Washington rewrites history

#1
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/p...&en=aefb4d8fc1e315bc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives, intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands of historical documents that were available for years, including some already published by the State Department and others photocopied years ago by private historians.
...
Among the 50 withdrawn documents that Mr. Aid found in his own files is a 1948 memorandum on a C.I.A. scheme to float balloons over countries behind the Iron Curtain and drop propaganda leaflets. It was reclassified in 2001 even though it had been published by the State Department in 1996.
...
One reclassified document in Mr. Aid's files, for instance, gives the C.I.A.'s assessment on Oct. 12, 1950, that Chinese intervention in the Korean War was "not probable in 1950." Just two weeks later, on Oct. 27, some 300,000 Chinese troops crossed into Korea.
...
"It doesn't make sense to create a category of documents that are classified but that everyone already has," said Meredith Fuchs, general counsel of the National Security Archive, a research group at George Washington University. "These documents were on open shelves for years."
But what is the reason? Probably there is something to hide.

National Archives officials said the program had revoked access to 9,500 documents, more than 8,000 of them since President Bush took office.
 
#2
Who cares, like most secret stuff it's probably dull and boring anyway. Still nothing like a chance to bash them yanks eh Sergey?
 
#3
Ord_Sgt said:
Who cares, like most secret stuff it's probably dull and boring anyway. Still nothing like a chance to bash them yanks eh Sergey?
Ord_Sgt!

Then I see something strange then I try to find logicl explanation. If I'm unable to do it then I ask others. Have you any idea why the telegram (1962) from George F. Kennan, then ambassador to Yugoslavia was classied after being in free access for years? It contains an English translation of a Belgrade newspaper article on China's nuclear weapons program.
 
#4
KGB_resident said:
Ord_Sgt said:
Who cares, like most secret stuff it's probably dull and boring anyway. Still nothing like a chance to bash them yanks eh Sergey?
Ord_Sgt!

Then I see something strange then I try to find logicl explanation. If I'm unable to do it then I ask others. Have you any idea why the telegram (1962) from George F. Kennan, then ambassador to Yugoslavia was classied after being in free access for years? It contains an English translation of a Belgrade newspaper article on China's nuclear weapons program.
No you don’t, you present it in whatever way fits your pre concieved view of the world, in this case bashing America. You then proceed to ignore anything which contradicts that usually ill informed position.

You’re not kidding anyone here, anybody who has remotely followed any of your previous arguments will see that immediately.

As for you last point I refer you to the answer I gave earlier, who cares?
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#5
"Those who control the past, control the future; Those who control the future, control the present; Those who control the present, control the past"
1984, Orwell.
 
#6
KGB_resident said:
Ord_Sgt said:
Who cares, like most secret stuff it's probably dull and boring anyway. Still nothing like a chance to bash them yanks eh Sergey?
Ord_Sgt!

Then I see something strange then I try to find logicl explanation. If I'm unable to do it then I ask others. Have you any idea why the telegram (1962) from George F. Kennan, then ambassador to Yugoslavia was classied after being in free access for years? It contains an English translation of a Belgrade newspaper article on China's nuclear weapons program.[/quote


Having read your previous posts for some time now. I doubt you would know logical if it bit your arrse.
 
#7
engee said:
Having read your previous posts for some time now. I doubt you would know logical if it bit your arrse.
Engee!

As a foreigner I hope you forgive me some (alas!) inevitable mistakes in spelling. Thank you for correction and for your kind remark.

Regards!
 
#8
I'm sure he's not worried about your spelling Sergey. He's probably more interested in pointing out your lack of cognative functions and inabilaty to think logically, hence his 'I doubt you would know logical if it bit your arrse' comment.

But of course you knew that and are trying to distract from it.
 
#9
KGB_resident said:
But what is the reason? Probably there is something to hide.
Sergey, surely a man with your background would be asking 'why hasn't the man who wrote that article had his door kicked in at 3am by a group of wellwishers bearing a new stripey suit with his very own unique number sewn on to it?'

BTW, speaking of prison, how do you feel about some of your past posts on the subject of holocausts now that the nice Mr Irving is gripping the bars? Would you like us to start deleting them for you? :wink:
 
#10
stickybomb said:
KGB_resident said:
But what is the reason? Probably there is something to hide.
Sergey, surely a man with your background would be asking 'why hasn't the man who wrote that article had his door kicked in at 3am by a group of wellwishers bearing a new stripey suit with his very own unique number sewn on to it?'

BTW, speaking of prison, how do you feel about some of your past posts on the subject of holocausts now that the nice Mr Irving is gripping the bars? Would you like us to start deleting them for you? :wink:
Dear Stikybomb!

The article in NY Times, mentioned by me shows (I haven't another explanation) that there are too many lunatics in Washington (that is a dangerous thing).

Mr.Irving is not nice from my point of view and his right place if rather in lunatic asylum.

As to 'holocausts' then probably you mean this my thread

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=28536/highlight=Holocausts.html

"Late Victorian Holocausts" ?
 
#11
Too many lunatics in Washington? Well thank God Russia/USSR has always had sane, sober leaders like Yeltsin and Stalin!

And of course, there was NEVER ANY historical revisionism in Russia;

In a Gulag

Prisoner #1: Why are you in here, comrade?

Prisoner #2: I said something nasty about Comrade Kamarov in 1953. And you?

Prisoner #1: I said something NICE about Comrade Kamarov in 1954? What about you?

Prisoner #3: I AM Comrade Kamarov!
 
#12
KGB_resident said:
As to 'holocausts' then probably you mean this my thread

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=28536/highlight=Holocausts.html

"Late Victorian Holocausts" ?
Well, actually no; I was obviously too busy in December to notice that one so thanks for the entertaining yet sadly predictable read. I meant your comments on the David Irving thread but I was amused to note that I am not the only one to exhort you to declare your point instead of crashing about in the undergrowth of revisionist history.

By the way, you have thus far failed to respond to GDav's post on that thread; are you unable to counter his argument?
 
#13
stickybomb said:
KGB_resident said:
As to 'holocausts' then probably you mean this my thread

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=28536/highlight=Holocausts.html

"Late Victorian Holocausts" ?
Well, actually no; I was obviously too busy in December to notice that one so thanks for the entertaining yet sadly predictable read. I meant your comments on the David Irving thread but I was amused to note that I am not the only one to exhort you to declare your point instead of crashing about in the undergrowth of revisionist history.

By the way, you have thus far failed to respond to GDav's post on that thread; are you unable to counter his argument?
Our friend GDav wrote:

GDav said:
I've no doubt in my mind that British crimes against humanity did happen. They are well enough documented. You can count the concentration camps and the Irish famine out of those however because neither was an orchestrated attempt to kill people.
Why should I counter his argument? I don't know the right answer, don't know about 'British crimes'. As you can see I used question mark and quote marks in the title. The thread itself is an attempt of discussion to get more information. Nothing above it.
 
#14
Come on guys, lets not slag off sergey because his country has a dodgy past.

It's a bad case of moral relativism. Just because the USSR did bad things, does not mean we should ignore an issue when raised by a Ruskie.

He raises a perfectly valid point (perhaps driven by an agenda?) that it sets a worrying (and illogical to be honest) trend when governments can effectively revise/remove histrorical documents.
 
#15
AndyPipkin said:
Too many lunatics in Washington? Well thank God Russia/USSR has always had sane, sober leaders like Yeltsin and Stalin!

And of course, there was NEVER ANY historical revisionism in Russia;

In a Gulag

Prisoner #1: Why are you in here, comrade?

Prisoner #2: I said something nasty about Comrade Kamarov in 1953. And you?

Prisoner #1: I said something NICE about Comrade Kamarov in 1954? What about you?

Prisoner #3: I AM Comrade Kamarov!
Andy!

What is you version? Why these old documents are becoming secret after being available for years?

Don't know exactly but something like this was (at least in theory) possible in English history

Prisoner #1: Why are you in here, sir?

Prisoner #2: I said something nasty about sir Richard in 1593. And you?

Prisoner #1: I said something NICE about sir Richard in 1594? What about you?

Prisoner #3: I AM sir Richard!

PS. Kamarov is very unusual surname for Russian.
 
#16
Agent_Smith said:
Come on guys, lets not slag off sergey because his country has a dodgy past.

It's a bad case of moral relativism. Just because the USSR did bad things, does not mean we should ignore an issue when raised by a Ruskie.

He raises a perfectly valid point (perhaps driven by an agenda?) that it sets a worrying (and illogical to be honest) trend when governments can effectively revise/remove histrorical documents.
I have to say I am somewhat surprised by your comments A_S.

A quick flick through Sergey's threads shows that he is far from being ignored. I do not think anyone here is really guilty of moral relativism; we do not have to agree with him on every point. Debate - if that is what he truly seeks - is exactly what he's getting (together with a good ribbing because this is Arrse!).

In this particular case, I am also worried that documents are being weeded. I suspect that the advent of the Freedom of Information Act in this country has set the corridors of power humming to the sound of shredders too but it is not a new trend as you seem to suggest. History is littered with instances of great libraries being put to the torch and this amounts to the same thing.

Try to think of it as a collective effort to get him to realise that his fake naïvety fools no-one.
 
#17
Happens all the time, the documents relating to just how William Joyce, a US citizen - look him up, managed to get a British passport before WW2 are 'missing presumed incinerated' :wink:
 
#18
He does come in here and does spark debate, nothing wrong with that. The problems arise when he refuses to acknowledge evidence which debunks whatever his agenda is for the day, he doesn't debate he just dsmisses it out of hand. A nice comment I found on wikipedia under the holocaust deniers section describes his style perfectly:

It would be never-ending to respond to arguments posed by those who... ...quote out of context and simply dismiss reams of testimony. Unlike true scholars, they have little, if any, respect for data or evidence. Their commitment is to an ideology and their 'findings' are shaped to support it.

And as can be seen by any review of his posts it is never ending. Sometimes I just can’t stop having to point out some of the rubbish in his less than truthful posts.
 
#20
AndyPipkin said:
Even in 1593 England had habeus corpus, Sergey. Russia still doesn't.
Your lecture about Habeus corpus would be very interesting to prisoners of Guantanamo.

Habeus Corpus is a Latin term which means "you should have the body," and is a legal principle which requires that the government must present an accused and arrested person before an impartial judge in order to prove that there exists just cause to hold that person against his or her will.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top