I have given my reasoning, and I believe your logic to also be based on speculation. As mentioned, unless you are privy to information we do not know about, then your opinion is just that, an opinion. Until the facts of the matter come out, if ever they do, then all anyone can do is to speculate. I like your persistence, but being pushy and persistent doesn't make you right.
Neither does the conviction of your beliefs. You started this thread by stating your beliefs. I have challenged them with logic. I guess that we are now at an impasse, so let's call it quits.
OK, I am willing to agree to disagree, but don' try to claim you have the higher ground here Nexxo, because the lack of information means that you are guessing every bit as much as I am. At least I am prepared to state that. I am basing my opinions on the acts of Assange himself, Both previous and current.
I'm not claiming any high ground. I'm just saying that your beliefs to me appear to have no logical basis (i.e. they are not a logical extrapolation from his acts, both previous and current). Feel free to point out if you think they do.
Quite simple really, and I've already spoken of this. It is of my opinion that if Assange is not guilty of the accusations made against him, then he is acting illogically. The logical thing to do would be to refute the accusations, by communicating with those who are investigating. I don't believe that the threat of extradition from Sweden is as real as is suggested by Assange et. Al., and this has become the perfect excuse for Assange to escape questioning for serious sexual offences. I believe that to be quite logical, although I am prepared to state that I could be wrong. Shame you can't seem to bring yourself to admit the same.
OK, let's suppose for a moment that he is innocent, but he knows the US is gunning for him. He also knows that it is not averse to a bit of extraordinary rendition if it suits, and he sees what has happened to Bradley Manning. He is a bit paranoid and has fairly good reason to be. He does some public speaking in Sweden and has sex with the organiser and another woman he met there (a trophy **** for both of them if ever I saw one) and aims to apply for residency there, intending to set up a new Wilileaks base because Sweden has a good track record Protecting whistle blowers. Then whammo: the Swedish authorities charge him with that most publicly damaging of all crimes: rape, which is then dropped for lesser charges (the women accusing him state that sex started out consensual but then became non-consensual). He is interviewed by the police in Stockholm and denies the charges. He applies for residency as planned. A few days later the rape charges are picked up again. A month later he is denied residency in Sweden, without giving a clear reason why, so he leaves in November, with the court's permission. Soon after an Interpol warrant is issued for his arrest. He offers to be interviewed at the Swedish embassy or Scotland Yard but this is turned down. He then moves to fight extradition and the rest is history. Of course he could face them off, but as I said, he is a bit paranoid by now and not thinking and acting too rationally. Which asking for asylum in Ecuador would seem to be congruent with. But for the sake of the balance of things: I could be wrong too.
How do you know he is acting irrationally though? Or that he is paranoid? How can you prove that it isn't his guilt that is the reason for his actions? Again, you are theorising, and we still have our impasse. I think it is because of his guilt that he is acting as he is, and I can prove this no more than you can prove it wrong. You claim your opinions hold more merit because they are based on logic, well so are my opinions, albeit logic you seem to disagree with. As I've said until the true facts become available, then we are both piddling in the wind. Why do you find that so hard to accept?
Maybe you should have tried that before you posted claiming that you were the only one applying logic, and that my arguments were less superior than those of yours. It really isn't that hard to admit that you can only really guess at why a man like Assange may really be acting the way he is.
One person's logic isn't necessarily another's, but I would agree with Nexxo that fleeing to Ecuador to maintain a high profile is less logical than doing it to avoid extradition. For what it's worth (I have no idea about the credibility of the source), here's 'Assange's' explanation.
Let's look at why Equador could be more appealing then. To do so, we need to draw some comparisons. Internet access and electronic communications. Limited in prisons, and also censored closely. Whereas in Equador, Assange would not have these restrictions imposed on him. Visitors and access to media. Being in prison would mean that Assange would have limited visitation rights, and could face restrictions on journalists visiting him. In Equador, the only restriction would be whether people were prepared to pay the airfare or not. The living conditions. Swedish prisons are not exactly cesspits, but they do have regimes that must be followed, and there are consequences if they are not. In Equador, Assange can pretty much do what he wants when he wants. He has enough support within the Ecuadorian government to ensure his life there will initially be a comfortable one. I could go on drawing similar comparisons, but is there really any need? Nexxo would have us believe that Assange would face a life of destitution and being cut off from humanity should he end up residing in Equador, I would strongly disagree with that. I would also suggest that Assange may consider Equador as being much more attractive than spending a mere moment in a Swedish prison.
What's wrong with stating that I believe my opinion to be more logical than yours? You express strong opinions (which is fine), but seem to get all indignant when they meet with strong challenges in return. Disagreeing with someone's opinion is not a personal put-down. But given that the Swedish government publicly announced it would detain him "without charge in prison under severe conditions" I guess that even an innocent Assange would have something to worry about after all. Assange’s lawyers add that, unlike the British, the Swedes have an extradition treaty with the US which allows for ‘temporary surrender’ of suspects wanted for serious crimes, even if they are also charged in Sweden. Under this procedure, the suspect is ‘lent’ to the US for prosecution on the condition that they will be returned for prosecution in Sweden at the end of their sentence. This procedure is much faster than a formal extradition. To be honest, the more I read up on this, the more suspect the whole story looks. Assange was cooperating with the police in Stockholm. He wanted to stay in Sweden, but was denied residence with no reason given. Why tell Assange to leave Sweden only to issue an arrest warrant days later? Because they wanted to be able to arrest him. Why did they want to arrest him? Because then they could detain him indefinitely. And why is that? Because then they could 'lend' him to the US.
You stated that you had applied logic and I had not, let's not try to sugar coat what you said now. If I take that statement you made as I suspect it was intended, then you are trying to claim that I have given the subject no thought, and am basing my opinions on nothing more than whimsy, which I do happen to find insulting and also somewhat patronising too. You seem quite able to try and discredit someone's arguments or opinions by this type of behaviour, as the many times you have done so will testify in these very forums. I have applied logic to my arguments, and have taken the time to describe that logic. I think it's clear that I have a strong dislike of you (or more correctly your attitude within these forums), and I won't deny that. I do try not to let that impede what I post, but when you are faced with veiled slurs from a self righteous and pompous person like yourself, then all I can say is I'm not perfect. As for the Nexxo fanboys, feel free to jump in, I'm sure you are all wetting yourselves to jump to his defence!
So the women are lying and/or the Swedish justice system is corrupt? Or is Assange now a cause celebre that mean he can do a little bit of rape and it's not a big deal for you provided he keeps up the good work on the leaks?
It sounds like you are saying that you take it as a personal insult if someone disagrees with you? Come on. If you think I'm talking nonsense all you have to do is explain your logic (as you did in post #132) and let that speak for itself. Seeing as this is getting a bit personal now, I think I'll bow out here. You don't have to like me; we don't even have to talk to each other. So let's just politely ignore each other from now on.
No. I think that Assange was probably a dick and that, as the women said, sex started consensually and then ended non-consensually. But they also slept with a guy who they barely knew for the mere fact that he was a cause célèbre, and in one case continued to be intimate with him four days after they had non-consensual sex. I also think that even the Swedish justice system is ran by people who have political careers and motivations. Some of the case's handling smacks of incompetence, but some of it has also been commented on as being rather irregular. The truth, as always, probably lies somewhere in the middle of the viewpoints of all parties involved.
A breakdown, live, here in the forums, and I went and missed it 'cos I was upstairs fapping over printouts of Nexxo's post history
Clearly I'm uninformed about their motives and morals. I didn't know that they'd stated that they had gone back to his place just to look at his website. And in this country it is very rare for a judge to have political career but though the 70s and 80s huge sentences were passed out to anyone accused of IRA terrorism which in some cases looks to have been down to somewhat dubious evidence. Perhaps we aren't is a position to rubbish other countries legal systems so lightly? Fwiw, I haven't searched to find out what Assange was allegedly up to in Sweden and how the charges stack up. I'm just applying my general rule that famous people shouldn't escape the same justice that would apply to you or me if we couldn't translate "No" from Swedish.
