Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[a_unique_person]

a_unique_person, why is the possibility of the US requesting extradition from Australia in relation to a Wikileaks case relevant to the actuality of Sweden requesting extradition from the UK in relation to a rape case?

Why are the two even relevant? Why would a sane person reasonably conclude that concerns about the former would have any bearing on the latter?

One of the points of contention is that Assange is paranoid about his claims that the US is trying to prosecute him. I am saying there is evidence that the US is trying to prosecute him.

 

[theprestige]

One of the points of contention is that Assange is paranoid about his claims that the US is trying to prosecute him. I am saying there is evidence that the US is trying to prosecute him.

Show me a post in this thread where that is contended, and I'll show you a poster who would probably be happy to withdraw it in favor of contending the following instead:

Assange is paranoid (or cynically manipulative) about his claims that the possibility of US prosecution is a valid reason to resist extradition to Sweden on rape charges.

 

[eirik]

So because the US *might* be *trying* to prosecute him, whatever that means, he gets a free card on rape in Sweden? Excuse me, alleged rape.

I haven't seen this level of denial since Michael Jackson.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It is quite terrifying to see so many people that I considered rational actually make apologies for rape.

Quite

So because the US *might* be *trying* to prosecute him, whatever that means, he gets a free card on rape in Sweden? Excuse me, alleged rape.

That's my take too.
The man is a narcissistic coward and his followers see conspiracy.

 

[BenBurch]

UK is NOT going to allow him to slip out; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24/police_plan_for_assange/

 

[JihadJane]

Oh, OK. I wasn't sure if you were actually serious. Don't you remember your own lies?

Lie no. 1:


Lie no. 2:


So now we know you are a documented liar. Now what?

How do you know that these are lies?

 

[ladmo]

Oh, OK. I wasn't sure if you were actually serious. Don't you remember your own lies?

Lie no. 1:


Lie no. 2:


So now we know you are a documented liar. Now what?

Your post intrigued me, you may wish to read the link as Ms Jane brings out a good point.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...s-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom

 

[tyr_13]

Your post intrigued me, you may wish to read the link as Ms Jane brings out a good point.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...s-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom

Nothing in that article supports what Jane said, nor does it support it's own title. The tweet, "Sitting outside; nearly freezing; with the world's coolest people; it's pretty amazing." certainly doesn't. It's just the same stupid 'they didn't behave like real rape victims are supposed to behave' arguments brought up in many rape cases.

 

[trustbutverify]

Quite



That's my take too.
The man is a narcissistic coward and his followers see conspiracy.

Agreed. I'm not against Wikileaks and its mission. I think thegreatassange would probably beat the case in Sweden, because of the difficulty in prosecuting a case of this nature. I just think the evidence indicates Assange is a creepy, sleazy self absorbed jerk, and he should have to answer the charges against him, just like non-heroes. Apparently, having this opinion is a crime in the eyes of his adoring sycophants.

 

[ladmo]

You are correct; here are additional links.

http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7565838-who-is-anna-ardin-one-of-assanges-accusers
http://nicholasmead.com/2010/08/21/how-to-smear-a-hero/#comment-1551

The last link speaks to the filing of a molestation complaint and not rape by one of the accusers.

Frankly, I don't have a dog in this race and don't really care about it unless rights by any parties are violated.

 

[tyr_13]

You are correct; here are additional links.

http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7565838-who-is-anna-ardin-one-of-assanges-accusers
http://nicholasmead.com/2010/08/21/how-to-smear-a-hero/#comment-1551

The last link speaks to the filing of a molestation complaint and not rape by one of the accusers.

Frankly, I don't have a dog in this race and don't really care about it unless rights by any parties are violated.

None of those link support the accusation either. The first one notably contradicts the last in the 'molestation and not rape'. He is wanted, and was being investigated at the time for 'sexual molestation and rape'.

The second link claims that it was a set up from the get go and tries to prove it by smearing accusations at one of the accusers. This is a stereotypical rape 'defense'. It claims it was a trap and that she is in the employ of the US. It's evidence is the same as the previous, a tweet and her 'not behaving like a rape victim should'. Hell, the article even repeats the claim that because she was noted as a feminist, leftist, and very supportive of Wikileaks and Assange, that she could have been a CIA agent because that's 'too perfect'. It's the regular invalid rape dismissals with conspiracy theory painted over top.

Sorry that I didn't examine the last link very well, it only partially loaded and was messing up my browser.

Have you examined the links you're posting?

 

[tyr_13]

Agreed. I'm not against Wikileaks and its mission. I think thegreatassange would probably beat the case in Sweden, because of the difficulty in prosecuting a case of this nature. I just think the evidence indicates Assange is a creepy, sleazy self absorbed jerk, and he should have to answer the charges against him, just like non-heroes. Apparently, having this opinion is a crime in the eyes of his adoring sycophants.

Isn't it funny that having some of the exact same criticisms as some former Wkileaks staff makes one a 'shill' and 'ignorant believer' or some such nonsense?

Being against Assange on this matter doesn't mean one is against the mission of Wikileaks.

 

[trustbutverify]

None of those link support the accusation either. The first one notably contradicts the last in the 'molestation and not rape'. He is wanted, and was being investigated at the time for 'sexual molestation and rape'.

