The Boston Bombings took place to test martial law

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.

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?

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


I am inclined to agree with this theory. Star for thinking outside the normative box. No flag because these threads are a dime a dozen right now.

Now here's the 64,000 dollar question...in what situation would they need to call martial law again that they're prepping for? In other words, why was this an important precedent to set? (This is the question that is vexing me right now.) Is it just to infringe further on our liberties? To see how complacent and docile we are?

Please elaborate. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on the why and wherefore

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Evidence from where? The police? Did you think the police would tell you that they don't actually care about you? Of course not, it's all a plan. The police always lie. And it seems like you have been fooled.

[

This all happened to test martial law. Not to take away guns, but to test martial law.
No doubt in my mind

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.

double post

Here we go... You're not the first person to say this.

1. Martial Law is mandatory, the police requested.
2. There still were people outside in Boston, you seem to know that.
3. Don't confuse cooperation and complying to help with fear, you obviously don't know your fellow Americans.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Once again, do you think the police would just put martial law into effect, or just test it, without any reason? Definitely not, so they used the "terrorist" excuse, and they got to show that they're at least fighting against "terrorists", which explains why you heard the shootings on the police scanner.

And did I mention that a civilian found one of suspect? Not the police, a normal civilian, which tells me that the police weren't exactly putting their heart and soul into finding him.

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.

reply to post by FidelityMusic


Perhaps the people were not in fear, but if martial law were be put into effect, because of a "terrorist' or some other dangerous person, you can bet that at first, the people will simply be complying, but after will be living in fear when the police will start controlling every single thing they do.

Remember this wasn't official martial law, just a test.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Because police officers in military vehicles with pretty much the same weapons, is so much different than the actual military, right?

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Because police officers in military vehicles with pretty much the same weapons, is so much different than the actual military, right?

Hes an ass, dont mind him

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


Yes it is, for this to have been a test of martial law without the military would make no sense

“lets test martial law today”

“how sir?”

“bomb the marathon, blame it on some poor Chechens”

“I will call the Generals sir”

“no, I think I will test martial law without the military”

“errr sir Martial law is when the military enforce law and order so to not have them involved would make the test rather pointless”

“meh do it anyway”

DOES NOT MAKE SENCE!!!

If they military are not involved then its not marital law it’s just a large scale law enforcement operation.

reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha


Not so hard to make another disaster like the Boston Bombing. And that's when in my opinion, the government will put martial law into effect. To take away not one of your liberties, but all.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


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.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


You seem to think these police officers are all idiots, they aren't. A lot of them might be assholes and abusive with their power, but they are not stupid. The have wives, children, parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, friends, etc. The same goes for any military personnel. If there was something fishy going on they won't sit back and watch the ones they love suffer.

You must not have personally met, or known a police officer, they're no different then you and I. They aren't apart of some grand scheme to destroy America and liberty. Calm down.

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?

This is a conspiracy website you know.

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.

can you not see the problem with your arguement

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

You seem to think these police officers are all idiots, they aren't. A lot of them might be assholes and abusive with their power, but they are not stupid. The have wives, children, parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, friends, etc. The same goes for any military personnel. If there was something fishy going on they won't sit back and watch the ones they love suffer.

You must not have personally met, or known a police officer, they're no different then you and I. They aren't apart of some grand scheme to destroy America and liberty. Calm down.

So in cases with police brutality, you shouldn't fire the police officers, because they're just like normal people?

Saddam Hussein had children, put on his pants one leg at a time, and enjoyed life just like anyone else, was he not evil? What about Hitler?

You have to understand that police can be evil too.