It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was there an attempted Military Coup of Obama?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   
I read this article that lays out some interesting points of fact about what has happened to 20 Generals under Obama's command since he entered the Presidency. It appears the military does not like Obama, and the report alleges that when Panetta visited troops, they had to be disarmed before he landed because he had been fired upon in the past!

Benghazi seems to be a major issue with the military who feels the issues in the Middle East will turn into another Vietnam.




The First Military Coup In the fall of 2012, it is now clear that President Obama survived an attempted military coup. My sources tell me, that Obama, is fully aware of the fact that key elements of the military want him gone as the President and, in response, Obama has secretly embedded his CIA operatives in various military command structures around the world by placing these operatives into executive command positions in order to help them prevent just such a military coup and these embedded forces have indeed served him well in the aftermath of Benghazi.

Often, these embedded operatives serve as the second-in-command. The sole purpose of Obama’s operatives is to keep watch on key military leaders and to prevent them from moving against the policies of the present administration. The murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail at Benghazi served as a flashpoint for an attempted military coup. What is interesting about the coup attempt, is that very divergent military forces have joined together to take down Obama’s presidency. At issue was the attempted rescue of Ambassador Stevens by two senior military command officers.





The Middle East command structure of the American military was not on board with President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta is so unpopular with the troops, that when he visits Afghanistan, the troops must be disarmed prior to his landing because he has been fired upon before from American ground forces.

In the aftermath of the Benghazi massacre, two senior level command officers, General Carter Ham, the former commander of AFRICOM and Admiral Charles M. Gayouette were removed from the command positions and arrested by their executive officers. Do you remember that I previously said that Obama was embedding CIA operatives into the number two command positions in key military commands around the world? When Hamm was in the process of launching a rescue mission to save Stevens, General Rodriguez promptly arrested Hamm and assumed his position as the head of AFRICOM.

SOURCE

Can a coup happen? I cannot imagine it. Are there CIA operatives closely watching senior staffs ready to arrest them if they appear to be stepping out of line? This article was well worth reading.




posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


It appears the military does not like Obama, and the report alleges that when Panetta visited troops, they had to be disarmed before he landed because he had been fired upon in the past!


 


Pretty sure this was a hoax. If you make bold claims like this within the OP, you should really be backing it with a direct link to the account of said incident.

If I remember correctly, this had to do with soldiers that march with altered guns, which was common practice in the case of Obama, as people had posted pictures of the same rifles being used with Clinton and Bush before him.

But I'm sure everyone is waiting in suspense while you post the ironclad source you used to create the thread...



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Thanks! It is an interesting theory. Although people may not like POTUS and this may represent a large portion of the military and even the citizens. The fact is, the President will only be in office for approx. 40 months. Would anyone honestly want Joe Biden to be president?

More direct. Based upon my own personal knowledge of how our government operates, and specifically our Armed Forces. It is virtually impossible for a military coup to occur in the U.S. Way to many factors, provisional and contingency plans in place for that to 'ever' happen IMHO.

A lone wolf is always on the table no matter who is in office. But trust me, for a military coup to occur is nearly impossible. And when I say coup, I mean a substantial amount of defense operatives to unite, and try to overthrow the gov't. It will not happen. I don't like to use the word 'never', but I am confident that a coup is virtually impossible. Just my opinion upon what I know. But that is for another thread. Peace!!

edit on 11-8-2013 by ItDepends because: word substitution



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Did you read the article? It goes into great detail. I am bringing it to ATS readers attention and respecting not just copy and pasting this article which I believe is not allowed. 20 Generals being fired is unprecedented! The fact that a congressman wrote a letter revealing we had military assets in the area of Benghazi that were stopped from helping and that 2 of the Generals had gotten troops ready to leave to help only to be ARRESTED for doing so!

You might not like the part I quoted, but the article laid out a lot of reasons to believe all is not going well between Obama and our Military. There is also a follow-up article about the The Perpetrators of the Coup Against Obama being headed up by right wing Carlyle Group!

