# May 2010 Attack on Ottawa Bank:  Arson or terrorism?



## The Bread Guy

This from CTV.ca:


> Terrorism charges may be levelled against those responsible for the firebombing of an RBC bank branch in Ottawa once investigators determine the motivation behind the attack, police said Wednesday.
> 
> An anarchist group claimed responsibility for the blaze, which broke out in the early hours of Tuesday morning, moments after witnesses saw a group of three or four men fleeing from the scene in Ottawa's trendy Glebe neighbourhood.
> 
> Within hours, a video was posted online that showed shadowy figures inside the bank's foyer at about 3:30 a.m. on the morning of the blaze. As the two people dash out the door, a wall of flames flashes inside the bank.
> ( .... )
> 
> Acting inspector Don Sweet of the Ottawa police told CTV's Power Play Wednesday that for now, authorities are conducting an arson investigation into the blaze.
> 
> But when asked why the attack is not being investigated as an act of terrorism, Sweet said the investigation could very well head in that direction.
> 
> "When we get further at the intent, or if we can get to that, that's when we may expand this and look at other criminal charges when we get to that point in the investigation," Sweet said.
> 
> "Clearly based on the target that was hit, the posting that was put out there, the other information we're working on, we are looking towards that part of it. But at the time right now we are in an arson investigation and when we get to that next level, if we do, then we will expand it to include other charges if applicable." ....



Here's where the anarchist statement claiming responsibility is:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/92495/post-935487.html#msg935487

And here's the Criminal Code's definition of "terrorism" - highlights mine:


> “terrorist activity” means
> (a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:
> 
> (i) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970,
> 
> (ii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971,
> 
> (iii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3) that implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1973,
> 
> (iv) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.1) that implement the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 17, 1979,
> 
> (v) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.4) or (3.6) that implement the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna and New York on March 3, 1980,
> 
> (vi) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on February 24, 1988,
> 
> (vii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,
> 
> (viii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) or (2.2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,
> 
> (ix) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.72) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15, 1997, and
> 
> (x) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.73) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1999, or
> (b) *an act or omission, in or outside Canada,*
> 
> (i) that is committed
> 
> (A) *in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause*, and
> 
> (B) *in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security*, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
> 
> (ii) *that intentionally
> 
> (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
> 
> (B) endangers a person’s life,
> 
> (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
> 
> (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
> 
> (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),*
> 
> and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.



All are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That said, for me, it FEELS like terrorism, but a lawyer may be able to say, "although there was substantial property damage, the intent was NOT to kill or hurt anyone, therefore it doesn't fit the whole bill - arsonists, yes, terrorists, no".


----------



## krustyrl

bottom line is it was wilful destruction with the possibility of fatalities.?        :rage:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Hmmm. Not much different than what is going on in Caledonia, but McSquinty, Fantino and the liebrals would rather bury their heads in the sand than call that exactly what it is. Domestic terrorism.


----------



## Remius

I'm inclined to agree that it's terrorism.

They caused substantial damage and I would argue that they did endanger lives by putting response teams at risk of injury or death as well as diverting ressources.  Diverting ressources puts the public at risk as well.  They intended to cause damage and section D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), clearly covers that.

The fact that they supported the whole thing with political and ideological propaganda seals it.  Plus they are threatening to do it again.  Can we realistically say they aren't a danger to the public and lives are not at risk?


----------



## Old Sweat

Both the Minister of Public Safety and the Ottawa Chief of Police were interviewed separately on CFRA Radio this morning re this incident. The Minister described the incident as "terrorism," while the Chief called the perpetrators "domestic terrorists."


----------



## SeanNewman

krustyrl said:
			
		

> bottom line is it was wilful destruction with the possibility of fatalities.?        :rage:



I would agree to the first of your criteria but not the second.

Yes, of course to be literal any act of violence has the _potential_ to kill people, but I can not see them choosing 0330 hrs if they had an intent to kill people.

If fatalities were their intent it would have been done at 1230 hrs.


----------



## The Bread Guy

_- edited to add Ottawa Citizen bits -_



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Both the Minister of Public Safety and the Ottawa Chief of Police were interviewed separately on CFRA Radio this morning re this incident. The Minister described the incident as "terrorism," while the Chief called the perpetrators "domestic terrorists."


Interesting - here's what CTV Ottawa is sharing with the world:


> .... Police call it an act of domestic terrorism .... A former senior intelligence officer with CSIS told CTV News Channel the group's actions will likely heighten security at the upcoming international meetings.
> 
> "It reveals the vulnerability of society in general and this is what is so shocking for the general public, this is what is so worrisome for the authorities," said Michel Juneau-Katsuya.
> 
> "These guys have crossed a line now and the Anti-Terrorist Act can be used against them because they basically did an act of terrorism and that is taken very, very seriously."
> 
> However, police insist their case remains an arson investigation. Police say they need to look at the motivation behind the attack to determine if any other charges will be laid.
> 
> "We have limited information right now that we are prepared to release in regards to the suspect," said Acting Insp. Don Sweet of the Ottawa police. He added the tech unit is now looking at the video.
> 
> The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies says the next step is to determine if the attack can be considered a possible terror threat.
> 
> "If it can be shown through the writings or through the individuals involved, once they've been identified that they were intending to just act out their anger against the Royal Bank, then that's a criminal activity and it's arson," said senior researcher Tom Quiggin.
> 
> "If however, their intent is to create a larger atmosphere of fear and intimidation in an attempt to change what the policymakers think at the G20 or the G8 conference or to change the direction that the Royal Bank is taking, then that rises to the level of terrorism." ....



And more from the _Ottawa Citizen_:


> .... Ottawa police and the RCMP are confident that the homegrown terrorists would be captured.
> 
> Chief Vern White said Wednesday night police have some good leads, but catching the suspects won’t be easy.
> 
> “I understand the public’s concern,” he said. “It’s as scary for us as it is for them. This is a city that is typically untouched by this type of activity.
> 
> I will argue these are domestic terrorists.” ....


----------



## Remius

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I would agree to the first of your criteria but not the second.
> 
> Yes, of course to be literal any act of violence has the _potential_ to kill people, but I can not see them choosing 0330 hrs if they had an intent to kill people.
> 
> If fatalities were their intent it would have been done at 1230 hrs.



Yes, but the law clearly states that if the act causes serious damage that is likely to cause harm or death, whether they intended to kill or not is irrelevant.  The intent is to cause damage that can lead to likely harm and or death.  They fire bombed a bank in an urban environment.  A fire that could have spread.  If they had taken baseball bats to the windows or thrown paint bombs through the windows it would be a different story.  And again they are spouting ideological propaganda and are threatening to do it again.  Public safety is at risk.


----------



## The Bread Guy

One oldish fart's breakdown, for discussion from the CCC definition:



> an act or omission, in or outside Canada,


Check



> (i) that is committed
> 
> (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause


At least one statement suggesting this - check



> (B) *in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security*, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada,


Good case to be made for intimidation - check.



> *and (ii) that intentionally*
> 
> (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,


Not THIS time, but note the word "intentionally" - I'm not a lawyer, but I read that as needing intent to kill/hurt (1st degree murder vs. manslaughter sort of distinction).  I'm thinking a lawyer can point to the fact that it was late at night and (I'm guessing) recce'ed to minimize chances of collateral damage.  This would likely be the biggest wedge the defense could drive into the terrorism case - watch for it when these folks face the music in the courts.



> (B) endangers a person’s life,


There's a case to be made others were endangered in the building, but same as above - intent needed.



> (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,


Same as above - intent needed.



> (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C)


Intent to damage looks like it can be proven (given the statement and others like it out there), but given the hour of the attack, and if a recce was done, how "likely" is it that there would be death or injury?



> or (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),


Multiple banks being put out of commission by a hack?  Maybe.  One branch closed?  Hard to make a case for "serious interference (or) disruption of an essential service, facility or system".

That said, if you can't legally pin "terrorist" on them, I'm OK with high-end sentence for arson:


> Arson — damage to property
> 434. Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property that is not wholly owned by that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term *not exceeding fourteen years.*
> 
> R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 434; 1990, c. 15, s. 1.


Hell, if you want to be a stickler, what about any jerry cans of gas found in ANY accomplice's car, van or garage?  ;D


> Possession of incendiary material
> 436.1 Every person who possesses any incendiary material, incendiary device or explosive substance for the purpose of committing an offence under any of sections 433 to 436 is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
> 
> 1990, c. 15, s. 1.


----------



## Remius

So then how would you classify the pipeline bombings out west?  Vandalism?  Mischief?  I think it's pretty clear what it is even if the "intent" isn't to kill anyone.

This goes beyond simple arson or vandalism.  I applaud the police labelling this terrorism.  These people need to be dealt with harshly and with the full force of the law.  I'm pretty sure this group didn't go in there with the intention of being labelled terrorists.  Other groups seing the kind of attention this is drawing might think twice if there is the fear of being labelled a terrorrist group.


----------



## SeanNewman

Crantor,

I don't think anyone is questioning your assertion that worse things could have happened here had the fire spread or if people had walked by, etc.

However, while I am by no means defending the people who did it I do believe that upon their sentencing it should be noted that killing a large group of people was not their intent.

If you convicted everyone *for things that could have gone wrong* due to their actions, just about all of us would be in jail.  You could make the argument that someone driving 110 in a 100 km/h zone _could have _ lost control of their  car and taken out a bus full of kids, but it didn't actually happen.

Obviously fire bombing and speeding aren't in the same ball park, but I for one am very happy that they "only" did what they did and that they didn't do it when the bank was full.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Crantor said:
			
		

> So then how would you classify the pipeline bombings out west?  Vandalism?  Mischief?  I think it's pretty clear what it is even if the "intent" isn't to kill anyone.


What do _I_ call it?  Terrorism, plain and simple, just like this incident.  I agree with you.

What will _the courts_ call it?  One can hope, but I'm not confident.


----------



## Remius

Petamocto:

Well the question is whether it is arson or terrorism.  This isn't some guy angry with his neighbour and torches his shed.  It was a criminal act with political and ideological overtones designed to send a message to the "establishment". 

I'm not saying charge them with crimes they didn't commit.

But don't call it arson when it's something far more serious.


----------



## Neill McKay

Crantor said:
			
		

> So then how would you classify the pipeline bombings out west?  Vandalism?  Mischief?  I think it's pretty clear what it is even if the "intent" isn't to kill anyone.



An argument could probably be made for calling it sabotage.



> This goes beyond simple arson or vandalism.  I applaud the police labelling this terrorism.  These people need to be dealt with harshly and with the full force of the law.  I'm pretty sure this group didn't go in there with the intention of being labelled terrorists.



But isn't that at the core of what a terrorist is -- someone who intends to be known as one?  After all, terrorism is one of the few crimes for which anyone even claims responsibility.  Most criminals deny responsibility.

For me, as a layman, terrorism is something that is intended to cause terror.  Slamming airplanes full of people into buildings in a densely populated city is an easy "yes".  Bombing a remote pipeline isn't so clear-cut.  Setting fire to an empty building seems like a tougher argument.


----------



## Journeyman

As noted in "The Views of Canadian Scholars on the Impact of the _Anti-Terrorism Act_," available here, you'll end up chasing your tail without result trying to find an agreed definition.


> *2.2.3 Defining Terrorism*
> The definition issue has proved to be the black hole of terrorism studies. Terrorism is a political issue, and many definitions (there are hundreds) have taken on a political or normative, values laden character. As a result, experts have conceded that there is no single definition of terrorism, and have fallen back on a description of common features. Regardless of identity of the perpetrators, the reason for their actions, or the merits of their cause, there is general agreement that their actions could be classified as sub-state terrorism if they meet the following criteria:
> 1) The actions are undertaken as a form of warfare or violent politics;
> 2) The objectives are political, not for personal gain, and the impact is societal;
> 3) The actions include violent criminal techniques, such as murder, arson, bombing and
> extortion, for instrumental or punitive purposes, and/or to create a climate of extreme fear
> (i.e., terror) to induce compliance with the terrorists' objectives;
> 4) The attacks usually are selective in intent and objective, but appear to be indiscriminate
> in effect to enhance the surprise and shock factor that creates the climate of fear;
> 5) The attacks are conducted in a manner to send messages to a number of targets and
> audiences regarding the intentions and goals of the terrorists - a violent form of political
> communication;
> 6) The attacks project an image of power and omnipotence for states, groups, or persons
> whose real power is actually very limited; and,
> 7) The perpetrators are organized and operate secretly, both to ensure their security and to
> enhance the surprise/shock - and terror - effects of their actions.


By focusing upon common features of terrorist acts, rather than a textbook definition, this bombing certainly meets the criteria.


----------



## mariomike

"An anarchist group claimed responsibility for the blaze"

It's been about forty years since the "Anarchist Cookbook" came out. I never read it, but I think there were instructions for booby traps. That would be on my mind if sent on such a call. 

This is some legislation regarding traps. It seems to have been written for drug dealers. But, perhaps it would also apply to anarchists.:
http://www.iaff.org/canada/archive/c14_enacted.htm


----------



## George Wallace

Interestingly enough Friitz Fun Food was a frie joint two blocks north of this bank in on Bank Street.  It is now a Starbucks.  Makes me wonder if a crew of Yuppies may have been frequenting this community for some time and decided to do some after hours acitivities.


----------



## mellian

I consider it Arson/Vandalism. I hope they are not connected to one of the groups I am familiar with in Ottawa.


----------



## mellian

krustyrl said:
			
		

> bottom line is it was wilful destruction with the possibility of fatalities.?        :rage:



Considering they did it during a part of the night where is there no other people around inside or out, it is safe to say their intention is not to harm anyone. The glebe around 3am is pretty deserted with only the occasional car going by.


----------



## George Wallace

A raging fire in an older section of the city doesn't care if it is the middle of the night or the middle of the day.  Had the fire spread to other buildings nearby, the outcome could have been quite tragic.  The fact that these people took a practice used by jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan and other locations, of video taping their act, tells us that they are some really sick puppies.  It also tells us that there are three or more persons involved.  If you go to Google Maps and Street View, you can walk throught the neighbourhood and see the layout of the land.   As a small group, they could be quite unpredictable, and perhaps quite fanatical.


----------



## krustyrl

mellian said:
			
		

> I consider it Arson/Vandalism. I hope they are not connected to one of the groups I am familiar with in Ottawa.




And you would be making this "consideration" in which capacity.?


----------



## riggermade

mellian said:
			
		

> Considering they did it during a part of the night where is there no other people around inside or out, it is safe to say their intention is not to harm anyone. The glebe around 3am is pretty deserted with only the occasional car going by.



And how do you know what their intention was?  There still could have been alot of people hurt.  If you are going to comment at least try and say something intelligent


----------



## The Bread Guy

- edited to add CBC.ca story - 



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> It's been about forty years since the "Anarchist Cookbook" came out. I never read it, but I think there were instructions for booby traps.


Gee, shame there's so many mistakes in that book - or so I hear.....

Meanwhile, police are picking up the electronic crumbs on the trail - this from CBC.ca:


> Ottawa police are "extremely confident" they will make arrests in the recent firebombing of a Royal Bank branch, says Chief Vern White.
> 
> "When a community is terrorized by activities of a group based in ideology, that's terrorism and that's what I believed happened here - this is domestic terrorism," White told CBC News on Thursday. "And we'll treat it as such."
> 
> He added that police have strong leads already, partly because the purported arsonists posted a video of the incident online.
> 
> "We do have strong leads...I'm extremely confident that we're on the right path and that we will make arrests," White said, noting he doesn't say that very often ....


----------



## SeanNewman

Riggermade,

Mellian probably said that for the same reason a lot of other people have:  Because they did not do it in the middle of the day when there were people there.

Have we interviewed the people involved to get their motive?  Of course not.  Could their actions have hurt someone if they fire had spread?  Of course.

However, the fact that they did it at 0330 instead of 1200 hrs speaks volumes to their intent.


----------



## mariomike

Petamocto said:
			
		

> However, the fact that they did it at 0330 instead of 1200 hrs speaks volumes to their intent.



I think it shows their intent was not to be seen by using cover of darkness.


----------



## Scott

mariomike said:
			
		

> I think it shows their intent was not to be seen by using cover of darkness.



This isn't directed at you mariomike, because you obviously got it...

D'uh!


----------



## ModlrMike

The timing of the act is completely irrelevant. Their intent was: through violence, to force the Government(s) to accede to their wishes and to advance their agenda. 

Terrorism plain and simple


----------



## mellian

With no specific definition, can call nearly all crimes terrorism. It is harming or risking to harm people, and causing fear? Terrorism! Flipping a car over and breaking windows because the Habs won/lose? Terrorism! Drinking and driving? Terrorism! Not looking forward to the day anti-terrorism act can be applied to anything. 

Yes, their intent has not been fully investigated yet mainly because they do not have them, yes the fire could have spread to other nearby buildings and remotely harm people that may or may not still be in those buildings, and yes what they did is outright stupid and even more so posting it anywhere online. 

Yes there is the cover of the night factor, but why that particular RBC? What about the one downtown, or any other in Ottawa? Close to downtown in Ottawa, yet not a RBC that is part of a high rise or other buildings. The one they hit is isolated from the nearby buildings and also relatively newer contruct. The purpose is to get some kind of message across, via some stupid theatric manner, and post it on Ottawa Independent Media Center? Heck, watching the video and other evidence that can be gleamed online, there is no indication that they are even anarchists. 

Sorry, but to me that tells me they are just some dumb asses who thought it was good idea to do this because of the silly reasoning that they would be ignored otherwise, not out to cause property damage for the sake of property damage or harm anyone. 

