Hi everyone,

Tony wrote:
>Thanks, Steve, that was the desired response! I realize my position is a
>weak one, perhaps a better rhetor could make the case more effectively. But
>just to throw a wrench in: what about state-sponsored terrorism. Chomsky has
>a perspective on this.
>-Tc

I guess I'm a bit uncomfortable with the vagueness of the concept "state
sponsored terrorism" being employed here.  At least with the ecoterrorism
topic we have some concrete (autoclaved? <g>) examples on the table: e.g.
the burning of rich peoples' houses; the acts of arson against rich
peoples' ski resorts; the liberating of mink and other furbearing animals
that are destined one day to become rich peoples' coats.

A quick web search on "state sponsored terrorism" turns up thousands of
links.  Here are a few that were near the top of the list:

"Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1998 Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism,"
a State Dept. report released in April 1999 that identifies "Cuba, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria" as "the seven governments that
the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international
terrorism." http://www.usis.usemb.se/terror/rpt1998/sponsor.html

Or see http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/win96/mackusick.html a law
review comment by David Mackusick, who acknowledges the difficulties in
achieving a precise definition of "state sponsored terrorism" but who
concludes nonetheless that "[a] state which seeks to advance its agenda
through violence, fear, and intimidation calls into question the values of
the international community."

Also http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=5 "Countering
State-Sponsored Terrorism," by Boaz Ganor, looked interesting.

Now, to echo Steve Verdon's question: so what about state sponsored
terrorism?  Is there a larger point to be made here comparing the state
terrorism of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria to the
activities of the ELF?

To return to the ELF, I personally don't find the moral disclaimer of the
Elves and Alfies, to the effect of "no rich people were harmed in the
making of this direct action," all that ethically convincing as a
justification of their activities.  If we substitute the word "group" for
"state" in Mackusick's conclusion above, then it is pretty clear that
ecoterrorists and violent animal liberationists also seek to advance their
agenda through violence, fear, and intimidation, rather than through
ordinary political channels.  Let's put it this way: the ELF doesn't seem
to be attending many planning board meetings in the towns they choose for
their bonfires.

And I must say that I'm still not convinced by Tony's daring rhetorical
gambit in arguing that damage against property cannot intimidate:

>I think the "property" was put in there by a capitalist. How do you
>intimidate property? It's an unwarranted extension of the definition though
>I admit some would find losing their property worse than losing their loved
>ones-Tc

Tony, do you mean to say that if some deranged and disgruntled
internet-surfing capitalist now came down to your office in Houston, broke
into your office and trashed your computer making all your files
irrecoverable, and then left you a message stating that the reason YOU were
personally selected for such "direct action" was because of your
anti-capitalism rhetoric on the internet, you wouldn't feel at least a
*twinge* of fear or intimidation?  Let's also say they then come back two
weeks later, leave your new replacement computer alone but now proceed to
rip all of the pages out of all of the books in your office: wouldn't you
consider what now looks to be an emerging pattern of anti-green harrassment
the least bit threatening?

And speaking of capitalists . . .  I'm curious what kind of retirement plan
the administrators of the University of Houston offer assistant professors
like you.  <g>  I.E. do they give you a choice to keep your retirement
savings under an interest bearing mattress at home, or perhaps do you
yourself prefer the more traditional porcelain piggy bank to keep your nest
egg safe?   :-)

I'm being somewhat facetious here, but I guess I don't understand where
you're going with either point.  As a piggy bank owning capitalist you too
would be guilty of hoarding wealth, so why wouldn't you make a good target
for an arsonist or a hammer-wielding piggy-bank-breaker?  And your state
sponsored terrorism comparison seems pretty thin thus far in the discussion.

Jim T.