ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags George W. Bush , Julian Assange , Sweden issues

Reply
Old 29th May 2013, 09:11 AM   #81
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,020
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Well, if the various dimwitted yokes were not so terribly dimwitted, then they would already know the answers to that question.

However, I will do my best to expunge your ignorance.


Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
First, I do not know of any other options that would have removed Saddam from power in Iraq. Furthermore, I did not really care if Saddam stayed in power or not.
Well then we are already at an impasse as I really did care about removing him from power. I cared a lot about this. So much so I was writing congressmen about it.

Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
However, what I (and many, many others) did care about, was keeping Saddam contained in Iraq. The pre-war sanctions were doing an excellent job of keeping him in his own country as well as building the international cooperation which would be needed to properly handle a post-Saddam Iraq.
So, just screw the poor people in Iraq? Sorry folks you have to deal with the death squads all on your own!

Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Second, as for transforming Iraq into a democracy, that has not been done yet. And I doubt that such a thing will happen for quite some time.
True.

Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
But since you do not know how to radically change radically change the population of an entire nation into a new direction in a short time, then I will tell you how such a thing is done. What needs to happen is to completely occupy that nation so that the population is forced to accept the designated direction. And again, such an occupation has not been done in Iraq.
Also true.

Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
Belgium was liberated from an outside aggressor, the Nazis
Iraq was not liberated from an outsider aggressor
Iraq was liberated from an internal aggressor. What is the difference?

Why is it alright to stop someone from mass murdering civilians if they are from another country but we cannot if the person doing the mass murdering is from that nation?

Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
If the US were sodedicated to liberating the world from evil Saddam, why were they supporting him 20 years before?
We've gone over this time and time again.

It doesn't matter. It just doesn't.

Am I obligated to stick with a woman just because she was my girlfriend once? Do I have to stay with her if she turns out to be a psychopath that murders puppies for fun?

Allying yourself to someone does not obligate you to support that individual for all time and eternity.

Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
You mean the same citizens that were suffering when the US was supporting that genocidal madman?
Yeah, the same ones.

Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
Ah,. it is the timing
You support dictators in even years and remove them in odd years..
No, you remove them when the national will is there to support it.

In 1999 people were more concerned with a blonde pop star than with Saddam. In 2003 that was different.

That's the difference.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 09:15 AM   #82
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,020
Why do I get this feeling that this is just becoming a shouting match between two well intentioned extremists?
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 09:16 AM   #83
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 27,466
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Is Assange the only accused rapist this applies to or is Sweden unable to prosecute any accused rapists until they have sufficient international morality points by this arbitrary standard?
I think the logic is that the only reason that Sweden have chosen to prosecute Assange is to punish him for his Wikileaks activities and not because he may have sexually assaulted two women. There's also a suggestion that as soon as he sets foot in Sweden he will be whisked off to the United States.

So following that "logic" Sweden can prosecute anyone for rape so long as they aren't associated with Wikileaks or any other body which exposes the evils of American Imperialism.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 09:17 AM   #84
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 27,466
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Why do I get this feeling that this is just becoming a shouting match between two well intentioned extremists?
Oh, I'm not sure you're well intentioned
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 09:48 AM   #85
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,717
Originally Posted by Travis View Post

Well then we are already at an impasse as I really did care about removing him from power. I cared a lot about this. So much so I was writing congressmen about it.
Good for you then! I am glad that you got involved.

Quote:
So, just screw the poor people in Iraq? Sorry folks you have to deal with the death squads all on your own!
Sorry, but I find that sentiment to be quite false. After all, the USA killed tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands or Iraqis during the stupid, idotic war. Also, the war got the USA involved with numerous war crimes that would not have occurred otherwise.

So if you are really so concerned about the Iraqis, then waging war against them is very counter-productive.

Quote:
True.
Thanks for admitting the obvious.

Quote:
Also true.
Thanks again for admitting the obvious.

Quote:
Iraq was liberated from an internal aggressor. What is the difference?

Why is it alright to stop someone from mass murdering civilians if they are from another country but we cannot if the person doing the mass murdering is from that nation?
Do you really have to ask that?

If making Iraq a better place was the actual aim of the war, then I expect that many more people (including myself) would have supported the war. But instead, the often stated war aim were supposed Iraqi WMDs.

... snipped for relevance ...
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 10:21 AM   #86
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,516
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
In this case, it is deliberate trolling. I can say for sure
How so?
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 10:41 AM   #87
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,516
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Is Assange the only accused rapist this applies to or is Sweden unable to prosecute any accused rapists until they have sufficient international morality points by this arbitrary standard?
Interesting question.
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 10:49 AM   #88
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
In the Iran/Iraq war, the U.S. determined that Iran was "worse" than Iraq (what with it being an Islamic Theocracy and because it had recently held more than a hundred US diplomatic staff hostage).

20 years later the US determined that Saddam needed to be deposed (probably because of the threat he now posed to US allies like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) and used WMD as the means to do so.
Let alone the fact that it is nowhere written that an Islamic Theocracy is worse than a dictatorship and that the whole WMDs thing was a lie, it looks to me that the US bases their consideration not on a careful reading of human rights but on their own political convenience

Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Maybe in 1982 they felt that Iraq under Saddam was preferable to Iraq under whoever the Iranians would put in power.

In 2003 they felt that Iraq under Saddam was much worse than Iraq under whoever the US would put in power.
See above

Last edited by Watanabe; 29th May 2013 at 10:51 AM.
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 10:52 AM   #89
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Is Assange the only accused rapist this applies to or is Sweden unable to prosecute any accused rapists until they have sufficient international morality points by this arbitrary standard?
Assange and all the other alleged rapists who are responsible of one of the biggest leak of intelligence in history
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 10:59 AM   #90
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Iraq was liberated from an internal aggressor. What is the difference?
I heve never heard the words "internal aggressor"
Is the King of Saudi Arabia also an internal aggressor?

Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Why is it alright to stop someone from mass murdering civilians if they are from another country but we cannot if the person doing the mass murdering is from that nation?
Because it is not the same thing and maybe because you supported that person when it was convenient to some US people

Originally Posted by Travis View Post
We've gone over this time and time again.

It doesn't matter. It just doesn't.

Am I obligated to stick with a woman just because she was my girlfriend once? Do I have to stay with her if she turns out to be a psychopath that murders puppies for fun?

Allying yourself to someone does not obligate you to support that individual for all time and eternity.
You mean that Saddam was not a psychopath when he was murderning Kurds with gas in the 80s?
Or maybe the CIA did not know?

Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Yeah, the same ones..

No, you remove them when the national will is there to support it.

In 1999 people were more concerned with a blonde pop star than with Saddam. In 2003 that was different.

That's the difference.
I see
If the US people like to support a bloody dictator or remove it, both are OK if the US people are happy with either options.
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:19 AM   #91
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
Let alone the fact that it is nowhere written that an Islamic Theocracy is worse than a dictatorship and that the whole WMDs thing was a lie, it looks to me that the US bases their consideration not on a careful reading of human rights but on their own political convenience



See above
It is written:

An Islamic Theocracy is worse than a dictatorship.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:41 AM   #92
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,519
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
Let alone the fact that it is nowhere written that an Islamic Theocracy is worse than a dictatorship and that the whole WMDs thing was a lie, it looks to me that the US bases their consideration not on a careful reading of human rights but on their own political convenience.
Dude, if you gave a ratīs ass about human rights, the US would be about #87 on your list of countries to complain about.

Why arenīt you constantly denouncing any of the following countries for their disregard for human rights?

Peopleīs Republic of China
Democratic Peopleīs Republic of Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Egypt
Syria
Cuba
Venezuela
Vietnam
Cambodia
Russia
Belarus
Uzbekhistan
Armenia
Aserbaijan
Georgia
Ukraine
Turkey

So? Why not? Whatīs keeping you? Why whine constantly about how Assange is treated when they are millions of innocents being imprisoned, tortured or murdered by far worse regime?
Chaos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:42 AM   #93
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,717
The sad fact is that there are millions, and probably billions, of people living under horrible rulers and governments. However, the USA simply does not have the resources to set the world to rights.

Therefore, often the best thing that the USA can do is watch, wait, set a good example, and be ready to help out when the time is right.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:50 AM   #94
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 31,562
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
Dude, if you gave a ratīs ass about human rights, the US would be about #87 on your list of countries to complain about.

Why arenīt you constantly denouncing any of the following countries for their disregard for human rights?

Peopleīs Republic of China
Democratic Peopleīs Republic of Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Egypt
Syria
Cuba
Venezuela
Vietnam
Cambodia
Russia
Belarus
Uzbekhistan
Armenia
Aserbaijan
Georgia
Ukraine
Turkey

So? Why not? Whatīs keeping you? Why whine constantly about how Assange is treated when they are millions of innocents being imprisoned, tortured or murdered by far worse regime?

By Watanabe's own argument, he has no right to complain about the Assange case until he has denounced all these countries, and any others that anybody arbitrarily decides need denouncing.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:54 AM   #95
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
Dude, if you gave a ratīs ass about human rights, the US would be about #87 on your list of countries to complain about.

Why arenīt you constantly denouncing any of the following countries for their disregard for human rights?

Peopleīs Republic of China
Democratic Peopleīs Republic of Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Egypt
Syria
Cuba
Venezuela
Vietnam
Cambodia
Russia
Belarus
Uzbekhistan
Armenia
Aserbaijan
Georgia
Ukraine
Turkey

So? Why not? Whatīs keeping you? Why whine constantly about how Assange is treated when they are millions of innocents being imprisoned, tortured or murdered by far worse regime?
By Watanabe logic as long as America does anything bad, he can ignore all those other countries because America is held up as a good place by some so until the USA is truly perfect all the other countries get a pass.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 12:29 PM   #96
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
 
Elizabeth I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Defending the Alamo
Posts: 9,929
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
Assange and all the other alleged rapists who are responsible of one of the biggest leak of intelligence in history
Are you serious? Suppose I were responsible for the recent reported leak of U.S. defense codes to China, then shot up a school. Could I not be tried for the school shooting because I had contributed to an intelligence leak?

If Assange committed rape, he needs to be tried for it regardless of whatever else anyone may think he has or has not done.

Your logic is seriously warped.
Elizabeth I is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 12:31 PM   #97
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
Dude, if you gave a ratīs ass about human rights, the US would be about #87 on your list of countries to complain about.

Why arenīt you constantly denouncing any of the following countries for their disregard for human rights?

Peopleīs Republic of China
Democratic Peopleīs Republic of Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Egypt
Syria
Cuba
Venezuela
Vietnam
Cambodia
Russia
Belarus
Uzbekhistan
Armenia
Aserbaijan
Georgia
Ukraine
Turkey

So? Why not? Whatīs keeping you? Why whine constantly about how Assange is treated when they are millions of innocents being imprisoned, tortured or murdered by far worse regime?
Go start strawmen and offtopics somewhere else, would you?
Already received a pack of yellow cards.

Oh..
Since there are a lot of rapists in the world, please ask the Sween Government to stop prosecuting Assange..

Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
The sad fact is that there are millions, and probably billions, of people living under horrible rulers and governments. However, the USA simply does not have the resources to set the world to rights.

Therefore, often the best thing that the USA can do is watch, wait, set a good example, and be ready to help out when the time is right.
This guy is great!!
I love him !!


Last edited by Watanabe; 29th May 2013 at 12:34 PM.
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 12:37 PM   #98
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Elizabeth I View Post
Are you serious? Suppose I were responsible for the recent reported leak of U.S. defense codes to China, then shot up a school. Could I not be tried for the school shooting because I had contributed to an intelligence leak?

If Assange committed rape, he needs to be tried for it regardless of whatever else anyone may think he has or has not done.

Your logic is seriously warped.
Maybe your ability to read English is warped
I have never said this
Of course Assange should be prosecuted if there s enough evidence taht he may have committed crimes
However, the fact that Sweden did nothing (almost) against Bush and spends so much energy for Assange is reason to suspect that the whole thing may just be political prosecution
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 12:37 PM   #99
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,519
Itīs amazing how Watanabeīs "logic" can be used to support completely contradictory demands.

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
By Watanabe's own argument, he has no right to complain about the Assange case until he has denounced all these countries, and any others that anybody arbitrarily decides need denouncing.
That list contained 18 countries, roughly 10% of all countries in the world, and it took me about a minute to come up with it. Watanabe has no excuse.

For that matter, Iīve personally met people from 13 of these countries who have suffered human rights violations (my favorite is the one who lost his seat in parliament for "radically democratic statements") serious to each warrant their own thread of serious whining.

Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
By Watanabe logic as long as America does anything bad, he can ignore all those other countries because America is held up as a good place by some so until the USA is truly perfect all the other countries get a pass.
Bah. America is held up as a good place by its supporters only. The same goes for the Castro brothersī Cuba (there are actually several pro-Castro "Cuban-German friendship networks" here in Germany). So by the same logic there is no excuse for whining about the US as long as Cuba is still a dictatorship.
Chaos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 12:38 PM   #100
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
By Watanabe logic as long as America does anything bad, he can ignore all those other countries because America is held up as a good place by some so until the USA is truly perfect all the other countries get a pass.
Why do people like you keep lying and misrepresenting?
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 01:11 PM   #101
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
 
Elizabeth I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Defending the Alamo
Posts: 9,929
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
Maybe your ability to read English is warped
I have never said this
Of course Assange should be prosecuted if there s enough evidence taht he may have committed crimes
However, the fact that Sweden did nothing (almost) against Bush and spends so much energy for Assange is reason to suspect that the whole thing may just be political prosecution
How can you be serious? Look at all the other egregious things Sweden has never prosecuted anybody for. I listed several of them here.

How you can make this connection is beyond me. George Bush Julian Assange. They are two completely separate and different cases. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. They are connected in no way. If George W. Bush had never lived, or if he were the reincarnation of Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, Julian Assange should STILL be prosecuted for rape if there's evidence to show he committed rape.

By the way, the highlighted area above is the first time I have ever seen you even suggest that Assange may not be a persecuted pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent. So far you have seemed to think that he is a beacon of light in a world of rapidly gathering gloom.

And you know what? This argument is not worth wasting any more time with. I don't believe that anyone who can scramble issues up in his (or her, but I think you are male) head like you can has much chance of ever learning to think clearly. I don't know who taught you that 1+1 = devil's food cake, but you should go to them and ask for your money back.
Elizabeth I is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 01:30 PM   #102
Metullus
Forum ū-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,080
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
By Watanabe logic as long as America does anything bad, he can ignore all those other countries because America is held up as a good place by some so until the USA is truly perfect all the other countries get a pass.
This makes perfect sense to me.
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 02:33 PM   #103
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,516
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
Why do people like you keep lying and misrepresenting?
You mean why do people keep telling the truth and accurately represent statements you've made?
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 12:30 AM   #104
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 27,466
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
This thread is about Assange, please do not go off topic
Actually it's about Sweden and your assertion that Sweden cannot fairly try Assange for rape because (well I'm not sure but it's something like)....
  • Sweden has not attempted to try GWB for war crimes (even though we cannot work out how the charge would be brought or why Sweden would bring it)
  • Sweden, although it made a number of statements against the war in Iraq, has not been sufficiently vociferous to satisfy Watanabe
  • Sweden is merely the US's catspaw and this is just a ruse to allow the US to extradite Assange from Sweden

I'm sure that this is all very insulting to Swedes who I'm sure consider their legal system to be both fair and independent from the Swedish government. My personal opinion is that Assange would receive a fair trial in Sweden and there is no chance whatsoever that he will be extradited. Even if the charges themselves are "trumped up" and the alleged victims have only come forward at the behest of the Swedish (or worse the US) government, I think that the Swedish legal system would be able to establish this and acquit.

If the charges are not trumped up and Assange is indeed a rapist or sexual predator then I'm confident that the Swedish legal system would be able to determine that too.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 01:19 AM   #105
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Elizabeth I View Post
How can you be serious? Look at all the other egregious things Sweden has never prosecuted anybody for. I listed several of them here.
Why do you say such stupid things about Julius Ceasar?
Do you really want a serious conversation?
GWB invasion of Iraq happened just a few years ago when Sweden is an ally of the US

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I View Post
How you can make this connection is beyond me. George Bush Julian Assange. They are two completely separate and different cases. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. They are connected in no way.
Like me and you, for example
But if we both commit two different crimes and you get prosecuted while I do not, there has to be a reason for it, do not you think so?

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I View Post
If George W. Bush had never lived, or if he were the reincarnation of Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, Julian Assange should STILL be prosecuted for rape if there's evidence to show he committed rape.
Yes.
But there would be the question why Sweden would go so much after Assange while they say almost nothing about Bush.

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I View Post
By the way, the highlighted area above is the first time I have ever seen you even suggest that Assange may not be a persecuted pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent. So far you have seemed to think that he is a beacon of light in a world of rapidly gathering gloom.
Then you did not read my comments well, dear

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I View Post
And you know what? This argument is not worth wasting any more time with. I don't believe that anyone who can scramble issues up in his (or her, but I think you are male) head like you can has much chance of ever learning to think clearly. I don't know who taught you that 1+1 = devil's food cake, but you should go to them and ask for your money back.
This is an insult, but I will get over it
If you want to believe anything your Government tell you, I believe you are (very much) naive, but please go ahead
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 01:25 AM   #106
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Corrected for you ..
  • Sweden has not attempted to try GWB for war crimes (even though we cannot work out how the charge would be brought or why Sweden would bring it) Sweden has not attempted to even ask for prosecution of GWB despite he was guilty by the Swedish Government own words (and I mean, surely guilty) of starting an unnecessary war that led to the death of 200000+ people and that Sweden considered illegal. Why Sweden did not ask for GWB to be tried then?
  • Sweden, although it made a number of statements against the war in Iraq, has not been sufficiently vociferous to satisfy Watanabe Sweden, although it made one or few mild condemnation about US unnecessary invasion of Iraq, they did not do anything more and not even tried to ask for GWB to be tried. But at the same time they went great lenghts to prosecute Assange. If Bush was guilty of starting a war which was outside the UN legality, as Sweden herself said, why they did not ask for a prosecution of Bush? Illogical! Assange, even if guilty, would have been guilty of sex crimes, which we will agree is vastly minor if compared of starting a war outside the UN legality, which is what Sweden accused the US of having done
  • Sweden is merely the US's catspaw and this is just a ruse to allow the US to extradite Assange from Sweden Sweden has a lot of economic and military interests with the US and going too far in the condemnation could be risky

Last edited by Watanabe; 30th May 2013 at 01:28 AM.
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 02:22 AM   #107
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 27,466
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
Corrected for you ..
Not corrected at all....

Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
  • Sweden has not attempted to try GWB for war crimes (even though we cannot work out how the charge would be brought or why Sweden would bring it) Sweden has not attempted to even ask for prosecution of GWB despite he was guilty by the Swedish Government own words (and I mean, surely guilty) of starting an unnecessary war that led to the death of 200000+ people and that Sweden considered illegal. Why Sweden did not ask for GWB to be tried then?
Ask whom ?

Could you please provide the Swedish Government's own words.

Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
  • Sweden, although it made a number of statements against the war in Iraq, has not been sufficiently vociferous to satisfy Watanabe Sweden, although it made one or few mild condemnation about US unnecessary invasion of Iraq, they did not do anything more and not even tried to ask for GWB to be tried. But at the same time they went great lenghts to prosecute Assange. If Bush was guilty of starting a war which was outside the UN legality, as Sweden herself said, why they did not ask for a prosecution of Bush? Illogical! Assange, even if guilty, would have been guilty of sex crimes, which we will agree is vastly minor if compared of starting a war outside the UN legality, which is what Sweden accused the US of having done
This is beginning to sound like a new version of a legal non-sequitor, the Chewbacca prosecution.

You still have not demonstrated why Sweden failing to prosecute GWB for war crimes means that they are not competent to prosecute Assange for sex crimes unless you are adopting the position that Sweden shouldn't prosecute anyone of anything less than war crimes until they attempt to prosecute GWB for war crimes.

Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
  • Sweden is merely the US's catspaw and this is just a ruse to allow the US to extradite Assange from Sweden Sweden has a lot of economic and military interests with the US and going too far in the condemnation could be risky
So far you have provided no evidence for a reasonable suspicion that Sweden would allow the US to extradite.

Last edited by The Don; 30th May 2013 at 02:23 AM.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 02:27 AM   #108
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 27,466
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
Like me and you, for example
But if we both commit two different crimes and you get prosecuted while I do not, there has to be a reason for it, do not you think so?
Well here's three reasons for starters:
  • GWB has not done anything prosecutable, he has committed no crime
  • Even if he had committed a crime, Sweden has no jurisdiction to bring charges
  • Even it if brought charges there is no reasonable hope of a conviction, they would merely be wasting Swedish taxpayer's money and ruining Sweden's international reputation
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 05:09 AM   #109
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,020
I'd love for Watanabe to outline the supposed case the Swedish prosecutors would need to make in order to convict GWB.

What about it Watanabe? What is the evidence that prosecutors would use to get their conviction?
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 05:31 AM   #110
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,410
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
I'd love for Watanabe to outline the supposed case the Swedish prosecutors would need to make in order to convict GWB.

What about it Watanabe? What is the evidence that prosecutors would use to get their conviction?
I don't think you will get that.
He/she has still not shown any knowledge about what specific laws actually state. Or even which ones are appliccable.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 06:18 AM   #111
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
If I may interject ...

'Travis' you may not be aware of this fact, but since the USA has signed on to various UN Charters/Treaties which, among other things, forbid member states from engaging in wars of agression and torture. Therefore, since the Iraq War can be considered to be a war of agression by the USA and things like waterboarding can be considered to be torture which was done by the USA, therefore the responsible parties (like George W. Bush and his various flunkies) can be prosecuted accordingly.

However, I seriously doubt that such a thing will ever happen.



There were many other ways of dealing with Saddam besides going to war. However, George Bush and the pro-war people were far too stupid to use them.
You keep saying "George Bush", as if the US was a Bush dictatorship. You really should say "the US government", because that's who brought us to war in Iraq. The government is Bush, the Congress, and the People of the United States who elected them and who they represent.

You cannot hold a single person responsible for the actions of a democratic state.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 07:11 AM   #112
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Ask whom ?
Make a public statement that GWB is guilty (at least, freom a moral point of view) of some 200000+ deaths

Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Could you please provide the Swedish Government's own words.
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
This is beginning to sound like a new version of a legal non-sequitor, the Chewbacca prosecution.

You still have not demonstrated why Sweden failing to prosecute GWB for war crimes means that they are not competent to prosecute Assange for sex crimes
I never spoke about being incompetent to prosecute Assange
They certainly are.
The suspect is that they are very much biased.
Why?
As they did not say much and do much against muych worse artocities, such as GWB` s invasion of Iraq

Originally Posted by The Don View Post
So far you have provided no evidence for a reasonable suspicion that Sweden would allow the US to extradite.
The suspicion is the same about Sweden` prosecuting Assange
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 07:14 AM   #113
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Well here's three reasons for starters:
  • GWB has not done anything prosecutable, he has committed no crime
  • Even if he had committed a crime, Sweden has no jurisdiction to bring charges
  • Even it if brought charges there is no reasonable hope of a conviction, they would merely be wasting Swedish taxpayer's money and ruining Sweden's international reputation
******** all over

1) legally speaking, if you cant use the word "crime", please use the word "atrocity", "wrongdoing", "immoral action", "war not morally justified"
2) Sweden could have severed their coperation with the US, issued a formal statement that they considered the US and the allies morally responsible for the deaths and much more
They did not do much
3) I do not think Sweden reputation would be harmed by denouncing a war which is largely impopular all around the world. Sweden interests may have been harmed
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 07:17 AM   #114
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
I'd love for Watanabe to outline the supposed case the Swedish prosecutors would need to make in order to convict GWB.

What about it Watanabe? What is the evidence that prosecutors would use to get their conviction?
Make a public statement that GWB(*) is guilty (at least, from a moral point of view) of some 200000+ deaths

(*) along with all the people not denouncing an immoral war, including members of this forum and of my family

And here is the evidence of what people are guilty of

http://www.uruknet.info/pic.php?f=24iraq_death.jpg


Please be careful: strong images

Last edited by Watanabe; 30th May 2013 at 07:18 AM.
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 07:20 AM   #115
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,426
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
I never spoke about being incompetent to prosecute Assange
They certainly are.
The suspect is that they are very much biased.
Why?
As they did not say much and do much against muych worse artocities, such as GWB` s invasion of Iraq
You just don't get what separation of powers is, right? The Swedish judicial system isn't the same thing as the Swedish government.

Add to that that the Swedish government right now isn't the same government as when the Iraq war started.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 07:21 AM   #116
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
I heve never heard the words "internal aggressor"
So by being on the JREF board you have learned something

Definition (at least according to me): A ruler waging war against a large identifiable segment of his subjects
Eg Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussain. Mullah Omar.

Couldn't do anyhing about the first, but the others eventually slipped up.

Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
You mean that Saddam was not a psychopath when he was murderning Kurds with gas in the 80s?
Yeah he was, and while I agree with Travis on the desirability of his removal, the principle of non-interferance in another nation's internal affairs should create a barrier.

That barrier is overcome if said psychopath gives another nation a Casus belli . In such case the other nation is morally justified in taking action to not only rectify the specific Casus belli , but rectifying the psychopath entirely.

And to be quite clear, I believe Tanzania, Vietnam, the United Nations, the United States had both the legal and the moral justification for action in the cases I refered to.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 07:31 AM   #117
Watanabe
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
So by being on the JREF board you have learned something

Definition (at least according to me): A ruler waging war against a large identifiable segment of his subjects
Eg Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussain. Mullah Omar.

Couldn't do anyhing about the first, but the others eventually slipped up.



Yeah he was, and while I agree with Travis on the desirability of his removal, the principle of non-interferance in another nation's internal affairs should create a barrier.

That barrier is overcome if said psychopath gives another nation a Casus belli . In such case the other nation is morally justified in taking action to not only rectify the specific Casus belli , but rectifying the psychopath entirely.

And to be quite clear, I believe Tanzania, Vietnam, the United Nations, the United States had both the legal and the moral justification for action in the cases I refered to.
You again miss the point completely.
Why the US supported a genocidal psychopath then?
Watanabe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 07:34 AM   #118
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,426
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
You again miss the point completely.
Why the US supported a genocidal psychopath then?
The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

You need to learn a thing or two about politics. It's not pretty, and it doesn't fit into your naive view of what the world should be, where evil Americans are punished and where brave international whistleblowers can't be prosecuted for rape.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 07:38 AM   #119
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
You again miss the point completely.
Why the US supported a genocidal psychopath then?
They needed him to beat Hitler.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2013, 07:38 AM   #120
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,020
Originally Posted by Watanabe View Post
Make a public statement that GWB(*) is guilty (at least, from a moral point of view) of some 200000+ deaths

(*) along with all the people not denouncing an immoral war, including members of this forum and of my family

And here is the evidence of what people are guilty of

http://www.uruknet.info/pic.php?f=24iraq_death.jpg


Please be careful: strong images
He's guilty "from a moral point of view" for war crimes?

That is not the way it works.

As for morality, Saddam had on average 26,000 of his citizens summarily executed every year. That means that if Saddam had been left in power 260,000 Iraqis would have died by his hands from 2003 to now.

Is it moral to let that happen?
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.