Julian Assange - Far right hacker?

[SNACR]

2 hours ago, MrPin said:

Julian is a salesman, and his only product is himself!

Puppet playing his part. If he had anything seriously damaging, to the establishment, he'd be with David Kelly and Robin Cook rather then the Ecuadorian embassy with staged little set pieces of Pamela Anderson and Nigel Farage rocking up.

[codfather]

13 minutes ago, SNACR said:

Puppet playing his part. If he had anything seriously damaging, to the establishment, he'd be with David Kelly and Robin Cook rather then the Ecuadorian embassy with staged little set pieces of Pamela Anderson and Nigel Farage rocking up.

I do think he is a little more higher profile than David Kelly and Robin Cook TBH, and he did early on make the case of a lot of fail safes if he were to have an "accident", there is a whole conspiracy theory that he has been compromised already as he wasn't releasing authentic keys etc.

I personally am more miffed that people are trying to play guilt by association such as OP rather than be miffed that the CIA etc are acting outside of the law and have lost the tools, "le Russians" is becoming the fashionable enemy again, yet this time its generally from the left of the political sphere.

[MrPin]

22 minutes ago, SNACR said:

Puppet playing his part. If he had anything seriously damaging, to the establishment, he'd be with David Kelly and Robin Cook rather then the Ecuadorian embassy with staged little set pieces of Pamela Anderson and Nigel Farage rocking up.

Wise words Hr SNACR!

[Guest TheBlueCat]

On 09/03/2017 at 7:42 PM, thecrashingisles said:

He's hardly trapped.  He could come out if he was willing to face up to the rape accusation.

I think options in reality are 1) stay where he is in some reasonable degree of comfort or 2) go to Sweden to face the rape allegation after which, guilty or not, he'll be extradited to the US where he'll get to spend the rest of his days in a US SuperMax prison being bum-raped by people like Abu Hamza.

[DeepLurker]

On 10/03/2017 at 1:42 AM, thecrashingisles said:

He's hardly trapped.  He could come out if he was willing to face up to the rape accusation.

He has not been accused of rape.

[Guest TheBlueCat]

7 minutes ago, DeepLurker said:

He has not been accused of rape.

That's not what the BBC think:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341

• Quote

  August 2015 - Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into two allegations - one of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion because they have run out of time to question him. But he still faces the more serious accusation of rape.

  Did something change?

[DeepLurker]

2 minutes ago, TheBlueCat said:

That's not what the BBC think:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341

• Did something change?

"Rape" in the UK is usually understood as a man forcing a woman into intercourse against her will. Julian Assange is not accused of "rape".

Sweden has a very different definition of what constitutes "rape". Shame on the BBC for not clarifying that rather important point.

PS Oddly enough, when Trump started mouthing off about a "rape epidemic", the BBC was very quick to explain that "rape" in Swedish law has a very different meaning.

[WageWar]

3 hours ago, codfather said:

I personally am more miffed that people are trying to play guilt by association such as OP rather than be miffed that the CIA etc are acting outside of the law and have lost the tools, "le Russians" is becoming the fashionable enemy again, yet this time its generally from the left of the political sphere.

It's not really guilt by association though is it. It's guilt by tactics, intentions and actions. And the accusations against Russia aren't just coming from the left. Many if not most British Conservatives share that view. So perhaps it's more accurate to say that it is those who are to the right of the Conservative party who are denying/apologising for Russian interference. 

[thecrashingisles]

58 minutes ago, TheBlueCat said:

I think options in reality are 1) stay where he is in some reasonable degree of comfort or 2) go to Sweden to face the rape allegation after which, guilty or not, he'll be extradited to the US where he'll get to spend the rest of his days in a US SuperMax prison being bum-raped by people like Abu Hamza.

This is just a self-serving fantasy on Assange's part.  If the Americans want him extradited (which there is no evidence for) what role would having him sent to Sweden on a pretext play?  Sweden isn't known as being a hotbed of American lapdoggery.  In fact if Assange were genuinely worried about being extradited to the US, he wouldn't have been swanning around in the UK to begin with.

[thecrashingisles]

26 minutes ago, DeepLurker said:

"Rape" in the UK is usually understood as a man forcing a woman into intercourse against her will. Julian Assange is not accused of "rape".

Sweden has a very different definition of what constitutes "rape". Shame on the BBC for not clarifying that rather important point.

PS Oddly enough, when Trump started mouthing off about a "rape epidemic", the BBC was very quick to explain that "rape" in Swedish law has a very different meaning.

Fair point, and one which makes Assange's behaviour all the stranger.

[libspero]

1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

This is just a self-serving fantasy on Assange's part.  If the Americans want him extradited (which there is no evidence for) what role would having him sent to Sweden on a pretext play?  Sweden isn't known as being a hotbed of American lapdoggery.  

I'm not completely convinced you can rule out US interference somewhere in the background.   As I recall the case against him was originally dropped by the Swedish equivalent of the CPS..  before being forced top-down by senior political figures. It could have just been fruit-loop ultra feminist Swedish politicians applying the pressure..  or given it was all just after the embarrassing footage was leaked of the US helicopter shooting up unarmed civilians it could have been from pressure from the US embassy.  I don't expect we'll ever know for sure..  but there was quite a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest some sort of foul play.

[Guest TheBlueCat]

1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

This is just a self-serving fantasy on Assange's part.  If the Americans want him extradited (which there is no evidence for) what role would having him sent to Sweden on a pretext play?  Sweden isn't known as being a hotbed of American lapdoggery.  In fact if Assange were genuinely worried about being extradited to the US, he wouldn't have been swanning around in the UK to begin with.

That's not my reading of the situation. Firstly, the US wouldn't start extradition proceedings if they thought that meant they were less likely to get the person by doing so - grand juries can and do sit in camera so who knows what power has been granted in that respect. Secondly, Sweden would very likely extradite him based on many of the available charges. And finally it doesn't really matter where goes - unless it's somewhere like Ecuador that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US - it just happens that Sweden is his next stop.

[thecrashingisles]

47 minutes ago, TheBlueCat said:

That's not my reading of the situation. Firstly, the US wouldn't start extradition proceedings if they thought that meant they were less likely to get the person by doing so - grand juries can and do sit in camera so who knows what power has been granted in that respect. Secondly, Sweden would very likely extradite him based on many of the available charges. And finally it doesn't really matter where goes - unless it's somewhere like Ecuador that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US - it just happens that Sweden is his next stop.

Why would Sweden be more likely to extradite him than the UK?  None of his supporters can come up with a defensible argument for why he was happy to be in the UK if he was really paranoid about the US being out to get him.

[XswampyX]

Because the accusations are a put up job, probably instigated by the USA putting pressure on Sweden so that he can be extradited from Sweden to the USA.

Quote

Swedish sexual assault allegations

Assange visited Sweden in August 2010, where he became the subject of sexual assault allegations from two women with whom he had sex. He was questioned, the case was closed, and he was told he could leave the country. In November 2010, however, the case was re-opened by a special prosecutor who said she wanted to question Assange over two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). Assange denied the allegations and said he was happy to face questions in Britain.[5][144]
In 2010, the prosecutor said Swedish law prevented her from questioning anyone by video link or in the London embassy. In March 2015, after public criticism from other Swedish law practitioners, she changed her mind and agreed to interrogate Mr Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, with interviews finally beginning on 14 November 2016.[145]
On 18 August 2015, the statute of limitations expired on all three of the less serious allegations, as the Swedish prosecutor still had not interviewed Assange. However, he is still wanted for questioning over the allegation of "lesser degree rape", and the statute of limitations for this will not expire until 2020.[146][147][148][149][150]
On 14 November 2016, Police, Swedish Prosecutors, and Ecuadorian officials met with Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London about the sexual assault allegations.[151]

It stinks to high heaven. Source :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_assault_allegations

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, XswampyX said:

Because the accusations are a put up job, probably instigated by the USA putting pressure on Sweden so that he can be extradited from Sweden to the USA.

Why would they need to get him to Sweden before extraditing him?  If that's what they wanted, why not do it from the UK?  Why have they not issued any charges?

[XswampyX]

We probably said 'no'. 

[Errol]

16 hours ago, SNACR said:

Puppet playing his part. If he had anything seriously damaging, to the establishment, he'd be with David Kelly and Robin Cook rather then the Ecuadorian embassy with staged little set pieces of Pamela Anderson and Nigel Farage rocking up.

Snowden? Still alive in one of the few places where the Americans have trouble reaching him. 

[LC1]

On 10/03/2017 at 1:20 AM, canbuywontbuy said:

I am liking a lot of what Trump is saying so far, BUT here's why I think that ultimately Trump is a pure-establishment puppet: he's never said anything on the NSA PRISM program - why not? The "Trump team" then attack Wikileaks on the Vault 7 release.  If Trump is anti-establishment, shouldn't he be against the Orwellian methods the CIA are using to supposedly counter terrorism? I mean, come on, how many terrorist attacks have been prevented because the terrorists made the mistake of buying a flat-screen TV and discussing their operations in their living room? This is where Trump's true identity is revealed - he IS an establishment player, a mere puppet with the puppetmasters doing what they have always done.  The spying on the general population will continue, with not a word of dissent from Trump (well, he is a supporter of the Patriot Act).

Yes, he doth protest too much. It was in the script. He's doing a Stirling job of channeling public anger/resentment/rebellion into a black hole. Makes me wonder what dirt they have on him as he was already silly rich... Or maybe he really did always want to be a famous actor? Pure ego?