[strken]

Quoting from the methodology section of the report:

> To meet our criteria, a case must be supported by the following available information:

> Credible, published and current online sources of information.

> Details about the type of act and method of violence, including the date and location.

> Name and biographical information about the victim.

> Clear, proximate and documented connections to an environmental or land issue.

When people are murdered, we can't be sure who did it unless there's evidence. The methodology doesn't seem to include gathering evidence of who the murderer was, only that the murder happened to an activist. Saying "when people are murdered by anti-green corporations" is begging the question, because the report doesn't pass on any evidence that they were murdered by anyone in particular.

[yunohn]

I wasn’t aware that we’ve devolved to questioning the murders and defending the megacorps with the most to gain.

Who else do you think is going around conveniently getting rid of activists that oppose profit and greed?

[Veen]

> Who else do you think is going around conveniently getting rid of activists that oppose profit and greed?

You're missing the point. People are murdered all the time for all sorts of reasons, including people who happen to be activists. The question is: are activists being murdered for their activism or for some other reason? Until you can demonstrate that, you simply don't have grounds to suspect megacorps or their agents are doing the murdering.

For example, the number of people who listen to Ed Sheeran music has risen enormously in the last decade. So has the number of Ed Sheeran listeners who were murdered. It doesn't follow that they were murdered because they have dubious taste in music—just that as the population of Sheeran fans grows so does the number of people in it being murdered. That might happen even if the overall murder rate was going down.

[yunohn]

I love the Ed Sheeran comparison and misdirect. I’ll stop feeding the troll now.