> I claimed that RFA is an unreliable source on topics that directly have to do with the interests of US foreign policy because it was founded by the CIA expres

> I claimed that RFA is an unreliable source on topics that directly have to do with the interests of US foreign policy because it was founded by the CIA expressly as propaganda and is under the control of the State Department. This is not a universally accepted truth. You made a claim and didn't back it up. It's not that hard. Honestly, I'm not even trying to defend RFA but it's irritating to see people make claims without substantiating them and then trying to argue about it afterwards.