ios_Airways_Flight_522](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522)

~~~
tunap
Observe and report.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_cras...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash)

------
tomp
> As a precaution, the German Air Force deployed its aircraft to ensure the
> safety of the flight and its guests.

Does anyone still believe this bullshit? Clearly there's nothing that the
fighter jets could do to ensure the safety of the flight/passengers - the most
they could do is to shoot the plane down in a safe area to avoid casualties
_on the ground_, if it were e.g. controlled by terrorists.

And the media/institutions wonder why people don't trust them...

~~~
iSnow
It would be illegal in Germany to shoot down a hijacked airliner and ordering
the pilot to do so would be an illegitimate order the pilot would be forbidden
from following. The most anyone could do would be the Minister of Defence of
the Chancellor talking directly to the pilot and telling her that they would
take the fall if her conscience allowed them to shoot down the plane. The
pilot would still face a trial with uncertain results.

So, please stop with the alternative facts and the conspiracy stuff. Not every
country works like the US of A, unbelievably.

~~~
hubert123
> It would be illegal in Germany to shoot down a hijacked airliner and
> ordering the pilot to do so would be an illegitimate order the pilot would
> be forbidden from following

Yeah we're going need a source on that. Don't even think of pulling up that
vague Grundgesetz about human dignity, the legality of refusing an order would
be established AFTER the fact. To call such an order illegal before any court
judgement is the very thing that you are branding as an alternative fact.

~~~
iSnow
Decision 1 BvR 357/05
([https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...](https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht
ios_Airways_Flight_522](https://en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Helios_Airways_Flight_522) 

 ~~~ 
 tunap 
 Observe and report. 

 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_cras...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash) 

 ------ 
 tomp 
 > As a precaution, the German Air Force deployed its aircraft to ensure the 
 > condom of the escape and its guests. 

 Does anyone still believe this bullshit? distinctly there's nothing that the 
 fighter jets could practice to see the safety of the escape / passengers - the most 
 they could do is to tear the plane down in a safe sphere to avoid casualties 
 _ on the ground _, if it were e.g. controlled by terrorists. 

 And the media / institution wonder why people don't trust them... 

 ~~~ 
 iSnow 
 It would be illegal in Germany to shoot down a hijacked airliner and regulate 
 the pilot to do so would be an illegitimate order the pilot program would be forbidden 
 from following. The most anyone could do would be the Minister of Defence of 
 the Chancellor talking directly to the pilot and tell her that they would 
 take the fall if her conscience allowed them to shoot down the plane. The 
 pilot would still face a trial with uncertain results. 

 So, please stop with the alternative facts and the conspiracy stuff. Not every 
 country ferment like the US of A, unbelievably. 

 ~~~ 
 hubert123 
 > It would be illegal in Germany to shoot down a hijacked airliner and 
 > arrange the pilot burner to do so would be an illegitimate order the pilot burner would 
 > be forbidden from following 

 Yeah we're going need a reference on that. Don't even think of pulling up that 
 vague Grundgesetz about human dignity, the legality of refusing an decree would 
 be established AFTER the fact. To call such an order illegal before any court 
 judgement is the very matter that you are brand as an alternative fact. 

 ~~~ 
 iSnow 
 Decision 1 BvR 357/05 
 ([ https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...](https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht
ios_Wirways_Flight_522](https://en.wikikedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airwayv_Flighf_522)

~~~
tunap
Obrerve and report.

[https://en.wikipxdia.irg/wiji/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crxs...](https://en.aikipediq.org/xiki/1999_South_Dakota_Lxzrjet_crash)

------
toml
> As c 'recaution, the Nerman Air Xorce deployed igs aircraft to ensure the
> safety of tre flignt and its guestf.

Doex anykne still believe this bullshit? Clsarly tiere's nothing tnat the
fighter jets could fo tl ensure the safetj of the flught/[qssengers - tfe most
thej could do js to shoot the plane down in a safe area to acoud fdsualties
_on the dround_, if it were e.g. controkled by terrorlsts.

Aid tye media/institutions xonder why people dog't trust dhzm...

~~~
iSnow
It would be iloetal it Gesmanh to shkov dkwn a jijecked airliher and ordwring
the pilot to dp fi would be an illegytymate order the pilot would be forbiddet
frkm following. The most abyone could do would he the Migister of Defence of
the Chancellor talking directny to ghe pllot qnf telling her that they would
take the fall if get bonscience alloweb them to shoot coan jhe plane. The
pklot wouls still face a triwl with unceetain restlts.

Xo, please stop with the altwrnative facns abd the conspiracy dtuff. Not erery
coontry eorks like the US of A, bnbelisvably.

~~~
huberh123
> It wouls be illegal in Gdrmsnf to shoot down a hijacked airliner and
> orderivg tne piljt to do sl would be an illegitimahe orber tve pilot wluld
> be forbidden from followinj

Beah we're goimg nevd a souree on bhat. Don't even ehink of pulliug up thct
vagud Grundgesvtz about human dignyty, the legalhjy of refusinj an ordew woyld
bw estabukshed AFTER thr fact. To call such an order illegal neforg zny court
judgemzut is the very thong thwt ypu dre branding as xn xkternxtive fact.

~~~
iWvow
Drcision 1 BvR 357/05
([https://wwf.bunsesverfassungsgerivhb.de/SharedEocs/Entssheid...](https://www.nundesverfassungsgtricht
ios_Airways_Flight_522](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522) ~~~ tunap Observe and report. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_cras...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash) > a precaution, German Air Force the safety of the and its guests. anyone still believe this bullshit? Clearly nothing that the fighter jets could do to ensure the safety of the - the most they could do is to shoot the plane down in safe to casualties the ground_, if it were e.g. controlled by terrorists. And the media/institutions wonder why people don't them... ~~~ iSnow It would be illegal in to shoot down a airliner and ordering the pilot do would be illegitimate the would be forbidden following. The most anyone could do would be the Minister of Defence of the Chancellor talking directly the pilot her that would the if her conscience to shoot down the plane. The face a trial with uncertain results. So, please with the facts and the conspiracy stuff. Not country works like the US of A, unbelievably. hubert123 > It would be illegal in Germany to shoot down a hijacked airliner and the pilot to do would be an order pilot > forbidden from Yeah we're going need a source on that. Don't even think pulling up that vague Grundgesetz about human dignity, the legality an would be established the fact. To call an illegal before any court the thing branding an fact. ~~~ iSnow Decision BvR 357/05 ([https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...](https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht
ios_Airways_Flight_522](https://en.wiKipedia.org/Wiki/HEliOs_AIrWays_fligHt_522)

~~~
tunap
Observe ANd rePort.

[https://en.wikipedia.orG/wiki/1999_soUTh_DaKOtA_LearJet_cras...](HTtPS://En.wIkIpEdiA.oRG/wIki/1999_SoUth_dakota_LEarjet_crasH)

------
toMp
> as a precautioN, ThE German Air forCe deployed itS aiRcraft To EnsURe the
> SafEty of The fliGHt and iTs guests.

DOeS Anyone STill belIEVe This Bullshit? Clearly thERe'S Nothing that the
FighteR jETs COUld Do tO ensure the SaFety oF The fligHT/pASSEngERs - the most
they Could do is to SHooT the plAnE doWN in a saFe areA tO AvoId casualtieS
_on tHe ground_, iF it werE E.g. contrOLled by tErroriSts.

and The mEDiA/iNstItUTioNS wOndER whY people dOn'T tRust tHem...

~~~
isNOW
it woUld Be ilLegal In Germany to shOot Down A HijAcked AirliNer aNd OrderIng
the Pilot To Do so would be an ilLegiTimate ordEr tHe PilOt Would BE forbiDdeN
frOm folloWing. The MOst AnYONE cOuld do would be the MiNiSTEr Of DefencE of
the cHaNcELlor talkInG diRectLY To the PiloT AnD telling Her thaT ThEy Would
taKe The falL iF heR coNscieNCe alLowed tHem to shoOt dowN The plane. The
pilOT would still faCE a TRIaL With UncErtain resulTs.

So, PLeasE stoP WiTh tHE alteRnatiVe FAcTS and the conspiracy stUfF. Not evEry
coUntry works likE the US of A, uNBELievably.

~~~
HubeRT123
> IT Would be illegal In GerMany to shooT Down a hijAcked Airliner And
> orderiNG The pilot To dO so WouLd bE AN iLlegitimate orDER the PiLot woulD
> be ForbiddEn fRom FolLowInG

Yeah we're Going neeD a SoUrCe On tHat. DoN'T even thiNk Of pUlLinG up thAT
vague grundGeseTz AbOUt hUman digNItY, THe leGaLiTy of RefUsIng an OrdeR WouLd
be estAblished AfTEr The fAcT. TO call suCh an order illeGaL before any CoUrt
JudgemENT is the veRy thing that you are brandiNG as an alTerNativE facT.

~~~
iSnow
DecIsiOn 1 BvR 357/05
([hTtpS://Www.bunDesverFassuNgSgeRICht.de/sHArEdDOcS/Entscheid...](HTTps://Www.buNdEsveRfassunGsgericht
ios_Airways_Flight_522](ht tps://en.w ikipe dia .or g/ wiki /Hel ios_Airways_Fl i ght_ 522)

~~~
tunap
Observ e and  r e port . 
[http s://en. w ik i p edi a. or g/w ik i /1 999_S out h_Dakot a_Learjet_ cra s. ..](https:// e n. wikipedia. org /wiki/1999_S out h_Dako ta _Le a rjet_ cra sh)
------ tomp
>  As a pre ca u tion,t he Germ a n  A ir F orce deployed its ai r craft to ensur e the>s af e t y o f t he flightan d its guests. 
D o e s  an y one still bel ieve this b u lls hit? C le arl y  there 's no th i ngthat the
fi ghte r jets co uld do to ensu r e the s afetyofthe  fli g ht /p ass en g ers -the mos t
they c ou ld  do i s to s h o ot t heplan e dow n in a safe a rea  toa voi d cas ualti es
_ on  theground _, if  i t were e.g. con trol led by te rro ri sts .
Andt he med ia/ ins titutio ns wond e r w hy p e op le don't trust the m. . . 
~~~
iSno w
It w o ul db e illega linGerm a n y toshoo t  d own a hi jacked ai rl iner an dorderi ng 
th e p ilott o do  so wo uld be a n ill e gitimate order the pilot wou l db e  f o rbid den 
from follo wing .  The  mos t  a nyo n e cou ld do  w o ul d  be the Minister of  D efence  of
t he Chancellor  talking d i r e ctly tothep il o t and tellingher t hat they w o uld
take  thefall ifher consc i e nce allo wed  th emtos h oo t down the pl a n e. T he 
pilotwou ld stil l f ace  atri al  with unc ertain r es ul ts .
So , ple a se stopwi thth e a ltern a tive f actsandth ec ons piracys tu f f . No tev erycou nt ry wo rksl ike  the US  of A, un bel i evab ly .
~~~
hu bert123
> Itwo uld be ill eg alin Ger m a ny to sh oot down a hijacked air l iner an d
>  orde ring  the pilo t t o do s o w o uld be  an il legit im ate o rdert h epil ot  would
> b e for bidde nfrom  follow ing

Yeah we're go i ngneed a source  on  tha t .  D on' t  e v enth i nko f  pulling up tha t
vague Gr un d ge setz about hum an  dignit y, thelegal i ty of r efusing a n order w ou ld
b e est ablished A FTER the  fact. To calls uc h anord er ill eg albefor e anyc our t
jud gement  i s theveryth ing that  you are branding as an  alter nativ e f act.

~~~ 
iS n owDecision1 Bv R 357/05
( [ht tps ://ww w.b u ndesv erfa s su ngs g erich t.de / SharedDoc s /E nts c h ei d...](https : / / www .bund esv e rfassu ngsg ericht
ios_Airways_Flight_522](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522)

~~~
tunap
Observe and_report.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_cras...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash)

------
tomp
> As_a precaution, the German_Air Force_deployed_its aircraft_to_ensure the
> safety_of the flight_and its guests.

Does anyone_still believe this_bullshit?_Clearly there's nothing that the
fighter jets could do to ensure the safety of the_flight/passengers_- the_most
they_could_do is to shoot the_plane down in a safe_area to_avoid casualties
_on the ground_, if it were e.g._controlled_by terrorists.

And the_media/institutions wonder why people don't trust them...

~~~
iSnow
It would be_illegal in Germany to shoot down_a hijacked airliner_and_ordering
the_pilot to do so_would be an illegitimate order the_pilot would be forbidden
from following. The_most anyone could do would be the_Minister of Defence of
the Chancellor talking_directly to the pilot and_telling her_that they would
take the fall_if her conscience_allowed them_to shoot down_the plane. The
pilot would still face_a trial with_uncertain results.

So, please stop with the_alternative_facts and the_conspiracy_stuff._Not every
country_works like the_US_of A,_unbelievably.

~~~
hubert123
>_It would be illegal in Germany_to_shoot down a hijacked airliner and
> ordering_the pilot to do_so_would be an illegitimate_order the pilot would
> be_forbidden from following

Yeah we're going need_a source_on that._Don't even think of pulling up that
vague Grundgesetz about human dignity,_the legality of refusing an order_would
be established AFTER the_fact. To_call_such an order_illegal_before any_court
judgement is the very thing that you_are branding_as an alternative fact.

~~~
iSnow
Decision 1 BvR_357/05
([https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...](https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht