|
|
Davoud <star@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>Davoud:
>> >Or are you thinking of another "they" who would or could keep such a
>> >thing secret? Would it be the same "they" who kept the secrets of the
>> >atomic bomb, the war in Laos, the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua,
>> >Iran-Contra, Watergate, the Iraq lies, ad infinitum? "They" cannot keep
>> >a secret.
>
>Stephen G. Giannoni:
>> BTW, your argument citing things that were revealed, doesn't say
>> "diddly-squat" about things that were not, does it? ...
>
>Au contraire, it says a great deal about things that were not revealed.
>It says that "they" don't have a single secret -- at least not one with
>any juice in it -- that hasn't been revealed.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but that's not
logical. There are examples of stuff which was kept secret quite
effectively for some time. It's unreasonable to expect there aren't
things which are secret now which will not come to light for some
years.
We don't know what we don't know, though we can put limits on it (the
'jucier' it is the harder it is to keep secret). Donald Rumsfeld put
it rather well in his famous 'known unknowns' quote, which I
understood perfectly, unlike most of the world's media.
Tim
--
Don't tell me I'm still on that feckin' island!
|
|