Topic: Alleged Anarchist Attack on Bank: Arson or terrorism?

[Greymatters]

With no specific definition, can call nearly all crimes terrorism. It is harming or risking to harm people, and causing fear? Terrorism! Flipping a car over and breaking windows because the Habs won/lose? Terrorism! Drinking and driving? Terrorism! Not looking forward to the day anti-terrorism act can be applied to anything.

Several people have been lambasting Mellian for an alternative viewpoint.

Mellian himself is guilty of making the interpretations too broad but his post has a significant point.

It is a fact that several groups (i.e. lobbyists, NGO's, representative organizations) and politicians (MLA's, MP's, city officials) in north america (Canada, USA, not really concerned about Mexico as they have bigger problems right now)  use this exact same type of logic to relable criminal acts as terrorist acts for their own benefit (i.e. in order to gain media attention or to justify the expenditure of money, or to make an issue more important than it is, or to discredit a person they are complaining about).     

Edit - rewrote for clarification

[George Wallace]

Several people have been lambasting Mellian and he himself is guitly of making the interpretations too broad but his post has a significant point - several groups and politicians in north america use this exact type of logic to relable criminal acts as terrorist acts for their own benefit.   

Could you go back and reread what you posted and make the proper corrections, so that I can figure out what you are saying?

[Greymatters]

Hate crimes are better classed as vandalism, then terrorism. If you call hate crimes terrorism all you are doing is inflating the ego's of a bunch of punks and giving them more publicity then they deserve. The same thing for various protests during summits, political gatherings, etc. Yes, they sometimes include violence and the destruction of property, are political in nature and are used to gain the attention of the MSM, we have to be very careful iwhen labelling these crimes as acts of terrorism.

If we use it to often, it just cheapens the term and after awhile it starts to lose its relevance.

Too late!  Far too many people on this site see terrorism as a black and white issue just because a law was written, when there are huge grey areas that are only answered by the conclusion of legal cases. 


Most common grey areas:

Is a 'lone wolf' act a terrorist or a criminal?
How many persons does it take to consitute terrorism?
Is it a terrorist act if a person/group claims to be acting for political purposes but has no credible means of following that agenda?
Is a verbal or written threat an act of terrorism?
Is a hoax an act of terrorism?
Is a computer network attack an act of terrorism?
Is the false title of claiming to be a terrorist group in itself an act of terrorism if they havent done anything?
Is the act of perpetuating terrorist-related fears a terrorist act?
If you commit a crime that includes violence, and it was done for a political purpose, does it qualify as an act of terrorism?


Most people think that this is a simple 'yes' - but if you look at the history of the law enforcement community's prosecution of these acts, there is no standard of unity among countries, prosecuting organizations, politicians, or LEO's.

[Retired AF Guy]

We have witnessed this form of terrorism already in Canada and the US.  There have been numerous, Doctors and Medical Practitioners targeted, as well as their clinics and facilities, by Antiabortionists.  Several Doctors have been murdered by fanatical Antiabortionists.  So yes, people have already been targeted here at home by terrorists.

Good point. I had forgotten about these nutcases. You can also include several "militia" groups in the U.S. that have been involved in terrorist acts, plus groups like the SLA, and a couple of Puerto Rican terrorist groups.

[Retired AF Guy]

Here is a write-up by Rex Murphy in today's National Post on the firebombing. Posted under the usual caveats.

'Direct action'? I call it crime

Rex Murphy,  National Post 


I presume the ideal society, as seen by the self-styled anarchists who firebombed an Ottawa bank this week, is a society where they get to blow up the buildings of people they don't like, and the rest of us docile sheep sit around applauding them for their courageous and moral "direct action" against The Man. And what a wonderful dreamscape that must be for the dimwits who inhabit it. The Freedom Fighters of the Ottawa Glebe, YouTube Division--now there's a liberation movement for the world to rally round.

I pay no attention whatsoever to their pretext of a "manifesto," circulated in video form along with footage of the firebombing. From the days of the Weather Underground onward, the play-actors of Western radicalism always have attempted to wrap their malignant actions in some bubblewrap of concocted rationalization. They want so desperately for us to believe that they take on the burden of violent action "on behalf " of something other than their own egos. Don't believe them for the time it takes to light a fuse.

They are not moral actors. They are criminals. If this country has one common defining element, and I believe it has, it rests in the belief and practice that whatever differences and disagreements we have with one another, we reach for a resolution within the circle of lawful behaviour.

In shorter form, we respect one another. We do not bomb buildings on our public streets because one set of Canadians thinks it has purer politics than another set. These sad Guevera-wannabes are now pariahs, whether they understand the word or not.

We've seen steps toward violent action becoming routine or normalized already. Kicking in the windows of Starbucks or bank buildings during global summits is now almost a rite for the anti-globalists -- whoever they are. Judging from the melange of protest groups that troupe around the world whenever world summits are being held, "anti-globalist" is just a convenient brand, a one-size-fits-all psuedodesignation for everyone from green pietists to hard left, time-forgotten Marxists.

But a subset of these angry anti-globalist nomads -- recall Quebec City in 2001; recall, more recently the Vancouver Games -- always ups the ante with a little direct action: a chair through a window here, pelting the police there, scampering around in their black clown masks and moaning with farcical hyprocrisy about police brutality whenever they're called on their despicable actions.

A portion of the anti-globalist crowd tries to put such assaults on civic order under the rubric of "diversity of tactics" -- another evasive, sly euphemism for simple thuggish-ness. Don't try to tell us it's for the Palestinians or the rain forests or the oppressed of the world.

Here's a newsflash: There are far better men and women working in Starbucks, and in the Royal Bank, than any of the crowd that kick in their windows. And far braver too. For many people, it takes more guts to go to work every day -- to do the daily round of often dull and wearying work to better oneself, or to care for a family -- than these heroic Glebe guerrillas could even aspire to.

Whether the Ottawa bombing is a genuine presage of more violent actions at the upcoming summits is difficult to tell. But it's hardly a comforting example. The world is in an anxious and unsettling time, and that is precisely the kind of environment most appetizing to those with a taste for harder kind of politics and the street theatre that breeds it.

If the bunch that bombed the Royal Bank in Ottawa are caught they should face the full punishment that their actions call for. And, emphatically, they should not be allowed to dilute the wantonness of their assault against the civic peace of this country by the meretricious pleading that --hey--it was for a "good cause."

The moment they lit the bomb, they lost the right to talk politics.

- Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV's The National and is host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup.

[Tommy]

I Love Rex Murphy for his Clear unbiased ability to call a spade a spade...

I have a feeling he is probabbly one of the Odd men out, at lunch in the far left huggy feely CBC Cafeteria...

I say Terrorists...


I also say that this issue is pretty black or white here.... on this board you really are either part of the band of Idiots throwing the bombs, (or by sympathizing with their moronic cause, you enable them...)  or you're part of the crew that Stands on the other side of the line, putting themselves in Harms way to make sure these Idiots never succeed past a few small disturbances...

With or against.... to hell with trying to understand their plight... like Rex said, The moment they lit the bomb, they lost the right to talk politics.

[milnews.ca]

Some interesting excerpts from this critique of the firebombing attack - highlights mine - with a PDF attached in case the link doesn't work:

What about the possibility of injuries/worse?

.... Many people have been sharply critical of the arsonists' use of a tactic that endangered the lives of both nearby residents and the emergency workers who had to deal with the fire (there was also the possibility of there being night workers in the bank cleaning). The actions of the arsonists were irresponsible and reckless. Anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of being in a fire, fighting a fire or treating a fire victim can tell you just how dangerous a fire can be. Fire is very powerful and unpredictable and, even if it was not the intention of the arsonists to do so, it was within the realm of possibility that people could have been seriously injured and/or killed (as occurred in the Greek anti-austerity protests when a bank was firebombed, workers killed, and a huge setback to the momentum to the protests followed). We expect such disregard for human life from the major corporations themselves, not those who oppose them. It is delusional to think that any pain brought on by this action would be borne by the system of capitalism, the state, or even the RBC. You can't burn those things down. It is business as usual for all of them. In fact, this action has served their interests ....

What's this mean for recruiting?

.... Suddenly – and without the slightest bit of input from activists working on these issues for months or years – a tiny group of individuals changed the whole dynamic of these movement-building projects. Suddenly, pressure has been taken off RBC and the Canadian state, and instead the pressure has been on activists to disassociate themselves from the FFFC attack. Suddenly, the authorities have been handed an all too convenient pretext to justify intensifying surveillance and repression directed against activists in general, and Indigenous activists in particular. Suddenly, radical activists who have been trying for months to reach out to working-class organizations to build an anti-corporate alliance against both RBC and the G8/G20 found their efforts undermined, given that most workers understandably recoil against the foolhardiness of firebombing a building in a residential neighbourhood ....

How about the "respecting a diversity of tactics" rationale?

