quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The only sticking point we seem to have is that I have more faith in British intelligence to keep secrets than you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The only sticking point we seem to have is that I have more faith in British intelligence to keep secrets than you.

Certain things are kept secret. For example, the activities of Special Branch in the late 1800s who kept an eye on Fenians in England. It is felt that there is information in the special branch ledgers that would compromise the security of the country. It is unlikely that this information will ever be placed in the public domain.

But, this Zimmerman thing does not fall within the realm of what could be deemed to be compromising the security of the country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Do we know for sure that the Zimmermann Telegram definitely was a fake? I'm having trouble finding a source that says that.

And if it was a fabrication, did Wilson know it?

100% certain no.
Answer this, who had a better motivation to create it, the Germans or the Brits.
It makes no sense at all for the Germans to have sent it. The last thing they wanted was to bring the U S into the war. For the British on the other hand we represented millions of fresh bodies for the trenches.
As for whether Wilson knew it was fake, I doubt it, one of his great weaknesses was that he trusted the British, so it is unlikely that he addressed the question.
I too currently have the same problem getting conformation. But in earlier generations it was an accepted fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

How could something from the 1800s possibly compromise security of the country?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

How could something from the 1800s possibly compromise security of the country?

That is a good question and one at which I could only guess.

It is recorded fact that the British Government will not release the special branch ledgers of the time.

The reason I know this is that among the Jack the Ripper suspects are certain Fenians. And within the Special Branch ledgers of the time the Jack the Ripper issue was documented, not because Special Branch were particularly interested in Jack the Ripper, but because a major part of their job was to keep an eye on the Fenians - and the two seemed to have crossed paths for some reason.

Historians and Jack the Ripper enthusiasts have lobbied the government to have the ledgers released. The government released a few pages and edited out certain parts, but were unwilling to release the majority of the ledgers in the interests of security.

Now, the only reasonable explanation I can give is that there are certain sections of our society who are wrapped up in intelligence gathering that we are completely unaware of, and these sections are still involved today. The inference being that were this information to be placed in the public domain we would have a better idea of what our establishment are really upto.

Or, to put it another way, these ledgers may contain some pretty nasty behaviour on the part of our establishment/people who run this country/whatever you want to call them; that would lead to an outcry among the public.

And, it would have to be seriously nasty, because most of us are aware that they are a nasty lot when needs must as it stands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

It does seem a bit strange, though, considering how long ago that was. I could see it if they were trying to protect someone who was still living, but whoever would have been involved in such nastiness way back then surely must be dead by now.

I'm not sure how much more of an outcry there could be than over things which are already known and part of history (much of it quite nasty, as you say). It's not like the English (or the Americans) are all that shy about airing their dirty laundry out in public.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

It does seem a bit strange, though, considering how long ago that was. I could see it if they were trying to protect someone who was still living, but whoever would have been involved in such nastiness way back then surely must be dead by now.

I'm not sure how much more of an outcry there could be than over things which are already known and part of history (much of it quite nasty, as you say). It's not like the English (or the Americans) are all that shy about airing their dirty laundry out in public.

Zonie,

Yes, I don't think this relates to an individual, but could quite easily relate to a body people and although the individuals within the body are no longer here, the body lives on.

quote:


We still have a bit of spark left in us. There was a recent 'scandal' over politicians bending the truth with their expense claims, and people were like a dog with a bone with it resulting in a few of 'em being sacked.

So, we still can cause them a problem when occasion arises, although admittedly we were domesticated some time back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Understood, although which "body" is it? That's what makes it all the more intriguing.

This is part of the reason why conspiracy theories develop. If the powers that be are going to keep secrets from the public, then the public will fill in the gaps of information with their own speculation and conjecture.

Ironically, it was Oliver Stone's JFK which stirred enough questions among the public to force the government to release a bunch of files and other evidence from the assassination which had been previously withheld from the public. The irony is that a lot of what was released actually disproved or discredited the speculation presented in Stone's film.

Overall, I think the public gets just as outraged over lies of omission and cover ups, if not more so. The lie itself will always get one into more trouble than whatever deed one is lying about. Nixon found that out the hard way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Yes, I think it's somewhat the same here with our scandals, but we also have plenty of domesticated types who have resigned themselves to the situation. When people say "the system sucks, that's the way it is," they're not just making an observation, but they're expressing an entire philosophical condition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Maybe people were disappearing around that time and its recorded in the ledgers.

The SAS took out a few IRA types in their time, but that was palatable because they were bombing people.

The Fenians of the late 1800s weren't doing much more than generating interest as far as I can tell, although some famous British politician of the time was the subject of a plot - possibly assassinated - can't remember his name.

I suppose there's a difference between killing people who are bombing you and killing people who are doing no more than being an inconvenience.

One thing's for sure, they weren't playing by the rule book and something needed to be kept secret.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Zonie,

I probably fall into the category of people resigned to the situation, or more apt is a just don't care type.

One of the few political types worth listening to, of any nationality, is Chomsky; and he has it right when he says that withdrawing from the system and simply not voting on the grounds that the options aren't palatable, just isn't engaging with democracy and is pretty much disenfranchising yourself.

But, the reason I don't really care is due to scepticism, involving what politicians can achieve, and if I'm honest a touch arrogant in the sense that I don't trust many of the people around me to aspire to a great deal.