Sometimes Salon can be so obvious. A piece on “terror sex“? I can imagine the editorial meeting – “OK we’ve done the serious stuff, now what’s the sex angle to this?”. Next I suppose will be an article on how the military could have caught the terrorists if only they used more open source software?
Archive forSeptember 21st, 2001 | back to home
21 September 2001
Could the post-hijack clues be hoaxes? If you are feeling in a conspiratorial frame of mind, the private spies at Stratfor point out that the otherwise meticulous conspirators reportedly left behind pictures of Bin Laden and Korans. They say, “A likely possibility is that the hijackers intentionally left material designed to provide the FBI with an obvious trail leading to low-level operatives with limited knowledge of the attack or its sponsors. While authorities are preoccupied on this investigative track, the real masterminds of the attack could flee detection and plan more operations.”
When can we laugh again? I have just received by email the first joke based on the events of 9-11 and it was funny (at least to those who would understand it – it was also very geeky). But I didn’t feel it appropriate to forward it or put it up on my site – it just seemed disrespectful. It turns out that traditional humour outlets in the US are facing a similar problem. “At the Onion, Hanson said one of the headlines under consideration for its groundbreaking issue, in the publication’s mock-newspaper format, is: “Report: 82 percent of Americans staring blankly at hands.””
