View Full Version : Fox News: Al Qaeda is causing the CA wildfires.
What a bunch of fools (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/24/fox-news-al-qaeda-is-causing-the-ca-wildires/):madlaugh:
Fox News: Al Qaeda is causing the CA wildfires.
This morning on Fox News, hosts of the show Fox and Friends blamed the
wildfires in California on a new culprit: al Qaeda. They pointed to a 2003
FBI memo, which raised the possibility that al Qaeda may try to set
wildfires around the western United States. They also noted that men in a
"hovering helicopter" saw "a guy starting one of these fires." Watch it:
Later in the segment, host Steve Doocy acknowledged that in memo, al Qaeda
didn't even mention California. "They mention Colorado, Montana, Utah, and
Wyoming," he added.
Digg It!
Transcript:
DOOCY: You're looking live at pictures from San Diego - Santiago, CA,
where the wildfires continue. We were talking earlier in today's telecast
with Adam Housley and apparently police officers in a hovering helicopter
saw a guy starting one of these fires. And Allison Allison Camerota, an FBI
memo from late in June of this year is popping up this morning and it is
ominous.
CAMEROTA: This actually has happened for many years in the past as well.
An FBI sent out to local law-enforcement said that an al Qaeda detainee had
given them some information that the next wave of terrorism could be in the
form of setting wild fires. Adam Housley said lots of people on his block
were asking him about it. Obviously this is something the FBI has looked
into. They will continue to investigate it.
CARLSON: If they have this person in custody it probably won't take long
to be able to develop a link if there is one.
KILMEADE: A June 25 memo from the FBI's Denver offices reported three days
ago, excuse me, five days ago, by the Arizona Republic, that is a newspaper,
they have been carrying the story and they continue to expand upon it.
DOOCY: Brian, the plot they say, according to this detainee, and they
don't
know if the detainee is telling the truth. The plot was to set three or four
wildfires. But they don't mention California. They mention Colorado,
Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. We do know for a fact that a number of the fires
in southern California are of a suspicious nature and they are investigating
arson.
ViolaLee
10-25-2007, 10:44 PM
They're not fools. They are spreaders of terror. They didn't mention that the memo was from 4 years ago. They just want to scare everyone. They have that in common with the Al Qaeda terrorists, don't they? Terrorizing people. I'm so sick of FOX and their lies.
The whole damned thing was a pack of lies. I don't know how they get away with this......did they think no one would notice?
I watch Fox........but these three idiots in the morning are such tools...well at least I wake up laughing!:lmao:
ViolaLee
10-25-2007, 11:02 PM
I've never watched morning FOX. I'm just shocked at how many people still take FOX seriously after all the false stories they've told.
preservanation
10-25-2007, 11:21 PM
alqaeda? try B L A C K W A T E R !Please,
Right back at ya. this was on the blog..[hr]
The whole damned thing was a pack of lies. I don't know how they get away with this......did they think no one would notice?
I watch Fox........but these three idiots in the morning are such tools...well at least I wake up laughing!:lmao:
At least you can say you get the other side.
Sadly that's not the case with most here.[hr]
I've never watched morning FOX. I'm just shocked at how many people still take FOX seriously after all the false stories they've told.
They have been leading in the ratings in all time slots for years.
The main stream is going to come and bite you in the aft section. and if you don't get out of your sand box, it will surprise you!
Use your wings, they are there for a reason.
[quote]alqaeda? try B L A C K W A T E R !
I don't understand? People discussing the news show somehow verifies their story as true?
I don't know.........I just took their replies as kooks........much like the morning show hosts.
6:00am is too early to get names.
What's the name of the one with the curly brown hair........he's the one that gets me laughing the most, with his over-reacting......but I have to admit, the two women get on my last nerve with their giggling.
preservanation
10-25-2007, 11:37 PM
Killmead?
He is not that bright.
Doosey is the one to keep your eye on.
Smarter than the average weather man!!!![hr]btw,
It Wouldn't break my heart if the ladies kept their tonsils from visibility... from through their skirts!
Wndrtch
10-25-2007, 11:49 PM
They're not fools. They are spreaders of terror. They didn't mention that the memo was from 4 years ago. They just want to scare everyone. They have that in common with the Al Qaeda terrorists, don't they? Terrorizing people. I'm so sick of FOX and their lies.
Then, don't watch it!
thistle
10-26-2007, 12:22 AM
It's true that the FBI memo is four years old and that the information given by the detainee mentioned states other than California but I would not disregard the memo because of the date or because of the states that were mentioned. It is a given that terrorists cells are here among us. It is also known that the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11 didn't decide to fly planes into the Twin Towers, Pentagon and wherever the fourth plane was destined a week before. The plan was in the hopper way before it happened. I believe it was last year that I read something about terrorists attacking our schools and I don't disregard that threat either. Setting fire to our forests and attacking our schools are not beyong the capability of the terrorists that are among us. I do think making the assumption that "it was terrorists" who started the fires is jumping the gun a bit but the fact is that a couple of the fires were definitely arson and the possibility of it being terrorists, is not beyond belief.
I do think making the assumption that "it was terrorists" who started the fires is jumping the gun a bit but the fact is that a couple of the fires were definitely arson and the possibility of it being terrorists, is not beyond belief.
Thistle........make all the assumptions you want.........but if you're paid to give the news.........don't make it up as you go along and present it as fact:
KILMEADE: A June 25 memo from the FBI's Denver offices reported three days
ago, excuse me, five days ago, by the Arizona Republic, that is a newspaper,
they have been carrying the story and they continue to expand upon it.
FALSE........and that's the most obvious one. I could go on. People actually believed this shit.
thistle
10-26-2007, 12:32 AM
Was there or was there not a FBI memo stating that there was a possibility of terrorists starting forest fires? I am a bit confused concerning your post. I was not making an assumption, I was commenting on those who made the assumption that is was terrorists.
Labrocca
10-26-2007, 12:46 AM
They didn't mention that the memo was from 4 years ago.
And that fact makes the memo untrue? Explain that one.
And I don't discount the possibility that this is Al-Qaeda until it's been proven one way or another. Why is the possibility so outlandish?
AnnEsthesia
10-26-2007, 12:55 AM
So there is no arson in the US by Americans? If there is arson, it has to be al Qaeda?
Was there or was there not a FBI memo stating that there was a possibility of terrorists starting forest fires? I am a bit confused concerning your post. I was not making an assumption, I was commenting on those who made the assumption that is was terrorists.
I didn't mean to infer that you were making the assumptions.....I said people that report the news shouldn't make assumptions.
Yes there was a memo.........four years ago, different states and the fires were suppose to be started similtaniously. (sp). None of which matched the fires in California.[hr]
They didn't mention that the memo was from 4 years ago.
And that fact makes the memo untrue? Explain that one.
KILMEADE: A June 25 memo from the FBI's Denver offices reported three days
ago, excuse me, five days ago, by the Arizona Republic, that is a newspaper,
they have been carrying the story and they continue to expand upon it.
The Arizona Republic did not report the story five days ago. This is a bald faced lie to make their story seem like it had credibility.
And I don't discount the possibility that this is Al-Qaeda until it's been proven one way or another. Why is the possibility so outlandish?
Forrest fires as an Al-Quada attack???????
Look........I can come on here and say anything is true, and I'll check my facts before doing so......it's a big difference to go on National TV and tout something as fact, when I didn't even check to see if it was true.......it's no wonder people are running around scared of their shadow........they believe this kind of crap.
Labrocca
10-26-2007, 01:31 AM
Forrest fires as an Al-Quada attack???????
Why not? Are you saying that millions upon millions of dollars in damage in California isn't Al-Qaeda worthy? Seems a perfect attack for Al-Qaeda...easy to do, hard to stop, and would create chaos and fear across the USA of similar attacks.
ViolaLee
10-26-2007, 01:42 AM
Was there or was there not a FBI memo stating that there was a possibility of terrorists starting forest fires? I am a bit confused concerning your post. I was not making an assumption, I was commenting on those who made the assumption that is was terrorists.
There was a memo from 2003.
They didn't mention that the memo was from 4 years ago.
And that fact makes the memo untrue? Explain that one.
And I don't discount the possibility that this is Al-Qaeda until it's been proven one way or another. Why is the possibility so outlandish?
The memo was real, but FOX said the story was written about it 5 days ago. That's a lie. 4 years ago is the truth.
Forrest fires as an Al-Quada attack???????
Why not? Are you saying that millions upon millions of dollars in damage in California isn't Al-Qaeda worthy? Seems a perfect attack for Al-Qaeda...easy to do, hard to stop, and would create chaos and fear across the USA of similar attacks.
The issue is not whether Al Qaeda could start fires. The issue is that FOX announced that they threatened to do it recently, they didn't mention that the memo was from 4 years ago.[hr]So here we have FOX lying about a terrorist threat in regards to the SoCal fires and Cheney sleeping during the emergency cabinet meeting regaring the SoCal fires. Way to go.
Scroll down and click on the video (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_caught_napping_in_cabinet_meeting_1025.html )
Forrest fires as an Al-Quada attack???????
Why not? Are you saying that millions upon millions of dollars in damage in California isn't Al-Qaeda worthy? Seems a perfect attack for Al-Qaeda...easy to do, hard to stop, and would create chaos and fear across the USA of similar attacks.
Well........we've had fires in most all the states.......and I don't see any fear spreading. How would they take credit for this? What is going to be their fear motivator? I'm going to start a forrest fire........it might be lighting or it might be a downed wire, or it might be a carelss camper........but we did it and everyone will know we did! I think you're grabbing at straws here......but I'm willing to listen.
thistle
10-26-2007, 02:55 AM
Was there or was there not a FBI memo stating that there was a possibility of terrorists starting forest fires? I am a bit confused concerning your post. I was not making an assumption, I was commenting on those who made the assumption that is was terrorists.
I didn't mean to infer that you were making the assumptions.....I said people that report the news shouldn't make assumptions.
Yes there was a memo.........four years ago, different states and the fires were suppose to be started similtaniously. (sp). None of which matched the fires in California.
Are you saying that because the fires are not in the states mentioned in the FBI memo of four years ago, the fires in California could not have been set by terrorists? To date there are no suspects but to dismiss the possibility of terrorists setting those fires is not wise.
Lily, it would be fantastic if the news media of every stripe would check out their sources to make sure of the validity of what is to be reported and not improvise but the sad fact is, it isn't going to happen and the majority of the news media have been guilty not just the news media you mentioned.
Elrathin
10-26-2007, 02:56 AM
Why not? Are you saying that millions upon millions of dollars in damage in California isn't Al-Qaeda worthy? Seems a perfect attack for Al-Qaeda...easy to do, hard to stop, and would create chaos and fear across the USA of similar attacks.
So considering we have had arson each and every year NOW we need to consdier this to be Al-Q? I'm sorry but that's tinfoil hat syndrome.
ViolaLee
10-26-2007, 03:09 AM
Are you saying that because the fires are not in the states mentioned in the FBI memo of four years ago, the fires in California could not have been set by terrorists? To date there are no suspects but to dismiss the possibility of terrorists setting those fires is not wise.
Lily, it would be fantastic if the news media of every stripe would check out their sources to make sure of the validity of what is to be reported and not improvise but the sad fact is, it isn't going to happen and the majority of the news media have been guilty not just the news media you mentioned.
And Al Qaeda blew up the levies during Katrina too right?
You righties sure do try to make Al Qaeda more powerful than they really are.
Why?
Elrathin
10-26-2007, 03:14 AM
I'm just waiting for conservatives to now claim Aliens are responsible. IT would fit their profiel given the 'boy that cried wolf" for terrorism that we have been seeing.
Hey conservatives, did Al-Qaeda cause Katrina too? LOL
Are you saying that because the fires are not in the states mentioned in the FBI memo of four years ago, the fires in California could not have been set by terrorists? To date there are no suspects but to dismiss the possibility of terrorists setting those fires is not wise.
Please don't tell me you are falling for this? The fires in California were not started by terrorists.
Thistle......it's not only that the memo was over 4 years old. They stated they got their information from a newspaper that ran the story five days ago.......and not only that.......but the Arizona Republic has been running it for days............none of which is true.
Lily, it would be fantastic if the news media of every stripe would check out their sources to make sure of the validity of what is to be reported and not improvise but the sad fact is, it isn't going to happen and the majority of the news media have been guilty not just the news media you mentioned.
Please show me one news station that has run a story comparable to this. It's fake news..........and people like you and Labrocca are not only believing this proven lie, but are defending it.
You know, I don't think I'd be as outraged as I am, if they would say they were wrong.........but they haven't.
thistle
10-26-2007, 03:21 AM
Are you saying that because the fires are not in the states mentioned in the FBI memo of four years ago, the fires in California could not have been set by terrorists? To date there are no suspects but to dismiss the possibility of terrorists setting those fires is not wise.
Lily, it would be fantastic if the news media of every stripe would check out their sources to make sure of the validity of what is to be reported and not improvise but the sad fact is, it isn't going to happen and the majority of the news media have been guilty not just the news media you mentioned.
And Al Qaeda blew up the levies during Katrina too right?
You righties sure do try to make Al Qaeda more powerful than they really are.
Why?
Trying to be a smarty pants Viola?:shame:
preservanation
10-26-2007, 03:30 AM
I'm just waiting for conservatives to now claim Aliens are responsible. IT would fit their profiel given the 'boy that cried wolf" for terrorism that we have been seeing.
Hey conservatives, did Al-Qaeda cause Katrina too? LOL
no, that was bush.
What ave ya been doin?
Liven
under a rock?
ViolaLee
10-26-2007, 03:31 AM
No thistle, I really truly don't understand why the right would want to give Al Qaeda credit for things they don't do.
Why would they want to help Al Qaeda strengthen and grow and become more superhuman and immortal?
thistle
10-26-2007, 03:36 AM
How about the Koran in the toilet story? That turned out not to be true and it caused days of rioting and the death of more than a few people. You go so far as to deny boldly that terrorists were not involved. Got proof? No one here on the board said that terrorists were responsible. What has been said, there is a possibility that they were involved. Those of us that believe there is a "possibility" that terrorists were involved makes us what? Thinking differently than you and so of course we are wrong and you are right. Yeah, I get the message.
preservanation
10-26-2007, 03:38 AM
Hi Viola,
What is the right doing???
Giving credit for disasters to terrorists again?
The fires?
What a bunch of rubes.
In confidence....that's nuts.
It is obviously the fault of Bush and the Iraq war.
Jeeeeze...
Elrathin
10-26-2007, 03:39 AM
It is obviously the fault of Bush and the Iraq war.
Jeeeeze...
Given some of the responses from the conservatives it seems Al-Q is responsible from your colleagues.
thistle
10-26-2007, 03:45 AM
It is obviously the fault of Bush and the Iraq war.
Jeeeeze...
Given some of the responses from the conservatives it seems Al-Q is responsible from your colleagues.
Which one of us conservatives said AL-Q "is" responsible? I have read this whole board and no one has said they "are" responsible. Maybe you ought to go back and re-read what has been posted. There is a big difference between saying Al-Q "is" responsible and there is a "possibility" that Al-Q is responsible. duh
How about the Koran in the toilet story? That turned out not to be true and it caused days of rioting and the death of more than a few people.
There are a couple of big differences....one Newsweek admitted they were wrong and two.......it wasn't an "attack" on our country, as arsonists starting fires would be.
You go so far as to deny boldly that terrorists were not involved. Got proof?
Nope, not yet. But it seems that the ones that investigate arson are really good at their jobs.........I'll keep this thread in mind when they catch them. I've admitted more than once when I've been wrong.....on this one, I doubt I will be........but you see we are getting off the topic of Fox not telling the truth in one of their "news" segments.
No one here on the board said that terrorists were responsible. What has been said, there is a possibility that they were involved. Those of us that believe there is a "possibility" that terrorists were involved makes us what? Thinking differently than you and so of course we are wrong and you are right. Yeah, I get the message.
Tell me truthfully, thistle....I've been debating with you for a while now and I consider you an honest person.......would you have even considered that any of those fires were started by terrorists if I didn't post this article?
The first fire was started by a downed power wire, if I'm not mistaken. Some of the others were from the wind and embers flying. I believe one or two were suspected arson........which from reading about arsonists is one of their "wildest dreams", to start something this big...........terrorism doesn't even fit in.[hr]So far no mention of terrorisim here.........not even Middle Eastern sounding names. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/25/fire.arson/index.html)
The smaller Rosa Fire in Riverside County, 100 percent contained at 411
acres Thursday morning, was also probably arson, state officials said.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles Fire Department investigators are looking into
whether a man who was arrested on suspicion of arson in the San Fernando
Valley may have had a role in any of the ongoing blazes, an L.A. police
spokeswoman said.
Catalino Pineda, 41, was arrested Wednesday, Officer Kate Lopez told CNN.
Witnesses told police they saw him lighting a fire on a hillside in the West
Hills area of San Fernando -- northwest of Los Angeles -- then walking away,
Lopez said.
Pineda was already on probation for "making excessive false emergency
reports" to police at the time of the arrest, Lopez said. His bail has been
set at $75,000, she said.
The fire he allegedly set was brought under control, but now authorities
want to find out if he had any role in the other wildfires.
In San Bernardino County, John Alfred Rund, 48, was arrested Tuesday evening
and charged with setting a small fire along a rural roadside near
Victorville.
Rund was to be arraigned Thursday morning in Victorville. He was being held
in lieu of $750,000 bail.
The county's district attorney's office on Thursday also filed arson charges
against Anthony Riperti, 47, of Redlands. A statement from the office did
not say when or where Riperti is accused of setting a fire. He is being held
on $250,000 bail and will be arraigned later Thursday.
The San Diego County Sheriff's Department also arrested an adult and a
juvenile accused by an anonymous tipster of starting a fire in Vista in the
northern part of the county. In a written statement, the sheriff's
department identified the adult as Gorgonio Nava. The Vista Fire Department
extinguished the blaze before it grew out of control, the statement said.
Investigators have determined that the Grass Valley Fire in San Bernardino
County was not caused by arson, and a preliminary investigation into the
cause of the 10,152-acre Slide Fire seems to indicate arson was not a
factor, sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Beaver
preservanation
10-26-2007, 04:04 AM
It is obviously the fault of Bush and the Iraq war.
Jeeeeze...
Given some of the responses from the conservatives it seems Al-Q is responsible from your colleagues.
What?
Or better yet, huh?[hr]is it sarcasm that baffles you or is it facts, El?
My brother.
thistle
10-26-2007, 04:13 AM
How about the Koran in the toilet story? That turned out not to be true and it caused days of rioting and the death of more than a few people.
There are a couple of big differences....one Newsweek admitted they were wrong and two.......it wasn't an "attack" on our country, as arsonists starting fires would be.
You go so far as to deny boldly that terrorists were not involved. Got proof?
Nope, not yet. But it seems that the ones that investigate arson are really good at their jobs.........I'll keep this thread in mind when they catch them. I've admitted more than once when I've been wrong.....on this one, I doubt I will be........but you see we are getting off the topic of Fox not telling the truth in one of their "news" segments.
No one here on the board said that terrorists were responsible. What has been said, there is a possibility that they were involved. Those of us that believe there is a "possibility" that terrorists were involved makes us what? Thinking differently than you and so of course we are wrong and you are right. Yeah, I get the message.
Tell me truthfully, thistle....I've been debating with you for a while now and I consider you an honest person.......would you have even considered that any of those fires were started by terrorists if I didn't post this article?
The first fire was started by a downed power wire, if I'm not mistaken. Some of the others were from the wind and embers flying. I believe one or two were suspected arson........which from reading about arsonists is one of their "wildest dreams", to start something this big...........terrorism doesn't even fit in.
Not at first lily but afterwards when it was reported that there were more than two or maybe it was three fires burning the thought crossed my mind and I did say to my spouse, I wonder if terrorists set them. I had forgotten about the FBI memo but after reading your post about the memo, it just supported what I had been thinking. That the possibility of it being terrorists was not that far out. No one knows yet but like you said, those investigating the fires are top notch and hopefully those responsible will be caught.
Elrathin
10-26-2007, 04:21 AM
Or better yet, huh?[hr]is it sarcasm that baffles you or is it facts, El?
My brother.
Lab claimed it could be Al-Q are you claiming otherwise?
Not at first lily but afterwards when it was reported that there were more than two or maybe it was three fires burning the thought crossed my mind and I did say to my spouse, I wonder if terrorists set them. I had forgotten about the FBI memo but after reading your post about the memo, it just supported what I had been thinking. That the possibility of it being terrorists was not that far out. No one knows yet but like you said, those investigating the fires are top notch and hopefully those responsible will be caught.
Thanks for being honest, thistle. I can see now why you were so passionate about defending your side of the argument.
It still doesn't change the fact that the Fox morning news program was wrong and they were just spreading fear. :nana:
Anti-Racism
10-26-2007, 04:29 AM
They're not fools. They are spreaders of terror.
They are takers of profit.
People like news that makes them afraid, makes them cry, or makes them proud. This can do all three. $$$
preservanation
10-26-2007, 04:38 AM
Or better yet, huh?[hr]is it sarcasm that baffles you or is it facts, El?
My brother.
Lab claimed it could be Al-Q are you claiming otherwise?
It could be Smurfette, why jump to conclusions?
Elrathin
10-26-2007, 04:54 AM
It could be Smurfette, why jump to conclusions?
You're right, it could be Condi and Bush, do you accept that as possibilities to? Maybe it's Aliens from Mars too? Maybe Jupiter. Have fun with your absence from reality, it must be a good trip.
Me, I'll stick to reality that it is most likely an AMERICAN BORN, NON -AL-Q affiliated Arsonist like it usually is each and every year.
preservanation
10-26-2007, 05:04 AM
Why do you even attempt to make a "joke" out of the loss experienced by so many?
Do you want to blame everything on politics?
Elrathin
10-26-2007, 05:08 AM
Why do you even attempt to make a "joke" out of the loss experienced by so many?
Do you want to blame everything on politics?
I'm not making a joke, you are, by saying Al-Q is a possibility AND SMURFETTE Remeber you said the damn smurfette shit. That is the joke.
preservanation
10-26-2007, 05:12 AM
Settle down.
I'm just saying that the work is ahead of us.
The time to lay blame will come later, and it will.
You've already started.[hr]If I may???
How old are you, El?
Elrathin
10-26-2007, 05:14 AM
Settle down.
Settle down? You are the one that accused me of and I quote:
Why do you even attempt to make a "joke" out of the loss experienced by so many?
Do you want to blame everything on politics?
I think it is you who jumped, not me.
Labrocca
10-26-2007, 05:14 AM
If I remember correctly a few years back a slew of southern black churches were burnt down. It took time to see a pattern and then establish that indeed this was an act of terrorism (no not Islamic).
You righties sure do try to make Al Qaeda more powerful than they really are.
I don't give them credit...I think it's actually a very slim chance. However I admit that if this were an Al-Qaeda attack it's brilliant and scary. Lefties have a tendencies to believe that Al-Qaeda is a fuzzy warm organization that is only after Bush or soldiers. They aren't. 9/11 was just as much about financial impact as it was about violence.
I'm just waiting for conservatives to now claim Aliens are responsible.
Strawman argument.
It's fake news..........and people like you and Labrocca are not only believing this proven lie, but are defending it.
Never said I believed it. But do you know who did it or why? Can you say with 100% certainty it was not islamic fundamentalists?
How about the Koran in the toilet story? That turned out not to be true and it caused days of rioting and the death of more than a few people. You go so far as to deny boldly that terrorists were not involved. Got proof? No one here on the board said that terrorists were responsible. What has been said, there is a possibility that they were involved. Those of us that believe there is a "possibility" that terrorists were involved makes us what? Thinking differently than you and so of course we are wrong and you are right. Yeah, I get the message.
EXACTLY
.....it wasn't an "attack" on our country, as arsonists starting fires would be.
Ugh...as far as I know they ARE claiming arson!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/25/fire.arson/index.html
The cost of homes destroyed by the wildfires is likely to top $1 billion in San Diego County alone, an emergency official said.
Well over a billion in damage and you don't think that it's even the most remotely possible that Al-Qaeda could be involved? Given the memo where they state this as a possible strategy for attack I would believe it's worth looking into. It may go nowhere but a few agents should be placed onto this to be sure.
Tell me truthfully, thistle....I've been debating with you for a while now and I consider you an honest person.......would you have even considered that any of those fires were started by terrorists if I didn't post this article?
I consider myself honest and guess what...my first thought upon hearing the news about how big the damage is was Al-Qaeda and terrorists. Well before reading this thread too.
The first fire was started by a downed power wire, if I'm not mistaken. Some of the others were from the wind and embers flying. I believe one or two were suspected arson........which from reading about arsonists is one of their "wildest dreams", to start something this big...........terrorism doesn't even fit in.
Well...I don't see how with given evidence this was intention arson and that it was originated in 2-3 places (coordinated? possibly more than one culprit) that you can't even consider that it might be a terrorist act...even if it's not Al-Qaeda.
ORANGE COUNTY, California (CNN) -- One of the larger fires in Southern California was deliberately started by someone with apparent knowledge of arson, a fire official said Thursday...
It is a confirmed arson. There was evidence found at the scene. That is the purpose of our early declaration of it being an arson-caused fire," Prather said. He would not describe the evidence.
Prather said officials originally thought the fire had three points of origin instead of two.
Elrathin
10-26-2007, 05:21 AM
I don't give them credit...I think it's actually a very slim chance. However I admit that if this were an Al-Qaeda attack it's brilliant and scary. Lefties have a tendencies to believe that Al-Qaeda is a fuzzy warm organization that is only after Bush or soldiers. They aren't. 9/11 was just as much about financial impact as it was about violence.
If a lefty would have said this, it would have been thrown into the conspiracy forum.
Maybe it's actually a fire started by this administration to make us THINK it is Al-Q right? Oh shit, that would have DEFIANTLY been put in the conspiracy section unless it was Clinton as president.
And no I don't think it's this administration, but its funny how far some people are willing to go to say it's a terrorist attack.
preservanation
10-26-2007, 05:25 AM
Settle down.
Settle down? You are the one that accused me of and I quote:
Why do you even attempt to make a "joke" out of the loss experienced by so many?
Do you want to blame everything on politics?
I think it is you who jumped, not me.
You're so thin skinned...
(Some) think that's this song is about you....
don't you,
don't you?
Elrathin
10-26-2007, 05:29 AM
[
You're so thin skinned...
(Some) think that's this song is about you....
don't you,
don't you?
Not really, I'm just trying to find out where you stand, but like Hillary you change your stance to what you think is popular. Right now you think the CWN stance is popular so Cheers.
preservanation
10-26-2007, 05:31 AM
Clouds in my coffee...
Labrocca
10-26-2007, 05:33 AM
If a lefty would have said this, it would have been thrown into the conspiracy forum.
This is still a developing story. And the topic was actually inspired by a major news organization more than any member believing a conspiracy..and btw..this thread was started by a Lily not any righty conspiracy buff.
AlanC
10-26-2007, 05:46 AM
So you are saying what? That it wasn't reported in the Arizona Republic? I'm just curious as to what you are saying is false.
Elrathin
10-26-2007, 05:46 AM
and btw..this thread was started by a Lily not any righty conspiracy buff.
It was started by lily to show the outrageousness of the accusation.
Let’s not loose direction in this thread.
The point of the OP is that FOX has a very narrow agenda that they aggressively campaign for under the guise of news. They will use any incident they can to conjure the specter of terrorism because it advances that agenda.
It does not make one tinkers damn to them that there is not one iota of evidence that the fires in California are anything but natural wildfires. And why should they care about the truth? Propagandists never do.
micfranklin
10-26-2007, 12:57 PM
But a different terrorist group did start wildfires.
They're called arsonists.
lawless168
10-26-2007, 02:48 PM
And Al Qaeda blew up the levies during Katrina too right?
You righties sure do try to make Al Qaeda more powerful than they really are.
Why?
Did you guys watch the video? Your all making nothing into something. I didn’t hear that the "righties" said AQ blew up the levies, BUT I did hear that our government did it. LOL, your all a bunch of whack jobs. Take off your political eyeglasses for once and see what the world really looks like.
Did hear a few days ago that they have a good idea who started these fires, and today there has been two arrests with more to come.
.....it wasn't an "attack" on our country, as arsonists starting fires would be.
Ugh...as far as I know they ARE claiming arson!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/25/fire.arson/index.html
The cost of homes destroyed by the wildfires is likely to top $1 billion in San Diego County alone, an emergency official said.
Well over a billion in damage and you don't think that it's even the most remotely possible that Al-Qaeda could be involved? Given the memo where they state this as a possible strategy for attack I would believe it's worth looking into. It may go nowhere but a few agents should be placed onto this to be sure.
Well......which one is it.......arsonist or terrorists? Again I point out, what good is a terrorist attack, if there isn't any credit taken for it?
Well...I don't see how with given evidence this was intention arson and that it was originated in 2-3 places (coordinated? possibly more than one culprit) that you can't even consider that it might be a terrorist act...even if it's not Al-Qaeda.
Well.......I've already posted a list of people they have in custody....not one Middle Eastern name in the bunch.[hr]
So you are saying what? That it wasn't reported in the Arizona Republic? I'm just curious as to what you are saying is false.
It might have been reported in the Arizon Republic.......when the memo had some relevance.......4 years ago.........but not the 4 days ago as the Fox morning show was stating, trying to give their a shred of credibility.
[hr]
Did you guys watch the video? Your all making nothing into something.
I'm not sure which video you're talking about, lawless. I did watch Fox's morning news show, when they were discussing this......that's why I brought it here to discuss. I also happened to watch this morning. They were interviewing arson experts. Really interesting the psychology that goes into finding these people and why they do it.....but oddly none of them asked if terrorists could have done this.....that subject was never brought up......one would think that would be one of their most important questions, since it was their news story the day before.
Trish
10-26-2007, 11:08 PM
Okay, let me get this straight. A morning show on Fox News network discussing the California fires brings up an FBI report mentioning the possibility of al Qaeda using wildfires as a weapon - an FBI report that did exist - and comments about the Arizona Republic posting a story about that report and it's proof that Fox News is lying to create fear of terrorism?
I think everyone needs to get a grip and stop taking everything they hear ANYWHERE as gospel until they can check out things for themselves.
From the initial 03 report "The contents of the June 25 memo from the FBI's Denver office were reported Friday by The Arizona Republic." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-11-alqaeda-fire_x.htm
I didn't see the show and I have yet to see a complete transcript posted anywhere (just several different partial transcripts) so I have no clue whether or not it was ever clarified that the report and the AR articles about the report were from 03. But the tie-in for the terrorist threat and the wildfires being discussed by the Fox News folks do not appear to have come FROM Fox News but rather a discussion of that tie-in as reported or commented on by others.
From The Raw Story site (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_advances_theory_that_CA_fires_1024.html) is this:
""I've heard some people talk about this a little bit to me, but have you heard anybody suggest that this could be some form of terrorism," Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy asked Wednesday morning." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that appears to be a question - not an assertion that there is indeed any type of terrorism connection.
Then this, "Of his 15 posts on the fires, just two included speculation from commenters about a terrorism link.
"Is anyone asking how these fires started? I see no comments or speculations," observed "clyde teeter" in response to a post Tuesday. "Could it be linked to illegal alien misadventure on the border [...] Terrorism? ... If you are a journalist, then these questions need to be asked and investigated. Your coverage is admirable but the emotional journalism about the loss of peoples homes is not helping to find the causes."
It seems to me that the possibility of a connection was being discussed, with references made to articles/reports that there could possibly be a connection. Of course, like I said, I haven't seen the show or read an entire transcript, so I am only going by what I have read in bits and pieces. Still, from what little is reported, it seems that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. IF the dates were not clarified as being from 2003 then that is certainly something that should be addressed with the 3 hosts of that show - clarity is always important. But I still don't see that Fox News is doing anything other than reporting what others said "might" be a terrorist tie-in.
ViolaLee
10-26-2007, 11:15 PM
Trish, they said the memo was from 5 days ago.
But it was actually from 4 years ago.
They were just trying to scare people. Trying to make Al Qaeda scarier and more powerful than they really are. The Republicans say if you vote for a Democrat we will get attacked again. The Republicans run on fear, they have fear based campaigns. FOX helps them by trying to scare people into thinking terrorists may have started the fires.
Trish
10-26-2007, 11:47 PM
Viola -
Yes, I saw that. Which is why I posted what I did from the USA Today article. When was this Fox News morning show - what day? Wasn't it on Wednesday? If you count back from Wednesday - 5 days ago would be a Friday. And the USA article did mention "last Friday." I'm thinking - and I could be wrong of course since I did not see the program - that the host simply screwed up....refering to "last Friday" as October 19, 2007 rather than the Friday in the article. You know these people read teleprompters...they aren't doing all this talking off the top of their heads. The fact that he originally said "three days ago" and then corrected to "five days ago" indicates to me he was doing some calculations in his head and just either didn't see or didn't read the actual dates and was relying solely on the words "last Friday." The dates certainly need to be clarified. If that wasn't done during the actual morning show, it certainly should have been done afterwards. But still, from the stuff I'm reading, I can't help but think that this is being blown up way our of proportion. Fox News isn't claiming any type of terrorist connection - these hosts were discussing the "possible" connection being mentioned elsewhere by other people. That's a lot different than Fox claiming a terror connection.
As I said on other threads, I think people need to quit getting so up in arms over something published or aired in one source or relying on what other people SAY was said or done. People really need to check things out for themselves. I'll bet that NO ONE posting on this thread saw the actual show, or if they did see the actual show really thought much about it until this was picked up by the "The Raw News" type sites. Certainly nothing was SAID in this forum until after those articles started appearing.
Scorpion
10-27-2007, 12:39 AM
I have solid evidence that the San Diego branch of Al Qaeda started the fires. He's a picture of one of their operatives engaged in arson.
http://fartnoises.info/flames3.jpg
Viola -
Yes, I saw that. Which is why I posted what I did from the USA Today article. When was this Fox News morning show - what day? Wasn't it on Wednesday? If you count back from Wednesday - 5 days ago would be a Friday. And the USA article did mention "last Friday." I'm thinking - and I could be wrong of course since I did not see the program - that the host simply screwed up....refering to "last Friday" as October 19, 2007 rather than the Friday in the article. You know these people read teleprompters...they aren't doing all this talking off the top of their heads. The fact that he originally said "three days ago" and then corrected to "five days ago" indicates to me he was doing some calculations in his head and just either didn't see or didn't read the actual dates and was relying solely on the words "last Friday."
KILMEADE: A June 25 memo from the FBI's Denver offices reported three days
ago, excuse me, five days ago, by the Arizona Republic, that is a newspaper,
they have been carrying the story and they continue to expand upon it.
Sorry.........that doesn't add up to what he said.
The dates certainly need to be clarified. If that wasn't done during the actual morning show, it certainly should have been done afterwards.
Yes it should have.....during a commercial break someone should have told him what he was saying was just plain wrong. Come on, if you're going to quote a paper, I can see getting the date wrong....but not by years and then you don't go on with stating they were expaning on the story, as if it were just a couple of days old.......and then talk more about it in a later newscast. You correct your mistake, if you want to be taken seriously.
As I said on other threads, I think people need to quit getting so up in arms over something published or aired in one source or relying on what other people SAY was said or done. People really need to check things out for themselves.
Yes that would be nice........but it doesn't happen.
I'll bet that NO ONE posting on this thread saw the actual show, or if they did see the actual show really thought much about it until this was picked up by the "The Raw News" type sites. Certainly nothing was SAID in this forum until after those articles started appearing.
I have already stated that I saw the show and that's why I brought the article here to discuss.
I'll bet that NO ONE posting on this thread saw the actual show, or if they did see the actual show
What possible difference does it make? I have watched FOX news plenty. Their effort on behalf of neocon ideology is consistent.
I recall early on with the debate after 9/11, FOX news personalities misquoting Ben Franklin over and over again during a morning segment.
They kept saying that Ben Franklin said “Anyone who would not give up some liberty for security is a fool”.
Of course when I heard this, I knew it was a lie. It does not sound like anything Ol’ Ben would say. Come to find out later, the actual quotes is more like this:
Those who would give up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
If you make a mistake like this once, twice, three times, a dozen times even, fine. But when you do it everyday, over and over, for years? Come on, it’s not a mistake.
Trish
10-29-2007, 03:34 AM
KILMEADE: A June 25 memo from the FBI's Denver offices reported three days
ago, excuse me, five days ago, by the Arizona Republic, that is a newspaper,
they have been carrying the story and they continue to expand upon it.
Sorry.........that doesn't add up to what he said.
And how doesn't it add up? He didn't say that the July 25 memo was three days ago, or five days ago. He said the Arizona Republic reported it 3 - 5 days ago. I still think it looks like he just missed a BIG section off the teleprompter. But it should have indeed been corrected.
Too many conspiracy theorists out there for my taste....Nothing is ever simple - everything is some big trying to get you conspiracy.[hr]
I'll bet that NO ONE posting on this thread saw the actual show, or if they did see the actual show
What possible difference does it make? I have watched FOX news plenty. Their effort on behalf of neocon ideology is consistent.
I recall early on with the debate after 9/11, FOX news personalities misquoting Ben Franklin over and over again during a morning segment.
They kept saying that Ben Franklin said “Anyone who would not give up some liberty for security is a fool”.
Of course when I heard this, I knew it was a lie. It does not sound like anything Ol’ Ben would say. Come to find out later, the actual quotes is more like this:
Those who would give up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
If you make a mistake like this once, twice, three times, a dozen times even, fine. But when you do it everyday, over and over, for years? Come on, it’s not a mistake.
If I took your post seriously I'd have to ask for your sources for the "everyday, over and over, for years?" comment....seems to me that's as much a "mistake" as the ones you're so sure didn't happen.
Well, I have made too many boneheaded misstatements, misquotes, and just out and out plain screw ups to ever think that anyone else should be mistake free. Over the years my mouth has engaged before my brain much too often for me to assume any superiority over anyone else for possibly the same thing.
Maybe the difference is that I'm not looking for boogeymen under every bush and behind every tree. (No pun intended.)[hr]
I'll bet that NO ONE posting on this thread saw the actual show, or if they did see the actual show really thought much about it until this was picked up by the "The Raw News" type sites. Certainly nothing was SAID in this forum until after those articles started appearing.
I have already stated that I saw the show and that's why I brought the article here to discuss.
I was speaking of those replying on the post. I should have been clearer in my statement. I honestly wasn't accusing you of any deception. My apologies.
If I took your post seriously I'd have to ask for your sources for the "everyday, over and over, for years?" comment
There is plenty of evidence to back my claim, Trish.
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/outlets/foxnewschannel?f=h_hot
seems to me that's as much a "mistake" as the ones you're so sure didn't happen.
I'm not a paid journalist on national television, Trish. So even if I do make mistakes, I only misinform or intentionally manipulate at most a few people, as opposed to millions for FAUX news.
Well, I have made too many boneheaded misstatements, misquotes, and just out and out plain screw ups to ever think that anyone else should be mistake free. Over the years my mouth has engaged before my brain much too often for me to assume any superiority over anyone else for possibly the same thing.
Again, there is a difference between honest mistakes and intentional propaganda and out right lies. Furthermore, unless you're on national cable TV for several hours at a time every day, I think your mistakes will mostly only affect a few people.
Maybe the difference is that I'm not looking for boogeymen under every bush and behind every tree.
As long as the boogeyman stays under the bush, we're fine. It's when he gets on TV and actually affects our nation's policies and elections that we have a problem.
I have no problem with bias in the media. But keep it on the editorial pages and in editorial segments. Don't carefully pick, choose, and frame stories that advocate a particular ideology. Don't insert opinions into the story as if they're part of the story:
"Some say FOX news is full of shit. Others say FOX news has no journalistic integrity."
Next time you watch it Trish, count how many times the bozos use that trick.
I have no problem with bias in the media. But keep it on the editorial pages and in editorial segments. Don't carefully pick, choose, and frame stories that advocate a particular ideology. Don't insert opinions into the story as if they're part of the story:
"Some say FOX news is full of shit. Others say FOX news has no journalistic integrity."
Next time you watch it Trish, count how many times the bozos use that trick.
There's a reason that this goes on over at Fox and his name is Roger Ailes. His daily memo on how various stories are to be approached and dealt with on the air is politically slanted to the right and so, therefore, is everything else that comes over the air that eminates from their offices. He's a former political operative who took his battle to television and became quite successful in following the lead of William Randolph Hearst of a century before. It's yellow journalism all over again (look it up).
[quote=ECW]
There's a reason that this goes on over at Fox and his name is Roger Ailes. His daily memo on how various stories are to be approached and dealt with on the air is politically slanted to the right and so, therefore, is everything else that comes over the air that eminates from their offices.
Yep........and there's a reason why this administration mainly gives their exclusive interviews to Fox.
JohnnyAwake
10-30-2007, 06:26 AM
Is that the up and coming pretenses for an Iran invasion?
preservanation
10-30-2007, 10:31 PM
Is that the up and coming pretenses for an Iran invasion?
If it meant that Iran wan not able to acquire nukes for weapons...would that be a good or a bad thing?
JohnnyAwake
10-30-2007, 10:37 PM
Is that the up and coming pretenses for an Iran invasion?
If it meant that Iran wan not able to acquire nukes for weapons...would that be a good or a bad thing?
If they were trying to acquire Nukes..maybe, but still preemptive and therefore illegal.
If they acquire exactly what the evidence suggests; nuclear power, then definitely not. Them following the letter of the law (especially concerning the Dual Use technology clause in the NPT..) is just as much their right as any other nation states.
preservanation
10-30-2007, 10:44 PM
Really?
I thought one of the aims of Ahmedinejad was to destroy Israel with his weapons.
I guess that doesn't include the nuclear variety.
I never anticipate this man or nation playing "fair".
If he's snowing the UN, he has learned that it aint that hard.
Please use the correct names of political leaders
jafar00
10-31-2007, 11:23 AM
Really?
I thought one of the aims of Ahmedinejad was to destroy Israel with his weapons.
I guess that doesn't include the nuclear variety.
Really? I was unaware that Ahmedinejad had made such a threat.
Scorpion
10-31-2007, 11:48 AM
Really?
I thought one of the aims of Ahmedinejad was to destroy Israel with his weapons.
I guess that doesn't include the nuclear variety.
Really? I was unaware that Ahmedinejad had made such a threat.
Really? Read this...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/10/26/204226.shtml
preservanation
10-31-2007, 11:07 PM
RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL
TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
You realize this is not my imagination?
Ahmedinejad is not only in the pocket of the Mullahs, but in the range of their rocket launcher.
If you are unaware of this you need to get out of your sand box.
gemosological
10-31-2007, 11:17 PM
Quoting Labrocca, post #42:
Lefties have a tendencies to believe that Al-Qaeda is a fuzzy warm organization that is only after Bush or soldiers. They aren't.
Sorry, Labrocca, but this liberal isn't that niave. Not near as naive about what al Qeada is all about as you are naive as to what Lefties are all about- and I'm a Lefty. I think you need to back up there a bit on your assumptions about Lefties, Labrocca. You might be a little ways out into "Left" field on that score.
As to the fires it looks like FOX got it wrong- AGAIN! I read last night that a boy who was playing with matches accidentally started one of those fires and admitted to it. But I reckon FOXnews has to do what it feels the need to do to keep up support for Bush&Co and the policies and mindsets they support. It isn't "right" but it is understandable. It's what all people who cannot admit to their mistakes do- point the finger and/or make insinuations and accusations about others in an attempt to divert attention away from themselves and their own misguided thinking.
Al Qeada has been in existence for a long time now, and there have been a lot of destructive and deadly fires in this country since Osama first appeared on the FBI most wanted posters in the Post Offices of this nation- including one in Los Alamos, NM that raged through the lab areas. What percentage of those fires do you think were started by al Qeada or Islamic Fundamentalists over the last 20 yrs? 90%? 50%? 10%?
RRD.
:-)
preservanation
10-31-2007, 11:26 PM
Lefties have been stimying every attempt for us to defend against AQ. That is my opinion.
I realized long ago that we are not only fighting the Muslim fascists but the left wing of the American political spectrum as well.
So be it, patriotic and security-minded Americans can beat them both.
No worries
You realize this is not my imagination?
I have no clue.......since you didn't leave any link.
preservanation
10-31-2007, 11:31 PM
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
So Now You've got a link, So now I've won you over?
Please.
This is getting ridiculous.
You people are so biased and petty
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
So Now You've got a link, So now I've won you over?
Nope.....not after reading the entire article. He was denounced by the higher clerics AND since they were talking about Iraq and it's desire to also get a nuke.........I have no clue when he said what he said.
Please.
This is getting ridiculous.
You people are so biased and petty
Asking for a link, so I can read the entire article is being biased and petty?
Hooooo Boy!
gemosological
11-01-2007, 12:52 AM
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
So Now You've got a link, So now I've won you over?
Nope.....not after reading the entire article. He was denounced by the higher clerics AND since they were talking about Iraq and it's desire to also get a nuke.........I have no clue when he said what he said.
Please.
This is getting ridiculous.
You people are so biased and petty
Asking for a link, so I can read the entire article is being biased and petty?
Hooooo Boy!
It is if the link is biased and petty, Lily! ;)
RRD.
:)
gemosological
11-01-2007, 03:26 AM
Lefties have been stimying every attempt for us to defend against AQ. That is my opinion.
I realized long ago that we are not only fighting the Muslim fascists but the left wing of the American political spectrum as well.
So be it, patriotic and security-minded Americans can beat them both.
No worries
So basically you're demonizing Leftists as unpatriotic and an enemy of America? You do remember that famous quote of Goebbels during the Nuremberg Trials, don't you? Ever wonder why Leftists- even moderate ones like myself- so often refer to folks like you as "Fascists" or "Nazis"? If you don't like being called or considered a Fascist or a Nazi then it might be a wise idea to quit acting, thinking and talking like one. Just a word to the wise.
RRD
;)
Lefties have been stimying every attempt for us to defend against AQ
We should not have to defend against AQ. AQ should be gone.
We have spent 6 years and a projected 2.4 TRILLION dollars and AQ still exists? Why?
Lefties getting in the way?
Well hell, I hate to tell you this Preservation, but so call lefties jumped head and feet into the war in Iraq without so much as a decent inquiry beforehand as to whether it was necessary. They both coddled and cowered from Bush for the first 4 years or so of this war. It has only been since about 70% or more of the American public has changed its mind about the war, that these so called lefties have had any courage to raise a decent challenge to Bush's foreign policy.
No, lefties have not got in the way at all. The blame for this disaster and the reason AQ still threatens us and our allies is due 100% to the absolute jackass incompetence of the righties in the Bush administration.
gemosological
11-01-2007, 03:42 AM
Lefties have been stimying every attempt for us to defend against AQ
We should not have to defend against AQ. AQ should be gone.
We have spent 6 years and a projected 2.4 TRILLION dollars and AQ still exists? Why?
Lefties getting in the way?
Well hell, I hate to tell you this Preservation, but so call lefties jumped head and feet into the war in Iraq without so much as a decent inquiry beforehand as to whether it was necessary. They both coddled and cowered from Bush for the first 4 years or so of this war. It has only been since about 70% or more of the American public has changed its mind about the war, that these so called lefties have had any courage to raise a decent challenge to Bush's foreign policy.
No, lefties have not got in the way at all. The blame for this disaster and the reason AQ still threatens us and our allies is due 100% to the absolute jackass incompetence of the righties in the Bush administration.
AMEN!!!
RRD
:thumbsup: :fight:
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.