Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) terrorist paroled

84 posts in this topic

 

Even in English it's "schtumm"

yep mutti ist das wort ja?

 

I remember the Frankfurt case. But taking your argument that the judges hands were tiedby others as to the maximum sentence, I personaly have more respect for that copper than the judge who just passes the buck. It is harder in life to stand up and be counted than just folow orders I guess. Didn't he save the victim by his actions?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jesus christ on a bike, here we go again with the Anti American rants...give it a rest please.

Hmm, i'll try that again!

 

As I remember the red army also killed a few British servicemembers too, this particular woman also killed a German, but you seem only to be worried about the sentencing as regards to the Americans killed, now why is that?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So say the judge had said OK, life with a minimum of 20 years, we'd be in the same siutation, just five years down the line from now.

We can argue about moving that X one way or the other.

 

It's too late for the Schäuble and the CDU to get all frothy now, why didn't they toughen sentencing in the years 1980-88?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not excusing ANY deaths caused by terrorists, where did I say that?

 

As for a full list that would be difficult wouldn't it? There are however some glaring examples 2 of which are above

 

NORAID an organisation that provided financial and material support to the IRA for a couple of decades and was allowed to do so, where do you think the "Boyos" got hold of Barratt 50 cal sniper rifles that led to the deaths of British soldiers? It was an organisation that was allowed to operate in the open without interferance from the authorities.

 

How about the Contras? "Freedom fighters" I hear you squeek, well one man's freedom fighter is anothers terrorist and they certainly took part in terrorist operations.

 

Hang on aren't the Taliban terrorists these days? Well the US was falling over itself to provide them and or their predecessors with arms when they were fighting against the Great Satan of the day.

 

The RAF terrorists (who survived) were subject to the laws of this land, bust!

Nothing impressive here from this roach, either.

 

Who specifically gave aid to NORAID? Name the specific people and organizations. If you can't, withdraw your unsupported claim.

 

Already debunked the Taliban myth. Are you saying the people who fought the Soviets should not have received assistance? What exactly did they receive?

 

Are you claiming the Contras were a terrorist group? They fought against the Sandinistas, who were an unelected dictatorship that took private property and tortured dissidents. The Contras obviously weren't angels, but how about reliable proof they were terrorists?

 

Weak effort, Fuchs, and you seem none too upset at the US deaths at the hands of terrorists.

 

leky- I am upset at all of the deaths caused by the Red Army Faction, no matter who the victims were; however, surely you must admit that six years for three premeditated murders in cold blood is a pathetic sentence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

however, surely you must admit that six years for three premeditated murders in cold blood is a pathetic sentence.

Defendents have the constitutional right to due legal process which includes sentencing under current law.

Does the argument seem familiar? ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So say the judge had said OK, life with a minimum of 20 years, we'd be in the same siutation, just five years down the line from now.

We can argue about moving that X one way or the other.

But it would be 5 years less freedom and five more time for the families. That would be then a little more justice and a step in the right direction. I actualy think they should allow the vistims families to deceide. Death, life or a maximum sentence. Obviously after a bit of time and councelling. Say one year after judgement?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nothing impressive here from this roach, either.

Bore off you pillock, and before you cry Anti-american, I quite like the majority of Americans (or at least those I've met so far) I just feel every country has it's share of tossers (if you feel your ears burning now there's a good reason for it)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I actualy think they should allow the vistims families to deceide.

The reason that western justice systems don't allow that is that the law is meant to be applied neutrally and as far as possible without subjective emotion.

That we collectively agree in advance the punishment for certain crimes before they (God forbid) personally touch our lives.

 

There may be a section that say "string em up by the bollocks" but that is tempered by the fluffy bleeding hearters etc until we find a (generally) mutually acceptable solution.

 

Here endeth the lecture on comparative justice systems for today.

God I need my tea, a bit of music and then head out sharking. :ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You need to cite some source to back you up on the 1968 coup. (wiki) Keep in mind that Rahman Arif's brother came to power in 1963 via a military coup. Are you saying that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist?

Wasnt that the reason the US liberated Iraq? Because Hussein was supporting terrorism?

 

 

Just like a roach motel- the anti-American crowd is checking in.

Im not part of any anti-American crowd. Im not part of any group of fuckwits - yours included.

 

 

Try to cite your quotes from Wikipedia, it's not that hard to do:

The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1988. The Taliban did not come into being until 6 years later. Sorry, they were not funded as a terrorist group. Try to Spend a little more than 10 minutes on your anti-American fantasies.

Were they, in your own estimation, terrorists at the time they were provided aid? I don't think so, therefore that was not aiding terrorists.

By your logic, the parents of the Red Army Faction are guilty of supporting terrorism by giving birth to the terrorists.

The links are all from wikipedia. Excuse my ignorance on the fine points of providing information. Excuse also my lack of interest in this pseudopolitcal discussion.

 

From what i read and posted (from wiki), it appears the Taliban were given training/support by the US amongst other countries as they were seen to be an important buffer country between russia and the rest of the region. No, they werent funded as a terrorist group, because they were in control of the country. after 9/11, it was decided that they were a terrorist state.

 

No queries or corrections on the quotes regarding the membership of al quaeda etc?

 

 

Wow, that's very specific. More information, such as at least their names, needed to actually get some reliable and complete information about this. Sounds doubtful to me- the UK is one of the US' closest allies, and you can guess who the IRA had ties to.

Thin gruel from the anti-American crowd, as usual. No suprise there, as you don't require much, if any, evidence to support your reflexive anti-Americanism.

i wasnt trying to make a case for one side or the other. just supplying some quotes from wiki. if youd like to call me "anti-american", fine. i do however get to call you names too.

