- Cheap debate trick.
Not much of a “trick”. I think you are confusing perceived rudeness for a rhetorical “trick”. You are right in thinking I don’t really respect your debating position. Hence the perceived rudeness. But hey, you don’t really respect mine!
-
Feel free to give me someone else’s PR. Like the prosecutors or the complainant. My understanding is that the complainants story matches the one I have given. If it doesn’t you should correct me.
-
Assange had committed no crime in the UK. The Swedes want to talk to him but he has not been found guilty of a crime in Sweden. So the UK could not arrest him. They could however pick him up if the Swedes ask for his extradition. Which is why he is in the Ecuadorian embassy now. Why do you think he is there?
-
I think your ultimate point is that he might be guilty of a crime which they did not charge him for in Sweden while he was there. They could interview him in London but they decline to so do. So it doesn’t seem the sex crime allegations really motivates them. But he should go to Sweden anyway even though he could get locked away for life if the extradite him to the US just because you think he might have committed a crime which is not a crime in the uk or the us although maybe it should be.
And therefore he is probably lying about the source of the wikileaks.
Straighten me me out if I misunderstood anything. And feel free to factually correct me anywhere I made a mistake.
