Ecuador to Withdraw Asylum for Julian Assange

[Purgatio]

Raped a girl in Sweden. Made comments about a 'Jewish conspiracy' running the world. Interfered in a country's democratic election through blatant information warfare. Forgive me if this arrest makes me wanna break out my tiny violin. I hope he gets sent to the US.

Does a shred of embarrassment or self-reflection not pulse briefly through your mind when you say the words 'Information Warfare'?

What? Information warfare is a real thing, the US and CIA have done it before to other countries, its not just a 'Russian thing'.

[Based Groyper]

Does a shred of embarrassment or self-reflection not pulse briefly through your mind when you say the words 'Information Warfare'?

What? Information warfare is a real thing, the US and CIA have done it before to other countries, its not just a 'Russian thing'.

Your saying that people giving you Information, not lies, Information, is an 'act of warfare'. This is a mindset I find alienly servile.

[Purgatio]

What? Information warfare is a real thing, the US and CIA have done it before to other countries, its not just a 'Russian thing'.

Your saying that people giving you Information, not lies, Information, is an 'act of warfare'. This is a mindset I find alienly servile.

Because it wasn't balanced, like dude WikiLeaks during the 2016 election had a very well-documented bias and preference for Trump over Clinton (https://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/8/13563750/wikileaks-2016-election-statement), they actively disclosed information about the Clinton campaign that was attained through Russian hacking, and left the Trump campaign and all its secrets utterly untouched. To imply that this is simply 'neutral disclosure of facts' rather than blatant and coordinated manipulation of the public is slightly disingenuous.

[Based Groyper]

Your saying that people giving you Information, not lies, Information, is an 'act of warfare'. This is a mindset I find alienly servile.

Because it wasn't balanced, like dude WikiLeaks during the 2016 election had a very well-documented bias and preference for Trump over Clinton (https://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/8/13563750/wikileaks-2016-election-statement), they actively disclosed information about the Clinton campaign that was attained through Russian hacking, and left the Trump campaign and all its secrets utterly untouched. To imply that this is simply 'neutral disclosure of facts' rather than blatant and coordinated manipulation of the public is slightly disingenuous.

Do you suggest that you believe media groups should be criminalised for having a "bias"? Do you think that the supposed crimes of Donald Trump's campaign are lacking coverage in mainstream press?

Its like complaining 'Robert Frost is biased because the Watergate story only implicated Republicans!!" Wikileaks gave you information about the Clinton Campaign. Vox and the NYT gives you information about the Trump campaign of a less intellectually stimulating nature. They didn't make the information up or distort it. Perhaps Wikileaks, from their years of expertise knowledge of hidden elite affairs, believed Trump was a better option that the Clintons and this information was part of the case to show why.

To claim that people trying to educate you is an act of aggression shows a depraved mind imo.

[Purgatio]

Because it wasn't balanced, like dude WikiLeaks during the 2016 election had a very well-documented bias and preference for Trump over Clinton (https://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/8/13563750/wikileaks-2016-election-statement), they actively disclosed information about the Clinton campaign that was attained through Russian hacking, and left the Trump campaign and all its secrets utterly untouched. To imply that this is simply 'neutral disclosure of facts' rather than blatant and coordinated manipulation of the public is slightly disingenuous.

Do you suggest that you believe media groups should be criminalised for having a "bias"? Do you think that the supposed crimes of Donald Trump's campaign are lacking coverage in mainstream press?

Its like complaining 'Robert Frost is biased because the Watergate story only implicated Republicans!!" Wikileaks gave you information about the Clinton Campaign. Vox and the NYT gives you information about the Trump campaign of a less intellectually stimulating nature. They didn't make the information up or distort it. Perhaps Wikileaks, from their years of expertise knowledge of hidden elite affairs, believed Trump was a better option that the Clintons and this information was part of the case to show why.

To claim that people trying to educate you is an act of aggression shows a depraved mind imo.

If the New York Times is conspiring with a foreign adversary of the US to hack into the RNC and Trump campaign servers, before disclosing emails deliberately close to polling day with the explicit and deliberate intention of influencing the outcome of a democratic election, then I'll agree with your comparison.

[Based Groyper]

Do you suggest that you believe media groups should be criminalised for having a "bias"? Do you think that the supposed crimes of Donald Trump's campaign are lacking coverage in mainstream press?

Its like complaining 'Robert Frost is biased because the Watergate story only implicated Republicans!!" Wikileaks gave you information about the Clinton Campaign. Vox and the NYT gives you information about the Trump campaign of a less intellectually stimulating nature. They didn't make the information up or distort it. Perhaps Wikileaks, from their years of expertise knowledge of hidden elite affairs, believed Trump was a better option that the Clintons and this information was part of the case to show why.

To claim that people trying to educate you is an act of aggression shows a depraved mind imo.

If the New York Times is conspiring with a foreign adversary of the US to hack into the RNC and Trump campaign servers, before disclosing emails deliberately close to polling day with the explicit and deliberate intention of influencing the outcome of a democratic election, then I'll agree with your comparison.

Just repeat those words you're saying to yourself: 'influencing the outcome of a foreign election'. Facts ought to "influence" an election, should they not? The entire democratic process of debate is designed to 'influence' the outcome of an election. The NYT is certainly in the business of 'influencing the outcome of elections'.

Why are you so hostile to the idea of Wikileaks and Russia telling you about your leaders? What is it that makes you interpret education as a hostile act?

[Esternial]

Hope he gets sent back to Sweden to stand trial there.

[Vassenor]

Hope he gets sent back to Sweden to stand trial there.

Pretty much that.

[Purgatio]

If the New York Times is conspiring with a foreign adversary of the US to hack into the RNC and Trump campaign servers, before disclosing emails deliberately close to polling day with the explicit and deliberate intention of influencing the outcome of a democratic election, then I'll agree with your comparison.

Just repeat those words you're saying to yourself: 'influencing the outcome of a foreign election'. Facts ought to "influence" an election, should they not? The entire democratic process of debate is designed to 'influence' the outcome of an election. The NYT is certainly in the business of 'influencing the outcome of elections'.

Why are you so hostile to the idea of Wikileaks and Russia telling you about your leaders? What is it that makes you interpret education as a hostile act?

Not when there's a good chance, given the close outcome of the election, that if all the incriminating information about the Trump campaign which they deliberately hid from the public had been known (ie the Trump Tower meeting, Manafort being an unregistered foreign agent, the UK meeting of Papadopoulos etc), the outcome might very well have been different. When you add to that the extensive financial ties Trump has had with Kremlin-backed oligarchs, it really does look like a coordinated attempt by the Kremlin, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign to have a financially-conflicted person win the office of the Presidency through subterfuge.

To imply that this is simply normal journalism with a political bias is disingenuous. New York Times reporting facts with a liberal bias =/= selective disclosure of facts, obtained through hacking and other illegal acts, by a foreign adversary, in order to ensure that a candidate with severe conflicts of interest with that same foreign adversary gets elected to the highest office of the land. Context matters. Your entire argument consists of removing all the context from Assange's activities to try and argue that the disclosure was simply an act of journalism or the reporting of facts. Sure, if you ignore all the context.

[Purgatio]

Hope he gets sent back to Sweden to stand trial there.

I wish for that too, but didn't the European Arrest Warrant for his rape charge lapse?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Just repeat those words you're saying to yourself: 'influencing the outcome of a foreign election'. Facts ought to "influence" an election, should they not? The entire democratic process of debate is designed to 'influence' the outcome of an election. The NYT is certainly in the business of 'influencing the outcome of elections'.

Why are you so hostile to the idea of Wikileaks and Russia telling you about your leaders? What is it that makes you interpret education as a hostile act?

Not when there's a good chance, given the close outcome of the election, that if all the incriminating information about the Trump campaign which they deliberately hid from the public had been known (ie the Trump Tower meeting, Manafort being an unregistered foreign agent, the UK meeting of Papadopoulos etc), the outcome might very well have been different. When you add to that the extensive financial ties Trump has had with Kremlin-backed oligarchs, it really does look like a coordinated attempt by the Kremlin, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign to have a financially-conflicted person win the office of the Presidency through subterfuge.

To imply that this is simply normal journalism with a political bias is disingenuous. New York Times reporting facts with a liberal bias =/= selective disclosure of facts, obtained through hacking and other illegal acts, by a foreign adversary, in order to ensure that a candidate with severe conflicts of interest with that same foreign adversary gets elected to the highest office of the land. Context matters. Your entire argument consists of removing all the context from Assange's activities to try and argue that the disclosure was simply an act of journalism or the reporting of facts. Sure, if you ignore all the context.

Didwikileaks have access to the trump info?

[Purgatio]

Not when there's a good chance, given the close outcome of the election, that if all the incriminating information about the Trump campaign which they deliberately hid from the public had been known (ie the Trump Tower meeting, Manafort being an unregistered foreign agent, the UK meeting of Papadopoulos etc), the outcome might very well have been different. When you add to that the extensive financial ties Trump has had with Kremlin-backed oligarchs, it really does look like a coordinated attempt by the Kremlin, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign to have a financially-conflicted person win the office of the Presidency through subterfuge.

To imply that this is simply normal journalism with a political bias is disingenuous. New York Times reporting facts with a liberal bias =/= selective disclosure of facts, obtained through hacking and other illegal acts, by a foreign adversary, in order to ensure that a candidate with severe conflicts of interest with that same foreign adversary gets elected to the highest office of the land. Context matters. Your entire argument consists of removing all the context from Assange's activities to try and argue that the disclosure was simply an act of journalism or the reporting of facts. Sure, if you ignore all the context.

Didwikileaks have access to the trump info?

Probably not directly, but there's a lot of evidence of some collusion between the Trump campaign and Assange and WikiLeaks, particularly with Roger Stone who served as an advisor to the Trump presidential campaign

[Esternial]

Hope he gets sent back to Sweden to stand trial there.

I wish for that too, but didn't the European Arrest Warrant for his rape charge lapse?

I thought the victim's lawyer was trying to find a way around that.

[Purgatio]

I wish for that too, but didn't the European Arrest Warrant for his rape charge lapse?

I thought the victim's lawyer was trying to find a way around that.

Well if that's true I hope the lawyer succeeds. What Assange did to that woman was disgusting beyond belief. It's something I worry about happening to me and I think many people can sympathise being in similar situations worrying about whether their partner will betray them and breach their trust like that.

[Josip-Broz]

So apparently not only was he trying to destabilise the Ecuadorian government while being under their protection, he was also smearing his own waste on the walls.

The US has comited regime change in Ecuador only for them to deliver Assange.

[Josip-Broz]

Hope he gets sent back to Sweden to stand trial there.

The charges in Sweden have been dropped in 2017.

[Vassenor]

Hope he gets sent back to Sweden to stand trial there.

The charges in Sweden have been dropped in 2017.

The rape charge is still open.

[Josip-Broz]

The charges in Sweden have been dropped in 2017.

The rape charge is still open.

no. You are very wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v ... _Authority

The rape charge are also retarded. His "victims" admit they had consensual sex with him. They are suing him for infecting them with herpes.

[Novus America]

So apparently not only was he trying to destabilise the Ecuadorian government while being under their protection, he was also smearing his own waste on the walls.

The US has comited regime change in Ecuador only for them to deliver Assange.

Should I even bother to ask why you think an election in Ecuador is regime change?
Are all elections regime change to you if a candidate you disagree with on something wins?

And actually the US would have preferred the other guy win.

[Josip-Broz]

The US has comited regime change in Ecuador only for them to deliver Assange.

Should I even bother to ask why you think an election in Ecuador is regime change?
Are all elections regime change to you if a candidate you disagree with on something wins?

And actually the US would have preferred the other guy win.

That is what the former Ecuadorian president said. He current one used to be vice president of the old one. He called him a traitor fortaking bribes from US and drastically changing policies. So yes it was a de facto regime change orchestrated by the US.

[Farnhamia]

As an Australian, I find this man to be disgraceful and selfish man who only cares about himself. What he has done back in the past is absolute in no circumstances a breach of classified documentation.

As a Moderator, I find your digging up of this thread from nine months ago to be a ridiculous violation of the rules. If the last post was more than four weeks ago, let the thread lie. Or, if you feel some deep, compelling reason to revive it, ask in the Moderation forum.

The rest of you should have refrained from posting here, too. We have an Assange thread.