It strikes me that what people are arguing about is whether US action will significantly reduce the *risk* of terrorism, and that observations of *events* of terrorism over most sensible time horizons are poor estimators of the risk. So I propose a suitably market-driven version of the bet; I might be prepared to bet a bottle of LBOPhroaig that within two years of the first day of bombing, it will still be the case that no non-government owned reinsurer is quoting prices for terrorism risk.
Get Your Free Email at http://www.al-islam.com