3 ms·

Are you saying the investigators think it was arson? Wikipedia says the "Paris prosecutor" has said they don't believe it was a deliberate act, but I'm curious

Are you saying the investigators think it was arson? Wikipedia says the "Paris prosecutor" has said they don't believe it was a deliberate act, but I'm curious what you're referring to.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
You can agree or disagree that it’s almost certain that there is evidence that has not been made public, that a statement from a prosecutor might look the same if they knew it was arson or really didn’t think it was, you can fully argue the difference in reasons for why that might be the case. But... do you really not know or are you being obtuse to pretend you don’t know what he is saying? If you are pretending, don’t. He’s already being downvoted for implying it (this site and it’s bubble mechanics; chilling effect, better not say anything that the hive will disagree with) so i wouldn’t expect him to explicitly say what we all know he said - again - agree or disagree if he’s right or not.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago
  I really don't know. What are you two talking about?
  - netsharc 7y ago
    I think they're hinting it's arson by people who hate Christianity (i.e. Islamic extremists), but authorities are covering it up because publishing that "truth" would cause a religious civil war (national security danger), and they also can't write that "truth" here because they'll be downvoted (oh the horrors, downvotes!!). It's fucking disgusting how cowardly these couple of commenters are, but also how many seems to have showed up on this thread.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      Not saying I can't say that here. Just keeping with the style of the report here. I mean, I don't think I'm obscuring anything, literally mentioning arson in the next breath. I just had the one comment, I don't spend my lonely hours refreshing the threads page on HN, waiting for people to complain about the way something is said rather than addressing it. Who cares who is "cowardly" for not writing everything purely literally? Given that the incentives are there, and the most important part of a root cause analysis, the root cause, is missing, what makes you think it isn't the one thing they have an interest in obscuring? I mean, I basically yelled arson, how much am I obscuring? > (i.e. Islamic extremists) The French media I've seen have also relayed concern about radical feminisim, generic black bloc communism, or other ideologies with extreme elements.
tasogare 7y ago
The prosecutor job is to look at anything but the most likely cause, in this case arson. And even if the government/justice admit it, then they would try to hide the community of the offender(s). Like microcolonel wrote it, there has been quite a few other cases in other churches (including some in Paris) a few months and weeks before. In fact the Vatican counted attacks against churches in 2018 (iirc): one every two days! That fact alone is also not talked about in news outlets (which is very different from the media treatment of other religions building attack). We will probably never learn the truth because its implication is too big for the national security.

Are you saying the investigators think it was arson? Wikipedia says the "Paris prosecutor" has said they don't believe it was a deliberate act, but I'm curious what you're referring to.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

You can agree or disagree that it’s almost certain that there is evidence that has not been made public, that a statement from a prosecutor might look the same if they knew it was arson or really didn’t think it was, you can fully argue the difference in reasons for why that might be the case. But... do you really not know or are you being obtuse to pretend you don’t know what he is saying? If you are pretending, don’t. He’s already being downvoted for implying it (this site and it’s bubble mechanics; chilling effect, better not say anything that the hive will disagree with) so i wouldn’t expect him to explicitly say what we all know he said - again - agree or disagree if he’s right or not.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago
I really don't know. What are you two talking about?
- netsharc 7y ago
  I think they're hinting it's arson by people who hate Christianity (i.e. Islamic extremists), but authorities are covering it up because publishing that "truth" would cause a religious civil war (national security danger), and they also can't write that "truth" here because they'll be downvoted (oh the horrors, downvotes!!). It's fucking disgusting how cowardly these couple of commenters are, but also how many seems to have showed up on this thread.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    Not saying I can't say that here. Just keeping with the style of the report here. I mean, I don't think I'm obscuring anything, literally mentioning arson in the next breath. I just had the one comment, I don't spend my lonely hours refreshing the threads page on HN, waiting for people to complain about the way something is said rather than addressing it. Who cares who is "cowardly" for not writing everything purely literally? Given that the incentives are there, and the most important part of a root cause analysis, the root cause, is missing, what makes you think it isn't the one thing they have an interest in obscuring? I mean, I basically yelled arson, how much am I obscuring? > (i.e. Islamic extremists) The French media I've seen have also relayed concern about radical feminisim, generic black bloc communism, or other ideologies with extreme elements.

tasogare 7y ago

The prosecutor job is to look at anything but the most likely cause, in this case arson. And even if the government/justice admit it, then they would try to hide the community of the offender(s). Like microcolonel wrote it, there has been quite a few other cases in other churches (including some in Paris) a few months and weeks before. In fact the Vatican counted attacks against churches in 2018 (iirc): one every two days! That fact alone is also not talked about in news outlets (which is very different from the media treatment of other religions building attack). We will probably never learn the truth because its implication is too big for the national security.