Trading on the Future of Terror [LA Times] The war on terrorism has come to this: The Pentagon is setting up a commodity-style market to use real investors — putting down real money — to help its generals predict terrorist attacks, coups d'etat and other turmoil in the Middle East.
You can sign
up here to bet on suicide bombings.
posted by srboisvert
on Jul 29, 2003 -
White house announces more silly and vague schema
for defining terrorist threat. Ok, so how does going from the total unclear status of "everybody lookout, it's coming" to Yellow Alert which means "a significant risk of terrorist attacks" make things more clear? For that matter what's the point of Red Alert anyhow? Is that for when the Pentagon is already on fire?
posted by shagoth
on Mar 12, 2002 -
A story that seems to be good news
no matter what side of the 'war' you're on. The dragnet around Bin Laden is reported to be closing quickly, and currently stands, says the Sunday Times, at about 30 squares mile. So, what happens next? (via Plastic.com)
posted by Hildago
on Nov 18, 2001 -
David Greg Harth is not afraid.
As part of his ongoing art project in which this New York artist stamps US currency with phrases, he's releasing 'I am not afraid' and 'I am not terrorized'. He needs help circulating the bills.
posted by prolific
on Nov 4, 2001 -
Is The Media's "Whining" About Access Justified?
A journalist criticizes his colleagues: "The disconnect between the U.S. media and the public they purport to serve has turned into a virtual chasm in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."
What are/should be the limits on the ability of the press to obtain unfettered information in sensitive times?
posted by pardonyou?
on Oct 17, 2001 -
Did the earth move for you?
Encouraging to see good things coming from bad. Suddenly bickering with a partner doesn't seem so clever. Hugging and - yes - sex
might just be the right response. Relationships stronger after 9.11? How's yours?
posted by grahamwell
on Sep 29, 2001 -
Bush is expected to issue an executive order labeling certain people as "terrorists", which will lock up their assets and generally make life miserable. Who needs checks and balances or due process?
posted by jgilliam
on Sep 23, 2001 -
"Bioterrorism: An Even More Devastating Threat"
Here's a link to an article that appears in today's Washington Post. It details an "easier" way to eliminate "80 percent of people infected by inhaled spores". The print version includes a map with the best flight plan and release point to effect the best results. Is this Responsible Journalism? Is it necessary to publish this sort of weakness in America's country's defenses? I don't disagree that Bioterrorism is a threat to be concerned about, just the presentation & the flip attitude of how easy it will be to pull this off. Or do we need this kind of "the-sky-is-going-to-fall" reporting to shock us into action?
posted by bhmwks
on Sep 17, 2001 -
Americans have little to fear (ny times link) -
In an opinion piece by Larry Johnson, a former State Department counterterrorism specialist published July 10th, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.
None of these beliefs are based in fact. . . .
posted by revbrian
on Sep 16, 2001 -
Fear of flying?
New security measures are being discussed. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta says, "These terrorist acts are designed to steal the confidence of Americans. We will restore that confidence."
posted by prozaction
on Sep 12, 2001 -
Not over yet.
Police find a truck packed with enough explosives to blow up the George Washington bridge. When will it stop?
posted by kaefer
on Sep 11, 2001 -