Fwd:Re: Non-lethal weapons acting via external manipulation of the Central

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Thu Dec 17 00:47:35 EST 1998


BTW, I don't know what the other posters are talking about, but if
anyone "wonders", =I'm= talking about the old-fashioned kind of
"non-lethal" Weapons... Orchestrated-Falsehood.

There's nothing so-routinely so-Devastatingly-Deadly. Sucks the Life
right out of the world... leaving only "Life". K. P. Collins

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> 
> Not only do I Agree, with all my "Heart", to what you say... I've done a
> =Detailed= Analysis of how "non-lethal" weapons have been used to
> Dictate events large and small.
> 
> One of the main targets of such has, in fact, been Journalism, as a
> whole.
> 
> Use of "non-lethal" weapons leave "Life", but they don't allow Life.
> 
> I'm Happy to, =at least=, have "Life" left within me. (I'm deliberately
> "treading-gently", here... if no one will meet with me in-person, I
> Must.) ken collins
> 
> Allen L. Barker wrote:
> >
> > kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> >
> > > Allen L. Barker wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > > "Non-lethal" weapons in the hands of barbarians are torture implements.
> > >
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > I Agree... it's "just" that they're a bit better than Murder. ken
> > > collins
> >
> > This is getting a little off-topic for the newsgroup, but I will add one more
> > note.
> >
> > I understand the argument above, and it is one that has often been put forward
> > in defense of non-lethal weapons.  In some sense it assumes that everything
> > stays the same but that safer weapons are available for carrying out violent
> > actions.  What it does not take into account is that non-lethal weapons lower
> > the threshold of use for such devices.
> >
> > Take a political demonstration as an example.  An administration or regime
> > opposed to that demonstration formerly might have had a few options.  The
> > police could have opened fire on the demonstrators, used tear gas, or perhaps
> > clubbed the demonstrators.  In all these cases it is clear what has happened.
> > The press knows it, the police know it, and the demonstrators know it.  So such
> > a regime is hesitant to escalate to such tactics for fear of the resulting exposure.
> >
> > Now suppose there is another option.  There are secret weapons that can be
> > employed to influence the crowd, which will probably not permanently harm anyone.
> > Their use can be denied, and they will probably break up the demonstration.  In
> > this case there is much more of a temptation to use the technology.  The press,
> > if it knows what has happened, will be less likely to report it.  The result is a
> > mechanism for a repressive government to better stay in power and to control
> > both its citizens and the perceptions of its actions.
> >
> > --
> > Allen L. Barker
> > http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~alb



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list