- Joined
- Oct 6, 2004
- Messages
- 43,031
- Reaction score
- 12,995
That's what I meant. If the buildings were rented the owners could have used anti-muslim sentiment as a plausible pretext for it being burnt down and claim insurance.No, actually I always consider fraud a possible scenario when buildings burn and there are no reliable witnesses to who or what caused it. It is very common, regardless of religion or ethnicity.
Going along with the idea that muslims don't typically like to burn down their own places of worship.
The Uppsala mosque didn't actually burn. The molotov cocktail wasn't meant to set it on fire. In fact, I don't know why anyone would go to the effort of making a molotov cocktail only to use it against a stone building.
Are you sure? Maybe they were uncoordinated and missed the window.
I'm sure it would. But then again, you like muslims whereas I view them objectively.
We'll see how this turns out. Actually we probably won't, seeing as the perpetrators were highly disciplined invisible commandos and left no clues or physical signalement.
I don't like all muslims, and I'm not sure how living in muslim countries as a Christian missionary, or having muslim friends and acquaintances, means I'm biased towards muslims? Whereas leaping to the conclusion that insurance fraud is more likely than a anti-muslim/immigrant/racist attack, without any actual evidence, is objectivity?
I mean they left racist grafitti in the last attack... is that "objectively" likely to be attempts to throw off suspicion? A "false flag"?
Same with the Swastikas on the Stockholm Mosque last New Year?
Last edited: