"If Americans Knew" advocacy group receives death threats

[durutti]

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2025.shtml

3 October 2003 -- After a 2 October 2003 debate on "How to can peace be achieved between Israelis and Palestinians," a Berkeley, CA woman and her organization received a voice mail message saying: "Don't be in your office Monday at 2 pm. Me and my buddies, trained by the Israeli army, are going to come in and kill you."

The caller went on to say, "This is no joke. We're going to kill every one of you. Close down your organization."

[Wcross]

1. Nut job

"Me and my buddies, trained by the Israeli army, are going to come in and kill you."

Would a legit assasin warn the target? Professionals prefer suprise- wouldn't do to tell when and where an attack would be launched would it.

[bluestateguy]

2. Ahem...

This is yet another reason why we on the Left should reject gun control and embrace armed self-defense. It is situations like these that I am talking about.

[Darranar]

3. But if...

no guns were readily available, how would the threateners manage to harm those people?

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Criminals can always get guns

Massive controls only limit the law-abiding folks.

[Darranar]

6. How?

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Illegally

Just like illegal drugs, they find a way to either make or import them.

[Darranar]

8. It is not easy...

to make a gun. And it is much harder to smuggle a gn then drugs.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Up till now

We've had plenty of guns in the U.S., so it has been less of an issue. As a free-market economy, we know that supply will equal demand.

[Darranar]

10. We've also had plenty of gun violence in the US...

What do you think we should do about 14 children dying daily, Muddle?

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Do you have about a week and a half for answer?

Getting rid of guns is not it.

Some ways to improve the situation:

* Fix cities
* Improve opportunity for the poor
* Fix the mess that is public education
* Lock up violent criminals (those who use a gun in crime for instance)
* Drug treatment for minor drug offenses

That's a start.

[Darranar]

12. That will reduce it...

but gun control will as well.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. No

Gun control will turn millions of law-abiding Americans into instant criminals when we ignore the law.

Oh that, and if you go far enough, start a virtual civil war as well.

[Darranar]

14. You don't have a very high opinion of gun owners, do you?

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. I do

That's why I know we would break any ridiculous law.

[Darranar]

19. So you'd break the law...

to avoid turning over your gun? So, when you do so, should the US government bulldoze your house for it, or does that rule only apply to Ay-rabs?

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. The law

The government would be taking away rights enshrined in our Constitution. I would object.

Actually, governments bulldoze houses all the times as part of emminent domain. But they don't take away our constitutional right to self defense.

[Darranar]

29. You don't seem to hold much weight for civil liberties...

aside from this one. You suppor tthe right of gun-onwers to diregard the law, but when some stupid Ay-rab Palestinian disregards the law, you're fine with them getting their house bulldozed?

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. I actually believe in all of my civil liberties

I would equally object if the government tried to take away the 1st Amendment.

Israel is in a state of war against terrorists who kill or try to kill civilians pretty much every day. Just as rules change in our nation during times of war (Civil War, WWII for instance), the rules change there.

[Darranar]

34. Don't gunmen kill civilians, too?

And since some NRA members have killed other people, should all NRA members have their houses bulldozed?

Once agin, terrorism causes a lot of violence in Israel; you see merit to repeal civil liberties there to stop it. Gunmen cause a lot of violence in the US; you don't see merit to repeal civil liberties for you and your gun-hoarding fellows. Hypocrisy.

Not that that's new or anything...

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Huh

I couldn't follow your thought processes with a map.

Terorism in Israel can be clearly traced to its source. In America, as a much larger and more diverse nation, it cannot.

So if Israel decided to disarm the Palestinian population tomorrow, that would make sense -- as a way to fend off acts of incredible violence and inhumanity.

In America, in all demographic groups, legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens. Gun grabbers, of which you appear to be one, want to make us all criminals with the stroke of a pen. And prohibition and the drug war seem to have taught you nothing.

[Darranar]

37. Huh?

So if Israel decided to disarm the Palestinian population tomorrow, that would make sense -- as a way to fend off acts of incredible violence and inhumanity.

So why can't the US disarm Americans, who also commit acts of incredible violence and inhumanity?

In America, in all demographic groups, legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

If they're law-abiding, why do you support them not turning over their guns, if the law requires it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. The ongoing debate

America DOES disarm those who commit acts of violence. We send them to prison and they can't buy guns when they get out.

Gun owners are currently law abiding. Try taking away constitutional rights without changing the Constitution and you will change that.

[Darranar]

39. So now all Palestinians are guilty...

got it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Nope

But as a group they are responsible for nearly all of the violence against Israel.

[Darranar]

54. And, as a group...

gun-onwers are responsible for nearly all the violence in the US.

The only difference is that one group is made up of Arabs and the other of Americans.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. Not legal ones

Those who own guns ILLEGALLY are the problem.

But you knew that.

[Darranar]

58. That's not true...

You say you live in DC. I asusme you know, then, that the DC sniper bought his gun at a store - legally.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Past tense

Ah, the classic anecdotal defense to a statistical problem. The problem we have is not a pair of lunatic snipers. It's ILLEGAL use of guns.

This means:

* Guns used in crimes
* Automatic weapons used in crimes (not licensed ones either)
* Insufficient prosecution of gun crimes
* Insufficient opportunity so people don't turn to crime

[Darranar]

61. And the Palestinians...

who commit illegal acts are also the probblem.

You advocate collective punishment for one group of people but not for the other.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. One group is easily categorized

The reality is that Israel DOES have a demographic group committing acts of terror against it. This is not like the Japanese-Americans in WWII, this is real. Collective punishment by keeping Palestinians out of Israel might seem unfair, but it's realistic.

Americans -- millions and millions of them -- both own guns and use them legally. Even more, they don't even give cover to terror groups committing heinous acts.

If the Palestinians don't want to be grouped in with the terror gangs, then they need to help Israel root them out.

[Darranar]

65. Thanks for your enlightneed post...

I now know that Palestinian = evil and gun owner in the US = good.

Thanks.

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Nope

Not all Palestinians are bad. Not all gun owners are good.

But if Palestinians are prevented from entering Israeli territory, how many terrorist attacks will occur?

[sushi]

93. And if Israel doesn't want

to be accused of stealing it should give back the land they are currently occupying, to the Palestinians.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Then you wouldn't be a law-abiding American...

And you deserve to lose any firearm you own. Gun control does work. Just look at how it's worked in other countries before starting ridiculous fantasies about civil war...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. How it works?

Crime is up in the UK since their draconian gun laws.

We have a culture of freedom here, one we won't give up without a fight. Locking up the entire population to prevent crime would work too, but it punishes the innocent just like gun control.

And don't worry about a civil war, the laws so many here want will never pass.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Nonsense...

Crazies going into their former work-places and shooting anything that moves and kids grabbing guns and massacring students is something that happens in the US on a repetitive basis that just isn't happening in countries with gun control...

Culture of freedom, my arse. Yr talking about freedom for nutters and people who would break the law to go round armed to the teeth and be able to buy guns and ammo just as easily as they'd buy a Big Mac. What about the freedom of everyone else to not have to live in fear that some lunatic's going to open fire on them?

How exactly does gun control punish the innocent? When the gun control laws came in here, I was friends with someone who had to surrender some of his weapons and he was paid market value for them. He didn't see it as punishment. I suggest you learn a bit about how gun control works, Muddle....

I tend to see red when gun-nuts oppose gun control. It's got to do with a member of my family being caught up in the massacre that led directly to the gun control laws here, so I might leave you to brag about how you wouldn't blink twice at breaking the law and going on about civil wars, all the while trying to make out yr someone who should be classified as a responsible gun-owner...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. A prime example of a culture clash

American freedom was gained through the gun and maintained throughout our history that way. That's why it's even in our Constitution.

"Nutters" as you so beautifully put it will always find a way of doing maximum harm with bombs, cars, planes or guns. There is no reason to punish currently law-abiding people with a big gun grab.

I am sure gun control works in some bizarre way. So would a big limit on freedom of speech to cut down on other crimes. Personally, I'm fond of all of the rights we have, not just the 1st amendment. I love them all.

My comment about civil war was a prediction, not a recommendation.

I lived in D.C., which in the U.S. has among the strictest gun control laws. Crooks had guns -- even guns that are illegal to have ANYWHERE in the U.S. without a special license. The law-abiding citizens had nothing to defend themselves with.

[Darranar]

30. Hypocrisy...

If you can't see it, I'm not going t explain it to you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. If you can't explain it

Then you are copping out.

[Darranar]

35. See post #34...

That should explain it well enough.

[Gimel]

48. Gun control laws

Actually, the legislation in the US, as I understand it, was not to take guns away from licensed owners, but to be sure that the guns didn't get into the wrong hands. Stricter controls of purchases from gun shows and the like were the main cause of concern.

Law abiding citizens who wanted a gun for self defense are not being asked to surrender them.

I support the legislation and fully agree with the need for tighter gun-control laws in the US. Israel has such laws.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Israel is not the U.S.

As evidenced here at DU, a number of those who want "gun control" really want to take away guns. The easiest way for them to do this is to identify all of the gun owners through progressively stronger gun control.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. I think they like resorting to the slippery slope argument in the US...

Y'know, the one where they automatically discard how gun control does work in other countries with an excuse like: 'Waiting periods?? That's just the first step in trying to wrest our guns from our law-abiding hands! No way! We'll break the law and this will lead to civil war!!' ;)

I'm not all that familiar with Israels laws, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming gun-owners have to be licensed, and before they purchase a gun go through a waiting period and psychological checks? And it's nationwide? Ours is a bit stricter because semi-automatics are banned unless someone's got a good reason to own one (which is why my friend had to surrender some of his guns), but if I've got Israels controls right, then I really don't understand why any American would have a problem with the same controls being introduced nationwide in the US. I agree with you that they definately need tighter gun-control laws in the US...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Gun opponents

Here have made it clear that enough of them want to outlaw guns. We can't give them an inch because they will take our Constitution in the process.

[Darranar]

74. Well, I DON'T want to outlaw guns...

I just don't view owning guns as a right, but rather a privilege. In other words, I would mind a lot more if someones right to free speech was curbed without conviction, but I wouldn't mind at all if someone's "right" to own a gun was.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Then you are incorrect

It is a right enshrined in the Constitution. I believe in all the amendments equally, not just the 2nd.

If you want to change that right, change the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

[Darranar]

76. Do you know why it was put there?

It was put there to allow resistance against a coup. The world is a different place now. We've seen how American forces smashed the Iraqi military to bits. If a ruler takes over this country by force, we're screwed, guns or no guns.

Admittantly, guns are useful as long as Bush is president. Once we have a sane president, though, the reason for less gun control would have disapeared.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. The world is a different place

We no longer see the need for the 1st Amendment...

Sorry, doesn't work that way. If you want to change the Constitution, feel free to try. Otherwise, it's still there.

[Darranar]

80. Okay, I want to change the Consitution, if you say so...

For some reason, it seems to me that the only thing that Amendment bans is a ban of guns - something that I do not support. But if you say so, fine.

btw, I find it... interesting... that you, who despises gun control, have an avatar of a person who advocated non-violence.

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. I love non-violence

But that doesn't mean I want to be unarmed.

The civil rights movement made massive gains through non-violence. If the Palestinians today had the courage to try that tactic, they would already have a nation.

[sushi]

94. If the Palestinians

"had the courage to try that tactic," would they have the kind of nation that is acceptable to them, or one forced on them by Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

79. If Muddle insists on taking the 2nd Amendment literally...

That must mean he supports the right of any whack-job to own a gun, regardless of whether or not they're law-abiding....


Violet...

[sabbat hunter]

90. gun laws

on edit i posted the same thing twice. sorry
see post 89

peace
david
:hippie:

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Thanks for giving an example of the slippery slope argument...

Of course I've seen what the conservatives in the US try to pull hiding behind the Constitution and of course they all claim everyone's trying to take everyone's guns off them. I wonder if some folks in Israel tried dredging up similar ridiculous arguments against gun control laws there? I know a small but very vocal minority did here...

So you oppose nation-wide waiting periods, licensing, and psychological checks? Why?


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. Because I don't trust government

Based on recent events in the U.S., I think most people here should agree with me.

[Violet_Crumble]

83. But you do...

You trust the US govt when it comes to foreign policy. But when it comes to introducing legislation that clearly won't remove guns from their owners and would introduce specific controls, suddenly you don't trust that same govt? And it doesn't matter if that govt is Republican or Democrat, you still wouldn't trust them? Explain how that works. How would introducing specific controls be the starting point of yr slippery slope?


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. Specific controls

I don't always trust the government on foreign or domestic issues. That's a given. Iraq is a good example.

Instituting specific controls means tracking everyone who has a gun. That first step is a doozy. After that, the inevitible increase in regulations (that's how our society works) would make it harder and harder to exercise your rights. Eventually, as has already happened in some of the stupider places in America, you won't even be allowed to defend yourself.

[Violet_Crumble]

85. More slippery slope stuff...

Okay, so you only trust the govt when it suits yr argument. Got it...

You have a problem with licensing? Holy crap! What's such a doozy about that?? Many other nations have managed it fine. It's no more a doozy that licensing everyone who wants to drive a car...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. No

I trust it sometimes when it seems to be acting correctly. I don't trust it others when it seems like it is not.

Yes, many other nations have managed licensing. Some of those have subsequented banned guns. Hmmm, could they have done the latter without the former? Not easily.

Guns are part of our Constitution and our heritage. If people want to change that, they need to amend the Constitution. Driving a car is a privilige. Owning a gun is a right, just like free speech.

[sabbat hunter]

89. guns

muddle i usually agree with you on a variety of issues, but on this one i dont at least not fully.

I think gun control is important. the assault weapon ban, waiting periods etc.
i think our constitution is an living document, one whose interpretation can change over time. the way I read the second amendment is that the founding fathers wanted some control over guns even then. after all it doesnt just say the right to bear arms, it says "a well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state...."

i think the first part is important as the last. a well regulated milita IMO means that the right to bear arms is a collective one, as in for a state milita, not necessarily an individual one. the well regulated also i believe, gives the government a right to limit those arms to a degree.

Also i strongly believe in licensing gun owners, not to take away their weapons, but to make sure they know how to use them properly. Just like you need a license to operate a car, you should need a license to operate a firearm


peace
david
:hippie:

[edzontar]

98. I think your arguments are muddled....

Palestinians have a right to shoot Israeli military when they make incursions into Palestinian land.

I even recall you agreeing with that position on another thread.

I could also comment on the sad irony of your anti-government, pro-gun views being posted next to an avater of Dr. King, who was murdered by an assassin with a rifle...but hey, what is the point?

Ask the King family ow they feel about the issue, perhaps.

[sushi]

95. Maybe you could also

understand why the extremist Palestinians do not want to disarm. They don't trust the government of Israel. And Israel doesn't trust them. Which is the reason any peace negotiations should be supervised by outside forces.

[Equinox]

27. Oh...you're worried about punishing the innocent?

nice to see the consistency.

:eyes:

[Jackie97]

17. Good starts, but....

Can you really deny the fact that the US has a higher crime rate than most of the countries with far more gun control?

And I say that if dangerous criminals can get guns easily, then so can normally law abiding citizens wanting to break an exceptional law to "feel safe". If the law abiding citizens can't get a gun that easily in a gun controlled country, then neither can dangerous criminals. In the end, everybody is better off because nobody can get their hands on a gun as easily.

Wouldn't this be better for the gun board area?

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Yes better for the gundgeon

I agree

[DBoon]

4. Yeah right

A lefty organization with guns for "self defense". Just asking to be shut down as a "terrorist front" by the police.

The Black Panthers believed in armed self defense. Most of the surviving Panther members believe getting involved in firearms was a big mistake.

[Jackie97]

16. I'm going to wait for more information on this to come in....

Electronic Infidata is a very, very one-sided source and I personally don't want to believe this one until a more balanced source confirms it.

[durutti]

25. Find One Thing That EI's Gotten Wrong

Just one.

In any case, the article isn't from EI. It's a press release from the organization that was harrassed.

[Jackie97]

56. Some things that EI writes.....

Can not be easily proven or disproven.

I'm not saying that they lie. I'm saying that they are one sided, and that I don't feel okay with taking their word for certain things without another source to confirm it. I do the same thing with certain other sources. Of course, the accusation from the group themselves being threatened is a point to be taken into consideration.

[Fight_n_back]

26. Berkeley of course

is the place where protesters wouldn't allow Benjamin Netanyehu to speak.

I live in Berkeley maybe I will check on this.

[Equinox]

28. As a lefty, Yang, wouldn't you want to stop Bibi?

I mean the guy is as rightwing as you can get.

[bluesoul]

31. Well

It seems that if one is an Israeli, it doesn't matter if he's as rightwing as it gets or if he's a war criminal for that matter. He get's the support...

[Fight_n_back]

43. Well

it seems your support of the first amendment doesn't extend much farther than Ashcrofts.

[Equinox]

52. Actually, Yang, I support his right to speak...

but I support my right to speak out against him.

}(

[Fight_n_back]

63. Then why

did you crawl up my ass?

[Jackie97]

87. I don't think....

that he was not wanting your support to suppress anybody's rights. I think he was wanting your support in other ways to "stop somebody", such as speaking out against right wingers.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Something about terror

That makes people want leaders who vow to fight back.

Go figure.

[Fight_n_back]

45. It isn't about Netanyehu

my post was about "Liberals" who act like right wingers when it serves their purpose.

The protesters who stopped him from speaking could have held a rally outside putting forth their own viewpoint to much greater effect but it was about pissing not thinking.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. I agree

I don't think I've seen the subject yet that can't be talked about.

[Fight_n_back]

42. As a liberal

I don't think people should be stopped from speaking.

[bluesoul]

47. Hmm

As a liberal I fully agree. I never said Netanyahu didn't have the right to speak. I am very much for free speach,as was the late great Palestinian Edward Said who openly condemned Palestian American students that wanted to prevent people like Netanyahu speaking at campuses, saying that he has the right as anyone else to speak his mind, no matter how much he disagreed with him. In this regard I am certainly closer to people like him and Chomsky and not censorship or boycott. OK?

[Fight_n_back]

59. Then why

were you crawling up my ass?

[durutti]

46. Oh, dear!

Not allowing someone to speak. Obviously much worse than threatening someone's life, right?

[Fight_n_back]

49. Wow!

who said that! That would be a dumb thing to say. Golly.

Gee whiz, gomer, read much?

[Free_Thinker]

40. Nothing New here

Los Angeles Arab American leader Alex Odeh, assassinated in Los Angeles

[rini]

53. This was very funny, thank you for the laugh.

First, I doubt any member of the ADL would use such poor English.
Second: sorry, laughing to hard to continue.

[Darranar]

55. People are being threatened, and it's funny?

Thanks for the laugh at your complete hypocrisy. :eyes:

[Aidoneus]

62. *J*DL

Kahane's "Jewish Defense League", thugs and murderers, or perhaps "freedom fighters" to some.. :shrug:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=%22Jewish+Defense+League%22&btnG=Google+Search

You know, the guys who were semi-recently caught plotting to murder an Arab-American Congressman, planned to blow up So.Cal. mosques.. leader threw himself out of a window instead of standing trial.. really hilarious, very funny stuff indeed. :eyes:

[Alex88]

67. Link doesn't work

n/t

[Aidoneus]

68. it's just a google search

for "Jewish Defense League", what the acronym is short for..

[Alex88]

69. It seems google isn't working right now

n/t

[Aidoneus]

70. fine for me..

:shrug:

[rini]

71. JDL

I agree, they are almost as viscious as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fata, Hizzbolla, PLO, and other hate groups. So now of course your ire will be more evenly distributed? Though I agree they are nasty, I still laugh at the clumsy "let's be a B grade movie" English, that casts doubt on the veracity of the story.

[not systems]

88. Death Threats in Berkeley "Close Your Organization or Die"

NOTE: This is a response from the recipient of the call.
It was locked as a dupe of this thread although it is not the same writer or content.

http://www.counterpunch.org/weir10182003.html

By ALISON WEIR

Left on our office voicemail at 2 a.m. on Oct. 3, 2003:

"Hi. I heard your speech today in UC Berkeley; the debate. I'm telling you this right now. On Monday, at 2 PM, you better not be in your office. Because me and my buddies, who were trained in the Israeli Army, will come and kill every single one of you son-of -a-bitches for what you are doing to destroy Israel. So watch out. This is not a joke. On Monday you better watch out. Don't come to work.

And close your organization or you're going to die."

Dear Israel and your frenzied defenders,

No. We're not going to die.

I know you're used to killing people who are in your way. Old people, young people, leaders, followers, mothers, fathers, teachers, doctors, factory workers, farmers.

It hasn't seemed difficult for you. Human beings are immensely vulnerable. When people have no armor, no defending army, no power, all it takes is a few bullets. Skulls are easily penetrable by tempered steel. Rib cages are shattered with ease.

All it requires, really, is sufficient ruthlessness.

MORE...

[Fight_n_back]

91. There was more outrage

from the Palestinian Firsters over a PHONE CALL that may or may not have happened and that resulted in NOTHING than there is over the frequent ACTUAL terrorism that takes place inside the Green Line on a frequent basis.

Just a harmless observation.

[Darranar]

92. Wrong...

There is actually not that much outrage at all; most of the comments on this thread are off-topic.

[not systems]

96. May or may not have happened?

I heard this tape on the radio it sounded real enough.

Are you suggesting the tape was faked?

Some crafty psyops trick?

I didn't see any "outrage" here, care to reference
a post that contained "outrage"?

Last time I checked Berkeley is not near the "Green Line".

Are you suggesting there is some justification for a death
threat being made because of things that happen in another
country or that it should be lightly dismised because it
was made against "Palestinian Firsters"?

Just harmless curiosity.

[bluesoul]

97. Hmm

If this was an Arab/Palestinian in US making death threats to Jews they would be screaming here... Hypocrisy