https://omni.se/a/bm0aqq

Those of us who are awake are cheering 😃

If Fälldin was incorrectly listed, it seems quite natural that he distrusted the “list.”

I am so old that I was there at the time. However, my memory may have been affected by the ailments of age. But I don’t understand that thing with nuclear power and Fälldin. He was indeed a convinced opponent, but did he actually put a stop to anything? Would we have completed more than 13 reactors without Fälldin’s actions?

He was (according to his own account) on the list. I have seen old TV/newspaper clips, heard parents describe how this sent shockwaves through (a then very different) Sweden in a news broadcast. And as I CLEARLY expressed above, he used his own identification as a pretext for claiming that others were also wrongly identified… (THE NAIVE B******) Straight-laced, upright, etc. but naive, in other words. Wasn’t that what we saw throughout his political career? The submarine crisis that he handled with strength and integrity (see Theutenberg and others). Nuclear power where he naively listened to *experts* (such as Nobel Prize-winning Hannes Alfvén who advised against fission because fusion was much better/safer, and was also just around the corner within a year…). Resigned when he couldn’t ‘negotiate with his conscience’. He was so incredibly wrong about nuclear power, it was disastrous, and I find it hard to forgive him for that. At the same time, he had integrity and didn’t seek power for power’s sake, he would rather give it up than compromise his principles, which you have to respect in some way, whether you are a political opponent or not. (I usually joke that the last Swedish politician one could respect was K-O Feldt, and we will never see anyone like that again.)

Do I hear an insinuation that Fälldin said this to save the reputation of his colleagues even though he himself was not on any real or alleged list?

“These attacks with groups of 3 soldiers are rather pointless other than keeping the area busy.”

In the beginning, before the drones made their entrance on a broad front, the first line of less qualified soldiers filled the function of clearing where Ukraine had grouped its defense. In the next step, to combat them with indirect fire before more experienced soldiers advanced.

Another function was to deplete the Ukrainian defenders’ ammunition.

Now, the drones can take out the first wave – without revealing the position of the Ukrainian defenders. With plenty of drones, there is no need to empty magazines by the dozen, right?

With drone swarms, what function do the small attack groups serve today? Are they still running multiple waves with the more qualified soldiers in the later wave? Or is that outdated?

The REAL smoking gun was probably that JuMin Geijer’s name was on the list (and that the Prime Minister silenced the media on the subject). Fälldin was probably the closest to the naive, trusting but honorable politician who didn’t want to believe anyone else, not even political opponents, about evil (we don’t have that kind anymore, do we?). So, he went to the podium and announced that his own name was on the list, why one shouldn’t take it too seriously… There have been doubts raised that Geijer (and some others including some well-known ministers) deserved that exoneration.

TWO (at least?) Swedish films have touched on the event to varying degrees of fictional form – and managed to avoid defamation lawsuits!
Partly Widerberg’s “The Man from Majorca” -84 based on LeifGW’s “The Pig Party”, and partly Marcimain’s “Call Girl” -12 (the latter caused a hell of a fuss, not only for Geijer – dsvdv)

Brothel scandal?

Was it the one where Fälldin’s name was on the list?

It’s been a bit hectic, now he’s been busy sending out letters with customs threats and calming down everyone who’s upset because he hasn’t released the Epstein files.

Then it’s been the weekend so golfing has probably been a priority.