It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Julian Assange will be granted asylum, says official

page: 9
33
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You do realize that there is nothing in laws in uk or sweden to have done the interviews they want? In fact there is precendence in swedish law for doing exactly that. Not to mention the international agreements like mutual legal assitance that can be used in cases like this.


Which is between Sweden and Assange and the UK and has absolutely nothing to do with the US or wikileaks.

The argument Assanges legal team made involved the US / wikileaks. If he is concered about that then he should have used that as his legal strategy instead of arguing his case on an action that has not occured.

Oh, wait.. he did, and the British courts still ruled against him and ordered him to be extradited to Sweden. The British courts pointed out that sweden has due process, and appeals process in country as well as being a part of the EU Assange has access to that as well.

The Swedish prosecution is free to prosecute the case as they see fit. If they error and violate Swedish laws / criminal prosecution procedures then Assange can make that argument to have the charges dismissed. Since Assange has not been charged in Sweden though nothing has been violated.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Navieko
Xcathdra believes he lives in a world where all these rules and laws are completely followed 100% by the nations that harbor them. What he doesn't seem to - or refuses to - understand, is that these laws were only created to give people like himself a false sense of security, that there is justice in the world and that all will be well... because we have rules to follow and surely everyone must follow them!

And you would be wrong.

Is that going to be the position? Cant attack the facts so attack the person and claim the legal system does not work. If it did not work why did Assange use it?

Whats the point in your argument / Assanges argument when you turn around and do the very thing you accuse the government of?



Originally posted by Navieko
The reality? These laws can be twisted and shaped, rewritten or trashed. Using the power of the media, evidence can be fabricated, facts can be manifested all into the eyes of the beholder. Reality cannot always be proven by facts, sometimes we just have to look to our common senses and go on a hunch.
edit on 16/8/12 by Navieko because: (no reason given)

People have argued wikileaks is media so do they twist / distort / shape information as well?
Common sense would have been for Assange to deal with the problem yes? no?
Common sense would be for Assange to put forth his evidence that proves the 2 females are lying about their claims.

Finally because you seem to ignore this part... This has nothing to do with media or wikileaks or the US and Assange. It has everything to do with claims made against him in sweden, the possible violation of swedish law, assanges use of the legal system until it decided his argument was not compelling enough to refuse the extradition.

Apparently people have no problems when assange makes a claim and accuses someone of being guilty without complete evidence or using a court room. Apparently people have problems when that standard is applied to assange.

Why is it ok for one and not the other?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Lets just ignore that sweden has horrible history with US when it comes to extradition. Lets just ignore the fact that swedish authorities refuse to give guarantees that he wont be sent to US. Let's just ignore the fact that swedish authorities are disobeying the letter of the law in order to get JA detained in sweden.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Navieko
 


Good point being the NDAA thing. I'm not an expert on it or anything but I see it popping up everywhere. If they can detain US citizens without a trial then why not foreign nationals?


The NDAA section (1021/22) were challenged in federal court. The judge ruled they were unconstitutional and could not be applied to US citizens.

The NDAA does not apply to Assange because he is not under military jurisdiction / military law.

IF the US goes down the ord of charging him the possible charges they could bring would not qualify him under the NDAA since its restricted to terrorism related issues. People need to read this stuff before making claims about it.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Lets just ignore that sweden has horrible history with US when it comes to extradition. Lets just ignore the fact that swedish authorities refuse to give guarantees that he wont be sent to US. Let's just ignore the fact that swedish authorities are disobeying the letter of the law in order to get JA detained in sweden.


Lets ignore the fact the questions you stated above have been asked and answered already. By all means though keep repeating it if it helps you out however it doesnt make them any more correct / valid

The Us and Sweden have grweat relations when it comes to extradition. You are confusing that / the laws round it with militry actions, which are based on an entirely different set of laws. Why worry about that though since it would undermine your argument.

Lets look at the fact that by making that request Ecquador is asking them to violate international law / domestic laws of Sweden / UK as well as EU laws.

Sweden nor the UK can guarantee an action dealing with a foreign country. Your argument as well as Ecquadors is based on a theory with no support / proof.

Lets ignore the fact that the US nor wikileaks have nothing to do with whats going on in Sweden.
Lets ignore the fact tht in addition to the UK courts, Assange also failed in his attempts when using the Swedish courts. People seem to ignore that fact while claiming the swedish prosecutor is violating swedish law / customs.

If thats the case the swedish court system would have dismissed / quashed the legal actions.

Since Assange can ignore the laws then everyone else can yes?
edit on 16-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Xcath, I appreciate the time & effort you put into your posts, but buddy, please don't think the world is all roses when it comes to TPTB doing the right thing/following laws 24/7. We all know better.

Assange is free to ask for asylum just as any other person is. It's up the the country he's asking to find his reason valid & grant it, and Ecuador found his reason for asylum valid and indeed granted the request. I'm siding with Ecuador in that if he's turned over, he's ultimately US-bound one way or the other. What I want to know is what is the UK & Sweden getting from the US out of any potential talks regarding seizing him. Hmm? Whatcha getting in that diplomatic grab bag this time? Better be good if you're going to snub your noses at asylum. If that's the precedent we're going to set, that asylum's null, void & worthless whenever deemed so, then recipients & applicants worldwide better take note & pay close attention from here on out.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Since Assange can ignore the laws then everyone else can yes?


I assume that if you do something good then you have free rein. Imagine, as a cop, you save a life. You now have free rein to do other illegal activity such as taking one.

This seems to be the argument for Assange.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

Anyone can be labeled as a terrorist, any law can easily get manipulated, any evidence can be planed, this was already stated before, it is your patriotism that is blinding you from the truth.

If it makes you happy, the belief that the law will take care of you, refusing the clear evidence that the law and constitution has been disregarded countless times before, under different label and semantics they will continue being disregarded and fornicate on.

No? Surely US constitution is against the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki? No?

Surely US laws are against abducting innocent people around the world and torturing them. No?

Surely US laws are against spying on American population? No?

So laws have been manipulated to serve the wishes of the powerful in US. You as if laws are absolute and they serve the people when evidence shows it is the opposite. The laws can be compared to UN charter, the powerful use it to punish the weak, but it can never be used to punish the powerful.

That's how it is in US, the law is used to punish the weak, but I don't see and I don't expect to see Bush and his cronies behind bars, nor do I expect to see corrupt politicians who take bribes from big corporation behind bars. These were the politicians who bailed out these big corporations, because they took bribes, big ones, and they all living in their castles, while the American population was brainwashed to believe a man living in a tent (Qaddafi) was more evil then these wealthy war mongers in Washington.
edit on 16-8-2012 by insaan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nyiah
Xcath, I appreciate the time & effort you put into your posts, but buddy, please don't think the world is all roses when it comes to TPTB doing the right thing/following laws 24/7. We all know better.


I dont think for a minute that the world is all roses. I am a huge proponent of individual rights and a huge supporter of getting the government out of our lives.

The problem I am seeing are arguments being made that are based on information that has not even occured. I find it hypocritical that people who support assange demand people / governments be held accountible yet throw that standard out the window when it comes to assange / any person they support who has run fould of the law.

They are doing / arguing the exact position they despise and accuse the government of.



Originally posted by Nyiah
Assange is free to ask for asylum just as any other person is. It's up the the country he's asking to find his reason valid & grant it, and Ecuador found his reason for asylum valid and indeed granted the request.

The problem is the asylum request is based on something that never occured. Again if people demand governments follow the law they cant turn around and allow governments to ignore it simply because they agree with the person in question.

Asylum in this case has nothing to do with Sweden or that situation. They granted it to him because of wikileaks and the US.



Originally posted by Nyiah
I'm siding with Ecuador in that if he's turned over, he's ultimately US-bound one way or the other.

If charges are filed against assange and an extradition request is made are people going to assume the charges are without merit without ever seeing the information?

If they are willing to take that view then they have already engaged in activity they are arguing against. If the Us files charges should we not see if they are supported by facts, which is required in the US court system in order to sustain prosecution?



Originally posted by Nyiah
What I want to know is what is the UK & Sweden getting from the US out of any potential talks regarding seizing him. Hmm? Whatcha getting in that diplomatic grab bag this time? Better be good if you're going to snub your noses at asylum. If that's the precedent we're going to set, that asylum's null, void & worthless whenever deemed so, then recipients & applicants worldwide better take note & pay close attention from here on out.

Now you are doing it... Making an assumption of motive without anything to support the claim. One of the actions Assange and his followers preach against when it comes to certain countries.

The following is pretty close to the argument I am trying to make when it comes to Assange, what he thinks should be done to people who dont behave in the manner he thinks they should, and what happens when the same standard he sets comes back and is applied to him.

NSFW - Language - From the movie Lean on me.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by insaan
Anyone can be labeled as a terrorist, any law can easily get manipulated, any evidence can be planed, this was already stated before, it is your patriotism that is blinding you from the truth.

My patriotism has nothing to do with my position or argument. As you pointed out that things can be manipulated / titles applied let me ask you this.

Since we dont have access to the computers the info assange is putting out came from, how do we know we are getting all of the content? How do we know something was not changed / ommitted?

If my patriotism was an issue then I would not be defending Assange when it comes to what could happen to him in the US. I could easily just agree with him and hope it occurs however I know differently. If I were acting on Patriotism then I would not be caring about his situation at all and would be hoping someone takes him out. Since I dont feel that way and have already stated he has not committed any crmes with a death penalty result, I dont think its blinding me at all.

My argument is based on what occured and the laws in place. People on the other side of the fence make their own arguments. Just because I argue a legal standpoint does not mean my personal opinion / position is the same.

We cannot have rule of law based on popularity. It undermines the very argument assange and his supporters are trying to make.



Originally posted by insaan
If it makes you happy, the belief that the law will take care of you, refusing the clear evidence that the law and constitution has been disregarded countless times before, under different label and semantics they will continue to disregarded and fornicate on the law and constitution.

You and the others really should stop telling me my position and how I arrived at it.

Secondly you are doing the same thing as everyone else. So once again the US government, the US constitution, US laws, classified information, have NOTHING to do with Assange, sweden, the UK, the extradition legal issues or Ecquador.

There are no charges in the US for assange.
There are no extradition requests from the US for Assange.
The US has nothing what so ever to do with Assange, Sweden, or the UK.

I could make the argument that your support of assange has blinded you to the facts at hand and what the situation is. Secondly if you have issues with the government disregarding laws then why are you not angry with assange for violating the laws?

Or are you making your argument from a point of personal moral ethics instead of the law? If thats the case then why do you not hold yourself to the same level of contempt you hold the Us government since after all you are doing exactly what you accuse the government of doing?



Originally posted by insaan
No? Surely US constitution is against the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki? No?

Nope - Again people need to read the immigration laws, specifically the part that deals with citizenship and actions against the US when engaged in armed conflict.

If I am walking towards you with a gun out and pointed in your direction you dont have to wait till I pull the trigger in order to defend yourself. Its even more true when I am constantly making threats against you. If you shoot and kill me first you, as a Us citizen (for this example) just killed another US citizen without due process.

Should you be charged with a crime?



Originally posted by insaan
Surely US laws are against abducting innocent people around the world and torturing them. No?

The Us constitution does not apply to foreigners outside the political boundaries of the US.
From a moral and ethical standpoint it should not be done at all. From a legal aspect nothing prevents it. With that being said I would like to know ho you come to innocent people? Is it because they are innocent until proven guilty or is it because the US was involved?

Should the person you accuse of the crime not be considered innocent until proven guilty in court? Or do you have a double standard when it comes to groups / countries / entities you dont like / agree with?



Originally posted by insaan
Surely US laws are against spying on American population? No?

There are no laws that prevent citizens from being spied on. There are laws in place that limit government intrusion into certain areas without PC.

If I receive a tip that someone is going to plant a bomb I dont have to wait for the person to plant that bomb before I can track what they are doing. You guys seem to skip over the investigation part.

A personhas no expectation of privacy in public.



Originally posted by insaan
So laws have been manipulated to serve the wishes of the powerful in US, why claim laws are absolute and they serve the people when evidence shows it is the opposite.

And once again this has nothing to do with the US or its laws or wikileaks and assange. It has everything to do with Assange, Sweden, the UK, now Ecquador, and the charges made against him in Sweden.

None of which has anything to do with the US.


edit on 16-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I assume that if you do something good then you have free rein.

Doing something good / the right thing should not be rewarded. It should be a standard in how we conduct our daily lives / affairs as a matter of course. However since we dont live in a perfect world.....



Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Imagine, as a cop, you save a life. You now have free rein to do other illegal activity such as taking one.

This seems to be the argument for Assange.

Were the actions of Assange valid?
Were the actions of the US valid?

Both questions are answered differently depending on personal / moral / ethical standards of the person.

However when you live in a glass house its not a good idea to be throwing rocks.

2 wrongs dont make a right.. Should the Us be held accountible for criminal actions? Absolutely.
At the same time not all of the files released contained criminal wrong doing and because of that Manning / Assange / wikileaks should be held accountible for their criminal actions.

In the end though it has nothing to do with the current situation, which is Assange, sweden, the UK and now Ecquador, all dealing with sex claims.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


I never said he was a coward so I don't know why you bothered to respond. Actually I support Assange. I just thought your position was a little immature given my nature as a yank that supports Assange.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by ArtooDetoo
Just a question, how can Ecuador help Assange by granting him asylum ? I mean, he will be arrested as soon as he steps out of the embassy, will he not ?


Correct - they cant assist assange unless they sneak him out of the country some how. The moment he steps foot outside the embassy British suthorities will arrest him.

As I was statging before this is nothing more than a political stunt by Ecquador and nothing more.

Out of all the countries on this planet - ecquador? just Ecquador?

If it truely were a fundamental issue with due process there are many other countries who are not friendly towards the US that would have jumped at protecting Assange.


LOL Just give it up you cantankerous troll. I find it offensive that someone like yourself hijacks a thread and writes pages of crap telling everyone they are wrong and that they don't understand the law and blah blah blah. You try to impress by pretending you are the pre-eminant authourity on international diplomacy when its so obvious that you are far from it because of the simple fact you don't even understand the simple concept of what an 'EMBASSY" actually is. You have no right to How can you expect anyone to

If you spent less time copying and pasting from the web and took the time to actually read what others have to say you could have saved yourself and the rest of us from three further pages of embarresment because I tried to explain it to you back on page 6. Lets try again-



i]Originally posted by Xcathdra
Correct - they cant assist assange unless they sneak him out of the country some how. The moment he steps foot outside the embassy British suthorities will arrest him.


An Embassy is not a building, you cannot step outside it. The embassy is the diplomatic mission itself.
The building is actually called a 'chancery'

If its in a location outside the capital it is called a consulate.



A permanent diplomatic mission is typically known as an embassy, and the person in charge of the mission is known as an ambassador. The term "embassy" is often used to refer to the building or compound housing an ambassador's offices and staff. Technically, however, "embassy" refers to the diplomatic delegation itself, while the office building in which they work is known as a chancery

Ambassadors can reside within or outside of the chancery; for example, American diplomatic missions maintain separate housing for their ambassadors apart from their embassies. Ambassadors residing outside of the chancery retain special protection from the host country's security forces and the ambassadorial residences enjoy the same rights as missions. Like embassies, such residences are considered inviolable and, in most cases, extraterritorial. The residences of high commissioner, who are similar to ambassadors, have the same rights


This little fact makes your entire argument as to why Assange will be arrested completely null and void. If you don't understand what an embassy is you can't understand the international law surrounding diplomatic missions.

end of story


edit on 17-8-2012 by Seagle because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
And for those that think Assange is in the wrong and should face the music in Sweden, if you haven't read the actual transcripts of the police interviews I suggest you do before making judgement.

You will see that the Swedish police have already questioned him and see why they then released him because he had done nothing wrong. You will understand that his account of what happened matched exactly the accounts of the two girls. There was no lying, and there was no crime which is why no charge was laid against him and he was allowed to leave.

Then ask yourself why did Sweden really decide after already realeasing him from custody to hunt him down and spend a fortune trying to extradite him from the UK? Sweden, the home of the Swiss bank accounts where criminals from all over the globe hide their money persue a man because they want to question him again about a crime that does not exist? they could have done that anywhere if they had anything else to ask.

If you still think Assange is wrong for wanting to avoid the extradition then as far as I'm concerned you don't deserve freedom yourself. You deserve to be owned.

Read all the transcripts here, straight from the horses mouths - www.nnn.se...



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Seagle
 


Funny thing about criminal investigations, new evidence comes up all the time and they are under no obligation except to the lawyers involved (and even then only with a discovery motion) obligated to tell the public what that evidence is.

All Sweden wanted was for him to return and be questioned again, they were not going to arrest him at the point they made the formal request, however his actions, if innocent of anything, show a distinct disdain for the rule of law and that he is somehow above said laws. That's what's got him in trouble, not these charges at this point, but if I were an investigator, I would start to wonder why a person was fighting questioning so hard if they were truly innocent... People just don't do this.

Something's not right and leaving the US out of this, because the lawyer for the two girls said today that he wishes it would focus on what is really important, which is them and the trauma they suffered, and less upon some fantasy that he's going to the US for execution, even this private lawyer confirmed there is NO EXTRADITION TO THE US on the table..



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Seagle
 


Funny thing about criminal investigations, new evidence comes up all the time and they are under no obligation except to the lawyers involved (and even then only with a discovery motion) obligated to tell the public what that evidence is.

All Sweden wanted was for him to return and be questioned again, they were not going to arrest him at the point they made the formal request, however his actions, if innocent of anything, show a distinct disdain for the rule of law and that he is somehow above said laws. That's what's got him in trouble, not these charges at this point, but if I were an investigator, I would start to wonder why a person was fighting questioning so hard if they were truly innocent... People just don't do this.

Something's not right and leaving the US out of this, because the lawyer for the two girls said today that he wishes it would focus on what is really important, which is them and the trauma they suffered, and less upon some fantasy that he's going to the US for execution, even this private lawyer confirmed there is NO EXTRADITION TO THE US on the table..


Have you read the transcripts of the police interviews? There is no other evidence that could come up because even if you agree that refusing to wear a condom during consensual sex is a crime in Sweden that did not happen. In one of the girls statements she claims that she was worried that he was going to take it off so she kept checking and each time she found that it was on. To cur a long stroy short, days later after finding out that Assange had slept with the other girl she went to the police because she thought that it was possible he may have put a hole in the condom and could have an STD?

In the other girls statement she says he didn't wear a condom once but admits she didn't tell him to stop him or to put one on. She let him continue to stay at her house for another week afterwards

Both girls remained with him for days afterwards and Assange's version of events are exactly the same as theirs apart from the fact he had no idea that one of the girls wondered if he had tampered with a condom or that the other had an issue with the unprotected sex they had.

There is no charge because their is no crime and no victim persuing him. Any sane person would find the police transcripts as completely rediculous and there is clearly other forces at work here.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seagle
[LOL Just give it up you cantankerous troll.

Awwww I see someone had their feelings hurt. Hypocrite much?


Originally posted by Seagle
I find it offensive that someone like yourself hijacks a thread and writes pages of crap telling everyone they are wrong and that they don't understand the law and blah blah blah. You try to impress by pretending you are the pre-eminant authourity on international diplomacy when its so obvious that you are far from it because of the simple fact you don't even understand the simple concept of what an 'EMBASSY" actually is. You have no right to How can you expect anyone to

When you take the time to educate yourself feel free to comeback and join in the conversation.



Originally posted by Seagle
If you spent less time copying and pasting from the web and took the time to actually read what others have to say you could have saved yourself and the rest of us from three further pages of embarresment because I tried to explain it to you back on page 6. Lets try again-

So because you cannot refute the facts you attack the person... typical..


Originally posted by Seagle
An Embassy is not a building, you cannot step outside it. The embassy is the diplomatic mission itself.
The building is actually called a 'chancery'

And since the Ecquadorian Embassy is not a compound the moment he steps out the front door he is on British soil.


Originally posted by Seagle
If its in a location outside the capital it is called a consulate.

No kidding.. Did you get that from the info I provided to correct the massie amount of false information people keep repeating? The UK embassy in washington DC employs over 200 diplomats.. Whats your point?



A permanent diplomatic mission is ......

Which has nothing to do with whats being discussed but by all emans keep going.



Originally posted by Seagle
This little fact makes your entire argument as to why Assange will be arrested completely null and void. If you don't understand what an embassy is you can't understand the international law surrounding diplomatic missions.

end of story

Not really but jkeep trying.. A for effort since you at least made a very weak attempt to learn something after being called out numerous times.

Since the "embassy" is shared building Police are already inside the building / embassy, blocking several avenues that lead outside the building.

Keep up the personal attacks though,... At least you would be living up to your cantankerous troll comment.

Is it too much to ask that people educate themselves when it comes to these types of topics? If you support Assange thats fine but its not excuse to open your mouth without doing the proper research and sounding like a complete fool.

Feel free to go back to your name calling and temper tantrums since its apparently all you are capable of doing. If at some point you wish to rejoin the debate, please learn something before jumping back in. As it stands your support of Assange is nothing but an embarrasment to Assange. Just when I didnt think it was possible for someone to take the spotlight away from Assange, you proved me wrong.
edit on 17-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seagle
Have you read the transcripts of the police interviews? There is no other evidence that could come up because even if you agree that refusing to wear a condom during consensual sex is a crime in Sweden that did not happen. In one of the girls statements she claims that she was worried that he was going to take it off so she kept checking and each time she found that it was on. To cur a long stroy short, days later after finding out that Assange had slept with the other girl she went to the police because she thought that it was possible he may have put a hole in the condom and could have an STD?


Again, please research before making claims that arent true / supported by the information at hand.



Originally posted by Seagle
In the other girls statement she says he didn't wear a condom once but admits she didn't tell him to stop him or to put one on. She let him continue to stay at her house for another week afterwards

Both girls remained with him for days afterwards and Assange's version of events are exactly the same as theirs apart from the fact he had no idea that one of the girls wondered if he had tampered with a condom or that the other had an issue with the unprotected sex they had.

There is no charge because their is no crime and no victim persuing him. Any sane person would find the police transcripts as completely rediculous and there is clearly other forces at work here.


Anything to shift the blame back to the US and wikileaks right? Are you on Assanges payroll or?

No charges.... no kidding. Thats not new and has been covered ad nauseam. An investigation is just that, and absent cooperation steps are taken to resolve outstanding questions / issues. If there is no basis to the case then why has Swedens upper court system not stepped in? How come the Swedish court system told Assange and his lawyers a few times what needed to occur to resolve the situation because they refused to stop the inquiry.

When you answer how about you keep it to the topic instead of making excuses about the US and something that has not occured?

What does Assange have to hide? The 2 females you guys have ripped down have done the interviews and had no issues making the claims. If assange and his team know they are lying and can prove it, as they have claimed, then why have they not done so?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
17.08.2012
Damage inflicted to the Russian Embassy in London as a result of 16/17 August attack

In the night 16/17 August 2012 the consular section of the Russian Embassy in London was attacked by a mob chanting slogans against the Syrian government and throwing stones towards the building. Several windows were broken, there has been a significant damage to the house. Fortunately none of the Embassy staff were injured.

www.pravda.ru...://www.rusemblon.org/
where police was at that moment?



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join