Page 5 of 7

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:36 am
by theadore
I don't think much to be honest... I'm not buying a big crime from Ecuador. I think they're own hatred of US foreign policy together with the looming allegations that they are conspiring to extradite Assange gives them the grounds to grant the asylum. Nothing more.

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:49 am
by Rover the Top
Was really asking Ollie - you sneaked a post in between...

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:59 am
by Rover Ryan
Hmm it did look like you were aiming that question at Theodore that why I didn't reply!!
I never said anything was plausible. I used a few speculative theories.
And you've gone back to whether he's innocent and should stand trial. I think everyone's points of view have been said on that already and I thought the conversation had moved on/developed further rather than going around in a circle?

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:28 am
by Rover the Top
So you were speculating with theories that you don't think are plausible? Okay then... :?

And I haven't gone back to discussing whether he's innocent or not. You suggested Ecuador may have decided he's innocent and want to help him. My point was how can they make that decision when they're blocking the evidence from being gathered and assessed and stopping the case from going to court? How sure would they have to be to make picking a fight with other nations worthwhile, if there's no other motivation?

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:00 pm
by Joe
Rover the Top wrote:So you were speculating with theories that you don't think are plausible? Okay then... :?
I think he was playing devil's advocate.

EDIT
just in case...... ;)

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:36 pm
by Rover Ryan
Rover the Top wrote:So you were speculating with theories that you don't think are plausible? Okay then... :?

And I haven't gone back to discussing whether he's innocent or not. You suggested Ecuador may have decided he's innocent and want to help him. My point was how can they make that decision when they're blocking the evidence from being gathered and assessed and stopping the case from going to court? How sure would they have to be to make picking a fight with other nations worthwhile, if there's no other motivation?
No I never said that they were plausible or not I said there could be the reasons for them to go down this route. Maybe Ecuador knows more about this than I do and more than you do, but I can only speculate to what that reason is and so can you.

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:48 pm
by Rover the Top
Ollie Board wrote: No I never said that they were plausible or not I said there could be the reasons for them to go down this route.
I'm not seeing the distinction?

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:58 pm
by Rover Ryan
Rover the Top wrote:
Ollie Board wrote: No I never said that they were plausible or not I said there could be the reasons for them to go down this route.
I'm not seeing the distinction?
Plausible was a word that you entered into the conversation not I. The meaning of the word doesn't coincide with what I'd already put as it was speculative and not proven to be credible or factual.

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:23 pm
by Rover the Top
Yes, I was the one who used the word 'plausible'. I could have used other words instead, 'credible', 'believable', 'realistic', 'could be a reason'... it wouldn't change the question... :roll: You could counter with an infinite number of implausible explanations for Ecuador's behaviour, but it would be a bit pointless so far as furthering the debate would go... particularly if your next response is "I wasn't saying it was plausible"... :lol:

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:38 pm
by Rover Ryan
Well go on then genius. You have a stab at what's gone down and then reason behind it? And I promise if I don't like what you say I won't mock you for it then laugh in your face.

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:48 pm
by theadore
Seamus Milne in the Guardian... a good read about the othersides argument. I know its just a comment piece, but he stays away fro the more ludicrous arguments and at least trys to show some evidence for the argument that US extradition is the main fear.

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:05 pm
by Rover Ryan
theadore wrote:Seamus Milne in the Guardian... a good read about the othersides argument. I know its just a comment piece, but he stays away fro the more ludicrous arguments and at least trys to show some evidence for the argument that US extradition is the main fear.
That's pretty much my feelings on the whole situation.
It's going to be very interesting to see what unfolds in this whole debacle. One thing i'm sure of it that it's going to leave one side in outrage whilst the other will cry Justice from the rooftops.

Re: Police [don't] invade Ecuadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:25 pm
by Rover the Top
Ollie Board wrote:Well go on then genius. You have a stab at what's gone down and then reason behind it? And I promise if I don't like what you say I won't mock you for it then laugh in your face.
Well I already did propose one possibility, early this morning. You countered with your own possibilities, but then have proceeded to argue that you weren't saying they were possible. Which is just fucking confusing.

I reckon it's plausible that Ecuador's initial interest in Assange stems from an anti-USA agenda, as has been suggested. But the more recent vitriol towards the UK echoes Argentina's attacks over the Falklands. Even if they're just doing this to appear the 'good guys', who are they trying to get a pat on the back from?

Re: Police [don't] invade Ecuadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:36 pm
by Rover Ryan
Rover the Top wrote:
Ollie Board wrote:Well go on then genius. You have a stab at what's gone down and then reason behind it? And I promise if I don't like what you say I won't mock you for it then laugh in your face.
Well I already did propose one possibility, early this morning. You countered with your own possibilities, but then have proceeded to argue that you weren't saying they were possible. Which is just fucking confusing.

I reckon it's plausible that Ecuador's initial interest in Assange stems from an anti-USA agenda, as has been suggested. But the more recent vitriol towards the UK echoes Argentina's attacks over the Falklands. Even if they're just doing this to appear the 'good guys', who are they trying to get a pat on the back from?
Maybe (if that was the case) they aren't trying to get a pat on the back from anyone. Could just be a show of defiance against the US. And the recent alliance with Argentina and other South American countries is a show of unity as they may fear that the US has an eye on their land and resources and maybe take back some of the surrounding land that is English occupied in the process?

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:40 pm
by Rover Ryan
Oh and there was that little thing about their presidents aeroplane going down suspiciously which has been suggested as a assassination carried out by the CIA :yeahright: