Talk:Brigitte Mohnhaupt

message: Jimbo Wales highly recommended to delete the article about the SPK and all links to the Wikipedia-project terrorism. See our recent Boston meeting, see the juridical proceedings of SPK against Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.208.239 (talk • contribs) 
I made no recommendation about this article.  The anon ip number should be ignored.--Jimbo Wales 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales highly recommended ... 

message: Under 'Terrorist Overview' is the following - "However, in November 1978 she was allowed to leave for a country of her choice."
Can anyone provide more information on why she was allowed to leave?
Julvar 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the reason was that Yugoslavia wanted to trade her for some croatian political fugitives living in West Germany but the german government turned the offer down. So the yugos just let her walk. Napikwan 10:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  overview 

message: "She was given such a harsh sentence because of the significant role she played during the German Autumn and for her part in the attempted assassination of NATO General Kroesen." I find this statement strange - it seems to me that she got a pretty light sentence. I think this needs some support. Do serial killers in Germany normally get lighter sentences than this?--Rkstafford 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the others said that was a long sentence for European standards. Lastly she is not a serial killer, all her actions were politically motivated however misguided (the actions, not the principle).--Caranorn 13:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Given the rule about reviewing any sentence after 24 years, how is her sentence any harsher than one "life" sentence, or than 5 ten-year sentences? Without getting into the argument about what her sentence should have been, I don't see any support for calling it "harsh" in any practical sense. Perhaps "symbolically harsh". If that's true, the article needs to provide that context, and some support for the claim. As for the question of whether she's a serial killer, I think her record speaks for itself. I don't particularly see why having political motives makes that untrue. But, I agree that calling her a "serial killer" also doesn't add anything to the question of whether her sentence was harsh. --Rkstafford 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the german language Wikipedia entry on life sentences, the law changed so no more multiple life sentences are given today for, say, multiple murder. This may make a fiftuple life sentence appear harsher than a single life sentence to current generations, but even in 1982 there was no actual difference from a single life sentence. The real harsh sentences today are life sentences with ensuing "prevention retention" for convicts considered likely to return to their crimes after the sentence in order to protect the public. Additionally, as per law, the reason for the five life sentences, as per german entry again and as per law, was fiftuple attempted murder, not the significant role she played (well, unless you judge importance of role by attempted murders).
159.51.236.194 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of sentence 

message: Today mornning (25 March 2007) Mohnhaupt came free (look at DE:WP). The official date of coming free is 27 March, but the German right says that prisoners can let free one or two days before or after the "official date", too. Tritonus05 10:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore what I wrote before - I can't even tell what date it is today! Pontificake 11:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mohnhaupt is free

message: This intro to the article seems to be under dispute, in particular over the use of the terms urban guerilla and terrorist. Please discuss the wording of the intro here, instead of reverting each other back and forth. AecisBrievenbus 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either goes for me. The term Urban Guerilla is a self identification, the term Terrorist in it's original definition is also an acceptable description. Of course a problem arises with the more modern (post 9/11) definitions of terrorism which are not acceptable from a scientific (history, political sciences etc.) point of view.--Caranorn 13:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guerrilla part doesn't fit, the style was rather partisan warfare. Calling them terrorists is OK and I say this without the political load in the word people attribute to them. It's just about the method they used. __41.150.3.148 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban guerrilla or terrorist? 

message: The article says:
"She was released on 8 February 1977, and immediately went underground and continued her work with the RAF."
The term "underground" is an internal link which leads to the article about the resistance movements. Could the Red Army Faction be considered a resistance movement? - Follgramm3006, 21:06, Thursday, April 9, 2009, Spain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Follgramm3006 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course they could be considered a "resistance movement", just like the left-wing of the so-called "French Resistance". Given that some of the targets were occupational armies facilities they do have some attributes of a national resistance movement as well. __41.150.3.148 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underground resistance?