world

Al-Qaida No. 2 killed in U.S. drone strike in Pakistan

61 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

61 Comments
Login to comment

Sweet.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The jihadis near the top have to communicate a lot with their brethern - eventually this will gets them caught and a chance to fulfill their dream as a martyr. Who's getting promoted?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How many Al-Qaida No.2s have they killed now?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

"A recent uptick in drone strikes in the tribal areas indicates the U.S. was tracking al-Libi or had some idea that a top al-Qaida official was in the area."

Intelligence can locate these guys, track them and pick their moment to strike, reducing civilian casualties.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

They killed the number 2 again. Should I applaud?

In the process of killing the number 2 again, how many civilians dead? Do they realize that killing civilians is a reason why there is always a new number 2?

Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

How many Al-Qaida No.2s have they killed now?

All of them so far.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Valued_customer.... You do not need any hard data. Why not just say 20 civilians were killed? Perhaps half of them children? If you manufacture outrage over things you don't know really happened the story will be gone from the front pages before you have a chance to correct so you are home free!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Yet another No.2. assassinated. Now No.3 becomes No.2.

And the beat goes on...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

You do not need any hard data. Why not just say 20 civilians were killed?

Because if I like about the number of civilians killed, I would be just like the U.S. government and military!

They, like you, would rather just not talk about it. But if they must, the first thing they do is lie. Its happened over and over and over again. You haven't copped on?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What's the difference between now and 40 years ago in Vietnam?

http://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2012/6/5/40-years-later-nothing-has-changed-except-the-images.html

Today's drones are yesteryear's napalm.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

How many Al-Qaida No.2s have they killed now?

Not enough yet !

2 ( +4 / -2 )

This makes Number 2 for the 26th time.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You do not need any hard data.

There sure isn't any in the article. I guess we are supposed to think he was alone in the outhouse 20 meters and safely away from any innocent men, women or children when he was greased by a chicken poop drone jock sitting comfy in his chair at Langley.

You badger me about hard data while the people who are supposed to give it to us give us less, and less each time a new lie is found. Even the most ardent patriot has had his faith in the government and military profoundly shaken. But you? You never waver in your support for people and acts so many have realized is an utter embarrassment. So are on the dole, or what?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So the US has killed yet another number 2. Gee AQ sure have a lot of number 2's and after every one is killed we get the same old rehashed message from the US that this has put a serious dent in AQ. After so many times it becomes more and more unrealistic.

Its funny to that the US had this guy in custody and managed to let him escape. Its also amusing that the guy killed became the number 2 after his time in US custody and was bitter and wanted revenge. Ah the US methods breeding more resentment and anger yet they cant see this.

And it seems that this strike didnt just kill this guy but the Pakistanis are saying 15 people died in the strike while the US admits a hand full also died. So much for a clean surgical strike, l guess its just easier not to tell the truth in the media reports any more.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

A vicious circle.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

they keep killing AL Qaeda's number 2s a lot. I also find it funny such a high level prisoner could just escape as well.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

He "escaped" in 2005?

How in the world did he do that.

There's more to this story then what's presented here.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

First of all, how many Al Qaeda #2's are there? Every time I read news about this, we are killing #1, #2, #3...etc, etc. How is it that we are able to rank them if we can't even find them all. How do they get ranked after they are killed. And is it necessary for all this to be openly broadcasted? All we are doing is making them angrier thus causing more retaliation. I'm not blaming Japan Today, they are just reporting the news and they do a good job, but the military forces doing this should just keep it to themselves. We're just edging them on. It's time to end this war once and for all. Geez!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's more to this story then what's presented here.

With you, there always is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

how many Al Qaeda #2's are there?

Why do people keep asking this? It seems quite simple. When one #2 is killed, another person takes their place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why do people keep asking this? It seems quite simple. When one #2 is killed, another person takes their place.

Maybe because every time the US supposedly takes out a number 2 and says such and such's "death a “major blow” to the group. " and a week or so later the same old tired boring line will be trotted out again. And agin there will be no mention of the "handful" of innocents killed in the strike. And people wonder where this never ending supply of terrorists comes from.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Maybe because every time the US supposedly takes out a number 2 and says such and such's "death a “major blow” to the group. " and a week or so later the same old tired boring line will be trotted out again.

Then, it seems the question is "why do they bother if there is just another person to take their place?", not "how many Al Qaeda #2's are there? " There is only one number 2 at a time.

And people wonder where this never ending supply of terrorists comes from.

They were there before the US was involved. Please don't excuse terrorist behavior just because the US has not been successful in stopping it. Anyway, as you know I think the US should get out of Afghanistan and tell the Pakistanis that it is time for them to clean up their own house. The thing is, I think the Pakistani government would go into a panic if they did that.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There was only one Abu Yahya al-Libi. It will be impossible to replace someone like that.

(He just happened to be in the No.2 hot seat which will be vacant right now.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They were there before the US was involved. Please don't excuse terrorist behavior just because the US has not been successful in stopping it.

See in this case l dont think that statement is correct. Even some US newspapers are saying this guy didnt become a fully fledged AQ terrorist until after his capture and subsequent escape from US custody and his actions after are in revenge for his treatment. So no not all terrorists where such before the US action. Many many have turn as a result of US actions and the sooner that some people realise that and modify their actions then this can be reduced.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

how many Al Qaeda #2's are there?

Why do people keep asking this? It seems quite simple. When one #2 is killed, another person takes their place.

No: 2 is the killing zone, next, please take one step forward. Repeat as often as is required. Welcome to the kill zone No: 2.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

this guy didnt become a fully fledged AQ terrorist until after his capture and subsequent escape from US custody and his actions after are in revenge for his treatment.

How about his actions before his capture? What was the fine upstanding Libyan gentleman doing in Afghanistan when he was captured? Fully fledged AQ terrorist? He might not have had his AQ secret decoder ring yet, but he was not an innocent bystander. He was made into what he was before the US and the allies captured him.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No: 2 is the killing zone, next, please take one step forward. Repeat as often as is required. Welcome to the kill zone No: 2.

Basically. It is a wonder anyone is willing to take the position, isn't it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Cletus,

Make no mistake, I agree that the US and the allies should get out. We have that in common.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"And the beat goes on"

That's beating! And yes, let it go on, lest we die or are forced to recite the Koran.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"the U.S. military lies"

Another of these dreams?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Good news.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

War is not good, not pretty, not clean, these terrorists do not care about human lives, they must be taken out like cock roaches, if possible with no collateral damage but this is not always possible, better to kill off this terrorist now and have a few civilian casualties now than another 9/11 etc...in my book, by the way, the UK etc..should be on high alert for the London Olympics, all we need is one fool to mix with the crowds of people there in London and heaven forbid any suicide bombers do terrible things there, but if heaven can not forbid it, I am sure some nice shiny high tech drone missiles will do there best to forbid future terrorists!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Elbuda.... are you sanctioning the use of deadly force against civilian targets in Pakistan if it saves lives in the west? We have to be better than the terrorist, not sink to his level. The more civvies you kill the more you turn the population against you and your allies. The very act you are sanctioning will harden those people against us.

Special forces are trained for this kind of operation... on the ground they can make a better judgement call than someone flying a model aeroplane with bombs many miles away. They can pick out the target and slot him, or arrest him without further loss of life.

The US has to got to lose this 'acceptable losses' mentality. I want these terrorists exterminated as much as the next person, but killing innocents isn't acceptable.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I want these terrorists exterminated as much as the next person, but killing innocents isn't acceptable.

Its called sacrifice and is worth it for the sake of thousands of lives, if a few civillians get killed its unfortunate, did the germans or the allies care about civillians during the 2nd world war?

Casualities are a part of it, but for the greater good some must be sacrificed.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Cletus: So the US has killed yet another number 2. Gee AQ sure have a lot of number 2's and after every one is killed we get the same old rehashed message from the US that this has put a serious dent in AQ. After so many times it becomes more and more unrealistic.

Its funny to that the US had this guy in custody and managed to let him escape. Its also amusing that the guy killed became the number 2 after his time in US custody and was bitter and wanted revenge. Ah the US methods breeding more resentment and anger yet they cant see this.

And it seems that this strike didnt just kill this guy but the Pakistanis are saying 15 people died in the strike while the US admits a hand full also died. So much for a clean surgical strike, l guess its just easier not to tell the truth in the media reports any more.

Sounds like a pretty rough day for you. I hope your post was able to relieve at least some of your frustration in some small way. Chin up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

killing innocents isn't acceptable

If "innocents" want to be in the kill zone of a sought after AQ terrorist, it's their choice. They made their decision, we'll keep making ours.

RR

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The White House maintains a list of terrorist targets to be killed .... and ultimately approved by the president.

Heh, if this were a republican president, liberals would be frothing at the mouth screaming "WAR CRIMES" at the top of their lungs. But since one of their own is calling the shots, so to speak, -- and, ironically, a Nobel Peace Prize winner to boot -- it's all good.

RR

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Good to hear you suporting President Obama, Ramen.

Thanks to his massive acceleration of drone strikes since Bush, many freedom haters are dead.

Again Romeo Ramen,

Thanks for supporting the President in his alQaida onslaught.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ExportExpert

Its called sacrifice and is worth it for the sake of thousands of lives, if a few civillians get killed its unfortunate,

Funny you condone killing a few civilians each time a strike happens if it means getting the target. So how many civilians are you comfortable killing to get rid of AQ, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000? What is the right figure for you.

What l find interesting is all these pro strike pro war people calling for blood. So far as a result of 9/11 hundreds of thousands of Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistan civilians have died all due to the US wanting payback for less than 3000 people killed on their soil. So it seems that the US and its pro strike pro war supporters think that a US life is worth 10 -100 times more than a foreigner. And they really wonder and need to ask the question as to why these positions keep getting filled in AQ. Well its pretty obvious you keep making enemies by killing civilians then there will be willing people to avenge your actions. Its a never ending cycle.

Casualities are a part of it, but for the greater good some must be sacrificed.

Whose greater good? The greater good of the US. Yeah its going really well isnt it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If "innocents" want to be in the kill zone of a sought after AQ terrorist, it's their choice. They made their decision, we'll keep making ours.

Amazing that the people who come up with this kind of nonsense don't realise that their mindset is exactly the same as that of the people they call terrorists. So, RR, you have no problem with the decision made by the 3,000 or so 'innocents' who 'wanted to be in the kill zone' of the twin towers?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Thunderbird2 Jun. 06, 2012 - 11:40PM JST The US has to got to lose this 'acceptable losses' mentality. I want these terrorists exterminated as much as the next person, but killing innocents isn't acceptable.

The tactics of anti-government forces on Afghan civilians to death and injury included bombs and roadside mines detonated by people stepping on them or vehicles driving over them, accounted for high casualites. The biggest single killer of Afghan children, women and men. The three-fourth of the civilian casualties was the result of what it calls "anti-government forces". Also includes suicide bombings in very crowded places. Those are the main attributes for the jump in the number of civilian deaths.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who said these people are innocent? How do you know they aren't familiars?

You don't like how we roll, then tell your terrorists friends not to attack the U.S. We are committed to hunting down anyone who harms American lives, especially spilling blood on our soil. Anyone standing around this terrorist was not an innocent. They were harboring a fugitive.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Such short memories. In the 80's and 90's, when the invaders were the Soviets, those fighting to expel the invaders were called "freedom fighters" and were supported with training and weapons by the very same war proponents who now label the insurgents as terrorists.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Cletus as many as need be or if you like as many of the AQ supporters, harbourers, sympathisers and haters as it takes.

If you dont like being killed by drones then dont support harbour or be in the vicinity of the scum getting targeted.

Guilty by association, lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

sfjp330: The three-fourth of the civilian casualties was the result of what it calls "anti-government forces". Also includes suicide bombings in very crowded places. Those are the main attributes for the jump in the number of civilian deaths.

And in reality the anti-government forces have an incentive to make that number as high as possible. NATO killings get exponentially more press coverage than anti-government killings, so when the total number of dead civilians is talked about without a breakdown of how it happened people are going around thinking NATO is actually killing more than anti-government forces. From there we get incredibly stupid statements like, "no wonder people there support the Taliban" when in fact the Taliban are killing far more, which should lead them to the conclusion that overall people are turning away more from the Taliban if that's the logic they want to use.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Who said these people are innocent?

Sumtin about 'innocent until proven guilty'... Were the people in the twin towers innocent? Innocent of what? simply being there??

How do you know they aren't familiars?

Like black cats? You admit it's no better than a mediaeval witch hunt?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

ExportExpert

Cletus as many as need be or if you like as many of the AQ supporters, harbourers, sympathisers and haters as it takes.

If the casualties where purely limited to those people you mention then so be it. But its not and innocents get killed as well and all in the name of US revenge. The funny thing is the US calls these people terrorists for killing less than 3000 Americans, then what does that make the US when they strike at innocents as well?

If you dont like being killed by drones then dont support harbour or be in the vicinity of the scum getting targeted.

And if it was that cut and dry then yes you would be correct. What about when the AQ turn up in a village and force the locals to support them. Do these people deserve to die to? Its sad that you place the lives of western people at a much higher value than those in less developed nations. And you call them backward!

Guilty by association, lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

So true, and it seems quite a few nations (including my own) have caught a bad case of fleas from their association with the US. Time for a flea treatment l think...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

You don't like how we roll, then tell your terrorists friends not to attack the U.S.

The last significant attack on the U.S. I can think of was over 10 years ago. As far as I know, everyone involved in that attack is dead. You expect others to stop, but not the U.S.? And you wonder why it doesn't stop?

FYI, the bulk of the killing is Taliban militants, and they didn't attack the U.S.! Not yet anyway. Keep this up though, and that could change. Or it could be done by proxy, as others take up their cause against America, a cause that gets more and more justified everyday. How many more Fort Hoods will it take to wake up?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So, RR, you have no problem with the decision made by the 3,000 or so 'innocents' who 'wanted to be in the kill zone' of the twin towers?

Talk about sticking it right back in people's two faces!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Heh, if this were a republican president, liberals would be frothing at the mouth screaming "WAR CRIMES"

Obama is guilty of war crimes. Bush is guilty of a larger variety of them. They both belong in Guanatamo.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Too late to stop now there is no going back, for fear that if they stop the enemy will gather strength and really will become a threat, gotta kill em all now.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Too late to stop now there is no going back, for fear that if they stop the enemy will gather strength and really will become a threat, gotta kill em all now

Foresight is definitely not your thing.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

ExportExpert

Too late to stop now there is no going back, for fear that if they stop the enemy will gather strength and really will become a threat, gotta kill em all now.

I actually partly agree with your statement here it is way to late to stop this now. The US has made to many enemies to simply stop and expect not to get hit. Maybe just maybe they should have thought out their approach a bit better from the outset. One thing is for certain though the more innocent people that get harmed in these strikes the more resentment that grows and the more recruits these groups get. And thats the catch they will never ever "kill em all" it will never happen simple as that.

The US helped create this monster and now its merely feeding it by giving it angry people bent on revenge for the US attacks. Sadly some on this forum cant see that, and can only see the red white and blue side.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Cletus: So the US has killed yet another number 2. Gee AQ sure have a lot of number 2's and after every one is killed we get the same old rehashed message from the US that this has put a serious dent in AQ. After so many times it becomes more and more unrealistic.

The US has put a serious dent in AQ and I'm sure you are aware of that. And a big reason why is their inability to keep anyone at the top. I'm sure you are aware of that as well.

Its funny to that the US had this guy in custody and managed to let him escape. Its also amusing that the guy killed became the number 2 after his time in US custody and was bitter and wanted revenge. Ah the US methods breeding more resentment and anger yet they cant see this.

This is all just made-up stuff on your part. I have no idea why you think it should hold any weight in any discussion.

The US has made to many enemies to simply stop and expect not to get hit.

The US doesn't get hit. Mostly it's Muslims, followed by Africans, followed by Europeans. And since you obviously believe terrorists are created by someone else's actions, then I'm sure you can tell me exactly what these groups did wrong to deserve it. Especially the other Muslims.

One thing is for certain though the more innocent people that get harmed in these strikes the more resentment that grows and the more recruits these groups get. The US helped create this monster

Considering the vast majority of innocents have been killed by anti-government forces, I'd like you to point out a single time when you've said that an attack on innocents by anti-government forces have helped recruit people to help the US. One time. This argument, like the one above, only seems to come out when you can put the US on the receiving end of the criticism.

While I don't disagree that there can be anger and resentment, you go too far with your simplistic thinking and one-sided conclusions. Your arguments make sense only in a vacuum where you ignore all other data, for example the non-US victims of terrorism. You also consistently ignore the structure of radical Islam, how they recruit, train, and operate, etc., and how they work every day to sell people (usually uneducated males dominated by religious thinking) on terrorism. Another hole in your argument is proven by the vast, vast majority of Muslims who reject terrorism. Perhaps they are not aware of US drone strikes or they have no anger or resentment towards them? If that is the root cause then explain why your theory doesn't pan out for about 99% of the rest of the people in the Muslim pool.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SuperLib

The US has put a serious dent in AQ and I'm sure you are aware of that. And a big reason why is their inability to keep anyone at the top. I'm sure you are aware of that as well.

Yes they are making it difficult, but to say they are putting a serious dent in AQ is nothing more than rehashed US wishfulness. QAs for your statement about AQ not being able to keep anyone at the top, isnt it true that the new No.1 has been around since the inception of AQ? Let me answer that for you... yes.

This is all just made-up stuff on your part. I have no idea why you think it should hold any weight in any discussion.

Well SuperLib l guess you should go and talk to the US media because they ran with this story in the first place. So l guess if l am making stuff up then l guess you are saying that the US and worldwide media is to because that is where the comment came from buddy. Oops!

The US doesn't get hit.

Really!!! So 9/11 didnt hit the US, the Cole, WTC bombings, the attempted bombings on US bound flights, the embassy bombings in Africa. They were not attacks on US or US interests. Really!!! If thats the case then why exactly are you fighting these people if they dont hit you?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Cletus: Yes they are making it difficult, but to say they are putting a serious dent in AQ is nothing more than rehashed US wishfulness. QAs for your statement about AQ not being able to keep anyone at the top, isnt it true that the new No.1 has been around since the inception of AQ? Let me answer that for you... yes.

I'm surprised you'd hold on to this argument.

Really!!! So 9/11 didnt hit the US, the Cole, WTC bombings, the attempted bombings on US bound flights, the embassy bombings in Africa. They were not attacks on US or US interests. Really!!! If thats the case then why exactly are you fighting these people if they dont hit you?

9/11, the USS Cole, the WTC bombings, and the embassy bombings in Africa all happened before the US got the military involved with Afghanistan/Pakistan. It works against your point that people are going after the US because of anger and resentment of military action in the Middle East. Either you were hoping that I'd miss that or you just needed anything to say...?

I'm still curious to hear your explanations as to why terrorists kill far more Muslims and they've had successful attacks in Africa, Asia, and Europe but not the US since military action started. You seem absolutely convinced that military action causes terrorism, so I'd like to see you apply that to other countries/regions. If you can't or if you just don't want to, then you can say so and I'll drop it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It works against your point that people are going after the US because of anger and resentment of military action in the Middle East.

A serious exposure of ignorance of 20th century history.

There never were so many attacks against the U.S. anyway. But we fostered a lot of resentment. The chickens will come home to roost again when the children in the war zones we created grow up and want revenge for their dead families. Give them time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib

Cletus: Yes they are making it difficult, but to say they are putting a serious dent in AQ is nothing more than rehashed US wishfulness. QAs for your statement about AQ not being able to keep anyone at the top, isnt it true that the new No.1 has been around since the inception of AQ? Let me answer that for you... yes.

I'm surprised you'd hold on to this argument.

9/11, the USS Cole, the WTC bombings, and the embassy bombings in Africa all happened before the US got the military involved with Afghanistan/Pakistan. It works against your point that people are going after the US because of anger and resentment of military action in the Middle East. Either you were hoping that I'd miss that or you just needed anything to say...?

MMM they were prior to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan but they where in response to US actions. Surely you cant be so blind as to not recognise that. But while there have been no successful attacks on the US since the invasions there have been several unsuccessful attempts or did you think l would miss that. In fact there have been in excess of 20 reported attempted terrorist attacks inside the US since the invasion of Afghanistan. But by all means keep pretending alls well and your universally loved.

I'm still curious to hear your explanations as to why terrorists kill far more Muslims and they've had successful attacks in Africa, Asia, and Europe but not the US since military action started.

Well lets see, what muslims do they target? Would it be ones supporting the US efforts? Yep. Would it be ones trying to stop them? Yep. Lets look at the terrorist attacks in Europe, they all occured against nations involved in Afghanistan in one way or another. Oops did you miss that one. And they also go after easier targets, however it only takes luck and that cocky smile of yours will be wiped off your face. Eventually they will get lucky and hit the US again. And you will be saying "why us!!!" I honestly cant believe someone could be as blind to reality as you are or do you honestly think you are loved the world over. Wake up and smell the roses....

You seem absolutely convinced that military action causes terrorism, so I'd like to see you apply that to other countries/regions. If you can't or if you just don't want to, then you can say so and I'll drop it.

Its easy to apply it to any country or region. All you need do is look it up and learn something you Americans have difficulty in doing obviously.

So i'll do you a favor and just drop it now as you seem incapable of seeing whats right in front of you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Two Number 2's and three Number 3's have been killed by air attacks. Climbing the ladder can be bad for one's health. Only one Number 1 has been killed by ground forces. The troops, supply forces and other personnel in the region are not needed. The drones can be flown by someone sitting on the veranda drinking a cool "attitude adjustment" beverage. Yanks need to come home and the billions need to be spent in America.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Cletus, an overwhelming number of credible sources have talked about the severe blow AQ has taken and their inability to plan or carry out any large scale attacks like 9/11. I know you know this; I think you are just being stubborn.

MMM they were prior to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan but they where in response to US actions.

Another moving target just so you can have something to say. The horrible "US actions" that prompted AQ's attention was the existence of US troops on Saudi soil during the first war with Saddam, a context that is absolutely and completely different from the "resentment and anger" you are talking about regarding military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, I know you know this and you just need something to say. Complete waste of time.

Well lets see, what muslims do they target? Would it be ones supporting the US efforts? Yep

And now you've turned the entire discussion into a farce.

All you need do is look it up and learn something you Americans have difficulty in doing obviously.

Ah, your famous anti-American sniping. Maybe one day you'll understand how obviously biased statements will undercut your credibility, but at this point you're probably too far gone to care. I'll let you in on a little joke.....Madverts isn't American. We thought it would be funny to play along with your little "I have these Americans figured out" game with someone who wasn't from the US. You should spend more time listening to what people are saying instead of asking them to point where they are from on a map and then rushing to post your favourite insults. I don't blame your country for you, seems that you should extend the same courtesy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Any way this time US assured the kill was their target. but how many innocents life's you killed and continuing killing including children. like thunders coming down using drones. where ever Killing a innocent life is not a crime ...?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites