Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[John Mekki]

Yes, you did. Honest discussion is apparently new to you, but it isn't to the rest of us, and we are not really impressed by your performance so far.

I am not exactly worried about how you value my “performance”, if I may..

 

[uke2se]

It is you not me who is stating that “evidence” for Assange` s “rapes” is in the police files.
When I have asked you why you think that is there you did not reply.

Lie. I did answer you. You just didn't understand it, apparently. I cannot be held accountable for your cognitive shortcomings.

Since you now say that sometimes the justice system does not work perfectly, how can you say that “evidence” is in the police files and maybe instead we do not have false accusations?

I can say that because I - apparently unlike you - understand what the word "evidence" means.

It is you who is 100% sure that what is in the police files is “evidence”, not me.

Yes, because you lack understanding of fundamental facts of this discussion.

I don't think the justice system in either the UK or Sweden is perfect. I do think that one needs evidence for wrongdoing before assuming wrongdoing, however. You apparently disagree.

It seems you disagree with yourself there.

If I do not reply on this insult you will not accuse me of not getting back to all your points, right?

It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact and a piece of advice. Feel free to do with it as you wish.

 

[uke2se]

I am not exactly worried about how you value my “performance”, if I may..

That much is evident. You probably should be, though.

 

[John Mekki]

Lie. I did answer you. You just didn't understand it, apparently. I cannot be held accountable for your cognitive shortcomings.

Due to my "cognitive shortcomings"..

And how you know that evidence of Assange` s rapes is in the police files?
You just wrote that you agree that police sometimes tell lies and so do witnesses.
So how can you be 100% sure that what is written in the police files is the TRUTH and maybe not a false allegation/accusation?
Were you in the room with Assange when he “raped” that woman?
Please explain.

 

[uke2se]

Due to my "cognitive shortcomings"..

Indeed, it would seem so, as you again evidence with the rest of your post:

And how you know that evidence of Assange` s rapes is in the police files?

Asked and answered.

You just wrote that you agree that police sometimes tell lies and so do witnesses.

Like I said, there must be something amiss when you cavalierly make the assertion that I "just" wrote this or that, when it is plainly obvious to all readers that I wrote a whole lot more than that, including the answer to your posed question.

So how can you be 100% sure that what is written in the police files is the TRUTH and maybe not a false allegation/accusation?

Why must I be 100% sure of that? I have never made any such assertion. I believe your inability to fully understand this discussion is coming back to bite you.

Were you in the room with Assange when he “raped” that woman?

I was not. If I was, I would have stopped him.

Please explain.

I have now explained, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you won't be able to understand my explanation.

 

[John Mekki]

Why must I be 100% sure of that?

Because if you say that there is “evidence” of the rapes of Assange in the police files but then you say that you are not sure that what is written in the police files is 100% the truth about Assange` s alleged “rape”, then what you have in the police files is not “evidence” of the rapes of Assange, but merely evidence of what the police has written and what the witnesses have said.
Which can be the truth or not.

I have now explained, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you won't be able to understand my explanation.

 

[uke2se]

Because if you say that there is “evidence” of the rapes of Assange in the police files but then you say that you are not sure that what is written in the police files is the truth about Assange` s alleged “rape”, then what you have in the police files is not “evidence” of the rapes of Assange, but merely evidence of what the police has written and what the witnesses have said.
Which can be the truth or not.

Like I've said before, it appears you haven't the foggiest idea what the word "evidence" means.

Let me educate you as to how this "judicial system" business works:

1. First, there is an accusation.

2. Then there is gathering of evidence (normally this is done by the police).

3. Then, if there is sufficient evidence, there is a trial.

4. Then guilt is established as "guilty" or "not guilty", or in some cases, degree of guilt.

5. Then a guilty party is sentenced according to the punishment scale for his or her offense.

With the Assange case, the judicial system is currently stuck on 3, as there can be no trial unless Assange surrenders himself to justice. Courts in Sweden and the UK have determined that the evidence against Assange is good enough to warrant pursuing the next legal step.

What this means is that the question of whether Assange is guilty or the crimes he is accused of or not cannot be determined until Assange surrenders himself. That, in turn, means that any evidence against him will remain in the police files until such time that he finally does surrender himself.

Any assumption of the evidence contained in the police files is irrelevant at present, as said evidence only becomes relevant in a trial setting. The judicial system does not assume guilt or innocence before a trial, which is what you are apparently advocating in Assange's case.

And I was apparently correct in suspecting you wouldn't be able to understand me.

 

[John Mekki]

What this means is that the question of whether Assange is guilty or the crimes he is accused of or not cannot be determined until Assange surrenders himself.

Good.
So we do not know yet if Assange is "guilty or not”.
Maybe he is.
Maybe he is not.
This means, that there can not be any definite evidence that Assange has raped two women if we do not know if he is guilty or not.
Assuming that the Court works well and without flaws

That, in turn, means that any evidence against him will remain in the police files until such time that he finally does surrender himself.

But then of this “evidence” you are talking about can be “evidence” that Assange has surely commit his crimes (and not, for example a bunch of lies)?
You just said that we do not yet if Assange is a rapist or not.
So, maybe the “evidence” in the police files is not evidence, but just lies.

We can not know if the “evidence” is really “evidence” unless a Court will say that Assange is guilty (assuming of course that the Court do not get it wrong, which also can happen)

 

[uke2se]

Good.
So we do not know yet if Assange is "guilty or not”.
Maybe he is.
Maybe he is not.
This means, that there can not be any evidence that Assange has raped two women if we do not know if he is guilty or not.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Again, you fail to understand what "evidence" means. I'll give you a free hint:

Evidence isn't the same thing as proof.

But then of this “evidence” you are talking about can be “evidence” that Assange has surely commit his crimes (and not, for example a bunch of lies)?
You just said that we do not yet if Assange is a rapist or not.
So, maybe the “evidence” in the police files is not evidence, but just lies.

It would still be evidence. Evidence of lies.

We can not know if the “evidence” is really “evidence” unless a Court will say that Assange is guilty (assuming of course that the Court do not get it wrong, which also can happen)

This is incorrect. It is evidence, and has already been ruled admissible by Swedish and UK courts. Whether it is true or not, or whether it demonstrates the whole truth or not has yet to be determined.

Now I'd like to ask you what you would prefer the Swedish authorities did with this case. Should they dismiss it out of hand because it is possible that Assange didn't commit rape? Should they throw away the evidence because there exists a possibility that the evidence is flawed, or points to some other sequence of events that does not involve Assange raping two women?

What do you think they should do?

Please answer this, or I will be forced to repeat the question.

 

[John Mekki]

But we were discussing about evidence of Assange` s maliciousness, not evidence “of lies”

And where is the evidence of maliciousness for Assange?

This is incorrect. It is evidence, and has already been ruled admissible by Swedish and UK courts. Whether it is true or not, or whether it demonstrates the whole truth or not has yet to be determined.

It would infact be evidence.
Unless the Swedish and/or UK Courts are influenced by political factors, something we agreed that can happen.

 

[uke2se]

But we were discussing about evidence of Assange` s maliciousness, not evidence “of lies”





It would infact be evidence.
Unless the Swedish and/or UK Courts are influenced by political factors, something we agreed that can happen.

I'm sorry, you're not getting off that easily. Here's the question again:

I'd like to ask you what you would prefer the Swedish authorities did with this case. Should they dismiss it out of hand because it is possible that Assange didn't commit rape? Should they throw away the evidence because there exists a possibility that the evidence is flawed, or points to some other sequence of events that does not involve Assange raping two women?

What do you think they should do?

Please answer this, or I will be forced to repeat the question.

Please note that I'm not interested in discussing semantics with someone who obviously has a fairly poor grasp on the English language.

 

[John Mekki]

I'm sorry, you're not getting off that easily. Here's the question again:

I'd like to ask you what you would prefer the Swedish authorities did with this case. Should they dismiss it out of hand because it is possible that Assange didn't commit rape? Should they throw away the evidence because there exists a possibility that the evidence is flawed, or points to some other sequence of events that does not involve Assange raping two women?

What do you think they should do?

Please answer this, or I will be forced to repeat the question.

Please note that I'm not interested in discussing semantics with someone who obviously has a fairly poor grasp on the English language.

What the Swedish authorities should do in this case is another point of discussion.

We are discussing about evidence of Assange` s maliciousness

You said:

It would still be evidence. Evidence of lies.

But we were discussing about evidence of Assange` s maliciousness, not evidence “of lies”

Remember?

And where is the evidence of maliciousness for Assange?

 

[uke2se]

What the Swedish authorities should do in this case is another point of discussion.

No, it's the only relevant point of discussion.

We are discussing about evidence of Assange` s maliciousness

You said:



But we were discussing about evidence of Assange` s maliciousness, not evidence “of lies”

Remember?

I remember. You are attempting and failing to make a semantic argument and avoid any relevant issues because you know you have been thoroughly schooled and have trouble facing defeat in an internet argument.

Now, here's my question again:

I'd like to ask you what you would prefer the Swedish authorities did with this case. Should they dismiss it out of hand because it is possible that Assange didn't commit rape? Should they throw away the evidence because there exists a possibility that the evidence is flawed, or points to some other sequence of events that does not involve Assange raping two women?

What do you think they should do?

Please answer this, or I will be forced to repeat the question.

 

[John Mekki]

No, it's the only relevant point of discussion.



I remember. You are attempting and failing to make a semantic argument and avoid any relevant issues because you know you have been thoroughly schooled and have trouble facing defeat in an internet argument.

Now, here's my question again:

I'd like to ask you what you would prefer the Swedish authorities did with this case. Should they dismiss it out of hand because it is possible that Assange didn't commit rape? Should they throw away the evidence because there exists a possibility that the evidence is flawed, or points to some other sequence of events that does not involve Assange raping two women?

What do you think they should do?

Please answer this, or I will be forced to repeat the question.

Sorry but I am not interested to go ahead with this discussion anymore.

We were discussing for the last 50 posts or so about where is the evidence for Assange` s maliciousness.
Now you are saying that maybe all the evidence is now maybe evidence of lies and instead asking what the Swedish Government should do.

I am not interested in playing childish games, sorry.

 

[uke2se]

Sorry but I am not interested to go ahead with this discussion anymore.

That doesn't surprise me. I will assert that you cannot honestly answer the questions I have posed because doing so would mean your entire argument in this thread falls apart. Retreating in the face of having your argument defeated is a cowardly but common tactic with trolls and woo-peddlers.

We were discussing for the last 50 posts or so about where is the evidence for Assange` s maliciousness.

Yes, and I have told you were you can find that evidence. You then tried to create a semantic "gotcha" argument in order to deflect from the fact that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Now you are saying that maybe all the evidence is now maybe evidence of lies and instead asking what the Swedish Government should do.

This is what I mean with a semantic "gotcha" argument. It has no place in an intelligent discussion. I have been honest with your from the get go. You have not been honest.

I am not interested in playing childish games, sorry.

You have been doing nothing but playing childish games since we started this conversation. I honestly believe you are unaware of this fact, as childish game-playing is your standard operating procedure, but that doesn't diminish the fact that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

As a way of preserving for posterity your pathetic flight from any intelligent discussion, I will repeat the question you're running from:

I'd like to ask you what you would prefer the Swedish authorities did with this case. Should they dismiss it out of hand because it is possible that Assange didn't commit rape? Should they throw away the evidence because there exists a possibility that the evidence is flawed, or points to some other sequence of events that does not involve Assange raping two women?

What do you think they should do?

Please answer this, or I will be forced to repeat the question.

 

[tsig]

I asked you for evidence for the maliciousness for Assange and you wrote me that it is in the police files.
For you, the fact alone that something is in the police files makes it "solid-hard-rock” evidence, for me it does not.
We have two different opinions on what constitutes "evidence".

How shall we ever resolve these differences? Maybe we need a judge.

 

[tsig]

Good.
So we do not know yet if Assange is "guilty or not”.
Maybe he is.
Maybe he is not.
This means, that there can not be any definite evidence that Assange has raped two women if we do not know if he is guilty or not.
Assuming that the Court works well and without flaws



But then of this “evidence” you are talking about can be “evidence” that Assange has surely commit his crimes (and not, for example a bunch of lies)?
You just said that we do not yet if Assange is a rapist or not.
So, maybe the “evidence” in the police files is not evidence, but just lies.

We can not know if the “evidence” is really “evidence” unless a Court will say that Assange is guilty (assuming of course that the Court do not get it wrong, which also can happen)

So you agree he should return to answer charges. good.

 

[tsig]

Sorry but I am not interested to go ahead with this discussion anymore.

We were discussing for the last 50 posts or so about where is the evidence for Assange` s maliciousness.
Now you are saying that maybe all the evidence is now maybe evidence of lies and instead asking what the Swedish Government should do.

I am not interested in playing childish games, sorry.

Then why did you start this one?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Because their story is full of holes?

No, wait... that's their cheese.

Better question: Why would we think the Swedish are lying?

lol

Of course, you and most people here who know the right thing as you were in the room with Assange when he raped that woman so you know it for sure that nobody made it up, you know that this is not true.
But other people who have doubts, have other opinions.

This is why we have courts, trials, juries etc. It is so one side can put up their opinion and the other theirs. They present facts and evidence to support those opinions.
Julian Asshat can present his like every other person would need to, he is not above the law.

If we assume that the UK and Swedish Governments never lie and they do not influence in any way their Coutrs, I would say that, yes, you have offered evidence.

Here again we have conspiracy theories and very high level dishonesty being cast about without evidence.

Based on this sort of nonsense you would suggest no one should go to trial in the UK or Sweden (or any other western nation presumably) ever?

I am not exactly worried about how you value my “performance”, if I may..

I think JA might have said that to the two girls too. Is that where you borrowed this line, have you used it elsewhere too... hmmmm?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Again.
If someone disagrees with your frame of mind, being him either the former Brazilian President, Michael Moore, or several other hundreds of intellectuals around the world they are conspiracy theorists.
You are the one who knows.

No, for me to call a person a conspiracy theorist it takes for them to actually make up or imply a conspiracy without showing any evidence for said conspiracy.

You are right.
I am definely a conspiracy theorist.
In fact, we all know that people, women or men, never lie, Governments (*) never provide false information and always say the truth, Courts are never influenced by their Governments in one way or the other, etc.

Which takes us back to the question I asked to you didn't wan't to answer - at what level do you have evidence that the lies are?

I would be interested to hear why Ecuador would provide asylum to a rapist and why 12 Head of States support this right.

• Maybe they are communists?, since...
• Maybe they are terrorists?, since...
• Maybe they do not know the law?, since...
• Maybe they are stupid?, since...

You do know that Ecuador actually do want JA to answer to the accusations?

That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden[...]

But I guess that's just a lie since Swedish courts can be lied to?