Only YOU can prevent forest fires
October 25, 2007 7:23 PM   Subscribe

Are the fires burning in California simply natural disastors, or are they the result of arson? Eco-Terrorists might be responsible for these fires and if they are, who will defend industry from these eco-freaks? "An interview with ELF (Earth Liberation Front) founder, John Hanna: it's origins, tactics and the consequences of direct action" which was disbanded in 1978; the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) however, lists it as being founded in 1992 in Brighton, England by Earth First! members who refused to abandon criminal acts as a tactic. If none of these ideas seem reasonable to you, then perhaps George Carlin's take might suit you.

One man has been killed by San Bernardino University security guards after 'refusing to be detained'. "We don't know whether he was an arsonist," Patterson said. "What was related by the Cal State police was that they tried to contact him as a suspicious person in a brush area. Things being how they are, there was a suspicion that he could be an arsonist." A few hours later, a woman reported that she saw a man squating along the side of the road. He is now in custody and is being held on $750,000 bail. The police say, "He has not been connected in any way so far with any fire up on the hill." [from]
posted by sluglicker (21 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: this is a hand-waving OMGFilter post about something that has affected a lot of people in pretty bad ways, its a little early to bring out the conspiracy angles and this particular post is light on facts and heavy on the verbage. It might be better on your own blog or a group blog that appreciates a good raised eyebrow approach to current events. -- jessamyn



 
Um, if they are arsonists, they are probably not "eco-terrorists", as you say, as they are, well, crazy arsonists. Who start fires for no reason at all, or for reasons only known to themselves. Otherwise, what would the point be?
posted by yhbc at 7:28 PM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


IBTL
posted by notyou at 7:33 PM on October 25, 2007


This post is just awful.

who will defend industry from these eco-freaks?

Oh, the humanity!
posted by mkultra at 7:34 PM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


Wait, wait! Maybe it was witches!
posted by orthogonality at 7:38 PM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'd be more worried about people's homes then "industry".
posted by delmoi at 7:40 PM on October 25, 2007


TREE MUMIA
posted by fandango_matt at 7:40 PM on October 25, 2007 [11 favorites]


I've got to agree... this post is questionable.... blame placed with few if any facts.... the point?
posted by HuronBob at 7:40 PM on October 25, 2007


DISASTOR
posted by kuujjuarapik at 7:41 PM on October 25, 2007


Maybe Jon Galt did it.
posted by mkultra at 7:41 PM on October 25, 2007


It's the fags.
posted by digaman at 7:42 PM on October 25, 2007


It's Eco-freaks now? Yesterday it was Al-Qaeda, I wish you wing-nuts would make up your minds about who I'm supposed to hate.
posted by octothorpe at 7:42 PM on October 25, 2007


I'm guessing if this was a dating site this post would probably pretty much guarantee advanced carpal tunnel syndrome.
posted by maxwelton at 7:42 PM on October 25, 2007


Fox news told me it was Al Qaeda.

I think that Al Qaeda, the ecoterrorists, the pedophiles, the illegal immigrants, and the internet hate machine should all team up. Combined, surely all these dangerous groups could bring down America.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:43 PM on October 25, 2007


Fox News could bring down America.
posted by never used baby shoes at 7:44 PM on October 25, 2007


uhm... In my experience, environmentalist types tend to hug trees, not burn them. YMMV
posted by ZachsMind at 7:47 PM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


who will defend industry from these eco-freaks?

Flagged as fantastic, like fantastically, cosmically retarded.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:50 PM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


There is a point in starting fires (although not by random arsonists): a controlled burning programme is essential for dealing with forest fires. Brush builds up under trees; if not cleared every few years with a small bushfire, then when fires inevitably occur, they are huge and cause vast amounts of damage.

Historically in Australia, brush-burning was an Australian aboriginal cultural practice that caused great conflict with European settlers, who tried very hard to stamp the practice out, not least by hanging and shooting Aboriginals who set fires. Although it's obvious in retrospect that less frequent bushfires are worse, we've only recently started to seriously do anything about it.

The problem with establishing controlled burning programmes, of course, is that residents complain about the fire and the smoke. It stings their eyes. It kills native animals. Soot flakes onto the paint of their houses. There is a real risk of houses close to the bush being set on fire. Etc. Hopefully, Californians will realize why putting up with the annoyances is worthwhile in the long run.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:51 PM on October 25, 2007


Apparently the eco-terrorists have gained control of the Santa Ana winds.
posted by Tim McDonough at 7:51 PM on October 25, 2007


environmentalist types tend to hug trees, not burn them

Who will defend prescriptivists from oxymorons?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:52 PM on October 25, 2007


posted by ZachsMind In my experience, environmentalist types tend to hug trees, not burn them.

They're burning the planet to save it.
posted by fandango_matt at 7:53 PM on October 25, 2007


Why all the hating?
Conflating, equating
desecrating with
squating?


I once dated
a girl who squated
and I was elated
by the way she mated.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:54 PM on October 25, 2007 [3 favorites]


« Older Equine nasal strips   |   The (smart) rats have left the ship Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments