|Home » Industry Watch (» The Technological) (» Hall of Monkeys) (» Heroes Banquet) » The Longbow Six
Assange in Sweden: The Longbow Six (Part Five)
Some things don't otherwise add up. And who fooled who?
DUCKPOND (Rixstep) — In the interim whilst waiting for the UK Supreme Court hearings now this Wednesday, Flashbacker longbow4y has gone back to the documents in the case of Assange versus Sweden and studied them again - and in detail. He's also correlated the events of August 2010 with other events earlier that year and looked into 'political connections'.
His original lengthy post was removed by the moderators at Flashback, no explanation given. So he posted again, this time dividing it all into six separate parts.
All those concerned and interested now took the time to make their own copies. What follows is a translation of those six posts, presented without commentary.
JA/WL are criticised brutally for being antisemitic. This is used as an argument to undermine JA's and WL's trustworthiness and thereafter as well in the rape case.
In other words: Assange was accused of being antisemitic way before the accusations in Stockholm.
One of the most brutal attacks against JA/WL was in Expo #2 June 2011.
'In #2 our reporter Jonathan Leman looks at the connections between WikiLeaks, founder Julian Assange, and openly antisemitic individuals.'
And the article:
That came right after Mona Sahlin was selected for the board of directors of Expo:
OK pure coincidence... ;)
√ Who are the other targets of antisemitic accusations?
√ What were they saying about the brotherhood after Ship to Gaza 2010?
√ And who is the press contact if not AA?
Do you think Mossad watched Ship to Gaza and those who partook? I do. They were certainly tracked, their actions documented.
The same organisation, the brotherhood, invited JA to Sweden only 2 months after the Ship to Gaza fiasco. And they used the same press contact: AA.
Do you think the brotherhood, PW, and AA were popular with Mossad at that time?
I think they were well known and thoroughly analysed. JA, PW, and AA were surely on their top 10 list at that time.
If someone should want to stop JA because of perceived antisemitic leanings, it was a great plan to use another antisemitic organisation or individual as the means. Fight evil with evil is an old tried and tested method. But what organisation would be able to do such a thing? My answer: the same organisation that helped SW clean away her Internet presence.
The accusations against JA were cleverly staged by people who wanted to set up JA, the brotherhood, and AA. And AA walked right in the trap.
SW was most likely an cheap 'n' easy and easily convinced and whose only task was to have sex with JA. She had no bad intentions. She broke down during the interrogation when she learned Julian had been arrested in absentia. So there was no reason to remove her Internet presence before these events. Fundamental rule #1A is that people in the field should know as little as possible. Often they don't even know they're part of a bigger game.
AA probably got her instructions from someone else.
[ Introduction | Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Part Five | Part Six ]