Discussion:
This is the first time in history the US has refused an extradition request to the UK.
(too old to reply)
CheeseySock
2020-01-24 20:56:02 UTC
Permalink
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special
relationship, or the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at
the way fate seems to be interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger
and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
what? our poo-lie-tickle establishment browntongues, withold access to
their anuses from a yank?
Keema's Nan
2020-01-24 21:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special
relationship, or the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at
the way fate seems to be interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger
and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
what? our poo-lie-tickle establishment browntongues, withold access to
their anuses from a yank?
Well, there is always a first time for everythink
CheeseySock
2020-01-24 21:27:08 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Jan 2020, CheeseySock wrote (in article
Post by CheeseySock
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special
relationship, or the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at
the way fate seems to be interfering to expose their lifetime of
bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
what? our poo-lie-tickle establishment browntongues, withold access to
their anuses from a yank?
Well, there is always a first time for everythink
well! I reckon i will just wait for it to start raining 22 carat gold
then!
FMurtz
2020-01-31 02:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
On 24 Jan 2020, CheeseySock wrote (in article
Post by CheeseySock
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special
relationship, or the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at
the way fate seems to be interfering to expose their lifetime of
bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
what? our poo-lie-tickle establishment browntongues, withold access to
their anuses from a yank?
Well, there is always a first time for everythink
well! I reckon i will just wait for it to start raining 22 carat gold
then!
who is keeping the other 2%
CheeseySock
2020-01-24 21:41:09 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Jan 2020, CheeseySock wrote (in article
Post by CheeseySock
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special
relationship, or the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at
the way fate seems to be interfering to expose their lifetime of
bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
what? our poo-lie-tickle establishment browntongues, withold access to
their anuses from a yank?
Well, there is always a first time for everythink
it's not even their own anuses they offer, but some two legged sheep of
their population!
Keema's Nan
2020-01-24 22:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
On 24 Jan 2020, CheeseySock wrote (in article
Post by CheeseySock
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special
relationship, or the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at
the way fate seems to be interfering to expose their lifetime of
bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
what? our poo-lie-tickle establishment browntongues, withold access to
their anuses from a yank?
Well, there is always a first time for everythink
it's not even their own anuses they offer, but some two legged sheep of
their population!
Rowing would be at home there, in that case.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-24 21:29:01 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, 24 January 2020 18:47:31 UTC, Keema's Nan wrote:


Now name just one where diplomatic immunity has been an issue.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Assagne never has been accredited as a diplomat by any country.

Diplomatic immunity is there by international convention to protect all diplomats from arbitrary arrest and detention.

Similarly goods being carried by or on behalf of diplomat (the diplomatic bag) cannot be subject to customs or any other inspection. There is no limit to the size of a diplomatic bag. It can be the size of a shipping container or even bigger.
Keema's Nan
2020-01-24 22:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Now name just one where diplomatic immunity has been an issue.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Assagne never has been accredited as a diplomat by any country.
But he had immunity inside the Ecuadorian embassy, until it was raided
illegally by rent-a-mob.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Diplomatic immunity is there by international convention to protect all
diplomats from arbitrary arrest and detention.
Yes, and it was not meant to be applied retrospectively to someone who never
had it at the time of the accident.

By the looks of the latest video of toosers in cars driving on the wrong side
of country roads, everyone at Croughton has been issued with diplomatic
plates.

How childish can the Paranoia Services get?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Similarly goods being carried by or on behalf of diplomat (the diplomatic
bag) cannot be subject to customs or any other inspection. There is no limit
to the size of a diplomatic bag. It can be the size of a shipping container
or even bigger.
But not carried by the wife of a person employed to spy on British citizens'
personal communications.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-25 16:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Assagne never has been accredited as a diplomat by any country.
But he had immunity inside the Ecuadorian embassy, until it was raided
illegally by rent-a-mob.
No he didn't! The UK authorities simply had no powers inside that embassy. There is a difference!

Had Assagne taken one step outside that embassy he would have been arrested.

Accredited diplomats on the other hand generally speaking can go anywhere except that in certain circumstances certain individuals may be limited in their movements by the host country. e.g. not allowed to go more than 1 mile from the embassy building. Should any diplomat break any of the conditions the conditions under which the host country grants their status then his ambassador may be required to move him/her out of the country within a reasonable period (usually 24 hours) after which they are liable to deportation.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Diplomatic immunity is there by international convention to protect all
diplomats from arbitrary arrest and detention.
Yes, and it was not meant to be applied retrospectively to someone who never
had it at the time of the accident.
By the looks of the latest video of toosers in cars driving on the wrong side
of country roads, everyone at Croughton has been issued with diplomatic
plates.
Every diplomat has the right to carry CD plates on his vehicle provided that the host country has made it a condition of his accreditation that he does not drive. Otherwise his driving would be considered in breach of the the terms of his accreditation and thus liable to expulsion or deportation.

Under no circumstances would he be detained or arrested.
Post by Keema's Nan
How childish can the Paranoia Services get?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Similarly goods being carried by or on behalf of diplomat (the diplomatic
bag) cannot be subject to customs or any other inspection. There is no limit
to the size of a diplomatic bag. It can be the size of a shipping container
or even bigger.
But not carried by the wife of a person employed to spy on British citizens'
personal communications.
See Article 37 of the Vienna Convention. Accreditations do not place limits on the activities of diplomats. However, many a diplomat has gone home before his posting has terminated for reasons described as "undiplomatic activity" For instance Russian diplomats expelled from the UK after the Salisbury poisonings and the British agents expelled from Moscow in retaliation.

Without doubt US agents do spy on the British just as UK agents spy on US agents. However, it is at a much higher level of toleration than would be the case with the Russians. Indeed a case could be made that it would be in two friendly countries' mutual interest to have then agents spying on each other.

I once read a book but I cannot remember or find its title but it focussed upon the history of the UK intelligence services and how every UK embassy was an outpost of GCHQ, MI6 etc. They all bristle with aerials, satellite dishes and electronics.

It's part of their function. Apparently we are very good at it!
Keema's Nan
2020-01-25 19:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Assagne never has been accredited as a diplomat by any country.
But he had immunity inside the Ecuadorian embassy, until it was raided
illegally by rent-a-mob.
No he didn't!
He had as much immunity as Anne Sacoolas did.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The UK authorities simply had no powers inside that embassy.
There is a difference!
Had Assagne taken one step outside that embassy he would have been arrested.
And presumably, if Sacoolas takes one step outside of an aircraft/ship onto
UK soil she will be arrested.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Accredited diplomats
Which (for the umpteenth time) neither of the Sacoolas were.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
on the other hand generally speaking can go anywhere
except that in certain circumstances certain individuals may be limited in
their movements by the host country. e.g. not allowed to go more than 1 mile
from the embassy building. Should any diplomat break any of the conditions
the conditions under which the host country grants their status then his
ambassador may be required to move him/her out of the country within a
reasonable period (usually 24 hours) after which they are liable to
deportation.
Completely irrelevant.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Diplomatic immunity is there by international convention to protect all
diplomats from arbitrary arrest and detention.
Yes, and it was not meant to be applied retrospectively to someone who never
had it at the time of the accident.
By the looks of the latest video of toosers in cars driving on the wrong side
of country roads, everyone at Croughton has been issued with diplomatic
plates.
Every diplomat has the right to carry CD plates on his vehicle provided that
the host country has made it a condition of his accreditation that he does
not drive. Otherwise his driving would be considered in breach of the the
terms of his accreditation and thus liable to expulsion or deportation.
Under no circumstances would he be detained or arrested.
More irrelevance.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
How childish can the Paranoia Services get?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Similarly goods being carried by or on behalf of diplomat (the diplomatic
bag) cannot be subject to customs or any other inspection. There is no limit
to the size of a diplomatic bag. It can be the size of a shipping container
or even bigger.
But not carried by the wife of a person employed to spy on British citizens'
personal communications.
See Article 37 of the Vienna Convention. Accreditations do not place limits
on the activities of diplomats. However, many a diplomat has gone home before
his posting has terminated for reasons described as "undiplomatic activity"
For instance Russian diplomats expelled from the UK after the Salisbury
poisonings and the British agents expelled from Moscow in retaliation.
Without doubt US agents do spy on the British just as UK agents spy on US
agents. However, it is at a much higher level of toleration than would be the
case with the Russians. Indeed a case could be made that it would be in two
friendly countries' mutual interest to have then agents spying on each other.
I once read a book but I cannot remember or find its title
Janet and John go to the British Embassy perhaps?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
but it focussed
upon the history of the UK intelligence services and how every UK embassy was
an outpost of GCHQ, MI6 etc. They all bristle with aerials, satellite dishes
and electronics.
You don’t say.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It's part of their function. Apparently we are very good at it!
That doesn’t mean every military base which also bristles with aerials,
dishes and electronics, is a diplomatic mission staffed by diplomats.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-25 22:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Assagne never has been accredited as a diplomat by any country.
But he had immunity inside the Ecuadorian embassy, until it was raided
illegally by rent-a-mob.
No he didn't!
He had as much immunity as Anne Sacoolas did.
He ha
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The UK authorities simply had no powers inside that embassy.
There is a difference!
Had Assagne taken one step outside that embassy he would have been arrested.
And presumably, if Sacoolas takes one step outside of an aircraft/ship onto
UK soil she will be arrested.
No she wouldn't because at the time of the incident she was protected by DI.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Accredited diplomats
Which (for the umpteenth time) neither of the Sacoolas were.
The FO and the US State department apparently have a different view. Who are we to believe them or you?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
on the other hand generally speaking can go anywhere
except that in certain circumstances certain individuals may be limited in
their movements by the host country. e.g. not allowed to go more than 1 mile
from the embassy building. Should any diplomat break any of the conditions
the conditions under which the host country grants their status then his
ambassador may be required to move him/her out of the country within a
reasonable period (usually 24 hours) after which they are liable to
deportation.
Completely irrelevant.
Who are you to decide relevance?

Past experience has shown you to be a conspiracy theorist with not even a name you care to reveal.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Diplomatic immunity is there by international convention to protect all
diplomats from arbitrary arrest and detention.
Yes, and it was not meant to be applied retrospectively to someone who never
had it at the time of the accident.
By the looks of the latest video of toosers in cars driving on the wrong side
of country roads, everyone at Croughton has been issued with diplomatic
plates.
Every diplomat has the right to carry CD plates on his vehicle provided that
the host country has made it a condition of his accreditation that he does
not drive. Otherwise his driving would be considered in breach of the the
terms of his accreditation and thus liable to expulsion or deportation.
Under no circumstances would he be detained or arrested.
More irrelevance.
See above!

I was trying to explain to you how diplomacy works. Why don't you do the same?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
How childish can the Paranoia Services get?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Similarly goods being carried by or on behalf of diplomat (the diplomatic
bag) cannot be subject to customs or any other inspection. There is no limit
to the size of a diplomatic bag. It can be the size of a shipping container
or even bigger.
But not carried by the wife of a person employed to spy on British citizens'
personal communications.
See Article 37 of the Vienna Convention. Accreditations do not place limits
on the activities of diplomats. However, many a diplomat has gone home before
his posting has terminated for reasons described as "undiplomatic activity"
For instance Russian diplomats expelled from the UK after the Salisbury
poisonings and the British agents expelled from Moscow in retaliation.
Without doubt US agents do spy on the British just as UK agents spy on US
agents. However, it is at a much higher level of toleration than would be the
case with the Russians. Indeed a case could be made that it would be in two
friendly countries' mutual interest to have then agents spying on each other.
I once read a book but I cannot remember or find its title
Janet and John go to the British Embassy perhaps?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
but it focussed
upon the history of the UK intelligence services and how every UK embassy was
an outpost of GCHQ, MI6 etc. They all bristle with aerials, satellite dishes
and electronics.
You don’t say.
But I do and just have done have done to which you have replied with mere flat denial.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It's part of their function. Apparently we are very good at it!
That doesn’t mean every military base which also bristles with aerials,
dishes and electronics, is a diplomatic mission staffed by diplomats.
Except that I was not talking about military bases which have a totally different function to that of an embassy. We all know why military bases bristle with electronics etc. It's very difficult to see an embassy building that is supposed to be about communications between governments in a similar light.

I think the kill file is the best place for you. I am beginning to see you as a more obnoxious waste of space as time goes on. Live with your fantasies you will probably be happier with them.
Keema's Nan
2020-01-25 22:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Assagne never has been accredited as a diplomat by any country.
But he had immunity inside the Ecuadorian embassy, until it was raided
illegally by rent-a-mob.
No he didn't!
He had as much immunity as Anne Sacoolas did.
He ha
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The UK authorities simply had no powers inside that embassy.
There is a difference!
Had Assagne taken one step outside that embassy he would have been arrested.
And presumably, if Sacoolas takes one step outside of an aircraft/ship onto
UK soil she will be arrested.
No she wouldn't because at the time of the incident she was protected by DI.
Liar.

You cannot support that theory, because it is completely wrong.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Accredited diplomats
Which (for the umpteenth time) neither of the Sacoolas were.
The FO and the US State department apparently have a different view. Who are
we to believe them or you?
Me.

They are habitual liars.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
on the other hand generally speaking can go anywhere
except that in certain circumstances certain individuals may be limited in
their movements by the host country. e.g. not allowed to go more than 1 mile
from the embassy building. Should any diplomat break any of the conditions
the conditions under which the host country grants their status then his
ambassador may be required to move him/her out of the country within a
reasonable period (usually 24 hours) after which they are liable to
deportation.
Completely irrelevant.
Who are you to decide relevance?
Past experience has shown you to be a conspiracy theorist with not even a
name you care to reveal.
John Smith... satisfied?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Diplomatic immunity is there by international convention to protect all
diplomats from arbitrary arrest and detention.
Yes, and it was not meant to be applied retrospectively to someone who never
had it at the time of the accident.
By the looks of the latest video of toosers in cars driving on the wrong side
of country roads, everyone at Croughton has been issued with diplomatic
plates.
Every diplomat has the right to carry CD plates on his vehicle provided that
the host country has made it a condition of his accreditation that he does
not drive. Otherwise his driving would be considered in breach of the the
terms of his accreditation and thus liable to expulsion or deportation.
Under no circumstances would he be detained or arrested.
More irrelevance.
See above!
I was trying to explain to you how diplomacy works. Why don't you do the same?
It doesn’t work for anyone at Croughton, which as you should know is
continuously under UK jurisdiction. It is an RAF base after all, although run
by USAF.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
How childish can the Paranoia Services get?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Similarly goods being carried by or on behalf of diplomat (the diplomatic
bag) cannot be subject to customs or any other inspection. There is no
limit
to the size of a diplomatic bag. It can be the size of a shipping container
or even bigger.
But not carried by the wife of a person employed to spy on British citizens'
personal communications.
See Article 37 of the Vienna Convention. Accreditations do not place limits
on the activities of diplomats. However, many a diplomat has gone home before
his posting has terminated for reasons described as "undiplomatic activity"
For instance Russian diplomats expelled from the UK after the Salisbury
poisonings and the British agents expelled from Moscow in retaliation.
Without doubt US agents do spy on the British just as UK agents spy on US
agents. However, it is at a much higher level of toleration than would be the
case with the Russians. Indeed a case could be made that it would be in two
friendly countries' mutual interest to have then agents spying on each other.
I once read a book but I cannot remember or find its title
Janet and John go to the British Embassy perhaps?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
but it focussed
upon the history of the UK intelligence services and how every UK embassy was
an outpost of GCHQ, MI6 etc. They all bristle with aerials, satellite dishes
and electronics.
You don’t say.
But I do and just have done have done to which you have replied with mere flat denial.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It's part of their function. Apparently we are very good at it!
That doesn’t mean every military base which also bristles with aerials,
dishes and electronics, is a diplomatic mission staffed by diplomats.
Except that I was not talking about military bases
Maybe, but I was.And that is the distinction you seem unable or (more likely)
unwilling to accept.

An embassy is full of diplomats, and a military base is not.

It really is that simple.

Just let us know how many military bases you have been on, and how many
diplomats you have seen there.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
which have a totally
different function to that of an embassy. We all know why military bases
bristle with electronics etc. It's very difficult to see an embassy building
that is supposed to be about communications between governments in a similar
light.
I think the kill file is the best place for you.
Yes please.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
I am beginning to see you as
a more obnoxious waste of space as time goes on.
And if you are trying to be Nugent or Norman Wells, you are failing
miserably, and if you kf me it will save me saying the same facts over and
over again, and still not being believed.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Live with your fantasies you
will probably be happier with them.
Thanks, I will.
p***@gmail.com
2020-01-25 19:31:54 UTC
Permalink
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special relationship, or
the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at the way fate seems to be
interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Not the first time one party has refused extradition. The UK refused extradition of Gary McKinnon in 2012.

Patrick
JNugent
2020-02-06 13:25:31 UTC
Permalink
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special relationship, or
the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at the way fate seems to be
interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Does Assange now claim to have diplomatic immunity?

Surely this is the first time in history the UK has made an extradition
request to the USA in respect of a person with diplomatic immunity?

No matter what the response, it too was bound to a First Time In History
that...
JNugent
2020-02-06 15:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special relationship, or
the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at the way fate seems to be
interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Does Assange now claim to have diplomatic immunity?
Surely this is the first time in history the UK has made an extradition
request to the USA in respect of a person with diplomatic immunity?
No matter what the response, it too was bound to a First Time In History
that...
have you considered that he doesn't want the nuisance of assange?
this allows an excuse
Who is "he" in your first sentence?
abelard
2020-02-06 18:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special relationship, or
the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at the way fate seems to be
interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Does Assange now claim to have diplomatic immunity?
Surely this is the first time in history the UK has made an extradition
request to the USA in respect of a person with diplomatic immunity?
No matter what the response, it too was bound to a First Time In History
that...
have you considered that he doesn't want the nuisance of assange?
this allows an excuse
Who is "he" in your first sentence?
trump...but you may substitute 'establishment'
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2020-02-06 23:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special relationship, or
the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at the way fate seems to be
interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Does Assange now claim to have diplomatic immunity?
Surely this is the first time in history the UK has made an extradition
request to the USA in respect of a person with diplomatic immunity?
No matter what the response, it too was bound to a First Time In History
that...
have you considered that he doesn't want the nuisance of assange?
this allows an excuse
Who is "he" in your first sentence?
trump...but you may substitute 'establishment'
But the American federal government *does* want Assange.

If it / they didn't, they would not have issued an extradition request.
abelard
2020-02-07 00:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special relationship, or
the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at the way fate seems to be
interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Does Assange now claim to have diplomatic immunity?
Surely this is the first time in history the UK has made an extradition
request to the USA in respect of a person with diplomatic immunity?
No matter what the response, it too was bound to a First Time In History
that...
have you considered that he doesn't want the nuisance of assange?
this allows an excuse
Who is "he" in your first sentence?
trump...but you may substitute 'establishment'
But the American federal government *does* want Assange.
there is form and reality...they must ask, he's a bete noire
Post by JNugent
If it / they didn't, they would not have issued an extradition request.
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2020-02-07 00:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special relationship, or
the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at the way fate seems to be
interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Does Assange now claim to have diplomatic immunity?
Surely this is the first time in history the UK has made an extradition
request to the USA in respect of a person with diplomatic immunity?
No matter what the response, it too was bound to a First Time In History
that...
have you considered that he doesn't want the nuisance of assange?
this allows an excuse
Who is "he" in your first sentence?
trump...but you may substitute 'establishment'
But the American federal government *does* want Assange.
there is form and reality...they must ask, he's a bete noire
Oh, they want him....
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
...[if] / they didn't, they would not have issued an extradition request.
abelard
2020-02-07 00:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special relationship, or
the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at the way fate seems to be
interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Does Assange now claim to have diplomatic immunity?
Surely this is the first time in history the UK has made an extradition
request to the USA in respect of a person with diplomatic immunity?
No matter what the response, it too was bound to a First Time In History
that...
have you considered that he doesn't want the nuisance of assange?
this allows an excuse
Who is "he" in your first sentence?
trump...but you may substitute 'establishment'
But the American federal government *does* want Assange.
there is form and reality...they must ask, he's a bete noire
Oh, they want him....
i'm not convinced
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
...[if] / they didn't, they would not have issued an extradition request.
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2020-02-07 00:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special relationship, or
the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at the way fate seems to be
interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Does Assange now claim to have diplomatic immunity?
Surely this is the first time in history the UK has made an extradition
request to the USA in respect of a person with diplomatic immunity?
No matter what the response, it too was bound to a First Time In History
that...
have you considered that he doesn't want the nuisance of assange?
this allows an excuse
Who is "he" in your first sentence?
trump...but you may substitute 'establishment'
But the American federal government *does* want Assange.
there is form and reality...they must ask, he's a bete noire
Oh, they want him....
i'm not convinced
Why have they requested his extradition?

Because they don't want him?
abelard
2020-02-07 10:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special relationship, or
the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at the way fate seems to be
interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Does Assange now claim to have diplomatic immunity?
Surely this is the first time in history the UK has made an extradition
request to the USA in respect of a person with diplomatic immunity?
No matter what the response, it too was bound to a First Time In History
that...
have you considered that he doesn't want the nuisance of assange?
this allows an excuse
Who is "he" in your first sentence?
trump...but you may substitute 'establishment'
But the American federal government *does* want Assange.
there is form and reality...they must ask, he's a bete noire
Oh, they want him....
i'm not convinced
Why have they requested his extradition?
Because they don't want him?
because they believe there are votes in such a request
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2020-02-07 11:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
This either means that Trump wants to get rid of the special relationship, or
the US Paranoia services are shitting their pants at the way fate seems to be
interfering to expose their lifetime of bigger and bigger lies.
Two can play at that game. No extradition of Assange - simple as that.
See how Numpty Trumpty likes it...
Does Assange now claim to have diplomatic immunity?
Surely this is the first time in history the UK has made an extradition
request to the USA in respect of a person with diplomatic immunity?
No matter what the response, it too was bound to a First Time In History
that...
have you considered that he doesn't want the nuisance of assange?
this allows an excuse
Who is "he" in your first sentence?
trump...but you may substitute 'establishment'
But the American federal government *does* want Assange.
there is form and reality...they must ask, he's a bete noire
Oh, they want him....
i'm not convinced
Why have they requested his extradition?
Because they don't want him?
because they believe there are votes in such a request
That's far-fetched.

Loading...