The Civil War Of 2016: U.S. Military Officers Told To Plan To Fight Americans...

[grunt11b]

I think it all comes down to what would precipitate the "insurrection"

If you had a President whose favorite expression was "Bypass Congress" and the People revolted in response to Obama casting like a Dictator, then maybe the military would do their duty and defend the people against the domestic enemy, but not he one the Progs wanted

Barack Obama "Bypass Congress" Dictator? YOU DECIDE (Original) - YouTube

So your position is that a president using executive orders is grounds for a military mutiny

What other grounds are on your list?

So if Obamafuck declared Martial Law for no fucking reason you would be fine with that?

That would only make Obamafuck president or rather dictator indefinitely.

Where do you draw the line???

Presidents just cant do whatever the fuck they want......

Of course he would be fine with it, until the guns where aimed at him and he realizes he was just part of the motor that drove the way to the end result, and now that they are done with him he is expendable as well.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Some left-wing hack website is your evidence, you're a nutjob.

Uh, they held hearings that pointed back to Jamie Gorelick, a Clintonite, that created the CIA and FBI mess.

The head of the CIA's UBL task force says Clinton stopped them a handful of times from killing UBL.

Now go find some other bullshit website to cover up those facts, asswipe.

awe Bezerker doesn't like the truth. What was the title of the last PDB before 9-11 that President Bush recieved? How many times did they discuss al Quada and bin Laden?

Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism Measures

While you're busy telling your lies, please tell us about how Democraps put up barriers to prevent the FBI and CIA from sharing info they had on the 9/11 terrorists.

You know, you liberal nuts that hate the intel community and FBI, that believe the FBI and CIA are nothing but troublemakers for Joe Schmoe "spying" on them 24/7.

Nevermind the handful of times Bill Clinton told the CIA to stand down on killing UBL in Afghanistan because of fear of his wives and children possibly dying in a raid. Yes, it is more important to let the #1 terrorists live than possibly harm his little kids in collateral damage.

Ah the old blame it on clinton routine.......

Following the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the new president sent stringent anti-terrorism legislation to Congress as part of his first crime bill, including new deportation powers and a federal death penalty for terrorists. The passage of portions of that legislation many months later was the last time he would enjoy real cooperation against terrorism from congressional conservatives. When he sought to expand those protections in 1995 after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, he was frustrated by a coalition of civil libertarians and anti-government conservatives, who argued that his “overreaction” posed a threat to constitutional rights.

No anti-terrorism legislation reached Clinton’s desk until more than a year later. Thanks to an increasingly obstreperous Republican majority on both sides of the Capitol, law enforcement officials were denied new authority for roving wiretaps and new powers to monitor money laundering that Clinton had requested. All that would have to wait until after Sept. 11.

Back then, Sullivan was among those who accused Clinton of having “shredded civil liberties in the war on terrorism,” a concern that no longer seems to disturb him. His memory of the actual legislation is pretty dim, anyway. He wrongly claims that the administration’s 1996 bill “focused on domestic terrorism” rather than “dealing with the real threat” from al-Qaida. Among that bill’s most controversial provisions were new powers to turn away suspect immigrants, swifter deportation procedures and a new deportation court that can view secret evidence.

Recalcitrant Republicans, led by then-Senator John Ashcroft, later defeated another potentially crucial White House initiative. Along with computer-industry lobbyists, they rejected proposals to tighten controls on encryption software and to ensure that law enforcement officials could crack the kind of coded messages found on the laptop owned by Ramzi Yusef, the man who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Intelligence experts believe that encrypted computer links were probably used by the Sept. 11 plotters and their masters in al-Qaida. Some Democrats, no doubt swayed like their GOP colleagues by the generosity of industry lobbyists, joined the Republicans to deny this important tool to law enforcement.

The Clinton administration’s attempts to improve airport security were similarly obstructed in Congress. The Gore commission urged U.S. air carriers to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems, to upgrade poorly trained private security personnel and to install high-tech baggage-screening equipment. But action on key measures was stalled by lawmakers at the behest of airline lobbyists, and ultimately by the sluggish bureaucracy at the Federal Aviation Administration. Key senators on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee shot down mandated changes recommended by the White House and instead urged “further study.” (Eight of the nine Republicans on the subcommittee had received contributions from the major airlines.)

While Clinton and Gore certainly share responsibility for failing to push Congress and their own bureaucrats harder, the aviation industry could rely on conservative ideologues and PAC contributions to stymie burdensome reforms.

