Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

[GlennB]

Is this pre-re-debunking?

Or maybe pre-emptive re-mockery?

It's all so confusing.

 

[Vixen]

It's telling that seven cites were offered in support of the "ordinary deportation" assertion (none of which contained that phrase) when one that actually contained it would have sufficed.

That is not quite true. I did not put 'ordinary deportation' in quotation marks as if it was a direct quote. I referred quite clearly to Mark Corrigan claiming the disappeared Egyptians as being ordinary deportations as in common or garden deportations.

Please don't try to change the meaning of what I said by inserting quotation marks which I did not use.

For example, I said he claimed that. That doesn't translate into desperately searching his posts for the word 'that' but the general idea. But then you knew that.


Clear now? A deportation has nothing to do with a rendition, legal or illegal. It is a completely different thing.

 

[Vixen]

Mine is still the claim that The Times had journalists ("who must have been British secret agents") embedded in the German front lines at Stalingrad and eavesdropping on German soldiers, and who were allowed to draw attention to their presence by publishing their accounts of this in The Times. The source for this was claimed as a regular column titled "Through German Eyes", which, while it might have superficially looked as if it was reporting what actual Germans thought, turned out to be a round-up of German media stories.

The particular column Vixen cited, that for 28th September 1943, was about what the German media were saying about the collapse of Italian fascism. The bit that mentioned Stalingrad says that the Italians were being used as


Possibly there were secret agents embedded in a German newsagents or library.

I did explain to you at the time that I couldn't find the column in which the TIMES journalist in the early 1940's did chat to German soldiers on the front line expressing their opinion of the Brits. It was quite normal for British agents to have the cover of 'our correspondent'. Anyway, I thought your query was genuine but it seems you were only interested in taking the p!ss, when I went to some trouble to help you.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That is not quite true. I did not put 'ordinary deportation' in quotation marks as if it was a direct quote. I referred quite clearly to Mark Corrigan claiming the disappeared Egyptians as being ordinary deportations as in common or garden deportations.

Which is still not what I said no matter how hard you try to spin.

It was an illegal deportation possibly at the behest of the CIA. It was not an enforced disappearance, which is what you claimed.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I did explain to you at the time that I couldn't find the column in which the TIMES journalist in the early 1940's did chat to German soldiers on the front line expressing their opinion of the Brits. It was quite normal for British agents to have the cover of 'our correspondent'. Anyway, I thought your query was genuine but it seems you were only interested in taking the p!ss, when I went to some trouble to help you.

Because it never existed.

 

[Vixen]

Which is still not what I said no matter how hard you try to spin.

It was an illegal deportation possibly at the behest of the CIA. It was not an enforced disappearance, which is what you claimed.

For crying out loud it was confirmed by the Swedish government itself.

UNHCR
https://www.refworld.org/cases,CAT,42ce734a2.html

 

[MarkCorrigan]

For crying out loud it was confirmed by the Swedish government itself.

UNHCR
https://www.refworld.org/cases,CAT,42ce734a2.html

Please quote where Sweden confirmed it was an enforced disappearance.

Not that it was illegal. Not that it contravened the UN articles against the use of torture.

Where it was stated as an enforced disappearance.

I can save you some time. It isn't there.

ETA: This is however:

2.5 On 18 December 2001, the Government rejected the asylum applications of the complainant and of his wife. The reasons for these decisions are omitted from the text of this decision at the State party's request and with the agreement of the Committee. Accordingly, it was ordered that the complainant be deported immediately and his wife as soon as possible. On 18 December 2001, the complainant was deported, while his wife went into hiding to avoid police custody.

My emphasis.

 

[Axxman300]

For crying out loud it was confirmed by the Swedish government itself.

UNHCR
https://www.refworld.org/cases,CAT,42ce734a2.html

Here's the thing: NOBODY CARES.

Swedish Govt. getting froggy with Egyptian nationals has nothing to do with the Estonia (although it does underline your profound inability to understand context, basic facts, and apply them to history). None of the Estonia survivors vanished mysteriously.

This is a lie cooked up by a disgraced German journalist with an agenda. Those "missing" survivors are either still in the wreck, or were lost at sea. The Estonia disaster happened exactly as the original investigation concluded. The new investigation with simply underline known facts. At this point you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing. The claims of conspiracy have been destroyed.

 

[Vixen]

Please quote where Sweden confirmed it was an enforced disappearance.

Not that it was illegal. Not that it contravened the UN articles against the use of torture.

Where it was stated as an enforced disappearance.

I can save you some time. It isn't there.

You didn't bother looking at this webpage, did you?

https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/prisoners/agiza_elzery.html

This is what happens when you are more interested in thinking up the next put-down or dreaming up something cutting to say.

Take my advice, and take the time to check things out before handwaving things away with platitudes. You'll find that these were NOT ordinary deportations or anything at all to do with their being 'asylum seekers'.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You didn't bother looking at this webpage, did you?

https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/prisoners/agiza_elzery.html

This is what happens when you are more interested in thinking up the next put-down or dreaming up something cutting to say.

Take my advice, and take the time to check things out before handwaving things away with platitudes. You'll find that these were NOT ordinary deportations or anything at all to do with their being 'asylum seekers'.

I didn't claim they were ordinary deportations, that's your lie. They WERE asylum seekers that were denied asylum, as was stated by the UN in your link.

Why must you keep lying and deflecting like this? You do know everyone else knows what you're doing, right?

Your link still doesn't support your claim that they were subject to enforced disappearance which despite your recent attempts to claim otherwise is a legal term. You were simply wrong.

 

[Vixen]

Please quote where Sweden confirmed it was an enforced disappearance.

Not that it was illegal. Not that it contravened the UN articles against the use of torture.

Where it was stated as an enforced disappearance.

I can save you some time. It isn't there.

ETA: This is however:
Quote:
"2.5 On 18 December 2001, the Government rejected the asylum applications of the complainant and of his wife. The reasons for these decisions are omitted from the text of this decision at the State party's request and with the agreement of the Committee. Accordingly, it was ordered that the complainant be deported immediately and his wife as soon as possible. On 18 December 2001, the complainant was deported, while his wife went into hiding to avoid police custody."


My emphasis.

18 December 2001 was when the guy was kidnapped off the street, bundled into a Boeing 727 into the hands of CIA operatives.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

18 December 2001 was when the guy was kidnapped off the street, bundled into a Boeing 727 into the hands of CIA operatives.

That is not enforced disappearance. You've been told this over and over again.

If you think it is, quote the definition in the appropriate statute.

Where is the part in the link you quoted that says Sweden stated they were subject to enforced disappearance?

Why does the link you provided state that they were asylum seekers who were (illegally) deported?

 

[Vixen]

Here's the thing: NOBODY CARES.

Swedish Govt. getting froggy with Egyptian nationals has nothing to do with the Estonia (although it does underline your profound inability to understand context, basic facts, and apply them to history). None of the Estonia survivors vanished mysteriously.

This is a lie cooked up by a disgraced German journalist with an agenda. Those "missing" survivors are either still in the wreck, or were lost at sea. The Estonia disaster happened exactly as the original investigation concluded. The new investigation with simply underline known facts. At this point you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing. The claims of conspiracy have been destroyed.

I know most people find it more comfortable to not care. Fact is, the Estonian government were still 'searching' for these guys twelve years later. How likely is it that the entire senior crew drowned, when a 76-year-old retired sea captain and his wife, together with a health-conflicted very overweight businessman named Voronin and his family, who were both in adjacent cabins to Captain Arvo Piht on the sixth deck - where almost all of the survivors were located - managed to get off the boat and into a raft or lifeboat quite easily. So a couple of engineers in deck 0 managed to escape whilst the entire senior crew at an advantageous position copped it (and Piht wasn't on duty so that is not an explanation). In addition, they were physically listed as survivors.

Official navy divers saw the captain lying dead. Given it was a disaster scene or even a crime scene, why didn't they bring his body up for a forensic examination.

It is very obvious that something fishy has gone on here.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I did explain to you at the time that I couldn't find the column in which the TIMES journalist in the early 1940's did chat to German soldiers on the front line expressing their opinion of the Brits. It was quite normal for British agents to have the cover of 'our correspondent'. Anyway, I thought your query was genuine but it seems you were only interested in taking the p!ss, when I went to some trouble to help you.

You made that up
There were no Times reporters on the front line chatting to German soldiers.
An 'Agent' then and now is not what you think it is or was
Here's a hint, Intelligence Officers pay Agents for information.
There were very few agents in Germany reporting to British Intelligence. Most that were in Germany were Russian assets. There was some contact with Germans through Intelligence Officers working through British Embassies in Switzerland and Spain.

You need to read up on some of the basics of WW2 Intelligence.
Max Hastings's 'The Secret War' is a good place to start. It's a good overview and had enough detail to be useful.
For the purposes of this discussion you can skip the sections on USA, Japan and British work in Africa, Japan and the Far East.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I'll second "The Secret War". Also if you're looking for a general overview of spying "President's Secret Wars" by John Prados is good. I've got another really good book but I can't remember the title of it and it's at my parents. I'll find it as soon as I can.

 

[Vixen]

I didn't claim they were ordinary deportations, that's your lie. They WERE asylum seekers that were denied asylum, as was stated by the UN in your link.

Why must you keep lying and deflecting like this? You do know everyone else knows what you're doing, right?

Your link still doesn't support your claim that they were subject to enforced disappearance which despite your recent attempts to claim otherwise is a legal term. You were simply wrong.

They were not transported off because they were 'asylum seekers', even if that was their legal status at the time. They were seized because the CIA were rounding up suspected Al-Quaeda style terrorists as a direct result of 9/11. The fact they were asylum seekers (fleeing from a country that executed suspect activist sects) is begging the question. Al-Quaeda and 9/11 was blamed on the Egyptians and Saudis, and Bin Laden was one.

But political mores of the time aside, it clearly shows a relationship between Sweden and the USA as of the time and anti-USSR. As assassinated Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme was strongly connected to support for the PDF Kurdish nationalists and the Stockholm police were still investigating this, you can see why the CIA together with the KSI/Sweden would be interested in who was behind the Estonia accident given there were 70 police administrative workers on the vessel.

It is quite possible the senior Estonian crew were renditioned if sabotage was suspected. Given the captain and the second captain Pith were trained in the old Stalinist Naval Academies in the USSR. Of course we can't know this we can only speculate and deduct what happened by comparing it to what we know did happen in another case (re 9/11 and CIA wanting Egyptian nationals who had fled to Sweden for political asylum).

 

[theprestige]

For crying out loud it was confirmed by the Swedish government itself.

UNHCR
https://www.refworld.org/cases,CAT,42ce734a2.html

The Swedish government confirmed an extradition. Not the extrajudicial disappearance your conspiracy theory requires.

 

[Vixen]

That is not enforced disappearance. You've been told this over and over again.

If you think it is, quote the definition in the appropriate statute.

Where is the part in the link you quoted that says Sweden stated they were subject to enforced disappearance?

Why does the link you provided state that they were asylum seekers who were (illegally) deported?

The UN case was in 2005. AIUI the information and transparency around the CIA renditions re Saudi/Egyptian terror suspects only started coming out circa 2009.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

They were not transported off because they were 'asylum seekers',

I never claimed that they were.

even if that was their legal status at the time. They were seized because the CIA were rounding up suspected Al-Quaeda style terrorists as a direct result of 9/11.

I've never denied this.

The fact they were asylum seekers (fleeing from a country that executed suspect activist sects) is begging the question. Al-Quaeda and 9/11 was blamed on the Egyptians and Saudis, and Bin Laden was one.

But political mores of the time aside, it clearly shows a relationship between Sweden and the USA as of the time and anti-USSR.

Anti...USSR?

Anti USSR? Are you taking the piss?

As assassinated Swedish Prime Minister was strongly connected to support for the PDF Kurdish nationalists and the Stockholm police were still investigating this, you can see why the CIA together with the KSI/Sweden would be interested in wh was behind the Estonia accident given there were 70 police administrative workers on the vessel.

Why would police admin workers make it interesting to the CIA?

Like, maybe if they were spies I guess but police civilian administrators? Why would anyone care?

It is quite possible the senior Estonian crew were renditioned if sabotage was suspected. Given the captain and the second captain Pith were trained in the old Stalinist Naval Academies in the USSR. Of course we can't know this we can only speculate and deduct what happened by comparing it to what we know did happen in another case (re 9/11 and CIA wanting Egyptian nationals who had fled to Sweden for political asylum).

This is a conspiracy theory with zero evidence.


None of this actually addresses my point though. They were not subject to enforced disappearance like you claimed. Sweden did not admit to subjecting them to an enforced disappearance. They were illegally deported by Sweden, quite possibly at the behest of the CIA back to Egypt where they were tortured. A monstrous crime that still does not rise to the level of enforced disappearance no matter how much you wave your hands about and try to deflect.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The UN case was in 2005. AIUI the information and transparency around the CIA renditions re Saudi/Egyptian terror suspects only started coming out circa 2009.

But you claimed it. You made the specific claim that Sweden admitted to an enforced disappearance in the UN case that you linked to.

It's on this page Vixen, we can all see it and it's too late for you to delete the post to cover it up.