• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How can Sweden fairly prosecute Assange when they don't prosecute GW Bush?

Watanabe said:
Sweden is collaborating with Nato. Period.
Click to expand...

It picks when it to do so, and the default position is still [not][cooperate], therefore the null hypothesis is [not][cooperate].

So again you have shown that you don't understand english, logic and reasoning very well.

So watanabe if you choose only to do business with a certain corporation say McDonalds , when there is no other place to purchase beverages (and you only purchase a beverage at McDonalds), does that mean you eat hamburgers from McDonalds..

Show us you know what a false dichotomy is.
 
Last edited:
Watanabe said:
Sweden is the country who went great lenghts to prosecute Assange for a sex crime.
If they thought that the Iraq invasion was illegal, why not doing more than a mild statement of denounce?



By absolute morality you mean that a sex crime can be worse than a war which caused more than 200000+ deaths and that Sweden herself called as illegal ?



Never said that Sweden should try GWB by herself



Which Swedish law would have prevented to severe all the collaborations bewtween Sweden and NATO?
Click to expand...

Anyone ever tried arguing with a brick wall? Just like this :bwall
 
Watanabe said:
My English may not be so good but..
"It picks when it do so", is it correct English?
Click to expand...

It picks when to do so, is what I meant but again:

the fact that they may choose to cooperate with NATO, when they choose to do so, does not mean that they support all that NATO does.

So watanabe if you choose only to do business with a certain corporation say McDonalds , when there is no other place to purchase beverages (and you only purchase a beverage at McDonalds), does that mean you eat hamburgers from McDonalds?

Answer the question and then we can discuss what a false dichotomy is.
 
Watanabe said:
Americans do not want to listen to any reasons, as they think that the rules that they apply to the rest of the world can not be applied to them..
Click to expand...

See this is here you are wrong, many of us disagree with many of teh policies of our country. But that does not mean you suddenly make sense.

I disagreed with the Iraq War, I protested in silent demonstration and wrote my Congressmen , I did not support the war. I do not support the use of drones except in battle, I have questioned the US support of the regime in Pakistan, I think the money we spent destroying Iraq could have been better spent elsewhere, and that the loss of lives was totally wrong and bad policy.

I believe that under GWB the US did many things quite horrible that I disagree with, water boarding, 'blackholes' , expedited rendition, and the policy of turning innocent civilians over to third parties for torture. (You will see I participated in many threads about Maher Arar)

In fact you will find that at times I have even participated in threads about the errors and faults of US policy quite openly, the deposition of Allende and Mosadeq, the support of right wing fascists around the world (like Saddam), I have even been accused of parroting Howard Zinn for just stating facts from my life in Mexico.

However , I disagree with you because your ideas are poorly stated and incoherent. I do not disagree with your ideas because I am pro-US, which in many ways I am, I disagree with you because your ideas are poorly stated and incoherent.
 
Dancing David said:
the fact that they may choose to cooperate with NATO, when they choose to do so, does not mean that they support all that NATO does.
Click to expand...

I have never said that they did

Dancing David said:
See this is here you are wrong, many of us disagree with many of teh policies of our country. But that does not mean you suddenly make sense.

I disagreed with the Iraq War, I protested in silent demonstration and wrote my Congressmen , I did not support the war. I do not support the use of drones except in battle, I have questioned the US support of the regime in Pakistan, I think the money we spent destroying Iraq could have been better spent elsewhere, and that the loss of lives was totally wrong and bad policy.

I believe that under GWB the US did many things quite horrible that I disagree with, water boarding, 'blackholes' , expedited rendition, and the policy of turning innocent civilians over to third parties for torture. (You will see I participated in many threads about Maher Arar)

In fact you will find that at times I have even participated in threads about the errors and faults of US policy quite openly, the deposition of Allende and Mosadeq, the support of right wing fascists around the world (like Saddam), I have even been accused of parroting Howard Zinn for just stating facts from my life in Mexico.

