What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- cloak419, on 11/24/2008, -14/+7wtf mate?
- gr0ver, on 11/24/2008, -1/+49M must be livid!
- kyanit3, on 11/24/2008, -11/+30Bloody yanks
- Naieve, on 11/24/2008, -14/+24How dare we kill a terrorist.
- dalectrics, on 11/24/2008, -1/+11Bit naive really.
- TPorter72, on 11/24/2008, -6/+4Ya terrorists kill people so can't they kill them back? Eye for an Eye and the whole....... ***** forgot about that part
- wunksta, on 11/24/2008, -2/+5yeah not like it doesnt lead to a vicious cycle or anything
"we killed them because they attacked us!" "well we attacked you because you are killing us!" - dsmx, on 11/24/2008, -0/+6He wasn't a proven terrorist only a suspected terrorist.
- solid12345, on 11/25/2008, -1/+3@dsmx
Yeah because I'm sure any typical British national would fly to Pakistan and march up into the mountains of Waziristan for the LuLz. - Psych77, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Well they might if they were of Pakistani origin and had family living there. Not saying it's the case here, but, and this may be a shock for you, some people do have relatives living in other countries.
- mickstephenson, on 11/26/2008, -0/+1The point is not that Britain would have definitely said no to the missile attack, it's that the yanks kept us out of the loop, when we are allies as close as we are we should be privy to this kind of information.
The American's continually act like they don't trust Britain at all.
- solid12345, on 11/25/2008, -2/+1Yeah we are so backwards and barbaric, we should do like you Brits do to mass murderers, give them hardcore pornography, Playstations and televisions!
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Jailed- ...
- Naieve, on 11/24/2008, -14/+24How dare we kill a terrorist.
- Chjoma10, on 11/24/2008, -4/+9Hopefully it wasn't Bond.
- SilverBlade2k, on 11/24/2008, -21/+9Why seek answers? An Al-Qaeda member is dead..leave it at that.
- davidkeithjones, on 11/24/2008, -2/+16Leaders have followers that make up the cell. You find the leader, you find more of his mates. When the leader is dead his buddies splinter making the cell as a whole harder to follow.
Co-ordination is important.- usedupfag, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1This is why I hate it when pop groups split up.
Sure, a few songs a year by a group of ***** singers is bad. But when they split up, you now have 20 ***** songs by the singers.
Now you have to avoid 20 ***** songs, instead of only avoiding four.
- usedupfag, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1This is why I hate it when pop groups split up.
- srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -2/+2And 5 other innocent people who were dragged off the scene before there was an investigation.
Why would you care about that though? They shouldn't have been there? Wrong place at the wrong time?
Yeah okay buddy.- fucknuggets, on 11/24/2008, -0/+6maybe i should read the article again. I must have missed the part about 5 innocent people at the Al-Qaeda meeting.
- srussell8570, on 11/26/2008, -0/+0Oh i forgot, you're part of the "Kill first and ask questions later" crowd.
***** yourself and get out of my country.
- wunksta, on 11/24/2008, -0/+4yeah because our governments are infallible and certainly do no wrong...
- usedupfag, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1And you have no understanding of where the Al-Qeada name came from. It comes from the CIA. It is a generic term, like "mafia" There was no mafia until the CIA created it.
Why did they create it? So they could hand people in the "mafia" sentences if they were out of the country. The same thing applies with Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda never existed until the CIA put a name to a bunch of random groups who were Islamic.
- davidkeithjones, on 11/24/2008, -2/+16Leaders have followers that make up the cell. You find the leader, you find more of his mates. When the leader is dead his buddies splinter making the cell as a whole harder to follow.
- brand0nh, on 11/24/2008, -34/+7I got an idea. How about the British shut their dirty mouths?
- BatFreak, on 11/24/2008, -3/+15Douche
- britblogger, on 11/24/2008, -2/+11bag
- RAEP, on 11/24/2008, -3/+9How about you fall on a knife?
- srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -0/+14You're right, we don't need allies because we're AMERICA!
/sarcasm - Markpdotcom, on 11/24/2008, -0/+9You see diggers... its stupid people like this that cause the rest of the world to hate your country.
How can you fix this? Sterilisation? Education? Its a tough one! ;)
- Amorn, on 11/24/2008, -7/+55What I learned from Quantum of Solace: CIA is a *****
- BoonTobias, on 11/24/2008, -2/+7a little too late to realize that, mate
- britblogger, on 11/24/2008, -3/+4***** it, dugg for using ***** and not being dugg down.
awesome. - rlh1, on 11/24/2008, -0/+11Movies, a good source for knowledge and to shape public opinion....
- temsi, on 11/24/2008, -2/+7Yes, I always rely on fiction to form an opinion on world affairs...
- veriix, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2damnit, common! SPOILERS!!
- Cameleopard, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Read Legacy of Ashes and you'll see that the CIA is, charitably speaking, ***** incompetent.
- craighoxton, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2Right now, people at GCHQ, Cheltenham and Fort Meade, Maryland are nodding their heads...
- fucknuggets, on 11/24/2008, -1/+17loose lips sink ships.
- damian7, on 11/24/2008, -4/+2Mr. Big Dick's Hot Chicks
- jojopumpkin, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Well said *****! no offense.
- svnlto, on 11/24/2008, -27/+50The truth is, there is no islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity…The country behind this propaganda is the US
-Robin Cook-
Former British Foreign Secretary- tsotha, on 11/24/2008, -24/+34It's pretty scary somebody that stupid was allowed to be the British Foreign Secretary.
- k9unit, on 11/24/2008, -17/+11It's pretty scary when f** heads like you just don't get it
- tehchicken, on 11/24/2008, -4/+17You must of shat your pants when Bush became President.
- temsi, on 11/24/2008, -8/+4Interesting that you used the word "shat" properly, when you apparently can't tell the difference between "must have" and "must of".
- RumpleForeskin3, on 11/24/2008, -20/+13And the award for dumbest quote ever posted on Digg goes too....
- swab, on 11/24/2008, -5/+17If I am right that quote is from about 4 weeks before Robin Cook died of a heart attack. Draw your own conclusions...
- fuzzmeister, on 11/24/2008, -3/+12In the sense of an Islamic army, no, Al Qaida is not that. Rather, Al Qaida is an loose organization around a common set of jihadist ideals. It is made up of smaller groups, and cells within those groups, that operate on their own, occasionally taking orders from the top, but by and large independent. So, it certainly exists, and is certainly a threat, but it's not like a rogue nation: taking out the leaders of Al Quaida won't stop the danger, you also need to win hearts and minds. To say it doesn't exist at all, though, is patently absurd.
- srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -1/+4Its like fight club, but more dangerous.
- onetimer, on 11/24/2008, -7/+8Digg should require an IQ test.
The test being, that if you digg up a post as stupid as the OP, you fail.- BabyWookie, on 11/24/2008, -6/+3Yeah. Let's put you rabid zionist fanatics in charge of who gets on Digg.
- wunksta, on 11/24/2008, -2/+14"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians"
also see
http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives ... - solid12345, on 11/25/2008, -1/+2Yeah there are no islamic armies, they have only assassinated Anwar Sadat, bombed a dozen buildings in Beirut, hijacked a few airliners, fought a civil war in Algeria, bombed the Khobar Towars in Kenya, and not to mention turned Afghanistan's soccer fields into execution centers, right, they aren't real.
