Why do conspiracy theorists use religious thinking instead of scientific thinking when coming up their claims? You don’t take a conclusion and then try and find bits and bobs that support it, that is asinine. You look at the evidence, arrive at a theory based on it and then you try and DISPROVE your theory. If you can then it’s time to come up with another but if you can’t then (and only then) should you believe in it.
This conspiracy theory in my opinion has more holes than a kilo of Swiss cheese. Let’s just examine the claim being made here…..
“The British, Swedish and US government are fabricating a rape allegation against Julian Assange in order to extradite him to Sweden from where he will finally be extradited to the States (to be tortured, given life imprisonment or even the death penalty for his part in Wikileaks)"
Right now let’s try and cast doubt over that theory which IMO isn’t really that hard when you think about it. I put forth these three points which put significant dents in the theory above….
Why the detour?
If the ultimate aim is to get Assange to America, why don’t the UK just extradite him there themselves and cut out the middleman? The British-American extradition treaty is notoriously favourably to US officials who want to get their hands on a UK resident, just ask the parent of Gary McKinon or student Richard O'Dwyer. Sweden on the other hand don’t have anywhere near the same record of people being packed off to the United States to answer allegations from over the pond.
It would far easier for the US to get Assange extradited from the UK than it will be from one of the most liberal nations on the planet, Sweden.
The ends don’t justify the means
What’s being alleged by the conspiracy theory above is that three major world’s governments are colluding in a huge cover-up, involving the bribing or threatening of false rape victims into making claims against Assange for the sole purpose of extraditing a man who no longer poses any real threat to any of them. Assange is the founder of Wikileaks but clearly he’s not the one running the site now, so why risk losing all credibility, reputation and future retribution from international law just to ‘get’ a man who played one small part in something that annoyed you? Why not go after who’s ever running the site now and is at least causing an ‘active threat’ if you are going to risk your country engaging in such skullduggery?
Why fabricate such a poor crime?
As far as I understand it the rape allegations against Julian Assange are far from water-tight, there’s no physical evidence and ultimately the case will rely on the testimonies of two women versus what he says. Seems like a pretty rubbish thing to come up with if the idea is to smear Assange and get him convicted in Sweden; it would have been much easier for the police to have simply planted some kiddie porn on his hard drive; that way they would have physical evidence against him and not be relying on two people who at any point in the future could ‘spill the beans’ and reveal they were coerced into making the claims by the CIA (or whoever the conspiracy theorists believe instigated this). Only an idiot would come up with the idea of the current allegations if the true nature of this was to get Assange to ‘pay for what he did one way or another’.
It would be much easier to secure a conviction for child porn on his computer, would require no outside or non-officials witnesses who may screw up 'the plan' and carries an even dimmer view than rape does (hence being a better tool to smear him with).
Obviously doesn't follow the news.
.
