Johanna Kaschke libel update here. Back ground here.

Late last night while I was uploading a ton of files to a website, I took the opportunity to watch the German movie Baader-Meinhof Complex which turned out to a brillant film. I liked the film because I really learned a lot I didn’t know about this group.

For those of you who don’t know, Baader-Meinhof and RAF were one of the most tenacious revolutionary groups in Europe from late 60’s through the 70’s. Even with their tragic end, their influence is still felt today. People forget what a split there was in Europe during that time. The film also reminded me of a constant question I get from people which is “Why do Europeans hate Americans?” Overall they don’t of course but roots of resentment go back to this period and I think most Americans would find this film eye-opening because history isn’t taught in the States and even flashpoints of our own history i.e. Kent State are ignored.

The film itself, nominated for both an Oscar and Golden Globe, comes from the team that gave us Downfall, Last Exit to Brooklyn, & Christine F. They keep their reputation intact here.

The only trouble I had with the film was in the first five minutes or so because there were so many characters introduced without real background and at first it was hard to keep track of it but I suspect if I was German, this would not be a problem. For instance, the June 2nd incident when the Shah of Iran’s people beat Germans in the street (with State backing) and people died, I knew nothing about but in the special features it expanded on what I learned from the film about how that was a pivotal moment in German history.

Once past that five minute point though, the film just kept increasing in intensity much like I imagine the terrorists themselves went through. I like the fact the film didn’t sugar-coat anything. The revolutionaries had valid points at times but did some horrible things and met a terrible end. The film does a good job of portraying the fact that life is seldom black and white. The grey area is always there.

I couldn’t help thinking that Baader-Meinhof were right about one thing. People need to be involved. If Americans hadn’t given up being politically involved after the 1960s’, I wonder if we’d be in the dire straits we are now? This movie is out on DVD.  Well worth the rental or the purchase fee. I liked it so much I hope to buy the book it is based on at some point and give it a read.

A RECENT PRESS REPORT about a tomato that was inexpertly tossed in the direction of former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin in the Mall of America recalls a similar incident that occurred in Frankfurt forty-one years ago. That time the thrower not only had a better aim, but her historic toss also helped launch a revolution in the way women and men would see one another in Central Europe for the next four decades and beyond.

A whiff of revolution

Temperatures were rising on West German campuses in the late 1960s. Disgusted at what they perceived as a repressive conservative society wrapped around a loathsome Nazi past, a new generation of university students took to the streets, demanding a revolution in social relations. The movement they created has gone down in history as the “Extraparliamentary Opposition.”

But society fought back. In 1967 a West Berlin policeman shot student Benno Ohnesorg dead during a demonstration against a state visit by the “fascist” Shah of Iran. The following spring, a young neonazi put a bullet through the skull of the young Marxist revolutionary Rudi Dutschke. Fidel Castro and Chairman Mao had by this time supplanted John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King as progressive role models. A range of new organisations sprang up, ranging from gentle pacifist groups dedicated to “free love” all the way to the blooththirsty, bomb-throwing Red Army Faction. Those groups hovering in between, collectively known as Spontis (from the word “spontaneous”), skillfully captured headlines by occupying university buildings and publicly humiliating authority figures from the bourgeois “Establishment” – preferably by lobbing rotten fruit and vegetables at them. But despite their diversity, there is one thing all of these organisations shared in common: they were dominated by men…

Continued…

Nadeem Rahman explores the ideological foundations of terrorism

“What is a rebel? He is a man who says no!” Albert Camus

“Remember, remember, the fifth of November
The gunpowder treason and plot,
I know of no reason the gunpowder and treason
Should ever be forgot”

On November 5, 1605, Guy Fawkes was caught with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder, attempting to blow up the House of Lords in the Palace of Westminster, during the State Opening of Parliament. The plot was to assassinate the King of England along with almost the entire British aristocracy. Since then, in adherence to tradition and the true spirit of British democracy, parliament has never been opened on the November 5 (except once), and the Houses of Parliament are ceremoniously searched by the Yeomen of the Guard, as a precaution against traitors and religious zealots. Parliament was subsequently opened on November 9, when His Majesty did not miss the opportunity to wax eloquent on “the divine right of monarchs” to rule, and the infernal “Catholic question”.

The King was not alone in anti-Catholicism. Even those reluctant to accept his divine credentials were one with him on this issue. Anti-Catholic sentiment was rampant throughout Medieval England, and the very next verse of the 5th of November nursery rhyme is unambiguous proof of its popular fervour :

“A penny loaf to feed the Pope A farthing o’ cheese to choke him A pint of beer to rinse it down A faggot of sticks to burn him Burn him in a tub of tar
Burn him like a blazing star Burn his body from his head Then we ‘ll say ol’ Pope is dead Hip hip hoorah! Hip hip hoorah!”

What is perhaps not appreciated enough, however, is the realisation that the gunpowder plot was nothing less than an act of war — a religious coup d’ état which, had it succeeded, would have proved as thoroughly comprehensive as France’s infamous reign of terror, and far more devastating than America’s 9/11. England might have been a part of the Pope’s domain. In spite of this, or rather as a consequence of its failure, history cannot credit the gunpowder plot with England’s civil war, Cromwell’s Commonwealth, or the Glorious Revolution. It stands alone, foremost on the list of lost causes.

Ironically, Guy Fawkes, “that brave bad man,” who was the inspiration for the Devil in Milton’s Paradise Lost, has of late acquired something of a cult status. In 2002 he was ranked 30th in a list of Briton’s 100 greatest, and among Yorkshire’s 50 greatest. In a strange twist of fortune, Guy Fawkes, who was once demonised as Briton’s best known traitor, is today celebrated as “the only man ever to have entered parliament with honest intentions”.

Not surprisingly, Catholics were not the only irritants to early English society. The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 expelled all Jews from England for over three hundred and fifty years, until it was formally revoked in 1656. It was immensely popular at the time, and countless colourful anti-Semitic myth have emanated from that formative era. Indeed, well before the expulsion of Jews from Spain and Portugal and long before the notorious Nazis, England was the first country in Europe “to require Jews to wear a marking badge.” But the Jews never produced a Guy Fawkes of their own — on the contrary, the virgin Queen’s personal physician was a Jew, who is believed to have inspired Shakespeare’s Shylock. The quiet comeback of the Jewish community culminated in Benjamin Disraeli’s assumption of office as Prime Minister of Great Briton. Although a convert to Anglicanism, he was nevertheless essentially of Jewish origin.

Be that as it may, the November 5 has come and gone for four hundred years since that fateful night, and sectarian differences, indeed religion, is no longer the great divide of the British body politic. Great Britain, which has always been a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural realm, finds itself once again, in the twenty first century, under siege by yet another non-Anglican faith. Despite the diligent Yeomen of the Guard, since then, religious zealots abound and the sinister Catholics are replaced by British radical Muslims, who have sprung from British soil, and made no pretence of loyalty and bore no allegiance whatsoever to King and Cool Britannia. These “revolutionaries” are a new species of “crusaders,” whose hearts and minds belong to a world apart from the middle gentry of merry England.

Increasingly, this scenario can be seen throughout Europe, indeed the world. Muslim militants have become an unwelcome phenomenon even in Muslim cultures. Not since the “Hashisheens” despatched by “the old man of the mountain,” from whom the punishing word “assassin” is derived, has history witnessed such a deluge of dedicated executioners, on a global scale.

They are not alone. In Europe, The Irish Republican Army (IRA), and the Basque nationalist separatist group (ETA) in Spain, are the two oldest guerrilla organisations, with an impressive catalogue of mayhem to their credit. Other more recent, but equally fierce bands of insurgents such as Baader-Meinhof of Germany, the Red Brigade of Italy, the Japanese Red Army, the LTTE of Sri Lanka, the Naxalites of North East India, the Maoists of South Asia, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Abu Sayef in the Philippines, the Freedom Fighters of Chechnya, the Mujahideen-Taliban of Afghanistan, and the omnipresent Al Quaeda of no specific abode, to mention a few, at some time or other, have not hesitated to display their propensity for violence.

In Latin America, the Communist Party of Peru, better known as Shining Path, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), have survived countless administrations antagonistic to their cause. The latter is perhaps the largest and the oldest insurgent group in the world. Even US, the bastion of capitalism, where individual freedom is sacred, is not immune to its fair share of underground movements. The relatively peaceful Black Panther Party was hunted into extinction, almost single-handedly by J. Edgar Hoover, which in turn gave rise to the openly violent Black Liberation Army. The Weatherman Organisation and other similar quasi-militant guerrilla groups sprang like mushrooms, during the era of the Vietnam War, while the home grown “militia” is almost an American tradition. With the passage of time, wars have been fought, hostages taken, ransoms paid, territories lost and gained, but despite this virile legacy of insurrection, most have yet to achieve their desired aspirations:

The IRA has been officially disbanded, Baader-Meinhof were incarcerated, the Red Brigade and the Japanese Red Army disappeared into oblivion, and the LTTE would appear to have lost the war to the Sri Lankan army. Among European villains, only ETA remains a force to be reckoned with. The Maoists and the Naxalites continue their sporadic low intensity raids in the foothills of the Himalayas and the South Asian hinterland, but to no avail. In the Middle East, the indestructible Muslim Brotherhood is reduced to the ignominy of an underground “political” movement, and the PLO, desperate to shed its terrorist reputation, craves acceptance and “respectability,” as the legitimate governing authority of the stateless people of Palestine. At the other end of the world, Abu Sayef, the “Jihadists in Paradise,” struggle to survive, while the Chechen Freedom Fighters are forgotten and no longer regarded as “newsworthy.” In this sorry state of affairs, Al Quaeda and to a lesser degree, the Taliban, stand out as something to cling to, for the disenfranchised.

Consequently, for some, rightly or wrongly, insurrection has become a way of life. It is a harsh and lonely life, bereft of hope and offering little comfort in the immediate future. Such men are driven by hate, or sustained by their dreams. Suicide is their ultimate weapon, the final coup de grâce of terrorist expletives.

Therefore, urban terrorism and violent revolt as a means of protest and drastic change, though obviously not the norm, is nevertheless not as unfamiliar a historical aberration as one is inclined to admit. Wherever there is a concentration of power, and the apparatus with which to ensure its exercise, there is always the potential for conflict and the rise of civil resistance.

Thus the rebel is born.

More often than not, the uprising is collective, though invariably inspired by charismatic leadership or a seminal nucleus. The rebel commander comes in many moulds, from Robin Hood to Ché Guevara, from Chief Sitting Bull to Martin Luther King, from Mahatma Ghandi to the illusive Osama Bin Laden. Each brings with him his own magnetic aura and his own vision of the future.

The Ghost Dance of the Native Americans was believed to foment an uprising against the white man’s brutal occupation. This was considered a bad thing, because the natives were unreasonably warlike, uncivilised and godless but more importantly, there was gold in the Black Hills. Spontaneous uprisings do indeed occur simply to overthrow the status quo, but generally speaking, seldom with the sole intent to simply wreck havoc and declare anarchy. On the contrary, revolutions are invariably inspired out of the most altruist intentions, spearheaded by men of iron will, or inept idealists. In any event, there is usually an agenda. These are motivated by any variety of reasons, political, economic or even spiritual to resist foreign occupation, redress inequality, or overthrow tyrants. Whatever the cause, throughout the his tory of the human condition, the hungry and the angry have stormed the gates of civilisation. The clamour for justice has taken many forms, especially when the avenues of legal struggle are cut off from the mainstream. People have fought along the ramparts of philosophy, all manner of insult and injury. As much as they have fought for the right to life, they have fought for the right to dissent. They have fought for the freedom of the soul.

But, the high priests of every creed would shackle the soul and redefine civilisation in the image of Dante’s inferno. They would take, in the name of divine salvation, what little joys this pitiful existence affords, with the promise of something, of which they themselves possess no firsthand knowledge. They would enjoin the faithful to accept their austere interpretation of the universe, and patiently endure every iniquity, for a paradise long lost to Original Sin. For the destitute and emotionally vulnerable, even this bleak hope is more comfort than they have ever known.

Intolerance, prejudice and hands on persecution, are the hallmarks of world history, which usher the unsuspecting traveller through a maze of subtle intimidation to “the final solution”: ethnic cleansing and ultimately, genocide. The fruits of our family tree are laden with the sweet nectar of jealousy, envy, enmity and hatred. Race, religion and culture are powerful prime movers. Language, as an extension of culture, is a vital means to bridge the gulf, or widen the cleavage and establish an unbridgeable moat of mistrust and deliberate disinformation, a communication gap of poison waters. In the context of history, the long sojourn of the Jewish people is the obvious example of all of the above.

Maciez Toporowicz

In our times, we have wounded the soul irreparably the same soul we sought to liberate from the first day of creation. Slavery and colonialism herded humanity like livestock, branded by the Cross, by the Crescent Moon and the Star of David, branded by the mystic Swastika. In our times, the so-called Cold War tore the world apart. Despite pretences, the superpowers alone were the only non-aligned nations. Everyone took sides and everyone changed sides with the ebb tide. China awakened, Russia waned, Europe united, and America rushed in, where Moses, Jesus and Mohammed once trod with discretion. The clash of cultures was truly afoot.

“The clash of civilisations” is not new to the pages of history, nor indeed “the remaking of world order.” Both have occurred time and again. Consider the crusades, the discovery of the New World and the invention of the United Nations not to mention the information super highway and the internet. From the conquests of the early Greeks and the Romans, the rapacious Mongols, the elevating effects of the spread of religions, Buddhism in the East, Christianity in the West and Islam in the balance, the Exodus and the holocaust, civilisation without technology, each in their turn have redefined the destiny of the human species. All the turmoil of the twenty first century is the direct consequence of the sins of the past, the vulgarity of slavery, the evil of imperialism, patronising equality, and the dispensing of trade and aid as an instrument of hegemony. None are exempt however much the giants of geopolitical grandstanding scramble to gain the moral high ground.

In our times, it all began with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and though the Soviets are long departed, Afghanistan is still under siege, this time by former allies, and there is no end to her miseries yet, true to character, the Afghans remain defiant.

Afghanistan is a Pandora’s Box. The first Afghan war in the early nineteenth century resulted in so resounding a defeat for the British, that only one solitary British soldier survived. Briton did not suffer such a humiliation again, until Dunkirk and the fall of Singapore. Smarting from its shame, the British credited this disaster with instigating the Indian Sepoy mutiny of 1857. Coincidentally, Britain’s entry into Afghanistan and the “Great Game” was to act as a buttress against Soviet domination of Central Asia. Predictably, two hundred years later, history repeated itself, this time, with NATOin the vanguard.

Even then, the Afghan wars were never ending. Such a cherished culture of war has bred a breed as rugged as the terrain. The Afghan warrior will launch a cowardly ambush, beat a hasty retreat, and totally retract his bond on a whim, but surrender is not in his dictionary. Add to this the reputation of the Hindu Kush Mountains as “the graveyard of all foreign armies’. Hindu Kush meaning “the slayer of Indians or Hindus,” did not earn that reputation lightly. With the exception of Alexander, no invading force has ever emerged from its bowels, with its pride intact. It is a forbidding tourist attraction, the perfect panorama for Armageddon. Strangely, and perhaps significantly, the Hindu Kush is “calculated to be the geographic centre of population of the world.”

The Hindu Kush is also the most inaccessible battleground, the lair of every fugitive West of the Indus. In this setting, wars are not fought along conventional battle array, here the enemy is like mountain mist and victory is measured one day at a time. “Ghost Wars” is a most apt description. There is no “official” cessation of hostilities, only a lull between epochs of killing. Woven into the fabric of this vivid Afghan rug, are fractious tribes of differing religious sects and racial ethnicity, with an admixture of hybrid foreign mercenaries. Through it all, civilisation continues, despite the death and destruction.

In this backdrop, no military commander with the remotest instinct for survival would choose the Hindu Kush as the place to throw the gauntlet and make his stand. It was a foregone disaster, logistically and historically. Lured into “the jaws of death and the mouth of hell” the West with all its united might has embarked on yet another, and hopefully the last, Afghan war. The primary target wasn’t even an Afghan.

The “enemy combatant” is a legend in his lifetime, Osama Bin Laden, a billionaire Saudi dissident and the West’s public enemy number one. Unable to return to his homeland in the Arabian Peninsula where he is persona non grata, he took up residence in Afghanistan, where he found a sympathetic fundamentalist regime in the Taliban. His base camp is called Al Qaeda, which is what it means in Arabic, from where he directs his terror raids around the world, the most spectacular of which was the destruction of the World Trade Centre in New York, in 2001. With America’s inexplicable invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda found a new lease of life, gaining sympathy and support throughout the Muslim world.

Osama Bin Laden, who is neither Iraqi, nor an Afghan, nor indeed a Pakistani, wields sinister sway in all three countries plus a few more. As is invariably the case, there are in effect, two terrorists: Bin Laden the man, and the emerging myth. The real Bin Laden is a creation of the aftermath of the Cold War, of an inflexible and overbearing Saudi Monarchy, the CIA and the Pakistani Intelligence establishment. All these contributed to make the most dedicated malcontent in current world affairs. But Bin Laden the symbol, on the other hand, is a far more potent figure. Indisputably, he is today the most recognisable renegade, a Muslim rebel, and the darling of millions of fanatic Muslims. He is the symbol of Muslim outrage, and even those Muslims not sympathetic to his cause or his violent methods, will grudgingly acknowledge his symbolism in the larger context. There is reason to believe that he may be terminally ill. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that with or without Bin Laden, his revolutionary movement may ultimately reach the shores of his homeland the birth place of Islam. In any event, the legend of Osama Bin Laden will doubtless live on, well beyond the era of Muslim uprisings.

The West’s response to Muslim militancy has been understandably harsh, but at the same time, disproportionate beyond reasonable measure. In retaliation for a single terror attack on American soil, a war of attrition was unleashed on Iraq and Afghanistan, with the death toll in the hundreds of thousands and counting. This in turn has fed Muslim paranoia to the point of no return. Both sides have enthusiastically contributed to escalate the tensions, and raise the stakes.

Is there an end to this cycle of violence? Not as long as one side or the other considers itself under siege and vulnerable, with the real or imagined imperative, for self defence. It is said that “old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” Similarly, wars without end simply diffuse with the passage of time, when the cause is a lost cause, or no longer relevant. Yes, the war will end, when the will to fight is dissipated, as was the case with the war in Vietnam. When one or both sides are irreparably damaged, as in the case of the Cold War, or when there is an intellectual evolution motivating a shift in strategy, and a significant change in the dialectic, such as the dwindling gap between the tussle for supremacy of two economic theories, will the vicious circle cease. Above all, when everyone is emotionally exhausted — not strategically or militarily, not politically, but purely emotionally, can we expect an end to the carnage. When all else is lost, peace is the most valuable prize.

For America, insulated by two oceans, there is little to lose, except face, since neither diplomacy nor adaptability are known to be their particular forte. For the Muslim community however, there is a real and present danger. Their need for peace is therefore consider goal, the Muslim Diaspora, the vast majority of which is moderate, must play a far more positive role than hitherto. It is in their interest, regardless of the hypocrisies of the famously free West, and unequivocally in defiance of Muslim terrorists.

No one will win this war, neither the invading force nor the native resistance. It is a war without frontlines, without rules of engagement, without mercy. It is based on terror, torture and ugly retribution. After the endless senseless barrage of suicide bombings, after Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Blackwater, after that enormous body of lies from the White House and 10 Downing Street, no honest observer can any longer distinguish good from evil. Bush, Blair and Bin Laden remain remorseless. If we are to believe them, all three men acted at the behest of God.

The days of the warlord are over, whether he wears a scruffy beard and a turban, or is clean shaven with a custom tailored suit, the resemblance is unmistakable. They deserve each other, and their accomplices alike, should rightly end their days together, in the same hell. The International Criminal Courts and the International Court of Justice exist for just such an endeavour, and the gentlemen of high office who have orchestrated the greatest tragedies of our times, should be held accountable and punished for their incalculable crimes, as an example to future generations. For once, let there be no exceptions.

Everyone has a different vision of the perfect ideal, of freedom, whether it is Canaan or Tamil Elam, Bangladesh or Biafra. Few however, live to see the dawn of a new beginning. Even the greats were tested to the bitter end. Socrates was sentenced to death. Jeanne d’Arc, “the maid of heaven,” was burnt at the stake. Moses never entered the Promised Land, where Christ was later crucified, and Mohammed had to fight three major battles with his own countrymen. These are the roots of identity. Nationalism is as finite as faith is infinite.

One man’s meat is another man’s poison. For some, Guy Fawkes was a Catholic martyr, to others a disgusting traitor. In Africa, a galaxy of freedom fighters such as Nkrumah, Lumumba, Kenyatta, Mugabe and Mandela, to mention a few, carried the torch of freedom with exceptional valour. Yet, once they were hunted and caged like animals in a safari. Men have always taken up arms for their beliefs, without regard to their personal fortunes. Unfortunately, sometimes good men in their zeal often resort to unsavoury practices, perpetuating the very evil they revile. Sometimes, rebels also renounce their ways, and sinners have been known to become saints.

Martin Barraud

Under any conditions, revolution and urban terrorism are the extreme. Baader-Meinhof to Bin Laden, represent the basest elements of the modern revolutionary, without any redeeming virtues. At the end of the day, there is little to choose between the global vigilante and the international gangster.

The search for social justice is an ardours journey where “many come but few are chosen.” To redress a wrong, to bring hope where there was none before, to mend lives, one need not wage a bloodthirsty holy war.

True Jihad, is fought within the soul.

Nadeem Rahman is an author and a poet, his most recent work Politically Incorrect Poems is widely available.

// Israel/Palestine: Palestine-Israel, The joint struggle of the direct actions of the AAtW and Palestinians escalate. Uri Gordon’s Anarchy Alive on video. (Plus ZMag review.) Another friend for the Palestinian cause: Hungary’s fascist Jobbik party. The first “anti-Zionist” anti-war movement.

// Boycott news (for @ndy): Ken Loach vs Israeli film. Will they boycott antibiotics? Vanessa Redgrave won’t stand for the anti-Israel boycott. It is hard to believe that someone as bright as Naomi Klein gets it wrong so many times. Whom does this boycott help?

// Germany: The DDR’s Nazi heritage. The “Jamaica coalition”: the Greens align with the Right in Saarland. Nazi garden gnome “art”. Porsche’s slave labourers. Momo and the grey men: structural antisemitism in children’s books?

// Baader-Meinhof: On Hitchens and Baader-Meinhof: Red or brown? Who cares. (More from Terry Glavin, linking to J Carter Wood, who links to Andrew Hammel, who links to Paul Hockenos).

// US: Alison Weir of CounterPunch continues to promote blood libel. Lyndon LaRouche zombies sing.

// UK: Remember Johanna Kaschka? The ex-Baader Meinhof fellow traveller, later connected to George Galloway and now a Tory and embroiled in a libel case against Labour bloggers? Oh, and also a theorist of bizarre conspiracies involving Masons and the New World Order? Read Dave Osler and Lucy Lips for an update. Also: The International Marxist Group and the morality of the Brighton bombing. Ken and Hamas.

// Austria: Praising Haider.

@ndy writes:

Yeah. Thought I may as well throw this up, if only ’cause I reckon Anti-German Translation will link to it, and every time they link to my blog, I get a free bagel from Glick’s (but ssshhh, don’t tell anyone — it’ll like, totally blow my cover!).

It’s the story of a quack who’s gone to the dogs.

Or to put it another way: it’s the story of a nice middle class German boy who went to University, read too many books, joined a Marxist urban guerilla group, went to jail, left jail, became a right-wing ideologue, and is now back.

In jail.

So, how could I not? Go read it.

The Ideological Evolution of Horst Mahler: The Far Left-Extreme Right Synthesis
George Michael
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism
Volume 32, Issue 4, April 2009

The Baader Meinhof Complex

The Baader Meinhof Complex as the name implies is as much about the psychology of the Baader Meinhof Group as it is about the events. Not knowing much about the time it is hard to say how accurate the film is to the events. It does portray the unrest in West Germany of the late 60’s and early 70’s well and which is reflected in some of Fassbinder’s films, especially in The Lost Honor of Katarina Blum. The more interesting take of the film, though, is not the historic, but the motivations of the group. What was it that drove them and how did it manifest itself if their actions?

The film makers make clear that they see the group as well intentioned ideologues who could not control what they were: free loving anarchists from the 1960’s. The anarchism in their personal lives leads to mistakes in their actions. They are undisciplined terrorists and while they can plan out bank robberies well, they can’t plan out the next steps. And when they are arrested those who follow cannot plan any better. It doesn’t mean they are the Three Stooges of terrorism, because they managed hijackings and the German Embassy raid in Stockholm. It means they had no plan after the action. What happens when you reach your tactical objective?

The Badder Meinhof was good at achieving the tactical, but not the strategic and eventually the movement died out. However, it was not because the police were particularly cleaver. They caught group members, but were not able to stop new members from starting following after the group. Badder Meinhof dissipated as the times dissipated, as the politics that drove the original members changed.

It was also the seeming patience of the police that stopped the gang. The film makers show a scene where the head of the terrorism squad says, we must understand their motivations. It doesn’t make those motivations right, but it is the only way to defeat them. When he says it those in the meeting with him are resistant and it is an obvious criticism on the American War on Terror, which has posited a with us or against us mentality that has seemed to block analysis the movie posits. Yet the film also makes it clear that the German legal system was not able to handle the group adequately, since its processes were based on the idea that the accused will want to fight their charges. Instead the group makes fun of the case and spends time in their prison cell planning escapes.

Ultimately the questions The Baader Meinhof Complex grapple with is how do you stop terrorists? And how do you do it without destroying your society or creating more terrorists. The movie has no answers, but the skilled acting and film making make this and excellent film.

The Debate Link about  The Meaning of Haj Amin al Husseini. Extract:

Daniel Schwammenthal has an interesting column up about a German exhibition that was to note Nazi sympathy in the Arab and Palestinian community (expressed notably, but not uniquely, by Haj Amin al Husseini), as part of a broader exploration of “The Third World in the Second World War”. The exhibit was canceled, the column indicates, because the curator of the center did not like the indication of potential Arab complicity in the Holocaust. Norm Geras takes issue with the opening of the piece. [read the rest]

Next, to add to the list of Tarantino reviews: “Inglourious Basterds”: The Poetics of Unexpectedness. And, to add to previous Baader-Meinhof Complex reviews:  Terrorism as an Aesthetic Choice.

Via Slack Bastard, I came across the excellent dokumentationsarchiv : a multi-lingual blog collating articles and media reports on the antics of the far right.Actually, it’s mostly in German, and tags for non-German posts would be useful. Here are two sample snippets from there:

Manga version of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ a hit in Japan
Czech rightist extremists stage rally, no incidents (involves “autonomous nationalists”)

Also from Slack Bastard:

AntiFa StreetArt : nice. different. unusual. street art against fascism
squattercity : Robert Neuwirth is “a writer who spent two years living in squatter communities in four continents” — this is his blog

The Slackster himself continues to follow the antics of Australia’s pathetic “national anarchists”, including at the Sydney Forum.

The Slackster, however, will not like the banner below:

Må citeres med fuld kildeangivelse:

Fremskridt nr. 11 / 20. juni 1977 / 5. årgang

Åh – giv os Andreas! 

Alt flyder – sagde den oldgræske filosof Thales. Han mente vandet, som han anså for det eneste grundstof. ”Fortættet” vand bliver til faste ting – ”fortyndet” til luftarter – mente Thales.

Jeg tænker nu mere på tilstanden i al almindelighed. I nutiden.

Vor dronning har aflagt høflighedsvisit hos diktatorerne i Kreml. Det liberale Venstres formand, Poul Hartling, har været et smut i Kina for at trykke sin formandskollega Mao Tse Tung i dennes ikke alt for liberale hånd – og vi lavede et herrens spektakel sidste år, da vor eneste sande ven – USA – fejrede sit 200-års jubilæum i Rebild Bakker.

Nå ja – og vi har sendt varme hilsner, en cementfabrik og en smuk check til det aggressive Nordvietnams førstemand Pham Van Dong – som vi siden inviterede på statsbesøg, så vor statsminister (Anker Jørgensen, A, red.) kunne gnide kind med ham.

Desuden har vi skikket rundelige bidrag til Angolas nye hersker, Agostino Neto, som også var venlig nok til at aflægge os et besøg for at drøfte mere bistand – fra os til ham, forstår sig!

Vi har også haft besøg af Tanzanias leder, Julius Nyerere, der er en ihærdig tilhænger af pryglestraffen i sine skoler. F.eks. i pigeskolen i Korogwe, hvilket Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke i Dar es Salaam vist ikke er helt uvidende om. Men naturligvis er han fuld af afsky for de brutale hvide i Rhodesia og Sydafrika!

Og så har vi importeret ballademageren, Rudi Dutschke, som de intolerante briter havde udvist – og vi har sikret os Wolf Biermanns værdifulde medarbejderskab til at hæve vor ringe kulturelle standard en kende.

Nylig har vor fortræffelige minister uden portefølje, professor Lise Østergaard (A), fået tilsagn om, at 5 spanske terrorister vil glæde os med deres nærværelse.

Skulle vor uforstående fremmedpolitik med det første berøve os vor charmante mexicaners selskab, så synes jeg virkelig vi burde prøve at få Andreas Baader (Baader-Meinhof gruppen fra Tyskland, red.) hertil. Nu – hvor han har fået livsvarigt Berufsverbot i det ny-naziztiske Tyskland.

Ja – og så har vi da haft besøg af den jugoslaviske diktator, Josip Broz Tito – manden, der sendte sin nærmeste medarbejder 25 år i spjældet, fordi han modsagde ham.

Tito blev udnævnt til Ridder af Elefanten – husker jeg. Til gengæld erindrer jeg ikke, hvorvidt vor dronning blev til en Arbejdets Helt under genvisitten i Belgrad. Men det må man vel formode.

Undskyld, at jeg har lidt svært ved at holde styr på kronologien – der er virkelig så meget.

Hvor er det dog et yndigt og liberalt land, vi lever i!

Det må være betryggende for Idi Amin at vide, hvor han kan søge asyl, hvis det en dag bliver lidt for hedt for ham i Uganda.

Her er altid plads til en til – og han behøver slet ikke bruge det De ved nok.

Ikke desto mindre – problemer er der altid.

Et af de mere vægtige er, hvor en dansker kan tage hen, hvis han en dag er blevet for træt af den megen gæstfrihed og de mange gaver, han ufrivilligt må bidrage til.

Teoretisk er der vel muligheder nok – Angola, Nordvietnam, Jugoslavien, Tanzania, Sovjet – og ikke at forglemme Mozambique, hvis leder, Samora Machel, også har forsødet vor grå hverdag.

De vil sikkert alle være glade for at se os – kan jeg forestille mig.

Og med manglen på arbejde i Dannevang er det vel også kun nationaløkonomisk ønskeligt, at så mange som muligt absenterer sig for at gavne valutabalancen.

Mon der ikke kunne bevilges bare en minister mere til at ordne de paragraffer?

C- Frost-Hansen

www.frp.dk

Læs også: Hvem er Nelson Mandela?:

http://fremskridtdk.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/hvem-er-nelson-mandela/

Læs også: Ordner og fredspriser:

http://fremskridtdk.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/ordner-og-fredspriser/

The Baader Meinhof Complex, a German film directed by Uli Edel, attempts to tell the story of the RAF (Red Army Faction or Red Army Fraction depending on the translation), a group describing itself as an “urban guerrilla” that operated in Germany.

The title of the film alone betrays its approach to the subject. The group depicted called itself the RAF. It was the German press that labeled the group the “Baader-Meinhof Gang” in an attempt to portray it as a non-political criminal outfit.

The founders of the RAF saw themselves as a section of an international movement actively fighting against imperialism. They didn’t expect to take power or have a strategy for doing so. They viewed their actions as attacks which would draw some of the attention of the imperialists away from the forces fighting against their domination in places like Indochina and Latin America.

There is much to be criticized in the RAF’s politics and actions, but The Baader-Meinhof Complex doesn’t give a complete enough picture of them to serve as the basis for any real discussion.

While a few references are lightly interspersed throughout the film, no real focus is given to the brutal imperialist war lead by the U.S. in Viet Nam, the occupation of key positions in the German government by former Nazis, the export of guns to bloody African dictatorships by the German imperialists, the repressive actions of the west German state against dissidents or the outright lies meted out by the capitalist media – all of which served as the background for the formation of the RAF.

The RAF arose in a “democratic” west Germany governed by a “Grand Coalition” of the Social Democratic Party and Christian Democratic Union with a former Nazi at its helm, in which the Communist Party was outlawed, radicals were gunned down in the streets and individuals with “unacceptable politics” were blacklisted from jobs.  This is not brought out in the film.

The closest thing to an explanation of the RAF’s motives and politics The Baader Meinhof Complex offers are snippets of political statements written by Ulrike Meinhof, a left wing journalist and original member of the group, and a few pieces of dialogue from a police commissioner who states that terrorism can only be prevented by the elimination of poverty in the Third World.

While important facts and events are ignored, too much attention is given to episodes of violence and infighting.

Large segments of the two-and-a-half-hour film are dedicated to the RAF’s bombing campaigns and dramatic gun battles between the group’s members and police in pursuit.  Predictably, the police stories that the RAF members always shot first, and without provocation are presented as unchallenged fact.

Little is done to show how the group was able to continually draw members into its ranks and gain the sympathy of a large number of Germans. Instead, excessive focus is given to arguments and break downs among the group and its members. Bitter disputes are shown in full detail.

In the latter part of the film, RAF members Ulrike Meinhof, Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe are shown having killed themselves while in prison. In reality, the circumstances of their deaths are still very much in question.

Ulrike Meinhof is shown having committed suicide after becoming ostracized by the rest of the RAF prisoners.  But this tale of her separation from the others is simply a theory cooked up without any concrete proof. Indeed, many continue to believe she was killed by the German state, and for good reason.

The films also shows defense attorneys smuggling weapons into the prison for Baader, Ensslin and Raspe to use on themselves if they so chose. When the three prisoners were found dead in their cells, this “premeditated suicide” explanation is what was provided by German officials. But later tests showed that it would have been impossible for Baader to have shot himself at the angle that would have produced the fatal wound at the base of his neck.  On top of this, the left-handed Baader had powder burns on his right hand while Raspe had no powder burns at all. In spite of all this, and more, the official story is never questioned.

A film that purports to depict historical events must be held to a high standard. At the very least, it should stick to the known facts.  Instead, The Baader Meinhof Complex presents a flawed picture in a quest to represent the RAF as nothing more than a band of hopeless romantics with guns completely isolated from reality.

The acting in The Baader Meinhof Complex is superb, but it’s not enough to rescue the film from its own inadequacies.  The same can be said of the film’s fine cinematography.

In their attempt to create a historical “action film” acceptable in modern capitalist society, the creators of The Baader Meinhof Complex produced a film that falls flat.

“A violência é tão fascinante e nossas vidas são tão normais
Você passa dia e noite e sempre vê apartamentos acesos
Tudo parece ser tão real, mas você viu esse filme também.

Andando nas ruas pensei que podia ouvir
Alguém me chamando, dizendo meu nome

Já estou cheio de me sentir vazio
Meu corpo é quente e estou sentindo frio
Todo mundo sabe, ninguém quer mais saber
Afinal, amar ao proximo é tão demodê

Essa justiça desafinada, é tão humana e tão errada                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Nós assistimos televisão também, qual é a diferença?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Não estatize meus sentimentos                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Pra seu governo o meu estado é independente

Já estou cheio de me sentir vazio
Meu corpo é quente e estou sentindo frio
Todo mundo sabe, ninguém quer mais saber
Afinal, amar ao proximo é tão demodê…”

Baader Meinhof – Legião Urbana

Cartaz do filme.

Igår badade jag för första gången på åratal.Jag sken som en inoljad brax i den soliga ån.

//M(puff)

Dalam hirarki kekerasan, aksi teror dan terorisme berada di puncak. Terorisme merupakan puncak kekerasan, terorism is the apex of violence.  Itu pula menjadi gambaran kualitas aksi teror di Jakarta hari Jum’at kemarin.

Semua orang terguncang dan sangat tercekam karena memang tujuan serangan teror pertama-tama menciptakan ketakutan mendalam. Kaum teroris mengeksploitasi rasa takut sampai pada tingkat optimum.

Rasa takut yang begitu mendalam telah membawa orang ke dalam kengerian alam maut. Atau dalam analisis pemikir Martin Heidegger, ketakutan dan kecemasan merupakan ekspresi keberadaan menuju maut, Zeit zum Tode.

Sering disinggung, kiprah kaum teroris ibarat pepatah Cina, “ Bunuhlah seekor ayam untuk menakut-nakuti seribu ekor kera.”  Bukan hanya ribuan, melainkan jutaan bahkan miliaran orang ketakutan oleh serangan teroris yang cenderung spektakuler.

Keganasan kaum teroris memang meningkat dari waktu ke waktu seiring dengan perkembangan teknologi persenjataan. Kaum teroris semakin mahir menggunakan bom, termasuk bom bunuh diri.

Sudah dikhawatirkan pula kemungkinan kaum teroris menggunakan senjata nuklir seperti diingatkan oleh Uri Ra’anan dalam buku Hydra of Carnage, International Linkages of Terrorism (1986). Uri mengingatkan kemungkinan kaum teroris membikin bom nuklir yang bisa dibawa-bawa dalam koper atau bahan peledak nuklir sederhana yang bisa dipasang di jantung sebuah kota dan meledakkannya.

Jangkauan ancaman gerakan terorisme juga semakin luas karena kemajuan teknologi komunikasi dan transportasi. Maka, terorisme sering disebut sebagai kejahatan tanpa batas wilayah, crime without frontiers.

Seluruh negara, tanpa terkecuali, berpotensi menjadi sasaran serangan teroris. Gerakan terorisme pun menjadi jaringan internasional, yang memiliki hubungan timbal balik dalam bidang pendanaan, logistik, latihan, dan orientasi ideologis.

Gerakan teorisme sebagai fenomena sejarah tampaknya akan tetap ada. Bahkan, Desmond McForan awal tahun 1970-an memperkirakan sekitar dua juta teroris terlatih baik yang berkiprah di seluruh dunia.

Kelihatan pula kaum teroris ingin menjadikan dunia sebagai panggung raksasa untuk aktifitas mereka. Ibarat aktor, kaum teroris menjalankan lakon di panggung dunia agar ditonton masyarakat global.

Tidaklah berlebihan jika kembali disinggung pandangan psikolog Jeffry Rubin dari Tufts University dan Nehemia Friedland dari Tel Aviv University yang menggunakan metafora teater untuk menggambarkan kiprah kaum teroris.

Kaum teroris dapatlah dikatakan sebagai protagonis dari tragedi modern paling kejam dan panggungnya adalah dunia. Mereka selalu berusaha mencari perhatian dan menyebarkan pengaruh melampaui kekuatan aktual mereka, yang lazimnya terbatas, dengan memanfaatkan media massa.

Maka, akhli tentang terorisme John O’Sullivan menggambarkan teroris sebagai penjahat yang haus publikasi. Bahkan, pada masa lalu, kaum teroris selalu mengklaim bertanggung jawab setelah beraksi.

Kejam dan pengecut

Tidak habis pikir mengapa kaum teroris bertindak begitu kejam, jauh dari imajinasi siapa pun. Sekalipun penggunaan teror dapat dikatakan setua sejarah manusia, sampai sekarang belum dapat dijelaskan mengapa tindakan kaum teroris di luar batas rasionalitas manusia.

Dalam kenyataanya pula, tidak sedikit teroris yang berlatar belakang ekonomi kuat dan pendidikan tinggi. Sekadar ilustrasi, teroris legendaris dari Venezuela, Illich Ramirez Sanchez yang populer disebut Carlos, adalah orang kaya.

Carlos pernah kuliah di Moskwa tapi justru meninggalkan kemewahan, mati-matian berkiprah dalam dunia terorisme yang terkenal keras, kejam, dan penuh risiko. Begitu pula latas belakang anggota kelompok Baader-Meinhof di jerman, Brigate Rosse di Italia, atau Sekigun di Jepang.

Sungguh sulit dimengerti mengapa kaum teroris yang memiliki kecerdasan dan berasal dari kelas menengah memilih kegiatan kejahatan teror. Para analis seperti Anthony Storr menyatakan, pelaku teror umumnya penderita psikopat agresif, yang kehilangan nurani, kejam dan sadistis.

Memang pada setiap masyarakat, lingkungan, dan jaman selalu terdapat segelintir orang yang kurang mencapai tingkat normalitas dalam mengontrol dorongan batin yang bersifat dadakan. Kelompok psikopat agresif bisa melakukan teror sekadar untuk teror, terror qua terror.  Tidak ada maksud lain, kecuali menciptakan sensasi dengan kekejaman.

Tidak sedikit pula kaum anarkis, nihilistis, dan revolusioner melakukan teror untuk mengubah tatanan dunia yang dinilainya penuh ketimpangan dan ketidakadilan. Penganjur utamanya adalah tokoh Rusia dari abad 19, Mikhail Bakunin, yang terkenal dengan ucapannya, “ semangat menghancurkan sama dengan semangat membangun.”  Mereka ingin menghancurkan tatanan dunia yang ada dan hendak diganti dengan tatanan baru, meski gambaran dunia baru tidak jelas.

Perilaku kaum teroris umumnya membingungkan. Di satu sisi sangat kejam dan berani, tetapi di sisi lain mengekspresikan sikap pengecut. Kaum teroris selalu beraksi sembunyi-sembunyi, tidak berani menantang secara terbuka. Sungguh absurd !

Sumber  :  Teror Puncak Kekerasan, Rikard Bagun – Kompas, 18.07.2009

International Terrorism is WAY too trendy these days. And because I never follow the herd, at least not blindly, I refuse to support it. Or at least I am not going to wear a Che Guevara t-shirt like everyone else. I did go looking for an Osama Bin Laden t-shirt, but all I got was somewhat horrified (and occasionally petrified) stares from the shop attendants. But ask for a Che Guevara top, and they’ll show me the 4 different varieties they stock. Go figure.

But I shouldn’t be surprised, as when I go up to people in the street wearing Che tops and give them a hearty “Woo hoo! Go International Terrorism!“, they usually look dumbfounded, even shocked. Same thing when I just quietly say, “Yeah, Che’s awesome! Osama’s my hero too“. Someone tried to tell me that Che was good, but Osama is bad, since Che was not in fact a “terrorist” but a “freedom fighter”. And apparently Osama has nothing like freedom to fight for, so is therefore a “terrorist”. Wow, some people really should get into professional debating (but pray they don’t get into politics!). And of course, no innocent people have ever been killed by Che and his mob, because he was like a modern-day Jesus with a beret. He didn’t help bring down a government using misery and bloodshed so much as help usher in a glorious new era of Communism. I am guessing the Pope is fast-tracking Che’s canonisation as I write this.

Anyway, I’ve been looking all around for anything but Che, like a nice Baader-Meinhof t-shirt or something, so now I’m gonna search online for some cool t-shirts of the most popular dictators. And then I might do some Googling to try and figure out what this is all about: why Che is cool, but Osama isn’t… why Cuban communism is awesome, but that in China and the former Soviet Union is less than so… and why people are so damned picky about the terrorists they support.

Asalam alaikum. OzzyFrank

logo RAF (diambil dari wikipedia.org)

Jumat (10 Juli 2009) aku menemukan sebuah film Jerman yang sudah lama kutunggu dvd bajakannya, berjudul The Baader Meinhof Complex yang disutradarai  oleh Uli Edel. Aku tertarik kepada The Red Army Faction setelah membaca buku Hitler’s Childern : the story of the baader meinhof gang yang ditulis oleh Jillian Becker, dan mencari di internet beberapa informasi dan foto  mereka. Film ini lumayan memuaskan rasa ingin tahuku terhadap RAF (Red Army Faction), sebuah kelompok yang beranggotakan anak muda berhaluan kiri ekstrem, bersenjata, dan stylish di Jerman Barat pada tahun 1970an.

andreas baader dalam film the baader meinhof complex

Kemunculan RAF belatarbelakang historis yang spesifik di Jerman Barat semasa Perang Dingin. Inilah masa Jerman Barat terpaku erat pada cengkraman kekuasaan AS, seperti halnya Jerman Timur dalam cengkraman soviet. Perang Vietnam sedang berlangsung dan pangkalan AS di Jerman Barat adalah bukti tekad AS untuk menghabisi ancaman AS untuk menghabisi ancaman komunis secara militer. Sejarah NAZIsme juga menguatkan radikalisasi dan ektrimisme RAF, mereka melihat bahwa Kapitalisme yang berkembang di Jerman Barat merupakan bentuk baru dari Fasisme. Mereka merasa bahwa otoriterian dapat masuk kapan saja dalam struktur masyarakat. Ini terlihat dari pernyataan Gudrun Ensslin (salah satu pendiri RAF) ketika polisi berlin barat menembak mati seorang mahasiswa yang berdemonstrasi pada kedatangan Syah Iran, yang waktu itu menjadi pemain pro Amerika pada konteks Perang Dingin.

“mereka akan membunuh kita semua. Kalihan tahu babi – babi macam apa yang kita lawan. Generasi Aushwitzlah yang sedang kita hadapi. Kalian tidak dapat beradu argumen dengan orang-orang yang membuat Auschwitz. Mereka punya senjata dan kita tidak. Kita harus mempersenjatai diri sendiri”

gudrun ensslin (berdiri) dalam film the baader meinhof complex

Dalam hal Ideologi RAF terpengaruh oleh beberapa pemikiran yang berkembang setelah perang dunia berakhir antara lain

• Pembangunan sosiologis, tekanan antara sistem pendidikan di dalam dan diluar Eropa dan AS secara bersamaan melahirkan gerakan kontra kultura.
• Karya – karya Mao yang di adaptasi dengan keadaan Eropa.
• Karya – karya setelah perang tentang masyarakat kelas dan empire seperti yang dikritik oleh kaum marxis kontemporer dari berbagai macam revolusi seperti Franz Fanon, Ho Chi Minh, dan Che Guevara, para penganut  otonomism.
• Mazhab Frankurt, terutama Herbert Marcuse dengan One Dimensional Man yang fantastis itu.

Dengan latar belakang ideologi seperti itu, RAF membidik kapitalisme dan negara sebagai musuh utama mereka, dan gerilya kota yang RAF lakukan dianggap sebagai perjuangan kelas., sebagai prinsip dasar sejarah.Film RAF karya Uli Udel ini tidak begitu menggambarkan latar belakang keadaan, dengan fokus kepada tokoh Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof, dan Gudrun Ensslin; film ini tetap asik untuk dinikmati.

ulrike meinhof dalam film the baader meinhof complex

Pada bagian awal film ini, diperlihatkan bagaimana gelombang protes mahasiswa jerman barat berhaluan kiri  menentang peran vietnam, dan tindakan – tindakan opresif yang dilakukan oleh polisi, hingga mengakibatkan tewasnya mahasiswa di tangan polisi. Melihat hal ini, Baader dan Gudrun, memilih cara yang berbeda dalam melancarkan aksi. Mereka melihat bahwa protes di jalanan dengan demonstrasi tidak akan didengar, mereka memilih untuk melancarkan serangan bom ke pusat pembelanjaan, sebagai bentuk tindakan dari protes mereka kepada masyarat yang tidak peduli kepada perang vietnam. Aksi ini mendapat simpati dari Ulrike Meinhoff seorang wartawan dari media Konkret. Aksi mereka mulai kehilangan konteksnya begitu Willy Brandt menjadi kanselir Jerman, sehingga masyarakat menjadi lebih demokratis dan membuka ruang kepada mahasiswa, sehingga tindakan opresif polisi kepada mahasiswa berkurang. Mereka (Baader, Gudrun, Meinhoff) menempuh jalan gerilya dengan senjata untuk melawan negara yang mereka anggap sebagai perwujuadan kapitalisme dan fasisme. RAF meletakkan teori dan praktiknya dalam tradisi marxist yang mereka temukan sebagai perjuangan internasional, dan mereka memandang diri sebagai bagian dari perjuangan itu. Tahun 1972, ketika mereka membom pusat pembelanjaan di Frankfurt sebagai protes atas kapitalisme dan imperialisme, juga memberikan corak aksi langsung sebuah tradisi yang dikembangkan oleh kaum anarkis, yang bertujuan untuk membangkitkan kesadaran massa. “we need new morality” begitu kata Gudrun Ensslin.

holger meins dalam film the baader meinhof komplex

Meskipun film ini hanya berfokus kepada tiga tokoh saja, dan kurang mengelaborasi konteks keadaan sosial dan politik Jerman dan dunia saat itu, film ini tetap layak untuk dinikmati sebagai salah satu film yang menggambarkan gerakan muda pada tahun 1970an di Eropa. Mereka menolak budaya yang dikembangkan oleh baik oleh kapitalisme barat dan komunisme timur ala stalinis. Bagi mereka, keduanya mempunyai potensi untuk menindas. Mereka mempunyai utopia tentang masyarakat di masa depan, dan percaya bahwa masyarakat dapat sepenuhnya bebas. Karena itu mereka melawan balik dengan cara-caranya sendiri, ada yang membangun komune-komune (seperti di Perancis dan Jerman Barat : lihat film Eight Miles High), ada yang menganut hippie-isme, dan juga ada yang memilih jalan bersenjata (seperti RAF, Brigatte Rosse di Italia).

Begitu aku menanyakan pendapat temanku tentang film ini melalui pesan pendek, dia mengutarakan dalam buku Jillian Becker diungkapkan bagaimana media memainkan peran penting dalam membesarkan RAF, maka dikalangan anak muda jerman lebih terkenal dengan istilah Baader Meinhoff (yang notabene merupakan nama pemberian pemerintah jerman saat itu), lalu dalam film yang berjudul asli Baader Meinhof Complex juga dikisahkan para pendiri RAF bunuh diri di penjara, sedangkan fakta aslinya masih simpang siur. “Harus dilihat tema apa yang dipilih oleh film tersebut, dan kenapa alasannya?” kata temanku melalui pesan pendek.

Memang kesimpangsiuran ini membuat aku sebagai penonton mempunyai persepsi sendiri mengenai kelompok ini. Maka dari itu dianjurkan untuk lebih menggali informasi mengenai mereka bila ingin mendapat gambaran secara utuh. Akhir kata, bahwa film ini tetap asik untuk ditonton, sebagai salah satu potret dari kemarahan dengan latar belakang ideologis anak muda terhadap masyarakatnya. Meskipun tidak mengelaborasi terlalu jauh, dan dibutuhkan pemahaman lebih lanjut untuk menonton film ini.  Hal lain yang kuperhatikan adalah dalam segi fashion, para anggota RAF juga sangat stylish. Baader, Gudrin, dan Meinhof rupanya membuat kelompok teroris yang paling fashionable di dunia. Dengan dandanan amat sangat rock n roll, dengan celana skinny, sepatu boot, jaket kulit, tidak lupa dengan kaca mata hitam, mereka lebih mirip sebagai grup band dibandingkan dengan kelompok teroris. Juga lambang dari kelompok mereka bintang merah dengan senapan semi otomatis mp5 (kalau tidak salah), semakin menambah keseksian mereka.

Sumber-sumber selain film :

1. Jillian Becker – Hitler’s Childern : the story of the baader meinhoff gang
2. www.wikipedia.org
3. Sean M. Sheehan – anarkisme : perjalanan sebuah gerakan perlawanan
4. F budi Hardiman – melampaui positivisme dan modernitas

Cek segala macam informasi mengenai RAF di  www.baader-meinhof.com