Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraws asylum.

[Elfdart]

Elfdart still won't answer whether he believes that Assange should be extradited to Sweden for a rape investigation.

Guess he doesn't want to admit that he thinks men should get a pass on rape charges if they're "anti-establishment" enough.

Dude he answered that half a dozen posts ago.

Elfdart opposes Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed.

Great leap in logic from both of you fucktards. Using your standard, I could argue that the reason you want Assange extradited to Sweden is BECAUSE they have a track record of enabling the torture or foreign nationals and you just have a hard-on for waterboarding and strappado. Guess you don't want to admit that you think torture and other brutal treatment are swell as long as the target is someone you've convinced yourself was responsible for Hillary losing an election to a racist game show host. You two dickheads can take your poorly crafted strawmen, light them on fire, and stick them right up your asses.

It takes a Grade A lying shitstain to turn "opposes handing suspect over to police state torture regime" into "supports whatever crime the suspect is accused of". You're every bit as much of a lowlife as the morons who claimed that anyone who opposed "rendition" and torture of suspected terrorists was somehow "pro-terrorist". Now go play in traffic, you fucking imbecile.

[Vympel]

The difference is that I made actual arguments instead of just relying on smearing the other guy.

I made arguments just fine, which last I checked, you didn't even attempt to address. I directly responded to your horseshit about John Oliver, and I directly responded to your equally stinky horseshit about western media.

Feel free to respond to that anytime.

In fact, your assertion that my relevant post contains 'ad hominems' is in and of itself, obviously horseshit. Or is me accurately pointing out you're peppering your post full of "YOU LOVE PUTIN" like you always do an ad hominem?

Arguments that you have not refuted despite being called on it- that you have in fact basically refused to address with a lie so clumsy it makes me feel almost embarassed for you (more on that shortly). You have not refuted the fact that the initial grounds for Assange's arrest were legitimate regardless of any bullshit Trump tries to pull, I presume because doing so would force you to admit that you believe people who are on your political team should be allowed to rape women with impunity and be above due process. Instead, you have repeatedly tried to sell the laughable idea that the reasons for Assange's arrest are irrelevant. But then, I suppose to you it is irrelevant. He could rape a baby on live television and you'd probably say that he's being persecuted by the evil US attacking free speech.

The 'initial grounds of his arrest' are irrelevant to my concerns, which are over his extradition. This stuff is not hard to understand.

You have also ignored my repeated statements (in response to your ad hominem smears) that I do not support Assange's extradition to the US.

Horseshit. I quoted you saying so, didn't I? And who gives a shit what you do and don't support? If you had any level of conviction about this, you'd simply agree with me that his attempted extradition to the US is problematic and that'd be the end of it. But you won't - you're intent on telling outright lies about my beliefs instead, over and over again.

Remember when you accused me - out of fucking nowhere, with not a shred of evidence at all, that I thought his accusers were lying?

Are you going to acknowledge that was a baseless claim? Of course you won't. You haven't yet.

Wow, did you actually just call his arrest, and the reasons for it, "off-topic" in a thread about his arrest? Why, I believe you did.

There's dishonesty, and then there's just being a fucking imbecile. Guess what? Calling the topic off-topic does not absolve you of the need to back up your arguments.

I've backed up my arguments just fine. As I've said multiple times, my concerns re: Julian Assange are his extradition. Not the reasons for his arrest. So you constantly harping on his arrest are off-topic, as far as I'm concerned. The title of the thread doesn't bind me to arguing about his arrest, you silly dipshit.

Also, is "pablum" your new buzz word to label everything you don't like or something?

Annnnnd you're backing to call me a McCarthyite.

Here's a hint, dip shit- McCarthy targeted his victims out of personal ambition. I'm not. McCarthy fear mongered about Communists. I'm not (hell, I'm closer to being a communist than the people I'm attacking). And most importantly... McCarthy's accusations were bullshit. Mine aren't.

ROFLMAO. "I'm not a McCarthyite because the ghosts I see under my bed are REAL!"

I wonder if McCarthy ever said anything like that? You're such a joke dude.

[Elfdart]

No. Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the US to be tortured at black sites or by client states. That's the reason Assange sought sanctuary in the first place.

I have a feeling that would be harder to do with someone as high-profile as Assange. Everyone will notice, and there would be a huge outcry, if Assange just "disappeared". I would also be interested to know how many of the same people are in power in Sweden now as then, and whether any relevant changes to Swedish government and policy have occurred in the intervening period that would make the mistreatment of Assange less likely.

I also love that you are taking Assange's "reason" at face value, not even considering the possibility that the accusations might actually have merit, and implicitly (because you're too much of a dishonest coward to say it outright) adopting the "The women must be lying" defense.

I see reading plain English isn't your strong suit. Or that you're just a lying twat. Not only did I not take his reason (sans scare quotes) at face value, I looked to see if there was any basis for his fear of being renditioned for torture. Lo and behold, as Human Rights Watch documented, there most certainly was a track record of the Swedish government cooperating with the US to handing people over who were subsequently tortured. That's why I linked to HRW's report.

Again, no rebuttal to most of my arguments, just ad hominem.

What's the phrase for this sort of situation? Oh yes: concession accepted.

That's rich given how much of your post is dedicated to smearing your opponent as a 'Putinist'.

No self-awareness at all. Like ... zero.

Also, what argument did I not address? I don't see a single one. Was it the totally off-topic pablum about his arrest which you keep trying to launder in service of your tired McCarthyite PUTIN smears? That's not an argument, that's an ad hominem.

Maybe someone should tell our unappointed hall monitor that an noun, a verb and "Russia, Russia, Russia!" or "Putin" do not an argument make.

[The Romulan Republic]

Elfdart still won't answer whether he believes that Assange should be extradited to Sweden for a rape investigation.

Guess he doesn't want to admit that he thinks men should get a pass on rape charges if they're "anti-establishment" enough.

Dude he answered that half a dozen posts ago.

Elfdart opposes Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed.

Great leap in logic from both of you fucktards.

Were our conclusions unfair? Then answer the fucking question: Do you support Assange's extradition to Sweden to stand trial for rape, yes or no. If no, then it is fair to say that you believe he should not face trial for rape.

Using your standard, I could argue that the reason you want Assange extradited to Sweden is BECAUSE they have a track record of enabling the torture or foreign nationals and you just have a hard-on for waterboarding and strappado.

Nice Whataboutism. Now let's take it apart.

The problem with your little analogy is that two things aren't remotely comparable. If you don't support extraditing Snowden to stand trial for rape, you don't support extraditing him to stand trial for rape. Therefore, you believe that he should walk on the rape accusations. Whatever your reasons are, you believe it is justified to let a possible rapist go free without further investigation or trial. That is not a leap- its your stated position.

Whereas it is absolutely a leap (and a damned libelous one) to say that because we support his extradition and trial on rape charges, we also support his rendition and torture, because his rendition and torture are not (contrary to what his apologists claim) necessary or inevitable results of him being extradited and tried for rape. You have tried to conflate "He should be extradited and tried for rape" with "he should be extradited and tortured/disappeared as part of a US plot to destroy freedom of the press", and then ignore factual reasons for his arrest so that you can pretend that anyone who supports his arrest is supporting The Evil US Conspiracy. That is a preposterous straw man.

Guess you don't want to admit that you think torture and other brutal treatment are swell as long as the target is someone you've convinced yourself was responsible for Hillary losing an election to a racist game show host. You two dickheads can take your poorly crafted strawmen, light them on fire, and stick them right up your asses.

I have never supported Assange's rendition or torture. To my knowledge, neither has Ralin. I have even, in fact, repeatedly and explicitly stated that I do not support his extradition to the US. In short, you are lying, and you will retract and apologize for the lie now, or I will have no choice but to report you for dishonesty and libel.

Also, given the closeness of the race, he is very likely partly responsible for Trump's election. Which I'm sure is justified too, because its "anti-establishment". But while that is certainly a reason for me to hold him in personal contempt, and want to see him face justice, it really has no bearing on whether the rape investigation is a valid reason for his arrest.

It takes a Grade A lying shitstain to turn "opposes handing suspect over to police state torture regime" into "supports whatever crime the suspect is accused of". You're every bit as much of a lowlife as the morons who claimed that anyone who opposed "rendition" and torture of suspected terrorists was somehow "pro-terrorist".

Again, my question would be: how has the composition of the Swedish government, its policies and laws, changed since the rendition case you cited? I know people like you believe that all Western nations are an unchanging monolith of evil that should be collectively judged for every misdeed in their entire history, but these things matter.

In other words: if you are going to claim that Sweden is a "police state torture regime"... back it the fuck up. You will also quote where I supported Assange's rendition or torture, or you will retract and apologize for that claim, or I will report you for libel and dishonest debating.

Or are you saying that the US is a police state torture regime, and that I therefore support those things? If that is the case, then I will reiterate: I DO NOT SUPPORT ASSANGE'S EXTRADITION TO THE US. I have said this often enough in this thread that you cannot claim ignorance. When you claim that I support Assange's rendition and torture, YOU ARE LYING.

Now go play in traffic, you fucking imbecile.

Honest question to any mods watching this: is telling someone to commit suicide against board rules? Because it is against Canadian law:

Counselling or aiding suicide
241. Every one who
(a) counsels a person to [die by] suicide, or
(b) aids or abets a person to [die by] suicide,
whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

[The Romulan Republic]

No. Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the US to be tortured at black sites or by client states. That's the reason Assange sought sanctuary in the first place.

I have a feeling that would be harder to do with someone as high-profile as Assange. Everyone will notice, and there would be a huge outcry, if Assange just "disappeared". I would also be interested to know how many of the same people are in power in Sweden now as then, and whether any relevant changes to Swedish government and policy have occurred in the intervening period that would make the mistreatment of Assange less likely.

I also love that you are taking Assange's "reason" at face value, not even considering the possibility that the accusations might actually have merit, and implicitly (because you're too much of a dishonest coward to say it outright) adopting the "The women must be lying" defense.

I see reading plain English isn't your strong suit. Or that you're just a lying twat. Not only did I not take his reason (sans scare quotes) at face value, I looked to see if there was any basis for his fear of being renditioned for torture. Lo and behold, as Human Rights Watch documented, there most certainly was a track record of the Swedish government cooperating with the US to handing people over who were subsequently tortured. That's why I linked to HRW's report.

Again, no rebuttal to most of my arguments, just ad hominem.

What's the phrase for this sort of situation? Oh yes: concession accepted.

That's rich given how much of your post is dedicated to smearing your opponent as a 'Putinist'.

No self-awareness at all. Like ... zero.

Also, what argument did I not address? I don't see a single one. Was it the totally off-topic pablum about his arrest which you keep trying to launder in service of your tired McCarthyite PUTIN smears? That's not an argument, that's an ad hominem.

Maybe someone should tell our unappointed hall monitor that an noun, a verb and "Russia, Russia, Russia!" or "Putin" do not an argument make.

Still arguing by ad hominem, still not addressing arguments by pretending they don't exist, still arguing that Assange should be above the law, still a rape apologist, suicide-advocating piece of lying scum.

As to Assange's concerns about being extradited- does he have reason to worry? Yes. He's made some powerful enemies. Does that mean he should get immunity on rape allegations and skipping bail? I don't fucking think so. When I criticized you for taking his claims at face value, I was talking about the assumption that he was motivated only by fear of persecution and not by a self-serving desire to evade the rape charges.

[Vympel]

Throughout this thread, you have relied heavily on smearing me personally, trying to trash my reputation with cheap ad hominems, rather than defend your arguments or refute mine. Regardless of anything else, our political differences or the merits or lack thereof of our arguments, that makes you cowardly scum.

"How dare you fail to refute my arguments that you are a Putinist traitor to the West in hock to Moscow! You are smearing my good name by pointing out that I repeatedly do this!"

"Yes, I repeatedly abstain from responding to huge swathes of your posts but somehow have the gall to say you don't defend your arguments. You sir are a coward!"

We're reaching the level of irony poisoning over here.

[The Romulan Republic]

Throughout this thread, you have relied heavily on smearing me personally, trying to trash my reputation with cheap ad hominems, rather than defend your arguments or refute mine. Regardless of anything else, our political differences or the merits or lack thereof of our arguments, that makes you cowardly scum.

"How dare you fail to refute my arguments that you are a Putinist traitor to the West in hock to Moscow! You are smearing my good name by pointing out that I repeatedly do this!"

How about my arguments that Assange's arrest is entirely legally justified for reasons that have nothing to do with why the US wants him, for a start? Can you do that?

"Yes, I repeatedly abstain from responding to huge swathes of your posts but somehow have the gall to say you don't defend your arguments. You sir are a coward!"

We're reaching the level of irony poisoning over here.

What arguments do you feel I have not adequately responded to? I'll happily address them. Going back to your last post (which was only about an hour ago, tops, so you can't really honestly claim that I "ignored" it):

Regarding your attacks on John Oliver and the media: whether you consider John Oliver "centrist" or not isn't really something that can be objectively proven. He does, however, frequently address topics that the political mainstream tends to ignore, as I stated previously.

I will concede that it is possible for you to both hate the media and believe that they should be allowed to operate freely. That said, you should be aware that you regularly repeat narratives which are used to justify censorship and incitement of violence against the media, and if you truly support freedom of the press, you should consider the consequences of the rhetoric you use.

But no, you didn't quote me supporting Assange's extradition to the US, because I do not and have not done so. I love how you hedged by phrasing it as a question, so when you fail to produce said quote, you can say that you didn't lie. But then, you've admitted up-front that it doesn't matter to you what I've said or not, because I didn't just agree with everything you've said and therefore I don't oppose it hard enough to count. When you've flat-out admitted you don't care what I say, and that you will presumably continue to lie about what I believe until I completely agree with you on every point, there's not much more to say.

I've been very clear about what I think on the topic of his extradition, and you are shamelessly lying- even admitting that you don't care whether what you say is true or not. The shear brazenness of your dishonesty is breathtaking. But I guess you just assume that you can say anything you want about me, and you'll get away with it because everybody "knows" that TRR is a lying, ignorant troll. And the sad thing is, you probably will, in part because people like you have spent the last several years on this board systematically libeling and harassing me.

Much of the rest of the post is simply more bullshit- claiming you have not used ad hominem when you have, claiming that the grounds for Assange's arrest are irrelevant to your concerns (whether the grounds for his arrest are legitimate, or related to his possible extradition, is certainly relevant to the issue of his potential extradition).

As to whether you believe Assange's accusers are lying... fair enough. I'll ask you straight up: do you believe they are lying? And if not, do you believe that Assange should have to face justice in Sweden? Because there are only three options: 1. You believe his accusers are lying. 2. You believe he should face Justice in Sweden. 3. You believe they are not lying, but that Assange should be immune regardless, for whatever reasons.

Edit: Also, it is neither ad hominem nor false to point out that you defend Putin or Putin's line a disturbing amount of the time. I'm sure you think you are right to do so. Putinist propaganda has duped smarter people than you.

[Vympel]

How about my arguments that Assange's arrest is entirely legally justified for reasons that have nothing to do with why the US wants him, for a start? Can you do that?

When did I say it was "not legally justified"? Did I say he was illegally arrested? Where?

What arguments do you feel I have not adequately responded to? I'll happily address them. Going back to your last post (which was only about an hour ago, tops, so you can't really honestly claim that I "ignored" it):

[url=viewtopic.php?f=22&t=168167&start=25#p4077872]*coughs*[url]

Regarding your attacks on John Oliver and the media: whether you consider John Oliver "centrist" or not isn't really something that can be objectively proven. He does, however, frequently address topics that the political mainstream tends to ignore, as I stated previously.

I will concede that it is possible for you to both hate the media and believe that they should be allowed to operate freely. That said, you should be aware that you regularly repeat narratives which are used to justify censorship and incitement of violence against the media, and if you truly support freedom of the press, you should consider the consequences of the rhetoric you use.

None of my 'rhetoric' could be reasonably construed by any remotely objective observer as being a call for censorship and/or violence. Nothing I've said is at all different from what I've said about the media in any other context, like the time they enabled George W Bush in near-lockstep to invade a country based on a series of outright lies.

But no, you didn't quote me supporting Assange's extradition to the US, because I do not and have not done so. I love how you hedged by phrasing it as a question, so when you fail to produce said quote, you can say that you didn't lie. But then, you've admitted up-front that it doesn't matter to you what I've said or not, because I didn't just agree with everything you've said and therefore I don't oppose it hard enough to count. When you've flat-out admitted you don't care what I say, and that you will presumably continue to lie about what I believe until I completely agree with you on every point, there's not much more to say.

Oh for god's sake. "I quoted you saying so" means "I quoted you saying [you didn't support it]". How is this at all unclear? The accusation was that I 'ignored' you saying you didn't support it, hence me saying "Horseshit [i.e. no, I didn't ignore it.]

And yes, it doesn't matter to me that you keep saying this, because notwithstanding this you're more interested in using Assange as a tool to smear me than to engage honestly with what I've said on the topic.

I've been very clear about what I think on the topic of his extradition, and you are shamelessly lying- even admitting that you don't care whether what you say is true or not. The shear brazenness of your dishonesty is breathtaking. But I guess you just assume that you can say anything you want about me, and you'll get away with it because everybody "knows" that TRR is a lying, ignorant troll. And the sad thing is, you probably will, in part because people like you have spent the last several years on this board systematically libeling and harassing me.

Please point out - with a quote, where I said I "don't care whether what say is true or not."

Much of the rest of the post is simply more bullshit- claiming you have not used ad hominem when you have, claiming that the grounds for Assange's arrest are irrelevant to your concerns (whether the grounds for his arrest are legitimate, or related to his possible extradition, is certainly relevant to the issue of his potential extradition).

No, they aren't. The grounds for his arrest re: the bail-jumping pursuant to the Swedish investigation being legitimate are not at all relevant to the issue of his potential investigation to the United States.

Unless you think Sweden and the United States are the same country, that is.

As to whether you believe Assange's accusers are lying... fair enough. I'll ask you straight up: do you believe they are lying? And if not, do you believe that Assange should have to face justice in Sweden? Because there are only three options: 1. You believe his accusers are lying. 2. You believe he should face Justice in Sweden. 3. You believe they are not lying, but that Assange should be immune regardless, for whatever reasons.

1. I don't have any reasonable basis to believe they are lying.
2. Assange should answer the Swedish allegations in the ordinary course.
3. The question of the Swedish allegations is not relevant to his extradition to the United States, which is the issue at hand. No one is talking about him being immune from any form of prosecution.

Edit: Also, it is neither ad hominem nor false to point out that you defend Putin or Putin's line a disturbing amount of the time. I'm sure you think you are right to do so. Putinist propaganda has duped smarter people than you.

Yes, it is. It is the most tired, cliched and dirty ad hominem imaginable - a refusal to engage with an opponent's positon on the merits and instead seek to smear the opponent as being disloyal by associating his argument with that of a foreign enemy. In this regard what you do is 100% literally identical to those who smeared opponents of the Iraq War as being toadies for Saddam Hussein.

[mr friendly guy]

I am most probably going to regret asking this, but TRR, why do you advocate Assange not going to face US injustice but think its ok for Huawei's CFO to be extradited to face the same? What makes the Assange case different.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am most probably going to regret asking this, but TRR, why do you advocate Assange not going to face US injustice but think its ok for Huawei's CFO to be extradited to face the same? What makes the Assange case different.

Honestly, I'm starting to come 'round on the Huawei thing. Not on her being the victim of fabricated charges, or the Chinese government being blameless. I think they're both guilty as sin, in all probability. But I don't trust Trump with anything right now, and would rather not see anyone extradited to that system, especially if their case is a heavily-politicized one.

Of course Canada also has treaty obligations they can't just discard, as does Britain. So at least extradition hearings have to be held. But to be honest, at this point I don't trust the DOJ- its too infested with Trump lackies, and too much an arm of Trumpism at this point.

[Ralin]

Great leap in logic from both of you fucktards. Using your standard, I could argue that the reason you want Assange extradited to Sweden is BECAUSE they have a track record of enabling the torture or foreign nationals and you just have a hard-on for waterboarding and strappado. Guess you don't want to admit that you think torture and other brutal treatment are swell as long as the target is someone you've convinced yourself was responsible for Hillary losing an election to a racist game show host. You two dickheads can take your poorly crafted strawmen, light them on fire, and stick them right up your asses.

It takes a Grade A lying shitstain to turn "opposes handing suspect over to police state torture regime" into "supports whatever crime the suspect is accused of". You're every bit as much of a lowlife as the morons who claimed that anyone who opposed "rendition" and torture of suspected terrorists was somehow "pro-terrorist". Now go play in traffic, you fucking imbecile.

Do you agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden once the prosecutors there get their act together? Yes or no.

No. Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the US to be tortured at black sites or by client states. That's the reason Assange sought sanctuary in the first place.

+
CONTEXT ELFDART IS AWARE OF BUT IGNORING:
Assange’s known rapes were committed in Sweden. Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed requires him to be in Sweden because that’s where the Swedish government holds trials. Getting Assange to Sweden requires him to be extradited to Sweden (or for him to go there of his own free will for some reason, I guess). Elfdart has stated he does not agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden.

=

Elfdart opposes Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed.

So, Other Mods. I realize that traditionally Elfdart operates under what in effect amounts to his own personalized version of the board rules under which he is largely exempt from being required to concede or admit he’s wrong when proven wrong and which also give him the option to substitute backing up the things he says with reiterating his own personal conviction that right-wing politicians and/or whoever he happens to be arguing with at the moment derive literal sexual gratification either from torturing and killing helpless people or using the thought of said torture and killing as a masturbation aid. Traditions are important and all, but you’ve banned people who weren’t violating any specific forum rule for anti-feminist speech just on general principles based on your stated policy of showing support for victims of sexism and condemning those who support it. Arguing that a known rapist should not be extradited to face trial for the rapes he has committed because he is at-risk of being shipped off to an Egyptian torture dungeon by the *checks notes* brutal police state torture regime government of Sweden (noted bastion of right-wing despotism) is a whole hell of a lot worse than supporting a creepy anti-social justice warrior troll movement, and I think that you should make an exception to how Elfdart’s behavior is usually treated.

[Ralin]

As to whether you believe Assange's accusers are lying... fair enough. I'll ask you straight up: do you believe they are lying? And if not, do you believe that Assange should have to face justice in Sweden? Because there are only three options: 1. You believe his accusers are lying. 2. You believe he should face Justice in Sweden. 3. You believe they are not lying, but that Assange should be immune regardless, for whatever reasons.

Dude, he answered that like...Saturday.

[The Romulan Republic]

I hate to say this, because it makes me feel mildly ill to say anything even suggestive of defending that piece of pond scum (by which I mean both Assange and Elfdart), but Assange hasn't actually been convicted of rape. I think the charges (and all rape charges) should be taken seriously, I think he should have to answer to Swedish investigators and not get a pass because he managed to piss off the US government, but he hasn't technically been convicted of rape. So I think that calling Assange a "known rapist" and arguing for Elfdart to be banned on that basis is a bit of a leap. Just my personal, non-mod, opinion, because I like to think that I at least try to be fair, even to assholes and scumbags.

[Ralin]

I hate to say this, because it makes me feel mildly ill to say anything even suggestive of defending that piece of pond scum (by which I mean both Assange and Elfdart), but Assange hasn't actually been convicted of rape. I think the charges (and all rape charges) should be taken seriously, I think he should have to answer to Swedish investigators and not get a pass because he managed to piss off the US government, but he hasn't technically been convicted of rape. So I think that calling Assange a "known rapist" and arguing for Elfdart to be banned on that basis is a bit of a leap. Just my personal, non-mod, opinion, because I like to think that I at least try to be fair, even to assholes and scumbags.

I totally believe Assange should get a fair trial for all of the rapes he has done.

[The Romulan Republic]

I hate to say this, because it makes me feel mildly ill to say anything even suggestive of defending that piece of pond scum (by which I mean both Assange and Elfdart), but Assange hasn't actually been convicted of rape. I think the charges (and all rape charges) should be taken seriously, I think he should have to answer to Swedish investigators and not get a pass because he managed to piss off the US government, but he hasn't technically been convicted of rape. So I think that calling Assange a "known rapist" and arguing for Elfdart to be banned on that basis is a bit of a leap. Just my personal, non-mod, opinion, because I like to think that I at least try to be fair, even to assholes and scumbags.

I totally believe Assange should get a fair trial for all of the rapes he has done.

Heh. Fair enough.

[Gandalf]

So, Other Mods. I realize that traditionally Elfdart operates under what in effect amounts to his own personalized version of the board rules under which he is largely exempt from being required to concede or admit he’s wrong when proven wrong and which also give him the option to substitute backing up the things he says with reiterating his own personal conviction that right-wing politicians and/or whoever he happens to be arguing with at the moment derive literal sexual gratification either from torturing and killing helpless people or using the thought of said torture and killing as a masturbation aid. Traditions are important and all, but you’ve banned people who weren’t violating any specific forum rule for anti-feminist speech just on general principles based on your stated policy of showing support for victims of sexism and condemning those who support it. Arguing that a known rapist should not be extradited to face trial for the rapes he has committed because he is at-risk of being shipped off to an Egyptian torture dungeon by the *checks notes* brutal police state torture regime government of Sweden (noted bastion of right-wing despotism) is a whole hell of a lot worse than supporting a creepy anti-social justice warrior troll movement, and I think that you should make an exception to how Elfdart’s behavior is usually treated.

While not specifically getting into this thing, it's pretty much an SDN thing that certain posters get certain free reign, while others don't.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not so much an SDN thing, as a human societies thing. Still shitty.

[Elfdart]

Dude he answered that half a dozen posts ago.

Elfdart opposes Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed.

Apparently you don't think there's any need for a trial, since you've already convicted him when he hasn't even been charged with rape.

Great leap in logic from both of you fucktards.

Were our conclusions unfair? Then answer the fucking question: Do you support Assange's extradition to Sweden to stand trial for rape, yes or no. If no, then it is fair to say that you believe he should not face trial for rape.

You are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears with enough force to break the sound barrier. I explained my reason for opposing Assange's extradition to Sweden and it has nothing to do with the crime he's accused of committing. I'm just as opposed to extradition for more serious crimes for the same reason: extradition to a country that either practices torture or hands suspects over to one is immoral and according to international law, illegal.

Using your standard, I could argue that the reason you want Assange extradited to Sweden is BECAUSE they have a track record of enabling the torture or foreign nationals and you just have a hard-on for waterboarding and strappado.

Nice Whataboutism. Now let's take it apart.

Use of the term "whataboutism" is the battle cry of the lying, dimwitted hypocrite. No wonder you're so fond of it.

The problem with your little analogy is that two things aren't remotely comparable. If you don't support extraditing Snowden to stand trial for rape, you don't support extraditing him to stand trial for rape. Therefore, you believe that he should walk on the rape accusations. Whatever your reasons are, you believe it is justified to let a possible rapist go free without further investigation or trial. That is not a leap- its your stated position.

You are such a lying little fuckhead, aren't you? Here's your post, asshole:

Elfdart still won't answer whether he believes that Assange should be extradited to Sweden for a rape investigation.

Guess he doesn't want to admit that he thinks men should get a pass on rape charges if they're "anti-establishment" enough.

Now that's a flat-out fucking lie. His political views have nothing to do with it, any more than the politics of the two Egyptians the Swedish government handed over to the US to be tortured have anything to do with my position. Both you and that other shitstain leaped from "opposes extradition" to this:

Huh, guess I missed that.

Guess I don't have to feel bad about calling him a rape apologist, either.

Get that folks? In the tiny mind of TRR, if you oppose extradition for a suspect because there's good reason to believe they'll be mistreated, then you support whatever crimes they're accused of. So anyone who opposed the rendition of those two Egyptians must be a jihadist.

By the way, SNOWDEN hasn't been accused of rape. But since you think it's OK to accuse pretty much anyone and everyone who isn't a fluffer for the Clinton campaign of being a Russian agent, a rapist or rape apologist, it's obvious that your Freudian Slip is showing.

Whereas it is absolutely a leap (and a damned libelous one) to say that because we support his extradition and trial on rape charges, we also support his rendition and torture, because his rendition and torture are not (contrary to what his apologists claim) necessary or inevitable results of him being extradited and tried for rape. You have tried to conflate "He should be extradited and tried for rape" with "he should be extradited and tortured/disappeared as part of a US plot to destroy freedom of the press", and then ignore factual reasons for his arrest so that you can pretend that anyone who supports his arrest is supporting The Evil US Conspiracy. That is a preposterous straw man.

At this point, your lies are almost pathological. I wrote that if I applied the standard you and that other fuckwit used (opposing extradition = support for crime), then it could just as easily be argued that if you want him extradited to Sweden, then you must want him renditioned to US custody for torture. Here's the text:

Using your standard, I could argue that the reason you want Assange extradited to Sweden is BECAUSE they have a track record of enabling the torture or foreign nationals and you just have a hard-on for waterboarding and strappado.

Guess you don't want to admit that you think torture and other brutal treatment are swell as long as the target is someone you've convinced yourself was responsible for Hillary losing an election to a racist game show host. You two dickheads can take your poorly crafted strawmen, light them on fire, and stick them right up your asses.

Notice the word "could"?

So in a perverse way you're right, the two aren't comparable. I didn't actually say you support rendition and torture; I merely pointed out that by the fucktarded logic you use, a person willing to stoop to your level COULD make the same charge against you. But you DID in fact call me a "rape apologist" without a single quote to back up your claim.

I have never supported Assange's rendition or torture. To my knowledge, neither has Ralin. I have even, in fact, repeatedly and explicitly stated that I do not support his extradition to the US. In short, you are lying, and you will retract and apologize for the lie now,

While the use of the term "whataboutism" is a sure giveaway that the user is a dishonest, two-faced prick who is losing an argument, it isn't the only one -not by a country mile. The REAL giveaway that a dishonest, two-faced prick is losing is when he starts throwing around legal terms or making threats.

