Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[trustbutverify]

have spent many years slowly getting more and more p**sed off with American foreign policy and the attitudes of American people. For me, trashing Kyoto because it "threatened US jobs" was the final straw. I cheered when then the WTC came down. I saw it as the first real sign of hope for the world. Finally somebody had provided a message to the US in the only language it is capable of understanding - that of violence and dollars

I'll ask again, UndercoverElephant. Is this your quote?

 

[WildCat]

I'll ask again, UndercoverElephant. Is this your quote?

I doubt he'll deny it. But you only need to look at the other posts quoting that one in the thread - despite the forum glitch it does attribute it to UE.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why? So I can be knocked down by a tsunami of propaganda?

Yes no need to actually inform yourself about the reality of things when the true facts of the matter conflict with your political bias. Highly rational behaviour that.

You do not threaten to storm an embassy to get hold of a person who is wanted for questioning about relatively minor sex offences.

You may well threaten to do so to get hold of a person who has published a large amount of damaging, leaked material.

No matter how often you make a claim, repeatedly saying something untrue doesn't make it suddenly become true.

It does not matter how much propaganda you attempt to use to obscure the above facts, they will remain facts.

Classic tranference, but yes you are correct. Your repeating of Assange and his Lawyer's propoganda will not change the real facts of the case, those heard before FIVE different courts.

I don't believe you. Assange doesn't believe you. Ecuador doesn't believe you. The US is not going to get hold of Assange. You have to learn to live with this.

Yes because what you (with an admited hatred of the US), Assange (who is a provably paranoid narcissist), and the President of Ecuador (whose hatred of the US is only second to that of the President of Venezuela when it comes to South America) believe really has the ability to alter the reality of the universe. Here's an idea... Perhaps the all three of you can stop believing in Gravity and it'll make space travel cheaper.

He's not imploding. He's becoming a living martyr - a hero to everybody everywhere who is fighting against the rise of US fascism and totalitarianism.

The delusion runs deep in this one.

Assange is doing nothing of the sort. Every day he remains free from US custody, is a victory.

Yup, he's free to... oh that's right, he's locked himself in his own jailcell and is free to do... well nothing.


And you know what the funnist thing is? If he'd stayed in Sweden in 2010 and done the interview then instead of running away and fighting it ever since, he'd be a free man by now and wouldn't be locked up in a little room shaking in his boots about how the US is planning to get him. Assange is a sad little man whose paranoid and fanciful delucions coupled with his nascissistic personality have lead to him imprisoning himself to escape the ghosts of his own creating and turned his life into a trainwreak. I have to admit, that's amusing.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The bias against Assange is palpable, and certainly unskeptical.

Except that everything I noted about Assange has come from reliable sources, including those inside Wikileaks, and Assange himself. If you simply take Assange's own claims of what occured, it makes him a downright nasty piece of goods that sees women as toys to be used and abused as he feels the need. Perhaps you need to go back and reread a few of these threads and see the things that appeared in 2010 about him, things that came from his lawyers and friends.

 

[PhantomWolf]

YOU DO NOT THREATEN TO STORM AN EMBASSY IN ORDER TO GET HOLD OF A PERSON WHO IS WANTED FOR QUESTIONING ABOUT HAVING CONSENSUAL SEX WITHOUT ASKING TO USE A CONDOM FIRST, OR WAKING SOMEBODY UP BY HAVING SEX WITH THEM WHEN YOU ALREADY HAD CONSENSUAL SEX WITH THEM THE PREVIOUS NIGHT.

BUT...you may well threaten to storm an embassy to get hold of a person who has published the most damaging leaked material in US history.

Yes because repeating what you said verbatium and with capitals changes it into reality. Perhaps we should all type "I'M A MILLIONAIRE, I'M A MILLIONAIRE!" and see if it works. Hang on....... nope doesn't seem too.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Eh? The Ecuadorians have spent several weeks making a large song and dance about this threat, and the UK government has now "withdrawn" it.

According too...? Oh, that's right, the Ecuadorians. Any proof that what they claimed was actually true?

It is also an established fact that the British place were swarming up the internal fire escape at one point, apparently preparing to raid the embassy.

Got any evidence that this is true, beyond Assange's claim that it occured? Like, tweets or blogs or cell phone footage from the hundred of protesters that were there at the time and saw it happen and so made the police change their minds? How about the outrage of the Ecuadorian Embasy about the police attempting a raid rather then just threatening it? Perhaps there is some news footage from the TV Media that was there at the time? Anything? No? Really? So much for "established" then, but I'm going to guess that if Assange said the sky was mageta, you'd advocate for changing all the schoolbooks, especially if the US said it was really blue.

I don't think there is any serious doubt that the threat was made.

Given your track record so far, I don't think what you think is relevant. Now what you can supply evidence for....

The UK government told the Ecuadorians (privately) that because of a change in the law that was made after the murder of a British police officer by a shot fired from within the Libyan embassy, they were technically capable of storming the embassy. The Ecuadorians responded by telling the world that this threat had been made, and appealing to the rest of Latin America to support them. And most of it did.

How about... The UK government told the Ecuadorians (privately) that because of a change in the law that was made after the murder of a British police officer by a shot fired from within the Libyan embassy, they were technically capable of entering the embassy and arresting Assange if they wanted to. The Ecuadorians responded by telling the world that this was a threat storm the Embassy, and appealing to the rest of Latin America to support them. And most of it did because they fell for it due to preconceived beliefs like yours.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Well, I'd like to thank UndercoverElephant for demonstrating that the pro-Assange wing is made up of irrational conspiracy theorists. He now goes on ignore, and I will recommend that his participation in this thread is split into its own thread in the conspiracy theories forum.

Seconded.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Just out of interest...

Is there anybody posting in this thread who thinks both

(a) that this impasse really is about Assange being wanted for questioning on sex charges Sweden, and has nothing to do with the Americans wanting him for his wikileaks activities.

AND

(b) that Assange was justified in publishing damaging US secrets - that he has done nothing wrong in that respect and does not need to be punished/silenced.

??

I suspect there are none. I suspect that every person who is claiming (a) also believes the opposite of (b). Funny, that.

You are fooling nobody.

More from the king of preconceived ideas. I haven't bothered reading anything you have previously written, but I bet you all think....

Classic CT thinking:

I) I believe "A" because I believe "B"
II) Therefore you must believe "Not A" because you believe "Not B"

I'm going to do one better than the previous posters, and actually link to my previous posts. I have made it quite clear that in all my researching into this matter I have found zero reason that the US could legitimately charge Assange for anything. To my understanding and knowledge, Assange has broken no US Law that the US has jurisdiction over and despite the love of crying that they want to charge him with Espionage and Treason, no matter how you break it down, the US cannot charge a Non-US citizen outside of the US with either of them.

So to the Question of "Will Assange end up in a US prison?" asked earlier this year.

No to an American one, and he shouldn't.

No to a Swedish one, but he should.

By the time this post was make I had looked a lot harder into the case, more information had come out, and my opinion had changed from the early days. Initially I believed that Assange was, to quote, a "prick" but I was sceptical of whether he was a rapist.

From the article it seems that the women weren't out to have him charged, it was the police and prosecutor that decided that there had been a volition of the law, the women just wanted to force him to be tested.

Still hasn't changed my opinion of the guy though, he's a prick. You don't screw around on people and if you do have unprotected sex and your partner wants testing, then you do it to allay their fears however irrational they might be. The guy needs to learn to keep it in his pants.

(I'd also note that the Daily Mail article (29 Aug 2010) referred to is linked to in the OP of this thread and may be the first claim of them going to the police to get Assange to do an STD test, something Here to Learn's post the other day proved wrong.)

In fact as of Dec 2010, I was seriously of the belief that it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Assange had set the whole thing up to turn himself into a Robin Hood like Martyr, chased by the US. Sadly now I think that he's gone too far at believing his own press now.

so to the questions....

(a) that this impasse really is about Assange being wanted for questioning on sex charges Sweden, and has nothing to do with the Americans wanting him for his wikileaks activities.

Yes, I firmly believe that based on the currently available evidence, that this whole thing is by the making of one Julian Assange and that had he gone back to Sweden, or not run away in the first place, it'd be over and done with one way or another, and he'd by now be a free man because a) charges might not have been laid, b) if he had been charged, he'd likely to have been found not guilty, or c) had he been found guilty, he'd have served his time be been out by now.

(b) that Assange was justified in publishing damaging US secrets - that he has done nothing wrong in that respect and does not need to be punished/silenced.

Yes, I firmly believe that Assange and Wikileaks had as much right to publish as any other news organisation on the planet and should receive the exact same punishment, nothing.

Oops, I think that might just tamper with your world view UE, so just carry on regardless, I'm sure you will anyways.

 

[BenBurch]

Yes because repeating what you said verbatium and with capitals changes it into reality. Perhaps we should all type "I'M A MILLIONAIRE, I'M A MILLIONAIRE!" and see if it works. Hang on....... nope doesn't seem too.

Damn. There goes my retirement plan.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes.

Embassies are sacrosanct, but it's OK to snuff out the lives of thousands if you don't like the religious views of some of their countrymen.

IOW, UEs defense of Assange has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case but with his deep-rooted and irrational hatred of the USA. And you won't be able to reason him out of a position he didn't reason himself into.

Actually, I don't think the hilited bit is true. I think almost everyone has, at some time in their lives, had a belief or set of beliefs that they didn't arrive at through reason but which we later used reason to dispel. Anyone who was ever raised to believe in a god but later became an atheist, is likely to have used reason to reason themselves out of a position they didn't believe in.

Just out of interest...

Is there anybody posting in this thread who thinks both

(a) that this impasse really is about Assange being wanted for questioning on sex charges Sweden, and has nothing to do with the Americans wanting him for his wikileaks activities.

AND

(b) that Assange was justified in publishing damaging US secrets - that he has done nothing wrong in that respect and does not need to be punished/silenced.

??

I suspect there are none. I suspect that every person who is claiming (a) also believes the opposite of (b). Funny, that.

You are fooling nobody.

Actually, I do believe that Assange should face questioning about the rape allegations and I'm rather surpised that anyone thinks otherwise. That said, I am against the idea of British police storming the Ecuadorian embassy. I think it was a foolish threat by the UK and would obviously lead to accusations that they have no respect for international law. The fact that the UK may have passed some legislation, never used, which claimed to overrule international law is irrelevant to that; clearly other countries would be able to claim reciprocal rights when it came to UK embassies abroad. Thankfully, they never went through with their threat.

Also, I don't have a problem, legally, with what Assange did with "cablegate" and other things that were part of Wikileaks' operations. I have something of a problem with a number of statements that have been attributed to him regarding his claim that "collaboraters" deserve to be killed.

So, yes, I hold both "a" and "b".

 

[JihadJane]

I have something of a problem with a number of statements that have been attributed to him regarding his claim that "collaboraters" deserve to be killed.

What do you mean by "attributed"?

 

[Here_to_learn]

He only raped me once...

Making rape-jokes now?

To be fair, I think that JihadJanes comment regarding the word "once" in my list of pretexts/answers.

And of course, "once" is not the same thing as "never" - that is a valid comment. Sweden cannot get away with claiming that "it was only once, so it doesn't count", just like a rapist shouldn't be able to use an accuse like that.

But "once" does not mean "every time" either.

 

[JihadJane]

To be fair, I think that JihadJanes comment regarding the word "once" in my list of pretexts/answers.

And of course, "once" is not the same thing as "never" - that is a valid comment. Sweden cannot get away with claiming that "it was only once, so it doesn't count", just like a rapist shouldn't be able to use an accuse like that.

But "once" does not mean "every time" either.

Many of your "pretext" dismissals, with their appeals to the authority of the law, are undermined by this minimization of what Sweden did, extralegally, under covert pressure from the US. The US regards itself as above the law*. It is a rogue state, a very powerful one. As with a convicted rapist, Sweden's collaboration with US criminal activity, a transnational orgy of abduction and torture, means it cannot be trusted for a very long time in any matter in which the US may want to manipulate it. The same goes for the UK.

*'Obama's justice department grants final immunity to Bush's CIA torturers'
By closing two cases of detainees tortured to death, Obama has put the US beyond any accountability under the rule of law

 

[jhunter1163]

Just so you remember, the topic of this thread is Julian Assange, not any JREF poster. Do try to keep this in mind going forward.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Joey McGee]

What do you mean by "attributed"?

You know damned well already. Declan Walsh, David Leigh and Nick Davies all need to be complete liars, Assange accuses them all of working for the Pentagon. Two Germans who were at the same dinner in question claim they never heard it. Big deal, when you combine the credibility of the journalists in question who said they did with the revelation by defectors/insiders (James Ball etc) that the names were redacted hastily, it becomes clear who is obfuscating. Now, which defense do you choose? That all of those people are working for the Pentagon? That the insiders were disgruntled and the journalists jealous? That it's ok because Assange eventually saw how insane and stupid he was being and relented to having some names redacted?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You do not threaten to storm an embassy to get hold of a person wanted for questioning about obscure and minor sex offences in Sweden.

You might well threaten to do so in order to get hold of the publisher of the most damaging leaked material in US history.

All the rest is something that comes out of the rear end of a cow. And you can call me a conspiracy theorist and that cow comes home.

 

[Alt+F4]

...Assange accuses them all of working for the Pentagon.

This conversation might move a bit more forward if Assange could just write a list of Americans that are NOT spies, working for the Pentagon, and/or trying to kill him.

 

[Alt+F4]

You might well threaten to do so in order to get hold of the publisher of the most damaging leaked material in US history.

The XYZ Affair was more of page-turner than this yawn fest. This is in no way, shape or form the most "damaging" leaked material in U.S. history.

 

[Alt+F4]

Imagine how horrible it must be for the folks working at the Ecuadorean embassy; having to put up with this loud-mouth deadbeat who really thinks he is the most important person on Earth.

 

[WildCat]

the most damaging leaked material in US history.

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Dream on.