Wikileaks: Heroes of free speech or dangerous subversives?

[Spymaster]

if that were the case than perhaps its not a good idea to wait until he has pissed off the powers that be 4 months later before wanting him done for it?

The timing certainly looks a bit suspect. I'm not suggesting that there may not be other factors in play here. But I'll ask you again, if he's a sex-case, shouldn't he be brought to book?

if a nazi shagged a lass who agreed to it but didn't wear a johnny you think we on here would want him done as a rapist?

If a nazi shagged a lass who'd agreed to sex with a condom and he'd shagged her without one against her wishes, yes, of course.

 

[belboid]

LOL Classic!

It's actually quite the reverse. I've read everything that I can get my hands on regarding Assange's alleged rapes in Sweden and come to the conclusion that if all that I've read is true, he has some case to answer.

You and others are dismissing the claims of these women as "honeytrap" etc., based on what you want to believe.

If St Julian were instead some right wing politico you be baying for his bollocks on a silver platter with cream on, and you fucking know it!

oh dear, even more pathetic. If you've read 'everything' then you'll have seen all the contradictions, and you will know it can not possible 'all' be true. So that sentence can be dismissed as worthless. As to the second, I said quite clearly it 'sounded like' she was a honeytrap, which, to any normal person, means that it is quite possigble she isn't. I, not being as daft as you, am jumping to no conclusions. It is possible Assange is an egomaniac who thinks he can do as he likes, but it is at least as plausible he is being set up.

As to 'engineering a situation' where he doesnt use a condom, well, you haven't read all the stuff very carefully. Because in one version a condom split, and in another version he 'ripped it apart' - that isn't an 'engineered situation.'

So, in a nutshell, I think we can dismiss your interpretation as worthless.

 

[kyser_soze]

Because in one version a condom split, and in another version he 'ripped it apart' - that isn't an 'engineered situation

Got links for the exact quotes made by the woman/women where that change happens?

 

[audiotech]

Bollocks.

Speculative.

 

[kyser_soze]

It's all fucking speculative.

Personally I don't give a fuck about Assange - he's made himself the focal point for what is a global organisation which would have released the documents without him, and he may, or may not, be a prick and have some kind of beef in Sweden to answer for. Lionising him as some kind of hero is presumptive and a little silly. Especially for left-wingers who shouldn't be cheerleading heroes anyway.

 

[Spymaster]

So, in a nutshell, I think we can dismiss your interpretation as worthless.

You are quite clearly an idiot.

I've been very careful to include the proviso "if true" when referring to the alleged offences, and have given credence to the issue of the timing of the warrants. The fact that there are conflicting accounts of what happened in the media bolsters my view (that further investigation is warranted), not yours (that this may be a "honeytrap").

Why are you trying so hard to defend a possible sex-offender?

 

[Spymaster]

Speculative.

Speculation based on 10 years of posting here.

 

[xes]

possible sex offender? Are you hearing youreself?

innocent until proven guilty anyone?

No, the media said he's guilty, HANG HIM!!

There is alot to go against the alleged sex ofenses. Non more so than they were pretty much dropped, until this latest release. Get with the program, and stop with the goverment agenda. It does you no good.

 

[belboid]

Got links for the exact quotes made by the woman/women where that change happens?

From the Guardian - who are (quite rightly) rather less keen on printing every word from an active rape investigation than the Mail (who didnt actually print every word, but only the bits they like)

"Both agree that they [JA & Miss A] slept together on the night before the event, during which the condom split...... Miss A is understood to have told police that he had ripped the condom on purpose"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-julian-assange

 

[Spymaster]

possible sex offender? Are you hearing youreself?

How is that inaccurate?

innocent until proven guilty anyone?

Who's saying he's guilty?

No, the media said he's guilty, HANG HIM!!

Which media? I haven't seen a single report proclaiming him guilty of anything?

There is alot to go against the alleged sex ofenses. Non more so than they were pretty much dropped, until this latest release. Get with the program, and stop with the goverment agenda. It does you no good

Once again, if this were someone whose politics you disapprove of, you'd be all over the cunt like a sticky rash.

 

[belboid]

You are quite clearly an idiot.

