And weren't these "victims" taking part in those sex acts as well? People have no sense of personal responsability these days. Truly sad.

Anyways, this is way off topic, so we should wait and see how this situation turns out. I can't wait to see how these "victims" can prove teir case (I doubt they have any actual evidence to support their claims, and they're probably trying to take advantage of the silly legal system).

So you're supporting an international warrant, defamation, false claims and attack against Assange because of a minor offense that only equates to a $700 fine?! The "sex without condom" is only a $700 fine. How is this not an orchestrated attack against Assange?

Besides, those two "victims" boasted about having sex and hanging out with Assange, and they only charged Assange AFTER they met each other.

And as for the details, for one woman she claims that the condom burst while they were having sex, while the other woman claimed he forgot to put a condom on their second intercourse.

I can't believe you're supporting the arrest of Assange over a $700 fine which he probably isn't even guilty of.

You mean, like the blindfolded woman was taking part of the sex acts ?

Gee no responsibility for their own actions?

That's one step away from the "Well she got traped because she dressed slutty at night!" defense.

I'd want to stop argueing too if I was completely cornered and had my reasoning disporved.  Rather then just admit your wrong you've devolved into even further "blaming the victim" logic.  Your ignoring the fact that both situations are exactly the same in terms of involving nothing but deception.

Either both are rape are neither are.  It is off topic though.  So i'll save you the trouble of pressing the issue further when you clearly don't have a response.  I'd suggest picking up a couple feminist readers or read a feminist blog or two though.

They are not the most accurate, but they are reliable (It's not for nothing that people say that an AK 46 will always fire, no matter what you do to it), powerful (in that they can shoot through obstacles well) and they are easy to use and manufacture.

The fact that they are almost as old as WW2 and are a viable alternative to modern weapos proves how extremely good they are.

Interpol has issued an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for "sex crimes".

Everyone assumed it was for rape.

But it turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having sex without a condom.

As Newsweek wrote in August:

A Swedish lawyer representing two women whose allegations triggered a sexual-misconduct investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has given [Newsweek column] Declassified the first on-the-record confirmation of the allegations that led to the issuance—and then rapid cancellation—of a warrant on a rape charge and to a parallel investigation into alleged “molestation." Claes Borgstrom of the Stockholm law firm Borgstrom and Bostrom, who is representing two women who said they had sexual relationships with Assange, said his clients complained to the police of Assange's reluctance to use condoms and unwillingness to be tested for sexually transmitted disease.

 

***

 

Borgstrom said that specific details about the the allegations had not yet appeared in Swedish media. But he acknowledged that the principal concern the women had about Assange’s behavior—which they reported to police in person—related to his lack of interest in using condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the women’s request, for sexually transmitted disease. A detailed, chronological account of the women’s alleged encounters with Assange—which in both cases began with consensual sexual contact but later included what the women claimed was nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didn’t use a condom—was published on Tuesday by The Guardian; a Declassified item included a more explicit reference than The Guardian to Assange’s declining to submit to medical tests.

Similarly, the Daily Mail reported in August:

'When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom - it had split.

 

'She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.’

 

Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.

 

***

 

The [second] woman admitted trying to engage her hero in conversation.

 

Assange seemed pleased to have such an ardent admirer fawning over him and, she said, would look at her ‘now and then’. Eventually he took a closer interest.

 

***

 

What he did not tell her was that the party was being hosted by the woman he had slept with two nights before and whose bed he would probably be sleeping in that night.

 

***

 

‘The passion and attraction seemed to have disappeared,’ she said.

 

Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: ‘It felt boring and like an everyday thing.’

 

One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.

This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.

And today, a former attorney for Assange has confirmed that the charges are for having sex without using a condom.  He notes that:

The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.

He also accuses the prosecutors of "making it up as they go along", and said that Sweden's justice system is destined to become "the laughingstock of the world" for pursuing the case against Assange.

So Assange might be a cad for sleeping with 2 women within a couple of days, and he might be irresponsible for having sex without a condom and then failing to submit to HIV tests afterwards.

But he has not been accused of rape under any traditional meaning of that term.

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-are-only-sex-without

What do you say of tha Khaz?

viable alternative doesn't = best... i mean have you seen some of the crazy stuff out there...

By the way, when it comes to fighters.   The current US "Ace in the whole" fighters are just ridiculious to the point of where a few could take down ten times other fighters.

I do agree though I don't get the "selling the best weapons" part.  I mean, the US pretty much never sells it's best weapons.   They usually just sell their surplus and they always keep their "aces" close to their vest unless they can get something REALLY valuable diplomatically out of it.

It's exactly what I said and the facts I presented of the case?

You know, outside of the "blaming the victim she can't be upset because she bought food" slanted tripe... from the Daily Mail.  Which you know... usually liberals call completely unreliable.

Futhermore, it still doesn't get you out of the logical fallacy you admitted above but couldn't argue your way out of...

which you basically proved by bringing it up after "dropping it because you didn't want to get further off topic."

I guess what you meant was "i'm dropping it because I have no defense and wish to save face.'

Two women told him to use a condom, and in one case he claimed it broke, and in the other case he didn't use a condom.  How doesn't show a patter of blantantly disregardly women's wishes?

Sounds like he has a LOT of questions to answer.

In plenty of cases a husband can rape his wife and it's not considered rape.  Doesn't mean it's not rape.

A crime with a different name is still the same crime.

In case you missed it in your own link

"A detailed, chronological account of the women’s alleged encounters with Assange—which in both cases began with consensual sexual contact but later included what the women claimed was nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didn’t use a condom"

The women consented to having sex with him. In one case the condom broke, and that couldn't possibly be considered his fault (what pleasure could he possible get from having sex with a broken condom?), and in the other case the woman requested he wear a condom, he didn't want to, yet the woman had sex with him anyway, and she was not forced to do so.

Even the prosecuttor admitted that the sex act were consensual, and that there was not even any deceit invloved.

Ultimately these women are suing him because he had sex with them and they can ue him. They aren't victims of anythin, and tehy're taking advantage of stupid laws meant to discourage men from not wearing condoms.

You can ignore facts all you want (I've noticed you do that), but these women are in no way rape victims.

So, you find is suspious that two women have similiar stories of being assaulted by teh same man....

But you don't find it at all strange that the condom split one day when the first woman said no to having sex... and that he specifically didn't wear a condom another time, and didn't tell her?

Seriously?

I guess those 3 women who all "passed out" when the same guy got them a drink are in a grand conspiracy against him.

As you stated earlier in this thread (Proving my point for me) someone can legally pretend to be their twin, trick thei brother's girlfriend into sleeping with them... and it's legally not considered rape... because she "consented".

It is still rape.

Also, you're not really putting the condom splitting thing on him, right? I mean sex with a broken condom is just as pleasureble as sex with an intact condom. What could he gain from that? Plus condoms break sometimes. Does it sound that far fetched?

As for the second one, where eactly did it say the he didn't tell her? It says she said "No sex without condoms". The had sex with a condom, and then sex without a condom the following morning. It doesn't say that he decieved her (they most likely just woke up, decided to have some morning sex, and forgot all about the condom), and the woman had no problem going out and buying the guy breakfast, so she obviosuly wasn't too upset abot the "rape" at that time.

Then those girls met and decided to sue the guy by taking advantage of Swedish laws, and to bring attention to themselves.

Honestly, I see no rapes having taken place, and your comparison reminds me of when homophobes compare homosexuality to padophilia. Totally not the same thing amigo.