posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 05:41 PM
Years ago, I was posting on another message board. One of the posters lived in Sarajevo, and that was something that we all knew, and possibly found
interesting, but was not at all significant, really, until the bombing started.
It was fascinating, and a good illustration of the point you appear to be making. While there was heated debate about virtually every aspect of
politics and, to the point, international relations, with assertions being made by those on both sides of any issue and heated battles raging back and
forth between them, there was, at least on that board at that time, virtually no debate about Bosnia. We simply read his posts, which outlined
exactly what was happening from his eyewitness perspective, and digested them. There was of course some debate about the background of the war-- its
legitimacy or lack thereof, the impact it had or did not have on international impressions of the US, that sort of thing. But there wasn't the heated
debate that normally surrounds assertions, counter-assertions, guesswork, assumptions, innuendo, etc. regarding the specific actions that were taking
place. There could be no such debate, since the truth was right there for all of us to read.
(edit) Sorry, just finally figured out that this is about "full disclosure" in a very specific context, which means that my post here, while
it might be obliquely related, is off topic and probably unwanted. But after writing it, I might as well leave at least the relatively pertinent
parts here anyway. Feel free to entirely disregard it though.
[edit on 7-1-2006 by Bob LaoTse]