Revolutionary Struggle – chronology, more other texts

 

–chronology

–Text information from the 3 members of Revolutionary Struggle for comrades from Europe who respondes to the international call of solidarity (october 2011)

–Statement of the three members of Revolutionary Struggle to the Court on 12/12/2011

–Whose Justice Will Judge The Just?

 

 

 

Revolutionary  struggle; A  CHRONOLOGY

-September 5, 2003; Bombing at an Athens Courthouse

-March 14, 2004; Bombing at Citybank subsidiary in Psychico neighbourhood.

-May 5, 2004; Bombing at police station in Perissos neighbourhood.

-October 29, 2004; Bombing of police buses.

-June 2, 2005; Bombing at Labour Ministry

-December 12, 2005; Bombing at Finance Ministry in Syntagma Suare, near Parliament.

-May 30, 2006; Attempted assassination of Georgios Voulgarakis, Minister of Public Order.

-January 12, 2007; Wasp 58 LAW rocket attack on United State Embassy.

-April 30, 2007; Shots fired at police station in Nea Ionia neighbourhood.

-October 24, 2008; Bombing at Shell corporation offices in Palaio Faliro neighbourhood.

-December 23, 2008; Shots fired a riot police bus near Athens University in Goudi district.

-January 5, 2009; Shots fired at police guarding Culture Ministry in Exarcheia neighbourhood. One riot cop critically wounded.

-February 18, 2009; Car bombing at Citybank headquarters in Kifissia neighbourhood. Bomb fails to detonate.

-March 9, 2009; Bombing at Citybank subsidiary in Nea Ionia neighbourhood.

-May 12, 2009; Bombing at EUROBANK SUBSIDIARY IN Argyroupoli neighbourhood.

-September 2, 2009; Massive car bomb causes serious damage to Stock Exchange building and major political impact.

————————————————————————————–

 

Greece – text information from the 3 members of revolutionary struggle for comrades from Europe who responded to the international call of solidarity;

Information from the 3 members of Revolutionary Struggle for comrades from
Europe who responded to the call.

Translate by: Actforfreedomnow!/BoubourAs/sysiphus

 

Comrades, our trial for Revolutionary Struggle which began on October 5
2011
, is a political stage to defend armed struggle as an inseparable part
of the struggle for the subversion of capitalism and the State, the
struggle for social revolution.

Our strategy in the trial is therefore to attack the existing criminal
economic social and political regime with political arguments, not
accepting the role of the defendant but on the contrary becoming the
accusers against everything that this court represents and serves. On
October 5, when we presented ourselves in court for the first time while
we were still being held in prison, comrade Paula Roupa made a political
declaration to the journalists outside the special court of Koridallos on
behalf of Revolutionary Struggle where she said that it is not
Revolutionary Struggle that is on trial in this case but our
persecutors, the very criminal regime that imprisoned us.
On October 24, at the second session of the trial, after the official
charges were read out we took a position concerning the charges, when the
judges asked us why we were making political statements. We said that this
trial is a political trial, that this court is a Special Court which was
put together based on special antiterrorist laws with which political
enemies of the regime are tried, that this court is criminal and serves a
criminal regime that exploits and oppresses people, that in the dock of
the accused should be sitting and pleading guilty members of political
authority, members of the government, the prime minister, ministers and
MPs, members of the previous government, members of the economic elite,
businessmen, capitalists, members of international financial organisations
such as the managers of the IMF, the ECB, the European Union, which have
imposed on the people the dictatorship of the transnational economic elite
as well as those who protect the criminal regime: cops and the repressive
forces of the State.

