6 ms·

At this point, the main concern is getting that camp cleaned up before the flood comes. It should be noted that the tribe has passed a resolution for protestor

At this point, the main concern is getting that camp cleaned up before the flood comes. It should be noted that the tribe has passed a resolution for protestors to go home[1] with no provisions for relocation. This isn't the only area of North Dakota that is going to flood this year and money spent on this foolishness is going to be missed. Devils Lake is going to rise about 4' under current estimates. The reporting has been so bad and at times just stupid[2] that the state had to setup a FAQ[3] just to combat some of the foolishness. Point 14 directly contradicts this article and pretty much shows how bad the reporting has been. 1) http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/standing-rock-sioux-pipeline/ http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/standing-rock-sioux-pipeline/ 2) There are no friggin wild buffalo roaming North Dakota - they are all on ranches, preserves, or the national park land. 3) https://ndresponse.gov/dakota-access-pipeline/myth-vs-fact https://ndresponse.gov/dakota-access-pipeline/myth-vs-fact [edit]The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe. [/edit]

breatheoften 10y ago
As far as I can tell -- there's some evidence of false flag operations regarding the "stand down and go home" resolution. There seems to be plenty of voices from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe leadership calling for continued peaceful protest.
- protomyth 10y ago
  "unanimously passed" - the only false flag is the outside pundits and paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes. The state is rather unhappy, particularly given who the likely donors are and this is causing a budget problem for the state.
  - breatheoften 10y ago
    I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. Interestingly enough, I trust their words more than yours. For the sake of clarity -- who are the outside donors that are funding the protest and bringing the state government to its knees?
    - protomyth 10y ago
      I know people on both sides. I have relatives on both sides. I was pretty neutral until the latest round of reporting and looking at what's going to happen this spring with the flooding. The long term business impact on all reservations is problematic. Interestingly enough, I trust my relatives and friends words more than yours. Soros is the biggest, and yes, the money spent here is a major drag on the state.
      - geofft 10y ago
        Are you saying you have friends and relatives being paid by Soros?
      - untog 10y ago
        To be clear: do you have evidence that George Soros is funding protests? If you do, you should tell someone in the media about it, as it would be a huge story.
        protomyth 10y ago
        What huge story? KFYR has had it on daily for months. Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them. I don't get why you think this would be huge?
        untog 10y ago
        > Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them That is the information I am asking for. A Google search for "soros site:www.kfyrtv.com" returns nothing. The reason I ask is that "George Soros is funding protests" has become something of a meme in right-wing circles to dismiss anything from the Women's March, the airport protests to Standing Rock as being little more than some kind of left-wing conspiracy. To date, I have not seen any evidence backing up those assertions. It is entirely possible I have missed it, though, so I'd like to be filled in.
        10y ago
  - geofft 10y ago
    An easy way to demonstrate the truth of the "paid protesters" claim is to show any way one can sign up to be a paid protestor. I have been doing some unpaid protesting and wouldn't mind a check, to be honest. Until then: FAKE NEWS!
    - jonknee 10y ago
      You're 100% correct, but even if there are "paid protestors" I really don't get why that's a bad thing. Everyone working for the pipeline is getting paid!
      - zo1 10y ago
        Would you say the same if said "paid" action was driving/directing public policy? There is a reason there are strict laws regulating money in regulations and public service. This is of course not quite the same but it essentially boils down to "money buys votes". The assumption being that who sends more money wins. That is why I would argue it bothers people. Edit: grammar.
        jonknee 10y ago
        Paid action drives public policy every day, it's the normal way things work. Do you think the people who are fighting for the pipeline are doing it for fun? Like these guys: https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ Business interests have a huge leg up here because there is money to be made, anti-business interests like not building a pipeline are the ones that have to rely on volunteers. I sure hope there are some paid organizers helping out because they're up against a machine.
      - geofft 10y ago
        It discredits the protests: it implies that opposition isn't coming from a large number of intrinsically motivated people, but from a small number of people with money. It's the same philosophy behind paid votes being a bad thing. Even in our capitalist society, we believe that one-person-one-vote leads to a better society than one-dollar-one-vote. You can imagine systems that aren't one-person-one-vote (and they exist; see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_... in which one real estate chairperson has equivalent voting power to fifteen thousand private citizens), but for whatever reason, America's ideal is one-person-one-vote. In particular, when the opposition holds adherence to one-person-one-political-voice as one of its own principles, the opposition can't say "So what" without appearing hypocritical. They have to actually address that criticism directly.
  - beat 10y ago
    Friends of mine have been up there on their own, or donating money and goods. Blaming "paid protesters" is self-deception. What does it benefit you to believe that people aren't doing this because they believe in it?
    - protomyth 10y ago
      Oh, I believe some of them believe in it, as I said I have relatives there. On the other hand, there are paid organizers from various groups here. One doesn't change the other. Plus, I'm just sick of articles like this that just lie and don't check facts. I expect better of the BBC.
      - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
        I've heard a lot of rumblings from the right about Soros etc being behind any real protest activity on the left. In particular with the DAPL, I'm left wondering what he would have to gain from supporting said protest at all, let alone the suggestion that the protest is entirely manufactured to begin with to further his interests.
      - adamsea 10y ago
        The rightness of the cause can be discussed independently of the funding behind those taking action. Plus, "paid organizers from various groups" sounds weird, you mean, like, maybe the Sierra Club sent someone there to help the protests because the Sierra Club cares about the environment? Or do you mean, like, the evil George Soros sent his UN minions there to help advance the New World Order?
        knowaveragejoe 10y ago
        I'd love to hear more from this person, but it appears upon receiving any real skepticism of their claims they've gone silent.
      - euyyn 10y ago
        "Paid organizers from various groups" sounds to me like "people that work full time for NGOs that protect the environment". Which is very different from "people who don't care about the issue at all, and wouldn't be protesting there if not for the paycheck".
  - WillyOnWheels 10y ago
    I have never heard of people being paid to protest at Standing Rock under the table. "paid protestors at Standing Rock not filing their taxes" is a theme I have not heard of before. Congratulations. From the Standing Rock protestors that I am personally acquainted with, the Indian tribes in the area recognize that the only reason the world cares about their problems is because a thousand white people showed up. I am being flippant of course and I realize that it's just not white people.
  - rgbrgb 10y ago
    Do you have any independent evidence suggesting that protesters were paid? Citing the North Dakota government page is kind of like citing Sean Spicer on inauguration crowd sizes.
KirinDave 10y ago
I think the concern is that the environmental impact of the prior pipeline is non-zero on the local water table. A scale up of this operation is unlikely to improve this situation.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Please site the source for this statement.
  - adrr 10y ago
    Environmental review that should have happened.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- nightski 10y ago
  Fracking isn't exactly zero impact on the water table. Either way tell that to the communities which are having trains explode within city limits killing people. Or massive truck spills.
  - jefurii 10y ago
    Or pipeline ruptures. The real point is that we need to get off fossil fuels altogether.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
tallanvor 10y ago
That article doesn't mention anything that you mention here. Also, I certainly haven't heard any real news or information outlet making claims like you've described.
jackbravo 10y ago
On the fortune.com link you posted says: "The tribe has been encouraging protesters to go home since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed to an environmental review of the $3.8 billion project in December." But now, the news is that it seems the environmental review won't be needed.
- protomyth 10y ago
  http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/standing-rock-sioux-disavow-new-protest-camp/article_0dc6b8df-c108-5b6d-9f98-d65df54933d7.html http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/standing-rock-sioux-d... from the 3rd.
adrr 10y ago
The 1st article states that protestors should go home because an environmental review was going to be done. Now its not going to be done per executive order by trump.
zenta 10y ago
Those FAQs/Facts are amusing. > Myth: Law enforcement officers deployed concussion grenades resulting in the grievous injury to a protester’s arm. > Fact: Law enforcement has at no time used concussion grenades during protest activities. Non-lethal munitions used include: impact sponge rounds, drag stabilizer bean bag rounds, riot control CS (tear gas) canister and water, Taser, and stinger balls, which are small rubber balls and CS gas emitted from the device. It makes a loud noise and emits small rubber balls which are meant to cause people to be startled and therefore disperse. It contains no shrapnel.
- namesbc 10y ago
  Let me get this "Fact" straight. Law enforcement throws a "non-lethal munition" directly at a protester who subsequently loses her arm, but it was probably something else that just happened to coincide with the "non-lethal munition" explosion, and not their grenade? Right.
  - KevinEldon 10y ago
    It would help your argument if you cited public records. Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the incident? Do we know who was involved... was it law enforcement or private security? Was the protester in a space they legally had access to or had they moved onto privately owned land?
    - Zaskoda 10y ago
      Not OP but I know how to Google: http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/standing-rock-protester-in-danger-of-losing-arm-after-police-use-force/ http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/standing-rock-protester-in-...
      - DrScump 10y ago
        This is a Snopes news article, not a Fact Check entry. It has a lone author who only quotes "protester" accounts.
matt_wulfeck 10y ago
> The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe So basically this pipe runs alongside an existing pipe? I feel like I can't trust anything I read anymore from either side.
- cmrdporcupine 10y ago
  gas pipeline. Not exactly in the same environmental threat level
  - snuxoll 10y ago
    Certainly, although methane gas dissolving into drinking water certainly carries it's own risks. Those risks are more explosion and oxygen displacement, since AFAICT once coming through a faucet or whatever it should separate from the water (it is a gas). Oil contamination will ruin a potable water supply for a long time to come, it will mix with the water and make it unusable for human, animal or plant consumption - outside of a complete drainage and refilling of the water table (hah, good one) it's just going to continue to be more and more diluted but still present until a very long period of time has passed. This is the major fear of these pipelines, any leak could potentially do irreparable harm (in a human time frame) to a water supply - and oil pipelines have leaked before, we haven't suddenly got some new engineering magic to stop it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
namesbc 10y ago
You think Soros is funding the DAPL protest? I have no faith in anything you write if you you are so easily duped by conspiracy sites.
dbg31415 10y ago
> 2) There are no friggin wild buffalo roaming North Dakota - they are all on ranches, preserves, or the national park land. Thank you. I grew up on a ranch near there (about 30 minutes from where the protests are happening) and I know ranchers who have had tractors and combines (clearly not a piece of machinery involved in laying a pipeline) ruined because protestors put sugar and dirt in the gas tanks. The people out there... "protecting the water" aren't being nearly as careful as they need to be around destruction of private property. It's disgusting. Ranchers out there tend to be "family farms" / small businesses that don't have insurance for the kinds of damages the protestors are doing. I don't know how many, but I think it was 6-7 buffalo died during the stampede. A stampede caused by protestors who cut fences and used four-wheelers to scare the buffalo into charging towards the police line. These protestors put the animals at risk -- and the news covers it as, "Oh look at the majestic spirt animals coming to the rescue!" Total BS. Buffalo... are just big dumb animals. With horns. When you scare them, they run their horns into other buffalo... anyway it's a mess. I think a few horses died too. These aren't "wild" animals, they're someone's livestock. The fact of the matter is the protestors can't tell the difference between a local rancher, and someone who is involved with the pipeline. They block roads, and harass anyone in a pickup truck. I went home to visit and wanted to see what all the fuss was about... when we drove over there it was clear they were antagonizing anyone who came near... and a lot of people who have nothing to do with this still had to use that road. Very clear too that the protesters aren't locals.
- breatheoften 10y ago
  What zip code is your family's ranch? I want to look up the area on a topo map.
  - dbg31415 10y ago
    That's not a creepy thing to ask at all... Check post history, I've written about growing up on a ranch in a bunch of my posts here. My family ranch is near Shields, ND -- it's a few towns over from Cannon Ball.
    - 10y ago

breatheoften 10y ago

As far as I can tell -- there's some evidence of false flag operations regarding the "stand down and go home" resolution. There seems to be plenty of voices from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe leadership calling for continued peaceful protest.

protomyth 10y ago
"unanimously passed" - the only false flag is the outside pundits and paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes. The state is rather unhappy, particularly given who the likely donors are and this is causing a budget problem for the state.
- breatheoften 10y ago
  I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. Interestingly enough, I trust their words more than yours. For the sake of clarity -- who are the outside donors that are funding the protest and bringing the state government to its knees?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I know people on both sides. I have relatives on both sides. I was pretty neutral until the latest round of reporting and looking at what's going to happen this spring with the flooding. The long term business impact on all reservations is problematic. Interestingly enough, I trust my relatives and friends words more than yours. Soros is the biggest, and yes, the money spent here is a major drag on the state.
    - geofft 10y ago
      Are you saying you have friends and relatives being paid by Soros?
    - untog 10y ago
      To be clear: do you have evidence that George Soros is funding protests? If you do, you should tell someone in the media about it, as it would be a huge story.
      - protomyth 10y ago
        What huge story? KFYR has had it on daily for months. Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them. I don't get why you think this would be huge?
        untog 10y ago
        > Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them That is the information I am asking for. A Google search for "soros site:www.kfyrtv.com" returns nothing. The reason I ask is that "George Soros is funding protests" has become something of a meme in right-wing circles to dismiss anything from the Women's March, the airport protests to Standing Rock as being little more than some kind of left-wing conspiracy. To date, I have not seen any evidence backing up those assertions. It is entirely possible I have missed it, though, so I'd like to be filled in.
        10y ago
- geofft 10y ago
  An easy way to demonstrate the truth of the "paid protesters" claim is to show any way one can sign up to be a paid protestor. I have been doing some unpaid protesting and wouldn't mind a check, to be honest. Until then: FAKE NEWS!
  - jonknee 10y ago
    You're 100% correct, but even if there are "paid protestors" I really don't get why that's a bad thing. Everyone working for the pipeline is getting paid!
    - zo1 10y ago
      Would you say the same if said "paid" action was driving/directing public policy? There is a reason there are strict laws regulating money in regulations and public service. This is of course not quite the same but it essentially boils down to "money buys votes". The assumption being that who sends more money wins. That is why I would argue it bothers people. Edit: grammar.
      - jonknee 10y ago
        Paid action drives public policy every day, it's the normal way things work. Do you think the people who are fighting for the pipeline are doing it for fun? Like these guys: https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ Business interests have a huge leg up here because there is money to be made, anti-business interests like not building a pipeline are the ones that have to rely on volunteers. I sure hope there are some paid organizers helping out because they're up against a machine.
    - geofft 10y ago
      It discredits the protests: it implies that opposition isn't coming from a large number of intrinsically motivated people, but from a small number of people with money. It's the same philosophy behind paid votes being a bad thing. Even in our capitalist society, we believe that one-person-one-vote leads to a better society than one-dollar-one-vote. You can imagine systems that aren't one-person-one-vote (and they exist; see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_... in which one real estate chairperson has equivalent voting power to fifteen thousand private citizens), but for whatever reason, America's ideal is one-person-one-vote. In particular, when the opposition holds adherence to one-person-one-political-voice as one of its own principles, the opposition can't say "So what" without appearing hypocritical. They have to actually address that criticism directly.
- beat 10y ago
  Friends of mine have been up there on their own, or donating money and goods. Blaming "paid protesters" is self-deception. What does it benefit you to believe that people aren't doing this because they believe in it?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Oh, I believe some of them believe in it, as I said I have relatives there. On the other hand, there are paid organizers from various groups here. One doesn't change the other. Plus, I'm just sick of articles like this that just lie and don't check facts. I expect better of the BBC.
    - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
      I've heard a lot of rumblings from the right about Soros etc being behind any real protest activity on the left. In particular with the DAPL, I'm left wondering what he would have to gain from supporting said protest at all, let alone the suggestion that the protest is entirely manufactured to begin with to further his interests.
    - adamsea 10y ago
      The rightness of the cause can be discussed independently of the funding behind those taking action. Plus, "paid organizers from various groups" sounds weird, you mean, like, maybe the Sierra Club sent someone there to help the protests because the Sierra Club cares about the environment? Or do you mean, like, the evil George Soros sent his UN minions there to help advance the New World Order?
      - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
        I'd love to hear more from this person, but it appears upon receiving any real skepticism of their claims they've gone silent.
    - euyyn 10y ago
      "Paid organizers from various groups" sounds to me like "people that work full time for NGOs that protect the environment". Which is very different from "people who don't care about the issue at all, and wouldn't be protesting there if not for the paycheck".
- WillyOnWheels 10y ago
  I have never heard of people being paid to protest at Standing Rock under the table. "paid protestors at Standing Rock not filing their taxes" is a theme I have not heard of before. Congratulations. From the Standing Rock protestors that I am personally acquainted with, the Indian tribes in the area recognize that the only reason the world cares about their problems is because a thousand white people showed up. I am being flippant of course and I realize that it's just not white people.
- rgbrgb 10y ago
  Do you have any independent evidence suggesting that protesters were paid? Citing the North Dakota government page is kind of like citing Sean Spicer on inauguration crowd sizes.

KirinDave 10y ago

I think the concern is that the environmental impact of the prior pipeline is non-zero on the local water table. A scale up of this operation is unlikely to improve this situation.

protomyth 10y ago
Please site the source for this statement.
- adrr 10y ago
  Environmental review that should have happened.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
nightski 10y ago
Fracking isn't exactly zero impact on the water table. Either way tell that to the communities which are having trains explode within city limits killing people. Or massive truck spills.
- jefurii 10y ago
  Or pipeline ruptures. The real point is that we need to get off fossil fuels altogether.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

tallanvor 10y ago

That article doesn't mention anything that you mention here. Also, I certainly haven't heard any real news or information outlet making claims like you've described.

jackbravo 10y ago

On the fortune.com link you posted says: "The tribe has been encouraging protesters to go home since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed to an environmental review of the $3.8 billion project in December." But now, the news is that it seems the environmental review won't be needed.

protomyth 10y ago
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/standing-rock-sioux-disavow-new-protest-camp/article_0dc6b8df-c108-5b6d-9f98-d65df54933d7.html http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/standing-rock-sioux-d... from the 3rd.

adrr 10y ago

The 1st article states that protestors should go home because an environmental review was going to be done. Now its not going to be done per executive order by trump.

zenta 10y ago

Those FAQs/Facts are amusing. > Myth: Law enforcement officers deployed concussion grenades resulting in the grievous injury to a protester’s arm. > Fact: Law enforcement has at no time used concussion grenades during protest activities. Non-lethal munitions used include: impact sponge rounds, drag stabilizer bean bag rounds, riot control CS (tear gas) canister and water, Taser, and stinger balls, which are small rubber balls and CS gas emitted from the device. It makes a loud noise and emits small rubber balls which are meant to cause people to be startled and therefore disperse. It contains no shrapnel.

namesbc 10y ago
Let me get this "Fact" straight. Law enforcement throws a "non-lethal munition" directly at a protester who subsequently loses her arm, but it was probably something else that just happened to coincide with the "non-lethal munition" explosion, and not their grenade? Right.
- KevinEldon 10y ago
  It would help your argument if you cited public records. Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the incident? Do we know who was involved... was it law enforcement or private security? Was the protester in a space they legally had access to or had they moved onto privately owned land?
  - Zaskoda 10y ago
    Not OP but I know how to Google: http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/standing-rock-protester-in-danger-of-losing-arm-after-police-use-force/ http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/standing-rock-protester-in-...
    - DrScump 10y ago
      This is a Snopes news article, not a Fact Check entry. It has a lone author who only quotes "protester" accounts.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

> The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe So basically this pipe runs alongside an existing pipe? I feel like I can't trust anything I read anymore from either side.

cmrdporcupine 10y ago
gas pipeline. Not exactly in the same environmental threat level
- snuxoll 10y ago
  Certainly, although methane gas dissolving into drinking water certainly carries it's own risks. Those risks are more explosion and oxygen displacement, since AFAICT once coming through a faucet or whatever it should separate from the water (it is a gas). Oil contamination will ruin a potable water supply for a long time to come, it will mix with the water and make it unusable for human, animal or plant consumption - outside of a complete drainage and refilling of the water table (hah, good one) it's just going to continue to be more and more diluted but still present until a very long period of time has passed. This is the major fear of these pipelines, any leak could potentially do irreparable harm (in a human time frame) to a water supply - and oil pipelines have leaked before, we haven't suddenly got some new engineering magic to stop it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

namesbc 10y ago

You think Soros is funding the DAPL protest? I have no faith in anything you write if you you are so easily duped by conspiracy sites.

dbg31415 10y ago

> 2) There are no friggin wild buffalo roaming North Dakota - they are all on ranches, preserves, or the national park land. Thank you. I grew up on a ranch near there (about 30 minutes from where the protests are happening) and I know ranchers who have had tractors and combines (clearly not a piece of machinery involved in laying a pipeline) ruined because protestors put sugar and dirt in the gas tanks. The people out there... "protecting the water" aren't being nearly as careful as they need to be around destruction of private property. It's disgusting. Ranchers out there tend to be "family farms" / small businesses that don't have insurance for the kinds of damages the protestors are doing. I don't know how many, but I think it was 6-7 buffalo died during the stampede. A stampede caused by protestors who cut fences and used four-wheelers to scare the buffalo into charging towards the police line. These protestors put the animals at risk -- and the news covers it as, "Oh look at the majestic spirt animals coming to the rescue!" Total BS. Buffalo... are just big dumb animals. With horns. When you scare them, they run their horns into other buffalo... anyway it's a mess. I think a few horses died too. These aren't "wild" animals, they're someone's livestock. The fact of the matter is the protestors can't tell the difference between a local rancher, and someone who is involved with the pipeline. They block roads, and harass anyone in a pickup truck. I went home to visit and wanted to see what all the fuss was about... when we drove over there it was clear they were antagonizing anyone who came near... and a lot of people who have nothing to do with this still had to use that road. Very clear too that the protesters aren't locals.

breatheoften 10y ago
What zip code is your family's ranch? I want to look up the area on a topo map.
- dbg31415 10y ago
  That's not a creepy thing to ask at all... Check post history, I've written about growing up on a ranch in a bunch of my posts here. My family ranch is near Shields, ND -- it's a few towns over from Cannon Ball.
  - 10y ago