• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack by the hedge said:
Yes, considering who benefits addresses motive but does not address means and does not address opportunity.

On the other hand, just saying "Cui Bono" and leaving it at that doesn't even consider motive. It just raises the subject of motive but then leaves the point dangling unanswered.
Click to expand...


Like JAQing off about some sort of conspiracy theory.
 
JesseCuster said:
Given that you seem to believe the Russians were responsible for the sinking of the Estonia, are you suggesting that they had a "right to take revenge" because some of their stuff had been smuggled on said ship? :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

No. The point being made was in answer to the proposition, "Sweden might have smuggled sensitive Soviet material on the Estonia passenger ferry but the Riksdag has not admitted it did on that night".


I was simply pointing out that by that logic that if a burglar burgles you he can get away with saying, "Ah, but I didn't burgle you as on the day you had me arrested."
 
At what time did the baddies learn the Estonia had issued a Mayday? How did they know what had happened to it or who was responsible? Why did they instantly conclude the ship's officers had to be disappeared? How did they expect one helicopter crew to locate them, let alone locate them first?
 
Vixen said:
Axxman300 provided the answer. On considering why China covers up Tianenmen Square massacre he said: "It is covered up because it makes them look bad".
Click to expand...


Can you link to the post that quotation was taken from?
 
Vixen said:
Axxman300 provided the answer. On considering why China covers up Tianenmen Square massacre he said: "It is covered up because it makes them look bad".



Plus no doubt Sweden never realised that one day the smuggling on the passenger ferry would ever come out officially, as it did in 2005.





In addition, it had The Herald of Free Enterprise red herring to fall back on. Win-win. (Or so it must have seemed at the time.)
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. Your claim (which you never manage to substantiate) that Bildt declared it was an accident on day 1as a cover-up requires that he knew on day 1 that it was the Russians. How? And that if anyone discovered it was the Russians that would mean they'd discover something embarrassing about him. Why?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Yes, considering who benefits addresses motive but does not address means and does not address opportunity.

On the other hand, just saying "Cui Bono" and leaving it at that doesn't even consider motive. It just raises the subject of motive but then leaves the point dangling unanswered. It's very far from clear that the sinking or the finding that it was an accident benefitted anyone. Vixen will doubtless argue that it benefits the perpetrators but that's just begging the question. It's not evidence that there were perpetrators.
Click to expand...

If the UK were urgent in bringing the captains and shipowners of The Herald of Free Enterprise and Bow Belle to court, and now Denmark is extraditing the person on the bridge of the Scot Carrier, all of them to face charges of gross negligence and corporate manslaughter, how come Sweden's reaction to the Estonia accident is: 'Just a design fault on the bow visor. Move along now. Nothing to see here,' all on Day One?

500 of its own citizens.
 
The loony-tunes version is as soon as it was heard that the Estonia issued a Mayday, Bildt knew Russian saboteurs had sunk it, that its officers had to be kidnapped and disappeared and that if the world discovered the Russians had done this it would reveal things so embarrassing to Bildt that he'd have to resign the job he was going to leave in a few days anyway.
 
Vixen said:
If the UK were urgent in bringing the captains and shipowners of The Herald of Free Enterprise and Bow Belle to court, and now Denmark is extraditing the person on the bridge of the Scot Carrier, all of them to face charges of gross negligence and corporate manslaughter, how come Sweden's reaction to the Estonia accident is: 'Just a design fault on the bow visor. Move along now. Nothing to see here,' all on Day One?

500 of its own citizens.
Click to expand...
Did the captains of the Herald and Bow Bell get kidnapped and disappeared by the British? Why not?
 
Vixen said:
Axxman300 provided the answer. On considering why China covers up Tianenmen Square massacre he said: "It is covered up because it makes them look bad".
Click to expand...
The Chinese government covered up an atrocity that they were responsible for in order to not make themselves look bad for committing an atrocity involving the massacre of hundreds of civilians

But according to your hare-brained idea, the Swedes covered up an atrocity committed by Russia against Swedish civilians involving hundreds of innocent deaths, in order to hide the fact that they were smuggling Russian military electronics on the Estonia? Hardly any reward and a huge amount of risk.

What sense does it make?
 
Vixen said:
What happened to the senior crew of Estonia who were originally listed as 'survivors'?
Click to expand...
They didn't actually survive at all. It was just hearsay.
PS evasion again noted. The question was how was Y64's mission impossible supposed to work?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Axxman300 provided the answer. On considering why China covers up Tianenmen Square massacre he said: "It is covered up because it makes them look bad".

Plus no doubt Sweden never realised that one day the smuggling on the passenger ferry would ever come out officially, as it did in 2005.


In addition, it had The Herald of Free Enterprise red herring to fall back on. Win-win. (Or so it must have seemed at the time.)
Click to expand...

How does covering up a crime by Russia become a win for Sweden o, Finland or Estonia?

Isn't covering up a crime by Russia a win for Russia?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
At what time did the baddies learn the Estonia had issued a Mayday? How did they know what had happened to it or who was responsible? Why did they instantly conclude the ship's officers had to be disappeared? How did they expect one helicopter crew to locate them, let alone locate them first?
Click to expand...

If the ship was rocked by explosions at Swedish midnight, half way through her journey and as the watch was changing, one gets the sense the baddies already knew the ship would then try to send a Mayday and dealt with this matter by disabling the EPIRB's in advance and arranging interference with the radio signals during the expected time of sinking.
 
Vixen said:
No. The point being made was in answer to the proposition, "Sweden might have smuggled sensitive Soviet material on the Estonia passenger ferry but the Riksdag has not admitted it did on that night".


I was simply pointing out that by that logic that if a burglar burgles you he can get away with saying, "Ah, but I didn't burgle you as on the day you had me arrested."
Click to expand...
No, that wasn't your, you made a quite clear implication, using the following lousy analogy, that the homeowner had a right to take revenge on the burglar:

Vixen said:
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?
Click to expand...
What were you getting at by asking if "Person B" (i.e. the Swedes) were innocent and if "Person A" (i.e the Russians) "had no right to take revenge"? If it doesn't follow that there was no evidence of smuggling on the Estonia on the journey question, then it doesn't follow that they had no right to take revenge, i.e. they might have had a right to take revenge.

I doubt you can follow what I'm asking, hence the irrelevant response you're going to make which is going to involve a deliberate misunderstanding of what both of us have said. As is SOP for you.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
That makes no sense. Your claim (which you never manage to substantiate) that Bildt declared it was an accident on day 1as a cover-up requires that he knew on day 1 that it was the Russians. How? And that if anyone discovered it was the Russians that would mean they'd discover something embarrassing about him. Why?
Click to expand...

I didn't say Bildt 'knew it was the Russians'. I don't know what he knew. However, he certainly knew the cause of the accident. That is why the JAIC was just a show.


The fact that Dr_Ing Hans-Werner Hoffmeister of Hamburg University showed that their calculations on the bow visor were incorrect and that he obtained different results, was just ignored, proves the JAIC report was just a glossy brochure for people to put on their coffee tables.
 
Vixen said:
If the ship was rocked by explosions at Swedish midnight, half way through her journey and as the watch was changing, one gets the sense the baddies already knew the ship would then try to send a Mayday and dealt with this matter by disabling the EPIRB's in advance and arranging interference with the radio signals during the expected time of sinking.
Click to expand...

But the radio signals weren't interfered with, they were picked up by nearby ships and shore stations. EPIRBs weren't disabled, they weren't activated by the crew.
EPIRBs wouldn't have helped anyway, at the time it took quite a while to triangulate the position of the buoys and the radio response was far quicker.
 
Did the Swedish inquiry into smuggling, (which so far as I can see concluded that electronic parts had twice been brought from Estonia to Sweden and waved through customs) have anything to say about whether the officers of the ship colluded in any way with the smuggling?

I can't see any reason to imagine they needed to know anything dodgy was going on. The fewer who knew the better, I would have thought.

That's odd, isn't it? When there's no reason to suppose the ship's officers knew they were transporting anything untoward, what could possibly have meant they had to be silenced by Mission Impossible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom