• 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:
It was all to do with post-9/11 and the US targetting Egyptian 'terrorists', which was the compelling reason it gave to other independent sovereign states to 'disappear' suspected terrorists (to Guantanamo Bay, for example.). Whatever semantics you wish to play around with, it remains that the process and 'friendship' between Sweden and the USA was in place to 'disappear' the key Estonian crew as a solution to the catastrophe which may or may not have been the result of arms smuggling on the Estonia passenger ferry.
Click to expand...

Yeah...no. I asked for evidence. Your two separate responses to that post of mine were dripping with pure conjecture, and utterly devoid of factual evidence. Try again, perhaps.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Again, evidence for this nutter-butters pulp spy novel speculation?

Why would the USA want old Soviet equipment after the fall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War? Russia and the US were trading partners and allies (ish) by 1994. What could they have gained from this smuggling they couldn't simply have bought direct from the source? Why would they have needed it in the first place? Western equipment already far outstripped anything that Russia could produce in 1994, let alone any pre 90's Soviet equipment.
Click to expand...
Apparently Bill Clinton wanted to smuggle Soviet-era military gear to the west in order "to appear as 'Middle East Peacemaker' extraordinaire."
Vixen

Cont: Post in thread 'The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV'

Mojo said:
What demands?
Click to expand...

To smuggle former Soviet Union military and space electronics and equipment to the west.

The President at the time, Bill Clinton, was eager to appear as 'Middle East Peacemaker' extraordinaire. Plus, the CIA, together with MI6 and KSI/MUST were helping Estonia cut ties from the KGB/GRU in helping it to build up its own intelligence forces.
 
Vixen said:
dorricc0 said:
For someone who prides themselves in dealing only in facts and not conjecture, and with pride in their honesty, integrity and high debating standards, this is quite a post.
Click to expand...
Citation please. BTW I'll thank you not to twist my words and to quote me properly in context, in future.
Click to expand...
My pleasure to quote you.

#1611 of this very thread, only 6 days ago:
Vixen said:
The claim of the Captain shot dead comes from Andi Meister's book 1997 Lopetamata Logiraamat (Unfinished logbook). You might want to brush it off as an 'outrageous conspiracy theory' and that you're Andi Meister's 'better'. But Andi Miester was actually the Head of the JAIC investigating committee at one point. He had access to ALL the witness statements and documentation. Do you consider yourself his 'better', by your own account? (This is a dialectical question and not an accusation, for the avoidance of doubt).

As for your profiling, you appear to have missed your vocation as a psychologist, but I am afraid you are miles out. Let me explain. Some of us have core values that we live by. When a person has values, no amount of bullying, jeering or force can make them change those values (is the hope). So whilst people whose views come from newspapers and their peers, sure, you can give them a telling off, force them to adopt your view and even threaten banishment from the peer group. But this doesn't work with those of us who can't be forced to agree, when we do not.
As my core values include integrity, honesty and authenticity, I can see what people are doing when they spread smear campaigns claiming the opposite. My good friend founded an anti-bullying charity and roped me in to help set it up, after she was driven to a suicide attempt and a severe nervous breakdown, so I met many people like her in setting out couselling sessions. And do you know what struck me? These were incredibly talented and remarkably gifted in many ways that would be a great asset to any organisation, yet were persecuted and brought down by a jealous peer or peers, So the point being made here is that I can spot bullying tactics from ten paces and it doesn't work on me. For the avoidance of doubt I am not saying you are one such person but you seem to be puzzled as to why I haven't fallen to my knees in remorse about being 'told off'. Here's your answer, I have core values of integrity, which includes not pretending to agree with something I do not agree with and not pretending I think something is wrong when I do not think it is wrong.
This is the core value of authenticity, which isn't always possible but one tries.
Click to expand...
And #1687, only 4 days ago:
Vixen said:
Vixen said:
I was a psychologist for a short time as a member of the British Psychological Society. If you practise your field you you can call yourself by the term you are professionally recognised as. I am no longer a member of BPS and no longer call myself a psychologist. However, that doesn't mean I have forgotten all my scientific training.

I did not say it was my current profession. ETA:
When one has honesty, integrity and authenticity as core values, it is remarkable the incredible lengths some people will go to try to drag you down.
Click to expand...
And #2103 just yesterday:
Vixen said:
I am not defending Bollyn,
I am defending debating standards.
Click to expand...
Well that was easy enough. You can thank me now.
 
Vixen said:
That's because the Brit diver who accessed the cabin made a point of spelling out the name on the attaché case to the guy on the controls. This after going to a great deal of trouble, to access the cabin, which was enormously hazardous. AIUI the guy carried the briefcase chained to his arm.
Click to expand...
Evidence for these claims?
 
Vixen said:
You can have pride in your newly independent nation and flagship cruise/ferry and still retain objectivity. Think about the conflicting interests. IF Sweden did know there was illicit cargo on the ferry, then it is clear the passengers were seen as collateral. If this came out, it could cause a massive public scandal, so decision is made to classify it and give the public a mundane cause. Sweden's rationale might reason it as thus, with Estonia being newly independent and Sweden as allies of USA keen to not give Russia an excuse to reinvade, that was the best solution all round. Estonia, suspecting of a cover up of the circumstances, is angry at the implied assumption it was all their fault. Whilst the maintenance and poor registration of passengers on board were all lacking, ultimately, if the sinking was sabotage (given the circumstances) the Estonians on the other hand have a motive to pass blame onto Sweden. It is not as simple as Meister wanting to protect the reputation of his country, because Sweden also needed to, if there was dodgy cargo on board giving rise to risk of passenger danger.
Click to expand...
Bothsiderism does not counter the fact that you conceded that Meister had an axe to grind because of the evidence pointing to Estonian culpability for the disaster.

His claim the Swedish gov was hiding video etc that exonerated Estonian culpability is literally the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Quoting him as a source for any “facts” about the disaster will be tainted by his bias.
 
Vixen said:
Finns can read Estonian quite well but not perfectly as Estonian sentence structure and syntax has become germanised thanks to the influx of High German over the ages. For example, the word in the title, 'Lopetamata' (unfinished) is almost identical to the Finnish word (lopettamatta = 'without ending'). I doubt it'll be that difficult.
Click to expand...
Finns might be able to read Estonian but you admit you cannot.

Vixen said:
Of course there are future markers in Finnish. I can't speak for Estonian as <snip irrelevancies>
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
I can't read Estonian so I have no idea what is in Meister's book <snip irrelevancies>
Click to expand...
 
Andy_Ross said:
So when power qwas lost so was the communication with the bridge, someone would have to go up there and report.
Click to expand...
According the the testimony of the 3rd engineer, Margus Treu, he was the last to leave the engine control room.
When the vessel was at a 70° list and main power was lost but auxillary was running. An emergency diesel generator on deck 8 (bridge level) was still operating at this point. By the time he got there the list was 90° and this last generator was lost.

So the engine control room had been evacuated before power was lost.
In one interview Treu claimed to have sent the motorman, Henrik Sillaste, to the bridge. Sillaste's testimony contradicts this, he claims Treu ordered him and Hannes Kadak (the other motorman) to leave the ECR and assist with evacuation. Neither went to the bridge to report.

Perhaps irrelevant to the discussion anyway, becasue according to the JAIC report;
It is noteworthy that so little exchange of information seems to have taken place between the bridge and the engine control room during the development of the accident. The third engineer did not inform the bridge about the inflow of water he observed (see 6.2.3). Nor did the officers of the watch call him for an assessment of the situation. If the observation on the monitor had been discussed and evaluated immediately, there could still have been a possibility to influence the development of the accident.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
So what? 'Bollyn' uses as supporting evidence it was a military psyop false flag operation
Click to expand...
He's full of crap. First off, anyone who uses the phrase "PsyOp", or "False Flag" is a delusional moron. Let me explain why:

A Psy-Op is coordinated operation across media domains to convince a population to believe, and or act in a way that favors the entity conducting the operation.

A False Flag operation is committing an act to be blamed on another state entity in order to start a war.

So who was going to war? Sweden or Estonia? If it was a false-flag, where is the planted evidence? The whole point of a false-flag operation is to hang this disaster around someone's neck, so who was framed? Where was the outcry demanding retribution?

And what's the Psy-Op? Was Eurail hoping to undermine public confidence in shipping? What did this disaster convince anybody? Was this a secret plan to make money by forcing ferry companies to upgrade equipment?

You can't just throw those phrases around as if they don't mean anything specific.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
What the hell are you talking about?

We aren't faced with your "does anyone seriously believe" scenario. We can literally play it back on YouTube and listen to what they said as often as we like. We all know what happened and what did not happen. What did not happen was a diver finding a briefcase and getting excited thinking it might be Piht's. What did not happen was the supervisor asking him if there were any more briefcases there or if he was sure that wasn't just a makers label or stuff like that. Face facts please. The story of divers sent to find Piht's briefcase is fantasy.
Click to expand...
Has anyone pointed out how damned hard it would be to dive on the Estonia unnoticed? For Vixen's claim to be real, Sweden would have to fear some rogue dive team sneaking aboard the ship to retrieve the briefcase, and whatever else, and then slipping away. That would be hard for the US and Royal Navies to pull off, even with our cool sneaky submarine technology. This entire rabbit hole is an exercise in delusional thinking.
 
Axxman300 said:
Has anyone pointed out how damned hard it would be to dive on the Estonia unnoticed? For Vixen's claim to be real, Sweden would have to fear some rogue dive team sneaking aboard the ship to retrieve the briefcase, and whatever else, and then slipping away. That would be hard for the US and Royal Navies to pull off, even with our cool sneaky submarine technology. This entire rabbit hole is an exercise in delusional thinking.
Click to expand...
They had their stealth tracked submarine burrow into the seafloor sediment ahead of time, and waited for their people on shore to signal "all clear" with their walkie-talkies.
 
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. Disappeared is not the same as "renditioned". Your friends, the Russians have disappeared a number of generals in the past couple of years, among others. The ones who didn't fall out of a tall building just stopped answering their phones, never to be seen again. A rendition job means capturing a subject, transporting them to a secure location, and, uh, aggressively questioning them. Not the same thing at all.

And no, prior to 9-11-2001, the CIA wasn't renditioning anybody. Hell, we didn't even shoot at terrorists until 1998, and that was with cruise missiles, and we didn't kill anybody who counted. I have bad news for you, in 1994 the CIA didn't care about Estonia, or Sweden, certainly not enough to sink a civilian ship for no good reason.

See, there wasn't a 9-11 "template" until after September, 2001. Unless you're suggesting the CIA has mastered time-travel. The Clinton CIA was a meandering wad of mismanagement, risk-aversion, and general frustration. In 1994 it was being re-tooled for industrial espionage. Russia didn't build anything worth stealing. Airbus, on the other hand...;)
 
Vixen said:
The point being, the CIA ordered an independent sovereign state to do its will, and Sweden jumped, even though the USA has no jurisdiction in Sweden.
Click to expand...
CIA can't order Sweden to do anything. Never could. They can ask - nicely - through diplomatic channels, and they used "please" a lot. Fun Fact: Sweden tells the USA "NO" a lot.
 
Vixen said:
Carl Bildt had a special relationship with Bill Clinton, which came after the fall of he USSR, and both were keen to get Estonia fully independent. It also meant the USA helping itself to former-USSR military equipment and valuable metals and minerals, plus military materiel. It is a fact, Sweden transport this stuff at least once on the Estonia ferry, causing high risk to civilians, as the USSR had warned Sweden and Estonia to stop smuggling, which was rife. So yes, it is perfectly possible that after the 28 Sept 1994 disaster, the key Estonia crew were renditioned as by request by the CIA, in a similar procedure to those two Egyptian guys. Perfect solution all round. Saves embarrassment.
Click to expand...
An independent Estonia is a good thing, even then. Back then Russia was a basket case, unlike the blazing dumpster-fire it is today. And yes, it was in Sweden's best interest to get the former Baltic Nations up and running as non-Soviet era failed states. Clinton had only been in the White House just under two years, and his foreign policy was largely unimaginative. Carl Bildt is smart and wise man, who understands Europe's big picture, and I'm sure he was a big help to Clinton in many areas, and that's a good thing.

The smuggling of crappy Russian gear has been discussed multiple times. Nobody was put at risk. If there was any "interesting" materials we (the US) wanted to abscond with we wouldn't risk civilian transport. Maybe you're not familiar, but we have our own Air Force, and our own Navy, and between their special operations commands, and our civilian intelligence agencies we can get items out of hostile territory most of the time.

We don't need no stinkin' ferry.

The idea that the CIA would have renditioned friendly civilians in 1994 is a pathetic joke.

(Also, I follow Bildt on Twitter. He knows where all the good bookstores are in Iceland...the monster...)
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Again, evidence for this nutter-butters pulp spy novel speculation?

Why would the USA want old Soviet equipment after the fall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War? Russia and the US were trading partners and allies (ish) by 1994. What could they have gained from this smuggling they couldn't simply have bought direct from the source? Why would they have needed it in the first place? Western equipment already far outstripped anything that Russia could produce in 1994, let alone any pre 90's Soviet equipment.
Click to expand...
She'd crap if she knew how many Migs we have in the Nevada desert, along with Russian radar systems, and assorted foreign goodies.

But admittedly we are far behind the Russians in smoking diesel engine technology, and ejection systems for battle tank-turrets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom