Could this California arson be terrorism?

[Deja Q]

Bona-fide terrorism?

Accidental or reckless act?

Deliberate burning just like some people will always do?

Will * and co treat the suspects like terrorists?

Given how often that area gets flamed by fire, I doubt it's terrorism. But I bet it will be treated as such.

Oh well. Expect the economy to go further south because this fire affects only the "affluent" and the insurance companies. x( And you know they're more important than the rest of the world.

[Sequoia]

1. Or it could be

someone with an agenda to deliver the state to you know who by making Califorina dependent on government funding. I find it very suspicious that the RC fire was set soon after B&A's little fiasco laughing about how they couldn't pronoune it. Well, I'm sure they can pronounce it now.

[maggrwaggr]

2. oh good Lord. Educate yourselves first please

This is just silly. This is an ecosystem known as "chapparal" which needs to burn every few years in order to release seeds and reproduce.

We have fires every year. Always in the fall and early winter, before the rains come.

This year is really really bad because the winds were just out of control.

this is no different than having a hurricane on the east coast. Or a tornado in the midwest.

Are you gonna blame the winds on terrorists?

Good lord ........

[theivoryqueen]

11. there are other factors to consider

such as the very real disturbance of rainfall patterns by global warming trends. These climactic changes translate into real situations that are caused by people and their actions. Will it take the Arctic becoming a tropical wonderland before people admit that we do affect (and damage) our environment?

But... the issue of arson has been legitimately raised. Is it possible that what the original writer was referring to is intentional damage caused by persons for the purpose of creating a catastrophe? And isn't that within the realm of possibility?

[JackRiddler]

15. The authorities are saying some of the fires are due to arson

Which sounds like it has an oh-so conventional motivation compared to "terrorist" arson, but would be just as evil.

You're right about the ecosystem. But the fact that there will be fires naturally lends a cover to those who hope to cash in through arson (whether by insurance fraud or property speculation).

This is the problem in many places - for example Greece, a place I am more familiar with than California, but where the natural and criminal factors similarly converge.

Yeah, I can see that in the end the arsonists who ultimately cash in from these acts will be among those yelling loudest that this MIGHT be terrorism.

[Champion Jack]

17. Exactly

[Beaker]

3. I expect the fires will mean a boost to the economy in one respect-

all those houses that burned up will have to be replaced, along with their contents. Carpenters in SoCal should be able to keep plenty busy for awhile.
Carpeting, home electronics, clothing, bedding, furniture, appliances, etc... even new landscaping. The 'losses' for the insurance companies are absorbed over the entire country, but the influx of money to that area ought to be a boon to the local economy.I wouldn't be surprised if the tinfoil hatters start speculating on MIHOP or LIHOP by the Cabal.

[readmylips]

13. Plenty of New and Beautiful Homes in Arizona...

Californian will continue to move to Arizona. I like it. I want those good democrats to move to Arizona.

[Syncronaut Seven]

18. Insurance losses will be recouped by regional (not national)

Rate hikes. The real losers will be low income homeowners who's rates will rise significantly.

The rich fucks will just rebuild on the urban/wilderness interface. lather, rinse, repeat.

Brought a tear of joy to my eye watching upscale Californians running thru the street crying "Where's the fire department?" Could it have something to do with TAX CUTS? What about the NG being out of town? Stupid fucks.

Callouse?, Cruel? Overlay the home loss map with the conservative voting demographics & you get a disturbingly close match. Karma, Me thinks. Fire has no respect for "Decency" Didn't it see the sign at the front gate?

My sympathies lie with those who lost everything because somewhere along the line they had to chose between insurance & food or medicine.

If you voted for Arnie or complain bitterly about licence fees on your Landrover, well, consider yourself warned.

Harrad

[pasadenaboy]

26. You got it wrong

we haven't had tax cuts in CA yet. Our fire funding is fine. the problem is the federal funding of the national parks, which has led to poor management and huge fires.

[Syncronaut Seven]

27. nor will you.

That said, you may want to research your assertions more carefully. Or at least drink some beers with your local firefighters, they'll set you straight.

[La_Serpiente]

4. I have heard a whole bunch of conspiracy theory

but I am not saying shit until there is some credible evidence of it.

[Clete]

5. Even the fires were started by terrorists, it wouldn't have

made any difference. The truth is that when the conditions are right the fires will happen and it has been especially hot and dry this year setting up the conditions for fire season, when the Santa Ana winds whip up. Any small thing can start a fire and the winds will make sure it spreads.

[jiacinto]

6. Maybe

But I take excpetion with your argument that this fire "only affects the affluent". There are many working class and middle class families who have lost their homes too.

[Clete]

8. I have always disapproved of development in the canyons

and wilderness areas. These places should be sparsely populated if at all. But there are always those who want to live away from the city and the developers who are willing to accomodate them. Decades ago those areas were ranchland, citrus groves and vineyards. Fires destroyed very little back then that couldn't be rebuilt or replanted with a minimum of trauma. I think we should really limit populations in the fire prone areas of the canyons, mountains and foothills with a fund set aside for compensation and rebuilding for the people who do get caught up in the fire cycle.

[theivoryqueen]

12. d'ya think the insurance companies

are going to ask for another bailout on account of the damage here? And after they have gotten billions, will they hike insurance rates?

[maggrwaggr]

14. let's face it, LA is a stupid place to put a city

earthquakes and fires are the norm. There's no water. The air's bad (even before the white man got here).

Dumb dumb dumb.

The only reason the place is so big is that there was a huge land speculation rush in 1888 after the two major railroad lines both terminated here and started offering people rides across the country for a dollar.

Shady speculators quickly divided the place up and started selling land, even putting oranges onto Joshua trees and selling them as "orange groves". The place boomed and crashed, but the damage was done. The place had been birthed.

Before that it was a miserable little hell hole known as "Los Diablos". They say you could actually address an envelope to "Los Diablos" and it would come to Los Angeles, everybody knew the nickname. Disease was rampant and few wanted to live here.

[JackRiddler]

16. GREAT! PLEASE ANSWER THIS:

I love that, the original name was Los Diablos.

I'd like you to give me a cite though, it's too good to believe otherwise.

[maggrwaggr]

20. Hmm, wish I could remember

ten years ago or so I was doing a ton of research on Western American history to write a screenplay. I have no idea where I read the part about Southern California, but I'm sure it must be common to other history accounts.

The only book I see in my office here that it might have come from is "Men to Match My Mountains" by Irving Stone. It's been a while but I remember that was a pretty good book that covered the period from the gold rush to about 1900.

[demnan]

7. I saw on NBC yesterday that some of the fires were

deliberately set. They have a picture of a guy they are looking for who set one of the fires. Is this terrorism or arson? Not sure, but there apparently were witnesses.

[maggrwaggr]

9. somebody always starts these fires

we don't have lightning here.

Every year this happens. Fires start, they blame arson, they look for somebody (seems like they're always in a van).

Repeat next fall.

This year they just got out of hand. It's something called "w-i-n-d"

Hello?

I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to this, it just kicks it to where it doesn't belong.

[AP]

10. You know, Republicans won by putting economic squeeze on Davis...

...which they blamed on Democrats.

If you were a terrorist and you hated Bush and Republicans, it would make sense to make Arnold and Republicans look bad by putting the squeeze on CA after Arnold got elected.

However, I have yet to see any terrorist do anything which makes Repulbicans look bad.

[htuttle]

19. What's the difference between terrorism and arson?

It's some sort of teleological thing, right?

[slater71]

21. Arnolds trifecta?

Maybe he will just have to raise taxes , you know to pay for the fires and all.

[mlawson]

22. They have have wildfires in CA for decades and decades.

It's just that this cycle is the 'worst in 100 years'. I'm certainly not minimizing the horror of it, BTW.

[Bandit]

23. It probably wasn't but I would bet the terrorist are paying attention

It would be soooo easy to cause buku damage to most of our mid-western states in late summer. This is an education for any would be terrorists. Expect this to become an annual event with much much more damage yet to be done. We make it entirely too easy.

[Astarho]

24. "Tim McVeigh" terrorism or "Al-Qaida" terrorism?

Possibly the first (but that's doubtful) and probably not the latter.

Considering the idiots here, I don't think Al-Qaida needs the help.

[pasadenaboy]

25. My expertise is

Insurance Company Risk Management, meaning I aggregate risk for a major insurance company and protect agains adverse events (like these fires)

This case is not terrorism, but we have been talking about our exposure to terrorist set fires during Santa Ana conditions since 2001. It is a very dangerous possibility.