A Canadian Forces Recruitment Centre Was Bombed

[Remiel]

Five days ago a recruitment centre for the Canadian Forces was bombed in Trois-Rivieres, Quebec. I started a thread that day and posted this article from the Toronto Star on it:

http://www.thestar.com/news/quebec/article/831182--group-claims-responsibility-for-quebec-canadian-forces-office-blast

However, we never really got around to talking about it.

Why not? Does no one really care? Is all of our concern about terrorism really just for show, or a facade?

Of course, it could be argued perhaps that going by a strict definition, it may not technically be terrorism. I am not sure whether they were " trying to influence people politically through fear " or just being a bunch of douchebags. Either way though, it should concern us all when someone takes it upon themselves to blow up a place primarily visited by young people looking to serve their country.

Strangely enough, I am not sure if the Star actually published a follow up article. Maybe they knew it would not be a buzz starter, as it has proven not to be here. In fact, most of the stories a quick search of Google brings up are from the day of the blast, though there is this piece from the next days Montreal Gazette:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Cops+seek+help+Trois+Rivi%C3%A8res+bombing/3233116/story.html

Unfortunately it does not appear to offer much new information, either.

So, who among you is concerned with the bombing?

[eyeball]

You see a lot of people complaining that terrorists rarely take their battle to the military.

The fact these did but didn't detonate their bomb when there were a bunch of kids present indicate these terrorists might cleave to a rarely seen self-imposed code or standard.

These are clearly a far far more dangerous threat to the Establishment.

[William Ashley]

only a show not real issue.

It was cosmetic damage.

While serious - if it was a real action, with real intent to damage things the damage could have been much more destructive -

the real issue here is - no one was found - is this the real issue or did people simply disapear.

Note this was a recruiting centre not a base. Bases are also seemingly very or were very suceptable to attacks.

but lets get real here... what was the real effect?

lost $$$. and new doors. or is there some type of propaganda effect here?

Doing this type of thing at a rememberance day ceremony would have a much greater effect. End of story - inadequette non action.

[M.Dancer]

the real issue here is - no one was found - is this the real issue or did people simply disapear.

They were turned into soylent green

[kimmy]

However, we never really got around to talking about it.

Why not? Does no one really care?

Really, what is there to say? For most of us I think it goes without saying that we are opposed to bombings.

I don't think anybody here is actually in favor of bombings (this isn't Rabble/Babble, after all.)

There was a pretty long thread about the RBC bombing. But it wasn't the bombing itself that generated discussion. It was side-topics, like whether the bombers were "anarchists" or "leftists", and whether the bombers were terrorists in a formal sense of the word. But the bombing itself? What needs to be said?

So, who among you is concerned with the bombing?

Concerned doesn't seem like the right word. Annoyed is closer to my feelings.

-k

[Remiel]

There was a pretty long thread about the RBC bombing. But it wasn't the bombing itself that generated discussion. It was side-topics, like whether the bombers were "anarchists" or "leftists", and whether the bombers were terrorists in a formal sense of the word. But the bombing itself? What needs to be said?

Well, I started a second thread on this mostly because of the conversation with American Woman in the Centre vs. Center thread, as she was complaining that we were talking about such a trivial issue when there was a bombing.

You're right that the bombing itself is not that interesting, but what about the group behind it? They have supposedely carried out two other attacks in the past. I think we can ask whether, in real terms, whether we need pay them heed or just let the police do their business and forget about it.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, I started a second thread on this mostly because of the conversation with American Woman in the Centre vs. Center thread, as she was complaining that we were talking about such a trivial issue when there was a bombing.

"Complaining?" Ummm. I was pointing out how odd I find it that more Canadians were concerned with the spelling of a recruitment center than with the bombing of a recruitment center.

Perhaps Canadians have different definitions as well as different spellings, because in my country, that doesn't fall under the definition of "complaining."

Edited July 9, 2010 by American Woman

[Remiel]

"Complaining?" Ummm. I was pointing out how odd I find it that more Canadians were concerned with the spelling of a recruitment center than with the bombing of a recruitment center.

Perhaps Canadians have different definitions as well as different spellings, because in my country, that doesn't fall under the definition of "complaining."

Do not read too much into my use of " complaining " . Not all complaints are indictments of the complainer.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Complaining?" Ummm. I was pointing out how odd I find it that more Canadians were concerned with the spelling of a recruitment center than with the bombing of a recruitment center.

Of course, but because an American made this astute observation, it must be a "complaint".

Perhaps Canadians have different definitions as well as different spellings, because in my country, that doesn't fall under the definition of "complaining."

Perhaps they could spell bomb as "bombe"!

[Remiel]

You know, there are two perfectly good threads on the bombing that were sidetracked by trivial issues or comments. Please do not make it three. I answered American Woman's concern about my use of language, so can you please keep it on topic now?

[bloodyminded]

Or boumb.

Edited July 9, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

....I am not sure if the Star actually published a follow up article. Maybe they knew it would not be a buzz starter, as it has proven not to be here. In fact, most of the stories a quick search of Google brings up are from the day of the blast, though there is this piece from the next days Montreal Gazette:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Cops+seek+help+Trois+Rivi%C3%A8res+bombing/3233116/story.html

Unfortunately it does not appear to offer much new information, either.

So, who among you is concerned with the bombing?

This update is from today's National Post:

A joint RCMP-Quebec police team is taking over the investigation of the bombing of a Canadian Forces recruitment office in Trois-Rivieres, Que., earlier this month.

RCMP spokesman Cpl. Luc Thibault ... confirmed the bombing is being considered a matter of national security. link

Seems to me a terrorist organization acting out of Quebec would be a matter of concern.

Edited July 10, 2010 by American Woman

[Remiel]

I do not really think it too important what province in particular they are working out of. They are anti-militarist radicals, not seperatist radicals.

Hopefully it proves to be an isolated phenomenon though. If there is one kind of diversification we certainly do not need, it is a diversification of home grown and home concerned terrorist groups. It may be debatable actually whether they are terrorists, but unless the rhetoric ramps up it would not really be intentionally misleading to just refer to them as that.

Hopefully the Quebec police nail them this time.

[kimmy]

Seems to me a terrorist organization acting out of Quebec would be a matter of concern.

They'll no doubt get the full Department of Public Safety treatment when they're caught, but I have a hard time seeing this as real "terrorists". It seems like a bunch of mooks, to me.

If they set their sights on human beings instead of empty buildings, I'll view them as terrorists.

-k

[Molly]

I think we can ask whether, in real terms, whether we need pay them heed or just let the police do their business and forget about it.

So far, after at least 4 years, this group has collectively managed to be.... less hazardous, effective, or interesting than Wiebo Ludwig.

Sounds like mooks to me too.

[Remiel]

So far, after at least 4 years, this group has collectively managed to be.... less hazardous, effective, or interesting than Wiebo Ludwig.

Sounds like mooks to me too.

True, but that is not necessarily a good measurement of what they will do in the future, or the repercussions.

Ludwig at least is rather more predictable. His targets are all oil and gas.

[Guest American Woman]

True, but that is not necessarily a good measurement of what they will do in the future, or the repercussions.

Exactly. Hamas didn't start out any stronger, and while I'm in no means comparing it to Hamas, seems to me to be a bad idea to shrug such an organization off just because so far they 'haven't killed anyone' or 'aren't that powerful.' I can't recall any such group that became powerful overnight. I don't think anyone anticipated that al Qaeda had the power to carry out the attacks it did on 9-11. Again, I'm not comparing it to al Qaeda, either; only in the sense that I would definitely consider it a concern to have such an organization acting within one's country.

It's fortunate that no one was injured/killed by this blast, but it could have ended differently. Would that then make it a concern? If 'luck' had turned out differently than it did? It would have still been the same act by the same group.

I do not really think it too important what province in particular they are working out of. They are anti-militarist radicals, not seperatist radicals.

Oh, I agree that it's not important what province they are working out of; had it been Ontario, I would have substituted "Ontario" for "Quebec" and made the same point.

Hopefully it proves to be an isolated phenomenon though. If there is one kind of diversification we certainly do not need, it is a diversification of home grown and home concerned terrorist groups. It may be debatable actually whether they are terrorists, but unless the rhetoric ramps up it would not really be intentionally misleading to just refer to them as that.

I think any group that makes threats and makes points by blowing things up could fit the definition of terrorists, but really, whether they are referred to as a terrorist organization or not, I agree with the RCMP's assessment that they are a threat to national security, which seems to be your assessment, too.

Edited July 10, 2010 by American Woman

[kimmy]

I think any group that makes threats and makes points by blowing things up could fit the definition of terrorists, but really, whether they are referred to as a terrorist organization or not, I agree with the RCMP's assessment that they are a threat to national security, which seems to be your assessment, too.

In a technical sense I think they are terrorists (and they'll be treated as such by the law when they're caught). But they've so far intentionally avoided targeting people. Al Qaeda was violent right from the start.

Resistance Internationale and Al Qaeda might both be terrorist groups, but Resistance Internationale are basically vandals, and Al Qaeda are basically murderers. I certainly don't approve of property being destroyed, but I have a hard time feeling any "terror".

The manner of their activities makes it clear that they don't want to hurt people, for probably one of 3 reasons:

-they're philosophically opposed to it

-they believe it would make people unsympathetic to their cause

-they fear the legal consequences.

There is, I suppose the chance that they could escalate into something more dangerous later, but it would be a major philosophical shift. I think it is more likely that they inspire some other angry kooks who aren't afraid of hurting people than it is that these guys themselves suddenly decide to start targeting people.

At its core, I believe this was a showy grab for media coverage for their cause, not a real attempt to terrify people into changing their behavior.

Obviously I as a tax-payer am not thrilled at having to clean up the recruitment center. But in terms of dollars and cents cost to society, I would bet that this is a drop in the bucket. For example, last year when those flash-mobs of Tamil Tiger supporters were blocking off Toronto freeways at rush hour: I bet the cost of repairing the recruitment center pales beside the cost of making thousands of Torontonians an hour late for work.

-k

[Jack Weber]

In a technical sense I think they are terrorists (and they'll be treated as such by the law when they're caught). But they've so far intentionally avoided targeting people. Al Qaeda was violent right from the start.

Resistance Internationale and Al Qaeda might both be terrorist groups, but Resistance Internationale are basically vandals, and Al Qaeda are basically murderers. I certainly don't approve of property being destroyed, but I have a hard time feeling any "terror".

The manner of their activities makes it clear that they don't want to hurt people, for probably one of 3 reasons:

-they're philosophically opposed to it

-they believe it would make people unsympathetic to their cause

-they fear the legal consequences.

There is, I suppose the chance that they could escalate into something more dangerous later, but it would be a major philosophical shift. I think it is more likely that they inspire some other angry kooks who aren't afraid of hurting people than it is that these guys themselves suddenly decide to start targeting people.

At its core, I believe this was a showy grab for media coverage for their cause, not a real attempt to terrify people into changing their behavior.

Obviously I as a tax-payer am not thrilled at having to clean up the recruitment center. But in terms of dollars and cents cost to society, I would bet that this is a drop in the bucket. For example, last year when those flash-mobs of Tamil Tiger supporters were blocking off Toronto freeways at rush hour: I bet the cost of repairing the recruitment center pales beside the cost of making thousands of Torontonians an hour late for work.

-k

Nevermind the police force that was paid to stand there and watch these people shut down the Gardiner Expressway.....

[Guest American Woman]

In a technical sense I think they are terrorists (and they'll be treated as such by the law when they're caught). But they've so far intentionally avoided targeting people. Al Qaeda was violent right from the start.

They weren't powerful right from the start, and no one thought they were capable of doing what they did, which was my point. Add that to my observation that Hamas wasn't violent right from the start, either, and I'm just saying that the fact that "so far" they haven't targeted people doesn't mean it should be shrugged off -- until/unless they do kill someone.

Furthermore, people do end up getting killed sometimes in incidents such as this. Setting off a bomb in a civilian area, even if one is "intentionally avoiding targeting people," could result in killing them anyway, so I can't see diminishing the action just because, fortunately, no one was killed. As I said, had someone been killed, the action/intentions would have been the same, yet the outcome would have been different, and I'm sure the reaction would have been different. Yet the actions/intentions would have been the same. That was my point.

The manner of their activities makes it clear that they don't want to hurt people, for probably one of 3 reasons:

-they're philosophically opposed to it

-they believe it would make people unsympathetic to their cause

-they fear the legal consequences.

There is, I suppose the chance that they could escalate into something more dangerous later, but it would be a major philosophical shift.

You are projecting what they do or don't want to do. I've found nothing from the group itself to support the beliefs you are projecting on to them. And again, someone could have been hurt/killed by this bombing. And as for a "major philosophical shift," again, I refer to the history of Hamas.

[bloodyminded]

Whatever points of contention there might be about intent, potential, or anything else, I think it's clear enough that such actions are by definition dangerous. I have no doubt there was no intention to kill anybody, but the risk remains. So the irresponsibility itself is extremely criminal.

[kimmy]

You are projecting what they do or don't want to do. I've found nothing from the group itself to support the beliefs you are projecting on to them. And again, someone could have been hurt/killed by this bombing. And as for a "major philosophical shift," again, I refer to the history of Hamas.

Deploying the bomb at 3am-- and phoning to notify the police 15 minutes beforehand-- is clearly a choice to avoid human casualties. There's 3 obvious reasons for making such a choice, as I mentioned. Likewise their previous actions-- setting fire to a public official's empty car, and bombing a remote powerline tower.

Could they change their tactics in the future? It's possible. Is it likely? That would be sheer speculation. My guess is that no, it's not likely. Stealing or wrecking property and harming or killing people are two very different boundaries for almost everyone raised in our culture, and there's no reason to assume that just because someone has crossed one boundary it's likely that they'll cross the other.

Certainly this group is a "concern", and destruction of property is still a crime, and the authorities should certainly be trying to catch them before they escalate their activities or hurt someone (accidentally or otherwise.)

But in the big picture: how much should the typical Canadian be worried about this? These are stunts, designed to achieve media attention for the group and it's views. How much attention is actually warranted?

Is this group much different from a group of yahoos who get together one night and deface a government building with spray-paint? If so, how?

-Because they have a name?

-Because they have a manifesto?

-Because cleaning fire damage is slightly more expensive than cleaning up spray-paint?

-Because they used a bomb instead of paint?

IMO the bomb aspect is the only thing that makes this event newsworthy. I think that sensationalizing this would probably only serve to make bombs look more appealing to other knuckleheads who want attention.

-k

[bloodyminded]

Deploying the bomb at 3am-- and phoning to notify the police 15 minutes beforehand-- is clearly a choice to avoid human casualties. There's 3 obvious reasons for making such a choice, as I mentioned. Likewise their previous actions-- setting fire to a public official's empty car, and bombing a remote powerline tower.

Could they change their tactics in the future? It's possible. Is it likely? That would be sheer speculation. My guess is that no, it's not likely. Stealing or wrecking property and harming or killing people are two very different boundaries for almost everyone raised in our culture, and there's no reason to assume that just because someone has crossed one boundary it's likely that they'll cross the other.

Certainly this group is a "concern", and destruction of property is still a crime, and the authorities should certainly be trying to catch them before they escalate their activities or hurt someone (accidentally or otherwise.)

But in the big picture: how much should the typical Canadian be worried about this? These are stunts, designed to achieve media attention for the group and it's views. How much attention is actually warranted?

Is this group much different from a group of yahoos who get together one night and deface a government building with spray-paint? If so, how?

-Because they have a name?

-Because they have a manifesto?

-Because cleaning fire damage is slightly more expensive than cleaning up spray-paint?

-Because they used a bomb instead of paint?

IMO the bomb aspect is the only thing that makes this event newsworthy. I think that sensationalizing this would probably only serve to make bombs look more appealing to other knuckleheads who want attention.

-k

Jeez. These are really excellent points, I gotta say. The word "bomb" sure produces an emotional effect.

[Guest American Woman]

Deploying the bomb at 3am-- and phoning to notify the police 15 minutes beforehand-- is clearly a choice to avoid human casualties. There's 3 obvious reasons for making such a choice, as I mentioned. Likewise their previous actions-- setting fire to a public official's empty car, and bombing a remote powerline tower.

According to the news:

The bomb threat was phoned in around 2:45 a.m. and soon afterward an explosion blew out windows and splintered furniture at a Canadian Forces recruitment office.

The office in question sits on the ground floor of a hotel in downtown Trois-Rivières, about 150 kilometres east of Montreal; no one was injured, although one neighbour described the clamour as so intense “I thought my brick wall had fallen down.”

"The office in question sits on the ground floor of a hotel..." How did they know the blast wouldn't do any damage to the hotel or that no one would be outside the hotel?

I'm afraid I don't credit them with the same "clear desire to avoid human casualty" that you do. If they truly chose to avoid human casualty, they would have never set the bomb off in the first place, much less in a hotel. As I said, the results could have been different, then the reaction would have been different, even though the action and intent would have remained the same.

[kimmy]

I certainly hope they're caught before somebody gets hurt, accidentally or otherwise.

However, I still believe that seeing these guys as much different from the yahoos with spray-paint is giving them too much credit.

-k