By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ammar Abdulmajid-Mohamed Said, a 19-year-old former Michigan Army National Guard member, was arrested on May 13th for allegedly plotting a mass shooting at a U.S. military base on behalf of ISIS. Said, who provided materials and training to undercover officers posing as ISIS operatives, planned the attack for April 2025. His actions included surveilling the base with a drone and instructing the officers on how to breach security and target a specific building. Said is charged with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and faces up to 20 years in prison.
Read the original article here
A 19-year-old Michigan man, Ammar Abdulmajid-Mohamed Said, stands accused of plotting a mass shooting at a US Army base, allegedly on behalf of ISIS. Federal agents arrested him outside the Tank-Automotive & Armaments Command in Warren, Michigan, after unknowingly engaging with him since June of the previous year, according to a criminal complaint. The seemingly random nature of the alleged plot, focusing on a highly secure military base, raises questions, but the seriousness of the charges remains undeniable.
The complaint details Said’s alleged actions. He reportedly shared his plans with two undercover officers, who, in April 2025, agreed to collaborate, ostensibly under ISIS’s direction. This raises immediate concerns about the level of Said’s involvement and whether he was genuinely intending to carry out this plan, or was influenced or even entrapped.
Said’s alleged preparation for the attack was extensive and alarming. The accusations include providing armor-piercing ammunition and magazines, surveilling the base with a drone, training the undercover officers in firearms and Molotov cocktail construction, and even directing them on how to breach the base and their target building. This level of detail suggests premeditation and a high level of intent. However, the fact that his collaborators were undercover agents casts a shadow on the extent to which his actions would have independently translated into a real-world attack.
The potential sentence of up to 20 years in prison for such a serious crime has sparked debate. Some believe it’s too lenient considering the potential consequences of his actions, while others suggest the length of the sentence hinges on the nuances of his involvement and the extent to which he was truly a driving force behind this plan or simply an individual susceptible to manipulation. There is also a discussion on the lack of violence actually occurring, leading to the question of whether the sentence is justified given the potential consequences of the planning alone.
The case has also ignited a firestorm of online commentary, with much of the discussion centered around the potential for government manipulation and entrapment. The use of undercover officers, the length of the investigation, and the nature of the alleged plot have all raised suspicions. Some speculate on the potential for exaggerated charges or the possibility that Said was radicalized and manipulated by federal agents. This raises the crucial question of the ethical implications of such operations and the need for transparency to avoid accusations of overreach and violations of due process.
This situation highlights the complex nature of modern terrorism investigations and the challenges inherent in identifying and preventing attacks before they happen. The potential for both genuine threats and deliberate manipulation makes evaluating the threat level difficult. The seemingly contradictory actions of Said, meticulous planning coupled with targeting a highly secure location, further complicate this assessment.
The case also underscores the need for mental health support and interventions for individuals exhibiting violent tendencies. The online comments reveal a wide range of opinions, from calls for harsher punishments to concerns about the fairness of the legal process and potential for manipulation. However, the underlying message remains clear: early identification and intervention are crucial in preventing such tragedies.
This case is far from over, and the legal process will determine the extent of Said’s culpability and the appropriate punishment. Regardless of the outcome, it remains a cautionary tale about the complex intersection of radicalization, surveillance, and entrapment in the fight against terrorism. The case warrants close attention to ensure the proper application of justice and to learn from any potential failures in intelligence gathering and counter-terrorism strategies. The incident also serves as a reminder of the importance of due process, especially in cases where accusations of government manipulation are involved.