“If there’s one thing about the action of the RAF ’72 that grieves us, it would be the misunderstanding between our “head” and our “hands” and the B-52.
Here, once again, clear and simple: we’re also responsible for the attacks on the CIA headquarters and the headquarters of the 5th US corps in Frankfurt am Main and on the US headquarters in Heidelberg, in that we’ve been a part of the RAF since ’70, we’ve fought in it, and were involved in the conception of its policy and structure.
In that regard, we’re certainly also responsible for actions of commandos (RAF members) whose conception we don’t agree with and in whose course we have opposed.
Contemplation is not a right of resistance in the Federal Republic, and likewise, it’s not about rights in this case; rather, what the policy of the RAF expresses is the consciousness of one’s duty of resistance in the Federal Republic. And exactly that was the content of our explanation of this whole thing for two days.
So, not only the explanation of responsibility, but rather, what responsibility can only be in the face of imperialism: resistance, battle. The text from January articulates this. The court ignored it.
A reaction that can only mean two things: they didn’t understand a thing, or, more likely, Prinzing can’t shorten this event/process, because it’s determined by the drama of the federal parliamentary election campaigns.”
Daughter of a man of the Cloth