The Boston Bombings took place to test martial law

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Actually, the only way to test martial law is without the military. If the military is involved, official or not, it is classified as martial law. I'm sure you saw my other post, the definition is the suspension of ordinary law, with the involvement of the military, it does not specify whether or not it must be official.

So even if it is not official, and they are only "testing", it is still, by definition, martial law.

reply to post by FidelityMusic


Never work? Come back to me when you have done some research, and came out of your fantasy world.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Actually, the only way to test martial law is without the military. If the military is involved, official or not, it is classified as martial law. I'm sure you saw my other post, the definition is the suspension of ordinary law, with the involvement of the military, it does not specify whether or not it must be official.

So even if it is not official, and they are only "testing", it is still, by definition, martial law.

I am sorry I know you are finding this difficult but you are factually incorrect

What a dictionary has to say about martial law and what legally counts as martial law in America are two totally different things.

And you are really stretching out your source to try and claim that a test of martial law is in itself martial law.

Dude your just wrong, like I say if you won’t accept what is very clear to everyone else then that is up to you, I really don’t care if you want to embrace the spectre of ignorance.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


You seem to have a problem with consistently telling other to do research, and when it is presented you simply push it aside. I've done the research behind what I've stated, you've stated a lot of stuff so far and have yet to present any information backing it. I'm not the person that did that incorrect scaling to get random numbers, you did, yet you're asking me to present information to back your argument.

R.I.P. to this thread. Have a good day.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


In my original post, I never said that if martial law would be put into effect, it would be official. I simply used the term to describe what I think the government is going to do. I am not using the term in a official way. I only meant that the government is testing the suspension of ordinary law with military involvement. And instead of military involvement, they used the police.

And if you are so kind, please tell me, exactly how would one test martial law? Unofficially of course, since if the government has decided to take over America, there is no need for any documents or permission from the president, as the takeover of America itself would be unlawful.

Do tell.

reply to post by FidelityMusic


Saying that it is impossible to bring police from other city/states is pure ignorance.

I cannot believe you actually said that it is research.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


so what happens in the areas that they drawdown police manpower from? so they reduce the manpower by half to go somewhere else and augment the manpower there. so....what about the now reduced police presence? if they need 70k officers in one location, i would imagine there is some pretty substantial incidents going on. or are they going to be isolated to one place and one place only?

and again, i'll point out that there was no martial law. people were encouraged to stay in their homes for their own safety. there was no suspension of rights, no imposition of other laws. so basically the 'test' of martial law was 'how will people react to seeing large numbers of police officers walking around in their neighborhood looking for a terrorist?' not much of a test of martial law in my book.

reply to post by Shamrock6


If there is no problem in one town, and there are thousands of protesters committing violence, then the town that has relatively no problems, can send some of their police officers over to the town with the protesters to help.

The same way the military can be called in if needed.

And once again, I never said there was martial law.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I like how you add in extra little requisites to prove it isn't martial law. First, you add in that in order for them to test martial law the establishment has to actually create the event rather than sit around idly and ignore warnings from foreign agencies until an event takes place. Second, martial law is not strictly a term that is applied to military; there are instances of martial law or curfews around the country at various times over the years. Another thing, a test if not meant to be full on boot stomp; it is easier for the masses to accept incremental steps towards a specific goal. The precedent is set, apparently the only requirement for martial law is when it is a specific type of criminal which over time can become more ambiguous in definition to a point where martial law must be enforced at all times due to there always being criminals that have yet to be captured.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

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

They did. Someone else mentioned it in a thread. It is FEMA who coordinates it. The military was kicking in doors alongside LEO's from the local and state level. A coordinated effort but who was in control? That is the question. My guess is since the FBI was the lead with ATF/DHS it was a government. Martial Law can be defined simply as using government troops for assistance. After Katrina, it was rumored that Martial Law was put in affect. It was. However, it was not referred to as Martial law since Louisiana does not allow for that. So they did it anyways and called it a State of Emergency which grants martial law type powers. over 10k soldiers were on the ground in NO.

Boston was in a state of emergency. Orders were given. Watch the videos and you see military working with LEO's. If it walks like a duck...do we think Boston PD or the Mass State Police?

reply to post by esdad71


This is correct; the call for the lockdown went out to all police channels from FEMA STATE CONTROL. If you look into this, it seems to be a non existent entity.

No mention in the media of FEMA coordinating all the police, but in the lockdown announcement, preceded by alarm beeps, FEMA STATE CONTROL announced and dictated the lockdown's specifics to all officers simultaneously. FEMA was there, running the program, a MANHUNT.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, initially created by Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 and implemented by two Executive Orders on April 1, 1979.[1][4] The agency's primary purpose is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the United States and that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities. The governor of the state in which the disaster occurs must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the president that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster.

Nothing about commanding a police effort across local, state, and federal jurisdictions here!

Hmmm..... When all those LEOS are making mass arrests, will they bring prisoners to FEMA STATE CONTROL?

All of these acts of terror are designed to create a cashless society.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
After thinking a bit, and looking at some posts on this site, I finally came to a conclusion: the Boston Bombings were a way for the government to test martial law, and see to how it would play out.

The fact that just a little more a few days after the Boston Bombings, Boston all of a sudden went on lockdown, intrigued me. Now, I understand that people were let outside, and that they weren't on complete lockdown, but that was just a test to see if people would be afraid to go against it, and do exactly what they were told, which was to stay inside, and comply with all the military vehicles outside with guns pointed at any person the officers see.

The fact that they did it so quickly, also makes me think it was a test for martial law. The government wanted to see what would happen if they all of a sudden put martial law into effect. And the results came out pretty good, at least for the government.

This all happened to test martial law. Not to take away guns, but to test martial law.

Personally I agree with you. I think (I don't need facts to think!) it was a test, to see how backboneless people will go home and stay home when told and let people ransack their home if told and be stripped naked because you look like someone, and no one bats an eye and the test went really well. Next step.
600,000 people no one shouting you need a warrant! You need to arrest a possible suspect not strip and batter them as it has always been done. Air space, business freeways schools all shut down for 2 young men.

www.liveleak.com...

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

Well listening to the police scanners as the events were unfolding and the media coverage of the event all point to it being the case that the city was locked down so they could catch as suspected terrorist.

Now you might not like that evidence but its out there and we all know it is.

If you want to believe in the OPs speculation for which there is zero evidence over the media and the police scanners then feel free to do so but I only deal with facts and the facts all point to the city having been a huge police presence to catch a terrorist.

OPs speculation

Don't you think people should speculate? How do you "deny ignorance" if you wait and only think about the mainstream conclusions and whatever they present you? To me deny ignorance means "use your own head" think for yourself speculate...you may be wrong, but maybe those falling for official stories are wrong.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

There is no evidence that “they” carried out some kind of false flag to test marital law

If they did they made a pretty crappy job of it because it wasn’t even marital law, martial law would have the military on the streets enforcing military rule this was a police operation not a military one so to claim it was to test marital law is preposterous.

What do you think of this video? A test would require an excuse being pushed beyond the raids in Miami and other cities without notifying the public or emergency personnel. Now they know that with a small excuse everyone will comply to be "safe". Oh and "helpful".

www.liveleak.com...

reply to post by Char-Lee


Well said. People don't understand that if martial law is really going to come, it's going to come quietly, or else people might rise up, before the police and military are put in place, which is good for us, and bad for the government.

And boy, people sure do get angry when you don't side with their beliefs. Thanks for the support everyone.

Since they didnt stop anything, all these MilCons must have been there to ensure the False Flag was a success:



Disclaimer: I have not embedded the above exact image anywhere else on ATS, but here.

I too am inclined to believe that this was a test as well... I know it wasn't exactly martial law but it's the closest thing I've ever seen to it. The test was successful for the most part, people willingly agreed to let LEO's enter their homes unwarranted but I think it was mostly out of fear and hype of that fear. I don't believe that this would work in other parts of the country though. Imagine if this took place in Houston.

It speaks volumes to me that despite the martial law (light), lock down, manhunt... didn't result in LEO's finding the suspect. It was a guy who called the cops because he noticed something suspicious. Isn't this the way most suspects on the run are apprehended by detectives and law enforcement?

(one thing that bugs me... If they suspected him to have explosives or to have set explosives in the boat, I remember a big deal on the news about they weren't sure if the gas tank on the boat was full and if so it was a substantial amount of gasoline) why...the hell... were they throwing flash bang grenades at him? Wouldn't a flash bang grenade have a chance of detonating said explosives?

All in all, I do believe this was a test for things to come. It proves that all you need to make people to give up their rights is fear.

OP is 100% correct.

From the looks of the test, we failed -



USA! USA! Bring in the DHS tanks! Search our homes without warrants! Whatever it takes! USA! USA!

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Speculation, speculation, speculation.

Unless you have evidence all you have is speculation while I have a plethora of evidence that the reason the city was shut down was to hut for the “terrorist” and to maintain public safety.

Why can people on ATS not accept that sometime people do bad things like bomb a public gathering?

Aren't we all on this site to speculate? I don't get why people complain about this. That's the reason why we're all here. We speculate on everything. Duh!