• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry! I got confused by an old story being bumped up the BBC top story rankings

Nothing to see here!! :o :blush:
 
DrDave said:
Sorry! I got confused by an old story being bumped up the BBC top story rankings

Nothing to see here!! :o :blush:
Click to expand...

Yes, it's all very confusing, isn't it? Wait a year or two, though, and it's likely Swedish elites will indeed give up their neo-liberal witch hunt.
 
Seems wikileaks tweeted it yesterday (in a misleading manner) and lots of people falling for it and retweeting it - hence getting it to front page.

https://twitter.com/PME200/status/243980356947148800/photo/1

I think the wikileaks tweet started it, but its possible they got it from someone else, but its still shocking if they retweeted without making clear it was 2 year old story.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Seems wikileaks tweeted it yesterday (in a misleading manner) and lots of people falling for it and retweeting it - hence getting it to front page.

https://twitter.com/PME200/status/243980356947148800/photo/1

I think the wikileaks tweet started it, but its possible they got it from someone else, but its still shocking if they retweeted without making clear it was 2 year old story.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked, shocked to find unethical journalistic practices going on in here.

Really, Wikileaks started as a good idea, but over the last year or so they've seriously been squandering their journalistic integrity.
 
JihadJane said:
Gossip.

The bias I had in mind was your own, though it's true that journalists also suffer from it, often unconsciously. In this case, your bias would be caused by your need to portray Assange as "a stupid piece of ****" ... with a wordview of "pathetic", amazingly deep and profound analysis though it is, easily worthy of a five-year old. ;)
Click to expand...
Still unwilling to state what you think their bias is, handwaving away the statements of several people just because they make Assange look bad. You choose to focus on a factual insult instead of explaining why he praised the leader of a terrorist organization as a freedom fighter, you must agree with him on Hezbollah. How does any of this qualify as gossip? Oh well, from his most cynical lawyers to his most stubborn supporters, you can't get a single sentence out of them that's direct or honest.
 
Last edited:
Korren said:
I'm shocked, shocked to find unethical journalistic practices going on in here.

Really, Wikileaks started as a good idea, but over the last year or so they've seriously been squandering their journalistic integrity.
Click to expand...

The NSA probably hacked Twitter so that the Secret Grand Jury in Virginia (which is the headquarters of the CIA--coincidence?) could post the tweet under Wikileaks' name to further discredit the organization.

Promoting a bogus narrative under Wikileaks' name, so that its supporters will become disillusioned with the organization when they find out they were duped, is exactly the sort of thing America would do!
 
BenBurch said:
Literally a tragic figure.

Rise to greatness.

A mistake due to a tragic flaw.

Fall.

All that is left is recognition and suffering, but I believe that is happening too.

This would make a great play.
Click to expand...

It would, except for the awkwardness in the second act, where the main character does a lot of soul-searching about how he brought himself low by treating his lovers shabbily.

Or maybe not. Sure, it's not the story of a man who dared to dream too big. But there's something to be said for the story of a man whose big dreams were doomed by a certain smallness of character.
 
theprestige said:
It would, except for the awkwardness in the second act, where the main character does a lot of soul-searching about how he brought himself low by treating his lovers shabbily.

Or maybe not. Sure, it's not the story of a man who dared to dream too big. But there's something to be said for the story of a man whose big dreams were doomed by a certain smallness of character.
Click to expand...

I think I can work around that.

In a proper tragedy you have gods discussing the case and intervening.

I'm thinking a British diplomat and a CIA operative in the god role.

The challenge would be doing it strictly in the style of Sophocles to the extent that can be done in English. So emulating one of the good translators of Sophocles.
 
Korren said:
I'm shocked, shocked to find unethical journalistic practices going on in here.

Really, Wikileaks started as a good idea, but over the last year or so they've seriously been squandering their journalistic integrity.
Click to expand...
It's a classic cult. The mildy deranged defect early and the completely forgone run the op into the ground while competing for the adoration of their ever-more paranoid leader
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Who's asking anyone to trust the USA?
It's Sweden that wants to extradite Assange, in case you'd forgotten. And this would, of course, take him out of the hands of the UK, probably the USA's most enthusiastic supporter in the War on Terror.

Dave
Click to expand...
The USA wants to punish Assange for the embarrassment he has caused and deter others from doing the same. The US persecutes whistleblowers, tortures and kills people it has imprisoned with impunity and locks people up infinitely without trial. Sweden is submissive to and dependent on the USA. It has ignored its own laws in the past under pressure from the US.

Once in Sweden, Assange would locked up inside the prison system to be tried in secret by political appointees. If the prosecution failed (very likely if it were conducted honestly) and he was released, or after Assange had served his sentence, there would be nothing stopping him then being extradited or "rendered" to the human-rights-abusing USA.

He is not safe from political persecution in the UK or Sweden. That's why he's fled to Ecuador.
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
Still unwilling to state what you think their bias is, handwaving away the statements of several people just because they make Assange look bad.
Click to expand...

As clearly stated in my previous comments, I was talking about your bias, the bias that influences how you assign credibility.

You choose to focus on a factual insult instead of explaining why he praised the leader of a terrorist organization as a freedom fighter, you must agree with him on Hezbollah.
Click to expand...

Your Hezbollah diversion is irrelevant to the the topic we were addressing. You can ask Ronald Reagan about your "freedom fighters".

How does any of this qualify as gossip? Oh well, from his most cynical lawyers to his most stubborn supporters, you can't get a single sentence out of them that's direct or honest.
Click to expand...

I call it gossip because you are engaging in random, scatter-gun smear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom