Julian Assange is a prick.

smithy_2045

New member
Jan 30, 2008
2,561
0
0
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
kiri2tsubasa said:
Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.
itsthesheppy said:
You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.
Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.
So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you? :D
You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.
Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?
Stop being deliberately obtuse.
 

itsthesheppy

New member
Mar 28, 2012
722
0
0
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
kiri2tsubasa said:
Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.
itsthesheppy said:
You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.
Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.
So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you? :D
You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.
Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?
Stop being deliberately obtuse.
You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.
 

smithy_2045

New member
Jan 30, 2008
2,561
0
0
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
kiri2tsubasa said:
Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.
itsthesheppy said:
You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.
Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.
So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you? :D
You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.
Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?
Stop being deliberately obtuse.
You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.
If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a random woman off the street, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.
 

itsthesheppy

New member
Mar 28, 2012
722
0
0
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
kiri2tsubasa said:
Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.
itsthesheppy said:
You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.
Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.
So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you? :D
You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.
Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?
Stop being deliberately obtuse.
You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.
If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a woman, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.
Except if the woman says she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom, and you have sex with her anyway without one a) without her knowing or b) through force, that's rape. You've already acknowledged that, and the logical and rhetorical gymnastics you're going through to avoid saying "I don't think its rape whatever the law says" is adorable.

Also, having sex with an unconscious person (which he is also accused of) is also rape. Even if it's your spouse. Because that's sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape. Whether you're punching them in the face at the time or not makes no difference in whether or not it's nonconsensual sex.
 

smithy_2045

New member
Jan 30, 2008
2,561
0
0
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
kiri2tsubasa said:
Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.
itsthesheppy said:
You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.
Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.
So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you? :D
You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.
Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?
Stop being deliberately obtuse.
You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.
If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a woman, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.
Except if the woman says she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom, and you have sex with her anyway without one a) without her knowing or b) through force, that's rape. You've already acknowledged that, and the logical and rhetorical gymnastics you're going through to avoid saying "I don't think its rape whatever the law says" is adorable.

Also, having sex with an unconscious person (which he is also accused of) is also rape. Even if it's your spouse. Because that's sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape. Whether you're punching them in the face at the time or not makes no difference in whether or not it's nonconsensual sex.
Congratulations, you have successfully trivialised rape.
 

tehroc

New member
Jul 6, 2009
1,293
0
0
This guy is one of the last defenders of democracy and you guys shit on him for what is most likely false charges in order to jail him for something other then uncovering the robbery of the world. Expletives at you people. No wonder the world is fucked.
 

itsthesheppy

New member
Mar 28, 2012
722
0
0
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
kiri2tsubasa said:
Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.
itsthesheppy said:
You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.
Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.
So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you? :D
You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.
Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?
Stop being deliberately obtuse.
You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.
If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a woman, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.
Except if the woman says she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom, and you have sex with her anyway without one a) without her knowing or b) through force, that's rape. You've already acknowledged that, and the logical and rhetorical gymnastics you're going through to avoid saying "I don't think its rape whatever the law says" is adorable.

Also, having sex with an unconscious person (which he is also accused of) is also rape. Even if it's your spouse. Because that's sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape. Whether you're punching them in the face at the time or not makes no difference in whether or not it's nonconsensual sex.
Congratulations, you have successfully trivialised rape.
Ah, hahahah. Like I said. Adorable. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Julian Assange: Coward, (possible) rapist, hypocrite, spineless little weasel. Your hero, ladies and gentlemen. The great paragon of truth, hiding inside the embassy of a government somewhat infamous [http://www.cpj.org/2012/02/el-universo-sentence-a-dark-precedent-for-free-pre.php] for its crackdown on free speech. [http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-weekly-unable-to-publish-after-06-08-2012,43167.html]

Shame on him and shame on his supporters for not understanding the facts and carrying on with wild conspiracy theories and limp-wristed apologetics.
 

DRes82

New member
Apr 9, 2009
426
0
0
itsthesheppy said:
Julian Assange: Coward, (possible) rapist, hypocrite, spineless little weasel. Your hero, ladies and gentlemen. The great paragon of truth, hiding inside the embassy of a government somewhat infamous [http://www.cpj.org/2012/02/el-universo-sentence-a-dark-precedent-for-free-pre.php] for its crackdown on free speech. [http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-weekly-unable-to-publish-after-06-08-2012,43167.html]

Shame on him and shame on his supporters for not understanding the facts and carrying on with wild conspiracy theories and limp-wristed apologetics.
Good to see not everyone is blindly praising, defending, and apologizing for this asshole.

When I read that the great Assange had taken refuge with Equador, I nearly spit out my coffee.
 

smithy_2045

New member
Jan 30, 2008
2,561
0
0
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
kiri2tsubasa said:
Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.
itsthesheppy said:
You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.
Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.
So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you? :D
You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.
Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?
Stop being deliberately obtuse.
You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.
If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a woman, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.
Except if the woman says she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom, and you have sex with her anyway without one a) without her knowing or b) through force, that's rape. You've already acknowledged that, and the logical and rhetorical gymnastics you're going through to avoid saying "I don't think its rape whatever the law says" is adorable.

Also, having sex with an unconscious person (which he is also accused of) is also rape. Even if it's your spouse. Because that's sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape. Whether you're punching them in the face at the time or not makes no difference in whether or not it's nonconsensual sex.
Congratulations, you have successfully trivialised rape.
Ah, hahahah. Like I said. Adorable. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Julian Assange: Coward, (possible) rapist, hypocrite, spineless little weasel. Your hero, ladies and gentlemen. The great paragon of truth, hiding inside the embassy of a government somewhat infamous [http://www.cpj.org/2012/02/el-universo-sentence-a-dark-precedent-for-free-pre.php] for its crackdown on free speech. [http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-weekly-unable-to-publish-after-06-08-2012,43167.html]

Shame on him and shame on his supporters for not understanding the facts and carrying on with wild conspiracy theories and limp-wristed apologetics.
The part I enjoy the most is that you wouldn't care if this was anyone else, you just have an axe to grind.
 

DRes82

New member
Apr 9, 2009
426
0
0
Boudica said:
Don't put possible in parenthesis. That just makes you and your entire argument look bad. He is an accused rapist and that is all. Util things change, word it as such.
Yes, he is only an accused rapist, but he is actually a hypocrite and coward. Sounds like a real stand up guy. I honestly can't understand how there is any sympathy for him at all.
 

itsthesheppy

New member
Mar 28, 2012
722
0
0
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
itsthesheppy said:
smithy_2045 said:
kiri2tsubasa said:
Under Swedish laws that is considered rape.
itsthesheppy said:
You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.
Technically, it is rape, yes. In this particular case, calling it rape invokes images and perceptions about what occurred that are completely disproportionate with the charges.
So... I'm confused. It is rape, you acknowledge that its rape, but you would rather it be called something less rapey?

Todd Akin, is that you? :D
You could call it rape under the strictest possible interpretation. But the word rape typically means something many magnitudes more serious than what Assange has been charged with. By calling what he is alleged to have done rape, it simultaneously demonises him and trivialises the more serious rape charges.
Some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others?
Stop being deliberately obtuse.
You're mad that his rape accusations are being called "rape accusations" because you feel what he did was somehow less a rape than other rapes. I'm just looking for you to clarify. Maybe you could share with us what rapes you feel don't count quite as much as others? It would help me understand what you're talking about, because to me it sounds like you think that some kinds of rapes really aren't that rapey after all.
If you can't understand the difference between having consensual sex but failing to use a condom, and grabbing a woman, pinning her down and fucking her, then you're not worth my time.
Except if the woman says she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom, and you have sex with her anyway without one a) without her knowing or b) through force, that's rape. You've already acknowledged that, and the logical and rhetorical gymnastics you're going through to avoid saying "I don't think its rape whatever the law says" is adorable.

