FDL: Assange's "Sex By Surprise" Accuser Worked With US-Funded, CIA-Tied Anti-Castro Group

[Turborama]

By: Kirk James Murphy, M.D. Saturday December 4, 2010 9:20 pm

Yesterday Alexander Cockburn http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12032010.html">reminded us of the news Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir09142010.html">broke at Counterpunch in September. Julian Assange’s chief accuser in Sweden has a significant history of work with anti-Castro groups, at least one of which is US funded and openly supported by a former CIA agent convicted in the mass murder of seventy three Cubans on an airliner he was involved in blowing up.

"http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir09142010.html">Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see http://www.miscelaneasdecuba.net/web/article.asp?artID=1314">here and http://www.miscelaneasdecuba.net/web/article.asp?artID=1315">here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba. From Oslo, Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with http://www.cubaliberal.org/aboutus.htmq">Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed http://machetera.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/oh-what-a-not-so-tangled-web-we-weave/">here."

Quelle surprise, no? Shamir and Bennett went on to write about Ardin’s history in Cuba with a US funded group openly supported by a real terrorist: Luis Posada Carriles.

"In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group http://www.damasdeblanco.com/">Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a http://machetera.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/luis-posada-carriles-and-ladies-in-white-go-out-on-a-limb-in-miami/">friend and supporter. Wikipedia quotes Hebe de Bonafini, president of the Argentine Madres de Plaza de Mayo as saying that “the so-called Ladies in White defend the terrorism of the United States.”

Who is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles">Luis Posada Carriles? He’s a mass murderer, and former CIA agent.

Much More: http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/



Adding this for anyone who may have missed http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9681794">the OP about the "Sex by Surprise" claim.

[somone]

1. Pic:

image - Anna Ardin
http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/

[tiny elvis]

35. pooh says hammeesummadat

wait a minute

this hunny tastes funny

[Beacool]

42. Not cool to post her pic!!!!

I don't know whether she's telling the truth or not, but it's not OK to post the pic of a potential sexual victim just because some approve of Assange.

Would you be so quick to post the pic of a woman who accuses some right wing nut of sexual assault?

x(

[Enthusiast]

47. LOL! nt

[greiner3]

48. If she were an unknown non-public figure;

I could see your point. However, she has significant public exposure in the media and the case in point the OP brought up was not sex crimes per se. It is her ties with the US government and other organizations. This woman is 'dirty.'

I am not in favor of putting anyone on trial who accuses a crime happened. This is the trick a defense lawyer uses, especially in rape trials. We all hear of the rape victim being crossed examined and accused of 'wanting it.' While this tactic is an old one and is getting pretty much out of favor with a lot of juries, even the insinuation can have deleterious effects in a just outcome against a rapist. The more money a rapist has the better his attorney who will know all the angles and will have a better chance of getting his client off of the charges.

I still stand with my observation that the OP was for this woman's public life and her ties. It is secondary that she also has accused someone of rape. I grant you that her info would not be out on this site if she were not an alleged crime victim but how does anyone get their 15 minutes; whether wanted, planned or by karma?

[EFerrari]

51. She started publicizing this herself. She leaked it to a tabloid.

Victim, my granny.

[krabigirl]

53. Lol, like it isn't easy to find her pics..they are everywhere.

[sabrina 1]

60. She posted her own picture and there is no secret about who she is.

And yes, if someone was falsely accusing a Republican of rape I would definitely post any information that was available on that person.

Such things are not about 'our team' v 'their team', they are about 'right' and 'wrong'. And falsely smearing someone is definitely not cool, no matter who does it.

[Subdivisions]

80. ROFLMFAO!!!!

[Raoul]

97. Oh pulleeezzzeee

She's a fucking CIA operative as well as the male that was mentioned. Isn't it obvious? So, all's fair in war..

[Swagman]

89. honey trap....honey trap

[glitch]

2. Called it!

Good work FDL doing the research! Thanks for posting. K & R

edit: although I am pretty shocked by how blatant this operative was and how thin the cover. Cheesy.

