Newsweek: ISIS Supporters Suggest Helpful Ways to Make Forest Fires Worse


From the ISIS magazine
(click image to see it larger)
So far, there is no evidence that the devastating fires that have been blazing across California were caused by orthodox Muslims. But, quoting from Newsweek:

The Islamic State militant group (ISIS) described the death and destruction associated with the recent California wildfires in its latest newsletter, days after supporters suggested laying gasoline-filled bottles in the woods to inflict further damage.

ISIS has not claimed responsibility for the raging blazes that have killed at least 41 people and injured 100 more across California, but the jihadis appeared eager to share the news of what they called "the worst fire disaster in the history of the United States."

ISIS in the past has encouraged its followers to use fire as a weapon against the West. Featuring a flaming cover, the fifth issue of the Al-Rumiyah English-language digital magazine, released in January, included instructions for "Arson Attacks" under the "Just Terror Tactics" section (see photo).

"Throughout history and until the present day, incendiary attacks have played a significant role in modern and guerilla warfare, as well as in 'lone wolf' terrorism. Such attacks have been behind the destruction of towns, neighborhoods, and public, private, and governmental property, while likewise claiming numerous lives," the article read.

The piece included instructions on how to create such flammable weapons as molotov cocktails and when to strike, in order to best target "Crusaders" and to send them from "the fire of this world to the inferno of Hellfire." It specifically includes "forest fires" as a method of attack.

Read the whole article here: ISIS Celebrates California Wildfires Death Toll As Supporters Suggest Ways to Make it Worse.

What is ISIS's purpose? Besides Islam's prime directive, there is a more specific strategy being executed: What Does ISIS Hope to Achieve With Random Violence?

Read more about ISIS's use of fire, which they recommend for the beginner jihadist: ISIS Has a New Weapon: Fire.

ISIS isn't the only one that has recommended fire as a jihadist weapon. According to an article in Wildfire Today back in 2012, "A magazine published by members of al Qaeda has called for Western Muslims to wage war within the United States, urging them to engage in lone wolf attacks, including setting forest fires. According to ABC News, a recent issue of Inspire magazine has surfaced on jihadi forums with one article titled 'It Is of Your Freedom to Ignite a Firebomb,' which gives detailed instructions on how to build an 'ember bomb' in a forest in the United States, and suggested Montana as a choice location due to the rapid population growth in forested areas.

"A previous issue of the magazine contained information on how to construct remote-controlled explosives, and helpfully listed the needed parts along with instructions and photos."

Read more about that here: 'Unleash Hell': New Al Qaeda magazine describes in detail how to start huge forest fires across the U.S. with instructions on how to make 'ember bombs'

William Scott, a former National Security Agency official, says that after U.S. Navy SEALs killed al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, they “captured a treasure trove of material that provided some unprecedented insight into the al-Qaida plans. And one of those was a detailed campaign for starting fires throughout the [American] West.”

“U.S. officials have pretty much determined that some of the fires that burned in California [in 2011] were ignited by al-Qaida operatives,” Scott said. (Source)

Terror funding expert Rachel Ehrenfeld says that Russia’s security chief, Aleksandr Bortnikov, has warned, “Al-Qaida was complicit in recent forest fires in Europe” as part of terrorism’s “strategy of a thousand cuts.”

“Since then, more fatwas advocating that ‘fire is a cheap, easy and effective tool for economic warfare’ have been issued,” Ehrenfeld wrote. “They’ve included detailed instructions for constructing remote-controlled ember bombs, and how to set fires without leaving a trace.”

Read the rest of the article: Are Terrorists Setting U.S. Wildfires?


ISIS and Al Qaeda Urge Muslims to Kill People for Christmas

Christopher Holton makes some points worth reading (as usual) in his latest post, More on the Jihad Threat this Christmas and New Year's Season. But his main point is a warning. Here are some excerpts:

Both the Islamic State and Al Qaeda have issued audio, video or online threats to attack the West this Christmas.

These threats focus on European population centers, such as Paris and London, and New York City in America, though the possibility of Jihadi attacks in other places in the West can certainly not be discounted. History has shown that places as diverse geographically as Brussels, Berlin and San Bernardino have all been targeted, especially at Christmas time.

Warnings in Jihadist literature and on Jihadi social media aren’t meant to give us a heads up. They are meant to inspire individual Jihadis to rise up and attack, in this case during the Christmas season. If recent history is any indication, we will see an act of deadly jihad somewhere in the West as a result of these communications.

The Christmas and New Year season is a particularly high-risk period as it offers unusually large numbers of potentially high-value and high-casualty targets, not just in places like New York, London, Paris and Berlin, but in just about every major city in the West.

The holiday season brings large crowds at sporting events, Christmas celebrations and ceremonies, churches, parks, restaurants and other gathering locations. In addition, the holiday season is also characterized by high volumes of leisure travel leading to large numbers of travellers in airports and train depots. The vast number of potential targets makes it virtually impossible for homeland security and law enforcement agencies to deploy enough personnel to successfully prevent every possible attack.

The Western holiday season is particularly attractive to Islamic jihadists because any successful attack, even a minor one, becomes a propaganda victory that can inspire others to follow suit and aid in Jihadist organization recruitment (despite what the U.S. government has said, Jihadis don’t recruit based on the prison at Gitmo; they recruit based on their successful attacks).

Read Holton's whole article here (and subscribe to his updates): More on the Jihad Threat this Christmas and New Year's Season.

Along the same lines, he also reports that a pro-ISIS group has called for attacks on Western children.

Do you know what orthodox Muslims hope to accomplish with this kind of random violence? It's worth knowing and sharing with people. Find out here: What Does ISIS Hope to Achieve With Random Violence?


Muhammad Was All About Love


Someone posted this on a Facebook page. It wasn't a counterjihad page, and it's a popular page, so it got lots of comments, many of them positive. But one commenter had this concise answer:

Love was not Muhammad's religion. According to Islamic history, Muhammad kidnapped people and held them for ransom, he ordered assassinations, he took slaves, he tortured a rabbi by building a fire on the rabbi's chest, he oversaw the beheading of 800 Jewish men, and took one of those men's wives as his sex slave.

I like how this comment just sticks to facts, doesn't get hysterical over the ridiculousness of the posted meme, and doesn't even really say everything that could be said, but it was enough. If anyone reads that and thinks, "No, it can't be," they can easily look up any of those factoids and find out that — surprise — they are all true. That's enough of a reality check to change anyone's general opinion about Islam, and a powerful refutation of this ridiculous meme.


What's the Difference Between a Habit and a Headscarf?


Why are some people vehemently against a Muslim headscarf but have no objection to a nun's habit? What's the difference?

The main difference is the ideology represented by the clothing. Islam's ideology is 61 percent political and only 39 percent religious. That is, 61 percent of the Koran is about what Muslims should do with non-Muslims.

A Muslim is obligated to strive to establish the law of Allah in all nations, imposing it against the will of non-Muslims if necessary. Islamic law is very detailed and specific, and includes the death penalty for apostates and gays, women are legally only worth a half a man, etc. The Muslim headscarf is one of the few visible signs of a commitment to the fundamental principles of Islam. That's why people are bothered by it.

But aren't Christians obliged to "establish the rule of Christ in all nations?" Isn't a nun's habit a visible sign of commitment to the fundamental principles of Christianity?

That's seems like a legitimate counter-argument, but are there "Christian countries?" That is, a country where the "laws of Christianity" are imposed on everyone in that country?

So far, there are 58 Muslim countries, and orthodox Muslims are dedicated to expanding that. These countries have joined together to form the largest global organization outside the UN, and they form the largest voting bloc in the UN. They have been pushing to legally impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the entire world, which means legally nobody would be able to have this conversation, even in "free nations." It would be illegal to criticize Islamic doctrine. It is already illegal in many countries.

Islam is having a huge and growing influence on world affairs. Everyone should learn more about this ideology. It isn't like other religions. The closest religion to it is Scientology, and it's not even close.

The assumptions people make about Islam are mostly wrong. But those assumptions are guiding our legal policies, and that is dangerous.

But wait a minute. Doesn't all this only apply to the most extreme and fundamentalist followers of Islam? Wouldn't the views of extreme and fundamentalist Christians be just as disturbing? It isn't fair to paint all Muslims with this same brush, is it? We could say all Scientologists are bad people, but that isn't the case either.

First of all, we're not talking about Muslims. We're talking about Islam, which is a set of written documents. It is a written ideology. When we say "orthodox Muslim," we mean someone who follows the principles written in Islamic doctrine. Yes, of course, there are many Muslims who do not follow the doctrine, just as there are Christians who don't follow the written doctrine in the Bible.

But what this argument obscures is that the orthodox Muslims are not misguided. They are doing what it says they must do in their written holy book. It says in the Koran 91 times that a Muslim should follow the example of Muhammad in every aspect. And Muhammad (according to biographies of Muhammad written by Muslims for Muslims) raided caravans, led battles, tortured people, ordered assassinations, and personally oversaw the beheading of 800 Jews. He captured and held slaves. He raped women. He started having sex with his favorite wife when she was nine years old. This is not slanderous rumor aimed to discredit Muhammad. This is taught with a straight face in Islamic universities, without any hint of embarrassment. This was the messenger of Allah and he could do no wrong.

A fundamentalist is one who follows the teachings closely. So the actual teachings make a big difference. And all we're saying is that the teachings of Islam are dangerous to non-Muslims. In Islamic doctrine, Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of creatures. This is not a conspiracy theory. This stuff is very easy to find out. You don't have to trust anyone's opinion. Just read the Koran. The Muslims who are true believers (orthodox) are counting on people not wanting to know.

In a conversation about this the other day, someone brought up a good example: the Amish. They have special dress and customs but they don't seek to impose it on anyone else. That's the difference. And it's a big difference.

Look up the Holy Land Foundation trial. The FBI raided the house of a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and found a document laying out their plan for our country. So far they have 73 legal organizations in America bent on replacing our laws with Islamic law. One organization has been altering the way Islam is portrayed in school textbooks. One organization puts pressure on Hollywood to make sure Islam is portrayed positively in movies. One organization sues people who try to educate others about what Islam is, or gets them fired from their jobs.

Scientologists aren't bad people, by the way. Most people who read the statements above would think I was slandering Scientologists. But I was talking about Scientology, the ideology. Specifically, I was referring to the "fair game" policy of Scientology. Again, it is a written document, and followed by the true believers. It says that if someone leaves Scientology (becomes an apostate), they are fair game. They can be tricked, lied to, sued, harassed.

But that's not as bad as Islamic doctrine. Islam says the penalty for apostasy is death.

Think about something for a minute. If someone says they're a member of a group that has a written ideology, would you assume they believe in at least some of the tenets of that ideology? Of course. Otherwise, why claim your membership? It's not always the case, of course. Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party, after all.

But if you could choose who would be your next door neighbor or who would date your daughter, would you voluntarily choose someone who claims membership in a dangerous ideology? They might not be "true believers." But on the other hand, many Muslims who were perfectly nice people and not true believers were reached by the more orthodox who educated them on their obligations as a Muslim. They said, "You say you're a Muslim, but have you read the Koran? Do you know what you should be doing?" And they are "radicalized" which is a politically correct way of saying they began following the written doctrine and the example of the founder of Islam.

By the way, I'm not a Christian. I'm not any religion. And I'm not out to slander any particular religion. All I did was read Islamic doctrine and biographies of Muhammad. I wasn't trying to find out that Islam is evil. I just wanted to know what was really true because we've got some people saying it's a religion of peace and some people saying it's a religion of violence. I wanted to know for myself rather than listen to the opinions of others.

I went on a decade-long program of reading, including lots of pro-Islam books and the Koran, which I read twice from beginning to end. It's a fascinating subject to study. Especially the life story of Muhammad. It is completely mind blowing that someone like that founded a religion. And that the religion (the doctrine, not the people) reflects his personality. I would never have believed it, and over time, it has become obvious to me that many people don't believe it and don't want to believe it. But if they want to be well-rounded, if they want to be an educated member of the modern world, it seems to me that one of the things they should really know about is Islam as it is, and not how they wish it was or how others want them to think about it. They should find out for themselves.

Back to the headscarf. The reason people don't like it is that the headscarf says, "I believe in the tenets of Islam" and any non-Muslim who knows what those tenets are will not like them. Also, researchers have discovered that when the women in an area with a high Muslim population begin wearing headscarves, it is a signal that the Muslims in the area are becoming more devout (more "extreme," more fundamentalist). It is a visible sign of increasing devotion to the fundamental principles of Islamic doctrine, which includes an intolerance for non-Muslims and non-Islamic laws, and usually foreshadows violence to non-Muslims and those Muslims who are "insufficiently Islamic." That's why people make such a big deal about Islamic head and face coverings. That's why France and other countries have banned them and many are considering it. 

I personally think it's foolish. If you have a visible sign of growing fundamentalism, why would you ban it? To blind yourself? On the other hand, maybe it would help weaken the fundamentalism. And it would certainly help women be free of the obligation to do it in those countries.

What about the nun's habit? The answer is that being a nun is voluntary. But if a woman is born a Muslim, she is considered a Muslim and the penalty for her leaving Islam is death.

Catholic men are not likely to beat nuns if they don't wear their habits, but orthodox Muslims have been known to beat Muslim and non-Muslim women who don't cover up, and I have yet to read a report of a Catholic man throwing acid into the face of a woman because she was not wearing her habit. Orthodox Muslim men have been doing that to Muslim women in many places in the world.

People who are relatively ignorant of Islam are puzzled by the push toward banning headscarves, and would like to write it off as just ignorant bigotry. But if they looked a little deeper, they might find sensible reasons for it.


Did Muhammad Teach Love?


On Facebook, someone asked this question: "Did Muhammad teach love but over the centuries people took his words out of context?"

Here was my answer: No, Muhammad didn't teach love. But over the centuries, because human beings are generally empathetic, many Muslims ignored Muhammad's teachings and treated non-Muslims kindly.

But times are changing. Saudi Arabia has been using its vast oil wealth to spread fundamentalism around the world, funding new mosques and madrasas by the thousands, all of them teaching straight, unadulterated Islam, which says that the law of Allah (Sharia) is the only legitimate law in the world, and the goal of Islam is to eventually bring all people under the rule of Sharia.

According to Islam, this mission is to be accomplished by first just inviting the unbelievers to embrace Islam, as Osama bin Laden did before he attacked America on 9/11. If the unbelievers don't embrace Islam, Muslims are ordered by Allah to make war against them if they have the strength to do it. Once victorious, they are to give the unbelievers one last chance to become a Muslim (or for Christians and Jews, become a dhimmi), or die.

This system has worked. Fifty six countries in the world are ruled by Islamic law. The OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) is the largest organization in the world other than the United Nations, and it is the largest voting bloc in the UN.

Muslims are now migrating to all non-Muslim nations. They bring their ideology with them.

Someone then said, "I don't understand how people follow this. How hard is it to just accept other people? I don't get it. I enjoy being nice. It's rewarding."

This is how I answered him: Yes, being kind to people is enjoyable. But imagine a Muslim raised to believe the Koran is the word of the Almighty. And that Muhammad is the final prophet of the Almighty. And you know that Muhammad said that the law of Allah (Sharia law) is the only legitimate law. All other systems of law are man-made and therefore misguided and evil.

And imagine what it would be like if you thought Allah gave each Muslim a mission: Bring all people under the rule of Allah. And by the way, it's okay to use force because these unbelievers don't know what's good for them. They're going to suffer terrible torment in eternity anyway, so you might as well try to make them into believers, even against their will.

That's the way it is. And it has been causing problems for humanity for 1400 years. Is the solution simply to be nice to someone who believes such an ideology? What can be done about it? That's the question we should all be asking. What can we do about it that is compassionate and yet not foolish?



All writing on is copyright © 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.

Citizen Warrior Heroes

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior Heroes.

No More Concessions to Islam

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP