May 2010 Attack on Ottawa Bank: Arson or terrorism?

[George Wallace]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.