3 ms·
> 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 linin
by 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...
- foverzar 5y agoWhy did you cut the quote? > “I have given the order to law enforcement and the army to shoot to kill without warning,” > “Those who don’t surrender will be eliminated.”
- lostlogin 5y agoDoes that mitigate the statement?
- foverzar 5y agoIt completely redifines it's meaning, as it implies a surrender order to comply to? I mean, it's not that we can safely throw away defining statements and retain the meaning of the message, especially given that we discuss a small quote of a translated text.
- jonwithoutanh 5y agoHow can you surrender if they shoot without warning?
- foverzar 5y agoI can't wrap my head around why you insist on warning someone who is armed, shooting at you, and clearly is not willing to surrender. No one does that. I don't get what you suggest, that their government should treat their servicemen as cannon fodder that is supposed to counter aggressive armed individual with hugs and kisses? Well there are already several dosen killed by thugs, hardly anyone would want to risc their lives for the life of someone with an intent to kill you with a gun. If you don't want to get shot without warning, then, I guess, just don't attack police, especially don't use firearms when you do that? This is basically a permission to use firearms at will, it's already a given for any servicemen in any developed state as a best practice for officer's survivability.
- notch656a 5y ago