Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[BenBurch]

Translation, please.

Translation: mockery.

 

[Silhouette]

Bwhahaha!! Delicious irony. You do realize that JULIAN works for RT, the actual successor to Pravda, right?

Fantastic! Nobody respects that sell out after he got in bed with the Ecuadorians and the Russians.

Thanks for posting though, I needed a good laugh!

You can spread the lie that Assange works for RT a million times but it will not change the fact that it is false. "The World Tomorrow" was produced by Quick Roll Productions, a company established by Julian Assange. It was not produced by or for RT. RT bought a license to broadcast the show on it's network, that is all. You can try to twist it around so that it fits your narrative that he's in bed with the Russians, but that's all it is, your narrative.

http://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/about.html

 

[uke2se]

You can spread the lie that Assange works for RT a million times but it will not change the fact that it is false. "The World Tomorrow" was produced by Quick Roll Productions, a company established by Julian Assange. It was not produced by or for RT. RT bought a license to broadcast the show on it's network, that is all. You can try to twist it around so that it fits your narrative that he's in bed with the Russians, but that's all it is, your narrative.

http://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/about.html

So did RT air the program without Assange's knowledge or consent? Did Assange start filming his little show without any production deal?

The pointed question is: Is Assange on RT's payroll? The obvious answer is "yes".

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It's extremely convenient that a thread exists for where we can discuss Assange's sexual misconduct and his flight from justice. Thank you JREF for allowing us to discuss this.

I would also like to thank you for allowing us to discuss the newest photos of Saturn. It's very convenient to pro-Saturnites that a thread like that exists.

Did Assange fiddle with Saturn's ring?

Have you ever seen the amazing film "The Matrix"? You should see it; then maybe you would understand what Julian is trying to help you see. And the dumbunkers would stop trying to crucify him.

I was wondering what that thing in my neck was.

 

[Wildling]

When you attempted to derail the discussion of Assange's alleged sexual crimes into a discussion of Wikileaks, and even attempted to insinuate that the case against Assange is a conspiracy because of Wikileaks. Also, when you attempt to diminish the crime these women allege. Like you do here:

Merely asking for a clarification of how Assange is supposed to have molested them.

Wikileaks, anti-American.

So by definition you have determined that Wiki Leaks and Assange is anti-American. This seems to me like doctrine rather than reasoned thought.

No, you're attempting to derail a discussion of Assange's alleged sexual crimes into a discussion about a conspiracy theory.

No, you are avoiding discussing the fact that the media is not telling you the truth, as demonstrated by WikiLeaks.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Merely asking for a clarification of how Assange is supposed to have molested them.

If you don't know even the simplest things from this thread, then you haven't done enough homework to be commenting in it. There is plenty of information and a very good link was even posted for you.

No, you are avoiding discussing the fact that the media is not telling you the truth, as demonstrated by WikiLeaks.

Which is totally irrelevant to this thread and as such a disrail. If you want to discuss that, start a new thread.

 

[theprestige]

So nice to see everyone paying attention to the prurient details of an individuals sex life but not to the implications entailed by the information leaked by wiki Leaks. Don't people care anymore when they are being systematically and consistently lied to? There was a time when wiki Leaks would have been mainstream news in the USA. If you ask me the real injustice is the rape of the objective journalism everywhere. The Soviet Union may have lost the cold war but Pravda lives on

Wikileaks material--including material contributed by Bradley Manning--has been discussed at length on this board.

If you think there's still interesting points to make about the Wikileaks material, you're more than welcome to start a new thread at any time. I think that you will find there are plenty of members here who would be happy to engage you in such a thread. You might even be pleasantly surprised to discover how many members share some (or even most) of your views on that subject.

But this is not a thread about Wikileaks. It's a thread about Julian Assange. The fact that it exists may be attributed almost entirely to his celebrity status and global notoriety.

Having studied the evidence, what is your opinion on the topic of the thread? Do you think Julian Assange is a rapist?

 

[theprestige]

Merely asking for a clarification of how Assange is supposed to have molested them.

This has been clarified repeatedly in this thread. Have you read it?

Hell, if you've read even a randomly-selected 20-page stretch of this thread, chances are you've read the clarification at least once.

 

[theprestige]

So by definition you have determined that Wiki Leaks and Assange is anti-American. This seems to me like doctrine rather than reasoned thought.

Not at all. We've determined that you are pro-Assange and anti-American.

No, you are avoiding discussing the fact that the media is not telling you the truth, as demonstrated by WikiLeaks.

This bears repeating:

Media lies and Wikileaks' work have been and are discussed at length in this forum. You're just in the wrong thread for it. If you don't want to discuss the rape charges against Assange, and his flight from justice, you should probably get out of this thread.

If you would rather discuss media lies or Wikileaks' work, you should probably get into another thread, or start one of your own if you don't see one you like.

The only reasons to discuss media lies or Wikileaks' work in this thread are if you have evidence of media lies about the topic of this thread, or if you have evidence that Wikileaks' work is relevant to the topic of this thread. Are either of these things true?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Prove that there would be no charges (there are no charges currently, but I guess you're too uninformed to actually be bothered with such details) if Assange hadn't been involved with Wikileaks.

Prove that now.

Okay here goes.

If JA had not been involved with Wikileaks then he never would have been invited to speak in Sweden and AA and SW would never have been in a position to have met him and had their trust taken advantage of, thus there would never have been any allegations. Thus it is proven.

 

[The Big Dog]

You can spread the lie that Assange works for RT a million times but it will not change the fact that it is false. "The World Tomorrow" was produced by Quick Roll Productions, a company established by Julian Assange. It was not produced by or for RT. RT bought a license to broadcast the show on it's network, that is all. You can try to twist it around so that it fits your narrative that he's in bed with the Russians, but that's all it is, your narrative.

http://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/about.html

So Julian works for a company that he created that licenses his show to the Kremlin's propaganda wing, while living in anti-press stalwart, Ecudor' embassy.

Thanks for clearing THAT UP!

he hehheheheeeee!

 

[Silhouette]

So did RT air the program without Assange's knowledge or consent? Did Assange start filming his little show without any production deal?

The pointed question is: Is Assange on RT's payroll? The obvious answer is "yes".

Unless you have evidence that Assange specifically had a production deal with RT than no, you cannot assume that he is on RT's payroll. I may be wrong, but I think that a license to broadcast the show that Assange's production company produced is only evidence of RT seeking permission to air the show. I honestly don't think you can surmise that Assange and the Kremlin have some kind of insidious alliance from the mere fact that Assange let RT buy a license to air his show. I assume that anyone willing to pay for a license to broadcast the show can.

 

[BenBurch]

A Halliburton-like shell game there with Assange and RT. I guess for some people that was only a problem when the fascists did it, huh?

 

[Noztradamus]

The point being whether the charges would exist at all aside from Assange's previous activity, and had he not gained notoriety from said activities his story would certainly not have the public currency it has now.

Oh it would: Aussie conartist fools elitist class Poms. Peter Foster or Julian Assange: always a story.

 

[nathan]

I honestly don't think you can surmise that Assange and the Kremlin have some kind of insidious alliance from the mere fact that Assange let RT buy a license to air his show. I assume that anyone willing to pay for a license to broadcast the show can.

That argument would have legs if it was known who else he's licensed his show to.

Googling 'assange show' (not mentioning russia) all appear to point to either Russia Today's website (the top hit), or copies of show mentioning it's his 'russia today' show, or to news articles saying he's doing a russia today show. Including wikipedia.

I can see no evidence there are any other licensees or sponsors of his show.

 

[eirik]

My point is merely that it is very convenient to the opponents of Assange that this thread exists.

My point is merely that it is very convenient to the opponents of Hitler that holocaust exists.

 

[eirik]

Merely asking for a clarification of how Assange is supposed to have molested them.

Happy to oblige: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/

So by definition you have determined that Wiki Leaks and Assange is anti-American. This seems to me like doctrine rather than reasoned thought.

This is not relevant to the rape case.

No, you are avoiding discussing the fact that the media is not telling you the truth, as demonstrated by WikiLeaks.

Well, this doesn't really matter, even if you were right (which you are not). It is the courts decision, not the medias, that Assange is is to be extradited to Sweden, to be interviewed and possibly charged with rape and molestation. The decision, and what the decision is based on, is public, and has often been referred to in the media.

Maybe instead of ranting about the media hiding the truth, you should actually read what they write? Nah, that would be to much like work, wouldn't it?

 

[tsig]

Happy to oblige: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/



This is not relevant to the rape case.



Well, this doesn't really matter, even if you were right (which you are not). It is the courts decision, not the medias, that Assange is is to be extradited to Sweden, to be interviewed and possibly charged with rape and molestation. The decision, and what the decision is based on, is public, and has often been referred to in the media.

Maybe instead of ranting about the media hiding the truth, you should actually read what they write? Nah, that would be to much like work, wouldn't it?

Tis not that they love Assange so, it's that they hate America more.

 

[uke2se]

Merely asking for a clarification of how Assange is supposed to have molested them.

When Assange is finally caught and brought before a court of justice, you'll have all the clarification you need.

So by definition you have determined that Wiki Leaks and Assange is anti-American. This seems to me like doctrine rather than reasoned thought.

No, I have determined that you are anti-American and a Wikileaks supporter.

No, you are avoiding discussing the fact that the media is not telling you the truth, as demonstrated by WikiLeaks.

Off topic for this thread. Take it elsewhere, preferably the CT section.

 

[uke2se]

Unless you have evidence that Assange specifically had a production deal with RT than no, you cannot assume that he is on RT's payroll.

So when RT licensed Assange's show, they didn't pay anything? Because if they did, he's on their payroll.

I may be wrong, but I think that a license to broadcast the show that Assange's production company produced is only evidence of RT seeking permission to air the show.

And paying for it, thus putting Assange on RT's payroll.

I honestly don't think you can surmise that Assange and the Kremlin have some kind of insidious alliance from the mere fact that Assange let RT buy a license to air his show. I assume that anyone willing to pay for a license to broadcast the show can.

It does put Assange on RT's payroll, though, thus making the original point.