Elfdart wrote: ↑
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.
Whatever your reasons, the fact remains that you believe he should effectively be above the law, and receive effective immunity for rape charges. Whether you believe that that position is justified for the greater good, or by international law, does not change the fact that you are saying he should walk on the rape allegations.
Use of the term "whataboutism" is the battle cry of the lying, dimwitted hypocrite. No wonder you're so fond of it.
Poisoning the well, ad hominem.
But of course, anyone who calls out dishonest deflection tactics is automatically wrong. How convenient for you.
You are such a lying little fuckhead, aren't you? Here's your post, asshole:
The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑
Elfdart still won't answer whether he believes that Assange should be extradited to Sweden for a rape investigation.
Guess he doesn't want to admit that he thinks men should get a pass on rape charges if they're "anti-establishment" enough.
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:
The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑
Huh, guess I missed that.
Guess I don't have to feel bad about calling him a rape apologist, either.
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.
What the fuck does Snowden have to do with any of this? I didn't mention Snowden. I'm not talking about Snowden. Snowden is not the topic of this thread. Do you think that if you just throw in some vague babble about Snowden, everyone will think "TRR wants the US to torture Snowden too, even though he hasn't been accused of rape!!' The sad thing is, probably half the people on this board would buy that.
This also has nothing to do with support for the Clinton campaign. You are trying to frame this debate as "TRR supports Crooked Hillary" so that you can avoid the actual issues, because you're a lying, coward, rape apologist. And no, I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a Russian agent, I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a rape apologist, and I certainly don't call everyone who disagrees with me a rapist*. Those are lies- blatant, transparent lies and defamation. But you will say it, and it will doubtless be mindlessly gobbled up just like every other lie that is repeated ad nauseum about me on this board so that no one has to address my actual arguments.
I guess you also believe the women who accused Assange are just making it up, too?
But I'll be fair- you're not saying Assange should be given a pass on rape for being anti-establishment. You're saying he should be given a pass on rape for being an enemy/target of the United States. My apologies.
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:
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.
Notice the word "could"?
Ah, you're not saying that we support torture, you're just saying that you could
say that, and that it would be equivalent to pointing out that you believe Assange should get a pass on rape charges. That's so much better.
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.
You are the one saying Assange should walk on rape allegations. Whatever your reasons for doing so, that is a fact.
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.
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.
Wow, a misogynist insult from the rape apologist. Who'd have thought it?
And while it is possible that you are delusional enough to believe that every word you've said is true, you have certainly made false claims about me, and you can certainly not prove that everything you've said about me is objectively true.
Are you going to put me on Double-Secret Probation too, Dean Wormer?
No. But I am going to report you for libel, dishonest debating, ad hominem, poisoning the well, blatant misogyny, and counselling suicide in violation of Canadian law (given this board is, you know, run out of Canada).
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?
Ah, now we get to the truth of it, I suspect: you defend Assange you hate Hillary, and thus he gets a pass because he's on "your team".
In any case, an argument which amounts to "If Assange cost Hillary the election, she was inevitably going to lose anyway" is so laughably absurd and self-contradictory it shouldn't even need refuting.
Its entirely off-topic, because contrary to your desperate attempts to change the topic and muddy the waters the arguments for arresting Assange have little to do with the 2016 election, and nothing to do with whether or not one supported Hillary, but for the record: 2016 was a very close race. Any one of those things you dismissively listed as "crazed conspiracy theories" could concievably have made the difference (well, aside from Susan Sarandon- I don't think she really mattered).
And while we're on the subject, how do you square your reflexive hatred of the American establishment with supporting the narrative of a man like AG Barr, who's resume includes covering up Iran Contra and writing legal opinions that the President had the right to violate international law and the FBI could arrest anyone anywhere in the world? Why, its almost as if you have no actual principles whatsoever.
I was referring to the US as the torture regime out to get Assange. They're the ones who have an extradition request, moron.
I'm aware, fuckstick. And as I have repeatedly stated, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXTRADITION OF ASSANGE TO THE UNITED STATES. I support a hypothetical extradition to Sweden.
But I guess you feel that supporting his extradition to Sweden is equivalent to supporting his extradition to the US, so it doesn't matter if you ignore my actual position?
You asked for it.
Cut the bullshit already. Sweden's record of giving people up to torturers isn't a relic from the distant past.
So in other words, you will not actually address any of the points I raised, just dismiss them out of hand without evidence or argument. How surprising.
Drama queen much?
Another misogynist insult.
And if you don't want to be accused of violating Canadian law, don't violate Canadian law.
To the board at large, and anyone who doesn't want to trawl through page after page of this bullshit, or who finds my arguments unclear, here is my position on Assange:
Assange is a dishonest, authoritarian-aligned hypocrite. He does not conduct himself as a journalist should, nor as someone who is genuinely concerned with holding the corrupt and powerful accountable, but as a partisan hack, selectively leaking to support the Republicans, Trump, and Russia. His leaks have also likely been conducted without due regard for the risks that they pose to innocent people. I am not prepared to argue whether any of that is criminal, or merely unethical and irresponsible, however. And while the US would have good reason to question Assange for his involvement in the 2016 election (ie leaking information stolen by Russia to benefit the Trump campaign, which constitutes a possible violation of campaign finance law), I am skeptical of the actual reasons for the US extradition request, recognize that there is legitimate cause for concern about a precedent damaging to the freedom of the press, and I do not trust the motives or integrity of the current US government. I suspect that they would violate due process, and use Assange's case for their political gain, and therefore I do not believe that Assange (or anyone else, especially in such a politically-loaded case) should be extradited to the US under its current government. The US has the right to make the request, and Britain will have to hold a hearing on it, but I hope that the extradition request is rejected.
Separate from all of that is the question of the rape allegations against Assange. I believe that Sweden should reopen the case now that Assange is no longer out of reach, that Assange should, upon completing his sentence for skipping bail, be extradited to Sweden, and that if the evidence warrants, he should be tried for rape. If convicted, he should serve his sentence in a Swedish prison, and upon completion of his sentence emerge a free man. Again, I do not believe that he should be extradited to the US, nor be subject to rendition, torture, disappearance, or death, and I do not believe that any of those things inevitably follow from him being extradited to Sweden, or that we should assume that the current Swedish government will conduct itself in the same manner as the Swedish government of more than a decade ago, especially in such a high-profile case.
It should also go without saying that my opinion on the rape charges has nothing to do with Assange's allegiances in the 2016 election. I also believe Bill Clinton should be prosecuted for rape, and I have repeatedly stated on this board that I believe Bill Clinton is a rapist and that the Democrats should disavow him.
And here is my position on Elfdart:
He is a lying, trolling coward who believes that Assange should get a pass on rape allegations because of a nebulous fear of US persecution if Assange is extradited, evades the question of whether he believes Assange's accusers are telling the truth, routinely uses misogynist insults and ad hominems, condemns the United States for its human rights abuses while hypocritically supporting the narrative of Trump and Barr on collusion (a man who's career practically embodies "corrupt US establishment with no respect for human rights or international law"), repeatedly tries to shift the debate to attacks on my character or "you just hate Assange because EVIL HILLARY", and committed an indictable offense under Canadian law by telling me and Ralin to commit suicide.