“The article said they stormed it—different from seizing it...Perhaps they just wanted to get Assange, not the embassy”
Sophistry. There is no difference. It is an invasion. Imagine someone storming a US Embassy and kidnapping someone.
We already forced down and searched the jet belonging to the president of Bolivia. We are racking up some strong bad karma. If you convince enough of the world that you are a menace, don’t be surprised one day when they act as though you were a menace.
Like what the Barbary Arabs did to the US consulate in Naples....abducted the consulate for ransom.....rescued by the newly formed Marines.
If true it’s insanely wild because the releases are political. But I dont picture the British seizing an embassy?
This comment above was the post to which I was replying...(not to you)
It is not sophistry and I resent your comment...it is called being articulate...so as not to spread additional rumors...and I see posts saying the British seized the embassy—but we don’t know that...
Sorry but there is a difference in the 2 words...to seize denotes possession—as per dictionary.com...
To Seize: To take possession of by force or at will.
syn: take, seize, grasp, clutch, snatch, grab
To storm: To rush to an assault or attack.
syn: attack, assail, assault, bombard, storm
Are they now running the embassy because they are in control? If so, then that would be seizing it...No source has said that...However, it has been reported that they did storm the embassy—in an attempt to seize Assange.
I was not in any way diminishing the severity of what may have happened if they did in fact storm the embassy (I hope they did not). It is wrong, Kerry is a scumbag, hope they don’t buckle.
BTW, the ACTUAL tweet reads: Reports the Brits STORM the Ecuadorian Embassy tonite while Kerry demands the UK revoke their diplomatic status so Assange can be SEIZED
You really need to read what I was saying and to whom I was saying it before accusing me of sophistry—oh and consulting a dictionary would not be a bad idea either.