MetaFilter posts tagged with WashingtonPost and terrorism

Is Martial Law On the Way?

davy — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:31:46 -0800

War Plans Drafted To Counter Terror Attacks in U.S. Subtitled "Domestic Effort Is Big Shift for Military". See also martial law. (I wonder how this would contrast/compare with FEMA? ) And yes, I know this is "newsfilter", so take me out and shoot me.

from the wilderness

stbalbach — Sat, 17 May 2003 16:18:00 -0800

This unusual $20,000 full-page political add (pdf) ran on May 16th in The Washington Post. Read the fascinating story how this unusual add came to happen, the powerful people supporting it, the independent news site From The Wilderness behind the Add and the video The Truth and Lies of 9-11 that started it all.

Ty Webb — Thu, 30 May 2002 09:29:21 -0800

Government Will Ease Limits on Domestic Spying by F.B.I. (NY Times link) As part of a sweeping effort to transform the F.B.I. into a domestic terrorism prevention agency, Attorney General John Ashcroft has decided to relax restrictions on the bureau's ability to conduct domestic spying in counterterrorism operations, senior government officials said today. Here's the Wash. Post's take on the story.

semmi — Sun, 28 Apr 2002 15:04:36 -0800

The good news is that there is no religious war, the bad news is that a time bomb blast killed 7 in a Russian market; 14 Christians were killed in Indonesia; a 5 year old killed and three other under 15 injured in Israel. All in one day.

Gilbert — Sun, 03 Mar 2002 23:18:36 -0800

Not to complain about the ever-expanding war on terror, but... Afganistan just might become a little stickier than our leaders had hoped. A recent raid on regrouping troops went not too well, with a combined force of Afgan and U.S. troops beating a quick retreat. Is the U.S. miring itself in not one but several Vietnam's?

tweebiscuit — Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:28:42 -0800

On September 30th, there was a peace protest in Washington D.C. I'm surprised no one else linked to this -- about 50 students from my college attended and joined the crowd of a few thousand. I would have gone, but I'm dubious about the efficacy of public protest despite the fact that I'm an affirmed pacifist. What do you folks think? Will a totally non-military action be an appropriate response? (And is there any possiblity of the US acting in such a way?) Is the loss of a single additional human life in this new war justifiable?

Taken Outtacontext — Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:50:48 -0800

The Washington Post calls it "An Attack on the World." In addition, the London Times has a graphic of a world map that shows the number of people killed in last week's attacks from other countries.

aaron — Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:19:49 -0800

Bioterror? Nukes? Don't bet on it. Buried in this Washington Post article about the possibility of further terrorist attacks is a piece of information that I had been thinking was probably true myself: The fact that they went to all this trouble to hijack planes and use them as giant bombs is "enormously illustrative" that they probably do not have anything worse to use on us, like biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

NortonDC — Sun, 16 Sep 2001 21:02:58 -0800

A Sky Filled With Chaos, Uncertainty and True Heroism There's lots of fresh detail in this Washington Post story on flight 93, the only plane not to hit a target. "It was the hijackers' bad luck that they chose a plane with a number of large men on board. Beamer stood 6-foot-1 and weighed 200 pounds. Jeremy Glick, 31, another passenger involved in the apparent revolt, was a college rugby player and judo champion. Mark Bingham, 31, of San Francisco was a 6-foot-4 rugby player."

MiguelCardoso — Sun, 16 Sep 2001 15:29:37 -0800

Realism Urgently Needed - Or Not? David Ignatius's column today in The Washington Post addresses the question of effectiveness in the war against terrorism. He tells the sobering story of the CIA's collaboration with the terrorist Ali Hassan Salameh. The downside: "The most obvious (lesson) is that collecting intelligence about terrorists is a truly dirty business. This world cannot be penetrated without help from members or friends of the terrorist network". The upside: "Paradoxically, these tragic days have probably been an ideal time for the CIA to be recruiting new sources of intelligence about terrorism. The barbaric attacks Tuesday aroused disgust around the world --- not least among civilized Muslims. Some of these disgusted Muslims will surely want to help the United States and its allies put the terrorists out of business." The crucial moral question: It's really a classic means/ends debate. Is it right - or just acceptably expedient - to collaborate with known terrorists in order to strike out at those we don't yet(or otherwise will never) know about?