-- OriginalOwner_ writes:
Authorities used rubber-coated steel bullets, concussion grenades, tear gas, and water cannons against unarmed protesters near the Dakota Access oil pipeline in 26°F (-3°C) temperatures over the weekend.
Indian Country Today reports
"We have seen four gunshot wounds, three of them to the face and head", said Leland Brenholt, a volunteer medic.[...]400 protesters, or "water protectors", attempted to dismantle a police-enforced barricade on State Highway 1806.[...]"Water protectors are done with the military-style barricades. We are done with the floodlights and the armored military trucks. We are are done with it!" declared organizer, Dallas Goldtooth in a mid-evening Facebook post.Their action was met with the same militarized response that the Morton County Sheriff's Department has demonstrated on protesters for weeks: the use of armored trucks, less-than-lethal ammunition, tear-gas, mace, and on this below-freezing night, water cannons.[...]Reports from a coalition of advocacy groups near Standing Rock report hundreds of water protectors were receiving treatment for contamination by tear gas, hypothermia, and blunt traumas as a result of rubber bullets. One person, an elder, was reportedly revived after suffering cardiac arrest, organizers said."As medical professionals, we are concerned for the real risk of loss of life due to severe hypothermia under these conditions," read a statement from the Standing Rock Medic and Healer Council.
"We have seen four gunshot wounds, three of them to the face and head", said Leland Brenholt, a volunteer medic.
[...]400 protesters, or "water protectors", attempted to dismantle a police-enforced barricade on State Highway 1806.
[...]"Water protectors are done with the military-style barricades. We are done with the floodlights and the armored military trucks. We are are done with it!" declared organizer, Dallas Goldtooth in a mid-evening Facebook post.
Their action was met with the same militarized response that the Morton County Sheriff's Department has demonstrated on protesters for weeks: the use of armored trucks, less-than-lethal ammunition, tear-gas, mace, and on this below-freezing night, water cannons.
[...]Reports from a coalition of advocacy groups near Standing Rock report hundreds of water protectors were receiving treatment for contamination by tear gas, hypothermia, and blunt traumas as a result of rubber bullets. One person, an elder, was reportedly revived after suffering cardiac arrest, organizers said.
"As medical professionals, we are concerned for the real risk of loss of life due to severe hypothermia under these conditions," read a statement from the Standing Rock Medic and Healer Council.
A more measured take is available from the AP.
Whining about some water. Hypothermia. Maybe they should have planned for warmer weather to stage a protest? Rubber bullets. I've never handled a rubber bullet, I want to laught at the idea of being shot with one. But, rubber can be pretty dense and heavy - maybe it feels like you've been shot with the real thing. But - protest, right? Civil disobeience, and, uhh - protest.
Years back, protests were dispersed with billy clubs (or batons for the modern day effeminati). Cracked heads, and broken limbs, along with broken ribs.
These people get off light, and they want what exactly? Sympathy?
I agree that the pipeline should be rerouted around the reservoir, but I'm not willing to be shot in the head with a bullet, rubber or otherwise, over the issue. Those who are willing, go on and protest. Just don't expect any medals or anythihng.
Tell that to the girl whose arm was blown up with a flashbang grenade. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/water-protector-dapl-grenade-destroys-arm/ [thefreethoughtproject.com]
Not even sure those injuries are by accident:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/21/standing-rock-police-attack-protesters-again-he-just-smiled-and-shot-both-my-kneecaps.html [thedailybeast.com]
“He shot me with a rubber bullet right in the belly button, and when I showed him that he had hurt me, he just smiled and shot both my kneecaps,” he said.
That is informative.
I don't think cops anywhere should have those damned grenades. Fokking idiots - just because there aren't framgments thrown from the grenade, it isn't considered a lethal weapon? Worse - it's an indiscriminate lethal weapon. Like a shotgun, it's an area weapon, but it's even less discriminating than the shotgun is.
Of course, the military weapons and tactics of the police is another discussion, entirely. Either they're allowed to use military hardware, or they are not. And, I say they shouldn't be permitted to use ANY military hardware.
Then walk back your first post, please. You seem to be one of the few alt-right types on here who has any semblance of humanity left, and given what just happened here it's more important that ever that you show it. Don't get yourself lumped in with Uzzard and our resident cuck-sucker J-Mo, okay?
one of the few alt-right types on here who has any semblance of humanity left
Interesting choice of term.From 1 day ago:
ThinkProgress will no longer describe racists as "alt-right" [thinkprogress.org]You can learn everything you need to know about the "alt-right" by looking at the man who popularized its name. Credit goes to Richard Spencer, head of the white supremacist National Policy Institute (NPI), and one of the country's leading contemporary advocates of ideological racism.The weekend before Thanksgiving, Spencer keynoted an NPI conference in Washington, D.C. Over the course of his speech, he approvingly quoted Nazi propaganda, said that the United States is meant to be a "white country", and suggested that many political commentators are "soulless golem" controlled by Jewish media interests.That, in a nutshell, is the face of the so-called alt-right. As Spencer himself has said, the core of alt-right ideology is the preservation of "white identity".
ThinkProgress will no longer describe racists as "alt-right" [thinkprogress.org]
You can learn everything you need to know about the "alt-right" by looking at the man who popularized its name. Credit goes to Richard Spencer, head of the white supremacist National Policy Institute (NPI), and one of the country's leading contemporary advocates of ideological racism.
The weekend before Thanksgiving, Spencer keynoted an NPI conference in Washington, D.C. Over the course of his speech, he approvingly quoted Nazi propaganda, said that the United States is meant to be a "white country", and suggested that many political commentators are "soulless golem" controlled by Jewish media interests.
That, in a nutshell, is the face of the so-called alt-right. As Spencer himself has said, the core of alt-right ideology is the preservation of "white identity".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
But if I had called him a neo-Nazi I would have been rude and uncivil and hurt his precious feelings ;(
Saw a tweet the other day, Said something like "there is no such thing as the alt-right, if you fuck a goat you aren't an alt-farmer."
The Atlantic has an article about, and uploaded a video of, Mr. Spencer's speech at that conference. Some attendees gave the straight-arm salutes when Spencer said "Hail Trump!".
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/ [theatlantic.com]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk [youtube.com]
Trump spoke about the conference in an interview with the New York Times:
[...] I don’t want to energize the group. I’m not looking to energize them. I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group.[...]But it’s not a group I want to energize, and if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why.
-- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html [nytimes.com]
What a weak non-denunciation.He goes on a tear about hamilton.But "I want to find out why" with the nazis.
Its classic Trump, "If you say great things about me, I will say great things about you." [businessinsider.com]
Yup. I was hoping that someone who still does video would link to that.
I continue to say that the most important thing that could be taught in schools (and community centers and Sunday schools and civic organization and ...) is the History of the 1930s and the rise of Fascism.
Now we have our own demagog [google.com] but the word isn't being used by Lamestream Media.
The demagogue was defeated in this election - don't worry about her any more.
> The demagogue was defeated in this election - don't worry about her any more.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
dem·a·gogueˈdeməˌɡäɡ/nouna political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.synonyms: rabble-rouser, agitator, political agitator, soapbox orator, firebrand, fomenter, provocateur"he was drawn into a circle of campus demagogues"(in ancient Greece and Rome) a leader or orator who espoused the cause of the common people.
Sounds like Hillary and the various groups in the left. Supported by gay rights, feminazis, SJW's, the rich elite, Wall Street, the military industrial complex - and who else? Except, Hillary is more of a neocon than Trump ever thought about being. Typical demogogue - promise the masses whatever they think they want, only to betray them if/when elected.
> rabble-rouser, agitator, political agitator, soapbox orator, firebrand, fomenter, provocateur
You can't be that and be the candidate of the establishment.
No matter your hate for everything non-straight-white-xian-male, none of those people saw her support for them as rabble rousing. They saw it as baseline for a modern civilization.
But this whole "I'm rubber and your glue" thing is Trump's stock in trade.I'm sure you also believe that clinton is the real misogynist.
Stop trying to make a definition fit your preconcieved notions.
"a leader or orator who espoused the cause of the common people"
Again and again, your heroine, Hillary, ATTEMPTED to connect with the common people. But, the common people recognize a rich bitch who was born with a silver spoon in each orifice when they see one. Hillary Clinton, failed demagogue. Donald Trump, somewhat successful demagogue. Read the other AC's comment. FFS, do you even understand what it is that you are squabbling about?
Runaway1956 and hemocyanin seem to be quite clear on the meaning....which stresses the fact that we should have been hearing it TWICE as much from Lamestream Media....but haven't at all.
To be fair, Trump is one kind of demagogue who courted the working class over wide swathes of the country, Clinton was a different kind who courted the 1% in narrow bands of the country.
Now, THAT sounds more accurate than a lot of the shite being posted. Two competing demagogues, one with an identifiable ideology, the other with a less identifiable ideology.
Lol demagogue of the 1%You two are hilarious in your attempt to redefine words.We can see the gears turning in your feeble, delirious brains: demagogues are bad, clinton is bad, therefore clinton is a demagogue!
[...] there aren't [fragments] thrown from the grenade [...]
One of the protesters claims that "doctors found grenade shrapnel in her arm. [time.com]"
According to that person's father:
Witnesses that I’ve spoken to said that the police officers—it takes seven seconds for these concussion grenades to go off. And Instead of throwing them on the ground, they pulled the plug, held them for five seconds and threw them directly at her.
-- https://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/23/father_of_activist_injured_at_standing [democracynow.org]
It's still ~12 hours away.
...and the cops insisted that she blew up her own arm....and Lamestream Media printed their obvious lies without batting an eye.
Cops and legacy media are doing everything they can to reduce their credibility to zero.
I didn't know flashbangs could cause that much damage. I remember the case where a flashbang shot through a window and into a crib killed a baby but I figured that it died from internal injuries.
The baby did not die.He was maimed and the cops squirmed out of responsibility.
The one person who was charged, the deputy who lied to the judge in order to get the warrant, was found not guilty
The "bad guy" they were after wasn't even in that house.Additionally, the crime of the "bad guy" for whom that paramilitary assault was intended was selling a personal-usage amount of dope to a dude.I have seen no evidence that says the "bad guy" had a history of using weapons.
When we discussed that story previously, Soylentils were angry like you might expect. [soylentnews.org]The parents in the crowd could imagine themselves getting very violent with the "law enforcement" types under similar circumstances.The youngster who had his chest blown open with that grenade and who was so badly burned they had to induce a coma was 18 months old.
Even a puny fire cracker can blow off a finger.
You suck. Don't talk trash about people who are braver and more committed than you.
Braver and more committed. Mmmm. Maybe. Posted by Anoynymous Coward? Noted . . . .
The police are the enemy! The feds are bad!
Except when they're not! How dare people question the police and the feds?!?!
They're not really "rubber bullets" -- they're rubber *coated* bullets. They're still metal inside, and can be quite lethal if not used properly. A thin shell of rubber isn't going to protect someone if you shoot them in the head point-blank.
Which brings me to my next nit-pick with the summary itself (emphasis added):
What they are using are not "less-than-lethal" -- they are "LESS LETHAL". These weapons can, and do, kill. They are not as lethal as a bullet, but they are quite capable of killing. Especially when used improperly (which is disturbingly common), but even when used correctly it happens.
And when misused...we've got obvious issues of close range projectiles for one. Rubber coated bullets, used correctly, shouldn't really be leaving open wounds. Looks like these ones might be, which would probably indicate they're being fired from too close. There's also the gas grenades -- I've seen photos circulating from DAPL (so file this under "unconfirmed rumors") showing gas grenades that were thrown by police still wrapped in heavy black tape. Which potentially turns a gas grenade into a fragmentation grenade by plugging the release vents, which could explain how a woman lost an arm from one. But then they go on the news and say everything is perfectly fine and safe and everyone repeats this "non lethal weapons" line, even though the weapons aren't entirely non-lethal if used properly, and CERTAINLY aren't non-lethal the way they are actually being used. And the same can be said of the fire hoses -- on a hot summer day in Atlanta it's probably fair to call that "less than lethal". In below freezing weather at night against people without adequate shelter, it becomes a very different weapon.
"Water protectors are done with the military-style barricades. We are done with the floodlights and the armored military trucks. We are are done with it!" declared organizer, Dallas Goldtooth in a mid-evening
What does "done with it" mean?
As far as I can tell it's equivalent to "had enough of it" or "had it up to here with this shit."
They're the "water protectors"! Water Protector powers ACTIVATE!
I wonder what the next level of self-anointed titling is going to be?
.....They are literally protecting their water rights, what do you call yourself? Shillers for Profitz?
The problem with a blind "rule of law" is that money can buy laws and people can then be "legally" oppressed. But hey, the US has been brainwashed into blindly following authority and even edgy libertarian types often fall into the obedience trap while imagining they are free.
Shillers for Profitz?
Hey Definer of Morals, the First Earl of Douchbaqginess, I'm just making a few observations and not living out my secret Hero Saga fantasies as the Great Protector of Social Justice (though it would give me a real sense of satisfaction and elevate my feelings of worth to morally look down my nose at people from the lines of morality that I impose upon others, but I digress (and I'm not you, your Earlship)). First they were protesters. Then Native American protesters. Wait, there was another one in there. Now they are the Water Protectors (TM). I'm just saying their self-anointed titles keep growing in stature and self importance.
It is fuckwits like yourself who do more harm than good for these things. You're the skinny, nerdy white guy who goes to the African-American Student meetings and awkwardly tries to fistbump everyone and you call them "brother" and how you can totally relate to them. Or that suburban white guy who goes up to the pipeline protest, gives themselves a "spirit" name while secretly feeling resentful that they weren't born a "cool" oppressed minority, you know, not one of those poor central African people, but an American black born in the 50's maybe, or a TV native American, not one on a real reservation with the rampant poverty and alcoholism, but one of those cool reservations where everyone dresses in buckskin and opines in deep philosophical thoughts while smoking peyote.
Didn't you every wonder why so many people roll their eyes when you enter a gathering? No? Well, I'm doing you a favor by pointing this out.
The problem with a blind "rule of law" is that money can buy laws and people can then be "legally" oppressed.
Then it's not rule of law by definition.
But hey, the US has been brainwashed into blindly following authority and even edgy libertarian types often fall into the obedience trap while imagining they are free.
Let's not forget that the point of the protests is to outright block the pipeline in order to hinder usage of oil. These protesters would have found some pretext to protest.
The problem here is that the pipeline is a lawful activity which jumped through the proper hoops. So why should we side with the protesters who don't care about rule of law rather than the pipeline owner who did?
money can buy lawsThen it's not rule of law by definition.
I'm kinda taken aback when we agree on something.Yeah, the word "majority" seems to be missing in this context....or would that be "Democracy"?
the pipeline is a lawful activity
No, it's not.It violates a treaty signed by USA.gov.
which jumped through the proper hoops
I haven't seen the renegotiation of the treaty mentioned anywhere in the press.Link?
the point of the protests is to outright block the pipeline in order to hinder usage of oil
There was previously a perfectly cromulent route plotted out.The thing about that was the it was through a place where WHITE people people lived and might have poisoned -their- water supply.Can't have that.So, they came up with a different route.**Let's put it through the Redskins' land. They're real easy to push around.**
Your Reactionary narrative missed a few salient points.
Yeah, the word "majority" seems to be missing in this context.
...or would that be "Democracy"?
Where's the standing? I don't believe, for example, that the majority should have even the slightest say in my personal life.
No, it's not.
It violates a treaty signed by USA.gov.
And that violation is?
There was previously a perfectly cromulent route plotted out.
The thing about that was the it was through a place where WHITE people people lived and might have poisoned -their- water supply.
A route which ran very close to the watershed of 71,000 [wikipedia.org] people in Bismarck versus merely veering near the territory of 8250 [google.com] in Standing Rock Indian Reservation. I realize that white people just aren't as good as American Indian people, but there are still, according to Wikipedia, roughly 3,000 American Indians in Bismarck too.
If you ever wanted a cause to fight Big Government, here it is. The government wants to steal your land to run an oil pipeline under it. The government wants to run this pipeline under and through your water sources and supplies. The government will back this up with military force. And the worst part? It isn't even the government who's going to benefit. It's a bunch of oil tycoons. Yes, let's steal land, break up people's farms, leave industrial garbage on our land, pollute our water sources, wreck the water table, all to line the pockets of those lucky few who have control of our government.
This is the government: rich people with lawyers who never had to get elected to anything. And they're coming for you.
Where's Cliven and Ammon Bundy when you need them? Oh yeah, sitting in federal prison because of a stupid pointless occupation of a park nobody cared about.
"The government wants to steal your land"... It's not technically your land, It's the governments land and they can do anything they want with it. Your deed states the facts somewhere in the fine print. You also don't have ownership under the ground or the airspace above. The only way to truly own property is to buy an island from a country and start your own country, easier said than done though.
Yeah and it's not their polluted water that they aren't going to be able to drink safely.
The Gov is answerable to the people. Of course these bunch are a minority but if enough people kick up a fuss then the Gov should listen whether from "airy fairy niceness" or from the harsh reality that the more people a politician keeps pissing off the higher the chance that someone would kill him/her. This is even true for dictatorships. That's why dictators who know how to stay in power don't like it when their crazy kids do over-the-top bad stuff (those kids can actually get in trouble as a result). The lion knows that the herd can actually kill him.
Whether this standing rock stuff is important enough, that's up to you. I'd say the US people don't need that pipeline that much, but hey I don't even live in the USA.
I'm not that informed on the issue but I thought the area in dispute was on a Native American reservation, which is supposed to be sovereign territory. Not that they haven't been screwed on just about every treaty ever, but aren't we supposed to be a little more enlightened now?
I thought the area in dispute was on a Native American reservation, which is supposed to be sovereign territory. Not that they haven't been screwed on just about every treaty ever, but aren't we supposed to be a little more enlightened now?
Did you climb under a rock during the last election season? Seriously, I wouldn't blame you if you had. It was absolutely toxic, and one of the ugly and persisting ramifications (besides having a monster in the white house) is that bigotry, racism, sexism, and generalized hate have become completely normalized. What was that about being "a little more enlightened now?" We've just proven to the world that a large chunk of our population is overtly racist, sexist beyond belief, does not believe in democracy, embraces foreign meddling in our affairs if it serves their short-sighted goals, and have absolutely no compunction about intimidating, assaulting, and even killing those they disagree with.
We aren't more enlightened now. We're less enlightened, and becoming ever more so every day that goes by. The Republic is gone, now we are nothing more than a two-bit imperialistic banana republic AT BEST (and that is a generous reading of recent events). These people are fighting the good fight, but if even the Obama administration allows this sort of thing against them, I shudder at what they can expect once the racists moves into the west wing this January.
The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 was signed by USA.gov and defines what can be done with the land.It has not been superseded by a subsequent treaty.This attempted usage violates the treaty.
Bulldozers on their burial grounds would need to be approved by the Lakota.That approval has NOT been given.Doing something that has the potential to poison their water supply has DEFINITELY not been given.
These resident of the territory of USA are within their 1st Amendment rights to peacefully protest without being assaulted with weapons of war.
I would love to know exactly who owns the land as it is just some regular private citizen or is it part of the reservation. I have seen stories stating that the pipeline is not on the reservation and others that say it is. If it is on the reservation I say let the tribe set fire to machinery that crosses the boundary as it is trespassing and they are considered a sovereign nation and enjoy a lot of freedoms on their property not available to others [brainerddispatch.com]. If not they are going to have to go piss up a rope even if this does seem like a dick move. Considering that a river is involved there are likely additional considerations as water access and use is also negotiated in these treaties.
Wonder no more! See the map and read the history [ndstudies.gov] of the treaty the the U.S. signed.
Of course, said treaty was promptly ignored by the U.S. government who allowed white people to exploit mines in the Black Hills and setttle ranchers in the area, resulting in a decision in 1980, which found the U.S. guilty and sentenced it to pay compensation to the indian tribes, money which was refused, as the tribes did not wish to sell their land.
So technically, the land is indeed sovereign indian land.
Well it looks like it might be time to set fire to some construction equipment.
I'm really confused. Are you trying to describe Trump supporters or Hillary supporters? Your complaints apply to both. The sad thing is each side only see the faults in the other and never looks closely at who they're supporting. Trump is at least starting to act more responsible. I don't think Hillary would have changed.
This situation is different, because this is a Native nation's land, so they have substantial rights that an ordinary private citizen or organization wouldn't have. Of course, what often happened when Natives were given rights to land is that the US government takes it away whenever it's convenient. Which is precisely what happened here.
And, I have to say, as much as I agree with the protesters in this case, they're absolutely screwed: All the public officials who could stop the pipeline have made it abundantly clear that they won't. And yes, that includes officials in both parties: Obama is noticeably silent about what's going on (ongoing and continuous use of force by police and private thugs^Wsecurity guards against people who aren't committing crimes, among other things), and Trump has made it clear he wants more pipelines and drilling.
If it is true that the pipeline is going across the reservation then the tribe has every right to seize all equipment in use on the land if they haven't gotten permission. I'm not sure that is the case having seen stories stating that it is and isn't. to further muddy things there is the river and often in treaties access and usage of nearby water is also negotiated.
And anywhere you can buy one has strict restrictions on what you can build there, taxes, and usually at most allow a 99 year lease.
The only real way to have sovereign land is to have enough manpower willing to die, or pay someone else to die to hold onto it. Pretty sure nobody here has either the social or financial pull fo that.
> This is the government: rich people with lawyers who never had to get elected to anything. And they're coming for you.
And the alternative is what?Rich people with private militaries stealing your land.And if you think you can out gun them, think again. This response, that's them being restrained by the law, not emboldened.
The whole reason this protest is happening is because of government. These people don't have to die to have a chance of winning. That doesn't mean there won't be violence. Just that these people won't be massacred because they decided to stand against the rich.
Call me crazy, but the alternative I had in mind was not letting people get rich and powerful enough to control the government or hire private militaries.
> not letting people get rich and powerful
And how do you propose to do that without a big government?Or have you forgotten the thousands of years of small government?
Don't buy their products.Look for goods produced by and sold by operations that are 100 percent worker-owned.
Additionally, don't contribute your labor to the companies of the 1 Percent and don't knuckle-under to their rules which allow **them** to skim off all the profit while *you* do all the work .Start your own company.Find like-minded people and form a worker-owned cooperative.Don't give away your profits to people who do not part of the production process.
without a big government?
It's pathetic that you can't break out of the top-down Authoritarian mindset and move on to the People Power paradigm.
When in the history of mankind has that ever worked?
You are arguing for what is essentially organized action in resisting the economics of efficiency of scale.That kind of organization is a hop, skip and a jump away from a "top-down authoritarian mindset."
You want to fight organized power with organized power and not have that power organized into anything else.That's just wishful thinking.
People start new companies all the time.Clearly, not you.In Emilia-Romagna, at last count, there were 8100 (Socialist) worker-owned operations, started via the Maracora law. [google.com]
USA has over 11,000 companies that are 100 percent worker-owned.Over 400 of those are (Socialist) cooperatives.
Go ahead and continue to work for "The Man".Go ahead and continue to buy from "The Man".Apparently, -some- people enjoy their chains.
> People start new companies all the time.
Wait, if people are starting companies all the time, then what's the problem?
> USA has over 11,000 companies that are 100 percent worker-owned.
And how many owners are there? 22,000?
You seem to have faith that tiny-sized co-ops can scale up without becoming organized power structures.That's never happened. Not even once. Because people.Its just the same old libertarian fantasy that in the absence of organized power structures people won't form organized power structures.You can have an argument about how rigid those structures will be, but to deny that they won't spontaneously form is to assume that people are robots who all think like you think you do.
The Mondragon Corporation employed 74,335 people in 2015. It is worker owned, though it also has non-owner workers so it is not the perfect example. But still it is a large successful cooperative business which has been around for 60 years.
> Go ahead and continue to work for "The Man".
I missed that the first time I read your post.I've been self-employed for over 15 years.Essentially retired now because I can afford it.
But keep on projecting, that cognitive dissonance can't be very pleasant.
You're not even on point.These assholes are using, I'm assuming from TFA, local police as their own private security force.The same police force that is employed to protect and serve the public is being used to assault and fire on unarmed civilians that have a right to protect their property and land.And you, I, and the victims are paying these cocksuckers to assault them.
This country is on the verge of civil war. Cops are shooting unarmed civilians. Armed civilians are now beginning to shoot cops, and killing them in kind.
Blue lives don't matter when they're armed thugs harassing, killing and extorting money from a destitute people.I have zero sympathy for cops now that they're turning their guns on the very people they are to protect. This is fucked up. Kill the bastard and those that own him.
Doesn't help when some half-cocked fanatic comes along and spews inflammatory hate to get himself elected president and the public decides this is now the condoned behavior of public interaction.
Guns are the answer. We need more guns .. and make them easier to get.
Sounds like the protestors should be better armed. Local LEOs and Feds are not going to risk their necks, and create a national incident, by going after the well-armed. That's why the Federal wilfelife preserve occupation went on as long as it did. Bottom line, if the protestors could defend themselves, the LEOs would not be subjugating the protestors like this. If you are going to go up against a group that you know is going to bring violence down on upon you and yours, you should come prepared to defend yourself in at least equal measure.
What horrible advice! A circle of escalating violence is not a solution.
Instead, as long as you have media attention, you should look forward to them exercising disparate force upon the protesters, it gains public support for the issue.
"First they ignore you; then they abuse you; then they crack down on you and then you win."
Sometimes that works, sometimes it does not. The point is, you do not want to the be the one who "took one for the team" when that kind of resistance does not work. It's about being able to protect yourself; you cannot protect yourself from inside a jail cell or under a boot.
You pussies seem to be a bit confused on the whole issue of 'civil disobedience' here. The whole point is that you are so convinced that you are right that you are willing to break the law, accept the consequences and hope the public see this moral conviction and eventually come to agree with you.
1. You can't actually beat the government at the violence game.
2. You WILL get the shit beat out of you if you try.
3. You can win, but only if your cause is truly just AND the decisonmakers are basically just. Don't make the mistake that just because that in Western style governments the people rule in theory that they always do in fact. Especially in the short term.
The implications of these realities should be simple enough to grasp, especially with history as a guide.
MLK and Gandhi succeeded because they judged their situations rightly and they, along with their followers, were willing to pay the price required. They understood that the demands they were making were just, that most Americana (MLK) and Brits (Gandhi) would eventually see the violence, ask why people were willing to stand there and take it and eventually come to the right conclusion. They also understood that this understanding would likely take a while, and then take longer to work its way up to the policymakers. They understood the price they would have to pay and they paid it. This is why they are remembered as heroes.
Now lets look at these protesters. They are not even claiming to be non-violent protesters. They destroy things, they set fires, they intentionally get into fights with law enforcement. They act like they can win at the violence game; dumb move. Then they whine when they get beat up, when that should pretty much be the reason they are there. Dumb.
So now lets examine their cause and see if it us just, the sort of incandescent righteousness that can win in a non-violent resistance movement. This pipeline project is nearly completed. It first went through years of environmental impact study, permitting and other government red tape. These protesters have an inside track at EPA and an administration very friendly to their cause, and still they couldn't get this project killed. So they are resorting to violence when they lost a political process tilted very heavily in their favor. The claim of a risk doesn't stand up to scrutiny when we consider the 2.4 million miles of existing energy pipeline already in the ground with far fewer incidents per unit of energy / mile transported when compared to any other alternative.
Summary: Their cause is not just and their tactics are poorly thought out.
Dang! You almost made me agree with you...So I have to nitpick:
> The claim of a risk doesn't stand up to scrutiny when we consider the 2.4 million miles of existing energy pipeline already in the ground with far fewer> incidents per unit of energy / mile transported when compared to any other alternative.
I'm calling NIMBY. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of the pipelines were magically clean. What matters is that when a leak happens in my back yard, I'm 100% fucked. Nobody cares much unless it's also got explosions or a sad-looking endangered bird. Even then, it's years and years of paperwork, studies and counterclaims, lawsuits between companies, to get a shitty check which won't cover the destruction of the quality of life, nor moving to a place that won't poison the kids long-term.Throw in the fact that Indians get the short end of the stick more often than not, and you know why they get pissed.
But I agree that taking on the militarized US cops while hoping not to get hurt isn't the smartest move.
Jack['s] Username isn't entirely wrong though. Two wrongs might not make a right, but as I discovered in seventh grade when I grew a spine and started hitting back (yes, some girls physically bully, we're not all about just rumors and gossip), sometimes a second wrong can prevent a third, fourth, fifth, etc.
Cheers on being mostly right for a change. The only bit you got wrong is it's never wrong to defend yourself.
Oh, shit, if YOU'RE saying I'm right I must be wrong...ugh.
Of course you're wrong. Have fun figuring out what to think now...
Awww, and you were just starting to act civil and friendly...damn, I knew that wasn't gonna last :(
That were a logic joke, girlie. Don't get your knickers twisted.
Beating up a bully only works because you are evenly matched and they've relied on your inaction.Change the balance of power, as in trying to fight back against a gang of ten, and all you'll get is beat down and they will have fun doing it.
Yeah, I know > Really, really hate people sometimes.
Indeed. This guy has crunched the numbers. [google.com]He says that if you're going to do a protest, your chances are 1 in 2 that you will succeed if you do it peacefully.Get violent and your chances go down to 1 in 4.
remember the four boxes:
Soap box : use free speech and Protests to make your message heard and make a change.
Ballot box: get laws passed or overturned.
Jury box: take your cause to court.
Ammo box: when all else fails make sure you can fight back against unjust laws/actions.
this kind of response by the LEOs is them going straight to the ammo box.
I find it sadly funny that when ever the government tries to limit/take away almost any Constitutional right everyone starts screaming about Free Speech, search warrants, etc., but then those same people support limiting or outright abolishing the Second amendment. The same one that is supposed to help protect all the other rights in the Constitution.
The Native American peoples have had really shitty luck using the ammo box to defend their rights. Come to think of it, so have most of the minorities in the States. As long as the majority (actually about 1/3rd, with over a 1/3rd not caring) agrees that the government is in the right to blow away certain people who actually use their 2nd amendment rights, those rights are just an invitation to get shot.There has been very few, if any success stories of the ammo box being used against the powers that be.
So then I shouldn't have ended every fight that others have started with me. I've never thrown the first punch, nor initially contacted anyone but being a bigger guy lots of people who are piss drunk want to try and show off. Being only 5' 9" makes me on the shorter side but being ~250lbs and a power lifter means that it has ended very badly for those who have chosen to start a fight with me. In those situations I have used overwhelming force to end it, and it really takes the wind out of someone's sails when you pick them up over your head and throw them.
With the government it might be different as you could end up in a Waco incident but on the other end of things you have the wildlife building occupation which I still think could have been ended better. Seriously just starve them out like what was common during medieval sieges. Shut off the water and power and prevent anyone from bringing in food. If someone wanders out grab and arrest them.
I'm a Civ player, so it should go more like this: "First they ignore you; then they abuse you; then they crack down on you and then you use nuclear fire!"
And get charged for armed rebellion ... at best, or get sniped down with full-metal-jacket bullets, most likely.
You don't fight a prevailing force head on, never.
Don't ever respond with violence against their enforcers, even though they are provoking you to with their bestiality, because if they succeed in making you murderers, then you lose, big time.
If you have an important cause and you have numbers on your side, you fight guerrilla style, avoiding direct confrontation and going for the maximum damage to your enemies, in this case oil company, interest.
Think of a strategy to sabotage their operation along the long stretching route of the pipeline, where no police force or hired guards can always control every point, and keep doing it persistently until they give up or come to negotiations table.
Learn from history, resistance movements of WWII Europe, and others. When you are under attack in your own land, basically it means you are under occupation, no matter that aggressors are your own compatriots.
Keep close tabs on any enemy patrols movement, constantly do recon on police or any unknown vehicles or persons, and don't ever let any activist get captured!Keep the thugs on the tips of their toes: scare, false threats, disinformation, is as important as actual sabotage, because it grinds them down and dulls their senses.But actual damage to company bottom line must be done, it is the only way they feel pain.
> Think of a strategy to sabotage their operation along the long stretching route of the pipeline, where no police force or hired guards can always control every point,
So these protesters who don't want the oil pipeline because they are worried it will poison their land should sabotage the oil pipeline, spilling oil and poisoning the land. I think I see a flaw in this plan...
Not all failures result in a leak.
We are talking about pipeline being built. It carries no oil until it is completed and checked for leaks. Leaks cost money, especially large ones. Company should understand the reality of everything coexisting peacefully and in mutual accord, or not really existing for long.
The point is to increase the marginal cost of the government suppressing a protest. Right now, an unarmed protest can be put down with a fractional ratio of government personnel and resources to protestors. By protestors being armed, the ratio moves in the direction of 1:1. The government can only afford to put down a one-off Bundy occupation. But imagine 5, 10 or 20 protests like that around the country? The government would have to expend a lot of personnel and resources. Those resources have to come from somewhere and that somewhere is ultimately the people. The point is to increase the price of extraction beyond the value of what is being extracted. That is how change happens.
increase the marginal cost of the government suppressing a protest
Are you so young and ill-informed as to not be aware of Waco?The Feds burned down the complex with children in it then concocted a "suicide" story that Lamestream Media swallowed whole.
...and Ruby Ridge?There, a Fed fatally shot a woman in the head while she was holding an infant.All charges against the Feds were dismissed.
Using weapons against the gov't is a losing strategy.With them getting the USA military's surplus weapons gratis, the cops have you outgunned and they have no qualms about using all of their weapons as soon as you fire a shot.
The only chance protesters have is to get their story into the media.It is shameful that Lamestream Media isn't even slightly interested in this story.To get any kind of proper coverage, so far, you need to go to New Media.
...and even what made it to the S/N front page was heavily censored."Coverage" (AKA an Establishment whitewash) was added by a "news" agency that wasn't even on the scene.Lamestream Media has been using words like "clash" and "confrontation" instead of "police assault" and "police attack".To get more of the story, read the Original Submission [soylentnews.org]
...and, as has been mentioned in the (meta)thread, all gov't officials with the power to do something are pro-dirty energy and are doing nothing to uphold the treaty that USA.gov signed.
The S/N editor felt compelled to add "balance" to the story by including "coverage" by Lamestream Media (who weren't on the scene).Jim Naureckas of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR.org) has this to say about that:
"Nothing to See Here" Headlines Conceal Police Violence at Dakota Access [commondreams.org]One almost gets the sense that editors writing headlines like these have enlisted themselves on the sheriff's team, waving spectators away with a "nothing to see here, folks".The Washington Post (11/21/16) got the news into the headline, but framed it from a police perspective: "Police Defend Use of Water Cannons on Dakota Access Protesters in Freezing Weather".
"Nothing to See Here" Headlines Conceal Police Violence at Dakota Access [commondreams.org]
One almost gets the sense that editors writing headlines like these have enlisted themselves on the sheriff's team, waving spectators away with a "nothing to see here, folks".
The Washington Post (11/21/16) got the news into the headline, but framed it from a police perspective: "Police Defend Use of Water Cannons on Dakota Access Protesters in Freezing Weather".
AP's story mentions 17 injuries.Early reports from RESPONSIBLE reporters among the people on-scene said that injuries were over 200.The medics tending to the wounded have upgraded that figure to over 300 injured.
And you felt the need to inflate the situation by promulgating "water cannon" for "water hose". Spraying water on people in that kind of weather is horrible. So is ratcheting up the rhetoric to gain sympathy and then blame the "lamestream media". Cripes, for a guy who railed on Trump so much, you sure learn from his shitty tactics.
The term was used by numerous news outlets.It accuracely describes a high-pressure device used to throw large volumes of water for long distances.
Used in freezing temperatures against people who are living rough, it is definitely a weapon with potential for health-altering consequences.The medics specifically mentioned hypothermia.
I'm quite sure you wouldn't want it used against you under any circumstances (it has the potential to remove skin), especially while the temperatures are below freezing.
Truth. I say this as a vet myself: if someone looks like they even might be about to use deadly force on you, use it first on them. You as a civilian cannot be legally or otherwise expected to be able to tell if grenades are lethal or bullets are rubber.
Seems like that strategy hasn't worked out too well for people subjected to say, SWAT raids on the wrong house. Also these days it's likely to get you labelled a terrorist, making you politically toxic to almost all politicians, and potentially reducing your legal rights in the bargain. There was that article the other day about the vet who got his house raided. Do you honestly think the incident would have played out better for him if he'd shot at the cops to protect his home from a warrantless invasion?
Yeah but see he wasn't as elite as The Uzzard. He must, somehow, have deserved that for being some kind of beta leftie pinko cuck. We ALL know TMB here would come out on top of any confrontation like that completely unscathed, with fireworks and spectral American flags exploding behind him as a flight of bald eagles screeches by, bullet casings falling like brass hail around his Liefield-esque silhouette.
What the fuck is your problem, you gigantic useless cunt? You and people like you are exactly why Hillary Clinton lost: demands for tolerance and respect for you with an endless stream of bitching and whining and namecalling and spite for anyone who disagrees with you. Fucking lose the act. It's over and you lost.
Did you misfire this one? Prematurely extrapolate and aim badly, perhaps? I'm told they have medicine for that :)
Actually in at least one case [foxnews.com] it appears to have worked out fairly well [lacrossetribune.com].
I'm not sure I would call that working out well exactly, and to the extent that it did there was a lot of luck involved. If you were offering people the option of getting paid $600,000 to let someone invade their home and shoot 22 bullets at their family, I would hope most sane people would decline, but what do I know?
But to an extent I think you're right, in that if no shots had been fired I suspect it would've been less likely for the family to get compensation for their broken door and the trauma of a home invasion, and the officers may not have been suspended because "no harm done".
Nah, they didn't want the PR backlash like they got from shooting up the Ruby Ridge asshats (oh, who were btw white. this shit is OK all the time in non-white neighborhoods every day though).
Many protestors are Native American and have good reason to mistrust the powers that be. It's a disgrace that their legitimate concerns are being met with violence.
Do you forget what Sioux used to do to white people?
That would be called "just retribution".If someone invaded and occupied YOUR home, I'm pretty sure you would be killing mad.
...and have you ever heard of Sand Creek? Wounded Knee?These were examples of USA soldiers butchering native men, women, and children.
Hey now, don't ruin the Hollywood narrative!
You risk getting the hose. Suck it up, or go home.
The 1st Amendment is obsolete?
Sieg heil, herr Fuhrer.(Don't forget to click your heels.)
here's a mainstream media article:
Dakota Access pipeline: 300 protesters injured after police use water cannons [theguardian.com]The article says the reporter was not on-site but in San Francisco, though.
De Morgen (in Dutch, well, Flemish), 2016-11-21: Betoging tegen Amerikaanse pijpleiding loopt uit de hand: 167 gewonden [demorgen.be]
FAZ (in German), 2016-10-23: Wieder Festnahmen wegen Ölpipeline im kargen Nordwesten [faz.net]mentions the pipeline is 1400 km from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to Illinois
Le Figaro (in French), 2016-11-01: Un concert anti-oléoduc aux Etats-Unis [lefigaro.fr]Bit boring article about some concert in support of the Standing Rock sioux.
It looks like this man [wikipedia.org] would benefit greatly if the Bakken shale oil can be transported cheaply.
RT, 2016-07-21 (in English): Drill that! Trump rumored to put fracking billionaire in charge of energy sector [rt.com]
keywords I found: "Dakota Access", "Standing Rock", DAPL, "Energy Transfer Partners"
NON mainstream media:ecowatch 2016-10-11 Donald Trump's Ties to the Dakota Access Pipeline [ecowatch.com]The article claims that Donald Trump has between $ 500 000 and $ 1 000 000 invested in Energy Transfer Partners, the builder of the pipeline, and that Harold Hamm is Trump's energy adviser,and that:
"Trump has vowed to "streamline" pipeline permitting and do away with governmental oversight of fossil fuel infrastructure projects. "