Also, having sex with an unconscious person (which he is also accused of) is also rape. Even if it's your spouse. Because that's sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape. Whether you're punching them in the face at the time or not makes no difference in whether or not it's nonconsensual sex.
Congratulations, you have successfully trivialised rape.
Ah, hahahah. Like I said. Adorable. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Julian Assange: Coward, (possible) rapist, hypocrite, spineless little weasel. Your hero, ladies and gentlemen. The great paragon of truth, hiding inside the embassy of a government somewhat infamous [http://www.cpj.org/2012/02/el-universo-sentence-a-dark-precedent-for-free-pre.php] for its crackdown on free speech. [http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-weekly-unable-to-publish-after-06-08-2012,43167.html]

Shame on him and shame on his supporters for not understanding the facts and carrying on with wild conspiracy theories and limp-wristed apologetics.
The part I enjoy the most is that you wouldn't care if this was anyone else, you just have an axe to grind.
You know who else I think is a scumbag? Roman Polanski, for drugging a 13-year-old, raping her, then fleeing the country and hiding far from where authorities can touch him. But this thread isn't called "Roman Polanski is a prick", is it?
 

itsthesheppy

New member
Mar 28, 2012
722
0
0
Boudica said:
DRes82 said:
Boudica said:
Don't put possible in parenthesis. That just makes you and your entire argument look bad. He is an accused rapist and that is all. Util things change, word it as such.
Yes, he is only an accused rapist, but he is actually a hypocrite and coward. Sounds like a real stand up guy. I honestly can't understand how there is any sympathy for him at all.
I just don't like it when people forgo things because they dislike someone. If it was their parent, they'd defend them to the ends of the Earth and remind everyone that they are accused and nothing more. But the second it's someone they dislike, they feel a little looser with their words.

Innocent until proven otherwise, or, until I think you did it.

EDIT: there their

I've done that a few times this week -_-
I've been using 'accused' this entire time and you jump on me the moment I decide to forgo it because I felt like dipping into a bit of hyperbole for fun. If it'll unrustle your jimmies I'll go edit it for you. But that would make your quote make less sense when referenced later so I guess I won't.
 

itsthesheppy

New member
Mar 28, 2012
722
0
0
Boudica said:
itsthesheppy said:
Boudica said:
DRes82 said:
Boudica said:
Don't put possible in parenthesis. That just makes you and your entire argument look bad. He is an accused rapist and that is all. Util things change, word it as such.
Yes, he is only an accused rapist, but he is actually a hypocrite and coward. Sounds like a real stand up guy. I honestly can't understand how there is any sympathy for him at all.
I just don't like it when people forgo things because they dislike someone. If it was their parent, they'd defend them to the ends of the Earth and remind everyone that they are accused and nothing more. But the second it's someone they dislike, they feel a little looser with their words.

Innocent until proven otherwise, or, until I think you did it.

EDIT: there their

I've done that a few times this week -_-
I've been using 'accused' this entire time and you jump on me the moment I decide to forgo it because I felt like dipping into a bit of hyperbole for fun. If it'll unrustle your jimmies I'll go edit it for you. But that would make your quote make less sense when referenced later so I guess I won't.
You don't "dip into hyperbole for fun" when you are talking about accusations of rape.
I do when I'm accusing someone for being a coward and for having a demonstrably shady character. But fine, fair point. I should have used 'accused' instead of 'possible'. I accept my thirty lashes with a wet noodle.
 

Denny Wallace

New member
Apr 12, 2011
6
0
0
Signa said:
Personally, I'm fucking sick of my government's "Team America, FUCK YEAH!" mantra. I'm glad for Julian. Yeah, he conducts himself in a dickish way, but the government's outrage at him just showed how awful the people I'm living under are. There is no justice in them, just revenge.
itsthesheppy said:
Athinira said:
Trust is something that needs to be earned, and without calling Assange a hero or a great man, i can't fault him for not showing great confidence[...]
Just wanted to poke my head in here and suggest that you go commit a crime, and then try to sell the idea that you don't have to recognize the police's authority to arrest you because you don't trust the courts. Except you're not a global celebrity who can sell himself as a political game chip to the highest bidder so I doubt it would go well for you.

