Comments:Yemeni passenger plane with 153 people onboard crashes into Indian Ocean

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

well, i think that the US and british navys should be out there helping. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Even if they did decide to, by the time any vessel from either country got there, the time to find survivors would be long over. There are likely no vessels from US or UK close enough to make any difference. The French navy is more than capable at this point. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh no where is god.... god is dead..... ohno where is god...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

most incomplete informations[edit]

opinion: wikipedia and wikinews both do very bad in the sense of independence when it comes to airdisasters. This is more generally the case in every politically sensitive subject, but in the case of airtraffic regulations, it leaves a most unencyclopedian and unscientific impression. Didn't aldous huxley predict this function of a controlled communal information system? a solution might be to work along criteria, informational, technical and public ones, and to start some statistic overview of causes and events in crashes.(here: automated messages : kept confidential. (mistaken) blackbox: improbable and weird.etc.) There is not much need even, for the corporations, to so interfere, in the long run the merely technical details tend to be in the open. However this diffusing of informations on many levels early on in the investigation leaves way to much to doubt about the sincerity of former conclusions. You may say, who cares about airincidents, but they appear to play a role in counterinsurgency strategies, and form a rather efficient tool of targetted killing, when they are linked to someone or something they have a big impact on public opinions, it would be scientific to be able to answer such. (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What the fuck? That is the most incoherent thing I have read for a long time. It also references aspects not included in this article, which was a breaking news piece from within hours of the disaster. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


They should out there helping the people. Shirley write (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]