- wunksta, on 11/25/2008, -1/+2all perpetrated by small groups of people claiming (or claimed to have) a loose connection to one another. at the most, they are islamic terrorists but organization wise, no they arent an army or a network. in fact, a lot of the groups are actually at odds with one another (ie see hamas and fatah). where does the "al qaeda" fit within all this? from all ive read, al qaeda isnt even as organized as those groups. basically anyone taking up the message of "al qaeda" leaders is al qaeda, even if they arent given direction. al qaeda doesnt exist as a formal organization, its an ideological group at the most with some rich backers who might funnel money to certain cells. but the al qaeda name has since become a catch all term for any terrorist group or islamic extremist, when its not that simple. in fact, al qaeda is the extreme of the extreme in comparison to other extremists.
i guess its a lot more easy to just say "they hate our freedom!" and attack them because they are terrorists (which equates to 9-11 and al qaeda) rather than instead of identifying the key issues and seeing what the actual problems are. like i said, there are differences among the groups and everythings not so cut and dry. what we have ACTUALLY done though is create more incentive for unity and cooperation within the islamic extremist community by labeling them all al qaeda terrorists and not identifying the underlining problems.
just my thoughts
- wunksta, on 11/25/2008, -1/+2all perpetrated by small groups of people claiming (or claimed to have) a loose connection to one another. at the most, they are islamic terrorists but organization wise, no they arent an army or a network. in fact, a lot of the groups are actually at odds with one another (ie see hamas and fatah). where does the "al qaeda" fit within all this? from all ive read, al qaeda isnt even as organized as those groups. basically anyone taking up the message of "al qaeda" leaders is al qaeda, even if they arent given direction. al qaeda doesnt exist as a formal organization, its an ideological group at the most with some rich backers who might funnel money to certain cells. but the al qaeda name has since become a catch all term for any terrorist group or islamic extremist, when its not that simple. in fact, al qaeda is the extreme of the extreme in comparison to other extremists.
- tsotha, on 11/24/2008, -24/+34It's pretty scary somebody that stupid was allowed to be the British Foreign Secretary.
- benbread, on 11/24/2008, -4/+10WTF is with these comments?
- dixon86, on 11/24/2008, -10/+2Stupid septic tanks
- Ch0pSt1x, on 11/24/2008, -10/+5silly americans trix are for kids
- coyote1284, on 11/24/2008, -2/+41Score another point for Team America! ***** YEAH!
/levity- Knowltey, on 11/24/2008, -3/+1Democrats! ***** YEAH! Republicans! ***** yeah? ***** yeah?
- srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -2/+0Hahahaha
- coyote1284, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Depublicans, Republicrats... what's the difference?
/cynicism
- Knowltey, on 11/24/2008, -3/+1Democrats! ***** YEAH! Republicans! ***** yeah? ***** yeah?
- johngault, on 11/24/2008, -18/+22British suspected, USA confirmed.
Dead.
Whats to explain. Move on to other suspects.
No more questions please.- Snoosy, on 11/24/2008, -6/+36God forbid someone questions the actions of the US Government.
- srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -6/+10THANK YOU!
Jesus Christ, some of you mindless drones scare the piss out of me.
- srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -6/+10THANK YOU!
- spyd3rweb, on 11/24/2008, -5/+33Since when did executing people who have not even been proven guilty start being a good idea?
- skatastrophy, on 11/24/2008, -9/+6Umm... what else are we supposed to do with all those sweet missiles we have?
If the Middle East were Duck Hunt then Al Quaeda would be the ducks and the Brits would be the Dog that snickers at us when we miss. The Nintendo console itself would be the world and the TV would be those sweet grayscale images we get with a reticle on them when we're watching MissileCam™. The Light Gun would be the Ship motoring around waiting to fire missiles and the person wielding the Light Gun would be some 17 year old that got recruited cause he's good at video games. If he'd been born about 10 years earlier he would have loved playing Duck Hunt and wearing fluorescent colored fanny-packs and having a mullet... but instead he's in the military taking pot-shots at shacks in the desert/mountains. Same thing except you don't have to blow on a cartridge when your aircraft carrier won't start up properly. - ooblez, on 11/24/2008, -10/+3@spyd3rweb your parents must be ***** psyched to have given birth to you.
- Beveridge89, on 11/24/2008, -2/+3Well that's the problem, isn't it? Either you do things like this, or innocents and coalition forces will be killed in Afghanistan. In the process, the US military will kill innocent civilians, but it has the potential to save more.
It's never going to be a morally clear ground, but the only reason this is being focused on is because a British citizen was the target. By the standard of other executions against militants, this should be considered a relative success. - GhostRidr, on 11/24/2008, -4/+2It's called war. You do me and mine harm, and I hit back--hard. I don't have to ask you to consult with a lawyer or the court system first.
- skatastrophy, on 11/24/2008, -9/+6Umm... what else are we supposed to do with all those sweet missiles we have?
- temsi, on 11/24/2008, -2/+5"No more questions"
I do believe that is the whole point.
With the suspect dead, who are they going to interrogate?
- Snoosy, on 11/24/2008, -6/+36God forbid someone questions the actions of the US Government.
- borez, on 11/24/2008, -7/+39Rashid Rauf may have held a British passport, but he was in no way a British subject with loyalty to our country. If you ask me, the Americans have done us nothing but a favour.
- punkcat, on 11/24/2008, -0/+13oh i doubt anyone is losing sleep over it.
- Beveridge89, on 11/24/2008, -2/+5Indeed, we really weren't going to strike Pakistan to take him out, despite him being wanted here for both the transatlantic bomb plot and the murder of his uncle; we didn't even have the will to force through his extradition. The reality is that if he wanted fair trial he shouldn't have ran from two warrants for his arrest.
America has the will and ability to do things like this and we don't; to condemn them for that when the victim is doing everything to avoid the fair trials he deserves is just plain stupid. This articles heading may as well be British Morons seek Answers.- borez, on 11/24/2008, -1/+3Or... British governmental morons feel the need to spend a few million pounds or so extraditing, trying, convicting and releasing into the British prison system a known terrorist where upon he can recruit British criminals and turn them into terrorist within the walls of a British Prison and therefore cause havoc upon their releases all to save the politicians pathetic self respect and reputation.
Footnote: British politicians are uber ***** idiots.
- borez, on 11/24/2008, -1/+3Or... British governmental morons feel the need to spend a few million pounds or so extraditing, trying, convicting and releasing into the British prison system a known terrorist where upon he can recruit British criminals and turn them into terrorist within the walls of a British Prison and therefore cause havoc upon their releases all to save the politicians pathetic self respect and reputation.
- daimposter, on 11/24/2008, -2/+2*favor
j/k. A terrorist was killed that was hiding in a place the British wouldn't go to. So what is wrong with this? - solid12345, on 11/25/2008, -2/+2Thank you, nice to know there are still Brits with balls who haven't entirely succumbed to the Paris Pussy Accords of modern European thinking. Churchill would be proud.
- radiofrequency, on 11/24/2008, -20/+19USA = best military and intelligence in the world. Striking fear into the hearts of scumbags everywhere!
- Bojanglesmn, on 11/24/2008, -3/+15Including its own citizens!
- Threlly1, on 11/24/2008, -6/+5AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.......
Jesus, stop it...too...many....jokes....can't....stop..........laughing - wunksta, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3yeah lets forget about mkultra
- BabyWookie, on 11/24/2008, -0/+5"Military intelligence". LOL!
- Picer, on 11/24/2008, -9/+8CIA gungho as usual if they keep sending missiles into Pakistan they increase support for the extremists by the public as to the Pakistani public the Americans are attacking them, and why didn't the CIA think of questioning him instead of questioning/imprisoning random people (in an effort to say we got someone)and sending them to gitmo.
- fucknuggets, on 11/24/2008, -1/+8RTFA
- alclone, on 11/24/2008, -2/+2Felix did it!
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/24/2008, -22/+22A simple THANK YOU would have sufficed. And I thought Brits were supposed to be polite.
- Beveridge89, on 11/24/2008, -3/+12Tell you what, we'll get right on that Thank You after you've got your guys on working on that apology for locking up nine British nationals without trial for several years. Sound fair?
- pingudownunder, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2So if the British inteligence agencies killed a *SUSPECTED* terrorist who just happened to also hold a US passport, are you telling me that the USA *wouldn't* be upset about it? That they wouldn't impose trade embargos, declare war on the British and spread FUD?
MI5, MI6 ... you know where Dubya is ... go get 'im.
- tsotha, on 11/24/2008, -13/+21There's no reason for US security services to notify other countries when they kill a member of Al Queda, especially a country without sovereign territorial involvement. The fact this man was a British subject should be a source of embarrassment instead of outrage.
- jgzman, on 11/24/2008, -3/+9How would we, the United States, feel if Iran were to decide that an American who happened to be in, say, Germany, was a terrorist, and dropped a cruse missile on him? Or a sniper, say? We'd be embarrassed, rather than outraged, yes?
- tsotha, on 11/24/2008, -6/+3If he were a member of Al Queda, I'd be all for it. And yes, embarrassed he was an American.
- solid12345, on 11/25/2008, -1/+1But they don't drop missiles, they only send goons out to throw them in the back of a car, blindfold them, make them confess to being an imperialist scum on VHS tape, and then chop their head off.
- wunksta, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3and how do we determine he was a member of the al qaeda? funny where this list comes from eh?
- tsotha, on 11/25/2008, -1/+0That's a separate issue, in my opinion. All I'm saying is we don't need anyone's "buy-in" when we do make that determination.
- f54280, on 11/25/2008, -0/+0@tsotha: All I'm saying is we don't need anyone's "buy-in" when we do make that determination
I see where you are going. Lets just make that al quaeda denomination "opt-out"... - solid12345, on 11/25/2008, -1/+2So i'm sure he was just visiting Waziristan to find the best Black Friday HDTV deals?
- Beveridge89, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1wunksta, he was wanted for planning a terrorist plot and in connection with the death of his uncle in the UK. I'm all for due process, but he had decided to avoid due process at all cost. This is the closest we were going to come to a just solution.
- wunksta, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1but if its not an open process and made behind closed doors, anyones libel to become "al qaeda" or a terrorist, what happens then? we need to make sure things are transparent because otherwise it grants those on the other side too much power
- jgzman, on 11/24/2008, -3/+9How would we, the United States, feel if Iran were to decide that an American who happened to be in, say, Germany, was a terrorist, and dropped a cruse missile on him? Or a sniper, say? We'd be embarrassed, rather than outraged, yes?
- mrgreenjeans9, on 11/24/2008, -6/+3"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it." - Rear Admiral Josh Painter (Hunt for Red October
- IllBeBack, on 11/24/2008, -1/+9*****. How would like to be sitting in your house watching TV and all of a sudden hear the scream of a missile getting louder and louder and then you die?
That would suck.- deacont23, on 11/24/2008, -1/+11You wouldn't hear it coming...
- Knowltey, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1three actually
- mamboboy, on 11/24/2008, -1/+7One second they're watching baywatch and the next they are surrounded by 72 virgin hotties
- dhVyse, on 11/24/2008, -0/+4Supersonic missiles my friend, he didn't hear a thing.
- benicillin1, on 11/24/2008, -2/+4i wasn't aware countries could lay claim to terror suspects. isn't he just a terror suspect in general? the article refers to him as a 'suspect' as well as a 'subject' - so does this mean hes a british CITIZEN? if so, maybe they have more of a right to be pissed... though the US kills citizens of foreign countries all the time without their permission.
- mamboboy, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Well he was someone who was wanted either 'dead or alive'. Americans usually prefer to go with the first option.
- fucknuggets, on 11/24/2008, -2/+2tell me which sounds more viable.
1. sending about 30 solders on a suicide mission to get him alive.
2. sending 1 hellfire missile to kill him and several other top Al Queda agents. - Helois, on 11/25/2008, -0/+43. Stay out of other countries , go home fix all the problems in your own country.
Never an option right?
- fucknuggets, on 11/24/2008, -2/+2tell me which sounds more viable.
- pingudownunder, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2From what I understand, the only difference between a British Subject and a British Citizen is that a British Subject has the same rights as a Citizen, due to them being born "under the soverignty of the British Crown prior to 1949). Essentially that means that anyone born in the British Commonwealth prior to 1949 was a British Subject.
However British Citizens (through birth, marriage or "not-free-for-all migration") also have European Union rights to live and work anywhere in the EU, something that the Subjects do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_l ...
- mamboboy, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Well he was someone who was wanted either 'dead or alive'. Americans usually prefer to go with the first option.
- myempyrean, on 11/24/2008, -3/+6dammit, all I wanted to do was come here and post a Quantom of Solace comment but about 15 people beat me to it. I guess they're right, meet one digger, you've met them all...
- geico, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1lol
- Technoidatx, on 11/24/2008, -2/+8The missile attacks are only a small piece of the puzzle for taking out an enemy combatant. You don’t run a mission in Pakistan from Nevada without satellites. They spend months watching and when the time is right. BOOM
- srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -3/+2What movie did you see that on?
- Technoidatx, on 12/08/2008, -0/+0I saw it in a container in Fallujah.
- srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -3/+2What movie did you see that on?
- UKLooney, on 11/24/2008, -10/+11I imagine the 'innocent until proven guilty' ideology goes out the window in cases like this. Bit like the Guantanamo 'suspects', so it must be OK I guess.
- Egoist, on 11/24/2008, -12/+6This is a war.
Would you have insisted that every German soldier during WWII be tried in a court of law before being shot?- jgzman, on 11/24/2008, -2/+10If they are shooting back, then no. If we came upon them in their barracks, unarmed and unsuspecting? Yea, I would expect them to be captured, not slaughtered.
- Egoist, on 11/25/2008, -2/+2Why don't you talk to some veterans and ask them just how well your strategy would work. Someone needs to pop your bubble of naivety.
- wunksta, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2its called the geneva convention, its highly regarded. clearly you havent served at all.
- hirschab, on 11/24/2008, -1/+15A war on terror is not a war. Terror is an emotion, not an enemy. Some Americans are just so brainwashed it honestly terrifies me.
- Egoist, on 11/25/2008, -2/+3So you're telling me that our soldiers are not out currently fighting in a foreign country? They aren't fighting an enemy who fires back, plants IEDs, and kills civilians indiscriminately?
In what fantasy land do you live in? - wunksta, on 11/25/2008, -2/+3"So you're telling me that our soldiers are not out currently fighting in a foreign country? They aren't fighting an enemy who fires back, plants IEDs, and kills civilians indiscriminately?
In what fantasy land do you live in?"
are they fighting drugs in the drug war? get real, actually understand the issue that we arent actually "fighting terrorism" we are simply fighting specific groups that we deem hostile that use terrorism. we and our clients have used terrorism extensively and we currently use terrorism in our current "fight" against "terrorism". it has nothing to do with terrorism, only groups that we dont agree with
- Egoist, on 11/25/2008, -2/+3So you're telling me that our soldiers are not out currently fighting in a foreign country? They aren't fighting an enemy who fires back, plants IEDs, and kills civilians indiscriminately?
- Beveridge89, on 11/25/2008, -1/+3Sure, and if he hadn't fled the UK after the death of his uncle, or refused to return when he was wanted in connection with the transatlantic bomb plot, or ran away from the Pakistani authorities, he would have had the chance to prove himself innocent. This isn't like Guantanamo, where the opportunity was there to give them the fair trial deserved; he was actively rejecting his right to a fair trial. It's never going to be morally clear in this kind of event, however if you run from the law people will assume you are guilty.
- Egoist, on 11/24/2008, -12/+6This is a war.
- rlh1, on 11/24/2008, -6/+3Kool.
- jclipz, on 11/24/2008, -10/+3***** YOU CIA
- TomT223, on 11/24/2008, -5/+6Just be glad they got the SOB .
- AlienMushroom, on 11/24/2008, -4/+4Bond, James Bond.
- republicker, on 11/24/2008, -3/+7He must have hated our freedoms./sar
- LordBacon, on 11/24/2008, -1/+1/sar ? sardine ?
- Threlly1, on 11/24/2008, -11/+5ANOTHER ***** US *****-up.
Gung-ho bullet drunk cockheads.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The ***** that is the middle east is ENTIRELY of U.S. making.
More suposed 'intelligence' people in D.C will be looking at their shoes and shuffling, or, as is more likely, making 'whooo' noises and handing out hi-5's.
*****.- Beveridge89, on 11/24/2008, -1/+4What? It wasn't a *****-up. They set out to kill the guy, and they did. That's usually termed a success.
- fucknuggets, on 11/24/2008, -2/+1so glad to see your country was willing to risk the lives of 30+ solders by mounting an attack and attempting to take him alive.
- BrewBeau, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2So how much intelligence can you get from a corpse, or tiny bits of a corpse? Having the dude alive is much more valuable than dead, but I guess we already know they hate us for our freedom, so what's to learn from them. Just blowing ***** up only treats the symptom.
- Threlly1, on 11/25/2008, -0/+0Dick
- banderwocky, on 11/24/2008, -2/+6Probably because the Bush Regime is paranoid and doesn't know who their friends are after pissing off pretty much everyone in the world.
- fucknuggets, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1so glad to see that you read the article.
- amightywind, on 11/24/2008, -3/+1Hey man. We smoked that weenie, not the Limey's. Why risk an intelligence leak and let the target squirm away? We'll show them the DNA tests afterward.
- wrs123, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1So who are you guys going to complain about once Obama takes office and we are still taking decisive action against terrorist organization? You better think quick. I think you should blame RIAA, they're the next worse thing
- JoeParanoid, on 11/24/2008, -2/+9The reason the British were keeping an eye on him was to see what the network was up to, but we made certain that dead men tell no tales. And we wonder why our intelligence is so poor.
- Beveridge89, on 11/24/2008, -1/+1We weren't keeping an eye on him. We wanted to extradite him and stick him in a jail cell the rest of his life. We had no idea where he was before this strike.
- defconoi, on 11/24/2008, -5/+2wow the brits really care that much? Maybe he was a british operative
- wright3279, on 11/24/2008, -4/+1He's enjoying his virgins right now. How many is it? 60? 72? I forget.
- proliance, on 11/24/2008, -1/+2You Brits have my permission to return the favor and blow up an American born terrorist.
In fact, I'll even pick one out for you; Adam Gadahn. - sowhat5828, on 11/25/2008, -2/+2Brits didn't call dibs
- craighoxton, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2Well at least it wasn't a Brazillian electrician...
- charlietuna, on 11/25/2008, -1/+1That was sad. The CIA is doing its level best, so is MI5 and MI6.
- wunksta, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1are they? with no accountability and no over sight, whos to say? remember mkultra?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
what about operation ajax?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%2 ...
what about the preposed northwood plan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
how about the dirty wars in south america?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
and so on. it could be argued that some kind of action was needed, but a lot of the time restraint wasnt practiced and the bottom line (ie money and power) was the only deciding factor.
- wunksta, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1are they? with no accountability and no over sight, whos to say? remember mkultra?
- charlietuna, on 11/25/2008, -1/+1That was sad. The CIA is doing its level best, so is MI5 and MI6.
- SkillzThatKillz, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1it's not like he was attacked in England
- solid12345, on 11/25/2008, -1/+1I'm not saying world law is something to disregard, but to be honest in that part of the world they only cry about international law when they can play it as a card to make their side look good. I hardly think suicide bombings, hijackings and decapitations are playing by Red Cross standards.
As far as I am concerned, if the territory is lawless, then international law doesn't apply. - eavesdrop, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3The British were, what the Americans are today.
Superpowers arguing with each other is like watching kids fight. "You should have told me the rules, no cheating!" - bluesman3535, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Dick Cheney is honest and he'll come forward shortly with all the details for the British government. Any other thoughts would be Un-American.
- ASSASSYN360, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Well shouldn't we get a congratulation for a good hit on the target.
- bluewithinblue, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Speaking as a Brit, "thankyou". Keep it up.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is