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

page: 15
75
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I'm from Boston so I know my post will be ignored lol but here it goes....

not one person I know was upset about the "lockdown" ...They told us to stay in for our safety. Some people still went out, some people still went to work, a few stores were still open (dunkin donuts was of course)..nobody was arrested or anything if they went out. Some of you guys are running with the word "lockdown" that you heard on whatever news network you watched
They needed to do what they did for saftey reasons first of all...but also they were focused on that one area.... having people just stay home let them focus on that area instead of having to respond to a lot of typical everyday day stuff around the city and to keep the roads clear.




posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TheHonestMan
 


You know what?

I hope I'm wrong. I hope that I am flat out 100% off the mark. I hope that it gets proven that I am so full of poop, my eyes are brown.

I hope I'm wrong.
I want to be wrong.

But sadly, I don't think that I am.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by juicebox
 


I'm glad you're okay and thanks for the perspective.

May I ask, however, when an infringement on a persons liberties is acceptable, no matter how well meant?



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
My question is what would have happened if people refused to let the LEO's in your homes during the "public shelter" request?



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
funny how people are still missing the point of the thread, or maybe they are just flat out refusing the point of it.
as in many international event be it a a terrorist bomb to a hockey game the whole usa usa chant it is rather disgusting. to watch and the support of military patrolling the street , it seems many people on this issue has made a complete 180 about military intervention and patrolling the streets and venues one can split hairs about the coast guard and military the point is there were there , who gave the order for them to be there in the first place ? as i said before this is an issue for local agencies and alphabet agencies not for armed troops .



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TheHonestMan
 


You know what?

I hope I'm wrong. I hope that I am flat out 100% off the mark. I hope that it gets proven that I am so full of poop, my eyes are brown.

I hope I'm wrong.
I want to be wrong.

But sadly, I don't think that I am.


I really don't think there is anything to worry about from this event. No one was really forced to do anything. They were simply asked and most complied out of respect for the officers risking their lives. Agreeing to a request is quite a farcry from having your rights infringed upon.

I'd be much more concerned about what congress and the white house are up to than what happened here.

P.S. My apologies if my prior post was somewhat harsh. It's late and today has been a little irritating. Didn't mean to come off as a jerk.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Police perform house-to-house raids in Watertown MA ripping innocent families from their homes




posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by beezzer
 

good point BeeZ
which is why they ought to not take the guns away
but agin they added powder to the bill and said it wa in response to this boston incident

sonny1
yes
if they get rid of the founding documents
then next it will be their ideas, wisdoms, letters and quotes
edit on 20-4-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


Sandy hook for the magazines and background checks
Boston for the gun powder
Soon there will be some other incident our government didnt have any knowledge of before hand that will add something new to that list


If they were to try and take these things away normally it would raise a lot of heads and people would be to against it so they allow thse incidents to happen as a way to get the public on there side I don't believe that the FBI is so dumb to have just let this guy go by unchecked after they were warned about him in 2011 if it fits into there agenda there gonna allow it they don't actually care about the people, they let this guy who they have been warned about awhile ago into united states wait for him to strike so they can have an excuse to come in and pretty much do what they want regardless of our rights in the name of our "security" which cleary they dont care much about since they were warned about him and didnt follow up on him
edit on 21-4-2013 by Deceasedfantasy because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-4-2013 by Deceasedfantasy because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-4-2013 by Deceasedfantasy because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-4-2013 by Deceasedfantasy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deceasedfantasy

Sandy hook for the magazines and background checks
Boston for the gun powder
Soon it there will be some other incident our government doesn't have any "knowledge of before


If they were to try and take these things away normally it would raise a lot of heads and people would be to against so they use there incidents as a way to get the public


The gun bill failed this week, even after the Boston bombing and even though 90% of the American public supports expanded background checks. If the feds were able to stage/anticipate both Sandy Hook and Boston, I sort of think they would be able to swing six more votes in the Senate. Actually, that seems like it would probably be more cost-effective than killing dozens of innocent Americans.

Also, do you think Congress is going to ban gun powder when they weren't even able to mildly expand background checks?
edit on 21-4-2013 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Because they don't research enough. They're not aware enough.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kyleabent
 


There is absolutely nothing in that video that suggests the police lacked a legitimate search predicate, such as probable cause.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   
If this was happening on a daily basis than it's already too late. The people of Boston should speak out now while it's still fresh because there is no doubt in my mind the playbooks are now being written of exactly how much the government can get away with if the conditions are right.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by buckrogerstime

Originally posted by Deceasedfantasy

Sandy hook for the magazines and background checks
Boston for the gun powder
Soon it there will be some other incident our government doesn't have any "knowledge of before


If they were to try and take these things away normally it would raise a lot of heads and people would be to against so they use there incidents as a way to get the public


The gun bill failed this week, even after the Boston bombing and even though 90% of the American public supports expanded background checks. If the feds were able to stage/anticipate both Sandy Hook and Boston, I sort of think they would be able to swing six more votes in the Senate. Actually, that seems like it would probably be more cost-effective than killing dozens of innocent Americans.

Also, do you think Congress is going to ban gun powder when they weren't even able to mildly expand background checks?
edit on 21-4-2013 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)


The gun ban failed because even Democrats don't have a majority for it. As it should be. Obama wants to legislate from the Oval office because he didn't get what he wanted.

On the other hand, there really is a base for terrorism in Chechnya for anyone who wants to know


Information about groups linked to the conflict in Chechnya is hard to confirm, but experts say the struggle is between local separatists--a loosely organized group with semi-independent commanders--and the Russian army. According to the U.S. State Department, the Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB) is the primary channel for Islamic funding of the Chechen guerillas, in part through links to al-Qaeda-related financiers on the Arabian Peninsula. The United States also defined the Chechnya-based Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR) and the Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs as terrorist entities in February 2003.



Chechnya's long and violent guerrilla war has attracted a small number of Islamist militants from outside of Chechnya--some of whom are Arab fighters with possible links to al-Qaeda. Among the Islamist militants, the most prominent was Basayev, Russia's most wanted man. Basayev fought for Chechen independence for more than a decade, and was the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attacks on Russian soil.


www.cfr.org...



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ffrealmsrider
If this was happening on a daily basis than it's already too late. The people of Boston should speak out now while it's still fresh because there is no doubt in my mind the playbooks are now being written of exactly how much the government can get away with if the conditions are right.



Yeah I agree except I don't think them speaking up will change much the government knows that if the general public is scared enough they will consent to just about everything the rule books have already been written I believe



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


It wasn't armed troops, it was FBI and police. Although after viewing that vid, it does appear to blur the lines a bit.
edit on 21-4-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


The gun ban failed because even Democrats don't have a majority for it. As it should be. Obama wants to legislate from the Oval office because he didn't get what he wanted.


My point is that if the feds are staging massive and elaborate terror conspiracies to take away our guns, they're not getting very good results, since six senators stopped them. So it seems a little ridiculous to think they'll ever succeed in their nefarious plot.
edit on 21-4-2013 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by buckrogerstime

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


The gun ban failed because even Democrats don't have a majority for it. As it should be. Obama wants to legislate from the Oval office because he didn't get what he wanted.


My point is that if the feds are staging massive and elaborate terror conspiracies to take away our guns, they're not getting very good results, since six senators stopped them. So it seems a little ridiculous to think they'll ever succeed in their nefarious plot.
edit on 21-4-2013 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)


Yeah but whether the goverment staged or allowed these tragic incidents to happen or not now the idea is out there and
After sandy hook some people who may not have been for the magazine ban are now for it cause they think it will stop or prevent more shootings before sandy hook the idea of a magazine ban would of sounded a bit odd and probably would of not got much attention from people cause it wasnt really affecting them but now it's an issue people connect with they gotta rally support in order for them to push there agendas just because it hasn't passed yet the bill is still there and now gun powder is on it
edit on 21-4-2013 by Deceasedfantasy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by buckrogerstime

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


The gun ban failed because even Democrats don't have a majority for it. As it should be. Obama wants to legislate from the Oval office because he didn't get what he wanted.


My point is that if the feds are staging massive and elaborate terror conspiracies to take away our guns, they're not getting very good results, since six senators stopped them. So it seems a little ridiculous to think they'll ever succeed in their nefarious plot.
edit on 21-4-2013 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)


Yes, fortunately there are still a lot of people not wiling to sacrifice the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for a bit of security.

I don't think this incident is necessarily about gun control, as disarming the populace doesn't seem to have much to do with the bomb plot. Gun control would have no impact on whether or not these bombs went off. Still the door to door search is a bit creepy and LEO don't want to have to confront armed citizenry. It's more of a generalized police state environment like the PATRIOT Act promotes.

People are decrying the concept of an American citizen potentially not being read his Miranda rights and being declared a possible "enemy combatant". While I also decry a citizen being denied rights, it is entirely conceivable the whole thing was concocted to challenge the sanctity of a US citizen having rights by using a genuine Chechen rebel type Islamic jihadist as the bait.
edit on 21-4-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   


Families brought out of their homes at gun point, made to raise their hands up by swat teams.
and then commencing the warrant-less search of their homes.

This is in America and were letting this happen with out even a protest.

When will we march to our capitals and protest this sort of action, to show our "representatives" that we will not tolerate them treating us like this.
edit on 21-4-2013 by ss830 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 



They asked people to stay inside, there was NO martial law!
And if they refused to stay inside, what then? If you go outside on your own free will, and they decide to arrest you because you didn't stay inside, than I would most definitely consider that Marshall Law..





new topics
top topics
 
75
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join