MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Nigerian Army Justifies Killing Protesters With Trump Video on Stone-Throwing Migrants

Trump’s comments are not the same as the Nigerian Army's actions. But regardless of the nation, shooting protesters is bad.

Pacific Press/Sipa USA/NewscomPacific Press/Sipa USA/NewscomNigeria's military today justified the deaths of Shia protesters using U.S. President Donald Trump's remarks suggesting American soldiers might fire on rock-throwing migrants.

In a speech from the White House yesterday, Trump said U.S. troops—5,200 of which he deployed to the border earlier this week—won't tolerate members of the migrant caravan who throw stones. "They want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back," the president said. "I told them to consider it a rifle. When they throw rocks like what they did to the Mexican military and police I say consider it a rifle."

Indeed, there were reports of clashes between migrants in the caravan, which started from Guatemala last month, and Mexican authorities. According to the BBC, some migrants threw stones, prompting police to respond with tear gas.

The Nigerian Army, meanwhile, seized on Trump's words. The army's official Twitter account posted a clip of his remarks to Twitter, along with the caption: "Please Watch and Make your Deductions."

The post, which seems to have been deleted, came days after Shia protests in Nigeria turned deadly. An Amnesty International report published Wednesday said 45 peaceful supporters of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) were killed by the Nigerian military and police. Six people died after protests on Saturday, Amnesty International said, while 39 were killed on Monday.

"Video footage and eyewitness testimonies consistently show that the Nigerian military dispersed peaceful gatherings by firing live ammunition without warning, in clear violation of Nigerian and international law," said Osai Ojigho, Director of Amnesty International Nigeria. The group also claims soldiers used automatic weapons on Monday.

The Nigerian military tells a different story. Just three protesters were killed, the military says, according to The New York Times. Meanwhile, AFP reports that the military says six people died. The video of Trump speaking, Nigerian defense spokesperson John Agim told AFP, "was posted in reaction to the Amnesty International report accusing the army of using weapons against pacifist [Shia] protesters."

"Not only did they use stones but they were carrying petrol bombs, machetes and knives, so yes, we consider them as being armed," he added.

According to the Times, videos posted to social media did show some protesters throwing rocks before being shot in the back as they ran away. But throwing rocks is not the same thing as shooting with live ammunition, said IMN spokesperson Ibrahim Musa. "Rocks are not equal to bullets," he told the Times. "The use of force is disproportionate."

The Nigerian military has a "long and disturbing history of violence," as Reason's Nick Gillespie noted in 2015. Amnesty International reported in January that "more than 1,200 people have been unlawfully killed by the military," with many of those deaths serving as "reprisals following attacks by Boko Haram." Thousands more have been tortured, the group said. The country has a checkered history when it comes to human rights, so it's not like we can blame Trump for the Nigerian military's behavior.

But as with recent acts of domestic terrorism, we can criticize Trump for spouting dishonest, thuggish, and hateful comments that autocrats and terrorists alike cite to justify their own atrocious behavior. And should the U.S. military use disproportionate and deadly force against rock-throwing migrants, we certainly can—and should—lay the blame at Trump's feet.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SIV||

    Trump goes from inspiring the murder of elderly Jews one week to Shiite Nigerians the next. I wish he'd turn his massacre mind control on progressives.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    And all the Trumpistas will either stay silent or mark the difference between words and actions, because he beat Hillary. No matter that all of her words are poisonous and treasonous; Trump's are harmless rhetoric.

    Trump beat Hillary, so he is now Their Principal, and any principles they had have been long forgotten.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Can you be killed witha rock? If so, then why what be wrong either Trump ordering troops to defend themselves? I love how people consider throwing rocks not justification for those whom they are thrown against to defend themselves. Pretty sure rocks we the first weapon man used.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    Probably fists first, then feet, then rocks.

    But aside from that, the problem I pointed out is not what Trump said, it is that the same words from Hillary or Obama or Occasional Cortex would not be treated the same, because having beat Hillary, principles went out the window in favor of the new principal.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I can agree with that.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I can agree with that.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Hillary or Cortes or any of you other leftist fucktards wouldn't say the same words so the point is moot.

    You'd be screaming at the military for existing.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Who is you? Project much?

  • JoeB||

    That's not the problem. The problem is you have not seen patients in the ER with permanent brain and/or eye injuries and disfigurement from rock and other blunt trauma injuries. Why don't you go greet the "migrants" at the border with some hugs, and let the front line defenders take a well-deserved day off?

  • soldiermedic76||

    He isn't defending the rock throwing, he was stating that people are only up in arms because Trump said it. If Hillary had said it the media would ignore the story.

  • Nardz||

    It seems to me like he's talking about Trump supporters being hypocrites, because in fantasy land he imagined they would react differently to someone else saying it - but since he imagines Trump supporters are blind followers, the conclusion based on his hypothetical, they are okay with Trump saying it.

    Correct me if I'm wrong

  • soldiermedic76||

    I could be misreading him, if that were the case I apologise.

  • soldiermedic76||

    After rereading it, I think I was mistaken.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    I am saying that a whole lot of people (rightly) despise Hillary, but had pretty much given up when Trump won. Instead of seeing Trump as the buffoon he is who does do some things right, they latch on to him like the savior and refuse to recognize anything wrong with him.

    If Hillary or Bernie or Occasional Cortex or any other far-left obliviot had said anything even remotely similar, the Trumpistas would be all over them. So yes, I call them hypocrites who have given up whatever principles they once had for the new principal.

  • soldiermedic76||

    So what is wrong with Trump stating troops can meet deadly force with deadly force? Seems like you are the one choosing principals over principles.pot meet kettle.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    I don't have any problem with deadly force countering deadly force. Once again, I am calling out idiots like you who seem to have latched on to Trump as the Messiah who defeated Hillary and treat everything he says as The Revealed Truth, when if anyone on the left had said the same thing, you would have spit on her words as treason.

    Your Trump infatuation is so throrough that I have now had to say this three times, and no doubt you still won't understand it is the hypocrisy I am calling out.

  • soldiermedic76||

    My Trump infatuation? Really? Assume much. I misread you and I thought you were pointing out hypocrisy on both sides. However, you seem focused on Trump. He seems stuck in your head. I neither support nor despise Trump, but I don't see anything controversial about what he said. I would expect any President to allow troops to defend themselves. You are so sure of your own superiority that you assume anyone who disagree with you must be a Trump sycophant. Well you just look fucking silly assuming my defense of his statements this time is because I am a rabid supporter. I would equally support a democratic senator who said the same thing, however, I did criticize Obama because he put our troops at risk either ROEs that were over restrictive.

  • soldiermedic76||

    And no earthly person is my Messiah. Again you are the one placing principals over principles. You admit that this statement is not really controversial but then insult anyone who stated it wasn't controversial.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I meant president not senator.

  • Nardz||

    "If Hillary or Bernie or Occasional Cortex or any other far-left obliviot had said anything even remotely similar, the Trumpistas would be all over them. So yes, I call them hypocrites who have given up whatever principles they once had for the new principal."

    Can you show me when that happened?
    No?
    Because it didn't.
    It is a figment of your imagination; a fantasy.

    You can argue its likely or unlikely, but that's not the route you chose.
    You chose to treat your fantasy as fact.

  • Nardz||

    Acting as if fantasy is fact is, by the way, literally psychotic.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I wonder how long it took us to learn to use fists.

    Do Chimps punch? They probably make fists and club, but punch?

  • Headache||

    Cain used a rock killing Abel. David used a stone to kill Goliath.

  • Morbo||

    I thought Cain used the jawbone of an ass.

  • Paloma||

    Some other guy in the Bible.

  • perlchpr||

    It's like no one has ever heard the story of David vs: Goliath any more.

  • JonBlack||

    Donal Trump kills men by the hundred.

    And if he were here, he'd consume the [Nigerians/Jews] with fireballs from his eyes... and lightning from his arse!

  • DiegoF||

  • juris imprudent||

    Trump is the Quit-the-shitz Had-enough, the one who can offend all places and people. Time itself cannot contain him.

  • IceTrey||

    American cops shoot unarmed people in the back all the time.

  • General_Tso||

    Is there nothing that Trump can't do?

  • LynchPin1477||

    Show restraint? Think about the consequences of his actions?

    He's not responsible for the actions of others but is it really too much to ask for him to consider how his words might be used by others?

  • ||

    Would you feel better if the Nigerian government had said that "A red line for us is when we see a whole bunch of protesters picking up rocks and debris being utilized as weapons."?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I guess I'd feel marginally better that they weren't using the words of the President of the United States to justify their actions.

    But would I feel better about them shooting people? No. See below.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Let me hurl a rock at your head and then you can demonstrate "restraint".

  • LynchPin1477||

    Give me body armor and tear gas and you've got a deal!

  • soldiermedic76||

    Have you actually ever worn body armor, it isn't much protection against impacts unless you are wearing ceramic armor. You also probably one of those tough guys who has never been in an actual fight but insist fighting dirty is something you would never do.

  • BYODB||

    Wait, so you're saying there is some other way to fight than dirty? Shit, well I've been doing it wrong my whole life. My excuse? I'm of Irish decent.

    ^_-

  • soldiermedic76||

    And tear gas isn't really that efrective in an open environment. I've been gassed multiple times in training, it isn't as bad as people make it out. Additionally, some people are plain immune to it. My dad worked in a shelter before he joined up. He said the gas chamber didn't bother him at all.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Should read smelter not shelter.

  • Chipper Jones||

    "It wasn't that bad!" -- former Nazi to Jewish family, 1951

  • soldiermedic76||

    What the fuck, did I say anything like that? Fucking A. That was a complete strawman Chipper. Or are you saying the Nazis only used CS? What a DB fucking post. I was clearly referring to tear gas.

  • Headache||

    Chipper was there and did nada. How else would he know?

  • Paloma||

    Tear gas? Rubber bullets? Fire hoses?

    You don't need to go 0-120 gunning people down right away.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    The devil made me do it.

  • soldiermedic76||

    So rocks aren't a weapon? Just asking.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Also, are they still protestors if they start hurling possibly deadly objects? Not defending the Nigerians but I don't get the argument that if protestors are throwing rocks that troops can't defend themselves.

  • ||

    Yeah, you're pretty morally and intellectually bankrupt (as a libertarian and otherwise) when you move the goalposts from the non-aggression principle to the equivalence of aggression principle in order to make Trump look bad because Nigeria.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Exactly.

    Trump didn't say it was okay to shoot "protestors".

    Trump said that our troops should defend themselves when they're attacked.

  • DiegoF||

    They Shoot Protesters, Don't They?

  • Sigivald||

    Reason's interns (I assume these are interns) lately justify my "leave AdBlock on, never consider resubscribing" policy.

    If it gets any worse, it'll just be off the daily reading list, apart from Volokh.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Trump's comments are not the same as the Nigerian Army's actions. But regardless of the nation, shooting protesters is bad."

    While it's true that Trump saying that it's okay to shoot protestors isn't as bad as the Nigerian Army actually doing so, Trump didn't say that the U.S. military should shoot "protestors".

    Trump said that the U.S. military should fire back if they're attacked by people throwing rocks. Calling those who attack our military with rocks "protestors" is kind of obviously missing the point, isn't it? Otherwise looting and arson, as well as rock throwers, can all be labeled as "protestors".

    Our troops are justified in defending themselves.

    If you need to play funny with words in order to make your argument, your argument must not be persuasive.

  • JWatts||

    This feels like another one of those thing that Trump said, where people are outraged, but when you get right down to it, there's nothing that bad.

    Yes, if someone is throwing a rock at me and I have a gun, I'm sure as hell going to consider shooting them. This is a normal reaction.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I wouldn't consider that a normal reaction. Particularly if I was also wearing a helmet and armor and was in a group of similarly armed and trained men.

    I believe in proportional response to violence. Yes, rocks can injure you. They might, with a lucky throw, potentially kill. But using guns against rock throwing is not a proportional response, especially when there are so many other less lethal responses and ESPECIALLY especially when there is likely to be lots of innocent non-rock-throwing people mixed in with the rock throwers.

  • soldiermedic76||

    First, Kevlar helmets aren't designed to protect you from impact, but from shrapnel. They have very little cushioning effect. And it doesn't really take much luck to kill someone with a rock. And fuck proportional response. If someone uses a weapon that has the ability to kill me I am going to shoot the cocksucker. Proportional response is fucking Hollywood bullshit. In the real world when someone assaults you with a potentially deadly weapon you use whatever force necessary to defend yourself.

  • ||

    And fuck proportional response.

    I disagree. From a military's perspective against it's own people? Disproportionate response is a serious violation of libertarian sensibilities but, again, Seyton doesn't oppose this specifically. His point is that Trump could be (mis)construed as favoring it and so Trump, rather than the disproportionate response to whatever underlying issue, is the cause.

    It really is just an absolutely terrible piece of journalism.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Define disproportional response? If someone fires a pistol, can you return fire with a rifle or shotgun? If someone attacks you with a knife can you defend yourself with a pistol? Is it really disproportional to respond to deadly force with stronger deadly force?

  • BYODB||

    I think it comes down to the simple and obvious truth that unless we're talking about arming our military with rocks and sticks, they're going to return fire with what they have. Just because there aren't as many of them as there were Zulu up against the Brits is no reason to 'restrain' yourself to the point of being over-run and killed by superior numbers.

    This is completely unrelated to this story in particular, just pointing out the obvious.

    Proportionate response isn't particularly meaningful in this situation unless the Nigerian's start bombing these people with F-16's which would be an example of seriously disproportionate response. Shooting back with AK-47's vs. rock throwers is what we'd call common fucking sense.

  • soldiermedic76||

    ^this guy gets it.

  • BYODB||

    It's frightful how many people lack basic logic and are overly sheltered from all the bad things that exist in this world. I'm not in the military, and frankly I dislike a whole raft of stuff the military does, but asking them not to shoot back at people hurling rocks and bottles is delusional.

    I'd be the first to say open up with rubber bullets first, but just sitting there and taking it is pointless since, well, you sent them there to stop the migrants didn't you? You're not going to stop them with hopes and dreams.

    Keep in mind I'm not a fan of the idea of sending the military down there in the first place, but if you're going to do that don't expect them to welcome the migrants with open arms. That's not why they're there.

    Also, just for what it's worth, sending troops the southern border is actually a better thing than sending them to Afghanistan in my view.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A rock can kill you.

    In fact, stones are used to literally stone people to death.

    Warn them and then shoot.

    If Lefties want a war, they will get a war.

    Its like kids carrying bombs for an enemy. Warn them and then shoot. If an American enemy is that ruthless, give them no quarter.

    And defending yourself is 100% libertarian. Dont like it, dont try and kill me.

  • LynchPin1477||

    To have a reasonable chance of killing someone with a rock, you have to hit them in the head, which isn't easy. And you still have to have a fairly massive rock and whip it pretty hard. So yeah, it does take a lot of luck.

    fuck proportional response

    If you really have that attitude please do not join the police, military, or an equivalent organization.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    If people think you might respond disproportionately maybe they wont start anything in the first place and maybe, then, that leaves less people injured or killed.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Maybe, but I'd rather take the chance with riot control tactics than with military tactics in the scenario we are discussing here.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Actually, the military is trained in riot control. However, training allows you to meet deadly force with deadly force.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Let me elaborate on that. I think the punishment should fit the crime, so to speak. I don't believe it's just to punish someone more harshly just to for the potential disincentive effect it might have on others. That's too similar to punishing one person for someone else's crime to me.

    The same reasoning applies here. Respond with the minimum level of force needed to remove the threat at hand. Escalate only when there really are no other options. It's the same stuff we preach when it comes to the police.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Even if you could dismiss rocks as a serious weapon there is no way to dismiss Molotovs.

    They were willing to burn people alive, what response to that would be disproportionate?

  • LynchPin1477||

    So I was admittedly thinking more about the potential showdown at our border. But yeah, I'd say Molotovs justify the use of guns. But there are still gray areas - if you've got a group of, say, 50 protesters and 3 or 4 start throwing incendiaries, or even shooting guns, does that justify shooting indiscriminately into the crowd?

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you don't want our troops to shoot at you because you're throwing rocks at them, there's an easy way to avoid that.

    Hint: It involves not throwing rocks at them.

    Surely it's better to warn them ahead of time, too, isn't it? No one can claim to be surprised that our troops returned fire at those who were throwing rocks at them, can they?

  • LynchPin1477||

    So I was admittedly thinking more about the potential showdown at our border. But yeah, I'd say Molotovs justify the use of guns. But there are still gray areas - if you've got a group of, say, 50 protesters and 3 or 4 start throwing incendiaries, or even shooting guns, does that justify shooting indiscriminately into the crowd?

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    There's a principle in the laws for war, which I cannot remember the name of, that states that if you're wearing the same uniform as an aggressor the other side gets to assume or treat you as an aggressor even if you're not engaging in aggression. Up until you surrender of course.

    I'd say the same applies to your hypothetical. If you continue to stand near a person that is using deadly force it should be assumed that you approve of the actions of the other person and can be engaged by the opposing force as if you were the one using said force.

    If you don't want to be thought of in that way then don't hang around when others in your group start using violence. Get the hell out of there. In fact, get away as son as you see that they have weapons.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The deal is that enemy combatants must be identifiable on the battlefield to get geneva convention protection.

    If youre out of uniform, your a spy or other protected group and can be shot on sight.

    The trick is that the USA must declare war because a state of war must exists. Fucking congress not declaring war since 1941 just fucks American troops every time.

  • soldiermedic76||

    If there is a group of 40-50 and three have AKMs and begin firing, does that justify firing into the crowd? How about if one begins hurling grenades?
    How is that any different?

  • soldiermedic76||

    The reasonable amount of force ithat which keeps you safe. You really have spent too much time watching movies. This isn't about punishment, this is about meeting deadly force with deadly force. So when would it be appropriate for them to respond with firearms then? If they hurled clubs? How about Spears? Maybe archery? Or just if they used firearms? You accused me of not being suitable for the military (the fact that I am a 4th generation barmy veteran kind of disputes that point) but let me tell you, no one would ever want to serve alongside someone who thinks like you do. They wouldn't trust you to do what is necessary to protect them. You are taught to use whatever force is necessary and authorized to defend you and your team. We don't at by the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

  • soldiermedic76||

    The reasonable amount of force ithat which keeps you safe. You really have spent too much time watching movies. This isn't about punishment, this is about meeting deadly force with deadly force. So when would it be appropriate for them to respond with firearms then? If they hurled clubs? How about Spears? Maybe archery? Or just if they used firearms? You accused me of not being suitable for the military (the fact that I am a 4th generation barmy veteran kind of disputes that point) but let me tell you, no one would ever want to serve alongside someone who thinks like you do. They wouldn't trust you to do what is necessary to protect them. You are taught to use whatever force is necessary and authorized to defend you and your team. We don't at by the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Act you don't have to hit them in the head. A strike to the chest or abdomen can also kill someone. And you don't have to hurl a big rock to do it.

  • soldiermedic76||

    And not act.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Hell a broken bone can kill someone in multiple different ways.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Have you ever served a single day in the military? Not talking belonging to your LARP group, we're I am sure you are a 5th level druid ranger. And also not your airsoft WWII reenactors groups but the real fucking deal. Because in the military we are trained to use whatever force is necessary to defend ourselves. It is perfectly okay to call in artillery or an airstrike to kill one fucking sniper. Do you really think that is any more proportional than an infantryman shooting someone hurling a projectile at them?

  • LynchPin1477||

    Nope, never served in the military. Never been in much of a fight at all, really. Don't know what LARP is and don't reenact WWII or any other war. I have played laser tag.

    Doesn't negate anything I said.

    Also, and this is pretty important, we aren't talking about war.

    Also, for the record, I'm fine with using an airstrike to kill a sniper. Proportional, in this context, isn't about using the same size bullet or the same amount of explosive, it's about broader categories and levels of force and potential lethality. There's a qualitative difference between a sniper with a gun and a bunch of migrants with rocks.

  • soldiermedic76||

    There is no difference. They both are using potentially deadly force and the proper response is to use whatever force necessary to end that threat. And war it no war means bullshit when your life is on the line. You just don't get it. You are living in a dream world. You obviously have far less knowledge of this then I do (both about the military and about treating trauma wounds) but yet you continue to argue as if you are more knowledgeable. So far you are talking about platitudes, but refuse to deal with reality. There is no consideration for levels of potential lethality once your life is on the line. And even if that were the case, a sniper has far less potential lethality then a fucking 155 mm howertzer or a fucking A-10. So qualitively speaking the difference only exists in your mind.

  • soldiermedic76||

    And actually your lack of experience and lack of trauma medicine training does negate what you are arguing when you are arguing with someone who has extensive training in both.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    How about a molotov cocktail or any number of other devices roughly the same shape as a rock? Or are you expecting video game reflexes where the troops are expected to shoot a grenade out of the air in the middle of a melee?

    Shooting actual protesters is a big no, but they're not protesters once they've started to respond violently. Once they start escalating to projectiles you can't tell what can sneak into that situation. I might feel a bit different if we were talking college kids in Berkeley, since the streets there don't have easy access to grenades but Nigeria?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Soldiermedic1976, the trolls on here dont want to know how the real world works. They live in fantasy land with no consequwences since even reeason rarely bans trolls.

    If people want to start wars with the USA, then lets go to war. Ask the Japanese how that worked out.

  • IceTrey||

    Shrapnel doesn't cause an impact? You realize shrapnel can be big?

  • soldiermedic76||

    The impact from a large piece of shrapnel, even if your vests stops it, can still cause significant injury or death from the bluntforce trauma. It isn't like in the fucking movies. When you get hit in your vest, you don't walk away without injuries. Kevlar doesn't do a very good job of stopping the force of an impact. Ceramic is better but can still fail.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Body armor is fairly good at stopping penetration but performs less well with blunt force trauma. The military has improved the combat helmet but adding some cushioning, but a heavy blow will still cause possibly life threatening damage.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Shrapnel and concussive force from explosions are still and have been the biggest battlefiled killer for over 100 years.

  • Paloma||

    I can see a private citizen using whatever force necessary to defend himself, but that's inappropriate with professionals like soldiers and police.

    That's why you had commanding officers.

  • ||

    1. Not our country and, given the sparse facts of the story, not our issue. If the whole thing is over Universal Healthcare and last week three soldiers were stoned to death, when they start throwing rocks shoot the bastards I say.

    2. It's the NAP not the EAP. In line with the above, not only are they not conforming to our standards because they are not us, we're supposedly expecting to hold them to standards that we, ourselves don't espouse.

    3. Not that either of the above reasons or any particularly libertarian reason does Seyton really convey why we should be opposed to their actions. Is the President supposed to censor his own speech lest some crackpot dictator or terrorist organization use it as agitprop? What about past Presidents' speech?

  • Azathoth!!||

    I believe in proportional response to violence

    Then you're a fucking idiot.

    You don't respond to violence to simply retaliate. You respond to violence to END it.

    Understand?

    It's not an eye for an eye--it's a head for an eye. That way, there's no more violence.

  • soldiermedic76||

    He probably also believes cops should aim for people's legs or arms rather than center mass.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Nope. I'm fine with them shooting to kill if they have a reason to shoot at all. We disagree on when to start shooting.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Do the troops have to wait then until one of them is seriously injured or killed by a rock before they fire back? Or are they not justified even then? You think you are being logical but you aren't. You also aren't being consistent. You seem to think that because a rock is less lethal then a bullet, the use of deadly force isn't justified. However, less lethal and not lethal are two completely different things. An M-16 is less lethal than an Abrams tank. A dragonov is less lethal than a 155 mm howertzer, but you admit that using a howertzer is an appropriate response to someone armed with a dragonov.

  • perlchpr||

    You have no idea what you are talking about. You should shut up before you look like more of an idiot.

  • perlchpr||

    Oh, I was clearly way too late with this. Oh well.

  • Rebel Scum||

    is kind of obviously missing the point, isn't it?

    It is deliberate conflation of unlike things because "Orange Man bad". ///NPC

  • JoeB||

    Playing funny with words is the only way Setyon can express his TDS.

  • BYODB||


    Otherwise looting and arson, as well as rock throwers, can all be labeled as "protestors".

    Uhh...that is exactly what American media outlets do RE: Ferguson. It shouldn't be a shocker they do it for oversea's people either, I suppose, although we all know suddenly they turn into 'rioters' if they are disfavored by the media class. If a mob isn't a mob, than a looter isn't a looter one might think.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If and when it seems like everything that happens everywhere in the world somehow justifies opposing Trump, you may have lost perspective.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Instead of casting aspersions on Trump why not blame Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for this? Would make as much sense.

    Also that was six years ago! Six!

  • ||

    This really is getting to be sick. There was a time when libertarians opposed violent brutal oppression by a government de facto. Commentary by foreign leaders one way or the other meant precisely squat. The fact that Seyton doesn't oppose this but practically just the notion that Trump may (not) have incited it is really fucking sick. The fact that a military killed it's own citizens and why is secondary to his making sure you hate Trump because of it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    There was a time when libertarians saw a difference between the *initiation* of force and *retaliation* against the initiation of force.

    But pomo libertarianism means never having to actually be libertarian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians are never against de facto government force.

    Libertarians are against unlawful government force because its usually not defensive or its to support tyrannical rule.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Is the logic that violent protesters get free shots if the government forces are better armed than they are?

    It is not good if people are killed, but there is limited sympathy for someone using stones to pick a fight with people armed with guns.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Is the logic that violent protesters get free shots if the government forces are better armed than they are?"

    I think the logic is that you're not supposed to know anything unless Joes told you about it, so you're not supposed to know that Trump only said it was okay for our troops to defend themselves when they're attacked.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Lynchpin actually is stating that it is wrong for troops to use their rigles when attacked with rocks. For reasons.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Well, of course they shouldn't use their rigles! The should use their rifles!

  • soldiermedic76||

    Did you think you are clever by pointing out a typing error?

  • Nardz||

    He's just making a joke.
    We all know typos happne

  • soldiermedic76||

    I apologise, I have a terribke fucking toothache that kept me up all night and I don't have the $1500 to get it pulled.

  • Nardz||

    That's the worst, man.
    You have my sincerest sympathies.
    I tried gum, then whiskey, then eventually pain killers but it almost drove me insane until I got a root canal.
    1500 to pull a tooth is criminal.

  • soldiermedic76||

    That is what it costs to get all four wisdom teeth pulled. It might be cheaper for just the one.

  • perlchpr||

    You should get wisdom teeth pulled in at least pairs, otherwise the present one against the missing one can mess up other teeth. Ask me how I know. :-(

  • perlchpr||

    My guess is it's not $1500 just to get it pulled, (and if it is, then dude should google for a "Comfort Dental" near him because they don't charge that much) but to get something else put in place afterwards, too, so the rest of his teeth don't fall out afterwards.

    That's what's kept this stupid, cracked, rotten tooth in *my* head, anyway. :-/

  • perlchpr||

    Damnit, reason ate my comment.

    soldiermedic76, try "Comfort Dental" if it really is $1500 just to get it pulled. If that's your co-pay for a pull and replacement, well, yeah, you're probably not going to beat that.

  • perlchpr||

    Oh, man. I know that pain. Like, I need to get a tooth pulled, myself. :-(

  • soldiermedic76||

    Supply and demand, if I want cheaper, I need to go to Billings or Minot... Five hours to Billings, four hours to Minot.

  • perlchpr||

    Oh yeah. I forgot the "stationed in the middle of nowhere" problem. :-/ Best of luck.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I'm actually a proud owner of a DD 214. I just live here for work.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Thin String to doorknob.

    It sucks but its a cheap man's dentist.

    Be ready for massive bleeding.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Of course Trump is wrong to insist the troops can fight back, it's not as if rocks have ever been used as a weapon of war.

  • buybuydandavis||

    OBL? Is that you?

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    I'm with herpes?

  • Sevo||

    Is anyone else here outraged that Trump won 'cause Russkis, and that wonderful, caring, honest public servant HRC was defrauded from her proper place in history?
    Just checking, since it's obvious that anyone using a Trump vid makes Trump complicit in their activities. Everyone knows that, right?
    Joe, you don't have to suffer alone; you can find the help you so drastically need:
    "Treating the Six Known Symptoms of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome'"
    https://drrichswier.com/2017/01/29/treating-the-
    six-symptoms-of-trump-derangement-syndrome/

    Please get treated before you type one more goddam pathetic excuse for "news".

  • soldiermedic76||

    I guess David was just a protestors and what happened to Goliath was a terrible tragedy.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If you read the political history of Nigeria starting with its independence in 1960, killing protesters is called Wednesday.

  • ||

    What were the protesters protesting? Insufferable human rights violations? A lack of Universal Healthcare and unfettered rights to abortions? Doesn't matter. These people died so that Seyton could let you know that Trump has an immigration policy with which he disagrees.

  • Nardz||

    "These people died so that Seyton could let you know that Trump has an immigration policy with which he disagrees."

    Epic. Mic. Drop.

  • BYODB||

    Look, if standing on unrelated corpses to make your point is wrong than Seyton don't wanna be right.

  • BYODB||

    *Setyon, although pronouncing his name as 'satan' is sort of funny even though that wasn't the intent at all.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    So you're saying the devil wasn't in the details?

  • soldiermedic76||

    This is almost as bad as when people complained when a cop shoots a man coming at him with a knife. Especially when they label them as unarmed.

  • General_Tso||

    A couple of months ago in nearby Weymouth, Massatwoshits a guy hit a cop with a rock, took his weapon and killed the officer and an elderly woman watching from a nearby porch.

    All we needed was some reasonable, common sense rock control.

  • soldiermedic76||

    But according to Lynchpin the cop would have been wrong to shoot the guy to defend himself. Well actually this cop might have been following Lynchpins advice.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Trump's comments are not the same as the Nigerian Army's actions.

    The two situations are not in the same book, let alone on the same page.

  • Sigivald||

    "They want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back,"

    Sounds right to me.

    A thrown rock is a deadly weapon, literally, and they should treat it as such, just like the IDF shoots people using slings to attack them.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Why are they throwing rocks? That's got nothing to do with starting a food truck business.

  • Harvard||

    Practicing their lawn maintenance skills?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Top Kek!

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    I think it's safe to assume had the Nigerian Army tweeter not mentioned Trump at all we would have never heard of this incident.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Remember when Hitler followed Trump's plan to shoot stone throwing protesters?

    Reason is a joke.

  • DRM||

    But throwing rocks is not the same thing as shooting with live ammunition,


    Correct.

    Throwing the rocks was initiation of force; shooting back at the rock-throwers with live ammo was self-defense by people attacked with deadly force.

    Now, is there some way we can we get actual libertarians writing for Reason at some point? People who don't confuse the initiation of force with "protest"?

  • SQRLSY One||

    So you spit on me... I could get AIDS from that if I have an open wound! You initiated force on me! I retaliate with field artillery or nuclear weapons, then, it's all made OK by NAP since YOU initiated the aggression!

  • soldiermedic76||

    Wow, what a stupid fucking analogy. Try again. Rocks are not hypothetical weapons, they are actual weapons. What would be your response if I started hurling rocks at you?

  • soldiermedic76||

    And FYI there I'd no evidence that anyone has ever been ingected by HIV from saliva. The amount of virus present is just to low to be really a threat. It is hypothetically possible but extremely (to the nth degree) unlikely.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Is not I'd fucking phone.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "What would be your response if I started hurling rocks at you?"

    If I had a rifle, I'd stand back 300 yards, since my rife is WAAAY more accurate at long ranges than your rocks are! And since I treasure human life!

    To repeat from below...

    Per the reference given to me by a fellow Reasonoid commenter, I am now finishing up the book "Ordinary Men" about "Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland", by Christopher R. Browning. The one salient point that I would bring up is that there was NEVER a SINGLE CASE documented, of a German soldier or policeman being imprisoned or killed for refusing orders to shoot or otherwise kill defenseless Jewish "untermenschen". Never ONE! If you found yourself to "weak" or "unmanly" to personally do the killing, you could get excused.

    So if you find yourself as a soldier or ICE-man on the border, and your Uber-SturmBahnHaptmannFuhrer (under direction from Der TrumpfenFuhrer Himself) orders you to go up to 2 or 3 yards of the chain-link fence at the border, and fire back with rifles, a those throwing rocks, politely decline your orders. Tell your Uber-SturmBahnHaptmannFuhrer that you would like to stand back from the fence by 300 yards, and you will only shoot at the illegal sub-humans AFTER they scale the fence, and start throwing rocks at you, at close range. After all, your rifle can shoot MUCH further, accurately, than the illegal sub-humans can throw rocks!

  • SQRLSY One||

    If Der TrumpfenFuhrer exceeds the inhumanity of Hitler's regime, and imprisons or kills you for politely refusing to employ disproportionate violence, you can go and meet your Maker in good conscience! I'm personally pretty sure that this will count for SOMETHING positive!

  • soldiermedic76||

    So you as admit that you would reapond with deadly force. So you are a hypocritical asshole. And your stupid fucking reference to Nazi and the Holocaust is both non-sequitor and fucking imbecilic. It make you look like an unhinged partisan hack.

  • DRM||

    Given the fragmentary nature of the available evidence and the disputed claims of each side (the number of dead, weapons on each side, etc.), it's hard to judge whether the use of counter-force was excessive relative to the threat, moving it from reasonable force in self-defense to aggression. Nor do I particularly expect there's going to be any genuine even-handed inquiry that could settle the matter. Accordingly, I'm not going to take sides on whether the Nigerian Army used excessive force, because I don't know. And neither does anybody else; even eyewitnesses will have only seen fragments of what happened.

    What I do know is that the reporters on the event say there's video evidence proving which side used deadly force first.

    So, the factual rendering of this story is, "The Nigerian military quoted a statement by Donald Trump while justifying the level of force used by its troops in response to a violent attack." Which I'm supposed to care about why?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Throwing the rocks was initiation of force; shooting back at the rock-throwers with live ammo was self-defense by people attacked with deadly force."

    A libertarian speaks. Too bad Reason doesn't have any to write their articles.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I don't get it. It's so much easier from a logistics viewpoint for these migrants to move the the Panama Canal Zone and live their lives as Americans there.

  • DRM||

    There's no Panama Canal Zone anymore. Hasn't been for four decades.

  • Headache||

    I think Trump should follow Obama's policy. Bomb the hell out Honduras because their leader treats their people poorly(i.e Libya)

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Nigerian Army Justifies Killing Protesters With Trump Video on Stone-Throwing Migrants
    Trump's comments are not the same as the Nigerian Army's actions. But regardless of the nation, shooting protesters is bad."

    terrorism: violence for political purpose

    Violent political rioters are terrorists and should be treated as such. If they use lethal force, and stoning is lethal force, then it is justified to use lethal force in turn.

    Whether Nigeria was justified is dependent on the facts on the ground. That has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of what Trump said.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Per the reference given to me by a fellow Reasonoid commenter, I am now finishing up the book "Ordinary Men" about "Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland", by Christopher R. Browning. The one salient point that I would bring up is that there was NEVER a SINGLE CASE documented, of a German soldier or policeman being imprisoned or killed for refusing orders to shoot or otherwise kill defenseless Jewish "untermenschen". Never ONE! If you found yourself to "weak" or "unmanly" to personally do the killing, you could get excused.

    So if you find yourself as a soldier or ICE-man on the border, and your Uber-SturmBahnHaptmannFuhrer (under direction from Der TrumpfenFuhrer Himself) orders you to go up to 2 or 3 yards of the chain-link fence at the border, and fire back with rifles, a those throwing rocks, politely decline your orders. Tell your Uber-SturmBahnHaptmannFuhrer that you would like to stand back from the fence by 300 yards, and you will only shoot at the illegal sub-humans AFTER they scale the fence, and start throwing rocks at you, at close range. After all, your rifle can shoot MUCH further, accurately, than the illegal sub-humans can throw rocks!

    If Der TrumpfenFuhrer exceeds the inhumanity of Hitler's regime, and imprisons or kills you for politely refusing to employ disproportionate violence, you can go and meet your Maker in good conscience! I'm personally pretty sure that this will count for SOMETHING positive!

  • soldiermedic76||

    Wow... That was even stupidier then your HIV comment. First, Nazi really? Do you think that makes you clever? Second, disobeying a direct, lawful order will get your ass thrown in Leavenworth. That isn't hypothetical that is fact. And you will probably not want to be caught by your buddies that you abandoned while they were being assaulted with potentially deadly objects. Hint: soldiers really don't like Buddy Fuckers who pull that kind of shit.

  • soldiermedic76||

    And

  • SQRLSY One||

    Read up on the Holocaust. It can happen here! Humans, even ordinary ones, ARE capable of being monsters, in the wrong situations! The scapegoats the day before yesterday were witches. Yesterday they were Jews (and assorted others). Today they are illegal sub-humans. Hitler found a scapegoat, and Der TrumpfenFuhrer has found one now too.

    "Follow orders" was the excuse given by NAZI mass-murderers. I hope that Der TrumpfenFuhrer won't go that far... But if He does, I hope that our armed services (and ICE) will find the humanity and decency to resist, better than the NAZIs did. IT CAN HAPPEN HERE!!!! No laws of biology or physics or ANYTHING prevent it from happening here!

  • soldiermedic76||

    Again you comparison to Nazism is just fucking stupid. How is stopping peooek who are entering your country illegally anywhere close to the fucking Holocaust? To even suggest such a stupid thing makes it perfectly obvious that you don't understand anything about the real Holocaust. Additionally, it makes it clear that all you care about is Trump Bad!!!! You are not clever. You are not smart. You are just boorish!

  • soldiermedic76||

    And before you say it there is nothing unlawful about ordering troops to use deadly force in response to being assaulted with potentially deadly weapons. Hell, the Geneva Convention is pretty clear that when civilians pull shit like that, they lose all protections and are outside the law.

  • SQRLSY One||

    There was nothing unlawful about forcing black people to sit in the rear of the bus, in the old south... The law REQUIRED you as the owner of a white-people swimming pool, to NOT allow blacks into your pool! The law often has little to do with what is right or wrong.

    So you are ALLOWED to stand 2-3 yards from the fence, and shoot rifles at those throwing rocks, by the laws of war. You COULD stand back 300 yards instead, if you followed your CONSCIENCE! There is your difference!

    When I was in the military, they told us to NOT shoot the POWs, even if our commanders told us to! My Lai DID happen, and USA soldiers DID commit atrocities, you know!

  • soldiermedic76||

    What the fuck are you even talking about? Why does it matter if they are at the border or 300 yards inside the border? Why does it matter if you are 3 yards away or 300? Your point is completely asinine. And how is standing 3 yards protecting your borders anywhere close to segregation and the Holocaust? Exaggerate much? That is hyperbole at its best. And why is it better to be shot by someone at 300 yards then someone at 3 yards? You aren't even making a cognitive argument just going into full blown TDS.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I think what you really are trying to get at is that what you really are opposed to is stopping them at all. Because the only reason to be back from the border and not engage until after the crossed the border and moved to within throwing range (and then only after the throw rocks at you) is to abandon the border. So in essence their threat of force is enough to abandon bthe border and allow them to enter. Just say as much and stop with dishonoring those who were killed in an actual human rights travesty.v

  • SQRLSY One||

    It's pretty simple. A 1/4 decent sniper can shoot the terrible illegal sub-humans at 300 yards, protect our border from illegal pickers of fruits and veggies that Americans are too good to pick, in TOTAL safety from thrown rocks, There is NO need to get 2-3 yards from the border, and use thrown rocks as an excuse for shooting living human beings. That is all that I am saying... Give illegal sub-humans a chance, even if they get all pissy and throw a rock at you. That's all, about that...

    And if we are totally honest about it, Der TrumfenFuhrer is riding hatred of scapegoats (illegal sub-humans) the same as Hitler did (Jews). Both were / are power-hungry, conscienceless seekers of political power at any price.

    DMZ, you ever hear of that? A wide DMZ between North and South Korea saves lives, preventing those who hate each other too much, from being in easy shooting range of each other. If Der TrumpfenFuhrer orders you to go 2-3 yards from the illegal sub-humans at the border, to stir up troubles to promote Himself, I hope you will have the moral courage to disobey!

  • soldiermedic76||

    Your hatred of trump is making you incohorent. So are you proposing we place landmines like they do at the DMZ? Your whole Nazi schtick is just fucking asinine it makes you as stupid sounding as Rev, Tony and Hihn. It's just stupid blathering.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Land mines would go too far in my opinion... But ***IF*** we are going to get all hung up on absolute safety for American ICE and-or troops, from thrown rocks, then firing across the Mexican-American border, at rock-throwers, may delight the Trumpster and Trumpistas, and promote Trump's political agenda, but... It is EXTREMELY bad international PR when illegal sub-human bodies pile up on MEXICAN territory!!! Shot by Americans! If we are going to get all blood-thirsty, at least stand back 300 yards and wait till they are well onto AMERICAN soil before we shoot them for fear of their rocks! That is MUCH better PR! ... I didn't say that clearly, but there it is...

    Pile up the bodies on Mexican soil? More international outrage at Americans! We are well enough along the road of becoming the Evil Empire!

    Ideally we'd have more sensible border policies, like the "bracero" guest-worker program of the 1960s, for starters. But Trump and Trumpistas have their scapegoat now, we're all worked up about it, and I don't know if-when we will return to our senses, and to treating other humans as if they are our fellow humans.

  • soldiermedic76||

    So asking people to follow the law is treating them like animals? You hatred of Trump is psychotic at this point. Also, you mentioned the fucking DMZ, you are completely incoherent.

  • Entelechy||

    I'm going back to Biafra, where it's safe.

  • Spookk||

    I don't see a problem with just doing a few strafes on the "caravan". Or napalm and flechettes.

  • SQRLSY One||

    See my comments just a wee tad further above...

    There's a very practical reason why (if we must pile up the corpses of the illegal sub-humans, for throwing rocks) that we should do it well on the American side of the border... Spin control! If the bodies pile up on the Mexican side of the border, reporters will take (and publish) pictures of the piles of corpses. USA will be made to look bad!

    I predict that very soon, the 100-mile-wide "Constitution Free Zone" in the USA (where "papers please" is in effect, and free travel is restricted) will have a new rule imposed... No cameras allowed! Because we don't want pictures of the piles of corpses! Anyone recall the bans on cameras and pictures of the coffins of too many American soldiers coming home from too many stupid overseas wars? That's what I'm talking about! Spin control, no cameras! The "Constitution Free Zone" will become a free-fire zone, but also a camera-free zone!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Then after that, Trump will figure out a NEW way to score points with his base...

    Anyone recall the Iran-Iraq wars of the 1980s? Lots of it was fought in low-laying salt-water marshes. Very tough terrain for Iraqi military vehicles... And it is expensive to bring in bunches of rocks or logs to raise up the mud to make roads. But there was BUTTLOADS of Iranian corpses just laying around for free! So the Iraqis just limed 'em up (for rot-proofing), and lined them up and laid them down to make roads! Lime 'em up, line 'em up, lay 'em down!

    So we can soon expect Der TrumpfenFuhrer to steal a page from the Iran-Iraq war! The Mexicans won't pay for His Walls?!? Make raids on Mexican peasant villages, round up conscript wall-building labor, and build the wall out of the limed-up corpses of illegal sub-humans!!! For every American soldier killed in the effort, there will be reprisal shootings of 200 more illegal un-Americans!

    Don't say no one warned you of what is coming! Trump wants to "win" at any costs!

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Maybe they deserved to be killed? There are people that match that description.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online