Quote from N0x_
If you suspect bias, then perhaps you should explain to us the evidence for that before asking us to "prove" to you that there isn't bias. Logical ordering.
I'd only need to prove it if I was making a statement. I
was asking a question. I figured the person to best answer that question would be the very people that like his website, so I posed this question to everyone on this forum. It's as simple as that. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm curious.
Quote
Last I remember, Assange ISN'T a U.S. citizen. Liu Xiabobo Is a citizen of the very nation Liu criticizes.
They are two completely different scenarios.
Quote
They are not identical scenarios, but they highlight the non sequitur of your comment.
Is it a necessity that every time someone decides to provide leaks against one country, he must provide an equal number of leaks against all other countries? He got the latest batch of leaks from a US source, and there was a good amount of damaging info against a number of the US's political opponents (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc), and I even showed you a damned link to one. You can easily Google the others instead of asking others to hold your hand in a walkthrough, and then suggest that there isn't enough evidence when you yourself are unwilling to do your own due diligence.
Was Wikileaks supposed to withhold that until it got more incriminating info from Russian and Chinese sources as well... to "balance" the damage? Do you feel slighted?
What's your point, really?
No one said it was a necessity that he provide leaks for all countries equally. But he should at least have SOMEONE from another country spill some beans about their own. Especially if his goal is as noble as everyone makes it out to be. It make sense if the US was the largest keeper of secrets, but both Russia and China greatly outweigh us in Secrecy(Especially if you combine Russia and China). So why no Russian/Chinese sources spilling on their respective countries?
Two answers to the question above:
A) They just don't spill the beans to him.
This could be due to alot of reasons, but the end result is the same. They just don't talk to him.
B) They do spill the beans, he just doesn't care.
They could yell til their lungs turn black and he'd wouldn't listen.
C) (You are welcome to Place another option here)
Originally, I didn't have a point. I simply want some information and hoped you provide it for me(I wanted to hear from a proponents perspective, and man you guys are defensive.). Only one person has actually answered my question. And he/she said there were no Russian/Chinese Sources that revealed Russian/Chinese secrets. This is what I wanted to know.
Quote
I already mentioned this. Russian and Chinese users are going to be using their own forums/BBS/social medias. Do you look through or post on Chinese BBSs? No? Then don't expect the vast majority of Chinese people to look through English blogs/forums. Did you not read that?
So Wikileaks is specifically for places that speak english? They will not directly target a country that does not speak English correct? Because that seems to be what you are insinuating.
But from what I understand, the owner hopes to erase secrecy, where ever it may be. Am I missing something?(NOTE: I am seriously asking this question.)
Quote
Chinese and Russians leak gov't info to their own sites, those sites are taken down and those people are often thrown in jail.
English users leak info to Wikileaks, Wikileaks is attacked and taken down, sponsors/donors are contact and told to cut funding, and an international arrest warrant is issued against the founder and he's on the run.
Nope, nothing seems wrong here! Everything's going as expected.
Wikileaks has been around for quite a while though. And it's only now getting heat? What's changed now compared to years ago when it was still releasing documents?
Quote from pumpupthevolume
well if i remember correctly the reason wiki leaks got a hold of this information was mainly U.S. fault..a military soldier i think leaked the information and wikileaks just compiled all of it (the soldier i think if my memory serves me right is in jail but his name escapes me i read this article a while ago)
Yea, that's pretty much it. Which is one of the reasons it's annoying how this guy gets the hero treatment while very little people know the other guy's name by heart.
Quote from Crenshinibon
I believe one of the problems here is that there's an inherent bias in your logic which is obviously present in your notion of their being particular "opponent" or "target." That suggests that wikileaks is a combative entity which exists to destroy, when the reality is that the organization far more closely parallels a journalistic enterprise.
Of course I'm biased. Who isn't? But despite my bias against Assange, I'm willing to question and learn. As for "Opponent" or "target" It's merely a word meant to designate a person you do not want that information to reach. For the U.S. Would the target not be other nations? And like wise for other nations? How do you keep information from reaching outside hands, namely countries/groups that wish to take down the U.S.?
I'm all for freedom of information, but it's impossible to keep the people in the loop without spilling the beans to the enemy, whoever they be.
Quote
It's not like every link is directly correlated with the US- there just have not been any from Russia and China. There are a number concerning African governments, an instance involving an extreme right-wing British political party, Australian censorship, a Peruvian oil scandal, a nuclear accident in Iran, and several others. The US ones have just gotten the most media attention for obvious reasons. Wikileaks is basically just designed as a journalistic tool, there isn't an agenda beyond exposing hypocrisy and the like from a wholly generalized perspective. There's no organized target or opponent- the fact that you think there is... well, it's a little alarming because you clearly just don't understand the situation.
Oh, so Wikileaks DOES provide information on countries that don't necessarily speak english?
But are they from US sources, or African sources? Which ones aren't from US sources? I'm pretty sure Wikileaks is an international site.Always has been(At least last I've been 3 or so years back.)
Quote
Way too lazy to actually get some context on the situation before passing judgment, and automatically assuming that Wikileaks is targeting the US (as a spy or whatever),
or that Assange is a rapist (to Trov's credit, at least he didn't buy that),
or designed to be a terrorist organization,
and so on.
But I'm getting context, I'm asking you. You didn't need to be so defensive about it though. But I guess if you show disbelief in someone's hero you tend to get chewed out by the followers.
I do believe he's biased against the U.S. But that's merely my opinion. I DO NOT push it as fact. Just as you should not push as fact that he is unbiased. Unless you have evidence to proof that assertion.
Quote from akuma_river
Assange is not being biased. He does not go get the information whistleblowers bring him the information.
As for what the information is. It is cable dispatches from 250 US embassys to Washington from 1966-2010.
As for Russia and China, there is already issues coming out from there on the cable dispatches. Like the US Govt having proof that the Chinese government was behind the cyber attacks on Google. That Russia spent years undermining Georgian law by bombing, random killings, funding to Georgian Separatists that finally concluding in the short 2008 Russia/Georgia war.
We also have cables that speak about how Russia is now a mafia run nation and that Putin most likely gave the go ahead for the hit on the Russian ex-KGB spy who died of Recin poisoning in the UK a few years back.
If you want to see these cables themselves, I suggest you go back to the end of page 3. Or go to guardian.co.uk They have about 3 dozen articles out on the leaked cables.
Assange not being biased? Just because he doesn't get the information himself does not prove he is unbiased. It merely proves that he decides what should be put up on his site and what shouldn't.
Proof would be that something that showcases he puts everything he gets on his website unedited.
But I thank you for all the information you've given me. Most of this though, I already knew long before this incident. However, I would like to know if intel on the Russian/Georgia war is from the US or Russia. If from Russia, it's decisive evidence. Not so much if from the US. Since it could merely be conjecture and much less accurate.
]
i read this article a while ago) 
