Australia: Arson jihad: Muslim migrant sets crowded bank ABLAZE, 27 injured, children burned

[TomSea]

Arson jihad: Muslim migrant sets crowded bank ABLAZE, 27 injured, children burned
By Pamela Geller - on November 18, 2016

A Muslim migrant has started a fire at a bank in Melbourne, setting himself alight and injuring at least 26 people, police said. Six of them are in critical condition, while others suffered from burns and smoke inhalation – including children. Police said the suspect walked into a Commonwealth Bank branch in the suburb of Springvale and used an inflammable liquid to start the fire.

The migrant who allegedly set himself on fire in a suburban Melbourne bank is believed to be a refugee from Myanmar, also known as Burma, living in Australia on a bridging visa. He is a member of the Rohingya minority, a Muslim Indo-Aryan people who live mainly in the Rakhine state of Myanmar.

Sources told the Herald Sun that the 21-year-old arrived on one of the 300 boats carrying more than 20,000 Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) in 2013 under the Gillard-Rudd government. The alleged attacker was transferred to Christmas Island before settling in Melbourne on a bridging visa, which allowed him to temporarily live in the community while his claim was processed.

Continued: http://pamelageller.com/2016/11/arson-jihad-muslim-migrant-sets-crowded-bank-ablaze-27-injured-children-burned-australia.html/

[Wingnut]

You learn something every day!

Question: What Is the Difference Between Flammable and Inflammable?

Flammable and inflammable are two words that are commonly confusing. You can tell both words pertain to flames, but it's difficult to know whether they mean the same thing or are opposites.

Answer: Flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing... burns easily.

Why are there two different words? According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, back in the 1920s the National Fire Protection Association urged people to start using the word 'flammable' instead of 'inflammable' (which is the original word) because they were concerned some people might think inflammable meant not-flammable. Actually, the in- in inflammable was derived from the Latin preposition meaning en- (like enflamed), not the Latin prefix meaning -un. It's not like everyone knew the derivation of the word, so the change probably made sense. However, confusion persists today regarding which word to use.