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: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 





No, I mean that I simply used the term "martial law" to describe what was happening


Well martial law was not happening

If you think that its resembled Martial law then fair enough

So again I ask you.

Are you saying that what was happening in Boston resembled martial law and that is the message you were trying to convey in your OP




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Correct to a DEGREE.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


seriously??? thousands of terrorists attacking one city, requiring an armed response of 70,00 people, yet the entire rest of the country is left alone. I can't come up with a scenario where thousands of people were attacking one city, but left the entire rest of the country alone. your answers have now moved into the realm of fantasy and absurdity.

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. "thousands" of people don't attack one city and leave the entire rest of a country alone. there's absolutely zero strategic or tactical value in that. officially or unofficially, whichever you prefer.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 





Correct to a DEGREE.


Elaborate

are you saying that I am correct to say that in your OP you were stating that what was happening in Boston resembled Martial law or that it resembled a test of martial law.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


You do not know the definition of degree? Do I have to bring out the definition of "degree"?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


are you saying that I am correct to say that in your OP you were stating that what was happening in Boston resembled Martial law or that it resembled a test of martial law.


Yes or No, dont hinde behind words like to a degree or pretty much just say yes or no.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
The test would be if someone answered the police knock at the door and told them "NO! We are not leaving and you cant come in without a warrant! Do you have any probably cause? NO? Then I will have to ask you to leave." And then see what happens....chances are that they will be charged with "Obstruction of Justice, Failure to Obey a Police Command and then Resisting Arrest."



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 


The US government sent thousands of soldiers after one "terrorist" because of terror attack towards TWC and the Pentagon. Now, thousands of terrorists may be too much, but, if you have 50-100 terrorists that are about to, or have already attacked a major US city, you can bet that you'll have a lot more than a couple thousand soldiers and police officers combating the threat.

And stop with the "I was a US Army soldier" crap. You are only saying that to make your information more credible.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


are you saying that I am correct to say that in your OP you were stating that what was happening in Boston resembled Martial law or that it resembled a test of martial law.


Yes or No, dont hinde behind words like to a degree or pretty much just say yes or no.

No.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


People were much too scared to say no. Especially if it was a SWAT team. I have never heard of someone not permitting the SWAT team to enter their house.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I listened to the police scanners as it was happening (like many many others did) and it seems to me like they were looking for a terrorist, nothing more nothing less.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


are you saying that I am correct to say that in your OP you were stating that what was happening in Boston resembled Martial law or that it resembled a test of martial law.


Yes or No, dont hinde behind words like to a degree or pretty much just say yes or no.

And do you realize how skewed your logic is? You are saying "don't hide behind words", but at the same time, you are attempting to invalidate what I said over a word. Talk about irony.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


are you saying that I am correct to say that in your OP you were stating that what was happening in Boston resembled Martial law or that it resembled a test of martial law.


Yes or No, dont hinde behind words like to a degree or pretty much just say yes or no.

No.


Then what are you saying because now it seems like you don’t even know yourself clearly it was not a test of martial law so now you are saying that you did not use the word “officially”

Seriously dude I am not one for personal attacks but this is like arguing with a child, what does that even mean "offically using the word".

Every time we start to make some progress you start mincing your words saying things like “I said pretty much “ or “I said to a degree”.

Basically its starting to sound like you don’t even know what you think was going on and if you don’t eve know what you think of the situation the how the hell am I or anyone else supposed to know what you think about it and debate it with you.

As such because you clearly don’t seem to know what you think anymore consider this discussion between you and I over.

If It makes you feel better I will give you the last word, just please don’t assume that means any kind of “victory” on your part.

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

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



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by wlasikiewicz
I listened to the police scanners as it was happening (like many many others did) and it seems to me like they were looking for a terrorist, nothing more nothing less.

What did you expect for them to say, " We don't care about the terrorist, we only want to control you"?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


To be honest, I feel like I am talking to a person that has been brainwashed. For some reason, you are interpreting my statements in a way that you can use them against me, and prove that I am wrong, even though the statements that I make (at least to an intelligent mind) are in absolutely no way disproving what I said in the original post.

You are either a troll, or someone who has been successfully fooled by the government. This is not a personal attack, it is only how I feel when I talk to you.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
Once again, when I said it was a test for martial law, I did not use the term officially. By definition, for it to be a test of martial law, the only way would be to use police officers or something other than the military. For it to be a test of official martial law, well, that I do not know.

Definition of martial law:

Military government involving the suspension of ordinary law.


I simply used the term martial law, I did use that term in an official manner.

In other words,


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

There's no distinction between "official" martial law and "unofficial" martial law. You invented that after another poster called you out on your misuse the term. And what happened didn't even look like martial law, so to call it "unofficial martial law" is nonsense. Even if TPTB were using civilian agencies to pretend play soldier in Boston, they were not doing some kind of martial law test, because the civilian government was still operating and the ersatz military did not take over governmental functions. Failure of the civilian government is the sine qua non of martial law. Not scary black rifles, warrantless searches, or large numbers of cops. You can have all those things without martial law, or none of those things with martial law.

May I suggest the term you were looking for is "police state."

Edit: "Failure" of the civilian government might not be correct. Let's say, instead, "failure or subordination."
edit on 24-4-2013 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Official martial law is when the POTUS gives permission, the act is legal, etc. Just describing something with the word "martial law" does not mean the act is official.

If I were to capture you, I simply use the word "capture" to denote what I am doing. And what I would be doing is illegal, if I do not have legal permission. If I have legal permission to capture you, what I would be doing is arresting you. But I could also use the term "capture", even if it is legal, because you are still being taken into possession. Expect, if I use the word "capture" in this, it would be in an official manner.

So there is a difference if I use the term "martial law" officially, and I if I use it to simply describe something.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




are you saying that I am correct to say that in your OP you were stating that what was happening in Boston resembled Martial law or that it resembled a test of martial law. Yes or No, dont hinde behind words like to a degree or pretty much just say yes or no.


I've read these forums for years and while tempted many times to join and reply, nothing has push me to the point....till your posts. To refer to them as insufferable would be an understatement.

First, lets dissect your logic....

The OP claimed it was a test of Martial Law....aside from the numerous logical fallacies in your argument, your entire 9 pages of posts amounts to quibbling over a dictionary definition.

A test of something doesn't require the dictionary definition of the act. In fact, a test of something could be broken down into tests of the component parts.

For example, if you were going to change the flavor of your top selling beverage, you might market test the idea first. You wouldn't need to actually produce the new beverage to begin testing consumer response.

What about a blind taste test? Do they not cover the brand name with "Product A"

If you patch a hole in your gas tank, does it need gas in it to do a leak test? If water was used, applying your strict logic....would that not be a water tank test?

I could go on but I think everyone understands this simple concept.

As for the OP, I don't know whether or not this was an intentional test or if it's just a series of over reactions by an exceedingly overreaching government that just looks like a test. However, since this site is a conspiracy theory site and it's the OP's thread and theory.....I don't disagree that this could have been a test of Martial Law.

Before you smack me with your golden dictionary....reread the above. It's possible that this could have been a test of Martial Law just like the blind taste test. If you take the words "Police" off the military uniforms and vehicles....it looks darn close. If you were TPTB, wouldn't you want to occasionally test market your progress for consumer reaction?

What if I took 9000 troops from a nearby military base and put "police" on their uniforms and vehicles and locked down a city to test the reaction....does the words "police" invalidate it as a Martial Law test? Yes or No, don't hide behind words....or dictionary's

This isn't 5th grade english class.....I think we all understood what the "intent" or "concept" of the OP/thread was.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Most of the people in Boston were voluntarily staying inside while a huge percentage of law enforcement was concentrated in one area looking for the bomber.

Hardly seems like a very effective test of "martial law." Two or three days of that and I'm sure cooperation would have rapidly tailed off.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pavloviandogs
 


Well I am honoured you joined just so you could let me have it,

Although I am done with this thread I suppose since you only seem to have joined up to have a go at me it is only right I give you are response,

It is not about dictionary definitions actually the OP is the one who went to the dictionary, no it is about legal 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.

The OP is wrong to suggest that this was a “test” of marital law its just that simple. It is fine to say that this resembled marital law or that it was the police being heavy handed but a test of Martial law it was not.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join