Why does Boston celebrate Martial Law with chants of ‘USA, USA’?

reply to post by neo96


Because they are stupid, arrogant, mind-controlled main-stream Americans with the SPOTLIGHT ON THEM... The next thing up or down (depending on your viewpoint) from fundamental Muslims... I blame the concept of god, hero worship and a diet of sport, war and coolade.. I watched with disgust.

Originally posted by neo96
I posted this on the bottom of page 2 still waiting on an answer

I don't fault anyone calling it martial law if someone has another term for when the government, and police forces, armed with "assault" weapons out numbered the civilian unarmed population on the streets feel free to enlighten me

Anyone feel free.

edit on 20-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

The Laws are in place for this, without having the need to say "Martial Law". I am sure there's a few Executive Privileges and something in the Patriot Act that can supersede any freedoms we have. Americans gave up their freedoms with the Patriot Act. Its sad, but true.

reply to post by beezzer

"Secure In Place"

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

Show of police force in full combat gear with tactical vehicles close to tanks, against the efficiency of a special services agency going after one single individual lacks comparison.

This was nothing but a show of force for the masses to get use to what is to come.

Yes, it lacks easy comparison because it was a "single individual" with the demonstrated intent and ability to injure hundreds of innocent civilians.

reply to post by sonnny1


Sonnny1 we didn't gave away our freedoms at least I didn't sign anything in to that and I was no given choice of a vote on it either, they has been taken from us one piece at a time in the name of security and most Americans do no even question the motives but accept what is given to them as an excuse.

reply to post by buckrogerstime

What? No, that is not martial law. "Officers armed with assault weapons outnumbering the civilian unarmed population on the streets" is the definition of a police force.

mar·tial adjective \ˈmär-shəl\ Definition of MARTIAL
1 : of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior
2 : relating to an army or to military life
3 : experienced in or inclined to war : warlike — mar·tial·ly adverb

www.merriam-webster.com...

So nothing we saw was "war like" chasing down 2 individuals, gunning down one?

I disagree I think yesterday is a perfect example of how far America has fallen.

reply to post by buckrogerstime


Sadly he could have done that when the opportunity was there, but killing 3 human beings and one failed bomb can never compare to the thousands than die during 9/11.

Obviously our so call security has failed us, but we have given more than that in name of that failed security and more will be taken away and we still are not safer now than the day before.

You'd only get this in America.
They do stuff like this all the time.....pretty strange ?

Nothing like a large dose of hyperbole to provoke the masses into a lynch mob mentality to successfully enforce a heavy police-state manhunt.

So long as the folks can wave their red, white, and blue under delusion of pride and grandeur... it's all good.

It seems TPTB have concocted for themselves the perfect recipe for success.

As a non-American standing on the outside looking in, I find this entire debacle of a charade over the past week to be... um... baffling, to say the least.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

What? No, that is not martial law. "Officers armed with assault weapons outnumbering the civilian unarmed population on the streets" is the definition of a police force.

mar·tial adjective \ˈmär-shəl\ Definition of MARTIAL
1 : of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior
2 : relating to an army or to military life
3 : experienced in or inclined to war : warlike — mar·tial·ly adverb

www.merriam-webster.com...

So nothing we saw was "war like" chasing down 2 individuals, gunning down one?

I disagree I think yesterday is a perfect example of how far America has fallen.

What in the world are you talking about? Police in every city in the world have used assault weapons to chase down violent criminals. That is why police exist.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

Sadly he could have done that when the opportunity was there, but killing 3 human beings and one failed bomb can never compare to the thousands than die during 9/11.

Obviously our so call security has failed us, but we have given more than that in name of that failed security and more will be taken away and we still are not safer now than the day before.

you really have to wonder how kids with pipe bombs and Muslims with box cutters can fox the worlds most expensive and trained and equiped military...
while giving the government the perfect excuse to carry out their stated agendas

Originally posted by beezzer


Then my reply to you both would be that simple apprehension of a suspect is the cause of 9000 federal and state agents going door to door?

An unusual justification, or do you feel it justified, since they didn't apprehend the suspect on their own.

Oh, I agree with you. Its insane. But........

The American public isn't going to stand up to it. Its obvious. Like I said, having Local Police doing their Job? I'm fine with that. Having an inept FBI, who I blame partially for this, anywhere near calling the shots? Preposterous. Letting FBI, Homeland Security or any other three word agency kick in doors, in the name of security? Insane.

Just remember though. Fear controlled the situation.

You can be pissed about it till your blue in the face, but it wont change how the majority will react to it. I remember the video of the lady in New Orleans being FORCED to give up her firearms, after Katrina. It still sickens me thinking about it." The people " have given up their rights. Period.

Sad.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

Sadly he could have done that when the opportunity was there, but killing 3 human beings and one failed bomb can never compare to the thousands than die during 9/11.

Obviously our so call security has failed us, but we have given more than that in name of that failed security and more will be taken away and we still are not safer now than the day before.

Serious question: How many terrorists and casualties do you need before you're willing to have a citywide lockdown for a few hours while the suspects are dangerous and active? Is 10 terrorists enough? 500?

reply to post by CranialSponge


As an American living in the US me and many of my fellow ATS see this whole Boston drama for what it is, a show of force in the name of "for you security", is nince to know that others can see it too.

reply to post by buckrogerstime

What in the world are you talking about? Police in every city in the world have used assault weapons to chase down violent criminals. That is why police exist.

The police exist to catch people then be tried in court of law not die in a hail of full auto 5.56mm ball ammo.

reply to post by sonnny1


very astute Sone
star that
remenicent of the 6 fat bubbas that tackled the lil ol lady with the unloaded .32
they added powder to the gun bill wed
the bill may have not passed this time
but powder will be on it when it does

sounds about right Neo

reply to post by buckrogerstime


You can speculate all you want, but that is not what happen in Boston, now because you are posting the question, how many lock-downs took in effect during 9/11, after two whole towers were demolished and the damage of the .Pentagon in Washington, in which thousand of people and children die.

No comparison at all, played anyway you want.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

What in the world are you talking about? Police in every city in the world have used assault weapons to chase down violent criminals. That is why police exist.

The police exist to catch people then be tried in court of law not die in a hail of full auto 5.56mm ball ammo.

Do you think people pointing a gun at your head and threatening to shoot should be tried in a court of law before you can respond?

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Sonnny1 we didn't gave away our freedoms at least I didn't sign anything in to that and I was no given choice of a vote on it either, they has been taken from us one piece at a time in the name of security and most Americans do no even question the motives but accept what is given to them as an excuse.

edit on 20-4-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

You have to fight for freedom...

Or

There will be someone trying to take it away.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~ Thomas Jefferson




People don't "fear" the government. They talk about "fearing" it.

reply to post by buckrogerstime

Do you think people pointing a gun at your head and threatening to shoot should be tried in a court of law before you can respond?

Given the fact of wearing body armor, complete with armored vehicles,snipers,air support, and 8999 other people behind me?

Not to worried about getting shot at comes with the job.