It depresses me that people are commenting on the issue without actually knowing what the investigation in Sweden is about.
I might be wrong but there is a slight difference between not wearing a condom and rape. I don't care if Sweden is calling consensual sex without condom rape. In Assange's case, he allegedly sabotaged his condom with one woman and allegedly refused to wear a condom with another one but he did not have sex with them against their will. Nobody can argue that because there are no signs of forceful sex.
IMO, this is crazy. There is no way of proving Assange right since only witnesses are two different women claiming similar accusations and the nature of the crime does not allow much evidence. It might sound like a crazy conspiracy theory (I take into account that even Canadian strategist called for Assange's assassination[1]), but somebody might be paying these two women (or threatening them) to lie in the court.
Exactly, people keep on talking about "rape", simply because the accusation is not a crime in any other country. So, I may be wrong, but I tend to think that this is a product of mass media: A- using this term to destroy his reputation, or B- using this term, because it's much more difficult to construct public opinion, trying to explain the real "crime" in other countries.
It's not called rape in Sweden either, it is sexual misconduct. It is a crime. Even in countries where it is not a crime, it is still a terrible thing to do.
I can support WikiLeaks and also think he did these things, just like I can admire Hans Reiser's file systems. These acts are the product of thinking your desires are important enough to disregard someone else's rights to control their own body. That does not even seem out of character for Assange.
Wow, that is a ridiculously suggestive hit piece you're linking to, but even that doesn't justify your claim, since even in that piece neither Assange (who isn't even quoted in it) nor his lawyer says anything of the kind.
It's merely his lawyer quoting the accusations, and the author trying to twist this into an admission of guilt because of, OMG, "the tone". And then there's you piling it on claiming it was Assange who said it, which is a complete fabrication, at least if you take that link as "evidence".
If you want to know where the skepticism is coming from: it comes from these kind of filthy propaganda tactics.
I might be wrong but there is a slight difference between not wearing a condom and rape. I don't care if Sweden is calling consensual sex without condom rape. In Assange's case, he allegedly sabotaged his condom with one woman and allegedly refused to wear a condom with another one but he did not have sex with them against their will. Nobody can argue that because there are no signs of forceful sex.
IMO, this is crazy. There is no way of proving Assange right since only witnesses are two different women claiming similar accusations and the nature of the crime does not allow much evidence. It might sound like a crazy conspiracy theory (I take into account that even Canadian strategist called for Assange's assassination[1]), but somebody might be paying these two women (or threatening them) to lie in the court.
[2] http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13391