183 humans arrested for setting the bush fires! Tell Russell Crowe ASAP!

Human criminals are responsible for the majority of fires in Australia that have killed 24 people and millions of animals.

Yet Hollywood elitists cannot resist promoting man-made climate change as the cause of the fires.

Just how stupid can Hollywood get? I say there is no limit!

What an odd headline. I would argue that anyone who sets fires of this magnitude is actually a sub-human. No human being in their right mind would do this to the place that they live.

Subhuman is the correct designation:

200 charged, another 60-70 are being investigated. Do your fucking job, journalists:

  1. How many are Muslim?
  2. How many are environmental activists?
1 Like

I have an easy solution to this. Take all of the accused and airdrop them in to the fires that they set. Don’t be cruel. Give them a parachute. Let them slowly descend into the pit of hell they created.

2 Likes

You’re kinder than I am. I’d vote for nailing them to trees in the path of the fires facing the approaching flames.

1 Like

I sometimes wonder if some of them might be terrorist-related. Not beyond the realm of possibility? As to the OP though, there’s no way a charge of arson could be successful unless there is cctv evidence, and what are the chances of that?

Well that’s completely false. There were hundreds of thousands of successful arson prosecutions before CCTV was even invented.

Give me a link to one then? If there have been ‘hundreds of thousands’ that shouldn’t be too difficult for you?

And remember that we’re talking about wildfires here, not domestic ones.

2015, 26 convictions in Australia alone for setting wildfires.

https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-26-02-06

Numerous more convicted for wildfire arson here in this study as well, again, from Australia.

Well I’m not gonna spend the rest of my day reading all that; but just let me ask you something: in such places as California, the Amazon rainforest, or the Australian bush, what do you think would be the chances of actually seeing someone who doesn’t want to be seen carrying out an act of arson? I’ll tell you . . . a trillion-to-one. Now don’t be silly.

Of course you won’t read because you want to be ignorant.

I just handed you dozens of convictions of arsonists starting bush fires in Australia.

We catch a lot of them in the US as well. These types of arsonists tend not to be very bright.

You don’t need an eye witness or video of them actually starting the fire to catch them.

They weren’t convictions they were guesstimated statistics. Now what do you think the chances are of catching someone in the act?

Bullshit, every one of them in both articles were convictions, that’s how they arrived at the statistics.

I’ve never seen anyone go so far out of their way so often to make a complete fool of himself publicly.

1 Like

Are you going to answer the question I’ve already asked twice, or not?

Your question is a pointless deflection from your own ignorance.

You claimed they couldn’t be convicted without surveillance video, that was utterly false.

The solve rate on wildfire arson’s is going to vary greatly from state to state and country to country but it’s relatively low.

We’re not talking about the solve rates, were talking about convictions of those who are caught.

You’re presenting nothing except speculative statistics; to prove a conviction you’d need to give details of the court proceedings, including name and sentence, and you haven’t done so. I mean if there have been ‘hundreds of thousands’ of convictions then why TF don’t you just quote one of them? In all my years on discussions forums, I’ve never known anyone who writes so much but says so little, as you. And still no answer to my question.

Oh bullshit, they used “convictions”.

You’re just continuing to make a complete fool of yourself.

When you’re neck deep in your own shit shut your mouth and stop digging.

@TWR

So where were we? Ah yes, I remember . . . what do you think the chances are of an arsonist being caught in the act of starting a forest fire or bush fire? Now we’ll see if I like your answer or not - if, indeed, coherent answer it comes?

Asked and answered…

The number is unknowable since we can’t even determine with certainty in most cases how a fire started.