Why am I not surprised that no-one has mentioned the real reason Assange wants to avoid going to Sweden. And its nothing to do with being extradited to the US.

If the US wanted him that bad they could just as easily get him extradited from the UK.

He simply didn't want to face a rape charge in Sweden where the rape laws are hard for him to escape at least some embarrassment if not jail time. Nothing more. All the other hubris is simply hot air.

I guess it all depends on how much money you have.


Old habits die hard, meneer.

Yes, because the real problem here is that he's leaking information that people deserve to know, not the rape charges :doh:

And how are we supposed to know that those people are securing our liberty when governments keep so much from us?

And I think the Americans and French might disagree with you. Their nations are only what they are today because their dissent cost a lot of lives.

That's where Sweden's sex laws are all 'up the pole'... it takes two to tango, She wasn't wearing a condom was she ??.

Taking it from that angle, Swedens sex laws are sexist to the extreme, and soon Sweden will be really gay :har:

Regardless of the stupidity or otherwise of the laws, they remain the laws in that country. Britain has already agreed to his extradition to Sweden for questioning but strangely he's not very keen on going.

Non of the leaks rubbish really has anything to do with him hiding in the embassy for two years.

The very strong indices that the Swedish case is a constructed plot has been repeatedly explained two years ago. And I did that back then, too.

That all that soo fast and so comfortably has been forgotten - or better: gets intentionally ignored again - just illustrates how deep the desire for simple revenge is in many people.

On the Swedish women, their dubious, highly suspicious background also has been pointed out.

Sexual accusations are a formidable tool of diffaming. Support of the crowds is certain - their slobbering mouths as well.

The American operation to minimise any future impacts by Assange by discrediting him and keeping him running, already has achieved its main goal, however: Assange has been seriously isolated from his former support basis, and his resources have been seriously drained, with the man also having personally lost stamina.

I never understood this blind loyalty many people have for their nations, even if it plays foul. To me it is the servility of dogs that do not like to be stripped of their illusions how good and shiny their master is. I do not respoect it one bit. A foul is a foul, even when own team commits it. Assange was the first bringing to the awareness of a very huge crowd the level to which the powers believed to be "good" are playing foul even against their own people. Snowden continued there. Are they heroes? No, and what drives Assange I do not know, I do not like him and somethign about him keeps me alarmed, but I judge his case on the probability of scneairos for the Swedish claims and the importance of what he has achieved with wikileaks. Snowden is different, seems to be a man who maybe was a bit naive, maybe not, but who in the end followed a strong call by his conscience - might it be idealistic or not. Criminals ore "traitors" none of the two are, imo. Just two detemrined people who dared to break a taboo and reveal the dirt under own government's carpets. And the sight of how dirty it is there, indeed is frightening.

I (and this is my personal humble opinion) think that the issue here is that while some countries that infringe on personal freedoms do not really deny it (ie it is accepted as normal within that society), USA (and West in general) appears to follow the ideology that forbids such actions.

And hence there is a conflict between the actions of the security services (however justified by valid and present threats they are) and the ideology held by the state (ie where personal freedoms are quaranteed).

That is how it looks like from where I am in any case.

Interesting radio interview with one of Assange's Australia legal team: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/triplej/..._2014_8_19.mp3

Ignore the bit about Team Australia. It's simply an embarrassment.:oops:

Eggsaxctly.. you said it.
:up:

Listened to that and found it very interesting. All of it. Firstly it would appear that the charges from Sweden against Julian will be needed to be addressed first and then later the USA gets the bite.

But what really interested me was Abbot's take on "Australia First" with regards to immigrants. To quote him: "You don't migrate to our country unless you want to join our team"

Two questions here:

Is he correct in his statement?

And the second one is:

What is meant by "our team".

Both of Abbot's statements are those that are been questioned by political scientists.

What is the Nation State? Are we today, moving away from cultural, linguistic, ethnic foundations that gave rise to nation states?

In my country our national flag has changed, street names have been changed, cities too, anthem, icons on currency etc, etc. Yes, this has all been brought about by a majority now able to rule itself which no one can challenge - but coming back to Abbot's sentiments this is not about an indigenous populace wronged. This about people WANTING to move to another country and WANTING to change its character.

I hope Harold Wilson wherever he may be is turning in his grave.

I hope the nation state does become a thing of the past in a world where communication is not halted by borders, however I'm a realist so I don't expect that to happen anytime in the next century.
The ideology of nationalism and nation states, jingo and patriotism has not done great things for the history of mankind. :hmmm:

Take the sod out with a missile and blame it on the French. After all they are a shifty nation. :shifty:

Oberon what other world order do you propose?

And I ask this question on the basis that any individual ... needs security, be it home, family, culture, language ect.?

Surely you cannot or believe in a world order where any of these concepts play no role.

We are what we are.

One individual only needs security because of his or hers mistrust of another. If we must create an identity for ourselves, at least for now, then let it be of one planet, the universe is so huge and dangerous, and our presence on this ball of dirt so fleeting that unless we take some steps to protect ourselves from the hazards of the universe then we will not make it off this planet, and our future is not here, it's out there.
Fantastical, I know, like I said I don't expect anything like this to happen in my lifetime, or that of any children or grandchildren of my generation.
Now, if we realise that our differences should make us unite in sharing the one thing we share in common, living on this planet, then it would be a nice thing. After all, as Sagan put it:

http://ep.yimg.com/ty/cdn/skyimage/pbdwords.jpg

Unfortunately Jamie, getting a bunch of monkeys to agree on anything is a very unlikely outcome.