By the way, in cases of libel, the truth is an absolute defense. In other words, if the shoe fits, wear it. Since I haven't lied about you at all (Why would I? The truth causes you much more grief than any lie concocted by the human mind.), using the word libel makes you come across like a blubbering vagina.

or I will have no choice but to report you for dishonesty and libel.

Are you going to put me on Double-Secret Probation too, Dean Wormer?

Also, given the closeness of the race, he is very likely partly responsible for Trump's election. Which I'm sure is justified too, because its "anti-establishment". But while that is certainly a reason for me to hold him in personal contempt, and want to see him face justice, it really has no bearing on whether the rape investigation is a valid reason for his arrest.

Has it occurred to you that if a lolbertarian hiding in an embassy can cost a candidate an election, then maybe that candidate sucked so hard they were going to choke and lose in humiliating fashion anyway? And that 30 months of crazed conspiracy theories about Russia, Assange, Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon and "Bernie Bros" are wasted on such a shit politician in the first place?

It takes a Grade A lying shitstain to turn "opposes handing suspect over to police state torture regime" into "supports whatever crime the suspect is accused of". You're every bit as much of a lowlife as the morons who claimed that anyone who opposed "rendition" and torture of suspected terrorists was somehow "pro-terrorist".

Again, my question would be: how has the composition of the Swedish government, its policies and laws, changed since the rendition case you cited? I know people like you believe that all Western nations are an unchanging monolith of evil that should be collectively judged for every misdeed in their entire history, but these things matter.

In other words: if you are going to claim that Sweden is a "police state torture regime"... back it the fuck up.

I was referring to the US as the torture regime out to get Assange. They're the ones who have an extradition request, moron.

You will also quote where I supported Assange's rendition or torture, or you will retract and apologize for that claim, or I will report you for libel and dishonest debating.

Or are you saying that the US is a police state torture regime, and that I therefore support those things? If that is the case, then I will reiterate: I DO NOT SUPPORT ASSANGE'S EXTRADITION TO THE US. I have said this often enough in this thread that you cannot claim ignorance. When you claim that I support Assange's rendition and torture, YOU ARE LYING.

Cut the bullshit already. Sweden's record of giving people up to torturers isn't a relic from the distant past.

Now go play in traffic, you fucking imbecile.

Honest question to any mods watching this: is telling someone to commit suicide against board rules? Because it is against Canadian law:

Counselling or aiding suicide
241. Every one who
(a) counsels a person to [die by] suicide, or
(b) aids or abets a person to [die by] suicide,
whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Drama queen much?

[The Romulan Republic]

You are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears with enough force to break the sound barrier. I explained my reason for opposing Assange's extradition to Sweden and it has nothing to do with the crime he's accused of committing. I'm just as opposed to extradition for more serious crimes for the same reason: extradition to a country that either practices torture or hands suspects over to one is immoral and according to international law, illegal.

Whatever your reasons, the fact remains that you believe he should effectively be above the law, and receive effective immunity for rape charges. Whether you believe that that position is justified for the greater good, or by international law, does not change the fact that you are saying he should walk on the rape allegations.

Use of the term "whataboutism" is the battle cry of the lying, dimwitted hypocrite. No wonder you're so fond of it.

Poisoning the well, ad hominem.

But of course, anyone who calls out dishonest deflection tactics is automatically wrong. How convenient for you.

You are such a lying little fuckhead, aren't you? Here's your post, asshole:

Elfdart still won't answer whether he believes that Assange should be extradited to Sweden for a rape investigation.

Guess he doesn't want to admit that he thinks men should get a pass on rape charges if they're "anti-establishment" enough.

Now that's a flat-out fucking lie. His political views have nothing to do with it, any more than the politics of the two Egyptians the Swedish government handed over to the US to be tortured have anything to do with my position. Both you and that other shitstain leaped from "opposes extradition" to this:

Huh, guess I missed that.

Guess I don't have to feel bad about calling him a rape apologist, either.

Get that folks? In the tiny mind of TRR, if you oppose extradition for a suspect because there's good reason to believe they'll be mistreated, then you support whatever crimes they're accused of. So anyone who opposed the rendition of those two Egyptians must be a jihadist.

By the way, SNOWDEN hasn't been accused of rape. But since you think it's OK to accuse pretty much anyone and everyone who isn't a fluffer for the Clinton campaign of being a Russian agent, a rapist or rape apologist, it's obvious that your Freudian Slip is showing.

What the fuck does Snowden have to do with any of this? I didn't mention Snowden. I'm not talking about Snowden. Snowden is not the topic of this thread. Do you think that if you just throw in some vague babble about Snowden, everyone will think "TRR wants the US to torture Snowden too, even though he hasn't been accused of rape!!' The sad thing is, probably half the people on this board would buy that.

This also has nothing to do with support for the Clinton campaign. You are trying to frame this debate as "TRR supports Crooked Hillary" so that you can avoid the actual issues, because you're a lying, coward, rape apologist. And no, I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a Russian agent, I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a rape apologist, and I certainly don't call everyone who disagrees with me a rapist*. Those are lies- blatant, transparent lies and defamation. But you will say it, and it will doubtless be mindlessly gobbled up just like every other lie that is repeated ad nauseum about me on this board so that no one has to address my actual arguments.

I guess you also believe the women who accused Assange are just making it up, too?

But I'll be fair- you're not saying Assange should be given a pass on rape for being anti-establishment. You're saying he should be given a pass on rape for being an enemy/target of the United States. My apologies.

At this point, your lies are almost pathological. I wrote that if I applied the standard you and that other fuckwit used (opposing extradition = support for crime), then it could just as easily be argued that if you want him extradited to Sweden, then you must want him renditioned to US custody for torture. Here's the text:

Using your standard, I could argue that the reason you want Assange extradited to Sweden is BECAUSE they have a track record of enabling the torture or foreign nationals and you just have a hard-on for waterboarding and strappado.

Guess you don't want to admit that you think torture and other brutal treatment are swell as long as the target is someone you've convinced yourself was responsible for Hillary losing an election to a racist game show host. You two dickheads can take your poorly crafted strawmen, light them on fire, and stick them right up your asses.

Notice the word "could"?

Ah, you're not saying that we support torture, you're just saying that you could say that, and that it would be equivalent to pointing out that you believe Assange should get a pass on rape charges. That's so much better.

So in a perverse way you're right, the two aren't comparable. I didn't actually say you support rendition and torture; I merely pointed out that by the fucktarded logic you use, a person willing to stoop to your level COULD make the same charge against you. But you DID in fact call me a "rape apologist" without a single quote to back up your claim.

You are the one saying Assange should walk on rape allegations. Whatever your reasons for doing so, that is a fact.

While the use of the term "whataboutism" is a sure giveaway that the user is a dishonest, two-faced prick who is losing an argument, it isn't the only one -not by a country mile. The REAL giveaway that a dishonest, two-faced prick is losing is when he starts throwing around legal terms or making threats.

By the way, in cases of libel, the truth is an absolute defense. In other words, if the shoe fits, wear it. Since I haven't lied about you at all (Why would I? The truth causes you much more grief than any lie concocted by the human mind.), using the word libel makes you come across like a blubbering vagina.

Wow, a misogynist insult from the rape apologist. Who'd have thought it?

And while it is possible that you are delusional enough to believe that every word you've said is true, you have certainly made false claims about me, and you can certainly not prove that everything you've said about me is objectively true.

Are you going to put me on Double-Secret Probation too, Dean Wormer?

No. But I am going to report you for libel, dishonest debating, ad hominem, poisoning the well, blatant misogyny, and counselling suicide in violation of Canadian law (given this board is, you know, run out of Canada).

Has it occurred to you that if a lolbertarian hiding in an embassy can cost a candidate an election, then maybe that candidate sucked so hard they were going to choke and lose in humiliating fashion anyway? And that 30 months of crazed conspiracy theories about Russia, Assange, Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon and "Bernie Bros" are wasted on such a shit politician in the first place?

Ah, now we get to the truth of it, I suspect: you defend Assange you hate Hillary, and thus he gets a pass because he's on "your team".

In any case, an argument which amounts to "If Assange cost Hillary the election, she was inevitably going to lose anyway" is so laughably absurd and self-contradictory it shouldn't even need refuting.

Its entirely off-topic, because contrary to your desperate attempts to change the topic and muddy the waters the arguments for arresting Assange have little to do with the 2016 election, and nothing to do with whether or not one supported Hillary, but for the record: 2016 was a very close race. Any one of those things you dismissively listed as "crazed conspiracy theories" could concievably have made the difference (well, aside from Susan Sarandon- I don't think she really mattered).

And while we're on the subject, how do you square your reflexive hatred of the American establishment with supporting the narrative of a man like AG Barr, who's resume includes covering up Iran Contra and writing legal opinions that the President had the right to violate international law and the FBI could arrest anyone anywhere in the world? Why, its almost as if you have no actual principles whatsoever.

I was referring to the US as the torture regime out to get Assange. They're the ones who have an extradition request, moron.

I'm aware, fuckstick. And as I have repeatedly stated, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXTRADITION OF ASSANGE TO THE UNITED STATES. I support a hypothetical extradition to Sweden.

But I guess you feel that supporting his extradition to Sweden is equivalent to supporting his extradition to the US, so it doesn't matter if you ignore my actual position?

You asked for it.

Cut the bullshit already. Sweden's record of giving people up to torturers isn't a relic from the distant past.

So in other words, you will not actually address any of the points I raised, just dismiss them out of hand without evidence or argument. How surprising.

Drama queen much?

Another misogynist insult.

And if you don't want to be accused of violating Canadian law, don't violate Canadian law.



To the board at large, and anyone who doesn't want to trawl through page after page of this bullshit, or who finds my arguments unclear, here is my position on Assange:

Assange is a dishonest, authoritarian-aligned hypocrite. He does not conduct himself as a journalist should, nor as someone who is genuinely concerned with holding the corrupt and powerful accountable, but as a partisan hack, selectively leaking to support the Republicans, Trump, and Russia. His leaks have also likely been conducted without due regard for the risks that they pose to innocent people. I am not prepared to argue whether any of that is criminal, or merely unethical and irresponsible, however. And while the US would have good reason to question Assange for his involvement in the 2016 election (ie leaking information stolen by Russia to benefit the Trump campaign, which constitutes a possible violation of campaign finance law), I am skeptical of the actual reasons for the US extradition request, recognize that there is legitimate cause for concern about a precedent damaging to the freedom of the press, and I do not trust the motives or integrity of the current US government. I suspect that they would violate due process, and use Assange's case for their political gain, and therefore I do not believe that Assange (or anyone else, especially in such a politically-loaded case) should be extradited to the US under its current government. The US has the right to make the request, and Britain will have to hold a hearing on it, but I hope that the extradition request is rejected.

Separate from all of that is the question of the rape allegations against Assange. I believe that Sweden should reopen the case now that Assange is no longer out of reach, that Assange should, upon completing his sentence for skipping bail, be extradited to Sweden, and that if the evidence warrants, he should be tried for rape. If convicted, he should serve his sentence in a Swedish prison, and upon completion of his sentence emerge a free man. Again, I do not believe that he should be extradited to the US, nor be subject to rendition, torture, disappearance, or death, and I do not believe that any of those things inevitably follow from him being extradited to Sweden, or that we should assume that the current Swedish government will conduct itself in the same manner as the Swedish government of more than a decade ago, especially in such a high-profile case.

It should also go without saying that my opinion on the rape charges has nothing to do with Assange's allegiances in the 2016 election. I also believe Bill Clinton should be prosecuted for rape, and I have repeatedly stated on this board that I believe Bill Clinton is a rapist and that the Democrats should disavow him.

And here is my position on Elfdart: He is a lying, trolling coward who believes that Assange should get a pass on rape allegations because of a nebulous fear of US persecution if Assange is extradited, evades the question of whether he believes Assange's accusers are telling the truth, routinely uses misogynist insults and ad hominems, condemns the United States for its human rights abuses while hypocritically supporting the narrative of Trump and Barr on collusion (a man who's career practically embodies "corrupt US establishment with no respect for human rights or international law"), repeatedly tries to shift the debate to attacks on my character or "you just hate Assange because EVIL HILLARY", and committed an indictable offense under Canadian law by telling me and Ralin to commit suicide.

[The Romulan Republic]

I will also add that in retrospect I don't think I've been entirely fair to Vymple, since having reviewed the thread, I see that he did acknowledge earlier that he believes Assange should serve his sentence for skipping bail, and that he does not object to his extradition to Sweden, only to the US. Which honestly makes me wonder why he was expending so much effort attacking me, since our opinions on what should happen to Assange don't seem to be all that far apart and any other disagreements between us would be largely off-topic. Regardless, I apologize.

This does not mean I excuse or accept his deplorable smears of me personally, or his idiotic and deeply hypocritical obsession with defending the Kremlin.

[Jub]

TRR, If the things Vympel and Elfdart are saying bother you so much, instead of meeting like with like and creating another thread worthy of the HoS just call for a mod ruling like you've been told to do. The same goes for calling anything negative about your character as a poster libel and the 'go play in traffic' comment if you actually think you have a case go ahead and file charges if not take things for the meaningless board culture insults they are and grow a thicker skin.

As for your calling Vymple and Elfdart rape apologists in order to do that you'd need to ask them one simple question. If there was a zero percent risk of extradition would you support Assange being extradited to stand trial for sexual assault and/or rape charges? Then you need to ask what percentage chance there is that Sweden both hands him over to the US, possible against his terms of extradition, and then that the US, once in possession of Assange uses extra-legal means to make his life a living hell?

So, Vympel and Elfdart what are your answers to those two questions? TRR what is your answer to the second question what do you rate the odds at?

[Ralin]

Apparently you don't think there's any need for a trial, since you've already convicted him when he hasn't even been charged with rape.

I totally believe Assange should receive a fair trial before being convicted for the rapes his has committed.

Also:

Do you agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden once the prosecutors there get their act together? Yes or no.

No. Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the US to be tortured at black sites or by client states. That's the reason Assange sought sanctuary in the first place.

Elfdart opposes Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed.

CONTEXT ELFDART IS AWARE OF BUT IGNORING:
Assange’s known rapes were committed in Sweden. Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed requires him to be in Sweden because that’s where the Swedish government holds trials. Getting Assange to Sweden requires him to be extradited to Sweden (or for him to go there of his own free will for some reason, I guess). Elfdart has stated he does not agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden.

Where’s the lie, Elfdart? Yes or no, do you believe Assange should be tried for the rapes he has committed (in Sweden)? If yes then do you agreed that Assange must be extradited to Sweden to be tried for the rapes he has committed (in Sweden)?

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR, If the things Vympel and Elfdart are saying bother you so much, instead of meeting like with like and creating another thread worthy of the HoS just call for a mod ruling like you've been told to do. The same goes for calling anything negative about your character as a poster libel and the 'go play in traffic' comment if you actually think you have a case go ahead and file charges if not take things for the meaningless board culture insults they are and grow a thicker skin.

I have notified a mod about Elfdart's conduct, and will not engage with him further until the mods have a chance to rule on the matter (if they choose to do so).

As for your calling Vymple and Elfdart rape apologists in order to do that you'd need to ask them one simple question. If there was a zero percent risk of extradition would you support Assange being extradited to stand trial for sexual assault and/or rape charges? Then you need to ask what percentage chance there is that Sweden both hands him over to the US, possible against his terms of extradition, and then that the US, once in possession of Assange uses extra-legal means to make his life a living hell?

So, Vympel and Elfdart what are your answers to those two questions? TRR what is your answer to the second question what do you rate the odds at?

I don't think its possible for anyone to give an exact percentage on the likelihood of extradition to the US from Sweden. But I think that the burden is on Elfdart to prove that the current Swedish government is such a corrupt and despotic state that extraditing a man there on rape charges would violate international law, and I do not feel that he has adequately done so.

[mr friendly guy]

I will answer what I think, just because I can. It's the answer I gave years ago when Assange sought refuge.

Assange should face trial should Sweden decide to proceed. However he should only face Swedish courts, not be extradited to the US. All Sweden has to do is guarantee that he will not be extradited for political charges to the US. If even the PRC can guarantee they won't execute those extradited, even though capital punishment is legal there, surely a Western democracy should be able to guarantee they won't extradite to a country which practices torture, in accordance with Sweden's own laws against torture.

My impression is that if Assange did get extradited to the US, TRR,'s the attitude is, well sucks to be him, followed by, well I don't want him extradited do no moral deficiency on my part. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here.

Also calling Elfdart a rape apologist when he has argued for the extradition of convicted rapist like Roman Polanski despite European objection, to be frankly a smear.

[The Romulan Republic]

I will answer what I think, just because I can. It's the answer I gave years ago when Assange sought refuge.

Assange should face trial should Sweden decide to proceed. However he should only face Swedish courts, not be extradited to the US. All Sweden has to do is guarantee that he will not be extradited for political charges to the US. If even the PRC can guarantee they won't execute those extradited, even though capital punishment is legal there, surely a Western democracy should be able to guarantee they won't extradite to a country which practices torture, in accordance with Sweden's own laws against torture.

My impression is that if Assange did get extradited to the US, TRR,'s the attitude is, well sucks to be him, followed by, well I don't want him extradited do no moral deficiency on my part. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here.

You are wrong.

If he was extradited to the US, I would be disappointed in the outcome, and would want the media and civil rights organizations to keep a very close eye on the case to ensure that Assange's rights were respected, that he received a fair trial, and to fact-check Trump's inevitable bullshitting.

The main reason I'd want the US to have him (questioning over 2016) isn't even part of Trump's extradition request or something that the Barr DOJ would pursue, so...

Also calling Elfdart a rape apologist when he has argued for the extradition of convicted rapist like Roman Polanski despite European objection, to be frankly a smear.

See, I prefer people who are consistently in favor of prosecuting rapists.