Do I condone this? Hell no! My consideration is someone that was born and raise in Ottawa, and familiar with the activism that goes on there and some elsewhere. Worse, they provided an excuse to apply terrorism charges on other dumb ass crimes and label even more activist groups as potential terrorists.  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones

mellian said:
			
		

> With no specific definition, can call nearly all crimes terrorism. It is harming or risking to harm people, and causing fear? Terrorism! Flipping a car over and breaking windows because the Habs won/lose? Terrorism! Drinking and driving? Terrorism! Not looking forward to the day anti-terrorism act can be applied to anything.
> 
> Yes, their intent has not been fully investigated yet mainly because they do not have them, yes the fire could have spread to other nearby buildings and remotely harm people that may or may not still be in those buildings, and yes what they did is outright stupid and even more so posting it anywhere online.
> 
> Yes there is the cover of the night factor, but why that particular RBC? What about the one downtown, or any other in Ottawa? Close to downtown in Ottawa, yet not a RBC that is part of a high rise or other buildings. The one they hit is isolated from the nearby buildings and also relatively newer contruct. The purpose is to get some kind of message across, via some stupid theatric manner, and post it on Ottawa Independent Media Center? Heck, watching the video and other evidence that can be gleamed online, there is no indication that they are even anarchists.
> 
> Sorry, but to me that tells me they are just some dumb asses who thought it was good idea to do this because of the silly reasoning that they would be ignored otherwise, not out to cause property damage for the sake of property damage or harm anyone.
> 
> Do I condone this? Hell no! My consideration is someone that was born and raise in Ottawa, and familiar with the activism that goes on there and some elsewhere. Worse, they provided an excuse to apply terrorism charges on other dumb ass crimes and label even more activist groups as potential terrorists.  :



They are probably glad you are not their lawyer. You have no grasp or understanding of the offences, or severeity thereof, that they have commited. You are the docile, misunderstood, vocal esponante of their twisted views. You don't even know that you are being used and manipulated by a subversive society that sees rioting, raping and destruction of peace, as opposed to authority and good government (the intent of the majority) as their norm.

You made your views known here when you joined. You are one of those closet anarchists that exist on the internet. Tough talk from someone no one gets to meet.

Know what? You're one of those feeble, swanky, I'll stand in the back with the sign someone brought, type of people. You don't have the balls (this has nothing to do with your transgender issue) to say "This is my conviction, and I'm willing to go to jail for it" Because you don't.

We welcome both sides of the story here, and love to debate a good issue. You don't have it. Don't waste our time. You're little, "I'm an anarchist, but want to live at home and pick my issues" crap is just that, CRAP.

You are an anarchist, and the enemy of our state. Or you want to be a soldier, and defend our state.

You have a choice to make before you post your next response.


----------



## XMP

I think the point may be getting buried here.  The question is "Arson or Terrorism?" How about "Arson AND Terrorism."  The main thing is that when the miserable #$%@$ers get caught, charged and convicted, they spend a significant number of years as guests at Her Majesty's request and expense, contemplating their various and sundry sins, while entertaining Bubba and his decidedly un-anarchistic cellmates.


----------



## krustyrl

Chaaa---ching... RG.!  Thanks for a realistic input.!


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The fact that these people took a practice used by jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan and other locations, of video taping their act, tells us that they are some really sick puppies.


Such groups have been photographing and videotaping a variety of actions - anti-logging blockades, anti-sealing actions, etc. - to share with the world for some time now.  In this case, the folks have taken the "propaganda of the deed" one step further and shared with the world a pretty serious deed.

Journeyman:  thanks for the further reference - much appreciated!


----------



## Journeyman

mellian said:
			
		

> .......there is no indication that they are even anarchists.


Too funny.

A group that abhors all systems of order is now demanding ID cards from its _true_ members...lest pseudo-anarchists sully anarchy's fair name!

Thank you; you've made my day.


----------



## mellian

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Too funny.
> 
> A group that abhors all systems of order is now demanding ID cards from its _true_ members...lest pseudo-anarchists sully anarchy's fair name!
> 
> Thank you; you've made my day.



Not all anarchists go around firebombing banks or throwing rocks at police, and not all those that do are anarchists.


----------



## krustyrl

Either way you spin this, it is wilful destruction. Luckily personal loss was minimal but this has malicious intent outside of normal thought processes.  Carried out by whomever, call it arson or a form of terrorism, bottom line is it is happenning on our own doorstep.  Track down the perps and deal with them PROPERLY . 

I don't choose to split hairs in the definition whether it be a random case of violence, display of anarchacy or an act of terrorism I just don't like it happening here, and mabe the justice systems should make examples of those who destroy property not their own.
And if it was or did have a fundamentalist terrorist connections... may the hammer fall.

My .02


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> A group that abhors all systems of order is now demanding ID cards from its _true_ members...lest pseudo-anarchists sully anarchy's fair name!



Hey, it gets better - who REALLY speaks for anarchists, anyway?  Here's what a group claiming responsibility for the Ottawa RBC firebombing had to say:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/92495/post-935487.html#msg935487


> Royal Bank Canada was a major sponsor of the recently concluded 2010 Olympics on stolen indigenous land. This land was never legally ceded to colonial British Columbia. This hasn’t stopped the government from assuming full ownership of the land and its resources for the benefit of its corporate masters and to the detriment of aboriginal peoples, workers and the poor of the province. The 2010 Winter Olympics increased the homelessness crisis in Vancouver, especially the Downtown Eastside, Kanada’s poorest urban area. Since the Olympics bid, homelessness in Vancouver has nearly tripled while condominium development in the Downtown Eastside is outpacing social housing by a rate of 3:1. The further criminalization and displacement of those living in extreme poverty continues apace .... On June 25-27 2010, the G8/G20 ‘leaders’ and bankers are meeting in Huntsville and Toronto to make decisions that will further their policies of exploitation of people and the environment. We will be there.
> 
> We pass the torch to all those who would resist the trampling of native rights, of the rights of us all, and resist the ongoing destruction of our planet. We say: The Fire This Time.



Now, here's what's been posted to "a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists" (PDF attached in case link doesn't work) - highlights mine:


> Canada, Ontario, Anarchist Common Cause Statement On RBC Arson: *Anarchists scapegoats for RBC arson*
> Date Fri, 21 May 2010 07:51:52 +0300
> 
> Despite widespread claims by the media, there is no indication that the recent "firebombing" of an RBC bank branch in Ottawa was carried out by anarchists. Nowhere in the statement or video that was published online was it claimed that those responsible were anarchists. ---- For the media to claim that this is the work of anarchists without any evidence is the worst sort of red-baiting and gets a F grade in basic journalism. We have no idea what the politics of those who did this are.  *We also can’t rule out the possibility that this act was carried out by agent-provocators.* ---- "This act should also be put in the context of the significant violence that is perpetrated on a daily basis by the state capitalist system such as the violence of war, poverty, colonialism and environmental destruction.
> 
> While we seek to build resistance based on mass movements of working and oppressed peoples, we understand why people are angry at the banks”, says Common Cause Ottawa member Kyle James.
> 
> Anarchism is not about violence and chaos. Anarchism is about creating a highly organized and democratic society, free of hierarchy and exploitation.
> 
> As anarchists, we support the building of revolutionary, democratic, mass movements that will challenge capitalism directly through labour and community organizing and mass direct action such as strikes, picket lines and occupations.
> 
> We believe in the power of millions of working-class people standing together against the bankers, bosses, and their state. Instead of isolated acts of property destruction, we need unlimited general strikes of all workers right across Canada and internationally to defeat the attacks on the working class by the capitalists.
> 
> Workers, including bank workers, have nothing to fear from anarchists. Together the working class has the power to shut this entire system down and work for our own needs instead of the profits of the bosses.
> -----------------------
> Common Cause is an Ontario anarchist organization with branches in Ottawa, London, Toronto and Hamilton.
> 
> For more information please contact:
> Common Cause
> http://linchpin.ca
> commoncauseontario@gmail.com



Meanwhile, the authorities are getting closer - this from the National Post - highlights mine - shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright  Act_:


> Police have identified suspects in Tuesday's firebombing of a Royal Bank as Ottawa residents linked to an anarchist group, FFFC-Ottawa.
> 
> The firebombing, which was filmed and posted online, was an unsophisticated attack, said detectives who have collected trace evidence from the burned-out building at Bank Street and First Avenue.
> 
> Investigators have obtained security video from storefronts along the streets, including high-definition images.
> 
> The suspects, of which there are believed to be at least four, said in the video that they firebombed the building because the Royal Bank was a sponsor of the Vancouver Olympics. They made their getaway in an SUV.
> 
> *The suspects are linked to an online independent media site and an anti-establishment network that organizes protests against G8 and G20 summits, unfair trade and government cuts to welfare.*
> 
> Police said some of the network's meetings are held at a coffee and juice shop in Ottawa's Chinatown.
> 
> *Yesterday, employees and patrons of the coffee shop spoke openly about the firebombing, and were quick to condemn it. They said the coffee shop, once a co-op, used to attract a small group of self-proclaimed anarchists who often spoke of taking action against the establishment, but their talk was dismissed as just that.
> 
> The group severed their ties to the coffee shop a few months ago after strained relations with staff and other patrons.*
> 
> Investigators said they are confident that evidence will yield arrests. They have enlisted help from the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police.
> 
> Since 2007, RBC branches across Canada have been targeted in dozens of attacks by anarchists and other extremists. Until now, the actions have been limited to vandalism.
> 
> Several anarchist websites are threatening confrontations at next month's G8 summit in Huntsville, Ont., and the G20 summit in Toronto.
> 
> As police continue to investigate, some users of the indymedia.orgwebsite that hosted the firebombing video have alleged harassment by law-enforcement officials and have taken steps to preserve their anonymity. The site is described as "a network of collectively run media outlets."
> 
> *John Hollingsworth, part of the "editorial collective" of the Ottawa Indymedia page, said editors provide a "janitorial" service by dealing with inflammatory or inappropriate postings as necessary.***
> 
> "Being an 'open publishing' model, users of the site typically post content themselves without us knowing much about it," he wrote in an email. "We take no 'editorial' position on [the firebombing] as that is not what we do.
> 
> "We're pretty much a passive but secure vehicle for activists of various stripes to post their news and views. ... it is not a specifically 'anarchist' website by any means."



_** - we know at least ONE "inflammatory" statement's still on the site, don't we?_

_- edited to attach PDF -_


----------



## Remius

mellian said:
			
		

> Not all anarchists go around firebombing banks or throwing rocks at police, and not all those that do are anarchists.



No, and I have no problem with those that use proper means of protest and social activism.  I don't agree with everything they stand for but I have no problem voicing their opinions the proper way.

Not all anarchists go around firebombing banks or throwing rocks at police and yes not all that do are anarchists.  But everyone who does is a criminal and should be treated as such.  This isn't about anarchists.  It's about criminals who are anarchists.  And don't think for a second that the MSM or the military community here is picking exclusively on anarchists.  We have our own criminals and we are just as critical of their actions and the MSM jumps on that as well.  

I find it funny that these groups, in their attempt to distance themselves from this, are using the old "where is the evidence" and it must be "a conspiracy by the man" and yet are so quick to use conspiracy theories and accusations (without evidence) to attack the "man".

Again, these yokels went too far.  Are now being labelled terrorists (rightfully so) and the extreme left is scrambling to do damage control (no pun intended).  They are victims of their own actions.   Actions, that the public in this country do not support.


----------



## 1feral1

I would call it terrorism.

OWDU


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I would call it terrorism.
> 
> OWDU



So would I. It may of have consisted of a criminal act (arson), but the reason behind the act was not criminal (personal gain), but political. That makes it terrorism in my books.


----------



## The Bread Guy

_National Post_/CanWest version:


> Police detectives investigating Tuesday’s bold firebombing of an uptown Ottawa bank have now identified suspects, all of whom live in Ottawa and are linked to an anti-establishment network ....



_Globe & Mail_ version:


> Police are confident that they are closing in on the people who firebombed a bank in an upscale Ottawa neighbourhood on Tuesday and made threats against upcoming G8-G20 meetings.
> 
> “I believe we have this in hand. I’m confident that we’ll make arrests and I think our leads are on the right track,” Ottawa police Chief Vern White said in an interview on Thursday.
> 
> Chief White acknowledged that he is taking a rare step by making such a statement, but he said he wants to reassure the community that Tuesday’s attack will not be the first in a wave of bombings.
> 
> “I think that [members of the community] trust that if we feel they should be comforted, we should do that,” he said ....



CBC.ca version:


> Ottawa police continue to investigate the recent firebombing of a Royal Bank branch and are denying that they have identified suspects in the case.
> 
> Ottawa police Chief Vern White had said Thursday that police were "extremely confident" they would make arrests in the case and that they had solid leads already, partly because the purported arsonists posted a video of the incident online.
> 
> But on Friday, police refused to confirm that they had narrowed the search to a group of specific individuals from Ottawa, as suggested in a report in the Ottawa Citizen.
> 
> "As a former investigator myself, if [investigators] had positively confirmed their suspects, they would be in our cellblock," said Ottawa police spokesperson Kathy Larouche in an email to CBC Friday.
> 
> "The investigation is advancing. That is certain. However, it has not concluded." ....




Meanwhile, other responses to the response to the original claim of responsibility, one from "Red Power United" (which says it's organizing protests for G8/G20), attributed to the creator of the Facebook page:


> Red Power United (Native Rights Movement) does not support such Anarchist behaviors nor has anyone in our Native networks or Native communities ever heard of a Aboriginal group called FFFC.
> 
> As a non violent movement and a social activist group, these acts of violence are unacceptable.



and another from WarriorPublications.com (PDF attached, if you can read the dark-font-on-dark-background graphics):


> WarriorPublications.com Statement on RBC Arson Attack
> 
> May 21, 2010
> Occupied Coast Salish Territory
> (Vancouver, Canada)
> 
> The May 18, 2010, arson attack on the Royal Bank of Canada in Ottawa was clearly an anti-colonial and anti-capitalist action. It has had a strong impact across the country and invoked the wrath of the state. As both sabotage and propaganda, the attack was highly successful: the bank was almost totally destroyed while the RBC's funding of the genocidal Tar Sands was once again highlighted.
> 
> The attack appears to be by non-Native militants acting, in part, in solidarity with Native peoples in both BC (the 2010 Olympics and its aftermath) and northern Alberta (Tar Sands), both of which the RBC has been a main funder for.
> 
> The action and communique from the FFFC-Ottawa speaks for itself. In the days following, others (besides the government, corporations and pigs) have also taken the opportunity to speak; not against the RBC or genocide of Indigenous peoples, but against those who carried out the action.
> 
> Some have done so by invoking the struggle of Indigenous peoples itself as a way of condemning the attack. Some Native reformists and bureaucrats have attempted to impose themselves as some kind of 'leadership' over Indigenous peoples and resistance. One jet-setting actorvist has stated that those who support the struggle against the Tar Sands must abide by the 'leadership' of those on the 'front lines,' including nonviolence (although the only 'front line' he's familiar with is that at the airport check-in).
> 
> I personally know Dene from the Fort McMurray area who rejoiced at the news that an RBC had been fire-bombed as an act of anti-colonial solidarity. They are the real people—they have seen, and are seeing, family members die of cancers, their land and water toxified, their traditional way of life destroyed, as a result of the Tar Sands and RBC's financial support.
> 
> Not every Dene, or Indigenous person, will agree with the attack. Nor will every 'actorvist.' But then, not everyone agrees with flying around the world attending conferences or rallies. Or walking around in circles with flimsy placards. Yet, we know, or should know, that all these activities are necessary at times to build awareness, consciousness, solidarity, action, and to achieve our objective(s). That is why the principle of respect for a diversity of tactics is promoted.
> 
> It is ironic that in this year of 2010, the 20th anniversary of the 'Oka Crisis', when armed warriors confronted Canadian soldiers in the Kanienkehaka communities of Kanehsatake and Kahnawake, there are Indigenous 'defenders' now attempting to impose codes of 'nonviolence.'
> 
> Our peoples have engaged in over 500 years of resistance to colonization using a diversity of tactics, including armed resistance, blockades, occupations, protests, land reclamations, etc. Yes, people have died and many more have been injured, property destroyed, etc.—but colonialism is by its very nature violent.
> 
> Indigenous peoples in Canada suffer many casualties today. Suicides, drugs and alchohol, disease, toxic water, prisons, police violence, thousands of missing or murdered Native women. These are not the result of anti-colonial resistance, but that of colonial genocide. Yet, neither Canada nor the corporations involved in destroying land and life are ever described as 'violent.' It is only when there is a militant attack against them that there is a moralizing cry of violence.
> 
> To support the institutionalized violence of colonialism, or the state's monopoly on the use of violence, while condemning those who resist such violence, is nothing less than hypocrisy.
> 
> Yes, there is violence in resistance, there is love and joy, there is heartache, there is bitterness and hatred as well as hope and passion. Sounds like life, doesn't it? And those who risk their freedom in this life and death struggle should be respected for their courage and committment, not condemned.
> 
> In the Spirit of Total Resistance—Smash Capitalism!
> Long Live the Class Warrior!


----------



## Jungle

mellian said:
			
		

> With no specific definition, can call nearly all crimes terrorism. It is harming or risking to harm people, and causing fear? Terrorism! Flipping a car over and breaking windows because the Habs won/lose? Terrorism! Drinking and driving? Terrorism!



BS !! Terrorism can be defined as: "The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature".
Big difference from a criminal act for personal gain; and breaking windows after a Habs game, while criminal, does not seek to attain goals ( 8)) that are political or religious or ideological in nature.

Grow up... and if you know the idiots that committed the fire-bombing, tell them that the vast majority of Canadians do not agree with their methods.


----------



## Journeyman

This thread just keeps getting funnier.   :nod:



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> We believe in the power of millions of working-class people standing together against the bankers, bosses, and their state.
> 
> Together the working class has the power to shut this entire system down and work for our own needs instead of the profits of the bosses.


So the Marxists, despite seeing _that_ social theory completely discredited, continue to use the exact same rhetoric but now call themselves "Anarchists"

....because wearing black hoodies and bandanas while spray-painting "circled A" graffiti is, while just as intellectually bankrupt, so much cooler  8)


----------



## George Wallace

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> and another from WarriorPublications.com (PDF attached, if you can read the dark-font-on-dark-background graphics):
> 
> 
> 
> It is ironic that in this year of 2010, the 20th anniversary of the 'Oka Crisis', when armed warriors confronted Canadian soldiers in the Kanienkehaka communities of Kanehsatake and Kahnawake, there are Indigenous 'defenders' now attempting to impose codes of 'nonviolence.'
> 
> Our peoples have engaged in over 500 years of resistance to colonization using a diversity of tactics, including armed resistance, blockades, occupations, protests, land reclamations, etc. Yes, people have died and many more have been injured, property destroyed, etc.—but colonialism is by its very nature violent.
> 
> Indigenous peoples in Canada suffer many casualties today. Suicides, drugs and alchohol, disease, toxic water, prisons, police violence, thousands of missing or murdered Native women. These are not the result of anti-colonial resistance, but that of colonial genocide. Yet, neither Canada nor the corporations involved in destroying land and life are ever described as 'violent.' It is only when there is a militant attack against them that there is a moralizing cry of violence.
> 
> To support the institutionalized violence of colonialism, or the state's monopoly on the use of violence, while condemning those who resist such violence, is nothing less than hypocrisy.
> 
> Yes, there is violence in resistance, there is love and joy, there is heartache, there is bitterness and hatred as well as hope and passion. Sounds like life, doesn't it? And those who risk their freedom in this life and death struggle should be respected for their courage and committment, not condemned.
> 
> In the Spirit of Total Resistance—Smash Capitalism!
> Long Live the Class Warrior!
Click to expand...



Isn't this just a rehash and plagiarized comment from another organization?  

Not much of comment on their abilities to use original thought; let alone coherent thought.


----------



## Jungle

Quote from: milnews.ca on Yesterday at 09:17:21


> We believe in the power of millions of working-class people standing together against the bankers, bosses, and their state.
> Together the working class has the power to shut this entire system down and work for our own needs instead of the profits of the bosses.





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> This thread just keeps getting funnier.   :nod:
> So the Marxists, despite seeing _that_ social theory completely discredited, continue to use the exact same rhetoric but now call themselves "Anarchists"
> 
> ....because wearing black hoodies and bandanas while spray-painting "circled A" graffiti is, while just as intellectually bankrupt, so much cooler  8)



What's even funnier is that they can never get millions of working-class people together to protest... at best, they reunite a few hundred marginals in a large city and break stuff for giggles...


----------



## mellian

Jungle said:
			
		

> BS !! Terrorism can be defined as: "The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature".
> Big difference from a criminal act for personal gain; and breaking windows after a Habs game, while criminal, does not seek to attain goals ( 8)) that are political or religious or ideological in nature.



Even with that definition can represent a good chunk of crimes. Gang wars, a lot hate crimes, certain murders, attacks and intimidation of very unlike individuals, various other stupid vandalism during some protests with have or could have harmed others...




> Grow up... and if you know the idiots that committed the fire-bombing, tell them that the vast majority of Canadians do not agree with their methods.



 :


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Jungle said:
			
		

> BS !! Terrorism can be defined as: "The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature".
> Big difference from a criminal act for personal gain; and breaking windows after a Habs game, while criminal, does not seek to attain goals ( 8)) that are political or religious or ideological in nature.



Good definition. I'll add a couple additions (and my reasoning) that, I believe, reinforces your definition: "The calculated use of _*illegal[*_ violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians _*and/or property*_ in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature _*and to gain media attention.*_"

First, good call on including "the threat of violence" in your definition. Most people don't realize that even threats can be a form of terrorism. Secondly, that the majority of terrorist victims are civilian. 
I say " illegal violence" to differentiate from those acts of violence carried out by a policemen/soldier who are carrying out their lawful duties. I added "violence against property" because terrorism is just not about attacking people. For example, the number one perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S. is not Islamic fundamentalists, but various animal rights groups who have destroyed millions of dollars in property, but except in rare cases, have not targeted any people (yet). 

I took out the "religious or ideological" part for two reasons. First, ideological just means a "system of beliefs" and can encompass the whole spectrum of political/economic/religious views that you are likely to find out there. Secondly, terrorist groups, no matter whatever their make-up their main goal is political. Even groups, like Al-Qaeda, which are religiously driven, their ultimate goal is political; driving the Westerners out of the Middle East, overthrowing the corrupt Muslim governments supported by the West, and the destruction of Israel. Also, remember that in Islam, politics and religion are so intertwined that its hard to separate the two; in Islam there is no separation of mosque and state. 

Finally, I added "and to gain media attention." This is an aspect of terrorism that most people, and especially the media, overlook. Gaining media attention, by violence, is one of the main goals of most terrorist groups. The majority of attacks, in fact I would say *ALL* terrorist attacks, have a secondary goal of drawing the media's attention and using the media to spread the terrorist groups message. This, by-the-way, is nothing new and was first espoused by the 19th century Italian extremist, Carlo Pisacane, who coined the phrase "propaganda by deed." Pisacane stated that, "Violence was necessary not only to draw attention to, or generate publicity for, a cause, but to inform, educate, and ultimately rally the masses behind the revolution."


----------



## George Wallace

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> ............ I added "violence against property" because terrorism is just not about attacking people. For example, the number one perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S. is not Islamic fundamentalists, but various animal rights groups who have destroyed millions of dollars in property, but except in rare cases, have not targeted any people (yet).



We have witnessed this form of terrorism already in Canada and the US.  There have been numerous, Doctors and Medical Practitioners targeted, as well as their clinics and facilities, by Antiabortionists.  Several Doctors have been murdered by fanatical Antiabortionists.  So yes, people have already been targeted here at home by terrorists.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

mellian said:
			
		

> Even with that definition can represent a good chunk of crimes. Gang wars, a lot hate crimes, certain murders, attacks and intimidation of very unlike individuals, various other stupid vandalism during some protests with have or could have harmed others...



There is a such a thing as criminal terrorism where criminal groups engage in political violence. The two best examples, was the battle between Pablo Escobar and the Colombian government and Mafia wars in Italia in the '80's. In both cases, we had criminal groups carrying acts of violence against governments and the civilian populations in the hope that they could intimidate the governments to layoff the criminal groups. In other words, the criminal groups were trying to influence the political process. Fortunately, in both cases the criminal groups failed. However, criminal terrorism is very rare because most criminals believe in self-preservation and like to operate in the shadows. 

Hate crimes are better classed as vandalism, then terrorism. If you call hate crimes terrorism all you are doing is inflating the ego's of a bunch of punks and giving them more publicity then they deserve. The same thing for various protests during summits, political gatherings, etc. Yes, they sometimes include violence and the destruction of property, are political in nature and are used to gain the attention of the MSM, we have to be very careful iwhen labelling these crimes as acts of terrorism. If we use it to often, it just cheapens the term and after awhile it starts to lose its relevance.


----------



## mellian

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Hate crimes are better classed as vandalism, then terrorism. If you call hate crimes terrorism all you are doing is inflating the ego's of a bunch of punks and giving them more publicity then they deserve. The same thing for various protests during summits, political gatherings, etc. Yes, they sometimes include violence and the destruction of property, are political in nature and are used to gain the attention of the MSM, we have to be very careful iwhen labelling these crimes as acts of terrorism. If we use it to often, it just cheapens the term and after awhile it starts to lose its relevance.



That is what I am trying to get at, a long with the other possibility of making it to easy to charge larger amount of people as terrorists. 

In regards to the firebombing, we are inflating what happened and providing plenty media attention they seek.


----------



## Greymatters

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> There is a such a thing as criminal terrorism where criminal groups engage in political violence. The two best examples, was the battle between Pablo Escobar and the Colombian government and Mafia wars in Italia in the '80's. In both cases, we had criminal groups carrying acts of violence against governments and the civilian populations in the hope that they could intimidate the governments to layoff the criminal groups. In other words, the criminal groups were trying to influence the political process. Fortunately, in both cases the criminal groups failed. However, criminal terrorism is very rare because most criminals believe in self-preservation and like to operate in the shadows.



Your referring to the dilemna of criminal groups using terrorist tactics (i.e. fire-bombing a business) versus terrorist groups using criminal tactics (i.e. robbing banks to fund arms purchases).  The motivation is what seperates them.


----------



## Greymatters

mellian said:
			
		

> With no specific definition, can call nearly all crimes terrorism. It is harming or risking to harm people, and causing fear? Terrorism! Flipping a car over and breaking windows because the Habs won/lose? Terrorism! Drinking and driving? Terrorism! Not looking forward to the day anti-terrorism act can be applied to anything.



Several people have been lambasting Mellian for an alternative viewpoint.

Mellian himself is guilty of making the interpretations too broad but his post has a significant point.

It is a fact that several groups (i.e. lobbyists, NGO's, representative organizations) and politicians (MLA's, MP's, city officials) in north america (Canada, USA, not really concerned about Mexico as they have bigger problems right now)  use this exact same type of logic to relable criminal acts as terrorist acts for their own benefit (i.e. in order to gain media attention or to justify the expenditure of money, or to make an issue more important than it is, or to discredit a person they are complaining about).     

Edit - rewrote for clarification


----------



## George Wallace

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Several people have been lambasting Mellian and he himself is guitly of making the interpretations too broad but his post has a significant point - several groups and politicians in north america use this exact type of logic to relable criminal acts as terrorist acts for their own benefit.



Could you go back and reread what you posted and make the proper corrections, so that I can figure out what you are saying?


----------



## Greymatters

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Hate crimes are better classed as vandalism, then terrorism. If you call hate crimes terrorism all you are doing is inflating the ego's of a bunch of punks and giving them more publicity then they deserve. The same thing for various protests during summits, political gatherings, etc. Yes, they sometimes include violence and the destruction of property, are political in nature and are used to gain the attention of the MSM, we have to be very careful iwhen labelling these crimes as acts of terrorism.
> 
> *If we use it to often, it just cheapens the term and after awhile it starts to lose its relevance.*



Too late!  Far too many people on this site see terrorism as a black and white issue just because a law was written, when there are huge grey areas that are only answered by the conclusion of legal cases.  


Most common grey areas:

Is a 'lone wolf' act a terrorist or a criminal?
How many persons does it take to consitute terrorism?
Is it a terrorist act if a person/group claims to be acting for political purposes but has no credible means of following that agenda?
Is a verbal or written threat an act of terrorism? 
Is a hoax an act of terrorism?
Is a computer network attack an act of terrorism?
Is the false title of claiming to be a terrorist group in itself an act of terrorism if they havent done anything?
Is the act of perpetuating terrorist-related fears a terrorist act?
If you commit a crime that includes violence, and it was done for a political purpose, does it qualify as an act of terrorism?


Most people think that this is a simple 'yes' - but if you look at the history of the law enforcement community's prosecution of these acts, there is no standard of unity among countries, prosecuting organizations, politicians, or LEO's.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We have witnessed this form of terrorism already in Canada and the US.  There have been numerous, Doctors and Medical Practitioners targeted, as well as their clinics and facilities, by Antiabortionists.  Several Doctors have been murdered by fanatical Antiabortionists.  So yes, people have already been targeted here at home by terrorists.



Good point. I had forgotten about these nutcases. You can also include several "militia" groups in the U.S. that have been involved in terrorist acts, plus groups like the SLA, and a couple of Puerto Rican terrorist groups.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Here is a write-up by Rex Murphy in today's National Post on the firebombing. Posted under the usual caveats.

*'Direct action'? I call it crime

Rex Murphy,  National Post  


I presume the ideal society, as seen by the self-styled anarchists who firebombed an Ottawa bank this week, is a society where they get to blow up the buildings of people they don't like, and the rest of us docile sheep sit around applauding them for their courageous and moral "direct action" against The Man. And what a wonderful dreamscape that must be for the dimwits who inhabit it. The Freedom Fighters of the Ottawa Glebe, YouTube Division--now there's a liberation movement for the world to rally round.

I pay no attention whatsoever to their pretext of a "manifesto," circulated in video form along with footage of the firebombing. From the days of the Weather Underground onward, the play-actors of Western radicalism always have attempted to wrap their malignant actions in some bubblewrap of concocted rationalization. They want so desperately for us to believe that they take on the burden of violent action "on behalf " of something other than their own egos. Don't believe them for the time it takes to light a fuse.

They are not moral actors. They are criminals. If this country has one common defining element, and I believe it has, it rests in the belief and practice that whatever differences and disagreements we have with one another, we reach for a resolution within the circle of lawful behaviour.

In shorter form, we respect one another. We do not bomb buildings on our public streets because one set of Canadians thinks it has purer politics than another set. These sad Guevera-wannabes are now pariahs, whether they understand the word or not.

We've seen steps toward violent action becoming routine or normalized already. Kicking in the windows of Starbucks or bank buildings during global summits is now almost a rite for the anti-globalists -- whoever they are. Judging from the melange of protest groups that troupe around the world whenever world summits are being held, "anti-globalist" is just a convenient brand, a one-size-fits-all psuedodesignation for everyone from green pietists to hard left, time-forgotten Marxists.

But a subset of these angry anti-globalist nomads -- recall Quebec City in 2001; recall, more recently the Vancouver Games -- always ups the ante with a little direct action: a chair through a window here, pelting the police there, scampering around in their black clown masks and moaning with farcical hyprocrisy about police brutality whenever they're called on their despicable actions.

A portion of the anti-globalist crowd tries to put such assaults on civic order under the rubric of "diversity of tactics" -- another evasive, sly euphemism for simple thuggish-ness. Don't try to tell us it's for the Palestinians or the rain forests or the oppressed of the world.

Here's a newsflash: There are far better men and women working in Starbucks, and in the Royal Bank, than any of the crowd that kick in their windows. And far braver too. For many people, it takes more guts to go to work every day -- to do the daily round of often dull and wearying work to better oneself, or to care for a family -- than these heroic Glebe guerrillas could even aspire to.

Whether the Ottawa bombing is a genuine presage of more violent actions at the upcoming summits is difficult to tell. But it's hardly a comforting example. The world is in an anxious and unsettling time, and that is precisely the kind of environment most appetizing to those with a taste for harder kind of politics and the street theatre that breeds it.

If the bunch that bombed the Royal Bank in Ottawa are caught they should face the full punishment that their actions call for. And, emphatically, they should not be allowed to dilute the wantonness of their assault against the civic peace of this country by the meretricious pleading that --hey--it was for a "good cause."

The moment they lit the bomb, they lost the right to talk politics.
*
- Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV's The National and is host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup.


----------



## Thompson_JM

I Love Rex Murphy for his Clear unbiased ability to call a spade a spade...

I have a feeling he is probabbly one of the Odd men out, at lunch in the far left huggy feely CBC Cafeteria...

I say Terrorists... 


I also say that this issue is pretty black or white here.... on this board you really are either part of the band of Idiots throwing the bombs, (or by sympathizing with their moronic cause, you enable them...)  or you're part of the crew that Stands on the other side of the line, putting themselves in Harms way to make sure these Idiots never succeed past a few small disturbances... 

With or against.... to hell with trying to understand their plight... like Rex said, The moment they lit the bomb, they lost the right to talk politics.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some interesting excerpts from this critique of the firebombing attack - highlights mine - with a PDF attached in case the link doesn't work:

What about the possibility of injuries/worse?


> .... Many people have been sharply critical of the arsonists' use of a tactic that endangered the lives of both nearby residents and the emergency workers who had to deal with the fire (there was also the possibility of there being night workers in the bank cleaning). The actions of the arsonists were irresponsible and reckless. *Anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of being in a fire, fighting a fire or treating a fire victim can tell you just how dangerous a fire can be. Fire is very powerful and unpredictable and, even if it was not the intention of the arsonists to do so, it was within the realm of possibility that people could have been seriously injured and/or killed (as occurred in the Greek anti-austerity protests when a bank was firebombed, workers killed, and a huge setback to the momentum to the protests followed).* We expect such disregard for human life from the major corporations themselves, not those who oppose them. *It is delusional to think that any pain brought on by this action would be borne by the system of capitalism, the state, or even the RBC.* You can't burn those things down. It is business as usual for all of them. In fact, this action has served their interests ....



What's this mean for recruiting?


> .... Suddenly – and without the slightest bit of input from activists working on these issues for months or years – a tiny group of individuals changed the whole dynamic of these movement-building projects. Suddenly, pressure has been taken off RBC and the Canadian state, and instead the pressure has been on activists to disassociate themselves from the FFFC attack. Suddenly, the authorities have been handed an all too convenient pretext to justify intensifying surveillance and repression directed against activists in general, and Indigenous activists in particular. *Suddenly, radical activists who have been trying for months to reach out to working-class organizations to build an anti-corporate alliance against both RBC and the G8/G20 found their efforts undermined, given that most workers understandably recoil against the foolhardiness of firebombing a building in a residential neighbourhood* ....



How about the "respecting a diversity of tactics" rationale?


> .... It seems clear that no radical activist would deny that when a social democratic politician, NGO activist, or union official does something foolish and short-sighted, which undermines months of movement-building work by other activists, it is perfectly legitimate for others to subject their actions to critical scrutiny, and to voice their criticisms and insist on accountability. But, in the name of ‘diversity of tactics,’ many people believe that certain kinds of self-styled ‘radicals’ should be exempted from this kind of criticism. *The diversity of tactics idea is supposed to serve as a kind of “Get Out of Accountability for Free” card. Unfortunately, this doctrine of ‘anything goes’ threatens to leave the entire activist Left defenceless in the face of the irresponsible and politically disastrous tactical blunders of a handful of individuals* ....



How about the "agent provocateur" angle?


> .... There has been much speculation on exactly who the FFFC are. They have been described in the media as everything from café-dwelling dilettantes to domestic terrorists. A few have cast them as heroes; others have called them misguided; while many others are using much less charitable terms. Due to the damaging impact the arson has had on organizing some people have speculated that they are police agents and/or provocateurs. There is precedent to this as Canadian police have recently been proven to adopt the disguise of black bloc types in order to commit acts that discredit the Left, notably at the Montebello summit a few years ago, and there is a long public history of the role of the RCMP in domestic infiltration of political groups followed by incitement to political violence (and an even more sordid history in the USA). Such acts have, in turn, allowed for greater police suppression of social mobilizations. *This possibility should not be completely discounted, but we must be careful not to veer into the realm of conspiracy theory or provide political space that might legitimate such measures. We should, moreover, not let this possibility stop us from engaging in hard debates within the left around issues of tactics and strategy* ....



A few hot-heads pissed at not enough people coming into the anti-capitalist fight?


> .... Whoever they are, *the set of politics that the FFFC espouse is part of a wider tendency in a certain type of Left-wing politics: the tendency to seek minoritarian substitutes for mass action in the face of declining levels of popular struggle. So, when the masses ‘disappoint’ there is a tendency among highly motivated – but also isolated (and sometimes immature) – activists to imagine that there might be an alternative to mass mobilization from below. The disappointed activists may dream of some heroic saviour(s): a band of guerrillas, a terrorist group, a charismatic politician, the ‘black bloc,’ or even the military might of a foreign government. Lacking hope and realism about mass movement-building, a range of panaceas to spark an uprising are conjured up. *Sometimes, as apparently in the case of the so-called FFFC, the more unstable types will even try to cast themselves in the ‘saviour’ role .....



What's the answer?  Denounce violence like this


> .... *Those activists who are working today for a revitalization of anti-capitalist radicalism need to distance ourselves in a clear and unhesitating way from the FFFC arson attacks. *The ruling elites of our society will want to seize upon all of this to distract public attention from the real issues of social and environmental injustice. For our part, we cannot afford to be distracted from the hard work of drawing workers, students, poor and unemployed people into an alliance against the agenda of both the G8/G20 governments and corporations like RBC. One way to return the focus to this effort would be to affirm publicly our support for the Indigenous Environmental Network's call for “effective, transparent, non-violent campaigns,” including “non-violent direct action that is led by impacted communities,” both in the anti-G20 organizing and the anti-RBC organizing of the climate justice movement.


----------



## mellian

It more like some in the movement calling out on the idiots for being idiots than 'dissent from within'.


----------



## Kat Stevens

How do you pick out the idiots at an idiot convention?


----------



## mellian

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> How do you pick out the idiots at an idiot convention?



Ask the idiots with the guns.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I'd rather ask the idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs.


----------



## MARS

mellian said:
			
		

> Ask the idiots with the guns.





			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'd rather ask the idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs.



Guns, sticks, bombs...whatever.  Rex Murphy's last line is correct:

"they" have lost the _right_ to discuss politics.  

Rights do not come without corresponding responsibilities...in this case, the responsibility to resolve our issues civilly, through discourse.

Our government and its policies, no matter how much some - perhaps even most, of our soft, well-fed, welfare state citizens might disagree -  is not an oppressive regime that brutalizes its populace.  There is simply no call, in my opinion, for violence of this nature in the arena of civil, mature discourse.  The mere threat of harm, no matter how remote, to the larger civilian population completely negates whatever point these 'tards were trying to get across.

edited for grammar


----------



## Michael OLeary

mellian said:
			
		

> It more like some in the movement calling out on the idiots for being idiots than 'dissent from within'.



And yet the "movement" doesn't establish itself as an ethical entity by turning in and/or removing itself from the "idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs." 

In failing to do so, they support the idiots by providing the mass of the crowd as camouflage and the mob mentality enables their brute work force.  They are then collectively guilty by association and by aiding and abetting the "idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs."


----------



## mellian

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And yet the "movement" doesn't establish itself as an ethical entity by turning in and/or removing itself from the "idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs."
> 
> In failing to do so, they support the idiots by providing the mass of the crowd as camouflage and the mob mentality enables their brute work force.  They are then collectively guilty by association and by aiding and abetting the "idiots with the bricks, sticks and fire bombs."



In conclusion, whole movement are terrorists because of a few arsonists, gotcha.


----------



## Kat Stevens

No, but you collude with them by giving them an audience for their drivel, and a shield to hide behind.  In the same way that loony rabid bitch Ingrid Newkirk legitimizes the ALF by refusing to give them up.


----------



## The Bread Guy

mellian said:
			
		

> In conclusion, whole movement are terrorists because of a few arsonists, gotcha.


No - just that with big groups, as you said, the group can be painted by the deeds of the few, so if the deeds of the few aren't stopped or prevented, you reap what you sow.


----------



## Michael OLeary

mellian said:
			
		

> In conclusion, whole movement are terrorists because of a few arsonists, gotcha.



Not quite, "whole movements" have no moral grounds to claim separation in principle from "terrorists" when those movements have no proven desire to achieve physical separation from the terrorists.  When they permit themselves to be used as cover for "terrorism", or even simply for the "rioting is fun" crowds, they have no excuse when they get caught between the opposing forces of legal authority and the "few arsonists, destroyers of property, assaulters of law enforcement officials, etc."

Where are the examples of the the alleged greater peaceful majority in these movements doing something as a simple as sitting down out of the path of police when a "rally" turns into the previously announced "riot".  Then again, how is it so many in the crowd coincidentally carry cloths for face covers, gas masks, etc.?

Many groups do demonstrate peaceful methods of protest, why do others choose to permit violent ones within or concurrent with their own protests?  Why don't those "movements" who receive media attention when that happens walk away from the rioting?  - Oh, yeah, it's because the rioting gets them their media attention - symbiosis perhaps?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Violence is neither required, or effective when attempting to gain attention.


----------



## mellian

recceguy said:
			
		

> Violence is neither required, or effective when attempting to gain attention.



I agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxqYmeM90I4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgQUR_Dqdzc&NR=1


----------



## Neill McKay

Tommy said:
			
		

> on this board you really are either part of the band of Idiots throwing the bombs, (or by sympathizing with their moronic cause, you enable them...)  or you're part of the crew that Stands on the other side of the line, putting themselves in Harms way to make sure these Idiots never succeed past a few small disturbances...



That's not how a reasonable discussion works.


----------



## Thompson_JM

N. McKay said:
			
		

> That's not how a reasonable discussion works.



No its not.... But is defending Anarchists Firebombing a bank reasonable in the first place?

For anyone wondering what the Law is... its pretty black and white.....




> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-3.html#codese:83_01
> CCC Section 83.01
> 
> “terrorist activity” means  _ (specifically in this case I have only put here subsection (B) as it is the most relevant....)_
> 
> (b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
> 
> (i) that is committed
> 
> (A) in whole or in part for a* political*, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
> 
> (B)* in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and*
> 
> (ii) that intentionally
> 
> (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
> 
> (B) endangers a person’s life,
> 
> (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
> 
> *(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or*
> 
> (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),
> 
> and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.




Now before anyone argues one points A or B
(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person’s life,

Anyone who blows something up the way they did is fulfilling section B.... because just because it seemed safe late at night, doesn't mean it IS safe... They were just lucky no one ended up being in or around the bank.... 

Personally... You want to wave a banner and yell at the government, fill your boots... that's your Constitutional Right.... The second you start using violence in an attempt to get the point across here in Canada you loose all credibility plain and simple....  

To attempt to Defend it in any way shape or form strikes me as nothing short of ridiculous...


----------



## SeanNewman

Tommy,

The question isn't about endangering a person's life, because that part of the argument is entirely granted.  Any time an atack involves fire there is a potential for someone to get hurt.  No need to argue that point.

The discussion is about the intent to harm people or not.  Absolutely someone could have been hurt, but as mentioned above people _could be _ hurt with a lot of things.  

I don't think anyone is defending their actions so much as stating that there was no intent to kill people since it was done at 0330hrs and not 1230hrs.  Nobody is saying firebombing should be allowed, and nobody is saying that these people should be let off easy.

However, lighting a bank on fire where something could have gone wrong and hurt someone is a very different (lesser) act than intentionally trying to light 100 people on fire, which in my opinion they made the effort to avoid.

Again, not defending and not saying they deserve a pat on the back.  But factually they deserve to be charged with lighting something on fire and damaging the property, not attempted murder or murder of 100 people.


----------



## Kat Stevens

But is it not reasonable to assume that fire fighters and other emergency services would respond?  Is it not also reasonable to assume noxious fumes, falling debris, and the possibility of secondary explosions present a threat to those first responders' lives?  Because nobody is in the building, doesn't mean nobody is at risk.


----------



## mariomike

It has been mentioned that with any bank or office etc. that there may be night cleaners inside.


----------



## SeanNewman

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> ...Because nobody is in the building, doesn't mean nobody is at risk.



My friend, you are stating a point that has been granted/conceded repeatedly by a dozen people.  People could have been put at risk...check...got it.

There are laws for arson that destroys property and that is what this was.  Technically an argument could be made for potential harm to someone in any intentional fire started out of malice.


----------



## Remius

Except that in this case, political and ideological reasons were given as the motive behind it.  Now it moves to the realm of terrorism and not simple arson.  farmer Phil hates his neighbour and burns down his shed.  Arson.  Farmer Phil hates what RBC stands for and burns down the bank in the hopes of sending a message and try to influence change through violence.  Arson and Terrorism.  I don't see why this is hard to grasp.


----------



## SeanNewman

I agree with you on the terrorism part, just not on the intent part (targetting people).

There is a fundamentally different motive between damaging property with a risk of hurting people and deliberately hurting people.


----------



## Remius

I'm not saying they should be charged with attempted murder as that wasn't the intent.  But they intended to cause physical damage to property.  That much is clear.  That damage is likely to affect public safety.  Whether they knew it or not.  Not the same as say, walking up to the window and breaking it at 3:30 am.  No gets hurt if no one responds.  Without firefighters that fire would have spread.  It was a threat to public safety whether they wanted to do that or not.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am putting just a subsection here and underlining two parts

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and [...]

This very specific intent is the heart of the "terrorism" definition and seems to have been generally ignored in this thread. Yes, you blow a bank: it is a crime; you kill someone while doing it: it is a crime; you endangered lives: it is a crime. But is it terrorism?

Can someone here honestly say that, having heard of this firebombing, of the Anarchist group's claim of responsibility and its vague message concerning the olympics-G8-and-G20 meetings, they are afraid of going banking, or to go out at night and walk past a bank? I think not. There was no message here that would amount to "this is just the beginning/do not dare go out at night or we'll get you/the streets of Ottawa will run with blood". Similarly, can any one identify from the known facts here any specific and identifiable act  of a person, government or organization that this group is trying to prevent from happening or cause to happen?

No, This is just a group of misguided Anarchist trying to garner publicity for their pet cause through the commission of crimes. It makes them dangerous criminals (re: their disregard of life and property rights) but on the basis of this sole event and its surrounding facts, not terrorists. Lets keep the law for real terrorists like the Toronto 18.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Got it. If I blow up the NYSE, I'm just a criminal.  If I wrap the bomb in a "Death to America" note, I'm a terr  orist.


----------



## SeanNewman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... Lets keep the law for real terrorists like the Toronto 18.



Strong closing point and very true.


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am putting just a subsection here and underlining two parts
> 
> (b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
> 
> (i) that is committed
> 
> (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
> 
> (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and [...]
> 
> This very specific intent is the heart of the "terrorism" definition and seems to have been generally ignored in this thread. Yes, you blow a bank: it is a crime; you kill someone while doing it: it is a crime; you endangered lives: it is a crime. But is it terrorism?
> 
> Can someone here honestly say that, having heard of this firebombing, of the Anarchist group's claim of responsibility and its vague message concerning the olympics-G8-and-G20 meetings, they are afraid of going banking, or to go out at night and walk past a bank? I think not. There was no message here that would amount to "this is just the beginning/do not dare go out at night or we'll get you/the streets of Ottawa will run with blood". Similarly, can any one identify from the known facts here any specific and identifiable act  of a person, government or organization that this group is trying to prevent from happening or cause to happen?
> 
> No, This is just a group of misguided Anarchist trying to garner publicity for their pet cause through the commission of crimes. It makes them dangerous criminals (re: their disregard of life and property rights) but on the basis of this sole event and its surrounding facts, not terrorists. Lets keep the law for real terrorists like the Toronto 18.



Why did you underline that portion and then totally disregard it in your opinion?  Did you not read their little manifesto online?  Tell me that this is "just a criminal act" and I'll call BS.  This is a little more than an small group of misguided anarchists committing a petty criminal act.  It was well planned, documented, as well as published with a manifesto for all to see, along with their "demands" that the RBC stop their funding in certain ventures.  That, to me at the very least, sounds like they are showing the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and [...]


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Things are starting to be repeated, and more than once.

This one is circling and heading into the vortex.

Tic, toc......

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Jarnhamar

> (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and



Unless you wanna throw up a make shift road block and charge people money for passing throgh, thats not terrorism at all.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

.......and done.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## old medic

Unlocked, for discussion of the arrests.

Arrests in Ottawa bank firebombing
Gary Dimmock, Canwest News Service
18 June 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Arrests+Ottawa+bank+firebombing/3172706/story.html




> OTTAWA — Three men — including two in their 50s — have been arrested in the investigation into the firebombing of an uptown Ottawa bank last month.
> 
> In the Friday morning raids, Ottawa Police arrested one man downtown, and a second at his home in nearby Stittsville, Ont. A third man in his early 30s has also been picked up. His name is Matthew Morgan-Brown, of Ottawa. He is a well known activist. He was arrested before the 2007 Montebello summit and charged with assaulting police. He was also arrested in 2004 for vandalizing downtown buildings during an antiwar protest.
> 
> Claude Haridge, 50, of Stittsville is in police custody, charged with arson and mischief. Days after the firebombing, which was filmed and posted online in a “catch-me-if-you-can” video, the 50-year-old accused was arrested in an unrelated investigation. In that probe, the accused firebomber was charged with careless storage of ammunition.
> 
> The 58-year-old accused is Roger Clement a retired federal public servant, is also in police custody and charged with arson. Detectives believe he rented a 2010 SUV, which was used as the getaway car.
> 
> The licence plate of the truck was caught on security video, which led detectives to check rental car records.
> 
> The Citizen has learned that Clement used his own credit card and driver’s licence to rent the truck.
> 
> The firebombing by anarchist group FFFC-Ottawa, which was filmed and posted online, was considered an unsophisticated attack.
> 
> Clement told the Citizen in an interview that he was “absolutely not” linked to the attack.
> 
> The retired public servant also said at that time that he knew nothing about the incident. He said he did not loan the vehicle to anyone and, he added that, if it had been stolen, he would have reported it to police.
> 
> He also said that he, alone, put 1,500 kilometres on the SUV’s odometer in just two days, driving from Ottawa to Peterborough, Ont., and back, not once but twice, to help his brother with “something.”
> 
> The “homegrown terrorists” have said they firebombed the bank because it sponsored the Vancouver Olympics, which they say was staged on stolen Indian land.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper was briefed about the case because the firebombers posted an online statement saying they will be at the upcoming G8-G20 summits in Huntsville, Ont., and Toronto.
> 
> Since 2007, RBC branches across Canada had been targeted in dozens of attacks by Canadian anarchists and other extremists who view the bank as a symbol of corporate greed.


----------



## Michael OLeary

> Claude Haridge, 50, of Stittsville is in police custody, charged with arson and mischief.* Days after the firebombing, which was filmed and posted online in a “catch-me-if-you-can” video*, the 50-year-old accused was arrested in an unrelated investigation. In that probe, the accused firebomber was charged with careless storage of ammunition.
> 
> The 58-year-old accused is Roger Clement a retired federal public servant, is also in police custody and charged with arson. Detectives believe *he rented a 2010 SUV, which was used as the getaway car*.
> 
> The *licence plate of the truck was caught on security video*, which led detectives to check rental car records.
> 
> The Citizen has learned that Clement *used his own credit card and driver’s licence to rent the truck*.
> 
> *The firebombing by anarchist group FFFC-Ottawa, which was filmed and posted online*, was considered an unsophisticated attack.



Wow, and these direct action "evil geniuses" think they are smart enough to decide how the world should be run.    :


----------



## PegcityNavy

They sound like Dipper union thugs to me.


----------



## mellian

old medic said:
			
		

> Unlocked, for discussion of the arrests.
> 
> Arrests in Ottawa bank firebombing
> Gary Dimmock, Canwest News Service
> 18 June 2010
> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Arrests+Ottawa+bank+firebombing/3172706/story.html




Oh for frak sake... *facepalms*


----------



## Michael OLeary

mellian said:
			
		

> Oh for frak sake... *facepalms*



Why *facepalm*?

We shouldn't discuss this?

Why not discuss CRIMINAL activities in the name of activisim?


----------



## mellian

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Why *facepalm*?
> 
> We shouldn't discuss this?
> 
> Why not discuss CRIMINAL activities in the name of activisim?



Facepalm as in familiar with two of the idiots from before.


----------



## George Wallace

As you know two of these people arrested, does it in any way change your views as to "preemptive" measures in protecting an otherwise peaceful form of protest from infiltration from outside or otherwise known unstable persons who intend on committing violent acts?


----------



## mellian

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As you know two of these people arrested, does it in any way change your views as to "preemptive" measures in protecting an otherwise peaceful form of protest from infiltration from outside or otherwise known unstable persons who intend on committing violent acts?



As being against violent acts and those that commit them or plan too? No, it has not changed.


----------



## George Wallace

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


*RBC firebombing arrests made by Ottawa police *

LINK
18/06/2010 2:06:53 PM

*Police said Friday they have made arrests in connection with the firebombing of a Royal Bank branch in Ottawa in May.*

Police did not reveal any further details on the arrests, but said they would be holding a briefing for the media on Saturday morning, when they expect to lay charges.

The fire on Bank Street in the Glebe neighbourhood broke out about 3:30 a.m. ET on May 18, and was immediately viewed as suspicious after witnesses reported seeing people flee the scene.

The next day a video appeared on an independent media website showing the branch light up suddenly before flames spilled out the front of the building and two people walked out.

A message accompanying the video, signed by a group calling itself FFFC - Ottawa claimed RBC was targeted for its sponsorship of the 2010 Olympics.

Ottawa police led the investigation into the arson and received aid from the Ontario Provincial Police and Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The RCMP became involved in the investigation in part because the group also said in its video that it would be present at the G8 Summit in Huntsville, Ont., and the G20 Summit in Toronto next week.


LINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Police to announce charges in Ottawa firebombing*

LINK
19/06/2010 9:47:46 AM

CTV.ca News Staff  
*Ottawa police are expected to announce charges Saturday against three Ottawa-area men in connection with the firebombing of a bank in May. *

The names of the suspects and the charges they face will be made public Saturday morning at a joint news conference with city police, the RCMP and OPP. 

A firebomb was tossed into a Royal Bank branch on May 18. Investigators deemed the fire suspicious until an activist group took responsibility for the incident in a video posted online. 

A self-styled anti-establishment group calling itself FFFC-Ottawa said it targeted the bank because of its support for the Vancouver Olympics "held on stolen indigenous land." 

The group promised further action during the upcoming G8 and G20 summit meetings in Huntsville, Ont., and Toronto. 

Three suspects -- a 50-year-old, a 58-year-old and a man in his late 20s -- were taken into custody at the end of last week. 

Ottawa Police Chief Vern White said the attack was a case of "domestic terrorism."

LINK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*
Three held in bank firebombing may face terrorism charges *

LINK

*
Police feared trio might be planning further acts of destruction at summits after arms cache found *

By Gary Dimmock, The Ottawa Citizen, June 19, 2010 9:15 AM 


OTTAWA —The brazen May 18 firebombing of a Glebe bank was to be just the start of a “domestic terrorism” campaign launched by three anarchists bent on acts of destruction at the G20 summit in Toronto, with one of the accused firebombers stockpiling boxes of ammunition and gunpowder, the Citizen has learned.

Detectives from three police agencies — Ottawa police, the RCMP and OPP — managed to find a cache

of ammunition, while they worked for 30 days straight to solve the firebombing of the Royal Bank of Canada at the corner of First Avenue and Bank Street in the Glebe.

Top police officials are said to be grateful that no one was killed in the alleged plot.

On Friday, Ottawa police detectives arrested three men — including a 58-year-old retiree who met with the Citizen last month — in the firebombing case. According to an internal police file, the suspects are charged with arson and may later be prosecuted for terrorism under section 83.01 of the Criminal Code.

Ottawa police Chief Vern White had publicly branded those who attacked the bank branch as terrorists days after the firebombing, which was filmed and posted online in a “catch-me-if-you-can” video by a group called FFFC-Ottawa.

The acronym stands for Fight for Freedom Coalition, according to the country’s spy agency. In their online statement, the group threatened to be present at the Toronto summit.

Police arrested Claude Frederic Haridge, 50, on his way to work near Hunt Club Road Friday. Haridge, an engineer, has been building circuit boards since he was 14, when he used to salvage parts from the garbage and cart them home in a little wagon.

Haridge, who lives on Carp Road in Stittsville, is facing charges of arson, mischief and careless storage of ammunition after police allegedly found a cache of ammunition. Haridge also has outstanding criminal charges of unlawful assembly and assaulting a police officer.

His Stittsville home was raided by police, including tactical members, on Friday morning. They executed a search warrant, which is sealed, at the Cape Cod-style home with a two-car garage where he stores a speedboat.

Haridge wrote this online last year:

“Electronics has always been a passion for me and I’ve been fortunate to have been exposed to a wide variety of fields over the past 35 years.

“Hopefully I’ll be able to give back some of the stuff I’ve learned and help others develop some great ideas.”

Haridge, described as a friendly neighbour, is a former student of ex-University of Ottawa physics professor Denis Rancourt who taught a controversial course on activism before he was let go by the university.

In 2007, the university de-registered twin 10-year-old boys who had enrolled in Rancourt’s Science in Society class.

Haridge, a fellow student, rose to the defence of the twin boys. He wrote letters to the school in support of his young classmates. Haridge has also sent letters to newspapers critical of government. And he has demonstrated against Israeli attacks on Palestinians.

Roger Clement, 58, was also arrested and faces arson charges. Clement is a retired public servant, whose last job was at the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

He was questioned by police on Friday and, like Haridge, is expected to appear in court this morning to face arson charges.

Police believe that Clement rented a 2010 Acadia SUV that was used as a getaway car in the firebombing.

The Citizen tracked down and met with Clement on May 26. The late-night meeting took place on Bank Street and Clement arrived with an entourage, which included a third firebombing suspect, Matthew Morgan Brown, the youngest of the trio, and believed to be in his early 30s. Morgan Brown is a well-known activist. He has been arrested during prior protests at the 2007 Montebello Summit and during a 2004 visit to Ottawa by former U.S. president George W. Bush.

In the meeting with the Citizen, Clement acknowledged he had rented the SUV and that he used his own MasterCard and drivers’ licence to do so.

But, he said he had nothing to do with the firebombing.

“Absolutely not,” he told the Citizen last month while he was under police surveillance.

Clement also said he didn’t lend the vehicle to anyone and, he added that if it had been stolen he would have reported it to police.

The Citizen saw a copy of his rental agreement, which is part of key police evidence, before the meeting.

The Ottawa man said that he, alone, drove 1,500 kilometres on the SUV’s odometer in just two days, driving to Peterborough and back, not once but twice to help his brother with “something.”

Clement rented the truck from a ByWard Market agency on May 17, a day before the firebombing of the Royal Bank branch.

“I’ve been told not to talk. I’m worried and I need to talk to my lawyer,” he told the Citizen.

According to the rental contract, and Clement, he declined insurance and re-fill service charges. He registered himself as the only driver and he returned the SUV on time. He used his MasterCard and a valid driver’s licence with an out-of-date address to rent the SUV.

Days later, Ottawa police seized the SUV and a forensics team went through the vehicle, dusting for fingerprints inside and out.

A day before the Citizen found and took photographs of the alleged getaway car, police had seized its floor mats for forensic testing.

Upon its return, it did not smell of gas or smoke and except for an old penny in the console, it was relatively clean.

The rented SUV is equipped with a police-traceable identification number.

Until the retired public servant was arrested, he spent some of his free time at a coffee shop in Chinatown, considered a meeting place for Ottawa’s anti-establishment network, which protests big business, world government summits, and cuts to welfare.

The firebombing by anarchist group FFFC-Ottawa was an unsophisticated attack and detectives have collected trace evidence from the burned-out bank.

The police department has also secured security video from storefronts along Bank Street and First Avenue, including high-definition images.

These images helped detectives track the getaway car, and more importantly, its plate.

According to the online video, which included a statement, the firebombers said they attacked the bank because it sponsored the Vancouver Olympics, which they say was staged on stolen Indian land.

The firebombing attracted international attention because of the summits and Prime Minister Stephen Harper was briefed because of the online statement warning that the individuals would be at the upcoming G8 summit in Huntsville, Ont, and the G20 in Toronto.

RBC branches across Canada have been the target of dozens of attacks since 2007. RBC’s sponsorship of February’s Olympic Games in Vancouver brought the simmering hostility to a boil.

All three accused firebombers are in police custody, but police have declined to release their identities or details about the crime. They are expected to release details at a 10 a.m. press conference today.

Police have asked anyone with inside information about the firebombing to call them.


Gary Dimmock can be reached at 613-726-6869 or gdimmock@thecitizen.canwest.com 

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Three+held+bank+firebombing+face+terrorism+charges/3171765/story.html#ixzz0rJEf0XFp


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Three+held+bank+firebombing+face+terrorism+charges/3171765/story.html#ixzz0rJDXt2TM


----------



## George Wallace

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


*Firebombing a novel concept? *

  By Lydia Peever, The Ottawa Citizen June 19, 2010 7:10 AM 


LINK

A novel by a Vancouver writer features a theme that is similar to the actual May 18 firebombing of an Ottawa bank.

The book is Wrong by Chris Walter. It was published in 2009.

The Ottawa bombing was captured on video that was posted on the Internet.

In the novel, police look at a video that opened with a city street at night. There is a bank. A flash sparks into flames through the window, as two figures emerged. One strolled off screen, almost casually. The bank building burned, but no one was injured in the incident. Later, the bombers claimed they were protesting the Vancouver Olympics.


This summarizes Walter’s novel Wrong. The Ottawa firebombing seems eerily similar to the plotline.

“I was wondering if anyone would notice that,” Walter has written in an e-mail. He said he had noted the similarities in news reports about the Ottawa incident.

In the novel, two men bomb the Olympic countdown clock, a bank and a fast-food franchise. The book is based on the turmoil that gripped Vancouver’s Lower Eastside prior to the 2010 Olympic Games.

On May 18, in Ottawa, two males were videotaped “firebombing” a Royal Bank to protest the Olympics held three months previously. 

In another interview conducted well before the Ottawa incident and the Vancouver Games, Walter had made it clear he does not support violent acts like the ones described in his book. 

The truth may well end up being stranger than fiction, as authorities continue to investigate.

Chris Walter is the author and publisher of 15 novels. For more information about Walter visit www.punkbooks.com . 

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Three+held+bank+firebombing+face+terrorism+charges/3171765/Ottawa+firebombing+book+share+similar+concept/3173718/story.html#ixzz0rJIHgIWp


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Three+held+bank+firebombing+face+terrorism+charges/3171765/Ottawa+firebombing+book+share+similar+concept/3173718/story.html#ixzz0rJHkElep


LINK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chris Walter's novel raised a little bit of controversy just prior to the Olympics in Vancouver.


----------



## Petard

mellian said:
			
		

> Considering they did it during a part of the night where is there no other people around inside or out, it is safe to say their intention is not to harm anyone. The glebe around 3am is pretty deserted with only the occasional car going by.


Something that seems to have cropped up time and again in this thread, and the above quote is a good example, is how some have minimized the danger to the public safety based on the location being "just" a bank late at night.

I live in the Glebe, not far from where this fire took place, this assumption the risk to the public was minimal is BS, and I hope is considered heavily as the accused go through the legal system.
The people who started the fire would have seen clearly the close proximity of the bank to the residential home behind it, and the business adjacent to it, and the occupied apartments therein. 
At some point the perpetrators of this act would have had to consider that, and to me, it is reasonable to conclude their intent was to cause fear because the possibility of injury or death was very real, it is more by chance that this didn't occur. 
We cannot readily dismiss the location where this took place as being of minimal risk to anyone but emergency response services.
They purposely chose this area knowing full well it endangered people, and anyone familiar with the area can see that


----------



## The Bread Guy

Initial statement, 18 Jun 10 & updated today (highlights mine - more bank building damage earlier this year):


> On June 18, 2010, the Ottawa Police Service arrested three Ottawa men regarding the May 18th arson fire at the RBC branch located at 745 Bank Street.
> 
> An extensive 30-day investigation led by that Ottawa Police Arson and Major Crime Units and supported by Ontario Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police found that the suspects had used a combination of an accelerant and an improvised explosive device to set the lobby of the bank ablaze. Damage to the bank was estimated at over $500,000.
> 
> *The investigation also led to charges for another incident at the RBC bank located at 1535 Bank Street that occurred at approx. 4:00am on February 1, 2010 where two persons were observed damaging multiple windows and ATMs with rocks and a hammer.*
> 
> This morning, the three men have been charged as follows:
> 
> Roger Clement 58 years old, of Ottawa
> RBC Arson - 18th of May 2010
> Arson Causing Damage
> Possession of incendiary material
> Use explosives with intent to cause property damage
> Mischief
> *RBC Damage - 1st of February 2010
> Mischief*
> 
> Matthew Morgan – Brown 32 years old, of Ottawa
> RBC Arson - 18th of May 2010
> Arson Causing Damage
> Possession of incendiary material
> Use explosives with intent to cause property damage
> Mischief
> 
> Claude Haridge, 50 years old, of Ottawa
> RBC Arson - 18th of May 2010
> Careless storage / handling of ammunition
> Fail to comply with undertaking
> *RBC Damage - 1st of February 2010
> Mischief  *
> 
> The three suspects are appearing at Show cause at the Ottawa Court House this morning ....



As of this AM, all remanded for court appearances later this month.


----------



## George Wallace

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


*Police lay arson, mischief charges in firebombing *
19/06/2010 11:05:29 AM

CTV.ca News Staff

LINK (with 17 min video of announcement)

*Three Ottawa men are facing numerous charges following the firebombing of a Royal Bank branch in the city in May. * 

Roger Clement, 58, Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32, and Claude Haridge, 50, were arrested Friday in connection with the incident. 

Clement and Morgan are charged with mischief, arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, and the use of explosives with intent to cause property damage. 

Haridge is charged with careless handling of ammunition after police found him to be in possession of several rounds of ammunition and military-calibre weapons. 

The three men were to appear at an Ottawa courthouse Saturday morning. 

A self-styled anti-establishment group calling itself FFFC-Ottawa took responsibility for firebombing of a Royal Bank of Canada branch on Bank Street in the city's downtown core around 3 a.m. on May 18. 

In a video posted online, the suspects said RBC had been targeted because of its support for the Vancouver Olympics "held on stolen indigenous land." They also vowed further action during the upcoming G8 and G20 summit meetings in Huntsville, Ont. and Toronto. 

"Their actions do speak for themselves and their willingness to post it publicly is alarming as well," White told reporters at a news conference Saturday morning in Ottawa. 

Clement and Haridge are also facing charges in connection with the vandalizing of an RBC property on Feb 1. 

Police said surveillance would be ramped up during the summits in the event that activists protest in Ottawa. 

Police said they consider the incident a form of "domestic terrorism" which authorities continue to investigate. 

The Bank Street RBC branch sustained more than $500,000 worth of damage and remains closed, police said.

LINK


----------



## mellian

Petard said:
			
		

> I live in the Glebe, not far from where this fire took place, this assumption the risk to the public was minimal is BS, and I hope is considered heavily as the accused go through the legal system.



Knowing who they are now from previous involvement with the Ottawa activist community when I still lived there, I am more certain than when I wrote that quote that the intention is not to harm anyone. They are still idiots thought.


----------



## Michael OLeary

mellian said:
			
		

> Knowing who they are now from previous involvement with the Ottawa activist community when I still lived there, I am more certain than when I wrote that quote that the intention is not to harm anyone. They are still idiots thought.



What about the risks to the fire fighters? Are we to assume they are expendable in case of death or injury while fighting an activist ARSONIST's work?

What is an intention worth when someone actually DIES?


----------



## aesop081

mellian said:
			
		

> Knowing who they are now from previous involvement with the Ottawa activist community when I still lived there, I am more certain than when I wrote that quote that the intention is not to harm anyone. They are still idiots thought.



*sigh*

Facepalm........


----------



## Teeps74

mellian said:
			
		

> Knowing who they are now from previous involvement with the Ottawa activist community when I still lived there, I am more certain than when I wrote that quote that the intention is not to harm anyone. They are still idiots thought.



Complete and utter BS.  A fire bomb is a weapon.  Weapons serve one purpose, to destroy. It is an indirect, and unfocused weapon, so there is ALWAYS an extreme risk that there will be a loss of life.  There is no debating that fact sunshine.


They picked up, and used a bomb.  The committed to an act DELIBERATELY which any reasonable, rational and intelligent person could surmise could lead to a loss of life.


Further, why were they stockpiling military ammunition?  .50 cal and 7.62mm NATO are not hunting grades of ammunition, unless your prey is human.


----------



## Teeps74

The steadfast refusal of the left to condemn this act, and the potential use of "diversity tactics" (read, violent actions) at the G8/G20 is truly disgusting and hypocritical.

The "left" in this country appears content with making themselves irrelevant, which is a shame.  If they ever grew up, they would discover that they could play an important role in our democratic society, instead of being universally ignored.


----------



## 57Chevy

Military weapons and ammunition
What else were they planning?
Hey, come on, these are not little kids playing the hooligan, but terrorists.
No matter what their intent was, they put peoples lives in danger.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Further, why were they stockpiling military ammunition?  *.50 cal* and 7.62mm NATO are not hunting grades of ammunition, unless your prey is human.



To be fair, the cops issued a correction on the .50 cal ammo:


> .... Also note a correction to the information released by Ottawa Police during the news conference this morning regarding the type of ammunition seized in relation to Claude Haridge.
> 
> *Ottawa Police did not recover 50 caliber ammunition as stated. *The ammunition recovered was hundreds of rounds of .762 caliber ammunition stored in an ammunition box with 50 caliber markings ....


That said, though, anyone with _hundreds_ of rounds of 7.62/.308 ammunition better have a lot of deer/moose in the freezer - and if they did, they'd know how to store ammo safely.


----------



## 1feral1

mellian said:
			
		

> Knowing who they are now from previous involvement with the Ottawa activist community when I still lived there, I am more certain than when I wrote that quote that the intention is not to harm anyone. They are still idiots thought.



Well stone the lizards and starve the bloody crows, I thought I had heard it all on here before......

How niave can you get?

You knew these urban terrorists???

How could you in any way be involved in such stupid activities/organisations?

In Australia we use the term for such stupidity by saying 'give yourself an uppercut' but that might indeed knock some sense into you.

Anyone who sympathises or in any way supports 'whackos' like these organisations and or individuals is not part of the solution, but part of the problem, and are just as guilty.

Its plain luck that no one was killed either at the time the fire was set, or any emergency services pers doing their job to put the fire out. That being said if the clowns who set the fire were burned badly or killed while setting this fire, zero sympathy from me.

What would you be saying if some innocent bystanders were horribly burned, or killed?

I suggest you stick to 'roller derby' as your potential service as a Defence Force member is no longer required, I don't think you are a suitable candidate.

Let us hope the limp wristed Canadian legal systems has the balls (allbeit miniscule ones, supporting a micro penis) to dish out a semi-real punishment for such a reckless crime. 

OWDU

EDITed only for spelling


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Further, why were they stockpiling military ammunition?  .50 cal and 7.62mm NATO are not hunting grades of ammunition, unless your prey is human.





			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> Military weapons and ammunition
> What else were they planning?
> Hey, come on, these are not little kids playing the hooligan, but terrorists.
> No matter what their intent was, they put peoples lives in danger.





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> To be fair, the cops issued a correction on the .50 cal ammo:That said, though, anyone with _hundreds_ of rounds of 7.62/.308 ammunition better have a lot of deer/moose in the freezer - and if they did, they'd know how to store ammo safely.



Sorry guys. I'm an active shooter and collector. Hundreds of 7.62 is a mere pittance to any of us that take the sport seriously. A single battle pack will put you into that category. There is also absolutely nothing illegal about possessing that ammo, or the amount. The cops might think you have to have your ammo locked in a big honkin' safe, but the law says otherwise.


----------



## 1feral1

Tongue in cheek prospective  :nod:

Looks like a good Govenment knee jerk to this is to ensure all .50 ammo tins have the stencilling sprayed out, ha!  EDITs to add: ...or better yet, ban all .50 ammo tins, and get permits to own .30 ones, but all 7.62mm and 9mm stencilling must be removed, and being caught with anything marked TRACER or AP, API, APIT etc automatically gets you time in the slammer.

Small arms cartridges are simply that, and the good ole British .303 Mk VIIz ball and German 7.92mm ball  cartridges have taken more lives than all the new modern cartridges put together.


I shoot and I vote.

OWDU


----------



## Dissident

On that tangent:
When a good day shooting, along with the wife, involves 500+ rounds (easily), having on hand a few thousand rounds is nothing. Hell, I did a course were the round count for the week end was over 1500 rounds.

So anything under 5000 rounds of center fire in the house and I feel naked. Add in .22 rimfire and you have a "10 000 rounds arsenal" easy.

Anyways.


----------



## mellian

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> How niave can you get?
> 
> You knew these urban terrorists???
> 
> How could you in any way be involved in such stupid activities/organisations?



Jumping the gun are we.  :

Just because I knew and familiar with people does not mean I support them or were in the same groups or even agreed. That was the case with them, a long with hundreds of other activists. Like any types or forms of community, tend to know and be familiar with everyone in it, especially in the small town feel of Ottawa. Heck, I am only one or two degrees of separation from our Prime Minister and good chunk of politicians there simply because I was born and raise in Ottawa plus been involved in many circles and communities along with activism. 

That is the case with these idiots. They were known and happen to have many mutual friends and acquaintances, and not all involved in activism or agree with them. I certainly didn't, especially now. 



> What would you be saying if some innocent bystanders were horribly burned, or killed?



I would still consider them idiots and have no sympathies for. 



> I suggest you stick to 'roller derby' as your potential service as a Defence Force member is no longer required, I don't think you are a suitable candidate.



 :


----------



## mellian

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> What about the risks to the fire fighters? Are we to assume they are expendable in case of death or injury while fighting an activist ARSONIST's work?
> 
> What is an intention worth when someone actually DIES?



Did I not say they were idiots? I am pretty sure I did, repeatedly. 

Do you guys really want me to spell out what I agree a long with what I do not and question?


----------



## 57Chevy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sorry guys. I'm an active shooter and collector. Hundreds of 7.62 is a mere pittance to any of us that take the sport seriously. A single battle pack will put you into that category. There is also absolutely nothing illegal about possessing that ammo, or the amount. The cops might think you have to have your ammo locked in a big honkin' safe, but the law says otherwise.


You are more than likely a member in good standing (papaerwork and all) to your local hunting/fishing/
shooting club. And likely without any similar past records with police forces like these guys. I think that is the reasoning of them making mention of it in the paper and the report. By the way, a little acetone works well to remove the stencilling from ammo boxes.


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> There is also absolutely nothing illegal about possessing that ammo, or the amount. The cops might think you have to have your ammo locked in a big honkin' safe, but the law says otherwise.


Agreed re:  it's legal to own ammo.  That said, what would constitute a violation of of this in the Criminal Code:


> 86.  (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition *in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons*.


Although you don't need to keep it locked up, how shabby would the handling/storage have to be to qualify for a charge?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, courtesy of the _Ottawa Citizen_, are the three suspects, as seen at their arraignment in Ottawa yesterday:






Charged in the firebombing of the Royal Bank on Bank Streetin he Glebe, May 18, are, from left, Claude Haridge, Matthew Morgan Brown and Roger Clement. The three acused appeared in an Ottawa courtroom June 19, 2010.
Photograph by: Ronn Sutton, The Ottawa Citizen


----------



## Michael OLeary

mellian said:
			
		

> Did I not say they were idiots? I am pretty sure I did, repeatedly.
> 
> Do you guys really want me to spell out what I agree a long with what I do not and question?



No, "we" would like you to open your eyes and stop being an apologist for them with remarks about what you _think_ their intentions may have been. They are CRIMINALS, they are ARSONISTS, people may have DIED because of their actions. In commission of that act they are no different from some scumbag who burns things down for fun or because he has a pathological desire to cause harm. There is no justification or rational explanation for their actions.  ARSON is NOT a legitimate political act.


----------



## George Wallace

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


*Police lay arson, mischief charges in firebombing *
19/06/2010 9:33:22 PM

CTV.ca News Staff

LINK (with 2 min video)

*Three Ottawa men are facing numerous charges following the firebombing of a Royal Bank branch in the city in May. The incident sparked security fears for the upcoming G20 summit in Toronto. *

Roger Clement, 58, Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32, and Claude Haridge, 50, were arrested Friday in connection with the incident. 

Clement and Morgan are charged with mischief, arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, and the use of explosives with intent to cause property damage.

Haridge is charged with careless handling of ammunition after police found him to be in possession of several rounds of 7.62 caliber ammunition. 

The three men were to appear at an Ottawa courthouse Saturday morning. 

A self-styled anti-establishment group calling itself the Fighting For Freedom Coalition (FFFC-Ottawa) took responsibility for firebombing the downtown RBC branch. The attack occurred around 3 a.m. on May 18. 

In a video posted online, the suspects said RBC had been targeted because of its support for the Vancouver Olympics, which were "held on stolen indigenous land." They also vowed further action during the upcoming G8 and G20 summit meetings in Huntsville, Ont. and Toronto. 

"Their actions do speak for themselves and their willingness to post it publicly is alarming as well," said Ottawa Police Chief Vern White at a news conference on Saturday morning. 

White also continued labelling the incident as an act of domestic terrorism, and said he was "confident" the Crown may still end up with terrorism charges. 

RCMP assistant commissioner Francois Bidal appeared to suggest more charges were still possible. 

"We will leave no stone unturned in uncovering the evidence we have before us now," he said. 

But Lawrence Greenspon, the lawyer representing Clement, criticized those remarks. 

"Pre-trial comments that attempt to characterize offences are not helpful to the administration of justice," he said. 

"There's no talk of terrorism by anybody except our Chief of Police," Greenspon said, adding that the charges laid so far relate strictly to property damage.

The Bank Street RBC branch sustained more than $500,000 worth of damage and remains closed, police said.

Terrorism charges can only be laid with the consent of the Federal Justice Minister and the RCMP, but Ottawa police won't say whether they've yet contacted either about the case.

"That part of the investigation is ongoing," RCMP assistant commissioner Francois Bidal told reporters at the press conference Saturday.

"And to that extent, I won't comment on particular details, only to say that we will leave no stone unturned in considering the evidence that we have before us now, and whatever evidence we may have in the future, before we come to a decision."

With a report by CTV's Karen Soloman


LINK 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


*Ottawa RBC firebombing sees 3 charged *
19/06/2010 12:37:46 PM

LINK 

*Police have charged three men in connection with the firebombing of a Royal Bank branch in Ottawa's trendy Glebe neighbourhood in May. *

In a news conference Saturday morning, Ottawa Police Chief Vern White said the three were arrested Friday, and two of them have also been charged in an incident at the same bank last February when witnesses saw men damage windows and an ATM with rocks and a hammer.

The three men charged are:

- Roger Clement, 58, of Ottawa, charged with arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, using explosives with intent to cause property damage, and mischief.

- Mathew Morgan-Brown, 32, of Ottawa, charged with arson, arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, using explosives with intent to cause property damage, and mischief.

- Claude Haridge, 50, of Ottawa, charged with arson, careless storage and handling of ammunition, and mischief.

Clement and Haridge were also charged Saturday in connection with the February incident.

White lavished praise on the co-operation his force received from the Ontario Provincial Police and the RCMP, who took part in the investigation because of concerns the incident was related to the G8 and G20 summits being held later this month in southern Ontario.

White also appealed to Ottawa residents to be vigilant before and during the G8 and G20 meetings, saying the Ottawa Police Service has not sent any of its members to Huntsville or Toronto because he believes the national capital could be a target of terrorism.

Safety deposit boxes gone

The fire at the bank early in the morning of May 18 caused an estimated $500,000 damage, and the branch remains boarded up. The bank recently notified its customers that their safety deposit boxes have been transferred to another branch.

The day after the fire, a video was posted on an independent media website showing the explosion and fire and two people walking away from the blaze.

A message with the video was signed by a group called FFFC-Ottawa. RBC was targeted because of its sponsorship of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, it said, which were held on "stolen indigenous land."

In the past, Chief White has characterized the firebombing as domestic terrorism, and he stood by that description Saturday. But he said no terrorism charges have been laid so far, and it will be up to the RCMP to decide whether they should be.

The three accused appeared in court Saturday morning.

Morgan-Brown was remanded in custody and will appear in court on Monday. Haridge was remanded in custody and will also appear in court on Monday. Clement was remanded in custody and will appear in court on Friday.

2 of accused took 'activism' course at U of O

A former University of Ottawa professor said Saturday two of the accused men were students in his Science and Society course four years ago. He did not say which two.

It was a course known by students as the "activism course" because each class began with a lecture by a guest speaker such as an animal-rights or anti-arms activist, former student Valérie Duchesnau told CBC News in 2006.

The ex-professor, Denis Rancourt, said Saturday the course "was a lot about activism, a lot about speakers who were doers. They weren't just scientists. They were also various people in politics and activism.

"We weren't learning how to make bombs," Rancourt said.

The accused Morgan-Brown may have been one of Rancourt's students because Rancourt was on hand to protest Morgan-Brown's arrest in 2007 during the lead-up to a summit of world leaders at Montebello, Que.

Morgan-Brown was arrested at the time and charged with assaulting police after a demonstration near Ottawa's Fairmont Château Laurier hotel.

When Morgan-Brown was being questioned at the police station, Rancourt was outside demanding to know why he had been arrested.

"I think it's a procedure for discouraging organizers [of protests], for intimidating," he told CBC's French-language service Radio-Canada at the time.

"I think they're techniques of a police state."

Morgan-Brown was released from that arrest after agreeing to abide by a list of conditions, which included engaging in good behaviour, keeping the peace and not going within 500 metres of several sites, among them the Fairmont Château Laurier and the U.S. Embassy.

LINK 
___________________________________________________________________________

We can see by the last report that there are "associations" that will be/are being built to include others in this group and possibly through association, more charges against others yet to be named.


It is also of interest to note that Lawrence Greenspon is one of the Defense Lawyers.  High profile case?............Or soon to become one?


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is also of interest to note that Lawrence Greenspon is one of the Defense Lawyers.  High profile case?............Or soon to become one?


Big time, especially if the "T" word gets added to the list of charges as the investigation continues.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> police found him to be in possession of several rounds of 7.62 caliber ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> _"several rounds??"_ First the police make it sound like these guys have a whole arsenal of military grade .50 and 7.62 mm ammo, then its just 7.62 mm and now its just "several rounds." However, I do find it interesting that they found some ammo, but no rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is also of interest to note that Lawrence Greenspon is one of the Defense Lawyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Famous for taking on controversial cases, not sure what his success rate is.
Click to expand...


----------



## George Wallace

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


*Police push ahead with firebombing investigation*


*‘No stone unturned,’ top Mountie says as full-attention turns to terrorism *

By Gary Dimmock and Ian MacLeod , The Ottawa Citizen,  June 19, 2010

LINK (with photos) 


OTTAWA — The three men charged in the May 18 firebombing of a Glebe bank are also being investigated for possible terrorism charges, a senior RCMP officer said Saturday, after police detectives discovered an “alarming” cache of ammunition nine days after the suspects are accused of using an accelerant and an improvised explosive device to torch the Royal Bank of Canada branch.

Assistant RCMP Commissioner François Bidal said Saturday morning that his force “will leave no stone unturned” in its continuing investigation.

Earlier Saturday the three alleged members of Fighting for Freedom Coalition-Ottawa, appeared in Ottawa court and were remanded in custody pending a bail hearing no later than Friday. 

The Royal Bank branch was firebombed because it was a sponsor of the Vancouver Olympics. In a statement posted in a “catch-me-if-you-can” online video of the attack, a group claiming to be FFFC-Ottawa warned they would also be “present” at the upcoming G20 Summit.

Ottawa police, the Ontario Provincial Police and the RCMP had the suspects under surveillance within days of the firebombing. The video actually helped police zero in on the suspects, who allegedly used a 2010 Acadia SUV to leave the scene.

During the 30-day-long investigation, the OPP, led by Det.-Insp. Chris Nicholas, uncovered hundreds of rounds of ammunition in a cache. It is alleged that 50-year-old Claude Frederic Haridge, of Stittsville, was responsible for the cache. Police said Saturday that the ammunition — 7.62-millimetre bullets — was found in a box marked “50 calibre.” The bullets found are of a type often used in military assault rifles such as the AK-47.    

The joint-police task force wanted to arrest the suspects before the upcoming summit as a firm indication that criminal acts of destruction will not be tolerated. Police had feared the suspects were allegedly plotting further acts of destruction to coincide with the summit. 

“While I am very pleased to bring this portion of the RBC arson file to a close, I ask Ottawa residents to remain vigilant, before and during the G8/G20, and continue to report any suspicious activity to police,” Ottawa police Chief Vern White said Saturday.

The chief noted that while the summit is being held in Toronto, opponents may decide to protest in the nation’s capital. 

The firebombing arrests drew praise from the federal minister of public safety on Saturday. 

“I commend the outstanding co-operation between law enforcement agencies that led to these arrests,” said Vic Toews in a statement. “The dedication and tireless work of police has once again succeeded in making our communities safer. Hosting the G8 and G20 summits requires that we are prepared to respond to any possible situation or threat.”

The accused are Roger Clement, a 58-year-old retired public servant, Haridge, a 50-year-old engineer, and 32-year-old Matthew Morgan-Brown, a career protester, who according to one of his teachers from elementary school had been encouraged to “do whatever he wanted in life.”

Two of the accused, according to police, were “fixated” on targeting RBC. 

Clement and Haridge are also charged with using a hammer and rocks to damage windows and ATMs at another RBC branch at 1535 Bank St., on Feb. 1.

Clement, whose last government job was with Canadian International Development Agency, is charged with arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, two counts of mischief and explosives with intent to cause property damage.

The damage to the Glebe bank is estimated at $500,000. 

The senior police officers at Saturday’s press conference expressed relief that the suspects were off the street after an intense 30-day probe.

Clement met with the Citizen last month and acknowledged that he used his Mastercard and driver’s licence to rent the 2010 SUV believed by police to be the getaway car. 

He told the Citizen then that he had “absolutely nothing” to do with the firebombing. Police who questioned him this week aren’t buying his story that he simply rented the truck to help out a brother in Peterborough, driving it not once, but twice from Ottawa and back.

Clement put 1,500 kilometres on the vehicle, which is equipped with a computerized tracking system which records its route. It is not known if the system was working or if police were able to access it. (The warrants in the firebombing case have been sealed.)

The Citizen took photographs of the alleged getaway truck last month. The police had seized its floor mats and dusted it for fingerprints.

Clement also told the Citizen that he was worried and needed to talk to a lawyer. He said he didn’t lend the truck to anyone and added that if it had been stolen he would have reported it to police. 

Clement met the Citizen late at night on Bank Street on May 26, just days after the firebombing. He showed up with an entourage that included co-accused Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32.

Morgan-Brown is charged with arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, use of explosives with intent to cause property damage and mischief.

Morgan-Brown is said to spend his free time demonstrating against the state and watching the Daily Show. His name is mentioned in connection with demonstrations at the 2007 Montebello summit and during a 2004 visit by then-U.S. president George W. Bush to Ottawa.

Haridge, described as a friendly neighbour who lends his lawnmower out, is an engineer at an Ottawa tech firm, and a former student of a now defunct “activism course” once taught at the University of Ottawa.

Haridge has been building circuit boards since he was 14. As a boy, he is said to have salvaged electronic components from the trash, carting them home in a little wagon. He is not charged with arson. Haridge is charged with careless storage of ammunition (the cache police discovered), and mischief in connection with the Feb. 1 vandalism of RBC branch at 1535 Bank St.) and failure to comply with undertaking.

The latter charge is in connection with an incident on May 27, 2009 when Ottawa police Const. Cedric Nizman was assaulted at the Ottawa Civic Centre and three Ottawa police raincoats were damaged.

Haridge is known for writing letters to newspapers criticizing the government and protesting Israeli actions. 

Police raided Haridge’s Stittsville home on Friday and could be seen looking for evidence again on Saturday. Some detectives took away material, including what appeared to be a personal safe.

Chief White branded the firebombers as “domestic terrorists” last month and said he was confident his force would capture them.

Saturday morning the three accused were escorted by police into an Ottawa courtroom packed with about 50 family members, friends and supporters. 

Clement, at 58, the oldest and said to be on medication for a heart condition, stood in the prisoners’ box looking relaxed in a denim shirt and jeans. He smiled occasionally as his lawyer Lawrence Greenspon addressed Justice of the Peace Bernard Swords. 

Haridge, in a blue jailhouse jumpsuit, and Morgan-Brown, who looked tense, stood alongside Clement as assistant Crown attorney Carl Lem, Greenspon and the court agreed on a joint bail hearing for the three no later then next Friday. 

A publication ban prohibits reporting on evidentiary matters discussed. 

The bail hearing date is to be set Monday, when the three are to make another remand appearance via video link from the regional jail. 

Outside court, Dan Sawyer a friend of the men and spokesman with a group called Ottawa Movement Defence, defended the trio. 

“All three of them have really dedicated a lot of time and energy to issues in the city, antiwar issues, anti-poverty issues, all kinds of stuff. We have a lot of respect for them, they’re part of our communities.” 

Sawyer suggested the timing of the arrests may have been politically motivated. 

With “the G20 coming up, I feel like the feds are under a lot pressure to justify their ($1-billion  security) budget, so the timing (of the arrests) seems pretty lucky for them in terms of justifying that kind of budget. 

“We did have the bank (firebombing), absolutely, you can’t deny that,” he said. “But we’ve seen this before. I’ve been a protester for many years and opportunistic arrests, arrests that are totally unwarranted at demonstrations or before demonstrations to justify police actions, we’ve seen that many times. 

“This has all just come out, we haven’t seen any evidence, (so) who knows how that’s going to play out.” 

Outside court, Greenspon, who was prominent in the news recently in his defence of the convicted terrorist Momin Khawaja, cautioned the supporters against potentially jeopardizing the defence case by speaking to the news media. 

With reporters later, he acknowledged “there are a number of activist groups that are interested in what’s happening here,” but he downplayed the case’s political overtones.

“The charges are essentially damage-to-property-related charges. There’s no talk of terrorism by anybody except our chief of police.

“I have to see the (prosecution) evidence before I can make any real comment about whether actions are related to political beliefs.

“Pretrial comments that attempt to characterize offences are not helpful to the administration of justice,” said Greenspon, who also acted as a temporary legal agent Saturday for Haridge and Brown, who had yet to retain counsel.


Police have asked anyone with information about the firebombing to call them. 

Gary Dimmock can be reached at 

613-726-6869 or by e-mail: gdimmock@thecitizen.canwest.com 


© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Police+push+ahead+with+firebombing+investigation/3176530/story.html#ixzz0rPIwksQp



Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Police+push+ahead+with+firebombing+investigation/3176530/story.html#ixzz0rPHr6Ntp

LINK


----------



## Michael OLeary

> The accused are Roger Clement, a 58-year-old retired public servant, Haridge, a 50-year-old engineer, and *32-year-old Matthew Morgan-Brown, a career protester*, who according to one of his teachers from elementary school had been encouraged to “do whatever he wanted in life.”



A "career protester", I wonder what kind of pension that provides .... oh, wait ..... he plans to send his retirement years whining about how poorly my taxes have provided for him.    :


----------



## George Wallace

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> A "career protester", I wonder what kind of pension that provides .... oh, wait ..... he plans to send his retirement years whining about how poorly my taxes have provided for him.    :



Of course he does.  There are many segments of our society who think this way, be they Aborignal, Welfare Recipients, Refugees, etc.  All complain about paying their fair share in taxes, but demand the Government give them Grants, Welfare, Hospitalization, Medication, dwellings, etc.  We live in a "Give Me!" society that thinks money grows on trees in the secret recesses of Bay Street.


----------



## krustyrl

Well said George.... I fully agree.!


----------



## 1feral1

mellian said:
			
		

> Jumping the gun are we.  :



No, not at all, I've read every single one of your posts on this topic and others related to it.

You've more than given yourself 'enough rope'.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

57Chevy said:
			
		

> You are more than likely a member in good standing (papaerwork and all) to your local hunting/fishing/
> shooting club. And likely without any similar past records with police forces like these guys. I think that is the reasoning of them making mention of it in the paper and the report. By the way, a little acetone works well to remove the stencilling from ammo boxes.


Actually no. The reason that they mention it is because it is standard procedure for almost all police depts to put a bad light on firearms owners. If you, for whatever reason, receive a visit from your local constabulary and they decide they have cause to remove your lawful firearms, the following will appear in the local news.

"Police remove a veritable arsenal and thousands of rounds of ammo from local."

What did they really get? They got your centrefire deer gun, your .22 rifle and your shotgun that you get ducks and partridge with. 4x25 12 guage shells (25 ea of slug, #4, #7, #8 shot), 50x centrefire(165 gr for deer & 200 for moose) and two bricks of .22 (1000 rds) that you use to spend afternoons at the range with your son or daughter. Total count 1150 rds.

If your rifle has a detachable box mag or a pistol grip, it will be invariably described as a high powered assault rifle. If it is scoped, the latest ploy is to call it a high powered sniper weapon.

Unlawful storage charges amongst others, whether firearms or ammo, are often maliciously laid in order to gain bargaining power and force the defendent to spend thousands of needless dollars on legal defence. In many cases it works. The defendent can't afford the time or money to fight it and surrenders his guns and accepts a weapons prohibition to make it go away. A good lawyer, time and money will normally see these charges tossed.

The fact is, most police are not familiar with the firearms laws simply because thery are not required to have a PAL or RPAL for their service weapon. Just like soldiers. Ergo they have never taken the courses or spent the time to learn the chaotic and contradictory bowl of spaghetti laws, that normal firearms owners have to learn. 

For the cops, it's all abour PR and lots of good evil looking PR means more funds. And that's what the whole blown up rhetoric boils down to.


----------



## mellian

I guess I do have to state what I agree with along with what I disagree.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> No, "we" would like you to open your eyes and stop being an apologist for them with remarks about what you _think_ their intentions may have been.



Disagreeing with the opinions of others in regards to their motives and intentions is not being apologist or sympathizing or supporting them. 



> They are CRIMINALS, they are ARSONISTS, people may have DIED because of their actions.



Completely agree. 



> In commission of that act they are no different from some scumbag who burns things down for fun or because he has a pathological desire to cause harm.



Base on the actions alone, I agree. Base on motives and intentions, I disagree.



> There is no justification or rational explanation for their actions.



I agree.



> ARSON is NOT a legitimate political act.



It never was. I always been an advocate against the use of violence of any form in any kind of political or religious or whatever acts. 



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> A "career protester", I wonder what kind of pension that provides .... oh, wait ..... he plans to send his retirement years whining about how poorly my taxes have provided for him.    :



I disagree. It is a term used by others who disagree or dislike protesters or for media sensationalism of those who are known and seen at many protests whether or not they have actual jobs. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Of course he does.  There are many segments of our society who think this way, be they Aborignal, Welfare Recipients, Refugees, etc.  All complain about paying their fair share in taxes, but demand the Government give them Grants, Welfare, Hospitalization, Medication, dwellings, etc.  We live in a "Give Me!" society that thinks money grows on trees in the secret recesses of Bay Street.



I agree, with my added opinion that such people can be found in all aspects of the society, be it left or right, rich or poor, upper or middle or lower class, young or old, intelligent or stupid, and no matter what profession or what they do for a living. 



			
				Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> No, not at all, I've read every single one of your posts on this topic and others related to it.
> 
> You've more than given yourself 'enough rope'.



I disagree.


----------



## Michael OLeary

mellian said:
			
		

> Base on the actions alone, I agree. Base on motives and intentions, I disagree.



Their _intention_ was to burn down a building.  In my opinion, there is no _motive_ that makes that an acceptable course of action.  Your repetitious and sympathetic referrals to their "motives" is tiring - what exactly do you think those "motives" were and how, exactly, does that act, in any logical way, support that motive?


----------



## armyvern

mellian said:
			
		

> Base on the actions alone, I agree. Base on motives and intentions, I disagree.



The minute these fucktards decided that their "motives and intentions" justified the willful, meaningful and INTENT to cause intentional damage to private and/or public property and persons in an attempt to draw "light" to and further their cause ... they crossed the line from "protestors with honourable intentions and motives" to common strett thugs and criminals.

I hope they rot. NO motive or "intention" (as you like to put it) justifies ANYONE from destroying that which is not theirs. Doing THAT is simply vindictive, not moral.


----------



## mellian

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Their _intention_ was to burn down a building.



I was referring to their intentions of not harming anyone with their firebombing base of the particular RBC they chose and time of night, which according to many of you automatically makes them murderer and terrorist wannabes. That particular point I disagree, especially now knowing who the idiots who committed the acts are.



> In my opinion, there is no _motive_ that makes that an acceptable course of action.


  

I agree.



> Your repetitious and sympathetic referrals to their "motives" is tiring - what exactly do you think those "motives" were and how, exactly, does that act, in any logical way, support that motive?



Repetitious? We are all being repetitious due to all of us continuously misunderstanding each other.

Sympathetic? As I already repeatedly answered, I do not.

You already know what their motives are, to make some stupid political point. 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The minute these fucktards decided that their "motives and intentions" justified the willful, meaningful and INTENT to cause intentional damage to private and/or public property and persons in an attempt to draw "light" to and further their cause ... they crossed the line from "protestors with honourable intentions and motives" to common strett thugs and criminals.
> 
> I hope they rot. NO motive or "intention" (as you like to put it) justifies ANYONE from destroying that which is not theirs. Doing THAT is simply vindictive, not moral.



As I already answered, I agree completely. 

Again as I already answered, specific intentions I was referring is them not seeking to harm anyone with their stupid actions.

Also, I thought you would not respond to my posts anymore.


----------



## Michael OLeary

mellian said:
			
		

> I was referring to their intentions of not harming anyone with their firebombing base of the particular RBC they chose and time of night, which according to many of you automatically makes them murderer and terrorist wannabes. That particular point I disagree, especially now knowing who the idiots who committed the acts are.



They SET A BUILDING ON FIRE.  Any "intentions" of not harming someone after that point are meaningless because they created the conditions for harm and had no further control over it from that moment forward. The only acceptable course of action was to NOT start the fire. What if someone had died? How weak would your protestations that "they didn't mean to hurt anyone" sound then? What comfort would that have brought to the family of the deceased? They are not less guilty of the act they did commit simply because the results were not even worse.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I like shooting rifles into the air at a 45 degree angle in random directions.  My intention is not to harm anyone, I just like loud noises.  Not my problem if someone were to walk underneath one of those projectiles at the wrong time.


----------



## 57Chevy

recceguy,
              That can also be associated with overkill. I once owned a .303 rifle like the one shown.
 As soon as the local police authorities got whiff of my having one, they made a big point of the 
 dangers of firearms, and suggested I give it to them for disposal. After consideration, I decided 
 to hand it over to them. It was the easier solution, as I would probably have been hounded by them.
 Although, I was a bit "pissed off" over the issue, I think it was the best thing to do. 
 I must say though, it fired really well but finding ".303 savage" rounds for it was almost impossible.


----------



## GAP

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I like shooting rifles into the air at a 45 degree angle in random directions.  My intention is not to harm anyone, I just like loud noises.  Not my problem if someone were to walk underneath one of those projectiles at the wrong time.



Well, actually, it's their fault..............

They fully are aware of gravity, and know that those rounds are going to return to earth, thus, they should have been more careful.......


----------



## mellian

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> They SET A BUILDING ON FIRE. Any "intentions" of not harming someone after that point are meaningless because they created the conditions for harm and had no further control over it from that moment forward. The only acceptable course of action was to NOT start the fire. What if someone had died? How weak would your protestations that "they didn't mean to hurt anyone" sound then? What comfort would that have brought to the family of the deceased? They are not less guilty of the act they did commit simply because the results were not even worse.



I AGREE! Now actually read what I say! 

Intentions, goals, whatever, the idiots firebombed a bank for some political reason. That was their intention and that was their goal, not out to harm or kill anyone. They are arsonists, not terrorists or murderers.  

So apart from this particular point, I agree with you, so stop repeating yourself!


----------



## Kat Stevens

NOT TERRORISTS!?  Fire is the prototypical terror weapon.


----------



## mellian

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> NOT TERRORISTS!?  Fire is the prototypical terror weapon.



As per the listed definition of Terrorism, I disagree that they are terrorists. We also already discussed this earlier in this thread. 



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I like shooting rifles into the air at a 45 degree angle in random directions.  My intention is not to harm anyone, I just like loud noises.  Not my problem if someone were to walk underneath one of those projectiles at the wrong time.



That would make you a reckless idiot that would be charged for misuse of firearm and reckless endangerment of other people who if you did end up killing someone would be considered manslaughter, not Terrorism.


----------



## Michael OLeary

mellian said:
			
		

> I AGREE! Now actually read what I say!
> 
> Intentions, goals, whatever, the idiots firebombed a bank for some political reason. That was their intention and that was their goal, not out to harm or kill anyone. They are arsonists, not terrorists or murderers.
> 
> So apart from this particular point, I agree with you, so stop repeating yourself!



What are you missing here?

Their "intention" to not hurt anyone is a red herring - they had no control over whether or not that happened.

They set a building on fire - that makes them ARSONISTS.

They set a building on fire when they -- in your own words -- "_firebombed a bank for some political reason_ - that is what makes it a TERRORIST act.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

57Chevy said:
			
		

> recceguy,
> That can also be associated with overkill. I once owned a .303 rifle like the one shown.
> As soon as the local police authorities got whiff of my having one, they made a big point of the
> dangers of firearms, and suggested I give it to them for disposal. After consideration, I decided
> to hand it over to them. It was the easier solution, as I would probably have been hounded by them.
> Although, I was a bit "pissed off" over the issue, I think it was the best thing to do.
> I must say though, it fired really well but finding ".303 savage" rounds for it was almost impossible.



That's because that particular rifle uses .303 British, not .303 Savage   (unless it had been rechambered for some strange reason)

Anyhoo


----------



## mellian

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Their "intention" to not hurt anyone is a red herring - they had no control over whether or not that happened.



No one as control no matter their intentions. To consider someone a terrorist over that undeniable fact would mean at least the majority of humanity are terrorists.



> They set a building on fire - that makes them ARSONISTS.



I agree.



> They set a building on fire when they -- in your own words -- "_firebombed a bank for some political reason_ - that is what makes it a TERRORIST act.



I disagree with that interpretation of what is terrorist act, as they were not targeting people and out to produce terror.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

mellian said:
			
		

> As per the listed definition of Terrorism, I disagree that they are terrorists.



And that's what makes this country great. So, if and when, the authorities decide thay are terrorists and the courts prosecute them as such and they are sentenced as such, _you can continue to disagree_............................while they are serving their time as terrorists and plotting their revenge from their jailcells.

However, nothing we say will change your mind, and vica versa. So for everyone involved in this endless charade what say we drop the whole line of discussion. It's going nowhere. It's the reason for the past lock and it getting too close to the real fun to lock it again.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## 57Chevy

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's because that particular rifle uses .303 British, not .303 Savage   (unless it had been rechambered for some strange reason)
> 
> Anyhoo


 It may have been.......I still have some savage rounds left.
 My father in-law gave it to me many years ago.


----------



## Michael OLeary

mellian said:
			
		

> I disagree with that interpretation of what is terrorist act, as they were not targeting people and out to produce terror.



How narrow is your definition of terrorism?

Criminal Code  -  C-46



> “terrorism offence” means
> (a) an offence under any of sections 83.02 to 83.04 or 83.18 to 83.23,
> (b) an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group,
> (c) an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament where the act or omission constituting the offence also constitutes a terrorist activity, or
> (d) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, or being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);



http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/20100620/page-3.html?rp2=HOME&rp3=SI&rp1=terrorism&rp4=all&rp9=cs&rp10=L&rp13=50#anchorbo-ga:l_II_1



> Providing or collecting property for certain activities
> 
> 83.02 Every one who, directly or indirectly, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, provides or collects property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, in order to carry out
> (a) an act or omission that constitutes an offence referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (ix) of the definition of “terrorist activity” in subsection 83.01(1), or
> (b) any other act or omission intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to a civilian or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, if the purpose of that act or omission, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the public, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or refrain from doing any act, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
> 
> 2001, c. 41, s. 4.



The specific targeting of people" is NOT a requirement.

Read a few of the other referenced sections to learn what the legal definition of terrorism is in this country.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

recceguy said:
			
		

> And that's what makes this country great. So, if and when, the authorities decide thay are terrorists and the courts prosecute them as such and they are sentenced as such, _you can continue to disagree_............................while they are serving their time as terrorists and plotting their revenge from their jailcells.
> 
> *However, nothing we say will change your mind, and vica versa. So for everyone involved in this endless charade what say we drop the whole line of discussion. It's going nowhere. It's the reason for the past lock and it getting too close to the real fun to lock it again.*
> Milnet.ca Staff


Am I talking to myself here?


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

This discussion is interesting in that it replicates the same discussions (maybe without the emotion here) that is going on at the international level.  So far there is no agreed upon common definition among the international community of terrorism and what constitutes a terrorist act.  Even the UN has failed to come to a consensus on what defines terrorism.  Bruce Hoffman is one of the West's leading experts of international terrorism.  He would suggest a few checks that might help in parsing terrorism from a criminal act and maybe they help here:
Was the aim and the motives of the attack political in nature?  
Was the attack violent or threaten violence?
Was the attack set up and executed to have psychological repercussions / effects beyond the immediacy of the event.  Second and third order effects?
Was the attack conducted by a group with some type of structure (ie chain of command or hierarchy, etc)?
Were the alleged attackers a sub national group or non-state entity?

However, I would caution that Hoffman is internationally focused in his work and most of his benefactors (those organizations that pay him) are internationally focused therefore his work is not necessarily domestic oriented. 

Of interest is that the US National Counter Terrorism Centre defines terrorism as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated by sub national groups against non-combatant targets.  Perhaps this helps?

I think though for the sake of the issue here which is now before the courts, Michael O’Leary is correct.  It is the CCC that will define what these people will finally be labelled as no matter what personal opinions may be.  This will be an good one to follow.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> _"several rounds??"_ First the police make it sound like these guys have a whole arsenal of military grade .50 and 7.62 mm ammo, then its just 7.62 mm and now its just "several rounds."


 Looks like I stand corrected. I was reading the Ottawa Sun this afternoon and they were reporting that the police found " several hundred rounds." Looks like a little confusion in the reporting.


----------



## 57Chevy

(Sprinting Thistle)
You are quite right that it will be interesting to follow as to the outcome regarding the terrorist
aspect of their crime. I have been looking into the few items that follow:
                 _________________________________________________
Critical Studies on Terrorism

Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2009, 237–256

 Confusion and misrepresentation plague discourse on ‘terrorism’. The term is misapplied
to actions far removed from violent mass-casualty attacks or peacetime equivalents
of war crimes. This article examines how the term is misapplied to non-violent actions of
animal rights groups to undermine opposition to animal exploitation industries.
Keywords: animal rights; eco-terrorism; green scare; propaganda

 Introduction

 Discourse on ‘terrorism’ is plagued by confusion and misrepresentation. Definitions
number in the hundreds. The United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime (n.d.) notes
Schmid’s proposal that terrorism be defined as the peacetime equivalent of a war crime,
but adopts his definition as the academic consensus:

 Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination – the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought. (Schmid 1988)

Terrorism’s main characteristic is the deliberate intent to kill humans. In contrast, even
when activists have committed illegal activities and property destruction, they have
ensured no humans were harmed. (In one rare case, Brian Cass, Managing Director of
Huntingdon Life Sciences, was assaulted in 2001 by David Blenkinsop, who received a
three-and-a-half year prison sentence.) ALF guidelines mandate non-violence and ‘all
necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human’ (ALF n.d.).
Despite media emphasis on ‘terrorism’, no ALF actions have caused human fatalities
suggesting that as ‘terrorists’ these individuals are spectacularly ineffective. Certainly,
explosives and arson present potential danger to innocent passersby or firefighters who
may be harmed unintentionally. (Baker [2001] cites one case from 1990 in which a
bystander was injured when a bomb exploded beneath Bristol University psychologist
Patrick Max Headley’s car; although police blamed the ALF, no one claimed responsibility and ALF founder Ronnie Lee denied ALF involvement.) Nevertheless, determination to avoid harm certainly conflicts with deliberate murder as the ‘central idea’ of terrorism, as outlined above.

             ___________________________________________________________


With that in mind, although I personally feel that their actions were of a terrorist nature, and well defined as terrorism as per the CCC, they will in all likelyhood receive the lesser of the two crimes. Which is arson.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Actually no. The reason that they mention it is because it is standard procedure for almost all police depts to put a bad light on firearms owners. If you, for whatever reason, receive a visit from your local constabulary and they decide they have cause to remove your lawful firearms, the following will appear in the local news.
> 
> "Police remove a veritable arsenal and thousands of rounds of ammo from local."
> 
> What did they really get? They got your centrefire deer gun, your .22 rifle and your shotgun that you get ducks and partridge with. 4x25 12 guage shells (25 ea of slug, #4, #7, #8 shot), 50x centrefire(165 gr for deer & 200 for moose) and two bricks of .22 (1000 rds) that you use to spend afternoons at the range with your son or daughter. Total count 1150 rds.
> 
> If your rifle has a detachable box mag or a pistol grip, it will be invariably described as a high powered assault rifle. If it is scoped, the latest ploy is to call it a high powered sniper weapon.
> 
> Unlawful storage charges amongst others, whether firearms or ammo, are often maliciously laid in order to gain bargaining power and force the defendent to spend thousands of needless dollars on legal defence. In many cases it works. The defendent can't afford the time or money to fight it and surrenders his guns and accepts a weapons prohibition to make it go away. A good lawyer, time and money will normally see these charges tossed.
> 
> The fact is, most police are not familiar with the firearms laws simply because thery are not required to have a PAL or RPAL for their service weapon. Just like soldiers. Ergo they have never taken the courses or spent the time to learn the chaotic and contradictory bowl of spaghetti laws, that normal firearms owners have to learn.
> 
> For the cops, it's all abour PR and lots of good evil looking PR means more funds. And that's what the whole blown up rhetoric boils down to.



The police also have a habit of using the "shotgun " approach to laying charges. They fire everything that they can think of on the theory that (1) it will frighten the suspect into confessing and (2) hoping that at least some of the charges will stick.


----------



## old medic

Charge anarchists with terrorism
Last Updated: June 22, 2010 5:14am
http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/editorial/2010/06/21/14468331.html


> Terrorism charges must be laid against the three suspected anarchists accused of firebombing an Ottawa bank last month in the lead-up to the high anxiety of this week's G8-G20 summits.
> 
> Not only was an RBC bombed, direct threats were made that such violence would be levelled in Toronto and Ontario cottage country where world leaders will discuss exactly what these anarchists love to hate -- global capitalism.
> 
> As the group boldly promised, "We will be there!"
> 
> So the time is now to make examples of these idiots, who taunted police by posting a "catch us if you can" video of the firebombing, by coming down hard on them with terrorism indictments -- a "we'll teach you" upgrade from the arson, explosive and mischief charges they now face.
> 
> Two of the suspects -- Claude Haridge, 50, an engineer and electronics "enthusiast," and Roger Clement, 58, a federal bureaucrat retired, paradoxically, from the Canadian International Development Agency -- were remanded Monday in an Ottawa court.
> 
> The third suspect, Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32, once arrested for assaulting a cop during a 2007 North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que., has a bail hearing Friday.
> 
> Let's hope he, too, will be watching the G8-G20 from the confines of a jail cell.
> 
> Ottawa, after all, is only a five-hour drive from Toronto, all which would give Morgan-Brown plenty of room to get there in time for Molotov-cocktail hour.
> 
> This cannot be allowed.
> 
> He must remain behind bars, and be prosecuted for domestic terrorism along with his two comrades -- members of the obscure Fighting for Freedom Coalition (FFFC).
> 
> The possibility of this happening is now being evaluated by the RCMP to determine if the case "meets the threshold" for terrorism indictments.
> 
> Seems like a no-brainer.
> 
> All the RCMP then needs is for Attorney General Rob Nicholson to sign off, and the deal is done.
> 
> Remember, not only was a bank firebombed, and overt threats posted concerning the G8-G20 summit, but police also discovered "hundreds of rounds" of 7.62-millimetre bullets packed in boxes first thought to hold .50-calibre sniper rounds.
> 
> Some media went to great length to clarify this.
> 
> What that same media didn't say, however, is that 7.62-millimetre ammo is what's used to load up AK-47s.
> 
> Now you know.




 :


----------



## ModlrMike

> What that same media didn't say, however, is that 7.62-millimetre ammo is what's used to load up AK-47s.



Interesting point. Do we know if it was 7.62 x 39 or some other variant?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Now you're expecting the reporter to know that there are different types of 7.62 mm rounds? You don't expect much do you?

Please don't muddy the waters of sensationalism with your obscure facts.    ;D


----------



## ModlrMike

More of a rhetorical question really.  ;D


----------



## old medic

I emailed them and pointed out that fact.  I doubt they'll change it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

- edited to include latest in court process - 



			
				old medic said:
			
		

> I emailed them and pointed out that fact.  I doubt they'll change it.


Or even get back to you.

Meanwhile, "Firebomb suspects seek bail before G20":


> Two of the three men charged in connection with the firebombing of a Glebe Bank want bail hearings by the end of the week, soon enough that they could be released before the start of this weekend’s G20 summit in Toronto.  Clad in orange jail-issue coveralls, Roger Clement, Claude Frederic Haridge and Matthew Morgan-Brown made a brief appearance by video in an Ottawa courtroom Monday. All three were arrested Friday in connection with the May 18 firebombing of a Bank Street Royal Bank branch that caused more than $500,000 in damage. An anarchist group, Fighting for Freedom Coalition-Ottawa, later took responsibility for the bombing, which was recorded in a “catch me if you can” video posted online. The group also warned that its members would be “present” at the G20 summit ....


----------



## mellian

Couple of articles I found which may or may be interesting...

http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2010/06/ottawa-rbc-firebombing-terrorism-seeded.html

Ottawa RBC firebombing – Terrorism seeded by the University of Ottawa?

by Denis G. Rancourt
Former physics professor, University of Ottawa


http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/blog/jesse-freeston/3735

Sacco and Vanzetti in Ottawa: How Media and Police are Politicizing the RBC Arson Case

BLOG POST  posted on June 23, 2010  by Jesse Freeston


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> Ottawa Police fan the flames
> 
> The Ottawa Police have added to the show-trial appearance of the case. The original statement from the Ottawa Police, during a Saturday morning press conference, was that .50 caliber "sniper-style" ammunition was recovered during a raid of Haridge's home. The police sent out a release later in the day to say that the ammunition was actually 7.62mm. Both kinds of bullets are legal, but 7.62mm ammo is not used in sniper rifles.



I was mildly amused by both articles, until I read the statement quoted above. A simple 'Google' check would have saved the author's credibility...........maybe not. At any rate, both articles are of no real interest or carry any weight in the real world. Plain old anti establishment rhetoric, and not very good at that. Jerry Rubin would laugh his ass off at the amateurism of this bunch, if he was still alive.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the _Ottawa Citizen_:


> Roger Clément, one of the men accused of firebombing a bank in the Glebe last May, has been denied bail by an Ottawa judge.
> 
> Clement was arrested on June 18 along with Claude Haridge and Matthew Morgan-Brown in connection with the May 18 firebombing of a Bank Street Royal Bank branch that caused more than $500,000 in damage. An anarchist group, Fighting for Freedom Coalition-Ottawa, later claimed responsibility for the bombing, which was recorded in a "catch me if you can" video posted online
> 
> Clement was charged with arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, use of explosives with intent to cause property damage and mischief. Morgan-Brown is facing the same charges as Clement, while Haridge was charged with mischief and careless storage of ammunition.
> 
> Haridge was released on $100,000 bail Friday with conditions that includes an order not to communicate with any protest groups related to the G8 or G20 or aboriginal issues.
> 
> Haridge was also ordered to report to police daily, not go within 10 metres of any Ottawa RBC branch and not possess any weapons or ammunition.
> 
> He was also ordered not to communicate with his co-accused or anyone else with a criminal record, and to surrender his passport.
> 
> (....)
> 
> Morgan-Brown was to appear in court by video link on Monday to set a date for his own bail hearing.


Caption for attached:



> Charged in the firebombing of the Royal Bank on Bank Streetin he Glebe, May 18, are, from left, Claude Haridge, Matthew Morgan Brown and Roger Clement. The three acused appeared in an Ottawa courtroom June 19, 2010.
> Photograph by: Ronn Sutton, The Ottawa Citizen


----------



## George Wallace

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
2nd RBC bombing suspect granted bail

06/08/2010 5:38:58 PM
CBC News 

LINK

*A justice of the peace has ordered the release of one of three men charged in connection with the firebombing of a Royal Bank branch in Ottawa in May.
*

Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32, has been in custody since he was arrested on June 18.

Both Morgan-Brown and 58-year-old Roger Clement were charged with arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material and using explosives with intent to cause property damage and mischief.

A third man, Claude Haridge, 50, faces lesser charges of careless storage and handling of ammunition. He was granted bail last month.

Clement and Haridge have also been charged with mischief in connection with an incident of alleged vandalism at the same bank last February.

Clement was denied bail in June.

Justice of the peace Richard Sculthorpe ordered Morgan-Brown's release Friday after Morgan-Brown posted a $5,000 bond. As conditions of his release, he was ordered to not attend any organized protests, to stay away from RBC branches and not to communicate with the other two men accused in the incident.

Morgan-Brown is not yet free, however, as he must still serve a few more days of a 20-day sentence in Quebec for taking part in a blockade near Maniwaki.

Morgan-Brown's lawyer Ian Carter said the justice of the peace's decision to release his client reflected the weakness of the Crown's case.

"He is looking forward to getting out and preparing to fight the allegations in court," Carter said.

The firebombing attracted national attention after a video of the incident appeared on an independent media website the following day.

A message accompanying the video, signed by a group calling itself FFFC-Ottawa, claimed RBC was targeted for its sponsorship of the 2010 Olympics.

Morgan-Brown is scheduled to make another court appearance on Sept. 27


----------



## George Wallace

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Third of three firebombing suspects granted bail

Longtime protester must still serve sentence from Maniwaki blockade


By Andrew Seymour, The Ottawa Citizen August 7, 2010

LINK

The third of three men arrested in connection with the firebombing of a Glebe bank has been granted bail. 

Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32, let out a loud sigh of relief as Justice of the Peace Richard Sculthorpe ordered him released on a $5,000 bond and several strict conditions. Morgan-Brown will have to wait a few days before leaving jail, however, as he is still serving a 20-day jail sentence in Quebec he received on July 29 for his participation in a blockade near Maniwaki. 

Morgan-Brown, a longtime protester for various causes, has been in custody since his arrest with two other men in June for his alleged involvement in the firebombing that caused more than half a million dollars in damage to a Bank Street Royal Bank branch on May 18. 

A video of the bombing was posted online shortly after the arson, claiming it had to do with the bank's involvement in the Vancouver Olympics. 

Morgan-Brown is charged with arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, using explosives with intent to cause property damage and mischief. 

Retired civil servant Roger Clement, 58, is facing similar charges, while Claude Frederic Haridge, 50, is facing charges related to the careless storage of ammunition. Clement and Haridge are also charged in relation to the vandalism of another Ottawa Royal Bank branch in February. 

Clement remains in custody, although his lawyer has said he intends to ask for a review of that detention. 

Conditions of Morgan-Brown's release include not to participate in protests, go within seven metres of a Royal Bank branch unless he is driving past in a vehicle, communicate with his two co-accused or possess any weapons or explosives. 

The evidence presented during the bail hearing, as well as Sculthorpe's reasons for releasing him, are covered by a publication ban. Such bans are routinely applied to bail proceedings because the Crown gets to present evidence with little reply from the defence. 

Morgan-Brown will next appear in court Sept. 27. 

aseymour@thecitizen.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more on Roger Clement in the Ottawa Citizen.

Read more on Matthew Morgan-Brown in the Ottawa Citizen.


----------



## Good2Golf

I would fully support the Royal Bank suing these individuals to recover a portion of the damages that they caused.


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I would fully support the Royal Bank suing these individuals to recover a portion of the damages that they caused.


Which of course implies a degree of responsibility for one's behaviour. Interesting concept.


----------



## George Wallace

Interesting development in the RBC Bank Firebombing in Ottawa:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
RBC firebomber pleads guilty



09/11/2010 11:58:29 AM
CBC News 

LINK

*An Ottawa man has pleaded guilty to firebombing a Royal Bank of Canada branch in Ottawa's Glebe neighbourhood last spring.*

Roger Clement, 58, entered the plea Tuesday morning.

Surveillance video from the bank showed a man pouring a liquid, thought to be gasoline, into the lobby of the building. Clement admitted to being that man.

Charges against Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32, were stayed.

A prosecutor said there was too little evidence to try him.

A third man, Claude Haridge, 50, was facing lesser charges of careless storage and handling of ammunition. Those charges were stayed, as well.

The details of Clement's role in the May 18 arson weren't revealed Tuesday. That's expected to happen during sentencing, which begins Dec. 6.

A statement posted online the day of the firebombing said the act was a protest against Royal Bank's financing of the Alberta oilsands and its sponsorship of the Vancouver Olympics, which exacerbated the "criminalization and displacement of those living in extreme poverty" in Canada's third-largest city


----------



## The Bread Guy

Next step:  Sentencing....


> An Ottawa judge will decide this morning how long an Ottawa fire-bomber should stay in prison.
> 
> Roger Clement's lawyer says he should only serve three years for the May 18 attack on an Ottawa RBC branch.
> 
> Lawrence Greenspon says Clement's involvement in the attack was motivated by honest beliefs but he's not likely to reoffend.
> 
> But the Crown says his actions set an example for others to follow and a stiffer sentence is needed to send a message.
> 
> The Crown is asking for a six-year term ....


----------



## larry Strong

He got 3 years.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101207/bank-fire-bomber-sentence-101207/


----------



## George Wallace

I wonder?



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> This needs to be posted in it's entirety here, in addition to the Sandbox thread were comments are not encouraged,.....this deserves comment.
> 
> Terrorism rulings an early Christmas present from our justice system
> CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD Saturday's Globe and Mail Friday, Dec. 17, 2010
> Article Link
> 
> As someone smarter than me remarked upon reading the slew of newly released terrorism judgments from the Ontario Court of Appeal, this young country just did a whole lot of growing up.
> 
> ..............



Will the same judgement be made here as well.  Although, not 'religiously' motivated, it was still an actual act of 'domestic terrorism'.  Should this sentence not also be revisited?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Reviving necrothread with results of second trial.....


> An antiwar activist who buried thousands of rounds of ammunition in a wooded area outside Ottawa has been placed on 12 months probation and banned from possessing weapons for five years.
> 
> Claude Haridge was under police surveillance on May 27, 2010, when he drove a pickup truck to a forest off in Tay Valley Township and disappeared into the rows of red pine trees for about 50 minutes.
> 
> After he emerged, police with a sniffer dog entered the forest and located three areas about 30 metres from the road where the pine needles were spread thin and the ground appeared to be recently disturbed.
> 
> The next day, Ontario Provincial Police identification officers dug up a metal box and three wooden crates containing more than 1,600 rounds of 7.62-millimetre ammunition manufactured for automatic and semi-automatic military rifles.
> 
> A green garbage bag containing 15 cans of black rifle powder was also discovered.
> 
> Haridge, 51, had been watched by police for more than a week following the firebombing of a Royal Bank branch in Ottawa. An anarchist group opposed to the bank's sponsorship of the Olympic Games and the homelessness allegedly caused in Vancouver later claimed responsibility for the attack.
> 
> Haridge, who spent eight days in jail, was never charged in connection with the bank fire. Another man, Roger Clement, was sentenced to four years in prison ....


Postmedia News, 24 Oct 11


----------



## ModlrMike

I'm sure probation is going to cure him of his activist sympathies.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I'm sure probation is going to cure him of his activist sympathies.


Still, curbing some of the _activities_ would be a good start.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I do like the irony of an anti-war activist playing with ammunition and black powder.


----------



## FlyingDutchman

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I do like the irony of an anti-war activist playing with ammunition and black powder.


He's a guy, he likes things that go "boom."


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bump with an update on one of the folks involved:


> The man who firebombed an Ottawa bank in 2010 in the name of First Nations rights was denied parole a few months after CSIS met with him prison, APTN National News has learned.
> 
> According to a friend of the former federal civil servant, CSIS agents sat down with Roger Clement in September 2011 and told him they still considered him to be a domestic terrorism threat.
> 
> Clement was later denied parole after a hearing on Mar. 28, 2012.
> 
> At that hearing Clement was asked to name the other people involved in the May 18, 2010 firebombing of the Royal Bank branch on Bank St. in the city’s trendy Glebe neighbourhood.
> 
> Since his arrest Clement has refused to give up who helped him.
> 
> Police believe there are at least two other people involved but he’s the only person who has been convicted of the crime. Police arrested Claude Haridge and Mathew Morgan-Brown along with Clement but charges against them were dropped.
> 
> Police called the bombing domestic terrorism.
> 
> Clement was sentenced to four years in prison but was credited for five months time served.
> 
> “You have not disclosed the identity of your accomplices to the police and told the board today that to do so would violate your principles,” the parole board said in its decision obtained by APTN National News.
> 
> The board said he has skewed judgment.
> 
> Despite his unwavering belief to not identify his accomplices the parole found Clement to be an otherwise model inmate with a great chance to do well outside prison. A community assessment team also recommended him for day parole.
> 
> Clement is serving his sentence at a Kingston, Ont. prison and tests showed he was at a low risk to reoffend.
> 
> “Your reintegration potential and motivation are currently assessed as high,” the board stated.
> 
> Clement spoke about his accomplices in his hearing and described them as “like-minded people who wanted to draw attention to an issue about which they feel passionate.” ....


APTN, 28 Nov 12


----------



## busconductor

Anarchists, terribly helpless for having been completely irrational. Sadly, communists know their agenda of no-government and their presumption "man in by nature neither good nor evil" so that they have to leave each to himself" but still coddle them. They do not see themselves as thieves, vandals, robbers, murderers when an anarchist government is set up but the situation they were in at Ottawa belies these concepts and theories. Just one way of saying them.


----------

