Europe

Yes, it’s unfortunate when landmarks and historical sites are damaged, but that’s not the same as getting shot in the face.

Maybe I am wrong to say this, but I feel no sympathy at all about it for it being a French clock tower town hall building. It sounds like a nothing symbol as historical significance. I care about historical preservation to a point, but given that France still has colonial tendrils and still works with imperialism, behavior which has not a care in the world for respecting heritage and history of other cultures, I find it hard to care about them losing an old building. Notice how no one quoted by reuters even explained the historical significance of the building. The closest to an attempt was drawing a comparison to Notre Dame, but if that's what makes a building significant, then any old building is a historical landmark if you try hard enough to relate it to other old buildings that are considered to be one.

Reuters vaguely tries to allude to it being significant by saying:

an ornate 19th century neo-Renaissance building which survived two world wars

But this is just making up significance. A building being old does not inherently make it historically significant. A building lasting through world wars also does not inherently make it historically significant (it could have just been in an area where it was less likely to targeted).

So at the offset, I'm not buying the narrative that this even counts as a landmark / historical site to begin with.