That's a very self-limiting viewpoint when a significant portion of warfare is deception, so by definition you're not going to get "all we know".
For example, Seymour Hersh (renowned wartime investigative journalist), published a brief on US involvement: https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
That article has been thoroughly debunked. Seymour Hersh just made things up with no fact checking or hard evidence.
What's your counter evidence?
No counter evidence is needed because Hersh hasn't actually presented any legitimate evidence in the first place.
If 'no counter-evidence is needed' were valid, we could dismiss anything we don't like without argument.
AKA: Argument from ignorance