Royal Bank of Canada Firebombed in Ottawa: Communique

137 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2010-05-19 06:18

NDPP

RBC Branch in Ottawa Firebombed: Communique

http://www.mediacoop.ca/video/3443

"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...

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 and the environment. We will be there.."

Wed, 2010-05-19 06:44

Unionist

Hmmm... video doesn't work...

Wed, 2010-05-19 06:47

Rabelais

They just about set fire to a restaurant nextdoor, and I have friends live near that branch in that neighbourhood. This in an area of town where there have already been four fires in the last few months, two of which haven't been explained.

You have a problem with the banks? Then have the guts to protest them visibly, without goodamned ARSON that endangers bystanders around you. Don't frigging bomb the place and put the whole nearby neighbourhood at risk.

Any legitimate point these assholes had will now be completely lost. What are people in Ottawa going to talk about? The fact that RBC is making unethical investments, or that some pricks went and put a neighbourhood block at risks by torching a bank branch thousands of miles away from Vancouver or the tar sands? Why, why, WHY do people not get that this is not the way to drum up support?

I hope they nail these POSs.

Wed, 2010-05-19 09:07

Snert

That's hilarious. Let's protest the Olympics four months later. After that, let's go drink some green beer and celebrate St. Patrick's day!

But I agree with Rabelais: this is just way too dangerous. Have none of these self-styled vanguards read about the three workers killed in Greece? Not only does this gamble with the lives of some Little Eichmanns, but if you kill them then you have to pretend you didn't do it. No crowing, no chest-thumping, no "communiques".

Wed, 2010-05-19 10:51

N.Beltov

Actually, what happened in Greece was the action of (state) agents provocateurs. They were likely trying to discredit opposition to the financial atrocities of the IMF and the current Greek regime. Find a better example.

Edited to add: The original link in the opening post points to a story in which one of the commentators notes that this "action" is much the same as those of agents provocateurs.

Wed, 2010-05-19 11:01

Snert

Quote:
Actually, what happened in Greece was the action of (state) agents provocateurs.

Right, I forgot. You have it on the good word of some masked insurgents that they had nuthin' to do with the bomb that killed people. Funny that, though. Whenever a bomb [i]doesnt[/i] kill someone you can have one, or sometimes even more than one radical group triumphantly taking responsibility. But when a bomb harms someone, it's crickets. And of course accusations that the state decided to do the murdering.

If you want to believe, feel free to believe.

Wed, 2010-05-19 11:16

N.Beltov

Quote:
The burning of the bank at Stadiou Avenue, which lead to the death of three people, and of the buildings at the centre of Athens, is a crime aiming at the intimidation of the people and the slander of the struggle for the overthrow of the barbarous measures, the anti-people policy. These actions are useful for those who try to submit the people with lies and slander.

KKE denounces, to all the Greek people, that the provocative plan was activated when the demonstration of PAME reached the Parliament. A group of provocateurs tried to involve demonstrators in riots by snatching flags of PAME and using different slogans and actions. Their intention was clearly to slander KKE and PAME. The immediate intervention of the workers who guarded the demonstration disarmed the provocateurs and isolated them, while they were also condemned by the loudspeakers at the demonstration.

The existence of a plan was proved by the slander launched against KKE by the chairman of the extreme right-wing party "LAOS" just moments after, in the Parliament. He claimed that KKE called on the demonstrators to invade the Parliament and set it on fire. The same slander against KKE was also launched by TV channels and radio stations that belong to the big capital.

mass rallies of May 6 in Greece

How were you planning you substantiate your claim? Wave your arms? lol. lol. lol.

Edited to add: notice, good babblers, how right wing political parties in Greece coordinate their actions with agents of the (secret) police.

Wed, 2010-05-19 11:28

j.m.

Quote:
You have a problem with the banks? Then have the guts to protest them visibly,

What a great tactic, that'll work in Canada!

Quote:
without goodamned ARSON that endangers bystanders around you. Don't frigging bomb the place and put the whole nearby neighbourhood at risk.

RBC and VANOC didn't have to do "arson" to put many people in DTES at risk. And I assure you that RBC doesn't have to sully its hands in the tar sands to reap the benefits it does at the expense of our environment and non-human life.

I guess those neighbourhoods and communities don't deserve as much consideration though. But your indignation of the firebombing a detached building (from the looks of it) with security alarms is noteworthy because it shows a "lack of concern for community well-being"?

Wed, 2010-05-19 11:47

Polunatic2

Personally, I completely disagree with and denounce such tactics no matter who is ultimately responsible. Is this what "diversity of tactics" is supposed to look like? If so, count me out.

Wed, 2010-05-19 12:16

#10

Cueball

I think we will see more of this kind of thing in the future. Social instability also has a tendency to stress and anger. More and more people are being pushed to the fringe of society without recourse, or feel helpless in the face of the many challenges people face. I suppose I feel something like this is better, than taking it out on immigrants.

Right target, perhaps, wrong method and bad timing. But its good that people are begining to understand that the real enemy is not their next door neighbour, but that institutions that are taking our society and our planet to the brink.

Wed, 2010-05-19 12:22

#11

NDPP

Interesting to track the CBC reporting of this -Since the midday news the "Stolen Land" aspect of the communique has now disappeared from the reporting in favour of simply citing the Royal Bank's sponsorship of the Olympics and the G8/G20 threats by this group.

Wed, 2010-05-19 12:23

#12

Cueball

It could be a false flag operation too, of course.

Wed, 2010-05-19 12:29

#13

N.Beltov

In China, one of the forms of "protest" over powerlessness, mass impoverishment, etc., has (recently) been the murder of young school children. babbler Joey Ramone pointed out that children are viewed, by many in that country, as property.There's a thread somewhere.

At first, the Chinese authorities simply described these events as the acts of "madmen". Not any more.They've acknowleged that distress flowing from great personal and social problems accompanying the current massive change in that country, the failure to provide basic mental health services, etc., are contributing factors.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not just identifying harmful social institutions that's needed; collective action is essential. My own view is that political tactics - and not just individual lashing out at hated symbols - must be based on what promotes such collective action.

Wed, 2010-05-19 12:29

#14

remind

Nonsense Cue, it is the neighbour next door, as well as perhaps one's self.

Who in the hell do you think buys stocks, that drive these companies/institutions and thus are driving the planet to the brink?

Really people need to understand their own culpability, when they have investment portfolios, of anytype.

having said that, I do not believe for 1 minute and regular Canadian fire bombed anything. Perhaps I am overly suspicious, but Harper would love to have a reason to impliment marshall law , using this and the occurance of the G20, would be all the "reason" he would need.

Moreover, it is also an act that can be racially divisive..and fear heightening....

Wed, 2010-05-19 12:32

#15

NDPP

Absolutely so and it will most certainly be exploited to justify full tilt boogie-man tactics against G8/G20 protesters..

Wed, 2010-05-19 12:37

#16

Polunatic2

Quote:
Perhaps I am overly suspicious, but Harper would love to have a reason to impliment marshall law , using this and the occurance of the G20, would be all the "reason" he would need.

Perhaps. Or maybe the PM has been listening to and/or playing too much rock music lately?

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:04

#17

j.m.

Slumberjack wrote:

Cueball wrote:
...wrong method and bad timing.

Why would that be?

How delightful though...a firebombed bank where the situation is being treated as suspicious by the authorities, with 16 firetrucks and 35 firefighters responding, along with the unlimited and dedicated attention of the police to determine the circumstances and track down the perps.

Meanwhile, Bay and Wall Street continue to rage with impunity, where millions of lives are at stake as a result of their attacks upon the worth and lives of human beings.

Speaking of wrong method and bad timing, how many of us will take our indignation as far as the keyboard time and time again?

There are some fair criticisms of this tactic, but I want to know why there is this practice of social distancing from anarchists* that use a diversity of tactics that is so definitive it leaves no room for acknowledgement that this is also against the same system we bemoan. As part of the left, engaging in discussion about this tactic would be more productive than distancing ourselves from them as if they were Harper himself.

*at least we can assume

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:04

#18

Slumberjack

Cueball wrote:
...wrong method and bad timing.

Why would that be?

How delightful though...a firebombed bank where the situation is being treated as suspicious by the authorities, with 16 firetrucks and 35 firefighters responding, along with the unlimited and dedicated attention of the police to determine the circumstances and track down the perps, all to address a crime against corporate property.

Meanwhile, Bay and Wall Street continue to rage with impunity, where millions of lives are at stake as a result of their attacks upon the worth and lives of human beings.

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:07

#19

Slumberjack

I believe it deserves a fair answer. I'll try and provide one with a little more time...I'm at work you see :)

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:23

#20

Merowe

Woohoo!

Couldn't have happened to a better bunch of thieving sociopathic assholes.

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:23

#21

Polly B

Good on them. Peacefully protesting the Olympics didn't help, and ongoing protests of the tar sands don't help. Letters to the banks don't help, letters to our governement don't help, hard to think of anything that might actually be effective in getting this message out.

So they fire bomb the office of one of the worst offenders during a time when there are no employees inside to be jeopardized, and they take credit for their actions. I guess I don't see the problem.

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:36

#22

Snert

Quote:
Really people need to understand their own culpability, when they have investment portfolios, of anytype.

That sounds like a call to unions to stop investing their pensions. Sure, it helps money "grow", but is that the most important thing?

Which union do yoiu suppose will be first to abandon the artificial Ponzi world of pension investment? Have any union members here ever demanded that their union do this, and if so, what was the response from the union, or your fellow members?

Quote:
There are some fair criticisms of this tactic, but I want to know why there is this practice of social distancing from anarchists*

This is always my favourite part. Everyone would like to assume that something like this (if it's unpopular, or causes harm) must be the work of [i]agents provocateurs[/i]. Yet at the same time, many also want to see this as "legitimate" dissent, want to urge other progressives not to judge it, and for all intents and purposes, want to foster a culture where blowing stuff up is accepted and celebrated. Except when someone dies from it, and then everyone has to say "it wasn't us, it COULDN'T have been us! Why would anyone assume that anarchists who get erections thinking of blowing up a bank would ever consider blowing up a bank?"

It's all a bit like the U.S. military saying "We're gung-ho! Kill 'em all and let God sort them out!! Except for collateral damage, which is always the fault of the French, because we just wouldn't do that".

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:38

#23

NDPP

can't say I am exactly overcome with sympathy for a big bank either...

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:43

#24

Snert

I don't think one should oppose stunts like this on the grounds that you "feel sympathy" for the bank any more than you're oppose vigilante justice on the grounds that you feel sympathy for a child molester. Once you go down that road of "Oh, well, as long as it's a [i]child molester[/i] then maybe vigilante justice is a legitimate tactic" then you've pretty much lost the "principle" part of it.

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:47

#25

Star Spangled C...

Polly B wrote:

So they fire bomb the office of one of the worst offenders during a time when there are no employees inside to be jeopardized, and they take credit for their actions. I guess I don't see the problem.

So if somebody firebombs your house when your family isnt inside and then"takes credit" (anonymously and without actual names, of course), would you "see the problem"?

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:54

#26

Snert

I think a better question would be "if someone HAD been injured or killed, would you still support this?" It's not like there's some foolproof way to control explosions or fire, so if you support this, sooner or later it's going to go wrong. Then what?

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:00

#27

N.Beltov

The best question to ask is always, "Who benefits?"

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:02

#28

Polunatic2

Quote:
so definitive it leaves no room for acknowledgement that this is also against the same system we bemoan

Could be insurance fraud.

Why should we support a "diversity of tactics" that potentially put bystanders in danger? Who draws the lines? What is the line? I call bullshit on these tactics and the people who are engaging in them or condoning them.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:11

#29

Polly B

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

So if somebody firebombs your house when your family isnt inside and then"takes credit" (anonymously and without actual names, of course), would you "see the problem"?

Silly comparison. My family home is a wee bit different than an (empty, closed) Royal Bank branch. I am pretty sure I make billions less in profit, and I KNOW that I haven't invested any money into either the olympics on stolen land or the environmental clusterfuck that is the tar sands. Aside from that - yes, if someone just up and firebombed my house I would be mighty pissed. But that's irrelevant here.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:19

#30

Snert

What if someone [i]had[/i] been injured or killed? Would you say, as some do about "collateral damage" that this is the price we must pay? That you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs? Or would you say "OK, this really isn't worth it"?

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:22

#31

Merowe

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

Polly B wrote:

So they fire bomb the office of one of the worst offenders during a time when there are no employees inside to be jeopardized, and they take credit for their actions. I guess I don't see the problem.

So if somebody firebombs your house when your family isnt inside and then"takes credit" (anonymously and without actual names, of course), would you "see the problem"?

hm...

private home = public bank

nice metaphor

editted to add, ah, excuse the crosspost Polly.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:23

#32

Polly B

No one was injured or killed, that's the point. It was a protest carried out by damaging Royal Bank property. Had they done it during lunch I would definitely not support it, but they didn't.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:23

#33

Merowe

Snert wrote:

What if someone [i]had[/i] been injured or killed? Would you say, as some do about "collateral damage" that this is the price we must pay? That you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs? Or would you say "OK, this really isn't worth it"?

Wot, like with Aiyana Jones? That kind of omelette?

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:29

#34

Catchfire

From Slavoj Zizek's Violence (2008):

Quote:
Opposing all forms of violence, from direct, physical violence (mass murder, terror) to ideological violence (racism, incitement, sexual discrimination), seems to be the main preoccupation of the tolerant liberal attitude that predominates today. An SOS call sustains such talk, drowning out all other approaches: everything else can and has to wait...Is there not something suspicious, indeed symptomatic, about this focus on subjective violence--that violence which is enacted by social agents, evil individuals, disciplined repressive apparatuses, fanatical crowds? Doesn't it desperately try to distract our attention from the true locus of trouble, by obliterating from view other forms ofviolence and thus actively participating in them? According to a well-known anecdote, a German officer visited Picasso in his Paris studio during the Second World War. There he saw Guernica and, shocked at the modernist "chaos" of the painting, asked Picasso: "Did you do this?" Picasso calmly replied: "No, you did this!" Today, many a liberal, when faced with violent outbursts such as the recent looting in the suburbs of Paris, asks the few remaining leftists who still count on a radical social transformation: "Isn't it you who did this? Is this what you want?" And we should reply, like Picasso, "No! You did this! This is the true result of your politics!"

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:31

#35

Cueball

Yeah, I remember reading that. Do you have a link for it?

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:33

#36

Catchfire

I have pasted it before here, but it's from my copy of the book. I haven't been able to find an online version of the text.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:34

#37

j.m.

Snert wrote:

Quote:
There are some fair criticisms of this tactic, but I want to know why there is this practice of social distancing from anarchists*

This is always my favourite part. Everyone would like to assume that something like this (if it's unpopular, or causes harm) must be the work of [i]agents provocateurs[/i]. Yet at the same time, many also want to see this as "legitimate" dissent, want to urge other progressives not to judge it, and for all intents and purposes, want to foster a culture where blowing stuff up is accepted and celebrated. Except when someone dies from it, and then everyone has to say "it wasn't us, it COULDN'T have been us! Why would anyone assume that anarchists who get erections thinking of blowing up a bank would ever consider blowing up a bank?"

Well, Snert, I wasn't there to verify my assumption. I never said agent provacateurs, but my comment reflected the doubts of others (I said "at least we can assume"). Maybe they were disgruntled customers or employees. Why insinuate that I suspect agent provacteurs?

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:37

#38

j.m.

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

Polly B wrote:

So they fire bomb the office of one of the worst offenders during a time when there are no employees inside to be jeopardized, and they take credit for their actions. I guess I don't see the problem.

So if somebody firebombs your house when your family isnt inside and then"takes credit" (anonymously and without actual names, of course), would you "see the problem"?

SSC you should work for Fox News! Do you work for Fox News?

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:39

#39

N.Beltov

from the CTV story ...

Quote:
The anarchists say they plan to take their protest to the upcoming G8 summit in Huntsville, as well as the G20 meeting in Toronto at the end of June.

... which is a nice justification, wrapped with a bow on it, for government and police atrocities at the G8 and G20. Thanks a lot, anarchist assholes.

or was it agents provocateurs? I can't tell the difference.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:39

#40

Star Spangled C...

Why? Cause CNN, MSNBC, CBC, etc. would all celebrate a firebombing and only the right-wingers at Fox would condemn it?

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:41

#41

Snert

Quote:
No one was injured or killed, that's the point. It was a protest carried out by damaging Royal Bank property. Had they done it during lunch I would definitely not support it, but they didn't.

Ah. They took precautions.

So did the Squamish Five, or so they thought, but when they tried to blow up a manufacturing plant they ended up leaving a worker with a permanent disability.

If you're pretty confident that nothing will ever go wrong then I guess supporting stunts like this is OK. I just thought you might like to have a plan in place just in case something does happen, because by the look of things, you'll have supported that action. You can't just say "Oh, I support it when nobody gets hurt". Great. Using that logic I support bombing apartment blocks. When nobody gets hurt I can say "See, just a bunch of bricks and mortar" and when somebody does, I'll just pretend I didn't support it, or perhaps I'll just say that I only support it when the outcomes are positive.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:46

#42

N.Beltov

I'm inclined to assume it is agents provocateurs unless it can clearly be proven otherwise.

The Harper regime, and the Quebec government, have already demonstrated a willingness to engage in provocative acts, as in Montebello, to discredit opposition to their unending atrocities.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:49

#43

j.m.

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

Why? Cause CNN, MSNBC, CBC, etc. would all celebrate a firebombing and only the right-wingers at Fox would condemn it?

No, because you can spin a tactic against a bank as equivalent to firebombing someone's home (a babbler's home!), which is entirely incongruent with the political context in which the incident occured. My point: you spin the situation completely out of context to make an argument.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:51

#44

Polly B

Snert wrote:

If you're pretty confident that nothing will ever go wrong then I guess supporting stunts like this is OK.

Out of curiousity, how would YOU go about getting noticed/heard/listened to by a corporation the size and might of RBC? What actions would you take if you truly wanted them to stop funding something as ecologically devastating as the tar sands (and as profitable for RBC, which makes them less inclined to listen to you?). If "stunts" like this (property damage) are out, what do you propose?

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:52

#45

Polunatic2

What if the bank was next door to a school or childcare centre?

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:54

#46

derrick

Hey, this thread is violating "respect for diversity of tactics". Can a moderator please intervene and slam it with a pie and call everyone here traitors?

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:57

#47

j.m.

Polunatic2 wrote:

What if the bank was next door to a school or childcare centre?

FFS. I could see that posing a risk for all the children attending the daycare or school at 3:30 AM in the morning.

What if the bank supported punishing the poor and funded environmentally degrading industries for its profits? OH I FORGOT

Wed, 2010-05-19 15:02

#48

derrick

But seriously, we should stay focused on the main threat here, which is the inevitable ramped up security "fortress" and crackdowns on civil liberties. Check out this video of a "security expert" on CTV saying this will "open the gate of Hell" in terms of a state response. (Personally, I picture Kenney coming through the gate first...)

Wed, 2010-05-19 15:03

#49

Polunatic2

What if the fire spread and destroyed a neighboring school or daycare, that would be OK as along as no one was there at the time?

Try google mapping - 166 First Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada - look at the street view. Look next door. RBC - 745 Bank Street, Ottawa.

Now that fact could bolster Beltov's conspiracy theory but more likely than not it tells you how needlessly stupid their action was.

Wed, 2010-05-19 15:08

#50

N.Beltov

The Greek CP has already pointed out, in the context of massive protests against the atrocities of the neo-liberal regime there, that a similar incident took place in that country in which 3 bank workers died. They were strongly convinced it was the work of agents provocateurs.

These governments all operate from the same playbook. The Canadian opposition parties could do a favour for the democratic and mass movements in this country by putting pressure, raising questions in the Commons, etc., to ensure that this government will NOT be engaging in (further) provocative actions such as was done at Montebello.

Wed, 2010-05-19 15:08

#51

derrick

Polunatic2 wrote:

Why should we support a "diversity of tactics" that potentially put bystanders in danger? Who draws the lines? What is the line? I call bullshit on these tactics and the people who are engaging in them or condoning them.

Well said. The dogmatic refusal to allow discussion and debate of that line is precisely the problem with "diversity of tactics" as it has come to be used.

Pages

Topic locked