So, what's really going on here? The Carlyle group is seeking to undermine Obama by releasing scandal after scandal. Now, I naturally think where there is smoke there is fire, and Obama is a puppet, but is the media ignoring facts like Panetta being shot at? Yeh, I'll just go dig that story up for ya! uh huh.
edit on 11-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by boncho
 


Did you read the article? It goes into great detail. I am bringing it to ATS readers attention and respecting not just copy and pasting this article which I believe is not allowed. 20 Generals being fired is unprecedented! The fact that a congressman wrote a letter revealing we had military assets in the area of Benghazi that were stopped from helping and that 2 of the Generals had gotten troops ready to leave to help only to be ARRESTED for doing so!

You might not like the part I quoted, but the article laid out a lot of reasons to believe all is not going well between Obama and our Military. There is also a follow-up article about the The Perpetrators of the Coup Against Obama being headed up by right wing Carlyle Group!

So, what's really going on here? The Carlyle group is seeking to undermine Obama by releasing scandal after scandal. Now, I naturally think where there is smoke there is fire, and Obama is a puppet, but is the media ignoring facts like Panetta being shot at? Yeh, I'll just go dig that story up for ya! uh huh.
edit on 11-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)


What's really going on here, is I tried reading your OP, but the first claim I found, (unsourced) seems false and has no information to back it up. Prove that military were disarmed for the purpose of protecting him because someone calling the shots believed they would assassinate him, and I might make it past the third line of your thread.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Mirror Obama says "Pfft! to a coup! Not on MY ship!"
"Terror must be maintained or the Empire is doomed."


But there are always - options...
- TIWWA

Good luck, and Godspeed.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I found the article full of facts. Now, seeing as you don't like the fact he has sources which he does not name, I did a little digging that took the search term "was there an attempted coup of Obama in 2012" and got this article:

www.eutimes.net...

US Military Reveals Coup Plan To Topple Obama

Posted by EU Times on Jul 20th, 2012

Part of that article states:




A shocking Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (MTC) report red-lined to President Putin this morning warns that “various elements” within the US Military establishment are “actively planning” for the overthrow of President Barack Obama prior to the November elections.

According to this report, Russian Naval Infantry Forces commanders participating in Rim of the Pacific-2012 (RIMPAC) international naval war games off Hawaii (the world’s largest multi-national maritime exercise) this week were told by their US counterparts aboard the USS Port Royal (CG-73) that Obama had to be overthrown as he posed the most dangerous threat to the United States since the founding of their nation.

US Military commanders, this report continues, stated that American officers and soldiers, along with elected and appointed Federal government officials, all take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, of which they claim Obama is one due to his overturning of established law and constitutional precedents bringing their country to the brink of all-out civil war.



Press TVhas:




Coup and counter-coup in Washington

This year, a cabal of generals evidently believed it could secure the White House for Mitt Romney by staging the Benghazi incident and using it as the signal for a cold coup under cover of elections -- probably including computer-generated election fraud -- to bring down Obama. They guessed wrong.



Further down we read




The Night of the Long Knives The hatred of key members of the US officer corps for Obama was illustrated through the comments of Petraeus’ friend, the warmonger General Stanley McChrystal, who was ousted in June 2010. In addition to Petraeus, the following officers are also either sacked or the object of scandals or investigations:


The article goes on to give more info on each man, but here are the names of the officers who were removed. Now, I just wonder how often we see major military leadership fired or under investigation like this and it's not a counter-coup?

Marine General John R. Allen, currently the commander of US forces in Afghanistan

General Carter Ham, commander of US Africom, whose area of responsibility includes Libya,

Admiral James G. Stavridis, the outgoing NATO Supreme Commander. Apparently over lavish spending. Now, that is what I call the pot calling the kettle black!

General William E. “Kip” Ward, who commanded US Africom from October 2007 to March 2011, presided over the preparation and launching of the attack on Libya.

Lieutenant General Patrick J. O’Reilly, the Director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency

Rear Admiral Chuck Gaouette was the commander of the USS Stennis carrier battle group, currently stationed in the Arabian Sea, near Iran and other possible targets for aggression and/or Gulf of Tonkin provocations

Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair, second in command of the 82nd Airborne Division stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and a key man for Afghanistan logistics

Commander Joseph E. Darlak, commanding officer of the frigate USS Vandegrifft

I do believe this is how you shut people up isn't it? Let a few heads roll, some demotions happen, publicly humiliate and ruin families often does the trick doesn't it? I say we are seeing a lot of smoke and usually that means fire was going on somewhere. Never before in American history has a President acted the way Obama is, and it's quite possible some people are doing all they can to ruin him and he will fight back just as dirty and efficiently with all the tools and power he has.






edit on 11-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: added link



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


If it's the EU Times, then it's Sorcha Faal. As in, such a fail. Or so it goes. I knew it was too good to be true.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


Ok, so you throw away any story the EU times links to is that it? That is quite a good lil trick to use if someone wants to pull a disinfo op. I mean, just get alex jones to talk about it and thus there cannot be any truth to it, so "Next, move along, nothing to see here".

I do believe it's been discussed in other places, I just did a couple postings. The fact is those General's were fired, we did see some very humiliating things revealed and it seems that could point to issues. Is there a fight for control going on right now? Is the Carlyle group involved? If so, is this just the typical "Right vs. Left" crap to see who can run the show and get all the drug money, war money, and extra sweet rides?



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


I really wish it were true. Sorry. Keep digging. Maybe there's something to it, but I really doubt it. I started off like you a while back, with the EU Times that is - until I started noticing that every story was seriously lacking corroboration. Every story's source is Sorcha Faal. And every Sorcha Faal story has gone unverified as far as I know.


edit on 8/11/2013 by this_is_who_we_are because: typos



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I found the article full of facts. Now, seeing as you don't like the fact he has sources which he does not name, I did a little digging that took the search term "was there an attempted coup of Obama in 2012" and got this article:


 


EU Times is not a reputable source. It's no different than a BIN "article" except that it's not an article but a blog post by anons.

And even dismissing all that, your newest source, which I read from beginning to end, I still haven't found any evidence to back up the first claim in your OP.

And seeing as you can't source the actual information yourself. I assume you haven't read your own "articles".



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


Ok, so you throw away any story the EU times links to is that it? That is quite a good lil trick to use if someone wants to pull a disinfo op. I mean, just get alex jones to talk about it and thus there cannot be any truth to it, so "Next, move along, nothing to see here".


I don't think you get it. The first claim in your post, " It appears the military does not like Obama, and the report alleges that when Panetta visited troops, they had to be disarmed before he landed because he had been fired upon in the past! "

We can't even verify that claim.

Forget that EU Times is a bottom feeder pit of garbage which as someone mentioned gets trolled by Sorcha Faal posts, you cannot even back up but one claim, and your very first claim I might add, and we have no reason to continue on unless you first address that one.

I will help you, as your first claim can be better explained here:

Link


U.S. Marines waiting for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to speak at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan Wednesday were ordered to leave the room and place their weapons outside.

Panetta arrived in Afghanistan Wednesday for a two-day visit amid heightened tensions after an American soldier allegedly killed 16 Afghan civilians in their homes Sunda

Gurganus later told reporters the decision had nothing to do with the weekend shooting, and said it was because the Afghan soldiers in attendance were unarmed and he did not want them treated differently than the Marines.

Several Marines said they had never seen a situation like this, although they do not believe the decision resulted from any security concerns. The senior defense official said Gurganus was under orders to make partnership a priority, and he felt that "it wouldn't be right to have armed Marines sitting next to unarmed Afghan soldiers. He wants to promote the mission of partnership."



Is it that strange?


At some bases, troops entering mess halls are required to remove the clip from their weapon and clear any rounds from the chamber. The senior defense official also said security has been increased in varying degrees in the past month or so, following the Quran burning. For example, in Kabul, as recently as seven days ago troops were required to carry their weapons everywhere, with the ammunition clip loaded but no round chambered, the official said.


So which part describes Panetta being fired upon in the past? I'm curious. I provided my sources, why can't you?
edit on 11-8-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho


And even dismissing all that, your newest source, which I read from beginning to end, I still haven't found any evidence to back up the first claim in your OP.

And seeing as you can't source the actual information yourself. I assume you haven't read your own "articles".


What are you talking about. THERE IS SOURCE written right under the quoted stuff! HERE IS THE LINK AGAIN!



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Both quotes were from the same article, if I confused you then I apologize. I was up all night and put the source down one time. If you read that article then you would know the first quote came from that btw.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


But there is no evidence other than an anonymous source that Panetta was ever shot at by US troops, or anyone else for that matter. So where's the proof of that to start with.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


I am not too sure of high ranking officials being involved in a coordinated effort to overthrow B. O.

but there were many smaller groups which were poised to do so which is indicative of a greater command structure.

One such smaller group was called "fear". They were compromised of active and retired military personnel .
Their first order of business was to assault the military base most were stationed on and secure as many heavy weapons as possible from an armory. Then basically start a civil war with the end goal of killing B .O

In the end and like 2 weeks before their first armed intervention one of them got cold feet, told his fiancée and was murdered alongside her by the other members since the couple wanted to alert the authorities.

The entire group was publicly labeled as an extremist racially driven group even though they were really a revolutionary movement from within the military.

There are many more from what I understand. Even within special forces and command in all branches of the armed forces.

It is not a hoax. Obama shifted many people from command positions and replaced them with relatively new comers that he could trust more. Especially after the benghazi incident.


Some groups have been around longer but now there is no denying that there exists this sentiment in the military at some level.

why do you think that this administration labeled ex military as potential domestic terrorists .....?

www.eutimes.net...

mobile.nytimes.com...

www.israelnationalnews.com...


edit on 11-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Yes, what Boncho said, and lets not forget, Panetta was on a military base. So if the military didn't like him why would he go to an armed camp??? Just because the meeting had the soldiers unarmed doesn't mean all the rest of the people in the base were unarmed. Panetta didn't materialize in a room and then de-materialize out did he? Maybe your not aware but the US military has many weapons at their disposal, also many well trained combat veterans. If they wanted Panetta dead he would be dead.

Anytime i see Putin's name in a news story regarding Russian intelligence or military reacting to something the Americans do i think of Sorcha Fal. This is de rigueur for that "Onion" like news agency. The Cold War is over. I don't think Russia is a real big military threat to the United States. Russia is stuck in a 1920's era gangster movie. Until a Russian mr. Ness is born they will be mired in corruption at all levels.


V



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


But there is no evidence other than an anonymous source that Panetta was ever shot at by US troops, or anyone else for that matter. So where's the proof of that to start with.


So, if a reported won't give their source then it can't be true? What about the rest of the article? I am simply saying that based on the shake-ups that have happened and the issues presented in that article that more may be going on that many realize.

I can't imagine a coup happening, but as many on ATS talk about looming civil war, riots, stolen right, freedoms and laws like NDAA, Patriot Act, and a slew of others including executive orders that go against our Constitution and to many seem traitorous. Might these people think they are doing what their oaths to defend the nations from enemies foreign and domestic?



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Anonymous sources should always be taken with a large grain of salt. Who is to say that it's not just someone emailing them claiming to be someone else, and the reporter ran with it, instead of doing his job, because he saw a big story? Or hell, that he didn't just make it up himself?



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I thought the claim was shocking, but it was not the only information in the article, just one small part. I am not saying I would be happy with those in the military who would do a coup of sorts in regard to going against the President's orders, but "following orders" has never been a good defense when those orders are against their vows and what the courts have defined as illegal orders such as the Nuremberg trials.

I don't like the Carlyle group and I do believe we are being played by the military industrial complex and big business to fight their dirty wars. It's not about protecting people in other countries from despotic dictators. It's about business. So, is there an internal fight going on for control? I think there is something to that aspect of the story.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join