Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

BobTheCoward said:
My objection is to the lack of evidence based decision making.
Click to expand...

And you are entitled to have your objections.

I just don't think you have much of a clue about the fluidity and unknowns going on given there was zero prior warning and multiple things going on all over the city.

Not sure where you live, but Christchurch airport is very close to the city
 
BobTheCoward said:
Why would you think that is more probable than before the event?

What evidence based reason do you have to justify the stopping of planes?
Click to expand...

It is more probable after said event because no one knew how many people were involved and what else they planned to do. Consider 9/11, the US closed it's entire airspace. What made it more probably that a plane might be used as a weapon outside the East Coast after the initial attacks?

It's called better being safe than sorry.
 
cullennz said:
And you are entitled to have your objections.

I just don't think you have much of a clue about the fluidity and unknowns going on given there was zero prior warning and multiple things going on all over the city.

Not sure where you live, but Christchurch airport is very close to the city
Click to expand...

You also lack that information about the situation but are coming out in support of a policy you do not have evidence to support.
 
PhantomWolf said:
It is more probable after said event because no one knew how many people were involved and what else they planned to do. Consider 9/11, the US closed it's entire airspace. What made it more probably that a plane might be used as a weapon outside the East Coast after the initial attacks?

It's called better being safe than sorry.
Click to expand...

You can just a near unlimited list of stupid stuff with better safe than sorry. How about better to make decisions based on evidence? Is there any evidence that stopping the flights because of baggage is justified?
 
BobTheCoward said:
You also lack that information about the situation but are coming out in support of a policy you do not have evidence to support.
Click to expand...

I'm getting a bit sick of this

You are right

Congratulations

It was all a silly thing to do

Thanks for the wake up call delivered from your ivory tower

The whole country will take it on board.

I'll just ring Bush and let him know

Bye
 
cullennz said:
I'm getting a bit sick of this

You are right

Congratulations

It was all a silly thing to do

Thanks for the wake up call delivered from your ivory tower

The whole country will take it on board.

I'll just ring Bush and let him know

Bye
Click to expand...

Skeptics forum.

Apply skepticism.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You can just a near unlimited list of stupid stuff with better safe than sorry. How about better to make decisions based on evidence? Is there any evidence that stopping the flights because of baggage is justified?
Click to expand...

I am very happy to live in a country where the authorities are willing to make the decision to put my life ahead of any travel plans I have. Apparently you aren't.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Evidence that is the appropriate strategy?
Click to expand...

You seem to under the strange impression that I was actually there and need to justify it.

I just happened to have been born and grown up in Christchurch and know the airport is only 15 minutes down the road and agree with it.
 
cullennz said:
You seem to under the strange impression that I was actually there and need to justify it.

I just happened to have been born and grown up in Christchurch and know the airport is only 15 minutes down the road and agree with it.
Click to expand...

It is generally expected that a position you take should be supported by evidence.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Evidence that is the appropriate strategy?
Click to expand...

If you don't think that shutting down potential targets during an on going terrorist event by an unknown number of attackers is not an appropriate strategy then fine, think that, but here we prefer to put lives ahead of political beliefs and of that means restricting transportation, locking down schools and businesses, and telling people to keep off the streets until it's determined that the situation has been resolved, well personally, I want to go with that sort of system rather then one that waits and then says "oh dear, well there wasn't any evidence that they were going to blow up a plane too."
 
PhantomWolf said:
If you don't think that shutting down potential targets during an on going terrorist event by an unknown number of attackers is not an appropriate strategy then fine, think that, but here we prefer to put lives ahead of political beliefs and of that means restricting transportation, locking down schools and businesses, and telling people to keep off the streets until it's determined that the situation has been resolved, well personally, I want to go with that sort of system rather then one that waits and then says "oh dear, well there wasn't any evidence that they were going to blow up a plane too."
Click to expand...

This

Phantom is a lot more eloquent than me at stating what needed to be done given the known situation
 
PhantomWolf said:
If you don't think that shutting down potential targets during an on going terrorist event by an unknown number of attackers is not an appropriate strategy then fine, think that,
Click to expand...

Shifting the burden of proof. I didn't come out and support a strategy. I'm asking what evidence there is for the strategy you support?
 
Arcade22 said:
He IS an idiot for wearing that ****. He's not even camouflaged a little bit!
Click to expand...



New Zealand Herald said:
Millar said he had been wearing camouflage clothing since he was a child. He always wore it, although he had quit the habit today - temporarily.
Click to expand...

Just got into the habit and never stopped. The ladies are charmed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom