Civil War II and the Coming Breakup of America | War and Conflict

Civil War II and the Coming Breakup of America

Civil War II and the Coming Breakup of America

Wednesday, February 4, 2015 6:42

Can Americans Win a Guerrilla War Against the Banker Occupation Forces?  This is still an open question and the answer to the question should be rephrased to “Does America have the stomach fight a guerrilla war against the banker occupation forces?  The fact remains that the civil war has already begun”

Benghazi is the one event that President Obama cannot make go away. This article will review the facts that demonstrate that the Benghazi affair was connected to an attempted military coup against Obama which subsequently failed. However, the motivation behind the coup did not die with Ambassador Stevens, it has only changed form and has now morphed into civil war mode. This is a two part series which examines why it is likely that the coming civil war will be a guerrilla war. Further, a convincing case will be made that the Benghazi incident will serve as the flash point for this emerging civil war. Also, the next part in this series will expose how the dead bankers and earthquakes in Connecticut factors into this crisis.

Four Types of Conflict

How can one be certain that the coming conflict will be a guerrilla war. Military strategists identify four levels of conflict; (1) nuclear war is the trump card of all conflicts; 2) conventional warfare; (3) guerrilla warfare; and, (4) terrorism.
Terrorism is the least preferred option by any insurgent group. With terrorism, there is absolutely no hope of final victory because territory is never occupied. For that reason, nobody aspires to engage in terrorism if they have a viable alternative and the American people do have a choice given how well armed we are.
While some of the 260+ command level officers fired by Obama are privately informing many of us in the media about the current state of affairs, they are not on the record.  Other than self-preservation, the major reason why these former military commanders are not on the record is because some of them are involved in planning a guerrilla war against the occupation forces commanded by this administration under the auspices of DHS. One of  my sources state that the coming civil war will be a guerrilla war and it will be prolonged. Another former General has told me that the American people do not have the stomach for guerrilla war and that majority of our people will lay down like sheep and be slaughtered.
Can Americans Win a Guerrilla War Against the Banker Occupation Forces?

Why the Coming Civil War Must Be a Guerrilla War

There are a total of 1,455,375 active personnel in the US military. The United States has over 200,000 troops stationed in 144 countries. These 200,000 men and women will not likely be a factor in the coming conflict and will prove to be in grave danger in the coming conflict.
I constantly have former military write to my website and proclaim their allegiance to the Constitution and pledge to destroy all enemies both foreign and domestic. I do not doubt their resolve or courage, however, there are not 30 million combat ready veterans, with the technological means and military organizational skills who would be ready to fight as they frequently claim. There are only 1.8 million veterans who are under the age of 35, which would be the prime fighting age for any resistance force. This means that in the best case scenario, that any resistance that the occupation forces could muster would consist of about 2.5 million men who have combat training in both our active duty personnel and our veterans. The mere size of the army that the Chinese could muster, in addition to the DHS, and the Russians, would dwarf any force that the American people could place on the battlefield.
The only choice that this country would have to resist the coming occupation and genocidal purge would be to make the war a guerrilla war.

The Sides Are Drawn

The coming civil war will consist of the present administration, the DHS, the Chinese, and the Russians versus some of the American military and about 10% American people.
Could a guerrilla war succeed? Is America equipped to fight a guerrilla war?

Can a Guerrilla War Succeed?

Guerrilla warfare, for most of human history, is not new. Tribal war, which traditionally pits one guerrilla force against another, is the oldest form of warfare. The new “conventional” form of warfare, which pits guerrillas against “conventional” forces, is more recent as it arose in Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago.
The good news for future American freedom fighters is that guerrilla war has been getting more successful since 1945, but unfortunately guerrilla fighters still lose most of the time. An analysis of past conflicts featuring guerrilla war, reveals that only 25% of guerrilla forces, out of 443 such conflicts since 1775, were successful. The government prevailed almost 64% of the time with the remainder of the conflicts ended in a stalemate. Conversely, since the end of WWII, the percentage of success for guerrilla forces has indeed gone up to 39.6%. Yet that still means that government forces have continued to prevail 51% of the time.
When the American people engage in a guerrilla war in the upcoming years, the people have less than a 40% chance of success.
Guerrilla wars are rarely short and as a result do not favor the American culture and psychological makeup because of our collective psyche of instant gratification. When Americans flip the switch on the wall, we expect the light to come on. Will Americans set aside their entitlements as well as their entrenched soft lifestyle and rise to the occasion? The answer to that question, is that it does not matter. America is in the early stages of a civil war, whether it realizes it or not.

When Will the Civil War Start?

History will someday show that Civil War II began with the Benghazi affair. In the fall of 2012, it is now clear that President Obama survived an attempted bloodless military coup. My sources accurately told me at the time, that Obama was fully aware of the fact that key elements of the military want him gone as the President. In response, Obama had secretly embedded his CIA operatives into 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.
To the military commanders in the Middle East, they had full knowledge that Ambassador Stevens was running not only drugs, but guns and children, as well,  in order to financially support his regime overthrow apparatus. This strategy of arming terrorists to promote regime change in Libya worked quite well in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi. Stevens was employing the same strategy in attempting to unseat Assad of Syria.
The murder of Stevens and his security team at Benghazi is a seminal moment in American history. We have further learned that al-Qaeda forces, fighting on the side of NATO in Libya,obtained 20,000 hand-held stinger missiles. This means that the Obama administration has allowed al-Qaeda to be armed to the teeth including the acquisition of 20,000 stinger missiles in which only one is needed to take down an American airliner. The ties between murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and jihadist Syrian rebels, now morphing into ISIS, are becoming more clear as it is now known that Chris Stevens was an arms dealer for the CIA. To cover their tracks, the Obama administration left Chris Stevens and his bodyguards defenseless as they were killed by the very terrorists that this administration armed. Can you imagine how the election of 2012 would’ve turned if the American public had this information prior to voting. This is why Stevens had to be killed, but there’s more. These events also explain why Hillary Clinton refused to honor Stevens’ request for more bodyguards. Is this why DHS director, Janet Napolitano abruptly resigned her post as well. Clinton certainly distanced herself from Obama by resigning as the head of the State Department.
The American people may have not been privy to the dynamics underlying the Benghazi affair, but the military leadership in the Middle East was keenly aware of the situation. With his nonsensical policies, his purge of the leadership of the American military and his disdain for the traditions of the military being forsaken by Obama, the military seized upon the first opportunity to unseat Obama.
If Stevens, knowing he was betrayed at Benghazi, had been rescued by American military forces, Obama and his administration would have been deposed.
As Stevens was begging for help after the attack had begun, General Ham had activated a special forces team within minutes of learning that the embassy, which was really a CIA safe house, that was under attack. When General Ham received his “stand down” orders from Obama, he still continued with his plans to go ahead with the rescue and was arrested within minutes of contravening the order by his second in command, CIA plant, Colonel Rodriquez. Admiral Gaouette, the commander of Carrier Strike Group Three, was preparing to provide intelligence and air cover for General Ham’s rescue in violation of his standing orders and he was promptly relieved of command for allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.”  What is so significant about the sacking of these two military officers is that they were from two completely different command structures in two different branches of the military. This speaks clearly to an overall military mindset with regard to how they view Obama and their intent to remove him from office with Stevens being the key.
It is abundantly clear that had Obama been concerned for saving the lives of the four murdered Americans, American forces could have stopped the mortar fire that eventually killed Ambassador Stevens. However, Panetta and Obama blocked any rescue attempt. In legal parlance, Obama, Panetta and Clinton are, at minimum, accomplices to murder. At maximum these three rogue government officials are co-conspirators to first degree murder and now they have sacked two senior command military leaders to cover their complicity in an act of treason. I feel like I am watching an episode of the former popular television show, 24, as we are presently engaged in a plot that scarcely anyone would have believed if it had aired on television and not occurred in real life.
The positions held by Ham and Gaouette are so powerful and so sensitive, that their replacements require approval from the Senate. This fact is so significant that the two men were sacked at the same time in a potential war zone! And the military purge in this potential war zone was not limited to Ham and Gaoutte.
Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged by Obama:

• Gen. Hamm, on October 18, 2012.
• Adm. Gayouette, on October 18, 2012.
• Gen. Petraeus, on November 9, 2012.
• General Allen, on November 13, 2012.

The first sign of a major rift between the American military and Obama became evident when the supreme commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, was fired by Obama for derogatory comments made by the general about the President. Interestingly, the reporter who published the story which led to McChrystal’s firing was none other than murdered reporter Michael Hastings. I have always suspected that Hastings was murdered to cover up what he had discovered about Benghazi.
General Patraeus  (RET) was the former commander in Iraq and in Afghanistan after McChrystal was fired by Obama. He was rewarded when he was appointed to be the CIA director. An extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell brought down his reign as CIA director in November of 2012, just following the election.
There is the reason given to explain an event and there is the real reason behind the event. Sixty percent of all married men cheat on their spouses. The more money they make and the more power a man possesses, the more opportunity for cheating.
I have swamp land for sale, in Florida, for anyone to purchase if they are naive enough to believe that David Petraeus, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), resigned solely based upon having an extramarital affair with the biographer-turned-mistress, Paula Broadwell. How did the affair compromise Petraeus’ position as CIA director? The FBI, who vetted Patraeus for the CIA director position, concluded the affair did not matter. What is behind this seemingly meaningless persecution of Petraeus? I can only conclude that Patraeus was also involved in the plot to bring Obama down and the affair was simplest way to bring him down.

From Military Coup to Civil War

Information is coming to light with regard to new military and paramilitary actions being directed against the Obama administration by disaffected military, black-ops, ex-military contractors and private mercenaries. This unholy alliance is presently acting out against the establishment. In short, dead bankers and earthquakes in Connecticut are interrelated and are much more significant than the American people are being led to believe. This is the topic of the next part of this series.