By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Wikileaks + US diplomacy = biggest "diplomatic" storm ever incoming !

sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

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.

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.

Sex without consent is where they say so.  And yes, the first one very well could be put on him depending how much it split based on the allegations you would think SPLIT.

 

As for the bolded... go actually read something about rape victims.  The homophobe comment is pretty apt though... because you are acting like one.  

One day, you will be very ashamed of yourself.

 

And you know... i've still directly proven your logic wrong on "what is and what isn't" rape vs the blindfold situation and someone lieing about the agreed preventative measures.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

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.

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.

Sex without consent is where they say so.  And yes, the first one very well could be put on him depending how much it split based on the allegations you would think SPLIT.

 

As for the bolded... go actually read something about rape victims.

I have no words for this. I'm not going to continue this argument. I've already presented all the evidence I could (which does not support your claims), yet you choose to ignore them and maintain your (baseless) view that this guy broke a condom on purpuse (even thougs there wouldn't have been any point in that, unless he wanted to get her pregnant or infect her with an STD, as he still wouldn't have had the same pleasure as not using a condom) and that if a woman has sex with a guy and they forget to use a condom it's rape and the guy should pay.

Appearently you lack reason and common sense and like to go by false assumptions, which you don't let go even after they were proven wrong. I can understand now why people hate radical feminists, and I hope I never meet one in real life.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

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.

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.

Sex without consent is where they say so.  And yes, the first one very well could be put on him depending how much it split based on the allegations you would think SPLIT.

 

As for the bolded... go actually read something about rape victims.  The homophobe comment is pretty apt though... because you are acting like one.  

One day, you will be very ashamed of yourself.

 

And you know... i've still directly proven your logic wrong on "what is and what isn't" rape.

wtf is wrong with you?! Both of the women had consented sex DESPITE the no condom! Both women claimed he didn't rape them. The police say he didn't rape them. NO ONE IS SAYING HE RAPED THEM!!!

One of the women even threw a party for him the day after, and even continued having a relationship with him! She even bought him breakfast. And guess what, the women is a feminist with strong political ties, and even for a political party I believe.... the exact kind of person that would try to defamate a man for such idiotic things.

Both women only attacked Assange AFTER they met each other!

Tell me, why would a feminist, with a strong enough personality to to boast about having sex with men, strong enought to be involved politically, strong enough to throw a party for him, to buy him a breakfast, etc... I don't understand your thought process.



sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

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.

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.

Sex without consent is where they say so.  And yes, the first one very well could be put on him depending how much it split based on the allegations you would think SPLIT.

 

As for the bolded... go actually read something about rape victims.

I have no words for this. I'm not going to continue this argument. I've already presented all the evidence I could (which does not support your claims), yet you choose to ignore them and maintain your (baseless) view that this guy broke a condom on purpuse (even thougs there wouldn't have been any point in that, unless he wanted to get her pregnant or infect her with an STD, as he still wouldn't have had the same pleasure as not using a condom) and that if a woman has sex with a guy and they forget to use a condom it's rape and the guy should pay.

Appearently you lack reason and common sense and like to go by false assumptions, which you don't let go even after they were proven wrong. I can understand now why people hate radical feminists, and I hope I never meet one in real life.

Actually, if you break a condom enough it comes off.. and is basically like not using a condom.

Point 1

It's not radical feminism.  It's common sense.

If someone says "I want to have sex, but only if you use a condom" and you don't use a condom or intentionall break a condom for more pleasure you are commiting rape.

You are specifically committing an act that not only was not consented too... you were specifically told was out of bounds.

You keep trying to duck this point... becase you know your wrong.

 

Point 2

The fact that a conviently lucky broken condom, was followed 3 days later by the non-use of a condom even when it was told that was needed is definitly a pattern that involved looking into.

Furthermore he was fine with standing trial, but has suddenly changed his mind... because maybe he realizes he's actually guilty?

 

 

 



shio said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

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.

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.

Sex without consent is where they say so.  And yes, the first one very well could be put on him depending how much it split based on the allegations you would think SPLIT.

 

As for the bolded... go actually read something about rape victims.  The homophobe comment is pretty apt though... because you are acting like one.  

One day, you will be very ashamed of yourself.

 

And you know... i've still directly proven your logic wrong on "what is and what isn't" rape.

wtf is wrong with you?! Both of the women had consented sex DESPITE the no condom! Both women claimed he didn't rape them. The police say he didn't rape them. NO ONE IS SAYING HE RAPED THEM!!!

One of the women even threw a party for him the day after, and even continued having a relationship with him! She even bought him breakfast. And guess what, the women is a feminist with strong political ties, and even for a political party I believe.... the exact kind of person that would try to defamate a man for such idiotic things.

Both women only attacked Assange AFTER they met each other!

Tell me, why would a feminist, with a strong enough personality to to boast about having sex with men, strong enought to be involved politically, strong enough to throw a party for him, to buy him a breakfast, etc... I don't understand your thought process.

No they didn't.  They didn't consent to sex without the condem.

Legally it's considered "consentual" because not every country as "rape by deception" laws.


For example, if you pretend to be your twin brother and sleep with his wife and she finds out later... legally in a lot of places "she consented."


Did you ever think, maybe she believed "the condom broke" story until she met the second woman and she mentioned about how he lied about having sex with a condom?
  (You know, like if you believe a guy who asks for change that he needs 2 bucks for a bus, until you talk to a couple other people who say the same guy got 2 bucks from both of them?)

Then they confronted him, asked him to take an STD test and he refused?

 

Also, why would a femnist.  Keep in mind... feminists are liberals want to get the Wikileaks guy in trouble?

That would be like George W Bush making false accusations to get Karl Rove.

 

 

As the comments say

 

 

"I think you should rethink your view about whether removing a condom without partner consent should constitute a valid form of "statutory rape" or is merely the behavior of a cad.

In Hong Kong it is a form of rape and probably for good reasons from the perspective of a working girl. "



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:

Furthermore he was fine with standing trial, but has suddenly changed his mind... because maybe he realizes he's actually guilty?


Or maybe he's afraid of getting deported to the US (though ironically that's less likely to happen after some American politicians called for his execution, as Sweden can't deport people to places where there's the slightest chance they'll get executed).



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Kasz216 said:
shio said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

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.

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.

Sex without consent is where they say so.  And yes, the first one very well could be put on him depending how much it split based on the allegations you would think SPLIT.

 

As for the bolded... go actually read something about rape victims.  The homophobe comment is pretty apt though... because you are acting like one.  

One day, you will be very ashamed of yourself.

 

And you know... i've still directly proven your logic wrong on "what is and what isn't" rape.

wtf is wrong with you?! Both of the women had consented sex DESPITE the no condom! Both women claimed he didn't rape them. The police say he didn't rape them. NO ONE IS SAYING HE RAPED THEM!!!

One of the women even threw a party for him the day after, and even continued having a relationship with him! She even bought him breakfast. And guess what, the women is a feminist with strong political ties, and even for a political party I believe.... the exact kind of person that would try to defamate a man for such idiotic things.

Both women only attacked Assange AFTER they met each other!

Tell me, why would a feminist, with a strong enough personality to to boast about having sex with men, strong enought to be involved politically, strong enough to throw a party for him, to buy him a breakfast, etc... I don't understand your thought process.

No they didn't.  They didn't consent to sex without the condem.

Legally it's considered "consentual" because not every country as "rape by deception" laws.


For example, if you pretend to be your twin brother and sleep with his wife and she finds out later... legally in a lot of places "she consented."


Did you ever think, maybe she believed "the condom broke" story until she met the second woman and she mentioned about how he lied about having sex with a condom?

Then they confronted him, asked him to take an STD test and he refused?

 

Also, why would a femnist.  Keep in mind... feminists are liberals want to get the Wikileaks guy in trouble?

That would be like George W Bush making false accusations to get Karl Rove.

They also didn't say no. Not only that, but from one of the times the condom broke off accidentally, and in the other she didn't stop him. And why didn't both women wear female condoms, or some other contraceptives?!

The woman is question is a feminist that made a guide of how to ruin an ex-boyfriend, and is involved in a political christian group.

And both women only attacked Assange AFTER they met each other?! Police has proof from text messages, and apparently other things.

Why are you so against Assange?! Do you really hate the wonderful transparency that Wikileaks is giving us?!



shio said:
Kasz216 said:
shio said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

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.

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.

Sex without consent is where they say so.  And yes, the first one very well could be put on him depending how much it split based on the allegations you would think SPLIT.

 

As for the bolded... go actually read something about rape victims.  The homophobe comment is pretty apt though... because you are acting like one.  

One day, you will be very ashamed of yourself.

 

And you know... i've still directly proven your logic wrong on "what is and what isn't" rape.

wtf is wrong with you?! Both of the women had consented sex DESPITE the no condom! Both women claimed he didn't rape them. The police say he didn't rape them. NO ONE IS SAYING HE RAPED THEM!!!

One of the women even threw a party for him the day after, and even continued having a relationship with him! She even bought him breakfast. And guess what, the women is a feminist with strong political ties, and even for a political party I believe.... the exact kind of person that would try to defamate a man for such idiotic things.

Both women only attacked Assange AFTER they met each other!

Tell me, why would a feminist, with a strong enough personality to to boast about having sex with men, strong enought to be involved politically, strong enough to throw a party for him, to buy him a breakfast, etc... I don't understand your thought process.

No they didn't.  They didn't consent to sex without the condem.

Legally it's considered "consentual" because not every country as "rape by deception" laws.


For example, if you pretend to be your twin brother and sleep with his wife and she finds out later... legally in a lot of places "she consented."


Did you ever think, maybe she believed "the condom broke" story until she met the second woman and she mentioned about how he lied about having sex with a condom?

Then they confronted him, asked him to take an STD test and he refused?

 

Also, why would a femnist.  Keep in mind... feminists are liberals want to get the Wikileaks guy in trouble?

That would be like George W Bush making false accusations to get Karl Rove.

They also didn't say no. Not only that, but from one of the times the condom broke off accidentally, and in the other she didn't stop him. And why didn't both women wear female condoms, or some other contraceptives?!

The woman is question is a feminist that made a guide of how to ruin an ex-boyfriend, and is involved in a political christian group.

And both women only attacked Assange AFTER they met each other?! Police has proof from text messages, and apparently other things.

Why are you so against Assange?! Do you really hate the wonderful transparency that Wikileaks is giving us?!

"They didn't say no."  So, in otherwords... someone pretending to be their twin brother can sleep with his brothers wife by pretending to be his brother... and it's fine with you.  

She didn't say no, am I right?

You know who else doesn't say no?  The unconsious.

 

Also, i covered the rest above. 

It's got ZERO to do with this guy... and everything to do with the fact rape by deception laws are a fucking joke right now... and rape laws in general are a joke because you get this same kind of blaming the victim bullshit.

It's why rape case pretty much NEVER convict anybody.



Kasz216 said:
KungKras said:
Kasz216 said:
KungKras said:
MDMAniac said:

Soleron said:

And we'd save a ton of money. All the defence companies could go too.


You must be stupid. The existence and performance of military-industrial complex is exactly one of the main reasons why America became superpower and took big win from WWII. It makes sense other countries getting rid of such companies there, only american weapons are supreme anyways and it can sell more this way. But American complex should remain, it's huge deal of the whole economics. What you said makes no sense.

Wait what?

The best infantry weapon of all time (and to this day the most reliable and easy to produce) is the Russian AK 47.

The best tank is either the american Abrams or the German Leopard II (If I had an army, I would have used the Leopard II).

A few decades ago, the best fighter jet in the world was the Swedish JAS Gripen.

What do you mean by american weapons being supreme?

AK46 the best infantry weapon of all time?  Seriously?

I don't know anybody that actually fires guns who believes that.

From all accounts they are inaccurate as hell.

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.

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.

My point was that the US doesn't always make the best weapos. At certain points in time, other countries have made, and are still making better weapons in certain areas. AK 47 is the best infantry weapon of all time if you take 'all time' into account, it's had the longest life of any weapon ever, and it's still going strong, many other modern guns won't ever come close to its reliability and production life.

I mentioned these few examples becasue I disliked how MDMAniac said "only american weapos are supreme anyways" like the US always make the best stuff, when that doesn't nessecarily have to be true (Even though the US makes insanely good military hardware)



I LOVE ICELAND!

KungKras said:
Kasz216 said:
KungKras said:
Kasz216 said:
KungKras said:
MDMAniac said:

Soleron said:

And we'd save a ton of money. All the defence companies could go too.


You must be stupid. The existence and performance of military-industrial complex is exactly one of the main reasons why America became superpower and took big win from WWII. It makes sense other countries getting rid of such companies there, only american weapons are supreme anyways and it can sell more this way. But American complex should remain, it's huge deal of the whole economics. What you said makes no sense.

Wait what?

The best infantry weapon of all time (and to this day the most reliable and easy to produce) is the Russian AK 47.

The best tank is either the american Abrams or the German Leopard II (If I had an army, I would have used the Leopard II).

A few decades ago, the best fighter jet in the world was the Swedish JAS Gripen.

What do you mean by american weapons being supreme?

AK46 the best infantry weapon of all time?  Seriously?

I don't know anybody that actually fires guns who believes that.

From all accounts they are inaccurate as hell.

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.

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.

My point was that the US doesn't always make the best weapos. At certain points in time, other countries have made, and are still making better weapons in certain areas. AK 47 is the best infantry weapon of all time if you take 'all time' into account, it's had the longest life of any weapon ever, and it's still going strong, many other modern guns won't ever come close to its reliability and production life.

I mentioned these few examples becasue I disliked how MDMAniac said "only american weapos are supreme anyways" like the US always make the best stuff, when that doesn't nessecarily have to be true (Even though the US makes insanely good military hardware)


Nah, if your taking best infantry weapon of all tiem into account... I'd argue for the Shortsword.