• 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.
Marras said:
"Virittää" means both "tuned" and "activated".

[Edited to add: "activate" in the sense of making something ready for action. For example, "virittää ansa" would be "set a trap"]
Click to expand...

Language is so interesting! In that context, the English term would probably be "armed" - set to activate when triggered. The activation itself would be when the trap is sprung by the game.
 
Vixen said:
Being visited by your old mum every fortnight does not cancel out your being disappeared by a state, as Mojo flippantly claims.
Click to expand...

It literally does. Here is the relevant statute:

Rome Statute (1998) 7(2)(i) said:
"Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
Click to expand...

Visitation rights granted to a prisoner being held in state custody -- with or without a valid reason -- explicitly acknowledges a deprivation of freedom. It explicitly gives information on the fate or whereabouts of the prisoner. And the fact that he did go to trial in Egypt and thereafter pursued a complaint in an international court shows he was not removed from the protection of the law.

Neither Sweden or Egypt "disappeared" this deportee. Although a court later found that Sweden deprived him of due process and placed him in danger of torture, none of that meets the language of the statute you accuse Sweden of breaking.

You desperately need to rewrite the Egyptian deportees' experience as enforced disappearance because that's what you're accusing Sweden and the CIA to have done previously in the MS Estonia case. You need to make it look like what was done to the Egyptian deportees was just another example of what your conspiracy theory says must have happened to the Estonia officers, just another example of Sweden's evil intent. But the facts simply don't fit. You can't present a pattern of behavior by which you can purport to bludgeon the Swedish government. All you can show is that Sweden once deported two people without due process, who were later allowed back into the country after Sweden acknowledged its fault.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Irrelevant. You named the court and the statute allegedly broken, and claimed the ECHR had made a certain finding against Sweden for violating the 1998 Rome Statute in the part forbidding enforced disappearance.
Click to expand...


Quite apart from anything else, the ECHR makes rulings about the European Convention on Human Rights (also referred to as the ECHR).

I frequently have to explain to people that the Council of Europe is not the same entity as the EU, but this the first time I’ve ever seen someone confuse it with the UN.
 
The Council of Europe convention on human rights has an article forbidding the enforced disappearance of persons, containing substantially the same language as the Rome Statute. The notion that the European Court of Human Rights, operating under the auspices of the Council of Europe, could find no statute under which to bring action against Sweden that dealt specifically with enforced disappearances, and therefore had to bring action under a torture cause, seems to be contradicted by evidence.

ETA: But as you say, that's not really the problem. Vixen names ECHR as the court that allegedly found against Sweden for the disappearance of the two Egyptian deportees. But the Rome Statute she says Sweden was found to have violated is enforceable only in the ICC -- which although not technically part of the United Nations was at least founded under its authority. Not only is Vixen wrong, she cannot be correct. Separately there is the claim that the court which did find against Sweden was forced to do so for an unrelated crime because the relevant human-rights statute, enforceable by that court, had no provision against enforced disappearance. I find that unlikely given the prevalence in various forms of international law of a statute to that effect, similarly worded. It's more parsimonious to suppose that the court considered a properly-brought cause of action that did, in fact, correspond to the actions Sweden and Egypt are documented to have undertaken.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

These are guys with the Search and Rescue teams who have been trained in sea rescue as part of their jobs. It is in their job description for which they are remunerated.

So, just doing your job surely is not 'outstanding gallantry beyond expectations' if your winch fails, you fall in the water and your colleague rescues you. As for taking over from Moberg or Olsson in Y74, he was perfectly safe! Winched the whole time.

The Finnish rescue teams had no problem diving into the water because that is how they trained and they were ready for bad weather, which often correlates with the need for rescue.

Getting a medal for gallantry for ISTM no fault of his own regarding the winch, hardly explains why he alone received it, plus between 1995 - 2005, the only others were pilots shot down in 1952, awarded posthumously.

A faulty winch dropping you into the sea is not equivalent to being shot down whilst in action.
Click to expand...

Wow.

This is some next-level obtuse BS right here.
 
Axxman300 said:
Wow.

This is some next-level obtuse BS right here.
Click to expand...

Just noticed this. I missed it when I replied to that post earlier.

Medals for the missing aircrew weren't awarded until 2004.

Three of the eight crew members were military personnel from the Swedish Air Force, and the other five were civilian signals intelligence (SIGINT) operators from the FRA.

This is the incident that the aircrew medals refer to.

The so called 'Catalina Affair'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalina_affair

Also see

https://www.raoul-wallenberg.eu/articles/the-swedish-dc-3-the-destiny-of-its-crew/
 
Last edited:
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...

Working backward, the JAIC and other investigative bodies in this case, as well as in other accident investigations, are not obligated to explain OBVIOUS CLERICAL ERRORS to stupid people. Especially when they have no bearing on the cause of the accident.

In the case of the MS Estonia sinking, the Swedish government has actaully caved into the demands of the soft-headed, and are now conducting a second investigation of the wreck which, so far, is just underlining the original JAIC. If spending a few million dollars guaranteed the satisfaction of morons, I'd support it, but the MS Estonia-CT crowd are already re-tooling their arguments for when the investigation fails to find their unicorns and fairies.

And as to your first point, you certainly have said they were killed. While it is clear that you post declarative statements without thinking, it still does not absolve you from the things you say. To "Disappear" someone means you kill them. You claim "trident frogmen" sought the surviving crew members out. You don't send SEALs or SBS types out to look for someone unless you want that person to experience a level of suffering. They're not SAR guys, they're killers. And you've driveled out an endless stream of scenarios which, in the real word, all end with someone getting a bullet in the head.

Plus, you speculate that a Spetsnaz team as on the ship, and sank it so the Russians could "send a message". So yes, you're claiming assassination right and left.

So back this up with evidence, or accept that Estonia sank due to the failure of the bow-visor in rough seas because the ship was never designed for open-ocean travel in rough seas.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Just noticed this. I missed it when I replied to that post earlier.

Medals for the missing aircrew weren't awarded until 2004.

Three of the eight crew members were military personnel from the Swedish Air Force, and the other five were civilian signals intelligence (SIGINT) operators from the FRA.

This is the incident that the aircrew medals refer to.

The so called 'Catalina Affair'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalina_affair

Also see

https://www.raoul-wallenberg.eu/articles/the-swedish-dc-3-the-destiny-of-its-crew/
Click to expand...

I used to body-surf as a kid. I have a deep respect for the men and women who volunteer to be rescue swimmers. Even on a calm sunny day the ocean will make you work to stay alive, and when I watch the videos of the Estonia rescue operation it is jaw-dropping to watch those guys do their thing. And then just to blow them off by saying, "well that's their job, no biggie" is disgusting to me. The water here is 12C on average, a surfer or a swimmer can hang for about 45 minutes with a wetsuit before they have to get out. Even so, the cold saps your strength, and the longer you're into water the harder it gets to function.

And a dry-suit does not equal a warm-suit.

Medal not, God bless those guys on that day.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I love how Svensson and the other SAR people at the scene were just "doing their jobs" and thus shouldn't have been award or commended.

But when it comes to Svensson himself being picked up from the water after he was stranded there after his winch failed, his SAR colleague "suffered from extreme trauma".

For someone who prides herself on being a "dispassionate researcher", Vixen sure does like to desperately poke at emotional buttons to try and make whatever point it is she think's she's making at any given time.

Vixen, how do you know that Svensson's colleague "suffered from extreme trauma" because he got him out of the water?

Remember to include your citations, source and proper references! Your posts are cited, sourced and properly referenced. You said so yourself! :D
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
Plus, you speculate that a Spetsnaz team as on the ship, and sank it so the Russians could "send a message". So yes, you're claiming assassination right and left.
Click to expand...

One of the claims is that one of the bodies on the bridge has a bullet hole in it's head.
This is part of a claim that the ship was hijacked by terrorists and/or Russian Spetsnaz.
 
JayUtah said:
But as you say, that's not really the problem. Vixen names ECHR as the court that allegedly found against Sweden for the disappearance of the two Egyptian deportees. But the Rome Statute she says Sweden was found to have violated is enforceable only in the ICC -- which although not technically part of the United Nations was at least founded under its authority. Not only is Vixen wrong, she cannot be correct. Separately there is the claim that the court which did find against Sweden was forced to do so for an unrelated crime because the relevant human-rights statute, enforceable by that court, had no provision against enforced disappearance. I find that unlikely given the prevalence in various forms of international law of a statute to that effect, similarly worded. It's more parsimonious to suppose that the court considered a properly-brought cause of action that did, in fact, correspond to the actions Sweden and Egypt are documented to have undertaken.
Click to expand...


The idea that if there isn’t a law against what a defendant has actually done the court can instead find against them for the nearest reason it can find brings to mind R v Haddock (1927) Herbert's Uncommon Law 24, in which it was uncertain what offence the appellant had originally been convicted of, as the Court of Appeal found that his actions had not actually fallen under any of the six charges originally brought.

Light LCJ said, however, that “no blame whatever attaches to the persons responsible for the framing of these charges, who were placed in a most difficult position by the appellant's unfortunate act. It is a principle of English law that a person who appears in a police court has done something undesirable, and citizens who take it upon themselves to do unusual actions which attract the attention of the police should be careful to bring these actions into one of the recognized categories of crimes and offences, for it is intolerable that the police should be put to the pains of inventing reasons for finding them undesirable. […] It is not for me to say what offence the appellant has committed, but I am satisfied that he has committed some offence, for which he has been most properly punished.”

In concurring judgments Mudd J said that the appellant had infringed the Public Health Act 1875 by polluting a watercourse, and Adder J said that he “thought that the appellant had attempted to pull down a bridge, under the Malicious Damage Act, 1861.”
 
Vixen said:
I am not questioning Svensson's obvious bravery and tear-jerking heroism.
Click to expand...
Yes you are. That's precisely what you're doing.

You have repeatedly said that he only rescued one person, despite the fact that you know that after he ended up on helicopter Y74 he rescued several more people. How can you say you're not questions his bravery when you have flat-out accused him of doing far less than he actually did.

You have said he shouldn't have gotten a medal because it was given to him because his winch broke, when you know that's not what the citation was for. You've belittled what he did and belittled the award he got for it.

You have also denigrated his character and integrity by making accusations that he accepted a medal and citation that was publicly given for his brave actions, but that he really accepted it under false premises as a bribe to keep him quiet.

You've dumped all over the man's bravery and his character, without good reason, in order to desperately try and shore up an incoherent hodge podge of conspiracy ideas about the Estonia. Who's the crass one here, Vixen?
 
Last edited:
Dramatis Personae:
JUNKSHOP, a dilettante, and not a cockney
VIXEN, a conspiracist, and rabbit-hole dweller
the CHORUS, various persons with a grasp on reality, and not insignificant knowledge


(enter JUNKSHOP, with no small measure of trepidation)

JUNKSHOP: What ho, fellows! Any news on the re-opened investigation into the sinking of the fair Estonia?​

(VIXEN hoves into view, flailing desperately)

VIXEN:..The ECHR only has a limited number of statutes to do with Human Rights in European States who have signed up to that particular agreement...​

CHORUS: You don't know what you're talking about!​

VIXEN: Because it accepted it had erred.​

CHORUS: That doesn't answer our questions!​

(VIXEN mounts her high horse of moral superiority, and sets her lance to tilt at straw giants)

VIXEN: Your callous disregard and joking about human rights issues is noted.​

CHORUS: That doesn't answer our questions!
You don't know what you're talking about!​

(CURTAIN, in a sane world)
 
Last edited:
Not a complete waste of time.

I've learned a lot about ships, radios, beacons, and shipboard operations. I'll get at least one novel out of this thread, and utilize parts for other plot points in other writing projects (I've always wanted to sink a yacht).

And I'm adding a 1/350 scale HMS Westminster Type 23 frigate to my shelf fleet this year thanks to this glorious waste of time.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Updated lists were released, why wouldn't that count as a retraction of earlier lists?

Is this where you are getting the kidnapping and secret helicopter flight from?

https://theprimesuspect.wordpress.com/tag/sweden/
Click to expand...

I've heard of the author but I hadn't seen that particular article. The controversy over the so-called missing Estonians is not new. I worked out for myself that the timeline for the JAIC helicopters didn't add up when I studied the chronology of events closely.

Clearly something is not being stated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom