Atlantic Dawn wrote: » Any reason why Hungary would be targetted?
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.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Only when niave people aitomatically belive misleading tabloid headines that jump to conclusions.
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.
wakka12 wrote: » Budapest is a major city at the heart of europe, of course its a 'target' to some
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.
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?!!
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.
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!!!!"
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.
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
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
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Which is precisely why I said two or three. BBC I just took as an example.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » It's basically a government mouthpiece for what ever party happens to be in power.
