Pretext: I am responding here..to several different threads/posts.
There is always opinion and perspective...nothing wrong with that. You can always take a perspective on history, form your own conclusions, opinions and perspectives etc..from that.
IN all such things, there are people who agree and disagree about such conclusions based on the same historical record. Just depending on how one felt about Russia and it's behavior and the principals behind it, might change how you view other's reactions to Russia and the events that have transpired in the world over decades. And the truth, the moral positions..etc..you hold from all of that...is what you believe and what your experience was based on the facts as you knew them. Truth..is the reality of your experience and your vision. What you see..without omission. 2 people can have 2 different experiences...witnessing the same event..and their truth..will be different because what they saw and the perspective they have, their experience, might be completely different. Facts are simply the events in so far as they are known..with no emotion or judgement tied to them. And one who holds a "truth"...and experience...may or may not even have a full record of the "facts"...but moreso..have only experienced part of the factual event in some limited way. This is a very important distinction that I feel often gets cross threaded in discussions. You are a witness to your truth. But, that may very well be in total contridiction to the entire record of fact. This is entirely possible. The truth is your own understanding and experience of the facts as you know them...without purposefully trying to alter that experience in the recounting of them..or to present something "different" than you know the facts to be.
Often, in such views, you will find that the discussion will hyperfocus on one person or one gov or etc...to track it through history without ever mentioning what was going on in the world at the time, what the conditions were in the world at the time..and even who all the players are, and to selectively leave out such things in order to open the doors to raise different questions.
I've often read long diatribes about Iraq..that never mentioned Saddam, nor any other country other than the US and it's gov. The entire point of such opinons was to hyper focus exclusively on US and it's gov...and to do that in isolation to what was going on in the world and what others were doing.
I find such writings...inherently shallow and truly lacking in any depth from any objective or historical standpoint. But, they can be interesting reading none the less...esp if you are only interested in the role that "one" person or gov played at the time..without caring why or what it was in response to...etc. or if you happen to find your own personal truth..conveyed through such writings...and find it interesting and informative towards that.
This is exactly why such articles/books are written this way; it makes it much easier to assign your own motives to such actions and form uncontested opinions on it..when you isolate them away from surrounding events and the full context of what was going on.
Let me give you an example: Here are 2 articles in newspaper of the same event.
A man shot 2 people and crashed his car in a rampage in downtown Brooklyn. The article goes on to talk about the stress of daily life..and opinions about gun control. How the guy under much stress, cracked, and the ready availability of guns led to this tragic event..etc..witnesses recounted seeing the man just go nuts..etc.
Now..here is a 2nd article on the same event. A man robbed a bank in downtown brooklyn and was fleeing the scene. Cops were chasing him...and he shot 2 people hijacking a car...then..tried to drive around..and crashed the car and was arrested and the money was recovered. Witnesses from the bank recounted the mans robbery and his fleeing. Witnesses near the bank recounted the man running with the money and gun in his hand. Wintesses down the street further away...recounted the horror of the man shooting the 2 people in the street, taking their car and then bashing into things.
The exclusion of the facts in article one that this was a robbery and fleeing event...completely alter the record of fact..and open this event to an entirely different conclusion as to motive, and to questions of why the event happened. This exclusion was purposeful...to open the event to a different opinion and to set up the fertile ground for a diatribe about social commentary and gun control. But, as you'll note, the facts that "were" included ..are still fact (which often is cited to give creedence to the opinion and differing motives ascribed to the event).
The motives and opinions of "why" that happened..vary completely between these 2 versions of events. The man "did" rob the bank. Writer one here..wants to take an isolated and constrictied view of the event...in order to setup his opinion piece on stress and gun control. But, in order to do that, he has to leave out some of the factual events of what transpired that day...surrounding the event and hyperfocus on just the man driving the car who had a gun and shot 2 people. This then leaves a hole...and questions. "Why"? did the man do this? And this is what the writer is attempting to prescribe motives too..and conveniently left out the context of the full event...so it opens up a bigger question of "why" did this happen..and opens it up..to opinion, perspective..name your reason people go crazy here. This, the writer would have us conclude..is a "deeper" look at why such events take place since it is hyperfocusing down..exculudign the bigger picture..to look a the minutia ..to come back up with a "different" conclusion as to the bigger picture (which in this case..was already known...it was a robbery) For a person on the street the day this event happened...they may only know (as fact) that a guy went crazy, shot two people and went nuts crashing a car. That's exactly what "they" saw. And, the reporter in story one had plenty of witnessess..away from the bank...to say "just that". "he just went nuts"? And..."he had a gun"..etc.
Most people look at the first version and would say...sheesh...that guy went nuts. I wonder why? And that's the setup and fertile ground for opinion, hypothesis..etc..on that question that did not exist from the actual record of fact. And, this is the motivation for such selective reading of events...to setup questions..and offer conclusions that may or may not even exist in the factual record of the event. The 2nd article on this..is a factual recording of events that day...man robbed a bank, shot 2 people and crashed his car while fleeing the scene of the robbery. As soon as you see "robbed a bank"...you have some context as to why he fled in such a hurry and why he shot 2 people etc. It starts to have context and make sense...as it relates to one another and has far more limited scope of questions. The conspiricy theroists would say...that it's "because" it is so cut and dried and makes sense..and fits together...that proves that a conspricy took place.
And in the context of the interesting opinion and social commentary of the first article, knowing that this occurred in the context of a bankrobbery...would really expose the hyper extended context that the first writer has tangentially and purposefully gone off on here for the purpose of social commentary. I just want to make the point...that article one..doesn't even qualify as "truth" even though it contains "some" basis of fact at it's core "because" certain portions of facts of the event that were known were "purposefully" excluded in order to open this up to different questions that needed to be answered to form a different "truth" out of it. It would qualify as opinion or social commentary though. (as a hypothetical that did not in reality exist...but..."could" if the facts were different)
Anybody...who "purposefully" excludes facts or record of events...as they know them to be...to form opinions etc...is not being truthful by the very definition of "truth". But, it is also entirely possible for one to have a limited experience of the facts and events..and tell the truth about an event as they know it..and based on the facts as they know them..and be entirely wrong in their conclusion and opinions as to the event based on the entire record of fact. This is very common in "witness" testimony of people who only experienced a singular part of a large event. (such as the witnesses who only saw the guy go nuts..but did not see him rob the bank)
I find all the rehtrocial musings and the ascribed motivations to the US and it's people interesting reading. And I have no problem with opinion...perspectives...etc...so long as they are presented as such. And i don't need anyone to tell me that quite often these days...such articles, posts..etc..are purposely excluding things...in order to setup their position and often times...the very record and basis of the complete record of fact flies in the face of their rhetorical positioning. So, my purpose for this post..is not to decry foul. ..but more so...to say I find it all interesting; the thought process and motivations behind such things.
I think that's all I wanted to say. Carry on.