where is my tin foil hat?

[Keller]

About 3 weeks ago, sitting in the Hollywood Bowl listening to Bright Eyes play with the LA Philharmonic, I turned to my wife and told her how cheap, relatively simple, and frighteningly unpreventable terrorists starting wildfires in the LA area was.

Fast forward three weeks -- and it's like Los Angeles is falling into a burning ring of fire. Now, it's likely the fires are from natural causes and are the result of the strong winds, but my earlier comments to my wife made me think.

Every 3-4 hours a new major fire started in a different area of the city. It's like someone is strategically placing them around the city like some sort of siege by fire.

The first home to go: The house of a Persian Princess whose father had strong political ties to America.

All I'm saying is that if Tom Clancy ever writes a book about it -- I hope Kurt Russel plays the fire fighter hero in the made-for-tv movie.

[Gan]

Dont laugh.

I've always considered purposefully setting wild fires during this season as an extremely advantageous strategy for terrorists (internal and abroad) to yet continue to drain the resources and threaten the peace of our homeland.

The only downside is that most people still consider wild fires as an act of nature, not an instrument of terror. Which would be counter intuitive to the standard terrorist creedo. Unless they are either adapting to a different style of warfare or they just dont care who claims responsibility for said actions.

[Jayvn]

Dont laugh.

I've always considered purposefully setting wild fires

completely kept out of context :)

[TheEschaton]

It's an interesting idea, but I agree with Gan, people aren't terrified* of it enough for it to be considered terrorism from a terrorist standpoint.

*terrified that someone set it, rather.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

People would be terrified if they knew that terrorists were starting the fires. They consider them natural events now.. because that is mostly what they are and have been.

Imagine the effect it would have on people if it were found that terrorists actually did set LA on fire.

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't believe that the narcissistic payoff would be there, nor would there be enough potential carnage to further the plan for a terrorist, unless you started burning huge sections of LA proper. I'd like to see acouple terrorists try to take Compton too; great after school special. Just my opinion.

[chillmonster]

You can't police everything. We have to remain vigilant, but when another attack happens - and it will - we should not panic and overreact. Too many people are eager to cede control of our sense of safety.

The actual danger of these fires wouldn't increase if they were set by terrorists, but the fear they incite would definitely be magnified. With a media that sensationalizes everything and politicians all too willing to play on our fears for political gain, all Bin Laden would have to do to terrorize Americans is claim responsibility for the fires. The entire point of terrorism is to induce a public fear that greatly exceeds the actual danger. We shouldn't be so willing to help them.

[Clove]

The actual danger of these fires wouldn't increase if they were set by terrorists.

Of course it would. A natural fire is random. Were it by terrorists it would be deliberate and (it could be assumed) that more would follow or at least be designed for the most devastating effect. Hi Chill-lash, btw.

[Tsa`ah]

Of course it would. A natural fire is random. Were it by terrorists it would be deliberate and (it could be assumed) that more would follow or at least be designed for the most devastating effect. Hi Chill-lash, btw.

No, not really.

We have experienced services in place to combat fires, be they naturally occurring, accidental, or arson.

There is a moment of surprise from a fire and then people are responsive enough to get the hell out of the way. One couldn't spread a fire fast enough to cause total chaos and havoc, thus instilling fear.

This is why they blow things up instead of running around with lighter fluid and matches.

[Celephais]

It's funny cause you want to say the whole "if terrorists were smart they would..." but then the last thing you want is them taking your ideas.

I'd say my "what I would do if I was a terrorist", but I have some friends in Boston.

[Tsa`ah]

It's funny cause you want to say the whole "if terrorists were smart they would..." but then the last thing you want is them taking your ideas.

I'd say my "what I would do if I was a terrorist", but I have some friends in Boston.

Huh? I want to say?

Are we starting a new chapter of instruction pertaining to reading what isn't there?

[Celephais]

Huh? I want to say?

Are we starting a new chapter of instruction pertaining to reading what isn't there?
Yeah, "the life of Tsa'ah"

It was a general you, refering to me actually. It was a hypothetical, and in no way was it directed at you, Tsa'ah (did you see a quote?). Infact the fucking OP was talking about (paraphrased) what he would do if he was a terrorist, "how cheap, relatively simple, and frighteningly unpreventable terrorists starting wildfires in the LA area was"

Christ you're an idiot Tsa'ah...

[chillmonster]

Of course it would. A natural fire is random. Were it by terrorists it would be deliberate and (it could be assumed) that more would follow or at least be designed for the most devastating effect. Hi Chill-lash, btw.

Ya mama's backlash.

And I love your non logic. It's hilarious.

[Parkbandit]

Ya mama's backlash.

And I love your non logic. It's hilarious.


Nothing is as hilarious as your 'anonymity' on this site. Nothing even close.

[chillmonster]

Nothing is as hilarious as your 'anonymity' on this site. Nothing even close.

Here he is. The detective himself. :rofl:

OMG, you're too stupid!!! There's no way you could understand just how small and how dumb you look to me right now. I don't know what's more pathetic: that Backlash would let you get to him so much that he'd leave, or that you miss him so much that you start seeing him everywhere you turn. I can't even think of your obsession without laughing out loud. Keep talking, it's been a long day and I can use more laughs.

And don't worry; if you wish hard enough, he'll be back.

[Clove]

I don't know what's more pathetic:... that you miss him so much that you start seeing him everywhere you turn.

Here's some more logic to amuse you: Not everywhere- just in your direction.

If you can't see the difference in potential damage between a random natural fire and one that is devised to create the most harm then no logic is going to help you (another thing you have in common with ol' BL).

Terrorists are feared for their malice- not the harm done by a specific act; because if they remain unrestricted they will continue to harm as much as possible. For that reason it would be entirely appropriate for people to become more frightened if they discovered the LA fires were a deliberate act of terrorism.

Nature has no such malice.

It would be the difference between almost being hit by a car by accident; or learning that the same encounter was no accident but attempted murder. Intent can make all he difference.

Just come on back Chill-lash. It isn't as if you've spared yourself any ridicule.

[Gan]

Look at the bright side, least the vacant houses will either burn down or people will be looking to move in when their houses burn down.

Boom, instant demand!

[Tsa`ah]

Yeah, "the life of Tsa'ah"

It was a general you, refering to me actually. It was a hypothetical, and in no way was it directed at you, Tsa'ah (did you see a quote?). Infact the fucking OP was talking about (paraphrased) what he would do if he was a terrorist, "how cheap, relatively simple, and frighteningly unpreventable terrorists starting wildfires in the LA area was"

Christ you're an idiot Tsa'ah...

If I'm an idiot for not understanding moronese .... so be it. Inbreed much?

[chillmonster]

Here's some more logic to amuse you: Not everywhere- just in your direction.

If you can't see the difference in potential damage between a random natural fire and one that is devised to create the most harm then no logic is going to help you (another thing you have in common with ol' BL).

Terrorists are feared for their malice- not the harm done by a specific act; because if they remain unrestricted they will continue to harm as much as possible. For that reason it would be entirely appropriate for people to become more frightened if they discovered the LA fires were a deliberate act of terrorism.

Nature has no such malice.

It would be the difference between almost being hit by a car by accident; or learning that the same encounter was no accident but attempted murder. Intent can make all he difference.

Just come on back Chill-lash. It isn't as if you've spared yourself any ridicule.

Ok. It's not logic. It's reading comprehension. The fires themselves DO NOT CHANGE, but the fear incited by each blaze would be overblown - even irrational. Is it rational for people in Seattle to be suffering from PTSD after 9/11? That's the point of terrorism: to induce irrational fear. It's the same fear that causes people to pay much more for flight insurance that includes "terrorism insurance" than for flight insurance that covers it anyway.

I even said that they woudn't even have to have actaully set the blazes to use them for terrorism. Simply claiming responsibility would be enough in today's society for them to accomplish their goals. I just think we shouldn't be so ready to give them a victory.

Also, wild fires are wild. No matter where you set them, the weather dictates where and how much damage is done. Not that that was the point.

[Clove]

...Is it rational for people in Seattle to be suffering from PTSD after 9/11?...

Honestly Chill-lash.

It isn't irrational fear dipshit seeing as everyone in the United States was a potential target during and after 9/11 particularly those in cities. Over 600 people from my own state lost their lives and two from my own town (over 100 miles from NYC). Many of them lived nowhere near NYC and (in the case of my two neighbors) had no business there at all. There was a reason for everyone in this country to feel intense stress after that attack.

