It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Boston Bombings took place to test martial law

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
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.



As long as you are stuck in the argument of specific definitions, it will always make perfect sense to you....you'll always defeat your strawman.

As soon as you and some of the others step outside of specific definitions like "active duty" and "Federal Martial Law"...your argument falls apart.

In fact, the things we see happening, militarized police, militarized FBI, militarized DHS....would be the perfect way to deploy units with the same equipment, training and tactics of an army and maintain the plausible deniability for the gullible masses stuck on dictionary definitions or legal mumbo jumbo.

If the US Government militarized the Girl Scouts and they took you at gunpoint to a cell and held you with no charge.....would you care about the legal definition of a "Girl Scout"? Would you be comforted by the fact that their uniform didn't have "US ARMY" on it?




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by pavloviandogs
 


since the debate is about martial law, everybody's argument would fall apart once it became about something other than...wait for it...martial law. shocking, I know. now you want to move it to yet another realm of debate. okay, cool. so what do you want to see LEOs wearing when they do raids? jeans and t-shirts? they're tracking somebody whom they believe has already detonated explosive devices and gotten into at least one firefight with other LEOs. but they shouldn't have military style body armor or armored vehicles. they should roll out in jeans and t-shirts and be limited to handguns. an increased threat is met with increased force.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
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.


I was referring to "Force Concentration" and "Swarming" tactics but apparently I have to spell everything out....least I hand you more strawmen.



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 are the one that's not paying attention....he used the example 70,000 as a hypothetical extrapolation of numbers based on 10 police controlling 300 people to demonstrate his point that it would not require an army. It was you and another poster that took the hypothetical and ran off on a tangent with that specific number.


Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
If the number of protestors is 300, and there are 10 people, by multiplying the numbers by 7000, I get 70 thousand police officers, and a little more than two million people.

So by my calculations, 70,000 police officers, that do not have any military style weapons or vehicles, can control a crowd of 2 million people. And if the police has military style weapons and vehicles, the amount of police officers need to control a crowd will definitely be much smaller.


Nowhere did he state that 70,000 "would be" deployed.....that's a scenario you created and then attacked as ridiculous.



you're using an example of an incident in one city, and the response was carried out by assets from the same area.


Really.....hummm


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.


LOL! Same area, local...ummm, police....move along people.....ignore the other posts, keep your eyes on my strawman.

Seriously?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Yes or No, dont hinde behind words

Other side of the coin, as above so below.

No creation, just shallow parroting the inverse of the last truth spoken. Twisting words and meaning while putting forward zero evidence or original thought. Everything spoken a shallow reflection of someone else's idea. Incapable of creating truth, existing only in intellectual vampirism.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by pavloviandogs
 


okay, cool. so what do you want to see LEOs wearing when they do raids? jeans and t-shirts? they're tracking somebody whom they believe has already detonated explosive devices and gotten into at least one firefight with other LEOs. but they shouldn't have military style body armor or armored vehicles. they should roll out in jeans and t-shirts and be limited to handguns. an increased threat is met with increased force.



You are running off on another tangent again....

The point was that police equipped, uniformed and trained in military urban tactics being different from military personnel is hair splitting. You presented the argument that since they were not "active duty" that somehow makes it okay. If it looks like a soldier, acts like a soldier, is equipped like a soldier....but called the police, that makes it okay?

How they deal with the scenario you painted is the root of the whole thread....I disagree with the the tactics completely. However, if they are going to impose martial law.....I don't expect they should dress in jeans and tee shirts. I point this out so you don't waste both of our time on three pages of jean & tee shirt distractions.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by pavloviandogs
 


since the debate is about martial law, everybody's argument would fall apart once it became about something other than...wait for it...martial law. shocking, I know. now you want to move it to yet another realm of debate. okay, cool. so what do you want to see LEOs wearing when they do raids? jeans and t-shirts? they're tracking somebody whom they believe has already detonated explosive devices and gotten into at least one firefight with other LEOs. but they shouldn't have military style body armor or armored vehicles. they should roll out in jeans and t-shirts and be limited to handguns. an increased threat is met with increased force.

Our argument about the amount of police officers didn't fall apart. You just do not want to face the fact that you have been defeated. You cannot just stop an argument because you don't have reasonable answers.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
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.

Proved you wrong on the other argument huh? So now you want to argue about what I originally wrote. Well, there's no need to, you can simply look at the argument between me and OtherSideofTheCoin.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 





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


that is the whole problem with this thread people can dress it up as much as they want but the OP has failed to demonstrate how this was a test of Martial law right from the start



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by pavloviandogs
 


you brought it up, i replied to your comment, and now you're saying i'm going off on a tangent? don't post something if you don't want a response. and when you get a response, don't whine about how its a tangent.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Shamrock6
 





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


that is the whole problem with this thread people can dress it up as much as they want but the OP has failed to demonstrate how this was a test of Martial law right from the start

Proof of that? Can you give me proof that that I failed? You cannot give me the "congress did not permit it' crap, because if the government is planning to take over America, the act will already be illegal.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


hardly. you've yet to answer me without modifying your previous comments, playing semantics with your own words, or throwing out some utterly random 'what if' scenario.

news flash: just because you say you won doesn't make it so. prove a point and I'll concede you've made an argument. you have yet to do that, either. any time somebody tries to get you to defend your comments, you change directions. if calling yourself a winner makes you feel better, by all means do so. you'll forgive me for waiting to agree until you've actually done something



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by pavloviandogs
 


did you just learn the term strawman today? you should use it some more. it's a great word. unfortunately, all you did was prove my point. everybody responding to the incidents was....wait for....IN BOSTON. crazy that all those agencies would have offices and barracks and stations in Boston, I know. but thanks for all the copying and pasting. well done. saved me the time.

seriously though, any time you want to throw around some more military terms incorrectly, go for it. you're doing wonders to help my argument



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
if it were a test, why not a testing of the accessibility, accuracy, and willingness to share personal technologies and information? the Bourne Identity and all those other crazy and impossible action movies are now a reality.
People are only as important as the data they gather I guess.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


hardly. you've yet to answer me without modifying your previous comments, playing semantics with your own words, or throwing out some utterly random 'what if' scenario.

news flash: just because you say you won doesn't make it so. prove a point and I'll concede you've made an argument. you have yet to do that, either. any time somebody tries to get you to defend your comments, you change directions. if calling yourself a winner makes you feel better, by all means do so. you'll forgive me for waiting to agree until you've actually done something

Stop omitting my other posts just so you can prove your that you're correct. It's just stupid, and shows how badly you don't want to accept facts.

I already posted this before, but it looks like you didn't "see" it, or just didn't want to see it.


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...



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 


Don't kill the messenger. You're just saying that so you can render his point moot.
edit on 25-4-2013 by extraterrestrialentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


Thats a pretty bold statement "the police always lie" show me some good hard evidence that they always lie, and also show me some good evidence to prove your theory, because not once did the Colonel of the State Police or the Head of BPD say that they were implementing martial law. Like another poster said earlier they were looking for a suspect who was implemented in not only killing 3 innocent people but also murdering a police officer. People didn't know what this kid was capable of so instead of endangering themselves they sat back and let the police do what they do best.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Shamrock6
 





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


that is the whole problem with this thread people can dress it up as much as they want but the OP has failed to demonstrate how this was a test of Martial law right from the start


Proof of that? Can you give me proof that that I failed? You cannot give me the "congress did not permit it' crap, because if the government is planning to take over America, the act will already be illegal.


I don’t think you quite understand something; as the OP the burden of proof is on you so far you have failed to provide any evidence this was a test of Martial law other than saying you don’t mean to use the word “officially” (whatever that means) and shooting down everyone else who is trying to educate you as to why it wasn’t a test of martial law.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


hardly. you've yet to answer me without modifying your previous comments, playing semantics with your own words, or throwing out some utterly random 'what if' scenario.

news flash: just because you say you won doesn't make it so. prove a point and I'll concede you've made an argument. you have yet to do that, either. any time somebody tries to get you to defend your comments, you change directions. if calling yourself a winner makes you feel better, by all means do so. you'll forgive me for waiting to agree until you've actually done something


Great post. Don't give them chum, they feed on others intellect like parasitic thought. That's why they offer no evidence supporting original thought, they are incapable of invention and only parrot the thoughts of others.
edit on 25/4/13 by Mykah because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I have logic on my side, you use legal definitions. However, if the government is attempting an illegal takeover of America, your legal definition is rendered moot. Thus, I have logic on my side, and you have no actual facts, as we are discussing an illegal act by the government.

Just surrender, and accept the fact that you have been defeated. Or else, this discussion will go on forever.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Mykah
 


Actually, I never wrote that.




top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join