1) Swedish rape laws are known to be rather extreme (or if a might use another word, excessive), so much in fact that Swedish lawyers often joke that you need written permission from the woman before having sex. What Assange is accused for in Sweden isn't even punishable in many other modern countries.
If a woman tells you she will only have sex with you if you wear a condom and you don't put one on and have sex with her anyway, either under duress or sneakily without her knowing, that's sex without consent and therefor rape. If you have sex with someone who is unconscious, that's rape. Sorry to ruin your weekend.
2) The Swedish government was discovered (ironically through Wikileaks) to have budged to pressure from the US before. If they can budge once, they can budge again, and courts HAVE been known to be able to be politically influenced.
I'm bored by conspiracy theories. Besides, as I said before and you apparently did not read, his beef with the US and Sweden's love for sending suspects to us is a product of his own doing. It's the bed he's made for himself and is immaterial to the rape accusations or the arrest warrant filed because of them.
3) The chief-prosecutor in the case, Marianne Ny, is politically active in the area of sexual crimes. Without going as far as calling her attempt to get Assange convicted a "witch hunt", she is definitely what I'd call "motivated".
I think you'll find that most prosecutors will go to great lengths to try and convict suspected rapists. I find it hard to fault them for zeal. I'm personally not a big fan of rape. Maybe I'm in the minority on that one.

Even if the extradition to the US isn't realistic (and I'm not saying that it isn't), Assange still has the odds stacked against him, and you can't reasonably expect people to just bend over and take it from behind by the bigger guy and then call them cowards if they don't. You didn't expect Al-Queda to just bend over and surrender to the United States when they marched into Afghanistan either, did you? :eek:)

Assange is just doing what he can to stay afloat. He fights for what he believes in, and i respect that, and if our beliefs aren't aligned. I'd rather call people who DON'T fight for what they believe in cowards.
Assange is a self serving little weasel who's putting his own hide and wellbeing above that of the truth. If it's true that he did NOT rape those women, a great hero of honesty should stand up for the truth like a man. I do not respect someone who is only brave when his skin isn't on the line.

Perhaps the US isn't justified in trying to nab him. Maybe Sweden will turn him over. There is an arrest warrant out for him on suspicion of rape and he is fleeing from that. Conspiracy theories can go jump off a bridge for all I care. He's a sneaky little wimp, a hypocrite and a coward and deserves not the slightest shred of respect from anyone. Shame on him, and shame on the people who rally behind him.

Xiado said:
He would face up to the charges if he thought he would get a free trial, which he probably won't. And as was said, the case against him was previously dropped, and only reopened after the Wikileaks scandals. That's pretty effing suspicious to me.
Oh look, more conspiracy theories. How utterly tedious.

There's a warrant for his arrest on suspicion of rape. He's fleeing justice and hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in defiance of that warrant. He's a fugitive from justice and a coward. The mitigating circumstances of his dustup with the United States, all of which was his own doing, is immaterial to that fact. He had no problem being a celebrity, making a name for himself, but now the going is getting tough. And you know what they say about admirable men. When the going gets tough, you flee from your legal responsibilities and hid in a place where you don't have to face accusations that you raped too women.

No wait, that sounds wrong. Let me try again.

when the going gets tough, the tough give rousing speeches about people who did sacrifice while doing everything you can to keep yourself from having to make similar sacrifices for your cause.

Agh, no... this is harder than I thought!
Here's the thing, you're being smarmy doesn't mitigate any of the facts the person you're quoting said. He was accused of rape in a country where rape accusations are unusually common, tenuous, and often result in convictions. Those charges were dropped (which is telling in Sweden). And when it became apparent that the charges were back in effect, he went to an embassy which offers him diplomatic immunity (which, contrary to what you suggested above ANYONE can do). Any attempt to wrest him from the embassy by authorities would be illegal, and disrespectful to the treaty allowing for the existence of the embassy (not to mention the country which operates it), and make him more of a martyr then he already is.

Having known little about the Wikileaks scandal itself and following the story from the rape charges on, I've always felt that the whole thing was a bit dubious. How many rapists are followed by interpol across sovereign borders to satisfy defunct charges THAT AREN'T also targets of the power regions? Not many I suspect. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just plain common sense. I would be very surprised if there was any truth to the rape charges, and I don't think anyone is stupid for raising an eyebrow at the whole thing.