4 ms·

> shoot-to-kill order to quell protests What a typical headline manipulation. And the article barely mentions all the armed banditry, nice. Way to paint a dram

> shoot-to-kill order to quell protests What a typical headline manipulation. And the article barely mentions all the armed banditry, nice. Way to paint a dramatic picture, Reuters.

notch656a 5y ago
By armed bandits you're talking about Kazakh Government, correct?
- foverzar 5y ago
  Please drop that act, as if you don't understand what I mean. I am not looking to pick a fight and acting stupid doesn't really do you any good. There were enough photographic evidence of armed bandits attacking the police, trashing and robing property, setting it ablaze, and even a few videos of thugs raiding a police department's armory. People had died. This is no longer a joking matter, sorry.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    None of that sounds like a reason to kill them in the street - not that I think you're wrong, but just that I'm only going off your abbreviated descriptions. Both of your posts have an aggressive tone that is condoning a government killing citizens with very brief reasoning given for justification relative to the extreme seriousness of that stance. They also contain sarcasm. I'm not merely criticizing you - I'm just pointing out that it's unrealistic for you to say "I am not looking to pick a fight". Edit: It doesn't sound like a reason to kill them because "they did X" can't mean "kill them" for essentially any X, the operative word being "did". I.e. government agents must (morally) reserve lethal force against their own citizens for when they are under immediate threat of an intent to kill, and they are (morally) obligated to avoid that situation in the first place, if at all practical, for admittedly various definitions of "practical".
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - foverzar 5y ago
      > None of that sounds like a reason to kill them in the street Exactly what kind of picture are you imagining? That evil baby-eating Kazakh government is lining up poor peaceful unarmed civillians to shoot them down in the street? Well sorry, that's not what we see on photographic evidence. Unfortunately there is no other practical response to armed mob that threatens actual civillians and is intended to kill anyone affiliated with the government, other than "killing them in the street" if they don't comply with surrender order, don't lay down their weapons and continue their business of turning the city into a war zone, burning property and so on. > Both of your posts have an aggressive tone that is condoning a government killing citizens This is merely your impression. Written text has no "tone" except the one you hear in your imagination. Please don't reduce what I had said to a mere "tone that is condoning government killing citizens" -- that is not what I said. > They also contain sarcasm Only one contains sarcasm and, in an case, sarcasm does not imply anything in particular. My first posts only epressed frustration with Reuter's quality of journalism. If you see it in a "wrong" tone and interpret it as an invitation for a fight, sorry, but that is completely on you. > I'm just pointing out that it's unrealistic for you to say "I am not looking to pick a fight" Please don't project your behavioural patterns on me. > I.e. government agents must (morally) reserve lethal force against their own citizens for when they are under immediate threat of an intent to kill Then I don't see what is the problem here, or, specifically, I don't see why you insist on acting as if it is not what is currently happening.
      - lostlogin 5y ago
        > Unfortunately there is no other practical response to armed mob that threatens actual civillians and is intended to kill anyone affiliated with the government, other than "killing them in the street" if they don't comply with surrender order, don't lay down their weapons But that’s not correct. “I have given the order to law enforcement and the army to shoot to kill without warning,” Tokayev said. https://apnews.com/article/kazakhstan-law-enforcement-agencies-6dc8df9639367c3845aa00a008072997 https://apnews.com/article/kazakhstan-law-enforcement-agenci...
  - notch656a 5y ago
    The guns in the police armory ultimately belong to the people. If their government is corrupt and coerce the people then they not only have the right but the responsibility to raid the armory and act in defense against their agressors. "People had died" isn't supposed to be a joke but a necessary and lethal response of the populace to neutralize government armed bandit murderers.
    - foverzar 5y ago
      > The guns in the police armory ultimately belong to the people Well this is just demagogy and slogans, utlimately boiling down an attempt to depicict it as a yet antother romantic dihotomy of "opressive government" and "brave people". As awlays, in reality the real civilians are hiding scared at their homes or fleeing the country and it's just a few armed thugs, who think they can represent and talk for "the people", having tasted some blood and lawlessness. There is enough video evidece to see how "defense against their agressors" turns out to be robbing shops and setting building ablaze. So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government or have some moral high ground.
      - notch656a 5y ago
        In your other quote you said they were "thugs who use firearms against police" but here you say they aren't fighting the government (police are government) at all. Your words are contradictions. "Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight. It sounds dangerously like the Russian propaganda against Chechens when they were simultaneously calling the rebels "foreign influencers" (no real civilian would fight the Russians!) while simultaneously sending secret police to genocide or jail military age males.
        foverzar 5y ago
        > but here you say they aren't fighting the government (police are government) at all But that is not what I have said, especially not the "at all" part, why are trying to misqoute me? All I have said is that robbing shops doesn't seem like a glorious heroic struggle against the government. Random skirmishes will obviously occur. Not sure what exactly you see as contradictive and where exactly do you imagine a binary mutual exclusion. > "Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking? Seems to be still be "a person who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a *belligerent group in a conflict*. So I don't get why you insit on using the wrong term, other than to spin a narrative. Armed belligerents are not civillians, up is not down, war is not peace, words do have specific meanings.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    How do you suggest the removal of a dictator should occurs? A stern letter? The language used is interesting - eg "an invasion of bandit formations trained from abroad". Is ‘bandit’ a common translation that gets used, or some state propaganda that’s being parroted? It could be both I suppose. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-59894266 https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-59894266
    - notch656a 5y ago
      This is almost a clone repeat of what the Russians said about their ass being kicked by the Chechens in the first war. In reality the Chechens had scant outside support in the first war and got virtually all arms by taking them from killed russian soldiers.
    - foverzar 5y ago
      > How do you suggest the removal of a dictator should occurs? A stern letter? I am not going to suggest how anyone should achieve their political goals, nor am I going to engage another "ends justify the means" argument. I am simply pointing out that calling armed isurgents mere "protestors" and putting them in one cohort with protesting civillians is a very blatant attempt at misinformation. > Is ‘bandit’ a common translation that gets used It's a borrowed Itallian word, widely used in both roman and indo-european languages, not a "translation". Please don't accuse me of "parroting" something when you base your assetions on such illiterate mental models. Thank you for the link, but I don't suppose hackernews crowd really needs some journalist of a state-owned political media explaining complex politics to them.
jkepler 5y ago
When I lived in Ukraine, the 'bandits" that the then-pro-Moscow government claimed were running rampant in the streets were the "titushki" (guys hired for $20/night to wandered around with a beer in one hand and a crowbar in the other, beating up anyone who looked like the were protesting against the government). Inside the perimeter of the manifestation was one of the safer parts of the city. So, when I hear a pro-Moscow autocratic ruler say there are bandits in the streets, I remain highly skeptical until there's hard evidence.
- foverzar 5y ago
  Ahh, yes, those famous "titushkis" allegly paid by Russians, but for some reason also killing journalists critising the new government and also attacking anyone who doesn't understand or can't answer in Ukrainian.

> shoot-to-kill order to quell protests What a typical headline manipulation. And the article barely mentions all the armed banditry, nice. Way to paint a dramatic picture, Reuters.

notch656a 5y ago

By armed bandits you're talking about Kazakh Government, correct?

foverzar 5y ago
Please drop that act, as if you don't understand what I mean. I am not looking to pick a fight and acting stupid doesn't really do you any good. There were enough photographic evidence of armed bandits attacking the police, trashing and robing property, setting it ablaze, and even a few videos of thugs raiding a police department's armory. People had died. This is no longer a joking matter, sorry.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  None of that sounds like a reason to kill them in the street - not that I think you're wrong, but just that I'm only going off your abbreviated descriptions. Both of your posts have an aggressive tone that is condoning a government killing citizens with very brief reasoning given for justification relative to the extreme seriousness of that stance. They also contain sarcasm. I'm not merely criticizing you - I'm just pointing out that it's unrealistic for you to say "I am not looking to pick a fight". Edit: It doesn't sound like a reason to kill them because "they did X" can't mean "kill them" for essentially any X, the operative word being "did". I.e. government agents must (morally) reserve lethal force against their own citizens for when they are under immediate threat of an intent to kill, and they are (morally) obligated to avoid that situation in the first place, if at all practical, for admittedly various definitions of "practical".
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - foverzar 5y ago
    > None of that sounds like a reason to kill them in the street Exactly what kind of picture are you imagining? That evil baby-eating Kazakh government is lining up poor peaceful unarmed civillians to shoot them down in the street? Well sorry, that's not what we see on photographic evidence. Unfortunately there is no other practical response to armed mob that threatens actual civillians and is intended to kill anyone affiliated with the government, other than "killing them in the street" if they don't comply with surrender order, don't lay down their weapons and continue their business of turning the city into a war zone, burning property and so on. > Both of your posts have an aggressive tone that is condoning a government killing citizens This is merely your impression. Written text has no "tone" except the one you hear in your imagination. Please don't reduce what I had said to a mere "tone that is condoning government killing citizens" -- that is not what I said. > They also contain sarcasm Only one contains sarcasm and, in an case, sarcasm does not imply anything in particular. My first posts only epressed frustration with Reuter's quality of journalism. If you see it in a "wrong" tone and interpret it as an invitation for a fight, sorry, but that is completely on you. > I'm just pointing out that it's unrealistic for you to say "I am not looking to pick a fight" Please don't project your behavioural patterns on me. > I.e. government agents must (morally) reserve lethal force against their own citizens for when they are under immediate threat of an intent to kill Then I don't see what is the problem here, or, specifically, I don't see why you insist on acting as if it is not what is currently happening.
    - lostlogin 5y ago
      > Unfortunately there is no other practical response to armed mob that threatens actual civillians and is intended to kill anyone affiliated with the government, other than "killing them in the street" if they don't comply with surrender order, don't lay down their weapons But that’s not correct. “I have given the order to law enforcement and the army to shoot to kill without warning,” Tokayev said. https://apnews.com/article/kazakhstan-law-enforcement-agencies-6dc8df9639367c3845aa00a008072997 https://apnews.com/article/kazakhstan-law-enforcement-agenci...
- notch656a 5y ago
  The guns in the police armory ultimately belong to the people. If their government is corrupt and coerce the people then they not only have the right but the responsibility to raid the armory and act in defense against their agressors. "People had died" isn't supposed to be a joke but a necessary and lethal response of the populace to neutralize government armed bandit murderers.
  - foverzar 5y ago
    > The guns in the police armory ultimately belong to the people Well this is just demagogy and slogans, utlimately boiling down an attempt to depicict it as a yet antother romantic dihotomy of "opressive government" and "brave people". As awlays, in reality the real civilians are hiding scared at their homes or fleeing the country and it's just a few armed thugs, who think they can represent and talk for "the people", having tasted some blood and lawlessness. There is enough video evidece to see how "defense against their agressors" turns out to be robbing shops and setting building ablaze. So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government or have some moral high ground.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      In your other quote you said they were "thugs who use firearms against police" but here you say they aren't fighting the government (police are government) at all. Your words are contradictions. "Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight. It sounds dangerously like the Russian propaganda against Chechens when they were simultaneously calling the rebels "foreign influencers" (no real civilian would fight the Russians!) while simultaneously sending secret police to genocide or jail military age males.
      - foverzar 5y ago
        > but here you say they aren't fighting the government (police are government) at all But that is not what I have said, especially not the "at all" part, why are trying to misqoute me? All I have said is that robbing shops doesn't seem like a glorious heroic struggle against the government. Random skirmishes will obviously occur. Not sure what exactly you see as contradictive and where exactly do you imagine a binary mutual exclusion. > "Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking? Seems to be still be "a person who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a *belligerent group in a conflict*. So I don't get why you insit on using the wrong term, other than to spin a narrative. Armed belligerents are not civillians, up is not down, war is not peace, words do have specific meanings.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  How do you suggest the removal of a dictator should occurs? A stern letter? The language used is interesting - eg "an invasion of bandit formations trained from abroad". Is ‘bandit’ a common translation that gets used, or some state propaganda that’s being parroted? It could be both I suppose. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-59894266 https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-59894266
  - notch656a 5y ago
    This is almost a clone repeat of what the Russians said about their ass being kicked by the Chechens in the first war. In reality the Chechens had scant outside support in the first war and got virtually all arms by taking them from killed russian soldiers.
  - foverzar 5y ago
    > How do you suggest the removal of a dictator should occurs? A stern letter? I am not going to suggest how anyone should achieve their political goals, nor am I going to engage another "ends justify the means" argument. I am simply pointing out that calling armed isurgents mere "protestors" and putting them in one cohort with protesting civillians is a very blatant attempt at misinformation. > Is ‘bandit’ a common translation that gets used It's a borrowed Itallian word, widely used in both roman and indo-european languages, not a "translation". Please don't accuse me of "parroting" something when you base your assetions on such illiterate mental models. Thank you for the link, but I don't suppose hackernews crowd really needs some journalist of a state-owned political media explaining complex politics to them.

jkepler 5y ago

When I lived in Ukraine, the 'bandits" that the then-pro-Moscow government claimed were running rampant in the streets were the "titushki" (guys hired for $20/night to wandered around with a beer in one hand and a crowbar in the other, beating up anyone who looked like the were protesting against the government). Inside the perimeter of the manifestation was one of the safer parts of the city. So, when I hear a pro-Moscow autocratic ruler say there are bandits in the streets, I remain highly skeptical until there's hard evidence.

foverzar 5y ago
Ahh, yes, those famous "titushkis" allegly paid by Russians, but for some reason also killing journalists critising the new government and also attacking anyone who doesn't understand or can't answer in Ukrainian.