GREEK FIRE

Greece may be under assault, with fires burning in over half of the country. The vast majority of blazes were likely set deliberately (the Prime Minister is already claiming this), given the geographical breadth and the number of new events. For example, over a 24 hour period 200 new fires were started across the country. The timing of these attacks could not have been worse (or selected with more care): a heatwave, a dry winter, strong winds, and lots of fuel have combined to make these fires deadly.

What is even more troubling, according to my Greek sources, is that most of the fires have been set around the country's biggest electricity plants. So the potential for a cascading cycle of damage, where the fires knock out electricity production which in turn hampers relief is in the offing. If this is true, on the cheap systems disruption on a strategic scale may have made it's debut in a modern country. The ROIs on this attack are going to be amazing and it looks like the loss in legitimacy the current government is suffering will decide the upcoming election.

Comments

[Duncan Kinder]

A relevant book:

_Fire and Water: The Art of Incendiary and Aquatic Warfare in China_ by Ralph D. Sawyer and Mei-Chun Lee Sawyer

http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Water-Incendiary-Aquatic-Warfare/dp/0813340659/ref=sr_1_4/002-9992735-5789603?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188228578&sr=1-4

[Timbers]

Imperial Japan planned to set Western US forests ablaze in World War II. The Japanese launched fūsen bakudan (balloon bombs) from Honshu. These fire bombs were hydrogen-filled balloons carrying incendiary devices. The expected mass devastation never happened, although there was one very close call. An incendiary landed near Hanford, Washington, on March 10, 1945 and interrupted electric power to a nuclear reactor's cooling system. A secondary system took over and prevented a meltdown. Another fire bomb did kill a woman and five children near Bly, Oregon, on May 5, 1945.

[Walter]

I've always wondered why terrorists don't set fires in southern California. When the winds are blowing right, one guy with a box of matches and a Jeep could start enough fires before lunchtime to cause tens of billions in economic losses and quite probably kill at least a thousand people.

I take the absence of such activity as just another point of evidence that there are very, very, very few terrorists (possibly none) roaming about the United States.

[Russell120]

"The timing of these attacks could not have been worse (or selected with more care): a heatwave, a dry winter, strong winds, and lots of fuel have combined to make these fires deadly".

Or it could be that the usual random collection of fires has become out of control because of those conditions. A number of years ago there was a big story about church burning throughout the Southern US. What was ignored by the press was that churches burn down all the time, and that the number of churches that burned down were well within the upper limit of the expected norm.

It should also be noted that people intentionally set fire to things (including forests) for non-terroristic reasons all the time. The "logic" behind these acts are a bit elusive, but they none-the-less do occur.

[Cavolonero]

" I've always wondered why terrorists don't set fires in southern California ... "

Same thing, we were up late talking about how vulnerable the US would be to terrorism ( this was about an Earth Age ago ) and came up with ' you know all you'd have to do it rent or steal a light plane like a Cessna in Mexico or someplace and fly up the coast of CA and drop a road flare every so often, maybe on a windy day ... ' : (

[Nic]

Most likley deliberately set fires wern't motivated by terrorism. In lots of places a fire is a good employment opportunity. People have been known to set them with the aim of subsequently being paid to help put them out later. The problem now is that they seem to have got out of hand.

[Nic]

"I've always wondered why terrorists don't set fires in southern California"

Not that difficult. Either there aren'y many terrorists.

Or, and more importantly IMHO, a bush fire doesn't have the symbolic power of an exploding vehicle. They are also easier to spot from a long way off. People won't fear a bush fires killing them every time they drive to the mall or take their kids to school. Bush fires aren't going to terrorise more then a few.

[Whitespiral]

It is very unlikely that this was motivated by people who get paid to extinguish fires as the private contractors (Erickson Skycrane et al) are proportionately very few compared to the Fire Department, Police, Air Force etc.

If it were motivated by greed it would be by developers, but after an already heavy fire season it is certain these lands will be classified as "protected" in order for reforestation to occur.

There is a huge political storm raging now in Greece, with the incumbent government declaring the country is in danger from "asymetrical threats", and the challengers basically defending themselves saying "we didn't do it" and blaming the government for striking fear into the hearts of citizens...(Of course one would think that with half the country already in flames, fear would somehow already be present).

Oh, and the third and fourth parties (communist) saying its all a two-party system conspiracy to keep them out of parliament.

Some more stuff that I already emailed to John:

During the '96 and '97 fires in Greece, it was widely reported that the events were directly linked to the strained Greco-Turkish relations of the time.

This time, it is certain that it's arson, and that it's organized on a huge scale. No reliable information has surfaced with regard to the possible culprits however...

Gossip includes:

-Anarchist groups

-Extreme supporters of the Socialist, Center-Left Party (PASOK). Elections are in two weeks-PASOK are the challengers.

-Turkish agents. Turkey is undergoing many internal convulsions with edgy Presidential Elections, the Kurdish problem etc. Historically, Turkey frequently "exports" any internal crises it faces.

-US. This latest (and most unlikely) theory holds that the US is avenging this Greek administration's strategic alignment with Russia on petropolitics in the region, by showing it as incompetent two weeks prior to the election. (Pipeline deals etc.)

[adam]

I've got to confess as a terrorist weapon a bottle of Jack Daniels, a rock and some sunshine has got to be the outer limit in portability. Its odd because I've just got out of the DVD locker a film by the BBC about a perfect fire-storm that basically burns Sydney to the ground. Cause? A drought and a group of drunks.

I don't actually think that the Greek fires are caused by terrorists, but they are really bad. Without any evidence of political intent then its unlikely to have been a political statement. Plus, as Nic notes, terrorists prefer things that go bang and Greek terrorists have had, in the past, access to all sorts of military kit including rockets. According to my notes someone launched a rocket at the US embassy in Athens in January of this year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16587785/

So, if they've got rockets, why are they bothering with small rural fires?

Russell,

I think you might be underplaying the 1996 Southern church fires a little. At the time there was intense interest in the fires. The key issue was that race relations are never good - and never will be until slavery is re-established - in the American South, and it was only a year earlier that the Oklahoma bombing had shown what a group of white-supremacists were capable of.

1996 was a time (now seen as a time of peace and prosperity) when howling-mad far-right radio commentators were demanding the deaths of Federal agents (via head shot as I recall) and announcing their hatred of affirmative action, presumably as a code word for black. Today its the people that these radio commentators thought were good that are in charge of the US. Small wonder the US has seen her international reputation plunge.

In 1996 over an 18 month period more than 30 churches were destroyed by arson in the rural South. The churches that went up were predominantly black churches and those that were not were multiracial. One mosque was also burned out. Oddly enough white churches appeared to be rather more
fireproof. I guess that white-frequented places are less easily inflamed (Sorry, a Yes Minister joke).

In fact as I recall in 1996 roughly one church a week was destroyed in a single county in Alabama during a 3 week period. The county next door also had a string of similar fires. As did the one just over state the border in Tennessee. The odds of that occurring without human intervention are beyond astronomical. "Once is coincidence, twice is enemy action" as my old boss used to mutter. In fact a man was arrested and charged with all of these fires. I've no idea if he was found guilty.

In another case, in Knoxville, anti-black graffiti was found on the wall of the church, along with evidence that molotov cocktails had been used to start the fire. This particular church was the fifth black church to be burnt down in Tennessee that year.

The depressing reality is that for many people the burned out churches represented a return to the civil rights struggle, when black churches in the South were routinely burned by Southern whites. After all, for oppressed minorities, religion is often a good place to meet, discuss, and to organise. In Iran in the early to mid 1970s the Mosques provided the only place where serious political discussions could occur (they were the only place that the SAVAAK secret police did not intrude. To be fair to SAVAK they didn't burn the mosques out, preferring to burn out cinemas). Similarly in the South during 1950s and 1960s religion provided the organisers and leaders for the black community.

Actually the role of religion in the civil rights movement is quite instructive about today's radical Islam. Not so long ago a black person wanting a religious education in the US faced prosecution, because learning was against the law. Despite that religion won. One bright point in the whole mess was that after around 2 years the white churches led by Ralph Reed offered some support.

What was missing in the case of the 1996 church fires was evidence of a conspiracy. It was simply a whole bunch of sad men (mainly wannabes, halfwits, dimwits, skinheads, Aryan Nation and the Klan) deciding one after the other to burn a church. Personally I'd rather that there was a conspiracy, because conspiracies are easier to track down and arrest than a bunch of gits who need girlfriends. According to my notes 75% of the fires went unsolved. It didn't help the politics when a bunch of ATF agents got caught on camera doing a pro-KKK skit at their annual "Good Ole Boys" convention. Really. Sometimes you just want to bang your head against a wall at how dumb some Americans are.

In 2006 the fires started up again, although as I recall it was three rich white Baptists who were, depressingly, simply bored and, again, in need of girlfriends.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4731578.stm

The solution to the fire raising problem is obvious - American girls need to be willing to go out with the nutcases. Its their patriotic duty ;-D.

[NietzschesGhost]

Posted by: adam

"It was simply a whole bunch of sad men (mainly wannabes, halfwits, dimwits, skinheads, Aryan Nation and the Klan) deciding one after the other to burn a church."

It's interesting that you should bring that up. That could be interpreted as an example of emergent homegrown stigmergic terrorism.

Imagine if individual actors picked up and acted on cues made by Timothy McVeigh? The situation could quickly spiral out of control.

[Marcello]

I can't speak for Greece but in Italy it is believed that the culprits usually are the people in the reforestation businness. More fires means more jobs, especially in areas where there are not many others opportunities.

[James OMeara]

"1996 was a time (now seen as a time of peace and prosperity) when howling-mad far-right radio commentators were demanding the deaths of Federal agents (via head shot as I recall) and announcing their hatred of affirmative action, presumably as a code word for black. Today its the people that these radio commentators thought were good that are in charge of the US. Small wonder the US has seen her international reputation plunge."

How convenient that you don't "recall" the name of the commentator. That was G. Gordon Liddy, whose "howling mad far right" plug for Mr. Robb's book is prominently displayed up top, right under the NY Times blurb. Guess it all depends whose ox is being gored, eh?

[adam]

James,

I don't recall it because I really didn't recall it. Nothing suspicious there. Its a decade ago, after all, and my comment was on the atmosphere of the time rather than a history of race-hate fires in the American South. Its hard to recall now but there really was a fear of a white-inspired race war led by white failures and motivated by far-right radio.

I do recall Liddy as a Watergate conspirator and a man who was sentenced to 20 years in prison if that makes you feel better.

I've no personal connection to John's excellent book though I would say that any reviewer can say anything they like about it, especially if it is constructive. John deserves it for his hard work.

On the other hand if you think that anyone (a reviewer of John's book or otherwise) advocating shooting people in the head is a good thing for a society, fair enough.

[Russell120]

I found this with about 2 minutes of searching:

http://www.fumento.com/column8.html

1996 a year of racial tension? That's like saying 1991 was the year Satanic cults in daycares because the media kept reporting on it. It is called hysteria.

Of course churches are burned down. People burn stuff down all the time. There is even a problem (reported but not well known) with fireman setting fires so that they can be heroic and put them out. People are crazier then we realize.

[adam]

Russell,

Good old Michael Fumento. He's very much from the American far-right, very pro-big business. The article you refer to is one that's meant to be attacking Clinton and his supporters, rather than having anything useful to say. So lets look at the article, its well worded but there's really nothing there, except in the last paragraph when Fumento then says:

"By claiming there has been an epidemic of black church burnings, it appears that in recent months they have actually caused one. "

Ah. Hang on. That would mean that the entire babble beforehand was irrelevant. Apparently even Fumento is saying that there is indeed currently "an epidemic of black church burnings". That'd be really, really awkward for his point. Still, no reason to explain or analyse it, merely because this is a piece of analysis. Fumento just lets the readers have a quick laugh at people giving crazy people ideas by being publicly concerned about something important and move on quickly. Fumento almost, but not quite, says that there is a history of vindictiveness against blacks in the South. (He does have a nice KKK cross to the side. he also forgets to mention that whilst the KKK declined, but never vanished, in the 1980s they were largely replaced by other groups such as the Aryan Nation.)

Of course if he emphasises any of that it means that the blacks might have very good reason to be concerned and so cannot be told off for being childishly worried. Actually I'm disturbingly reminded of a very old BBC TV series called "Star Cops" where police officers routinely throw their work onto the computer. In this case a group of murderers used improved safety standards to hide their murders. As long as the dead were within the statistical boundaries the police computer would never catch on. In Fumentos world if people you know have been lynched, you shouldn't worry about a bunch of suicides involving hangings.

Fumento is, lets face it, a lawyer. He has no background in science, statistics or Middle Eastern politics. I came across him in my undergraduate years I read (well, to be honest, vaguely-read the first couple of chapters and conclusion and then giggled at) his book on how concerns over heterosexual transmission of AIDS was all a Liberal Conspiracy created by the evil Latte drinkers.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Heterosexual-AIDS-Michael-Fumento/dp/0465098037/ref=sr_1_2/026-1557995-6474853?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188457420&sr=8-2

Of course in the decades since millions of people have since died in Africa, at least from heterosexual transmission, and the West has spent billions of dollars in learning how to cope with the disease. The campaign against AIDS remains a major success in the near-eternal "war against disease". Still, I guess those are just awkward facts. Strangely after this particular prediction proved groundless he moved off AIDS to become an expert in Agrochemicals (He's big on using DDT).

To be fair his method is simple, choose a problem that a lot of people are worried about and working incredibly hard on. Then announce that it isn't really a problem. If they then solve the problem (and some pretty smart people are normally working in the field), hey-presto. If they don't then make sure you've moved onto something else first. I note that he hasn't turned his books onto global warming so presumably he thinks that that's still insoluble.

Now a normal scientist is an expert in his field, he's read hundreds of books and learned articles. A normal scientist is careful in his judgements and nuanced in his understanding. On the other hand the dilettante journalist reads one book and "ka-zam" can argue that the expert isn't right. Fumento went from Law (which I'll cheerfully grant him expertise at) to Virology and Infectious Diseases to Agro-Chemistry. A true renaissance man.

I recall him most recently for his getting chopped to pieces over an article that he wrote on the number of (Iraqi) dead in Iraq when it quickly became clear that he cannot handle A-Level statistics. This doesn't surprise me, he's a lawyer, not a mathematician. Fumento's position on Iraq can be summarised as perhaps 3 Iraqis have died in the occupation, all from drunkenness / alcohol poisoning / sexual exhaustion during their wild orgiastic pro-American celebrations. I have slight doubts.

Even so, you're quite right, people are crazier than anyone else can imagine. Even so my point is that many people were very worried for what seemed like good reasons at the time. So the police went and looked and said that there wasn't any evidence. So many people stopped worrying. I'd quibble about the word hysterical - the Iraqi WMD fiasco, Guantanamo and the PATRIOT act are hysterical, investigating a not unreasonable suspicion using the police surely isn't.

[Jay]

I've read that Muslims consider fire to be a weapon of God (e.g. hellfire) that no mortal is justified in using. The US Army took a bad publicity hit a few years ago when they were found to have burned some bodies in Afghanistan (for sanitary reasons, but it angered the locals).

I tried a quick Google search, but couldn't confirm it. The search terms are too common. Can anyone confirm/deny?

[adam]

Jay,

As I recall back then the issue that the Afghans had was that the US troops had bumped off a couple of farmers / Taliban / whatever, taking some casualties among their local Afghan troops, and then burned all the bodies, which meant that the burial rites that Islam requires could not be undertaken.

This was part of my degree a long time ago so its fairly close to the issue. Cremation really isn't part of Islamic burial tradition (I think that's where the fire as a weapon issue comes from, in Islam if its not a nuke, you can use it) and cremation is definitely not something normal in Afghanistan so the remaining Pro-US Afghan troops didn't take it very well, hence the problem.

Cremation is an odd thing in Christianity. It was unusual in the US until quite recently (assuming that American Indians don't count). The first known US cremation was 1792, the second was 1876. Afghanistan is, traditionally, somewhat more conservative than the US. Even in Europe cremation is highly contentious. Protestants cremate a lot more often than Catholics and far more than Orthodox - its around 70% in the now largely atheist UK, maybe 10% in Catholic Spain, and its completely illegal in Orthodox Greece. Asian nations that are not Judeo-Christian cremate a lot more than even the Protestants, in Japan its nearly 100%.

Theologically in Christianity cremation is dodgy - it appears in Samuel 31:12 where some rotted bodies are partially burned then buried, in Amos 2:1 its strictly forbidden by God, and in Amos 6:8 its OK when casualties are around 9 in 10. Its worth noting that when God burns people to death, as he apparently so enjoys, its not cremation, there are smoking remains to be buried (Leviticus 10:1 and 10:5).

Naturally the US troops in Afghanistan didn't know, or claimed that they didn't know, or care to know these things - they had some awkward bodies and plenty of fuel. What happened next blew the situation up.

Some bored PSYOPs troops decided to use the loudspeaker system to tell everyone in the area that US troops burned bodies, making sure that everyone in that part of Afghanistan was aware that Americans were, shall we say, unbelievers. And the Islamic response to an unbeliever occupying an Islamic land is? A Defensive Jihad, just like Bin Laden has said. Ooops. Great thing to say in front of your allies.

Don't get me wrong, desecration of the enemy corpse is a standard part of any war. Lets take the situation in Iraq and the four Blackwater mercenaries who got caught wandering early on. The whole process of dragging the bodies, hacking them to pieces, burning the carcass, and leaving it exposed to the elements is a deliberate reversal of Iraqi funeral rituals where the body is treated gently and with reverence - its bathed, shrouded, prayed over, carried in a funeral procession and buried in the ground.

A rather good article on the specifically Islamic thinking behind desecration and the fatwas relating to it can be found in Anthropoetics 12, no. 2,

Funeral rites are very important in Islamic theology - as they are in most religions. In Islamic places where politics and religion mix they can be very powerful indeed. In 1979 the Islamic revolutionaries used the end of the 40 day mourning period after massacres led by the US-back Shah to return to the site of the slaughter and hold rallies for the dead. The Shah's military, although quite happy to shoot housewives, really didn't want to start killing priests (or the hundreds of thousands of supporters than came out with them).

Anyway the CENTCOM piece of propaganda about the specific incident is here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/11/mil-051128-usia01.htm

A more reality based piece is here:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18205