Brussels Zaventem airport and metro explosions 'kill at least 13'

Several explosions have struck Brussels airport and the metro system, causing at least 13 deaths, Belgian media say.
Two blasts tore through the departures area of Zaventem airport shortly after 08:00 local time (07:00 GMT).

An hour later, an explosion hit Maalbeek metro station, close to the EU institutions. The airport and whole metro system have been closed.

The attacks come four days after Salah Abdeslam, the main suspect in the Paris attacks, was captured in Brussels.
The Belgian government has confirmed casualties at the airport but has given no numbers. The cause of the explosions is unknown.

Belgium has now raised its terror threat to its highest level.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35869254

I read somewhere that the Belgian Prime Minister admitted that there was suspicion of terrorist activity. Were there any measurements taken, or did the alert start after the fact. I guess we'll know more as the story develops.

Terribly sad and heartbreaking.

As of 13:17 GMT, 34 people are presumed dead and 170+ injured. Several of those injured will be maimed for life.

They had been strongly expecting a terrorist attack in Brussels ever since the November Paris attack. I don't know why some people have said this surprised them - it wasn't suprising at all, we knew something was going to happen. It was shocking, but not surprising.

Despite all the efforts of the Belgian intelligence and security forces, they still couldn't stop this.

One of the explosions was probably a suicide bomber (they don't know about the other one in the airport or the one at the metro at the moment). So this guy (I'm assuming he's a man) walked into the airport with a suicide vest strapped to him. There's practically no way to make sure one of the many terrorist cells doesn't do something like this. No amount of airport security is going to prevent all attacks.

Boris Johnson has said he has no intelligence reports saying that an attack in London is very imminent. But how can you know, when the terrorist cells are so hard to keep tabs on?

Anyone who still calls Islam a religion of peace is either wearing a blindfold and closing their ears, or is a Muslim, or is an idiot.

Islam is not a religion of peace. People are beheaded in the streets in Saudi for adultery. These are things we haven't seen in Europe since the Middle Ages.

Muslims who adopt our way of life are peaceful. Islam itself is not peaceful. It's a satanic religion of violence, disrespect towards women, medieval practices and absurd beliefs.

^ No it's not. The terrorists are knob-heads first and foremost, not muslims. The Quran does not promote aggression, violence or terrorism.

Trump, an openly Christian man, talked about lining up and shooting muslims with bullets dipped in pig blood as an example of how they need to "get tough" to save America. The crowd was absolutely roaring with excitement, and so were probably millions of Americans at home watching it on the TV. Does that make Christianity a religion of violence?

And by "Middle Ages" I assume you mean the 1940's.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

^ No it's not. The terrorists are knob-heads first and foremost, not muslims. The Quran does not promote aggression, violence or terrorism.

Trump, an openly Christian man, talked about lining up and shooting muslims with bullets dipped in pig blood as an example how they need to "get tough" to save America. The crowd was absolutely roaring with excitement, and so was probably millions of Americans at home watching it on the TV. Does that make Christianity a religion of violence?

And by "Middle Ages" I assume you mean the 1940's.

[/QUOTE]

Oh I see. Islam is not a religion of violence, hatred of women, ignorance and absurd beliefs, is it? Because the Quran doesn't say any of that stuff. I'd like to know which Quran you've read - not sure if you are aware, but any decent Muslim will tell you that the only real Quran is that written in the original Arabic text. So your English translation might be a bit off.

Below are some photos taken in the last few months or years, in a country which the EU and US have good relations with. I won't say which religion is involved. Hint: they're not Buddhists, Hindus, Jews or Christians. It shouldn't be THAT hard to guess which religion these wonderful, peaceful people are part of.

[url=http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/02/Sharia_Law-e1423659103112.jpg]http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/02/Sharia_Law-e1423659103112.jpg[/url]

[url=http://www.tawakilagi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/crime.jpg]http://www.tawakilagi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/crime.jpg[/url]

[url=http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/assets/images/news_images/2016/01/02/377672_saudi-beheading_8740.jpg]http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/assets/images/news_images/2016/01/02/377672_saudi-beheading_8740.jpg[/url]

But, as you say, it's not Islam which is the problem. The Nazis massacred millions, as did the Soviets, and those were supposedly Christians and atheists. And you can find horrible images from every country right - even Christians commit horrific acts! Let's completely ignore tu quoque and the appeal to hypocrisy, and let's say that Trump rallies people who are keen to commit violence! So of course Islam isn't bad - Christianity can be just as bad, right? It's just a few crazy extremist Muslims who are evil. Definitely not the religion itself. Islam is all about brotherly love. Sharia law is all about ensuring everyone obeys the kind laws of Allah, there's no evil to it. And after all most Muslims don't commit evil acts, so of course it is absolutely flawless logic to conclude that Islam is an ok religion.

The late Christopher Hitchens and the very much alive (despite the fatwa issued upon him that EVERY Muslim is duty bound to kill him) Salman Rushdie were some of the greatest thinkers of our age, but of course they got it wrong about Islam being a force of evil. Islam is good! Don't hate on Islam! Don't be a stereotypical redneck racist! Use your head! Well... if you want to use your head, make sure not to do so in places like Saudi Arabia, or you'll end up without it.

1. Yes I am fully aware of that. That doesn't mean there aren't numerous translations and interpretations - none of which to my knowledge (I'm going to trust my former religion teacher with a PhD on this) actually promote those things (and certainly not more than the Bible!). Speaking of ignorance - I take it you're not aware it was muslim mathematicians who gave us algebra?

2. When you say it like that, I guess they're muslim extremists? Nice job posting some of the most disgusting pictures you could find to reach a conclusion on a whole religion and its 1.7 billion practicers. Funny you'd mention Hinduism by the way - if there's any religion I find hard to see much good in, it's that one.

3. Almost all of your third paragraph actually sounds quite reasonable. I can't help but sense an undertone of sarcasm though. Sharia is to a large extent built on the life and practice of Muhammed and the society he lived in - which is where most of the "medieval" stuff is coming from. The majority of the muslim countries implement none or very little of this in their laws. With a few exceptions, as you rightly point out. But then even in the countries with these obvious social issues they outperform western countries in equality in some areas - for example more than 60 % of university students in Iran are women. They're getting there, slowly but surely, which is exactly what the militant extremists hate - so they try to turn the rest of the world against them and the muslim people and send them and their societies back 200 years.

Comparing Muslims to Islamic terrorists is like comparing football fanatics to hooligans.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]

Comparing Muslims to Islamic terrorists is like comparing football fanatics to hooligans.[/QUOTE]

QFT

Should I laugh or should I cry when I read that the Islamic republic of Iran "outperforms" Western countries with regards to equal rights? We are all so brainwashed fearing to deny people their religious freedom to an extent that we do not admit that religion is the worst enemy of human rights. Only when countries free their legal system from the influence of religion human rights can be established and the society can proceed to more freedom and less restrictions. Islam is maybe worse than other religions but basically we must keep any reliogion out of our civil society. Women rights, gay rights, sexual freedom, the freedom of the individual human being etc can only be maintained without the detrimental input of religion.

I completely agree that a countrys legal system should be completely independent from its religion(s).

I'm not sure I agree religion itself is the biggest obstacle though, I think it has more to do with power, corruption and greed, but often camouflaged with religion as a means or excuse for inequality and opression.

No need to laugh or cry - my comment aimed to nuance the view many have that all Islamic countries are inequal, opress women, etc. Even in Iran which has obvious problems with equality, there are glimpses of hope as, for example, women are very proficient in the academic world there. Not to say they outperform western countries overall, because they certainly do not.

I understand that you want to be fair and open minded but we must look at the facts and the facts say that in Islamic states human rights are opressed in a horrible way. Poltical correctness teaches us that we should not feel superior but that should not keep us from realising the truth: there is a logical connection between Islam and opression of human rights,

I do not know where you live but in Europe it was mainly the Catholic church and their "moral code" that withheld the development of human rights over centuries. The church never respected the individual freedom of a person, the individual was always "subject" of a "God given" ruling monarch as well as subject to the laws of the church. There was no freedom and self-determination of the individual. Slavery, serfdom, racism, anti-semitism, lack of education, lack of womens rights, total lack of sexual freedom were all derived from the alleged "divine law" upheld by the church. Only through enlightenment the power and influence of the church could be diminished and the restrictive laws could be removed from the civil society. It was a long and hard process. which is actually not yet completed - the church still has much too much power.

It does not make much of a difference if you say that religion is the root of all the injustice or if you say that religion is used by a corrupt system. In both cases religion cliams special privileges and these privileges are then used to supress people who do not follow the rules of the religion. It's hard to imagine that Nazis could have been granted extra privileges in other countries from respect for their ideology. Religion is nothing else but a supressive ideology and if we do not limit the power of religion we won't have freedom.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

Funny you'd mention Hinduism by the way - if there's any religion I find hard to see much good in, it's that one.
[/QUOTE]

WTF??

YourValentine - a very nicely put post. Still don't agree with religion in itself necessarily being something bad as I feel that, religion or no religion, people will alway find a way to systematically abuse one another. The fact that many of the worst crimes against humanity, current and historical, has been committed by atheistic ideologies is a sign of that IMO.

ParisNair: I wish I had put that more delicately. I really mean no disrespect - but the religion itself is in many ways every bit as patriarchal as Christianity or Islam, and has the caste system which just seems so fundamentally wrong to me.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

ParisNair: I wish I had put that more delicately. I really mean no disrespect - but the religion itself is in many ways every bit as patriarchal as Christianity or Islam, and has the caste system which just seems so fundamentally wrong to me.

[/QUOTE]

Hinduism has caste system as much as Christianity has apartheid or slavery. It is/was a societal thing, not a religious thing.