.... It seems clear that no radical activist would deny that when a social democratic politician, NGO activist, or union official does something foolish and short-sighted, which undermines months of movement-building work by other activists, it is perfectly legitimate for others to subject their actions to critical scrutiny, and to voice their criticisms and insist on accountability. But, in the name of ‘diversity of tactics,’ many people believe that certain kinds of self-styled ‘radicals’ should be exempted from this kind of criticism. The diversity of tactics idea is supposed to serve as a kind of “Get Out of Accountability for Free” card. Unfortunately, this doctrine of ‘anything goes’ threatens to leave the entire activist Left defenceless in the face of the irresponsible and politically disastrous tactical blunders of a handful of individuals ....

How about the "agent provocateur" angle?

.... There has been much speculation on exactly who the FFFC are. They have been described in the media as everything from café-dwelling dilettantes to domestic terrorists. A few have cast them as heroes; others have called them misguided; while many others are using much less charitable terms. Due to the damaging impact the arson has had on organizing some people have speculated that they are police agents and/or provocateurs. There is precedent to this as Canadian police have recently been proven to adopt the disguise of black bloc types in order to commit acts that discredit the Left, notably at the Montebello summit a few years ago, and there is a long public history of the role of the RCMP in domestic infiltration of political groups followed by incitement to political violence (and an even more sordid history in the USA). Such acts have, in turn, allowed for greater police suppression of social mobilizations. This possibility should not be completely discounted, but we must be careful not to veer into the realm of conspiracy theory or provide political space that might legitimate such measures. We should, moreover, not let this possibility stop us from engaging in hard debates within the left around issues of tactics and strategy ....

A few hot-heads pissed at not enough people coming into the anti-capitalist fight?

.... Whoever they are, the set of politics that the FFFC espouse is part of a wider tendency in a certain type of Left-wing politics: the tendency to seek minoritarian substitutes for mass action in the face of declining levels of popular struggle. So, when the masses ‘disappoint’ there is a tendency among highly motivated – but also isolated (and sometimes immature) – activists to imagine that there might be an alternative to mass mobilization from below. The disappointed activists may dream of some heroic saviour(s): a band of guerrillas, a terrorist group, a charismatic politician, the ‘black bloc,’ or even the military might of a foreign government. Lacking hope and realism about mass movement-building, a range of panaceas to spark an uprising are conjured up. Sometimes, as apparently in the case of the so-called FFFC, the more unstable types will even try to cast themselves in the ‘saviour’ role .....

What's the answer?  Denounce violence like this

.... Those activists who are working today for a revitalization of anti-capitalist radicalism need to distance ourselves in a clear and unhesitating way from the FFFC arson attacks. The ruling elites of our society will want to seize upon all of this to distract public attention from the real issues of social and environmental injustice. For our part, we cannot afford to be distracted from the hard work of drawing workers, students, poor and unemployed people into an alliance against the agenda of both the G8/G20 governments and corporations like RBC. One way to return the focus to this effort would be to affirm publicly our support for the Indigenous Environmental Network's call for “effective, transparent, non-violent campaigns,” including “non-violent direct action that is led by impacted communities,” both in the anti-G20 organizing and the anti-RBC organizing of the climate justice movement.

[mellian]

It more like some in the movement calling out on the idiots for being idiots than 'dissent from within'.

[Kat Stevens]

How do you pick out the idiots at an idiot convention?

[mellian]

How do you pick out the idiots at an idiot convention?

Ask the idiots with the guns. :p

[Kat Stevens]

I'd rather ask the idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs.

[MARS]

Ask the idiots with the guns. :p

I'd rather ask the idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs.

Guns, sticks, bombs...whatever.  Rex Murphy's last line is correct:

"they" have lost the right to discuss politics. 

Rights do not come without corresponding responsibilities...in this case, the responsibility to resolve our issues civilly, through discourse.

Our government and its policies, no matter how much some - perhaps even most, of our soft, well-fed, welfare state citizens might disagree -  is not an oppressive regime that brutalizes its populace.  There is simply no call, in my opinion, for violence of this nature in the arena of civil, mature discourse.  The mere threat of harm, no matter how remote, to the larger civilian population completely negates whatever point these 'tards were trying to get across.

edited for grammar

[Michael O'Leary]

It more like some in the movement calling out on the idiots for being idiots than 'dissent from within'.

And yet the "movement" doesn't establish itself as an ethical entity by turning in and/or removing itself from the "idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs."

In failing to do so, they support the idiots by providing the mass of the crowd as camouflage and the mob mentality enables their brute work force.  They are then collectively guilty by association and by aiding and abetting the "idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs."

[mellian]

And yet the "movement" doesn't establish itself as an ethical entity by turning in and/or removing itself from the "idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs."

In failing to do so, they support the idiots by providing the mass of the crowd as camouflage and the mob mentality enables their brute work force.  They are then collectively guilty by association and by aiding and abetting the "idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs."

In conclusion, whole movement are terrorists because of a few arsonists, gotcha.

[Kat Stevens]

No, but you collude with them by giving them an audience for their drivel, and a shield to hide behind.  In the same way that loony rabid ***** Ingrid Newkirk legitimizes the ALF by refusing to give them up.

[milnews.ca]

In conclusion, whole movement are terrorists because of a few arsonists, gotcha.

No - just that with big groups, as you said, the group can be painted by the deeds of the few, so if the deeds of the few aren't stopped or prevented, you reap what you sow.

[Michael O'Leary]

In conclusion, whole movement are terrorists because of a few arsonists, gotcha.

Not quite, "whole movements" have no moral grounds to claim separation in principle from "terrorists" when those movements have no proven desire to achieve physical separation from the terrorists.  When they permit themselves to be used as cover for "terrorism", or even simply for the "rioting is fun" crowds, they have no excuse when they get caught between the opposing forces of legal authority and the "few arsonists, destroyers of property, assaulters of law enforcement officials, etc."

Where are the examples of the the alleged greater peaceful majority in these movements doing something as a simple as sitting down out of the path of police when a "rally" turns into the previously announced "riot".  Then again, how is it so many in the crowd coincidentally carry cloths for face covers, gas masks, etc.?

Many groups do demonstrate peaceful methods of protest, why do others choose to permit violent ones within or concurrent with their own protests?  Why don't those "movements" who receive media attention when that happens walk away from the rioting?  - Oh, yeah, it's because the rioting gets them their media attention - symbiosis perhaps?

[recceguy]

Violence is neither required, or effective when attempting to gain attention.

[mellian]

Violence is neither required, or effective when attempting to gain attention.

I agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxqYmeM90I4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgQUR_Dqdzc&NR=1

[N. McKay]

on this board you really are either part of the band of Idiots throwing the bombs, (or by sympathizing with their moronic cause, you enable them...)  or you're part of the crew that Stands on the other side of the line, putting themselves in Harms way to make sure these Idiots never succeed past a few small disturbances...

That's not how a reasonable discussion works.

[Tommy]

That's not how a reasonable discussion works.

No its not.... But is defending Anarchists Firebombing a bank reasonable in the first place?

For anyone wondering what the Law is... its pretty black and white.....

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-3.html#codese:83_01
CCC Section 83.01

“terrorist activity” means  (specifically in this case I have only put here subsection (B) as it is the most relevant....)

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that intentionally

(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person’s life,

(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

Now before anyone argues one points A or B
(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person’s life,

Anyone who blows something up the way they did is fulfilling section B.... because just because it seemed safe late at night, doesn't mean it IS safe... They were just lucky no one ended up being in or around the bank....

Personally... You want to wave a banner and yell at the government, fill your boots... that's your Constitutional Right.... The second you start using violence in an attempt to get the point across here in Canada you loose all credibility plain and simple.... 

To attempt to Defend it in any way shape or form strikes me as nothing short of ridiculous... 

[Petamocto]

Tommy,

The question isn't about endangering a person's life, because that part of the argument is entirely granted.  Any time an atack involves fire there is a potential for someone to get hurt.  No need to argue that point.

The discussion is about the intent to harm people or not.  Absolutely someone could have been hurt, but as mentioned above people could be hurt with a lot of things. 

I don't think anyone is defending their actions so much as stating that there was no intent to kill people since it was done at 0330hrs and not 1230hrs.  Nobody is saying firebombing should be allowed, and nobody is saying that these people should be let off easy.

However, lighting a bank on fire where something could have gone wrong and hurt someone is a very different (lesser) act than intentionally trying to light 100 people on fire, which in my opinion they made the effort to avoid.

Again, not defending and not saying they deserve a pat on the back.  But factually they deserve to be charged with lighting something on fire and damaging the property, not attempted murder or murder of 100 people.

[Kat Stevens]

But is it not reasonable to assume that fire fighters and other emergency services would respond?  Is it not also reasonable to assume noxious fumes, falling debris, and the possibility of secondary explosions present a threat to those first responders' lives?  Because nobody is in the building, doesn't mean nobody is at risk.

[mariomike]

It has been mentioned that with any bank or office etc. that there may be night cleaners inside.

[Petamocto]

...Because nobody is in the building, doesn't mean nobody is at risk.

My friend, you are stating a point that has been granted/conceded repeatedly by a dozen people.  People could have been put at risk...check...got it.

There are laws for arson that destroys property and that is what this was.  Technically an argument could be made for potential harm to someone in any intentional fire started out of malice.