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

[Vixen]

Oh, Vixen can (in her head) have it every which way but Sunday, it would appear. So long as it's somehow in support of her overall CT-batcrap thesis.

Which is only the latest in a litany of reasons why Vixen's contributions to this thread have consistently exhibited ignorance, lies and sustained intellectual dishonesty. Frankly, her "contributions" to this thread can by now safely be disregarded in their entirety: not one of them counts as a sincere, genuine, well-informed participation in the debate. At this point, her posts are nothing more than a darkly comical side-show, undeserving of engagement or the effort of a response (other than as a car-crash-observation pursuit....)

Projecting again?

 

[Vixen]

See, this is one of the things I find incomprehensible. Somehow, Vixen cannot understand that Svensson transferred from Y64 to Y74. That he rescued 1 while on board Y64. Winch breaks so Y64 is RTB for repair. Svensson is left in the sea. Y74 rocks up and rescues him. Moberg gets injured and Svensson steps in and rescues 6 more (plus one corpse).

Y64 and Y74 are helicopters, not individuals. Vixen cannot understand this because...wtf?

Also, think about it from Svenssons perspective. He was left in the sea by Y64 because they had no working winch at that point. Y74 plucked him from the sea. What did he do at that point? Kept saving people. That's what he did. How is that not heroic?

What is outstandingly brave and gallant about transferring from one winch to another?

 

[Vixen]

No, history show the opposite.

Just look at countries that have assassination teams and how they are used. Israel could have waxed Adolf Eichmann, but they didn't - they arrested him, and later executed him.

The Russians tried to kill Alexei Navalny, but ended up arresting him once the spotlight was on.

On the other hand, both countries demonstrate that if they want someone dead, they die. If they want to arrest them, they make the arrest.

And when was the last time Sweden assassinated anyone?

I take it you have seen the controversy surrounding the assassination of Olof Palme?

You'll find the assassination squads after WWII were based on ruthless revenge, understandably, by Jewish groups, and the Russian ones are ruthless revenge for spies who have defected or turned double agent.

That is not the same as 'failing to follow proper due process', i.e, via public courts.

 

[JayUtah]

Ahmed Hussein Mustafa Kamil Agiza v. Sweden, CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), 24 May 2005, available at

Articles 3 and 22 of the relevant convention, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Rome Statute, relate to torture. Sweden was adjudged to have sent the plaintiffs to a country where there was substantial grounds to suspect plaintiffs would be tortured, namely Egypt.

Nothing you've presented has the slightest to do with enforced disappearance. That is a separate crime that was not committed in this case. Sweden did not "disappear" the two men, nor did any court find that they did.

 

[Vixen]

I mean like applying post-911 policies to a pre-911 world.

Remember the days when the US backed away from attacking bin Laden due to the risk of civilian casualties? And how today we can launch a Hellfire missile at a car load of kids without remorse? Or how, after a number of Islamic terrorist attacks in London, Paris, and Belgium those countries now proactively hunt for trouble?

Europe and the US do things today that would have been shocking in 1994.

And you have yet to demonstrate Sweden's history of taking such extreme actions you insist happened. Pointing to an extradition in 2002 is stupid.

9/11 might have been the first time the USA experienced terrorism. In London we had the IRA bombing campaigns since the 70's. And they were fond of semtex, something that may well have been used on the Estonia, according to the report by Brian Braidwood, who says he found evidence of explosives residues and a particular petalling deformation nearby the forward bulkhead. Likewise, more recently, Ida Westermann, who took samples from the bow visor itself and found deformations that could be compatible with extreme conditions.

 

[Vixen]

Articles 3 and 22 of the relevant convention, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Rome Statute, relate to torture. Sweden was adjudged to have sent the plaintiffs to a country where there was substantial grounds to suspect plaintiffs would be tortured, namely Egypt.

Nothing you've presented has the slightest to do with enforced disappearance. That is a separate crime that was not committed in this case. Sweden did not "disappear" the two men, nor did any court find that they did.

It matters not a jot which court it comes under. The principle is:

In February 1980 the United Nations established the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, "the first United Nations human rights thematic mechanism to be established with a universal mandate". Its main task "is to assist families in determining the fate or whereabouts of their family members who have reportedly disappeared". In August 2014, the working group reported 43,250 unresolved cases of disappearances in 88 different states.[4]

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 20 December 2006, also states that the widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearances constitutes a crime against humanity. It gives victims' families the right to seek reparations, and to demand the truth about the disappearance of their loved ones.

wiki

Quibbling about p's and q's is just to turn a blind eye to it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

9/11 might have been the first time the USA experienced terrorism. In London we had the IRA bombing campaigns since the 70's. And they were fond of semtex, something that may well have been used on the Estonia, according to the report by Brian Braidwood, who says he found evidence of explosives residues and a particular petalling deformation nearby the forward bulkhead. Likewise, more recently, Ida Westermann, who took samples from the bow visor itself and found deformations that could be compatible with extreme conditions.

Where did he find explosive residues?
As far as I know he was never in a position to find anything on the wreck.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It matters not a jot which court it comes under. The principle is:

wiki

Quibbling about p's and q's is just to turn a blind eye to it.

How is it quibbling about p’s and q’s when it says something completely different to your claim?

 

[Vixen]

Where did he find explosive residues?
As far as I know he was never in a position to find anything on the wreck.

It is all there in his report. The wording was, 'evidence of explosive residues'.

 

[Vixen]

How is it quibbling about p’s and q’s when it says something completely different to your claim?

It is just pure gaslighting to pretend not to understand what disappearing means.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

It matters not a jot which court it comes under. The principle is:

wiki

Quibbling about p's and q's is just to turn a blind eye to it.

It is'nt quibbling, it's a completely different thing entirely. The links you provided to the UN convention were to do with the torture that the two individuals suffered once they arrived in Egypt. It has nothing to do with their enforced repatriation.

You're either monumentally stupid or this is all a game to you, because there is no way anyone with a functioning brain could conflate the two things like you have here. No way on earth. It must be deliberate.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

It is just pure gaslighting to pretend not to understand what disappearing means.

1. As has been explained to you many times, disappearing means that they disappeared.

2. What do you think gaslighting is, exactly?

 

[JayUtah]

It matters not a jot which court it comes under.

Yes, it does. You told us the ECHR issued a finding that Sweden had violated the Rome Statue on enforced disappearance in the case of the two Egyptian deportees. That is absolutely not true. You lied again.

The principle is...

No one disputes that the principle exists and is sound. The disputation is whether Sweden did this in the case of the two Egyptians. Except there is no rational dispute. They didn't "disappear" the Egyptian deportees. They deported them. Their lawyers in Sweden were informed of the deportation. Sweden certainly deprived the two deportees of due process, for which it was justly held accountable. But they did not commit the crime you accuse them of.

 

[JayUtah]

It is just pure gaslighting to pretend not to understand what disappearing means.

Enforced disappearance is clearly defined. Your desire to make it seem identical to deportation is baffling. No one is pretending they don't understand enforced disappearance. They just disagree that the actions of Sweden in a particular instance satisfy the elements of that crime. And the facts and legal decisions are on their side.

You would make such a terrible lawyer.

 

[JayUtah]

It is all there in his report. The wording was, 'evidence of explosive residues'.

And that's far too nebulous to be credible. What exact substances were alleged?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

It is all there in his report. The wording was, 'evidence of explosive residues'.

Where, specifically in the report? What page was it on, or what subheading was it under?

You see, you've claimed this sort of vague "it's in X" thing before and every single time it turned out you lied.

The WG was a hospital ship when it was sank, it's in this book. It wasn't.

The fact that the two Egyptians were found to have been disappeared is on Wikipedia. It wasn't.

The Times reports on Stalingrad in a specific column featured information gleaned from the ordinary German soldiers. They didn't.

Etc etc.

You have no credibility anymore because you are a known liar. So if you want to point us to something that supports your argument please do, we would love to see it, but you're going to have to be specific about exactly where in whatever document you want us to search your claim can be found, otherwise we will just assume that you're lying again.

 

[Vixen]

It is'nt quibbling, it's a completely different thing entirely. The links you provided to the UN convention were to do with the torture that the two individuals suffered once they arrived in Egypt. It has nothing to do with their enforced repatriation.

You're either monumentally stupid or this is all a game to you, because there is no way anyone with a functioning brain could conflate the two things like you have here. No way on earth. It must be deliberate.

So how come the courts found against Sweden. In addition, Sweden also eventually granted residence and nationality to one of them.

<fx Gets into listening pose>

 

[Vixen]

Yes, it does. You told us the ECHR issued a finding that Sweden had violated the Rome Statue on enforced disappearance in the case of the two Egyptian deportees. That is absolutely not true. You lied again.



No one disputes that the principle exists and is sound. The disputation is whether Sweden did this in the case of the two Egyptians. Except there is no rational dispute. They didn't "disappear" the Egyptian deportees. They deported them. Their lawyers in Sweden were informed of the deportation. Sweden certainly deprived the two deportees of due process, for which it was justly held accountable. But they did not commit the crime you accuse them of.

OK. Tell me which court they should have applied to.

 

[JayUtah]

So how come the courts found against Sweden.

They found against Sweden on an entirely different charge. No one is claiming Sweden acted properly in the case of the two Egyptian deportees. It is clear that they deported the two men without due process.

That is not the same as enforced disappearance. You claimed the European court found against Sweden for violating the Rome Statute on enforced disappearances. That is factually incorrect. They found against Sweden for violating a convention on torture. Even though it was Egypt who tortured the two men, Sweden contributed to that by deporting the men to a country they had reason to believe would torture them, without due process that would have explored the possibility of torture.

Does it cross your mind that these details matter?

 

[JayUtah]

OK. Tell me which court they should have applied to.

Why are you stuck on this notion of venue?

You claimed the ECHR found that Sweden had violated the Rome Statute on enforced disappearances. When asked to substantiate that, you provided a citation to an entirely different finding on an entirely different point of law.

You lied.