I am not at all sure about this bit Jim. In the first place it would not be terribly usual for a bank branch to have insurance against being attacked - it would be quite expensive insurance and banks are usually quite well-armoured and guarded anyway. Banks aren't typically insured against robberies.
Also, I don't see how the depositors end up suffering out of this. They're depositors of the bank, not any individual branch. It's not even as if they're going to have a significant walk to find another branch because there are loads of bank branches in Athens. I am in general against bombing banks, not least because I work in one, but the economics here don't seem right. best dd -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jim Devine When the "angry anarchist" bombs a bank, it's not the bank-owners that suffer (after all, they have insurance). Instead, it's the depositors and the taxpayers who pay, along with some borrowers who won't be able to get loans. The bank's stock-owners are covered.
