1) Any claims could be fabricated rubish claims, I don't see your point.  He should stand trial, and the evidence seems VERY strong.

2) Untrue.  There are no extradision claims for Assange to the US.

Furthermore, the claim that they are waiting for him to be transfered to sweden is the DEFINITION of fabricated rubbish claims because the United States has a stronger extradition treaty with the UK then it does Sweeden.

If the US wanted him extradited.  He would of already been extradited.

Nah, it totally has seperated n the US.

Outside of argueably some hate crime laws.

Seperation of Church and state means that the government shall not push laws that promtoe one religion over another.

I'm not sure where people got the idea that "People can't make laws based on their religious expierences, ideals."

That's not what Thomas Jefferson intended in his letter.  (Which isn't even actually a part of the consitution.)

If that was the case, shit like welfare would be illegal.  Really it'd be imossible to do most the laws we have now.

This is in direct contrast to the current russia that specifically promotes a specific religion.

"The evidence against Assange is very strong". Funny that, a whole lot of lawyers in Europe don't think that way but you are entitled to your opinion. He won't stand trial because of extradition to the US fears. The Swedish government have given him no guarantees. They can't because they know the US wants him contrary to what the US tell the public. Why can't the Swedish govenrmnet simply say "come back, face charges and we won't extradite you"?

The evidence that the US wants Assange was revealed the same way that all the other stuff on wikileaks was leaked. All the other stuff so far seem to be true so why not this? Just because the US publically deny they don't want him doesn't make it so.

Why would Sweden make a statemnet saying they would not extradite him to the US if faced with the death penalty if all this US extradition talk is nonsense?

Euro law states that if a person faces the death penalty they do not have to extradite him to the USA so your claim of "If the US wanted him extradited.  He would of already been extradited" is ... not factual.

Actually, the only lawyers i've seen not think the evidence was strong... was his lawyers.   Have you read the Swedish police reports?

Why would Sweden say that they wouldn't extradite him if faced with the death penalty if all this US extradition talk is nonsense?

Because he keeps using extradition to the US as a boogey man excuse to flee rape charges.  Obviously.

Either way, your entire arguement is full of illogical nonsense that disagrees with itself.   Let's examine your claims shall we? 

We'll only do one in this post so as to not miss anything.

Contradiction 1: A) Assange was in the UK, NOT to avoid his rape charges with both testimony and physical evidence.   But to avoid extradition to the USA under the death penalty.

B)Assange couldn't be extradited to the USA because under Euro law, you can't be extradited to face the death penalty.

Conclusion -  If  B is true, then A is false.     If A is true, and then B is false, it doesn't make any sense for him to flee to the UK, which has a MUCH stronger relationship with the USA... and MUCH stronger extradition treaty.

Since dropping of the death penalty is the big stopper here... and it's a uniform stopper in both the UK and the Sweden...

Why wouldn't the US request extradition on gurantee that they wouldn't give him the death penalty?  They aren't getting him either way, and in the UK to be extradited it has to be proven he has been involved in something that may break US law

While the Swedish extradition treaty requires the US show he may of done something that broke Swedeish law.

Also...

"The Swedish government has said through its ambassador in Australia that they won't extradite in circumstances that involve intelligence or the military. That they won't extradite where there is no comparable offence in Swedish law, and where there's a capital offence involved. I believe that the government of neutral, democratic, Sweden, a liberal democracy, is not part of some fully blown CIA conspiracy."

5 different opinions-

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/2012823795897200.html

Yeah and it's mostly Republicans that are like this. There lies and ignorance are being believed, and people let them get away with it! They will never change

meh Russia has changed a lot... I am not just looking to the goverment but overall it is in my book moving in the right direction;..it is just Putin that is the problem..... People protesting like they do now on the street in Russia was certainly not possible a ten years ago..

You know, funny thing that they wasn't yeiling slogans against Putin in Church. They was yelling smth like 'God's shit, god's shit'. During that they made a video, on that video was made 'clip' for Youtube with the full song with slogans against Putin.
But they were trialed NOT for the clip in the internet, BUT for what they did in Church. Funny spin, isn't it?

Just because the only people you have come across who think the evidence is weak are Assange lawyers don't make it so. The world doesn't revolve around what you are aware of.

Assange has been big news in the UK all week and many BRITISH politicians, lawyers, Women's groups  etc, have had their say on TV and Radio. Many think the evidence is weak, but these two stand out - espeicially the second - for obvious reasons. 

1) British ambassador Craig Murray named one of the women making allegations against Assange and encouraged viewers to research her background on the Internet.

Murray labelled the allegations "dubious" and said they were part of a "political agenda".

2) Women Againt Rape (WAR) do not want him extradited to Sweden because from what the gathered from the alledged case think the evidence is weak and believe the pursuit of Assange is political.

As for the rest of what you wrote I couldn't be bothered to read it all. Forgive me.

With all due respect you strike me as an arrogant know-it-all so to carry on is pointless. Let's wave and leave it at that.

Oh, well if you listen to Craig Murray, and those women.

What you WOULD find, is that there were some allegations that she was there was a theory proposed by a holocaust denier and antisemite that had connections with wikileaks that a woman was a CIA agent because she happened to help organize rallys for a femnist group in Cuba that worked with another group that at one point knew people in the CIA.

And were people who made these claimes before the swedish police reports were leaked...  and never looked at the Swedish police reports.

In otherwords, people who are completely uninformed.

I noticed though you had no response to any of the actual logic in my arguement, which I'm going to take with your attempt to unilaterally leave the argument as an embarresed "I was wrong an have no actual way of argueing this conversation logically except relying on the words of an antisemtic holocost dening friend of Julian Assange who had about as much logic behind his theory as he did holocaust dening, or 9/11 truthers."

If I sound arrogant.  It's simply because the facts are extremly open and shut on whether he should return to face charges.  Much like whether the holocaust happened, or 9/11, or evoloution.

Those who argue otherwise simply just haven't done the research to properly be informed.  In reality, if I feel bad for linking any of those groups together it's the 9/11 truthers, even though there is 0 chance 9/11 was an indside job.  At least they try to put foward actual theroies with science, even if the science is pretty eaisly debunked by experts.

I mean good god.  It's Sweden.  Is there a more independent liberal Europeon country then Sweden?