Explosion in Budapest.

Penny Tration

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/terror-alert-budapest-huge-explosion-8909276


Hopefully a freak accident of some kind. Reports of two injured, it could have been so much worse.

It's a scary sign of the times when any kind of explosion or shooting leads to fears of a terrorist attack.

Atlantic Dawn

Any reason why Hungary would be targetted?

tomwaterford

Seems to be a gas leak
https://mobile.twitter.com/markmackinnon/status/779808035019624452

The Wolverine

Hungary and central/eastern Europe in general haven't fallen for the whole multiculturalism or refugee thing so most likely won't have to worry about reaping the "benefits" like explosions, shootings or innocent people being mown down by a bus.

I'd assume something accidental here personally and hopefully.

Fridge

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Any reason why Hungary would be targetted?

I know this incident was an accident but there would be reasons to target Hungary.
They were pretty vocal about not wanting immigrants, closed their border, and there was that video of a reporter tripping an immigrant running with his child.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Penny Tration wrote: »

It's a scary sign of the times when any kind of explosion or shooting leads to fears of a terrorist attack.

Only when niave people aitomatically belive misleading tabloid headines that jump to conclusions.

Butters1979

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Only when niave people aitomatically belive misleading tabloid headines that jump to conclusions.

That's right. Anyone worried about terrorism is naive and racist. Nothing to see here. Everyone keep quite. Then when there actually is a terrorist attack your gonna tell us how it's not that bad and it's our fault anyway.

Widdershins

Fridge wrote: »

I know this incident was an accident but there would be reasons to target Hungary.
They were pretty vocal about not wanting immigrants, closed their border, and there was that video of a reporter tripping an immigrant running with his child.

I think that might be a little bit unfair. They were vocal about wanting to follow protocol around processing immigrants. They were following the law. Ultimately they decided that they weren't in a position t accept the numbers they were being coerced into taking in.
The reported or camerawoman, whatever she was, tripped immigrants who were running from the police. It's not like gangs of reporters stalked the streets of Hungary, looking for refugees to trip up. How any of that could be justification for attacking Hungary is beyond me.

wakka12

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Any reason why Hungary would be targetted?

Budapest is a major city at the heart of europe, of course its a 'target' to some

BorneTobyWilde

Only good thing about a isis attack is they kill them selves . One by one they are being eradicated .
The most fearful attack besides 9/11 in US was probably the Washington Snipers. That had a whole state in a state of terror. People would duck and dive while getting gas, people would lock them selves in doors and not show up to work.
Can you imagine Isis snipers in London, ghosts picking people off and vanishing. World is too pc, need to squash isis, need to deport people out of EU who are known, there are many who are tolerated until they kill a 100 .

Atlantic Dawn

wakka12 wrote: »

Budapest is a major city at the heart of europe, of course its a 'target' to some

Not really a valid reason, those against carpet and drone bombings of their country wouldn't target the Vatican for example.

Stigura

One hot night in Budapest

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Butters1979 wrote: »

That's right. Anyone worried about terrorism is naive and racist. Nothing to see here. Everyone keep quite. Then when there actually is a terrorist attack your gonna tell us how it's not that bad and it's our fault anyway.

No, just people being niave like the OP and the scaremongerers like the tabloids

Everyone else waits for more information before jumping as I said to conclusions.

The bit in bond illustrates my point perfectly - where the hell was either word ever inplied?!!

Penny Tration

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Butters1979 wrote: »

That's right. Anyone worried about terrorism is naive and racist. Nothing to see here. Everyone keep quite. Then when there actually is a terrorist attack your gonna tell us how it's not that bad and it's our fault anyway.

No, just nianve people like the OP and the scaremongerers like the tabloids

Everyone else waits for more information before jumping as I said to conclusions.

The bit in bond illustrates my point perfectly - where was eithe word ever inplied?!!

I'm naive because I said it's scary that people automatically assume terrorism when something bad happens? Even though i said nothing about believing or thinking that myself? Okay then.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Penny Tration wrote: »

I'm naive because I said it's scary that people automatically assume terrorism when something bad happens? Even though i said nothing about believing or thinking that myself? Okay then.

Perhaps I was a bit strong: the act of assumption is niave, whether or not you generally are, I don't know.

First thing to do generally in these cases is to check two or three alternative news sources. If you;d gone to, say, the BBC, Sky or the Guardian, you'd have seen no mention of it at which point it's very unlikely to be terrorist related. RT are reporting it, but no mention of the T word.

The thing NOT to do is beeline to AH and shout "wow! there migfht have been a terroist attack soemwhere!!!!"

Mister Vain

God I have literally just come back from a week's holiday there.

Penny Tration

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Penny Tration wrote: »

I'm naive because I said it's scary that people automatically assume terrorism when something bad happens? Even though i said nothing about believing or thinking that myself? Okay then.

Perhaps I was a bit strong: the act of assumption is niave, whether or not you generally are, I don't know.

First thing to do generally in these cases is to check two or three alternative news sources. If you;d gone to, say, the BBC, Sky or the Guardian, you'd have seen no mention of it at which point it's very unlikely to be terrorist related. RT are reporting it, but no mention of the T word.

The thing NOT to do is beeline to AH and shout "wow! there migfht have been a terroist attack soemwhere!!!!"

I did not say there may have been a terrorist attack. I said it's scary that people automatically assume as much, such as in the headline of the link.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Penny Tration wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Penny Tration wrote: »

I'm naive because I said it's scary that people automatically assume terrorism when something bad happens? Even though i said nothing about believing or thinking that myself? Okay then.

Perhaps I was a bit strong: the act of assumption is niave, whether or not you generally are, I don't know.

First thing to do generally in these cases is to check two or three alternative news sources. If you;d gone to, say, the BBC, Sky or the Guardian, you'd have seen no mention of it at which point it's very unlikely to be terrorist related. RT are reporting it, but no mention of the T word.

The thing NOT to do is beeline to AH and shout "wow! there migfht have been a terroist attack soemwhere!!!!"

I did not say there may have been a terrorist attack. I said it's scary that people automatically assume as much, such as in the headline of the link.

Hence my correction: the act, not you (with apologies!)

I still think it's more scaremongering than scary. The terrorists want people scared. When people shot terrorism and frighten people every time they hear a firework, they get a freebie.

Widdershins

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you;d gone to, say, the BBC, Sky or the Guardian, you'd have seen no mention of it at which point it's very unlikely to be terrorist related

The BBC coverage of the Ansbach bomber was so apallingly skewed that I could never trust the BBC to honestly report on terrorist attacks. IIRC they actually stated that it was NOT terrorism AND wrongly used the mental health angle despite evidence to the contrary fairly early on. Eventually they ran a more truthful version of the story but that's still not good enough. And that's shaken my trust in mainstream news sources. It's hard to know who will report truthfully

Widdershins

Butters1979 wrote: »

That's right. Anyone worried about terrorism is naive and racist. Nothing to see here. Everyone keep quite. Then when there actually is a terrorist attack your gonna tell us how it's not that bad and it's our fault anyway.

When it happens people say ''it's only a minority of people who were murdered so it's worth it to ''save'' all of those poor refugees'' as if murdering people helps refugees?! Why can't these cretins volunteer themselves as the human sacrifice if they think it's so trivial a loss for such a great cause?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Widdershins wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you;d gone to, say, the BBC, Sky or the Guardian, you'd have seen no mention of it at which point it's very unlikely to be terrorist related

The BBC coverage of the Ansbach bomber was so apallingly skewed that I could never trust the BBC to honestly report on terrorist attacks. IIRC they actually stated that it was NOT terrorism AND wrongly used the mental health angle despite evidence to the contrary fairly early on. Eventually they ran a more truthful version of the story but that's still not good enough. And that's shaken my trust in mainstream news sources. It's hard to know who will report truthfully

Which is precisely why I said two or three. BBC I just took as an example.

Widdershins

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Which is precisely why I said two or three. BBC I just took as an example.

The thing is I would previously thought the BBC to have impeccable standards and would have trusted it above others. It's not just slipping standards at the BBC.There's a sense of pressure on the media to contain certain facts to avoid 'inflaming' tensions. I don't think any mainstream media is going to tell us as much as they would have done in the past.

Samaris

So...this is actually an accident where two people are dead today and the first two pages and indeed all of the conversation on it is diving into the rabbit hole of immigration and terrorism and making digs.

Can't we at least save that for the actual terrorism threads? I'm sure there will be one along again soon. But it gets a bit tiresome to see it in -every thread- that can be tangentially related to crime or, apparently, gas leaks.

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

So...this is actually an accident where two people are dead today and the first two pages and indeed all of the conversation on it is diving into the rabbit hole of immigration and terrorism and making digs.

Can't we at least save that for the actual terrorism threads? I'm sure there will be one along again soon. But it gets a bit tiresome to see it in -every thread- that can be tangentially related to crime or, apparently, gas leaks.

Do you think the people in the vicinity of the explosion didn't wonder even for a moment whether it could be a bomb? I'm glad it wasn't, and sorry to hear it happened at all but it's a perfectly normal direction for a discussion to take in the current climate.

Samaris

Widdershins wrote: »

Do you think the people in the vicinity of the explosion didn't wonder even for a moment whether it could be a bomb? I'm glad it wasn't, and sorry to hear it happened at all but it's a perfectly normal direction for a discussion to take in the current climate.

Yeah, they probably did and I don't blame them. I would have been terrified if I was there. -We- weren't in the vicinity of, we weren't really wondering if it was a terrorist attack, we just went there anyway. That's my kinda issue with this sort of thing. Over and over again, the same tired old arguments that contribute nothing except to spread fear and divide us against ourselves.

The questions need to be asked, need to be considered, but they don't need to be chewed over in every debate where they're not -relevant- to whatever started it this time.

We live in a time where a gas explosion makes us fear ISIS. My god, aren't we doing most of their work for them?

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

Yeah, they probably did and I don't blame them. -We- weren't in the vicinity of, we weren't really wondering if it was a terrorist attack, we just went there anyway. That's my kinda issue with this sort of thing. Over and over again, the same tired old arguments that contribute nothing except to spread fear and divide us against ourselves.

The questions need to be asked, need to be considered, but they don't need to be chewed over in every debate where they're not -relevant- to whatever started it this time.

We live in a time where a gas explosion makes us fear ISIS. My god, aren't we doing most of their work for them?

Fair enough.
I don't believe our attention to these incidents assists ISIS. Maajid Nawaz talks about this and calls it ''The Voldemort Effect''.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Widdershins wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Which is precisely why I said two or three. BBC I just took as an example.

The thing is I would previously thought the BBC to have impeccable standards and would have trusted it above others. It's not just slipping standards at the BBC.There's a sense of pressure on the media to contain certain facts to avoid 'inflaming' tensions. I don't think any mainstream media is going to tell us as much as they would have done in the past.

It's basically a government mouthpiece for what ever party happens to be in power.

The Backwards Man

My Dad worked on the aftermath of a major gas explosion in Glasgow in the early seventies, he still finds it hard to talk about, they can be horrific enough events without adding your own slant to them

ISIS must be creaming themselves when they read posts like many of the above on fora and social media throughout the world. Scum like them will always exist so long as there are both people that are afraid of them and people that have their own interdependent agendas of hate, division and parti pris.

That's how terrorism works, and there seems to be a hell of a lot of you here determined to make it work.

Butters1979

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hence my correction: the act, not you (with apologies!)

I still think it's more scaremongering than scary. The terrorists want people scared. When people shot terrorism and frighten people every time they hear a firework, they get a freebie.

The only person who assumed anything was you in your crusade to down play terrorism and the threat people are genuinely worried about these days. What about the women **** dead by a Turkish immigrant in Washington? You gonn tell them it's in their head?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Butters1979 wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hence my correction: the act, not you (with apologies!)

I still think it's more scaremongering than scary. The terrorists want people scared. When people shot terrorism and frighten people every time they hear a firework, they get a freebie.

The only person who assumed anything was you in your crusade to down play terrorism and the threat people are genuinely worried about these days. What about the women **** dead by a Turkish immigrant in Washington? You gonn tell them it's in their head?

Did you even read what I wrote...?

I specifically said its naive to assume. I specifically said I check two or three other news sources.

You assume that I've AUTOMATICALLY dismissed terrorism, that is YOUR assumption, based on nothing.

You also assume that I automatically think anyone who suspects terrorism of racist (also assuming that any tourism that occurs is automatically racially motivated).

Because none of this is any way based on any I wrote.

Yamanoto

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's basically a government mouthpiece for what ever party happens to be in power.

It is a VERY long time since you could reasonably accuse the BBC of being a mouthpiece for the Conservative Party in Britain. There's a long history of antipathy between those two organisations, with Cameron's last Culture Secretary, John Whittingdale, an absolutely trenchant critic of the Beeb.

Butters1979

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Did you even read what I wrote...?

I specifically said its naive to assume. I specifically said I check two or three other news sources.

You assume that I've AUTOMATICALLY dismissed terrorism, that is YOUR assumption, based on nothing.

You also assume that I automatically think anyone who suspects terrorism of racist (also assuming that any tourism that occurs is automatically racially motivated).

Because none of this is any way based on any I wrote.

Yes. It's very much based on what you wrote and how quick you were to insult anyone who is rightly worried about terrorism. This is exactly what you did. You are part of the problem.

511

The Backwards Man wrote: »

My Dad worked on the aftermath of a major gas explosion in Glasgow in the early seventies, he still finds it hard to talk about, they can be horrific enough events without adding your own slant to them

ISIS must be creaming themselves when they read posts like many of the above on fora and social media throughout the world. Scum like them will always exist so long as there are both people that are afraid of them and people that have their own interdependent agendas of hate, division and parti pris.

That's how terrorism works, and there seems to be a hell of a lot of you here determined to make it work.

The Backwards Man's solution to your family members being shot or blown up is to call them cúnts, bastards, scum, get drunk all the time and ignore them, while accusing people of being "haters" or "bigots" just for wanting better control over who enters the EU.

I don't think ignoring them will stop radical imams from radicalizing Muslims jihadists. I don't think ignoring them will stop them from returning from warzones and killing people. You never propose any viable solutions, Europeans governments and recklessly allowing thousands of poorly-educated , low-skilled migrants in without any though of integrating them and just allowing dangerous ghettos to flourish.

I can already see this happening in the Blanchardstown-Mulhuddart area and you can tell these immigrants didn't enter Ireland through a sponsored visa to work for a company.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Butters1979 wrote: »

Yes. It's very much based on what you wrote and how quick you were to insult anyone who is rightly worried about terrorism. This is exactly what you did. You are part of the problem.

Except that's not what you wrote the first time. Nor is it any more accurate than what you wrote the first time, because again you've ignored the information in the post you replied to and invented your own.

Here's my post again:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Only when niave people aitomatically belive misleading tabloid headines that jump to conclusions.

No assumption of it not being terorism and there's no judgemnt of people worried about terrorism contained. I'm worried about terrorism. It's a judgemnt against people who assume it's something (or not something) before they read or do research. Which is niave, pretty much by definition.

Butters1979

Bull**** princess. People trying to downplay these attacks and the issues we face today are dangerous and an insult to the victims.

No one said this was a terrorist attack but every time something happens now it's a possibility that sprigs to mind. That is not a result of hate groups or people not doing their research. That is a direct result of all the attacks that have happened lately. No ones fault but the terrorists. So don't try and blame anyone else with your high horse.

Jan Laco

Butters1979 wrote: »

The only person who assumed anything was you in your crusade to down play terrorism and the threat people are genuinely worried about these days. What about the women **** dead by a Turkish immigrant in Washington? You gonn tell them it's in their head?

I thought (from BBC news) that he was a 'Hispanic looking' guy?

Ilovemybricks

The people who have immediately seized on the "gas explosion" theory are the same people who seize on the "mental illness" theory every time there is a Muslim atrocity. Even Hispanics are getting chucked under the bus now.

The word to describe them is "apologist".

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/714102/Massive-explosion-rocks-Hungarian-capital-Budapest-multiple-casualties-reported

It looks like it was a nail bomb.

Widdershins

Ilovemybricks wrote: »

The people who have immediately seized on the "gas explosion" theory are the same people who seize on the "mental illness" theory every time there is a Muslim atrocity. Even Hispanics are getting chucked under the bus now.

The word to describe them is "apologist".

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/714102/Massive-explosion-rocks-Hungarian-capital-Budapest-multiple-casualties-reported

It looks like it was a nail bomb.

They jumped the gun a bit then. Ironic!

Just from looking at the sidebar of that article it appears there have been numerous terrorist attacks in the U.S and Europe that we haven't heard of here. Looks like they're not reporting on them here.

RasTa

lol, people actually read the express?

Ilovemybricks

RasTa wrote: »

lol, people actually read the express?

Hungarian police do you?

Press conf - police chief: home made explosive; suspect: 170cm tall, 20-25 y o man; police officers were the targets #BudapestExplosion

RasTa

Ilovemybricks wrote: »

Hungarian police do you?

What?

Your Face

Penny Tration wrote: »

Hopefully a freak accident of some kind.

Ha.

Butters1979

RasTa wrote: »

lol, people actually read the express?

Well BBC or skynews aren't reporting it. More 'nothing to see here' crap. Was everyone still 'naive' for assuming the worst?

Ilovemybricks

Fridge wrote: »

I know this incident was an accident but there would be reasons to target Hungary.
They were pretty vocal about not wanting immigrants, closed their border, and there was that video of a reporter tripping an immigrant running with his child.

Hungary is to introduce further incentives to attract immigrants. They welcome legal immigration. Funnily enough, they don't like hundreds of thousands of illegals storming their borders and entering their country without permission.

https://www.neweurope.eu/article/hungary-introduce-incentives-attract-immigrants/

The Wolverine

Widdershins wrote: »

The thing is I would previously thought the BBC to have impeccable standards and would have trusted it above others. It's not just slipping standards at the BBC.There's a sense of pressure on the media to contain certain facts to avoid 'inflaming' tensions. I don't think any mainstream media is going to tell us as much as they would have done in the past.

There has been two if not three independent investigations into the BBC after claims of bias and each one has found it to have an extreme left wing bias, it has so far ignored all outlined points to swing back to a more centre outlook.

I remember they tried running the "iraqi soldiers turning off babies incubators" propaganda story used in the FIRST gulf war during the second invasion but with the internet having grown they were caught out within hours and swiftly removed all traces of the article and never mentioned it again.

I believe the Tories are looking to privatise the BBC especially as it was recently found that it's "stars" are paid 40% more than rival private stations.

It will be good enough for them too.

The_Kew_Tour

Butters1979 wrote: »

That's right. Anyone worried about terrorism is naive and racist. Nothing to see here. Everyone keep quite. Then when there actually is a terrorist attack your gonna tell us how it's not that bad and it's our fault anyway.

Boom and spot on

RasTa

Butters1979 wrote: »

Well BBC or skynews aren't reporting it. More 'nothing to see here' crap. Was everyone still 'naive' for assuming the worst?

Just surprised people read the express as a news source.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/2013-according-to-the-daily-express-front-page?utm_term=.qdDR4lMZq#.nwgjVBQpN

Butters1979

RasTa wrote: »

Just surprised people read the express as a news source.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/2013-according-to-the-daily-express-front-page?utm_term=.qdDR4lMZq#.nwgjVBQpN

I know. I see your point completely. The issue though is none of the more main stream news sites will even report it. It's a strange thing when the likes of BBC and skynews are very selective about what they report. Your only choice if you even want to hear about head things are terrible sites like the express.

RandomName2

Widdershins wrote: »

The BBC coverage of the Ansbach bomber was so apallingly skewed that I could never trust the BBC to honestly report on terrorist attacks. IIRC they actually stated that it was NOT terrorism AND wrongly used the mental health angle despite evidence to the contrary fairly early on. Eventually they ran a more truthful version of the story but that's still not good enough. And that's shaken my trust in mainstream news sources. It's hard to know who will report truthfully

Turns out to have been a bomb in the end

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hungary-conducts-manhunt-after-homemade-bomb-apparently-targets-police/2016/09/25/4bd2ef50-8345-11e6-b57d-dd49277af02f_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop_b

Most main stream media seems to call bombs "gas explosions" these days, at least until the facts are undeniable.

The Wolverine

So Hungarian police have launched a manhunt for a suspect aged approx 20-25 after they confirmed it's a deliberate attack

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/25/explosion-in-hungary-kills-two-police-officers/

Apparently he was seen throwing the device at two police officers before running off

Widdershins

RandomName2 wrote: »

Turns out to have been a bomb in the end

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hungary-conducts-manhunt-after-homemade-bomb-apparently-targets-police/2016/09/25/4bd2ef50-8345-11e6-b57d-dd49277af02f_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop_b

Most main stream media seems to call bombs "gas explosions" these days, at least until the facts are undeniable.

At the time the impression given on Boards was that it was not an attack-a premature conclusion was arrived at.Anyone who mentioned a possibility of it being terrorism was accused of doing just that.

r.e media deflection.It is verging on cover up territory and coming from me that's saying a lot.