However , I disagree with you because your ideas are poorly stated and incoherent. I do not disagree with your ideas because I am pro-US, which in many ways I am, I disagree with you because your ideas are poorly stated and incoherent.
Click to expand...

Oh OK
You are OK to disagree with me

As for the "error" and "faults" I would use instead the word "crimes" or "atrocities"
 
Last edited:
Watanabe said:
Americans do not want to listen to any reasons, as they think that the rules that they apply to the rest of the world can not be applied to them..
Click to expand...
Do you have any kind of factual basis for this statement:confused:? Polls? Statistics? If yes, may we see it?
 
Watanabe said:
I have never said that they did



Oh OK
You are OK to disagree with me

As for the "error" and "faults" I would use instead the word "crimes" or "atrocities"
Click to expand...

And so if Sweden is not a member of NATO, and chooses when to cooperate with NATO, then what is Sweden supposed to do so it can try Assange fairly?
 
Watanabe said:
Thank you Travis, but the thread name does not reflect my question.

My question would rather be: how can we be sure that Sweden prosecution of Assange may not be biased when the Swedish Government did not do much to criticize GWB invasion of Iraq?
Click to expand...

...is that the sound of moving goalposts?

ETA:
Did not realize how late to the post I was.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
And so if Sweden is not a member of NATO, and chooses when to cooperate with NATO, then what is Sweden supposed to do so it can try Assange fairly?
Click to expand...

If Sweden were really opposed to Iraq war, they could have simply stop any collaboration with NATO. There is no evidence that they did so.
 
How can Sweden fairly prosecute Assange when they don't prosecute GW Bush?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of these things is not like the other. Although both are mother raping, father sodomizing, feces eating ********, one was the slime ridden leader of a sovereign nation and, thus, is really only subject to it's laws while the other is a sorry slime ridden low life stealer of other people's writings to make some pointless point.......and is not protected by that.
 
Watanabe said:
If Sweden were really opposed to Iraq war, they could have simply stop any collaboration with NATO. There is no evidence that they did so.
Click to expand...

The 2003 Iraq War was not a NATO war. Most of the Alliance did not take part in the fighting, or the occupation, so why would Sweden stop cooperating with several of its close geographic neighbours because of something another country did and the neighbours chose not to?
 
fuelair said:
How can Sweden fairly prosecute Assange when they don't prosecute GW Bush?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of these things is not like the other. Although both are mother raping, father sodomizing, feces eating ********, one was the slime ridden leader of a sovereign nation and, thus, is really only subject to it's laws while the other is a sorry slime ridden low life stealer of other people's writings to make some pointless point.......and is not protected by that.
Click to expand...

I don't think Assange is facing charges related to sodomizing fathers and I don't even know if Sweden has laws against eating poo. There is also no mention in the charges as to the reproductive success of the alleged victims either. Also I don't know what ******** means, unless it is "alleged rapist".
 
squealpiggy said:
I don't think Assange is facing charges related to sodomizing fathers and I don't even know if Sweden has laws against eating poo. There is also no mention in the charges as to the reproductive success of the alleged victims either. Also I don't know what ******** means, unless it is "alleged rapist".
Click to expand...

anal orifice - the version they asterisk out.
 
Slowvehicle said:
...is that the sound of moving goalposts?

ETA:
Did not realize how late to the post I was.
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought it was Sweden's responsibility to prosecute Bush for his crimes. Now all they're required to do is "criticize" him. What changed?
 
trustbutverify said:
Yes, I thought it was Sweden's responsibility to prosecute Bush for his crimes. Now all they're required to do is "criticize" him. What changed?
Click to expand...

Maybe a realisation that Sweden had no means to prosecute GWB ?

I must admit to a quick "hmmmm?" when I first heard that Assange was being charged with rape - all too convenient. Then I realised that it was CT thinking and that Sweden is one of the countries who absolutely would not compromise the integrity of their legal system to please the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom