The Boston Bombings took place to test martial law

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I am sick and tired of replying to your replies, just because you cannot understand a simple word.

The dictionary definition of the term is different than the official definition. Was it officially martial law? No. Does the term "martial law" apply? No. Was it the test of something that can be described by the term "martial law"? Yes.

Cut the crap, and stop acting like a baby.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


Yea I wasn't a soldier, nor did I ever claim to be a soldier. You're right, though, saying that does give me more credibility because it means I'm actually knowledgeable about what I'm saying and not just making it up as I go along in an increasingly futile effort to defend my absurd fantasies.

I won't even begin to debate what the reasons for GWOT are because this isn't the appropriate forum for it. You're right, the end-game was the elimination of UBL. We did deploy troops with the implicit order to find him and terminate him. That's not the debate here though, is it? You put forth a scenario and gave the number 70,000. Your number, not mine. And you also said that number could be deployed to combat a threat by reducing manpower in surrounding areas. You have yet to explain what plausible scenario would have a massive attack happening in one place, yet remain an isolated event. Just because something happens in NYC doesn't mean you pull troops from North Carolina to deal with it.

Sorry you're frustrated, but oh well. No need to get snarky about it.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by pavloviandogs

 

It is not about dictionary definitions..............

In America Martial law is a state in which Habeas Corpus is suspended and the military take to the streets to enforce strict military law, because of the War powers resolution and the posse Comitatus act this require presidential and congressional approval. The only way to test Martial law therefore is to suspend Habeas Corpus and have the military on the streets. This did not happen and as such to say it was a test of martial law is wrong because you can’t test martial law without the military and suspending Habeas Corpus.

You state it's not about dictionary definitions....and proceed to define the dictionary definition.

You also seem glued to the Federal aspect/definition of Martial Law....as if no state governor or city mayor has ever declared Martial Law. This is known as a "confirmation bias".


Definition:
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about current political issues, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes.

Another Definition:
quib·ble (kwbl)
intr.v. quib·bled, quib·bling, quib·bles
1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.

reply to post by pavloviandogs


I am not using a dictionary I am just telling you what martial law is under American law, I have not consulted any dictionary unlike your good self who just has. Its not about dictionary definitions its about legal definitions and under American law Martial law is when Habeas Corpus is suspended it was not suspended during the recent events in Boston and as such there was no martial law or test of marital law.

You also seem glued to the Federal aspect/definition of Martial Law....as if no state governor or city mayor has ever declared Martial Law

Well the governments (or rather legal) definition is what matters when we are trying to be factually correct as that is what is used in a court of law.

Also no I don’t deny that Martial law has ever been invoked, it was during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina where a “state of emergency” as declared. This is the same pretty much as Martial law its just that the state of Louisiana does not call it “martial law” however the who are essentially the same.


And please don’t lecture me about confirmation bias your new here might wana take a look through my recent threads before you start with some college psychology. I have just wrote a thread that has Confirmation bias at its heart about how conspiracies evolve.

Fundamentally while it may have looked like Martial law it was not in any way martial law nor was it a test of martial law that is all I am saying.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Stop defending the system so much. Maybe this will tell you why you keep denying the fact that it resembled martial law, as well as the fact that it was a test for martial law:

www.psychologicalscience.org...

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

Yea I wasn't a soldier, nor did I ever claim to be a soldier. You're right, though, saying that does give me more credibility because it means I'm actually knowledgeable about what I'm saying and not just making it up as I go along in an increasingly futile effort to defend my absurd fantasies.

I won't even begin to debate what the reasons for GWOT are because this isn't the appropriate forum for it. You're right, the end-game was the elimination of UBL. We did deploy troops with the implicit order to find him and terminate him. That's not the debate here though, is it? You put forth a scenario and gave the number 70,000. Your number, not mine. And you also said that number could be deployed to combat a threat by reducing manpower in surrounding areas. You have yet to explain what plausible scenario would have a massive attack happening in one place, yet remain an isolated event. Just because something happens in NYC doesn't mean you pull troops from North Carolina to deal with it.

Sorry you're frustrated, but oh well. No need to get snarky about it.

Here you go my friend.

Mutual aid agreements and assistance agreements are agreements between agencies, organizations, and jurisdictions that provide a mechanism to quickly obtain emergency assistance in the form of personnel, equipment, materials, and other associated services. The primary objective is to facilitate rapid, short-term deployment of emergency support prior to, during, and after an incident.

www.fema.gov...

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by pavloviandogs

 

I am not using a dictionary I am just telling you what martial law is under American law.............

.............Well the governments (or rather legal) definition is what matters when we are trying to be factually correct as that is what is used in a court of law.

edit on 24-4-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

You are the only one hung up on legal definitions....and "Federal" Martial Law....this isn't court and the man never said the Feds were involved.

Your previous reply to me stated:

In America Martial law is a state in which Habeas Corpus is suspended and the military take to the streets to enforce strict military law, because of the War powers resolution and the posse Comitatus act this require presidential and congressional approval.

If a State Governor or a City Mayor has/can invoke Martial Law then you would be incorrect.....right?

If Martial Law has ever been declared by state or local government.....your entire (legal definition) argument is moot.

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

Yea I wasn't a soldier, nor did I ever claim to be a soldier.

Then explain this.....cause it seems you did

as both ex military and ex fed, I can assure that no, we would not be pulling people from all over the country in response to your absolutely ludicrous scenario. we would be standing to our posts and waiting for what was going to happen where we were at. because that's how things works.

I am a former Army Officer, I assure you the above statement is absolutely incorrect.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity




After "thinking a bit", ive come to the conclusion that your a complete idiot.

Originally posted by EarlyDurban
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

After "thinking a bit", ive come to the conclusion that your a complete idiot.

After thinking a bit, I've come to the conclusion that you have been completely, and successfully brainwashed by the government. You also have bad grammar.

Goodbye kind sir.

reply to post by pavloviandogs


If you are going to deploy the active members of the US military on the Streets of America it requires a vote of Congress that is a fact.

Originally posted by pavloviandogs

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

Yea I wasn't a soldier, nor did I ever claim to be a soldier.

Then explain this.....cause it seems you did

as both ex military and ex fed, I can assure that no, we would not be pulling people from all over the country in response to your absolutely ludicrous scenario. we would be standing to our posts and waiting for what was going to happen where we were at. because that's how things works.

I am a former Army Officer, I assure you the above statement is absolutely incorrect.

explain what? the fact that I said I'm ex military? and you assume that means I said soldier? that causes me to question your 'ex army officer' if you automatically assume that when somebody says ex military they meant soldier. last i checked, there's three other branches of the military. i'd love to know exactly what you think would happen then since i'm "absolutely incorrect." i was in south carolina for 9/11. where was i on 9/12? south carolina. 9/13? south carolina. your theories on warfare must be fascinating, if you think anytime something happens we should rush everybody THERE. uh ohs....there's stuff going on in fallujah? lets send everybody over THERE. oh wait now there's stuff happening in baghdad? now lets send everybody THERE. pure fallacy. good try though.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by pavloviandogs

 

If you are going to deploy the active members of the US military on the Streets of America it requires a vote of Congress that is a fact.

Congress has already given the President blanket permission to use the US military to suppress rebellions and enforce civil rights. Think Orval Faubus waking up one day to discover he no longer owned the Arkansas National Guard, and even if he did it wouldn't have mattered, because they 101st Airborne had arrived to relieve them. Clearly TPTB were testing martial law and the Little Rock Nine were in on it.

Originally posted by Shamrock6
explain what? the fact that I said I'm ex military? and you assume that means I said soldier? that causes me to question your 'ex army officer' if you automatically assume that when somebody says ex military they meant soldier. last i checked, there's three other branches of the military.

Last I checked, there's four.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by pavloviandogs

 

If you are going to deploy the active members of the US military on the Streets of America it requires a vote of Congress that is a fact.

Another strawman.....the OP never stated "Active Duty military"

The original premise:

.....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.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


if you want to count the puddle pirates, go for it.

reply to post by pavloviandogs


the original premise was that it was a test of martial law. he's failed to demonstrate how it was anything close to martial law. and since troops can't be deployed in an inactive status, the phrase "active duty" is more than applicable.

Originally posted by Shamrock6

Originally posted by pavloviandogs

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

Yea I wasn't a soldier, nor did I ever claim to be a soldier.

Then explain this.....cause it seems you did

as both ex military and ex fed, I can assure that no, we would not be pulling people from all over the country in response to your absolutely ludicrous scenario. we would be standing to our posts and waiting for what was going to happen where we were at. because that's how things works.

I am a former Army Officer, I assure you the above statement is absolutely incorrect.

explain what? the fact that I said I'm ex military? and you assume that means I said soldier? that causes me to question your 'ex army officer' if you automatically assume that when somebody says ex military they meant soldier. last i checked, there's three other branches of the military. i'd love to know exactly what you think would happen then since i'm "absolutely incorrect." i was in south carolina for 9/11. where was i on 9/12? south carolina. 9/13? south carolina. your theories on warfare must be fascinating, if you think anytime something happens we should rush everybody THERE. uh ohs....there's stuff going on in fallujah? lets send everybody over THERE. oh wait now there's stuff happening in baghdad? now lets send everybody THERE. pure fallacy. good try though.

My apologies, I did assume soldier in the general sense.

i'd love to know exactly what you think would happen then since i'm "absolutely incorrect." i was in south carolina for 9/11. where was i on 9/12? south carolina. 9/13? south carolina.

You are assuming the use of "you" and your specific skills to be a general example of the tactics and strategy. I have no idea what you did/do but I'm sure an aircraft mechanic or supply sergeant would have a totally different perspective of tactics from their unique situation

your theories on warfare must be fascinating, if you think anytime something happens we should rush everybody THERE. uh ohs....there's stuff going on in fallujah? lets send everybody over THERE. oh wait now there's stuff happening in baghdad? now lets send everybody THERE. pure fallacy. good try though.

That's pretty much it....although you make it sound reactionary and arbitrary.

The actual terms are "force concentration" and "swarming tactics".

Force concentration is the practice of concentrating a military force, so as to bring to bear such overwhelming force against a portion of an enemy force that the disparity between the two forces alone acts as a force multiplier, in favor of the concentrated forces.

Swarming Autonomous or semi-autonomous units engaging in convergent assault on a common target


From CBS:

According to Haberfeld, the massive show of force in Boston represents the first major field test of the interagency task forces created in the wake of the September 2001 attacks. Currently on the scene in Boston are officers and vehicles belonging to the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Guard. The Boston and Watertown Police departments, as well as the Massachusetts State Police, are also involved.

Back to your perspective...had you been one of those people or units called up for the joint military styled operation in Boston, you wouldn't be so quick to laugh off centuries old use of force tactics.

There are many examples of these tactics....from a small swat raid on a drug house to national level operations such as Israeli IDF anti terror operations. The movie "Black Hawk Down" is a perfect example of the tactics you mock.

This was not a martial law testing - IMO. It was a demonstration - rather than a testing - for the implementation of a "Police State," which in this case is different than outright martial law, which is soon to come, and what you are witnessing now is merely a prelude to martial law in America. Rather, it was a show of force, the effects of which were to 'terrorize' the community at large and to let the public know that martial law can, and will be implemented. There is a conditioning factor to their methodology.

The American public is being steadily groomed, (mind controlled if you will), and the government surely wants you to know who's in charge here. As an incidental factor - they are also letting future perpetrators in on what to expect should they decide to act accordingly. In the end its all about inculcating the notion of fear across the board. And Instead of the government acting to protect the American people by dealing with those who hold to the tenants and doctrines of Islam, including those in our own government, it is innocent Bostonians and hence all Americans that face the brunt of these unconscionable police state tactics.

Who's responsible for the 'grooming' of the local police forces throughout America with respect to this gradual, but rather forceful - in your face - implementation of "Police State" tactics across America? The Department of Homeland Security calls the power shots but they are surely influenced by the tactics of Mossad and Shin Bet who are acting through the agency, and with the tacit authority of AIPAC in tandem with the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the ADL. Its an Israeli methodology set in place in 2001, and whose origins are to be found in the enactment of the USA Patriot Act of 2001.

reply to post by pavloviandogs


"the movie" Black Hawk Down? you're using Hollywood to talk about tactics? seriously? okay we can run with that. all the forces involved in the raid, and rescue, were centrally located in the Mog. they were not spread out over the entire country. therefore, when the need for a reaction force became clear, the forces were already IN PLACE and ready to go. they didn't call up units operating out of Italy to come over and help with the operation. they used locally available assets to complete the mission.

the entire point of this is that the OP presented a scenario where 70,000 police/military/whatevers would be deployed to one location, and that surrounding areas would be able to send assets to swell the response. i don't see a scenario where a response of that magnitude would be required, but would allow surrounding areas to drawdown their manpower. you want to debate tactics and strategy with me, go for it. but you need to read all of the posts before doing so, otherwise its a waste of time. you're using an example of an incident in one city, and the response was carried out by assets from the same area. you're not even on topic.