Quake3World

lostCUNT

losCHUNK wrote:It does apply to rule of law also

And I can't see how that's contradicting myself. I've said that they can't extradite him from Sweden anymore than they can from the UK, that's been part of my point from post 1, so he can go back and face charges - As if the US can bring a credible case in Sweden as Assange claims then they can also bring a credible case in the UK. If I said the US could get him if they wanted him, due to my stance from post 1 I thought it would be obvious that I meant if they brought forward a credible case to Sweden and/or the UK as assuming anything else would be illegal.

Well, you're missing one possibility: that there's some dirty, under-the-tables agreement between the US and Sweden that would guarantee Assange's extradition to the US from Sweden. The thing is that the amount of effort Sweden (or some people in Sweden) is putting into the Assange case while there's so much mystery surrounding that case says something. It's not a clear cut trial here. It's pretty obvious there's more at stake than a rape allegation, especially since the "victims" have already expressed their disapproval of prosecuting Assange.

Having said that, I'm threading on thin ice because that's mostly just speculation so I'll stop right here.

This is why I promised myself to never engage losCHUNK in another debate ever again.

I've never known one human being stick so doggedly to the line that he knows everything, about everything.

furthermore, a lot of the points he's raising are already addressed in the article itself, and i don't really feel like being mr copypasta today

John Pilger isn't perfect (he can be a bit hysterical sometimes) but overall he's one of a rare breed of solid investigative journalists who follow a story to the end (Patrick Cockburn is another)

Cock burn

Well it's you guys that's speculating

The notion that Sweden invented a rape case so that he can be deported to America when the US could've cut out the middle man if they had grounds to do so

seremtan wrote:furthermore, a lot of the points he's raising are already addressed in the article itself, and i don't really feel like being mr copypasta today

John Pilger isn't perfect (he can be a bit hysterical sometimes) but overall he's one of a rare breed of solid investigative journalists who follow a story to the end (Patrick Cockburn is another)

The best you could come up with is *because Britain would have to answer awkward questions*

Really ?

Eraser wrote:Cock burn

And you resorted to twisting my words when it was clear what I meant. After claiming to be correct when you didn't even know a few basics *it was about a condom*. But he's definately being persecuted *slaps forehead*

losCHUNK wrote:Well it's you guys that's speculating

The notion that Sweden invented a rape case so that he can be deported to America when the US could've cut out the middle man if they had grounds to do so

You obviously still don't understand. Nevermind.

You said yourself, you're speculating. all you've been given it's what the media and a very vocal defense has given you.

losCHUNK wrote:

Eraser wrote:Cock burn

And you resorted to twisting my words when it was clear what I meant. After claiming to be correct when you didn't even know a few basics *it was about a condom*. But he's definately being persecuted *slaps forehead*

Uh? My "Cock burn" post was a laugh at the surname of a person seremtan referred to, not a dig at you.
If you just took the time to actually read stuff and think about it before posting, you might've noticed.

I never resorted to twisting your words. I'm just trying to figure out what point you're trying to make, because it's still not clear.

losCHUNK wrote:You said yourself, you're speculating. all you've been given it's what the media and a very vocal defense has given you.

That statement applies 100% to yourself.

So the UK hasn't got more relaxed extradition laws than Sweden ?, it would'nt be easier for America to file extradition from the UK without having a Swedish investigation blocking the process ?

Your entire arguement stems from a America havning a secret agreement with Sweden that there's no evidence of, and what is available hasn't been defended because you know, it's a criminal investigation.

I can't stress this enough - IF America managed to get something to stick in their own courts, which they would NEED to do in either of our countries, there would be no stopping either the UK or Sweden from handing him over (Human Rights aside).

Eraser wrote:
Uh? My "Cock burn" post was a laugh at the surname of a person seremtan referred to, not a dig at you....

...I never resorted to twisting your words. I'm just trying to figure out what point you're trying to make, because it's still not clear.

I never, it's all good

I was pulling up the 2 people I've been discussing this with. I thought I made it clear but TLDR: All things being equal, I think he should answer to the Swedish authorities.

losCHUNK wrote:The notion that Sweden invented a rape case...

repeating the contents of the article to you is starting to get tedious now

it is one particular Swedish prosecutor called Marianne Ny who is "inventing a rape case", for reasons that are not entirely clear to anyone else

losCHUNK wrote:I think he should answer to the Swedish authorities.

there's nothing for him to answer since he hasn't been charged with a crime

Marianne Ny is just being a dick

He can't be charged without being questioned, that's the next stage of the investigation, he's arrested in his abscence. He's wanted to be charged after questioning, and it's not just the prosecutor, It's also the Swedish courts.

losCHUNK wrote:He can't be charged without being questioned, that's the next stage of the investigation, he's arrested in his abscence. He's wanted to be charged after questioning, and it's not just the prosecutor, It's also the Swedish courts.

lol, did you even read the article at all? Marianne Ny has so far refused to question Assange, even though there has been ample opportunity to do so.

So ?, as I said he's wanted so he can be charged. He said he hasn't been charged so has nothing to answer for which is misleading.

So Chunk, what do you make of the fact that both supposed rape victims have come out in public, said Assange didn't rape them and that they don't want to press charges, but the authorities have turned around and said "lol, what do they know? They're not lawyers!"?

Don't you find it even slightly disturbing that the authorities can still press for prosecution when the alleged victims have come out and said there is no crime to prosecute?
Doesn't that stink of a set-up to you?

It wouldn't be the 1st time a prosecutor acted like a dog with 2 dicks.

I had to defend a mate against sexual assault in crown court despite any evidence, a witness and the withdrawal of the victim.

It's worse than that, Mat. Back in 2010, when the original charge was made, the chief prosecutor actually withdrew the arrest warrant, because SHE didn't think his actions constituted rape. And, like you say, both of his alleged victims both confirm that the sex was completely consensual.

He's also also agreed to be questioned about the alleged crime, but not on Swedish soil, and the Swedish authorities have strangely turned him down.

In reality, though, losCHUNK is a pseudointellectual twat who will fill 50 pages with his bland writing rather than admit he knew fuckall about this topic until he did his usual Google-as-you-go responses.

losCHUNK wrote:It wouldn't be the 1st time a prosecutor acted like a dog with 2 dicks.

I had to defend a mate against sexual assault in crown court despite any evidence, a witness and the withdrawal of the victim.

You didn't answer either of Mat's questions. Why don't you try engaging in the actual debate that YOU created, rather than use all your resources to avoid admitting that you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about.

I stuck to one point and everyone else is sidetracking with speculation.

Sorry your butthurt cos you couldn't keep up with austerity statistics and relied on personal experience

syp0s wrote:
You didn't answer either of Mat's questions. Why don't you try engaging in the actual debate that YOU created, rather than use all your resources to avoid admitting that you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about.

I stuck to one point and everyone else is sidetracking with speculation.

I gave a speculative answer, she's a prosecutor acting like a dog with 2 dicks. Even Assanges lawyer admitted he pushed the boundaries of what is considered legal.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about, everything about you is utterly forgettable and insufferably boring. The angst you generate in people is on account of you being wholly uninteresting and infuriatingly vague and long-winded. One could argue with you for ten pages and have absolutely no idea about your stance actually was beyond it being "against the other guy's".

And again, you still haven't answered either of Mat's questions.

I don't know what a dog with two dicks does, because metaphor is usually employed when a simple answer is impossible.

Illustrative graph of my will to live in the moments before and during an encounter with a post of losCHUNK's..



Someone tell me I'm not spot on.