digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at usatoday.com

U.S. has Nelson Mandela on terrorist list

usatoday.com — Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Apis67, on 05/01/2008, -12/+43How embarrassing! What other former president of an American ally is on the list?
    • IdevInull, on 05/02/2008, -18/+7And that is where the bastard belongs. Why do you think he was in jail in the first place? He tried to blow up the NP's headquarters and assassinate a lot of political leaders.
      • jerrasis, on 05/02/2008, -2/+6wow....
      • hmunkey, on 05/02/2008, -7/+12He is one of the greatest men of this century.
      • AniceAtheist, on 05/02/2008, -4/+15He said it very crudely but the second part of his statement is correct. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. To me he is a freedom fighter, but so would the people who arrest, try and execute Bush, whether they be sanctioned or not wouldn't matter.
        • robthom, on 05/02/2008, -12/+3"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
          Well put. For an atheist your alright.
          :)
          • robthom, on 05/02/2008, -4/+1^^ "by robthom 2 hours ago -2 diggs"
            Well at least the liberal/atheist sense of humor is consistent.
          • Dhekke, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1"See?! See?! I totally got you now with my unmatched wit!"
      • Tedricks, on 05/02/2008, -4/+5Acts of terrorism land you on a terrorist list. WOW!!!!!
        • robthom, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2Terrorist lists are awesome. I think I'll start my own.
          How do you spell you full name?
      • Tiak, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4I have a sudden urge to recite a Guy Fawkes rhyme... Help?...
        • nocash23, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0what does guy fawkes have to do with anything?
    • robthom, on 05/02/2008, -4/+5Probably all of them who haven't fallen in line with Bush's plans for world domination. Didn't he even say something to the effect of "your either with us or against us".
      Why do you think Britain is so lavishly licking his boots?! Because they'd be on it to if they dont.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/02/2008, -3/+7America IS the Bad Guy....

      That sucks....
    • shawnanigans, on 05/02/2008, -0/+9Cat Stevens is on the list. The guy who writes, "Peace Train," is on the damn list.
      • robthom, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3"The guy who writes, "Peace Train," is on the damn list."
        An american "terrorist" list likely includes anyone who's an unamericanized Muslim.
      • EmileVictor, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3I don't think that's true, the name Yussuf Islam is on the list. It isn't him, but he gets stopped at airports for it anyway. That's probably a very common name though, so robthorn's comment is correct.
      • solid12345, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Cat Stevens, the guy who thought Salman Rushdie should be hunted down and killed in the street? Yeah he was on the Peace Train alright.
    • saisumimen, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1I wonder if Saddam Hussein was on that list ;p
      • ogore, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Not anymore
        • MacEnvy, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2You'd be surprised. The 9/11 hijackers (you know, the guys who were themselves also killed in the plane crashes they caused) were still on it as of last year. It's not as though the people managing the list are competent or anything.
  • meltlight, on 05/01/2008, -13/+239real question is: Who's NOT on the terrorist list?
    • DerangedPenguin, on 05/01/2008, -30/+29My 78 year old Welsh-Irish mother is not on theee,.. Oh wait some Unionized TSA worker spent thirty minute tearing her luggage apart causing her to miss her flight, all the while three men in their late 20's who looked to be of Arabian descent walked through with out hardly a blink. .
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/01/2008, -11/+48Are you suggesting we racially profile based on visual cues of possible nationality, ethnicity and relgion based on past experience in the USA and taking into consideration those who have carried out terrorist acts worldwide?

        I sure hope not, because that would make too much sense and would not be very politically correct, you know.

        But, it probably would have saved your 78 year-old Welsh-Irish mother from having to go through that stuff.
        • sockpuppets, on 05/01/2008, -37/+12I'm so ***** tired of people being politically correct on racial profiling. Every single hijacker on 9/11 was a Saudi. When I get on a plane I sincerely hope the guy working security paid extra attention to the muslim/arab whatever guy. It sucks to be innocent and born of that heritage and be put through that, but this is reality. (I'm not saying others shouldn't be paid attention to, either, but racial profiling has its place.)

          Digg me down now.
          • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/01/2008, -7/+17I hope my sarcasm isn't lost on everyone... :D
          • sockpuppets, on 05/01/2008, -13/+8It's not lost- sadly people jump on the pc bandwagon though, it's gotten out of hand.
          • kooft, on 05/01/2008, -9/+54"I'm so ***** tired of people being politically correct on racial profiling."

            Why stop at Middle Easterners in airports? Imagine how much crime we could stop if we automatically jailed Blacks wearing puffy coats or listening to rap music. Think of all the jobs that would open up if we just deported anyone that looked Hispanic without bother to verify citizenship. Anyone with an Irish surname should be pulled over and checked for DUI to make our roads safer. Asians could use their Kung-Fu on cops, thus they should be tasered before being questioned by police. Women should be prevented from obtaining a driver's license because they're bad drivers and put the rest of humanity in danger.

            Remember, racial profiling can work for you too!
          • Picaroon, on 05/01/2008, -14/+8Straw man, kooft. Learn it and stop using it.
          • dollar0dot02, on 05/01/2008, -18/+2Muslim is not a race. White is. Every single 9/11 was white. Should we racially profile all whites?
          • bromac, on 05/01/2008, -3/+12Actually, Picaroon, it's giving other examples of what would be racial profiling and showing how silly it is.

            It's a "Reductio ad absurdum" argument, which is perfectly valid, not a strawman fallacy.
          • Picaroon, on 05/01/2008, -10/+5Bromac, from the Wikipedia page on straw man arguments:
            "To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position)"

            That's exactly what he did, to the letter. Sockpuppets pointed out that there are legitimate arguments (not that you have to agree or disagree with him), and Kooft responded with a list of things that Sockpuppets never did and likely never would propose. It doesn't matter whether he had examples that also fit into the category of racial profiling--it's still straw man and still irrelevant. He never actually touched on airport security or what sockpuppets himself said.
          • PolishLogic, on 05/01/2008, -2/+6@dollar0dot02

            "Every single 9/11 was white." - what does that even mean.

            @bromac

            There was something silly about kooft's suggestions?
          • fivefootfour, on 05/01/2008, -2/+17How about this. All or virtually all embezzlement and financial fraud are committed by old white men. I suggest we never allow old white men to handle money again.
          • parax, on 05/02/2008, -4/+7@Picaroon

            He did not setup a straw man argument. He used directly related examples, not superficially related ones. The original argument is that it should be acceptable to profile people based on race (or the appearance or assumption of a particular race). Your refutation insisting that including other races doesn't count because it's not related to airport security is using the "No True Irishman" fallacy.
          • Picaroon, on 05/02/2008, -7/+6No, parax, he didn't make "directly related" arguments. Here's an example of a directly related argument, partially borrowed from fivefootfour:
            "Most money fraud is committed by rich old white men. Therefore, we should watch their financial activities more closely than poor black women."
            There's your Irishman.
          • boombye, on 05/02/2008, -3/+3There's plenty of Muslims that have red hair and some even have blue eyes.
          • parax, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1@sockpuppets

            All of the hijackers were not Saudi. 15 of them were, though even at that, the attack had nothing to do with being from Saudi Arabia, it was their affiliation with a radical group whose origins are in Afghanistan which was the key factor. Saudi Arabia is a US ally, even though most of these men were from Saudi Arabia, their countrymen as a rule have nothing against the US, and even if we were to legitimize racial profiling, it wouldn't make sense to profile Saudis as American enemies.

            One important key here is that only THOSE men were from Saudi Arabia, but if you were to carefully screen Saudis, you'd end up with very few "positive" hits for threats, profiling Saudis is like profiling Canadians. Where these particular men came from is immaterial to where the majority of threats are actually located. And even then it's only if we accept racial profiling as a valid threat assessment tool, which I don't.
          • boombye, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Why did I get dugg down? You've never met Muslims who didn't look like what people in America think they're supposed to look like? There's plenty of Caucasian, Semitic, and Asian Muslims. They're not all Arab.
        • bromac, on 05/01/2008, -3/+44Three words: Oklahoma City Bombing.

          Being white doesn't mean you're not ***** crazy and wanting to take out a city block or two.
        • dieskiddy, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1Ahh alas, being white gurantees you wan't to do that, but being arabian and having a religion with tolerance towards it suggests you may have the balls to act on said impulses.
      • toppgun, on 05/01/2008, -3/+11IRA! IRA!
        • robthom, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1Now thats something I could get behind. We need something like that in america.
          • martalli, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1We used to overlook IRA members coming to the US for fundraising as recently as the 1980's.
      • gfxlonghorn, on 05/02/2008, -2/+8If anything the 78 year old women has nothing left to lose in terms of life longevity so she should have been stopped first.
        • robthom, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3I'm confused. Did you just suggest that old ladies are prime recruits for suicide bombers because they dont have long to live anyway?
          • gfxlonghorn, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Doesn't seem that you are confused at all Haha.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1That's it. You're going on the database. Blonde haired blue eyed al qaeda...
        • martalli, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Do you have to be blond to be caucasian? I guess nearly everyone south of the Alps just became a terrorist. Heck, even the people living next to the Caucaus mountains would no longer be "white" people.
    • rebotfc, on 05/01/2008, -8/+65Sadly Bush isn't on it.
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/01/2008, -45/+9Ya know what? The "I hate Bush" mantra is really getting old. What are you haters going to do when he's not president any more?

        Oh yeah...you'll still be hating...because EVERYTHING bad in the world, including some kid in Kansas who stubbed his toe, will be Bush's fault for all time to come.
        • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -10/+44Defending Bush is indicative of extreme stupidity.
          • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/01/2008, -27/+5Oh, I guess you're one of those "troofers" who believes Bush plotted, planned, executed, and orchestrated a massive coverup regarding the 9/11 attacks?
          • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -6/+28No, dork, I am not a truther or "troofer", I just have my head on straight enough to see that GWB is clearly past the point of defense. You defending him, and using the word "troofer" is indicative of an IQ in the sub-90 region.
          • PolishLogic, on 05/01/2008, -21/+6And crying about an "illegal war", "war crimes", and "Bushco" (or whatever illuminati-esque ***** slogan is hip this week) isn't indicative of extreme stupidity? Your ilk has been calling for impeachment for years, and in the almost 2 years that the Democrats have controlled Congress, you're no closer to it then you were under a Republican controlled Congress. I wonder why.

            Meanwhile the Republicans had no problems moving impeachment proceedings along on Clinton for lying under oath (regardless of how trivial his lie was, it was still a lie, and still under oath).

            Grow the ***** up and realize that Democrats are just as much to blame as Bush is for any injustice that might be happening in this country.
          • l33tspam, on 05/01/2008, -4/+12CaptainAmerica1

            I don't know if you just seem to be going on the general bias that everyone on Digg is a "troofer" and thinks Bush covered up 9/11, or if you're just retarded. The thing is, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr. before him all ignored warning signs of 9/11, and helped throw our country into this wonderful state we are in now...The blame does not entirely lie with Bush Jr. but a whole ***** lot of it does. If it didn't he wouldn't be the least approved of president in history.
          • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -5/+13@PolishLogic: did I say anything in defense of the Democrats? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth unless you desire coming across as a total buffoon.

            BTW, who's my ilk? And when did I make any of the statements you quoted? Dumb.
          • PolishLogic, on 05/01/2008, -14/+4@kemp34

            I put no words in your mouth. Read it again.

            As for your ilk, you're a Paul supporter are you not? While I can agree with a couple of Paul's points, quite a few of them are just naive in this day and age, but that's neither here nor there. Seeing you as being a Paul supporter and seeing what a majority of Paul supporters on Digg have to say about Bush in particular (no matter how irrational) I decided to just lump you into that group.

            I reserve the right to make snap judgments about people based on their political views, and I did just that. Oh well.
          • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -3/+10Well, that's fine, but doing such leaves you open to being viewed as pretty thick in the skull. As long as you're ok with it...
            BTW, I think it's naive to believe that Bush has not clearly done things that make impeachment a necessity for the American Republic.
          • PolishLogic, on 05/02/2008, -6/+2I'd be interested in hearing some of those things? I'd also like to know why Congress hasn't attempted.
          • facelesscoward, on 05/02/2008, -2/+5Warrantless wiretapping should be enough. Approving torture doesn't help his case, either.
        • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -5/+9BTW, the likelihood that Bush at least had moderate prior knowledge that 9/11 had a decent chance of taking place is VERY high. To deny such is indicative of ultra-advanced HISS (head-in-sand syndrome).
        • 666dorado, on 05/01/2008, -4/+17yo, captain. you know that 71% of the u.s. disapproves of bush, and he'll go down as the worst president in modern history? is there something you know that the rest of us don't?
          • PolishLogic, on 05/01/2008, -9/+4Clinton finished with a 68% approval rating, yet I think we can all look back and see that we were hoodwinked by him. Everything from Bin Laden info and the dismantling of our military and intelligence community, to China's ownership of American interests, to military secrets he sold them, and so on.

            How a president looks while in office means nothing about how they'll go down in history. Bush may remain the most hated, he may improve to average, or if the Middle East becomes a beacon of freedom and democracy and quality of life due to what's happening in Iraq he may go down as one of the greatest. Who knows.

            However, to judge him in the "now" is terribly short-sighted. Clinton being a great example.
          • facelesscoward, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3No, to judge him now is to see things as they are. He's tortured, he's violated privacy rights, he's egregiously overstepped the boundaries of his executive powers. History has a horrible habit of blurring the details wherever the end is good. End always justifies the means, even if you have to trample on everything we hold dear to get there.

            Of course, I'd hesitate to predict that somehow revitalizing radical Islamic militant group recruitment while pushing countries like Iran to the fringes by refusing to communicate with them is a boon to democracy and peace in the Middle East, but maybe I'll be wrong. Either way, I'd love to see Bush reprimanded.
          • PolishLogic, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Ah, so I take that you see Clinton as the same great president now, that the country was declaring he was when he left office.

            Duly noted.
        • Tomchei, on 05/01/2008, -4/+17I think that any president that orders an invasion of a sovereign nation should be on that list.
          • PolishLogic, on 05/01/2008, -8/+5FDR, Woodrow Wilson, McKinnley, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, Truman, Eisenhower...

            Who else am I missing?
          • ganjadude4391, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3FDR didnt order the invasion *****... we were attacked by6 japan, you know a country, which in turn represents them declaring war on us... declared war on japan, shortly after that hitler declared war on us. do get your facts straight before you go rambling about stuff that you clearly have no clue about
          • parax, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1@ganjadude

            You make it sound like the US retaliated against Japan. The US tried to starve Japan to death by blocking all their food imports, at the point where they attacked the US, the Japanese felt we had already implicitly declared war. From the Japanese viewpoint, Pearl Harbor was a counterstrike not a first strike.
          • PolishLogic, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1@ganjadude

            So by your logic, Japan attacked us and we responded by invading Germany, so that makes it all ok. Interesting.
          • ganjadude4391, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1@ganjadude

            So by your logic, Japan attacked us and we responded by invading Germany, so that makes it all ok. Interesting.

            no... germany declaired war on us FIRST after japan bombed us. my god do you know any history at all?
        • robthom, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3I hate bush.
          (Unless its served with a side of thighs.)
      • db0255, on 05/01/2008, -4/+22How can you be so blind to how inept President Bush is? Yea, maybe "I hate Bush" is getting old, but Bush ***** ***** up is getting pretty god damn old too. And not everything bad in the world is his fault, just you know, little things like...the economy...the war...education...his deplorable fiscal debt policy. Regardless of which party you're from, why can't you see that he's not a good president!?!?
        • PolishLogic, on 05/01/2008, -11/+3Are you implying that this story is Bush's fault? I really hope not.
          • db0255, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Where did I say that? I didn't even read the article.
            I just hate how people try to defend Bush. How?!!? I have NEVER seen one cogent argument for President Bush doing ONE productive thing over his 8 years.
            The guy needs to go.
          • PolishLogic, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Implying = not specifically stated

            He is going. We've got this whole election thing coming up. Maybe you've heard of it.
    • GoneFishing, on 05/02/2008, -2/+6My friend, a US citizen, was held up at customs simply because she has a "Bin" in her Chinese name. Time to change my name to John Smith.
    • hmunkey, on 05/02/2008, -6/+4Easy, white people. Anyone brown in any manner is on it.
    • BedPost, on 05/02/2008, -1/+7My last name is Smith. I'm *****.
    • Idolatry, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1I'm on a flagged list because I chose to fly to Tehran and Tripoli for kicks and giggles (and miles)
    • TheWindBlows, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1The ones moved to the "Kill if seen" list.
  • MajorMan3, on 05/01/2008, -17/+10Geez, this is embarrasing. Seems like something that should be on Countdown's "BUSHED" segment.
    • marabout40, on 05/01/2008, -8/+5I'm sure it will be! WTF! Leave it to Bush and his cronies. OMG.
      • DerangedPenguin, on 05/01/2008, -7/+10Democrats are keeper of the list, They are the checks and balance to the Bush Administration. which means they are just as big a bunch of idiots
        • Mejari, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4i didn't realize that the democrats had taken control of the department of homeland security
    • PolishLogic, on 05/01/2008, -10/+5Mandela being on a watch list for over 30 years is Bush's fault?

      Holy *****...was the Great Depression Bush's fault too? What about the Civil War?

      Apparently hatred also breeds stupidity.
      • masamunecyrus, on 05/02/2008, -1/+6Considering DHS didn't exist before he took office, he created it, and now it's a $45 billion scourge on not just America, but the world, yes, it is his fault.
        • PolishLogic, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2In saying that, you do realize that the DHS did not invent watch lists, right?
        • robthom, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2^^ Well then apparently its more than just a condemnation of bush alone. But even then he's done more than his share of damage compared to his predecessors.
          Even if all our other ***** presidents would never consider removing somebody from the list once they've been put on it, even after being exonerated (our justice system works the same way), Bush has expanded the list to an unprecedented degree with what would have to be much fewer requirements to get on it.
          He's further mutated what should be a legitimate security concern for any country into a witch hunt.
    • mirunit, on 05/02/2008, -5/+5Mandela did conduct activities that could be considered terrorist while in the ANC, his former wife masterminded some pretty nasty things also. History is your friend, also he has been on there awhile.
      • pintomp3, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4so did the founding fathers.
        • robthom, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1A+
          Sheep can never grasp that.
        • mirunit, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3What exactly does that have to do with anything? WE are not discussing anyone else beside Mandela - are we? This all happened in the last 30 years. How exactly would I be a sheep for pointing out the obvious. I seriously suggest you read up on your South African history. The end of Apartheid was hard for all sides and the ANC DID conduct terrorist operations, hell I read Mandela's testimony a week ago.
          • robthom, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2YOU are talking about Mandela, WE were talking about what is considered terrorism.
            I actually wasn't calling you a sheep personally, I apologize if that sounded like a personal attack. I was actually referring to sheep in general who accept Dubya's definition of what a terrorist is instead of considering the other side and using a moral compass. I agree with you when you said that he did things that COULD be considered terrorism, depending on the point of view.
            I think that was your point, that was pinto's point and thats what I was agreeing with.
  • BishkekBuddy, on 05/01/2008, -24/+86This is just unbelievable! I can't wait to get rid of these jackasses.... Should have been impeached a LONG time ago!
    • DerangedPenguin, on 05/01/2008, -8/+13Yes and to think the Democrats in the legislative branch have control over this list... Amazing. But they are representatives of us as citizens, guess that make us jackasses. Vote for Change... No jackass, not that candidate he is one of them.
      • Dumbledorito, on 05/01/2008, -7/+8Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the illustrious Bush appointees in that Bush-created travesty of "smaller gub'ment" called "Homeland Security" that's in charge of who gets to fly, not the legislature.

        And you might want to note that the Dems might have a majority, but Bush vetoes anything that doesn't make Dick's Halliburton stock go up, and the GOP hasn't found enough spine to give Congress a 2/3 override.
        • LastVisibleDog, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Read the article moron. You are dumb as a bag of rocks
    • Bluemanz, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Yes. Because President Bush and co personally called for Nelson Mandela's listing as a terrorist. As poor an administration as it is, blaming Bush for everything that goes wrong in the massive, convoluted bureaucracy that passes for the United States Government is like saying that my mum is personally responsible for illegal immigration. Seriously, why are people digging this?
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2The article says this happened in the 70's and 80's (Condoleezza Rice calls it "embarrassing") - are all leftie loonies really this stupid? Was Bush president in the 70's and 80's
      It amazing stupid people like you can figure out how to use a computer keyboard.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1They didn't even know Mandela had been arrested and went to prison. They probably have never heard of necklacing. The MSM and lib college profs call Mandela good, so libs believe them.
  • BFNews, on 05/01/2008, -10/+13Unreal.
  • Ferre1, on 05/01/2008, -13/+260In related news; Americans wonder why the rest of the world thinks they're retarded.
    • Angelix, on 05/01/2008, -1/+17Isn't that obvious?
    • DerangedPenguin, on 05/01/2008, -10/+2I Am Sofa King Re Todd Did!
    • DeskFlyer, on 05/01/2008, -1/+17I don't wonder why at all.
    • CrabbyzpattyX, on 05/02/2008, -4/+1Yawn... Typical response from some none American. (I don't agree with American government therefore all Americans are retarded) If this article mentioned Mcdonalds it would be, I don't agree with Mcdonalds, therefore are all Americans are fat.
    • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1America has a very corrupt ruling class/government. They spend so much time trying to look good to keep their approval up but really accomplish very little to truely help people. Political correctness is a plague.

      Plenty of examples from consumer protection laws(or lack thereof) to government officials granting their buddies multi-billion dollar contracts without bidding. Not to mention the manipulation of public opinion, news, and the twisting of historical truth.
  • Angelix, on 05/01/2008, -4/+17I think the Americans never bother to investigate or remove the ANC members from the terrorist watch list until Nelson Mandela was denied to visit America. What would others say about America if they block out a Nobel Peace Prize winner and didn't take immediate action to resolve it?
    • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/01/2008, -9/+21Just because someone gets the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't mean they're not a terrorist. Yasser Arafat comes to mind.
      • AustinV, on 05/01/2008, -5/+14Agreed, the nobel prize has become a political statement instead of a well-deserved award in many categories.
        • heliox, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4Or a commodity give Gore's recent award...
      • staeiou, on 05/01/2008, -0/+7Kissinger, too.
      • l33tspam, on 05/01/2008, -11/+2You're a fag.
  • DerangedPenguin, on 05/01/2008, -19/+7Now finally we are starting to get some real names on the watch list. Ghandi is probably on the list, he after all did challenge the authority of our British Allies. OK I don't know enough about Mandela to make a judgment call on his name being on the list, from what I have seen he has been pretty much a docile , non violent politician since his release from prison. Senator Ted Kennedy on the other hand was on list, he probably is an OK person as long as he is drunk and not driving a car across a bridge or making waitress sandwiches.
  • LadyKofNYC, on 05/01/2008, -14/+8Figures
  • eclipse007, on 05/01/2008, -4/+82At least he's Nelson Mandela, there's no chance he'll be in any REAL trouble. That's not the case for ordinary people who are mistakenly put on terrorist lists, they could just end up in Guantanamo for no reason!
    • leexy, on 05/01/2008, -1/+22I see your point. That's how Ahmed Ben Mohammed ends up in Gitmo (or worse, a secret prison!). But technically, Nelson was not "mistakenly" put on that list. Apartheid South Africa didn't have many allies (the major ones were Israel and the US), so the ANC had to be put on the State Dept. terrorist list. Remember that emancipatory and revolutionary movements are often linked to communism in the eyes of Washington.
      • Myonosken, on 05/01/2008, -3/+12God damn commies and their differing beliefs. They have no place in the land of the free.
    • Jashobeam5, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1REAL trouble? You mean like going to prison? You know he went to prison, right?
  • seraph582, on 05/01/2008, -21/+27Nelson Mandela's record is FLAWLESS too!
    /sarcasm
    • SuperMoses, on 05/02/2008, -12/+5What, you mean he has some flaws? Are you telling me he's human? SHOCKER!
      • lovestospooge, on 05/02/2008, -3/+6No you idiot. He's saying Nelson Mandela was involved in terrorist activities in South Africa (thus leading to his arrest and imprisonment).
        • zazzalicious, on 05/02/2008, -5/+2Yeah, he was trying to oppress the white minority, racist!
  • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/01/2008, -45/+22How soon we forget...

    Mandela was convicted of terrorism in 1963 and freely admitted at his trial, "I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation."

    As economic sanctions, and especially an oil embargo brought about the end of the white regime in South Africa, Mandela was released and became the ANC leader. The ANC's terrorist arm, which Mandela headed in 1963 -- called Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) or Spear of the Nation -- continued waging terrorist attacks with arson, political murder and robberies.

    It was at this time that the recently freed Mandela told cadres from a Umkhonto meeting in Venda, "It was always my view that the armed liberation struggle is based on and grows out of mass political struggle fought by the oppressed." He called for the total defeat of "the white minority."

    Among other terrorist acts, Mandela approved the "Church Street Massacre," an attack in which a bomb exploded at rush hour to maximize casualties of Afrikaner women, children and babies.

    We have no idea (at least publicly) that Mandela isn't involved in terrorist groups today. So, given we don't know, as far as I'm concerned Mandela still needs to be on that list.
    • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -12/+42Cap'n: that was 1963 in APARTHEID South Africa! Are you ***** kidding me?
      • hempydave, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1Daddy Bush lost money dude, totally bad thing ....in the US
    • azpat, on 05/01/2008, -8/+14We have no idea (at least publicly) that CaptainAmerica1 isn't involved in terrorist groups today. So, given we don't know, as far as I'm concerned CaptainAmerica1 still needs to be on that list.
    • kayvman78, on 05/01/2008, -11/+7Hey Captain, I'm sure you have never had to live under Apartheid conditions, so I would just keep you opinions to yourself. If I had a minority race ruling my life, killing my children and enslaving the rest. I would plan a few missions. It's called being a patriot. You know...... There are other countries on this earth and those people who live in the countries also want freedom. Crazy.. I know.
    • Mononuclear, on 05/01/2008, -6/+12You know like all those terrorists leaders like Thomas Jefferson that led violent rebellions against the British... This is a classic example of one man's freedom fighter being another man's terrorist and it's amazing to see how the definition changes depending on who is in power.
      • Scottievm, on 05/01/2008, -3/+10Jefferson didn't lead any attacks. You should have cited Samuel Adams and his Sons of Liberty as the "terrorists" of 1770s.
    • HenvY, on 05/01/2008, -6/+16I really don't understand the responses to his post. Yes, his cause was certainly justifiable. But he was still most definitely a terrorist. As Captain pointed out, his group were involved in bombings designed to kill innocents(although admittedly the large majority were aimed at infastructure). How can you defend that?
      • dinostabOMG, on 05/01/2008, -5/+5Terrorist has become a useless and loaded epithet as a result of its abuse this decade. That's likely part of it.
    • dinostabOMG, on 05/01/2008, -7/+2I was going to say "one man's terrorist..." earlier up, but I think you just proved that point.
    • twiztidsinz, on 05/01/2008, -6/+14The Patriots that helped make America a free country were also terrorists... the only difference is, they won.
      • implementor, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4That's really not the case. They struck military targets, the ANC struck civilian targets. There is a big difference.
        • Jashobeam5, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Most people on Digg have never studied real American history, only that fed to them from US hating lib profs.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1-Captain America
        "We killed a bunch of 'em. "
        I can also picture him saying
        "They won, but we're slowly getting the country back"
    • Kizilbash, on 05/02/2008, -4/+15You know what the nazis called the resistance fighters against their occupation forces during WWII? Hint: they didn't call them the resistance.
    • 0Zeitgeist0, on 05/02/2008, -8/+12YOU MUST BE THE CAPTAIN OF ALL BUFFOONS.... you represents the true reason why Americans are considered IDIOTS around the world. you prove they are right.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/02/2008, -2/+5This is exactly why Captain America died.
    • Diran, on 05/02/2008, -1/+6Finally someone with a trickle of knowledge, so rare on digg, no wonder he got dugg down.
  • seraph582, on 05/01/2008, -25/+8Nelson Mandela's record is FLAWLESS too!
    /sarcasm
    • UltramegaOK, on 05/01/2008, -3/+6I had to Digg down both of your comments because of the double post.
      No hard feelings. It's just business.
  • wefarrell, on 05/01/2008, -5/+9Wait, I thought Mandela was dead.
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/20/gwb-sadda ...
    • PolishLogic, on 05/01/2008, -2/+6Please, oh please, tell me that you honestly thought he meant the real Mandela.

      I haven't pointed and laughed enough today.
      • wefarrell, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Still, you gotta love that soundbite.
    • mohsenxp, on 05/02/2008, -6/+5What a retarded website. Whoever wrote that should be embarrassed.
      For once Bush's quote makes perfect sense. Its a shame people like you have gotten to the point where you ignore any credibility in his comments.
      By "mandelas" he clearly means "people who are willing to stand up to their regime". How could you miss that?

      "I heard somebody say, where’s Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this. So there’s a psychological recovery that is taking place."
      Very true indeed.
  • HenvY, on 05/01/2008, -16/+13But, Mandela was a terrorist, by any reasonable standar. His public image today is the result of media depictions of him. How many of you actually know bout his past?
    • kayvman78, on 05/01/2008, -3/+7So fighting a class of people who were oppressing your whole country is terrorism? I would call that freedom. Remember when this country was started? I bet we had tons of "terrorists" too... They were fighting off the British.
      • dsmx, on 05/01/2008, -3/+8Ones man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
        • mdollarsign, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1This comment is the only one worth reading in this train-wreck of a thread.
      • loki49152, on 05/01/2008, -3/+2Unless that man is a Marxist revolutionary acting in concert with the Soviet Union to impose universal slavery on a nation in the name of "freedom". Then he's just a damned terrorist.
      • HenvY, on 05/02/2008, -5/+3Do you support Osama Bin Laden? Because you could use that exact sentence to defend 9/11. The quote about one mans terrorist being another mans freedome fighter is a poignant one, because it exposes the hypocrisy most people practice with their opinions on it. Here's a constant for you - terrorism is never acceptable. Never.
        • dsmx, on 05/02/2008, -4/+5What about all the terrorist organisations the US funds like the organisation that Osama Bin Laden is in charge of for example. Terrorist is a word used by governments to portray anyone who disagrees with them as evil, the french resistance was a terrorist organisation in WW2 was that acceptable? Terrorism is acceptable it is used when a group of people can't beat a side through traditional warfare, if you think terrorism is bad you sir are an idiot.
    • AlvesLopes, on 05/01/2008, -2/+2The truth is the truth of the winners.
  • whatthefu, on 05/01/2008, -6/+23"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it." The whole War on Terrorism is embarrassing.
    • heliox, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2Yeah, ***** the safegurds!
      It's far from perfect, but its all thats going on now. Why don't you go change it?
    • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1war on "x" is embarassing. People are using the term war so loosely to make things seem like something they are not. America's military arm combined with the political stupidity of the executive branch are a friggin joke.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2This did not happen as part of the war on terrorism MORON! (it happened over 20 years ago nit wit) Lefties - get you moms to read you the entire article
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1This is Digg. Nothing of real importance happened before the 1990s when most Diggers were born. They only see Mandela as their teachers wanted him to be seen. Facts have little to do with their perception of him.
  • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -11/+13Note to the intellectually lagging: the Federal Government will never be good at anything except inflicting death and destruction. Nelson Mandela being on a "terrorist" watch list is just one further example. Big government, no matter its form, is NOT to be trusted. The machinery of the state is too easily hijacked by power-hungry, evil people.
    • fuzzmeister, on 05/01/2008, -5/+6I think if you look at history, there are quite a few examples of the Federal Government doing very good things. The fact that it can be (and, admittedly, very often is) exploited doesn't discredit it's overall legitimacy or potential.
      • wishninja, on 05/01/2008, -6/+4None are coming to mind. Care to elaborate on the government function that was so great? One program that doesn't require a trade off of some sort and didn't end up in the death or other harm to people? Lets just admit that our government doesn't handle things very well.
        • fuzzmeister, on 05/02/2008, -3/+3Is it possible to ever do something without at least some form of a tradeoff? The larger examples that come to mind are programs such as Social Security and Medicare which, while somewhat inefficient, help many people immensely. More specifically, programs like NASA provide essential scientific knowledge and advance humanity, achieving things that no private organization would be capable of or desire to do.
        • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Social security and medicare are both horrible systems which never should have existed. There are better ways to do things If they were good system they wouldn't be so effed up right now. NASA... I would agree with though. But we are seeing space development from private companies seperate from nasa. And they are being far more efficient with their work than NASA tends to be, but NASA has really been a technological investment on a grand scale more than anything else.
      • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -4/+5Regardless of whether a few successes may have occurred, if you create a massive machine of potential destruction, does it matter if it does a handful of good things along the way? Absolutely not, you have created a MASSIVE MACHINE OF POTENTIAL DESTRUCTION. Don't you folks get it? BTW, I'd like to know what the federal government has done that has been so good, remember it must be justified with full awareness of the cost of resources, lives and marginal utility that was taken to make it happen. This is a tall task.
      • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2If we had a constitutional government, all the things they have taken over would be taken care of by states or private entities. What sucks is that now we have millions of people, dependant on a crumbling entitlement system. The US government is full of quick-fix rhetoric and actions. Because if it breaks when their terms are up, it won't be their problem any more.
    • onetimer, on 05/01/2008, -4/+4And state-government has never ever done ANYTHING bad!
      • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -4/+3Not a big fan of state government either. It's much easier to influence as the size and scope is much smaller than the federal leviathan. I'd like to see state governments downsized as well. I know here in California, our state is trashed. I would like to see the state split to make it more manageable for local folks to govern themselves.
      • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -5/+2BTW, Onetimer, your state-government comment is a strawman. I never made any mention to state government in my above post.
      • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2State government is smaller, and the people have greater control over them than at the federal level. As more power reaches the lower levels of government, the more control the local people have over resources and laws. So yes, State is better. County is better yet. Power and authority should be rebalanced on the low end.

        Its like the gears on a car, why keep it in 5th gear(federal) just because it can cover the whole range, why not give the difficult issues/hills to the lower gears of government(state,local,individual) The more controvertial or difficult and issue is, the more difficult it is to address on a grand scale.
  • Stevanoski, on 05/01/2008, -15/+6Good, other Nobel Prize winners that should be on the list? Jimmy Carter, Arafat, wait he's dead...
    • wishninja, on 05/01/2008, -4/+7troll alert
      • Stevanoski, on 05/02/2008, -5/+4Ah, my trolls are tracking me, kinda invigorating. Have you not found that stalking does not really work? Remember that last "date" you had? I know you find me irresistible but I am happily married, not that I'm not flattered.
        • amightywind, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4Gettin' rid of these fudge packers is harder than snappin' snot off your finger nail. I have half a dozen or so who follow me around.
          • Stevanoski, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4lol, I've notice you can be dugg up by 6 and still be at -1.
          • amightywind, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4I seek to maximize the digg absolute value. Massively negative is fine with me.
    • Kizilbash, on 05/02/2008, -3/+2Menachem Begin, wanted for terrorism by the British.
    • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Arafat was a huge mistake... in every way.
  • Jaliyl, on 05/01/2008, -11/+4Hmm, I thought Mandela was dead.
  • bluetytanium, on 05/01/2008, -4/+7facepalm.jpg
  • PHiZ187, on 05/01/2008, -3/+33Nelson Mandela, and his African National Congress group was also considered a terrorist organization by the US while they were fighting South Africa's aprtheid government. This is troubling, even in the modern day, because there is no judicial review when the executive declares a group to be terrorists. So, this could affect YOU. If you want to donate to some charity, you might be prosecuted for financing terrorism if the government decides to declare them a terrorist organazation!
    • pintomp3, on 05/01/2008, -3/+11that's because we supported the apartheid government. we were the last western democracy still supporting it.
      • solid12345, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Well support and having relations with is a different ball game. I could say Iraq under Saddam or Saudi Arabia is an apartheid state for their persecution of Shias but almost every nation in the world has relations with them.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1DOWN WITH OUR TERRORIST GOV'T!
    • mupu42, on 05/02/2008, -0/+8I personally do not care why someone bombs civilians. To me, that person is a terrorist. Gandhi never bombed buildings and was still able to overthrow an oppressive regime. Violence should never be the answer, and on the rare occasion that it is, civilians should never be the target. I see no reason to take a convicted terrorist of the Terrorist Watch List. Before you digg me down, do some reading:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Guerri ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear_of_the_Nation#B ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Street_bombing
      • dilibau, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1i didn't digg yo ass down
      • PHiZ187, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1The United States bombs civillians... So, under your defintion...
        • Jashobeam5, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1He said "person." Governments bomb other goverments which includes civilians; it's called war. That's the way war has gone on for thousands of years. Mandela was not leading a government at war against another government.
  • s9er80, on 05/01/2008, -12/+7lets not forget back in the 60's mandela used to train his little army and bomb federal buildings and things like that.
    Not that he's a terrorist anymore, but I think people give him too much of a free pass when it comes to saying how great he is.

