On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 6/24/00 2:26:35 AM !!!First Boot!!!, 
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> << Hello,
>  this list, despite its name, seems to have been designed  as a
>  subtle and open corporate propaganda with an academic face, against
>  environmetnalism.
> 
> Baselic Replies: ( No comment.) I won't participate in any ad-hom' type 
> arguments.  
> These type arguments 

Sorry, what is ad-hom?
Anyway, 

> 
> [log in to unmask] Replies:
 
> "Terrorists" -  it's an interesting term you've coined 
for all coorporations.

I haven't coined it, it pours out of their actions.

> My problem with your definition is this, terrorists don't do things legally 
> and claim responsibility for acts where they do cause damage.

That's what i think about the majority of corporations:  1)they distroy
the environment illegally, or 2) they influence with anti-democratic
procedures the law in their favour   and they do NOT EVEN claim
responsibility (because they are interested in the money).

 Even though you 
> may not catch the terrorist per say. There is someone who claims 
> responsibility for damages.

There is always someone that claims responsibility for damages by
corporations!


 And a terrorist in my definition does it for ussually a reason. An classical 
> terrorist
> mostly has a cause as well.


So do corporations: Money


> Terrorists want to create chaos and harm in order to be noticed. 

Corporations want to create chaos but remain unnoticed.

  
> Coorporation policy doesn't fit this definition: Rarely will they admit the 
> product
> is doing harm. DDT is a wonderful example: In the 1950's they used to spray
> the stuff directly on children to show it wasn't harmful. Agent orange was 
> sprayed
> on 18 yrs old in the Vietnam war. It killed everything on plants and left the
> jungle bare. And it was ok to let soldiers drink water from the empty 
> barrells of Agent orange. The government and company who created DDT and 
> agent orange both claimed it wasn't harmful. (Which obviously was far from 
> the truth, and the environment was given no consideration in the case of 
> agent orange.)

 But a
>   terrorist, lets the harm beknown.


This only means that your announcement or not of terroristic actions is
not a very strong criterion to determine and define them. 

 In both these cases there was denial of 
> harm. And both were dubbed legal. Both cases are obviously horrible, but the 
> definition doesn't fit the claim. In this case things were harmed 
> indiscriminately and with denial and legally. These products were not meant 
> to create chaos in society to attract attention.


So in Vietnam no chaos was created, and no attention was attracted?


  Now eventually these things 
> were admitted harmful and people were compensated but that was not with out a 
> lot of noise. And agreed it was wrong, but terrorism is just not the right 
> word for it. Does this mean the coorporations who
> made this stuff are any more right then the common terrorist?--Probbably not--
> Hedon to Dolars both don't stack up well.  
>

In order for corporations to disseminate poisonous staff to the world,
they have done open and covert terrorism (see Nigeria and Shell, worker's
killing and threatening, pettitioner's suing, Berkley's bombardment). This
is sheer terrorism.
> 
> [log in to unmask] replies:
> Any time someone dies needlessly the situation is not pale or minimun. If it
> was your child killed by the Unibomber. The situation would not look so pale 
> to you.

Maybe my child was not killed by the Unabomber, and maybe i don't have a
child because of corporate and state terrorism. 
Nevertheless, i have been brutally beaten in a peaceful campaing by state
terrorists (the Greek police in this case) in the Anti-Nuclear Power
campaign of 1986 on the ocasion of Czernobyl, being completely innocent. I
have suffered much more by the state and corporate terrorism, and i know
just too many others that have as well. I know NOBODY that has suffered
"eco-terrorism" as it is put in the list. And as far as i know no children
have been killed by none of the sort, including the Unabomber. The child
example is just a perverse manipulation of public feelings for the
attainment of specific goals, and i think you should not use it very
frequently, as it is becoming kitch.

  
> I would hope. Yes, and that "sucks" we may be filled with pesticides and yes 
> someone made a buck off it, and I can see where that is unethical but at 
> least under the circumstances, I am alive enough to say that unlike someone 
> killed by
> the unibomber.  

I could be dead though because of state terrorism.
Nine Robocops were beating me on the head and broke my jaw.

> I don't know what to call it, and it is unethical as well.

So it is better not to spend so much time in definitions, as it does not
matter what you call it. I think the prefix "state" or "corporate" can
take the place of "eco". Otherwise why should we say "ecoterorism?"

>  An intelligent person would of tried to 
> get a lot of people together try and change what wasn't liked. It's not easy 
> but it can be done.   
> 
The matter is not if the approach of the Unabomber is intelligent or not.
Anyway, a big group can be more easily monitored and spied by state
terrorists than one single person. He was just too brave and it was
perhaps right not to trust many people. However i agree with you that
group peaceful activities is my cup of tea too. This is not useful if
state and corporate terrorists attack me even for this, and it is not
equal. So eventually, violent reactions from the eco-minded world can be
expected.


I am not going to put the case on the table all coorporations are evil units, 
> but there
> are some that are just wrong in what they do. No doubt. People can change 
> that.
>  

I quite agree. But have in mind that when i refer to some of the list, i
don't mean specifically you, and so you don't need to be appologetic!


Maria-Stella



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%