Ecuador: We have 'temporarily restricted' Assange's internet

originally posted by: Lice000
a reply to: fractal5

lol yeah...
In 1995 i asked Alex Jones to act like a nut-job extremist and to say absolutely anything to get attention and support. Everything he has done since then has been a political favor to me.

Lets re-state the facts: Alex Jones publicly asked Assange to increase his Clinton leaks. Assange then increased his leaks. This is relevant because this increase in leaks has now apparently lead to Clinton inquiring for a summary execution of Assange without a trial, and subsequently the removal of his internet connection. The truth hurts and sometimes you have to do interfere with people's speech when it becomes "unfair" or "too painful", like when your name is Hillary Clinton and your agenda includes silencing dissent.

Huh, here you are on a conspiracy site and your reply is name-calling on people for apparently their conspiracy theories. More importantly, what does Alex Jones sanity have to do with this topic? Your reply comes across as off-topic trolling/shilling/stupidity. What does Alex Jones extremeness of views have to do with the OP? I probably like Alex Jones about as much as you do, but it doesn't blind me to rational discussion, but you apparently can't even handle staying on a topic. But, I await your explanation of the connections here or derailing apology. Or more likely, the silence of embarrassment.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
The reason Ecuador gave asylum to Assange is because some of the early dumps implicated US ambassador trying to use the press in ecuador to foment insurrection and regime change their government.

President was very grateful, sent the US diplomats packing, gladly providing asylum to Assange in return.

US relations with Ecuador have been strained in recent years, even before Correa provided asylum in 2012 to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose organization published troves of leaked US military documents and diplomatic cables highly embarrassing to Washington.

Correa had previously expelled at least three US diplomats including then-ambassador Heather Hodges in 2011 in response to a cable divulged by WikiLeaks that suggested Correa was aware of high-level police corruption.

In November, Correa's government said it was asking the US Agency for International Development to end operations in the country, accusing it of backing the opposition.

Guardian

People forget about that, the media downplays that part of history.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Lice000

Yah, fine dividing line between granting asylum and providing a soapbox.

I wonder what the US state department told Ecuador to make them muzzle him till after the election?

LOL you call this ( muzzle him )

Link WL-11

WL-12

Got a big E for effort

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor
a reply to: Lice000

BS, in a city the size of London, especially where the Ecuadorian embassy is located there are plenty of free WiFi hotspots, also, even though Assange is (apparently, not confirmed recently) holed up there, Wikileaks is not run from there or by him so it would make no difference if the only access he had was the fibre optics to the building

Something is playing in the background about this but, it ain't internet access issues

My thoughts exactly, after all this isn't 1999 and they cut his modem line .... I would guess cutting his main internet service probably took him offline for all of 2 minutes. My internet gets "cut" all the time and all I do is pull out my 4g cell phone and get back online in minutes. The concept of "cutting" access to the internet is practically impossible in this day and age.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
They may be damaging to Clinton but at the end of the day manipulation of a US election isn't what Ecuador signed up for.


Assange is a user.

I'd kick him out and tell him release whatever he likes.

That is exactly what they signed up for, they granted him asylum from political persecution and they knew who he was. Its not like they let Mr.Rodgers and then he turned into some kind of activist. What did they expect him to do?

He's not been granted asylum from political persecution and I assume you know that is a straight out lie. He's hiding there to escape from answering questions about an alleged sexual offence. If he is sending or being involved in sending material regarding one election nominee in another country using their network then it would be seen as them stating their political opinion on who should be voted US president. They have decided not to be seen as doing that.

................................ either that or they got sick of seeing he was constantly accessing 'dating' sites using the Ecuadorian embassy network and they may have strict procedures prohibiting that, but what do I know?

The sexual allegations are a hit piece, as Assamge said. It's painfully obvious.

My question (that I've yet to see a good answer to) is why did JA choose Ecuador in the first place? What exactly are they getting out of this arrangement? One would assume that the US would put enormous pressure and/or offer lucrative incentives to end their support for him yet they continue to stand strong... what does JA have on the Ecuadorian govt?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
They may be damaging to Clinton but at the end of the day manipulation of a US election isn't what Ecuador signed up for.


Assange is a user.

I'd kick him out and tell him release whatever he likes.

That is exactly what they signed up for, they granted him asylum from political persecution and they knew who he was. Its not like they let Mr.Rodgers and then he turned into some kind of activist. What did they expect him to do?

He's not been granted asylum from political persecution and I assume you know that is a straight out lie. He's hiding there to escape from answering questions about an alleged sexual offence. If he is sending or being involved in sending material regarding one election nominee in another country using their network then it would be seen as them stating their political opinion on who should be voted US president. They have decided not to be seen as doing that.

................................ either that or they got sick of seeing he was constantly accessing 'dating' sites using the Ecuadorian embassy network and they may have strict procedures prohibiting that, but what do I know?

The sexual allegations are a hit piece, as Assamge said. It's painfully obvious.

I agree it's a hit piece....................... at the DNC. Really, it had the subtlety of a pantomime piece and anyone that swallowed that is just obsessed with Trump and blind on Assange. But how does Assange while away those lonely nights? You don't know that any more than I do.

Assange is letting out TRUTH.
That is why Dim ocrates do not like him.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
They may be damaging to Clinton but at the end of the day manipulation of a US election isn't what Ecuador signed up for.


Assange is a user.

I'd kick him out and tell him release whatever he likes.

That is exactly what they signed up for, they granted him asylum from political persecution and they knew who he was. Its not like they let Mr.Rodgers and then he turned into some kind of activist. What did they expect him to do?

He's not been granted asylum from political persecution and I assume you know that is a straight out lie. He's hiding there to escape from answering questions about an alleged sexual offence. If he is sending or being involved in sending material regarding one election nominee in another country using their network then it would be seen as them stating their political opinion on who should be voted US president. They have decided not to be seen as doing that.

................................ either that or they got sick of seeing he was constantly accessing 'dating' sites using the Ecuadorian embassy network and they may have strict procedures prohibiting that, but what do I know?

The sexual allegations are a hit piece, as Assamge said. It's painfully obvious.

I agree it's a hit piece....................... at the DNC. Really, it had the subtlety of a pantomime piece and anyone that swallowed that is just obsessed with Trump and blind on Assange. But how does Assange while away those lonely nights? You don't know that any more than I do.

No the rape allegations against Assange were what I was referring to. They were a little bit too timely. Also, isn't one of the woman's accusations not that he raped her but that he didn't use a condom?

originally posted by: WombRaider
My question (that I've yet to see a good answer to) is why did JA choose Ecuador in the first place? What exactly are they getting out of this arrangement? One would assume that the US would put enormous pressure and/or offer lucrative incentives to end their support for him yet they continue to stand strong... what does JA have on the Ecuadorian govt?

My post with link, just up the page^^.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
They may be damaging to Clinton but at the end of the day manipulation of a US election isn't what Ecuador signed up for.


Assange is a user.

I'd kick him out and tell him release whatever he likes.

That is exactly what they signed up for, they granted him asylum from political persecution and they knew who he was. Its not like they let Mr.Rodgers and then he turned into some kind of activist. What did they expect him to do?

He's not been granted asylum from political persecution and I assume you know that is a straight out lie. He's hiding there to escape from answering questions about an alleged sexual offence. If he is sending or being involved in sending material regarding one election nominee in another country using their network then it would be seen as them stating their political opinion on who should be voted US president. They have decided not to be seen as doing that.

................................ either that or they got sick of seeing he was constantly accessing 'dating' sites using the Ecuadorian embassy network and they may have strict procedures prohibiting that, but what do I know?

The sexual allegations are a hit piece, as Assamge said. It's painfully obvious.

I agree it's a hit piece....................... at the DNC. Really, it had the subtlety of a pantomime piece and anyone that swallowed that is just obsessed with Trump and blind on Assange. But how does Assange while away those lonely nights? You don't know that any more than I do.

No the rape allegations against Assange were what I was referring to. They were a little bit too timely. Also, isn't one of the woman's accusations not that he raped her but that he didn't use a condom?

It's classed as assault if it's unprotected sex where it (unprotected) was against her wishes. If you want to use the term rape I guess that's up to you, I personally would call it a sexual offence.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
They may be damaging to Clinton but at the end of the day manipulation of a US election isn't what Ecuador signed up for.


Assange is a user.

I'd kick him out and tell him release whatever he likes.

That is exactly what they signed up for, they granted him asylum from political persecution and they knew who he was. Its not like they let Mr.Rodgers and then he turned into some kind of activist. What did they expect him to do?

He's not been granted asylum from political persecution and I assume you know that is a straight out lie. He's hiding there to escape from answering questions about an alleged sexual offence. If he is sending or being involved in sending material regarding one election nominee in another country using their network then it would be seen as them stating their political opinion on who should be voted US president. They have decided not to be seen as doing that.

................................ either that or they got sick of seeing he was constantly accessing 'dating' sites using the Ecuadorian embassy network and they may have strict procedures prohibiting that, but what do I know?

The sexual allegations are a hit piece, as Assamge said. It's painfully obvious.

I agree it's a hit piece....................... at the DNC. Really, it had the subtlety of a pantomime piece and anyone that swallowed that is just obsessed with Trump and blind on Assange. But how does Assange while away those lonely nights? You don't know that any more than I do.

No the rape allegations against Assange were what I was referring to. They were a little bit too timely. Also, isn't one of the woman's accusations not that he raped her but that he didn't use a condom?

It's classed as assault if it's unprotected sex where it (unprotected) was against her wishes. If you want to use the term rape I guess that's up to you, I personally would call it a sexual offence.

I think it's naive to think these allegations aren't politically motivated.

originally posted by: uncommitted
It's classed as assault if it's unprotected sex where it (unprotected) was against her wishes. If you want to use the term rape I guess that's up to you, I personally would call it a sexual offence.

The MSM (ie, our state-run news agencies) like to use the dog-whistle term "rape", but no, the accusations aren't rape as anyone normally uses the word. The claim is that he lied about using a condom when he had sex. And even those charges were dismissed, before being re-instated. It's all very shady.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: uncommitted
It's classed as assault if it's unprotected sex where it (unprotected) was against her wishes. If you want to use the term rape I guess that's up to you, I personally would call it a sexual offence.

The MSM (ie, our state-run news agencies) like to use the dog-whistle term "rape", but no, the accusations aren't rape as anyone normally uses the word. The claim is that he lied about using a condom when he had sex. And even those charges were dismissed, before being re-instated. It's all very shady.

The actual charge was that the woman you are referring to (allegedly) consented to sex as long as it was protected. He refused (allegedly) and penetrated her, at some point he withdrew and placed on a condemn that was for some reason ripped.

I haven't referred to it as rape, purely because I didn't. But if the allegation is true (and please don't pretend you know it was/wasn't for a fact), then within the law of Sweden if that classes as sexual assault, then it's sexual assault.

Considering neither of us know the actual facts, although I'm sure the majority of ATS think their opinion counts as fact, then all you can go on is that this is an active investigation and rather than confront it, Assange is hiding in an embassy. Anything - anything - over and above that falls into rumour and hearsay territory without validated fact.