AL-QAEDA orders the burning of American Forests
 

This came across the net this morning in my daily Subscription to Arutz Sheva,
an Israeli news paper. It was one of eight stories in today's internet edition. It seems that what I have thought has already BEEN happening in America for the last two years, has now been ordered as a "Battle Plan" by the powers that be, of the Muslim terrorist organizations.
I can only say that if I was in the forest and saw a bunch of people carrying firebombs, REGARDLESS OF RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, I would disable them, take their bombs, and show them what the trees felt like. In my younger days, I used to FIGHT forest fires. I would NOT stand idly by and allow someone to TORCH the mother.
Here is the story that I cut and pasted:

8. AL-QAEDA CALLS FOR PA-STYLE ARSON IN AMERICA
by Maayana Miskin

Al-Qaeda is calling on its followers to attack America using methods identical to those used by terrorists targeting Israel. In the latest issue of its English-language magazine, the group calls for large-scale arson attacks.

Inspire magazine articles explain how to use firebombs to start forest fires, and suggests locations within the United States that could be targeted.

Arson attacks are very common in Israel. Palestinian Authority terrorists frequently target Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, and arson has been used to drive Jews from mixed towns in Israel. Even major cities are not immune.

One particularly severe rash of attacks aimed to prevent firefighters from putting out the Carmel fire. The Carmel fire itself was started by Druze teens, who started the fire unintentionally and decided not to report it. The fire killed 44 people.

The latest Inspire issue urges readers not to be dissuaded by the possibility of murdering innocent civilians, including children. "It is allowed to use poison or other methods of mass killing against the disbelievers who are at war with us," the publication states, quoting Anwar al-Awlaki.

Awlaki and Samir Khan were behind the creation of Inspire. The pair were killed in 2011 in a U.S. strike in Yemen, but the magazine continues to quote them.

Anybody that would burn down a forest is terminally ill. Let us do the humane thing and put them down.

Oh I would "put them down" but if I caught them in the attempt, I would put them down the SAME way that they wanted to put the forest down.
Niri Te

I'm more of a stone axe guy myself but whatever floats your boat :)

The irony in this post is almost pathetic.

I would say don't help terrorists by giving them publicity. Terrorism is just as much about "we will do this" as actually doing it. That said, there's only one way to stop them for good, I suppose.

Darn tootin', rid the world of these nutters and in doing so, protect forests. That's a great day for all :)

Hmmm...:(

I'm just going to say, a terrorism group resorting to burning down forests to get back at America seems pretty pathetic. And weak.

If they enjoy keeping their brains in their skulls they'll stay the hell away from our forests. If not, I've got various...utilities that should get the job done.

So, people are now reacting to such things, since Al Qaeda issued that threat? Funny, that no one (except for perhaps the odd local paper or some localized activist group) said so much as one word, when US companies like Maxxam/Pacific Lumber used diesel-herbicide mix to ensure, that after clear-cutting a region nothing ever grows afterwards?

Or, that they flew with helicopters over forest areas, spraying napalm onto cut-down trees and remains of clear-cutting to start fires (and no, I'm not referring to Vietnam here, but the pacific north-west of the US of A...).

(Both witnessed and described by Julia Butterfly Hill during her squatting Luna)

Currently, the same is happening in Tasmania (Australia), where the remains of clear-cutting are burned using Napalm, too...

However, no one really cares, unless the trigger "Al Qaeda" is used. It's almost like a Pawlowian reaction, that people start slobbering, as soon as they hear that "terrorist" bell ringing. But if "legitimate" companies do the same sh1t, next to no one says or does anything...

This quote never fails to fit: "This... is sad. Very sad only!"

Wiggling bare toes,

~*Txim Asawl*~

Governments protect their interests, and terrorists are harmful to those. Publicity. Companies, on the other hand, are completely allowed and protected, no matter how much more wildlife they kill.

The life of the concerned citizen is a hard one.

