The war on terror might be about to get much, much hotter. Dwindling resources and diminishing weaponry are causing Muslim extremists to call upon their numbers to start a “forest jihad” in Australia. According to one website extremists have to “start forest fires," claiming “scholars have justified chopping down and burning infidels’ forests when they do the same to our lands.” The website continues, "Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organization were to claim responsibility for the forest fires. You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia."
Anyone who has been watching the news this summer or lives in California understands the potential damage these fires can cause untold economic and ecological damage. This summer nearly 1,300 homes were destroyed and almost 500,000 acres burned. Australia, which is heading into their fire season, is on alert.
To see what they're doing, read more.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland assured that the Federal Government is remaining “vigilant against such threats” and warns that anyone caught using fire as a weapon would feel the full extent of the Australia’s anti-terror laws. However, there are those that believe that the threat is just smoke. The director of research at the University of Wollongong’s Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention thinks this is inconsistent with the jihadist mentality. “With attacks like bushfires, yes, it would be easy.” But he also believes that starting fires are less effective in that it is easy to deny their credibility. If a terrorist organization wanted credit for such an action, it would be very difficult to prove otherwise.
GUESS
Prada
Apart
It's right for Australia to remain vigilant and to be aware of the different tactics a hostile group might use. But we all should be careful about freaking out over everything we read on the internet - there's nothing in the article that suggests how valid the website's group is.
1Well said, stephley.
The interesting thing in the linked article was the assertion that thanks to stepped-up prevention, terrorists are finding it harder and harder to carry out any attacks. It's said that that's why they're resorting to firestarting, which is not considered a glorious attack.
2So does this mean we are winning the war on terror?
3Well, it's Australia, so I don't think we can take too much credit.
Anyway, I'm not fond of the phrase "war on terror."
4But why, Jude? It sure is nice fight wars on things you can never actually eradicate. That way you always have a valid excuse to violate your citizen's rights and liberties!
5EXACTLY, Mich!!!
6So should we just ignore the people that have carried out terrorist attacks on the US amd US interests since the early 90's. We did that for 8 years, and it didn't do us too well. The last 8 have seen a definit decline in the ability of "those who wish us harm" to actually do any harm.
7UD, of course not! But a "war on terror" is ridiculous. It makes sense to seek out those who have actually done us harm, but that's more of a "war on Bin Laden". The "war on terror" is similar to the "war on drugs" in that it will never end and will allow for the violation of freedoms.
8First of all, I feel terror every time I have to go to my dentist. Should I bomb Dr. Rosenblatt? I wish we'd just say "war on the terrorists" or "war against those who cause us terror" or even "war to end the terror we feel in our hearts because of terrorists". I realize it's not a catchy, but it would make me feel better as a soldier in this war for which no terror can hide or can be hidden by or from the terrorists.
I just got dizzy.
9See if the Rosenblatt's put up some kind of holiday tree - then set it on fire.
10Stephley, I delight in your comments.
11seriously? people just don't think about the impact of something like a forest fire. i don't even understand how the thought came up to do this. there are soo many consequences to forest fires to both the environment, and the atmosphere, and to animals and even to us. how anyone can justify doing this is beyond me.
12What will they think of next? yikes.
13As I look out on my five acres of bushland this type of thing does give me pause for thought but at the same time most bushfires in my state are started by someone, most of the time on purpose so the level of vigilance for the fire dept etc is the same. We are more prepared for bushfires than anything else in this country so It is a bit of a weak way of waging a war.
14Mich- you have a good point about the "war on terror" phrasing. Sometimes we truly forget that arson, running planes into buildings, and causing that sort of destruction is ALREADY illegal. If we can identify a specific group (Al Qaeda for instance) then at least as far as US laws go, their illegal actions would be the arson + conspiracy. It also gives us the ability to study and target that group and their actions. But just saying, "I want to fight terror" is kind of nonsensical, even though we know what that means when a politician says that.
I mean, the arsonists that caused some of the fires last year in California, they weren't terrorists (I believe) but were just regular criminals. Sometimes it makes me wonder why we even need this distinction, other than to help target a specific group, because they were absolute sh*theads regardless of their intentions for setting fires that caused so much property destruction and drained so many state resources.
Even though you are right Stephly...this still just makes me feel so...angry and scared in my gut.
15Exactly what it was meant to do - but by whom?
16I think every govt is aware of these type of threats all the time it's a matter of what they tell the public and when.
17We've just started spring here, apparently summer will be a hot one. Last year we had very few bushfires. The govt is reminding us that the season is upon us and to be prepared.
I can't find this story in any of the Sydney papers, not even the more sensationalist ones. Releasing a story like this on a Sunday also shows it's lack of real substance in terms of news.
i wish these pesky terrorists would instead call for a jihad on my dishes and also on my cat's litter box.
18Michelin: I understand you point, it's a vague and awkward term, but that's because it's an unidentified and unspecific enemy.
I would hate to hear it rephrased as a "war on Islamic fundamentalists" because it would effectively identify Islam as the enemy, which is unfair and unproductive.
Still, it differs from random crimes, in that it is coordinated, targeted and has a specific agenda.
Incidentally, IMO wildfire as a terror tactic is actually frighteningly effective. It's cheap, requires no special equipment, can cause widespread damage and wreak havoc on people and the economy, and can be easily conducted by a very small number of people.
19Maybe we should just start calling it, instead of the "war on terror", the "jihad on jihad".
20Maybe change it to: "A task that is from God"
21Oh wait, that's been taken.
I'm wondering if we have a think tank that sits around and figures out ways we could possibly be attacked. I think there's a little too much information being shared with the public regarding possible terror attacks. So later this year, or next, if we have a wildfire that appears to be arson, is it going to be called an attack?
22You and me both yy!
23True UD. I always wonder how much the gov't knows and how it would prob blow our minds if we really knew the truth about everything.
24how about a "dont likey" on terror.
I dont mind calling it a War, its semantics.
25It really frustrates me to read things like this because it's a no win situation. If the media withholds the information, and the arson is carried out, then the Australian public is at a disadvantage as they cannot prepare for the worst and hope for the best. At the same time, reading articles that are intended to be informative, but have a slightly sensationalist slant on them whips up a frenzy faster than black market handbags in New York City.
My question is what precautions are being taken to help diffuse the situation. I am fully aware that none of the governments want to negotiate with terrorists, but consistently upping the ante adds unneeded pressure on an extremely fragile situation. What happened to the peace talks, and how does peace keeping equate to forcing our political agendas and personal values upon cultures and societies different from ours? I mean, wanting to help out of selflessness and helping for the sake of personal gratification or selfishness, does more harm than actual good.
What suggestions does everyone have to help remedy the situation? What do you think needs to be done to bastardizing the term "peace" and actually work together to find a solution? Or do you think "working toward peace" is as futile as the "war on terror".
On a lighter note, I always loved my dentist... it was the OBGYN that scared the pants off me. Literally!
26How do you work toward peace with someone who just wants you dead? It's like that scene in Independence Day when the President asks the captured alien "What do you want?", and the alien replies "You to die." I know it's not popular in our society to think of this in absolutes, but if we don't go find them, they are going to come find us. Isn't it better to meet the enemy on our conditions, rather than have to react to his?
27Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.