 

thats how it is in this schoolyard.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RAF were the worst scum imaginable. Sociopathic terrorists who thought nothing of killing people in the name of their ridiculous political ideas. The cherry on the pie is that many of these extra-parliamentary political groups in Europe in the 1970s benefited from a lot of "understanding" in intellectual circles...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't agree with it 100% JW, but there's a fair ammount of truth in that.

Why they committed those crimes however, is not relevent.

 

They were convicted as common criminals.

 

Do the crime.

Do the time.

 

The woman in question has done the crime and done the time.

And she has been released under standard application of law and criminal justice practice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And she has been released under standard application of law and criminal justice practice.

I swore an oath and was honour bound to do my duty and follow my orders.

 

Do we blame the man or the system? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

If a crime isn't one under thestandard application of law and criminal justice practice. lWhen does it suddenly become one?

 

Judging crimes unemotionaly is the down fall of society.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do we blame the man or the system? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

And you've just coooked your own!

 

That's the point she was judged just as any other murdress. Did the crime, did the time.

That fact that she was a RAF scumbag/terrorist/freedom fighter/whatever, delete at will.

 

Now I've a cute lad on line 3 with a suit fetish, so please excuse me. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Defendents have the constitutional right to due legal process which includes sentencing under current law.

Does the argument seem familiar?

What does the Straftrecht say? We are talking about crimes committed in Germany, not the US.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Berny, do you consider Saddam Hussein to have been a terrorist? I do not recall Bush saying he was, or that terrorism was the reason for action in Iraq in 2003. AFAIK, the issue was WMDs.

 

You didn't show any US support for terrorists as far as I can see. You may claim US support for Al-Qaeda, but you haven't shown any evidence of it. You have nothing. No surprise there.

 

Fuchs, I could not care less what you call me. You couldn't back up your statement, no surprise there. What I complained about was your implication that the Americans killed by the Red Army Faction were no big deal because of what you said was previous American support for terrorists.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We are talking about crimes committed in Germany, not the US.

You are the one always bleating on about the right of US miliatry staff to be tried in US military courts.

Well this womans has rights too. The rigt to be tried and convicted under contemporary criminal law.

 

Without some wannabe right wing pundit coming along 20 years later and wanting the goal posts moved so he can play to the gallery.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Berny, do you consider Saddam Hussein to have been a terrorist? I do not recall Bush saying he was, or that terrorism was the reason for action in Iraq in 2003. AFAIK, the issue was WMDs.

 

You didn't show any US support for terrorists as far as I can see. You may claim US support for Al-Qaeda, but you haven't shown any evidence of it. You have nothing. No surprise there.

To be thorough:

 

(from WIKI)

In his January 2002 state-of-the-union message to Congress, President George W. Bush spoke of an "axis of evil" comprising Iran, North Korea, and Iraq. Moreover, Bush announced that he would possibly take action to topple the Iraqi government, because of the threat of its weapons of mass destruction, further stating that "The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade." "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror," said Bush.[26][27]

 

do I believe he was a terrorist? do i believe he developed WMD? ask me if i think he was a good kisser.

 

NEXT:

 

again, from WIKI

The foundations of al-Qaida were built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the radical Islamic mujahadin of Afghanistan during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country.[38] The U.S. provided weapons to Osama Bin Laden in the 1980s as part of the CIA's support for the Afghan insurgency. Osama was one of the CIA's best weapons customers.[39] The role of the U.S. in arming, training, and supporting the Mujihadeen of Afghanistan in the 1980s has been called the model for state-sponsored terrorism.[40]

 

Armed and trained by the U.S. and Saudia Arabia, among others, the Afghan Mujahedeen of the 1980's have been alleged to be the inspiration for terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippians, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia. [41] Many of the Arab Mujahedin who gained combat experience in Afghanistan were later involved in terrorist acts against the U.S. The perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 used a manual written by the CIA for the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives. [42]

 

would you like me to go to every single terrorist group and ask to see their books and accounts and show you where the weapons came from?

 

"oh but we thought they were on our side...that they were freedom fighters..."

 

ok, tough break, they turned out to be people willing to kill to achieve their goals.

 

i think its fair to say that YES the USA funded and supported terrorism. of course they didnt mean to, but nonetheless they did. they gave weapons and training to people who they thought would fight communism etc. and it turns out they just wanted power.

 

does it mean terrorists are ok? NO.

do you think maybe a lesson might be learned...? maybe?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are the one always bleating on about the right of US miliatry staff to be tried in US military courts.

Well this womans has rights too. The rigt to be tried and convicted under contemporary criminal law.

 

Without some wannabe right wing pundit coming along 20 years later and wanting the goal posts moved so he can play to the gallery.

Monkstown, Status of Forces Agreements or other agreements with host countries dictate that US military personnel are to be tried under US military law for any offenses committed ON DUTY or on-base only. Why shouldn't these agreements be respected? Off duty offenses that occur off-base are tried in local courts, as per the SOFAs.

 

Of the three Americans she murdered, two happened on a military base. She could not be tried under US military law because she was not a member of the US military, therefore she was tried in a German court, where she got very light sentences, to say the least, for three murders and a bombing.

 

Next time I have the chance, I will read through the relevant Straftrecht passages to see what they say. Somehow I doubt that six years for three murders and setting off a bomb that also wounded 23 people is the appropriate minimum sentence, and even if it is , it is ridiculously lenient for premeditated murder.

 

I would have said the same 20 years ago, and obviously it was 2001 she was tried for the murders of the US servicemembers, not 20 years ago, although I think the 15 years she got back then was also too lenient.

 

I would say the same regardless of whether some self-acknowledged left-wing anti-capitalist was defending a left-wing anti-capitalist terrorist's lenient sentence or not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0