Egyptian port-workers refuse to sign for tons of US-made tear-gas shipped in by Ministry of the Interiorworkers

Discuss

16 Responses to “Egyptian port-workers refuse to sign for tons of US-made tear-gas shipped in by Ministry of the Interiorworkers”

  1. petershultz says:

    I salute these conscientious objectors. We should all be so brave.

  2. aynrandspenismighty says:

    If they don’t want it, our local police will take it.

  3. Cocomaan says:

    Don’t you guys know? Production of CS canisters here in the US creates JOBZ!!!!11111

  4. scav says:

    Here’s a question: who in the US is exporting this CS gas to Egypt, and what can be done to encourage them to re-think their assumptions about the  trade-off between profit and ethics?

    Note, I didn’t ask what can be done *legally* :)

  5. querent says:

    Power to the people, right on.

    Don’t go all Boston tear-gas party, though.  That shit is harsh.

  6. scav says:

    Looks like the shameful manufacturer is:

    COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS

    388 KINSMAN ROAD

    JAMESTOWN PA

  7. Teller says:

    Good for port workers. Though, after the vote in Egypt, it appears there won’t be much use for tear gas, one hopes.

  8. angusm says:

    The next thing is for port workers in the US to start refusing to ship the stuff out.

  9. Mordicai says:

    This little anecdote right here & others like it might have a lot to do with, oh, the state of American geopolitical diplomacy.  Right in a nutshell. 

    “Hey, democracy, that is great!  Have you heard about capitalism?  It is the thing our semi-secret plutocracy use to aid your oppressors!  Ha ha ha ha, PS we hate your skin colour, your religion & your way of life.”

  10. scav says:

    The trade events that CTS plan to attend are listed on their website http://www.less-lethal.com/
    The next one is in Vegas on January 18-21

    Just sayin’

  11. TheHowl says:

    This is the perpetual problem with less-than-lethal munitions. How do you separate out the cases where not having them is going to dramatically improve the situation, and the cases where not having them is going to dramatically harm the situation?

    I think we can all agree that UC Davis campus cops should probably have their pepper spray taken away from them for a while. But Officer J. Random Dickhead probably isn’t going to shoot a line of linked-arms protesters with his sidearm.

    A third world government, however, gives no guarantees. If  Myanmar, or Algeria, or Cote d’Ivoire, or Egypt (minus the current, and probably fleeting, media attention) can’t disperse protesters with tear gas, they’re going to do it with 7.62mm. And those protesters aren’t going to run away screaming. They’re just going to die screaming.

    (This should not be read as advocating tyrannical governments using /any/ sort of force on their own citizens. It should be read as an acknowledgment that they /are/ going to, and until that ceases to be the case, I’m all for harm reduction.)

    I’m thinking that Syria, for example, could use a lot more tear gas shipments and a lot fewer ammunition shipments.

    • Marja Erwin says:

      It can kill. It may be less-lethal, but calling it less-than-lethal is deceptive. Many protesters in Egypt have recently been killed by tear gas, though probably CN instead of CS.

      • TheHowl says:

        Absolutely true. That is why I didn’t use the term ‘nonlethal.’ Tear gas can kill, pepper spray can kill, Tasers can kill, batons can kill. But none of them kill nearly as effectively as machinegun fire, which is the traditional alternative to tear gas in much of the world.

  12. Thebes says:

    Good on them for Resisting.
    But they could have dumped it in the harbor for a more long term fix.
    Imagine Global Revolution.

  13. Purplecat says:

    Here’s the thing…

    “Non-lethal weapon” overlaps neatly with “torture device”. People who would use the latter don’t want to end up with a dead body on their hands, after all.

Leave a Reply