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:
I have an easy solution to this. Take all of the accused and airdrop them in to the fires that they set. Donât be cruel. Give them a parachute. Let them slowly descend into the pit of hell they created.
Youâre kinder than I am. Iâd vote for nailing them to trees in the path of the fires facing the approaching flames.
I sometimes wonder if some of them might be terrorist-related. Not beyond the realm of possibility? As to the OP though, thereâs no way a charge of arson could be successful unless there is cctv evidence, and what are the chances of that?
Well thatâs 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 âhundreds of thousandsâ that shouldnât be too difficult for you?
And remember that weâre 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 Iâm 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 doesnât want to be seen carrying out an act of arson? Iâll tell you . . . a trillion-to-one. Now donât be silly.
Of course you wonât 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 donât need an eye witness or video of them actually starting the fire to catch them.
They werenât 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, thatâs how they arrived at the statistics.
Iâve never seen anyone go so far out of their way so often to make a complete fool of himself publicly.
Are you going to answer the question Iâve already asked twice, or not?
Your question is a pointless deflection from your own ignorance.
You claimed they couldnât be convicted without surveillance video, that was utterly false.
The solve rate on wildfire arsonâs is going to vary greatly from state to state and country to country but itâs relatively low.
Weâre not talking about the solve rates, were talking about convictions of those who are caught.
Youâre presenting nothing except speculative statistics; to prove a conviction youâd need to give details of the court proceedings, including name and sentence, and you havenât done so. I mean if there have been âhundreds of thousandsâ of convictions then why TF donât you just quote one of them? In all my years on discussions forums, Iâve never known anyone who writes so much but says so little, as you. And still no answer to my question.
Oh bullshit, they used âconvictionsâ.
Youâre just continuing to make a complete fool of yourself.
When youâre neck deep in your own shit shut your mouth and stop digging.
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 weâll see if I like your answer or not - if, indeed, coherent answer it comes?
Asked and answeredâŚ
The number is unknowable since we canât even determine with certainty in most cases how a fire started.