Has it ever dawned on you that this would not be the best course of action in all situations? What if the plane hits a school full of children after it's shot down.
Would you think it's a good idea to shoot down a plane over a populated area?
I beat you to it asking that question when I asked shure to:
... [explain] the "cost - benefit" of shoot down or not for that/those aircraft. (Risk analysis either way if you prefer those terms)....
Maybe we need to spell it out in detail for shure to understand the risk of "collateral damage" - I was giving him benefit of doubt by presenting the question in the generic form.
But the real issue of "process" here is that shure is trapping us in true "truther style" into debating issues in an arse about sequence. Thereby getting us into discussing his unsupported presumptions. Let's ask him to progress logically.
This is a logical sequence of questions:
shure "Are you suggesting that one or more of the hijacked aircraft should have been shot down?"
If "No!" then why are we talking about the failure to follow procedures whether or not your presumption is valid.
If "Yes" the next question is "was shoot-down plausible" and that subsumes two main issues:
Issue one was it plausible in the time line available for the decision? So show us that there was an available time line before we go any further. To do that you will need to consider:
Issue two which what was the risk management balance between "shoot down" and "don't shoot down" (As stated earlier I will accept a simple "deaths either way" explanation as a ball park test of plausibility at this stage. There is a bigger issue of the political consequences if the US shoots down a civilian aircraft carrying passengers who are not US citizens. {sure its a political issue shooting down US folks but lets get these questions into some semblance of sequence and importance - the international dimension dominates.})
IF the combination of those two says "shoot-down not plausible" then why discuss it? So you need to show that it was plausible before we go any further. You may want to "jump the gun". Most of us don't want to.
However, if the combination of those two says "shoot-down was plausible" we can leave the political dimension of plausibility on hold and let you, shure, move on to your claims about procedures.
shure it is a waste of time discussing your claims that procedures were not followed if there is no plausible scenario for the procedures to apply.
So let's have a reasoned debate please shure ---- not one starting truther style three parts through the argument with all the base premises ignored and framed in presumptions which you want to apply where they did or did not.