[ooglymoogly]

29. Once again, FDL clears things up; invaluable for those searching for the truth. nt

[EFerrari]

34. Hissyspit posted this link Wednesday to an article in The Age (September)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4636852&mesg_id=4638222

The Man Who Played with Fire

http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-man-who-played-with-fire-20100925-15rof.html?from=age_sb

[glitch]

36. In that case bravo to The Age for doing the research and kudos to FDL for picking it up. And

props always to Hissysplit.

[Catherina]

3. Well, well, well, whadya know

"often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups"


LOL.

Rec'd. Thank you

[Recursion]

4. Wait. Being anti-Castro is proof of being right-wing now? (nt)

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Being CIA-connected is the critical variable there.

[Recursion]

13. Name an anti-Castro organization that the CIA has nothing to do with (nt)

[liberation]

55. Name any CIA policy/operation that can be remotely construed as "leftist"

[Ken Burch]

72. You think accepting that ALL anti-Castro groups have CIA ties proves they AREN'T all right-wing?

:wtf:

Face it...if you've got ties with The Company in the year 2010, you ain't no social democrat.

[nashville_brook]

25. +1

[davidwparker]

64. +2

[Catherina]

16. Well, let's just say it's not credible proof of being left-wing. n/t

[Sapphireprick]

20. Well, if you prove that she has acitvely opose right-wing regimes, I will believe she is left-wing

Has Anna Ardin been kicked out of any countries with a right-wing dictatorship?
There are many dictatorships in the world. Would a left-wing anti-dictator person limit herself to opposing Castro?

Here's another one: Would a person seeking justice attempt to jail men for the simple reason that they cheated on her?

[caseymoz]

22. No, but she's definitely not "left" as the press was saying.

And if she has CIA ties . . . that's basically like a mole for the US government planted in Sweden. And how and why is it that somebody with her interests (liberating Cuba) would be then be associating with Assange? Lovers and "complete opposites?" No, indications are she's an agent for the CIA, who probably put her up to this. And I'm wondering, for what plan? What will happen to him if he's taken into custody and he's brought to an isolated county in Sweden to stand trial? Also, they did bring charges that seem designed to divide the left over Assange, too.

Question is not whether she's left or right, it's: whose payroll is she on?

[ooglymoogly]

26. Roit, roit, roit...fer sher dooood. not worth any text.

[EFerrari]

52. She's worked for a right wing party. This isn't rocket science. n/t

[Monk06]

79. How many pro Castro right wingers do you know? That's dumb, even for a rhetorical question. n/t

[Billy Burnett]

95. Castro is the distraction. The neocons want Cuba again.

And if they can't have Cuba (which they can't at the moment due to the popular People's Revolution), then Castro is the distraction for US political campaign purposes.

[Lucinda]

5. TY!

[mix]

6. honey trap nt

[pinboy3niner]

7. K&R

:thumbsup:

[bertman]

8. She's one of those 'Rahm Emanuel leftists'. CIA connected. Ummm. REC. nt

[glitch]

37. Indeedy. nt

[meow mix]

9. will smith and gene hackman will be along shortly..

shocked i say!

[xchrom]

10. recommend

[JVS]

11. What kind of operation is Raul running, where such obvious spies are allowed to go free?

[Odin2005]

14. I TOLD you guys she was a CIA plant!

[caseymoz]

27. I would have thought nothing in the world works out so obvious.

I thought they'd do a better job of covering it up, that is use a spy who's not so obviously a spy, but apparently they thought they could get him into custody and get this out of sight before she was identified. Out of sight in an isolated part of Sweden, Assange would have disappeared.

Let's thank the Swedish justice system for their typos on the warrant, and thank the British for dragging their feet in apprehending him. Otherwise this part would have never come out until Assange already disappeared.

[malaise]

15. One of my good friends died on that Cubana aircraft

She was on her way to Cuba to study medicine.
I'll be taking that one to my grave. I know who supported the blowing up of aircraft for their political interests. I know who harbors that criminal.

[Catherina]

17. Malaise, speak a little more clearly please. I'm not following you here

Normally you're very clear and I rec you a lot but this one I'm having a little trouble with. Are you defending her or not?

[malaise]

38. Defending who?

Someone who would set up Assange - not me - not ever.

My point is that the bombers of that Cubana aircraft are living in the US so clearly one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. All involved in that Cubana crash are murderers/terrorists.

[Ghost Dog]

50. With you there, malaise.

:(

[madmax]

67. The BFEE

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-02-25/news/cuban-killer-luis-posada-carriles-goes-on-trial/1/
http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Bush_Cuban_Gang

[Catherina]

69. The accuser. Thanks for explaining. I thought that's what you meant

but wanted to make sure since I value your opinion. Yes indeed they are. Terrorists.

[glinda]

18. K & R some more

[avaistheone1]

19. Is she the female Assange accuser who has stated it is okay to falsely accused someone of rape for

political reasons? What a piece of work. :puke: :puke: :puke: :grr:



k&r

[EFerrari]

28. Yes, she is. n/t

[defendandprotect]

83. Right -- that was REALLY interesting ... "get them in trouble with the law' ... wow!!!

[Kermitt Gribble]

21. K&R!

[Taverner]

23. But of course...

Not surprised in the least

[Igel]

24. So let's get this clear.

"She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba. From Oslo, Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed here.""

She went and talked to folks in the social democrat organization in Cuba. Her first diatribe basically said that since Castro, the people have it a lot better in many ways, but their wages are lower. I don't catch the diatribe, unless saying that not all is perfect is the ultimate condemnation. However, she does say that a third way is needed between the US and Castroism, and that the US trade embargo is manipulated for domestic political ends. Horribile dictu, truly. The second is an interview that sounds vaguely social-democrat. Again, the sin isn't in being a rightist but in being insufficiently pro-Castro.

So these less-than-diatribes were published in a publication. That publication is put out by group A. One wonders if group A is the "well-financed anti-Castro organization is Sweden" referred to--they have to be, but the way the writer puts it makes it seem like it's two different organizations: The linguistics suggests both sentences introduce new topics even if the second sentence logically seems to continue the first sentence's topic. Perhaps it's just a bit of horrible stylistics. Let's assume they're the same group.

So that group is connected to another group with a leader with ties to the CIA. Those "ties" seem to consist entirely in having information that he shouldn't be able to have, and the person alleging the ties can think of no way he could get this information other from the CIA. Since he hasn't disconfirmed the suspicion, might have been accessible to the CIA, and, furthermore, even has published in a publication which receives money from an organization that's been accused of being a CIA front, obviously he is CIA.

In summary: Group A has connections to Group B headed by Person C. Person C has published in publication D, which has received money from group E which is alleged to be a front for the CIA.

I've published in Linguistic Inquiry, my own publication D. LI has links to Noam Chomsky (D), a notable leftist with links to some pretty notable leftists (E). At the same time, I was in a cactus and succulent society (B), which therefore has links to these socialist organizations. The CSS was housed a senior citizens center (A), which held programs for senior citizens. So these senior citizens should be suspected of being leftist subversives because of their "ties" to Noam Chomsky and international socialist organizations that, in all likelihood, they're unaware of.

The same sort of reductio (need at say ab quo?) is possible with the latter assertion.

McCarthy would have his mind spinning. He only went a couple of layers deep in his guilt by (scant) association. On the other hand, if it's needed to show that Assange is virtuous by victimizer from the Great Victimizer, no linkage, no tie, no mere rubbing of elbows in D'Orly or Heathrow or Schipol is too scant to imply a deep emotional and ideological bond.

And this, over mere allegations that are yet to be investigated. Mostly, the lord high questioner, advocate of openness and freedom of information, is running from answering questions and, presumably, providing free and open information (albeit in a confidential manner). It's not a case of "What's he got to hide?"--such questions are spurious and pointless. In this case, it's unclear that he's in any real danger and, instead of asking, "Hmm, did he do it?" we assume that the person alleging rape either is lying or wanted it, and the prosecutor asking questions is abetting and aiding the obviously false charges. Naive of me, and foolish, but compared to the reasoning in what the OP cites a model of incisive clear thinking.

[EFerrari]

31. No, that's wrong. This woman, who worked in the Swedish foreign service

in DC, was deported by Cuba for her association with a well known State Department/CIA front group. This is not a group that hobbyists frequent.

And Assange is not avoiding questioning in any way. Where did you get that idea? He left Sweden with permission and his attorneys in England and in Sweden have been in constant touch with the prosecutor.

He's not hiding anything. He has, however, being the object of assassination threats and is keeping a low profile while the US government hunts him like a dog even though there are no American charges against him.

Maybe your own model of clear thinking needs some Windex.

[chervilant]

76. OMG!!

You actually understood what that person posted?!? The grammar is far too murky for me to muddle through.

[sabrina 1]

62. He has offered to speak to the prosecutors through his lawyer.

This is how these things are usually done. Unless you think he doesn't deserve to have a lawyer represent him and should just throw himself into the arms of the U.S. and their torturers, which is what WILL happen to him ifhe is ever taken into custody. So, since his lawyers have let it be known that their client can be reached throught though them, many times. How is that 'running'? The prosecutors have failed to contact his lawyers.

Seems to me they prefer NOT to talk to him, and are refusing to speak to his lawyers so that they can continue the smear campaign. After all, treating him like anyone else would not produce the desired effect. Not that it's working. People are not blind or stupid, as they appear to believe.

[ooglymoogly]

30. Once again, FDL clears things up; invaluable for those searching for the truth. kr. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. No!! The CIA are noted as protectors of freedom...aren't they??

Aren't they humanitarians who sell cookies to raise money for the poor?

[madrchsod]

33. this is from august and was translated by someone in florida

http://www.newzglobe.com/sv/artikel/20100823/s-kvinna-anmalde-wikileaks-grundare

the translation...the comment section is very interesting

http://www.skandinaviflorida.com/web/sif.nsf/d6plinks/JEIE-88LLB7

[WinkyDink]

39. Did she hand out leaflets in New Orleans, too?

[awnobles]

98. Bingo

Good one!

[WinkyDink]

100. :-)

[bluestate10]

40. If she was in fact raped, why does her past matter?

Assange can end the rape accusations by coming to Sweden to get his day in court. The charges and activities around them charges can be investigated by Swedish police and Assange hired investigators. Yet Assange continues to run.

One standard of rape cases is the accusers are not named unless they are judged by a court to have unjustly accused.

[EFerrari]

41. He's not "running" in any way. Where did you get that idea?

[Forkboy]

45. Hell of a coincindence.

Just an innocent, accidental, chance encounter, I'm sure....

[liberation]

57. Because...

... she's on record claiming that it is OK to fake stuff, like sex charges, in order to further political agendas. So yeah, past matters a hell of a lot in this case.


Also, technically the charge is not for "rape" but for having sexual relations without protection. Big difference. The charges were initially dropped, and then were reopened... thus the interpol notice. It is an arbitrary order, given that an actual rapist like Polanski was allowed to roam free for over 3 decades.

[ProudDad]

58. Under the U.S. or British or most country's definition of "rape"

she was NOT raped...

A broken condom during consensual sex does not constitute "rape" anywhere...

[TheMadMonk]

77. There is nothing to indicate she WAS raped.

There is every indication: there is/was collusion between the two alleged victims; a great deal of political pressure was exerted to get this case taken back up after prosecutors dropped it; further political pressure was exerted to obtain an unprecedented (or very nearly so) Interpol warrant; there are tangible connections between at least one of the "victims", the Swedish Foreign Ministry, the CIA and US State Deparment through anti-Castro front groups.

On the matter of the Interpol warrant, one has to wonder if the US might just be waiting for the unprecedented to become precedented, in order to make it's own application

Now add in that Sweden is a known transfer point for extraordinary rendition, which in turn suggests a "black" CIA station NOT connected to the embassy there. Yes I'm sure the UK has its fair share of "black" stations, but the close open ties between the US and UK make disappearing him there problematical to say the least. In Sweden, second only to Switzerland in its reputation for European neutrality, shenanigans become a lot more plausibly deniable.


None of this says that the women were not sexually assaulted, although personally I do think it very doubtful. There are reasons to believe that Assange has behaved like an oportunistic cad and bounder, although I can understand his refusing to ascede to what amounts to a demand to change the terms of an agreement AFTER the conditions of that agreement had been fulfilled. (It would have been a different matter if she'd asked for a test immediately after the condom broke.) However, there is very little to suggest that his actions crossed the line of actionable assault. While not entirely analagous, this is somewhat similar to the joke about the prostitute who didn't know it was rape until the cheque bounced.

Given all of the circumstances surrounding these charges (which BTW would be a misdemeanour offence (if the specific offence with which he has been charged even existed there) in the US) there is EVERY REASON to reserve demands for Assange to face those charges on suspect soil, chosen by those who we have every reason to believe are standing in the shadows behind his accusers.


You (and certainly many others) might well have compelling personal reasons to be outraged at the appearance of an alleged rapist dodging justice, but if you stand back and look at the bigger picture, there is every reason to suspect that the public are being deliberately played for exactly that evidence transcending visceral reaction many have towards accused sexual offenders.

[defendandprotect]

84. Exactly ... sex with both women was consentual ... disagreement re birth control/condoms....

[Little Star]

93. I don't think she charged rape as we understand rape here in the US.

Something about a lack of or a broken condom during consensual sex is the way I understand it.

[sabrina 1]

101. She herself says she was not raped, so why is anyone speculating on

that?

There are no formal charges that I know of, he is only 'wanted' for questioning. His lawyers have offered to facilitate this request but the Swedish Government has not responded.

This woman has apparently made such charges before. She used them, it seems according to her own writing to get revenge on men she is not happy with.

The woman has zero credibility and had none from the start. A fact agreed upon by the lead prosecutor.

[sulphurdunn]

43. Now that's what I call

one hell of a coincidence. :smoke:

[glinda]

44. k & R like a football into cyberspace.

[laughingliberal]

46. I couldn't have been more shocked if you'd told me the sun rose in the east, today. nt

[Eyerish]

49. K&R

[Octafish]

54. Luis Posada Carriles is a BFEE hit man...

Beat the BFEE: Poppy’s CIA warned about terror plots and did not stop them

[ProudDad]

56. Too funny!

:rofl:

Why am I not surprised...?

[whistler162]

59. Great from now on it is okay to bring up the past and

blame all "supposed" accusers of sexual assault of lying!

Very "Progressive".

Remember this thread next time some college student/politician/celebrity is accused of some sexually in appropriate behavior!

[laughingliberal]

65. ROFL! Haven't spent much time around the intelligence community, I'm guessing.

I was saying this woman was a CIA plant when the story first appeared.

[EFerrari]

70. Yes, it's called common sense. If the accused has zero history

but the accuser does have a history, that's when your frontal lobes are supposed to kick in.

[liberation]

71. Ah, yes...

So consensual sex and rape are the same thing to you... very "reactionary." Oh man, the "concern" game is fun, eh?

BTW, the charge is not regarding rape, but consensual sex involving lack of protection. Big difference.

[TorchTheWitch]

61. there is no "sex by surprise" charge

There is no "sex by surprise" law. Damn, are people so gullible they'll listen to whatever nonsense someone's defense attorney claims?

This is what Assange has been charged with:

http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/
The matter concerning Mr. Assange

Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Mr Assange had appealed the detention decision issued by Svea Court of Appeal.

Today the Supreme Court has taken a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. If the Supreme Court is to hear an appeal, leave to appeal must first be granted. Leave to appeal is only granted if the case is assessed as being very important to the application of the law or if other extraordinary reasons apply.

The arrest warrant is based on the detention decision that has now been examined by all three legal instances. The additional information requested by the British Police concerns the penalties for the other crimes, in addition to rape, that Julian Assange was arrested for. This information will be supplied immediately. The previous arrest warrant stands.

............

There IS no obscure "sex by surprise" law that Assange is being charged with. If Sweden has such a law that makes the charge of rape appropriate in a situation where sex with the stipulation that a condom is used is consented and during the sex the condom is knowingly removed without the woman's consent yet the man continues the sex without the condom then GOOD. Because at ANY TIME sex is commenced without the stipulations adhered to then consent has been withdrawn and it rightfully makes continuing the sex WITHOUT CONSENT. Sex without consent is RAPE. And it SHOULD be considered rape by anyone's standards. It especially should be considered rape by anyone's standards if the party having the stipulations of their consent ignored and when they realize it tell their partner to stop and they don't stop. Who the hell would have a problem with this???

Here is Sweden's penal code:
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/77/77/cb79a8a3.pdf

Where is this weird "sex by surprise" law? Feel free to search the internet, too, for any "sex by surprise" law that Sweden supposedly has that describes such a law as Assange's attorneys have described it. IT DOESN'T EXIST. Now, why would his attorneys lie about such a thing? What reason could they possibly have for lying about this obscure law and what it entails? What reason could they possibly have for attempting to make it appear that Sweden is nuts and has some whackadoodle law that makes having sex without a condom even describing it loosely as "sex by surprise" either a misdemeanor punishable by a small fine or a rape charge punishable by mandatory prison time (they can't seem to get on the same page about that)?


This CIA operative nonsense is getting more hilarious by the day.

1) Supposing it is correct that one or both of the women have ties to the CIA who believes it is not possible that they can be raped? Who here believes that having ties to the CIA or even being a CIA operative means that there are no circumstances in which you can be raped? Who here believes that being a female CIA operative means that you can't ever be considered to have been raped?

2) If Sweden is so easy to be coerced by the US into going so far as to trump up false rape charges against someone why does the US even need an operative to have sex with Assange and not only not claim they were flat out raped without any consent to sex whatsoever but to only claim that which is covered by whatever the fantasy "sex by surprise" law is? If it is believed that the US has coerced Sweden into trumping up false rape charges against Assange why not just make a phone call to the powers that be in Sweden and tell them to start filing the trumped up false rape charge paperwork? Why the hell would they need an operative AT ALL?

3) If the US for some ridiculous reason felt that even though they could just make a simple phone call to Sweden and have them trump up false rape charges they sent a female operative anyway, why would this operative need to actually have sex with the ugly dude at all? Why not just make a false rape charge without having to actually do the nasty with the guy? Wouldn't that be so much easier and so much less personally disgusting? Who here believes that a CIA operative would actually be THIS stupid? Who here believes that the CIA even HAS any operatives that are THIS stupid?

4) Even supposing that the CIA does have female operatives that are so stupid to actually go through having sex with Assange when they don't have to in order to falsely claim rape, who here believes that they are SO stupid that instead of just claiming they were flat out raped only claimed they were "sort of raped" under the fantasy "sex by surprise" Swedish law and actually claim they had consensual sex with him? Wouldn't that make such a CIA operative just about the stupidest person on the face of the earth? Who here believes that not only is there anyone this stupid to actually go through having sex with the guy and instead of just claiming he flat out raped them they claim that the sex was consensual and he only sort of raped them under the fantasy Swedish "sex by surprise" law but that such a person THIS stupid is actually a CIA operative?

5) Even supposing that the CIA operative really is the most stupid person on the face of the earth as to have done all this unnecessary and ridiculous stuff that defies all logic, how is it that they are still so smart and savy that they are able to convince the other woman to go along with them and trump up false rape charges magically in just the same way? Who here believes that this CIA operative is not only the most stupid person on the face of the earth to have done all this yet still be smart and savy enough to convince this other woman to do the exact same thing and only days apart? Wouldn't it be so much more believable that BOTH of these women are really ridiculously stupid CIA operatives? Who here believes that since it's easier to believe that BOTH of these women are really ridiculously stupid CIA operatives that not only does the CIA have TWO operatives this ridiculously stupid they sent BOTH of them to go through all this unnecessary nonsense because for some absurd reason one of them wouldn't be enough?

When all along the US could have just made a simple phone call to Sweden and told them to trump up false rape charges against Assange? We're really supposed to believe all this utterly bizzaro nonsense? Isn't it ever so much more logical that Assange had sex with these non-CIA operatives and something occurred during the sexual encounters with one or both of them that MIGHT be considered rape?

Apparently, simple logic has flown so far out the window with many here that you have to go THIS far into whackadoodle conspiracy theory land. This one is so crazy it even trumps any other conspiracy theory nuttiness I've ever heard of.

[msanthrope]

68. Why are you using facts and logic? n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

73. I know, shame on me

Facts and logic are just not fun at all. I'm selfishly spoiling all the fun so many people are having slaughtering both of these women and the country of Sweden. And I'm not even being fair at all because I'm not insisting that Assange is guilty as sin. If I at least did that then people would have legitimate ammunition against me. Tragically I keep saying over and over that he may be innocent or may be guilty. I'm truly a terrible person for all this.