In the sessions of the trial that followed on the 1st and 9th of November
objections were raised concerning the vagueness of the official charges,
the downgrading of publicity about the trial because the law consents
journalistic coverage of the trial, the transfer of the trial from the
prison Court to try actions with political motives in a court consisting
of citizen jurors. Although it was expected that these objections would be
denied by the court it was a good chance for us to turn them into
political statements, to show the political nature and action of the
organisation, the political motives behind the actions of the
organisation, the hypocrisy of the State and the regime, since the
vagueness of the charges were not backed up with any real evidence. We
are accused, and it is expected that we will be condemned, for all the
actions of the organisation based on the dogma of collective
responsibility and on the arbitrary claim in the charges that the
organisation is a hierarchical structure, as well as behind the
downgrading of the publicity concerning the trial as we are being tried as
common (penal) criminals.

Behind all this are concealed political motives on the part of the State
aimed at presenting revolutionary fighters and namely members of
Revolutionary Struggle as criminals, depoliticising their actions and
trying them in prisons in an asphyxiating environment of security which
undermines the public character of the trial.
The same in the sessions of the 14th and 21st of November. A demand was
made for the exclusion of the main prosecution witness, the cop head of
the Department of Internal Terrorism of the antiterrorist service as,
according to the law, anyone who has performed preliminary duties cannot
testify as a witness, as has happened with this specific witness. This
demand was an opportunity to reveal the repressive methods of the State as
the whole list of charges is based on one and only one witness, who is a
cop who also organised the whole police operation that was set up against
us, and the considerations that he has testified. The fact that this trial
is based mainly on a cop witness who is absent from most of the incidents
he presents is a pioneering one by Greek standards, and no one called from
the whole police investigation against us has actually taken part in the
investigation or is able to give any evidence against us concerning the
actions of the organisation.

Moreover, not one of the total 87 witnesses that the prosecution has
called to testify (cops, security officials, victims of the organisation
such as some cops and citizens/eye witnesses) can produce any evidence
against us. Our imminent conviction will be based on the dogma of
collective responsibility, on the fact that we have taken political
responsibility for our participation in the organisation,
for which they
have arbitrarily burdened us with the added charge of managing the
organisation so that they can convict us for all the actions of the
organisation
, not based on evidence proving physical participation in
these actions but with the charge of moral complicity, which means that we
ordered that these actions be carried out by the organisation.
These oppressive methods are a result of the special antiterrorist
sections or laws that have been voted in over the last ten years in Greece
and the new oppressive policy that has been imported following the
declaration of ‘the war on terrorism’. Despite the fact that it was
expected to be denied, this objection was also, as it happened, an
opportunity to make political interventions and statements against the
oppressive methods of the State. Apart from stating our political
positions and making interventions, our attitude against the charges is
not aimed at claiming leniency regarding the sentences or manipulating the
court which, in the absence of any evidence, can legally gain our
forthcoming convictions for the actions of the organisation.
On the contrary, it is to show that the court is a political tool of the
system which, for political and only political reasons, has taken on the
precise task of carrying out a rigged procedure with sentences of many
years’ prison that have been decided in advance. Another pioneering event
which will take place in this trial will be the conviction based on DNA as
basic evidence of guilt at a time when none of the accused has accepted to
give a sample, resulting in them only having samples from the
investigations in houses indirectly linked to the accused. Such a thing

has never happened in Greece before.

The whole strategy of our presence at the trial is aimed at stigmatising
the criminal nature of capitalism, the market economy and the State, at
transforming our persecutors into accused, at showing the justness of
armed struggle, the justness of subversion and social revolution, and we
will continue to do this throughout the whole procedure, intervening in
the testimonies of the witnesses called by the prosecutor to testify
against us such as cops, the ex-minister of public order who was a target
of the organisation and others.
To end we consider that the testimonies of the political witnesses for the
defence, comrades who were either once members of armed revolutionary
organisations or who are active in other forms of struggle but always in
the same direction, that of subversion and social revolution, whom we
contacted through the international call for solidarity that we made
concerning this trial, will also be a contribution.

The members of Revolutionary Struggle
Pola Roupa, Kostas Gournas, Nikos Maziotis

http://actforfree.nostate.net/?p=7568

———————————————————————————————————–

 

Athens – statement  of  the  three  members  of                                            revolutionary  struggle  to  the  court  on  12/12/2011.

We took the political responsibility for participation in the organization Revolutionary Struggle. Consciously we did not choose to position ourselves concerning the “story” that was presented to us here by the witness Papathanasakis -which of course, was transferred to him-, the facts he described and what the ΔΑΕΕΒ (special violent crime squad) judged as enough proof to proceed to arrests. We consciously chose to not go into the process of speaking of phone conversations, mobile phones, the appointments presented by the ΔΑΕΕΒ, to distance ourselves from the investigation carried out by the advocates -and only by them since until this moment at least the judges have not preformed any significant examination of this specific witness-, on whether they were serious, real, worthy, capable enough to go ahead to arrests and imprisonments.

We consciously chose to not go into the process to insult the anyway generalized, unsound and unclear “condemnation” of the specific witness. Besides, as he himself has repeatedly said, every one of these facts he presents on it own means nothing.

And of course, he does not have anything to tell us concerning the matter which is the substantial proof of “guilt” of each one of the accused and the main thing, he has confessed that there is no evidence neither for the actions neither for the charge of “managing” neither for the organization itself or its function.

We believe that this testimony did not change anything of what existed until today. All charges continue to be up in the air and none of them has been connected with real incidents which they prove as they should.

But the fact that we took the political responsibility for participation in Revolutionary Struggle does not mean that any placement of Papathanasakis concerning one of the three of us should be taken as a fact. The same goes for the advocates. Which means that it cannot be that while there is a clear attempt of disputing his testimony concerning one of the accused, and at the same time taking for granted his testimony concerning one of us who have taken the political responsibility. We do not accept the legalization in any way of any information of the anti-terrorist force i.e. the presence of one of us at a rendezvous, irrelevantly if we have mentioned that. Our silence does not mean and must not be interpreted as an acceptance of whatever incidents and narrations.

The fact that we have taken the political responsibility does not mean that we accept the work of the anti-terrorist force, the evidence and incidents they present and the charges they accuse us of.

Claim of political responsibility does not mean in any way acceptance of the charges or incidents, evidence and information of the persecutory mechanisms. Despite the fact that we considered this obvious to everyone, we are obliged from the development of the procedure to intervene to make these points and ask that our position is respected.

Pola Roupa, Kostas Gournas, Nikos Maziotis                            

http://actforfree.nostate.net/?p=7150

————————————————————————————————————————

 

WHOSE  JUSTICE  WILL  JUDGE  THE  JUST?

 

Revolutionary Struugle, by choosing armed action as a means of attack on the plans of the State and Capital, were consciously and consistently acting on the side of the oppressed in the social and class war.

With its actions and words the organization attacked: -THE CRIMINALS OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING: CITYBANK & EUROBANK -THE GOVERNMENTAL CENTERS THAT WILDLY ATTACK AND ROB SOCIETY: -MINISTRIES OF FINANCE-LABOUR & STOCK EXCHANGE -THE UNIFORMED MURDERERS OF THE SYSTSEM: -RIOT UNITS & POLICE STATIONS -THE BLOODTHIRSTY MULTINATIONALS WHO GET RICH FROM THE NATURAL WEALTH BY DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT, CONDEMNING TO ABSOLUTE MISERY ENTIRE POPULATIONS: SHELL OIL -THE UNPUNISHED AND INTACT PROTAGONISTS OF SCANDALS: -VOULGARAKIS-TELEPHONE BUGGING, KIDNAPPINGS OF PAKISTANI PEOPLE & VATOPEDI SCANDAL -THE UNBLASED INSTITUTION OF URBAN JUSTICE:COURTS OF EVELPIDON -THE MURDERERS OF POPULATIONS: U.S EMBASSY Revolutionary Struggle armed themselves and aimed at those who plan and execute the most barbaric attack against society. The State will try these revolutionaries for ‘terrorists’. WE RETURN THE CHARGE TO THEM. Revolutionary Struggle

 

revolutionary struggle

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

css.php