    Terrorism is never justified, regardless of anything, There are better ways to fix apartheid South Africa.
    • Mihr, on 05/01/2008, -2/+4Don't forget that he reformed in prison.
      • s9er80, on 05/01/2008, -2/+4im not saying hes a changed man, but there is so much bias surrounding nelson mandela. the vast majority of the comments are about how thats preposterous and how thats insane that a man like NELSON MANDELA could be a terrorist.

        well the reality is that he was.
        • zazzalicious, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Anyone who fights back against the oppressor is a terrorist right? Oh, and probably a racist too. After all he was going after whites! Thank god he's not a US citizen and supporting Obama or they'd be playing sound bites from the 60's endlessly on TV to prove what a 'loon' he is.

          sigh.
    • pintomp3, on 05/01/2008, -2/+11the founding fathers would also have been considered terrorists.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1You just have no clue do you? None at all. I mean you could at least read a few hundred books other than those written by current day libs. How about a few diaries? How about a few history books from all over the world prior to 1900? Your acceptance of what anti-US lies you have been spoon fed by libs is sad, realy sad.
    • bromac, on 05/01/2008, -3/+6So how about the American Revolution? Would you say that the ends didn't justify the means there as well?

      Or do those standards just apply to foreigners? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
      • mupu42, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
        The same statement can be said in relation to 9/11. By that logic, there are no terrorist in the world, only freedom fighters. Or are we the only ones that get to make that distinction?
        And, during the American Revolution, the colonist did not actively target non-combatants. They would have been targeting themselves.
        • zazzalicious, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2No, it implies that the truth is shades of grey, not black and white. Unfortunately the western media tends to believe the endless stream of propaganda put out by their governments. Remember how the Afghanis went from freedom fighters (when they were fighting the Soviets) to terrorists (when they were they fighting the 'Coalition').

          It's the same everywhere though. Just the same old lust for power...
    • Kizilbash, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4The Germans referred to the resistance fighters in occupied Europe as terrorists too. I guess there were better ways to fight the Nazis as well?
      • GhostRidr, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2A better question to ask--did they target civilian installations?
  • azzhair12, on 05/01/2008, -7/+4i bet any name that doesnt sound or appear to be of anglo descent is on the list
    • oldgal, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Like Ted Kennedy and David Nelson - their names were on the list and they and anybody with their names were not allowed to fly.
    • heliox, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2I bet you're an asshat
    • solid12345, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1My uncle is white and was born in Libya on a worker's compound and has been questioned before at the airport because of his passport. Don't assume everything is racism.
  • Mihr, on 05/01/2008, -7/+6Seeing how I just registered at a Libertarian I am probably gonna find myself on that list one of these days.
    • sliksta, on 05/02/2008, -4/+3Good for you sir. You are obviously not one of the sheeple but one of the people.


  • 666dorado, on 05/01/2008, -8/+4hahaha, probably just because he's BLACK! Nelson Mandela just got profiled by the u.s. gov't!
  • bigp3rm, on 05/01/2008, -4/+8Well our government is all about anti-freedom. We have more people in prison than any other nation. In fact I'm probably on the list for typing this.
    • daradib, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2And people who digg him will go on the "list" (includes me).
  • brokencrystal, on 05/01/2008, -3/+32Everyone is a terrorist until proven innocent, including American citizens.
    • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1You sir, are guilty of the new crime, "inciting people to fear the government" now give up your co-conspiritors IP addresses and we will let you off the hook easy.
  • db0255, on 05/01/2008, -8/+10Buried as inaccurate. Nobody in the Bush Administration can fix anything. Please somebody debate that.
    • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2... ...Bush can fix his necktie... But only on Tuesdays...
  • wishninja, on 05/01/2008, -6/+16What go me the most and almost had me laughing at the sad state of things is the democrat's response.

    "Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, is pushing a bill that would remove current and former ANC leaders from the watch lists."

    You have Condi-*****-neocon-Rice saying there is a problem with the system and that jackass wants to put a band-aid on the situation. How about giving everyone on that damned secret list an ability to clear their name. Legalize justice, legalize due process like it says in the first amendment to the constitution (you know that damned piece of hemp paper with all the funny thoughts about freedom on it). NO its maybe we should write a law to exclude this small minority.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
  • pintomp3, on 05/01/2008, -4/+3i wonder if desmond tutu is on that list too. sad.
  • PolishLogic, on 05/01/2008, -6/+6Bureaucratic snafu, there's a shocker. Reducing the size and scope of the federal government might solve things like that.
    • oldgal, on 05/02/2008, -4/+2They did that with the FDA and now we are the capital of toxic toys. Large or small, I prefer competence, common sense and constitutionality.
      • PolishLogic, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3The Food and Drug Administration looks out for toxic toys? Weird, I always thought it was the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

        Go figure....
    • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2If we didn't rely on a massive beaurocracy for checking our toys for toxicity, we may have a better system. Since we are reliant on government, no such better solution will EVER present itself. Who knows, maybe consumer reports would be 20 times its size and we would have other consumer protection groups like it if we didn't expect the government to do it for us.
  • poppeman, on 05/01/2008, -6/+0This reminds me of the incredibly inaccurate No Fly List. I bet that Nelson Mandela and Bolivia's President is planning a terrorist attack right now!
  • scrotumbrau, on 05/01/2008, -11/+1Great, more fuel for all the American haters on Digg...

    I personally blame Bush.
    • dinostabOMG, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3One of the ways to put out a fire is to deprive it of fuel. Just sayin'.
      • Darksoul, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3Or just don't listen to the American haters as most of them have no brains what so ever.
  • rodgerse, on 05/01/2008, -10/+2Oh, and BTW, obviously many ppl don't seem to understand this, but..YOU NEED A 2/3ds MAJORITY TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT (WHICH THE DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE), SO FOR ALL YOU MO-FOS CRYING IMPEACHMENT, SHOW ME THE REPUBLICANS WHO WILL VOTE "YEAH".

    not a supporter or nothing, just saying..it really gets annoying when ppl yell impeachment and don't understand why it won't happen.

    same problem with iraq-withdrawal bill...need a 2/3ds majority or it can (and has) been vetoed.
  • bonjourmr, on 05/01/2008, -3/+8Wait, not the Onion?
  • notSLICK, on 05/01/2008, -4/+6the no fly list. HA!
    remember two years ago when the airline would not let a newborn infant on a plane because the infants name was on the no-fly list?
    the war on terror is a joke. you cannot wage war against a concept that is purely subjective. by the very definitiopn the government uses, george w. bush and all his stupid ***** friends are terrorists (thats righ our president is a terorist and i hope he get to sit at the hague in front of a war crimes tribunal along with several other including ashcroft and bill kristol).
  • tommcb, on 05/01/2008, -7/+0It's embarrassing every time the U.S. government mixes up the terms freedom fighter and terrorist
    • randeepjalli0, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4just for clarification, whats the difference?
      • Darksoul, on 05/02/2008, -3/+5There is no difference one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist and vice versa.
  • fr0ng, on 05/01/2008, -5/+3This is the epitome of the war on terror.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2This happened over 20 years before the war on terror - MORON (try reading the article)
  • sleepbox, on 05/01/2008, -11/+3Yea, let's laud this jackass. come on hippie diggers.
  • MajorOutage, on 05/01/2008, -12/+2Good, keep his racist arse out of our country.
    • pintomp3, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1right, he was racist for fighting apartheid. martin luther king was a racist too. idiot.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1King didn't say he wanted to kill off all white people. See the difference?
  • Greybird007, on 05/01/2008, -4/+2Remove, say, 100 percent of the names on this unconstitutional, arbitrary, and abusive list, and then we'll have a useful idea.
    • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1I would say, remove 100% of american citizens from the list for a good start, keep the list, just stop effing with our own people. We don't need another red scare style witch hunt, which is where this WILL lead to if it digresses further.
  • diggrnumber1, on 05/01/2008, -5/+3apparently chertoff thinks removing mandela from the list could spark a difficult debate. the douchebag doesn't even appear to be sure whether he should even be removed:

    "Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says "common sense" suggests Mandela should be removed. He says the issue "raises a troubling and difficult debate about what groups are considered terrorists and which are not.""
    • heliox, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3Do you even read or comprehend the stuff you quote? Or even the context?
    • amtrakattack, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Hehe, I have an idea of whom to put on the terrorist watch list: actual terrorists.
  • mnemy, on 05/01/2008, -3/+7These lists are retarded. My cousin got on the airport ***** list for no reason at all, I think he was one of the randomly selected people stopped for more thorough checking. Even though he wasn't doing anything wrong, he now has to go through 5 hours of BS background checking and searches every time he flies w/ the US. There's no way to get off the list.
    It's amazing how little thought is put into these "policies"
    • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1I'm ok with random checks, but I'm not ok with people being put on a list that they have no control over. Especially if we cant even accomplish that through our legal system.
  • franksalvo, on 05/01/2008, -2/+5We should not let Nelson Mandela know he is on the list. Now he will be watching out for all the traps we will set for him.
  • Shaman760, on 05/01/2008, -5/+6Condolleezzaa Rriiccee is an embarrassment to the USA.
    • cybrguy, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Hillary is more of an embarrasment, and if she became president, america would become the laughing stock of the world. Maybe its too late for that, but I can always hope we get someone who cares about us rather than more lip service and quick-fix politics.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I dont' want a prez who cares, just one who can cut taxes and keep us safe.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1You are a moron
  • ninjatech123, on 05/01/2008, -3/+4But how could this be!?! I thought the government was always right!? /sarcasm

    I'm sure I'll get put on that damn list just for that comment.
  • bsletten, on 05/02/2008, -2/+7While it is ridiculous that he is still on the list, Nelson Mandela has publicly admitted to violating human rights and killing civilians in his past. He is not proud of it and he has opposed any attempt to brush that under the rug, but at one point in his life, he was quite clearly a "terrorist". Whether it was justified or not is a separate issue.
  • AlvesLopes, on 05/02/2008, -6/+6He fights /fought the establishment using guerrilla tactics.
    He is a terrorist. As the french resistance was. As alquaeda, as hammas.
    Nobel peace prize means *****. Kissinger got one and he was a major criminal.
    • pintomp3, on 05/02/2008, -3/+7as the founding fathers were?
      • spongya77, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Exactly the point. You can label ANYONE terrorist, who is fighting against overwhelming odds with guerrilla tactics. This whole talk about "unlawful combatants" is a BS - you can never expect a resistance fighter/guerrilla to wear uniform for obvious reasons. That's why the Germans were so heavy-handed on the occupied territories, by the way. For them the partisans, the French resistance, and Tito were nothing but scum who hide behind civilians, and commit terrorist acts.
        The odd thing about the US (or not really odd, but hypocritical), is that everybody on "our" side is a good guy, no matter what he does (like Saddam or the Taliban in the '80s), and "the other" side is the bad guy (like Saddam or the Taliban in the '90s). They forgot to adjust Mandela's status, when he became a "good" guy. Ops.

        (And Alves was right on with Kissinger and the Nobel Peace Price. May that bastard spend the rest of his natural life in prison.)
      • GhostRidr, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Did the founding fathers target civilian installations, or government/military ones?
        • AlvesLopes, on 05/04/2008, -0/+0You mean Romulus and Remo? HAHAHA :)
          They did suck that she-wolf pretty well...
  • atbnet, on 05/02/2008, -3/+6And by fix it, Congress means they are planning a CIA operative to kill him. That'll show him for embarrassing us further than we already are.
  • skews13, on 05/02/2008, -4/+5well considering the fact that the u.s. government is a ***** embarrasment,that would probably be a good idea there condi.
    • Darksoul, on 05/02/2008, -3/+3If you think its a embarrassment please tell me what type of government isn't......
      • Tidia, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3You don't get let out of America much do you?

        Legends tell of other countries in this world...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.