Notre Dame - Paris: It burns :(

[darin]

Terrorists tend to like to make it known when they carry out attacks, so unless the terrorist group that carried out such an attack wanted to hide the fact then it will be known.

sometimes, yep. (shrug). I doubt the French Govt would tell the truth anyway. if it happened on accident, the guy at fault should be placed into whatever their version of Witness Protection is.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I don't recall what I was listening to at the time yesterday, but it was reported that the workers working there had said that the fire was NOT an accident. I'm sure that was hushed up real fast, so, it'll be interesting to see what they come up as a cause. Sometimes we just never know truth, ever.

We have a retired 4 star general now going around saying 9/11 was an inside job...

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Make up your own mind...

https://twitter.com/Alrob67/status/1118054526366433280

Nothing to see here folks... move along and just forget about this...

https://twitter.com/smoss319/status/1117963560636829696

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Christian churches are under attack by muslims the world over, and at an alarming, horrendous rate. But you don't hear the democrat propaganda wing tell you about it, or even your local liberal news of it happening right here in America. We ignore this shit at our own peril. Muslims are banking on Americans being apathetic.


“Submit to Islam”: South Carolina Church Vandalized With Islamic-Themed Graffiti


https://summit.news/2019/04/16/submi...emed-graffiti/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Christian churches are under attack by muslims the world over, and at an alarming, horrendous rate. But you don't hear the democrat propaganda wing tell you about it, or even your local liberal news of it happening right here in America. We ignore this shit at our own peril. Muslims are banking on Americans being apathetic.


“Submit to Islam”: South Carolina Church Vandalized With Islamic-Themed Graffiti


https://summit.news/2019/04/16/submi...emed-graffiti/

They work so tirelessly in order to keep the false image of Islam intact.
And not just the muslims do that but the majority of that is done by their leftist/liberal infidel allies, == Dem party , the mainstrean media and much of the Federal government here.
Sad and tragic is it not??--Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

Make up your own mind...

https://twitter.com/Alrob67/status/1118054526366433280

Nothing to see here folks... move along and just forget about this...

https://twitter.com/smoss319/status/1117963560636829696

How fascinating and unsurprising.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

How fascinating and unsurprising.

Yep... and I bet we never hear who that was.

But it looks like a muslim wearing turbine to me.

I still believe they'll cover it up if it was muslims that torched it. They're just scared stiff of ISLAMOPHOBIA. We just CAN'T have anyone NOT LIKING muslims. They're PROTECTED, even though they're the most BLOODY, MURDEROUS, TERRORIST bunch of freakin' CAVE MEN on the planet, when in all actuality, a SEVERE BACKLASH against islam is what this world needs... BAD. I just don't know how much more terror at the hands of islam the world needs to see before we wake the hell up. It's baffling. Calling it the religion of peace is like calling a serial killer a messenger of life.

EDIT: No sooner do I make the comments above, but I turn on Rush Limbaugh and he's saying the EXACT SAME THING. When and how did we get to the point where we can't even SPECULATE, even though we KNOW, that there's ISLAMIC TERRORISM? WHY is that NOT ALLOWED anymore? We have NEVER NOT identified the ENEMY in any war before, but now, even though the enemy is in PLAIN SIGHT, we SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING, we CAN'T say ANYTHING about it. WHY?

The below meme is it in a nut shell, and the sooner people learn it, the better off the WORLD will be. THEY HATE US. They want to either TAKE US OVER and RULE US under SHARIA LAW, or they will DIE TRYING, and we know DAMN WELL it's happening, and they are using OUR FREEDOM, APATHY and IGNORANT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and FEAR of them and what they'll DO against us... PERIOD. It's like someone coming in and KILLING YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY, and then YOU can't say JACK SHIT AGAINST that person, for fear that there might be a BACK LASH against that person. Well FUCK... THERE SHOULD BE! Same with islam.

[STTAB]

I don't have one single doubt that this was an act of Islamic terrorism. Proof ? No, but I also don't believe in coincidences.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I don't have one single doubt that this was an act of Islamic terrorism. Proof ? No, but I also don't believe in coincidences.

There have been TEN RECENT ATTACKS against CHRISTIAN CHURCHES in Paris... TEN... but did anyone report on that? NO. WHY?

France: At least 10 incidents of vandalism and desecration of Catholic churches in last two weeks

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/f...last-two-weeks

Don't tell me Notre Dame was an ACCIDENT... sorry... not buying it.

[jimnyc]

Terrorists tend to like to make it known when they carry out attacks, so unless the terrorist group that carried out such an attack wanted to hide the fact then it will be known.

Fwiw, ISIS as responded yesterday and claimed it was "retribution and punishment" and then they say "Have a good day". Myself? Not convinced, not until they would offer some proof that they were involved. Otherwise, they can just be taking advantage of the situation.

But considering they HAVE made it known over the years that this is a target for them, only adds to the suspicion. I think many muslims over the years have stated such - and many muslims are probably smiling away today. And even though I think the fire was from renovation, it would still overjoy so so many of them. So ISIS can be just like so many others, and just overjoyed at what took place.

--

'Have a nice day': ISIS fanatics revel in Notre Dame's destruction days before Easter as they describe the inferno as 'retribution and punishment'

---ISIS affiliated propaganda group made a heartless poster of the inferno in Paris
---It was accompanied by a cruel message bidding 'au revoir' to Notre Dame
---The world mourned as the 850-year-old cathedral erupted in flames on Monday
---Prosecutors said they are treating it as an accident, ruling out terror for now

ISIS fanatics are heartlessly revelling in the inferno at Notre Dame Cathedral just days before Easter calling it 'retribution and punishment', according to terror intelligence researchers.

A poster of the blazing cathedral appeared online accompanied by the words, 'Have a good day,' and was created by the ISIS affiliated Al-Muntasir group according to the Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium.

The poster says: 'Its construction began in the year 1163 and ended in 1345. It's time to say goodbye to your oratory polytheism.'

The jihadists referred to the catastrophe as 'retribution and punishment,' SITE intelligence reported.

Rest - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...unishment.html

also - https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/16/i...poster-report/

[jimnyc]

Now THIS is just awesome!

Such a beautiful and iconic cathedral SHOULD be rebuilt, and they all know it, and 2 are already willing to fund it! I love stories like this, where such goodness comes from horrible tragedies. This is a worldwide loved cathedral.

---

Two French billionaires offer hundreds of millions of euros to help rebuild Notre Dame

Two French billionaires pledged Tuesday to donate a total of 300 million euros to fund the restoration of Notre Dame cathedral after Monday’s massive fire.

François-Henri Pinault, chairman and CEO of the luxury retail group Kering and president of Groupe Artémis, announced Monday night while fires still burned in Notre Dame that his family would donate 100 million euros to help rebuild the cathedral. Bernard Arnault, chairman and CEO of the luxury group LVMH, doubled Pinault’s donation on Tuesday, pledging to give 200 million euros toward the reconstruction of Notre Dame, according to Buzzfeed News.

“My father [François Pinault] and I have decided to release as of now from the funds of Artemis a sum of 100 million euros to participate in the effort that will be necessary for the complete reconstruction of Notre Dame,” Pinault wrote in a statement.

Rest - https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/16/b...ld-notre-dame/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://www1.cbn.com/churchandminist...lamic-struggle

1,400 Years of Christian/Islamic Struggle: An Analysis

Religion and Cults
Richard C. Csaplar, Jr.

I was very disappointed to see that U.S. News would publish a clearly false article, adopting the world's clearly false, politically correct (PC) view of the place of the Crusades in history. What makes it even worse, the article hides its views under the additional headline falsehood, "The Truth About the Epic Clash Between Christianity and Islam."

Let me explain.

The opening heading states, "During the Crusades, East and West first met." This is just totally in error, as any person with the slightest knowledge of history well knows. East and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade.

To give just a few examples -- the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, attempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

A different type of bloody conquest occurred through the movement of whole tribal groups between the east and the west. Again, just to name a few, the Huns, the Goths, and the Avars came from as far away as western Asia, central Asia, and China respectively in the fifth through the seventh centuries A.D. Indeed, the Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia. Indeed, the Avars, by this siege, were one of the forces that weakened the Byzantines (there were many other, perhaps more important, forces) to the extent that most of the Byzantine mid-eastern empire fell relatively easily to the Muslims.

But let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also totally false.

Let us review the Muslim conquest. In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

You will note the string of adjectives and may have some objection to my using them. They are used because they are the absolute truth. Anyone denying them is a victim of PC thinking, ignorant of history, or lying to protect Islam. Let us take each word separately before we proceed further in our true history of the relationship between the Christian west and the Islamic east.

Imperialistic

The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."

Colonialist

The Muslim goal was to have a central government, first at Damascus, and then at Baghdad -- later at Cairo, Istanbul, or other imperial centers. The local governors, judges, and other rulers were appointed by the central imperial authorities for far off colonies. Islamic law was introduced as the senior law, whether or not wanted by the local people. Arabic was introduced as the rulers' language, and the local language frequently disappeared. Two classes of residents were established. The native residents paid a tax that their colonialist rulers did not have to pay.

Although the law differed in different places, the following are examples of colonialist laws to which colonized Christians and Jews were made subject to over the years:



Christians and Jews could not bear arms -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews could not ride horses -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to get permission to build -- Muslims did not;
Christians and Jews had to pay certain taxes which Muslims did not;
Christians could not proselytize -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to bow to their Muslim masters when they paid their taxes; and
Christians and Jews had to live under the law set forth in the Koran, not under either their own religious or secular law.
In each case, these laws allowed the local conquered people less freedom than was allowed the conquering colonialist rulers. Even non-Arab Muslim inhabitants of the conquered lands became second class citizens behind the ruling Arabs. This is the classic definition of colonialist -- "a group of people who settle in a distant territory from the state having jurisdiction or control over it and who remain under the political jurisdiction of their native land."

We will talk about "bloody" as we proceed. Because the U.S. News article related only to the Christian west against the Muslim east, except in this paragraph I will not describe the almost 1,500 years of Muslim imperialistic, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war to the east of Arabia in Iraq, Persia, and much further eastward, which continues to this day.

In any event, because it was the closest geographically, Palestine was the first Western non-Arab area invaded in the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others. At the time, Palestine was under the rule of the so-called Eastern Roman Empire, ruled from Istanbul by Greek speaking people, and was Eastern Orthodox Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox rule was despotic and the Eastern Roman Empire was in serious decline. The Eastern Orthodox rulers were despots, and in Palestine had subjugated the large population of local Jews and Monophysite Christians. Because the Orthodox were imperialist, colonialist, and bloody, and majored in religious persecution to boot, the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine, and then Egypt, was made easier. Because of Orthodox weakness and the relative speed of the conquest of Palestine and Israel, I have often seen this Muslim, imperialist, colonialist bloody conquest described by Muslim and PC writers as "peaceful" or "bloodless." This statement is simply not true.

The Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine began with a battle, the August 20, 636, battle of Yarmk (it is believed that 75,000 soldiers took part -- hardly bloodless). With the help of the local Jews who welcomed the Muslims as liberators, the Muslims had subjugated the remainder of Palestine but had not been able to capture Jerusalem. Beginning in July 637, the Muslims began a siege of Jerusalem which lasted for five (hardly bloodless) months before Jerusalem fell in February 638. Arabs did not sack the city, and the Arab soldiers were apparently kept in tight control by their leaders. No destruction was permitted. This was indeed a triumph of civilized control, if imperialism, colonization, and bloody conquest can ever be said to be "civilized." It was at this conquest that many significant hallmarks of Muslim colonialism began. The conquered Christian and Jewish people were made to pay a tribute to the colonialist Muslims. In addition, Baghdad used the imperialist, colonialist, bloody wars of conquest throughout the life of its empire to provide the Caliphate with a steady stream of slaves, many of whom were made eunuchs.

The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt. The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody (revenge) massacres of the Muslim's (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the middle of France.

I believe that if I had the time, I could show that the Muslims, in their western imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined.

But let us return to Jerusalem.>>>>> more at link...

[jimnyc]

A couple more pieces of good news. Irreplaceable items!

--

Hero Priest Saved Crown of Thorns

Jean-Marc Fournier, chaplain of the Paris Fire Brigade, is being hailed as a hero after he rushed in the blazing Notre Dame cathedral to save Jesus Christ’s Crown of Thorns.

As emergency workers formed a “human chain” to pull out historic relics, he also was able to save the Blessed Sacrament.

Rest - https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/pr.../16/id/911936/


Notre Dame's Medieval Rose Windows Survive Blaze

The three famous Rose windows of the Notre Dame cathedral have been saved from the first that took down the spre, the Archbishop of Paris said, CNN reports.

The trio of huge, round stained-glass windows over the cathedral's three main entrance doors date to the 13th century.

The cathedral’s website boasts that its three rose windows “constitute one of the great masterpieces of Christianity,” according to The Washington Post.

https://www.newsmax.com/headline/fir.../16/id/911906/

[Kathianne]

Pretty much same picture as above, after the embers are out and the smoke cleared.

[LongTermGuy]

1,400 Years of Christian/Islamic Struggle: An Analysis

Religion and Cults
Richard C. Csaplar, Jr.

I was very disappointed to see that U.S. News would publish a clearly false article, adopting the world's clearly false, politically correct (PC) view of the place of the Crusades in history. What makes it even worse, the article hides its views under the additional headline falsehood, "The Truth About the Epic Clash Between Christianity and Islam."

Let me explain.

The opening heading states, "During the Crusades, East and West first met." This is just totally in error, as any person with the slightest knowledge of history well knows. East and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade.

To give just a few examples -- the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, attempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

A different type of bloody conquest occurred through the movement of whole tribal groups between the east and the west. Again, just to name a few, the Huns, the Goths, and the Avars came from as far away as western Asia, central Asia, and China respectively in the fifth through the seventh centuries A.D. Indeed, the Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia. Indeed, the Avars, by this siege, were one of the forces that weakened the Byzantines (there were many other, perhaps more important, forces) to the extent that most of the Byzantine mid-eastern empire fell relatively easily to the Muslims.

But let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also totally false.

Let us review the Muslim conquest. In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

You will note the string of adjectives and may have some objection to my using them. They are used because they are the absolute truth. Anyone denying them is a victim of PC thinking, ignorant of history, or lying to protect Islam. Let us take each word separately before we proceed further in our true history of the relationship between the Christian west and the Islamic east.

Imperialistic

The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."

Colonialist

The Muslim goal was to have a central government, first at Damascus, and then at Baghdad -- later at Cairo, Istanbul, or other imperial centers. The local governors, judges, and other rulers were appointed by the central imperial authorities for far off colonies. Islamic law was introduced as the senior law, whether or not wanted by the local people. Arabic was introduced as the rulers' language, and the local language frequently disappeared. Two classes of residents were established. The native residents paid a tax that their colonialist rulers did not have to pay.

Although the law differed in different places, the following are examples of colonialist laws to which colonized Christians and Jews were made subject to over the years:



Christians and Jews could not bear arms -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews could not ride horses -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to get permission to build -- Muslims did not;
Christians and Jews had to pay certain taxes which Muslims did not;
Christians could not proselytize -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to bow to their Muslim masters when they paid their taxes; and
Christians and Jews had to live under the law set forth in the Koran, not under either their own religious or secular law.
In each case, these laws allowed the local conquered people less freedom than was allowed the conquering colonialist rulers. Even non-Arab Muslim inhabitants of the conquered lands became second class citizens behind the ruling Arabs. This is the classic definition of colonialist -- "a group of people who settle in a distant territory from the state having jurisdiction or control over it and who remain under the political jurisdiction of their native land."

We will talk about "bloody" as we proceed. Because the U.S. News article related only to the Christian west against the Muslim east, except in this paragraph I will not describe the almost 1,500 years of Muslim imperialistic, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war to the east of Arabia in Iraq, Persia, and much further eastward, which continues to this day.

In any event, because it was the closest geographically, Palestine was the first Western non-Arab area invaded in the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others. At the time, Palestine was under the rule of the so-called Eastern Roman Empire, ruled from Istanbul by Greek speaking people, and was Eastern Orthodox Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox rule was despotic and the Eastern Roman Empire was in serious decline. The Eastern Orthodox rulers were despots, and in Palestine had subjugated the large population of local Jews and Monophysite Christians. Because the Orthodox were imperialist, colonialist, and bloody, and majored in religious persecution to boot, the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine, and then Egypt, was made easier. Because of Orthodox weakness and the relative speed of the conquest of Palestine and Israel, I have often seen this Muslim, imperialist, colonialist bloody conquest described by Muslim and PC writers as "peaceful" or "bloodless." This statement is simply not true.

The Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine began with a battle, the August 20, 636, battle of Yarmk (it is believed that 75,000 soldiers took part -- hardly bloodless). With the help of the local Jews who welcomed the Muslims as liberators, the Muslims had subjugated the remainder of Palestine but had not been able to capture Jerusalem. Beginning in July 637, the Muslims began a siege of Jerusalem which lasted for five (hardly bloodless) months before Jerusalem fell in February 638. Arabs did not sack the city, and the Arab soldiers were apparently kept in tight control by their leaders. No destruction was permitted. This was indeed a triumph of civilized control, if imperialism, colonization, and bloody conquest can ever be said to be "civilized." It was at this conquest that many significant hallmarks of Muslim colonialism began. The conquered Christian and Jewish people were made to pay a tribute to the colonialist Muslims. In addition, Baghdad used the imperialist, colonialist, bloody wars of conquest throughout the life of its empire to provide the Caliphate with a steady stream of slaves, many of whom were made eunuchs.

The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt. The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody (revenge) massacres of the Muslim's (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the middle of France.

I believe that if I had the time, I could show that the Muslims, in their western imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined.

But let us return to Jerusalem.>>>>> more at link...

Liberals...love their muslims.....(even if they are `gay`)....Gotta push the "Liberal" agenda.

"Shep Smith (Fox News outsider) Shuts Down Guest Who Suggests Notre Dame Fire Might Not Be Accidental"


"A Fox News on-air interview about the Notre Dame fire in Paris was abruptly shut down after a French guest suggested — without any proof — that the fire consuming the famed cathedral may not have been the result of an accident.

On Monday, Philippe Karsenty, a former French right-wing political candidate, suggested to Shep Smith that the church fire may have been set by possible terrorists, a theory that had already been floated by InfoWars soon after the fire began."

***
"“It’s like a 9/11, it’s a French 9/11, you know? And it’s a big shock,” Karsenty told Smith, adding, >>>“we’ve had churches desecrated each and every week all over France.”

Karsenty then went on to say that “of course, you will hear the story of the political correctness which will tell you it’s probably an accident.”

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...212243151.html