The second link claims that it was a set up from the get go and tries to prove it by smearing accusations at one of the accusers. This is a stereotypical rape 'defense'. It claims it was a trap and that she is in the employ of the US. It's evidence is the same as the previous, a tweet and her 'not behaving like a rape victim should'. Hell, the article even repeats the claim that because she was noted as a feminist, leftist, and very supportive of Wikileaks and Assange, that she could have been a CIA agent because that's 'too perfect'. It's the regular invalid rape dismissals with conspiracy theory painted over top. Sorry that I didn't examine the last link very well, it only partially loaded and was messing up my browser.

Have you examined the links you're posting?

Incredible + Disgusting = Sadly Predictable.

 

[BenBurch]

Incredible + Disgusting = Sadly Predictable.

Do you ever think of resigning from the human race and petitioning the dogs for membership? Things like that make me want to.

 

[000063]

So because the US *might* be *trying* to prosecute him, whatever that means, he gets a free card on rape in Sweden? Excuse me, alleged rape.

I haven't seen this level of denial since Michael Jackson.

Hee hee!

Your post intrigued me, you may wish to read the link as Ms Jane brings out a good point.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...s-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom

You didn't actually respond to eirik's post in any substantial way. It could literally be cut n pasted just about anywhere in the thread after Jane's made a post recently.

None of those link support the accusation either. The first one notably contradicts the last in the 'molestation and not rape'. He is wanted, and was being investigated at the time for 'sexual molestation and rape'.

The second link claims that it was a set up from the get go and tries to prove it by smearing accusations at one of the accusers. This is a stereotypical rape 'defense'. It claims it was a trap and that she is in the employ of the US. It's evidence is the same as the previous, a tweet and her 'not behaving like a rape victim should'. Hell, the article even repeats the claim that because she was noted as a feminist, leftist, and very supportive of Wikileaks and Assange, that she could have been a CIA agent because that's 'too perfect'. It's the regular invalid rape dismissals with conspiracy theory painted over top.

Sorry that I didn't examine the last link very well, it only partially loaded and was messing up my browser.

Have you examined the links you're posting?

The strange thing is that this is exactly the sort of thing feminists usually decry, but they aren't saying much about this, from a quick Google.

Do you ever think of resigning from the human race and petitioning the dogs for membership? Things like that make me want to.

You sound lahk one-a dem furries, boy.
*shotgun-cock*
*Deliverance banjo*
[/not a threat, just a joke]

ALTERNATE JOKE:
Well, yes, but I already do too much brownnosing.

 

[trustbutverify]

Do you ever think of resigning from the human race and petitioning the dogs for membership? Things like that make me want to.

As a matter of fact, I sometimes do. Then I have to watch a few videos like the one below to regain some balance, and feel a bit better about the human race. It's from Israeli-American Eldad Hagar.




In case anyone was wondering; that's what a hero looks like.

 

[eirik]

JihadJane claimed that neither woman has claimed to have been raped. And that it was the request of a political lawyer, not the women, that the prosecutor reactivated the case.

How do you know that these are lies?

For one, you have not retracted these statements. Second, because I don't believe you to be just that ignorant. Ideologically blinded yes, incredibly stupid, no.

Why, are you saying it was just a series of "honest mistakes"?

 

[eirik]

You didn't actually respond to eirik's post in any substantial way. It could literally be cut n pasted just about anywhere in the thread after Jane's made a post recently.

You noticed too? I have a hard time seeing the relevance of the tweets anywhere, so I guess it can be posted anywhere, like this big reveal.

OMG you guys, she tweeted like a normal person, NOT LIKE A JODIE FOSTER RAPE VICTIM that my EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE tells me is NORMAL AND APPROPRIATE IN RAPE CASES!

 

[JihadJane]

JihadJane claimed that neither woman has claimed to have been raped

The only "evidence" you have offered that contradicts this statement is Anna Ardin falsely claiming, in a story she sold to a tabloid newspaper, that the Sofia Wilén had made this accusation.

Please show where Sofia Wilén says that Assange raped her.

And that it was the request of a political lawyer, not the women, that the prosecutor reactivated the case.

Please show how my statement is a lie.

For one, you have not retracted these statements.

Provide some concrete, verifiable evidence that shows they aren't true and I'll retract them.

Second, because I don't believe you to be just that ignorant. Ideologically blinded yes, incredibly stupid, no.

In other words, despite your confident and repeated cries of "Pants on fire!" you've no idea whether or not I was lying. It's just a belief based on nothing besides, one can speculate, on ideologically-driven ("Eeek! A leftist!") preconceptions.

Why, are you saying it was just a series of "honest mistakes"?

After you have shown that my statements are not true, you are welcome to then provide your evidence that I was deliberately making statements that I knew to be false.

If you are unable to do either of these things, please retract your (smearing) assertion that, based on the two sentences you quoted, I am a "documented liar".

 

[a_unique_person]

So because the US *might* be *trying* to prosecute him, whatever that means, he gets a free card on rape in Sweden? Excuse me, alleged rape.

You seem to have comprehension problems. The point was, is he paranoid justifiably or not, not is he a rapist or not.

MS. NULAND: Again, I don’t – that was not the course of action that we were all on, but let me get back to you on – there was – I don’t think that when he decided to take refuge that was where he was headed, right?

QUESTION: No. He was headed to Sweden.

MS. NULAND: Obviously we have – right. Right. But obviously we have our own legal case. I’m going to send you to Justice on what the exact status of that was. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay. There is – so you’re saying that there is a legal case against him?

MS. NULAND: I’m saying that the Justice Department was very much involved with broken U.S. law, et cetera, but I don’t have any specifics here on what their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I’m not going to wade into it any deeper than I already have, which was too far. All right?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm