• 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.
LondonJohn said:
Oh man.

Everyone recognises "the right not to be disappeared". As, incidentally, does the ICC and the ECHR.

You're just making things up - AKA flat-out lying - in your pathetic attempts (above) to rationalise the situation.

Had the ECHR believed there was evidence that Sweden "disappeared" these two men, it would have ruled accordingly. Your ridiculous attempt to claim that the ECHR had to adjudicate on different grounds because they had no mechanism for assessing/adjudicating "disappearances" is entirely incorrect, and is something you've pulled out of thin air in a vain attempt to shore up your crumbling edifice.

Disgraceful.
Click to expand...

Potty-mouthed as usual, when losing an argument.
 
Vixen said:
Potty-mouthed as usual, when losing an argument.
Click to expand...


1) LOL point to where I was "potty-mouthed"* please. Because I was not.

2) What's your response to the actual points I raised in my post?



* And I note that you deal this "potty-mouthed" card from the bottom of the deck whenever you can't give a reasoned response to a post (that is, unless you decide to ignore posts altogether, which is also high up on your MO isn't it?). Huge intellectual dishonesty, Vixen.
 
Vixen said:
I have no idea what anyone else's opinion is on this matter.

My opinions are my own.
Click to expand...


Except all too often they're not, are they Vixen? You've been caught lying about this more than once in recent days. Haven't you, Vixen?
 
Vixen said:
I have at no time said they were 'kidnapped and executed'. I want to understand how some of the senior members of the crew were listed as survivors and Reuters and Helsingin Sanomat reported Piht as alive, ready to be interviewed and was interviewed, together with an Interpol Arrest Warrant issued, and then completely removed from the survivors list.

Nobody at any time has offered a retraction or explanation to the press. JAIC predictably is completely silent, as it always is on any issue that detracts from its osbsession with 'design fault' in the screws, nuts and bolts.
Click to expand...

Arresting, questioning and prosecuting people was not something that JAIC could do.

Your newspaper made a mistake.
Where is your evidence that Piht was interviewed?

As for Interpol, do you know what they are and what they do?
 
Vixen said:
Have a look at the chronology and the confusion will clear.
Click to expand...

But you say they were 'disappeared', how could he later be given residency if he had disappeared?
Surely giving residency shows he hadn't'disappeared'.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Yes it is the same if it leaves you stranded in the water.
How was there any guarantee he would survive until rescue arrived?
Why was there any obligation on him to take over duties when he had been immersed in freezing water in a storm for so long?

His medal was the pre 2007 medal, awarded "FÖR BERÖMLIGA INSATSER"
("FOR COMMENDABLE SERVICES")

Awarded to personnel who performed extraordinary effort that benefited the Swedish Armed Forces, for example, with resourcefulness and energetically action and with an example of excellent leadership and personal commitment.
Click to expand...

Yes, diving into the sea to instinctively save someone is brave and commendable. However, it can also be seen to be foolhardy to put yourself in danger and likewise your colleague from Y74 who also has to suffer the extreme trauma of rescuing you, which he did succesfully.

I am not questioning Svensson's obvious bravery and tear-jerking heroism, I am questioning how come he as team helicopter Y64 is only credited with ONE live rescue, and I suggest it is because he did rescue people that included the senior officers of the crew, which had to be downsized later when they were 'disappeared'.


Let's face it, in my books Moberg or Olsson should also have had some kind of medal for rescuing not only him but also Y69.

So the medal seems to serve another function.
 
LondonJohn said:
Because, Vixen, there was a lot of confusion and mistake-making in the first day or two. As there is in any massive disaster of this type. Exactly the same thing happened wrt the Twin Towers on 9/11: people were initially listed as being safe, when it later turned out that they'd died, and vice versa. It's a variant of the "fog of war" phenomenon. And it's clearly something you know nothing about, since you appear to believe that scrupulously accurate & reliable data/records necessarily exist from Minute 0 of any such disaster.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

That does not work. There were only 138 (then) survivors officially when original lists show 149, including the senior officers of the crew. If the number of survivors is so extremely tiny out of a thousand people, not it is not at all equivalent to the Twin Towers on 9/11.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, diving into the sea to instinctively save someone is brave and commendable. However, it can also be seen to be foolhardy to put yourself in danger and likewise your colleague from Y74 who also has to suffer the extreme trauma of rescuing you, which he did succesfully.

I am not questioning Svensson's obvious bravery and tear-jerking heroism, I am questioning how come he as team helicopter Y64 is only credited with ONE live rescue, and I suggest it is because he did rescue people that included the senior officers of the crew, which had to be downsized later when they were 'disappeared'.


Let's face it, in my books Moberg or Olsson should also have had some kind of medal for rescuing not only him but also Y69.

So the medal seems to serve another function.
Click to expand...

He was left stranded after the winch failed.
A lot of brave actions are also 'foolhardy' That's the difference between just doing your job and winning an award.

He is credited with 7 rescued. Helicopter Y 64 is credited with 1 because the winch broke and it was no longer possible to rescue people.
You are still getting confused between people and helicopters.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Arresting, questioning and prosecuting people was not something that JAIC could do.

Your newspaper made a mistake.
Where is your evidence that Piht was interviewed?

As for Interpol, do you know what they are and what they do?
Click to expand...

Bengt Stenmark, the official in charge of waterways transport at the time, informed Reuters thus.

Where is the correction if this was a 'mistake'?

Why was Stenmark sacked?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
He was left stranded after the winch failed.
A lot of brave actions are also 'foolhardy' That's the difference between just doing your job and winning an award.

He is credited with 7 rescued. Helicopter Y 64 is credited with 1 because the winch broke and it was no longer possible to rescue people.
You are still getting confused between people and helicopters.
Click to expand...

Do look at the official team lists, as kindly supplied by Here to Learn.

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/ES002173_00037#?c=&m=&s=&cv=36&xywh=-380,116,4070,2255

And the official Swedish government site, listing the helicopters and numbers rescued.

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?infosida=helikopterinsatser

That is the official fact of the matter. The JAIC narrative description is simply a word salad to cover up the fact of the need for the survivors list to be downsized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom