3 ms·

The accusations against Assange could very well be a conspiracy involving the US, Sweden and the UK to silence wikileaks because they leaked videos of civilians

by efraim 9y ago

The accusations against Assange could very well be a conspiracy involving the US, Sweden and the UK to silence wikileaks because they leaked videos of civilians being killed by American military. Or it could just be him raping or sexually assaulting two women in Sweden and the police and prosecution wanting to follow their rules and interview him about it.

bonesss 9y ago
> it could just be him raping or sexually assaulting two women in Sweden 1) He is not accused of that 2) If we're gonna translate legal charges we should be consistent and honest -- Assange is accused of what the rest of the world calls 'sexual misconduct' 3) This article is showing the intense and continued irregularities in this case that are so large as to be visible from orbit. Even if Assange is guilty as fuck it does not change the verifiable nature of "special" treatment he has received, implying a strong political motive 4) Conspiracy is a collaborative effort to break or subvert the law -- the national governments pissed off at Assange are asserting preferential treatment to support a political end. That's sketchy, and maybe scary, and maybe immoral, but totally legal. 5) US military and top leadership gets egg on face in every paper in the world at the same time, and gets nailed by every diplomat in the world at the same time, and... what? Says 'no biggie' and walks away? ... That is improbable. That would be historically uncharacteristic.
- efraim 9y ago
  1) He is accused of that. He is still accused of rape its statue of limitations expires 2020, ten years after it was alleged to have happened. Although that investigation has been closed because there is little hope of it going to trial, since he fled the country and is hidden away. 2) Now you're being dishonest with your translation. Julian was accused of "Olaga tvång", "sexuellt ofredande" and "våldtäkt". If you want to translate "sexuellt ofredande" to sexual misconduct I guess that's fine but it seems most news papers translate it to sexual molestation or sexual assault. "Våldtäkt" cannot be translated to anything other than rape. 3-5) This is more conspiracy theories. The only special treatment Assange has gotten is by Ecuador and large part of the internet that claims the US is behind all this.
  - bonesss 9y ago
    1) Opining aside, you are agreeing with my point. He is not being charged with molesting/raping two women. 2) I have read the entire allegation and accordant police reports, på svenska, in the allegers own words. Våldtäkt directly and literally translates to rape, yes. Know of any examples where direct and literal translations don't work? ... You have not understood my point and answered another. His alleged behaviour is described as sexual misconduct for english speakers the world over. This point is brought up many times in this thread and whenever the case is discussed, it's equally disingenuous each time its wilfully conflated. 3-5) I have directly addressed the fallacious use of the word "conspiracy" in this context. I have shown explicit objective facts, including those detailed in this threads article, to articulated a highly unspeculative pattern of behaviour with deep historical precedent and blatant irregularities. You have dismissed that without addressing any of the content or fact and proffered a verifiably untrue assertion in return. --- You have not read what you have responded to, or not taken the time to think it through. Seek first to understand, then to shitpost ;)

by efraim 9y ago

bonesss 9y ago

> it could just be him raping or sexually assaulting two women in Sweden 1) He is not accused of that 2) If we're gonna translate legal charges we should be consistent and honest -- Assange is accused of what the rest of the world calls 'sexual misconduct' 3) This article is showing the intense and continued irregularities in this case that are so large as to be visible from orbit. Even if Assange is guilty as fuck it does not change the verifiable nature of "special" treatment he has received, implying a strong political motive 4) Conspiracy is a collaborative effort to break or subvert the law -- the national governments pissed off at Assange are asserting preferential treatment to support a political end. That's sketchy, and maybe scary, and maybe immoral, but totally legal. 5) US military and top leadership gets egg on face in every paper in the world at the same time, and gets nailed by every diplomat in the world at the same time, and... what? Says 'no biggie' and walks away? ... That is improbable. That would be historically uncharacteristic.

efraim 9y ago
1) He is accused of that. He is still accused of rape its statue of limitations expires 2020, ten years after it was alleged to have happened. Although that investigation has been closed because there is little hope of it going to trial, since he fled the country and is hidden away. 2) Now you're being dishonest with your translation. Julian was accused of "Olaga tvång", "sexuellt ofredande" and "våldtäkt". If you want to translate "sexuellt ofredande" to sexual misconduct I guess that's fine but it seems most news papers translate it to sexual molestation or sexual assault. "Våldtäkt" cannot be translated to anything other than rape. 3-5) This is more conspiracy theories. The only special treatment Assange has gotten is by Ecuador and large part of the internet that claims the US is behind all this.
- bonesss 9y ago
  1) Opining aside, you are agreeing with my point. He is not being charged with molesting/raping two women. 2) I have read the entire allegation and accordant police reports, på svenska, in the allegers own words. Våldtäkt directly and literally translates to rape, yes. Know of any examples where direct and literal translations don't work? ... You have not understood my point and answered another. His alleged behaviour is described as sexual misconduct for english speakers the world over. This point is brought up many times in this thread and whenever the case is discussed, it's equally disingenuous each time its wilfully conflated. 3-5) I have directly addressed the fallacious use of the word "conspiracy" in this context. I have shown explicit objective facts, including those detailed in this threads article, to articulated a highly unspeculative pattern of behaviour with deep historical precedent and blatant irregularities. You have dismissed that without addressing any of the content or fact and proffered a verifiably untrue assertion in return. --- You have not read what you have responded to, or not taken the time to think it through. Seek first to understand, then to shitpost ;)