Reports are that there may have been several attacks at different locations. The government has ordered everyone to stay where they are. Two confirmed explosions: at the airport (pre-security) and at a subway station.
A few stations showed a map with as many as four additional attack sites, but no one is confirming anything along those lines. There appear to be three specific confirmed attacks: two at the airport and one at a distant subway station.
Seems like authorities were on the right path, tracking the terrorists from France to Belgium. It might have spurred thr attack before they were found out and stopped.
There are been several articles in the last six months talking about how (surprisingly to many) Belgian suburbs are a known hotbed of global extremism.
There are been several articles in the last six months talking about how (surprisingly to many) Belgian suburbs are a known hotbed of global extremism.
We have had quite a few reports over here saying that the Belgian security services aren't sharing all the info with the police leading to clues being missed. Seems that this is one of those times.
Blasts rocked the departure hall of Brussels’ Zaventem Airport and the city Metro stations, killing over 30 people and injuring more than 230. While the death toll keeps growing, authorities said the attacks are terror bombings and more undetonated homemade bombs are being discovered in security ops.
Actually, yeah it's a lot worse than others. It's government sponsored propaganda.
Where is the propaganda? What are you opposed to exactly?
At basically every level of the organization - The Russian government has complete editorial control over RT. It was designed from the ground up to be an efficient, modern propaganda stream for the Russian government.
It's not a matter of "Is this particular article propaganda?" It's a matter of "Am I legitimizing this outlet by sharing their content?" It's the articles like this where they might not have a pro-russian or anti-west line(yet) to push that lend them the legitimacy that makes it easier for them to have people swallow the propaganda pieces without questioning.
The Belgians are tracking over 218 known bad guys. They are a small intel service, they aren't the FBI or the CIA. Overwhelmed by the sheer number of the bad guys and they freedom of movement they have is the order of the day there.
@Churba The pro-russian stance isn't even a problem. Russia is no less evil than any other industrialised nation. The point is western media will only give you one perspective and actually if you listen and read RT articles you can have a more complete opinion.
As opposed to just reading from essentially 1 bias. RT is contrary to western media, but maybe by like 1%. They are mostly all the same.
BBC news has been accused more times than not of being controlled by the UK government. That's why I prefer the Independent or the Guradian.
As opposed to just reading from essentially 1 bias. RT is contrary to western media, but maybe by like 1%. They are mostly all the same.
If you're reading decent outlets, that's simply not an issue. The truth and accurate reporting don't have signifigant bias, they have fact, and fiction.
Of course, that's boiling down a long, long talk about it to a paragraph-or-less, I could go on to the point of tediousness about media bias. I'd rather spread the tediousness over multiple topics, there is well enough to go around.
BBC news has been accused more times than not of being controlled by the UK government. That's why I prefer the Independent or the Guardian.
Having worked at one time or another with all three, I can give you my personal guarantee that they're not. At least, any more than any other UK outlet, considering the UK government's occasionally troubled relationship with the press.
Which is a little different to RT which was, again, created from the ground up by the Russian government to be an efficient, modern, international propaganda machine.
American news... recommendations?
Buzzfeed(Deal with it), Christian Science monitor(despite the name), Guardian's American desk, NYT, The Economist, Reuters, PBS, AP, Foreign Affairs, DW, France 24, to name a few.
TLDR: RT news=slightly alternate perspective
See, here's what you're not understanding - The "Slightly alternate perspective" is literally just twisting the facts to suit an agenda. It might not seem so important to you, but when that slightly alternate perspective is, say, "Germany is a Failed state and the west is crumbling", that's straight up crazy-people bullshit. Or perhaps, "We didn't invade the Ukraine, they started it, and all the protestors are actually plants by the US government", which is slightly alternate to the view of literally the entire rest of the world. Or "There's no alcoholism problem in Russia"(Literally within the same week as the russian PM introduced legislation to try and curb russia's enormous problem with alcoholism), or demanding that staff invent quotes for US veterans saying things like "I served my country, and now all I have is this softball game", or that sending a pro-Russia activist and ambassador's daughter to interview said ambassador is an acceptable thing to do.
To save going on further, let's just say there are very, very good reasons that having RT on your resume makes it very hard to get picked up by any serious outlet.
Comments
Can they not just gas them out and drop them with rubber bullets or something like the American Police do everywhere else?
Do you think these guys the Guantanamo Bay treatment afterwards, especially since they don't have any real intelligence to give over to the state?
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/02/5_more_indicted_in_oregon_refu.html#incart_river_home
Another bomb blast in Istanbul
I met with some of my Turkish colleagues yesterday. =(
Not just these types of attacks, but the buying of oil from ISIS https://www.rt.com/news/326567-is-export-oil-turkey/ (http://ig.ft.com/sites/2015/isis-oil/).
On top of that the prospect of Turkey joining European Union; as unstable as things are already, I imagine that to cause more instability.
The city appears to be under lockdown. At least 25 dead. =(
A few stations showed a map with as many as four additional attack sites, but no one is confirming anything along those lines. There appear to be three specific confirmed attacks: two at the airport and one at a distant subway station.
1. Suicide bomber (rare/nonexistent except in Islamist attacks)
2. Occurred right as the police were moving on terror cells in Belgium
https://www.rt.com/news/336593-explosions-brussels-video-inside/
Don't even look at the comments. They're an absolute cesspool of trolls, racists, and general unfathomable stupidity.
http://www.today.com/video/eyewitness-suicide-bombers-triggered-brussels-airport-explosions-649886787507
It's not a matter of "Is this particular article propaganda?" It's a matter of "Am I legitimizing this outlet by sharing their content?" It's the articles like this where they might not have a pro-russian or anti-west line(yet) to push that lend them the legitimacy that makes it easier for them to have people swallow the propaganda pieces without questioning.
The Belgians are tracking over 218 known bad guys. They are a small intel service, they aren't the FBI or the CIA. Overwhelmed by the sheer number of the bad guys and they freedom of movement they have is the order of the day there.
As opposed to just reading from essentially 1 bias. RT is contrary to western media, but maybe by like 1%. They are mostly all the same.
BBC news has been accused more times than not of being controlled by the UK government. That's why I prefer the Independent or the Guradian.
American news... recommendations?
TLDR: RT news=slightly alternate perspective
Of course, that's boiling down a long, long talk about it to a paragraph-or-less, I could go on to the point of tediousness about media bias. I'd rather spread the tediousness over multiple topics, there is well enough to go around. Having worked at one time or another with all three, I can give you my personal guarantee that they're not. At least, any more than any other UK outlet, considering the UK government's occasionally troubled relationship with the press.
Which is a little different to RT which was, again, created from the ground up by the Russian government to be an efficient, modern, international propaganda machine. Buzzfeed(Deal with it), Christian Science monitor(despite the name), Guardian's American desk, NYT, The Economist, Reuters, PBS, AP, Foreign Affairs, DW, France 24, to name a few. See, here's what you're not understanding - The "Slightly alternate perspective" is literally just twisting the facts to suit an agenda. It might not seem so important to you, but when that slightly alternate perspective is, say, "Germany is a Failed state and the west is crumbling", that's straight up crazy-people bullshit. Or perhaps, "We didn't invade the Ukraine, they started it, and all the protestors are actually plants by the US government", which is slightly alternate to the view of literally the entire rest of the world. Or "There's no alcoholism problem in Russia"(Literally within the same week as the russian PM introduced legislation to try and curb russia's enormous problem with alcoholism), or demanding that staff invent quotes for US veterans saying things like "I served my country, and now all I have is this softball game", or that sending a pro-Russia activist and ambassador's daughter to interview said ambassador is an acceptable thing to do.
To save going on further, let's just say there are very, very good reasons that having RT on your resume makes it very hard to get picked up by any serious outlet.