Anarchists claim they firebombed bank

[kimmy]

Are we talking about Anarchists or Anarcho-Syndicalists?

I think we're talking about militant leftists. Shady had it right.

-k

[Jack Weber]

I think we're talking about militant leftists. Shady had it right.

-k

Then I doubt they're Anarcho-Syndicalists....

And if they're really Anarchists,I doubt they really leftists at all...Just idiots who like to break things and cause chaos....

[kimmy]

Then I doubt they're Anarcho-Syndicalists....

And if they're really Anarchists,

Who, other than the newspaper that came up with this headline, says these are anarchists?

Again, read their statement on this attack, and tell me how ideas like social housing or native land claims fit in with anarchism.

I doubt they really leftists at all...Just idiots who like to break things and cause chaos....

Leftists can't be idiots who like to break things?

-k

[Jack Weber]

Who, other than the newspaper that came up with this headline, says these are anarchists?

Again, read their statement on this attack, and tell me how ideas like social housing or native land claims fit in with anarchism.

Leftists can't be idiots who like to break things?

-k

OK...So they're leftist kooks...But the left has'nt cornered the market on nutters...

Sure leftists can be idiots that can break things...So can right wingers...

Edited May 20, 2010 by Jack Weber

[yarg]

I think we're talking about militant leftists. Shady had it right.

-k

Agreed, go to http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/royal-bank-canada-firebombed-ottawa-communique to see what they think of the bombing, they represent the far left as much as anyone in this country, seeing as at least 75% of them support this act that tells me enough about anarchists and the left.

[kimmy]

OK...So they're leftist kooks...But the left has'nt cornered the market on nutters...

Sure leftists can be idiots that can break things...So can right wingers...

Never claimed otherwise.

Just puzzled at the reluctance to call a spade a spade and to dispute the obvious.

-k

{"no no, they can't be leftists... the headline says they're anarchists!"}

[Jack Weber]

Agreed, go to http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/royal-bank-canada-firebombed-ottawa-communique to see what they think of the bombing, they represent the far left as much as anyone in this country, seeing as at least 75% of them support this act that tells me enough about anarchists and the left.

That place is nothing but Bedwetter Central!!!

There's a few sane people there that see this for what it is...

Then there's the idotic cheerleaders and simpering twits who think that since no one got hurt,it's OK...Or they simply like this idea and are endorsing it.

Then there is the real nutjob class over there that is saying it migh be a false flag event set up by,and I quote,"Agent Provacateurs",sent by the Harper government...

Tinfoil Hat Nutters reign supreme at Bedwetter Central!

Edited May 20, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

Never claimed otherwise.

Just puzzled at the reluctance to call a spade a spade and to dispute the obvious.

-k

{"no no, they can't be leftists... the headline says they're anarchists!"}

Your "puzzlement" is because ...well..I had'nt read it yet...

[kimmy]

Agreed, go to http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/royal-bank-canada-firebombed-ottawa-communique to see what they think of the bombing, they represent the far left as much as anyone in this country, seeing as at least 75% of them support this act that tells me enough about anarchists and the left.

Thanks for the link. Love it.

-k

[jbg]

Agreed, go to http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/royal-bank-canada-firebombed-ottawa-communique to see what they think of the bombing, they represent the far left as much as anyone in this country, seeing as at least 75% of them support this act that tells me enough about anarchists and the left.

The Rabble thread moved to here (link). And thereafter to here (link).

[kimmy]

The Rabble thread moved to here (link). And thereafter to here (link).

What a delightful bunch. Half of them are convinced it's a "false flag operation" designed to discredit social activists, and the other half are stoked that somebody is finally taking "direct action". Why would they need agents provocateur to discredit the radical left when the Babblers themselves do such a fine job of it?

I did notice our own Charter.Rights wrote in defense of the rule of law and the social contract. What does it say about a place when Charter.Rights has to be the Voice of Reason?

The argument in support of "direct action" (and this new euphemism "diversity of tactics" I have been reading about) seems to be "we used legitimate means of protest and political action and we didn't get our way, so we have to do something more radical."

I somehow doubt they'll be as excited when anti-abortionists, or white nationalists, or religious fundamentalists, or god knows who else, use the same logic and come to the same conclusion.

-k

[jbg]

I somehow doubt they'll be as excited when anti-abortionists, or white nationalists, or religious fundamentalists, or god knows who else, use the same logic and come to the same conclusion.

Great point.

[bloodyminded]

I somehow doubt they'll be as excited when anti-abortionists, or white nationalists, or religious fundamentalists, or god knows who else, use the same logic and come to the same conclusion.

-k

Ah, just so!

The thing about the use of violence--whether it be State or sub-state actors--is that it needs to pass a rigorous test for justification. (The powerful countries rarely pass this test in our military actions, so it's no surprise that these yahoos can't pull off the decent moral justification.)

Whatever one thinks about the acts of violence in and of themselves, intent alone is insufficient. (And stated intent approaches uselessness, since it carries very little information.)

What is also required is a decent probability that the violence will likely result in less violence than the status quo produces. The standard should be extremely high. That's why, while I personally believe that that the Palestinians are justified in acting in resistance, suicide bombings and launching rockets are wholly illegitimate actions; and while I know that Iraq could always have done without a gangster like Saddam, the Iraq War was entirely illegitimate as well.

Probabilities of consequences to violent action have to be taken into account.

Acting against injustices is not a jsutification in and of itself, not when done violently. The bar must be set very high indeed.

[Sir Bandelot]

The thing about the use of violence--whether it be State or sub-state actors--is that it needs to pass a rigorous test for justification. (The powerful countries rarely pass this test in our military actions, so it's no surprise that these yahoos can't pull off the decent moral justification.)

But that is precisely what the state teaches us, that's what it demonstrates as a solution to its problems. Negotiations, sanctions, those methods are weak and irrelevant. Only violent action gets the job done. And the state has shown time and again, that justification is irrelevant, when it comes to using FORCE.

[charter.rights]

The thing about the use of violence--whether it be State or sub-state actors--is that it needs to pass a rigorous test for justification. (The powerful countries rarely pass this test in our military actions, so it's no surprise that these yahoos can't pull off the decent moral justification.)

Whatever one thinks about the acts of violence in and of themselves, intent alone is insufficient. (And stated intent approaches uselessness, since it carries very little information.)

Yet history has shown that the judgment of whether or not violence is justified does not happen until long after the acts have already been committed. The leaders of revolutions often were considered terrorists and insurgents and in the end rose to hero status AFTER the violent acts had already taken their toll.

So at the end of the day, the end does justify means in many cases.

[Argus]

Yet history has shown that the judgment of whether or not violence is justified does not happen until long after the acts have already been committed. The leaders of revolutions often were considered terrorists and insurgents and in the end rose to hero status AFTER the violent acts had already taken their toll.

A terrorist makes himself so by his actions. That some people might later absolve him of blame and consider him heroic is beside the point.

Nelson Mandela undoubtedly did a lot of good after his release, but there is no question the man supported terrorism and will always be known by that. Because of his refusal to foreswear violence I don't consider him any kind of hero, and his detention justified.

Likewise, Menachen Begin was a terrorist and remained one until his death, regardless of what acolades others granted him after he became prime minister of Israel and became involved in peace with Egypt.

[williat]

Yet history has shown that the judgment of whether or not violence is justified does not happen until long after the acts have already been committed. The leaders of revolutions often were considered terrorists and insurgents and in the end rose to hero status AFTER the violent acts had already taken their toll.

So at the end of the day, the end does justify means in many cases.

Historically this is very true and cannot be overlooked.

A terrorist makes himself so by his actions. That some people might later absolve him of blame and consider him heroic is beside the point.

Nelson Mandela undoubtedly did a lot of good after his release, but there is no question the man supported terrorism and will always be known by that. Because of his refusal to foreswear violence I don't consider him any kind of hero, and his detention justified.

Likewise, Menachen Begin was a terrorist and remained one until his death, regardless of what acolades others granted him after he became prime minister of Israel and became involved in peace with Egypt.

I believe this may be the case of painting everyone with the same brush don't you think, are you therefore saying that anyone who leads any form of uprising, or stands up to say "No this isn't right" is therefore a terrorist. If the Iraqi people had stood up to Saddam instead of the US invading that they would have been terrorists, this again will no doubt begin the debate of the over use of the word "terrorist".

[Argus]

Historically this is very true and cannot be overlooked.

I believe this may be the case of painting everyone with the same brush don't you think, are you therefore saying that anyone who leads any form of uprising, or stands up to say "No this isn't right" is therefore a terrorist. If the Iraqi people had stood up to Saddam instead of the US invading that they would have been terrorists, this again will no doubt begin the debate of the over use of the word "terrorist".

I don't believe someone who attacks the institutions of the state is necessarily a terrorist. For that matter, if you have a legitimate grievance with a corporation and shoot or blow up the CEO I don't think that's an act of terrorism either.

Terrorism seems, to me, to be an act of sowing terror by means of unrestricted attacks on a population for political purposes. Shooting soldiers in Iraq would not have been a terrorist act during Sadaam's time, but setting off bombs in markets definitely would be.

That's not to say that political violence can't be terrorism when directed against the government or military. It can. I think the key would be whether legitimate change is possible through the will of the people or not. If the people have no real way of affecting changes, despite their will, at the ballot box, then violence becomes more acceptable against the authorities and their minions. Deliberate attacks on the population at large, however, can really not be seen as anything other than terrorism except in very rare situations in wartime.

[punked]

Yep left wing and right wing violence it terrible, it is a across the political spectrum and needs to stop.

Here is a map of the right wing violence across the US right now. Those right wing crazies.

Right wing violence

Edited May 24, 2010 by punked

[bloodyminded]

But that is precisely what the state teaches us, that's what it demonstrates as a solution to its problems. Negotiations, sanctions, those methods are weak and irrelevant. Only violent action gets the job done. And the state has shown time and again, that justification is irrelevant, when it comes to using FORCE.

So when the Palestinains commit suicide bombings; when Reagan funded the terrorist Contras; and when these malcontents blew up a bank, with great potential hazard...justification is irrelevant. We have no right to judge such behaviours. Awesome.

Edited May 24, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Yet history has shown that the judgment of whether or not violence is justified does not happen until long after the acts have already been committed. The leaders of revolutions often were considered terrorists and insurgents and in the end rose to hero status AFTER the violent acts had already taken their toll.

So at the end of the day, the end does justify means in many cases.

But you're talking about the perception of the acts; further, you're close to implying that government propaganda about their enemies is automatically legitimate in an objective sense. I'm talking about the moral stance, re probable consequences, of the actors themselves.

And if the end justifies the means...then all is legitimate.

Further, the idea of "hero status" and so on is rarely an agreed-upon notion, but usually contested.

[dre]

I have a hard time calling anarchists "leftists". They really are a political ideology all their own. It's like calling Libertarians conservatives. There might be some areas where they touch, but they really are two different balls of wax.

Despite your amusing obsession with false "left/right" dichotomy, the reality is that people on both sides of the spectrum are beginning to realize that our entire financial and banking systems are built on theft and fraud, and for whatever reason they arent too thrilled about it. This is probably just the beginning.

As for your broken leftist / anarchist comparison, those two concepts are not even loosely connected. They are actually literal opposites with the "left" favoring a publically controlled and centrally planned economy, and anarchists favoring little or no central control and planning at all.

[williat]

I don't believe someone who attacks the institutions of the state is necessarily a terrorist. For that matter, if you have a legitimate grievance with a corporation and shoot or blow up the CEO I don't think that's an act of terrorism either.

Terrorism seems, to me, to be an act of sowing terror by means of unrestricted attacks on a population for political purposes. Shooting soldiers in Iraq would not have been a terrorist act during Sadaam's time, but setting off bombs in markets definitely would be.

That's not to say that political violence can't be terrorism when directed against the government or military. It can. I think the key would be whether legitimate change is possible through the will of the people or not. If the people have no real way of affecting changes, despite their will, at the ballot box, then violence becomes more acceptable against the authorities and their minions. Deliberate attacks on the population at large, however, can really not be seen as anything other than terrorism except in very rare situations in wartime.

Alright now this is something I can agree with.

As for your broken leftist / anarchist comparison, those two concepts are not even loosely connected. They are actually literal opposites with the "left" favoring a publically controlled and centrally planned economy, and anarchists favoring little or no central control and planning at all.

This has been pointed out so many times now but it appears certain readers just avoid the idea, leftist/anarchist are completely different political spheres, first we need to point out again that only the article called these hooligans "anarchists". Remember we've all been told before "Don't believe everything you hear", it could be applied here, obviously it was just an incorrect use of the word anarchist. Personally I think this is just a bunch of morons trying to have a laugh, but thats just my two cents.

[Shwa]

Argus says,

If the people have no real way of affecting changes, despite their will, at the ballot box, then violence becomes more acceptable against the authorities and their minions. Deliberate attacks on the population at large, however, can really not be seen as anything other than terrorism except in very rare situations in wartime.

So are you saying that these SUV driving fire bombers are not terrorists? They did not attack any population, they attacked property. The likely feel that their voice cannot be heard via the ballot box so thus their actions are acceptable. I am just wondering of these "Anarchists" are on-side with the boundaries you have drawn.

[kimmy]

The decision to bomb the bank in the middle of the night makes it hard to call this terrorism in the common-sense definition of terrorism at least. (that doesn't mean this couldn't be charged under Canada's anti-terrorism laws, however.)

If the bomb had gone off at an hour when the bank is full of people and promised more, then that's a message of terror directed at the bank's employees and customers. It would go through your mind each time you go to the bank, it would go through the employee's mind each time they went to work.

So far nothing about this suggests that they intend to harm the bank's employees or customers. The intent appears to be to get publicity for their message, not to terrify people into changing their behavior.

-k