I've been very careful to include the proviso "if true" when referring to the alleged offences, and have given credence to the issue of the timing of the warrants. The fact that there are conflicting accounts of what happened in the media bolsters my view (that further investigation is warranted), not yours (that this may be a "honeytrap").

Why are you trying so hard to defend a possible sex-offender?

Wow, you really are stupid! you said 'if all that I've read is true' - when that is physically impossible to be the case. That contradiction does not bolster your case. So stop making things up, everyone can see right through you.

 

[belboid]

How is that inaccurate?

It isn't innacurate. Neither is the following sentence.

Spymaster is a possible sex offender.

Shall I keep repeating that, or would you complain?

 

[xes]

How is that inaccurate?



Who's saying he's guilty?



Which media? I haven't seen a single report proclaiming him guilty of anything?



Once again, if this were someone whose politics you disapprove of, you'd be all over the cunt like a sticky rash.

Oh come on, you think he's a sex case, it comes over quite clearly in your posts. If you mean something else, then you ain't representing yourself as such.

 

[xes]

Definitely a sex-offender, if not a rapist in the broadly accepted sense.

This is your very own reply to a piece from THE MEDIA (which you haven't commented on, obviously)

So he is DEFINATLY a sex offender in your view? Dude, stop towing the goverment line. They're about to be shown as the utter shambles that they are, and clinging on to them isn't going to help you

 

[Spymaster]

From the Guardian - who are (quite rightly) rather less keen on printing every word from an active rape investigation than the Mail (who didnt actually print every word, but only the bits they like)

"Both agree that they [JA & Miss A] slept together on the night before the event, during which the condom split...... Miss A is understood to have told police that he had ripped the condom on purpose"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-julian-assange

Why don't you quote the passage in full:

Miss A is understood to have told police that he had ripped the condom on purpose, while Miss W said the unprotected sex act had been without her consent.

How on earth does that help your argument?

 

[kyser_soze]

So there is no difference, is there? Miss A told the police that he ripped the condom on purpose, which has been re-reported as 'the condom split'. You implied that there had been direct contradiction in her testimony to the Swedish police.

Why is everyone holding a fucking candle for this guy? Why are so many people desparate to dismiss the allegations of molestation because he's the man of the minute?

 

[xes]

So there is no difference, is there? Miss A told the police that he ripped the condom on purpose, which has been re-reported as 'the condom split'. You implied that there had been direct contradiction in her testimony to the Swedish police.

Why is everyone holding a fucking candle for this guy? Why are so many people desparate to dismiss the allegations of molestation because he's the man of the minute?

Prehaps because there is every chance that the allegations are completly fabricated to discredit him, at least discredit him to those who will only ever believe that our goverments are so squeeky fucking clean that they'd never falsify rape allegations. oh no, they'd never lie to try and save their sorry shit fucking soaked arses. They're shitting bricks, and have no problems in telling lies about someone to stop the information coming out. It's very clear to anyone with half a brain, which isn't more concerned with the x-factor results.

 

[belboid]

Why don't you quote the passage in full:



How on earth does that help your argument?

sorry, I dont care about the opinion of a possible sex offender like you.

 

[Spymaster]

Wow, you really are stupid! you said 'if all that I've read is true' - when that is physically impossible to be the case. That contradiction does not bolster your case. So stop making things up, everyone can see right through you.

My god

Was there ever a more mendacious post made on Urban?

Nowhere on this thread have I used the words "if all I've read is true", you're lying.

I have referred to the account in the DM and said that if that's true, he has a case to answer.

You are stupid, incapable of comprehension, dishonest, or a combination of the three.

 

[xes]

My god

Was there ever a more mendacious post made on Urban?

Nowhere on this thread have I used the words "if all I've read is true", you're lying.

I have referred to the account in the DM and said that if that's true, he has a case to answer.

You are stupid, incapable of comprehension, dishonest, or a combination of the three.

so you haven't said that Assange is DEFINATLY a sex offender then?

 

[belboid]

So there is no difference, is there? Miss A told the police that he ripped the condom on purpose, which has been re-reported as 'the condom split'. You implied that there had been direct contradiction in her testimony to the Swedish police.

the article implies that she initially stated (although not to the police) the condom split, and later siad he ripped it apart. Being 'ripped apart' is explicitly NOT 'splitting' is it? They are very different things, so there is some change of story going on.

Why is everyone holding a fucking candle for this guy? Why are so many people desparate to dismiss the allegations of molestation because he's the man of the minute?

Oh come on, it's because the whole thing wreaks of set up. As I've already said, it is plausible he did what the prosecutor said he did, but it is strangely convenient isn't it?

 

[Spymaster]

It isn't innacurate. Neither is the following sentence.

Spymaster is a possible sex offender.

Shall I keep repeating that, or would you complain?

The difference being, nobody has accused me of being such except for some moron on the internet who I've never met, and yes, if you post that again I shall report it.

 

[Spymaster]

so you haven't said that Assange is DEFINATLY a sex offender then?

No. Not without qualification.

If you can find a post of mine that implies that, without selectively quoting it, do so.

 

[belboid]

My god

Was there ever a more mendacious post made on Urban?

Nowhere on this thread have I used the words "if all I've read is true", you're lying.

I have referred to the account in the DM and said that if that's true, he has a case to answer.

You are stupid, incapable of comprehension, dishonest, or a combination of the three.

post 145.

"I've read everything that I can get my hands on regarding Assange's alleged rapes in Sweden and come to the conclusion that if all that I've read is true, he has some case to answer."

So fuck off you potential sex offender.

 

[Spymaster]

Why is everyone holding a fucking candle for this guy? Why are so many people desparate to dismiss the allegations of molestation because he's the man of the minute?

Astonishing isn't it?

 

[Spymaster]

post 145.

"I've read everything that I can get my hands on regarding Assange's alleged rapes in Sweden and come to the conclusion that if all that I've read is true, he has some case to answer."

So fuck off you potential sex offender.

I think it's perfectly obvious what's being said there dickhead. If what's been reported in the media is true, St Jules has a case to answer.

Why do you think these complaints should not be investigated?

 

[kyser_soze]

Prehaps because there is every chance that the allegations are completly fabricated to discredit him, at least discredit him to those who will only ever believe that our goverments are so squeeky fucking clean that they'd never falsify rape allegations. oh no, they'd never lie to try and save their sorry shit fucking soaked arses. They're shitting bricks, and have no problems in telling lies about someone to stop the information coming out. It's very clear to anyone with half a brain, which isn't more concerned with the x-factor results.

But who cares about him? Why make him some kind of media martyr? Web scuttlebutt is that the guy is a narcissist.

Wikileaks isn't JA, and it'll go on without him. Focus on the attacks on Wikileaks donations, domain hosting, not on some muppet who may or may not be a dick.

 

[xes]

Despite the source this seems to give better information than anything else I've read so far or has been posted here.

If it's accurate, there's no doubt in my mind that Assange is one seriously grubby bastard.

Definitely a sex-offender, if not a rapist in the broadly accepted sense.

How did I quote out of context? maybe your post is the thing which is out of context. Ok, you have an "if" in the line above, but your view is clear as fucking crystal water) Like I said, you're not doing a very good job of pretending to not be towing the goverment line.

 

[Spymaster]

How did I quote out of context?

Because you didn't include that middle line the last time you quoted it:

If it's accurate, there's no doubt in my mind that Assange is one seriously grubby bastard.

Definitely a sex-offender, if not a rapist in the broadly accepted sense.

Get it?

 

[xes]

But who cares about him? Why make him some kind of media martyr? Web scuttlebutt is that the guy is a narcissist.

Wikileaks isn't JA, and it'll go on without him. Focus on the attacks on Wikileaks donations, domain hosting, not on some muppet who may or may not be a dick.

who's focusing on what? I'm replying to muppet comments which are repeating media propaganda. If you look at the other thread, you'll see that i'm far from doing what you say I'm doing. I'm reporting what's in the cables, mainly, from non MSM sources. (why would that be, i wonder) It's the likes of you, who are posting daily fucking mail sources, and trying to say that this guy is guilty of sex offences, because a "balanced" article said so, from the daily cuntingt fail. Check your courses, and where the source of the sources comes from. You'll get a shock if you do. Would love to elaborate, but I've got a bit of work to do now. [/signs off for a couple of hours]