French anarchists linked to New York bombing

TELEGRAPH.co.uk ^ | Last Updated: 1:48AM GMT 14 Nov 2008 | Henry Samuel in Paris

[Cindy]

SNIPPET: "A French couple arrested in connection with a series of anarchist attacks on the country's rail network have been linked by the FBI to a bomb attack in New York."

ARTICLE SNIPPET: "French anti-terrorist police are holding 10 alleged members of a violent anarchist movement suspected of sabotaging power cables on high speed TGV train lines.

But it now transpires that the alleged culprits were netted thanks to information from the FBI, which allegedly linked two of them to the home-made bomb attack on an army recruitment centre in New York's Times Square in March.

Julien Coupat, 34, the suspected head of the "anarcho-autonomist" group, and his 25-year old girlfriend, known only as Yldune L, were stopped allegedly trying to enter Canada from the US illegally in January. It was claimed they were carrying anarchist texts in English and photos of an army recruitment centre in New York.

Although they had left the US before the bomb attack, they had allegedly been spotted shortly before at American anarchist meetings in New York. Tipped off by the FBI, France's domestic intelligence services and anti-terrorist police had been watching them for months in a tiny village in the Corrèze region, central France."

[Doctor Raoul]

Obama values voters.

[RDTF]

wow

[omega4179]

they where just some people from John Kerry’s neighborhood in France.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Should’ve known they were French, since they rode bicycles. No self-respecting American terrorist would be caught dead on a bicycle.

[wastedyears]

Well we all thought it was just some random leftist that left the bomb there. I don’t think any of us could have thought it would have been a French anarchist.

Sarkozy won’t take lightly to it. I imagine he may extradite the bastid to us.

[Knightmixer]

I've always found it interesting that these so-called anarchists are really just advocating another form of statism (Marxism, communism, socialism). While publicly espousing anti-government rhetoric, they still preach the anti-capitalist mantra. I never understood how someone could be against a government yet still want an economic system that requires in itself a governmental structure. Of course the answer is that you can't. Real anarchists are a rare breed. Their worldview is based on the individual and would rather just be left alone. As an earlier poster mentioned, these wannabes probably thought it was trendy to call themselves anarchists.

[Vaquero]

well I was going to suggest extradition.

but the French are far more conservative than an Obama presidency and we have a better chance at justice from France.

what the hell is happening here?

[PLMerite]

“Honestly, I think a lot of these folks have this warm, fuzzy idea of just not having to follow rules. That we’ll all share our raisins and our weed and it will be like some big Dead show. We’d all be happy and free if we just didn’t have to follow those mean, nasty rules... or something. At least that’s what my Anarchist thought, and he could have been just particularly stupid.”

I don’t think any of them give much thought to what happens after they’ve scavenged the last can of dog food from the remains of the grocery store.

I think that mindset carries over into a lot of Dhim voters. They think some people are going to put extra work in just to get the same slice of pie that sloths get. That “from each/to each” thing doesn’t stand up well to reality.

I do hope your anarchist friend saw enough of the light to become a centrist if not a conservative.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Funny, both of them were from extremely well connected, wealthy families in which the father either owned a thoroughbred farm or was an attorney."

One thing that just about all of these radicals have in common is a daddy and mommy who are well connected and make a lot of money. Funny how the extreme radicals/anrachists/lefties never come from families where people have to work hard to put the food on the table.

[M203M4]

Anarchists don't put much thought into their propositions - together with the (unsurprising) fact that there is no cohesive movement to speak of, anarchists are not a homogeneous set.

Some think that social order is just a cultural artifact, and that absent the "cultural accident" that initiated societies, humans would wander in mating pairs plus young offspring. Don't ask me what these people want. Ignorant.

Some skip the thinking part and just want to sh*t on the floor. These people just want to break things, and most are either deranged or like to pretend to be. Some of these people may be drawn to criminality for a variety of reasons, but ultimately will blame their actions upon some ulterior lofty notions. Insane.

There is the anarcho-primitivist model, where rape and murder are approved social processes (or, at best ascribe something akin to 'street justice' to deal with any set of infractions against any set of rules that any individual respects), private property does not exist (beyond what one can defend), etc. Sometimes this model is intertwined with ecological arguments, arguments about the carrying capacity of habitats, and so on. Some put these flavors as distinct groups. Amoral, naive.

There is the anarcho-libertarian model, replete with all sorts of rosy assumptions about the good nature of man. These people generally start from a deeply flawed set of axioms and derive a perfectly logical theory of society.

Some think that "spontaneous order" will naturally form between humans as groups are formed and specialization is sought, and that our political impulses should be directed at minimizing the size and scope of these group interactions (involuntary especially, but some go as far as to dislike voluntary collaborations on large scales, for a variety of reasons). For some, one goal would be to suppress the formation of social groups beyond tribes (several hundred people). Idealistic.

The notion that the government is not the only entity capable of tyranny somehow escapes most in this set; though there is a sub-group of the above which accepts some limited government ("the night watchman state"), so are more aptly grouped together with the sane 'minarchists' but insist on clinging to the "anarchist" label. It is either semantics or I am not understanding something about their philosophy. Semantically confused.

I think the most common is the "angry rebel" model, which splits into two subgroups.

The first is composed of wealthy, bitter, guilt-ridden folks (mostly white youths, at least in the West) who want to establish that they are not personally responsible for some set of social ills - to absolve themselves of the 'crimes' of "their class". They blame the plight of the poor on their own wealth (a sort of zero-sum, self-flagellating fiction) and view the status quo (in its entirety) as something to blindly disrespect - sort of an anti-traditionalism more than being pro-anything. Targets of their ire are corporations, any authority figures, accumulated wealth in any form, private property, etc. Ecological themes are now commonly blended in, Marxism may or may not enter - this movement is distinctly NOT intellectual. The goal is to feel less guilty for their material wealth and privileged upbringing. Violence is not likely. Spoiled, immature.

Type-II anarchist rebels are either extremely poor or find themselves in some other unfavorable circumstances, and are uncommon (but not absent) in America (some in America like to envision themselves as being part of this group, but are most likely part of type-I). They blame their own plight on the prosperity of others, saying that they somehow must have been "exploited" for others to have benefited. These are the savages/ignorant masses used to bolster the ranks (and do the dirty work) of the Marxist intellectuals, and beyond all groups but the insane, are the most likely to resort to violence. Their goals are redistribution of wealth and the application of a penalty to the "exploiters" and/or "colonialists" - a Marxism without the philosophical underpinnings. Evil.

In summary, anarchists range from insane to evil to stupid to merely being confused about what to call themselves.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

You can tell it’s a French anarchist, because their white flag has a SLIGHT pinkish hue.

[libs_kma]

"I bet Barack Obama is friends with them."

Now wait a minute. There's no evidence that Obama even knew these terrorists so how could he be friends with them?

But now that he knows what they did, he may become friends with them based on your argument that they're his kind of people. I'll give you that.

[penelopesire]

Yet again, Americans have to read the European papers to find out what is going on in our own country! It is truly stunning.

[jessduntno]

One of the great oxymorons of our time - an anarchist association...

[PapaBear3625]

I’ve never understood “anarchists.” What is their goal?

They are against government protection of the private property of anybody whose wealth they want to take. They consider themselves the vanguard of the communist revolution. They aren't really against government -- they are against liberty.

[monday]

“They can’t really want the breakdown of society, ‘cause none of them are suited to be anything more than parasites.”

They want to die but are too cowardly to kill themselves.

[Magnatron]

“I’ve never understood “anarchists.” What is their goal? They can’t really want the breakdown of society, ‘cause none of them are suited to be anything more than parasites.”

I’ve never really understood why so many anarchists show up at left wing events. I thought the basic tenant of anarchy is a complete total lack of government authority - sort of like libertarianism gone wild.

But then again, a lot of my libertarian friends vote Democrat, too.

...go figure.

[piasa]

Wow. Nice of the MSM to tell America about this string of bombings...

[piasa]

MARCH 15, 2007 : (SACRAMENTO, CA : SUSPICIOUS RAILROAD TRESTLE FIRE -- See MORAN-MARQUES) Union Pacific Railroad trestle that was destroyed March 15, 2007, in what investigators said was an arson fire. The fire destroyed 1,400 feet of the trestle, cutting one of the railroad's main east-west arteries. It moved so quickly that within hours, investigators were describing the blaze as suspicious.
Although Moran-Marques was the only suspect in the deliberately set fire, he was never charged with arson. He pleaded guilty late last year to giving a false name to an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
After serving his time, Moran-Marques was deported back to his native El Salvador. He was last seen by Anderson and McElheney in the area of the fire in May, just a few weeks after being deported. "When we saw him, we ran a check on him. He had no warrants, no holds, no probation, nothing," Anderson said of Moran-Marques. -------Suspect in trestle fire rearrested on probation

[maclay]

Sound’s more like Chomsky’s crew to me.