• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok… so ABC is saying that the vehicle was flagged as suspicious at a checkpoint and it was being sent to a second checkpoint when the explosion happened. I have to say that really sounds like it isn’t an accident.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I definitely don’t want to assume this was something nefarious when there’s still the possibility of an accident, but this is pretty suspicious timing for an accident.

    • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Suspicious timing and location. A vehicle “exploding” isn’t suspicious, a vehicle exploding at a boarder crossing the day before Thanksgiving is suspicious.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, sorry, I meant timing and location. I’m watching the news too. I think it’s likely to be intentional. Let’s hope there won’t be anything else.

      • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but if they made it across the bridge, it would have been almost a month since Thanksgiving

  • Striker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Any fatalities? From the fbi getting involved I assume it was a terrorist event?

    • Caradoc879@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      Any explosion at a border is going to be treated as a terrorist event until otherwise shown. But cars also generally don’t just explode, so I would also assume criminal malice of some kind at least.

      • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The word explosion is in the headline. No government agency or anyone who was at the scene is quoted using that word. (Edit: not in the linked article at time of writing, FBI Buffalo Field Office has used that term in statements) I question whether there even was an explosion.

        Cars are fueled by a flammable liquid. The gas can catch fire, and cars do catch fire from time to time. Cars don’t have pressurized fuel tanks, so will burn rather than explode.

        However, there is enough fuel for a car fire to be large enough that a layperson might mistake it for an explosion.

        This could be an accident. It could be a terrorist attack. But we can be sure that for-profit news companies have an incentive to use whatever language sounds most scary. If it bleeds it leads, as the saying goes.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To their credit, I am watching ABC News coverage of this right now over their website and they are being very clear that there’s not enough information yet. Some people are saying it’s suspicious, but they are not fearmongering.

          • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The day before thanksgiving is a day with lots of people traveling. More people driving means accidental car fires at high traffic locations are more likely. Could be suspicious. But I’m certain if anyone credible described it as a terrorist attack, they would have put that in the headline as its much more clickable.