Among those attacking the Gore Commission recommendations, incidentally, was the New Republic, which noted that “two billion dollars a year to guard against terrorism and sabotage” would amount to “a cost per life saved of well over $300 million.” The cost of such libertarian dogma must now be measured in thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Even before the Gore Commission report, the Clinton administration had moved to place bomb-detection equipment in major airports and to upgrade background checks on airport personnel. Unfortunately, as Samuel Skinner, former transportation secretary in the first Bush administration, told an interviewer in 1996: “[T]he airlines decided it was not in their short-term best interest to pay for these services from their own pocket, so they made a concerted effort to make sure that [they] didn’t have to pay for this and didn’t have to charge passengers for it.” Also unfortunately, congressional Republicans had repealed a tax on airline tickets that would have financed high-tech improvements in baggage screening and passenger security.

If corporate lobbyists pursued their own narrow interests at the expense of national security, so did Clinton’s adversaries on Capitol Hill.

Among the most egregious was Senator Phil Gramm, who blocked an administration bill to close loopholes that let terrorist groups launder money through offshore banks. The Texas Republican denounced that legislation, now belatedly endorsed by the Bush White House as necessary to dismantle al-Qaida, as “totalitarian.”

Don’t blame Clinton - Salon.com

 

[Mr.Nick]

In the senario offered by the article doesn't say it was the Tea Party but a militia motivated by their goals, seizes a town. The key here is 'Seizes a Town' I don't care which extremist group or which town they take. It would be up to the military to restore order in that town. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Lib-o-Pauli is gunning for more Fauxrageous stuff. His premise is ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.

So you'd support an extremist militia that seized a town, disbanded the City Counsel, was holding the City's Mayor hostage and were stopping an searching vehicle on the interstate?

Yeah you go with that......

What do you call OWS??????

Sorry libertarians or anyone who would be willing to take on such an operation certainly wouldn't seize a town.... They'd seize a military base or an area that has some sort of strategic value or an area that has value to the government....

The whole faux scenario of seizing a town really shows how fucking dumb progressives are and what they believe is logical....

 

[paulitician]

Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.

So you'd support an extremist militia that seized a town, disbanded the City Counsel, was holding the City's Mayor hostage and were stopping an searching vehicle on the interstate?

Yeah you go with that......

What do you call OWS??????

Sorry libertarians or anyone who would be willing to take on such an operation certainly wouldn't seize a town.... They'd seize a military base or an area that has some sort of strategic value or an area that has value to the government....

The whole faux scenario of seizing a town really shows how fucking dumb progressives are and what they believe is logical....

I don't think the assholes who devised this plan are dumb. They desperately want it to happen. In fact, they may even work to make it happen in the future. Stay tuned.

 

[BlindBoo]

A more realistic scenario would be OWS taking over Wall Street and holding traders hostage..

The Tea Party never demonstrated any sort of violence yet the Tea Party is used as the faux aggressor in this fictional scenario?

Besides, why the hell would a libertarian militia take a town when there would be no strategic point in doing such? - it would be more practical to take over the local military base itself.... The military would have big fucking problems if a base was seized....

In the senario offered by the article doesn't say it was the Tea Party but a militia motivated by their goals, seizes a town. The key here is 'Seizes a Town' I don't care which extremist group or which town they take. It would be up to the military to restore order in that town. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Lib-o-Pauli is gunning for more Fauxrageous stuff. His premise is ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.

Let me quote from your link:

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

So I ask again would you support the group who seized the town or not?

 

[whitehall]

The most important thing people should know is that any administration can get away with any violation of the Constitution as long as it has full support of the media. The media made excuses for big dumb Janet Reno's decision to invade a quirky religious compound with tanks and attack helicopters and poison gas. The lame excuse was that the Army taught FBI agents to drive tanks so the Army wasn't really in violation of the law. America believed the lie because the media accepted it.

 

[BlindBoo]

You've reduced the conversation to this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs]Jane you Ignorant slut - YouTube[/ame]

Some left-wing hack website is your evidence, you're a nutjob.

Uh, they held hearings that pointed back to Jamie Gorelick, a Clintonite, that created the CIA and FBI mess.

The head of the CIA's UBL task force says Clinton stopped them a handful of times from killing UBL.

Now go find some other bullshit website to cover up those facts, asswipe.

awe Bezerker doesn't like the truth. What was the title of the last PDB before 9-11 that President Bush recieved? How many times did they discuss al Quada and bin Laden?

Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism Measures

While you're busy telling your lies, please tell us about how Democraps put up barriers to prevent the FBI and CIA from sharing info they had on the 9/11 terrorists.

You know, you liberal nuts that hate the intel community and FBI, that believe the FBI and CIA are nothing but troublemakers for Joe Schmoe "spying" on them 24/7.

Nevermind the handful of times Bill Clinton told the CIA to stand down on killing UBL in Afghanistan because of fear of his wives and children possibly dying in a raid. Yes, it is more important to let the #1 terrorists live than possibly harm his little kids in collateral damage.

 

[paulitician]

In the senario offered by the article doesn't say it was the Tea Party but a militia motivated by their goals, seizes a town. The key here is 'Seizes a Town' I don't care which extremist group or which town they take. It would be up to the military to restore order in that town. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Lib-o-Pauli is gunning for more Fauxrageous stuff. His premise is ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.

Let me quote from your link:

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

So I ask again would you support the group who seized the town or not?

And i say again, Socialist/Progressive wishful thinking. It ain't gonna happen, despite your fantasies. You just want to use this ridiculous scenario to silence anyone who opposes your agenda. But that's ok, when the shoe's on the other foot, i know you'll have a completely different opinion. I'm patient, i can wait for you to come around. But you should be standing up against this stuff right now.

 

[g5000]

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 - Washington Times
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

Here is the orginal article written by Benson and Weber.

This is not a US military sanctioned piece. They even make mention of the Army's Operating Concept and state the Army has not considered operations within the United States.

It is the opinion of the authors that the Army should make such considerations. And from there, they wander off into a pipe dream.

Here is Benson's mini-autobiography:

Kevin Benson, Ph.D., Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired, is currently a seminar leader at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He holds a B.S. from the United States Military Academy, an M.S. from The Catholic University of America, an MMAS from the School of Advanced Military Studies and a Ph.D. from the University of Kansas. During his career, COL Benson served with the 5th Infantry Division, the 1st Armored Division, the 1st Cavalry Division, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, XVIII Airborne Corps and Third U.S. Army. He also served as the Director, School of Advanced Military Studies. These are his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army or Department of Defense.

The piece itself is amateur hour. It's like a really bad novel that you throw away after reading the first couple pages. I can only hope that Benson's seminars at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies are about how to sell Amway products to supplement their meager pay.


.

 

[rightwinger]

Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.

USMB Paradox: The more a poster uses the term "LIBERTY" in their post, the less they actually support the concepts of libety

Really motherfucker???

Name one position that I have taken that is not classical liberal??

Oh yeah, you're just talking out your ass now...

Now spare me your irrelevant one-liner response that will offer zero evidence to claim I don't understand or support liberty...

You are the boards prime example of a poster who assumes liberty for himself yet denies it to those who believe differently

 

[JakeStarkey]

Intelligent, right thinking Americans simply pat pat your libers on your silly little heads, Nick.

Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.

And today people are brainwashed into believing tyranny is liberty.... That tyrannical laws are actually liberation laws.... That eliminating liberties is actually liberating because those said liberties are occasionally abused.

I could care less if liberties are abused. You don't let a few spoiled apples ruin liberties for all...

That's why those who seek to destroy the Bill of Rights are the domestic enemy - not those defending those liberties.... Politicians that legislate tyrannical laws are the domestic enemy.... Just because 535 people all concur on a law and that said law is not challenged that doesn't mean that said law is "legal" considering that law violates the Bill of Rights - even more so those tyrannical laws set legal precedent for more tyranny.

You mean the authoritarian right wing that are on the same page as the authoritarian progressives?

That's why libertarians see no difference between most republicans and progressives - you're all for government and NEVER for liberty or the people.... You do as you're fucking told just like some little lap dog...

Because to you liberty takes a back seat to security....

This country wasn't founded on security it was founded on liberty...

 

[JakeStarkey]

That makes no sense at all, but you can be sure that local elites will not be allowed to overthrow constitutional authority and liberty.

I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.

Let's keep matters straight here.

You are merely a fun sideshow on this Board.

You're a big government authoritarian fuck that is extremely confused.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This from the greatest sock puppet the board has ever seen? How funny.

I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.

Let's keep matters straight here.

You are merely a fun sideshow on this Board.

You're a big government authoritarian fuck that is extremely confused.

He's a useful idiot sock puppet that parrots his handlers talking points.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are no socialist progressives on the loose in America.

But chant that, if you take over a town, so the troops who defeat youcan have a good chuckle as they blind fold you in front of the brick wall.

You silly morons.

A more realistic scenario would be OWS taking over Wall Street and holding traders hostage..

The Tea Party never demonstrated any sort of violence yet the Tea Party is used as the faux aggressor in this fictional scenario?

Besides, why the hell would a libertarian militia take a town when there would be no strategic point in doing such? - it would be more practical to take over the local military base itself.... The military would have big fucking problems if a base was seized....

In the senario offered by the article doesn't say it was the Tea Party but a militia motivated by their goals, seizes a town. The key here is 'Seizes a Town' I don't care which extremist group or which town they take. It would be up to the military to restore order in that town. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Lib-o-Pauli is gunning for more Fauxrageous stuff. His premise is ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Try understand the truth, Nick.

If you revolt against the government, your neighbors will stand you against the wall before the Army gets to you.

I think it all comes down to what would precipitate the "insurrection"

If you had a President whose favorite expression was "Bypass Congress" and the People revolted in response to Obama casting like a Dictator, then maybe the military would do their duty and defend the people against the domestic enemy, but not he one the Progs wanted

Barack Obama "Bypass Congress" Dictator? YOU DECIDE (Original) - YouTube

So your position is that a president using executive orders is grounds for a military mutiny

What other grounds are on your list?

So if Obamafuck declared Martial Law for no fucking reason you would be fine with that?

That would only make Obamafuck president or rather dictator indefinitely.

Where do you draw the line???

Presidents just cant do whatever the fuck they want......

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nick, you are no classical liberal.

A small-time gangster thug is all you are.

Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.

USMB Paradox: The more a poster uses the term "LIBERTY" in their post, the less they actually support the concepts of libety

Really motherfucker???

Name one position that I have taken that is not classical liberal??

Oh yeah, you're just talking out your ass now...

Now spare me your irrelevant one-liner response that will offer zero evidence to claim I don't understand or support liberty...

 

[BlindBoo]

Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.

So you'd support an extremist militia that seized a town, disbanded the City Counsel, was holding the City's Mayor hostage and were stopping an searching vehicle on the interstate?

Yeah you go with that......

What do you call OWS??????

Sorry libertarians or anyone who would be willing to take on such an operation certainly wouldn't seize a town.... They'd seize a military base or an area that has some sort of strategic value or an area that has value to the government....

The whole faux scenario of seizing a town really shows how fucking dumb progressives are and what they believe is logical....

Sorry I don't see it as a left/right issue but an "extremist" verse "rule of law" issue.

 

[paulitician]

Ironically, the Left's beloved OWS will likely be a target in this absurd planned scenario. You can bet on that. And then they'll want to talk about Freedom & Liberty and the Constitution. Very dishonest hypocritical people.

 

[Mr.Nick]

So you'd support an extremist militia that seized a town, disbanded the City Counsel, was holding the City's Mayor hostage and were stopping an searching vehicle on the interstate?

Yeah you go with that......

What do you call OWS??????

Sorry libertarians or anyone who would be willing to take on such an operation certainly wouldn't seize a town.... They'd seize a military base or an area that has some sort of strategic value or an area that has value to the government....

The whole faux scenario of seizing a town really shows how fucking dumb progressives are and what they believe is logical....

I don't think the assholes who devised this plan are dumb. They desperately want it to happen. In fact, they may even work to make it happen in the future. Stay tuned.

Oh they're dumb...... If they believe the start of a revolution is taking over a town and holding the mayor "hostage" would be a good plan for a militia then they're dumb.

What would such a feat accomplish?

Now holding military assets hostage is a different story......

I would love to know what the military's plan would be if soldiers started to collectively revolt?

 

[BlindBoo]

Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.

Let me quote from your link:

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

So I ask again would you support the group who seized the town or not?

And i say again, Socialist/Progressive wishful thinking. It ain't gonna happen, despite your fantasies. You just want to use this ridiculous scenario to silence anyone who opposes your agenda. But that's ok, when the shoe's on the other foot, i know you'll have a completely different opinion. I'm patient, i can wait for you to come around. But you should be standing up against this stuff right now.

Would you support the group who seized the town or not?