• 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 Reopened Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Absolute nonsense in respect of a winchman working in a four-man iirc team of many and arriving some three hours late (according to the JAIC) to a standard civilian rescue effort, of which dozens of rescuers were already there, is NOT equivalent to the Gold Medal with Sword in combat or war-like situations. It was Sweden's highest military honour, equivalent to the Victoria Cross. My close relatives received Liberty Crosses with Swords AND Oak Leaves and they actually were on the front line face-to-face with the enemy over a period of time.

It is quite clear the the Estonia incident was not perceived as a civilian accident by the Swedish Military. What Ensign Ken Svensson really did heroically is classified information, as one would expect in conditions deemed a war. In this case the dying embers of the USSR. It is in plain sight. Whilst the early newspaper reports are censored and the JAIC do not mention it, make no mistake that medal was awarded for a genuine military reason.

In addition, whilst the Swedish rescuers were delayed arriving due to poor communications, their pilots also were unable to land their helicopters in the ships' decks because they didn't have the skills that Finns had, who were able to land. This will be due to the type of training beforehand and not a reflection on their abilities or heroism.

Whether or not you agree with the description of the Estonia incident as being sufficiently "war like" to merit the award of the medal is immaterial. You claimed it was a medal ONLY awarded for actions in combat. You were wrong. Do you admit that?
 
Absolute nonsense <absolute nonsense snipped for brevity>
Absolute nonsense indeed. Svensson did not get a medal for participating. We all know this.
equivalent to the Victoria Cross.
False.
It is quite clear the the Estonia incident was not perceived as a civilian accident by the Swedish Military.
Garbage.
Whilst the early newspaper reports are censored and the JAIC do not mention it, make no mistake that medal was awarded for a genuine military reason.
Garbage. Your absurd fantasy version would not have been a genuine military reason.
In addition, whilst the Swedish rescuers were delayed arriving due to poor communications...
by the Finns
... their pilots also were unable to land their helicopters in the ships' decks because they didn't have the skills that Finns had
Garbage. The Finns had managed a landing but it was clearly too dangerous to continue this so further landings were not allowed and the rescued had to be ferried directly to shore.

It's astounding the way you continue to twist the facts as if we hadn't all been through this in excruciating detail previously and already know this stuff isn't true. Do you really imagine none of us remember any of this thread or are you so impervious to recognising when you are wrong you blot it out of your own mind?
 
That would be the Swedish Armed Forces Medal of Merit, yes?

1. That award is not actually reserved for combat or war only.

2. Svensson is not listed here under those who received the medal.

Now that is only Wikipedia (although that's what you linked to, of course) so if you have a more authoratative list where he is present please do share.

That is pretty dishonest of you, isn't it? All those guys from 2009 who received the Gold Medal of Merit with Sword, were guys in action in Afghanistan.

No mention of rescuing people from a civilian ship, no matter how commendable.

As I said, and please take note - nota bene - it is a Military Medal for Military bravery.
 
Whether or not you agree with the description of the Estonia incident as being sufficiently "war like" to merit the award of the medal is immaterial. You claimed it was a medal ONLY awarded for actions in combat. You were wrong. Do you admit that?

I am right.

Your own link states:

Swedish Armed Forces Medal of Merit (Swedish: Försvarsmaktens förtjänstmedalj, FMGM and FMSM[1]) is a Swedish reward medal established by the Swedish Armed Forces and is awarded for action during combat or during war-like situations.[2] The decision to award the medal is taken by the Supreme Commander and can be awarded to both Swedish and foreign personnel.

There you have it: Estonia was a de facto military ship as of the time of the accident, under military command carrying out a military operation.
 
I am right.

Your own link states:



There you have it: Estonia was a de facto military ship as of the time of the accident, under military command carrying out a military operation.

"war like situations" doesn't mean combat or war.

Are you really this delusional?

It's not a medal awarded solely for combat. You were wrong.
 
That is pretty dishonest of you, isn't it? All those guys from 2009 who received the Gold Medal of Merit with Sword, were guys in action in Afghanistan.

No mention of rescuing people from a civilian ship, no matter how commendable.
Just because it wasn't previously awarded for that specific purpose doesn't mean it can't be or that it is a medal reserved for combat. You're just wrong Vixen. Why can't you admit it?
As I said, and please take note - nota bene - it is a Military Medal for Military bravery.
Or bravery in a "war like situation".

Again, you can disagree that the Estonia rescue meets that definition to your hearts content. I don't care. All I care about is that you made a specific claim, that the medal was only awarded for combat, and that clam was wrong.


ETA: From the Swedish wiki link you provided:

1998-03-04 Värnpliktige Daniel Apelgren, för att ha räddat livet på en kamrat som fallit över bord från fartyget Styrbjörn..

Which translates to 1998-03-04 Conscript Daniel Apelgren, for saving the life of a comrade who fell overboard from the ship Styrbjörn.

What military action was the Styrbjorn undertaking at that time Vixen? It's a combat medal, right? You can't just get it for rescuing someone. What war was Sweden involved in that the patrol boat Styrbjorn was taking part in? What battle did Apelgren rescue his comrade during? I mean it's a combat medal, right? Right?
 
Last edited:
As I said, and please take note - nota bene - it is a Military Medal for Military bravery.

It's a medal for commendable behaviour, awarded only to people serving in the armed forces, but unlike the Victoria Cross it's not only for actions in combat.
 
Estonia was a de facto military ship

Fantasy.

If the Estonia had been a sooper seekrit military operation then Svensson's medal would have been secret too, like a number of the recipients of the later version of the medal whose names and actions are withheld. His award was publicly acknowledged and the reasons for the award are public too, and they are not your fantasy version but rather based on events which actually happened.
 
Last edited:
I am right.

Why do you think the description needs to distinguish between situations that are war and situations that are like war? Could there possibly be a material difference that the author felt necessary to mention? Is English your native language? Do you actually believe your own twaddle?
 
It's a medal for commendable behaviour, awarded only to people serving in the armed forces, but unlike the Victoria Cross it's not only for actions in combat.

Again, I've even found in Vixens own source an example of it being given for bravery in rescuing someone from the sea that was not a combat event.

It was the Silver rather than Gold award, but it was only the rescue of one person.
 
Estonia was a de facto military ship as of the time of the accident, under military command carrying out a military operation.

Maybe it was, in your little corner of the English countryside in the 1960s, but not in the real world.

Armchair detectives are worse than useless.
 
Last edited:
There you have it: Estonia was a de facto military ship as of the time of the accident, under military command carrying out a military operation.
Absolute nutter butters.

Which military operation? Which military command? Who was in charge of it? Where is the evidence for it?

You know when the military does commandeer a civilian vessel there's a paper trail, right? They can't just show up and take control in secret? That it has to be documented because of liability, among other things?
 
Why do you think the description needs to distinguish between situations that are war and situations that are like war?


It's not the first time Vixen has had this problem, see for example the inability to distinguish between actual explosions and sounds that are like explosions.
 
It's not the first time Vixen has had this problem, see for example the inability to distinguish between actual explosions and sounds that are like explosions.

The problem I think is that Vixen doesn't understand that while eyewitness testimony is a good beginning for an investigation, it is not the end of one.

If someone involved in an event says "I heard an explosion" that's a great place to start investigating if there was an explosion. If the physical evidence shows there was no explosion, that person was obviously mistaken.

Vixen is attempting to override the physical evidence of there not being an explosion with the claim someone heard one. It's literally backwards.
 
Vixen is attempting to override the physical evidence of there not being an explosion with the claim someone heard one. It's literally backwards.

How dare you put eyewitness testimony in its proper investigational framework! Now you're going to be subjected to a torrent of vicarious sobbing and virtue-signaling over how you're trampling on the graves of the victims and belittling the suffering of the survivors.
 
*waves hand Jediacally*

"It's classified."

This is what I mean when I say Vixens musings are like badly written pulp spy novels.

They aren't grounded in reality at all, just an ignorant layman's idea of how intelligence is performed fed by a diet of preposterous movies, tv shows and books written by people whose objective wasn't to illustrate the real workings of an intelligence agency but to be entertaining.

James Bond movies would be dull as anything if they were accurate to the actual workings of human based intelligence, even during the cold war. Sure, there is a limited amount of spy gadgets and sneaking around, but for the most part it's just embedding someone into a group or agency and taking notes of literally everything they do so it can be filtered and analysed by other people who might not even use it.

I read a story once of someone whose uncle was an MI5 operative. They were embedded into the Liverpool docks during the height of the Cold War in order to monitor the dock workers for Communist activity and any anti-British government sentiment. They weren't able to see or visit any of their family for over a decade, had to live on a dock worker's salary, not socialise with anyone outside of those they could reasonably be expected to meet as a docker, feeding constant reports to their handler detailing everything said during meetings with their targets and the union members. Eventually the Government withdrew the program and "pulled him out" only they didn't really, they just told him one day "don't need you anymore" and left him. Apparently the guy went nuts, started collecting newspaper clippings to do with the dockyards and doing the "connect disconnected events with red string" thing that conspiracists are wont to do because he couldn't or wouldn't believe he had wasted so much of his time.

Every classified document I've ever seen was not magicked away like it was never there. Usually the bare bones of the report are available and they just crudely edit out the "classified" portions of it. Or they have a second report with the bare bones written and just publish that.

Sure, the MI5 archives are full of documents that haven't seen the light of day outside MI5 but they will have at least some kind of link to something available outside, even if it's just people commenting that they can't talk about this thing that's happening or a cover story. Intelligence agencies aren't magic. They aren't able to whisk people away with invisible helicopters in the middle of the night. They still have to operate within the bounds of the law and oversight.
 
If Vixen was right that the Swedish helicopter crews were less well trained or skilled than the Finnish ones and arrived later because Finland didn't pass on the Mayday report, how come they and not the Finns managed to find the ship's officers in the dark and the bad weather and pluck them from the sea to disappear them without anyone else noticing? And why then did they add the abducted men's names to a survivors list that Vixen tells us existed but cannot produce? And why then did some sailors watching the report on German TV think they saw captain Piht among the rescued walking into a hospital in Finland?

The Swedes clearly have capabilities we can only dream of. This must be stolen and smuggled top secret Soviet tech, I reckon.
 
If Vixen was right that the Swedish helicopter crews were less well trained or skilled than the Finnish ones and arrived later because Finland didn't pass on the Mayday report, how come they and not the Finns managed to find the ship's officers in the dark and the bad weather and pluck them from the sea to disappear them without anyone else noticing?

This is another thing I've noted with conspiracy theorists and, interestingly, hardliner authoritarians. They require their enemies to be both pathetically weak and incompetent (so the theorist can be sure in their superiority) and also all powerful (so they can claim that everything is being controlled by them).

Think about the people who think that the illuminati is real. They need them to be a dominant global organisation that controls everything, but at the same time be so stupid as to insert clues about their existence into everything.

The Nazis needed the Jews to both control all finance and be able to ruin Germany with their actions and be inferior people.

It's weird.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom