[banjo joe]

The watermelons knew this would happen. Question: what's their objective in seeing so much forested land destroyed? I either don't get it or am too naive. Your comments appreciated.

[ClearCase_guy]

Question: what's their objective in seeing so much forested land destroyed? I either don't get it or am too naive. Your comments appreciated.

You give them too much credit. IMO almost all of the Left's craziness comes down to this: If an idea feels good, then it is good.

The first idea is "leave the forest alone". Now, isn't that nice? The other idea is "protect the forest". That's a nice idea too, isn't it? But, taken together, this means: let fallen limbs and trees build up. Do not clear this tinder. A waist-deep layer of dry rotting wood is perfectly fine for a forest. Also, if a small fire starts, make sure to put it out. This saves the forest (today) but lets that layer of dry, dead wood get ever higher.

Then, when a fire gets out of control and cannot be stopped, it will become massively out of control and huge areas of the forest will be destroyed. All because the Leftists had two nice ideas, but didn't understand the big picture.

[editor-surveyor]

"Question: what's their objective in seeing so much forested land destroyed?"

It's called "Rural Clensing." - Their objective is to implement U.N. Agenda 21, which calls for forcing people out of rural areas and into the teeming urban cesspools where they are more easily controlled.

The environmental angle is a ruse to cover up a deceitful, and depraved social agenda.