Yes, that's a very popular conspiracy theory among his online supporters. It's founded in literally no material evidence of any kind, but that's never stopped a conspiracy theory from gaining traction.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 23 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Hey, quick question: to where is he is extradited?

*I've misread comrade, more paying attention to the tool part than fabricated part. Assange should get some hustice for his sa (iikely true) allegations, but prolly embassy imprisonment counts for his prison time for that

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social -5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I think the more important question is why y’all think the charges are fabricated.

I will admit, I don’t know what to think, but that’s because the waters have become so muddy around those allegations. But I have yet to see anyone provide evidence that this was fabricated other than “it’s something that the government would do.”

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's important to remember that conspiratorial thinking is not limited by virtue of political ideology. Yes, the right has co-opted it in recent decades, but unfounded political paranoia and the mythologizing of deepstate cointelpro, as fundamental concepts, are on some level ideologically agnostic.

[+] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml -8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why he's being extradited to the United States! Y'know, because of the ESPIONAGE charges brought against him in 2019, which were motivated by his receiving classified data from Chelsea Manning. You can say that the rape charges against him occurring around the same time are suspicious, and I would tacitly agree with you, but there's no evidence to suggest that they are related. And if the United States wants your ass in a blacksite, it doesn't need to fabricate sexual assault allegations to disappear you.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I do think his conduct can be classified as assault. I also think britain instituting 24/7 surveillance on ecuador embassy has got nothing to do with those charges, because no country in the world does this over sa charges. They (sweden case and usa one) are related in as much as he can't answer for charges in sweden, cause even he were charged and imprisoned there, there is still no guarantee he won't be extradited to usa.

The charges are a tool (maybe fabricated wrong word by the poster above), but they are still a tool to fuck him over.

USA can't disappear to black site famous people, they need their mask of free press

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The charges are a tool (maybe fabricated wrong word by the poster above), but they are still a tool to fuck him over.

This is hardcore goalpost moving. The original wording to which I responded was literally saying the charges were fabricated. Saying "fabricated" is the "wrong word" is like someone saying "fake" is the wrong word to describe the moon landings. It suggests a kernel of truth to something that is completely unfounded, implying that it's simply overreaching by a matter of degree. So you're not saying Julian Assange didn't commit sexual assault. You're just saying it doesn't really matter if he did.

And literally no one is disagreeing that there's some realpolitk at play here, but saying an instance of sexual assault did not occur on the basis that its occurrence is politically inconvenient (and when would a sexual assault charge not be for someone like Assange?) is literal rape apologism.

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I thought there was a lot of basis for this. Testimonials from the girls in question, where the escalation to "rape" from "broken condom" was after learning about there being another girl. The definition of what can end up being translated as "rape", is also not the same as one typically assumes when hearing that word in English. "Tampering with a condom, such that it leads to unprotected sex", can be considered "rape". Yet, the act can still be consentual. The other I believe accused him of taking advantage while asleep. Which would be fair to say, not lost in translation. But, she also didn't mind him staying at her place for more days.

It's been a while, so the details might be off here. Something along those lines at least. Also, naming the accused, was awfully strange, as it is just not done in Sweden for cases like this.

Probably enough information here:

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-assange-arrest-wikileaks-rape-sweden-embassy

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In 2010, a Swedish woman initially referred to in the press as Miss A said that Assange had tampered with a condom during sex with her on a visit to Stockholm, essentially forcing her to have unprotected sex. She has since spoken publicly under her name, Anna Ardin. Another woman, referred to as Miss W, said that during the same visit, Assange had penetrated her without a condom while she was sleeping.

What part of this does not seem like rape?

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not sure I understand what you are asking. Do you need help with reading? Not really interested in that. Maybe see if there is a class near you. Good luck.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think you're the one who doesn't understand. I'm effectively accusing you of rape apologism. Because that's what you're doing. You're saying an act of rape, assuming it happened, doesn't really "count" or that the people involved who believe they were raped were "asking for it."

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I’m effectively accusing you of rape apologism. Because that’s what you’re doing. You’re saying an act of rape, assuming it happened, doesn’t really “count” or that the people involved who believe they were raped were “asking for it.”

Aha. I see. Then I wasn't wrong about suggesting improving reading skills. It might also instead be related to logic and inference. In either case, sounds like a you-problem. Good luck with that!

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

I'm not the one who posted an article they didn't even bother to read first.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why would the spooks leave material evidence. The conspiracy doesn’t have to be very large to work.

[–] DrCatface@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

username checks out

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I have to say that the suggestion that the absence of any evidence of a conspiracy is itself evidence of a conspiracy is some truly 10/10 pants on head conspiracy-brained logic. Very impressive.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Nah. People think that conspiracies need to be some large crazy hyper complex operation with many moving and confusing parts, but they don’t have to be. It’s far easier to keep things under wraps if your conspiracy is small — only involving a handful of people — and, you have the ability to throw people in jail for the rest of their lives if they leak it i.e. the US security apparatus. I could see a small team of spooks being given the free rein to concoct a honey trap for assange and making it stick, all without any real public physical evidence. It’s not the wildest thing versus all of the Q-anon nonsense.