some point in the military and from what the article said their leader looked for soldiers that were in that state to recruit I can imagine on those bases it would be fairly easy to find as many as he wanted. The article stated that they did not know how many were in this group I have a feeling it was much bigger than people think. I am not sure what else to make of this.

From reading what little info was in the article I can say everything they had planned was more than plausible except assassinating the president.



I wish I could believe this was made up or a false flag that would be much more favorable than it being true but I am certain this is the real thing.

"Prosecutors said the group called itself F.E.A.R., short for Forever Enduring Always Ready."

Did they have matching team jackets? Ya gotta have matching team jackets if you want to poison the apple crop and overthrow the government.

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by HUMBLEONE

 

A tangent discussion but I agree.

I just wonder, even with insurance money, how these guys did it. They were Privates. The four of them combined don't make $87,000 a year.

Pauley said Aguigui funded the militia using $500,000 in insurance and benefit payments from the death of his pregnant wife a year ago. Aguigui was not charged in his wife's death, but Pauley told the judge her death was "highly suspicious."

First page of atricle

I think this is one of the big issues of the last hundred years. How does one maintain a democratic process, while preventing those who see the worst sights, do the dirtiest deeds, and effectively are the armor which protects the nation, from making their political opinions known.

For generations, in the states, and in the UK, and many other democratic nations to boot, soldiers have had to refrain from making thier opinions of the political system and its methods, clear publically. The individual warrior is accused of performing savage senseless acts, because he is part of a system that some see as barbaric, and without voicing his opinion, will remain a target for the same. The individual warfighter may not show his political affiliation, but may retain one none the less.

This leads to simmering, sub surface thought, which leads to under the radar planning. It is a foolish way to go about things. All that this does, is push political leanings under the rug, where they can fester, and turn cancerous. Frankly, I believe that there ought to be more political freedoms allowed to troops, because unlike most everyone else who operates under the political system in a nation, these are the people who actually fight for the damned thing, and for the rights of every single man and woman and child in the territory they are sworn to protect. Denying these people the same right to protest, to engage with the political process, as your standard citizen might have, is tantamount to ASKING for secretive meetings, and malignant feelings souring in the guts of those who should have at least the same basic freedoms as you or I in this regard.

Obviously, in ancient times, in the first of the democratic structures to emerge in Greece and specifically in Sparta, one earned the right to participate in the democratic process, by earning thier citizenship in battle, and proving themselves wise enough, and strong enough to lead people in action, and in thought. Of course, these days different measures might arguably be applied to produce a healty politics in a nation. However, I do not believe that casting warriors into a political black hole, from which only thier ballot ever escapes is a good way forward, as it has been proven broken so many times before!

Who better than a warrior to understand the needs of people, to value the home he returns to when wounded, or when his work is done? Who better than warriors to contemplate and understand the importance of a unified people under the flag to which thier oaths of loyalty are sworn? Bankers? Investors? Radical leftists? I cannot understand why it is that the military are so removed from the operation of that which they are honour bound to protect. This article is merely a side effect of that removal.

One thing it said in the article is they planned to blow up a damn and they found explosives with the weapons. People would be surprised how easy it is for military to obtain explosives.

I would like to know how many of them had been on combat tours. The article says that some were already out of the service but it does not say what their MOS was. I know a combat engineer especially a sapper would be able to take out a damn with minimal explosives. If any of the former soldiers were from Hunter it is more than likely they would have been Rangers.

Originally posted by CT_Flyboy
This is CLEARLY Treason and as such is punishable by firing squad. I volunteer to be on the firing line when these POS get convicted.

This is not treason. Treason is clearly defined in Article III. It is the only crime defined in the Constitution. They allegedly comitted two murders (maybe three depending on state law), conspiracy to commit murder and several other less serious crimes, but not treason.

Originally posted by Doc Gator

Originally posted by CT_Flyboy
This is CLEARLY Treason and as such is punishable by firing squad. I volunteer to be on the firing line when these POS get convicted.

This is not treason. Treason is clearly defined in Article III. It is the only crime defined in the Constitution. They allegedly comitted two murders (maybe three depending on state law), conspiracy to commit murder and several other less serious crimes, but not treason.

Actually what they were plotting to do is considered High Treason, in fact.

They were military with plans to assassinate the Commander in Chief.

From Wikipedia:
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by djr33222

Originally posted by Doc Gator

Originally posted by CT_Flyboy
This is CLEARLY Treason and as such is punishable by firing squad. I volunteer to be on the firing line when these POS get convicted.

This is not treason. Treason is clearly defined in Article III. It is the only crime defined in the Constitution. They allegedly comitted two murders (maybe three depending on state law), conspiracy to commit murder and several other less serious crimes, but not treason.

Actually what they were plotting to do is considered High Treason, in fact.

They were military with plans to assassinate the Commander in Chief.

From Wikipedia:
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 28-8-2012 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2012 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)

That is English law, not US law. We don't have high treason or petty treason. Only treason as defined by the Constitution in Article III section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Treason requires an overt act. Not just planning.

reply to post by Doc Gator


I see...

I was thinking there was some conspiracy to commit treason sort of thing.

Being convicted of what they are charged with is a decent alternative though.

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by Doc Gator

 

I see...

I was thinking there was some conspiracy to commit treason sort of thing.

Being convicted of what they are charged with is a decent alternative though.

A lot of people don't understand the requirements for a treason conviction. It is a very high standard, which it why it is so rarely used. And that is a very good thing. Otherwise, most of us would be sitting in jail (or worse) for "thought crimes".

And I agree, it's much better to get them now than to let them carry out their plans so treason charges can be filed. Prosecutors may decide to go with some form of an insurrection charge but that is a stretch.

reply to post by maria_stardust


If you tend to turn angry, instead of crying because of sorrow, it's rather a more logical end. Some time in their teen years, most guys quit crying over everything. The emotions are still there, they're just coping with it differently. And that different isn't always healthily expressed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, what I can see this useful for is DETAINING the half of the US soldiers who won't confiscate guns from US citizens. Because if it came down to that, half of the military would revolt over it, and attempt to take out the power behind the request.

Everything is a "TERROR" plot now days...its getting old. Hell, half the crap I pulled in my High School days would be considered a terror plot today.

Originally posted by Juggernog
Everything is a "TERROR" plot now days...its getting old. Hell, half the crap I pulled in my High School days would be considered a terror plot today.

Well, that's just....stupid.
So, buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of weapons and explosives with the intent of killing the POTUS is now analogous to high school pranks? It doesn't constitute "terrorism" in your mind? I would be afraid to know what does, then.....

Originally posted by amfirst1
The story sound like a fable. People in the media already said months ago from their NSA connections that Obama would stage his own assassination attempt to gain public support. I chuckled when I saw this article. These guys are so predictable to a awake person.

I somehow missed "people in the media" saying that. Care to provide a link or reference of some sort?

reply to post by Doc Gator


Ironically, the law is rather loose when it comes to 'adhered to enemies of the state'.

One can be charged with treason by giving aid and comfort to enemies.

So if a person is the friend of someone in a terrorist organization, knowingly or not, they can be considered being involved in treasonous activities...

It is a stretch but still applicable.