Dakota Accees Pipeline Protests: woman's arm blown off by grenade

[Carlybee]

What's so annoying though is that most of the Native Americans resisting this also continue to support the Democrats who have never done a darn thing for them. They also continue to believe that peaceful resistance will stop this which obviously it won't. Not that I am saying they should resort to violence but the naivety is pretty staggering. And the fact that organizations like Occupy Wall Street are now involved means that probably George Soros is now involved and a bunch of other people who really are just attention whores. That being said I'm not going up there so maybe I don't really have a right to say anything about those who have.

 

[phill4paul]

Unconfirmed but reports are she has lost her arm.

https://www.sott.net/article/334478...ter-being-shot-with-police-concussion-grenade

 

[specsaregood]

That's just what the people attacking them would love to see. It would give them an excuse to slaughter them.

and yet, the two last successful protests in the past couple years both had armed protestors....

 

[phill4paul]

That's just what the people attacking them would love to see. It would give them an excuse to slaughter them.

Exactly. The cops are claiming thaat she was injured because the protesters were making propane cylinder bombs. That bullshit doesn't wash because the protesters aren't even armed. Why would they build bombs if they are unwilling to defend themselves with small arms?

 

[jonhowe]

And why are people from New York there?

My friend is there protesting the abuse of native americans via reneged treaties and crony capitalist deals which harm them and their communities. I'm not even in complete agreement with the basic premise the 1st protesters there were protesting, but now that it has turned into a military style crackdown on dissent, I'm all for 'em. That's really the issue now; how SHOULD police handle such things (if at all). Certainly not how they have.

I also give my friend the benefit of the doubt on this issue. She knows all too well that the spirit of her people has been broken: she grew up in an Inuit village in Alaska where people just lay around, drink, and collect their government checks. She, alone in her family and village, left and made something of herself (we met waiting tables and serving drinks in NYC as we both paid our way through grad school).

 

[Origanalist]

 

[angelatc]

these guys could use some guns...

I think that treaty is no longer in effect, though. The map I saw showed the pipeline was not crossing the reservation.

Any time I hear people yammering about "corporate greed" and "potential environmental concerns" I automatically default to opposing them. Give me cheap oil. None of the other pipelines in that area are contaminating the water. Pipes are the cleanest most efficient way to transport oil.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ergy-pipelines-like-the-north-dakota-project/

That’s why environmental activists are targeting pipelines

Now, activists are trying something new — disrupting how the fossil fuel industry transports its products. Their objective is to prevent the fossil fuel industry from accessing the pipelines and railroad networks they need to move their products. The logic is simple; if products cannot be moved, they cannot be sold and will not contribute to global warming.

This “pipeline politics” does not ask governments to enact new regulations. Instead, it leverages the existing regulatory framework. Environmentalists have built coalitions with actors that are more interested in local issues than in global climate change. These actors fear that transportation of fossil fuels might contaminate their water resources, infringe on their fishing rights, or desecrate their sacred lands. Native American nations are an especially attractive ally, because they often have treaty rights over land and water use that the U.S. government is obliged to take account of.

This isn't some spontaneous outcry. It's being orchestrated by the forces in the UN that want us to live in caves. We, most of us. Some animals are more equal than others.

 

[angelatc]

My friend is there protesting the abuse of native americans via reneged treaties and crony capitalist deals which harm them and their communities. I'm not even in complete agreement with the basic premise the 1st protesters there were protesting, but now that it has turned into a military style crackdown on dissent, I'm all for 'em. That's really the issue now; how SHOULD police handle such things (if at all). Certainly not how they have..

The tragedy of the commons.

 

[Root]

Thanks Obama!

 

[Dr.3D]

I think that treaty is no longer in effect, though. The map I saw showed the pipeline was not crossing the reservation.

Looks like the dashed line is where they were going to put it, but the solid line is a revision. Seems to go right through their territory. Looks like the white folks didn't want it in their area, so it got moved through the Sioux territory.

 

[phill4paul]

I think that treaty is no longer in effect, though. The map I saw showed the pipeline was not crossing the reservation.

Any time I hear people yammering about "corporate greed" and "potential environmental concerns" I automatically default to opposing them. Give me cheap oil. None of the other pipelines in that area are contaminating the water. Pipes are the cleanest most efficient way to transport oil.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ergy-pipelines-like-the-north-dakota-project/



This isn't some spontaneous outcry. It's being orchestrated by the forces in the UN that want us to live in caves. We, most of us. Some animals are more equal than others.

Riddle me this bat-man: Why did the original pipeline, which crossed the river north of Bismark, get scrapped and moved south to just a hair above reservation lands? Because the people of Bismark were concerned about possible contamination to their water supply?

Pipes might be the most efficient way but certainly not the cleanest. A tanker truck can only carry so many gallons that may spill. A railway tanker may only carry so many gallons that may spill. When a pipeline breaks it can spill 10's of thousands of barrels worth. And if that spill is in a river way?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century.

Funny how the contractors received exemption from the Clean Waters Act when you or I could be jailed for capturing a rain barrels worth of water. So which animals is it that are more equals? In this case it would be the petroleum industry.

I don't believe this is as cut and dry as "The U.N. is against it, so I is for it."

