Elfdart......the problem is that Assange may well BE guilty of rape. The only reason the investigation was closed was because he hid in the embassy and so they had to cancel. The only way to settle that matter is if he goes on trial, and that can only happen if he goes to sweeden. Considering that he won't do that willingly the only way for a trial to be held is if he's dragged there. Sweden May well NOT allow his extradition to the US; just because they did it with those two egyptians doesn't mean they'll do it for Assange.Elfdart wrote: ↑2019-04-17 10:59pmApparently you don't think there's any need for a trial, since you've already convicted him when he hasn't even been charged with rape.
You are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears with enough force to break the sound barrier. I explained my reason for opposing Assange's extradition to Sweden and it has nothing to do with the crime he's accused of committing. I'm just as opposed to extradition for more serious crimes for the same reason: extradition to a country that either practices torture or hands suspects over to one is immoral and according to international law, illegal.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-04-16 12:37amWere our conclusions unfair? Then answer the fucking question: Do you support Assange's extradition to Sweden to stand trial for rape, yes or no. If no, then it is fair to say that you believe he should not face trial for rape.
Use of the term "whataboutism" is the battle cry of the lying, dimwitted hypocrite. No wonder you're so fond of it.Nice Whataboutism. Now let's take it apart.Using your standard, I could argue that the reason you want Assange extradited to Sweden is BECAUSE they have a track record of enabling the torture or foreign nationals and you just have a hard-on for waterboarding and strappado.
You are such a lying little fuckhead, aren't you? Here's your post, asshole:The problem with your little analogy is that two things aren't remotely comparable. If you don't support extraditing Snowden to stand trial for rape, you don't support extraditing him to stand trial for rape. Therefore, you believe that he should walk on the rape accusations. Whatever your reasons are, you believe it is justified to let a possible rapist go free without further investigation or trial. That is not a leap- its your stated position.
Now that's a flat-out fucking lie. His political views have nothing to do with it, any more than the politics of the two Egyptians the Swedish government handed over to the US to be tortured have anything to do with my position. Both you and that other shitstain leaped from "opposes extradition" to this:
Get that folks? In the tiny mind of TRR, if you oppose extradition for a suspect because there's good reason to believe they'll be mistreated, then you support whatever crimes they're accused of. So anyone who opposed the rendition of those two Egyptians must be a jihadist.
By the way, SNOWDEN hasn't been accused of rape. But since you think it's OK to accuse pretty much anyone and everyone who isn't a fluffer for the Clinton campaign of being a Russian agent, a rapist or rape apologist, it's obvious that your Freudian Slip is showing.
At this point, your lies are almost pathological. I wrote that if I applied the standard you and that other fuckwit used (opposing extradition = support for crime), then it could just as easily be argued that if you want him extradited to Sweden, then you must want him renditioned to US custody for torture. Here's the text:The Romulan Republic wrote:Whereas it is absolutely a leap (and a damned libelous one) to say that because we support his extradition and trial on rape charges, we also support his rendition and torture, because his rendition and torture are not (contrary to what his apologists claim) necessary or inevitable results of him being extradited and tried for rape. You have tried to conflate "He should be extradited and tried for rape" with "he should be extradited and tortured/disappeared as part of a US plot to destroy freedom of the press", and then ignore factual reasons for his arrest so that you can pretend that anyone who supports his arrest is supporting The Evil US Conspiracy. That is a preposterous straw man.
Notice the word "could"?Elfdart wrote:Using your standard, I could argue that the reason you want Assange extradited to Sweden is BECAUSE they have a track record of enabling the torture or foreign nationals and you just have a hard-on for waterboarding and strappado.
Guess you don't want to admit that you think torture and other brutal treatment are swell as long as the target is someone you've convinced yourself was responsible for Hillary losing an election to a racist game show host. You two dickheads can take your poorly crafted strawmen, light them on fire, and stick them right up your asses.
So in a perverse way you're right, the two aren't comparable. I didn't actually say you support rendition and torture; I merely pointed out that by the fucktarded logic you use, a person willing to stoop to your level COULD make the same charge against you. But you DID in fact call me a "rape apologist" without a single quote to back up your claim.
While the use of the term "whataboutism" is a sure giveaway that the user is a dishonest, two-faced prick who is losing an argument, it isn't the only one -not by a country mile. The REAL giveaway that a dishonest, two-faced prick is losing is when he starts throwing around legal terms or making threats.The Romulan Republic wrote:I have never supported Assange's rendition or torture. To my knowledge, neither has Ralin. I have even, in fact, repeatedly and explicitly stated that I do not support his extradition to the US. In short, you are lying, and you will retract and apologize for the lie now,
By the way, in cases of libel, the truth is an absolute defense. In other words, if the shoe fits, wear it. Since I haven't lied about you at all (Why would I? The truth causes you much more grief than any lie concocted by the human mind.), using the word libel makes you come across like a blubbering vagina.
Are you going to put me on Double-Secret Probation too, Dean Wormer?or I will have no choice but to report you for dishonesty and libel.
Also, given the closeness of the race, he is very likely partly responsible for Trump's election. Which I'm sure is justified too, because its "anti-establishment". But while that is certainly a reason for me to hold him in personal contempt, and want to see him face justice, it really has no bearing on whether the rape investigation is a valid reason for his arrest.
Has it occurred to you that if a lolbertarian hiding in an embassy can cost a candidate an election, then maybe that candidate sucked so hard they were going to choke and lose in humiliating fashion anyway? And that 30 months of crazed conspiracy theories about Russia, Assange, Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon and "Bernie Bros" are wasted on such a shit politician in the first place?
Again, my question would be: how has the composition of the Swedish government, its policies and laws, changed since the rendition case you cited? I know people like you believe that all Western nations are an unchanging monolith of evil that should be collectively judged for every misdeed in their entire history, but these things matter.It takes a Grade A lying shitstain to turn "opposes handing suspect over to police state torture regime" into "supports whatever crime the suspect is accused of". You're every bit as much of a lowlife as the morons who claimed that anyone who opposed "rendition" and torture of suspected terrorists was somehow "pro-terrorist".
In other words: if you are going to claim that Sweden is a "police state torture regime"... back it the fuck up.
I was referring to the US as the torture regime out to get Assange. They're the ones who have an extradition request, moron.
You will also quote where I supported Assange's rendition or torture, or you will retract and apologize for that claim, or I will report you for libel and dishonest debating.
Cut the bullshit already. Sweden's record of giving people up to torturers isn't a relic from the distant past.Or are you saying that the US is a police state torture regime, and that I therefore support those things? If that is the case, then I will reiterate: I DO NOT SUPPORT ASSANGE'S EXTRADITION TO THE US. I have said this often enough in this thread that you cannot claim ignorance. When you claim that I support Assange's rendition and torture, YOU ARE LYING.
Drama queen much?The Romulan Republic wrote:Honest question to any mods watching this: is telling someone to commit suicide against board rules? Because it is against Canadian law:Now go play in traffic, you fucking imbecile.
Wikipedia wrote:Counselling or aiding suicide
241. Every one who
(a) counsels a person to [die by] suicide, or
(b) aids or abets a person to [die by] suicide,
whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
In any case, you may not mean to be doing so but you are giving the impression that because Assange may be extradited to the US he shouldn't have to face the music for the rape charges. If Assange is guilty should he be punished, and should steps be taken to allow people to learn the truth?