The agenda is a very REAL thing to fear because it is a continuing agenda; unlike nature which is simply random. This is my point retard.

Regardless of the source of the fires the damage done to date would remain the same. However, if the source of the fires were terrorist related, everyone would have reason to fear more mayhem in the future.


I even said that they woudn't even have to have actaully set the blazes to use them for terrorism. Simply claiming responsibility would be enough in today's society for them to accomplish their goals. I just think we shouldn't be so ready to give them a victory.

Use your head for something other than creating new account names. If claiming responsibility were all that's necessary, and not "actaully" doing the deed then why haven't they? Because without proof that they're behind a disaster it becomes simple for government authorities to publicly denounce the claim as a hoax. Even if that doesn't completely console people, it keeps them from panicking.

[chillmonster]

First you missed the entire point of the post then you make a completely nonsensical argument like that? You're dumb as hell, but let's see if I can make you understand...

You're much more likely to die of a heart attack, cancer, car crash, plane crash, drowning, freezing to death, falling from a ladder, heat stroke, stroke, old fashioned homicide, falling in your bathtub, house fire, your clothes lighting on fire, railway accident, getting struck by lightning, being crushed under a vending machine, or any of a number of other things than you are to die in a terrorist attack. So having PTSD from 9/11 because of your fear of terrorists is definitely IRRATIONAL.

[Parkbandit]

First you missed the entire point of the post then you make a completely nonsensical argument like that? You're dumb as hell, but let's see if I can make you understand...

You're much more likely to die of a heart attack, cancer, car crash, plane crash, drowning, freezing to death, falling from a ladder, heat stroke, stroke, old fashioned homicide, falling in your bathtub, house fire, your clothes lighting on fire, railway accident, getting struck by lightning, being crushed under a vending machine, or any of a number of other things than you are to die in a terrorist attack. So having PTSD from 9/11 because of your fear of terrorists is definitely IRRATIONAL.


Yea.. let's just let the terrorists do whatever they want, since statistically, it's unlikely you'll be blown up by one.

[ElanthianSiren]

This post was meant to come after Clove's, but I'm working on other things too, so it's late.

Regardless how afraid you are, though, acting in a way that shows fear is giving in. I'm not saying that people shouldn't exercise caution, but caution is much different than paralyzing fear. Philadelphia was pretty bad post 911, as people screamed and screamed they were coming to blow up the liberty bell!!!!111one

A little logic and realization of what was hit (Localized center -- TRADE towers 1, 2 and surrounding buildings 3, 4, 5, 6) and what was a potential target (Pentagon, White House) easily evaporates those fears, but people go on crowing long after. Generalized fear is visceral and controlling. Logic isn't.

Logically, to me, it doesn't make sense for terrorists to manually set fires, unless they douse themselves with gasoline and make a huge spectacle of it, which incredibly limits the scope of what they could accomplish before sharpshooters turn them into swiss cheese (too slow). Also, it's not localized enough (Cole, WTC, Nigerian Embassy, PanAm 103), and it doesn't have large enough 'dead people potential' now that the scale has been upped by Bin Laden.

Like I mentioned in my initial post, this is more of an opinion. I only had two semesters of psych, and abnormal psych was always more of a hobby. -So if you give me a reason to think it plausible, I'll consider it plausible. So far, I've seen "It could totally happen!" Lots of fear.

[chillmonster]

Use your head for something other than creating new account names. If claiming responsibility were all that's necessary, and not "actaully" doing the deed then why haven't they? Because without proof that they're behind a disaster it becomes simple for government authorities to publicly denounce the claim as a hoax. Even if that doesn't completely console people, it keeps them from panicking.

You can't be this dumb.

[chillmonster]

Yea.. let's just let the terrorists do whatever they want, since statistically, it's unlikely you'll be blown up by one.

I never said terrorism wasn't worth fighting. I said irrational fear because of terrorism doesn't do us any good and gives them exactly what they want.

[Clove]

You can't be this dumb.

But you can. Why haven't terrorists claimed responsibility for all manner of sundry accidents or disasters? If they could get away with it as simply as making a public statement, wouldn't they? No commitment, no planning, virtually no resources- it's a simple win for them.

The reason is fairly simple; not everyone runs around in a panic because someone told them something scary. Some of us require proof. If you had taken this attitude when Miamara told you "it was a nice size" you'd have saved yourself grief as well.