It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

GRENADE ATTACK? USA Holiday Genocide Against Native Americans?

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

Becuase the tribe originally wanted it on their land but demanded an unrealistic 30 million dollars, so the company decided to just go around the reservation and follow a path parallel to the already existing Northern Border Pipeline.




posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: masqua

There is already a pieline there built in 1982 that the new pipeline will run parallel to and it has never been a problem.

It is called the Northern Border Pipeliine and the standing rock tribe never protested it.


The Northern Border Pipeline carries natural gas, but the Dakota Access carries oil.

www.northernborder.com...

www.daplpipelinefacts.com...

edit on 23/11/16 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Mainstream media's silence on this has been deafening. After this latest incident, some outlets finally began reporting that "protests turned violent," when in actuality, completely peaceful protesters were being assaulted, and having mass hypothermia, respiratory distress, blunt force trauma, and other damage inflicted upon them.

President Obama, ostensibly a climate champion, has been silent on this other than to say he wants to "see how it plays out." The incoming administration certainly won't be any friendlier to the Native Americans trying to resist this, or their social and political allies assisting that effort.

Hillary Clinton never made this an issue during her campaign, either. And these are supposed to be liberals? More like neo-liberals. That's why I couldn't vote for her, among other reasons.

Personally, I am foregoing Thanksgiving tomorrow because of this. I have no money and no health to do anything more than that, but it's all I can do. (Oh sorry. Am I "virtue signalling?" My bad. Here I thought it was just an irrepressible expression of disgust, futility, and frustration, but what do I know?)

Peace.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: loveguy

Becuase the tribe originally wanted it on their land but demanded an unrealistic 30 million dollars, so the company decided to just go around the reservation and follow a path parallel to the already existing Northern Border Pipeline.


good for them they haven't been compromised further back into the eighties before anyone discovered the hazards entailed running a pipeline by waterways that people rely upon for survival.

30m a year would have been more realistic.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

Dear God, this is horrendous. I pray for those people.

Our government needs to stop this. Our president-elect should say something. But he won't, he is all about big business.

I have thought several times, "I want to go there". But it is not financially feasible.

This is a humiliating shame on our government.


edit on 23-11-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: loveguy

Becuase the tribe originally wanted it on their land but demanded an unrealistic 30 million dollars, so the company decided to just go around the reservation and follow a path parallel to the already existing Northern Border Pipeline.


good for them they haven't been compromised further back into the eighties before anyone discovered the hazards entailed running a pipeline by waterways that people rely upon for survival.

30m a year would have been more realistic.



Yes, 30 mil a year sounds right. One time? No, that is peanuts for the people who will profit from it.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: loveguy

Becuase the tribe originally wanted it on their land but demanded an unrealistic 30 million dollars, so the company decided to just go around the reservation and follow a path parallel to the already existing Northern Border Pipeline.


good for them they haven't been compromised further back into the eighties before anyone discovered the hazards entailed running a pipeline by waterways that people rely upon for survival.

30m a year would have been more realistic.




Yes, 30 mil a year sounds right. One time? No, that is peanuts for the people who will profit from it.


ergo the dilemma, only profit margins matter, not actual living breathing beings.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: loveguy

Becuase the tribe originally wanted it on their land but demanded an unrealistic 30 million dollars, so the company decided to just go around the reservation and follow a path parallel to the already existing Northern Border Pipeline.


good for them they haven't been compromised further back into the eighties before anyone discovered the hazards entailed running a pipeline by waterways that people rely upon for survival.

30m a year would have been more realistic.




Yes, 30 mil a year sounds right. One time? No, that is peanuts for the people who will profit from it.


ergo the dilemma, only profit margins matter, not actual living breathing beings.



You got it.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
i'd still like to know who authorized the use of force against a sovereign nation?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Weren't three hundred other people injured as well?

Did they also "injure" themselves?

I bet the cops helped.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: fractal5

I thought it was from a propane bomb from the protesters side that caused her injury.


Yea but somebody somewhere said the cops did it so obviously that trumps any kind of actual evidence that says anything else.

Like how her injuries look more like a pipe-bomb wound than a flashbang wound.





So you have some actual evidence this was not the police and it was a self inflicted wound ?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

For the millionth time.

The protesters/rioters/terrorists are not on the reservation and neither is the planned pipeline.

They are criminally tresspassing on private property.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy
i'd still like to know who authorized the use of force against a sovereign nation?


What are you babbling about now? What "sovereign nation?
This is NOT happening on a reservation, so why do you keep claiming it is?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
So you have some actual evidence this was not the police and it was a self inflicted wound ?


How about some proof it was the police, and how do you prove a negative?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

The protest is on the Dakota Access property. This is why the protest was answered by company security forces initially.

The threat is to the reservation IF the pipeline ruptures under, or near, the river.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I heard (for what it's worth) that it was a concussion grenade.

Who normally carries concussion grenades?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

Update #2: Law enforcement has released a picture of a damaged propane tank. Personally it does not look damaged in a way that would shred someone's arm all but completely off.
Source: aptn.ca...


police fired bean bag and sponge rounds at the plywood barricade they noticed a separate group of individuals approach the area “where one of them rolled multiple metallic cylinder objects” toward the three demonstrators

Source: aptn.ca...

So this brings up an additional possibility that this story will go unresolved since the identity of this group isn't made clear. There is the implication there that these were not state agents but it isn't made explicit. It could have been provocateurs or protesters attempting to hand of IEDs from a distance, though it isn't clear how having such an IED could help the protesters.

After a lot of reviewing and looking at how the arm has such a horrific level of damage I do suspect that it was not a concussion grenade. That said, concussion grenades have lead to amputations in stories I've read, but not to an entire arm or leg. But given that there were "metallic cylinders" hurled at them on purpose, I also would say maybe blowing up the protesters was some sort of intention regardless of the explosive type. So if it turns out not to be a CS grenade there is likely to be no way of knowing what happened short of confessions. And, if there are confessions it would only be from the protester side of things, never a false flag participant.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5


Your contention that the police launched a grenade that about blew the gal's arm off is a bit over-blown isn't it? And then you use that incident to launch into a tirade. So any of us reading your words will--or should be--suspicious of your info and intent.

What proof that it was a grenade? What manner of grenade, one fired from a grenade gun or the thrown variety?
It would be a rare case for either of those weapons to be used by the police. Was a SWAT team there or merely regular cops? Neither a gun-fired grenade or a thrown grenade would likely injure one part of a person's body and leave the rest uninjured.

Is there visible evidence that the police fired or threw something to account for the claim that they did the damage?
What about the suggestion from somebody yesterday here that a small propane tank may have exploded? Were other near her injured by this supposed "explosion?" Did others report that they actually saw the police commit the act?

I've not taken a side on this issue because I've not studied it. My interest is on decent and correct reporting of an incident that has serious meaning to us all.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
So you have some actual evidence this was not the police and it was a self inflicted wound ?


How about some proof it was the police, and how do you prove a negative?





IF it were a concussion grenade it would be hard to prove it was not the police......

At this point we have no proof for either side, the member i posted too was insinuation it was not the police i was calling him out on his bias.....that is all



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: hellobruce

I heard (for what it's worth) that it was a concussion grenade.

Who normally carries concussion grenades?


Can it actually rip an arm apart and if so wouldn't she need to be holding it?



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join