Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Vixen]

If you post sources for your claims without even bothering to check who they are, how do you know that they are reputable? Did you forget about your recent claim that everything you assert is backed by reputable sources?

I assumed a national newspaper was a reputable source in so far they are supposed to check their facts. I mistook MV-Lehti for the reputable news channel MTV (the Finnish tv channel equivalent to ITV). That is all that happened.

 

[Vixen]

The question is, what is her reason for believing that? What did she base it on?

Any idea what the source may have been for the claim that Sweden had disappeared the Egyptians having been "upheld by a court of law and the European Court of Human Rights"?

The Egyptian guys in question took it to court. Sweden accepted it had wrongly handed them over, given they were certain to be horribly tortured.

 

[Mojo]

The Egyptian guys in question took it to court. Sweden accepted it had wrongly handed them over, given they were certain to be horribly tortured.

That wasn't your claim. Your claim was that they had been subjected to enforced disappearance by the Swedish government.

You have failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. Where did you get the idea?

And where did you get the idea that there was a ECHR decision supporting this?

 

[Mojo]

By the way, the reason the deportation was improper was not that "they were certain to be horribly tortured" but that the Egyptian government's assurances that they would not be tortured were not an adequate guarantee that they wouldn't.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Whichever statute one likes to use, it is a simple fact that your country cannot 'disappear' you. You might think only tinpot regimes such as the one in Argentina some years ago would 'disappear' people, especially political opponents, or in Europe during the Herzegovina conflict, but actually the shock is that it happened in a country we commonly like to think of as an advanced Western European Democracy. OK, so it was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and the US wanted Saudi-Arabic types suspected of being behind the plot rounded up. However, Sweden whisking the two Egyptian nationals off the street, who were there quite legally, at the command of the CIA and without any court order or warrant may have been 'understandable' in the circumstances but it doesn't hide the fact it was a 'disappearance' as set out in the Rome Treaty 1998 edict.

This is relevant because it shows that with regard to the claimed disappearance of several senior crew of the Estonia in 1994 and Carl Bildt working with the US to encourage Estonia the country to join NATO asap shows that Sweden had done it before, if this is what happened.

IMV it is important to establish whether these crew members, including Arvo Piht, were disappeared. Now that the Cold War is over and Yeltsin's glasnost long gone with Russia once again threatening the west, maybe it is time to declassify this information and reveal what happened to those guys.

You appear to still be desperately trying to find a form of words which make your "disappeared" claims not wrong. Give up. You're wrong.

 

[Steve]

You appear to still be desperately trying to find a form of words which make your "disappeared" claims not wrong. Give up. You're wrong.

All five parts of the thread succinctly summarized.

 

[gypsyjackson]

What am I missing with the feather/stone thing? Feathers float in water, so the stone would hit the sea bottom first. Unless it was pumice, I suppose.

Similarly feathers flutter when dropped, and are more susceptible to upcurrents, so I’d say the stone is more likely to hit ground first.

 

[Steve]

What am I missing with the feather/stone thing? Feathers float in water, so the stone would hit the sea bottom first. Unless it was pumice, I suppose.

Similarly feathers flutter when dropped, and are more susceptible to upcurrents, so I’d say the stone is more likely to hit ground first.

You are missing the thought processes of a poster desperately trying, but failing, to appear scientifically literate.

 

[GlennB]

What am I missing with the feather/stone thing? Feathers float in water, so the stone would hit the sea bottom first. Unless it was pumice, I suppose.

Similarly feathers flutter when dropped, and are more susceptible to upcurrents, so I’d say the stone is more likely to hit ground first.

As I read it, Vixen invoked the idea but proposed dropping them in a vacuum, as if that wasn't a loaded choice of environments. At that point she seems to think her argument about how fast the ship would sink remains tenable. Basically she is flailing around trying to avoid any admission of error in much the same way she has from the very beginning.

The rate at which an object falls in a fluid is really quite complicated, but invoking a vacuum as the medium is either ignorant or dishonest.

 

[The Man]

As I read it, Vixen invoked the idea but proposed dropping them in a vacuum, as if that wasn't a loaded choice of environments. At that point she seems to think her argument about how fast the ship would sink remains tenable. Basically she is flailing around trying to avoid any admission of error in much the same way she has from the very beginning.

The rate at which an object falls in a fluid is really quite complicated, but invoking a vacuum as the medium is either ignorant or dishonest.

Well, I think by invoking the vacuum Vixen was trying to confer that gravitational acceleration would be the same on both. A bit different in a media as, if dropped from sufficient height, both will reach their terminal velocity before impact. Which could surely be different between them even with gravitational acceleration the same. So Vixen missed the boat, so to speak, but had packed for the trip by noting the vacuum condition. However, by not even mentioning terminal velocity in a media, no one was at the dock when the boat arrived then just sank.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Gravity works differently in underwater vacuums.

 

[Mojo]

Whichever statute one likes to use, it is a simple fact that your country cannot 'disappear' you.

And it's a simple fact that the Swedish government didn't "disappear" the two Egyptians; they were deported without due process, and to a country where their safety wasn't guaranteed. These are not the same thing.

 

[Mojo]

Gravity works differently in underwater vacuums.

Maybe the underwater vacuums could have been used to clean up the submarine tracks.

 

[Darat]

Praise and criticism are all the same to me.

We can see that

 

[JayUtah]

The Egyptian guys in question took it to court. Sweden accepted it had wrongly handed them over, given they were certain to be horribly tortured.

The laws Sweden violated were those governing due process for asylum-seekers. That is not the same as violating the law against enforced disappearance. You're trying to equivocate between what Sweden actually did and what you fervently wish they had been judged guilty of instead.

If you want to believe informally that Sweden "disappeared" the two Egyptians, according to some private or ad hoc definition, that's your prerogative. But you can't invoke the judgment against Sweden for a different crime as if it were a judgment according to your private beliefs.

 

[JayUtah]

The question is, what is her reason for believing that? What did she base it on?

Any idea what the source may have been for the claim that Sweden had disappeared the Egyptians having been "upheld by a court of law and the European Court of Human Rights"?

As I just pointed out, it's pure equivocation. She wants to ignore the letter of the law and pretend that Sweden's actions that violated one law must somehow also have violated a different law. Yes, Sweden stipulated to the actions they were accused of. But those actions don't constitute enforced disappearance under the statute she cites. They simply don't satisfy the elements of the crime, whether Sweden stipulates to them or not. Vixen's claim fails easily as a matter of law. And as a matter of fact, Sweden was not charged with any form of enforced disappearance.

 

[JesseCuster]

Consider the following:

• You drop a feather and a stone from a tall building. Which hits the ground first?
• You drop a feather and a stone into the sea to a depth of 100 metres. Which lands at the bottom first?

To tackle the question, start by assuming fixed conditions, such as a vacuum. Once you have made this assumption, then you know your answer will be they both land at the same time, ceteris paribus.

How you drop a feather and a stone into the sea to a depth of 100 metres, in a vacuum, such that they hit the bottom at the same time? What in god's name are you rambling about?

 

[JayUtah]

I assumed a national newspaper was a reputable source in so far they are supposed to check their facts. I mistook MV-Lehti for the reputable news channel MTV (the Finnish tv channel equivalent to ITV). That is all that happened.

Admitting carelessness doesn't help your case. If you mistake a crackpot source for a reputable source because they have similar names, that's still on you. It means we can't trust that you've carefully vetted your sources, so your claim to have done so still fails.

But more importantly, you haven't disavowed the content of what you posted. The appropriate thing to do when someone tells you you've "mistakenly" quoted from a crackpot source is to retract the claim until such time—if any—as you find a more reputable source. Instead, you're sticking to your guns and telling us the claim that Sweden "disappeared" the two men is amply supported by other sources that you have yet to cite. You cite the court case for other causes, but that's not evidence of your ongoing claim.

 

[JesseCuster]

Admitting carelessness doesn't help your case. If you mistake a crackpot source for a reputable source because they have similar names, that's still on you. It means we can't trust that you've carefully vetted your sources, so your claim to have done so still fails.

It's worth noting that Vixen has made great hay of what a supposed superior researcher she is and how all her claims are backed up by reputable sources.

Let's not forget the continual barrage of claims with no sources whatsoever.

Vixen, did you ever get round to finding out the source for the following claims of yours:

1) The contents of Andersson's contract.
2) The claim that the Atlantic lock was only added to the bow visor to make people feel safer, not because it actually made it actually safer.

 

[The Man]

As I just pointed out, it's pure equivocation. She wants to ignore the letter of the law and pretend that Sweden's actions that violated one law must somehow also have violated a different law. Yes, Sweden stipulated to the actions they were accused of. But those actions don't constitute enforced disappearance under the statute she cites. They simply don't satisfy the elements of the crime, whether Sweden stipulates to them or not. Vixen's claim fails easily as a matter of law. And as a matter of fact, Sweden was not charged with any form of enforced disappearance.

Hell, if one can equivocate praise with criticism, why not laws? I'm sure they will endure criticizing praise for disappearing due process in a case that clearly wasn't disappeared.