When you mention making connections between events rather than thinking of them as standalone, the first thing that comes to mind is the way that government and media sources always portray the wars in the middle east as being isolated instances rather than as being part of a larger strategy and ongoing campaign. Its not just less information. Its misinformation oftentimes too. Such as war propaganda. Every one of these wars has a supposed explanation, which is never given as being strategic or connected to a larger campaign, always some bullshit about 'weapons of mass destruction', 'humanitarian crisis', 'freedom fighters' etc. which is always later revealed to be lies.

I mean, to me its pretty obvious that the US has a long term campaign going on. Just look at a map. We invade and occupy a country on one side of Iran, then the other. Then the Egyptian president, who just happens to have been blocking US plans to invade Libya (one of the strongest remaining Iranian allies in the area) since the 80s, is removed by way of an amazing 'spontaneous' democratic online uprising (which to me looks like propaganda, information/cyberwarfare). Then Libya is taken over by US-backed 'rebels'. And now Syria, the other Iranian ally, is being taken apart from within by more 'rebels'. All countries in the same geographic area, with the same types of prized resources, one after another, all opponents of the US.

The problem is that the mainstream media lies about the motivations for military action are always accepted by the majority. In the context of the previous lies getting us into war, they are obvious deceptions. Yet they blast the propaganda from all angles with the same bullshit over and over and it becomes the closest thing to reality that many people have.