[flagged]
A mass protest against government incompetence and corruption is hardly a "coup".
Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
221–230 of 530 posts
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not really, no. The Geneva Convention has specific reasoning and rationale for making tear gas illegal during warfare, which does apply to tear gas and make perfect sense. Mind elaborating? The arguments in sibling comments seem to be some variant of "avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents". I don't see how that's relevant to protests. Are we seriously expecting the protesters to escalate to mustard gas…
Even if mustard gas escalation is unlikely in protests, the reasoning behind banning the use of tear gas on protesters still matters: 1. The ban sends a clear message: chemical weapons of any kind are too dangerous to use on people. That's a good and important message to send. 2. If a government uses tear gas on its own citizens but condemns it in war, it creates a moral contradiction (even if the government don't se…
>1. The ban sends a clear message: chemical weapons of any kind are too dangerous to use on people. That's a good and important message to send.
This is begging the question. The topic being discussed is whether "all chemical weapons (including tear gas) are bad". You can't use "we should ban all chemical weapons because it sends a clear message that all chemical weapons are bad" as a reason to justify that, it's circular reasoning.
> 2. If a government uses tear gas on its own citizens but condemns it in war, it creates a moral contradiction (even if the government don't see it that way).
It's only a moral contradiction when people fall for the non-central fallacy that all chemical weapons are bad. Pepper spray is technically a "chemical weapon", but the average person isn't going to think that someone using a pepper spray is somehow comparable to Germans flooding the front lines with mustard gas.
>3. Normalization - just as in war, allowing tear gas domestically could open the door to more severe measures over time.
You can literally say that about any other bad thing that police does. It's not specific to tear gas, or the geneva convention.
>4. When the government are describing peaceful protesters as "terrorists", and abducting them pending illegal deportation, arguing to give them carte blanche on using sonic and chemical weapons to suppress protest is... Well, it's kinda fucking fascist. I don't know a nicer way to say it.
This is obvious a derail, and has nothing to do with the use of tear gas, or the geneva convention. Moreover none of those things are actually against the geneva convention. But that's fine, because you can still object to those things even if they're not banned by the geneva convention.
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are chemical irritants preferable, then? Or just LEOs in riot gear with rubber batons? There's no amount of pushback or repercussion that a rioter will feel is fair or humane, and the mindset of "I'll turn violent and/or destructive if my participation in civil unrest is punished" is a perfect justification for these systems to exist.
> There's no amount of pushback or repercussion that a rioter will feel is fair or humane I mean you're talking about using violence against people to stop or prevent property damage. Most options are off the table in the moment, in the same way you can't execute someone if you catch them vandalizing your car. Smashing their fingers with a hammer wouldn't probably kill them but you can't do that either. After-the-fac…
This reads like you suppose the only thing to do is let rioters vent their outrage against whatever objects happen to be in their way at the time, and hope that there exists some legal comeuppance after the fact.
Why can't some reasonable degree of force be used to prevent property damage? What moral dilemma exists that makes protecting property deserve a comparison to executing someone?
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#224Is there any counter measure for this? Hardcore hearing protection? Noise cancelling headphones? Handheld sound insulation "shield"?
https://youtu.be/CXKTBQBugIA
Probably also worth watching a related video from the same channel: "Defeating Microwave Weapons! - Part 1" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg_aUOSLuRo
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#225From what im reading elsehwhere, it was ADS. Active Denial System. Microwaving people from a distance. Source: Serbian protestors on youtube.
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might enjoy reading Rules for Radicals if you haven't already. If your riot can provoke a worse response from the authority, it can help your cause. The reaction is the action. It may be that this protest in Serbia got a bit rowdy and riotous (see "diversity of tactics") and now the headline is about the government's use of a disproportionate weapon against protestors, not about a riot.
Rules for Radicals is one of my favorite books and I don't think this an accurate summary of what Alinsky says, at all. It's a short book, you can get it for free online, people should just read it.
This tracks so much with what you’ve said before.
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#227From the videos and the description, it looks like it basically makes you think there’s a vehicle approaching and everyone runs away to not get run over.
But would this actually work repeatedly or could you actively override the panic effect if you become aware that it’s just an illusion?
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#228From the videos and the description, it looks like it basically makes you think there’s a vehicle approaching and everyone runs away to not get run over. But would this actually work repeatedly or could you actively override the panic effect if you become aware that it’s just an illusion?
It’s not just loud and scary. Has physical effects on humans
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume it was used to disperse riots, in Serbia it was used as people were standing peacefully, observing 15 minutes of silence.
A lot of the uses in Western countries weren't even to disperse anyone, they were used as giant speakers to broadcast messages, e.g. during Covid in Germany. It's crazy to compare that to what seems to have happened in Serbia. It's like saying "Carter has used a hammer, too" when commenting on a murder, and leaving out that Carter used the hammer to build houses with Habitat for Humanity.
"whataboutism" is pernicious, widespread, and devastating to civil society.
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Part of the rationale for a total ban is to avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents Chemical weapons are tactically useless for modern militaries [1]. You’re pretty much always better off pounding with high explosives. And there isn’t a known path to escalation potential. If there were, everyone would be developing it. [1] https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
Chemical weapons are tactically useless to the American combat doctrine, as described in that article. As we have seen, the Russian doctrine (and Ukraine's doctrine) relies on much more brute force to push a meter at a time and much more indiscriminate damage. It's hard to imagine chemical weapons being useless. He makes the mistake of looking at how the US military fights and thinking that is the only way to fight a…
Why would e.g. sarin be useful for indiscriminate damage when A) you could drop a conventional or thermobaric bomb instead, and B) you can circumvent sarin by wearing a $200 suit from AliExpress? I'm not seeing how it's meant to fit into Russian military doctrine other than in niche circumstances.