• Bratista

    Except that the violence stemmed from private security hired by the company, NOT the protesters! Is the National Guard going to protect protesters from the private security thugs?

    • joe nobody

      Except that the security did not do a darn thing until the protestors CROSSED THE BARBED WIRE FENCING and then tried to get past the security to interfere with the LEGAL ACTIVIITIES of the bulldozers.

  • Art

    “The protest here already grew violent last weekend when protesters clashed with security hired by the pipeline developer.”
    Uh, that’s biased. The peaceful demonstration was interrupted by “security officers” allowing dogs to attack members of the gathering. Several people were bitten, including a child, a pregnant woman, and even one of the dog handlers. This was after bulldozers plowed through sacred sites and Native American burial sites.

    • ajbarba

      Thanks for your comment and please stay tuned for more coverage of this important story.

    • joe nobody

      Art, the FACT is that the protestors crossed private fences, onto private land! There is ZERO proof that any of these areas are “sacred sites” nor “Native American Burial sites”. The Natives are merely claiming that EVERYTHING is “sacred”.

  • Chris

    No problem… stop inflicting violence on the world with more fools fuel infrastructure and you can have peace.

  • friendlier

    You say that Inside Energy goes “deep into stories using investigative and data-driven techniques.” Then why are you simply reporting that “The protest here already grew violent last weekend when protesters clashed with security hired by the pipeline developer”?

    That happened because Energy Transfer Partners, which is leading a group of firms to build the pipeline, purposely bulldozed the native burial sites in question ahead of a court decision to delay construction, and then set dogs upon the protesters who rushed to the site.

    I would question your claims to deep reporting, or even basic journalism, if the above article is all you can muster for one of the top energy stories today.

    • ajbarba

      Thanks for your comment and please stay tuned for more coverage of the protests and the pipeline issue. The post you were referring to was a short news spot. We plan more comprehensive coverage today and next week. Its a very important story.

  • Steve Ongerth

    The protests did NOT “grow violent”; the protesters were the VICTIMS of violence on the part of the private security firms. Amy Goodman’s video CLEARLY shows this to be the case. Any other interpretation shows blatant bias towards the developers.

    • joe nobody

      Sorry but that is WRONG. The protestors, became violent trespassers when they crossed barbed wire fences to stop the bulldozers. They ignored the LAWFUL ORDERS of the controlling property owner (the pipeline owners), to leave. I have every right, to use WHATEVER FORCE IS NECESSARY to repel an illegal invader, including using my trained watch dog!

      • Art

        Ah, I get it. They were trespassing on land forcibly taken from them at one time and are now considered as being violent for setting foot on it again while faced with last resort measures to prevent their water from being taken from them?

        • joe nobody

          And again you are factually wrong. This land, in question, was given up by the tribe around 1898, when they traded those now private lands, for other lands that the tribe wanted. That being said, even if they did “take it”, that is the consequences of war, and quite frankly, it is ignorant to believe that the Indians did not also steal land from each other for thousands of years before white man ever showed up. Whites simply were BETTER at warfare.

          • Art

            I think the word you should use instead of warfare is perhaps genocide, and modified by bloodthirsty; a fine tradition reaching back to Columbus. You’ll note that two years later, on December 29, the massacre of over 300 Lakota at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, was perpetrated by the U.S. Seventh Cavalry. What was that a trade for?
            Do you still wish to promote the idea that the land was voluntarily “traded” rather than “trade it or else”?

      • Kayleigh Lampkins

        So for going onto land that was rightfully their’s in the first place, stolen from them by a bullshit bill we signed that basically said we had a right to take it from them because it was for their own good, we get to attack them with vicious dogs and tear gas…yeah, something seems wrong with this situation