• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Right OK.

1. Even if you do have an IQ of over 150 what do you think that proves?

2. Do you think there isn't a chance anyone else does?

3. If you wish to hold up IQ as meaningful when it very every obviously is not what is yours?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
This is gibberish, it is also wrong, and you're still lying about me.

Point out where I claimed it was a mundane deportation. Go on. Find the post.
Click to expand...
Here's Vixen's attempt to support her claim that you had called it an "ordinary deportation": https://internationalskeptics.com/f...-reopened-part-vi.366861/page-3#post-14154713

It's a complete failure. None of the posts she links to you has you calling it an ordinary deportation; in fact four of them show you describing it as "against Sweden's own rules", "illegal", "reprehensible and illegal", and "a totally different crime, that of enforced deportation". Of the remaining three, in one you said that you had "never once claimed they were ordinary deportations" and the other two didn't use the term "deportation" at all.
 
Mojo said:
Here's Vixen's attempt to support her claim that you had called it an "ordinary deportation": https://internationalskeptics.com/f...-reopened-part-vi.366861/page-3#post-14154713

It's a complete failure. None of the posts she links to you has you calling it an ordinary deportation; in fact four of them show you describing it as "against Sweden's own rules", "illegal", "reprehensible and illegal", and "a totally different crime, that of enforced deportation". Of the remaining three, in one you said that you had "never once claimed they were ordinary deportations" and the other two didn't use the term "deportation" at all.
Click to expand...
You are doing God's work sir and I salute you.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Perhaps a fire engine. Or an ambulance.
Click to expand...
Given the state of this thread I think you mean this:

08b98e286c0e92959d6d925c4c1757e2.jpg
 
Mojo said:
Here's Vixen's attempt to support her claim that you had called it an "ordinary deportation": https://internationalskeptics.com/f...-reopened-part-vi.366861/page-3#post-14154713

It's a complete failure. None of the posts she links to you has you calling it an ordinary deportation; in fact four of them show you describing it as "against Sweden's own rules", "illegal", "reprehensible and illegal", and "a totally different crime, that of enforced deportation". Of the remaining three, in one you said that you had "never once claimed they were ordinary deportations" and the other two didn't use the term "deportation" at all.
Click to expand...

And on the ECHR adjudication on both Egyptian men, the finding was that they had been submitted to torture and/or degrading punishment by Egypt, not Sweden.

The judgement against Sweden was exclusively that they should not have deported to Egypt two men whom they should have had reasonable cause to assume would be tortured/degraded by Egypt upon their return to that country.

And, just to ice the cake. the ECHR adjudication notes, for both men, that (my bolding):

"On 18 December 2001, the complainant was deported"

Sweden categorically did not rendition or "disappear" these two men. It merely deported them in the usual way. Sweden's only wrongdoing was in deporting the two men back to their home country of Egypt, when Sweden should have realised that once those men arrived back in Egypt, they were likely to be treated in an inhuman/unlawful way by Egypt.
 
Last edited:
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these two Egyptians were only brought into the discussion at all as purported evidence that secretly renditioning people is just the kind of thing Sweden does, in an attempt to make it seem less incredible that Sweden might have done that to the officers of the Estonia. Except of course they're actually an example of Sweden not doing that.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these two Egyptians were only brought into the discussion at all as purported evidence that secretly renditioning people is just the kind of thing Sweden does, in an attempt to make it seem less incredible that Sweden might have done that to the officers of the Estonia. Except of course they're actually an example of Sweden not doing that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just like so many of Vixen's posts here, her "argument" on this matter is a farrago of lies, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, ineptitude and arrogant doubling down.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I said you implied I was racist and adequately backed it up at the time. You asked, rhetorically, if I was OK with what Sweden did because it happened to two of 'those people'. The implication was pretty obvious but when you claimed that you were not backhanded accusing me of being a racist you never explained what you meant or how your phrasing could be interpreted any other way.
Click to expand...
The comment was, "Or is it only OK if that person is a certain demographic?" Here it is: https://internationalskeptics.com/f...e-opened-part-iv.355767/page-41#post-13685870

The implication was clear, but Vixen tried to weasel out of it by saying that she had "not even mentioned the word 'race'."
 
Andy_Ross said:
You can be as interested as you want but that doesn't mean telling people with experience and qualifications in subjects you bring up that they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Especially when it's entirely apparent - not only to the experts that she's trying to contradict, but also to anyone with sufficient skills in critical thinking and research/analysis/interpretation - that it's she who is in the wrong.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom