ForumGarden

Is it a crime in Sweden to not wear a condom when sex is consensual? That appears to be the charge that is being made and which will result in his extradition from the UK to Sweden. I know a number of authorities want to nail this guy but is this the best they can come up with?

Actually, the crime is when the girl says "no" and you don't stop. It's called "rape."

Surprise, suprise. The rat who ratted out the U.S. to Al Qaeda is a sleazeball and rapist. Makes sense.

bit more detail for you.

How the rape claims against Julian Assange sparked an information war | Media | The Guardian

posted by saint

Surprise, suprise. The rat who ratted out the U.S. to Al Qaeda is a sleazeball and rapist. Makes sense.


You may not be familiar with the concept but he is innocent until proven guilty.

From what I understand, the girl consented to the sex, but she wanted him to wear a condom and he didn't comply with that request.

Give it a break, saint, you're presenting yourself as an hysterical lunatic moron. Grab hold of yourself, man.

Any person in the western world is just as subject to the whip as any person in any dictatorship anywhere. So much for freedom.

The intriguing thing is that he asked to go in and discuss the charges a while ago and offered a number of dates to meet with them but they told him no as there was no case and it was being dismissed. He actively sought resolution at the time the girls complained about him. The girls have apparently stated that he is a woman hater but that he didn't assault them and they do not fear him.

btw, nice thread title, Lon. It sounded like the title of a twisted children's book. LOL

Nancy Drew and The Hardy Boys

Jacob Two Two and The Hooded Fang

Assange and The Condom

Scrat;1346128 wrote: Any person in the western world is just as subject to the whip as any person in any dictatorship anywhere. So much for freedom.


Yes but in the west you have to go to special clubs for that kind of thing and bring your own handcuffs, at least so I am told.

koan;1346150 wrote: The girls have apparently stated that he is a woman hater.


A misogynist with delusions of grandeur. Makes a lot of sense. Now, more than ever, I'm positive this guy is a jerk.

Yes but in the west you have to go to special clubs for that kind of thing and bring your own handcuffs, at least so I am told.


Pervert.:yh_rotfl

Saint, you know what is going on here. Even if they put him away for life it won't stop. You know they're just trying to use him to set an example and instill fear in the people who are actually doing this. In the end it will have little effect.

Why not just shoot him? Like they do in Moscow? At least there when they off someone in the media they don't try to butter the bulls**t. At least be practical like they are there. Oops, I forgot. Lawyers need to make money too. :sneaky:

Scrat;1346174 wrote: Pervert.:yh_rotfl

Saint, you know what is going on here. Even if they put him away for life it won't stop. You know they're just trying to use him to set an example and instill fear in the people who are actually doing this. In the end it will have little effect.

Why not just shoot him? Like they do in Moscow? At least there when they off someone in the media they don't try to butter the bulls**t. At least be practical like they are there. Oops, I forgot. Lawyers need to make money too. :sneaky:


Yeah Scrat, I understand your position completely. It is a very righteous and idealistic position and no doubt you believe it. But I believe that this guy has made EVERYONE'S life worse. On the entire planet.

If you think this will make governments less secretive... you're wrong. They will go even further underground and become even more covert. Security and paranoia will ratchet up to incredible levels if they haven't already. Isn't that what you dislike?

Assange has also painted a target on undefended installations and critical overseas facilities. How is that a good thing?

Worst of all, he's made diplomacy just that much harder. If diplomacy is harder, then war is more likely! Now THAT'S what I REALLY have a problem with.

In no way was this good for anyone.

The girls' lawyer vehemently insists that this is not connected to wikileaks so anyone who wants to see Assange handed over to a country who would be more likely to subsequently hand him over to the US ought to keep that in mind before mixing the two topics together... Saint.

The story seems to have gone that both women were fans of Assange, seeing him as a kind of Mick Jagger, and sought out sex with him. After their separate encounters (the contents of which are yet to be divulged) one of the women wanted to try and get Assange to take STD tests to assure her that he was clean. She went to the other woman to ask advice as the other woman, I believe, is the one who organised the event during which they all met. They found out he'd slept with both of them and were... more unhappy. They went together to the police to find out if they could force Assange to have tests done and the police advised them that there was a possibility that what happened could be classified as rape. When Assange went to discuss the matter with police he was told the charges were dropped for lack of merit. He freely left the country.

Extradition is being sought so that he can be questioned after reviving the closed case and because they refused to meet him at a UK embassy for the disclosure meeting. From what I've seen, the girls just wanted to get STD test results when they went to the police.

Both were groupies of Assange before he gave them the one night stand treatment. Groupies tend to do things they later regret.

oh, this is the most recent article I summarized from: Julian Assange rape allegations: treatment of women 'unfair and absurd' | Media | The Guardian

Nowhere is it claimed that he physically prevented the girls from leaving the encounters.

My personal guess is that Assange loves sex and hates condoms.

He wouldn't be the first man to start with a condom and conveniently "lose" it or "forget" to put another one on for round two.

The reason I was confused by Saint's comment, reiterated here, regarding rape being when a woman says "no" is because the info I read on the case didn't actually involve anyone saying "no". It was easy to mistake the reference, being that it was in a thread about wikileaks and not about Assange and that it didn't really have to do with any factual news.

Statements by the two female “victims” Sophia Wilen and Anna Ardin that there was no fear or violence would stop a rape charge in any western country dead in its tracks.

Rape is a crime of violence.

Both women boasted of their of their respective celebrity conquests on internet posts and mobile phones texts after the intimacy they would now see him destroyed for.
Sweden's reputation is on trial in Julian Assange case | Herald Sun

I differ in opinion from that article in that I think the women wanted Assange to pay... for sleeping with someone other than them... but that they have little to do with the case being pushed forward. I think they are really victims of the government and not so much victims in regards to Assange.

If you think this will make governments less secretive... you're wrong. They will go even further underground and become even more covert. Security and paranoia will ratchet up to incredible levels if they haven't already.


So we just roll over, right? Not do a damn thing? We don't have any right to know? Just let them have their way, just like the Eurowussies rolling over with these austerity changes. Bail out the banks by taking it out of peoples hides.

The next batch is supposed to be about banks. I hope to see them myself, that will be good.

You did touch on one thing in this statement. It's a security issue. How did WIkileaks get hold of these documents anyway? The people at Wiki POST DOCUMENTS GIVEN TO THEM!! There's obviously a problem with security in government to begin with. Don't ya think?

Koan. All they're doing is railroading the guy. They want an example to instill fear in others. People like Saint run right along with the rest of the pack in the witch hunt. Believe me, they'll intimidate the women also, they'll stick them in a dark room and make them sign what they want them to sign.

Assange has also painted a target on undefended installations and critical overseas facilities. How is that a good thing?


ALL of those installations locations are easily obtainable. The only problem a terrorist group would have is accessibility. This comes down to security at the location. This should already be in place and probably is.

Worst of all, he's made diplomacy just that much harder. If diplomacy is harder, then war is more likely! Now THAT'S what I REALLY have a problem with.


What? Americans don't need to know how the Pakis are ripping us off? Diplomacy isn't what it used to be and as the Russians found out diplomacy is all but irrelevant hooey. They're seriously thinking about putting tactical nukes in Kaliningrad. If they haven't already.

Just to be safe, you are dealing with America. :yh_rotfl

:wah:Scrat;1346232 wrote: People like Saint run right along with the rest of the pack in the witch hunt.


Works for me! Burn Assange, burn!

Which person at the New York Times would you like to see burned, Saint?

Which person from The Guardian should be assassinated?

How true. Answer up Saint, nobody had to run a story with the documents. They could've been good sheep. Some people (and I suspect a lot) think differently.

You are being quite the useful idiot. Note that I said "you are being" and not "you are". You are making a bad call.

So how come inciting people to commit murder doesn't get you banned from TV in the states?

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1]


It's getting so just not being american is perceived as being anti-american by some of the less sane pundits.

Oh anyone associated with this treasonous mess would do. Actually, it'd be good to have a big firing squad with all of them at once. Maybe afterwards we could throw their bodies in furnances and dance around a pile of burning books.

Saint_;1346331 wrote: Oh anyone associated with this treasonous mess would do. Actually, it'd be good to have a big firing squad with all of them at once. Maybe afterwards we could throw their bodies in furnances and dance around a pile of burning books.


Wouldn't the religious right see that as a bit pagan? Why not just stick to burning them at the stake?



:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Sorry, just had a vision of saint dancing naked round a bonfire.

Here's Ron Pauls opinion on this mess. He speaks of the Saudi involvement in terrorism. Read the book I made a thread about. In The Graveyard Of Empires. The Saudis SUPPORT TERRORISM!

What's wrong with getting that out to we the people? What's wrong with we the people knowing the facts? Damn Saint, your stance is just wrong in so many ways. :-3

Ron Paul Defends WikiLeaks On House Floor (VIDEO)