[darawk]

> Of course not. I believe that the CIA doesn't care who dies as long as they get their guy, and if they make everyone afraid to help drone strike victims, then it's much more likely that any terrorists who survive the initial attack will bleed out on the ground. (Innocents too, but they don't care about them.)

So, your supposition is that the CIA is purposely killing civilians to deter them from giving aid to possible terrorists?

> This is hardly an unusual claim. You can't be unaware that the CIA is infamous for decades of murder and abuse.

The CIA has certainly assassinated people over the years. They've certainly fomented revolutions and meddled in geopolitics in myriad ways. I'm unaware of any explicit campaign to target civilians, though. Are you?

[PhasmaFelis]

> So, your supposition is that the CIA is purposely killing civilians to deter them from giving aid to possible terrorists?

That's what I just said, yes.

> I'm unaware of any explicit campaign to target civilians, though. Are you?

There's been enough evidence presented so far that I believe it's now on you to demonstrate that it's false, if you can.

Maybe this has worked for you before, demanding indisputable evidence for every fiddly detail, hoping that your opponent takes the bait and gets bogged down in minutiae?

[darawk]

> There's been enough evidence presented so far that I believe it's now on you to demonstrate that it's false, if you can.

Zero evidence has been presented that the CIA targeted civilians intentionally. All you'd have to do to prove me wrong is link it, if it's already here.

> Maybe this has worked for you before, demanding indisputable evidence for every fiddly detail, hoping that your opponent takes the bait and gets bogged down in minutiae?

Maybe this has worked for you before? Where you insist evidence has been supplied elsewhere without ever providing any of your own?