dw.com
Serbia Protests: Alleged Sonic Weapon Use Following Train Station Collapse
Following the November 2024 train station canopy collapse in Novi Sad, Serbia, which killed 15, at least 100,000 protestors demonstrated in Belgrade on March 15, 2025 against corruption, alleging police used sonic weapons, a claim denied by the Serbian government.
- What are the immediate consequences of the alleged use of sonic weapons on protestors in Belgrade?
- Following the collapse of a train station canopy in Novi Sad, Serbia in November 2024, resulting in 15 deaths, widespread protests erupted. The largest demonstration, on March 15, 2025 in Belgrade, drew at least 100,000 protestors against corruption. Protestors allege police used sonic weapons; videos show protestors scattering during a moment of silence.
- How does the use of sonic weapons in crowd control relate to broader concerns about human rights and police brutality?
- The use of sonic weapons, or Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs), during the Belgrade protest connects to broader patterns of crowd control and alleged human rights abuses. LRADs, capable of producing sounds up to 160 decibels, cause pain and potential hearing damage. The Serbian government denies their use, highlighting a lack of transparency surrounding these incidents and potentially raising concerns about accountability.
- What are the potential long-term health and political consequences of the alleged use of sonic weapons during the Belgrade protests?
- Future implications of this event include increased scrutiny of police tactics and potential legal challenges regarding the alleged use of sonic weapons. The incident also underscores broader concerns about corruption and government accountability in Serbia, potentially influencing future political dynamics. Further investigation is needed to verify the allegations and determine long-term consequences for protestors' health.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the potential harm of sonic weapons and presents the protesters' account as credible without fully investigating opposing viewpoints. The headline, if there was one, would likely further reinforce this emphasis. The inclusion of details about the historical and varied uses of loud noises in warfare might be a subtly persuasive tactic for reinforcing this perception.
Language Bias
The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, though the use of phrases like "extrem lauten Geräuschen" (extremely loud noises) might be considered somewhat loaded, implying a high degree of harm even before the effects are explained. The consistent reference to the protesters' claims could also be seen as subtly framing them positively.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the effects of sonic weapons and their potential use in Serbia, but omits discussion of alternative explanations for the events of March 15th, 2025 in Belgrade. While acknowledging the Serbian Ministry of Interior's denial, it doesn't explore potential counter-evidence or alternative interpretations of the video footage. The article also lacks details on the investigation into the incident and any conclusions reached. This omission limits the reader's ability to form a fully informed opinion.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between the Serbian Ministry of Interior's denial and the protesters' claims. It doesn't explore the possibility of misinterpretations or other factors that might explain the observed panic. The complexity of interpreting video evidence and the potential for conflicting accounts are not fully addressed.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the use of sonic weapons by police during protests in Serbia, indicating a breakdown in peaceful protest and potentially undermining justice and strong institutions. The lack of transparency and denial by the Ministry of Interior further exacerbates this issue.