Explosion in Budapest.

Penny Tration · 24-09-2016 11:40PM #1

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 · 24-09-2016 11:43PM

Any reason why Hungary would be targetted?

tomwaterford · 24-09-2016 11:52PM

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

The Wolverine · 25-09-2016 12:54AM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:00AM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:01AM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:07AM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:09AM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:10AM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:18AM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:49AM

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 · 25-09-2016 03:27AM

One hot night in Budapest

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 25-09-2016 08:12AM

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 · 25-09-2016 08:36AM

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 · 25-09-2016 09:21AM

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 · 25-09-2016 09:25AM

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

Penny Tration · 25-09-2016 09:38AM

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 · 25-09-2016 10:11AM

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 · 25-09-2016 10:50AM

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 · 25-09-2016 10:53AM

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 · 25-09-2016 11:48AM

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 · 25-09-2016 12:07PM

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 · 25-09-2016 12:16PM

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 · 25-09-2016 12:19PM

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 · 25-09-2016 12:28PM

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 · 25-09-2016 12:32PM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:06PM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:11PM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:14PM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:30PM

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 · 25-09-2016 01:30PM

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.

Explosion in Budapest.

Comments