Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[PhantomWolf]

I am not repeating the same explanation over and over.
If you wish to think that the US Government is not involved in this and the fact that the UK Government threatened to get into the Embassy of Ecuador only be cause they want to bring an alleged sex-offender to "justice" feel free to do it.
You may find interesting also to read (and believe) the stories about the Moster of Lochness, the Shroud of Turin and stories about UFO as well.
Please be my guest.

Well stop repeating you claim, and actually bring some evidence to the table. Merely aserting that something is so doesn't make it so, any more than asserting the existance of Nessie, UFO's, or Bigfoot. The reason none of us accepts them is that no one has provided evidence, and strangely, you aren't providing it for your claims either. If you want to show that the UK threatening to go in and get Assange is strange, then you need to show that when others wanted by the UK courts for extradition have then jumped bail and fled to an Embassy to hide from justice, the UK hasn't then threated to come in and get them.

 

[John Mekki]

Merely aserting that something is so doesn't make it so, any more than asserting the existance of Nessie, UFO's, or Bigfoot. The reason none of us accepts them is that no one has provided evidence, and strangely, you aren't providing it for your claims either.

The reason no one accepts them as evidence is that this happens to be a US-based forum (not that this is bad, of course), so speaking against the tale offered by the US-media would be the same as speaking in favour of Israel in an Iranian forum.
Got it?

If you talk to any person living in South America about the Assange matter and you can see:

Chile:
Operaciones desde el Pentágono y organismos de Inteligencia europeos
Operations from the Pentagon against Assange
http://www.elciudadano.cl/2012/11/02/59517/las-conspiraciones-contra-assange/
(The conspirations against Assange)

Argentina:
http://www.clarin.com/mundo/Assange-EEUU-difusion-documentos-secretos_0_788921285.html
The US never forgave Assange the diffusion of secret documents

Until you guys will open your eyes and try to read some news from sources other than CNN and Fox, you will never be able to think with your head, if I may.

 

[NightStar76]

El Ciudadano seems, from my limited Spanish, to be a far-left paper by the standards of South America. Even though South America still has some sort of waxing and waning love affair with hard socialism, I think we can safely dismiss them as irrelevant for getting a finger on the pulse of anyone outside of their own Chilean audience of pseudo-maoists. For pity's sake, they think Sarah Palin has authority in our government, and Facebook is where the United States releases its most urgent policies re: scum. For the record, she does not, and it is not, respectively.

Clarin, meanwhile, is at least a genuine newspaper. Well done. However, for someone who dismisses CNN and Fox News, you're accepting a source a lot more parochial than either of them could ever claim to be. Clarin is not a world-renowned organization with connections to the Pentagon's inner workings that can reveal how they're plotting evil towards a narcissistic alleged rapist. It is the largest newspaper in Buenas Aires. It's an adequate paper, yes, but it's nothing particularly gripping.

Also, this doesn't even say anything that we haven't said. It, and if I can read this, you can too, says that Assange believes that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden were all gathered together in a conspiracy against him. Which they aren't, but that's par for the course, since he believes all sorts of stupid things. That no means yes, for instance.

Again, Clarin isn't particularly likely to represent some groundwell of public feeling in South America about how wonderful Julian Assange is. From what I remember, the primary support in South America came when the British stupidly threatened to break into the embassy to arrest the horrid little man. Which was right and proper. Apart from the hard-left, who do it to spite the Norteamericanos (I wonder how Chavez treats people who release his secrets?[/i], the Ecuadorean government (hardly a bastion of liberalism), and for all I know the Shining Path insurgency in Peru, there doesn't seem much of it for Assange personally.

So. How about this. You think with your head, and find some evidence for the allegations, not hard-socialist drivel or someone reporting Assange's delusions as fact. Okay?

 

[John Mekki]

El Ciudadano seems, from my limited Spanish, to be a far-left paper by the standards of South America.[..]
Clarin is not a world-renowned organization with connections to the Pentagon's inner workings that can reveal how they're plotting evil towards a narcissistic alleged rapist.

As expected.
Evidence has been provided to you and you dismiss the source as it does not fit into your mental scheme.
Little bit like the "true believers" who are shown wrong by Randi refuse to accept the reality and stick to their version of things.
I was expecting no different reaction from people here..

 

[John Mekki]

Oh.. I forgot.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-08/20/c_131795981.htm

The Islamic terrorists of the UNASUR, the organization comprising the Taliban countries of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Argentina, etc.. backs Ecuador's asylum offer to Assange.
Who knew that Al Qaeda was so powerful to turn Brazil against the UK/US?
Or maybe it is all a Communist plot against the West made up by those radicals of South Americans?
Why such people as Dilma Rousseff and Cristina Kirchner are so psychopath to believe in the US conspiracy against Assange.
It must be all an anti-US plot..

 

[Travis]

I'd say it is more likely that stupid people tend to act stupidly.

 

[NightStar76]

...you just repeated yourself and ignored what I said in favor of making insults. That's... I don't even know how to respond to that in light of how you insulted me. Okay, from the top. Again, all the nations in UNASUR are saying is that Ecuador has the right to offer Julian Assange asylum. Which they do. And that the British should not break into the embassy to drag him off. Which they shouldn't.

I see nothing here, nor anywhere else (after about half an hour of looking) indicating that any government other than Ecuador has expressed any personal support for Julian Assange. So... that's number one.

Number two, newspapers are not evidence in the matter we're dealing with. I could find newspapers that claim everything or anything, if I wanted to. I could find a newspaper that claims Julian Assange is a nordic alien come to earth to steal our women's eggs. You are claiming there is a broad-based conspiracy involving Sweden, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom to create allegations of rape so that Julian Assange (An Australian who has been denied consular rights) will be sent from the United Kingdom to Sweden to be sent to the United States where he will be put on trial.

You are alleging a conspiracy that includes everyone from President Barack Obama, through to Prime Ministers David Cameron, Julia Gillard and Fredrik Reinfeldt, and for all I know HM Queen Elizabeth II and HM Carl XVI Gustaf. Also, the judicial and legislative branches of all four countries, the police in London, and (not forgetting), the women claiming Julian Assange sexually assaulted them. Your evidence for this assertion so far includes an article from an Argentinean Newspaper which says Assange believes in this mystical conspiracy... and a socialist press that before the internet existed would have been passed around at copy-shops for about five cents an issue. Anything I've forgotten?

Against this statement, we have... well, everything. Your statement makes no sense. It's not even wrong. It cannot be argued with. It's the ultimate conspiracy theory, because there's no way to prove it, and disproving it would require us kidnapping world leaders and questioning them intensely.

So, on a scale of one to ten, with one being implausible and ten being plausible, your claims of a vast global conspiracy against a narcissistic alleged rapist (oh, and the conspiracy hates south america because... because?) would seem to come in at... um... I'm going to go with 'banana'. Yes. Your claims are rated 'banana' on a one to ten scale of plausibility.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Great post NS76.
I predict he will respond with some abuse; something about Stalin, Hussein, Pinochet or all three. From there he will suggest that all us westerners are brainless groupthinky morons with zero understanding of the real world, real suffering or fundamental human rights.

He will manage this while at the same time belittling the women who have been (allegedly) violated and their human rights and not addressing a single - all very well made btw - point you have raised.

I have nominated you too.

Cheers

 

[nathan]

ETA: Oh and given JA's hilarious phone call to Ian Hislop ...

Tell me more please.

 

[Wudang]

linky. Comment would be superfluous.

 

[nathan]

linky. Comment would be superfluous.

Thanks. [tangent] You know it's things like this that make be very glad that I grew up in a non-religious family. It never occurs to me that people might be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh or whatever (unless of course they have the garb of a faith). And it therefore never occurs to me that they might be motivated by some weird conspiracy.

 

[John Mekki]

...you just repeated yourself and ignored what I said in favor of making insults. That's... I don't even know how to respond to that in light of how you insulted me.

And when did I insult you?

Okay, from the top. Again, all the nations in UNASUR are saying is that Ecuador has the right to offer Julian Assange asylum.

No.

This is what the UNASUR declaration reads:

6.- Reiterar la vigencia de las instituciones del asilo y del refugio para proteger los Derechos Humanos de las personas que consideren que su vida o integridad física se encuentra amenazada.

The UNASUR reiterates the istitution of the asylum to protect the human rights of the person in hand, that is, Assange.
http://www.unasursg.org/index.php?o...epublica-del-ecuador&catid=66:noticias-unasur

So, they are not just backing the right of Ecuador to give asylum to whoever Eduador wants, but also stressing the institution of the asylum to protect the human rights of the person whose life is considered to be threatened

My Spanish is not so good, but I can read until here.

I do not read anywhere in the declaration of UNASUR that Assange is a potential criminal and that he should be brought to justice and that Ecuador should not interfere.
Why is that?

Maybe the terrorist head of state of the UNASUR do not believe that Assange is short of a serial rapist and that the UK is genuinely trying to bring a criminal to justice?

Get informed and please take off your pink glasses.
("get informed" and "please take off your pink glasses" are not insults)

 

[Noztradamus]

Get informed and please take off your pink glasses.
("get informed" and "please take off your pink glasses" are not insults)

With the greatest respect, they are. They have the same meaning as "whatever" ie "I have heard what you say, but have such utter contempt for your postion, that I will not give the slightest consideration to it"

 

[theprestige]

This is what the UNASUR declaration reads:

6.- Reiterar la vigencia de las instituciones del asilo y del refugio para proteger los Derechos Humanos de las personas que consideren que su vida o integridad física se encuentra amenazada.

The UNASUR reiterates the istitution of the asylum to protect the human rights of the person in hand, that is, Assange.
http://www.unasursg.org/index.php?o...epublica-del-ecuador&catid=66:noticias-unasur

So, they are not just backing the right of Ecuador to give asylum to whoever Eduador wants, but also stressing the institution of the asylum to protect the human rights of the person whose life is considered to be threatened

My Spanish is not so good, but I can read until here.

Your Spanish is crap. First of all, theUNASUR declaration says nothing about "the person in hand".

Second, the UNASUR doesn't refer to the person whose life "is considered [by UNASUR] to be threatened". Rather, it refers to the person "who considers their own life to be threatened". These are subtle, but important, distinctions. Overall, the UNASUR declaration tries to reinforce the principle of political asylum, without saying anything for or against the merits of Assange's case.

Which is exactly what I would expect UNASUR to do, and exactly what I think UNASUR should do.

 

[eirik]

He will not.
Fortunately enough the US elite and the stupid US population can not influence South American countries anymore.

We can't all be as smart as you, thinking with our own heads without pink glasses, if you may.

 

[BenBurch]

This is not a prison, ...

Not only is it a prison, it is a PERFECT, escape-proof prison because he is jailed by his own fear and pride.

In Dante's Divine Comedies, the people trapped in the rings of Hell were trapped there by their own desires and their own faults.

Assange has created a little slice of Hell for himself there on Hans Crescent, and he is trapped there. He cannot leave on his own terms so he will not leave. EVER.

He will serve a life sentence in that little room.

Justice is done.

 

[tsig]

Not only is it a prison, it is a PERFECT, escape-proof prison because he is jailed by his own fear and pride.

In Dante's Divine Comedies, the people trapped in the rings of Hell were trapped there by their own desires and their own faults.

Assange has created a little slice of Hell for himself there on Hans Crescent, and he is trapped there. He cannot leave on his own terms so he will not leave. EVER.

He will serve a life sentence in that little room.

Justice is done.

I suspect he'll wear out his welcome this side of ever.

 

[000063]

Ah so that's why JA is so desperate to stay here instead of Sweden.

Of course. Who doesn't like puppies?

In the Ecuadorean embassy.
We are quite desperate not to admit the evidence, right?

...

Yes, we're all familiar with how much Assange's defenders actually want to discuss the actual case.

I am not repeating the same explanation over and over.
If you wish to think that the US Government is not involved in this and the fact that the UK Government threatened to get into the Embassy of Ecuador only be cause they want to bring an alleged sex-offender to "justice" feel free to do it.
You may find interesting also to read (and believe) the stories about the Moster of Lochness, the Shroud of Turin and stories about UFO as well.
Please be my guest.

Appeal to Ridicule, quote-mine, straw man.

The reason no one accepts them as evidence is that this happens to be a US-based forum (not that this is bad, of course), so speaking against the tale offered by the US-media would be the same as speaking in favour of Israel in an Iranian forum.
Got it?

Except that people do that here all the time. There's an entire forum devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and another one about CTs in general, which includes a long-runing thread about letting moon landing deniers shoot themselves in the foot over and over, and another where people have repeatedly accused the US of faking the Holocaust. Moreover, being a US forum does not mean a US bent; many of the people in the world who are most critical of the US are Americans, and many members of the forum are not American (like me) and/or are extremely critical of it.

But please, continue to make thinly veiled ad hominems.

If you talk to any person living in South America about the Assange matter and you can see:

Chile:
Operaciones desde el Pentágono y organismos de Inteligencia europeos
Operations from the Pentagon against Assange
http://www.elciudadano.cl/2012/11/02/59517/las-conspiraciones-contra-assange/
(The conspirations against Assange)

Argentina:
http://www.clarin.com/mundo/Assange-EEUU-difusion-documentos-secretos_0_788921285.html
The US never forgave Assange the diffusion of secret documents

Until you guys will open your eyes and try to read some news from sources other than CNN and Fox, you will never be able to think with your head, if I may.

You're using the exact tactics a conspiracy theorist does. "All you need to do is open your eyes!" followed by disparaging the sources you think we use, all the while ignoring contrary evidence.

 

[000063]

As expected.
Evidence has been provided to you and you dismiss the source as it does not fit into your mental scheme.
Little bit like the "true believers" who are shown wrong by Randi refuse to accept the reality and stick to their version of things.
I was expecting no different reaction from people here..

So pointing out that the sources aren't representative and don't support your claims and telling you need better sources is "dismissal".

If you didn't expect any different, why are you still posting?

 

[theprestige]

Ironically, I'm an American who wouldn't mind seeing charges brought against Assange and Wikileaks for their part in the Manning affair--assuming there's a Grand Jury out there that agrees that such charges are legitimate. Currently that doesn't seem to be the case. So he goes free, as far as I'm concerned. I'm disappointed, but it is what it is. One can be a douchebag and still be technically (or legally) correct.

Incidentally, all the evidence points to the US government having pretty much the same attitude as my own above: They'd like to prosecute him, can't find a valid reason to prosecute him, and so are quietly dropping the issue. There's obviously more effective ways to deal with the problem of leaks than to persecute Assange.

As for Assange allegedly being a creepy molester, I could care less. But not much less. I mean, it certainly reinforces my bias against him, but it's not like I know anything about the case. It's he said, she said, and if the Swedish authorities think they can make sense of it, good for them. I guess if he's convicted, he'll get a slap on the wrist in Swedish jail? Okay, whatever. That's between Assange and Sweden.

But here's the irony: I find fleeing from prosecution, and evading extradition, to be extremly offensive. Rape is also offensive, but about that case none of us can really know what happened. I try not to get too offended by obscure stuff where the facts can't be known. Right? In a sense, it's a "private" crime.

But evading extradition is pretty cut-and-dried. Either you turn yourself over to authorities on demand, or you don't. It's a "public" crime. And it offends me. For that, I'd like to see the book thrown at him. Not because of his Wikileaks activities. Not because of his allleged sexual offenses. But because he's an extradition-evading douchebag. It's an affront to the the justice system and an offense against the principle of the rule of law. I take a very dim view of Ecuador, too. I feel that if Britain can make a case for storming the Embassy, they should do it. No half measures when dealing with asshats who run from the law.

ETA: And that's why I don't agree that "Embassy House Arrest" is good enough. I'll be damned if justice-fleeing scumbags can get a prison of their own choosing. Being stuck in the Ecuadorian Embassy to the UK is too good for a person like that, and it is my fervent hope that his time "served" there will subtract not a single minute from the time he has yet to serve in Sweden if he is convicted there.