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

[Vixen]

No. We all (except possibly you) know that this is once again a case where you remember things wrong. Just like you claimed that Wilhelm Gusloff was still a hospital ship in 1945 and that Battle of Poltava was in 1721. You have never seen such an article, your memory has confused papers reporting what German newspapers write as being reports sent by eavesdropping spies.

If it happens to be so that we are wrong and you are right, you can prove it easily by providing enough reference details to the story that allows others to find it.



Just out of curiosity I tried to search for that article from digi.kansalliskirjasto.fi but I couldn't find it. The search interface there isn't particularly reliable so it is very possible that there is an article about corpses found on Härkätie, but I couldn't find any combination of search terms that would have led to it. I did find some reports on atrocities committed by Reds, some accurate and some heavily-exaggerated propaganda.

I haven't had time to search for the one you want but there is a good article 10 September 1918, no. 4137, analysing what happened in West Finland during the Red Uprising. As you know, Turku was pretty red. I assume you are actually interested.

ETA if you look on page 4 of the above - nr. 4137 - you will find an account of how someone on a journey to church was ambushed by a bunch of reds, taken to a forest and shot. This happened 7 Feb 1918. The headline is: 'Maanwiljelia Kärjen murha kirkkomatkalla'. (NB: 'v' was written as 'w' then.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Not after two to five days, when the first Swedish naval frogmen went down.


Even Rockwater two months later reported back the bodies were in good condition and could have recovered the 200 or so they saw.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The subject of that clipping has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It was given as an example of the excellence of on-the-scene newspaper reporting.

Which means it does relate since you brought it up.

Let's face it, even if I were to go to the trouble of finding it for you - without a please or a thank you - you would just find something to sneer about because you are only interested in point scoring.

Oh please. You're pathetic, you really are. You've been caught lying about your sources yet again and you're desperately throwing shade to try to make it look like you're the aggrieved party for reasons that I cannot fathom. Who do you think this obvious flim flam will impress, exactly?

You want to provide the reference for your claim that the WG was a hospital ship or that hospital ships were painted a distinctive grey yet? You do remember that was your claim, right? You remember that I own the book you claimed you got this from?

So I am out. You can have the last word.

Brave Sir Robin ran away...

 

[LondonJohn]

Naughty. You have wilfully cut out my first sentence which points out the research was to do with WWII.

Why do you keep telling lies, Vixen?

 

[Stamuel]

You are bad at logic.

Consider Person B, who last week broke into Person A's home and on four days stole a few items each time. On the fifth day, Person A, having been informed by Person C that this was happening, lies in wait for Person B and catches him sneaking in through a window.

Question: Does it follow that because there was no evidence Person B had stolen anything on Day Five that therefore, they are innocent of their previous four days' misdemeanours and Person A had no right to take revenge?


Likewise, how does the fact, as ratified by the Swedish Riksdag, 2005, that Sweden smuggled Soviet/Russian state secrets on the passenger ferry Estonia, on two known occasions two weeks prior to the disaster on 28.9.1994 equates to, "It can't have been the Russians taking revenge"?

How far does Person A have the right to go in seeking revenge, though? Do they have the right to bomb a restaurant, killing Person B, Person B's family, and 75 other people who had nothing to do with the burglary?

Your theory is not simply that Russia took revenge on the smugglers; your theory is that Russia went out of its way to make sure as many passengers as possible died in the sinking of the Estonia. According to you, they disrupted communications, sank the ship as fast as possible, did it during shift change, and sabotaged the EPRIBs specifically to prevent rescue. They deliberately killed almost 1,000 people who had nothing to do with the smuggling. This would make it one of the worst crimes ever to happen outside of war.

Also according to you, the victims of this atrocity responded by helping the perpetrators get away with it and apparently doing nothing else.

What exactly do you think was being smuggled that would justify such monstrous, horrific crimes? What secret could make the targets of such an attack so eager to cover it up and do nothing in response? A Doomsday device? Solaronite? Wormhole weapons?

If the Estonia was just used to smuggle electronics, as claimed in the report you cite so often, then everyone's motives on all sides of your theory are completely unhinged, insane, deranged. You might as well be claiming that UNICEF sank the Estonia as an attempt to create a real live unicorn.

 

[LondonJohn]

The subject of that clipping has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It was given as an example of the excellence of on-the-scene newspaper reporting.

Let's face it, even if I were to go to the trouble of finding it for you - without a please or a thank you - you would just find something to sneer about because you are only interested in point scoring.

So I am out. You can have the last word.

Because you lied, Vixen. Because you lied. Own it. And maybe try to debate in good faith, with intellectual honesty. Disgusting.

 

[LondonJohn]

I haven't had time to search for the one you want but there is a good article 10 September 1918, no. 4137, analysing what happened in West Finland during the Red Uprising. As you know, Turku was pretty red. I assume you are actually interested.

Don't make claims if you don't already have the evidence pretty close at hand to support the claim.

Your efforts in this thread are a horrible joke. You're just winging it, aren't you? Virtually nothing you've claimed has been either correct or supportable (with reliable evidence). Your contributions are a disgrace.

 

[Mojo]

The subject of that clipping has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It was given as an example of the excellence of on-the-scene newspaper reporting.

Let's face it, even if I were to go to the trouble of finding it for you - without a please or a thank you - you would just find something to sneer about because you are only interested in point scoring.

I’m just trying to get you to provide evidence to support a claim you have made. It’s kind of what people do on a skeptics’ forum. But I would be very interested in seeing evidence that the Times had reporters embedded in German military units during WWII.

 

[Vixen]

How far does Person A have the right to go in seeking revenge, though? Do they have the right to bomb a restaurant, killing Person B, Person B's family, and 75 other people who had nothing to do with the burglary?

Your theory is not simply that Russia took revenge on the smugglers; your theory is that Russia went out of its way to make sure as many passengers as possible died in the sinking of the Estonia. According to you, they disrupted communications, sank the ship as fast as possible, did it during shift change, and sabotaged the EPRIBs specifically to prevent rescue. They deliberately killed almost 1,000 people who had nothing to do with the smuggling. This would make it one of the worst crimes ever to happen outside of war.

Also according to you, the victims of this atrocity responded by helping the perpetrators get away with it and apparently doing nothing else.

What exactly do you think was being smuggled that would justify such monstrous, horrific crimes? What secret could make the targets of such an attack so eager to cover it up and do nothing in response? A Doomsday device? Solaronite? Wormhole weapons?

If the Estonia was just used to smuggle electronics, as claimed in the report you cite so often, then everyone's motives on all sides of your theory are completely unhinged, insane, deranged. You might as well be claiming that UNICEF sank the Estonia as an attempt to create a real live unicorn.

Exactly. However, from Day One, no-one saw it as a 'crime against humanity' it was 'the bow visor had a design fault'.

Cui bono?


Why has no-one been brought to justice?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Under Swedish law, if you are in KSI, you are allowed to break the law in the course of your duties.

Can you show me the Swedish law that says this?

 

[Vixen]

Don't make claims if you don't already have the evidence pretty close at hand to support the claim.

Your efforts in this thread are a horrible joke. You're just winging it, aren't you? Virtually nothing you've claimed has been either correct or supportable (with reliable evidence). Your contributions are a disgrace.

ETA if you look on page 4 of the above - nr. 4137 - you will find an account of how someone on a journey to church was ambushed by a bunch of reds, taken to a forest and shot. This happened 7 Feb 1918. The headline is: 'Maanwiljelia Kärjen murha kirkkomatkalla'. (NB: 'v' was written as 'w' then.)

Take your scurrilous claims elsewhere.

 

[Steve]

My bad,

An accurate decription of these entire threads.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not after two to five days, when the first Swedish naval frogmen went down.


Even Rockwater two months later reported back the bodies were in good condition and could have recovered the 200 or so they saw.

good condition compared to what?

For example do you know what happens to the eyes of a corpse after a couple of days in salt water?

 

[Mojo]

Exactly. However, from Day One, no-one saw it as a 'crime against humanity' it was 'the bow visor had a design fault'.

Cui bono?


Why has no-one been brought to justice?

No, it doesn’t work like that.* The mere fact that someone benefits from something is not evidence that a crime has been committed.


*In the real world.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not really. He was merely winched up into another helicopter, according to the JAIC. There is nothing brave about that.

Where he took over rescue duties until he was injured and couldn't carry on.

 

[tusenfem]

delete

 

[zooterkin]

only the name of the NZZ is in a form of fraktur, the rest of the newspaper is just in regular times roman or something like that. This is utter nonsense.

[qimg]https://at.studenten-presse.com/media/85/18/7c/1625579786/k51-7.jpg[/qimg]

In 1940?

 

[LondonJohn]

Can you show me the Swedish law that says this?

Asked and (surprise, surprise) not answered.

 

[LondonJohn]

ETA if you look on page 4 of the above - nr. 4137 - you will find an account of how someone on a journey to church was ambushed by a bunch of reds, taken to a forest and shot. This happened 7 Feb 1918. The headline is: 'Maanwiljelia Kärjen murha kirkkomatkalla'. (NB: 'v' was written as 'w' then.)

Take your scurrilous claims elsewhere.

No. You take your scurrilous claims, and your lies, and your sustained intellectual dishonesty, elsewhere. OK, Vixen?

 

[LondonJohn]

No, it doesn’t work like that.* The mere fact that someone benefits from something is not evidence that a crime has been committed.


*In the real world.

Exactly.

For example, someone who had shorted TWA stock a few days before the TWA800 crash would have benefitted (substantially) from the crash - via its strong downward impact on the TWA share price.

But it goes without saying (or it should do, to anyone with an IQ higher than around 80...) that this is in any way whatsoever evidence that someone must have shorted TWA stock then caused the crash of that aircraft.

Vixen hasn't got a clue.