Author Topic: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest  (Read 5894 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #50 on: December 31, 2016, 09:27:49 AM »
Metric Mouse, if you want to call this post-fact, you actually have to post facts.  Not, the police said so or it is likely they did or oh course they did it.  Given that people have been safe within the protesters, including media, I do think engineers could check the bridge.  I also think it is possible to clear the bridge without the engineers, let the protesters do it.  They tried and the police stopped them.  That begs the question of why. 
No one is contesting the fires, they are contesting why the fires were lit and where.  You may want to reread my statement where I said it was likely that someone within the protesters did light the fires past the statement by the protesters themselves, but the proof needs to be there, not just the statement of the police because they are not trustworthy.  And a picture of a fire is not proof of who. 
If you want to talk facts, you actually need facts.  Try again.

I'm confused by your argument - are you claiming that the media reports can not be trusted, that police reports can not be trusted (while accepting they may be biased) but that unsubstantiated protester reports are factual? How do we know that they tried to remove the cars and were stopped? Do you have proof of this?

How can one contest where the fires were lit? There is photographic proof of the fires. I literally just posted one.

I'm not sure how you can claim 'people have been safe within the protesters' when there is clearly evidence to the contrary

Do you have sources for your claims?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Vertical Mode

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boston, MA
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #51 on: January 02, 2017, 04:13:01 PM »
Metric Mouse, if you want to call this post-fact, you actually have to post facts.  Not, the police said so or it is likely they did or oh course they did it.  Given that people have been safe within the protesters, including media, I do think engineers could check the bridge.  I also think it is possible to clear the bridge without the engineers, let the protesters do it.  They tried and the police stopped them.  That begs the question of why. 
No one is contesting the fires, they are contesting why the fires were lit and where.  You may want to reread my statement where I said it was likely that someone within the protesters did light the fires past the statement by the protesters themselves, but the proof needs to be there, not just the statement of the police because they are not trustworthy.  And a picture of a fire is not proof of who. 
If you want to talk facts, you actually need facts.  Try again.

I'm confused by your argument - are you claiming that the media reports can not be trusted, that police reports can not be trusted (while accepting they may be biased) but that unsubstantiated protester reports are factual? How do we know that they tried to remove the cars and were stopped? Do you have proof of this?

How can one contest where the fires were lit? There is photographic proof of the fires. I literally just posted one.

I'm not sure how you can claim 'people have been safe within the protesters' when there is clearly evidence to the contrary

Do you have sources for your claims?

The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.

There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.

What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.
"That is why you will never be a good detective, Cato. It's so obvious, it cannot POSSIBLY be a trap..."

Link to my Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/trending-vertical-vertical-modes-journal/

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4399
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #52 on: January 02, 2017, 05:29:50 PM »
Metric Mouse, if you want to call this post-fact, you actually have to post facts.  Not, the police said so or it is likely they did or oh course they did it.  Given that people have been safe within the protesters, including media, I do think engineers could check the bridge.  I also think it is possible to clear the bridge without the engineers, let the protesters do it.  They tried and the police stopped them.  That begs the question of why. 
No one is contesting the fires, they are contesting why the fires were lit and where.  You may want to reread my statement where I said it was likely that someone within the protesters did light the fires past the statement by the protesters themselves, but the proof needs to be there, not just the statement of the police because they are not trustworthy.  And a picture of a fire is not proof of who. 
If you want to talk facts, you actually need facts.  Try again.

I'm confused by your argument - are you claiming that the media reports can not be trusted, that police reports can not be trusted (while accepting they may be biased) but that unsubstantiated protester reports are factual? How do we know that they tried to remove the cars and were stopped? Do you have proof of this?

How can one contest where the fires were lit? There is photographic proof of the fires. I literally just posted one.

I'm not sure how you can claim 'people have been safe within the protesters' when there is clearly evidence to the contrary

Do you have sources for your claims?

The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.

There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.

What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.
I am not sure why you think my argument is about semantics.  I'm pretty sure most people accused of something would not consider it semantics.  But other yes, you summarized my issue well.  The police have been shown to be no more honest than any other eye witness testimony and therefore their statements should not be taken as fact, any more than anyone else's uncollaborated word would be.

Vertical Mode

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boston, MA
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #53 on: January 02, 2017, 06:02:35 PM »
Metric Mouse, if you want to call this post-fact, you actually have to post facts.  Not, the police said so or it is likely they did or oh course they did it.  Given that people have been safe within the protesters, including media, I do think engineers could check the bridge.  I also think it is possible to clear the bridge without the engineers, let the protesters do it.  They tried and the police stopped them.  That begs the question of why. 
No one is contesting the fires, they are contesting why the fires were lit and where.  You may want to reread my statement where I said it was likely that someone within the protesters did light the fires past the statement by the protesters themselves, but the proof needs to be there, not just the statement of the police because they are not trustworthy.  And a picture of a fire is not proof of who. 
If you want to talk facts, you actually need facts.  Try again.

I'm confused by your argument - are you claiming that the media reports can not be trusted, that police reports can not be trusted (while accepting they may be biased) but that unsubstantiated protester reports are factual? How do we know that they tried to remove the cars and were stopped? Do you have proof of this?

How can one contest where the fires were lit? There is photographic proof of the fires. I literally just posted one.

I'm not sure how you can claim 'people have been safe within the protesters' when there is clearly evidence to the contrary

Do you have sources for your claims?

The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.

There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.

What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.
I am not sure why you think my argument is about semantics.  I'm pretty sure most people accused of something would not consider it semantics.  But other yes, you summarized my issue well.  The police have been shown to be no more honest than any other eye witness testimony and therefore their statements should not be taken as fact, any more than anyone else's uncollaborated word would be.

Sorry, what I meant to say was that it seemed like there was a misunderstanding between you and Metric Mouse about what you meant in your previous post, keying on what constitutes a "fact". I didn't think it was clear to Metric that you were questioning the nature of what "fact" meant, given the circumstances and potentially untrustworthy nature of those who happen to be in a position of authority.

Now, a debate over what a word means in a given context (meanings and relations) would be semantics, would it not? Do I misunderstand what "semantics" means? I thought your original points were well-taken and didn't mean to suggest that your whole argument should be in any way discounted, just that it seemed like you and MM were beginning your arguments from different definitions of what "fact" meant in this context.
"That is why you will never be a good detective, Cato. It's so obvious, it cannot POSSIBLY be a trap..."

Link to my Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/trending-vertical-vertical-modes-journal/

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4399
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #54 on: January 02, 2017, 06:14:36 PM »
Metric Mouse, if you want to call this post-fact, you actually have to post facts.  Not, the police said so or it is likely they did or oh course they did it.  Given that people have been safe within the protesters, including media, I do think engineers could check the bridge.  I also think it is possible to clear the bridge without the engineers, let the protesters do it.  They tried and the police stopped them.  That begs the question of why. 
No one is contesting the fires, they are contesting why the fires were lit and where.  You may want to reread my statement where I said it was likely that someone within the protesters did light the fires past the statement by the protesters themselves, but the proof needs to be there, not just the statement of the police because they are not trustworthy.  And a picture of a fire is not proof of who. 
If you want to talk facts, you actually need facts.  Try again.

I'm confused by your argument - are you claiming that the media reports can not be trusted, that police reports can not be trusted (while accepting they may be biased) but that unsubstantiated protester reports are factual? How do we know that they tried to remove the cars and were stopped? Do you have proof of this?

How can one contest where the fires were lit? There is photographic proof of the fires. I literally just posted one.

I'm not sure how you can claim 'people have been safe within the protesters' when there is clearly evidence to the contrary

Do you have sources for your claims?

The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.

There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.

What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.
I am not sure why you think my argument is about semantics.  I'm pretty sure most people accused of something would not consider it semantics.  But other yes, you summarized my issue well.  The police have been shown to be no more honest than any other eye witness testimony and therefore their statements should not be taken as fact, any more than anyone else's uncollaborated word would be.

Sorry, what I meant to say was that it seemed like there was a misunderstanding between you and Metric Mouse about what you meant in your previous post, keying on what constitutes a "fact". I didn't think it was clear to Metric that you were questioning the nature of what "fact" meant, given the circumstances and potentially untrustworthy nature of those who happen to be in a position of authority.

Now, a debate over what a word means in a given context (meanings and relations) would be semantics, would it not? Do I misunderstand what "semantics" means? I thought your original points were well-taken and didn't mean to suggest that your whole argument should be in any way discounted, just that it seemed like you and MM were beginning your arguments from different definitions of what "fact" meant in this context.
No, you do understand.  I honestly though did not think we were debating a word. Now that you wrote it that way, it is much clearer.  If I had realized he considered the statement of someone to be a fact, I might have been clearer.  Though maybe I would have gotten myself in trouble with the mods, had I understood better, lol, so maybe it was better for me and Metric not to understand each other. 
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 07:35:07 AM by Gin1984 »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #55 on: January 04, 2017, 03:23:30 AM »
The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.

There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.

What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.

I believe both sides admit that protestors lit the fires - are you suggesting that perhaps some other group started the fires on the bridge? While we can certainly agree that eyewitness accounts can not be fully trusted outside of other evidence, and that both sides of this conflict are motivated to skew the reporting towards their bias, in this particular situation I have not heard any other theories of what might have occurred to result in burning vehicles being parked upon the bridge.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Vertical Mode

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boston, MA
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #57 on: January 04, 2017, 08:28:51 AM »
The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.

There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.

What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.

I believe both sides admit that protestors lit the fires - are you suggesting that perhaps some other group started the fires on the bridge? While we can certainly agree that eyewitness accounts can not be fully trusted outside of other evidence, and that both sides of this conflict are motivated to skew the reporting towards their bias, in this particular situation I have not heard any other theories of what might have occurred to result in burning vehicles being parked upon the bridge.

I am not suggesting that another group started the bridge fires, to do so would be speculation since I have no information on the matter that I deem trustworthy from a reliable source. I agree with your assessment that it is likely that it was the protestors, since I really can't imagine what law enforcement would stand to gain by doing so, but again I can't know that. Unless it was to give the appearance that the protestors were rowdier and more disorderly, fortifying the premise on which to crack down on them? The void of information is incredible.
"That is why you will never be a good detective, Cato. It's so obvious, it cannot POSSIBLY be a trap..."

Link to my Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/trending-vertical-vertical-modes-journal/

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #58 on: January 04, 2017, 11:22:52 AM »
I am not suggesting that another group started the bridge fires, to do so would be speculation since I have no information on the matter that I deem trustworthy from a reliable source. I agree with your assessment that it is likely that it was the protestors, since I really can't imagine what law enforcement would stand to gain by doing so, but again I can't know that. Unless it was to give the appearance that the protestors were rowdier and more disorderly, fortifying the premise on which to crack down on them? The void of information is incredible.
 

There is a derth of information; though some is less reliable than others.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4399
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #59 on: January 04, 2017, 01:35:35 PM »
I am not suggesting that another group started the bridge fires, to do so would be speculation since I have no information on the matter that I deem trustworthy from a reliable source. I agree with your assessment that it is likely that it was the protestors, since I really can't imagine what law enforcement would stand to gain by doing so, but again I can't know that. Unless it was to give the appearance that the protestors were rowdier and more disorderly, fortifying the premise on which to crack down on them? The void of information is incredible.
 

There is a derth of information; though some is less reliable than others.
I'd really like your evidence for that because you seem to put the police/offical statements as fact  See this article that shows officers don't lie less than the public: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=lawfaculty

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #60 on: January 05, 2017, 05:27:51 AM »
I am not suggesting that another group started the bridge fires, to do so would be speculation since I have no information on the matter that I deem trustworthy from a reliable source. I agree with your assessment that it is likely that it was the protestors, since I really can't imagine what law enforcement would stand to gain by doing so, but again I can't know that. Unless it was to give the appearance that the protestors were rowdier and more disorderly, fortifying the premise on which to crack down on them? The void of information is incredible.
 

There is a derth of information; though some is less reliable than others.
I'd really like your evidence for that because you seem to put the police/offical statements as fact  See this article that shows officers don't lie less than the public: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=lawfaculty

Actually, in the last few posts I have posted photographic evidence, an independent reporter's account (accompanied by video footage), local news coverage and national news media coverage.  I'm not sure how many more sources I should explore? I've never stated a police report as 'fact', and have clearly admitted there is bias on both sides of the issue, which is why I offer several sources.  No single source is intended to be all-encompassing; there is so much information out there on the subject it would be silly to take only one and assume that it is fully complete.

If you're hung up on the word 'fact', then that's a semantic argument that is not helpful in supporting the rights of people to be civilly disobedient. I can't prove for a 'fact' that a specific protester lit cars on fire at a specific time; it is not my intention to do so. The cars could have driven themselves onto the bridge before spontaneously combusting. The police could have stolen these cars, lit them on fire, and then rode through town arresting random people for the crime because their alien overlords told them to. I mean, we can't prove for a 'fact' that this didn't happen. Really, we can't 'know' that this didn't happen.

But it can be stated that the most likely scenario, based on many eye witness accounts, and not refuted by anyone who was there, is that protesters built barricades and lit the cars on fire on the bridge.  I mean, the evidence clearly moves the discussion far past the level of 'speculation.'  More photographic evidence here



Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4399
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #61 on: January 05, 2017, 06:05:28 AM »
I am not suggesting that another group started the bridge fires, to do so would be speculation since I have no information on the matter that I deem trustworthy from a reliable source. I agree with your assessment that it is likely that it was the protestors, since I really can't imagine what law enforcement would stand to gain by doing so, but again I can't know that. Unless it was to give the appearance that the protestors were rowdier and more disorderly, fortifying the premise on which to crack down on them? The void of information is incredible.
 

There is a derth of information; though some is less reliable than others.
I'd really like your evidence for that because you seem to put the police/offical statements as fact  See this article that shows officers don't lie less than the public: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=lawfaculty

Actually, in the last few posts I have posted photographic evidence, an independent reporter's account (accompanied by video footage), local news coverage and national news media coverage.  I'm not sure how many more sources I should explore? I've never stated a police report as 'fact', and have clearly admitted there is bias on both sides of the issue, which is why I offer several sources.  No single source is intended to be all-encompassing; there is so much information out there on the subject it would be silly to take only one and assume that it is fully complete.

If you're hung up on the word 'fact', then that's a semantic argument that is not helpful in supporting the rights of people to be civilly disobedient. I can't prove for a 'fact' that a specific protester lit cars on fire at a specific time; it is not my intention to do so. The cars could have driven themselves onto the bridge before spontaneously combusting. The police could have stolen these cars, lit them on fire, and then rode through town arresting random people for the crime because their alien overlords told them to. I mean, we can't prove for a 'fact' that this didn't happen. Really, we can't 'know' that this didn't happen.

But it can be stated that the most likely scenario, based on many eye witness accounts, and not refuted by anyone who was there, is that protesters built barricades and lit the cars on fire on the bridge.  I mean, the evidence clearly moves the discussion far past the level of 'speculation.'  More photographic evidence here
Actually your own post refuted the statements.  Protesters said they lit fires after being attacked water cannons in freezing temps:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/dakota-pipeline-protesters-authorities-clash-temperatures-drop-n686581
You might not be as careful with a fire if you have soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees.
Now I am not saying, AGAIN, as I did on BOTH the 30th and 31st, that it is not likely that some members of the protesters used this as an opportunity to be violent and may have intentionally lit cars on fire. However, nothing you posted was evidence of that other than statements by police.  The protesters have another side, saying they were trying to combat  hypothermia after they were soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees.  Neither the police nor the protesters are less bias or less likely to be lying. 
You showed a picture of fire, no evidence of who or why.  You posted a "news journalist" who has history of lying.  Maybe if you actually posted someone without a history of lying or actual evidence, I would not be arguing.  If you want someone to believe you, you need facts not supposition.  Because when you look at supposition, I ask, who in benefiting from it and right now, it is not protesters.  I also ask why the police have arrested journalists so that less biased information could come out and not just be from their statements?  Who is benefiting from that?
Also, if you look at the news article I posted, the authorities whose statements you are taking as proof of action stated "Sheriff's spokesman Rob Keller told NBC News that no water cannon were deployed and that water was sprayed from a fire truck to control fires as they were being set by activists. However, video posted to Facebook by activists clearly showed authorities spray a continuous stream of water over demonstrators in areas where there were no fires." So please tell me why you seem to think their statements are actual proof?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2017, 06:17:10 AM by Gin1984 »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #62 on: January 05, 2017, 06:30:20 AM »
Actually your own post refuted the statements.  Protesters said they lit fires after being attacked water cannons in freezing temps:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/dakota-pipeline-protesters-authorities-clash-temperatures-drop-n686581
You might not be as careful with a fire if you have soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees.
Now I am not saying, AGAIN, as I did on BOTH the 30th and 31st, that it is not likely that some members of the protesters used this as an opportunity to be violent and may have intentionally lit cars on fire. However, nothing you posted was evidence of that other than statements by police.  The protesters have another side, saying they were trying to combat  hypothermia after they were soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees.  Neither the police nor the protesters are less bias or less likely to be lying. 
You showed a picture of fire, no evidence of who or why.  You posted a "news journalist" who has history of lying.  Maybe if you actually posted someone without a history of lying or actual evidence, I would not be arguing.  If you want someone to believe you, you need facts not supposition.  Because when you look at supposition, I ask, who in benefiting from it and right now, it is not protesters.
Also, if you look at the news article I posted, the authorities whose statements you are taking as proof of action stated "Sheriff's spokesman Rob Keller told NBC News that no water cannon were deployed and that water was sprayed from a fire truck to control fires as they were being set by activists. However, video posted to Facebook by activists clearly showed authorities spray a continuous stream of water over demonstrators in areas where there were no fires." so please tell me why you seem to think their statements are actual proof?

I understand now. You are confused; there were multiple encounters at this bridge between police and protesters, and you are reading accounts of (and we are discussing) different events and conflating them - which is why the facts do not line up. I really do understand - there is quite a lot of information out there and most of it has little context, which is why this thread is so useful on the subject.

Breakdown:

In October protesters blocked the bridge with barricades and burning cars, Police responded (no water cannons - LRADs and less-lethal munitions) and arrested 140+ protestors (out of several hundred) who were vandalizing construction equipment, blocking the highway and burning National Guard vehicles. - I was referring and posting pictures of this incident

In November, (the article you most recently posted) protesters once again returned to the bridge in an attempt to gain access to the construction site - the barricades and burned vehicles were still there (from where the protesters had left them) and the police had set up a further road block.  Fire trucks were used to put out fires and keep protesters from crossing the police barricade and putting officers in danger. Fires were then set on the hillside - protesters claim it was to keep warm, Police state it was a fire hazard and a danger. 1 arrested. - You were posting articles of this incident.


As for the police statement - I can only imagine that a water cannon is different than a fire truck hose, and thus he was technically correct that a water cannon had not been used.

Hopefully this clears up some of the confusion?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4399
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #63 on: January 05, 2017, 06:55:22 AM »
Actually your own post refuted the statements.  Protesters said they lit fires after being attacked water cannons in freezing temps:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/dakota-pipeline-protesters-authorities-clash-temperatures-drop-n686581
You might not be as careful with a fire if you have soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees.
Now I am not saying, AGAIN, as I did on BOTH the 30th and 31st, that it is not likely that some members of the protesters used this as an opportunity to be violent and may have intentionally lit cars on fire. However, nothing you posted was evidence of that other than statements by police.  The protesters have another side, saying they were trying to combat  hypothermia after they were soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees.  Neither the police nor the protesters are less bias or less likely to be lying. 
You showed a picture of fire, no evidence of who or why.  You posted a "news journalist" who has history of lying.  Maybe if you actually posted someone without a history of lying or actual evidence, I would not be arguing.  If you want someone to believe you, you need facts not supposition.  Because when you look at supposition, I ask, who in benefiting from it and right now, it is not protesters.
Also, if you look at the news article I posted, the authorities whose statements you are taking as proof of action stated "Sheriff's spokesman Rob Keller told NBC News that no water cannon were deployed and that water was sprayed from a fire truck to control fires as they were being set by activists. However, video posted to Facebook by activists clearly showed authorities spray a continuous stream of water over demonstrators in areas where there were no fires." so please tell me why you seem to think their statements are actual proof?

I understand now. You are confused; there were multiple encounters at this bridge between police and protesters, and you are reading accounts of (and we are discussing) different events and conflating them - which is why the facts do not line up. I really do understand - there is quite a lot of information out there and most of it has little context, which is why this thread is so useful on the subject.

Breakdown:

In October protesters blocked the bridge with barricades and burning cars, Police responded (no water cannons - LRADs and less-lethal munitions) and arrested 140+ protestors (out of several hundred) who were vandalizing construction equipment, blocking the highway and burning National Guard vehicles. - I was referring and posting pictures of this incident

In November, (the article you most recently posted) protesters once again returned to the bridge in an attempt to gain access to the construction site - the barricades and burned vehicles were still there (from where the protesters had left them) and the police had set up a further road block.  Fire trucks were used to put out fires and keep protesters from crossing the police barricade and putting officers in danger. Fires were then set on the hillside - protesters claim it was to keep warm, Police state it was a fire hazard and a danger. 1 arrested. - You were posting articles of this incident.


As for the police statement - I can only imagine that a water cannon is different than a fire truck hose, and thus he was technically correct that a water cannon had not been used.

Hopefully this clears up some of the confusion?
According to wiki (not always accurate)- water cannon is a device that shoots a high-velocity stream of water. Typically, a water cannon can deliver a large volume of water, often over dozens of meters. They are used in firefighting, large vehicle washing and riot control. Most water cannons fall under the category of a fire monitor.   So, I am still going with lying at that one.
I am still reading and will get back to you.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #64 on: January 05, 2017, 07:06:05 AM »
According to wiki (not always accurate)- water cannon is a device that shoots a high-velocity stream of water. Typically, a water cannon can deliver a large volume of water, often over dozens of meters. They are used in firefighting, large vehicle washing and riot control. Most water cannons fall under the category of a fire monitor.   So, I am still going with lying at that one.
I am still reading and will get back to you.

Maybe NBC is lying?

Per the Washington Post: “There are multiple fires being set by protesters on the bridge and in the area of the bridge,” department spokeswoman Donnell Hushka told CNN. “We have firetrucks on the scene. They are using their fire hoses to put out the fires, wet the land around so fires don’t spread, and they are also using water as crowd control.”

Per the Guardian: link

The Morton County sheriff, Kyle Kirchmaier, defended the use of the water cannons in a press conference today, though he objected to the terminology.

“We don’t have a water cannon,” he said. “I don’t know where the term water cannon comes from. This was basically just a fire hose.”
« Last Edit: January 05, 2017, 07:10:59 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #65 on: January 19, 2017, 06:17:55 PM »
More Blackwater Bridge protests

More arrests in the DAPL protests as protestors took down barricades, threw razor wire at police and attempted to cross private property to gain access to the horizontal drill pad near the river.

In other news:

ACOE orders EIS of pipeline crossing

Federal Judge declined to dismiss the environmental impact study of the Lake Oahe crossing, and the Army Corps of Engineers will begin re-assessing the crossing's impacts.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 06:19:41 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #66 on: January 24, 2017, 01:23:06 AM »
Souix Tribe votes to disband protest camps for various reasons. Some people are saying they will leave, but many protestors vow to remain.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #67 on: January 25, 2017, 01:36:10 AM »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #68 on: February 01, 2017, 10:53:49 PM »
Peaceful compromise happens.  Souix Tribe and contractors begin to clean up the protest camp that seems to have been largely evacuated despite promises to stay, while Sherriff's office follows through on promise to remove barricades from contested bridge.

Some protestors attempted to set up a 'rogue' protest camp on private land, and were arrested. This comes after news that the ACOE will now greenlight the project 'imminently'.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #69 on: February 25, 2017, 12:52:13 AM »
ACOE and local law enforcement have officially closed the main protest camp.

TL;DR - The federal government, local government and tribal government had become concerned that the debris left over from the camp would wash into the river during seasonal floods. Approximately 1,000 tons of human waste left over from the camps has already been removed. ND Gov. offered hotel stays and bus tickets to anywhere in the USA for any protestors that wished to leave ahead of the camp closing - the date and time of which was set by the federal government, and then extended another day due to weather conditions.

Water protectors lit several fires as the camp was closed, injuring a 17 year old girl and a 7 year old boy. Both are hospitalized. A sad day for the victims, and the environment. 

LA Times' coverage of the event: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-dakota-access-protest-camp-20170222-story.html
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #70 on: March 16, 2017, 12:49:34 PM »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #71 on: March 16, 2017, 04:05:39 PM »
Oil to begin flowing through DAPL as early as next week: http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/DAPL-Oil-To-Start-Flowing-By-March-20th.html

Following this court ruling: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/sioux.pdf

Wonderful. I'm thrilled that thousands of rail cars won't be rattling around, and all the semi trucks that won't have to clog up our freeways to move the oil that was going to be drilled anyway.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #72 on: March 20, 2017, 03:50:12 AM »
Oil to begin flowing through DAPL as early as next week: http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/DAPL-Oil-To-Start-Flowing-By-March-20th.html

Following this court ruling: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/sioux.pdf

Wonderful. I'm thrilled that thousands of rail cars won't be rattling around, and all the semi trucks that won't have to clog up our freeways to move the oil that was going to be drilled anyway.

That is certainly the consensus of a lot of people.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #73 on: March 20, 2017, 03:03:25 PM »
And I am thrilled one of my pension funds finally  has divested from the Dakota pipeline: http://english.klp.no/about-klp/press-room/klp-excludes-companies-involved-in-dakota-access-pipeline-1.35741 The national bank is also almost completely out. Unfortunately, our national pension fund is still invested in the pipeline.
Travelling southern Norway, Iceland and the Faroes in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #74 on: March 21, 2017, 05:16:38 AM »
And I am thrilled one of my pension funds finally  has divested from the Dakota pipeline: http://english.klp.no/about-klp/press-room/klp-excludes-companies-involved-in-dakota-access-pipeline-1.35741 The national bank is also almost completely out. Unfortunately, our national pension fund is still invested in the pipeline.
Interesting. I'm glad this had a happy ending for you. Not so for many indigenous peoples who demonstrated against this project.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
« Reply #75 on: March 21, 2017, 02:56:53 PM »
And I am thrilled one of my pension funds finally  has divested from the Dakota pipeline: http://english.klp.no/about-klp/press-room/klp-excludes-companies-involved-in-dakota-access-pipeline-1.35741 The national bank is also almost completely out. Unfortunately, our national pension fund is still invested in the pipeline.
Interesting. I'm glad this had a happy ending for you. Not so for many indigenous peoples who demonstrated against this project.

Well, we might be a bit slow up here in the north, but we haven't really understood that this fight has ended yet. It was our indigenous people who managed to convince the pension fund and several banks to divest, and they are still fighting (with my whole heartedly support) to get everyone else here to do the same. For them this is part of the century old struggle to get influence over their land, and for their brothers and sisters in the US and other places to be listened too.

https://www.google.no/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/17/sami-dakota-access-pipeline-norway-pension-fund-divest
Travelling southern Norway, Iceland and the Faroes in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/