May 2010 Attack on Ottawa Bank: Arson or terrorism?

[Kat Stevens]

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

 

[MARS]

Ask the idiots with the guns.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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.