May 2010 Attack on Ottawa Bank: Arson or terrorism?

[Jungle]

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!

BS !! Terrorism can be defined as: "The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature".
Big difference from a criminal act for personal gain; and breaking windows after a Habs game, while criminal, does not seek to attain goals ( 8)) that are political or religious or ideological in nature.

Grow up... and if you know the idiots that committed the fire-bombing, tell them that the vast majority of Canadians do not agree with their methods.

 

[Journeyman]

This thread just keeps getting funnier.  :nod:

We believe in the power of millions of working-class people standing together against the bankers, bosses, and their state.

Together the working class has the power to shut this entire system down and work for our own needs instead of the profits of the bosses.

So the Marxists, despite seeing that social theory completely discredited, continue to use the exact same rhetoric but now call themselves "Anarchists"

....because wearing black hoodies and bandanas while spray-painting "circled A" graffiti is, while just as intellectually bankrupt, so much cooler  8)

 

[George Wallace]

and another from WarriorPublications.com (PDF attached, if you can read the dark-font-on-dark-background graphics):

It is ironic that in this year of 2010, the 20th anniversary of the 'Oka Crisis', when armed warriors confronted Canadian soldiers in the Kanienkehaka communities of Kanehsatake and Kahnawake, there are Indigenous 'defenders' now attempting to impose codes of 'nonviolence.'

Our peoples have engaged in over 500 years of resistance to colonization using a diversity of tactics, including armed resistance, blockades, occupations, protests, land reclamations, etc. Yes, people have died and many more have been injured, property destroyed, etc.—but colonialism is by its very nature violent.

Indigenous peoples in Canada suffer many casualties today. Suicides, drugs and alchohol, disease, toxic water, prisons, police violence, thousands of missing or murdered Native women. These are not the result of anti-colonial resistance, but that of colonial genocide. Yet, neither Canada nor the corporations involved in destroying land and life are ever described as 'violent.' It is only when there is a militant attack against them that there is a moralizing cry of violence.

To support the institutionalized violence of colonialism, or the state's monopoly on the use of violence, while condemning those who resist such violence, is nothing less than hypocrisy.

Yes, there is violence in resistance, there is love and joy, there is heartache, there is bitterness and hatred as well as hope and passion. Sounds like life, doesn't it? And those who risk their freedom in this life and death struggle should be respected for their courage and committment, not condemned.

In the Spirit of Total Resistance—Smash Capitalism!
Long Live the Class Warrior!

Isn't this just a rehash and plagiarized comment from another organization? 

Not much of comment on their abilities to use original thought; let alone coherent thought.

 

[Jungle]

Quote from: milnews.ca on Yesterday at 09:17:21

We believe in the power of millions of working-class people standing together against the bankers, bosses, and their state.
Together the working class has the power to shut this entire system down and work for our own needs instead of the profits of the bosses.

This thread just keeps getting funnier.  :nod:
So the Marxists, despite seeing that social theory completely discredited, continue to use the exact same rhetoric but now call themselves "Anarchists"

....because wearing black hoodies and bandanas while spray-painting "circled A" graffiti is, while just as intellectually bankrupt, so much cooler  8)

What's even funnier is that they can never get millions of working-class people together to protest... at best, they reunite a few hundred marginals in a large city and break stuff for giggles...

 

[mellian]

BS !! Terrorism can be defined as: "The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature".
Big difference from a criminal act for personal gain; and breaking windows after a Habs game, while criminal, does not seek to attain goals ( 8)) that are political or religious or ideological in nature.

Even with that definition can represent a good chunk of crimes. Gang wars, a lot hate crimes, certain murders, attacks and intimidation of very unlike individuals, various other stupid vandalism during some protests with have or could have harmed others...

Grow up... and if you know the idiots that committed the fire-bombing, tell them that the vast majority of Canadians do not agree with their methods.

:

 

[Retired AF Guy]

BS !! Terrorism can be defined as: "The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature".
Big difference from a criminal act for personal gain; and breaking windows after a Habs game, while criminal, does not seek to attain goals ( 8)) that are political or religious or ideological in nature.

Good definition. I'll add a couple additions (and my reasoning) that, I believe, reinforces your definition: "The calculated use of illegal[ violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians and/or property in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature and to gain media attention."

First, good call on including "the threat of violence" in your definition. Most people don't realize that even threats can be a form of terrorism. Secondly, that the majority of terrorist victims are civilian.
I say " illegal violence" to differentiate from those acts of violence carried out by a policemen/soldier who are carrying out their lawful duties. I added "violence against property" because terrorism is just not about attacking people. For example, the number one perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S. is not Islamic fundamentalists, but various animal rights groups who have destroyed millions of dollars in property, but except in rare cases, have not targeted any people (yet).

I took out the "religious or ideological" part for two reasons. First, ideological just means a "system of beliefs" and can encompass the whole spectrum of political/economic/religious views that you are likely to find out there. Secondly, terrorist groups, no matter whatever their make-up their main goal is political. Even groups, like Al-Qaeda, which are religiously driven, their ultimate goal is political; driving the Westerners out of the Middle East, overthrowing the corrupt Muslim governments supported by the West, and the destruction of Israel. Also, remember that in Islam, politics and religion are so intertwined that its hard to separate the two; in Islam there is no separation of mosque and state.

Finally, I added "and to gain media attention." This is an aspect of terrorism that most people, and especially the media, overlook. Gaining media attention, by violence, is one of the main goals of most terrorist groups. The majority of attacks, in fact I would say ALL terrorist attacks, have a secondary goal of drawing the media's attention and using the media to spread the terrorist groups message. This, by-the-way, is nothing new and was first espoused by the 19th century Italian extremist, Carlo Pisacane, who coined the phrase "propaganda by deed." Pisacane stated that, "Violence was necessary not only to draw attention to, or generate publicity for, a cause, but to inform, educate, and ultimately rally the masses behind the revolution."

 

[George Wallace]

............ I added "violence against property" because terrorism is just not about attacking people. For example, the number one perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S. is not Islamic fundamentalists, but various animal rights groups who have destroyed millions of dollars in property, but except in rare cases, have not targeted any people (yet).

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.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Even with that definition can represent a good chunk of crimes. Gang wars, a lot hate crimes, certain murders, attacks and intimidation of very unlike individuals, various other stupid vandalism during some protests with have or could have harmed others...

There is a such a thing as criminal terrorism where criminal groups engage in political violence. The two best examples, was the battle between Pablo Escobar and the Colombian government and Mafia wars in Italia in the '80's. In both cases, we had criminal groups carrying acts of violence against governments and the civilian populations in the hope that they could intimidate the governments to layoff the criminal groups. In other words, the criminal groups were trying to influence the political process. Fortunately, in both cases the criminal groups failed. However, criminal terrorism is very rare because most criminals believe in self-preservation and like to operate in the shadows.

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.

 

[mellian]

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.

That is what I am trying to get at, a long with the other possibility of making it to easy to charge larger amount of people as terrorists.

In regards to the firebombing, we are inflating what happened and providing plenty media attention they seek.

 

[Greymatters]

There is a such a thing as criminal terrorism where criminal groups engage in political violence. The two best examples, was the battle between Pablo Escobar and the Colombian government and Mafia wars in Italia in the '80's. In both cases, we had criminal groups carrying acts of violence against governments and the civilian populations in the hope that they could intimidate the governments to layoff the criminal groups. In other words, the criminal groups were trying to influence the political process. Fortunately, in both cases the criminal groups failed. However, criminal terrorism is very rare because most criminals believe in self-preservation and like to operate in the shadows. 

Your referring to the dilemna of criminal groups using terrorist tactics (i.e. fire-bombing a business) versus terrorist groups using criminal tactics (i.e. robbing banks to fund arms purchases).  The motivation is what seperates them. 

 

[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.

 

[Thompson_JM]

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.

 

[The Bread Guy]

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.