5 ms·

> The demonstration turned violent when some protesters entered the Parliament complex, prompting police to resort to baton charges, tear gas shells and rubber

by asib 1y ago

> The demonstration turned violent when some protesters entered the Parliament complex, prompting police to resort to baton charges, tear gas shells and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd, eyewitnesses said. 14 people dead from so-called "non-lethal" means. How do 14 people end up dead without the police coming with intent to do harm?

bjackman 1y ago
Also note the phrasing. The content is "the police killed 14 people". But the form is "the situation turned violent as a result of the protester's actions".
- ddtaylor 1y ago
  "See what you made me do" is a common phrase in domestic abuse.
  - whamlastxmas 1y ago
    It’s also irrefutable fact that pro-state or pro-cop agitators throughout history will pretend to be a demonstrator and throw a single brick to give the cops an excuse to break some skulls
    - martin-t 1y ago
      In primitive societies where people are expected to resolve their own problems because everyone is roughly equal, violence is the principal currency, for better or worse. But in "civilized" societies with multiple layers of power structures, you are not supposed to solve your own problem, you are supposed to show somebody in a position of power that you are the victim so they solve the problem for you. This means victimhood is the principal currency of power. Don't believe me? Every governments which allows protests says they must always be peaceful and "violence doesn't belong in politics". Yet how many of those governments were created by violent armed revolt against a previous authoritarian government? How many by "peaceful" protests?
      - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
        "violence doesn't belong in politics" is a hilarious one. Off the top of my head, the USA is kidnapping people and sending them to countries they are not from, and telling me as a trans woman that maybe I should not own guns I'm sure there will be no violence once the thugs have guns and I don't
        martin-t 1y ago
        Sorry to see you getting downvoted or flagged but that's HN for you. Issue is many people believe that peace is more important than justice. Or that fighting and losing is worse than not being able to fight at all. And there's a bit of concern trolling too - basically they say if you fought you'd lose so they'll take away your ability to fight to protect you. This is happening in Europe too with plenty of people trying to stop weapon deliveries to Ukraine because that'll stop the war. It's "stop struggling, it'll be over sooner" with slightly more sophisticated words.
      - achenet 1y ago
        > Yet how many of those governments were created by violent armed revolt against a previous authoritarian government? How many by "peaceful" protests? This is actually an interesting question. Many post-colonial governments, notably India, were create through what might be called non-violent means. Would be interesting to have someone properly research that.
        martin-t 1y ago
        Yes, I won't pretend it's clear cut or that the numbers without context mean much. How I see it: - Victimhood works when there is somebody to appeal to or other people to gain support from. - Violence works when there's no higher power or when you already have the most popular support you ever will. Getting more people to join you and openly protest is a lot of implied/potential violence. Meaning you can use victimhood (see how the police are beating us) to gain more potential violence for use later. Either the people in power see this and back down (e.g. Velvet revolution) before the violence materializes, or not. They can also see how successful materialized violence can become and flee (e.g. Syria) or they can try to win a civil war (e.g. Myanmar). I haven't read much about India yet but my guess is victimhood worked in the case of India because essentially they were getting the support of citizens in the UK (a higher power) to pressure their government into giving it independence. It was costly for the politicians to be oppressors and also get reelected. Victimhood failed in China and recently Belarus because 1) there was nobody to appeal to 2) the oppressors didn't back down 3) the protesters failed to materialize the violence and were defeated by the government's violence.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - throwawayq3423 1y ago
    And authoritarian overreach. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2025/09/wipe-them-out-trump-weighs-sending-feds-to-quell-portland-protests.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2025/09/wipe-them-out-tr...
    - ddtaylor 1y ago
      As someone who has lived in Portland for many years and watched it's decline it's very frustrating to watch the current politicians lack any understanding of the problem. Portland is a shithole for other reasons than he believes and it needs other solutions.
- whatsupdog 1y ago
  I mean, what what do you do to protect the parliamentarians from blood thirsty crowds. Which side were you on during the January 6 riots/protests?
  - monkeyelite 1y ago
    Of course the answer is that people cheer for protests they like and punish riots they don’t. This is politics and that’s why there is so much fighting about how news and history chooses to frame them. The headline we have received today is telling me it’s a good protest.
    - whatsupdog 1y ago
      Oh, so killing the parliamentarians is ok if the protest is just?
      - monkeyelite 1y ago
        That’s what happened in the American revolution. That’s also what the US did to the Iraqis
- wtcactus 1y ago
  Isn’t this very similar to what protestors did on the January 6th incident in the USA?
  - zote 1y ago
    What the protestors did sure, their motive, the state's response wildly different. I'd say more but why bring the US into the discussion.
- ivanjermakov 1y ago
  Totalitarian states love this trick of putting provocators into the crowd to later blame civil protesters for violence/crime.
ycombinete 1y ago
The correct term for these means is "less-lethal".
- mananaysiempre 1y ago
  Also, it’s literally a war crime to use tear gas on the battlefield, yet it’s somehow OK to use it on civilians. (I understand part of the reason is to prevent a slippery slope from tear gas to chlorine, but it’s still telling.)
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > it’s literally a war crime to use tear gas on the battlefield Chemical weapons are banned because they’re useless for a modern military [1]. [1] https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
    - MichaelDickens 1y ago
      That explanation sounds fishy to me. If something doesn't work then there's no need to ban it.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > If something doesn't work then there's no need to ban it Did you read the article? Chemical weapons provide no benefit to a modern army. They do, however, to simpler armies. So the world's militaries, who command modern armies, came together and banned them. Put another way, the U.S. military gains nothing from chemical weapons over high explosives. The Taliban, on the other hand, might.
      - martin-t 1y ago
        In addition to what the other commenter said, it's virtue signaling.
  - jandrewrogers 1y ago
nirava 1y ago
19 people so far. mostly peaceful protestors shot. 80+ being treated, ~50 serious. It was "Gen Z" kids raising one-piece flags among other things. some killed were still in their school uniforms, at least one was 16.
whimsicalism 1y ago
i mean it’s certainly possible with crowds, police have been implicated in causing crowd crush incidents with 5x death count compared to this
thinkingtoilet 1y ago
Rubber bullets have been shown time and time again to be lethal. Just because they don't kill you every time doesn't mean they aren't lethal. You can survive a gun shot too. Immense shame should be poured on every media outlet that licks the boot of authoritarians when they repeat this lie.

by asib 1y ago

bjackman 1y ago

Also note the phrasing. The content is "the police killed 14 people". But the form is "the situation turned violent as a result of the protester's actions".

ddtaylor 1y ago
"See what you made me do" is a common phrase in domestic abuse.
- whamlastxmas 1y ago
  It’s also irrefutable fact that pro-state or pro-cop agitators throughout history will pretend to be a demonstrator and throw a single brick to give the cops an excuse to break some skulls
  - martin-t 1y ago
    In primitive societies where people are expected to resolve their own problems because everyone is roughly equal, violence is the principal currency, for better or worse. But in "civilized" societies with multiple layers of power structures, you are not supposed to solve your own problem, you are supposed to show somebody in a position of power that you are the victim so they solve the problem for you. This means victimhood is the principal currency of power. Don't believe me? Every governments which allows protests says they must always be peaceful and "violence doesn't belong in politics". Yet how many of those governments were created by violent armed revolt against a previous authoritarian government? How many by "peaceful" protests?
    - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
      "violence doesn't belong in politics" is a hilarious one. Off the top of my head, the USA is kidnapping people and sending them to countries they are not from, and telling me as a trans woman that maybe I should not own guns I'm sure there will be no violence once the thugs have guns and I don't
      - martin-t 1y ago
        Sorry to see you getting downvoted or flagged but that's HN for you. Issue is many people believe that peace is more important than justice. Or that fighting and losing is worse than not being able to fight at all. And there's a bit of concern trolling too - basically they say if you fought you'd lose so they'll take away your ability to fight to protect you. This is happening in Europe too with plenty of people trying to stop weapon deliveries to Ukraine because that'll stop the war. It's "stop struggling, it'll be over sooner" with slightly more sophisticated words.
    - achenet 1y ago
      > Yet how many of those governments were created by violent armed revolt against a previous authoritarian government? How many by "peaceful" protests? This is actually an interesting question. Many post-colonial governments, notably India, were create through what might be called non-violent means. Would be interesting to have someone properly research that.
      - martin-t 1y ago
        Yes, I won't pretend it's clear cut or that the numbers without context mean much. How I see it: - Victimhood works when there is somebody to appeal to or other people to gain support from. - Violence works when there's no higher power or when you already have the most popular support you ever will. Getting more people to join you and openly protest is a lot of implied/potential violence. Meaning you can use victimhood (see how the police are beating us) to gain more potential violence for use later. Either the people in power see this and back down (e.g. Velvet revolution) before the violence materializes, or not. They can also see how successful materialized violence can become and flee (e.g. Syria) or they can try to win a civil war (e.g. Myanmar). I haven't read much about India yet but my guess is victimhood worked in the case of India because essentially they were getting the support of citizens in the UK (a higher power) to pressure their government into giving it independence. It was costly for the politicians to be oppressors and also get reelected. Victimhood failed in China and recently Belarus because 1) there was nobody to appeal to 2) the oppressors didn't back down 3) the protesters failed to materialize the violence and were defeated by the government's violence.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- throwawayq3423 1y ago
  And authoritarian overreach. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2025/09/wipe-them-out-trump-weighs-sending-feds-to-quell-portland-protests.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2025/09/wipe-them-out-tr...
  - ddtaylor 1y ago
    As someone who has lived in Portland for many years and watched it's decline it's very frustrating to watch the current politicians lack any understanding of the problem. Portland is a shithole for other reasons than he believes and it needs other solutions.
whatsupdog 1y ago
I mean, what what do you do to protect the parliamentarians from blood thirsty crowds. Which side were you on during the January 6 riots/protests?
- monkeyelite 1y ago
  Of course the answer is that people cheer for protests they like and punish riots they don’t. This is politics and that’s why there is so much fighting about how news and history chooses to frame them. The headline we have received today is telling me it’s a good protest.
  - whatsupdog 1y ago
    Oh, so killing the parliamentarians is ok if the protest is just?
    - monkeyelite 1y ago
      That’s what happened in the American revolution. That’s also what the US did to the Iraqis
wtcactus 1y ago
Isn’t this very similar to what protestors did on the January 6th incident in the USA?
- zote 1y ago
  What the protestors did sure, their motive, the state's response wildly different. I'd say more but why bring the US into the discussion.
ivanjermakov 1y ago
Totalitarian states love this trick of putting provocators into the crowd to later blame civil protesters for violence/crime.

ycombinete 1y ago

The correct term for these means is "less-lethal".

mananaysiempre 1y ago
Also, it’s literally a war crime to use tear gas on the battlefield, yet it’s somehow OK to use it on civilians. (I understand part of the reason is to prevent a slippery slope from tear gas to chlorine, but it’s still telling.)
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > it’s literally a war crime to use tear gas on the battlefield Chemical weapons are banned because they’re useless for a modern military [1]. [1] https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
  - MichaelDickens 1y ago
    That explanation sounds fishy to me. If something doesn't work then there's no need to ban it.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > If something doesn't work then there's no need to ban it Did you read the article? Chemical weapons provide no benefit to a modern army. They do, however, to simpler armies. So the world's militaries, who command modern armies, came together and banned them. Put another way, the U.S. military gains nothing from chemical weapons over high explosives. The Taliban, on the other hand, might.
    - martin-t 1y ago
      In addition to what the other commenter said, it's virtue signaling.
- jandrewrogers 1y ago

nirava 1y ago

19 people so far. mostly peaceful protestors shot. 80+ being treated, ~50 serious. It was "Gen Z" kids raising one-piece flags among other things. some killed were still in their school uniforms, at least one was 16.

whimsicalism 1y ago

i mean it’s certainly possible with crowds, police have been implicated in causing crowd crush incidents with 5x death count compared to this

thinkingtoilet 1y ago

Rubber bullets have been shown time and time again to be lethal. Just because they don't kill you every time doesn't mean they aren't lethal. You can survive a gun shot too. Immense shame should be poured on every media outlet that licks the boot of authoritarians when they repeat this lie.