Men can be many things, but most males would never force a woman to have sex - most especially against her will. Julian Assange did NOT rape those women or any women. He is not a rapist. The women should be brought up on charges of filing a false police report, and given the maliciousness of the effort by these women - slander, libel, and theft - taking from him money he would otherwise have earned but for this smear attack, he is unable to satisfy those business agreements. They took from him, they lied, and he was forced to flee and hide like a common criminal. An apology is not enough - the women should be charged criminally and prosecuted.
This guy does not need to force anyone to have sex with him, women line up. It is absurd on so many levels - yet the judicial offices in Sweden and the UK fell all over themselves lining up charges against Julian. Bad bad bad.
Their intent is important in determining the ultimate disposition of Julian Assange and these two liars who accused him. What was their intent - and that is clear by what has been done to Assange: malign his reputation, cause him pain and suffering, loss of income, humiliation, vast expenses to defend himself against unlawful charges. Their intention was clear.
Julian Assange opened a can of worms with his 'wikileaks' - he exposed the intent of the Obama administration, he exposed the truth about 2.5 years of double-speak from the Obamessiah. He said one thing 'when I get elected I will send former presidents on a world tour to let the world know we are back, we want to rebuild relations, develop new relations, and mend fences' (or something very very close). Obama never had that intention - he was manipulating and telling lies from day one and Assange exposes the dirty secrets in the US arsenal of lies.
Transparency.
Julian Assange did not rape those women. He went to the land of long, dark winters, Greta Garbo, and IKEA, to give a speech on some insipidly idiotic topic. He was paid to go, and provided a place to stay and transportation - it happened that he stayed with one of those idiotic Swedes who are enablers - she loved the idea of being fucked by a man of passion and openness and tolerance, a man who sought "an interaction (that) would produce an interesting friendship." He simply needed a place to stay and a body to fuck, and that is basically his opinion of women (makes me wonder about that mother of his) and each of the women obliged. He never said he was going to have anything more to do with her than some "well intentioned amusement". He never told her he was interested in her "messy reality" - and he moved on to another city and another woman he fucked and immediately left, as he should - he was finished in that city and only needed her for the night, and off he went, back to Stockholm, to spend another night or two with the first female, before returning to his rock.
It is only because these pathetic women just can't understand - he never promised you a rose garden, he just wanted to fuck you like an animal (NIN) and leave. Isn't that what men do - spread their DNA everywhere they possibly can. It is genetic, we have a need, and it isn't simply sexual - it is biological, we have no control. And comes the 2nd female, upset Assange did not offer her loving words and kisses, and she retaliates by calling the first female and telling her, and then both women, scorned - go to the police.
Assange is entitled to go from bed to bed - he never forced or demanded anyone have sex with him - they wanted him and he simply obliged. What is a man to do. How can he be expected to restrain himself when it is biological? No promises were made, no assurances while banging her head against the bedboard or under the pillow. He did nothing wrong, but bring some light to their dark world. He gave of himself, the man who brings light to dark places - transparency. The intent of the two women is clear - revenge.
But if the intent of the women is clear, is not intention also relevant when considering why Assange exposed all the top secret cables he did? It is most certainly not to end an unjust war - for 198,000 cables had nothing to do with war of any kind. Most were far more prurient in their revelations. They dealt with FARC and Venezuela, Gordon Brown and whether he was an idiot, members of Parliament and their rentboys, an over eager Royal who won't shut his mouth and treats people like they are cardboard. The cables reveal a dark side to the Obama administration - spyng on people, finding out personal details and having embassy staff follow up on mistresses and misters. Not unlike Assange informing one female he wanted to fuck, that he knew her car license plate, secured her phone number from some unknown source, and otherwise seemed to secure all types of secret data on her personal life - to be used by him to impress her or otherwise get in her pants. His intention was clear also - use whatever means to accomplish his goal.
In his case, to fuck the 19 year old. Ok in all our books because it is an adult relationship.
The US uses all information at its disposal to secure a goal - the US determines as national security, just as Julian Assange would be the judge of whether or not he raped the women, for their involvement is not relevant, just his intent, and who better to determine intent than Julian Assange. It is with no less ability that Assange determines the intention of the US government through the cables he has in his possession, and who better to decide what is and is not critical to security than a man who seeks transparency, openness.
So if 198,000 cables have nothing to do with the war, then what is the intent of Julian Assange - when he decides what is and is not relevant, what is and is not transparent ... what is his intent. Unfortunately for his defenders - the criminal, the rapist, the murderer does not get to decide intent. The law does. A jury does.
He is a criminal - the release of the cables have led and will lead to the deaths of scores of people around the world - including some CIA assets or perhaps CIA agents (remember the apoplexy of the left regarding Valerie Plame - a non-agent who was as unimportant as a hang nail - oh, Cheney or Bush or ... they put the lives of agents at risk and ...) ... Assange has most certainly caused the deaths of agents already or will be the cause soon enough. Intent.
He is a liar - he claimed his interest was to end unjust wars, but he releases stuff about sex partners and petty worries, marriage issues, and other insipidly idiotic meanderings. He released the material to hurt the US government and to make himself relevant. Intent.
Rapist - it is a crime in those enlightened countries to have sex with women and do so under false pretenses, that is, to hide your intention (I just want to fuck you like an animal and then leave). Valid or not, those enlightened countries do believe that a valid use of their laws (unlike Switzerland where the Parliament is voting to abolish laws against incest).
Murderer - he will be an accomplice to murder or is now, as a result of the revelations. Not 1st degree, not even close - but negligence for sure.
Intent.
It is not for Julian Assange to decide what is worth being exposed and what not, who can and who can't be played with ... what the US government does and has been shown to do, is absolutely NO different than anything all the others do - which is why we must. For the others are not bound by the strict sets of laws we have - they are bound by whatever their Parliaments may deem to be legal or not at the time.
Julian Assange is a criminal and needs to be tried and if found guilty - put away for a long long time.
wikileaks
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments