Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

[LondonJohn]

As many as 1,000 were killed, remember.

Pray draw a link between a) the number killed and b) any (rational) assessment as to whether this may reasonably have been viewed as an act of terrorism.

 

[JesseCuster]

Stop fibbing.

I don't answer hypothetical questions.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13664875&postcount=2542

edit:
Also,

If my grandfather wore a skirt, would he be my grandmother?
Herein lies the problem with hypothetical questions.

I thought I responded that I didn't answer hypothetical questions.

Hypothetical question. Let's just stick to what did or did not happen, shall we?

 

[LondonJohn]

I love this theory. It is art.

An international conspiracy of world leaders set up the MS Estonia crew as fall guys to take the blame for the smuggling, which by extension (because the smuggling led to the Russian attack) meant setting up the crew as responsible for the sinking. With this cover story ready, the leaders then arrested the crew as smugglers and/or terrorists and staged a trial where all responsibility was placed on the crew, allowing those who gave the orders to wash their hands of responsibility. A clever plan.

Where it turns from clever to genius, however, is with the decision to do all of this in secret. Secret arrest. Secret trial. Secret cover story. Any conspiracy can set up a cover story and sell it to the public, but only a true artist can set up a cover story and then meticulously cover up the very existence of the cover story.

Oh, it's the backstop "get out clause" (or at least they think it is) of conspiracy theorists everywhere. A variant on "who watches the watchmen".

(It's actually rather similar in its mechanics to the classic religion/faith "get out clause" which goes along the lines of "Of course I can't prove any of it, or even explain it in terms of our current understanding of science and the universe! The fact that it's inexplicable is the very reason why I believe it must be true!")

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It wasn't a 'classified' incident.

So what? The sinking of the Estonia wasn't a secret either. If you are now claiming the officers on the Estonia did something bad that *wasn't* the sinking and it *wasn't* something the Western governments could admit happened but they had to get revenge for, maybe you could tell us what it might have been.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Hey Vixen, now you've been caught in a lie, will you ignore it, or double down?

Are you a scientist?

 

[GlennB]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13664875&postcount=2542

edit:
Also,

Goodness, it's almost as if Vixen is fibbing, isn't it?

 

[SpitfireIX]

If as you say, there were 300,000 persons killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 IIRC, and Björkman is denying it, then that is obviously not right. However, I am not sure I can trust your word as you likened him to a Holocaust denier earlier, but then claimed you were only making a comparison. That was a pretty strong allegation to make.

I quoted from his website where he claims "only [a] few Japanese died," and I provided a link. So why are you continuing to hedge about whether he said it?

Additionally, are you being deliberately obtuse again? To liken is to make a comparison. And I didn't backtrack on anything I said, despite your lame attempt to pretend I did. I claimed that Björkman's denial of hundreds of thousands of Japanese deaths is just as vile as Holocaust denial. You, however, attempted to twist my words so you could pretend I was accusing Björkman of actually being a Holocaust denier, undoubtedly in an attempt to throw out a red herring that would give you an excuse to avoid discussing the actual issue, which is Björkman's Hiroshima and Nagasaki denial.

 

[SpitfireIX]

That is very different from the argument Spitfire presents.

How is my argument different?

 

[Vixen]

Given how quickly the crew were supposedly disappeared, and given that they were rescued by Finnish search and rescue crews, what exactly does Vixen imagine happened on that night that resulted in the crew members being disappered?

First of all, the Swedish authorities must have known which crew members were responsible for being involved in the sabotaging of the Estonia, and they must have known almost immediately otherwise they couldn't have let the innocent crew members leave hospital after their rescue, while conspiring to secretly whisk away the guilty crew members on secret CIA rendition flights, in Finland, at the behest of the Swedes/US/British/whoever...

How on earth did they know almost immediately after the crew were rescued, that the Estonia had been sabotaged, that some members of the crew were (Spetsnaz ninjas notwithstanding) responsible for the sabotage, and which members were responsible, in order to immediately put into a plan to secretly squirrel them away on secret CIA rendition flights, without anyone knowing about it?

PM Carl Bildt knew immediately of the incident notwithstanding Stockholm MRCC not logging the Mayday message until 0202 and within hours he announced it was the bow visor's fault.

It is obvious in any shipping accident, finding the Captain and senior officers is key. When rescuing people from the sea, each survivor was asked for name and ID, id being birth date. If someone was not rescued, how was it possible their name and dob was written down 'in error'? Jutta Rabe claims to have seen the helicopter pilots logbooks and the names are also in there.

 

[JayUtah]

It is obvious in any shipping accident...

And how many of those have you investigated personally?

 

[Vixen]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13664875&postcount=2542

edit:
Also,

Exactly. I was referring to being asked questions of the 'What-if?' variety. How does that reconcile with your wilfully egregious claim:

"Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
You've repeatedly told us you don't deal in hypotheticals. No-one actually believes that you don't deal in hypotheticals, but it's funny to see you pretend that's what you think when it suits you only to repeatedly engage in hypotheticals, over and over and over and over...£


In future, I'll thank you not to twist my words and please could you quote me correctly and in context. At no time did I make a ridiculous claim that I never use the term 'hypothetical' nor discussed hypotheses as you tried to make out.

 

[Vixen]

I quoted from his website where he claims "only [a] few Japanese died," and I provided a link. So why are you continuing to hedge about whether he said it?

Additionally, are you being deliberately obtuse again? To liken is to make a comparison. And I didn't backtrack on anything I said, despite your lame attempt to pretend I did. I claimed that Björkman's denial of hundreds of thousands of Japanese deaths is just as vile as Holocaust denial. You, however, attempted to twist my words so you could pretend I was accusing Björkman of actually being a Holocaust denier, undoubtedly in an attempt to throw out a red herring that would give you an excuse to avoid discussing the actual issue, which is Björkman's Hiroshima and Nagasaki denial.

