The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Mojo]

Er, I just told you Tamminen. Likewise Drew Wilson, plus, the German newspaper, the Estonian newspaper.

They all say it's common knowledge, do they? I would expect them to cite their sources.

 

[JesseCuster]

'A couple of years later' is Brit slang for not sure of date of death.

No it isn’t. No-one believes that, including you. You and everyone here can see that you’re just to straight-up lying and making up things ad hoc post by post to defend an increasingly silly and desperate position.

 

[Mojo]

Anyway, Vixen, you have referred people to "current affairs news". How is this distinguished from ordinary news?

 

[Andy_Ross]

As I'm sure you well know, it is often used much more loosely in casual conversation, but eight years is pushing it.

It's too many even for a few

 

[jimbob]

Yeah, I've only been on this forum for a couple of year...

Damn

 

[Dabop]

Anyway, Vixen, you have referred people to "current affairs news". How is this distinguished from ordinary news?

Ironically that actual IS a thing in Australia- but not in a good way....

Usually it comes from the far right conspiracy crowds usually so enamoured by fox 'news' and the like...

Here, you can't claim to be a 'news' media company just because you want to- there are regulations etc that ensure that any company wanting the coveted 'news broadcast' licence is impartial, fair and basically has to be even handed and seen to be 'clean'

So 'fox news' cant legally broadcast here as a news service- so they try and game the system by getting the 'current affair' designation but that also actually cuts off their usual US dribble at the knees too, because local content rules then apply lol

So anyone bleating about 'current affair news' is usually here outing themselves as a far right conspiracy nutcase...

The news is news, and current affairs is current affairs, but 'current affairs news' is outright 'conspiracy tard signalling' here (its most commonly seen in the sovcit circles)

 

[junkshop]

I can confirm the correct translation from the German is, 'Spacecraft'.



Google translate Finnish - English:

In June 2002, the German Süddeutsche Zeitung published an article about the Estonia and Voronin's possible role in secret arms deals. Voronin was allegedly involved in the smuggling of Soviet space technology and weapons.

Aleksander Voronin was given the article to read, but never had time to comment on it in public, as he died unexpectedly of a stroke two weeks after the magazine's publication.

The word 'spacecraft' appears nowhere in that text.

 

[EHocking]

It is correct DER SPIEGEL officially cut links with Rabe, taking out a legal injunction from Rabe ever mentioning a link with DER SPEIGEL and her Estonia projects ever again.

Cite? Will be hard to do (not that you ever do) as she only has ever been reported as working as a freelancer for Spiegel-TV.

However, pointing out the cost of such an expedition - she now credits herself and Bemis as sole funders

Again, nope. YOU are now pretending to claim Rabe and Bemis were sole founders - only after being caught out here.
Oh, and Bemis was sole funder, neither Rabe or any Spiegel associated company funded the dive.

< snip obfuscation >

 

[LondonJohn]

'A couple of years later' is Brit slang for not sure of date of death.

No it's not.

 

[LondonJohn]

How big do you imagine IT technology to be?

"Information technology technology" LMAO

 

[Dabop]

"Information technology technology" LMAO

Be one of those people that takes money out of the ATM machine....

 

[JayUtah]

Have a word with the journalist who wrote the article.

That journalist has no idea what you think those words mean.

 

[JayUtah]

Which spacecraft did he deal in exactly?
They are pretty big things.

And there aren’t that many of them in the 1990s so we tend to know who all is involved in making them.

 

[Steve]

What do you understand the word "secret" to mean?

I know this one! I means that only a privileged few, Vixen among them, know about it.

 

[LondonJohn]

And there aren’t that many of them in the 1990s so we tend to know who all is involved in making them.

Quite. In addition, there's the rather important fact that during this whole period (early-1990s to mid-2010s) the US was pouring billions into the Russian space programme. The Pentagon, NSA, CIA and NASA were collectively concerned that the fracturing of the USSR in 1991, and the mayhem that followed in the wake of the breakup, might result either a) in bad actors buying or stealing their way into Russia's space-related equipment and know-how, or b) in underemployed Russian space theoreticians & engineers developing "sidelines" in the design and build of new weapons. The US all but ensured that neither of these things happened, by ringfencing Russia's space programme and funding its security, operations and development. One of the more visible outcomes was/is the use of Russian Soyuz vehicles for delivery/return of all astronauts - including all the US astronauts - to the International Space Station.

So..... this means that by 1994, the US was already waist-deep in its understanding and possession of Russian space technology and equipment. All of which it had effectively purchased by way of its multi-billion-dollar investment. This throws a pretty high degree of shade over silly accusations that the US was, in 1994, engaging in clandestine deals with dodgy Russian agents for Russia's "space secrets".

 

[Vixen]

You said spaceships, not IT technology

Citation please

 

[Vixen]

You could post the content of the speech, not just say look for it.

Citations have been given.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

How big do you think software is?

Is it bigger or smaller than the Internet?

 

[Vixen]

They all say it's common knowledge, do they? I would expect them to cite their sources.

The term 'common knowledge' is not owned by anyone.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Yes and yes. I am not sure what you mean by 'guessing'. Why would it need to be 'guessed' if I have it in front of me?

Have you actually read it yet, or not? Do you have a citation taht substantiates claims you've made about what's in the book, or not?