UN rules in favour of Assange

[Husar]

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. I'm not the one claiming we are being ruled from the Lizard people on the moon.

You are however calling a man guilty before he has even been charged, according to our justice system that is not just extraordinary, it is plain wrong. You have to show why he is guilty, I do not have to prove that he is innocent. So far you have nothing but your own guilty verdic that you obviously reached without even knowing much about the case...

Could we get a link?

Already linked to that page that Snowhobbit tries to decry, but the info is also available on the BBC for example: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11049316

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest.
In a brief statement Eva Finne said: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

Later another prosecutor did apparently find a reason to attempt to charge him, but the question remains why the first one didn't, the websaite linked earlier mentions another prosecutor who saw no reason to press charges. It's funny how we live in the "information age", yet nothing is clear anymore and the rest is all lies.

[Snowhobbit]

You are however calling a man guilty before he has even been charged, according to our justice system that is not just extraordinary, it is plain wrong. You have to show why he is guilty, I do not have to prove that he is innocent. So far you have nothing but your own guilty verdic that you obviously reached without even knowing much about the case...

Do you have another word to use for a man who sleeps with a woman without her consent? My dictionary calls that rapist, yours spells hero? I was unaware that the Backroom functioned as a court, have we sent Assange to jail yet?

Oddly...nobody has claimed anything about Lizard people on the moon,did you post this is the wrong thread? Any argument, if it is to be taken seriously, requires a framework of evidence. You have so far offered nothing of any value. Whenever you are asked for material supporting your position you have nothing, you just jump off into some whacked out notion of what you think the question means ....as opposed to it being a request for some corroboration of your position.

So...your argument cannot be taken seriously. You have nothing of any value to say on the issue and. You have made, by your own machinations, the position that you hold simply laughable. I am sure that is not what you intended...but maybe I'm wrong.Maybe you are actually a very clever satirist.

Yes, prosecutor statements and news articles and interviews is nothing. Mad fantasies about the massive reach and scope of US intelligence forces is hard data. Thanks for playing, do try again.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Do you have another word to use for a man who sleeps with a woman without her consent? My dictionary calls that rapist, yours spells hero? I was unaware that the Backroom functioned as a court, have we sent Assange to jail yet?

You are the one who has claimed that he is guilty....which is a decision to be made by a court. That is the function of a court, and until such a decision has been made the accused is presumed innocent. You are the only one here who has seen fit to function as a court.

You really don't understand the law do you?

Yes, prosecutor statements and news articles and interviews is nothing. Mad fantasies about the massive reach and scope of US intelligence forces is hard data. Thanks for playing, do try again.

What prosecutor statements?You clearly don't have access to such. Do you know how I figured that out? Because the best you could offer in support of that was that either they had received new evidence or that the evidence presented was likely to produce a conviction......so which is it? If you had access to such a statement then you would know......The idea you have in your head that a statement might exist which should clear the matter up is not real..it is not evidence of information, it is..it is an idea you have made up in your head.

You really don't understand what evidence is, do you?

[Snowhobbit]

You are the one who has claimed that he is guilty....which is a decision to be made by a court. That is the function of a court, and until such a decision has been made the accused is presumed innocent. You are the only one here who has seen fit to function as a court.

You really don't understand the law do you?




What prosecutor statements?You clearly don't have access to such. Do you know how I figured that out? Because the best you could offer in support of that was that either they had received new evidence or that the evidence presented was likely to produce a conviction......so which is it? If you had access to such a statement then you would know......The idea you have in your head that a statement might exist which should clear the matter up is not real..it is not evidence of information, it is..it is an idea you have made up in your head.

You really don't understand what evidence is, do you?

Oh I see. You are mistaking me for a judge, and the Backroom for a court of law. Let me assure you that neither of those things are true. Do you understand what an internet forum is? Do you understand what an opinion based on the facts of the matter are?

The prosecutor statements (otherwise known as things said by the prosecutor) can be found all over the media. I am simply offering the logical explanation for why two different prosecutors came to two different decisions. This is what is known as logic based on known facts, as opposed to figments of imagination to protect the "honour" of a rapist. Do you grasp the concept of rape?

[Husar]

Oh I see. You are mistaking me for a judge, and the Backroom for a court of law. Let me assure you that neither of those things are true. Do you understand what an internet forum is? Do you understand what an opinion based on the facts of the matter are?

Yes, the problem is that your opinion does not seem to be based on the facts of the matter as you fail so far to mention or recognize most of the important facts. Take your earlier reply:

Do you have another word to use for a man who sleeps with a woman without her consent? My dictionary calls that rapist, yours spells hero? I was unaware that the Backroom functioned as a court, have we sent Assange to jail yet?

Show me the fact that says he slept with another woman without her consent. A prosecutor thinking that he may have done so or a woman saying so does NOT make it a fact that he slept with a woman without her consent.
The tripe about dictionaries does not change that, it's just baseless accusations. In fact you seem more and more like a troll.

[Snowhobbit]

Yes, the problem is that your opinion does not seem to be based on the facts of the matter as you fail so far to mention or recognize most of the important facts. Take your earlier reply:



Show me the fact that says he slept with another woman without her consent. A prosecutor thinking that he may have done so or a woman saying so does NOT make it a fact that he slept with a woman without her consent.
The tripe about dictionaries does not change that, it's just baseless accusations. In fact you seem more and more like a troll.

No I think the problem is that you believe a rapist over the woman he raped and the police investigating it along with the prosecutor in charge of the case. His behaviour and refusal to participate in the criminal case speaks volumes about his "innocence and credibility". Going through your post history it is quite clear who is trolling here, and it is not me.

[Husar]

No I think the problem is that you believe a rapist over the woman he raped and the police investigating it along with the prosecutor in charge of the case.

The prosecutor in charge of the case said there is no case.
Your sentence about me believing the rapist even more is incredibly loaded, did you miss the lessons in school about stating something as fact that isn't?

His behaviour and refusal to participate in the criminal case speaks volumes about his "innocence and credibility".

Your presented lack of knowledge and terrible bias regarding the case makes it hard to believe your version of events however.

Going through your post history it is quite clear who is trolling here, and it is not me.

I'm not trolling, you keep making non-arguments, stating non-existant facts and putting words into my mouth.
I've told you earlier that if you can show some concrete evidence for why he is a rapist, I may even believe so, too. Since then you have only responded with stuff like "you support a rapist over a victim", haven't presented a single piece of evidence for your claims and just keep on attacking and stating "facts" you have no proof for. THAT is trolling because you just keep making us turn in circles and if you want to continue that way, you can discuss this with yourself or someone else.