|
coyo7e posted:Who was it that kept bringing up copper mines on tribal lands and how it's an example of how well they can work hand in glove and keep everything hunky-dory, too? Wow, they even turned the acid pit into a tourist attraction. Capitalism at work.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
So a federal grand jury has been convened in North Dakota relating to the protests. If it's anything like how grand juries have been used before, alot of people are going to be held in solitary for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
ughhhh posted:So a federal grand jury has been convened in North Dakota relating to the protests. If it's anything like how grand juries have been used before, alot of people are going to be held in solitary for no reason. Well it's because protesters are economic terrorists. You gotta isolate them so they don't spread their terrorist ideology! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
i was saying that privatisation is bad, you are saying privatisation is bad, i don't see the point of disagreement here???
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 20:25
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
Privatization IS bad. What, are you kidding me? If you live in the US, you live in place that is living proof its a gigantic mistake.
|
Alright this got a laugh out of me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
I left Oceti Sakowin yesterday. The situation was getting dire at Oglala camp, I didn't wanna watch people die of exposure. I'll try to find time to update ya'll 'bout errthing, but now I'm living on the road. In Lincoln, NE right now. Heading West. Based on hundreds of conversations at the camp, I'm pretty sure that pipeline is compromised, end to end. It would be foolish to turn it on at this point. I don't know when that shoe will drop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I left Oceti Sakowin yesterday. This sounds so ominous. How has it been compromised?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:This sounds so ominous. How has it been compromised? Not certain. Diamond-tipped drill bits, various corrosive acids, acetylene torches have all been discussed. I don't have any specifics, but the camp was not sitting idle these many months. I stayed at Oglala camp offering hospitality and engaged in listening. When they parked a War Camp to our north and forcibly evicted us, they made it clear that this was a war. The people I've spoken to have been mostly committed to non-violence (though many, many more adopt a 'tit for tat' strategy rather than straight pacifism, which is my preference) - but it was understood pretty quickly that sabotage is /not/ violence. A lot was said about OpSec. I really only have vagueries, and no confirmation of /anything/ - but the number of people that passed through that camp makes it unlikely nothing happened. The War Camp to the North protected a tiny, /tiny/ portion of the thousand-plus-mile-long pipeline. I will say, the Elders called for Prayer a *lot*, and all went with the narrative that it was a Prayer Camp - but the word 'Prayer' is a colonial word that mapped /on to/ the Lakota word - and the Lakota meaning is not the same as the Christian idea of prayer. I believe it would be wise to insist on a complete inspection of the pipe, end to end, prior to running /anything/ down it. In fact, I think it would be /unwise/ for the gov't to allow it to be turned on /without/ that step. I have a pet theory that it was Homeland Security that persuaded the Army Corps to deny the easement, as allowing it would pose a threat to national security. There was *definitely* 'radicalization' happening in some of those camps. Never saw a /single/ weapon in camp, though. I did spy a Homeland Security vehicle in Bismark, a day or so before the eviction notice. And I believe the NSA was late to the party, so far as monitoring communications in and out of camp go. Uglycat fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:sabotage is /not/ violence. \  Uglycat posted:A lot was said about OpSec. Uglycat posted:I really only have vagueries, and no confirmation of /anything/ - but the number of people that passed through that camp makes it unlikely nothing happened. The War Camp to the North protected a tiny, /tiny/ portion of the thousand-plus-mile-long pipeline. Uglycat posted:I have a pet theory that it was Homeland Security that persuaded the Army Corps to deny the easement, as allowing it would pose a threat to national security. There was *definitely* 'radicalization' happening in some of those camps. Never saw a /single/ weapon in camp, though. I did spy a Homeland Security vehicle in Bismark, a day or so before the eviction notice. And I believe the NSA was late to the party, so far as monitoring communications in and out of camp go.  And what, pray tell, did this NSA vehicle look like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
So, like, when you make these replies. Does it never enter your mind to look over what you're writing and think "man, I'm being a total prick to complete strangers who all hate me" and go do something productive with your life instead?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:So, like, when you make these replies. Does it never enter your mind to look over what you're writing and think "man, I'm being a total prick to complete strangers who all hate me" and go do something productive with your life instead? I dunno, he has a point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:So, like, when you make these replies. Does it never enter your mind to look over what you're writing and think "man, I'm being a total prick to complete strangers who all hate me" and go do something productive with your life instead?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:So, like, when you make these replies. Does it never enter your mind to look over what you're writing and think "man, I'm being a total prick to complete strangers who all hate me" and go do something productive with your life instead? I feel like I've been remarkably patient and reasonable in this thread, even when responding to name-calling and obvious bating. This guy is obviously talking out his rear end, or is so credulous as to repeat people who are. I might have left it alone if he claimed that the FBI was secretly scared of them, since they are at least the federal agency responsible for home grown whackadoos, but the NSA? They're a foreign electronic surveillance and crypto systems agency. I guarantee that problems one through three at Ft. Meade right now are figuring out how they are going to keep the crown jewels safe when there is a 50/50 shot Trump appoints a Russian plant as the next Director of National Intelligence. ~*~Radicalized indians~*~ is somewhere on their list below "throwing more darts at a picture of Edward Snowden" and "seeing if we can use ECHELON to get a copy of Run The Jewels 3 before anyone else." (Unless the Standing Rock protesters have been communicating with ISIS or Russia. Wouldn't that be something?) When someone says something insanely retarded, I'm not the bad guy for failing to indulge them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:When someone says something insanely retarded, I'm not the bad guy for failing to indulge them. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Weren't you the guy arguing that the Sioux had the legal right to restart their war against the U.S. Army because the United States violated the 1868 treaty first?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Weren't you the guy arguing that the Sioux had the legal right to restart their war against the U.S. Army because the United States violated the 1868 treaty first? Can you make a functional argument to the contrary? The verdict in US v Sioux Nation makes a pretty compelling case that the US did in fact violate the terms of the treaty and refuses to return lands seized contrary to those terms. Hell, the government itself did not even attempt to defend the claim that it had "acquired the Black Hills through a course of unfair and dishonorable dealings" in violation of those treaty terms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Weren't you the guy arguing that the Sioux had the legal right to restart their war against the U.S. Army because the United States violated the 1868 treaty first? Yep, that was me indulging your insanely retarded "but... but... it's legal!" schtick. And you know what, you never did articulate an argument for why it would be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Appealing to domestic concepts of legality with respect to a hypothetical conflict between armed belligerent sovereigns is pretty stupid. When American armor was doing thunder runs through Baghdad, nobody really cared if they were following the posted speed limit or the soldiers had secured proper visas from the embassy before entering the country.Liquid Communism posted:Can you make a functional argument to the contrary? The verdict in US v Sioux Nation makes a pretty compelling case that the US did in fact violate the terms of the treaty and refuses to return lands seized contrary to those terms. Hell, the government itself did not even attempt to defend the claim that it had "acquired the Black Hills through a course of unfair and dishonorable dealings" in violation of those treaty terms. If I was going to make an argument against it, I'd say that the best one is that any Sioux war of irredentism would violate the principles of macro-proportionality and likelihood of success, since LOAC obliges combatants not to initiate conflicts or undertake operations that are unlikely to achieve their ends, no matter how just, because a bunch of soldiers getting killed for no reason is a bad thing. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Appealing to domestic concepts of legality with respect to a hypothetical conflict between armed belligerent sovereigns is pretty stupid. When American armor was doing thunder runs through Baghdad, nobody really cared if they were following the posted speed limit or the soldiers had secured proper visas from the embassy before entering the country. And yet that's what you've been doing this entire thread to justify the building of the pipeline. Dead Reckoning posted:If I was going to make an argument against it, I'd say that the best one is that any Sioux war of irredentism would violate the principles of macro-proportionality and likelihood of success, since LOAC obliges combatants not to initiate conflicts or undertake operations that are unlikely to achieve their ends, no matter how just, because a bunch of soldiers getting killed for no reason is a bad thing. Well what if the Sioux had a history of winning conflicts using guerrilla tactics against the infrastructure of technologically superior forces. Oh, hey, they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cloud's_War posted:Despite the military successes in the Hayfield and Wagon Box Fights, the U.S. government increasingly sought a peaceful rather than a military solution to Red Cloud's War. The successful completion of the transcontinental railroad took priority, and the Army did not have the resources to defend both the railroad and the Bozeman Trail from Indian attacks. Your legal arguments aren't wrong, the issue is you seem to willfully ignore centuries of historical context. Like dude, you just argued that it would be counter productive to sabotage the pipeline, when the Sioux used that exact tactic to force the 1868 treaty. You have repeatedly chastised the Sioux for not engaging with the US legal system while ignoring the fact that every other time they engaged the US legal system they got nothing in return. You morally justify using force against the Sioux, because apparently doing otherwise would establish a dangerous precedent of NIMBYs blocking infrastructure. Do you not see how problematic that is? Like maybe there's a smidgen of difference between NIMBYs in San Francisco and the Sioux.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:And yet that's what you've been doing this entire thread to justify the building of the pipeline.  Oh yes, how silly of me to examine construction of a domestic oil pipeline within the framework of US domestic law, rather than the customary and written framework that governs armed conflicts between states. Were you high when you decided to make this comparison? Or are you actually trying to say that we should consider the Standing Rock protests the armed wing of a foreign power?skeet decorator posted:Well what if the Sioux had a history of winning conflicts using guerrilla tactics against the infrastructure of technologically superior forces. Oh, hey, they do: skeet decorator posted:You morally justify using force against the Sioux, because apparently doing otherwise would establish a dangerous precedent of NIMBYs blocking infrastructure. Do you not see how problematic that is? Like maybe there's a smidgen of difference between NIMBYs in San Francisco and the Sioux. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
I want to make so many jokes. AA, is it ok if I make jokes if I pre-clear them with you? I wouldn't want to write something inappropriate or insensitive about this very serious topic. edit: I could believe the ACoE was pressured to deny the permit temporarily so that thousands of passionate water protectors could be persuaded to go home rather than dying of exposure because winter does not give a gently caress about their protest. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:Well what if the Sioux had a history of winning conflicts using guerrilla tactics against the infrastructure of technologically superior forces. Oh, hey, they do: Oh goody does this mean we can stop acting like the 1868 borders were coerced now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:Well what if the Sioux had a history of winning conflicts using guerrilla tactics against the infrastructure of technologically superior forces. Oh, hey, they do
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
You see this is the insanely retarded poo poo I'm talking about, and yet here I am indulging you. Let me walk you through this since you seem to be having trouble putting it all together. Dead Reckoning posted:The Standing Rock already had a chance at to participate in additional surveys on private land with the cooperation of the company. Other tribes did. They declined to do so. They're trying to get a do-over now that their injunction was dismissed for lack of merit. You start by claiming the Sioux have no legal right, ignoring entirely the issue of sovereignty. And no, I'm not saying the permit process should be subject to international law. I'm saying that you don't get to claim that the Sioux didn't act in good faith, while ignoring the fact that every other time they tried to engage the US legal system they got stripped of their land and sovereignty. I'm saying as a sovereign nation they have the right to use force to block the pipeline if they want to. I actually agree with your position that the permitting process was followed in good faith and that the pipeline doesn't pose an environmental threat. I don't agree that we get to say "we followed the rules this time, sorry my indian dudes" while ignoring the litany of unjust outcomes that came before. Dead Reckoning posted:If you want to say that the government should approve or disapprove building permits, or issue injunctions against construction it has no power to regulate, solely based on how popular or unpopular the construction is, rather than whether or not it complies with existing regulation... that isn't really workable. Unless you're a huge fan of NIMBYism and cronyism. You then go on to equate the Sioux protesting the pipeline to NIMBYism. I'm saying that this comparison is retarded because not all NIMBYs are indigenous peoples with unresolved peace treaty violations. I'm saying it's possible to respect the wishes of the Sioux in this one instance without ceding all future infrastructure projects to NIMBYs. Dead Reckoning posted:Yes, because absolutely nothing has changed about the tactical, operational, or strategic situation between 1868 and 2016. Do you really believe that an armed revolt by a native American tribe in the 21st century would be anything other than ineffectual and a waste of lives? And I never said it would be counter productive, merely unlikely to happen IRL, incredibly stupid, and contrary to their stated values. No, in fact I outright stated when I first brought it up that it would be a terrible idea. My argument has never been that the Sioux should start a war. Merely that it would be legal. Like I said I was indulging your brilliant "it's legal deal with it" argument. Dead Reckoning posted:That's not really related to the point you've apparently abandoned defending, but how exactly would you go about categorically defining the difference between those groups who are allowed to obstruct anything they deem in their interests and those who are not? Yeah sure, maybe we can use the very obvious distinction I already pointed out. Any sovereign nation with which we've broken a peace treaty should be allowed to wage war (or heck, even non-violently protest) by blocking the construction of our infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen anyone post and I read the entire Star Citizen thread. For sure, it's some stupid poo poo, but are you not reading the posts I'm responding to? This is the guy who apparently doesn't know what counterproductive means: Dead Reckoning posted:And I never said it would be counter productive, merely unlikely to happen IRL, incredibly stupid, and contrary to their stated values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:For sure, it's some stupid poo poo, but are you not reading the posts I'm responding to? This is the guy who apparently doesn't know what counterproductive means: Counter productive means contrary to your goals, rather than contrary to your values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Counter productive means contrary to your goals, rather than contrary to your values. Well that's a very meaningless distinction (and also not the definition).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Dude, just don't respond to people who are either legalist troll gimmicks or out-right fascists, maybe? It's getting really old.Rent-A-Cop posted:This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen anyone post and I read the entire Star Citizen thread. You don't proofread your own posts, I see. Uglycat posted:Not certain. Diamond-tipped drill bits, various corrosive acids, acetylene torches have all been discussed. I don't have any specifics, but the camp was not sitting idle these many months. I stayed at Oglala camp offering hospitality and engaged in listening. When they parked a War Camp to our north and forcibly evicted us, they made it clear that this was a war. The people I've spoken to have been mostly committed to non-violence (though many, many more adopt a 'tit for tat' strategy rather than straight pacifism, which is my preference) - but it was understood pretty quickly that sabotage is /not/ violence. A lot was said about OpSec. I really only have vagueries, and no confirmation of /anything/ - but the number of people that passed through that camp makes it unlikely nothing happened. The War Camp to the North protected a tiny, /tiny/ portion of the thousand-plus-mile-long pipeline. That's racking up the escalation a notch, not that I mind. Also, radicalization, even if you buy into the narrative that not being killed in the name of capitalist profit is a "radical viewpoint", is pretty much a given when you try to kill peaceful protestors, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
, it has been several days since I even posted anything about the pipeline in this thread and the discussion died down even before that, yet effectronica still keeps buying me the same avatar over and over again in a battle with some unknown person who keeps resetting it to normal over and over again. Thank you for supporting Something Awful LLC, a profitable tech company. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
End this stupid loving thread metacommentary
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
Tias posted:That's racking up the escalation a notch, not that I mind. Moving up from trespassing and obstructing other people to sabotage. Very upstanding, I must say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
This thread needs to be immersed in various corrosive acids. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Moving up from trespassing and obstructing other people to sabotage. Very upstanding, I must say. Dude, if you're going to keep posting this one-track poo poo without engaging in the slightest bit of reflection, can you not just leave and stop taking up bandwidth? Destroying property is not violence, no matter how much corporate media ties to create the equation. Property has rights, but it is not not alive, and it's hideous that we live in a society that prizes it above human dignity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Tias posted:Destroying property is not violence, no matter how much corporate media ties to create the equation. Property has rights, but it is not not alive, and it's hideous that we live in a society that prizes it above human dignity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Is seizing property, such as land, violence? Or would it only be violence if the person getting their land stolen decided to fight back? Depends, do you use violence to seize or protect it? If not, no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
So like seriously here which one is it here: is it a) beyond belief that someone could've been wounded by their own IED or is it b) a very real possibility that people damaged the pipeline regardless of the elders' wishes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So like seriously here which one is it here: is it a) beyond belief that someone could've been wounded by their own IED or is it b) a very real possibility that people damaged the pipeline regardless of the elders' wishes? I like how Tias who earlier in the thread was obsessing over the exaggerated risk of pipeline leaking and poisoning the Standing Rock Sioux, now has totally done a 180 and is suddenly okay with the protestors blowing up holes in the pipeline so that it can leak oil all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I like how Tias who earlier in the thread was obsessing over the exaggerated risk of pipeline leaking and poisoning the Standing Rock Sioux, now has totally done a 180 and is suddenly okay with the protestors blowing up holes in the pipeline so that it can leak oil all over the place. I know it's the most retarded poo poo I've ever seen. It's like suggesting that firefighters should fight forest fires by starting them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So like seriously here which one is it here: is it a) beyond belief that someone could've been wounded by their own IED or is it b) a very real possibility that people damaged the pipeline regardless of the elders' wishes? That IED stuff was /absolute/ bullshit. It's beyond belief to me because I was there and I know. As for the Elders' Wishes, the space north of the Cannonball River was always an autonomous zone. And present in camp were elements including Anonymous, E.L.F., AIM, Red Warrior, and so on. Hell, there were Burners, Juggalos and Rainbow Family. Surely nobody had the intention of ensuring a spill - and I heard many caution against exactly that. I don't know what sorts of actions these hypothetical independent teams each came to, before executing. I know from experience there isn't perfect wisdom present in all actions coming out of this camp. The Black Snake Prophesy, which dates back to Crazy Horse's time, says that a Black Snake will come to the land and leave it devastated. The Prophesy says the Seventh Generation (millennials) will team up with white people (Rainbow is mentioned in the current tellings of the prophesy) and, using the best of their combined knowledge and resources, CUT THE SNAKE INTO PIECES and /then/ cut off it's head. The narrative was written before /anyone/ camped. I believe that pipe is compromised. If you do too, or if you think it even a little likely, I strongly suggest you work to ensure it's /never/ turned on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
Uglycat posted:That IED stuff was /absolute/ bullshit. It's beyond belief to me because I was there and I know. Ahh yes your story of how a literal terrorist organization is present in the camp and how violence is justified because of someone's reading of an ancient religious prophecy really sells the idea that there was an IED present as "beyond belief" skeet decorator posted:I know it's the most retarded poo poo I've ever seen. It's like suggesting that firefighters should fight forest fires by starting them. No it's not, and "firefighters start forest fires to stop forest fires so that's just like causing oil spills to stop oil spills" is in contention for the worst dumb reductionist D&D analogy I've ever seen. edit: Tias posted:Dude, if you're going to keep posting this one-track poo poo without engaging in the slightest bit of reflection, can you not just leave and stop taking up bandwidth? Destruction of property not being violence is only the case if you are using the legalistic definition of the word violence, which you've consistently complained about. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 19:02
|
|
