Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

[Reformed Offlian]

As I said, I had not read that particular article.

No? What article did you read, then? The decision to cite the Egyptian deportations as "disappearances", and to connect them with Avo Piht's alleged disappearance, seems oddly specific. And the fact that you cannot argue cogently for their case being an instance of "disappearing" suggests that you borrowed that talking point from somewhere without sufficient fact-checking or independent thought.

Your superficial familiarity with the Rome Statute of 1998, along with your mistaken impression that it is on point in the case of the Egyptian deportations, and your lack of familiarity with much of any other relevant law, again suggests a borrowed talking point.

So where did you get it from, if not from Bollyn?

 

[Andy_Ross]

What it suggests is that the decision to disappear the Estonians was after they had been brought to Huddinge and possibly interrogated. So the survivors lists were hastily downsized and the news clips showing Piht seized by the security services ASAP.

Because Svensson had innocently already gushed to the waiting press, the JAIC report also had to take that into account, considering the press had already hailed him as a great hero and Stenmark telling Reuters Piht had now been questioned in Turku.

You know? A meeting was convened once the senior officers were identified as survivors and to determine what should be done, given the Estonia sinking was to be classified.

Complete silence, ever since.

So he wasn't anything to do with special forces? there wasn't a secret flight? No pictures or descriptions of the officers were handed out?

Every record of the earlier flight was removed from aircrew log books, station log books, squadron logs, groundcrew logs, the air traffic control logs and any other written records.
Then all the personnel on the station that were involved with the flight or might have seen it take off were completely silenced?

You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The Russian bots that bombard Twitter with fake extreme views and attribute them to ordinary people. For example, when there was a terrorist attack in London, a tweet went viral seeming to show a woman dressed as a Muslim callously walking past a victim lying on the pavement staring at her phone. The tweet came from a Russian bot and had been deliberately misrepresented.

Likewise, a lot of negative depictions of events in the UK turned out to come from abroad. People have an agenda and once you are aware, you can spot it.

Were you not aware of this?

I am aware of bot spamming yes, but that's not to discredit an opinion, it's to attack a specific demographic or person. The above examples you have given are not examples of someone pretending to side with a view in order to link it to extremism, which was your claim.

So give examples of what you actually claimed.

Remember, to actually be an example it has to be a person or group agreeing with another person or group in order to link the target with extremism.

For example, Katy thinks that peeling onions is wrong. Boris (who really thinks onions should be peeled) publicly agrees with Katy about onions, but also equally publicly espouses Holocaust denial in order to link people who don't think onions should be peeled with Holocaust denial.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh that? Ok I do know the incident.

Blimey ok, I assumed that it had something to do with the Estonia disaster.

So, Vixen if you were in fact discussing the actions of the Catalina rescue seaplane then I apologise, I assumed you were referring to the rescue operation and that was wrong of me.

It's an attempt to claim that the medal for the rescues must have been for something secret as the dead aircrew in the Catalina Affair got the same medals posthumously in 2004. (Something Vixen wasn't aware of, she thought they were awarded in the 50s before the medal even existed)

 

[JayUtah]

As is the case with any world news, any Tom, Dick and Harry can talk about it.

But when only one person talks about it a certain way, and you not only cite the person but talk the same way he does, it's not too difficult to determine who's feeding you your opinions.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When we talk as if Svensson did actually give a press briefing after returning injured from his rescue flight, do we have any good reason to think that's true? Is it any better documented than Bildt supposedly announcing the cause of the accident on day 1?

Vixen tells us she has quoted Sven-Anders Eriksson writing in that day's Aftonbladet newspaper and there's a small part of it about Svensson that's written in the first person, but it's been pointed out that the fragments quoted are lifted from a different source, not quoted from the paper.

So is there any reliable evidence that Svensson actually spoke to the press?

 

[Vixen]

No? What article did you read, then? The decision to cite the Egyptian deportations as "disappearances", and to connect them with Avo Piht's alleged disappearance, seems oddly specific. And the fact that you cannot argue cogently for their case being an instance of "disappearing" suggests that you borrowed that talking point from somewhere without sufficient fact-checking or independent thought.

Your superficial familiarity with the Rome Statute of 1998, along with your mistaken impression that it is on point in the case of the Egyptian deportations, and your lack of familiarity with much of any other relevant law, again suggests a borrowed talking point.

So where did you get it from, if not from Bollyn?

Did you not comprehend what I said?

I challenge you to prove I have ever cited anything by this person.

Direct quote please, word for word.

You seem unable to grasp that I am perfectly capable of formulating my own thoughts and opinions.

Is that what is confusing you? It is something new for you.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Again with the insults? Were you not the person who claimed that they would never say something as offensive as "you are not a scientist" to someone who wasn't a scientist, and yet now you're claiming that RO cannot think for themselves?

Your petulant temper tantrums are just another layer of the mountain of hypocrisy that you are Vixen.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sacrificing your life for your country is in a different league IMV than an individual act of bravery. Of course that person should get a medal but it should not be the same medal a person might get for losing their life whilst serving their country.

Why not? I gave examples of Victoria Cross winners that didn't die for their country, should they have got a lesser medal?

Lots of people die for their country without getting any kind of medal at all.

 

[Vixen]

So he wasn't anything to do with special forces? there wasn't a secret flight? No pictures or descriptions of the officers were handed out?

Every record of the earlier flight was removed from aircrew log books, station log books, squadron logs, groundcrew logs, the air traffic control logs and any other written records.
Then all the personnel on the station that were involved with the flight or might have seen it take off were completely silenced?

You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing.

I have always maintained that the likely scenario was rescue first, identify later. It was others such as yourself who started fretting about how they could recognise someone in the dark or know who was the senior officer. I tried to help you out by giving you suggestions of how they could in your what-if scenario, but it doesn't mean I agreed with you.

As for log books, they never were public documents. People have never had a right to see the books and logs of the armed forces.

 

[Vixen]

I am aware of bot spamming yes, but that's not to discredit an opinion, it's to attack a specific demographic or person. The above examples you have given are not examples of someone pretending to side with a view in order to link it to extremism, which was your claim.

So give examples of what you actually claimed.

Remember, to actually be an example it has to be a person or group agreeing with another person or group in order to link the target with extremism.

For example, Katy thinks that peeling onions is wrong. Boris (who really thinks onions should be peeled) publicly agrees with Katy about onions, but also equally publicly espouses Holocaust denial in order to link people who don't think onions should be peeled with Holocaust denial.

The simple example in the first tweet was to defame Muslims as not caring about terror attack victims. Another example was when England missed those penalties. A study discovered most of the vile racist abuse came from abroad so there was a concerted attempt to stir up discontent and make trouble and link it to England.

So if this Bollyn chap has borrowed the Estonia disaster to try to link it to his Zionists-Are-Ruling-The World group then I would say he is likely (a) fake, (b) a disinformation merchant and (c) someone out to make light of a serious event.

 

[Vixen]

It's an attempt to claim that the medal for the rescues must have been for something secret as the dead aircrew in the Catalina Affair got the same medals posthumously in 2004. (Something Vixen wasn't aware of, she thought they were awarded in the 50s before the medal even existed)

I knew they were posthumous as I posted the text.

 

[Vixen]

But when only one person talks about it a certain way, and you not only cite the person but talk the same way he does, it's not too difficult to determine who's feeding you your opinions.

That sounds like paranoia to me.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The simple example in the first tweet was to defame Muslims as not caring about terror attack victims. Another example was when England missed those penalties. A study discovered most of the vile racist abuse came from abroad so there was a concerted attempt to stir up discontent and make trouble and link it to England.

So if this Bollyn chap has borrowed the Estonia disaster to try to link it to his Zionists-Are-Ruling-The World group then I would say he is likely (a) fake, (b) a disinformation merchant and (c) someone out to make light of a serious event.

Am I speaking Swahili or something?

Again, the tweets and racist abuse on twitter are horrible yes, but they are explicitly not what you claimed. Give examples of what you claimed.

Secondly, why, apart from his obvious anti-semitism, do you think that Bollyn is fake? He's a conspiracy theorist, he could well legitimately believe that the Estonia incident was covered up.

Thirdly, why are HIS horrible views evidence he is a fake, whereas the horrible views of Anders Bjorkman are not?

 

[Vixen]

When we talk as if Svensson did actually give a press briefing after returning injured from his rescue flight, do we have any good reason to think that's true? Is it any better documented than Bildt supposedly announcing the cause of the accident on day 1?

Vixen tells us she has quoted Sven-Anders Eriksson writing in that day's Aftonbladet newspaper and there's a small part of it about Svensson that's written in the first person, but it's been pointed out that the fragments quoted are lifted from a different source, not quoted from the paper.

So is there any reliable evidence that Svensson actually spoke to the press?

Yes, because it is very similar to the account in JAIC, except the time in JAIC is much later.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It doesn't stop them telling the families of the dead airmen that they died in action. Why string them along for forty years, just to maintain an image that nobody was much looking at anyway.

Because in the Cold War the world was a very different place.

Sweden was supposed to be a neutral 'non-aligned' country.
It was operating secret, sigint recon flights using top secret British electronics.

Russia denied shooting the aircraft down and Sweden denied they were spy flights.

It was classified and secret from the start. It was genuine spy stuff.

It happened quite often in the Cold War, a lot of incidents were reported as accidents at the time and are still classified.

 

[JayUtah]

That sounds like paranoia to me.

Elaborate.

 

[Vixen]

Why not? I gave examples of Victoria Cross winners that didn't die for their country, should they have got a lesser medal?

Lots of people die for their country without getting any kind of medal at all.

They were brave in the course of action for their country or their fellow men.

Whilst saving someone from the sea is brilliant, it is not in that league just because you fell in and had to be rescued and then went down on another winch, thus you were safe.

 

[Vixen]

Am I speaking Swahili or something?

Again, the tweets and racist abuse on twitter are horrible yes, but they are explicitly not what you claimed. Give examples of what you claimed.

Secondly, why, apart from his obvious anti-semitism, do you think that Bollyn is fake? He's a conspiracy theorist, he could well legitimately believe that the Estonia incident was covered up.

Thirdly, why are HIS horrible views evidence he is a fake, whereas the horrible views of Anders Bjorkman are not?

As I have said, I do not agree with either of them. For crying out loud I have a mind of my own. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have always maintained that the likely scenario was rescue first, identify later. It was others such as yourself who started fretting about how they could recognise someone in the dark or know who was the senior officer. I tried to help you out by giving you suggestions of how they could in your what-if scenario, but it doesn't mean I agreed with you.

As for log books, they never were public documents. People have never had a right to see the books and logs of the armed forces.

You claim a German journalist has seen the log books.
How did she do that if they aren't public documents?

You till have no evidence at all for an earlier flight by Y 64 that miraculously found all the officers together and took them away.