Is Assange what we think he is?

a reply to: pointessa

peoples reality come through a screen. Who controls the screen controls reality.

a reply to: anonentity

He is exactly what I think he is.
Self serving.

a reply to: Sillyolme

How is he self serving?

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Information comes from a screen reality comes from experience of the world we live in.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

not humanity ... notoriety... He wants the fame.
What need of humanity was served by publishing tens of thousands of innocuous mundane e mails except for the notoriety gained by the act?
He did it because he could and because he knew no one would actually read the glut of words they published and would instead assume the worst was contained in them.

a reply to: Sillyolme

not humanity ... notoriety... He wants the fame.

Nonsense.

What need of humanity was served by publishing tens of thousands of innocuous mundane e mails except for the notoriety gained by the act?

See the video above , he published more than just innocuous mundane e mails and opened the eyes of many to the realities of bringing freedom to the people of Iraq.

War crimes aren't just committed by others.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yeah right you think the Paradise and Panama papers were innocuous and mundane? So much so the investigative journalist who released them to wikileaks was killed by a car bomb?

Or did you miss that because you’re so caught up in your political views?

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: pointessa

have you personally seen him in there day and night. No of course you haven't.
He could be on an island right now near a pool drinking with skimply clad girls and laughing

Out of curiosity, give me the name of one whistle blower type that you believe to be true?

a reply to: AthlonSavage

peoples reality come through a screen. Who controls the screen controls reality

There is truth to that, but you work with what you have. I don't have the ability to follow someone around to verify things. You also use logic, reasoning and look for consistencies. For all I know we are all holographs and this whole thing could be a big light show, does that mean I should become a total cynic and give up on finding truth to the best of my ability.

I'm Not saying he's the real deal or
Not the real deal ....but I'm just curious If he is a fake , then why hasn't the Ecuador consulate kicked him out yet?.

a reply to: Meldionne1

Watch this space I suppose.

LONDON — Julian Assange will be kicked out of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London — where he has lived in diplomatic isolation since 2012 — "imminently," a source has told The Times of London. CNN reports that Downing Street is in "ongoing" discussions with Ecuador and the United States over his fate.

a reply to: surfer_soul

Not sure of the "ongoing" discussions, as per snip.

The UK government won't be able to prevent legal processes continuing, so there's not really much to discuss.

The English court has already ruled the warrant for his arrest still stands, so he will be arrested. Then the legal process will restart from where it left off. Part of that - as per a ruling in February - is that any additional proceedings around speculated extradition to the US, or Sweden will be part of due process. This will happen once he has been sentenced for his current outstanding offence - that of skipping bail.

Poor Assange. What a pickle he's in. I wonder if his visa to stay in the UK has expired, because if it has then he'll be deported at some stage and he can fly off to his newly adopted country of Ecuador, if they'll let him in.

originally posted by: paraphi
Assange is a manipulating celebrity who has managed to escape accusations of rape by hiding. #MeToo #RapistsWhoGetAwayWithIt

I doubt Assange appreciates that his actions have had an impact on women, and while he professes his innocence he has not had the courage to demonstrate his innocence.

Bull#.

Those accusations have all the hallmarks of a honeypot character assassination strategy.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Those accusations have all the hallmarks of a honeypot character assassination strategy.

But, we'll never know as he has carefully avoided facing his accusers. That's the problem here, because too many men get away with rape and sexual misconduct.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Those accusations have all the hallmarks of a honeypot character assassination strategy.

But, we'll never know as he has carefully avoided facing his accusers. That's the problem here, because too many men get away with rape and sexual misconduct.

Can you tell me what the accusations were? Not rape. Not assault to my knowledge.

Also, it’s an incredible coincidence that once he threatened the establishment with leaks he was hit with sexual accusations. Honeypot and character assassination are known strategies. He could still be guilty, but is highly suspicious.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Can you tell me what the accusations were? Not rape. Not assault to my knowledge.

You could of course look it up yourself, but he was sought for rape and other offences. You said earlier that it's a honeytrap but seem unaware of the detail of the case.

The European Arrest Warrant laid out four offences, which I cannot directly link to, but can can find from THIS LINK

“1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. Sexual molestation - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Can you tell me what the accusations were? Not rape. Not assault to my knowledge.

You could of course look it up yourself, but he was sought for rape and other offences. You said earlier that it's a honeytrap but seem unaware of the detail of the case.

The European Arrest Warrant laid out four offences, which I cannot directly link to, but can can find from THIS LINK

“1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. Sexual molestation - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

Do you deny that honeypot traps and any number of character assassinatIon and false accusations have been used in the past against a wide range of political targets, and do you deny that the timing is highly suspicious?

Why, do you automatically believe these accusations, especially considering the political context?

In such a situation, your first impulse should not be to believe automatically. That’s naive.

Right.... extradited to countries in an alliance and system he is exposing. But but.. it’s all just for justice!! #NPClife
a reply to: paraphi

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
In such a situation, your first impulse should not be to believe automatically. That’s naive.

No, my first impulse when someone is accused of rape and other sexual offences is that there needs to be a proper legal investigation and potentially a trial, so that justice is done, and seen to be done.

So many celebrities and famous people manage to get away with rape because the default has been "... he's a nice guy and surely that makes the accusation false". It is good for women and society that that default is being challenged.

What I cannot understand is why people think celebrities are always innocent, even when they do good, and even where history shows that such a position is silly.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
In such a situation, your first impulse should not be to believe automatically. That’s naive.

No, my first impulse when someone is accused of rape and other sexual offences is that there needs to be a proper legal investigation and potentially a trial, so that justice is done, and seen to be done.

So many celebrities and famous people manage to get away with rape because the default has been "... he's a nice guy and surely that makes the accusation false". It is good for women and society that that default is being challenged.

What I cannot understand is why people think celebrities are always innocent, even when they do good, and even where history shows that such a position is silly.

I don’t think they are. I have zero illusions about them being pure as a group. Either bias for a person being presumed innocent or guilty, as an assumption, is just that, a bias. However, the judicial system does focus on erroring towards innocence, as you know.

However, you have to be careful that you don’t begin “believing all accusations” just because #metoo, and especially not when the person in question is an enemy of the state and a known target.