The Boston Bombings took place to test martial law

reply to post by resoe26


coin and myself, and all the other shills, know this is a conspiracy website. people like us have a problem with "conspiracies" when people all too easily ignore and discount and hide real facts and evidence to come up with wildly absurd claims like this one. it's a test of martial law, but not REALLY martial law because it doesn't use the military. the entire bombing was a set up just so they could lock a city down for a while to see how people reacted. and oh by the way, the entire law enforcement system of the Boston area is in on it and would happily throw their own families under the bus because the government says so. same for the military, they all would do it too. yep, seems legit to me.

but don't mind me, i'm just a shill. so i hear, anyway.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

For the military to come in, would cause too much of a scare, so they decided to test it with the police. And I never said it was martial law, I just said it was a test.

This is like banging my head against a wall.

Martial law = Military provide law enforcement through strict military rule on a temporary basis in times of emergency

Boston bomber hunt = Police ask all citizens to stay indoors while they hunt for a suspected terrorist.

The two are not the same, testing martial law without the military being involved is like me cooking a omelette without eggs it’s just pointless.

Definition of a test:

1.A procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, esp. before it is taken into widespread use

Definition of martial law:

Military government involving the suspension of ordinary law.

You don't have to use the military to test martial law. You can use police as well, to see how the "suspension of ordinary law" would play out.

If you shoot a small ball out of a cannon to see how the cannon would work, are you not testing the cannon?

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


What you have to understand is the actions of a few thousand police officers don't dictate the actions of all. Comparing Hitler and Saddam Hussein to all police officers really shows the type of person I'm talking to. Good luck with your little theories.

reply to post by resoe26

This is a conspiracy website you know.

Awww is it, I thought I was on a Justin Beiber fan forum……

Just because this is a conspiracy website does not mean that we should let claims like the OPs pass unchallenged, I have no problem with the OP stating that he thinks this was a test for marital law other than that he is entirely wrong in that assessment.

reply to post by FidelityMusic


A few thousand police officers is all it takes to scare the living hell out an entire city.

You just cannot take the fact that the government would ever harm you, can you?

Well the good news is gang violence will decrease along with other crimes under marshal law

I just had this conversation and that seems very plausible given how fear works...

I dont know if it was put together to test marshal law. But i don't doubt for a min that they took advantage of what happened at Boston to test their new powers.

reply to post by skorpius


But police brutality will be at an all time record high.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


Yes, a few thousand police officers against 4.5 million people, these police officers aren't Spartans, sorry.

That's not the issue here, you seem to not be able to accept the fact that there is another answer to all of it, and it's the opposite of what you think, and you don't seem to like that.

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

Yes, a few thousand police officers against 4.5 million people, these police officers aren't Spartans, sorry.

That's not the issue here, you seem to not be able to accept the fact that there is another answer to all of it, and it's the opposite of what you think, and you don't seem to like that.

Agreed,

I have no problem with the OP saying that he/she thought it was a test for martial law but when several posters all point out what it was not and then the OP continues to insist that the OP is correct is almost embarrassing.

To the OP,

There is no shame is saying “yeah ok fair enough thought it was a possibility but perhaps not”

reply to post by FidelityMusic


Hundreds of protestors are scared to go against about 10 police officers. Not only that, but the police officers seem to be beating up some of the protestors.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I concluded that it was a test for martial law, I never said it was a fact.

My opinion , it's a big test to see how far they can push the rules up to and including the trial of the bomber. That way when the big event(mass uprising) comes to pass, they will already have the checks and balances in place to help them curb the resistance quickly and quietly.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by resoe26

 

This is a conspiracy website you know.

Awww is it, I thought I was on a Justin Beiber fan forum……

Just because this is a conspiracy website does not mean that we should let claims like the OPs pass unchallenged, I have no problem with the OP stating that he thinks this was a test for marital law other than that he is entirely wrong in that assessment.

right on bro

reply to post by skorpius


That is a good theory as well. It certainly makes sense that they would want to see how far they can go. And how many rights they can take away.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

I concluded that it was a test for martial law, I never said it was a fact.

And what facts and evidence did you use to make this conclusion.

That’s the problem its fine to have a opinion but here is a difference between one formed form speculation and one formed with facts.

For it to have been martial law

• A presidential order would be needed
• The military would be involved
• A suspensions of law would be required
• 9000 police officers would have to have kept it a secret

None of these things happened, that is a fact as such the only reasonable conclusion is that it was not a test of martial law.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Read my original post to see what facts I used to make that conclusion.

There you go, for it to HAVE been martial law, all of what you stated would have to be done. Not for a test.

Martial Law is the suspension of normal freedoms and rights and the imposition of the vastly more Draconian military law. It is NOT the military enforcing the law today as we know it. It is the military enforcing their law, that has been imposed on the common populace as a whole. The military operates under an infinitely more strict set of laws, with substantially harsher punishment across the board, than society as a whole. So in a word: no.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by FidelityMusic

 

Hundreds of protestors are scared to go against about 10 police officers. Not only that, but the police officers seem to be beating up some of the protestors.

Really? First Hitler and Saddam compared to police, now hundreds of protesters compared to 4.5 million people having all of their rights stripped. Are you being serious?