**Reply Part 2**
***
> Bush and the Iraq war I answered that and again it was heavily promoted so media would seek to talk to Assange.

This is from your 1st comment

> The reason for the press attention was the Iraq war and everyone on the left wanted a leak at the time to destroy Bush.

If they wanted to **destroy Bush** all they had to do was nail him for 9/11. They didn’t need anything on Iraq to destroy him. 

The media is not independent, it is controlled. I hope that we can agree on that much? 

You mention Manning - that was in 2009-2010. We are talking about Oct 3 2006 - Jan 8 2007.

> He was talking about secret phrases

He mentions the **FAQ** page of the website?  

> For instance in the FAQ we sometimes use the phrase "ethical leaking". Should we always use this phrase? 'leak' by itself carries a negative. 'ethical' a strong positive. 'ethical leaking' a positive. But it does isolate 'leaks' as being non-ethical unless we stick 'ethical' on them.

I’m not buying the secret phrases narrative. He was trying to invent buzzwords and **quote sexiness** as we saw in the other email. 

> Again I am not just a fan of WL I have literally worked with many people who are volunteers and that is the key point volunteers at Wikilaks.

I am certain that the vast, vast majority of people working with, and supporting WL’s are good people that believe that they are doing a great thing, and in many respects they are. I can tell that you care for them and organization - but this is way over their pay-grade and if it is a psyop they probably wouldn’t know. 

If you care about these people, and I believe that you do - you might want to consider taking a step back and be open to receiving the information in this series, all of it, including what I haven’t shared yet. If you are friend you would not want them ti be duped I’m sure. 

“On 25 September 2010, after reportedly being suspended by Assange for **questioning him too much**, Daniel Domscheit-Berg told Der Spiegel that he was resigning, saying “**WikiLeaks has a structural problem**. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project.” [Source - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Domscheit-Berg#WikiLeaks)

> Another thing to think about is lawsuits that Wikileaks would endure from publishing documents so $5 million dollars should make sense for - server cost, research personnel, legal fees and investing into the future of the organization.

Wikileaks does not typically pay it’s own legal costs and never, or rarely ever has as far as I’m aware? Maybe they have paid sometimes, but my understanding is that is the exception and not the norm.  

**Email from EFF - Jan 8 2007**

> Julian
> Danny O'Brien from EFF here. Is there anything specific we can help out with? Our key competence is **legal assistance within the United States**, but **there may be other contacts and resources we can throw your way.**

Granted, EFF covered the US and not the rest of the world but they seemingly had other contacts. Irrespective, WL’s does not usually pay for it’s lawyers to the best of my knowledge.  

> This article is essentially your opinion mixed with factual information

As are your comments. People aren’t stupid, they can tell the difference between opinions and facts. 

> in your title you are pushing this as 100% factual concrete information that Wikileaks and Assange are disinfo agent

I don’t believe that I am. I have an opinion and an argument that I am presenting. 

From the very outset I made it clear that I believed that Assange was controlled opposition and that WL’s goal is to dominate the alternative news media. I also made it clear that I would present evidence to support my claims. I also said that the reader must decide for themselves, do their own research and not trust anyone, including me.  

> Which is illusive since you have already established a bias within your first few paragraphs that he and the organization are disinfo you don't offer a balance of information offering both sides of the story.

But you also have an already established bias, again, this is not a one-way street. I’ve been very open on where I stand and what the aim of my series is. 

If balance means talking about all the good that WL’s and Assange have done you will see some of that in my summary, at the very end of the series, please be a little patient. 

The MSM and WL/Assange fans have told their side of the story, it has been rammed down our throats for years - people already know about it and I don’t believe that I need to repeat it, it’s been drilled into them repeatedly. I am telling another side of the story, the one that the MSM and WL/Assange fans are completely ignoring. I made that very clear from the outset of the series.  

> You base most of your story on John Young's emails which was exceptional digging skills finding those on cryptome but again that's not concrete evidence that's an accusation made by someone else against WikiLeaks.

Part 4 and Young’s emails are just one component of the story. I gave the links to the email trail. Wikileaks also shares email trails. Assange and Wikileaks have never taken John Young to court and proved that the emails are not genuine and they have never sued him for defamation.  

> We don't cruficy people without evidence past hear-say everyone is innocent until proven guilty and you certainly didn't provide sufficient data that shows Assange and the TEAM at WikiLeaks are guilty.

Again, please be patient. I am providing evidence and building a case just as I said that I would from the beginning. Not that different to how WL’s drip-feeds and times its leaks, it takes time. Do you expect me to release a 20,000-50,000 word blog in one go? The average book is 35,000 words. Do you think that it may be a little too much for one blog, and for people to read and digest in one sitting?

> exposing TPP, the surveillance state and promoting privacy rights and protection for journalist and various document leaks exposing world wide government corruption.

I know that, I said as much in my first blog of the series. Disinfo agents have to do good things, if they didn’t they would be easy to identify. Alex Jones spreads a lot of truth - do you believe that Alex Jones is not controlled opposition?

It’s also not just a case of what WL’s does - we must look and who it impacts and who gains from the leaks being made public - we will get to that later in the series. 

> Normal freaking people who want to do something expose corruption and change the world for the better.

True, I am one of those people - we just have a different opinion about a man and the motives and impact of his organization. I’m not talking about the good folk helping him, and I can appreciate that you want to defend them, so do I - but I am trying to defend them by exposing their boss and a side of him that they may not be aware of, or believe. 

I like you and this isn’t personal AK. We just happen to disagree on a topic that is very personal to you and close to your heart. It is close to my heart also, but I do not have an emotional connection to the people and organization involved like you do. 

I’m completely detached and have no skin in the game. Contrary to what you may think I don’t have a desired outcome when I begin researching a topic. I’ve believed that Assange was controlled for years, I wrote a blog about it 10 months ago. I began by just wanting the truth and my research lead me to the conclusion that he is controlled and that WL is a psyop. Given time, I will explain the reasons why I believe that, but it takes time, please give me some. This is a very complex topic.    

I think that it’s best for us to agree to disagree and wait for all of the evidence to be presented. I think that you’ve decided the matter before you’ve heard it. I haven’t because I know what I’ve researched and what I haven’t written yet. Sure, I have an opinion, as do you, and we are both entitled to it - it’s ok to disagree on some things IMO but I’m not sure that your comfortable with that. If not then I hope that you will be one day.

As important as this topic is, I’ve spent more time than I would have liked replying to your comments. I’m not going to spend much more time on this. I love a good debate as much as anyone but I’d rather spend time writing my next post as there is a lot more that needs to be said before we get to closing arguments. If you choose to reply I respectfully ask that you apply the same standards to your comments and opinions as you have to mine. 

Peace, Love & Truth!