I'll take your word for it. I have no intention of clicking on those links as I am simply not interested in this sundry person's theories.

I don't know why you are berating me for someone else's views. Take it up with the person spouting them.

 

[LondonJohn]

Exactly. I was referring to being asked questions of the 'What-if?' variety. How does that reconcile with your wilfully egregious claim:

"Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
You've repeatedly told us you don't deal in hypotheticals. No-one actually believes that you don't deal in hypotheticals, but it's funny to see you pretend that's what you think when it suits you only to repeatedly engage in hypotheticals, over and over and over and over...£


In future, I'll thank you not to twist my words and please could you quote me correctly and in context. At no time did I make a ridiculous claim that I never use the term 'hypothetical' nor discussed hypotheses as you tried to make out.

Hypothetical questions are "what if" questions, Vixen

(And if you care to get pedantic, hypothetical scenarios are "what it" scenarios as well)

And where the heck did you get the misrepresentation that this might somehow have been about whether or not you used the term "hypothetical"?

It was all about the fact (the fact, Vixen) that you handwaved away questions aimed at you, with the clear intention of shutting them down, by claiming that you never dealt in hypotheticals.... yet here you are today positing exactly the same hypotheticals you'd previously derided.

I dunno: maybe in your bizarro-world the whole "hypotheticals" thing only becomes improper and nugatory when it's to do with questions/scenarios directed at you for comments/answers, but never when it's the other way around?

 

[Andy_Ross]

PM Carl Bildt knew immediately of the incident notwithstanding Stockholm MRCC not logging the Mayday message until 0202 and within hours he announced it was the bow visor's fault.

It is obvious in any shipping accident, finding the Captain and senior officers is key. When rescuing people from the sea, each survivor was asked for name and ID, id being birth date. If someone was not rescued, how was it possible their name and dob was written down 'in error'? Jutta Rabe claims to have seen the helicopter pilots logbooks and the names are also in there.

How would the pilots know the names of the people they were rescuing?

 

[LondonJohn]

I'll take your word for it. I have no intention of clicking on those links as I am simply not interested in this sundry person's theories.

I don't know why you are berating me for someone else's views. Take it up with the person spouting them.

No. We are berating you for taking that person's views (on the OP) at total face value, presenting them as your own, then falling back (whether implicitly or explicitly) on that person as an authority to justify those views.

You really can't understand this....?

 

[Steve]

How would the pilots know the names of the people they were rescuing?

PM Carl Bildt told them. it was his conspiracy, after all.

 

[LondonJohn]

PM Carl Bildt knew immediately of the incident notwithstanding Stockholm MRCC not logging the Mayday message until 0202 and within hours he announced it was the bow visor's fault.

It is obvious in any shipping accident, finding the Captain and senior officers is key. When rescuing people from the sea, each survivor was asked for name and ID, id being birth date. If someone was not rescued, how was it possible their name and dob was written down 'in error'? Jutta Rabe claims to have seen the helicopter pilots logbooks and the names are also in there.

What time are you claiming Bildt first knew about the sinking and the rescue operation then?

And show us the evidence that there were were names and DoBs being written down by the rescue operatives which were a) not the names/DoBs of the people they'd actually rescued, and b) the names/DoBs of other people aboard the Estonia that night, who had not been rescued. Evidence, please.

Oh and we don't trust a thing Rabe says (with good reason). Show us the actual logbooks. Or withdraw.

 

[Vixen]

Hypothetical questions are "what if" questions, Vixen

(And if you care to get pedantic, hypothetical scenarios are "what it" scenarios as well)

And where the heck did you get the misrepresentation that this might somehow have been about whether or not you used the term "hypothetical"?

It was all about the fact (the fact, Vixen) that you handwaved away questions aimed at you, with the clear intention of shutting them down, by claiming that you never dealt in hypotheticals.... yet here you are today positing exactly the same hypotheticals you'd previously derided.

I dunno: maybe in your bizarro-world the whole "hypotheticals" thing only becomes improper and nugatory when it's to do with questions/scenarios directed at you for comments/answers, but never when it's the other way around?

Please grow up. When I said I didn't answer hypothetical questions, it was in the context of a poster asking a what-if imaginary scenario, and no, I don't tend to bother answering hypothetical questions along the lines of 'if my grandad wore a skirt would he be my grandma?' .

Given history, politics, science and many areas revolve around intellectual ideas and hypotheses (for example, the effect of lockdown in the corona virus) it is clearly a misrepresentation to state, 'You said you never dealt in hypotheticals or speculation'.

If you want to make that claim next time please kindly be sure to include the post I am answering and then you will see in which context I said I didn't answer hypothetical questions. That would be awfully decent of you.

 

[JayUtah]

I have no intention of clicking on those links as I am simply not interested in this sundry person's theories.

You're very interested in one of them, enough to spend considerable time arguing it and defending his authority in issuing it. You're completely uninterested in the context of that theory, which is odd.

I don't know why you are berating me for someone else's views.

Because you're citing him as an authority to support your belief.

Take it up with the person spouting them.

I have. He couldn't cut it and ran away. That's how I know he's not the expert you really, really want him to be. Now I'm taking it up with you because you're advocating that we should once again take him seriously against our better, and better-informed, judgment.

The bigger question is why everyone but you seems to know and care more about the authorities you cite than you do.

 

[LondonJohn]

PM Carl Bildt told them. it was his conspiracy, after all.

I imagine Bildt swanning around in a red tailcoat, silver-tipped cane and huge top hat, laughing and gesticulating theatrically while he builds and safeguards the conspiracy as its ringmaster....