WRONG, BUNKIE!!! I am 100% behind the tactics of EARTH FIRST!, when it comes to dealing with CORPORATE TERRORISTS. It makes NO DIFFERENCE to me if you are "serving Allah", or your greedy stockholders. If you plan to decimate the forests, than you deserve whatever fate you are dealt by those that cherish the forests, and only support selective, sustainable thinning of the forests.
Niri Te

:hmm:

Can you crazy zeolost nuts give it a rest? Your beloved leader is dead and your not as organized as you once were. You'll never acheive your goal of getting everyone to beleive in your god.

God Al-queta doesn't make me scared, it just makes me so annoyed. Even If I were in a dangerous place like Isrial, I still wouldn't fear them. They could kill me and I still would believe in what I believe.

They're terrorists.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

If you oppose terrorism that doesn't match your ideology but are all for that which does, you are a hypocrite.
The term "terrorist" is thrown around a lot in a way that means "anyone I don't like" as in your post in regards to actions that, while wrong, are not terrorism. Claiming they are both devalues the seriousness of actual terrorism and makes you look ignorant.

In the 70's and 80's they slowed down the clear cutting of the forests in Washington State, and Oregon. They protected trees that could not protect themselves from corporate greed.

If you are happy with the way that the second world war was won by the allies, Then you support the FIREBOMBING OF DRESDEN. That city was fire bombed strictly to cause HUGE CIVILIAN DEATHS.

If I use your yardstick for Hypocrisy, then if you are at all happy at the outcome of the second world war, and do not hold any and all responsible for the planning and execution of the firebombing raids on Germany, by your own standards, you are a Hypocrite. Terrorists ONLY understand terror, and must be dealt with through the means that they understand.
There were some "civilian casualties" (if you count the operators of the saws at the mills, and those that swung the chainsaws in the woods as civilians). That would mean that by those standards, an SS Corporal who shoved the Jews into the "showers" at Dachau, was "only a civilian" in the grand scheme of things, and not guilty of Genocide, only the senior Officers were "Combatants". They were ALL in the Army, therefore they were all targets.
No one that I am aware of who did not work for the lumber companies was ever killed by any of the actions of" EARTH FIRST!", and to place them in the same category as the ones who planned, and carried out the attacks on the twin towers would make you look like as though you were suffering from the height of ignorance, please explain yourself, when you lump "EARTH FIRST!" with Al Oaeda.
Niri Te

Ah, WTF? Did I ever say the Allies were blameless in their conduct? No.

You go ON AND ON AND ON about Vietnam even though nobody really cares at all and you just take every single thread as an opportunity to talk about yourself - by your own post above that would mean you support the events of My Lai or numerous other war crimes that are associated. I do think (and hope) that isn't the case, but that is what your own post just implied. What you are engaging in is called an association fallacy and a false dichotomy (AKA "You're either with us or against us").

People like Earth First hurt their own cause by making it easy to cast anyone with a similar view as a terrorist, because what they do is undeniably terrorism. When referencing terrorism, you can't pick and choose incidents to fit one side of a political view; it has to be all or nothing - that is, that terrorists who are on the same side politically are still just as much example as ones on opposite sides.

Point well made, HNM. I agree that "EARTH FIRST!" did NOT need all the bad press that they got when several "Working class Joe's" were seriously injured or killed by a saw blade exploding when it hit the embedded spike in the log.
I believe that "EARTH FIRST" did not want any "working Joe's" to get hurt, and I believe that because they WARNED the lumber company's that there spiking the trees to keep them out of a highly environmentally sensitive area of forest, not the entire forests of the North West.
I may be wrong here, but my personal definition of a terrorist act, is one where civilians are either the primary target, or no attempt is made to keep them away from harm, and a terrorist organization is a group that practices such attacks. While some could be brought up on murder charges for the spiking deaths, I don't think that the group planned any people to be harmed, I think that they hoped that the lumber company's would just leave that section of the forest alone once they were warned.
I am a lot more comfortable with their disabling millions in heavy logging equipment, where no one was hurt. Illegal? Yes, but no one was hurt.
I only post this so that you folks know that I don't condone the intentional targeting of innocent civilians by anyone.

Big boy.