[liberation]

74. Strawmen and personal opinion are not usually considered "fact and logic"

But to each their own I guess...


Here is a bit of background on the case, for those who care about the facts of this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307137/Supporters-dismissed-rape-accusations-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange--women-involved-tell-different-story.html

[TorchTheWitch]

75. what strawmen and opinion?

Where have I ever used strawmen or opinion? I've repeatedly said that Assange may be guilty or innocent and don't know and that nobody else here on the outside of this is in a position to know either.

If you care at all about strawmen and opinion maybe you should start with all the people bringing up whacko consiracy theory bullshit without even a hint of facts or logic. There's more silly strawmen and opinion in that crap that I'm not even capable of creatively imagining. Good for some laughs though seeing how far some people will go out on that whackadoodle conspiracy theory branch.

It's ever so much easier to claim strawmen and opinion than to actually use facts and logic to refute anything I've said, isn't it?

[sabrina 1]

63. K&R

[Poboy]

66. recommend.

[davidinalameda]

78. attacking an alleged rape victim

always a classy move

[Turborama]

86. Because she has accused Assange of "sex by surprise" does not make her immune...

...to an examination of her political history.

[TorchTheWitch]

87. except that she hasn't

SHE didn't accuse him of "sex by surprise". I'm still hoping someone can find any law in Sweden about "sex by surprise" because I can't find anything like that anywhere. Hell, I'm still waiting for one of Assange's attorneys to let us know what this "sex by surprise" law is, what it entails in full and how it isn't a perfectly legitimate reason to charge someone with rape. Instead we're supposed to take his word that the law exists and is so crazy that no one in their right mind would think it was a legitimate reason to charge someone with rape all the while ignoring the fact that he's as biased as Assange since he works to defend Assange and is paid to do it.

[Turborama]

88. Even if she keeps changing her mind about whether or not it was "rape" does not make her immune...

...to an examination of her political history.

[defendandprotect]

81. More like ... "CIA by surprise" ... !!!

[Anakin Skywalker]

82. Not Surprising.

[defendandprotect]

85. What would be really helpful if a lawyer here at DU could tell us number of times these

charges have ever been applied to anyone else in Sweden an what the eventual

outcome has been?

Fine -- ?

And perhaps explain Sweden's seemingly confusing law -- if that even is what it is?

How many men or women have been charged wih this before?

That's what I'd like to know --


Meanwhile, I find both women to be dismissable given their political connections and

the interests of the CIA in suppressing these leaks --

[whoopingcrone]

90. What a BIG "surprise"

His wiki leaked.
Golly gee wiilikers.
Who'd a thunk it might happen?

[Vattel]

91. ooh, a conspiracy theory lol

He is charged with rape. I hope he is innocent because I love the work he is doing. But anyone who suggests that the CIA was involved in this needs to get a clue.

[Wednesdays]

94. How many times do we have to keep going over this shit?

IF (and that's a big IF) he's charged with rape, actual rape, the case is just about the flimsiest on record. SHE never pressed charges. In fact, she was making happy texts right after the "incident" (others here can fill in details). She didn't report to the police, but rather sent her story to a tabloid newspaper...and that was some time later.

Good God, the power of M$M brainwashing on display in these threads. :eyes:

[Capitalocracy]

96. anyone who suggests

that the CIA wouldn't do this needs to get a clue. The CIA topples democratically elected governments before lunch and installs brutal military dictatorships before getting off work at 5:00 leading directly and deliberately to the illegal detention, torture, rape, and murder of countless innocent people around the world. Why would it surprise you for one second that they'd send an operative to build a smear campaign against Julian Assange, one of the few people in today's world to really stick his neck out and find an effective way to fight back against tyranny?

I don't know the case and I don't know about the evidence or the links of who this woman is or whatever, but to say the CIA wouldn't do this is to say the sky isn't blue.

[Poboy]

92. .

[zeos3]

99. KICK

[Alamuti Lotus]

102. colour me NOT SURPRISED AT ALL; is their manufactured 15min up yet?