Why do you doubt Torba did it himself?

Why would he do it to his own parents?

And there's better ways to do it.

As I said, to gain sympathy and strengthen his position by slandering his ideological opponents.

And why make it so ambiguous.

If he wanted to frame someone, he'd leave marks to make it obvious who he was attacking.

I would expect if he was trying to do some kind of false flag it would be public, obvious and to his own stuff.

His parents have been getting harassed for some time. A number of people (mostly on the left) decided they could go after family a while ago.

Is an attack on his parents more despicable, thus garnering more sympathy?

I think you're being way too conspiratorial.

I'm being conspiratorial by recognizing the possibility?

Also, the neighbor calling it in can probably be confirmed. Why would you take that risk of it *not* being discovered by a neighbor if you were doing a false flag.

No, I think you're being conspiratorial by pushing it so hard.

Nothing about this says "false flag" to me.

Pushing it? What do you want me to say, it *couldn't* be true?

I will stand by my position that it is a possibility.

I'm giving reasons I don't think it's a false flag. You keep insisting that it could be without giving any argument otherwise besides "he might gain sympathy"

You haven't shifted possibilities either.

Yes, becoming a victim of violence is a political tactic, it's well known and false flags are a common way of gaining the position for years now.

Of all the theories as to what happened, a false flag seems the least plausible.

That's completely untrue and you know it.

But there's been so much violence and so much of it is *not* a false flag.

Not an argument.

Yes, there has been actual violence. And there has also been false flags.

What do you believe are hallmarks of a false flag operation?

But the really big things, the really damaging things haven't been.

Well, obvious and public for one.

What indicators make you think "Yep, that's a false flag"?

Okay, well this is obvious and being publically proclaimed by him, so that's one.

Turning on the propane and setting up a fire source is pretty not-public and hard to verify.

Yeah, but it's not like someone spray painted "nazi" or something. You could show a picture and no one could deny it happened.

There's also not a clear person to finger. Like, if there were 3 arrows painted somewhere, that would be a pretty obvious person to frame.

Leaving propane on has the possibility of doing real damage or killing someone. But it is not obvious anything happened at all.

And going public is hardly reason to think it's a false flag. What a victim of political violence to do? Stay silent and take it?

So, when there's not an obvious indicator of a perpetrator, you think that a false flag operation is less likely/unlikely?

I'd say less likely, yes.

Along with the risk of real permanent damage.

Or death.

More important is the fact that the nature of the attack doesn't leave any indications that an attack took place.

It was either destruction or nothing at all.

Or being found and reported.