Here are the two blog posting I have written about the fire bombing from an activist perspective:
G8/G20 Communiqués: After the bombing.
By Krystalline Kraus | May 20, 2010
http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/statica/2010/05/g8g20-communiqu%C3%A9s-after-bombing
**
Anarchist group claims responsibility for Tuesday's bank firebombing
By Krystalline Kraus | May 20, 2010
On the bright side:
I don't watch TV. But even making allowances for that, the media seems to have taken little note of this.
Here are the two blog posting I have written about the fire bombing from an activist perspective:
G8/G20 Communiqués: After the bombing.
By Krystalline Kraus | May 20, 2010
http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/statica/2010/05/g8g20-communiqu%C3%A9s-after-bombing
**
Anarchist group claims responsibility for Tuesday's bank firebombingBy Krystalline Kraus | May 20, 2010
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"
The best question to ask is always, "Who benefits?"
I would agree that it's a good question to ask, but I would strongly caution against trying to make the answer somehow conclusive.
If I were to phone up all the major newspapers with my threat to kill any G8 leader who comes to Canada, along with their entourage, we might expect an increase in security, events changed or cancelled, etc.
If we ask "who benefits", the only group that could reasonably be said to benefit would be the police. But they had nothing to do with it. Yes, they benefited, but no, this doesn't imply their involvement in it.
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.
If we ask "who benefits", the only group that could reasonably be said to benefit would be the police. But they had nothing to do with it. Yes, they benefited, but no, this doesn't imply their involvement in it.
At the risk of getting all drifty - that's a common falacious line of reasoning running through the 9/11 threads - GWB & Co benefited from the events of 9/11, so they musta done it.
As someone who lives and works at either end of downtown Toronto, I wouldn't mind seeing more unqualified denunciations of violence; not all the, "We're against violent tactics BUT..." etc. I'm telling my kids to stay out of downtown when that is happening. My older daughter likes to ride her unicycle to the CN tower - I'm advising her to stick to the Humber trail, or northern parts.
Whether you're shot by the police or blown up by the noble Black Bloc as they stick it to the corporate oppressors, a victim is a victim.
I request that would-be Black Bloc folks and their apologists to do a google street view of the downtown core and observe the extreme high density of this city, and how business and residential is all mixed together - bank branches may have apartments above, or be next door to a family's home that runs a daycare, small independent businesses next door to corporate entities beside schools, and so forth. This isn't the Glebe - you ensure nobody's there before you blow up a bank, but you kill a handful of homeless sleeping in the alley behind the bank.
I may just get the hell out of town and spend a couple of days up north. But the most disadvantaged people in Toronto, the ones the protesters claim to be speaking for, don't have that option.
"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.
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.
The commentaries made by observers are great, particularly in Part 5.
I particularly like when the moderator queries about "rabble as biased against a diversity of tactics"
Hmmm....
---
- 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'.
Thanks for posting the vids Writer. I watched parts 3, 4 and 5 so far. There was a lot of interesting content. I'm only going to comment on two of the remarks from the floor (which I will hope I have interpreted correctly). The first was in the context of a rebuttal around the King-Ghandian non-violence principles. (Part 5 - 4:00). One of the folks in the audience referred to "the autonomous acts of more militant people" which took place during the time of the Montgomery boycott and civil rights movement and strengthened King's leadership including the riots and fires.
I found that comment to be quite instructive and I would highly recommend the film "Soundtrack for a Revolution" which dealt with the boycott in great detail as well as the non-violent Selma to Montgomery march. The insinuation was that bus boycott was less militant than other actions taking place at the time (e.g. city's burning). I think that's a wrong reading of the history of that period and is actually historically incorrect. The boycott was an action of tremendous sacrifice, dogged perseverance and . To label is as "less militant" does it an injustice. (And perhaps a tad ironic if the news reports that the Ottawa anti-RBC activists drove off in an SUV are true). "Militant" seems to have a value judgement added to it - i.e. more "militant" = more effective. "Violence" is viewed as more militant. While not an expert on this, I don't think there was much rioting until the early 60s. The Black Power movement made it's appearance in the mid-60s.
Related to that, I did not hear any distinctions around types of "direct action". So on the one hand, the bus boycott was supposedly not as militant as other actions of the day yet the peaceful blockade of a bridge and some streets in Vancouver was deemed to be effective direct action.
Second point was around the comment from a videographer who had his camera bopped. He noted that people were chanting "This is what democracy looks like" while at the same time being hinderered from exercises his rights as a journalist. This was defended on the basis that people were busy doing their thing and that they did not want cameras in their (hooded) faces as they were fleeing the police. Fair enough perhaps except - just a couple of minutes later, the success of the Vancouver actions were then partly judged based on the fact that there was world-wide media coverage. Are people trying to have it both ways?
"Who Benefits" tell you where to look, for starters.
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.
I know lots of anarchists, libertarian socialists etc.... They all think the bombing was idiotic and serves only to advance the interests of those who want more aggressive policing of dissent and activists. I agree with them.
Actually -- and I'm being straight up -- I don't want to disparage all anarchists.
The various anarcho types I know are all hard working activists who know the value of building mass movements, not the sort of nitwits who think torching banks does anything other than build a case for repression.
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.
I echo your concern, kropotkin1951. Let's give the new moderators time to influence the culture here though, shall we?
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. :)
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.
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!
... not the sort of nitwits who think torching banks does anything other than build a case for repression.
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).
It is instructive to observe the reactions of people to something like this. As in the case of the BB smishy-smashy on the HBC windows during the Olympics, some people seem far more concerned about this 'violence' then they are about the crimes of G8/G20, RBC, Tarsands or any of the other horrors in progress, on or off 'stolen indigenous lands'. Why this huge reaction to some smashed glass or a couple of mollies into a bad bank? There's something else going on here. Fear and denial.
Quote: "It is instructive to observe the reactions of people to something like this. As in the case of the BB smishy-smashy on the HBC windows during the Olympics, some people seem far more concerned about this 'violence' then they are about the crimes of G8/G20, RBC, Tarsands or any of the other horrors in progress, on or off 'stolen indigenous lands'." Why this huge reaction to some smashed glass or a couple of mollies into a bad bank? There's something else going on here. Fear and denial"
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I put tons of time into my activism against colonialism, state violence etc... I took less than a minute to post my thoughts on the twits who torched a bank because I think that if they are not cops, they have nevertheless done a great service to those who want more state power to squash dissent. How do you figure those of us who oppose such dumb stunts are "far more concerned" about them than about the crimes of the elites?
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.
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."
NDPP
Nihilistic anarchists with firebombs are extremely rare in Canada as are most other kinds of serious political protest or direct action- and our police state and oppression has been built in conditions where the sheeple are about as docile and servile as you'll find anywhere. Vicious indeed. Circles no. Don't sweat the broken windows or mollies.
Rebellion must come. Get organized.
Sometimes, the best way to engage with someone on your side is to tell them they're being an idiot and endangering the entire movement.
Sometimes, the best way to engage with someone on your side is to tell them they're being an idiot and endangering the entire movement.
... with no reflection of that tactic, or of the success and failures of your own tactics, by the way...
You're sounding awfully judgmental of my tactic of being honest and upfront with individuals who are being reckless, stupid and endangering the movement as a whole.
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 .
NDPPI put tons of time into my activism against colonialism, state violence etc...
Generalizing to make the point - present company excepted JR
Actually -- and I'm being straight up -- I don't want to disparage all anarchists.
Of course not. Some anarchists are conservatives, after all.
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.
So you're saying FFFC stands for the Federal False Flag Committee?
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 .
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.
False Flag Firebombing Club?
Of course not. Some anarchists are conservatives, after all.
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.
Sorry if I missed something but I don't see how this group claimed to be anarchists? I know the police said so and the media...but why the assumption? Because something got burned? I mean the rhetoric is something of the radical left but I don't see why everyone on the left has to go around calling them anarchists because the cops said so.
Maybe they do identify as anarchists, who knows, I'm just wondering why we have to go with that label...
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.
Tactics are useless without a strategy and yes, there are tactics that are counterproductive to the movement as a whole.
Desperation of lonely individuals who have no clue, no confidence, no link with any popular movement - so desperate they are prepared to discredit and invite attacks upon legitimate movements for change. There can be no reconciliation with such characters - whether they are cops or just plain deluded terrorists, really makes no practical difference.
Result would be to upset activists ( confusion tactic) and lean rules to allow snipers on rooftops as well as other military actions.
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.
It won't change police tactics, it'll just make it easier for the state to justify them and more likely for the public to accept them.
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.
i for one think that firebombing a bank branch is counterproductive and of course dangerous. breaking windows is one thing, but setting off bombs is a whole different game. While it might be in service of a "good" cause, we need to be very careful about when any potentially harmful tactics are used.
i think we need to at least try and organize a broad based national non violent civil disobedience campaign before anyone starts blowing stuff up.
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.
Fantino's Fire Fighting Committee?
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.
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?
Excellent example, Cueball - the difference between mass popular struggle and its legitimate expression (Tehran), vs. the criminal act of desperate individuals either paid by the police or doing their dirty work for free (Ottawa).
Already as a student activist in various struggles, I remember those who came around promoting that "we have to do more", or "I know where we can get _____" (fill in the blank - guns, explosives, etc.). We looked at them and said to each other: "Cops!" - and made sure they never came close to the nucleus of organizing. The same was true from my earliest days in the union movement, which of course was notoriously infiltrated (albeit feebly) by the RCMP in Québec, as was the student movement, as was the nationalist movement...
When I saw the horrendous video of this building on fire, I thought of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_of_Inquiry_into_Certain_Ac... Royal Commission of Inquiry into Certain Activities of the RCMP[/url] and much else besides.
I have met no small number of anarchists during the decades, inside and outside the unions (and in community organizations in Montréal, where many have played very significant roles) - and never once did I encounter one who would lend support to such acts of adolescent desperation. We saw them and see them for what they are - provocations and living parodies of the actions of true revolutionary and progressive people, criminals whose mission in life is to prove correct the caricature that the right draws of the left.
Their worst crime is not that they are vandals or destroyers of property or even that they occasionally hurt someone. No. Their worst crime is that they alienate our allies and our base. For that, there can be no compromise, no unity, no forgiveness - only condemnation and dissassociation.
The trade union movement in Canada has a great deal of experience dealing with provocateurs. I believe that CUPW activists (alone) could write a book about it. Genuinely socialist and "far" left political parties also know about this.
My own modest experience is that there is no better way to get the attention of the "police" than by trying to organize the unemployed in this country. In that case, it is a question of getting membership lists, playing a skillfully incompetent role, and so on.
Excellent example, Cueball - the difference between mass popular struggle and its legitimate expression (Tehran), vs. the criminal act of desperate individuals either paid by the police or doing their dirty work for free (Ottawa).
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.
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.
Right! And you see - that's [b][i]their[/i][/b] 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 [b][i]our[/i][/b] 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.
Interesting. Some announcement was made and then pulled off the NP site.
http://news.google.com/news/more?cf=all&ned=ca&cf=all&ncl=dYz8fMuK5YBH-J...
Police identify suspects in Ottawa firebombing
National Post - 1 hour ago
Mike Carroccetto/Canwest News Service “The Vancouver Olympic Games are over, but a torch is still burning,” says a message by the anarchist group that said ...
