The Boston Bombings took place to test martial law

reply to post by Covertblack


I didn't see NYC locked down on 9/11. Didn't people want help back then?

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Covertblack

 

I didn't see NYC locked down on 9/11. Didn't people want help back then?

Maybe because the terrorists were in planes that crashed into buildings, not running around throwing bombs and shooting.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


So you are responding to me….

You derailed my thread over a term, just so no one else will agree with me

Well if you call pointing out that this was nothing like marital law early on your thread then yup I did but I didn’t force anyone to agree with me or disagree with you all I done was made a point that pretty much made your entire OP invalid. Getting the term “martial law” wrong on a thread about martial law is quite a big deal.

I did say to you very early on you might be better just to hold your hands up and admit that no it wasn’t a test of marital law because it in no way resembled martial law.

This is not derailing your thread it is very much on topic, nor is it a personal attack it is a fair and correct statement that your thread is just wrong

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

I didn't see NYC locked down on 9/11. Didn't people want help back then?

No your right, but the all American air space shut down, they went to DEFCON 4, closed the nuclear doors at NORAD and put all government officials into hiding in underground bunkers and increased security everywhere.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I did not get the "term" martial law wrong. I did not use it officially, I only used it as a way to describe what was going on.

For some reason you have this need for me to admit I was wrong, so that you can reassure yourself that your beliefs are correct, and no one can challenge them, unless you have a link to an article that can easily be false.

And please stop getting my terms wrong. I never said that you were forcing people to agree with you, I said that you want to derail the thread so people will forget that the thread existed, and will not question their beliefs.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I don't remember 9000 police officers running around telling everyone to stay inside their homes, and aiming guns at innocent people.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

I did not get the "term" martial law wrong. I did not use it officially, I only used it as a way to describe what was going on.

really....

because in the OP you said that

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.

Sounds like you’re saying it was a test of martial law

It might have been better for you to have wrote a thread saying “anyone else think this looks like martial law” not say it was a “test for Martial law”

language can be a very delicate beast perhaps the problem that we have is your struggling to articulate what your trying to say.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

I don't remember 9000 police officers running around telling everyone to stay inside their homes, and aiming guns at innocent people.

It's because it was a different situation. Police respond accordingly.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Did I say the government was testing official martial law? No, so don't get your terms mixed up. Official martial law is slightly different than something can just be described by the term martial law.

reply to post by Covertblack


More than 2000 people died, but yet, I saw no lockdown. Even though, it was still very possible that there were still terrorists running around.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

Did I say the government was testing official martial law?

Well if you didn’t mean “official” martial law then you should have said

So what is “unofficial” martial law?

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Covertblack

 

More than 2000 people died, but yet, I saw no lockdown. Even though, it was still very possible that there were still terrorists running around.

Because there wasn't information that people were running around in the streets with guns and bombs. By stating this you are only proving the point it wasn't a martial law test. As coin stated there was a lock down on air space, so again they responded accordingly.

reply to post by Covertblack


And exactly how did the police get the "information" that the brothers were running around with guns and bombs?

And please explain how my post proves that it wasn't a martial law test?

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Covertblack

 

And exactly how did the police get the "information" that the brothers were running around with guns and bombs?

And please explain how my post proves that it wasn't a martial law test?

edit on 23-4-2013 by extraterrestrialentity because: (no reason given)

Probably the part where they were shooting at other police officers and throwing bombs. It proves it because why not do it for every emergency? Hurricane Sandy could have been used for martial law, along with any crisis. They only went door to door when it fit the cause, not when they feel like it.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

Did I say the government was testing official martial law?

Well if you didn’t mean “official” martial law then you should have said

So what is “unofficial” martial law?

I suppose it is whenever martial law is put into effect without approval by the president, and is done illegally. Simply describing it with the term "martial law", does not mean it is official, but it means that the definition of that term fits the situation.

reply to post by Covertblack


Proof that they were shooting at officers? A police scanner is not enough, as it is only audio. Please show me a video of the boys shooting at the police.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


Ok I see what you are saying

So would it be fair for me to say that in your view, what happened in Boston resembled martial law in some way but it wasn’t actually martial law.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Covertblack

 

Proof that they were shooting at officers? A police scanner is not enough, as it is only audio. Please show me a video of the boys shooting at the police.

Do you require this sort of evidence for all crimes? Do you need to see video evidence of Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and eating people to believe he did it? Witnesses have come forward to corroborate the story told by police, including one witness who taped the shootout.

PS- They aren't "boys"

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
Though I'm mostly on your side in this debate I think it might be a bit unreasonable to think that everything that goes on will be videotaped (I'm sure you didn't mean it in that way though but anyway), it's no different from what the authorities want to do, no offense.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

Ok I see what you are saying

So would it be fair for me to say that in your view, what happened in Boston resembled martial law in some way but it wasn’t actually martial law.

That's actually pretty correct.

How about we come into agreement that it resembled martial law?