The Boston Bombings took place to test martial law

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

Oh, I don't think anybody is disputing that at all. I think the point is to rightfully identify ALL the bad guys instead of just the scape goats.

Yes, there are bad guys in the shadows as well as in the daylight.

Also, the opportunity to run a test on martial law, as the OP surmises, need not a conspiracy, but just an opportunity. What's that saying? Never let a tragedy go to waste?

(I am just playing devil's advocate here. People have a right to question and to dig under the surface.)

reply to post by Shamrock6


I never said that it was martial law, I only said that it was a test.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Read my original post to see what facts I used to make that conclusion.

There you go, for it to HAVE been martial law, all of what you stated would have to be done. Not for a test.

Even if you’re going to say that it was just a test that is still incorrect when you implement a little logic

What happened did not resemble martial law in anyway and as such you cant claim it was a test.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


so basically your entire point is that this is a test of martial law, but its a test of nothing even close to martial law. so they're conducting a test using false parameters to gauge what the effect would be. that's like saying "i'm going to test the oxygen level of the air in this room by taking off my shoe. well i didn't pass out, so clearly there is enough oxygen in this room." it's utterly absurd.

reply to post by FidelityMusic


I could just as easily have compared them to Ted Bundy, or Charles Mansion, but you still would have gotten offended.

Originally posted by FidelityMusic

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by FidelityMusic

 

Hundreds of protestors are scared to go against about 10 police officers. Not only that, but the police officers seem to be beating up some of the protestors.

Really? First Hitler and Saddam compared to police, now hundreds of protesters compared to 4.5 million people having all of their rights stripped. Are you being serious?

edit on 22-4-2013 by FidelityMusic because: (no reason given)

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.

Do a little research and math before you state such things.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Officers driving around in military trucks in military clothing, pointing guns at people, does not resemble martial law in anyway?

Deny ignorance my friend, deny ignorance.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


you're discounting the hundreds of member of ATS who daily espouse their ability and willingness to go toe-to-toe with law enforcement and the military in a knock down, drag out fight. so yes, police officers can control a crowd that has no weapons and no real reason to attack them. if a crowd has weapons and a reason to attack, i'm guessing they wouldn't just stand there taping the police with their phones, but would like....do something.

that is, of course, if all the violent discourse on ATS is to be believed.

reply to post by Shamrock6


I have already said this before. The government would claim that there is a terrorist running around, and would put martial law into effect.

I theorize that after, the government will ask the people to hand in their weapons because the police need more weapons, and for everyone to be safe incase a terrorist tries to, oh, I don't know, take their guns and go on a shooting spree. And of course, the public (I assume) will happily hand over their guns, and that's when all hell breaks lose.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


Talk about doing research and math, you didn't do it yourself.

NYC has half the number of police officers you stated for nearly twice the number of citizens in the Greater Boston area. Since I can't find a number of police officers for the Greater Boston area, we'll look at a large U.S. city with a more similar population, L.A. They have nearly 14,000 employed officers for 4 million people. That right there should give you an idea of how many officers there are in the Greater Boston area.

Combining that information alone we can estimate there are 65,000 police officers against 16 million people. Nice job buddy, but they're not controlling that many people.

reply to post by FidelityMusic


I never compared the amount of NYC police officer to the amount of people in NYC, I only compared a particular amount of police officers to a group of people, and scaled both the numbers up.

And even if there are that many police officers in the US, factor in the military, and we're done for.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


Sorry about all the metaphors but you can put a skirt on a pig and its still a pig.

Testing martial law without military involvement is not a test of marital law it is that simple but you seem to refuse to believe that despite numerous members trying to explain it to you.

If you are going to bath in you own ignorance then go for it, it really does not bother me.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Testing martial law wouldn't be a test, it would itself be martial law.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Testing martial law wouldn't be a test, it would itself be martial law.

Now you’re just not making any sense you have said repeatedly on this thread that you think that they used the bombing to “test martial law” and have defended yourself by saying that it would be a test and not actual martial law and as such our retorts to you don’t apply.

Yet now you are saying that any test of martial law by its very nature in itself be martial law.

Again no, sorry It would not because for it to be actual martial law the military would have to have rolled in and enforced military rule on the citizens that did not happen.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


You can't just scale without using real numbers, you'd just be left with some imaginary, non-realistic numbers to fit a non-realistic outcome that supports your little martial law theory.

If we talk about military personnel right off the bat you're left with almost identical result. 1.9 million vs 310+ million. Now let's step into reality, how many of these Military personnel are ready to go up against the people they swore to protect, including their families.

Stop imagining things and throwing unrealistic information out there to support your argument.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Excuse me, I meant testing martial law with the military would not longer be a test.

reply to post by FidelityMusic


70,000 officers against 2 million people is unrealistic? Stop sprouting crap. That is very realistic. You can have police officers from another city or state to help a particular city or state, if things are getting crazy.

I think you do not know what you are saying yourself, and are trying your best to offend me.

i'm really earning my shill pay today....

you've stated that you never said it was a test, that you only said it's your theory. your original post says 'this was a test of martial law.' so which is it? a theory, or something you're trying to put forth as a fact? and you're still discounting the large number of citizens (basing it purely of ATS posts) who would never hand over their weapons. you're putting one and one together and coming up with 26.89 squared. you're getting caught in contradictions and flip flopping and putting out random statements as if it were fact, denying you put it forth as a fact, and then denying you denied it. good lord.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

Excuse me, I meant testing martial law with the military would not longer be a test.

Fair enough we all make mistakes I see what you’re saying but I have to tell you, you’re still wrong

A test of martial law without the military is not a true test of martial law. Think about it Martial law is only when the military get involved and strict military rule is enforced now that didn’t happen in Boston. Furthermore to test martial law without the military is not a test because the command and logistical structures are not being tested nor are the men on the ground so again it is not a proper test of marital law.

Dude your just flat out wrong and you have no argument to back up your opinion

If I were you I would hold my hands up, humbly accept defeat and move on from this, it happens to the best of us.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by FidelityMusic

 

70,000 officers against 2 million people is unrealistic? Stop sprouting crap. That is very realistic. You can have police officers from another city or state to help a particular city or state, if things are getting crazy.

I think you do not know what you are saying yourself, and are trying your best to offend me.

Look at you imagining and making up little stories in your head of how this can play out and that can play out. There is no way you will ever see 70,000 police officers gather from all different cities, counties, and states to keep order for 2 million people. It will never work, sorry to spoil it for you. Wake up.