Question

95% of the world's terrorists attacks are organized by the CIA, said President Putin. He's not wrong.

Answer 1

This claim isn't backed by any statistic, and is just an arbitrary claim made for propaganda purposes. According to https://www.usa.gov/agencies/central-intelligence-agency, the CIA's purpose is "collects, evaluates, and disseminates vital information on economic, military, political, scientific, and other developments abroad to safeguard national security". Any claim like Putin's has no factual evidence, and is merely a conspiracy.
 

Comments

While I agree that the claim is likely propaganda, using the CIA’s own website as a primary source to refute this seems a bit circular in its reasoning. A government agency's self-description naturally won't include clandestine or controversial activities.

To make this fact-check more robust, it would be helpful to look for third-party statistics or independent research from international organizations (like the Global Terrorism Database) that categorize the perpetrators of attacks. Relying on non-U.S. academic sources or international investigative journalism would provide a more objective perspective and better counter the 'conspiracy theory' narrative.

Answer 2

This is extremly innacurate, with no factual evidence. Many beleive this is a way of Russian propaganda and has no factual evidence. According to the site "Country Reports on Terrorism "the United States established a strong and sophistacated counter terriorism enterprise to reduce the threat of large scale terrorist attacks on the homeland" This represents that the United states CIA works hard to prevent terrorism and keep the country safe.

Comments

I see a lot of bias in this answer, as well as a lack of cited reputable sources and language that defers to the masses without quotations or statistics from reputable outlets. I would encourage you to come back to this answer with links to cited sources and information upon the contributors to the specific articles and statistics you link in order to construct a more compelling and unbiased argument.

---

I feel like in this answer, you leave out links to certain sources that could boost the trust in your claim of it being exaggerated/misleading. To deepen your answer, you could look more into the source that was saying this and disprove it if it's an unreliable source or fake.

---

The lack of a link or hard evidence here makes the comment less reputable even while the claim is false. Seeing more evidence here would be a lot better as right now it looks more like a Bias Opinion then one with facts

---

I agree with you that this claim is inaccurate with no evidence, but your answer needs to have a source that backs you.

---

I see that there isnt any evidence and that the claim is inaccurate. Needs a source.

Answer 3

The claim comes from Vladamir Putin, who has a political reason to blame the U.S., which makes the statement questionable. I checked trusted sources like the Global Terrosim Database (University of Maryland) and reporting from Reuters and Politifact, which use real data and do not support the idea that the CIA organizes most terrorist attacks. When tracing the claim back, there is no original study or evidence that proves the “95%” number. Based on reliable data showing terrorist attacks are carried out by extremist groups, not the CIA, the claim is false.

Comments

This is a strong and well-reasoned response. You appropriately consider the source of the claim and recognize how political incentives can affect credibility, which is an important part of academic fact-checking. You also rely on high-quality, data-driven sources like the Global Terrorism Database, Reuters, and PolitiFact, and clearly explain why the lack of an original study or verifiable evidence undermines the “95%” figure. Overall, your reasoning is clear, your sources are credible, and your conclusion is well supported by the available evidence

---

This is a good and strong response. Your reasoning is clear, and all of your sources are credible with good evidence.

Answer 4

This post on the platform Bluesky claims that Putin stated, "95% of the world's terrorist attacks are orchestrated by the CIA." Yet after some searching, there seems to be no legitimate source that has ever recorded Putin making this statement. It's most likely a made-up claim for propaganda purposes. Additionally, according to the CIA, it "is a U.S. government agency that provides objective intelligence on foreign countries and global issues to the president, the National Security Council, and other policymakers to help them make national security decisions." So they do not organize terrorist attacks around the world. 

https://www.cia.gov/about/

Answer 5

Think of this as your investigation log. Answer each question to explain what you discovered and how you got there.

1. Write a brief overall summary of your findings. 

• The claim made is incredibly inaccurate without any research needed. This is not to say, however, that the U.S. isn't responsible for some terrorist attacks in other countries. For example, Guatemala and the United Fruit Company overthrew the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz. And the Iran-Contra scandal that saw the U.S. making arms deals with Iran, a terrorist nation, and funneling the funds to the Nicaraguan Contras, another terrorist organization. 

2. What primary sources did you find (e.g., transcripts, videos of politician speeches, tweets from public figures, scientific studies)? For each source, write at least one or two sentences explaining what you learned. Include all links.

• This PBS article helps provide a general timeline of the events that occurred in Guatemala. The article also establishes the numbers and stats that show the result of the U.S. getting involved in the conflict. 
• This documentary between 11:00-20:00 features former CIA employees who describe the plan the U.S. had. The documentary also features individuals directly affected by the conflict (the Mayan population) 
• The same documentary later returns at 54:00-1:01:00 to discuss what occured in Nicragua and explains the Iran-Contra scandal.  This is important because it shows that the U.S. is willing to go against its own laws and support not only a terrorist nation, but also fund their own terrorist soldiers in other countries. 
• This Wikipedia article highlights a pivotal point in the U.S.'s involvement when U.S. citizen Ernest Benjamin Linder was assassinated. This is important because it shows the terroristic action that the U.S. was financing and supporting by training Contras. 

3. What secondary sources did you find (e.g., newspapers, magazines)? Only use secondary sources if sufficient primary sources are not available. For each source, write at least one or two sentences explaining what you learned. Include all links.
4. What potential biases or interests might each of your sources have?

• These are two very well-known examples of U.S. involvement in other countries. It is hard to say that what is described in these sources didn't happen, unless you are the government of the U.S. 
• Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but this article has not been edited in months. 

5. What evidence supports the claim you are fact-checking?

• The U.S. has previously intervened in other nations' politics and caused destabalization but it can't be anywhere near the 90% area. 

6. What evidence undermines the claim you are fact-checking?

• It is absurd and easily disproven. 

7. What happened when you tried contacting the person or group who made the original claim? (Always try to contact them—it’s okay if you don’t get a reply. For example, if the claim is that the president said something, try reaching out to the administration. If it was a Bluesky user, message that user on Bluesky.) 

• Didn't contact