Well, here's a turn up for the books.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsw-bushfires-army-blamed

"The federal government is taking very seriously reports that Army training sparked the biggest of several bushfires, a day after firefighters averted potential disaster in Blue Mountains and Hunter regions."

"Blue Mountains mayor Mark Greenhill spoke to ABC.

I would have hoped on a day like that which was a dry day, a hot day, with the winds - the Australian military would have known it was not a good day to be igniting.

The fire has caused great concern to my community, great damage to my community and it just shouldn't have happened."

So on a very hot dry day, even though there was no complete fire ban in place, the army decides to train with munitions.

Dumb.

Poirot, possibly these army bods were wearing their jungle GREENS at the time. It would fit in nicely with the title of the discussion. Are the Greens responsible for loss of property due to fire? Absolutely, we can now all agree.

Bit out of date there, Paul, the Amy now wear camoflauge.

Is Mise, How do you know that? "the Amy now wear camoflauge." You can't see them, they are camouflaged. Now if there were dressed in yellow chicken suits, I could understand it, that would be a different john dory.

Not on a winner with that, Paul1405...

"You can't see them, they are camouflaged."

If you can't see them it would be because they were wearing invisibility cloaks, à la Harry Potter. As opposed to being camouflaged (as in concealed).

However, since the camouflage they wear is a Disruptive Pattern uniform, to 'fit in nicely with the title of the discussion' it might have expand to become: Are the Distruptive Patterns of the Greens responsible for loss of property due to fire?

I don't know what Amy wears. Probably whatever takes her fancy.

Now you do know what a smart arse remark is, you just made one.