The Boston Bombings took place to test martial law

If anything was being tested it was Obamas new security force. We've had martial law on more than a few occasions. Heck state of emergency is more or less martial law.

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?

I can accept that some times people do bad things, such as setting off a bomb at a public gathering. However, I also have a plethora of evidence and history that says this is not the reason why the city was shut down.

Again- If such and action were standard protocol, why did Police not shut down the city of Washington DC during the 3 weeks that the DC Sniper was shooting people? Do not forget, one of those victims was a child who was showing up to school. Police could have easily searched every vehicle on the highways they had shut down and they probably would have saved many lives in doing so, but they did not. Why?

Why did Police not shut down the city of New York in the days of the Son of Sam killings. They could have easily done so, and conducted a door to door search and probably saved lives. They did not do this though, why?

Why did Police not shut down the city of NY to search for suspects in the WTC Bombing of 1993? Why did the city of Columbus Ohio not shut down the city when they had a highway sniper imitating the DC Sniper for weeks? I can continue on for hours with case after case in which Police could have shut down cities and conducted door to door searches, and save lives by doing so, but they never did do that. Why?

Could it be because doing so would have violated the rights of every single citizen who was not a criminal?

There we go! That is a very good conclusion. I think that even if the Boston Bombings were a surprise, the government obviously used it as a test for martial law. Look at the size of the Homeland Security response! 20 armored vehicles!

I can get behind this theory.

Whether or not it was a test for martial law is irrelevant, they now know how the public reacted to this "martial law like event" and that information will not be wasted. The entire police force are of course not in on this and were probably doing the right thing in their point of view.

Certain powers will use this information and apply it practically if they get the chance. If I as a person who regard myself as a good person who wouldn't seek to use this information for any infernal purpose can come up with this then certainly an evil mind will also see view this event as in invaluable data for their schemes.

The entire government may not be corrupt but certain branches or more specifically certain people of different branches are corrupt and are working together in a nefarious scheme, evil is always present in some form, especially where there is power to be seized.

As long as people subject themselves to others (government) there will be power to be seized and thus evil in it's current form. I suspect though that when and if self-government is established we will still have evil, albeit in a different form, maybe a more obvious, direct and personal evil, sort of like a sinister villain from a cartoon but I digress and it's just speculation as much as this thread is.

But it's good to to view information from many different perspectives and always be open to change as well as being inquisitive of all events international and personal but be relaxed about it, no need being a neurotic paranoid for either position.

A lot of people are quite rightly asking me why they shouldn’t speculate

Let me say this, I do think that you should speculate and question everything but do so sensibly.

That means a couple of things, primarily that people when speculating should seek out the truth, take this thread for example. The OP says “I would speculate that this was a test for Martial law”, ok that’s fine you can speculate all you want but look at what the evidence has to say and it will demonstrate this was not a test of martial law for the reasons I and others outlined earlier in this thread. If you speculate without looking at the facts you only embrace ignorance so yes ask “was this a test for Martial law?” but at the same time don’t allow a confirmation bias to creep in, look at the evidence and hard facts.

The second point I would raise is that a speculative opinion or statement is not as valuable or have as much wait to it as a informed opinion or statement of fact. Facts trump speculation every time, yes speculating and asking questions about big events is important but only if you can accept that its only speculation which in the end means pretty much nothing unless there are facts to back it up and turn it from a speculative opinion to a informed opinion.

I could speculate that Santa was the real bomber with just as much credibility as the OP has in speculating that this was a test of Martial law, and like the OPs claims unless I have some facts to back that up it means absolutely nothing.

So yes speculate all you want just remember that speculation and facts are not the same thing.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
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.

Police entering homes without a search warrant ,having all Innocent people in the home removed and ordered to put their hands up and walk to another group of heavily armed Swat,FBI,ATS,Police,Special Forces who then would search each individual regardless of sex or age,Yea,I would call it a practice run.

www.youtube.com...#!

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Even though there aren't any hard facts available the meta data is there for use and it will be used by anyone interested. What is a fact is that to some people this is a trial of the public reaction and to some people it is just means to catch a criminal, it's not one or the the other it's both, but the meaning of the event changes depending one who answers the question and what they're goals are. I remind you that the data, whether or not orchestrated, is there and it would be wise not to ignore the data no matter which side you are on for future contemplation (not implying you are bad guy).

When you start pointing loaded (and including fully automatic) weapons in the face of innocent civilians while forcibly removing them from their homes to randomly search for suspects while the whole city is under a "lockdown" for their "safety" then you increase the probability that an officer will "accidentally" shoot or injure an innocent civilian (remember the Dorner fiasco in LA). I believe that the city cooperated because they wanted the suspect(s) caught but the level of terror would have been much worse during the reign of the DC Sniper a few years ago. Will a martial law scenario excuse police and military advisers (so much for posse comitatus) from accountability and obeyance of the law itself? If you ask me pointing a loaded gun at someone who is not a proven threat is close to "assault with a deadly weapon".......perhaps a lesser charge like "brandishing a weapon in a threatening way" would apply.

reply to post by MrWendal


Excellent. Best post so far in this thread. Wish I could give multiple stars for it.
I've been saying that this was a test run for martial law ever since the lockdown first took place. After reminiscing those events you brought up, (some arguably just as/if not more serious) I don't see how it can be seen otherwise.

In the event of more catastrophic scenarios (aka false flags), we American people can expect more of these isolated "lockdowns" in the future. That is, until a more widespread catastrophe occurs which would put the whole nation at risk. IMO, the widespread event won't happen until the 2nd amendment is totally and utterly crapped on. For the meantime, it seems TPTB's attitude is "practice makes perfect".

I came to the same conclusion as the OP about an hour ago whilst watching a wrap up of the story on a current affair show.

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?

Forcing people to stay in their homes and endure warrantless searches on top of shutting the city down are signs that point to martial law.

Why can people on ATS not accept the sometimes government overstep their boundaries.

Originally posted by buster2010

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?

Forcing people to stay in their homes and endure warrantless searches on top of shutting the city down are signs that point to martial law.

Why can people on ATS not accept the sometimes government overstep their boundaries.

Maybe because in this point they did not.

reply to post by Covertblack


Too early to start kicking down doors and saying you're all terrorists to innocent people. They have to go slowly.

It may be legal now, but soon more and more of your liberties will be taken away. You don't have to look at Boston to see that, just look at all of America, and you'll see.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Covertblack

 

Too early to start kicking down doors and saying you're all terrorists to innocent people. They have to go slowly.

It may be legal now, but soon more and more of your liberties will be taken away. You don't have to look at Boston to see that, just look at all of America, and you'll see.

I respect your opinion. My question to you would be why now? Why wait until 2013 to do this? Surely there have been better times for the government to enact a total take over. Before the internet I feel like it would have been fairly easy.

reply to post by Covertblack


No idea why now. But hey, if it's going to happen, it's got to happen at some time, right?

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
Indeed, why not now? But it's better to do it slowly with the "consent" of the governed than to run against them. They don't want riots, they want voluntary obedience (due to social pressure it will be voluntary but you have no exit point, a double-bind, very clever) and eventually if the people start to get agitated they very little legal authority setup in the social structure thus requiring the sacrifice of many many people to wrestle back the power from a totalitarian government run wild.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


you propose a scenario where 70,000 police officers are required to deal with a situation. I can't even begin to comprehend a situation that requires that kind of police presence, yet is an utterly isolated incident that would allow surrounding jurisdictions to reduce their own manpower. 70,000 of any group in one area is a massive response, yet you put forth the idea that it would be one incident, isolated, and that there wouldn't be anything else going on? come on. that's just plain fantasy. i can play the what if game all day long too.

and to the poster who asked why DC wasn't shut down during the DC sniper timeframe: probably because it wasn't happening in DC? it happened in Maryland and Virginia. thats why they were called the beltway sniper, not the DC sniper. out of all the murders, only one took place in DC. so why would they shut down DC? i was on I-95 immediately following one of the shootings. it was shut down. a 3 hour drive took me 7 hours. the police were going from vehicle to vehicle. except they were looking for a white panel van, not a blue sedan. your argument is without base or merit.

reply to post by Shamrock6


You obviously do not understand real life scenarios.

If there are thousands of protesters or terrorists preparing to bomb towers and buildings, you think the amount of police officers in a town will be able to control the situation? No, of course not. The military, bomb squad, and police from all over will be called in. Much more than what was seen in Boston.

You can't get everything from an article on the internet you know.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Covertblack

 

No idea why now. But hey, if it's going to happen, it's got to happen at some time, right?

That's the point, it's not going to happen if it hasn't already.

reply to post by Covertblack


Nah, I'm pretty sure it's going to happen. They just got to move slowly. Too many still have weapons, and not enough laws are passed yet, for complete martial law to take over.