• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London

You may have missed all the posts where I stated that "if" he was guilty of a crime he should be punished. Catz has seen them, since I had to actually repeat all them so she could see the word. She knows better but chose the dishonest route.

Probably have. Or just don't remember em. Either way I'll take your word for it since you are going by more than just the post that I thought that you were refering to. :)
 
You may have missed all the posts where I stated that "if" he was guilty of a crime he should be punished. Catz has seen them, since I had to actually repeat all them so she could see the word. She knows better but chose the dishonest route.

Oh, give it a rest. Your statements about his guilt seemed much more declarative when I was reading them, which is why I asked you repeatedly what crimes you believed he'd committed. This passive aggressive b.s. is beneath you.
 
It is very bogus.

Assange is not charged with rape or molestation, as the mediawhores are claiming. He is charged under a strange Swedish law called sex by surprise, because he did not use a condom.

I think women should have the right to not be made pregnant against their will, myself.

But, hey, that's just me.

Interesting...

Basically, Assange had consentual sex with a woman who apparently insisted that he wear a condom and later she "discovered" that he didn't. I guess the only way to discover this is: 1) he told her he didn't; or, 2) she popped positive on a pregnancy test. Still, the question I have is this: Isn't the woman equally responsible? I remind my 20 yr old daughter all the time DON'T rely on the man doing the honorable thing where sex is concerned. If necessary, YOU bring the condoms and watch him put it on before you lay down with him. Otherwise, you're just as liable as he is. I give the same advice to my married 24-yr old daughter; if you don't want to come up pregnant, you have to take the precausionary measures. (In the case of my married daughter, she would of course have to discuse such issues with her spouse and that's between them. Still...) The issue here is taking responsibility for one's self. I'm not so sure all the blame can be placed on Assange in this case.
 
I've never had sex where I was unaware of a man's condom-wearing. I find that odd.
 
Interesting...

Basically, Assange had consentual sex with a woman who apparently insisted that he wear a condom and later she "discovered" that he didn't. I guess the only way to discover this is: 1) he told her he didn't; or, 2) she popped positive on a pregnancy test. Still, the question I have is this: Isn't the woman equally responsible? I remind my 20 yr old daughter all the time DON'T rely on the man doing the honorable thing where sex is concerned. If necessary, YOU bring the condoms and watch him put it on before you lay down with him. Otherwise, you're just as liable as he is. I give the same advice to my married 24-yr old daughter; if you don't want to come up pregnant, you have to take the precausionary measures. (In the case of my married daughter, she would of course have to discuse such issues with her spouse and that's between them. Still...) The issue here is taking responsibility for one's self. I'm not so sure all the blame can be placed on Assange in this case.

Not what happened. Please read the links provided in the last couple of pages to find out what happened.
 
Oh, give it a rest. Your statements about his guilt seemed much more declarative when I was reading them, which is why I asked you repeatedly what crimes you believed he'd committed. This passive aggressive b.s. is beneath you.

I do not think this phrase "passive aggressive" means what you think it does. Making accurate and complete statements is not passive aggressive. Making dishonest claims when you have even had it pointed out they are dishonest is, well, dishonest.
 
This gets funnier every time i hear a conservative hoping for his rape and execution! Haha! [/s]

I oppose capital punishment. I don't want Assange executed. I want him reemed. Over, and over and over again. All without condoms.
 
Funny, let's look at the most recent by a real dependable news organization(AP in this case): Judge denies WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange bail - Yahoo! News



Based on that, rape sounds like a valid description of the charge.

Was this the chick that threw him a party the next night or the one that took him out to breakfast the following morning?

Right, we already see here attack the rape victim mentality, while calling this meglomaniac wikilieaks guy a "Victim"....

You are assuming these women were victims of anything but a player's double-dipping.
 
Last edited:
I oppose capital punishment. I don't want Assange executed. I want him reemed. Over, and over and over again. All without condoms.

Because advocating rape - gang rape, specifically - is so much better...
 
Not what happened. Please read the links provided in the last couple of pages to find out what happened.

From the HeraldSun.com:

In August, Mr Assange was the key speaker at a seminar on "war and the role of the media" in Stockholm, and met "Sarah", Britain's Daily Mail reports.

Mr Assange stayed at the apartment of the well-known radical feminist (who can't be named for legal reasons) and during his stay the two had sexual intercourse. It is not disputed by either of them that the condom broke, which is a key aspect of the case, The Australian reports.

A few days later Mr Assange also met "Jessica", a young woman who sought to meet the activist after the seminar. Jessica alleges that Mr Assange refused to wear a condom during a second sexual encounter between them.

Swedish law considers unprotected sex as rape but Swedish sources have doubted the credibility of the women, who many people believe set up a "honey trap" for the Australian activist.

Jessica made contact with Sarah and the two women went to police on August 20 so Jessica could make a complaint against Mr Assange. Both women told their accounts of meeting Mr Assange.

Based on the allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the other, the female interviewing officer believed that Jessica had been raped and Sarah had been sexually molested.

Thus, what I posted (#203) is essentially correct.

Assange had consentual sex with a woman who apparently insisted that he wear a condom and later she "discovered" that he didn't.

The issue of sabotage was the only thing I omitted. Of course, if the condom "broke" which both sides apparently agree happened, it's kinda hard to prove he sabotage it. I guess I can understand where the "abuse" comes in under Swedish law. If Assange forced himself on either of these women the way events unfolded per the other linked articles, then yes, absolutely I'd say he raped them. But if all he did was not wear a condom after saying that he did...

Kinda seems absurd to me that either woman wouldn't take the time to check before laying down with the man. But then again, I'm a guy. And seeing that I've never tried to pull the old bait and switch where condom use is concerned, I guess I'll never understand this from a woman's perspective.
 
Last edited:
So WTH have you guys been talking about for 200+ posts in 22 pages?

Julian Assange turned himself in.

He is accused of some sexually-related crime in Sweden.

Some people want him killed and/or captured, because he released classified info he received from leakers in the US (and other places).

Other people want to give him a Nobel Peace Prize (I exaggerate), for the same reason.

No one here has any real clue as to what he actually did in regards to the sex thing.

No one here has any real clue as to what will actually happen to him, let alone what could (legally) happen to him…

So sit back and watch the circus.
 
I do not think this phrase "passive aggressive" means what you think it does. Making accurate and complete statements is not passive aggressive. Making dishonest claims when you have even had it pointed out they are dishonest is, well, dishonest.

What claims did I make, Redress? I asked you to tell me what laws, specifically, he'd broken. You were unable to do so, and waffled on your original stance. Then, you took a shot at me here. That's passive aggressive.
 
Other people want to give him a Nobel Peace Prize (I exaggerate), for the same reason.

Actually, I had not considered that. It would be rather apt in my opinion.
 
Actually, I had not considered that. It would be rather apt in my opinion.
/snerk

I suppose...

Edit: Highly unlikely to ever happen, though, he's pissed too many governments off...
 
Last edited:
/snerk

I suppose...

Edit: Highly unlikely to ever happen, though, he's pissed too many governments off...

Exactly why it wouldn't really be promoting peace. He's just throwing everyone's dirty laundry out there for the hell of it without much thought of consequences.
 
Hopefully he will hang himself in his jail cell tonight.
 
Exactly why it wouldn't really be promoting peace. He's just throwing everyone's dirty laundry out there for the hell of it without much thought of consequences.

Well geez, he's at least done more things of note than the past two recipients.
 
I don't consider hazardous masturbation a qualification.
 
Why is real life starting to feel like the Anime "Death Note"?
 

Oof...the herald sun? I once trusted them...then got nailed for it in another forum. :p

here...

But The Mail on Sunday has managed to obtain copies of the women’s police statements, which are made available to the media in Sweden.

'When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom - it had split.

'She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.’
Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.

Apparently it didn't bother her enough to cause any friction during the next days seminar huh?

Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: ‘It felt boring and like an everyday thing.’

One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.

This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
.
.
.
They ate in an atmosphere that was tense, though she said in her statement that she tried to lighten the mood by joking about the possibility that she might be pregnant.

They parted on friendly terms and she bought his train ticket back to Stockholm. When she asked if he would call, he said: ‘Yes, I will.’

So they had sex (apparently not great sex at that) which was apparently when she said to use a condom, had sex again in the morning where no condom was used and we don't know if she again insisted that he use a condom. She bought him food for breakfast, fed him, made a joke about being pregnant and they apparently left on friendly terms. This doesn't really sound like someone being upset for a supposed "rape" that everyone says he committed. It is also apparent that both women knew that something was not right. IE Woman A knew the condom broke and woman B knew that a condom was not being used..yet went along with it anyways despite knowing at the time of occurance.

Anyways, on we go...(Original Voice - the rest isn't really directed at you dirctly. it is to put this whole thing into perspective)

But he did not and neither did he answer her call.

The drama took a bizarre and ultimately sensational turn after she called the office of Woman A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar.
The two women talked and realised to their horror and anger that they had both been victims of his charm.

Uh oh...caught being a player. What woman doesn't get mad at that? Besides a prostitute that is.

The issue of unprotected sex left a fear of disease. It is believed that they both asked him to take a test for STDs and he refused.

Woman B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy.

And it was in this febrile state that the women, who barely knew each other, walked into a police station and began to tell their stories.

And the fear of diseases just now hits after the two talk to each other and find out that he had sex with both of them? Anyways...on we go...

Woman A said afterwards that she had not wanted to press charges but had gone to support the younger woman, who wanted police advice on how to get Assange to take a medical test.

Wait...this woman doesn't want to press charges and yet charges are being laid? Now I can understand cops pressing charges regardless of ones feelings when it involves a kid or a serious offense like..oh I don't know...actual rape? Which I'm sorry (not really) this in no way resembles any form of rape according to sane legal dictionaries.

The story was leaked to a Swedish tabloid and Assange’s high profile led to the case being taken over by a senior female prosecutor who, after reading the statements, concluded there was no evidence of rape.

Look Ma! Not rape!

What I find interesting is that apparently neither one of them even thought of going to the police until AFTER they had met each other and found out that Assaunge was nothing more than a cheap bastage of a player.

Now obviously the case has kept going thanks to the original prosecutor saying that she had "new evidence" (which I would dearly love to know what it is considering the circumstances of what was explained in that article) and was allowed to bring the case forward. Now the ironic part (and is what has got people wondering and talking about) is that this prosecutor didn't come up with this "new evidence" until after wikileaks leaked that info which, if I have got the rough time line down correctly, was a few months later from the time that the charges were dropped originally.
 
Actually, I had not considered that. It would be rather apt in my opinion.


Apt? You think that giving a Socialist sympathizing Anarchist that want's to dissemble classified intel for the purposes of creating chaos to bring down governments in the world is deserving of a Nobel Peace prize? Who else is on your short list? OBL?


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom