Posted on 04/15/2019 10:33:16 AM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder
Very good!
Unless you can point to someplace where that actually happened, you're engaging in slander. Last time I checked, that was not Christian behavior.
Slander is not expecting a group of people would act in a way consistent with how they have in general before. Instead, it is special pleading to deny they would not when certain of them have evidenced acerbic animosity in the past such as charging that Protestantism is a false religion, belief in one’s self, who have no faith in Christ, no foundation for their superficial understanding of Christianity, who are by inclination vandals, evil fruit, ignorant, biblically illiterate, typically intellectually dishonest, absolutely alien to Christianity, a false religion, a bizarre and false religion, a mass of sheer rot, a heretical brand of Christianity, who completely reject Christ, belief in one’s self, with no foundation for their understanding of Christianity, and are unable to defend it.
It is hardly tenable to think that certain RCs who seem to long for the days and means of the Inquisition (and would include pope Francis in that number) and justify the burning of heretics would contain their animosity at the news of one of the icons of the Reformation going up in some, at least in the same way that the Protestant expressed animosity toward Rome here.
NBC News reporting there were two fires: “Michel Picaud, from the Friends of Notre Dame organization responsible for the renovation efforts at the cathedral, told NBC News that, to his knowledge, the church’s organ and stained glass windows were not damaged. ‘The entire roof is fully destroyed,’ Picaud said. ‘The fire started up near the roof top while another fire started in the north bell tower.’”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/europe/notr...es-n994646
Grossly negligent planning. The problems with fighting high fires at Notre Dame have been obvious to anyone for hundreds of years. The risks it could become a target (even if this proves to be an accident) have been obvious, at least since 911. The French government should have planned for this years ago, should have arranged for any necessary fire fighting infrastructure and drilled on its use. Its either the most valuable structure in the country or #2 to the Louvre, and fires at the Louvre would be much easier to fight. Macron's residence would be a much smaller loss and would let him play the victim instead of the fool. The panic button should have been pushed at the first wiff of smoke there and the plan started.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry’s height,
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns!
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country-folk to be up and to arm.”
That was my reaction as well.
A man of action suggesting action, vs a do-nothing talker with mellifluous woke slogans and meaningless pap.
Bookmark
Two fires at once, and it isn’t arson?
Amen
I personally am going to reserve judgement for the time being. I hope to God it isn’t Islamic in origin.
I hope it is Islamic. It will take something to wake up the europeans The last group of attacks didn’t seem to stir the pot
+1
When I visited Notre Dame cathedral in 1989 I was struck by all the little indications of lackadaisical care of the property. I don't mean that it showed signs of neglect, but it looked to me like it wasn't being cared for to a degree befitting its historical value and cultural status.
It just seemed to me that the French had less regard and respect for this world class treasure than I did, and I'm neither French nor Catholic.
They were doing renovations. It’s a roof fire. The structure is still standing. Know any roofers??
how can arson be ruled out while the fire is still blazing?
iirc arson investigations typically explore all available forensic evidence, and in this case in particular, i would imagine that it would involve attempts to detect the presence of accelerant byproducts.
if this is not done, then what prevents the presumption of a cover-up? what is the purpose of a pre-emptive declaration that arson is not involved if not to preclude any arson investigation? why prejudice an investigation that has barely begun?
Reasonable post. Of course arson can’t be ruled out while the building is still aflame and before a team of forensic experts examine the entire building for evidence.
Jack’s been at it again!
I’m not sure it has been ruled in or out. If you imagine the knock-on effect(s) of the French finding out that it WAS arson, it should not surprise that the spin has already begun to find that it was not. They can’t afford to find this anything but an accident.
Just so similar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.