3 ms·
the suggestion is, as in the US, that a lot of groups are receiving support from outside their respective countries. There is a lot of money to be lost for oth
by Shivetya 12y ago
the suggestion is, as in the US, that a lot of groups are receiving support from outside their respective countries.
There is a lot of money to be lost for other counties should the US and Canada develop their resources to their fullest and unlike many other current oil producers there is the ability to exploit freedom expression and movement to limit this expansion of resource development.
- glesica 12y agoI don't see how that can possibly be taken seriously when, in the US at least, politicians openly take donations and swear allegiance to foreign interests. Additionally, if money leads directly to terrorism, then why not also investigate the companies that stand to make money by exploiting these resources? There is a long, bloody history of companies committing violent acts (in the US at least) to protect their economic interests against peaceful activists and protests.
- wavefunction 12y agoCommerce is king in the US, so it's "alright" for politicians to accept money from outside sources as long as it can even slightly be cast as "pro-business." Many common Americans don't agree with this necessarily, but there are enough that do or have been misled by propaganda that the "pro-business" agenda is given free-rein in this country.
- glesica 12y agoThat was my point, I don't see how anyone can say, with a straight face, that a protester taking a foreign donation is "dangerous". It is just an absurd excuse for the politicians to do what they want to do for their own, less publicly acceptable, reasons.