Mac wrote:Mille grazie
Prego.
^^I wish that had been French, though. Cause I got of nothing to give you wrt the points of inquiry that went before it, I very much regret to say.
I don't know, Mac. I' m basically in sympathy with you always, in an atmospheric sense. But within both the letter and the spirit of the law, trying to answer your questions on this thread is exactly, completely and entirely like trying to convince someone that just because there isn't eyewitness testimony, or a formal indictment, or charges and documentation that have withstood the challenges of an open courtroom, that doesn't mean that the United States didn't run Operation Gladio, however counter to that someone's own experience of what a generically considered U.S.A.'s feelings about fascism, terrorism and the funding thereof that reality may be.
Lost cause, in other words. Because in the abstract, it's not unreasonable to point out that a well-documented hypothetical scenario that implicates a person and/or persons in criminal conduct hasn't literally proven those parties guilty by the customary standards for such things. It's just unaddressable. Neither I nor any other individual can or will ever have the power to supply those demands, either for Gladio or here. It would take an institutional process to do that.
Anyway. It's not unreasonable in the abstract for you to ask for those things, imo. But since there's no reasonable expectation that asking them will ever make anyone here (or, ftm, anywhere) any more able to give you an answer to them than "not at all," after a certain point it does get to be more of a philosophical exercise than anything else, I feel,
Not that there's anything wrong with that.