Anarchists: We blow up mild-mannered and inoffensive people so you don’t have to!

By DeusExMacintosh

We blow up mild-mannered and innofensive people so you don't have to.

A suspected bomb has exploded at the Swiss embassy in the Greek capital Athens, a day after four parcel bombs were found in the city.

Police said the device was thrown into a courtyard at the embassy and no casualties have been reported.

Controlled explosions were also carried out on packages at the Bulgarian embassy and outside parliament. The BBC’s Malcolm Brabant in Athens says it appears to be a co-ordinated attack by an extreme left-wing group.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy was among the intended recipients of one of four devices discovered on Monday, police said. Another of the bombs, addressed to the Mexican embassy in Athens, exploded in the offices of a private courier company, injuring an employee. The other two parcels were addressed to the Belgian and Dutch embassies.

Two men were arrested in connection with the devices…

Terrorism experts suspect the co-ordinated campaign is the work of a group called the Conspiracy of the Cells of Fire, which is trying to spark revolution in Greece during the current period of austerity.

BBC News


  1. TerjeP
    Posted November 3, 2010 at 3:18 am | Permalink

    Following the intended Greek revolution will the anarchists form a new government? Or are they actually genuine anarchists? I suspect they are anarchist in name only.

  2. Posted November 3, 2010 at 5:12 am | Permalink

    Ah Greece: the home of the politics of illusion. With occasional violence.

  3. Jacques Chester
    Posted November 3, 2010 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    LE — it’s because revolution dissolves all social bonds, structures and hierarchies, allowing psychopaths an unimpeded rise to the top.

  4. Jacques Chester
    Posted November 3, 2010 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    Well, not totally unimpeded. They need to be more ruthless than other psychopaths. A chaotic, destructive bubble sort of evil.

  5. Posted November 3, 2010 at 6:37 am | Permalink

    How useful are bombing campaigns to the perpetrators? The King David Hotel bombing started what was probably the most “successful” campaign in recent times, the IRA’s less so. I’m having trouble figuring out when it leads to the notional ends desired by the criminals, and when it is counterproductive. If I /can/ figure it out, maybe that’s the key to Terje’s question, which in this case, probably reflects not just misguided idiots, but essentially malicious types just looking for a pretext to be nasty.
    In the current context, I can understand the “thinking” behind targetting a banking-based state, but Bulgaria??

  6. Peter Patton
    Posted November 3, 2010 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    The King David Hotel bombing started what was probably the most “successful” campaign in recent times

    That got rid of foreign colonial power; somewhat different to the Greek situation.

  7. Posted November 3, 2010 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    I’m sorry, but ‘Conspiracy of the Cells of Fire’ sounds suspiciously like a line from a Johnny Cash song: ‘I fell into a burning ring of fire…’

    And Belgium? The Netherlands? Mexico? What are they thinking?

  8. Peter Patton
    Posted November 3, 2010 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    And it burrrns, burrrns, burrrns, the ring of fiire, the ring of fiiire!!

  9. Posted November 3, 2010 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    There is no reason why bomb-makers cannot be engaged in a shared fantasy.

    [email protected] Michael Collins’ campaign in the Irish War of Independence worked too: but it has some similarities to the Palestine case. Where folk have nowhere else to go — the Prots in Ulster, the Israelis, the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka — bombing campaigns do not tend to work.

    [email protected],@5 Very nicely put.

  10. Peter Patton
    Posted November 3, 2010 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    By rights, those Brits who survived should thank the Zionists.

  11. kvd
    Posted November 3, 2010 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry, but ‘Conspiracy of the Cells of Fire’ sounds suspiciously like

    another lead in to another brown coal-fired thread.

    In an effort to lower the tone (temperature?) I checked to see if I could translate this into Na’vi – but no luck. Carry on.

  12. Posted November 3, 2010 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    kvd: Nooooooooo!

  13. Posted November 3, 2010 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    [email protected]: Thanks for that… So… I suppose the only thing that can be driven away is not people, but capital when it is needed the most.

    … but anybody who reckons such extremes are necessary would reckon it’ll collapse soon anyway, so they should keep their hands clean to take popular power more easily when the collapse comes.

    As this isn’t targetting the capabilities of a regime (e.g. a communications facility in a surveillance state), it’s just a pack of nasty nutters with a manifesto of “we got bored just throwing bricks through windows” or “see, we said you weren’t spending enough on mental health”.

    So… What to do? Up surveillance? Up spending on diagnosis of mental health problems and lowering the stressors that can tip people over the edge? Shoot delinquent teenagers?

  14. Posted November 3, 2010 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    In the current context, I can understand the “thinking” behind targetting a banking-based state, but Bulgaria?

    Who would of thought that anarchism could seem so… RANDOM.


  15. Posted November 3, 2010 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    [email protected] said “anarchists… random”

    Yeah… Random logic, like we nasty big state types might view anarchy, no government, as the logical consequence of small government tea partiers – many of them in the US want the right to bear arms, as long as those arms don’t have lefty names like molotov cocktails.

    (similar buccal stretchmarks folks, playing on words, not picking a fight with my rightie friends here)

  16. Patrick
    Posted November 4, 2010 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    In fact, that is a useful definition of a big government-type: someone for whom small-government equates to anarchy.

    It’s odd how often it is necessary to remind liberals of this, but have some faith in your fellow man!

    Or I could wonder what kind of person indeed isn’t ashamed to associate themselves (a ‘lefty’ weapon) with an essentially random weapon – no wonder you guys hate targeted killing!! All that precision, it’s like murder, much better to just send bombs and throw molotov cocktails! It’s so ‘random’ that you can’t possibly be responsible for the suffering caused…

  17. Posted November 4, 2010 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    [email protected]: I abhor killing or injury, random or targetted, by states, groups or individuals.

    I’d also point to the random, but epidemiologically predicatable untimely deaths such as the one DEM described, the misery and death probably caused by the unfair hassles with the social benefits system, a destructive policy thrown at a vulnerable community by a group of UK parliamentarians, chanting “we oppress and demonise the vulnerable so you don’t have to“.

    There are uncaring callous hearts out there, wrapped in the pretext of political ideologies. Decent folk of right and left persuasions must figure out a way of removing such evil attitudes and capabilities from these heartless extremists.

    Lefty “property is theft” types should never reject automatically the ideas of the broad-spectrum libertarians.

    DEM has highlighted the problem: my lefty perspective comes up with ideas of increased spending on education (slow), mental health (quicker perhaps) and removing causes of disgruntlement by lowering the GINI (slow, and sadly unlikely to be implemented). What do the righties here (a decent and smart bunch of folk I regard as my protagonists, not antagonists) suggest from their perspectives? The more solutions on offer, the better the chance we can minimize cruelty like that highlighted in DEM’s post.

  18. Patrick
    Posted November 4, 2010 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    The first obstacle is that your perspective is one of entrenched entitlements, in which any reduction is a ‘cut’ to benefits (bad) – this is at the heart of the French unions’ greivances. (It is also contrary to my understanding of your perspective on retirement in the next thread!)

    Most righties have a perspective from which the starting point is nil, so a reduction is lower spending (good).

    Or to put it another way, perhaps less likely to offend the overly delicate, lefties talk about what else the Government can spend money on whereas righties talk about what should the Government spend money on.

  19. Posted November 4, 2010 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Another important right-leaning idea is to ask whether increased expenditure will even work. New Labour threw money at the NHS, with — and this I concede — the best will in the world. It achieved precisely squat. Libertarians always ask cui bono when it comes to government largesse, often because they’re aware of structural problems with government expenditure, or how it can be gamed: see, ‘public choice economics’.

    This kind of difficulty can’t be wished away. It has to be acknowledged, and sometimes it means a government programme simply has to be scrapped, despite the (apparent) injustice.

  20. Peter Patton
    Posted November 4, 2010 at 10:33 am | Permalink


    Quite. I do believe gov’t has a positive role to play in some income redistribution, but I am now convinced of the superiority of direct cash transfers, rather than sending that cash to intermediate government-owned service providers.

  21. Peter Patton
    Posted November 4, 2010 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    And having lived in the UK myself, I found the NHS Dickensian. Truly vile. Somebody said the NHS is brilliant if you are dying of cancer, but rat shit for more mundane ailments. I agree.

  22. Posted November 4, 2010 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    [email protected] Normal criminal law enforcement. Seriously, an occasional outburst like this happens, one just deals. I am reminded of King Umberto’s comment after a failed assassination attempt “a hazard of the job”. The IRA in Ulster, the Red Army Fraction, the Japanese terrorists, they were all beaten by grinding police work with occasional military back up.

    It is things with a seriously international element involving difficult jurisdictions where things get hairier.

  23. Posted November 4, 2010 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    [email protected] That’s basically my position too.

    [email protected] One notices that no one has felt inclined to copy the NHS, but it is often used as a Horrible Example.

  24. Posted November 4, 2010 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    I am reminded of a Cold War joke. The two biggest employers in Europe are the Red Army and the NHS: the defense of Western Europe rests on the proposition that the former is as inefficient as the latter.

    Post Chechenya, we now know that was true!

  25. Posted November 4, 2010 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    Lorenzo, that joke is very grim… and very true, alas.

  26. Posted November 5, 2010 at 2:49 am | Permalink

    The NHS is big. You have no idea how massive. Free public healthcare at the point of provision for over 61 MILLION people nationally… it’s a scale almost impossible to manage unless you start resorting to army-ish command and control structures which just don’t work in a) civvie street or b) the public service. Like steering a supertanker the surprise is not that it takes so long to turn but that it is even possible!

One Trackback

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John Hacking, Legal Eagle. Legal Eagle said: Anarchists: We blow up mild-mannered and inoffensive people so you don’t have to!: A suspected bomb has exploded a… […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *