Investigating "involuntary destruction by fire" (French
source) explicitly affirms that they are not investigating with arson nor terrorism as their suspected cause. Y'know. That's what it means when they state what it is they are investigating. They could've chosen to remain silent or to "remain open to all possibilities."
It means exactly what it means, that they have no evidence of a terrorist attack. That doesn't mean that they are automatically excluding an attack, it merely means that they have not enough evidence (yet) to assume otherwise. This is how the law works, based on the presumption of innocence. You cannot just open a criminal investigation without evidence or justified suspicion.
If during their investigation they find evidence leading to a possible terrorist attack, this will change. When Smollett made his claims, the police didn't automatically investigate fraud because they had no reason to do so. When evidence came fourth, the investigators reacted accordingly. This is not any different.
So no, their investigation does not exclude the possibility of an attack and you have no argument to prove otherwise.
By stating that they are not investigating those as possible causes so early in the investigation will raise eyebrows. They didn't have to rule it out this early.
Again, that is not what they are saying. They opened the investigation on the premise of this being an accident, because they have found no reason to assume the contrary so far. Stop insinuating that they ruled out any possibility of a terrorist act. That's just not true and I gave you video evidence of that!
Stop asking me to back up claims about connections for Islamic terrorism when it has nothing to do with my standpoint. Problem solved.
Insulting somebody because they are asking you to present receipts is not the way to have proper discussion. Either there are "connections to Islamic terrorism" and we need proper evidence for that, or there aren't. So far, none have been provided, except for factually incorrect statements.
Illogical. Evidence (or lack thereof) of the French gov't covering up previous Islamic attacks doesn't absolve them or condemn them in this situation, seeing how we don't yet know how the fire was started nor if anyone caused it on purpose. So, if I somehow fulfilled your unrelated question (either by proving it or by admitting I couldn't give an example of a cover-up), you have still failed to explain how that relates to the current situation.
If you want me to accept that the French government acted irresponsible in this manner and "jumped to conclusions" because they "exclude the possibility of an attack" (your own words) then I want concrete evidence as to why I should be suspicious of their official statement. Failing to provide an answer as to why the government would be interested in covering up a terrorist attack or, raising doubt by presenting evidence that they have done so in the past, gives me no reason to assume that the french officials aren't doing their job properly.
I'll repeat it yet again that I never assumed malice nor voluntary deception. Go ahead and quote me where I've said that or implied it.
Did I say that you did that? No. I was referring to the conspirators that you were invoking in the context of this discussion, because quite evidently they are doing exactly that. I've merely pointed out to you that their assumptions are preposterous, because the French government would have absolutely no interest in covering this up by "jumping to conclusions" and has never done so in the past. Failing to provide any sufficient argument as to why it would be any different in this case, gives me absolutely no reason to take these conspiracies seriously.
I am pointing out the result of recklessly coming out with these statements so soon.
And I've pointed out that the official statements were neither reckless, nor too soon. They are factually correct, correspond to the present state of knowledge and do not exclude the possibility of an attack as you so erroneously claim.
"Reckless" carries a different meaning than "intentional malice". The word implies nothing about motives. It merely describes behavior. Yes, I am blaming them for being irresponsible, and the evidence of conspirators using their statements to push more conspiracy has been posted (by me) several times already.
You know what would be irresponsible? Whipping the French population into a frenzy and a social panic by alluding to a terrorist attack without any evidence whatsoever (this is exactly how Covington happened). If anything, the officials have reacted quite reasonable so far, avoiding to scapegoat an easy target only to satisfy people's lust for blood.
The only reason why people are unsatisfied with this response is because they did not get the satisfaction of blaming this on somebody. The possibility of this being nothing more than an accident is a tough pill to swallow
Wrong again. I am pointing out how reckless it is. Never once did I claim the French government was intentionally misleading the public or trying to cover up a terrorist attack.
Quite evidently the conspirators you've linked to are very much convinced of exactly that... and it's silly.
But again, you've had the chance to quote me where I've said this the whole time. Interesting that you have not...
Why would I quote you on something that I never blamed you for? Makes no sense.
For you to acknowledge how those words have been picked up and carried off by conspiracy theorists. Which I guess you've admitted... kinda... but for some reason you're still upset at me for pointing out how quickly conspiracy theorists latched on to these words.
Kinda? I've never refuted this. But you are blaming the wrong people, you shouldn't be putting the responsibility on the officials commenting on their actual state of knowledge in a transparent manner, you should be pointing the finger at those peddling these silly conspiracies by twisting words and the shoddy reporting by
some new outlets.
How about you link "all the trusted news sources so far" instead of trying to disparage the ones I put the work into finding?
Are you kidding me? I did so, not only by referring to the
very same sources that you've linked, but also by giving
several French sources as well as the original statements by the prosecutor and the secretary of interior.
The prosecutors are investigating this as "involuntary destruction by fire" according to Le Monde (French newspaper) and that was repeated across CNN, Associated Press, Fox, MSN, etc etc, quotes from prosecutor Rémy Heitz that it was "likely accidental" and "nothing shows this was an intentional attack", and so forth are easily available for searching, many of which I've already linked.
Yes you are misrepresenting these statements because nowhere do they exclude a terrorist attack. How could they if they have even said, multiple times,
that the origin of the fire is still unclear? Again, the only reason why they haven't opened up a criminal investigation yet is because they have no evidence to conduct one. Once the preliminary investigation is concluded, they've interviewed all possible witnesses and inspected the scene, they will open up a criminal investigation if they have reason to assume a possible attack.
Settle down chaps. No one cares for quote wars ever.
Also courtesy of
Threeshotgamer
in the discord
The iconic French building was on fire for hours, but plans to rebuild are already underway.
www.gamebyte.com
All the 3D modelling could definitely be useful
This is pure speculation.
www.lemonde.fr
