Anarchists claim they firebombed bank

[Argus]

Argus says,

So are you saying that these SUV driving fire bombers are not terrorists? They did not attack any population, they attacked property. The likely feel that their voice cannot be heard via the ballot box so thus their actions are acceptable. I am just wondering of these "Anarchists" are on-side with the boundaries you have drawn.

The people have every opportunity to make changes at the ballot boxes. That these particular individuals can't convince their fellow citizens of the importance of making those changes is irrelevant. The opportunity for change through democratic expressions of the will of the people is certainly there. That pretty much makes any politically sinspired violence terrorism, regardless of whether it was carried out against people or property.

[Argus]

The decision to bomb the bank in the middle of the night makes it hard to call this terrorism in the common-sense definition of terrorism at least. (that doesn't mean this couldn't be charged under Canada's anti-terrorism laws, however.)

If the bomb had gone off at an hour when the bank is full of people and promised more, then that's a message of terror directed at the bank's employees and customers.

No, it's definitely political terrorism. It's political violence committed against an institution in order to frighten that institution into changing its behavior, and as a warning to the government of more to come - given their rather wide list of complaints re the olympics, native rights, the environment, etc. And it's being done because they can't seem to convince many of their fellow citizens of the rightness of their cause, thus their resort to "direct action" as they euphemistically call their violence. Think of it as someone blowing up your house - while you were at work - as a warning they didn't like how you, and others like you behaved.

[dre]

Despite your amusing obsession with false "left/right" dichotomy, the reality is that people on both sides of the spectrum are beginning to realize that our entire financial and banking systems are built on theft and fraud, and for whatever reason they arent too thrilled about it. This is probably just the beginning.

As for your broken leftist / anarchist comparison, those two concepts are not even loosely connected. They are actually literal opposites with the "left" favoring a publically controlled and centrally planned economy, and anarchists favoring little or no central control and planning at all.

My apologies to Toad Brother for the post above. I meant to quote one of the clowns that think Anarchists are "leftist" not him.

[Sir Bandelot]

So when the Palestinains commit suicide bombings; when Reagan funded the terrorist Contras; and when these malcontents blew up a bank, with great potential hazard...justification is irrelevant. We have no right to judge such behaviours. Awesome.

i didn't say we have no right to judge it. I don't want you to misunderstand me here... just pointing out that we are in an era where people are now more willing to do extreme things to promote their causes. There is a perception that peaceful process, while tolerated has accomplished nothing. And we have many examples where our leadership takes steps to enforce their wishes, in what would be called criminal action just a few decades ago. There is no one to stop them. The concept of justice and tolerant behaviour cannot be taught in a greater way than the example given by our own leadership. As long as we as a society ignore this and look the other way, we breed the next generation of extremists.

[jbg]

The decision to bomb the bank in the middle of the night makes it hard to call this terrorism in the common-sense definition of terrorism at least. (that doesn't mean this couldn't be charged under Canada's anti-terrorism laws, however.)

I find it to be terrorism since the objective is still to scare peole into thinking that the next attack could turn a facility they're at into a steaming heap of rubble. The fact that a normally crowded facility is blown to smithereens when it's empty is cold comfort. Also it does inevitably cause inconvenience during normal hours, and endangers emergency service providers. Edited May 26, 2010 by jbg

[Sir Bandelot]

Also it does inevitably cause inconvenience during normal hours,

That's the problem with terrorism- so inconvenient

[Shwa]

The people have every opportunity to make changes at the ballot boxes. That these particular individuals can't convince their fellow citizens of the importance of making those changes is irrelevant. The opportunity for change through democratic expressions of the will of the people is certainly there. That pretty much makes any politically sinspired violence terrorism, regardless of whether it was carried out against people or property.

That's a fair thought, however, would you then submit to the majority, even when the majority commits terror? Is is the terror of the majority irrelvant in this case?

The point being that some of the people some of the time believe that the only way they can end or relieve the oppression and terror against them is with violence.

[bloodyminded]

i didn't say we have no right to judge it. I don't want you to misunderstand me here... just pointing out that we are in an era where people are now more willing to do extreme things to promote their causes. There is a perception that peaceful process, while tolerated has accomplished nothing. And we have many examples where our leadership takes steps to enforce their wishes, in what would be called criminal action just a few decades ago. There is no one to stop them. The concept of justice and tolerant behaviour cannot be taught in a greater way than the example given by our own leadership. As long as we as a society ignore this and look the other way, we breed the next generation of extremists.

Yes, I misperceived your assertion as approval, when it wasn't.

[kimmy]

Arrests made.

update: the mainstream media might not know much about this, but someone at at Babble posted this:

The following release is being circulated throughout the Ottawa-Gatineau activist community. Although it states that the names of the arrestees won't be released, they have since been widely reported in the media. The three arrestees are Roger Clément, Matt Morgan-Brown, and Claude Haridge. Most people involved in social justice issues in the Ottawa-Gatineau area will likely know one, if not all, of these activists from their years of involvement in labour struggles, First Nations solidarity, anti-poverty organizing, international solidarity movements, and more.

[Please forward to friends and allies]

URGENT COURT SUPPORT NEEDED SATURDAY 9:00AM IN OTTAWA

Saturday, June 19th

9:00 a.m.

Courtroom #6, Ottawa Courthouse

Elgin @ Laurier

Ottawa

Three people arrested in relation to Ottawa RBC Firebombing

On the morning of Friday, June 18th, 2010, three people were arrested in connection with the May 18th firebombing of an RBC branch in Ottawa. At least two of the people arrested were picked up by plainclothes officers. The police have been searching their homes. Plainclothes and uniformed officers were seen going inside their homes, and police cars were seen parked outside. It is not known what they are being charged with, although media outlets have indicated they will all be charged with arson related offenses.

Until we are able to confirm further details, we won’t be releasing the names of the 3 arrestees. But the arrested individuals are all well known, dedicated public organizers committed to working for justice on a variety of issues.

Please come out tomorrow morning to show your support for these three arrested individuals. We are concerned that the Crown may ask for highly restrictive bail conditions or attempt to prevent their release entirely.

More updates will follow, as details emerge. Right now, the most tangible way you can support these individuals is to join us at:

9:00am

Saturday, June 19th,

Elgin Courthouse (Elgin & Laurier)

Courtroom #6

For media inquiries, contact: 613-304-8770 or [email protected]

"Most people involved in social justice issues in the Ottawa-Gatineau area will likely know one, if not all, of these activists from their years of involvement in labour struggles, First Nations solidarity, anti-poverty organizing, international solidarity movements, and more."

See, Toadbrother? Not anarchists. Leftists.

-k

Edited June 19, 2010 by kimmy

[William Ashley]

Arrests made.

update: the mainstream media might not know much about this, but someone at at Babble posted this:

"Most people involved in social justice issues in the Ottawa-Gatineau area will likely know one, if not all, of these activists from their years of involvement in labour struggles, First Nations solidarity, anti-poverty organizing, international solidarity movements, and more."

See, Toadbrother? Not anarchists. Leftists.

-k

Question is though - did they do it- or are they being frame up to get rid of three people who don't support the government - at the time of the G8/G20 conventions?

[Argus]

Question is though - did they do it- or are they being frame up to get rid of three people who don't support the government - at the time of the G8/G20 conventions?

Don't be silly. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. It seems that Lefties don't understand that just because you rented an SUV to carry out an attack that doesn't mean the police can't find out who rented it - particularly when you use your own credit card. Idiots. A real terrorist would have stolen a car, but these are fat, smug, well-paid people with no connection to the kind of activities which gets your hands dirty. So what did these middle-class morons do? They went and rented a car to carry their explosives in, and drove it right up the street to the bank under the eyes of any number of cameras. So clever.

[jbg]

Somehow showing public support for criminals is rather depraved.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Somehow showing public support for criminals is rather depraved.

Its almost a national pass time here.

[Shwa]

Somehow showing public support for criminals is rather depraved.

Do you mean when they are charged, before they are tried or after they are convicted? Or are you referring to prison reforms or political prisoners?

[jbg]

Do you mean when they are charged, before they are tried or after they are convicted? Or are you referring to prison reforms or political prisoners?

I think these people are accused criminals. It's true that they haven't been convicted. However, the inclination, in your posts as well as on Rabble is to presume that an accused bank bomber is a "political prisoner".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think these people are accused criminals. It's true that they haven't been convicted. However, the inclination, in your posts as well as on Rabble is to presume that an accused bank bomber is a "political prisoner".

See what I mean?

[jbg]

Do you mean when they are charged, before they are tried or after they are convicted? Or are you referring to prison reforms or political prisoners?

I think these people are accused criminals. It's true that they haven't been convicted. However, the inclination, in your posts as well as on Rabble is to presume that an accused bank bomber is a "political prisoner".

See what I mean?

Apparently I'm too progressive for Babble since I've gotten banned there umpteen times.

[bloodyminded]

If the rumours and the accusations are correct, well, I find it a bit pathetic that those involved in matters such as "social justice" would be commititng arson and firebombings. There's no way to do this and be sure that no one will get hurt or killed. And that's not justice.

[Shwa]

I think these people are accused criminals. It's true that they haven't been convicted. However, the inclination, in your posts as well as on Rabble is to presume that an accused bank bomber is a "political prisoner".

In what "posts" do I incline to "these people" as "political prisoners?" Can you point this out for me please? Thanks!

[Peter F]

In what "posts" do I incline to "these people" as "political prisoners?" Can you point this out for me please? Thanks!

Jbg says rabble rabble do that, not you. But since he's been banned from rabble umpteen times it bugs his arse that rabbles rabble cant see him complain so he trolls here in some deranged fantasy that he's actually babbling on rabble

[jbg]

Jbg says rabble rabble do that, not you. But since he's been banned from rabble umpteen times it bugs his arse that rabbles rabble cant see him complain so he trolls here in some deranged fantasy that he's actually babbling on rabble

I'm ignoring that utterly inane post.

[Shwa]

I'm ignoring that utterly inane post.

Fair enough, but don't ignore mine:

I think these people are accused criminals. It's true that they haven't been convicted. However, the inclination, in your posts as well as on Rabble is to presume that an accused bank bomber is a "political prisoner".

In what "posts" do I incline to "these people" as "political prisoners?" Can you point this out for me please? Thanks!