[sourcery]

The authorities recognize fire as a terrorist threat, that's all I am saying.

And it's a plausible threat. The fires, or some of them, may in fact have been set by terrorists. But a wildfire is not like a bomb going off in a nightclub, or a hijacked jetliner crashing into a skyscraper. It's far more likely to simply be a natural disaster.

If someone keeps shooting out your car windows, and your tires, and your pets start turning up missing or obviously killed on purpose, you would start to suspect that someone really doesn't like you. But when a wildfire burns down your house, you have car accident, your wife gets cancer, and your cat gets leukemia, it's certainly possible that someone doesn't like you, but there are other, more likely, explanations. Unless, of course, you receive a letter that makes demands, and offers proof of culpability...

[Unknowing]

Indeed, based on the preponderance of the evidence that we have now, these fires are a terrible disaster.

And I'd like to think that we have the terrorists at bay -- Guantanamo Bay.

[gridlock]

I would bet you dollars to donuts that somebody has already claimed responsibility for these fires on behalf of al Qaeda. They take responsible for everything, including an earthquake a few weeks ago. But such a claim would probably be discounted, wouldn't it?

If this is part of a disorganized effort by al Qaeda, isn't this exactly what it would look like? Isolated fires could easily be set by one or two people inserted as sleepers. The start of Ramadan would be a natural date to trigger the activities. If it is an isolated cell, they would not be claiming responsibility, or would be discounted if they did.

We may never know for sure. But to discount the possibility is to live with one's head in the sand.