there are any mosques in Quito?
... he really is the sex criminal that he's been accused of? Of course, he can't be because he's the great freedom fighter whom the authorities are trying to frame. So he can't possible be the sort of piece of shit who needs to be locked up, could he?
..Donny boy. The 'sex-crime' as you so luridly puut it, that Julian Assange is accused of, is that he had unprotected, yet consensual sex, with a woman in Sweden. Assange has denied this.
Do you think, for one minute Don, that the UK would be acting like they are, if they really believed all they were doing was trying to extradite someone to face these charges? Threatening to dismantle the very laws upon which diplomacy and sovereign rights are founded in their slavering desperation to get at Assange? Even at your most blinkered, you must see what's going on here.
he has to live out his days in the globally warmth!
..and not just posturing, here's the transcript of the Ecuadorean statement:
At least there's only one nut sack in charge there. It's like there's a showroom full of 'em beneath the equator.
"They mostly come out at night, mostly."
..the USA's economic position is, if the truth be told, far more precarious than most of South America's, and starkly so, compared to somewhere like Ecuador. And the human rights abuses committed by the US generally happen on foreign soil, where they seem to believe they can get away with it with impunity; but their record of agressive intervention in South American affairs, including funding the overthrow of democratically elected governments to install fascist juntas loyal to the US is vile. In real terms, the US has one of the worst human rights records going, they also have possibly the most divided population in the world, with swathes of poverty and a rapidly growing and totally disenfranchised underclass.
Because of the actions of the banking/corporate elite, America has the world's highest national debt. It is a bankrupt, rogue state masquerading as a beacon of light and democracy.
And for your edification, I offer you a salutary tale, the precursor to its final collapse as the once great nation it was: http://www.silverdoctors.com/ann-barnhardt-if-youre-still-in-these-marke...
Whether it phoenixes from where it is now remains to be seen.
swathes of poetry.
..that's modest. Very modest.
that Equador is now held up as the bastion of civil liberties (it isn't, their president persecutes dissenters), whilst a country most people would say is liberal is a despotic country. Laughable really.
Also I find it hard that where in most cases if a woman says no she means no, but in this case because he is a cause celeb he is innocent.
Yes he showed up the US government, that doesn't make him a nice individual.
I’m known as Exile and I know where you live.
..although you seem to have already decided he's guilty. How do you know whether the woman even said no? You don't. In fact, you know nothing about it other than what you've read, but you've already condemned the man.
Why? Because you don't like him. Sure, neither do I much. What's that got to do with it. 'Yes he showed up the US government'? FFS what are you on, understatement of the year? If you really think this is all about a rape charge, a charge that was originally laughed out by the Swedish prosecutors and then suddenly raised again when it became politically expedient, then you're possibly more naive than I credited you for.
That is for a court to decide, and the prosecution if they feel there is a case. I just find it ironic how he has tried to weasel his way out of this situation. The it's a way to be sent to the USA doesn't stand with me.
If that were true why come to the UK in the first place. Our gov't bends over more than most countries. Just ask Gary McKinnon's and his supporters.
As for Ecuador. Go live there, and protest against their president. You'll be locked up quicker than pussy riot.
Things may not be perfect, but if the women are making these claims surely they deserve their day in court. Rape and sex crimes go unreported in most cases. The feeling is they wont be taken seriously. When they see what is happening here you can see why.
In ways it has similarities to John Terry and his racist outburst (sorry ironic repeating of what was said to him).
..when in reality, your ENTIRE understanding is based on what you've read in the mainstream media. You SAY you haven't decided he's guilty, but you have. You stated you don't like him, and now you say he's tried to 'weasel his way out of the situation'. I think the implication is pretty clear. You've got him bang to rights, haven't you Exile? You just know he's guilty, and there's a case to answer, because you KNOW, for a FACT, don't you, that those two women's testimonies are absolutely watertight, clean, clear, unequivocal testaments of truth. Like fuck you do. But you've clearly stated in your previous reply that 'if a woman says no she means no', so of course, according to you, he has to come clean and face up to that charge.. even though THIS DOES NOT FORM PART OF ANY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST ASSANGE NOR DOES IT FORM ANY PART OF THE WOMEN'S STATMENTS. But why let the facts get in the way of a good bit of emotional reasoning. I'd hate to have you on my jury if I ever face a fucking stitch-up like this one.
In case you haven't been paying attention to how the US sets up its enemies, wake up now. Like I've said before, allegations of sex crimes, or drugs crimes, are absolutely standard fare when the US wants to get rid of someone, to take them down. Okay, now, if you'd like to have a more considered perspective of the case, read this, get back to me, and FFS stop believing everything you read in the mainstream press (and then adding your own made up embellishments), it's embarrassing.
...Sweden is notorious for political crucifixion, just because it's not publicised in the mainstream media just proves how right I am.
..you've got your own agenda, so you resort to sarcasm to 'prove' your point - a straw man argument. How about you read the article I posted a link to, then get back to me.
it's Mr Assange who leads us to believe the US will extradite him, when anyone with half an interest in the law here knows making a case against him would be difficult to impossible.
So you're someone with 'half an interest in the law' are you Boz? And what, exactly do you think the case against him is then? And how, exactly, does your knowledge of US law equate to Bradley Manning being held without trail for well over 800 days, when in US, it's 120 days max? Ooh, something doesn't add up there. Weird, I wonder why.
All I've read on here from people - who for their own various reasons either don't want to see the bigger picture, or deny it exists - is rehashed from what they've read in the mainstream. If, on that basis, you're prepared to be judge and jury, god help us.
that wiley Karl Rove, gone from being Dubya's brain to operating the Halliburton Hurricane Machine, now sexual entrapment expert for President Obama...my heads spinning.
..geopolitics is a nasty game.
Now read the rest of the article.
Manning did what he did while serving in the military. In fact the case should be against him, it looks to me that no charges can be brought against the Aussie, well 'cept for rape.
if it's so cut and dry why is he shitting himself about appearing in front a Beak?
...there's no point is there? Listen, you just make up your own mind and let's see how it all plays out shall we?
..'cause I don't care about Mr Assange. Innocent or guilty I don't care about pricks.
..for someone who doesn't care either way. So I'd say that's bullshit. If you didn't care either way, why bother to even enter the debate?
..(even though you 'don't care'), you said, and I quote: it's Mr Assange who leads us to believe the US will extradite him, when anyone with half an interest in the law here knows making a case against him would be difficult to impossible
Well, check this: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-2...
you should be committed.
Don't forget that the US is going to nuclear carpet bomb the entire world in their quest for more parking spaces...pass it on.
shooting off a few replies between paperwork just reflects ...erm nothing.
my first thought too was fair play Ecuador!
edit: mind you that was before I read Boston's post.
Friday is give karma to Anonymous day.
...more disinformation as far as I'm concerned.
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-ag... more relevant
That's Hudleyspeak for "doesn't fit with my view", isn't it?
To be fair to the venerable old boy, it's better than the people who say something like "some sense at last" when someone happens to share their ill-educated view. Because dim, the Hudster ain't. A bit nuts, maybe, but not dim.
is that it is setting people reporting rape back significantly.
When you have George Galloway making bizarre statements I am shocked. The fact is that because Assange is the darling of the left he can do no wrong. That isn't true.
Wikileaks isn't Julian Assange. He may have started it, but it is bigger than him. The quicker we spearate the man from the myth, and two women are given their day in court, the better.
Personally I find this whole demigog think wrong. If he is innocent of these charges he will be cleared by a court. But then I will be accused of being a niaive idiot. At the moment there is justice for none.
(Exile) I mean.
What we know is that the US are indeed engaged in closing down everything from filesharing networks to wikileaks and that their influence extends far beyond their legislative reach (see Demonoid)
We also know that the rape allegations wouldn't get to court in most places (even in Sweden if they followed their own practices)
We also know that George Galloway is a dangerous buffoon and if anyone should be charged it is him and Craig Murray. What with? I'm not sure, but incitement to violence might cover it.
... what would be New Statesman's agenda for spreading disinformation?
...what would anybody's? 90% of journalism is recycled pap. Half the time (that's being generous) they accept the propaganda/disinformation as fact. They don't have to have an agenda. Propaganda can be blatant, but also very subtle. If you don't know how it works, or are not aware how the agendas are set through the media, then there's not much point continuing the debate, but let me give you but one of countless examples: Syria
I would hazard a guess that the majority on here and certainly in the British public, believe what's happening in Syria is all about the 'good' West (and her lovely allies Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) taking out the horrible Assad regime, supporting the wonderful Free Syria Army. The reality is that the atrocities being cited in the press have been carried out by the mercenary miltia, paid for by CIA funding, and directly by Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. All that stufff about the Syrian govt. forces abusing kids, blatant, raw propaganda; propaganda that increases in hysteria on an escalating scale as the West pushes forward with its agenda. How do I know this. Well, I can link you to numerous articles and video interviews that prove this, but I don't think you've got the stamina for that. I also happen to have a close friend whose family lives in Aleppo. They have been reporting (along with other Syrian bloggers) the true picture since the start of the conflict. In reality, the majority of Syrian people actually support Assad, and don't want these foriegn invaders (that's right, not a spontaneous uprising from within, but planned, from without). Yes, this is not to say the Assad regime is wonderful, far from it. But in a svoereign coutnry you have the right to allow for due process without enforced regime change, which is what the West is enacting and its puppet media is reporting with TOTAL blind bias and spreading pure disinformation. EVEN THOUGH they may BELIEVE it to be true...
And to answer your question further, what would be the Guardian's agenda for spreading disinformation? Yet they are just as guilty of it. From a hideous propaganda piece on Syria from the head of the Muslim Brotherhood 2 weeks ago, to an avalanche of attacks on Assange which are all about whipping up and anti-Assange hysteria and are not based on fact but on 'straw man' arguments and disinformation. You should never, ever beleive what you read in the mainstream press. Seriously. And if you really think I'm paranoid and you'd like to do a quick course on 'reality versus waht is reported in the Western mainstream media' I will provide you with the materials and guidance you need to see the bigger picture.
... did you mean to patronise just Ben or was it meant for all of us?
do you feel patronised?
Are you speaking on behalf of Ben now? Has he communicated to you that he feels patronised?
And furthermore, you feel free to mock me continually throught this debate and others, but that's okay?
I'm having a go your assumption that you know the truth and that the rest of us a mere dupes. And all this 'Western press' this, mainstream media' that and 'hidden agendas' other. You may well be right but you seem to be searching for the bad in everything which our country and its allies does - not to mention the vast conspiracies that seem to be everywhere.
Things are often just as they seem. Most people are capable of evil deeds, a few are plain wicked – regardless of race, creed, colour, religion or political ideology.
Now Boston, on the other hand, does mock you. But, to give the devil his due, he does it well.
And to answer your question, I did find your tone patronising. And when Ben's stopped crying, I'm sure he'll say he did too.
"You may well be right..."
he confuses me.
..Donny doesn't understand, but I know what you mean.
As far as I need or want to, anyway.
To quote Harry Callahan, "A man's got to know his limitations".
Copied 2 paragraphs. Couldn't put it better myself
Let’s be clear here: nobody should have to stifle one set of principles in order to allow another to live. If you choose to do so, that’s a matter for your conscience. For myself, I believe in freedom of speech, and in the power of journalism– it’s what I do for a living. I believe that governments need to be made to answer for pursuing profit in the name of peace and massacring thousands in the name of security. I believe in ending the age of secrecy, and I believe that the United States currently seeks to prevent that by pursuing and prosecuting hackers, whistleblowers and journalists across the world. And I also believe women.
I believe women when they say that their sexual consent is infringed, violently and coercively, by men they trust and admire, as well as by strangers. I believe that rape and sexual violence are wilfully ignored and misunderstood by governments except when the victims happen to be accusing radical transparency campaigners of assault. I believe that it is possible to believe women and to support Wikileaks at the same time without moral hypocrisy, and I believe that those across the left who seem to have a problem with holding those two simple ideas in their head at the same time need to ask themselves what accountability actually means.
..utterly spurious argument in relation to the central tenet. No one would argue with those statments, out of context, but in context, well if you can't see that that article is STILL based on the presumption that Assange is guilty and that it's a straightfoward 'rape' case, as opposed to a politically based accusation, with the dark hand of Karl Rove in it...
You are totally blinkered in your view is right, and to hell with the opposing. Most of us on here would agree with those statements, you chose to make a huge conspiracy out of it and have decided to rubbish and belittle any oposing view.
Meanwhile people who are raped are left to suffer and made to feel worse though this whole sorid event.