←back to thread

14 Killed in anti-government protests in Nepal

(www.tribuneindia.com)
560 points whatsupdog | 3 comments | 08 Sep 25 11:24 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
asib ◴[08 Sep 25 12:02 UTC] No.45167257[source]▶
> 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?

replies(5): >>45167399 #>>45167501 #>>45167564 #>>45167636 #>>45167860 #
ycombinete ◴[08 Sep 25 12:34 UTC] No.45167501[source]▶
The correct term for these means is "less-lethal".
replies(1): >>45167651 #
mananaysiempre ◴[08 Sep 25 12:52 UTC] No.45167651[source]▶
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.)
replies(2): >>45167920 #>>45169574 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[08 Sep 25 13:20 UTC] No.45167920{3}[source]▶
> 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-ch...

replies(1): >>45169665 #
1. MichaelDickens ◴[08 Sep 25 15:38 UTC] No.45169665{4}[source]▶
That explanation sounds fishy to me. If something doesn't work then there's no need to ban it.
replies(2): >>45169795 #>>45170996 #
2. JumpCrisscross ◴[08 Sep 25 15:49 UTC] No.45169795[source]▶
> 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.

3. martin-t ◴[08 Sep 25 17:19 UTC] No.45170996[source]▶
In addition to what the other commenter said, it's virtue signaling.