'Conspiracy theory' has become shorthand for any complex, coordinated, and covert plot with some nefarious end goal. However, conspiracy theorizing is not the same as describing covert operations & conflating the two is irresponsible as hell. A thread on the concrete difference:

In short, conspiracy theorizing is based on *leading* the viewer with suggestive claims & cherrypicked evidence, sowing seeds of doubt in the prevailing narrative, then letting the audience's imagination connect the dots. Yet the dots are only connected by suspicion & guesswork.2

In contrast, covert operations are widely documented by the ppl carrying them out, & each part of the narrative can be clearly joined to the other parts because of evidence, material interest, & an understanding of the surrounding historical conditions. Motives are also clear. 3/

Conspiracy theories are rooted in the assumption that the powers that be would go to extreme lengths for a mysterious agenda. Covert operations, on the other hand, are rooted in policy, possibility, & effort:reward. After all, the entire point is to not make too much noise. 4/

Conspiracy theories latch onto highly visible, mainstream, traumatic events & try to assign them deeper meaning. In contrast, covert operations—and those who carry them out—understand that the most influential events aren't always the most visible. 5/

Covert operations don't *make* waves on their own; they observe the tide approaching and take actions to exacerbate the impact or speed along the desired conclusion. Conspiracy theories want you to think all the tides of history are controlled by a select few. 6/

Take 9/11 trutherism for instance. One claim is that the towers were felled by controlled demolition, using suggestive imagery to argue 'no planes struck the towers or Pentagon'. This 1st photo is cherrypicked; there are plenty of others which DO show plane debris.

Venture beyond the evidence presented by conspiracy theorists & the whole thing falls apart. This Cracked article for instance tries to size up the sheer effort required to do a controlled demolition of ONE tower. See how the whole narrative crumbles. https://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

Although conspiracy theories beckon you to 'pierce the veil', in reality they are based on a thin layer of suggestive evidence that breaks at the slightest rigorous questioning or requests for detail. The narrative is only internally consistent for as long as you live in it.

But take an actual covert operation like COINTELPRO. Although those who said Fred Hampton was killed by the FBI were dismissed as conspiracy theorists, their claims fit perfectly with FBI behavior & harassment at the time—as well as the general practice of US cops.

Yet claims that the police shot Hampton dozens of times to make the neighbors think a firefight was happening are not only backed by physical evidence but quite low-effort when compared to the reward. Same goes for claims of planted evidence in any case of police murders.

Another example: CIA-backed mass killings in Indonesia. Again, the CIA was simply following the tide here. Anticommunist sentiments already existed in Indonesia's military, reinforced by the nat'l elites. & the CIA's actions were fairly low-effort—providing kill lists & agitprop.

When we are faced with claims of extreme coordination of seemingly spontaneous events, we need to ask ourselves whether any entity is capable of conjuring waves out of nowhere, while staying invisible, and the answer is almost always "no".