• 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

Vixen said:
Just as Bollyn was right about Stenström, he was also right about the CIIA requesting Sweden rendition those two Egyptian guys. It's not his invention nor his ownership of the facts.
Click to expand...
No, you're lying about what both you and Bollyn claimed again. You claimed that Sweden disappeared the men, and the only other person who could be found making the claim was Bollyn.

Words have meanings Vixen and dishonestly changing both your and his claim won't fix your problem.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You're changing horses. You claimed they were disappeared, not renditioned. THAT is the claim that came from Bollyn.
Click to expand...
'Disappeared' is the colloquialism of 'renditioned'. If there was cargo on board destined for the CIA then it seems perfectly possible the CIA ordered the rendition of Piht and the senior Estonian crew to be dealt with as terrorists, as with the template for 9/11.
 
Vixen said:
Just as Bollyn was right about Stenström, he was also right about the CIIA requesting Sweden rendition those two Egyptian guys.
Click to expand...
No.

Bollyn specifically claimed that Sweden "disappeared" the two Egyptians. That is his particular spin, and you copied it. There ae plenty of sources substanting the rendition of two Egyptians, but that is not the same thing. You're trying very hard to believe that some other source tells the same story.

Vixen said:
It's not his invention nor his ownership of the facts.
Click to expand...
Bollyn misstates the facts. And he does so in a specific way. You misstate the facts in exactly the same way, while the sources you pretend are the real ones state the facts correctly. Therefore Bollyn was your source.
 
Vixen said:
'Disappeared' is the colloquialism of 'renditioned'. If there was cargo on board destined for the CIA then it seems perfectly possible the CIA ordered the rendition of Piht and the senior Estonian crew to be dealt with as terrorists, as with the template for 9/11.
Click to expand...
No it isn't, and even if it were you attempted to claim you did mean the strict legal definition and attempted to quote a specific law in defence of this that turned out to not say, and not even be called what you claimed.

ETA: The rest of the post is just your insane pulp spy novel again.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
'Disappeared' is the colloquialism of 'renditioned'.
Click to expand...
No.

The terms of the treaty Bollyn cites as having been violated clearly define "enforced disappearance" and distinguish it from an unlawful rendition. This was discussed thoroughly previously. What happened to the Egyptians was not an enforced disappearance. The Egyptians brought a cause of action under the appropriate provision and eventually won.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You're lying again. You did that recently yes, but you originally claimed they were disappeared.
Click to expand...
They were disappeared. Thanks to the effort of one of the guy's lawyers he was located about ten days later in a CIA-backed prison in Egypt. If you recall he was handsomely compensated for his terrible ordeal and awarded full Swedish citizenship.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No, I cited the rendition campaign page, plus wikipedia to show it was a true event.
Click to expand...
Rendition is not the same as enforced disappearance. It does you no good to try to claim they're colloquially equivalent because your actual argument was that it violated the specific terms of the 1998 Rome Statute as it defines the crime of "enforced disappearance." As we discussed previously, criminal prosecution doesn't permit you to bring charges under some notion of colloquial equivalence. Actions either meet the literal terms of the statute or they do not.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
... IF Sweden did know there was illicit cargo on the ferry, then it is clear the passengers were seen as collateral.
Click to expand...

No that isn't remotely clear. It's far from clear what it even means.

If someone was buying Russian military items on the Estonian black market and smuggling them out to the West then they'd be guilty of stuff like handling stolen goods and potentially of smuggling except if the Swedish government agrees to have its inspectors check the stuff then wave it through then the smuggling charge evaporates.

Whether they move the stuff by plane, train or ship, I see no reason to think that means anyone else travelling on the same journey was "seen as collateral". You take it as a given the ship sank because it was attacked by Russia. It wasn't. The end.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
No that isn't remotely clear. It's far from clear what it even means.

If someone was buying Russian military items on the Estonian black market and smuggling them out to the West then they'd be guilty of stuff like handling stolen goods and potentially of smuggling except if the Swedish government agrees to have its inspectors check the stuff then wave it through then the smuggling charge evaporates.

Whether they move the stuff by plane, train or ship, I see no reason to think that means anyone else travelling on the same journey was "seen as collateral". You take it as a given the ship sank because it was attacked by Russia. It wasn't. The end.
Click to expand...
No, I haven't said it was 'a given the ship sank because it was attacked by Russia'. You just made that up.
 
Vixen said:
They were disappeared. Thanks to the effort of one of the guy's lawyers he was located about ten days later in a CIA-backed prison in Egypt. If you recall he was handsomely compensated for his terrible ordeal and awarded full Swedish citizenship.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Seriously, I do recommend looking up the previous discussions on this issue as I for one can't see the point on going over old ground unless you can see an issue arising out of it.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
They were disappeared. Thanks to the effort of one of the guy's lawyers he was located about ten days later in a CIA-backed prison in Egypt. If you recall he was handsomely compensated for his terrible ordeal and awarded full Swedish citizenship.
Click to expand...

They were not "disappeared". Nor were they renditioned. They were deported. It turned out that they were unlawfully deported, since a) Sweden didn't go through the proper judicial process prior to their removal from Sweden; and b) Sweden sent them back to a country (Egypt) when it should have reasonably believed that Egypt was likely to submit the men to torture and other prohibited actions.

Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
EHocking said:
3. The communication between the ECR and the bridge was via the an intercomm system (sometimes referred to as a "phone system" because it is hard wired and not reliant on radio waves) and is separate to the public address system, e.g.,
"We had no walkie-talkie, but in the control room there was in the mid a button to be pressed and then you could taslk to the bridge where was the same system"
Click to expand...
So when power qwas lost so was the communication with the bridge, someone would have to go up there and report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom