Royal Bank of Canada Firebombed in Ottawa: Communique II

Continued from here.

From my blog post After the Bombing

"I also believe the activist community should be cautious. We don't yet know the identities of those involved in the fire bombing. In a written manifesto signed by a group calling itself the FFFC, and according to the Ottawa police, both are labelling these individuals as anarchists, but there are too many questions to rush into answers.

The public simply does not know, though the media is reporting that the Ottawa police are close to tracking down the subjects.  

There are questions being asked, answers sought. Who or what is the FFFC?

Perhaps they are what some activists are whispering about: the spectre of "agent provocateurs" like what occurred at the SPP protest in Montebello, Quebec, August 20, 2007?

Perhaps they are urban, white teenage boys taking up a cause without a connection to the community that is most affected?

History shows that it is usually the most marginalized in our society that suffers the greatest under the weight of a White Man's Burden as saviours.

The most ugly of answers regarding who actually fire bombed the RBC bank in Ottawa lives in the dark heart of both the First Nations community and the social justice community in Canada. If these anarchists are ever caught and they are unmasked in public, what will the reaction of the First Nations community be if confronted with faces that look exactly like them, when faces become mirrors?

Either way, the truth will certainly come out. And how the activist community reacts to that truth will be the true test of its character.

Listening to the wisdom of elders is important:

"No matter what they ever do to us, we must always act for the love of our people and the earth. We must not react out of hatred against those who have no sense." - John Trudell"

Diversity of Tactics - 3 - Harsha Walia A Diversity of Tactics - A Diversity of Opinions Panel discussion co-hosted by rabble.ca and working TV, Saturday February 20, 2010 at W2 Community Media Arts Centre, Vancouver.

In defence of the Black Bloc in Vancouver. I think this is highly relevant to the discussion.

"Who Benefits" tell you where to look, for starters. If you're unwilling to look, and just want to jump to conclusions from your armchair, then wrong conclusions are no one's fault but your own.

"Who Benefits" is a useful approach when the motives seem dubious, unclear, and so on.

In a case like this, in which there are major summits upcoming in this country - summits in which, going by recent past practice, we SHOULD EXPECT the government(s) to organize some agents provocateurs to discredit opposition to the nefarious and sinister policies that are developed and agreed to at these summits - it's rather obvious who benefits. And no, I don't mean the police. The police carry out orders. I mean their political masters.

Yeah, you know what you're talking about.

It's the same argument I would use concerning Afghanistan. The soldiers there are the disinformed dupes (in my opinion). We need to ask the question, "Who benefits?", to discover who are the ones ultimately responsible for the Afghan and all the other Global Wars of Terror we are waging in these 'New Dark Ages'.

Very well. I guess a few anarchist idjits benefitted. They seem to really sprout wood over stuff like this. Now they have "cred" among their own. Now they're heroes to similar idjits.

Actually -- and I'm being straight up -- I don't want to disparage all anarchists. 

Nice passive/aggressive posting Snert. Your views are those of an oppressor in this imperialist world.  You have no analysis only slags against any left idea. 

But carry on oh Great White Male whose wisdom is certainly MSM but apparently does not count as challenging rights and principles and therefore is not disruptive of any dialogue on the left so as to be seen as disruptive to the nature of this forum. 

My apologies for this rant but I actually used to think the policy meant something but it is clear that this is Snert's home not the place for any anarchist or communist.  Congratulations to the libertarians for making this forum a place to discuss why workers should always be docile and listen to their betters from Wall Street.

Cue ominous music.

When I'm gone, I'd like Bacchus to get my little tagline, and Voice of the Damned can have my profile pic, and the proceeds from the sale of my PMs can be used to endow a new forum:  "Evil Centrists".

Anyway, I'm not sure what's passive/aggressive about acknowledging that not all anarchists are of this variety.  I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the firebombers are anarchists of some sort, but that of course doesn't mean that anarchists of all sorts are firebombers.

Also, is there a PLAN?  I've seen writer refer to the new mods influencing the culture at least a couple of times now.  Like she knows something we don't.  Is it time for new brooms to sweep clean?  Because I could be open to a buyout.  :)

Ya, they better not stay here or I might DISAGREE WITH THEM. Real committed activists they must be if they wilt at the first sign of a total stranger disagreeing with them on the interwebs. Run! Run from Snert's venomous disagreement! 

It becomes a self justifying vicious circle: Nihilistic anarchists firebomb an institution because we live in an oppressive anal police state. The authorities point to such incidents and scream for a need for greater security at the expense of liberty and society becomes more of an oppressive anal police state.

The nihilist anarchists point out that society is becoming more of an oppressive anal police state and joyfully plot how to defeat the state's increased security measures in their next incidents of direct action violence. To which the authorities will respond with more security at the expense of our liberty.

It becomes an escalation of intelligence, techniques, technology, violence and security at the expense of liberty ...

Unless there is either de-escalation or a successful overthrow of the kapitalist state replaced by a planned democratic society of (urban) workers and "green" workers (agriculturalists/growers/farmers).

This particular action may be questionable, but I am really getting ticked off with the delimiting of "good" actors and "bad" actors. I appreciate the toning down from "terrorists" to "nitwits" on this board, but I think most people are missing the point. 

Given that, until know what we know is that this action was performed by anarchists*, can we not acknowledge their motives, reflect on their tactics and discuss - in less marginalizing ways (i.e., stop insulting them for being "immature", "stupid", "terrorists", "idiots", "adventurists", "idjits", ad nauseum)- the benefits and pitfalls of them?

What I see here is a practice of moralization and stigmatization, not an exercise of critical engagement with the left and allies.

We shouldn't stigmatize people who blow things up?  I can't imagine why we wouldn't.  It's a stupid idea and an even dumber action to take.  I think a good stigmatization is definitely in order.

... with no reflection of that tactic, or of the success and failures of your own tactics, by the way...

I think it’s a false flag incident designed to allow snipers to be placed on roof tops as well as other pro militant actions to be legitamized. The Montabelo incident that was exposed showing police dressed up as demonstrators trying to start a full fledged riot was one thing. Given the fact that the US placed snipers on the rooftops is quite another. Even the most scungy conservative lover out there can’t stomach the fact that snipers shooting innocent Canadian men , woman and children is beyond despicable and is true terrorism.

  Enter the csis /rcmp dirty tricks squad …there telltale MO is blowing things up and arson as well as causing no loss of human life. Barn burning and communiqués to descredit groups like the FLQ led to the formation of a true dirty tricks squad given the name csis….blowing up tool shed with oil/gas company knowledge to frame the Ludwig fellow, and then the Montabello incident. This would be a classic one …they consort with the RBC …pick a bank...pick a time where no one is around…and boom. Result would be to upset activists ( confusion tactic) and lean rules to allow snipers on rooftops as well as other military actions. Then there is the pending conservative war criminal branding…by painting legitimate excuses and reasons to deal with say …anarchists and activists being placed in the same file as terrorists perhaps they can now legitamise torture in Canada like they did to a fellow babbler.

They can also use the new excuse to thwart any legal proceedings that may have been taking place since the Montabelo incident. Maybe even combat the postings regarding the Montabello incident that will remain on the internet day after day …month after month…year after year showing the educated people how low the conservatives and republicans will go and how criminal they can be.

  If the FFFC was a terror group they would of done the act to cause maximum loss of human life …that they didn’t do that shows they are either 1) a legit anti establishment group no matter how distasteful that might be to other activists or 2} a government dirty tricks squad.. The acid test will be when the actual summit takes place …if snipers are falling from the rooftops like flies, then they are a true anti establishment group as security people believe they are a brotherhood they wouldn’t be able to exterminate each other like that. If it’s the dirty tricks squad then the worst that can happen would be like the red shirt massacre in Thailand where all the government militants can pat each other on the back and look forward to a pay raise for serving their country so bravely. No sleep lost all in a days work .

Of course not. Some anarchists are conservatives, after all.

Well said.  I don't think that firebombing anything is particularly helpful but I also note that it was only property destroyed. Yes they could have hurt someone if it had not been planned properly so remember that principle the next time any posters think of texting or talking while driving. To put this action into perspective I think there are many things that many people do that are very risky and texting on the Freeway has far more potential for death and destruction than this firebombing.

I expect it was done by some righteously angry young people with the help and direction of at least one or more agent provocateurs.

I marched in the streets in Vancouver during the Opening of the Olympics and there were police and others on rooftops especially when we were stopped by the police across the street from BC Place.  The next stage is not putting armed snipers on the roofs because they are already there it will be when they feel free to use them.

As I understand it, a conservative anarchist would a social conservative (no equal marriage, anti-choice, etc.) and otherwise want no government or state.  That's pretty much exactly the opposite of me.

I posted this on the "after the bombing" communique board, but this seems to be a much more active discussion. Thought I'd repost.

I don't think that firebombing is a tactic that I would employ. For me, personally, it doesn't feel right.

For ME.

The Ottawa firebombers (assuming they wern't cops) felt that this was the right course of action for them. How can anyone tell me that I must denounce their actions. They harmed no one. They spoke for themselves. They took action.

I won't throw a bomb, but anyone who is willing to stand up for human rights and human justice is someone I will gladly have standing with me.

For a journalist whose rhetoric fits with Rabble's liberal agenda I'm sure it is easy to sit back and claim moral superiority over those who chose different tactics. But these warriors haven't denounced you. There may very well be those out there who feel that your writing is ineffectual and arbitrary, but they haven't denounced you.

Something to think about.

Tactics are useless without a strategy and yes, there are tactics that are counterproductive to the movement as a whole.

For the record, a couple of weeks ago American SWAT and FBi teams were running drills on the roof of the Canada Life building in the security zone. 

This bombing won't actually change any of the police tactics, although it may be used to defend brutality after the fact.

I don`t see any sense in calling them terrorists.  While the actions fit with the strict dictionary deffinition, the word has so much baggage and has been so poorly used (especially in recent years).  Nor would I call them warriors. 

It is was it is.  Anti-G20 organizers need to keep on point and keep organizing. 

CBC just posted a story saying the cops think they`ll make an arrest soon.  Wouldn`t be surprised.  Disconserting little quote about how they will also use information about who viewed the video to track down their suspects. We all have to put up with this for now, but we don`t have to get distracted by it.

Bill is correct. I'm using "terrorist" in an older historical sense which has become polluted by GWB's war on terror and other such atrocities. The more accurate term would be dangerous assholes.

You mean like those people who attacked the police station during the recent post election strife in Tehran by throwing molotov cocktails at it while there were people inside? They should be stygmatized?

Right. And I agree. But there is absolutely no sense of that kind of "strategic" context in TB statement. To be sure, there were numerous parties in the recent struggle in Tehran, who asserted a "moderate" view that some protests went "to far" and harmed the struggle, and aided the forces of repression.

The arguement made by TB against militant action, for exactly the same reasons as are being stated here, are commonly world over, regardless of the objective conditions. For example, those who are making these arguments here, are also those who condemn the greek protest movement, which clearly has a strong basis of popular support: they are thugs and criminals. Likewise rioters in France.

The statement is not "objective" but reflects a political stance: forces that are against the status quo capitalist model of "democracy", are wrong to make any kind of show of force, while forces that are supported by the status quo here, are justified in engaging in outright rebellion.

Right! And you see - that's their call - the sovereign decision of the Iranian people - as to how, when, where, and how far they will wage their struggle.

Likewise in Afghanistan. And Palestine. And Iraq.

But in Canada - it is our honour and duty to make those decisions. That's why anyone with a progressive bone in their body must reject these criminal provocations with the utter contempt that they richly deserve. To see vacillation or justification for such bankrupt and criminal tactics on this discussion board is extremely disturbing, but a good wake-up call.

If I had to speculate I would say FFFC is a hexadecimal code for a number that leads to a clue.  It used to be childs play converting between hexadecimal octal and binary..surely there must be an online converter. Darm math...as soon as you stop using it in a prctical sense ...it fades away.   Just think were probably miles ahead of the investigators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

Fascists like Harper just love this shit. They use it to scare grandma and grandpa Canuck into believing that the streets are rampant with wild eyed pistol waving, Molotov coctail throwing Godless communist anarchists destroying our society. They use this as the pretext to turn KKKanada into an AmeriKKKan police state.

I hear ya, man!

How can one action be okay if it's under some umbrella of "diversity of tactics" but not okay if it's done by provocateurs?

As for this particular action, what toxins might be released during a fire? Who breathes them? Where do they land? On the playground at the childcare centre next to the bank? In somebody's back yard? Is it worth the risk? Yeah, I"m being obnoxious about this because there are sometimes unintended consequences that are not always considered. Who gets to make those decisions over other people's health and safety? The fact that "no one was there" is a weak justification in my mind because it is a semi-residential neighborhood. 

And furthermore, j.m, why shouldn't legitimate progressives and leftists be pissed at individualists (and that's what they are, not anarchists but individualists and egotists) appropriating other people's struggle so they can have a thrill?

Polunatic - that's the problem with diversity of tactics - it gives permission for individuals to hijack a bigger event so that they can enage in counterproductive "tactics" that work at crosspurposes, or even undermine, the larger struggle. Diversity of tactics as a dogma is a sign of the weakness of the movement.

Instead of "diversity of tactics" - an idea premised on the assumption that the principles of the market can somehow be used to challenge capitalism - what about democratic decision making and collective action - you know, the sort of idea that wins strikes and other victories?

So, by the fact that they acted as part of the struggle, and because not only did you you not perceive it that way but also they  appropriated another group's struggle, they deserve nothing but heavy-handed stigmatization and punishment?

Bullshit that no privileged folk (or more privileged individuals within an oppressed group) have ever had to come to terms with appropriating someone else's representation/lived experience. If this is the case with these individuals, I doubt singling them out as if they were the first and the worst in  making this egregious error is commensurate with the criticisms and punishments we receive(d) for making similar errors of representing  'othered' people inappropriately. Indeed, lambasting them is hypocritical and not really "our" place (as bearers of privilege).

I am not particularly happy with the action for reasons similar to those stated by babblers and in statements by anarchist groups. But unlike many babblers, I'm not willing to put these youth on the chopping block for engaging in an action of property damage against a company that perpetuates injustice like RBC. Quite frankly, ostracizing them from a mass movement, if indeed they are sincere about leftist and radical politics, and legitimizing their punishment is not a very good policy for building a mass movement (especially when it sides with the status quo). The more you discern who is "legitimate" and who isn't (especially in a world of diverse experiences and particularities), the more boundary maintainance will be needed, and the more fear of who doesn't belong enters into our discussion. Words like "terrorist" and "criminal" are good examples of this boundary practice - how much further would you like to drive them away?

Your coments, aka Maycroft, about reflecting on tactics in a democratic process within the mass movement is reasonable. I just fail to see how you can call it democratic when you are so ready to jump down the throats of "deviant" lefties/anarchists/progressives and exclude them from the discussion on grounds of legitimacy.

Why don't you just keep calling them terrorists and criminals. Afterall, they are being identified as such by the police and the government. If you drove them away, however, it would help them, but you would have to wrestle them away from the police. Me? I don't have a car or money for gas.

[edit] Unionist, we actually had this same conversation last night. My bad for responding; it's not worth either of our time.

Reality check? You just cited the state's rationality as if it were a natural fact. That's delusional.

It's a property crime (considered a political hate crime) in a kapitalist state. These are kapitalist moral and politikal values defined by a kapitalist state to protect itself and the oligarks that put the politikal menschen in power.

[edit 1:33 AM] So you don't care about who owns the property. Like the mining companies dispossessing indigenous people from their land - for property rights - and then blowing up that land for gain? You know, the kind of irresponsible and dangerous acts that RBC makes money off of... LEGALLY.

I don't understand how you've reached this conclusion without knowing who's responsible.

None of that justifies the KKKuckoo idea of setting off a bomb in a populated area.

Is it? I would say the rule of law created by the state (a minority) and enforced with violence against the people - workers, farmers and the poor (the majority). I would not say that the majority democratically accepts it, more like it is forced upon them by violence.

Interesting that you should equate kapitalism with religion; banks with churches. That is exactly how some Khristian kapitalists see it. To them banks are places of worship. Kapitalism is (a reverse) charity - the poor and the needy involuntarily give to (are exploited by) the rich and the greedy for their pampered 'survival' (read as prosperity).

Yeah, it's a pretty "KKKuckoo" world alright.

If you accept the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (some or all) then you must accept that laws as inadequate as they sometimes are, become the will of the majority through our "social contract" as Canadians.

Capitalism is not to blame for resource expropriation on First Nations land, corporatism is. That is a huge difference. True capitialism considers most factors, including benefits to their employees, concern for the environment and the long term affects on the community.

Corporatism cares only about the bottom line at any cost. They don't care about the products they produce or the customers they serve so long as investors keep giving them money, and the top managers get to take home obscene paycheques with outrageous bonuses each week.

RBC (as all banks) are corporations deserving of protest for their support and investment in activities that infringe upon peoples rights all over the world, and who selfishly promote profit over human, environmental and social responsibility.

I don't condone the fire-bombing, but I do understand that some people might think drastic measures are required to get corporation and government attention. And just as the US guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms, and to raise militias against a tyrannical government, so do Canadians have the right to use escalating means to protest - including civil disobedience - to defend the democratic rights of people, where governments and their business partners fail.

Was the fire-bombing an act of civil disobedience, is the question. Or was it an act of terrorism, directed at one company for narrow reasons? If it was the latter than the perpetrators are no better than the corporations who willfully exercise human, environmental and social terrorism in pursuit of obscene profits.

With each passage, it seems that your intention is to further degrade your increasingly precarious credibility.  No doubt there's more to follow, which I suppose is only fair.  I have a few points of my own that I will try to get around to, as time permits today.

I'm glad the Indigenous Environmental Network statement was posted to the earlier thread, "...The Indigenous Environmental Network supports strategic non-violent direct action that is lead by impacted communities." 

The same had been said by Art Manuel and involved communities regarding the Indigenous Day of Action in that day's link from the G20 Mobilization site.

noted are the focus on non-violent actions, lead by impacted communities.  without getting into a debate about whether property damage constitutes violence, or what is a community, the main distinction is that direction is lead by impacted communities. 

Note the plural in the term "communities".  There is a sense of direction and leadership as the final result of a process of many communities discussing and reaching shared agreement. 

It is a very different process from having a consulta but leaving a percentage of behaviour open to final determination by individual affinity groups. 

Common Cause anarchists have said that they are not violent and are organized, therefore we can conclude that those who engage in adhoc destruction are not part of those Ontario anarchist movements.

It would be important for other anarchist groups participating in G20 actions to clarify where they stand in taking direction from a process of Indigenous communities, plural.

My understanding of decision-making in Indigenous communities is that councils of women, youth, and men are involved in a process in a given community, which dialogues with other communities similarly organized.

Provocation by militants is the cause of the violence by the state. But for all the violent demonstrations and fire bombings in our streets we would not have the police state we live in. It is radicals that have caused the police to react otherwise they would not pepper spray and taser demonstrators.  I think that is the argument being made here.  It sounds good except for the central premise of the cause and effect.

I marched peacefully at APEC in Vancouver and there was no violence by the protesters but there sure was by the police.  The same was true of Quebec city where the police where not content to just use force they also tried to provoke a riot so they could use more force.  Then we have these teenagers in Ontario that were all Islamic terrorists except of course for the agent provocateurs in their midst.

It sounds to me to be the same old same old.  Poor people do not show anything to the bossman but your smile and the rest of the time keep your head down and your nose to the grind stone.  Don't provoke the man because if he comes home to beat you you will only have yourselves to blame.  Really you know the bossman is violent so can't you just keep quiet so we all don't get beat. 

If it makes you feel better to oversimplify an argument, and if it makes it so much easier to defeat it that way, then go ahead.

But if you care to listen, do so.

The downing of the Twin Towers was not the "cause" of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

It was, however, the pretext.

Individual acts of vandalism, arson, murder are not the "cause" of the violence of the state.

They are, however, one of many useful pretexts.

I condemn the downing of the Twin Towers: (a) no matter who did it; and (b) even if it had caused no loss of life.

Those who carry out such actions, isolated from the will and the self-movement of masses of people, are criminals to our cause. Many people have those inclinations from time to time. We must be patient and educate them that these are harmful roads. Those that act upon those inclinations should be condemned, with all the vitriol at our disposal. Otherwise, not only will our struggle be undermined, but we will surely end up wearing the consequences of their provocateur actions. Thus it has always been.

Or maybe you supported the burning of the Reichstag, because it was such a powerful symbolic act against the German state?

Did you bother to read the statement you claim to be citing?

"Despite widespread claims by the media, there is no indication that the recent "firebombing" of an RBC bank branch in Ottawa was carried out by anarchists.

Nowhere in the statement or video that was published online was it claimed that those responsible were anarchists."

Not only did the Common Cause statement specifically point-out that the FFFC have (as far as anyone's aware) made no claim to being anarchists; but nowhere in their statement did they "denounce" the actions of the FFFC.

They did claim to be supporters of the indigenous struggle. Does this mean the IEN should not criticise them? And they do claim to be opposed to the G20 summit. Does that mean the anti G20 movement must support them?

F55, you took one minor point and refuted it while ignoring the broadr argument.