Suspect packages from “forces armées”
A wave of suspicious packages from the “Forces armées révolutionnaires du Québec” landed in the mailboxes of various high-profile people and organizations Wednesday morning, but analysis of some has found nothing more noxious than sodium bicarbonate.
The Gazette notes that the name “Forces armées révolutionnaires du Québec” suggests one used in the 1960s by some part of the FLQ but those folks must be pretty antique by now and any connection must be merely a notional one.
What message does sodium bicarbonate imply? “Here, use this for your indigestion”?
paul 13:24 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
Let me just get the the typical responses out of the way:
MAFIA! TV! HOLLYWOOD! CHAREST! SYRIA! ISRAEL! POLICE BRUTALITY!
The message is: We are angry and have no means to express this anger except by scare tactics. That and your fridge smells.
Stephen 13:32 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
Well put.
Marc 15:07 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
Place this in your freezer so your ice cubes don’t take on that freezer “taste.” :P
Bill Binns 16:00 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
Speaking of terrorist hoaxes; what’s going on with Metro bombers? I have not seen a thing in the news about them since they bailed out. Weren’t they supposed to be in court at the end of May?
Marc 16:22 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
@ Bill: They all made bail and have court dates scheduled, but I don’t know any more.
Ephraim 16:56 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
Some people have more time than sense. A terrorism hoax charge essentially ruins your life. You can’t travel. You’ll have trouble finding a job. Do you really need to work at La Belle Province for the rest of your life?
Bill Binns 17:07 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
@Ephraim – I have to admit that I was sobered by the mugshots that were published in the Gazette. These kids did a terrible thing to themselves as much as anyone else. They have seriously screwed up their lives with one horribly bad decision. I think a lot of people (especially here) have sympathy for them because they agree with their cause but what if it was PETA, or the Bus drivers union or any one of the groups in Montreal that could be pissed off about something on any given day in this city? Would you still sympathize?
If we let shutting down the metro become an acceptable form of protest we may as well seal the system up and tell everyone to buy cars.
Hamza 17:18 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
You guys talk as if somebody died. Nobody died. Nobody was hurt. Nothing was damaged. Crocodile tears shed by partisan reactionary partisans.
It was a dumb prank that a decent judge will sentence with probation, community service, fine etc. And even if the courts convict and sentence them to jail time, they’ll be let off with good behaviour and the promise of a clean record. Then again, I still have a naïve faith in our legal system.
Kate 17:22 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
It’s true. Nobody died. Nobody was hurt. Some people were late for work.
Yes, it was a large-scale and effective prank. They need to get some kind of punishment, along Hamza’s lines. They don’t deserve to have their lives ruined.
Bill Binns 17:49 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
I don’t think it was a prank. It was an operation meant to bring attention to a cause. All mass evacuations are dangerous. Fire in occupied tunnels is dangerous. There are many laws on the books that will send you to jail for endangering the lives of others. I’m sure they have done all the jail time they will do. We have people walking around this town that have decapitated strangers and murdered their own children.
Marc 18:04 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
So someone has to die in order for an event to be called a terrorist act? Wow. That’s news to me!
Kate 18:53 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
@bill binns, there was no fire. There were smoke bombs, they don’t have flame.
@marc, how can it be called terrorism? No threats were made. No lives were in danger and it can’t have been too frightening, because afterwards we heard about annoyance and irritation but no panic. We should be careful not to stretch the definition of terrorism till it snaps.
Bill Binns 19:02 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
I have looked for and been unable to find a description of the devices. There are surely ways to make smoke bombs that do not burn but I imagine they would be more complicated to make and harder to use. Regular old smoke bombs from a fireworks store most certainly do have a flame that burns like a jet close to the device. Easily enough to start a grease fire on the tracks.
Kate 19:10 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
Yes, but they didn’t.
steph 19:10 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
It was mischief, not terrorism. from the pictures I’ve seen I’m pretty sure they were made with KNO3 (Potassium Nitrate) and baking soda – chemical reaction, no flames. http://shafaqna.com/english/media/k2/galleries/2708/1.jpg <<< link to photo from metro, not how to make a smoke bomb.
Ian 20:59 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
It’s definitely beyond pranking, as it had political intent – but calling it terrorism is going too far. Vandalism & mischief seems more appropriate. If we throw around the term terrorism too lightly, it loses meaning; a smoke bomb is not a pipe bomb. All said, though, that was a very, very stupid thing for those kids to do – so lightweight they can’t be called political martyrs, so serious they get federal records. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
walkerp 22:40 on 2012/06/06 Permalink
“grease fire on the tracks” lol, good one.
Links 6/7/11 « naked capitalism 05:58 on 2012/06/07 Permalink
[...] It isn’t even past: “A wave of suspicious packages [putatively] from the ‘Forces armées révolutionnaires du Québec’ [very 60s] landed in the mailboxes of various high-profile people and organizations Wednesday morning.” [...]
Hamza 06:44 on 2012/06/07 Permalink
From the george W bush guide to terrorism: 9/11? Terrorism. 7/7? Terrorism. Four kids throwing a smoke bomb into metro stations? Mehhhhh
TiGuy 06:50 on 2012/06/07 Permalink
Il est déplorable de vous lire en train de banaliser l’incident impliquant les bombes fumigènes dans le métro de Montréal. Soit dit en passant, les chefs d’accusation qui pèsent contre ces jeunes ne les accusent pas de terrorisme en soi. Informez-vous svp.
Kevin 07:51 on 2012/06/07 Permalink
I think they should have been charged for causing an environmental disaster. Hundreds of thousands of people had to use cars and diesel-fume spewing buses that day instead. Think of the smog!
Josh 11:00 on 2012/06/07 Permalink
“Yes, but they didn’t.”
So, “it might have been dangerous, it might have started a fire, but as it went, it didn’t” is a valid legal defence now? Depending on the type of device used, Kate (perhaps you know more about the specifics?), there could have been a fire, there could have been a bigger incident, there could have been danger to the public, and there are laws that keep those risks in check. These people violated those laws.
If you want to give them a slap on the wrist, you have to give that same slap on the wrist to everyone who thinks it might be fun to mess with public infrastructure and services.
Kate 11:48 on 2012/06/07 Permalink
Josh, you’re coming close to libelling me by implying I “know more” about the smoke bomb incidents.
My confidence that the perpetrators of these incidents did not intend real harm is this: they actually could have raised much bigger hell had they wanted to, but they did not. They limited themselves to a statement.
ant6n 18:07 on 2012/06/07 Permalink
@Josh
You can only punish people for what they do and in some very obvious cases what they intended to do. For example if you shoot somebody else and miss, you may be charged with attempted murder, whereas if you punch somebody in the face you cannot be punished for attempted murder based on the assumption that the person might have glass bones (unless they actually do, and it can be shown that you knew that).
In the same vein you cannot punish people for attempted arson if they used smoke bombs that are based on a chemical reaction that doesn’t result in a fire.
Josh 01:12 on 2012/06/08 Permalink
To me, what you said Kate, ruled out any possibility that the device could have turned into anything dangerous. You implied that there was just no way anything truly scary could have come from what they did. That’s ludicrous, frankly. If I misread it, sorry.