Australia's Victoria Fires: Al Qaeda, a World Caliphate, and a Pathetic Loner

People in Australia are going about the important business of mourning the dead. So far, the body count is 209. More human remains were discovered over the weekend, which may raise the death toll.

Australia's Bushfires and the War on Terror

I probably won't be writing very much about the tragedies in Victoria. It's not that I don't care, or that the horrific loss of life was unimportant.

But, this is Another War-on-Terror Blog. Its focus is the conflict between people and organizations like Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda; and those who either won't cooperate, or actively oppose Al Qaeda's goals.

Al Qaeda has a rather well-defined goal: "to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems 'non-Islamic' and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries." (GlobalSecuricty.org)

Even Americans who think that it's none of our business to get involved with problems elsewhere - except for things like the Kyoto Protocol - might consider Al Qaeda a threat. In February of 1998, Al Qaeda said that "it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens—civilian or military—and their allies everywhere." (GlobalSecuricty.org)

Intolerant as this may seem, I don't want Al Qaeda to succeed. I'm rather fond of breathing, and can't be 'sufficiently Islamic' for the likes of bin Laden.

What's Al Qaeda Got to do With the Australian Fires?

Apparently, not much.

There was an Islamic website that called for a "forest Jihad," and some real terrorists were sentenced shortly before the Victoria fires broke out: but the fires seem at least partly the work of two arsonists.

One of them is Brendan Sokaluk, I haven't found the name of the second suspect.

Brendan Sokaluk seems to be a loner who likes to set fires, whose hero is Mother Earth. (telegraph.co.uk)

On his (now defunct) MySpace profile, he described himself as a happy young man who wants to who wants to get married. To a woman: a young, good-looking one, apparently. He also seems to have a thing for child pornography. (telegraph.co.uk)

By any reasonable standards, this doesn't sound like a jihadist, a lion of Islam out to slay the unbeliever.

The matter of who set the fires, how and (maybe) why, will have to be investigated: and there is almost certainly going to be a trial. I hope so: the alternative at this point would seem to be a lynch mob getting to him first. Mr. Sokaluk is quite possibly the least-popular person in Australia.

So, until and unless there's a fairly solid bit of evidence that links the Victoria fires to the War on Terror, this will probably be the last Victoria fires post.

I will keep an eye on news from Australia, though: and elsewhere.

Related posts:

• "Muslims Jailed, Suspect Arrested: Terrorism and Australia's Bushfires Burn On"
  (February 14, 2009)
• "Conservation, Crispy Koalas, and Common Sense"
  (February 14, 2009)
• "Islamic Website Called for 'Forest Jihad' - But Still No Evidence in Victoria"
  (February 9, 2009)
• "Australia's Victoria Fires: Mass-Murdering Muslims, a Media Hoax, or Something Else?"
  (February 9, 2009)
• "Australia's Victoria Bushfire: Arson, Probably; Muslim Plot? Unlikely!"
  (February 8, 2009)

In the news:

• "Fire shrine to remember victims"
  Herald Sun (February 22, 2009)
• "Sydney joins day of mourning for bushfires"
  ABC News (Australia) (February 21, 2009)
• "Australian fires burn as death toll rises to 208"
  CNN (February 19, 2009)
• "Australian bush fires: second man charged with arson"
  telegraph.co.uk (February 18, 2009)
• "Australian bush fires: Alleged arsonist 'loved nature' "
  telegraph.co.uk (February 17, 2009)
• "Jihadists celebrating Victoria fires; taking joy in the scenes"
  The Australian (February 15, 2009)

Muslims Jailed, Suspect Arrested: Terrorism and Australia's Bushfires Burn On

Bushfires in Australia are still burning, radical Muslims are facing jail time, a greenly left publication is complaining that free speech has been criminalized, and Australians who weren't burned to death in Victoria's inferno would like to get their hands on a man who was arrested a couple days ago.

Forest Jihad? Firebug? Another Conservation Blunder?

It looks like the fires that hit Marysville and Churchill were deliberately set. (AP) If so, someone is definitely to blame for the fires, the destruction, and the deaths. And, there's been an arrest.

Judging from what I've read in the Australian news, people down under are taking a rather serious look at creating an effective emergency warning system for Victoria. And, one article from New Zealand mentioned that Australia's conservation philosophy is similar to California's: let tinder build up until it explodes. Until a big burn, there is a sort of visceral satisfaction to preventing brushfires: but I hope that approach may be re-examined now. ("Conservation, Crispy Koalas, and Common Sense" (February 14, 2009))

The Herald Sun wrote that the man who's been arrested in connection with the Churchill fire is a 39-year-old who's liked by his mother - but nobody else. Apparently, he likes to set fires in his back yard, and ignites the occasional tire: creating quite a stink. Literally and figuratively.

We probably won't know his name for some time: the court's forbidden that sort of detail from being published.

Probably just as well, considering the crowd of enthusiastic death-wishers who gathered around the police van that was transporting him at one point. I get the impression that he's even less popular than Stewart Parnell, the American who decided that it was okay to put salmonella-laced peanut paste in the country's food supply.

Even though it's beginning to look like the Victoria bushfires are a combination of natural disaster and old-fashioned firebug fling, it's still possible that "forest jihad" was involved.

Muslims Arrested! Free Speech Trammeled! Islamic Extremists in Australia!

I'm not so sure about the "free speech trammeled" business. Green Left ("Terror sentences: criminalising talk" (Green Left (February 7, 2009)) might have a point: except that in this case, the people who were jailed really weren't at all nice. In fact, they might be considered dangerous.

They were convicted of belonging to, and financially supporting, a terrorist organization. And "possessing material in preparation for a terrorist act."

In theory, I'm all for freedom of expression. But, I draw the line when it comes to 'expressions' like the attack on New York City's World Trade Center.

An analogy might be useful: Say there's a shopping mall. A fellow, wearing black body armor and carrying enough munitions for a Schwarzenegger movie, comes in the door. He's carrying a sign that says "death to shoppers."

Does it really make sense to let him walk around the mall until he opens fire?

Is it a serious attack on free speech to stop him before somebody gets killed?

I could, in a strictly theoretical and academic way, argue 'yes' to both questions. But, I live in the real world: so I'll say 'no.'

Abdul Nacer Benbrika and Company: Sincere, Dedicated, and Dangerous

Abdul Nacer Benbrika's name came up in the comments of an earlier post.

I also ran into Benbrika in Australian news, about a week before the Victoria fires. He, and six of his followers, have been sentenced because of their religious beliefs.

That sounds awful, but in this case the religious beliefs involved killing lots of people at a sporting event. That may not sound nice: but, according to Benbrika, it's okay. They weren't Muslims, and anyway Australia is a 'land of war.'

I don't think that's so much an indictment against Islam, as another example of how people can, given a running start, justify just about any disgusting, destructive, lethal act - and make it sound virtuous. It's not just religion that's used as a justification. Think about terms like 'enemy of the state.'

The Herald Sun had a rather detailed article on Abdul Nacer Benbrika's trial and sentencing. Here's an excerpt:

"...Benbrika, a fan of Osama bin Laden, regarded the destruction of the 'kuffar' — Arabic for 'unbelievers' — as an essential aspect of the Islamic religion, said the judge.

" 'The jemaah would achieve this by acts of terrible violence in this country, or perhaps elsewhere,' Justice Bongiorno said.

" 'In Australia, such terrorism would be directed towards coercing the Australian Government into withdrawing Australian forces from Iraq, as the presence of such troops in that country was seen as oppressive to Muslims and the Islamic religion.'

"In his Supreme Court sentence the judge said it appeared none of the men had denounced their violent jihadi views despite large amounts of character evidence on their behalf...."
(Herald Sun)

Sounds to me like Benbrika and his followers were quite eager to be victims of oppressive non-Muslims.

What, if Anything, does Abdul Nacer Benbrika have to do with the Victoria Bushfires?

Aside from demonstrating that Islamic terrorists do exist in Australia, I don't see much of a connection. Something may come out as time passes, of course.

The Benbrika trial, with sentencing just a week before the Victoria bushfires, does help explain why there was so much speculation about Islamic terrorists being responsible. Given the circumstances, it would be very easy to fall into the 'after that, therefore because of that' error in reasoning.

And, that 39-year-old suspect may turn out to be a Muslim. He may even have been part of Benbrika's outfit.

At this point, we just don't know.

More-or-less related posts:

• "Conservation, Crispy Koalas, and Common Sense"
  (February 14, 2009)
• "Why Don't I Write About [insert website name here]? "
  (February 14, 2009)
• "Islamic Website Called for 'Forest Jihad' - But Still No Evidence in Victoria"
  (February 9, 2009)
• "Australia's Victoria Fires: Mass-Murdering Muslims, a Media Hoax, or Something Else?"
  (February 9, 2009)
• "Australia's Victoria Bushfire: Arson, Probably; Muslim Plot? Unlikely!"
  (February 8, 2009)
• "Murderous Muslims, Catholic Extermination Camps, and Common Sense"
  (February 8, 2009)
• "Castro, Cuba, Guevara, Traditional Gatekeepers, and the Information Age"
  (January 30, 2009)
• "Another War-on-Terror Blog and Simplistic Views"
  (January 11, 2009)
• "Hamas, Palestine, Israel, and How to Seem Sophisticated"
  (January 3, 2009)

News and views:

• "Accused arsonist 'lit fires monthly'"
  Herald Sun (February 15, 2009)
• "Jihadists celebrating Victoria fires; taking joy in the scenes"
  The Australian (February 15, 2009)
• "Australian firefighters close to containing blazes"
  Reuters (February 14, 2009)
• "They died on their knees in prayer"
  TimesOnline (February 14, 2009)
• "Keep out: blunt message for fire 'tourists' "
  The Age (February 14, 2009)
• "Fires fuel the blame game"
  nzherald.co.nz (February 14, 2009)
• "Vigilante fears as man held"
  The Sydney Morning Herald (February 14, 2009)
• "Kiwi fire victim died trying to protect wife"
  stuff.co.nz (February 13, 2009)
• "Suspect arrested in deadly Australia fires"
  The Associated Press (February 12, 2009)
• "Benbrika case shows limits of current Australian counter-terrorism strategy"
  Jurist (February 9, 2009)
• "Terror sentences: criminalising talk"
  Green Left (February 7, 2009)
• "Abdul Nacer Benbrika and six followers jailed"
  Herald Sun (February 3, 2009)
• "Trial told of AFL grand final 'terror plot' "
  The Age (April 15, 2008)
• "Terrorism accused 'planned grand final attack' "
  ABC News (Australia) (April 15, 2008)

Conservation, Crispy Koalas, and Common Sense

I learned, reading Herald-on-Sunday on herald.co.nz, that Australia has been engaged in the sort of well-intentioned 'no fires here' sort of conservation that may be helping southern California's annual wildfires along.

Although fire is a part of the natural cycles, it's hard for some to believe that something so hot and harsh can be quite, well, nice. The New Zealand article pointed out that, before the Europeans came, Australian "Aborigines used to regularly light fires to burn away fire fuel and allow plants to regenerate, and this helped control wildfire when it did break out...." (herald.co.nz)

It's hard to say whether controlled burns, in wet seasons, would have removed enough fuel to make a difference. I rather hope someone in Australia is thinking about that.

There does seem to be rather sincere attention being paid to the warning system (or lack thereof) in Victoria.

"Aborigines?" Am I Allowed to Say That?

I assume that people who read this blog understand English: But I don't expect visitors to keep up with the latest politically correct terms, or know what every group feels every other group should be called.

For example, I call that territory between India and China "Tibet," I would write "Norway" instead of "Norge," and I spell "America" without a "k."

So, when referring to people who lived in Australia before that Botany Bay thing, I write "Australian Aborigines." It's technically accurate, and there's a fair chance that most readers will understand what I mean.

I could, to be on the safe side, write "Anangu, Koori, Mulba, Murri, Nunga, Nyoongah, Wongi, Yammagi, Yolngu, Yuin, or chaps-who-live-in-Australia-and-certainly-aren't-British-but-at-least-they're-not-Irish" - but that takes a long time to read. So, at least for the time being, I'm sticking with "Australian Aborigine."

Australia's Victoria Fires: Mass-Murdering Muslims, a Media Hoax, or Something Else?

(Update:
"Muslims Jailed, Suspect Arrested: Terrorism and Australia's Bushfires Burn On"
(February 14, 2009))

(Update:
"Islamic Website Called for 'Forest Jihad' - But Still No Evidence in Victoria"
(February 9, 2009))

Parts of Australia's Victoria state are still on fire. These bushfires are now Australia's worst national disaster. Or, strictly speaking, more-or-less natural disaster.

Arson, Probably; Mass Murder, Looks Like

Police have very good reason to believe that at least some of the bushfires were deliberately set. That's arson.

And, according to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, mass murder. I'm a little cautious about terms like that, but in this case I think "mass murder" is reasonably accurate. People whose bodies were left in the street of Marysville would almost certainly have been alive today, except for the bushfires.

Australia's Victoria Bushfires: Islamic Terrorists? Muslim Arsonists?

With the death toll climbing toward 200 (173 is the highest number I've read so far), people are getting quite upset. Stress can make people do odd things. And, make odd assumptions.

Last year, with moonbat-crazy rumors adding spice to the American presidential election, I wrote, "... it's been raining nuts under the tree of liberty...." (October 20, 2008)

It looks like some people have taken the few facts that we all have, stirred in their preferred assumptions, and jumped to conclusions that lie on the far side of the reality's borders.

Criminals, Yes; Terrorists, Not necessarily

Australian police have good reason for thinking that at least some of the fires were arson. Repeating from yesterday's post: "Kieran Walshe, the deputy police commissioner for the state, said: 'When you look at the way fires started, you can clearly see it's not possible for a natural ignition to occur.' " (CNN)

The Church Valley fire was deliberately lit, and all burned towns are being treated as crime scenes, I heard on Herald Sun website video.

Marysville, a "picturesque hamlet" in northeast Victoria, has been declared a crime scene. "Police blocked cars from driving into Marysville in northeast Victoria, saying there were still bodies in the streets and the whole town was a crime scene, the national AAP news agency said." (France 24 (February 9, 2009))

People burned to a crisp, and massive destruction of property, make setting the Victoria fires an extremely serious crime. But that alone doesn't make them an act of terror by Muslims.

Muslim Mass Murderers? Islamic Incendiarists? Let's Wait for Evidence

The Victoria fires could be the work of a Muslim: about a 1.5% chance.

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%

Those percentages show how many people in Australia follow those systems of belief. (CIA Factbook)

At this point, I've seen no published information hinting at any motive for the fires - or indicating that setting them was an act of Islamic terrorism. And, although it's possible that there is an Islamic connection to the Victoria fires, many other motives are also possible. I'm willing to wait until a few more facts come out, before speculating.

Fire as a Terror Weapon? Yes, it's Possible

I've written about the possibility of using wildfires or bushfires as a terror weapon (April 28, 2009). I think it's possible that terrorists - Islamic or otherwise - would deliberately set a fire. But, in this case - as in the Sierra Madre fire last year - there's no evidence than links the fires to the War on Terror.

Australia's Bushfires, Muslim Terrorists, and Assumptions

I don't keep track of people who visit this blog. I do, though, get data about referring sites and search strings.

Since Australia's Victoria fires hit the news, searches like these have been showing up:

• australia arson islam
• islam bushfire
• bushfires muslims
  (more than once)
• muslim arson australia
  (more than once)
• bushfires, arsonists, islamic
• muslim arsonists in australia
• muslims australia arson
• victoria bushfire terrorists

I could go on, but you probably see the pattern. It looks like quite a few people assume that Islamic terrorists are behind the Victoria fires. Or, maybe, are looking for bloggers who have made that accusation.

As I wrote before, It's possible that the Victoria fires were set by terrorists who think they're defending Islam. The bushfires could have been set by someone who wanted to collect insurance, get even with a neighbor, or just likes to see things burn.

At least one person came up with what I think is a more imaginative explanation.

The Media and Kevin Rudd are in Cahoots: A Conspiracy Theory

That prolific correspondent, Anonymous, posted a comment on another blog. This Anonymous apparently believes that the Victoria fires may be a media hoax:

"The Age is reporting 76 dead in Victoria today due to the bushfires. I've just gone through the Age coverage of the bushfires and have emerged sceptical. Not one of the 76 has been named. Even people from small towns who say they know people who have died did not give their names.

"This is an extraordinary situation - we KNOW that 76 people are dead, yet not one of them apparently has a name. Is this a media hoax designed to make Australians panic and line up solidly behind Kevin Rudd's 'climate change agenda'?"
(February 8, 2009 3:55 AM)
(comment from "Australia's Victoria State Bushfires: 65+ Dead" (Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 8, 2009))

Media Hoax! Head of Australian Government Implicated!

I think it's reasonable to call this idea, that 'the media' made up what's happened in Victoria, a conspiracy theory. As such things go, this one is rather plausible. Much of what Anonymous says or implies is quite true:

• The media is a lot of time and effort, covering Victoria's fires
• Kevin Rudd is Australia's prime minister
  • He does seem to be concerned about the high-profile 'climate change' issue

So far, so good. Even better, the fires are quite a few miles outside Melbourne. The smoke could be explained as part of the media hoax.

Reality Check

Another person posted a comment, mentioning rather pedestrian details. These included:

• A discrete reference to what intense fires do to a person's appearance, and identifiability
• The somewhat time-consuming nature of forensic dentistry and DNA tests
• A custom of informing next-of-kin before releasing the names of deceased persons

(Here in America, the name of someone involved in an accident may not be released for days, if next-of-kin are hard to find. I haven't determined whether or not Australia has a similar custom.)

Another Anonymous, or perhaps the same one, seemed to respond to this injection of common sense rather strongly. Anonymous's next comment, redacted:

"I'm glad all these useless c***s died. F*** them. What did had they done for me lately? Nothing. Burn m*****f****r, burn. Victoria is a sh***y place any way. Full of f*** heads like you."
(February 8, 2009 9:38 AM)
(comment from "Australia's Victoria State Bushfires: 65+ Dead" (Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 8, 2009))

As I discussed in another post, name-calling is not necessarily an effective way of proving a point.

Crime, Common Sense, and the War on Terror

I have little doubt that the massive disaster in Victoria is the result of human action. And, that setting the fires was a criminal act.

Blaming Muslims, Islamic Terrorists, or Islam itself makes about as much sense as Blaming Israel and America for the 9/11 attack. (The idea is that, by supporting the (alleged) Israeli genocide of somebody, America enraged Muslims, and so is to blame for Al Qaeda ramming the World Trade Center.)

At this point. It's possible that the fires were some sort of Muslim plot. I think the odds are that non-Muslims were responsible. But, even if it's proven that distinctly non-Muslim non-terrorists are responsible, and that the media didn't make up all those deaths, I'll be surprised if people who are convinced that the fires (or the 'hoax') are some sort of conspiracy will change their minds.


View Larger Map


View Larger Map

Related posts:

• "Retard! Or, How Not to Make Your Point"
  (January 20, 2009)
• "Mumbai, India's 9/11: Good News, Bad News, Conspiracy Theories, and a Little Common Sense"
  (December 2, 2008)
• "'Why is Everybody Always Picking on Me?' - The United Nations, Muslims, Zionists, and 'Those People'"
  (October 5, 2008)
  • Particularly "A Secret Enemy Makes Life So Much Easier"
• "9/11 and What They Want You to Believe"
  (September 11, 2008)
• "911 Was an Inside Job! Our Boys Need to Know!"
  (June 10, 2008)
• "Sierra Madre Fire: It Could Be Worse"
  (April 28, 2008)

Related posts, in another blog:

• "Australia's Victoria State Bushfires Update:"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 8, 2009)
• "Australia's Victoria State Bushfires: 65+ Dead"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 8, 2009)

In the news:

• "Fires rage as death toll rises to 173"
  The Sydney Morning Herald (February 10, 2009)
• The Age homepage
  (current)
  • Note: This is a 'live' newspaper homepage.
    Today (here in North America, that's February 9, 2009), it is largely devoted to the disastrous fires in Victoria.
    This will change, as time passes.
• Herald Sun homepage
  via News.com.au (current)
  • Note: This is a 'live' newspaper homepage.
    Today (here in North America, that's February 9, 2009), it is largely devoted to the disastrous fires in Victoria.
    This will change, as time passes.
• Herald Sun videos
  video (varying lengths, often around three minutes)
  (starting February 8, 2009)
• "Blazes still threaten Victorian towns as death toll reaches 166"
  Herald Sun via News.com.au (February 10, 2009)
• "Australian PM: Wildfire arson is mass murder"
  CNN (February 9, 2009)
• "Australian Wildfires Called 'Mass Murder' After 171 Killed"
  FOXNews (February 9, 2009)
• "Fast, fickle, fatal: Face-to-face with wildfires"
  CNN (February 9, 2009)
• "Australian wildfires rage on after killing 131"
  France 24 (February 9, 2009)
• "Arson rumours"
  Police are treating all communities devastated by bushfires in Victoria as crime scenes. Sky News (February 8, 2009, and following)

Australia's Victoria Bushfire: Arson, Probably; Muslim Plot? Unlikely!

(Update:
"Muslims Jailed, Suspect Arrested: Terrorism and Australia's Bushfires Burn On"
(February 14, 2009))

(Update:
"Islamic Website Called for 'Forest Jihad' - But Still No Evidence in Victoria"
(February 9, 2009))

I don't track individuals who visit my blogs, but I do keep track of data like referring pages and search strings.

One visitor to a post in another blog had Googled "muslim bushfire victoria" - without the quotation marks. The post ("Australia's Victoria State Bushfires: 65+ Dead" (Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 8, 2009)) doesn't contain the word "Muslim," but does discuss the disastrous fires in Victoria.

Intentionally set wildfires or bushfires would, I think, make an effective terror weapon. I discussed this possibility last year, when the Sierra Madre fire was burning. It was (barely) possible that last spring's big fire in California was an act of terror.

But - as I wrote then - "I seriously doubt it."

I'll say the same for Australia's lethal fires in Victoria. At least some were intentionally set: "Kieran Walshe, the deputy police commissioner for the state, said: 'When you look at the way fires started, you can clearly see it's not possible for a natural ignition to occur.' " (CNN)

But, that does not mean that Islamic terrorists were involved - or any other sort of terrorist, in the usual sense of the word. Arson - particularly on this scale - is criminal. But not necessarily an act of terrorism.

Related post:

• "Sierra Madre Fire: It Could Be Worse"
  (April 28, 2008)

In the news:

• "Scores killed in Australia's 'worst fires' "
  CNN (February 8, 2009)

Fire in the Texas Governor's Mansion, Shadowy Suspicions, and Terrorists

You've probably seen the headlines: "Arson suspected in Texas Governor's Mansion fire" (Star-Telegram.com (June 8, 2008). Texas - and America - has lost at least part of an architectural and historical treasure.

Texas Governor's Mansion: Today's News and History

I heard that the mansion had been going through renovation, and figured that this would be another case of an accident with a blowtorch, welder, or some other tool. Now, it looks like someone set the fire deliberately.

We can get a 'before' look at the Texas Governor's Mansion at the Official Website of the Friends of the Governor's Mansion. It was "the oldest continually used executive residence west of the Mississippi."
(Star-Telegram.com)

There's good news: nobody was hurt. And, the mansion's furnishings weren't in the building, to get them out of the way for renovation work.

The bad news: nineteenth-century woodwork, and the building itself, were on fire this weekend. "Firefighters kept the historical importance of the building in mind as they fought the blaze, [Austin Fire Department Division Chief Dawn] Clopton said.

" 'We were as careful as we could be with the state of Texas' pride and joy,' said Clopton. 'We are trying to save as much of the structure as we possibly can.'... "
("Texas governor's mansion fire may be case of arson" CNN (June 8, 2008))

Fire in the Texas Governor's Mansion: Speculation and Suspicion

Law enforcement is being cautious, but it looks like the Texas fire was arson. "Investigators 'found evidence that the fire was intentionally set,' said Texas State Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado...." (CNN)

The odds are that someone with a personal motive set the blaze. But there are other possibilities.

I took a look around the Web, and found out that Texas Governor may be involved: somehow. According to at least one person. "While there is nothing to suggest that Perry was in anyway connected beyond the fact that he is governor, it seems like there is always something bizarre and twisted going on around him...."
("Arson Destroys Texas Governors Mansion" (Daily Kos (June 8, 2008))

Since there is a (very remote) possibility that terrorists set the fire, I expected to find a rant about Jihadist arsonists attacking a Texas landmark. But, I didn't. Given the diversity of online opinion, I suppose a post like that is just a matter of time.

A shadowy conspiracy, in which the governor of a state arranged to burn down the house he lived in, or whose twisted associates ordered the fire set, makes an excellent story. So would an international cabal of Islamic arsonists, set on the obliteration of American landmarks.

As for me, I expect that we'll find a disgruntled employee or someone with a thing about matches was responsible.

That's a much less dramatic outcome: but life's like that.

EOB: Executive Office Building, Near White House, is On Fire

The Eisenhower Office building, AKA Executive Office Building, AKA EOB, is on fire. Not the whole thing, just a couple of rooms on the second floor.

The odds are pretty good that the fire started in the construction that's been going on in the building for the last year or so. It might, or might not, be an electrical fire that got lucky.

The EOB is one of those old nineteenth century buildings, with 18 foot ceilings and four-foot-thick stone walls. Quite a landmark. I hope that the architect's "fire proof" design hasn't been messed with. His building was made of stone, concrete, with some cast iron for decoration.

There's some good news here:

• The building evacuation was orderly, with people walking, not running - a good, routine, orderly process.
• The fire seems to be limited to a room or so.
• Emergency response seems to have been prompt, and thorough: Something like a dozen vehicles showed up.

Something I don't quite understand: One firefighter, inside the building, took a tool to a window pane, broke it out - and then lifted the sash. It seems to me that it would have been faster, and more effective, to just lift the sash.

Now, maybe a half-hour after this news broke on cable, the smoke coming out of the EOB is white - indicating that there's water being put on the fire. And there isn't anywhere as much smoke as before.

The fire isn't out, but it's being dealt with.

More good news:

• The fire was low-key enough so that firefighters have been able to carry some furniture out - I saw one drape something like a coffee table over a (stone) balcony.
The emergency response seemed to be smooth, and by the numbers: quick, orderly, efficient - like it should be.
• And, according to Homeland Security, the fire is contained.

---

More facts, and opinions, as they crop up:

News weirdness:

• About 10:15 Washington time, the report was was that Secret Service, that has offices in the building, was that Secret Service agents were preventing firefighters from getting into the building.
  
  Reality check: five minutes later, we hear that Secret Service agents are vetting everyone who goes into the building, to make sure that they really should be there. Not a bad idea, considering how many sensitive documents are in there, and what a wonderful opportunity this would be for someone to plant a regrettable device in the EOB. Apparently, fire investigators aren't being allowed in. Not yet.

Background and Details

• The fire most likely started in an electrical closet near the Vice President's ceremonial office. I hope that room wasn't damaged or defaced by the fire. My guess is that it would be somewhere between difficult and impossible to fix the damage properly these days. We don't make things now, like they did over a hundred years ago. Often, for good reason.
• Details about the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, from the White House website.
• Interesting detail: The reporter I heard called it the "Executive Office Building," or EOB; For the White House, it's the "Eisenhower Executive Office Building," or EEOB.
• That "Eisenhower" part of the name comes from President Eisenhower saving the building from demolition in the fifties. The place has been due for repairs and renovation for decades: and quite a bit of it is getting worked on now.
• The EOB has been getting upgrades for a long time. In 1900, holes were drilled in the EOB's granite and ironwork to accommodate the War Department's new telephone system (this is the current Fact of the Week from the White House site). It might have been easier to tear the thing down, in the fifties, and then tear that down now, with today's technology in mind. I'm glad the old building was kept, though. I think there's a place for tradition.
• One injury: a U.S. Marine was on the fifth floor when the fire broke out. With a fire of undetermined extent between him and the ground, he quite reasonably broke out a window. With his hands. He was treated at the scene for lacerations, and refused transport to a hospital.

What's the big deal with this fire, and this post? I'll write about that next.

Fires in California: a Reality Check

As if we didn't have enough problems already: Wildfires are burning in California from Malibu to San Diego. About 226 square miles are involved. If the fires were all in one place, they'd cover a square about 15 miles on a side.

Arson seems to be the cause of one of the fires in Orange county. Make that all three in that county, I heard on televised news.

As for the rest, it's probably early days to say how they started.

It's certainly odd, even given the weather, that a series of fires broke out pretty much simultaneously all the way from Malibu to San Diego.

About a quarter of a million people have been evacuated in the San Diego area.

What I haven't heard, or read, in news is any connection with the War on Terror.

Except for a comment left on AOL News' "Raging Calif. Fires Burn Scores of Homes." I'm quoting the whole thing, exactly as it appeared, so you can get the full flavor of this pronouncement.

"jerdking 09:54:13 PM Oct 22 2007
Report This!

"IMPEACH TERRORIST BUSH, CHENEY, WHAT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? WHILE THE NORTH AND SOUTH POLES EVAPORATE, IMPERIALIST BUSH, CHENEY ARE PURSUING FRAUDULENT OIL WARS, WHEN THE WORLD SHOULD BE ON TRACK AND BURNING CLEAN VEGETABLE OILS IN DIESELS AND CLEAN BURNING ALCOHOL FUELS IN GAS ENGINES. DUMP CRIMINAL REPUBLICONS WHO ENABLE TERRORISTS BUSH, CHENEY TO DESTROY DEMOCRACY AROUND THE WORLD. IF INDY 500 CARS CAN TRAVEL 200 PLUS MPH ON ALCOHOL FUELS, SO CAN INDUSTRY AND AUTOMOBILES. IMPEACH TERRORIST BUSH, LOVE AMERICA."

(The same comment was posted in the same place 09:54:12 PM Oct 22 2007, and 09:54:10 PM Oct 22 2007.)

Of course, that's not news: it's someone's idea of a comment on a news item.

What's the Point of this Post?

Although I seriously doubt that the California fires are connected with the War on Terror, it isn't out of the question.

Attacking the western states of the United States with wildfires has been tried before. Around 1944, balloons from Japan started landing around the west coast of America. The balloons carried three types of bombs: explosive antipersonnel devices, and two kinds of incendiary devices.

All the effort the Japanese put into the balloon bomb program succeeded in some useful propaganda programming, and six American fatalities: five kids and a woman near Bly, Oregon. It looks like they were clustered around the balloon, and someone tugged at it the wrong way.

(There's a detailed, discussion of Japan's remarkable weapon system at "The Great Japanese Balloon Offensive.")

It Could Happen Again

The habit Islamic fanatics have of using human agents, like suicide bombers, makes arson a distinct possibility.

A handful of people with weapons no more complicated than a four-gallon backpack weed sprayer filled with alcohol or gasoline could, under the right conditions, send a nearly-unstoppable wildfire toward towns and cities in southern California.