Nantes cathedral went up in flames

So have dozens and dozens of countries in the past, some even had their presidents killed decades ago and we still don't know the complete story.

At the moment it's impossible to tell. So why should we speculate about something we know hardly anything about? I know it's extremely tempting, but it doesn't make sense to me especially as it's almost always based on idelogy and not on whatever little facts we have.

Twenty years ago, what you call "before the muslims came", France had a Muslim population of 4 million. Third link, page 31. Your constructed story doesn't add up.
https://www.google.com/search?clien...AhVBzKQKHY7_BlAQBSgAegQICxAp&biw=1366&bih=616

 

All countries have skeletons in the closet. If we were to filter everything we see in a given country by paying undue attention to ONE event that happened 35 years ago, we'll risk precisely what you did here: jumping to conclusions. Sure, History must inform us, but shouldn't be used to close down onto ONE explanation for which there is no evidence, so far, otherwise History is not just informing us, but is leading to a prejudice.

And yes, precisely, nobody claimed responsibility. For all I know it might have been the work of an isolated nutjob crazy homeless person who entered the church and decided to set some small fires, out of some delusion. Putting this together with the clearly ACCIDENTAL Notre Dame fire to give some sort of impression of linked events, and even say "a few months" when the other event happened 1 year and 3 months ago (and again, was an accident), is not the most logical way to look into this. And saying both churches "burned down" when they are still standing (and the Nantes fire was pretty minor, damaged one organ and a few glass panels) is hyperbolic.

Whatever. I won't come back to this. Won't beat a dead horse. So, if you still want to respond and keep this going, don't count on me to further respond. Have a nice day.

 

At that time the muslim population was mostly Algerian. A little bit better behaved.

France hadn't opened her doors to the most war-torn impoverished failed-state parts of the world yet.

Algeria lies far to the west and is sort of on the periphery of the muslim world, so like Morocco, they are a bit less fervent.
(They did have terrorism at one point, but it was all about nationalism and separating from France)

 

I find the idea of classifying a whole people based on their geographical location as "a bit less fervent" utterly absurd. The world is not even remotely that simple. In 2000, 1,5 million out of these 4 million were from Algerian origin, that's not "mostly", another million originally from Marocco, around 350,000 Turkish, 300,000 Tunisian. Almost all the perpetrators from Nov 2015 in Paris were of Algerian & Maroccan origin, "less fervent", yeah, right. Your simplifications don't add up.

 

It does add up if you consider that the Muslims who first came to France respected the country and its institutions. Today Europe's declining population and the lack of its Christian faith, has given many Muslims a sense of empowerment. They are entering Europe not to settle, they are coming to Islamize Europe.

Many believe in a peaceful transition, but others believe in taking a more aggressive stance. Let's not forget Mohamed converted a Christian world with the sword, as did the Turks later on. Terrorism and destroying Christian symbols would be part of it.

 

The official post fire inspection will soon tell you if arson is an issue.