Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

I dont think any of that is the point and of course, you can expect him to be get demonized by certain factions.

Of course it's the point. The man was indicted on sexual misdemeanour related charges in Sweden. His reputation as a so-called champion of "free speech" had nothing to do with that.

If you want some good examples of "demonisation" you should look into the stuff that's been thrown at his two accusers in the past. These have been subsequently much more muted, due to one of the latest lefty trends, the #MeToo era.

He has been arrested, and tried for the crime of reneging on his bail terms and why not? Whilst he's enjoying his time at her majesty's pleasure the UK will probably have to decide whether to send him back to Sweden - that's what my money's on - or the greater political hot potato, westwards.

When Jeremy gets in to No 10 all bets will be off! Then I wouldn't be surprised to see Diane Abbott elevate Assange to sainthood. Attacking the Great Satan always out trumps (sorry!) a lesser thing like rape of course

There have been murmurings from the UK that they will deport him to Australia.

Australia, would then probably deporting him over to US custody.

Basically, Australia doesn't want anything to do with the man. They might offer him diplomatic services, but he was for 7 years thumbing his nose at Australia from inside the Ecuadorian Embassy.

I think its time you Brits sent him over to the Yanks. He needs to answer to all that he has done. The Americans can just add the 50 weeks to whatever they give him.

[Robin Hood]

Londonrake

Oh dear, that’s got to be the Everest of cherry-picking.

Cherry picking? Yes ..... because the rest of the post was just trolling for an argument.

It would be a pointless waste of my time writing a response. Your response inevitably starts with a personal attack which then becomes historic, then ridicules my sources and authors ..... as you demonstrate in this post! Never do you counter the facts of the argument with your own facts because your sources project propaganda not links to the credible information to prove their point.

Unfortunately, over the years, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you can’t present a reasoned argument of your own, because you only ever have half the story to form your opinion!

[Londonrake]

Londonrake

Oh dear, that’s got to be the Everest of cherry-picking.

Cherry picking? Yes ..... because the rest of the post was just trolling for an argument.

It would be a pointless waste of my time writing a response. Your response inevitably starts with a personal attack which then becomes historic, then ridicules my sources and authors ..... as you demonstrate in this post! Never do you counter the facts of the argument with your own facts because your sources project propaganda not links to the credible information to prove their point.

Unfortunately, over the years, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you can’t present a reasoned argument of your own, because you only ever have half the story to form your opinion!

Are we in the same thread here? My 2/5/19 7.50pm post was perfectly reasonable. Trolling? Where did it “start with a personal attack”? You introduced a personal aspect in your 3/5/19 6.23am response with “.....dialogue with you is a waste of time..........you have a very narrow opinion...........a single sided and biased view”.

I reject your reference sites from long experience. You can’t refute the fact that they’re purely anti-west archives. Opinion shops for those looking for a particular one that suits. I’m actually more interested in what you have to say, rather than some dork.

Do you think this is worth it? A petty squabble over somebody like Julian Assange. I’m disappointed. Deja vu - eh?

[repulsewarrior]

...i remember, how i read with glee, that 3/4 of the traffic released by Wikileaks had to do with Erdogan.

Frankly, it was reassuring to see that i was not alone in my thinking of him.

...now years have passed, and he has cast himself in not so noble a light; such is the rise and fall of this man who in affect deals a blow to Freedom, and the Press, with his appearance and demeanor, to be so crass in the end, it is more like icing on a cake.

But i do not want to judge, there will be many trials, more to learn, in any case.

[Robin Hood]

Londonrake:

Do you think this is worth it? A petty squabble over somebody like Julian Assange. I’m disappointed. Deja vu - eh?

Who's squabbling? I am just explaining why I feel an exchange of views with you is a time waster.

I have said what I think of Assange (Not a lot!) and what he has done through Wikileaks (Which I admire).

You have explained your view ..... which I regard as being based on propaganda as in ......' Definition - Propaganda – (noun)
Information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions', ..... which I think would be a reasonable conclusion to what you have said. You have not given me any source other than MSM, which you regard as reliable but I regard as meeting the description of propaganda.

I also look at the 'other' propaganda, which is much more time consuming and make up my own mind as to which is the more credible. I believe that approach more likely to present a balanced opinion than basing an argument on propaganda from a single source. So any exchange with you is 'balanced' vs 'biased', which as history shows, results eventually in your personal attacks on me!

Just my point of view and that says ..... don't argue with you as it is a waste of time and will eventually degrade into a personal assault.

[Londonrake]

Who's squabbling? I am just explaining why I feel an exchange of views with you is a time waster.

I have said what I think of Assange (Not a lot!) and what he has done through Wikileaks (Which I admire).

You have explained your view ..... which I regard as being based on propaganda as in ......' Definition - Propaganda – (noun)
Information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions', ..... which I think would be a reasonable conclusion to what you have said. You have not given me any source other than MSM, which you regard as reliable but I regard as meeting the description of propaganda.

I also look at the 'other' propaganda, which is much more time consuming and make up my own mind as to which is the more credible. I believe that approach more likely to present a balanced opinion than basing an argument on propaganda from a single source. So any exchange with you is 'balanced' vs 'biased', which as history shows, results eventually in your personal attacks on me!

Just my point of view and that says ..... don't argue with you as it is a waste of time and will eventually degrade into a personal assault.

Definition of squabble: verb. fall out, disagree, fail to agree, differ, be at odds, have a misunderstanding, be at variance, have words, dispute, spar, wrangle, bandy words, cross swords, lock horns, be at each other's throats, be at loggerheads. ...........................Pretty much covers it I think.

MSM, which you regard as reliable but I regard as meeting the description of propaganda.

That's an illuminating point. I've lost count of the times you've scornfully dismissed articles/videos, not on the basis of content but merely because they're "MSM". Except of course the ones you sometimes use yourself. "A single source"? The whole array of Western media, in all it's vast diversity? Really? Do you think that's a balanced and objective view? Then, when I've highlighted the partisan and prejudiced nature of your treasured sites you get terribly upset. Objective? Go on, pull the other one.

You've only to look at just about any UK news source today and find it full of scathing criticism of people like May/Corbyn. Try the New York Times or Washington Post for derogatory articles about Trump. You can enjoy a daily selection. The WP even publish a running count of lies/misleading statements and gaffes that the man's come up with (quite a few thousand so far). In France you'll find that the shiny-new Macron regularly gets a media pasting. You'll routinely read/view similar stuff about national politics in most Western countries "MSM". And let me get this right - it's all conspiratorial propaganda? Who by? Against whom?

Now, show me similar criticisms from your favoured nations' media on Putin/Rohani/Assad/Kim Jong-un/Xi Jinping. Not a chance. Yet you sometimes posit them as oases of enlightened truth and the likes of RT/Sputnik - State owned media - get favourably compared, with links to their articles. The great mystery is - you seem blind to the logical inconsistency.

Just as you keep ignoring it, I'll keep highlighting. Sites like informationclearinghouse are entirely full of anti-West/Israel articles. In that respect IMH (balanced ) opinion they totally lack credibility. People go there to seek reinforcement for their prejudices, not to get an objective view. They're favoured haunts of conspiracy theorists and "Them!" paranoids.

It seems now that my personal attacks on you have become "eventual". And - for the record - I've never assaulted you. It's a chat forum. You're flattering yourself. Moreover - this thread did "degrade into a personal attack"....................... by you and that's by no means unusual, but again, you always seem oblivious.

[Londonrake]

Not all bad news for Julian then.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48193466

.

[Londonrake]

Julian Assange: Sweden to announce decision on rape case https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48249486

.

[Londonrake]

Julian Assange: Sweden reopens rape investigation https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48253343

.

[Londonrake]

An article on the latest Assange developments which I think highlights the realities and level of paranoid hyperbole generated by his supporters.

It's paywalled I'm afraid, so I have to post it all:

"What the reopening of the rape case against Julian Assange really shows

Almost nine years ago, a Swedish woman went to the police alleging rape. In the normal course of things, the investigation would have been concluded years ago, ending in a trial or a decision not to prosecute. Instead, the case is still unresolved, although the Swedish authorities have just announced that they are reopening the investigation into the man she accused: Julian Assange.

They have done so after a request from the unnamed complainant, who has behaved with dignity throughout this lengthy saga. Her chance to have the case reopened came when the British Government decided to remove the founder of WikiLeaks from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he had been living since 2012, after losing a court battle to avoid extradition from the UK to Sweden. It’s worth recalling at this point that Assange lost his challenge to a European arrest warrant in the Supreme Court, which decided it had been lawfully issued.

Faced with having to go back to Stockholm for questioning over the rape allegation and sexual accusations involving a second woman, Assange decided to become a fugitive from justice. The statute of limitations on the lesser accusations ran out in 2015 and the Swedish authorities dropped the rape investigation a couple of years later, solely because they couldn’t proceed while Assange was holed up in the embassy. He is currently serving a 50-week sentence in Belmarsh high-security prison in south London for violating his bail conditions.

It always seemed ironic, to say the least, that this self-appointed campaigner against injustice was so reluctant to comply with the justice process when it threatened to hold his own alleged behaviour to account. His supporters have tried to claim that a vast conspiracy is under way, aimed at dragging him back to Stockholm and facilitating his extradition to the US on charges of releasing thousands of American military and diplomatic documents. Some of his more excitable fans even raised the spectre of the death penalty, suggesting that Assange was in hiding to avoid being whisked from Stockholm to Washington, where he would be tried and sentenced to death.

This was always nonsense on stilts, not least because it is actually easier to extradite defendants to the US from the UK than it is from Sweden. The British Government’s extradition treaty with the US has long been criticised as one-sided, something repeatedly highlighted by lawyers acting on behalf of other defendants faced with being sent from this country to the US.

The truth about the Swedish case has been demonstrated this week. Rather than facilitating Assange’s extradition to the US, the reopening of the rape investigation may actually impede it, depending on whether the British authorities decide to give priority to the Swedish extradition request over another (and much more recent) one from the US.

The American authorities want Assange to face allegations of conspiring with a former intelligence analyst, Chelsea Manning, to download classified databases. Far from carrying the death penalty, the charge has a maximum prison sentence of five years - two less than he’s already spent, by his own choice, in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Even in the paranoid world inhabited by some of his supporters, it should be obvious that if Swedish prosecutors really were embroiled in a dark plot to get Assange deported to Washington, all they had to do at this point was sit back - and allow the US extradition request to go ahead in the British courts.

Instead, they’ve thrown a spanner in the works. The reopening of the investigation doesn’t mean that Assange will be charged with rape, but it does mean that he will be subject to the same investigation process as anyone else accused of committing a crime in Sweden. It has been welcomed by the victim’s lawyer, Elisabeth Massi Fritz, who told a news conference that her client "is very hopeful about getting restitution".

The reopening of the rape investigation is actually an assertion of the old principle that no one, no matter how famous, is above the law. There is no special dispensation for celebrities and everyone, including a Swedish feminist, is entitled to have her allegations investigated by the prosecuting authorities.

Let’s not forget that the whole thing could have been done and dusted years ago, if Assange hadn’t decided to frustrate the law. Whatever happens next, he is the sole author of his present predicament."