BrainKing - Discussion boards (Politics)

Moderator: Vikings

Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.

All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!

*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."

List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.

Mode: Everyone can post

6. May 2011, 21:13:09

Mort

show this user posts | show thread | link

I would have thought that the CIA were able to watch Bin Laden for monthsrather than "16 Hours" (less than one day) suggests information gathering on who Bin Laden was communicating with. That time I would have thought beats a few hours of waterboarding any day of a minor official.

In the end.. a decision over how much longer to watch and when to kill is something to think about. He wasn't exactly going to escape.. unless it is implied that the CIA are that rubbish they can't keep track of one man who doesn't leave one room.

8. May 2011, 03:53:33

Czuch

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

(V): I would have thought that the CIA were able to watch Bin Laden for monthsrather than "16 Hours" (less than one day) suggests information gathering on who Bin Laden was communicating with. That time I would have thought beats a few hours of waterboarding any day of a minor official.

In the end.. a decision over how much longer to watch and when to kill is something to think about. He wasn't exactly going to escape.. unless it is implied that the CIA are that rubbish they can't keep track of one man who doesn't leave one room.

I had not heard anyone talking about this.... but I was wondering the same thing? At this point.... what is the harm in more surveillance?

8. May 2011, 04:46:55

Bernice

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:what is the harm in more surveillance?

Czuch: someone wanted to be a hero?

8. May 2011, 15:00:05

Mort

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:I had not heard anyone talking about this.... but I was wondering the same thing? At this point.... what is the harm in more surveillance?

Czuch: It was in one the attached articles to the main story of the killing on the BBC news site. From August in 2010 they "concluded it was being used to shelter a 'high-value target', perhaps even Bin Laden."

From what I have read, there was only a high percentage chance it was Bin Laden and of the three proposals it was decided to send troops in as at least then they could identify who was there.

I think in the end it was a case of find out if is... if not.. look elsewhere. That might explain why non lethal weaponry was not engaged at the time of capture.