 

[angelatc]

Looks like the dashed line is where they were going to put it, but the solid line is a revision. Seems to go right through their territory. Looks like the white folks didn't want it in their area, so it got moved through the Sioux territory.

Of course it's about race. How "privileged" of me not to see it.

Seriously, like I said, the other map shows different lines. It was my understanding that the treaty of 1851 had been superseded bu more current treaties, due at least in part to Indian on Indian aggression. Wikipedia would seem to confirm this.

 

[Jamesiv1]

US Government breaking a treaty with Native Americans. Imagine that.

 

[angelatc]

Riddle me this bat-man: Why did the original pipeline, which crossed the river north of Bismark, get scrapped and moved south to just a hair above reservation lands?"

The engineers cited geological concerns. I'm not equipped to argue against that. But there are other pipelines already in place. So I think it's just drama whipped up by the paid environmentalists.

Now that the GOP in in charge, the pushback against cheap and efficient energy will be even stronger. As usual, I side with the capitalists.

 

[phill4paul]

The engineers cited geological concerns. I'm not equipped to argue against that. But there are other pipelines already in place. So I think it's just drama whipped up by the paid environmentalists.

Now that the GOP in in charge, the pushback against cheap and efficient energy will be even stronger. As usual, I side with the capitalists.

Fair enough. I'll take the opposing view and side with the environmentalists on this particular instance. Given our penchant to dig in our heels I doubt that either of us will change our views. Considering that some of the property on this pipeline was taken through eminent domain I'm going to have to say that I don't support capitalism in the form of government force. And there's no race privilege in this mix. Most of those opposing in Iowa are white farmers...

The Dakota Access pipeline is also facing legal resistance in Iowa, one of four states through which it passes. We go to Des Moines to speak with Bill Hanigan, an attorney representing 15 Iowa landowners who are contesting the project’s use of eminent domain under the guise that it would provide a public service, even as it threatens to pollute the state’s farmland and water supplies.

Well, the legal arguments are different, but the purpose and the power behind Dakota Access is the same. In North Dakota, they’re arguing about Native American artifacts. In Iowa, we’re arguing about the application of the Constitution. And what’s common between those two things is, first of all, we’d like Dakota Access to stop what they’re doing until everybody gets their day in court, so we can make our arguments before it’s too late, before it’s a moot point. Now, the commonality among it, in addition to seeking this stay, the commonality is the issue of the great economic disparity. So, you’ve got, again, these multibillion-dollar companies who have combined this joint effort to build this pipeline across Iowa and across North Dakota and Illinois and South Dakota. And the commonality is that great economic force behind those billions of dollars pushing this through, both with law firms and both with the power of politics and the money of politics, to get this thing on a fast track in all of these places, before Iowans and South Dakotans and North Dakotans and Native Americans have an opportunity to even get to the court to get the court to review this and say it’s not fair.

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/7/iowa_landowners_sue_to_stop_dakota

 

[angelatc]

Here's a map put out by "Inside Climate News," an organization that opposes the pipeline:

According to the same article, the pipelines was moved for several reasons:

a number of factors, including more road and wetland crossings, a longer pipeline, and higher costs. Also listed as a concern was the close proximity to wellheads providing Bismarck's drinking water supply.

I am not a proponent of disallowing things because something bad might happen. If something bad does happen, then the injured parties have a right to sue. If I was in the oil pipeline business, I'd make sure that something bad did not happen. But I'd also make sure that my plan minimized my exposure if something tragic did indeed happen.

It isn't about race. It's about costs. Profit is the best measure of value that we have.

 

[Ender]

The engineers cited geological concerns. I'm not equipped to argue against that. But there are other pipelines already in place. So I think it's just drama whipped up by the paid environmentalists.

Now that the GOP in in charge, the pushback against cheap and efficient energy will be even stronger. As usual, I side with the capitalists.

Crony Capitalism is NOT capitalists. If they were true capitalists, they would have swung a deal with the Indians, not the government. The gov & their buddies have NO business on Indian grounds or any private property.

The US has a long history of "giving" land to the Indians and then taking it back, when resources appear. They did this a few years ago over coal.

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/parker.html

 

[phill4paul]

Here's a map put out by "Inside Climate News," an organization that opposes the pipeline:

According to the same article, the pipelines was moved for several reasons:



I am not a proponent of disallowing things because something bad might happen. If something bad does happen, then the injured parties have a right to sue. If I was in the oil pipeline business, I'd make sure that something bad did not happen. But I'd also make sure that my plan minimized my exposure if something tragic did indeed happen.

It isn't about race. It's about costs. Profit is the best measure of value that we have.

And I'm going to say that the main reason it was moved was because those that are richer on an economic and political scale took a "not in my back yard" stance. Given that the native Americans do not have this economic and political power then it does become about race. Whether you want it to be or not.

 

[phill4paul]

Crony Capitalism is NOT capitalists. If they were true capitalists, they would have swung a deal with the Indians, not the government. The gov & their buddies have NO business on Indian grounds or any private property.

The US has a long history of "giving" land to the Indians and then taking it back, when resources appear. They did this a few years ago over coal.

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/parker.html

Exactly. This is about CRONY-capitalism.

 

[presence]

You might also enjoy: Banana Land: Blood, Bullets, and Poison