[Flipside]

I'd suggest not using the term 'towel-head', much like radical Christians, radical Muslims are in the minority, and that is a derogatory term that affects ALL Muslims, regardless of their opinion of the actions of the radicals.

Not to mention the fact that 'Towelhead' was originally a derogatory term for Sikh turbans and has somehow migrated over to define a faith that, outside of a mosque, don't actually wear headgear of any description in most cases.

[Dilmah G]

I'd suggest not using the term 'towel-head', much like radical Christians, radical Muslims are in the minority, and that is a derogatory term that affects ALL Muslims, regardless of their opinion of the actions of the radicals.

Not to mention the fact that 'Towelhead' was originally a derogatory term for Sikh turbans and has somehow migrated over to define a faith that, outside of a mosque, don't actually wear headgear of any description in most cases.

I had an inkling after the Prince Harry youtube incident I should steer away from towelhead/raghead. Your case is very true, point taken  Out of curiosity, are there any Muslims on HLP? I'll go first and say im Buddhist/Christian (Buddhist parents, Christian upbringing/school)

[Kosh]

That would, quite possibly, be the most stupid attempt at Terror ever devised, since it would not generate fear, it would generate outright fury and would totally alienate the entire Muslim community.

As far as I'm aware, there's been no real hint of any kind of connection between the Bush-fires and any militant activity however, this seems more to be the work of opportunists and simple nut-jobs.

Well the investigation into whether or not it was arson has only begun, hasn't it? I don't think the possibility of islamic reverse eco-terrorism should be discounted entirely.

[Dilmah G]

That would, quite possibly, be the most stupid attempt at Terror ever devised, since it would not generate fear, it would generate outright fury and would totally alienate the entire Muslim community.

As far as I'm aware, there's been no real hint of any kind of connection between the Bush-fires and any militant activity however, this seems more to be the work of opportunists and simple nut-jobs.

Well the investigation into whether or not it was arson has only begun, hasn't it? I don't think the possibility of islamic reverse eco-terrorism should be discounted entirely.

IMO it's unlikely, we have plenty of pyros around here even without the radicals running around. They've supposedly found several 'ignition' sites in the area as welll but that fact that a human being lit a blaze that basically slaughtered other human beings just makes me want to hit something.

[Black Wolf]

If it were terrorists, they'd've claimed responsibility by now. Besides, it'd on;y scare the people who're already living in bushfire prone areas, who already live with the threat of fire ( athreat that can be mitigated down massively by effective forrest management).

[Wobble73]

Plus, lighting wildfires seems a little too undirected for Islamic terrorists.

[Janos]

I wonder if this has anything to do with it.....

Islam group urges forest fire jihad

    * Josh Gordon
    * September 7, 2008

AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for "forest jihad" by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.

US intelligence channels earlier this year identified a website calling on Muslims in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to "start forest fires", claiming "scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels' forests when they do the same to our lands".

The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the "eye for an eye" doctrine.

The posting - which instructs jihadis to remember "forest jihad" in summer months - says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that "this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time".

"Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organisation were to claim responsibility for the forest fires," the website says. "You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia."

what the ****

is this a joke or a bunch of really desperate wannabes

[iamzack]

I'd suggest not using the term 'towel-head', much like radical Christians, radical Muslims are in the minority, and that is a derogatory term that affects ALL Muslims, regardless of their opinion of the actions of the radicals.

Not to mention the fact that 'Towelhead' was originally a derogatory term for Sikh turbans and has somehow migrated over to define a faith that, outside of a mosque, don't actually wear headgear of any description in most cases.

I had an inkling after the Prince Harry youtube incident I should steer away from towelhead/raghead. Your case is very true, point taken  Out of curiosity, are there any Muslims on HLP? I'll go first and say im Buddhist/Christian (Buddhist parents, Christian upbringing/school)

Turambar's a muzzie. He killed that baby sheep in NovemberishDecember, remember?

[Grimper]

If the arsonist is lucky he'll need that 4x4.  With those big out of control fires he'll most likely end up torching himself.

What about underground housing?  It's climate controlled and fire resistant. Not much of a view though. 

Theres talk of making underground, community fire bunkers. A couple of people had them, and they all survived when their house above them burned to the ground.

Heres a fun fact...some of the fires were moving at 120km/h.. 0_=

On another note, i'm going to be scanning some pics and articles out of the newpaper. Some of the pics, while horrifying, are amazing. I'll put them up after school, in about 5-6 hours.

[Black Wolf]

Looks like they've caugth at least one of the ****ers responsible for this.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/751609/police-closing-in-on-arsonists-nixon

[Grimper]

Bah got delayed by a last minute appointment. However that's done now, so the scans are uploading and should be done in a half hour maybe.

EDIT: Darn you slow upload speed!!!! 45mins to an hour now...

[iamzack]

If the arsonist is lucky he'll need that 4x4.  With those big out of control fires he'll most likely end up torching himself.

What about underground housing?  It's climate controlled and fire resistant. Not much of a view though. 

Theres talk of making underground, community fire bunkers. A couple of people had them, and they all survived when their house above them burned to the ground.

Heres a fun fact...some of the fires went 120km/h.. 0_=

It seems like every summer we have a drought and wildfires in the US. Last year we even had them here on the east coast, which is odd, seeing as NC isn't really dry and foresty to the east part... It's swampy.

Being underneath a fire must be incredibly loud, but wow. How do they keep from getting cooked in there? And where do they get air from? They couldn't have vents anywhere near by since the fire would eat up all the oxygen...

[Grimper]

I dunno about air, but the heat from fires doesn't penetrate very far underground, thus the reasoning behind underground bunkers.

With the speed these fires were going, the bunkers would have had oxygen from vents most of the time, and only a short while without it while the fire burned overhead. I would think there would be more than enough oxygen trapped in the bunker to allow the occupants to breathe while the fire passed.

'Course this is only guessing, but it seems reasonable enough to me.

Also if the idea of community fire bunkers do go ahead, I'm sure they will put in oxygen recycling or storage facilities in there.

EDIT: Oh and the vents can be closed, preventing toxic gasses from seeping in while the fire is overhead.

[iamzack]

O.o

So when you say the fires were going 120km/h you mean they were moving 120km/h?? I figured you just meant spreading, pretty much. :\

Well, of course it's got to be a mix of the two. Fire would have to better hotter'n hell to just incinerate houses and move on like that...

[Grimper]

True, but still not hot enough to penetrate that far underground. Earth has a massive dampening effect on fires. That's why the helicopters sometimes drop dirt instead of water.

[iamzack]

Well, earth doesn't burn. It dries out, but it's still there to smother the fire.

[Grimper]

Ok posted the pics.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,60948.0.html

[Wobble73]

Well, earth doesn't burn. It dries out, but it's still there to smother the fire.

That depends on what kind of earth. Here in the northwest, we have a lot of hills full of peat, that burns quite well. I've heard of fires that firefighters have thought they had extinguished only to find it had been burning underground and to spring back up out of the ground hundreds of yards away.

[TrashMan]

They finally got one. I'm interested to see how this plays out.


Speaking of which, setting forest fires would be a terrible blow to any country. It does take a huge amount of energy, time and resources to combat and it's very easy to start.

[iamzack]

Well, peat is special. It's not even really dirt... It's like plant material that isn't decomposed or whatever. (ew)

Wildfires, earthquakes, tornadoes... We can only predict and prevent so much.