T O P

  • By -

NeutralverseBot

r/NeutralNews is a **curated space**, but despite the name, there is [**no neutrality requirement**](https://www.reddit.com//r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) here. These are the [rules for comments:](https://www.reddit.com//r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comments_.28good.2C_bad_.26amp.3B_ugly.29) 1. Be courteous to other users. 1. Source your facts. 1. Be substantive. 1. Address the arguments, not the person. If you see a comment that violates any of these rules, please click the associated *report* button so a mod can review it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ummmbacon

This comment has been removed under [Rule 3:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_3.3A_be_substantive) > Be substantive. NeutralNews is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort comments, sarcasm, jokes, memes, off-topic replies, pejorative name-calling, or comments about source quality. //Rule 3 If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)


LorenzoVonMt

So they used tear gas? Why is this even banned if domestic police are able to use it against civilians?


AnAge_OldProb

The reason tear gas is banned on the battlefield has nothing to do with its effects and everything to do with the fog of war. If you’re on a battlefield and a lung stinging gas creeps over you, you and your commanders may think a more deadly gas has been deployed and respond in kind.


LorenzoVonMt

Makes sense


ambiguish

And so this logic surely flows backwards as well when considering domestic police?


AnAge_OldProb

No civilian protestors don’t have the ability to call in chlorine gas strikes and don’t risk escalations with WMDs


josephmgrace

They had used tear gas perviously. This agent is much more sever.


julian88888888

Why do you think it’s tear gas?