It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

*Bush Fire Jihad*

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by kommunist
 


Awesome avatar!! Wildfire as a terrorist tool is pretty scary.




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by serpentine
 


I agree. I have just got back home after 5 days fighting these fires & let me tell you all it has been the most terrifying event ive ever seen or expeirienced so if it was jihadist( which i doubt) it worked on me. One thing everyone must understand is the Aussie bush must burn & will do it naturally to survive. Its us silly humans who get in the way get hurt. And before anyone has a go atme about that,i have lost 2 good friends already in this fire & i cant find another 3. If you could feel the anger here to those who may have started some of these fires you might realise that if a moslem laid claim to this, it would result in vigilante attacks on all moslems in Australia, therefore counterproductive to their real goal of infiltrating our society. Anyway, we have enough sick bastards who go about lighting these things without blaming it on some jihad against us. If it was terrorist in origin the fire would have been lit in a different area,namely to the west of Melbourne & the Dandenong ranges where any fire would have burnt straight into the suburban areas, quite possibly killing thousands.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MR1159
 


OK to educate those who clearly need it.

Jihad comes from the Qur'an. It is an arabic word.

Jihad (Arabic: جهاد‎ IPA: [ʤɪhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "struggle." Jihad appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural is
mujahideen.


You get your panties all in a twist simply because I stay on topic???? Read the topic, Ipso facto a "bush fire jihad" directly implies MUSLIM terrorists. I stick to the OP and simply pointed out that pointing a finger in the random direction of jihadists is equivalent to pointing at UFOs. It holds no meaning without evidence.

I happen to have family in Australia that I have not been able to speak with since the fires started. I do not know if they are alive or not, or if their home is still standing. I do not appreciate people making wild speculations that are nothing more than misinformed guesses and then having you call me a cretin and a racist when I point out that there is no evidence to support that stance. It is not the random speculation I mind, it is the sticking to terrorists as the cause without adding anything meaningful to the discussion. The only racism I have seen is the fool on the airwaves in AU that has been bashing muslims for years and took this opportunity to try and place blame on them. As many have pointed out, it is dry season, they do not have a good fire prevention program in the area, natural bush fires happen all the time,(California comes to mind) and Arson does not necessarily equal terrorism.

Stop your personal attacks and stick to the OP.



[edit on 11/2/09 by Terapin]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unrealised
reply to post by kommunist
 


The funny thing is Australia has received offers of help from almost every allied nation EXCEPT America.

Hurts.


wow, that sucks, i can't believe our government wouldn't give them a helping hand, i always liked the aussies and consider them friends. i know all of my friends were horrified and saddened by the tragedy. good luck to our mates from down-under. i will be writing an e-mail to my congressman and the white house.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Not to worry, the Yowie failed in his attempt to eradicate the Koala.

Koala survives Bush Fires



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


That was corrected in an earlier post. President Obama called when the fires broke out and became severe. He spoke to the AU prime minister and offered what ever assistance was needed. The earlier post that the US did not offer help was incorrect.

[edit on 11/2/09 by Terapin]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I heard last night that 60 fire-fighters from the U.S are on their way to help us Aussies out.

Thanks Guys.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
COME ON, are we going to blame everthing on muslims????

They are now the excuse when everything goes wrong. Anyone who comes up with this theory is racist and I know many muslims who have donated their time and money to help out fellow victorians.

We need to realise that the media are taking us for a ride and they arn't evil. It's just a few idiot muslims who make entertaining news for us to watch and another reason our government uses for going to war.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66

Originally posted by MR1159
Listen; there is no problem with speculating. That is the raison detre of this site. The pair of you seem to not understand that point.



So are we saying that only few are allowed to speculate?


Now, when did I say that?


Why can't I speculate that this was a vendetta against cute and cuddley bush animals?
someone who was swooped by a magpie getting revenge.


You really are all over the shop. Re-read the above quote, when seen in the context of your next comment...


It is all to easy to jump to conclusions with little or no evedence because that is the way people are swaying at the time.


So, where is your "evidence" to make this speculation?

According to your logic, one must have evidence in order to speculate.

You aren't making any sense. Do you really have a point, or are you just angling for an argument, or are you trying to cover a vested interest?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   


Odds that acknowledged members of the following groups in Australia will be the arsonist, everything else being equal, in any given case, are:

Muslim- 1.5%
Buddhist- 1.9%
Anglican- 20.5%
Catholic- 26.4%
Source, CIA bulletin.

I just thought that was interesting.

And to correct: All monkey66 said was that it was easy to speculate without any evidence. Speculation is fine, but it doesn't mean much, thus he can speculate about magpies and Koalas with equal merit.

The initial claims of Muslim Terrorists coming out of AU, was from a radio talk show host who has been bashing muslims for years any time something bad happened. His hate mongering fuels people suspicions and feeds on their fears, even when it has been proven in most cases that Muslims had nothing to do with the matter.

I will wait for the authorities to investigate before I conclude that it wasn't UFO's or magpies.

I have learned that my cousins house is still standing but I have not heard if they made it out of the area yet.

[edit on 11/2/09 by Terapin]

[edit on 11/2/09 by Terapin]

I just spoke with someone in Sidney. At least two fires are confirmed Arson. Some of the fires we had in California were arson as well.

[edit on 11/2/09 by Terapin]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


All the best to you and your cousins.

Cheers,
'59.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Well I found that article chilling. September last year this was said.

If a "jihadist group claims responsibility", this will be Australia's 9/11.

The prediction was made.

The event happened.

Now we're just waiting to find out who did it...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
It is very possible for a magpie to cause a bushfire. Magpies will "steal" shiny objects like small pieces of broken mirror, and take it to their nest. I don't think anyone has ever worked out why but if a dry nest in a dry tree contains a piece of mirror that deflects harsh sunbeams igniting a flame, the fire is started. It could become a wild fire in minutes on a windy day.
Sounds ridiculous but bush fires have been blamed on scenarios where a small piece of glass in the wrong place on the wrong day starts a fire.
So although suggesting without any evidence that a terrorist started one of the fires is unfounded, although investigatore will work long and hard to solve the mystery of the flash point. This is what arson investigators do. If a deliberately lit fire leads to the aprehension of a culprit, with the liberal use of the term terrorist these days, I gues they may be refered to in the media as an urban terrorist.
Strange but true.
I seee no jihad in there however. Just irresponsible kids most likely.
When I was a kid on a scout camp we caught older kids trying to light a fire in the region which burnt so badly this time. They had a can of petrol and matches. Out scout leader got the cops onto them straight away.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
The tragic bush fires in Victoria have been caused by lightning strikes, carelessness and arsonist.

One of the reasons they we're so bad was an unprecedented fuel build up (trees). The reason for is build up was green groups demanding more and more nature reserves and banning people from cutting down trees around their properties ie fire breaks.

One fella was fined $50.000 for clearing land around his house a few months ago. His house still stands while just bout everyone else's burned to the ground.

Many factors caused this horrendous event but a jihad I doubt it.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
The Term "Arson".

I'd just like to point out that the term arson doesn't strictly apply in these circumstances. The legal definition:

"The crime of maliciously, voluntarily, and willfully setting fire to the building, buildings, or other property of another or of burning one's own property for an improper purpose, as to collect insurance." (Emphasis added)

The people that light these bush fires criminals of a much higher order than arsonists. They are murderers.

Just thought I'd point that out.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MR1159
 

I suspect that your definition comes from a dictionary, and not any legislation source.

In most nations, Motive has been removed from legislation and Arson is considered to be the burning of any real property without consent or with unlawful intent. Another common legal definition is that Arson is the crime of deliberately and maliciously setting fire to structures or wildland areas.

Motive has been deliberately excluded as there can be many different motives. If someone sets fire to a house in an attempt to murder the people inside, they are not doing it for insurance, but it is still arson. In the US there were a series of church fires that were motivated by racial hatred. They were determined to be arson in every legal sense of the word. Some people simply like to create and watch fires. Pyromania. If they do it to property that is not theirs, it is arson. Insurance is not the only reason people start fires, thus motive has been excluded from the law.

The authorities in Australia have determined that some of the bush fires were indeed arson, which it fits within their specific legal definition of the term as follows:

Arson is the act of intentionally and maliciously destroying or damaging property through the use of fire. Within this definition there are four core elements:

-the lighting of fire - fire is the fundamental element of arson; if there is no fire lit, there is no arson (some legal definitions also include lighting explosives);
-intention or wilfulness - excludes fires started by natural causes or accidents;
-malice - excludes fires started intentionally with positive or legitimate intent; and
-property - there must be some kind of property or object that is burned.
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology
The property in this case, is not just the homes destroyed, but also the government and private land which has been damaged.


[edit on 12/2/09 by Terapin]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
It's not far fetched because a while back I heard there was a Jihad threat to do this kind of act somewhere in the media. So don't rule it out either.
What i don't understand is why did not the authorities know where the fire was spreading so they could warn the people before it reached them.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by The time lord
 


Just because you hear something in the media, does not make it true.

Most but not all journalists will follow the order of their editor and write a story the way the editor wants it written.
It really depends on which barrow the media want to push at the time.

In fact they will put up deliberately misleading headlines to get you to buy oe watch their news , remember that the media is a business, it is no longer used to spread information, but to sell commercial space to generate money for the shareholders and the stations.

Don't believe me, just look at how many gossip magazines are out there, no one wants to read Tom Cruise is a good father, they want to hear that he ties up his wife and performs scientology rituals on her.

So I am sorry, but when I hear the media starting to mention anything about jihads or terrorism, I put on my skeptic glasses and have a closer look at what isn't being said, rather than what is.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Here is where I probably heard this from, just saying that it has been said before and there is a possiblity.


USA Today ran a story in 2003 which made mention of an al-Qaeda terrorist that the FBI caught who said that he was the mastermind behind a series of devestating forest fires in the western United States. The government, however, failed to act on it. More failure of the government, I believe, in protecting us from “terrorism
Text



politicalinquirer.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Australia has a "Stay in Place" plan when it comes to bush fires. Rather than jam up the roads with fleeing people, it was though that it was better for people to stay in place, until ordered to evacuate, while firefighters did their work without being slowed down by civilians in their way. Now that the fires caused so much devastation, they are rethinking that plan. By the time people were told to evacuate it was often too late. The fires had spread too fast.

The are also looking at their forrest management program. Previously, much like in the US, all small fires were put out right away, and there were no controlled burns to reduce underbrush and tinder. This leads to problems when fires start. The US forrest service changed their plans and now conducts controlled burns to reduce the problems with bush fires. The AU is planning on making that change as well as looking at creating more natural fire breaks in the landscape.

Thus far, while the authorities have indicated arson as the cause for some of the many fires, they have not indicated any connection to terrorism. We will have to wait and see if it comes up.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join