History, especially recent history*, is clear...don't underestimate the nefarious, especially when their reputations aren't properly understood. Especially when they're so adept at controlling the narrative of their story.
* For example, just last week there was this:
https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/citing-new-evidence-survivin...
To continue to label the established MO of these outfits as "conspiracy theory" is lazy and out of touch with reality.
"It must be true because it seems to be false" is a giant red flag for conspiracy rhetoric, FWIW.
Again, I'm not interested in engaging on the subject. I'm explaining why regular people looking at real wars don't see things your way.
I'm explaining the same thing, the difference is my interpretation is based on actual historic events. That is, ultimately, what regular people believe isn't an accident.
It's possible that everything it claims is true, but if it can't make testable predictions then it doesn't matter: it's a stopped clock. You can never trust it when it tells the time.
Conspiracy theories are usually like this, so people dismiss them.
On the other hand, as I understand it, the other side some years ago expressed concerns about encouragement on their borders*. In fact, I've heard it said there was an agreement that wouldn't happen...then it did. But that depth is lost? How convenient.
Once you accept (?) the lies about the WMDs then it becomes clear that there are actors that have no bounds. Believe what you must, but chance are good it's based on one side of the story (as it so often is).
* Very similar to UBL saying get out of our neighborhood, or else. But we don't want to talk about that as it dilutes the strength of the propaganda.