abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
No, everyone else is sitting still observing YOU going round and round, flailing mightily in your vain attempt to even find a point to make.
How can Sweden fairly prosecute Assange when they don't prosecute GW Bush?
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
Are you playing stupid?
You do not have to defend anyone, same I am not defending Assange.
But the sole fact that they asked for extradition is not evidence that it is not politically motivated.
Karadzic estradition may also have been politically motivated, who knows.
If you add the fact that Assange is wanted for sex crimes only, this makes the suspicion much more consistent
Hope you got it now, and I do not have to repeat all over
Mojo
Mostly harmless
What is there in Hilary's mail box that would provide evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated?
That is evidence that Sweden did not say much against Bush, not evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated. The prosecution is not concerned with Bush or Iraq.
That is evidence that Sweden did not say much against Bush, not evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated. The prosecution is not concerned with Bush or Iraq.
That is evidence that Sweden did not say much against Bush, not evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated. The prosecution is not concerned with Bush or Iraq.
That is evidence that Sweden did not say much against Bush, not evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated. The prosecution is not concerned with Bush or Iraq.
That is evidence that Sweden did not say much against Bush, not evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated. The prosecution is not concerned with Bush or Iraq.
The UK courts have provided judgments giving detailed reasosn for their conclusions. You have provided nothing. Why should I believe you over them?
That is evidence that Sweden did not say much against Bush, not evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated. The prosecution is not concerned with Bush or Iraq.
That is evidence that Sweden did not say much against Bush, not evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated. The prosecution is not concerned with Bush or Iraq.
That is evidence that Sweden did not say much against Bush, not evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated. The prosecution is not concerned with Bush or Iraq.
That is evidence that Sweden did not say much against Bush, not evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated. The prosecution is not concerned with Bush or Iraq.
That is evidence that Sweden did not say much against Bush, not evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated. The prosecution is not concerned with Bush or Iraq.
You have no evidence of any scam. You're begging the question again.
What, exactly, did you mean by "if Sweden behaved decently there would be no suspect that they are after Assange for the sex crimes"?
What has the US people sucking things up got to do with me? And what makes you think that I believed that there were WMDs in Iraq?
Your arguments are incoherent, inconsistent, and baseless. Until you provide some substance there will be nothing to grasp.
I am believing what the available evidence tells me. You have provided none.
Wudang
BOFH
Then you believe he should not have been extradited, correct?
Then you believe he should not have been extradited, correct?
Why? Please explain your reasoning.
You manage to repeat yourself fine without my help. Pity you can't seem to stop repeating yourself and try to form some approach to a rational argument.
A mail to the Swedish Government to do their best to catch Assange will do?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You have enormous problem in basic English
You still have no evidence that the charges of sexual assault against Assange are politically motivated
[different from]
In this specific case there are obvious suspicions (not PROOFS!) that the whole issue is politically motivated.
Wudang
BOFH
That should be either "an enormous problem" or "enormous problems".
Please explain what you intend by "obvious suspicions" because in English that implies they are not merely groundless speculation.
This is what I have done in the last 100 posts.
Please find somebody else to play with
And since you know English better than me, please go explain Mojo the difference between
You still have no evidence that the charges of sexual assault against Assange are politically motivated
[different from]
In this specific case there are obvious suspicions (not PROOFS!) that the whole issue is politically motivated.
Here_to_learn
Illuminator
I've asked you before but you didn't answer, let's see if you can do any better this time.
So Clinton send an email to the Swedish Government asking them to catch JA. Who do they involve to do this?
The two women?
The Swedish police?
The womens legal counsel?
JAs legal counsel?
The procecutor(s)?
The Swedish courts?
The English courts?
The English police?
Interpol?
What is the minimum involvement you see for this to work out the way it has?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Did you not post this?
Why, yes, yes you did. You stated right out front that Assange is correct to hole up in the embassy. Then you tried to pretend you didn't.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You are claiming that "Assange is right in staying where he is" because of political meddling in the prosecution. Your attempt to downgrade your argument to "suspicions" is just an attempt at weaseling out of providing any evidence.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Wudang
BOFH
I don't usually criticize people whose second language is English for failure to understand the language. But when one tries to tell well-educated native speakers what English words mean then I will treat their arrogance with the contempt it deserves. Especially one who has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of understanding of terms like "strawman" and "troll" even when the mistake has repeatedly been pointed out.
For something to be an "obvious suspicion" I would expect to see something more tangible than groundless speculation. You have admitted you have no grounds so you do not have an "obvious suspicion" you merely have a "hunch", at best.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
By the way, here is Watanabe claiming flat-out that the prosecution is a politically motivated attempt to silence Assange, not merely that he has suspicions of this:
The later claim that there are only "suspicions" is clearly an attempt to backpeddle from an untenable position.
Watanabe said:
The later claim that there are only "suspicions" is clearly an attempt to backpeddle from an untenable position.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You have provided no evidence to back up your "suspicions", either in the last 100 posts or earlier. There is therefore no reason to think that they are anything more than groundless speculations.
Yes, out of 500 posts on the issue I may have said one word too much here and there.
You want to believe Assange is looked for the sex crimes?
Be happy!