RAF/Baader-Meinhof

[Chinaski]

Were their actions justified? Were the motivations correct? Did the judges really murder them, or were they just a bunch of radical freaks?

Despite the necessity of condemning the violence inherent in the RAF's modus operandi, I can't help but feel a mix of admiration and sympathy for their cause and their actions.

Seraph's take on this should be interesting.

[nellikin]

Hearts in the right place but kidnapping and killing people is not justifiable, no matter how much you hate the system. Violence can never be the answer - you're just making yourself as bad as your enemies, and taking away public sympathy. However, spending a lifetime in jail wasn't justifiable on the side of the state either.

Thanks for bringing back nice memories with this topic and here's a song to remind me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsGMJ_rJmTE

[Chinaski]

However, spending a lifetime in jail wasn't justifiable on the side of the state either.

Or being killed by your jailers by denying you medical attention.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Royal Air Force and terrorists. Chinaski you owe me a monitor and another cup of coffee.

[klr]

Royal Air Force and terrorists. Chinaski you owe me a monitor and another cup of coffee.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

OK, I thought this was gonna be about Douglas Bader.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

OK, I thought this was gonna be about Douglas Bader.

Royal Air Force and terrorists. Chinaski you owe me a monitor and another cup of coffee.

[Ian]

Some limey arse on RDF once tried to argue with me that while 9/11 might be considered terrorism (and wholly justified, in his opinion), the IRA's thirty-year campaign didn't qualify as terrorism since it was the manifestation of a complex political situation.
:pissed:

A crime is a crime is a crime. Raising a gun because you're politically unhappy is never justifiable (yes, I'd argue the same thing applies to military action). Whether it be Baader-Meinhof, the IRA, Hezbollah or al Qaeda, it amounts to the same thing: targeting civilians in order to produce a public spectacle, induce fear, or alter politics via assassination.

[Chinaski]

targeting civilians

Bingo. The Baader-Meinhof group was vehemently against harming civilians- especially those they considered to be victims of the same capitalist, imperialist stranglehold. What caused the initial rift between Ulrike Meinhof and the rest of the group (I think, at least- someone correct me if I'm talking out of my ass) was that Meinhof wrote a statement supporting an attack carried out by one particular cell of the group that killed a bunch of employees, rather than the appropriate targets: the industrialists, the judges, the bankers, the "promoters of capitalist fascism", etc.

Also, if you think about the fact that wherever there's an accumulation of riches in the hands of a few it means that someone somewhere along the line got ripped off, the whole concept of "bank-robbing = re-appropriation" starts to take on an understandable, if not sympathetic, hue.

[Ian]

targeting civilians

Bingo. The Baader-Meinhof group was vehemently against harming civilians- especially those they considered to be victims of the same capitalist, imperialist stranglehold. What caused the initial rift between Ulrike Meinhof and the rest of the group (I think, at least- someone correct me if I'm talking out of my ass) was that Meinhof wrote a statement supporting an attack carried out by one particular cell of the group that killed a bunch of employees, rather than the appropriate targets: the industrialists, the judges, the bankers, the "promoters of capitalist fascism", etc.

Maybe I just should've said "people" instead of civilians. Those industrialists, judges, bankers, etc. were people too. Who were the RAF to take it upon themselves to be their judges and executioners?

Even if the original targets were the scum of the earth, that provides no excuse for the targeting of those innocent people who were killed later. Just because the original members might not have approved such things does not absolve them of all responsibility. They created the organization that did such things. After the Troubles flared upon in Northern Ireland around 1969, the IRA focused their attention on those they saw as supporting the British occupation (i.e. soldiers - most of whom probably couldn't have cared less about the local politics). And then things started to run a course. After the Kings Mill Massacre in 1976, the IRA leadership vowed never again to allow their members to slaughter civilians in such a manner. But did that keep it from happening again? Nope, their outside-the-law organization was already branching out.

The difference between armed terrorist organizations like those and a legitimate military is the rule of law. Did the RAF discipline its members who killed innocent people in contravention of the group's founding principles? Did the IRA? I'm not sure. If they did, it was behind closed doors. When Lt. Calley went apeshit at My Lai, he and others involved were promptly courts-martialed. The Rule of Law is what distinguishes civilization from barbarism.

[nellikin]

I don't think initiator of a movement can be blamed for the later actions of that movement if the initiator doesn't agree with or condone those actions. If I start a sect centred on hedonism, but pull out when people start hurting each other - just for fun - then I can't be blamed for the actions of those people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think initiator of a movement can be blamed for the later actions of that movement if the initiator doesn't agree with or condone those actions. If I start a sect centred on hedonism, but pull out when people start hurting each other - just for fun - then I can't be blamed for the actions of those people.

I'd want to take each case individually.