Clinton's Big Lie: Libya "would have become Syria"

see you fucking idiot liar


things evolve huh


things shift around


then you evil fucks lie about it
 
anatta said:
:palm:
please Desh...you are giving me a headache...do you ever think while posting?

It's saying Qadaffi was threatened by "militant Islamists" - so if you overthrow Qadaffi whom are you supporting? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A for effort but no, it's not possible to have an actual conversation with her.
 
anatta said:
Honestly Desh; Libya is in North Africa....although it it part of the "caliphate" extending thru AQIM in west Africa
to Syria in the ME.

This was Obama's -not the Bush's doing.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.
Libya was engaged in Civil War BEFORE the no fly zone.
There is no way to predict how it would have endef.
It is you that is the colossal liar here.
 
Rune said:
Bullshit.
Libya was engaged in Civil War BEFORE the no fly zone.
There is no way to predict how it would have endef.
It is you that is the colossal liar here.
Click to expand...
Qadaffi was on a counter-offensive.
Clinton is making the claim out of thin air that the war "would have probably turned Libya into Syria."

That can ONLY MEAN a drawn out civil war like Syria. Clinton is pulling this out of her warmongering ass;
with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Look at what was happening on the ground:

Libyan Civil War 2011
In early March, Gaddafi's forces rallied, pushed eastwards and re-took several coastal cities before reaching Benghazi.
A further UN resolution authorised member states to establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, and to use "all necessary measures" to prevent attacks on civilians.[38] The Gaddafi government then announced a ceasefire, but fighting continued.[39][40] Throughout the conflict, rebels rejected government offers of a ceasefire and efforts by the African Union to end the fighting because the plans set forth did not include the removal of Gaddafi.[41]
Click to expand...
yes it was a civil war, and yes we took sides and yes we own the results (Pottery Barn Rule) just like we do in Iraq.
Clinton is dodging accountability by saying it would have been another Syria. Evidence shows the complete opposite
 
anatta said:
my apologies, you seem to support them come hell or high water. My mistake then.
Click to expand...

don't apologize......he's never voted because he's been too stoned to remember when election day is........in 2012 he walked into the community center to vote and they fed him a Thanksgiving dinner.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
don't apologize......he's never voted because he's been too stoned to remember when election day is........in 2012 he walked into the community center to vote and they fed him a Thanksgiving dinner.......
Click to expand...

You childish lying retard...
You think you are clever and you sound like a wise mouthed, punk assed child...
Fuck you, pastor ass pimple...
 
anatta said:
Qadaffi was on a counter-offensive.
Clinton is making the claim out of thin air that the war "would have probably turned Libya into Syria."

That can ONLY MEAN a drawn out civil war like Syria. Clinton is pulling this out of her warmongering ass;
with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Look at what was happening on the ground:

Libyan Civil War 2011

yes it was a civil war, and yes we took sides and yes we own the results (Pottery Barn Rule) just like we do in Iraq.
Clinton is dodging accountability by saying it would have been another Syria. Evidence shows the complete opposite
Click to expand...

Irony.
You are pulling this out of your war-mongering ass.
Again, for clarity
Libya was engaged in a civil war.
There is no way to predict any outcome one way or another.
Hence there can also be no proof that she eithet lied or told the truth.
At best you are calling her opinion a lie.

That makes you..... a liar.

None of your distracting repetitous minutiae changes that.

You are muck slinging plain and simple.
 
Rune said:
Irony.
You are pulling this out of your war-mongering ass.
Again, for clarity
Libya was engaged in a civil war.
There is no way to predict any outcome one way or another.
Hence there can also be no proof that she eithet lied or told the truth.
At best you are calling her opinion a lie.

That makes you..... a liar.

None of your distracting repetitous minutiae changes that.

You are muck slinging plain and simple.
Click to expand...
repeating your stupidity is still stuck on stupid.
Would the North have won the U.S. civil war without the surrender at Appomattox ? of course.

Qaddafi had the air force, and a more efficient army, and was drivng in the west, and around Misrata ( central)
and was going to go into Bengazi after the air force attacked.
THAT IS WHY NATO WENT TO BOMBNG HIM -because he was going to rout the NTC,
and cause a "humanitarian crisis"

None of this is questionable - nobody cling to this idea that the war wasn't going to be quickly over.
Only Clinton who just trotted out this new excuse ( never using it before) for partisan suckers like yourself to
find ways to excuse her destruction of Libya.

You constantly look to excuse her - go ahead if you sleep better at night after voting for a failed Sec of State & warmonger.
Far from me to burst your self-crafted delusions..
 
anatta said:
repeating your stupidity is still stuck on stupid.
Would the North have won the U.S. civil war without the surrender at Appomattox ? of course.

Qaddafi had the air force, and a more efficient army, and was drivng in the west, and around Misrata ( central)
and was going to go into Bengazi after the air force attacked.
THAT IS WHY NATO WENT TO BOMBNG HIM -because he was going to rout the NTC,
and cause a "humanitarian crisis"

None of this is questionable - nobody cling to this idea that the war wasn't going to be quickly over.
Only Clinton who just trotted out this new excuse ( never using it before) for partisan suckers like yourself to
find ways to excuse her destruction of Libya.

You constantly look to excuse her - go ahead if you sleep better at night after voting for a failed Sec of State & warmonger.
Far from me to burst your self-crafted delusions..
Click to expand...

Your entire post is supposition at best.
Kudos to you, you are good at supposing.
Doesn't make any of it factual though.
Especially funny; you calling me stupid.
I don't blame you for it; you have no options except that.
Doesn't make your opinion factual though.

Also incredibly ignorant on your part is to lay the destruction of Libya on Obama.
You couldn't be more dishonest if you tried.
 
Rune said:
Your entire post is supposition at best.
Kudos to you, you are good at supposing.
Doesn't make any of it factual though.
Especially funny; you calling me stupid.
I don't blame you for it; you have no options except that.
Doesn't make your opinion factual though.

Also incredibly ignorant on your part is to lay the destruction of Libya on Obama.
You couldn't be more dishonest if you tried.
Click to expand...
Clinton is making the claim here -for her to be correct about "Libya becoming Syria"
she has to show some reasoning that the war would have dragged on for years.
Evnts on the ground show otherwise.

Do you get the idea that her claim is unsupported? why I call it a Big Lie -whether you agree with that or not;
it most certainly is a specious argument on her part without her bolstering her views.
But as usual you rush to her defense in your insane desire to defend a Democrat.

Just who would you blame regarding Libya's demise from the high standard of living Libya was before US/NATO
intervention? Most certainly it's not exclusively Obama/Hillary -France had a big role.

But the US led in sorties/command and control/most missiles fired...so how does it not get the majority of blame?
 
anatta said:
Clinton is making the claim here -for her to be correct about "Libya becoming Syria"
she has to show some reasoning that the war would have dragged on for years.
Evnts on the ground show otherwise.

Do you get the idea that her claim is unsupported? why I call it a Big Lie -whether you agree with that or not;
it most certainly is a specious argument on her part without her bolstering her views.
But as usual you rush to her defense in your insane desire to defend a Democrat.

Just who would you blame regarding Libya's demise from the high standard of living Libya was before US/NATO
intervention? Most certainly it's not exclusively Obama/Hillary -France had a big role.

But the US led in sorties/command and control/most missiles fired...so how does it not get the majority of blame?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe it would have ended better somehow?
I don't.
I do believe it could have been worse, ergo Hillary is likely correct.
There is certainly no proof otherwise.
Therefore to call her opinion a lie is baseless.

Let's be perfectly clear; I am not defending "some" democrat.
I am defending the presumptive leader of the party who you have such an irrational hatred of that you start continuous negative threads about.
What is this, anti-Hillary thread #508?
If you were simply reporting facts I wouldn't even bother.
Facts speak for themselves and can't be refuted.

You don't deal in facts though.
Your threads are opinion sold as fact.

I am here for accuracy only.
 
Rune said:
Do you honestly believe it would have ended better somehow?
I don't.
I do believe it could have been worse, ergo Hillary is likely correct.
There is certainly no proof otherwise.
Therefore to call her opinion a lie is baseless.

Let's be perfectly clear; I am not defending "some" democrat.
I am defending the presumptive leader of the party who you have such an irrational hatred of that you start continuous negative threads about.
What is this, anti-Hillary thread #508?
If you were simply reporting facts I wouldn't even bother.
Facts speak for themselves and can't be refuted.

You don't deal in facts though.
Your threads are opinion sold as fact.

I am here for accuracy only.
Click to expand...
IT WAS ON THE WAY OF BEING ENDED. IT IS WHY NATO/US STOPPED THE QADAFFI OFFENSIVE..
with cries of "humanitarian crisis" that never happened by the NTC's lies..

By now you should have read the blog on DCJ, if you are in the least bit interested in the scenarios;
and you would have seen MULTIPLE AUTHORS - - condemn her interventionism..
Or the NYTimes piece - slightly less overtly critical, but still lambasting her decision making..
and decisions are how we rate executives.

You keep trying to make this sound like i'm on some personal jihad against her-
when every reason I've given shows she is an innate interventionist. My reasoning is not personal, it's logical.

Iraq was the first ex. "Friend of Syria" was her meddling, and finally she became the chief architect and advocate
for the fuck up in Libya..what more do you want in her 4 years as Sec. of State to see what a consummate screw up she is?

I am so done going around the Mulberry bush with you; you deny facts, you will not see reality peeled back and dissected for your
examination and then you re-argue the same points over again and again.
 
anatta said:
IT WAS ON THE WAY OF BEING ENDED. IT IS WHY NATO/US STOPPED THE QADAFFI OFFENSIVE..
with cries of "humanitarian crisis" that never happened by the NTC's lies..

By now you should have read the blog on DCJ, if you are in the least bit interested in the scenarios;
and you would have seen MULTIPLE AUTHORS - - condemn her interventionism..
Or the NYTimes piece - slightly less overtly critical, but still lambasting her decision making..
and decisions are how we rate executives.

You keep trying to make this sound like i'm on some personal jihad against her-
when every reason I've given shows she is an innate interventionist. My reasoning is not personal, it's logical.

Iraq was the first ex. "Friend of Syria" was her meddling, and finally she became the chief architect and advocate
for the fuck up in Libya..what more do you want in her 4 years as Sec. of State to see what a consummate screw up she is?

I am so done going around the Mulberry bush with you; you deny facts, you will not see reality peeled back and dissected for your
examination and then you re-argue the same points over again and again.
Click to expand...

At least you are still rational enough to admit she was just a cabinet member, not the comander in chief.
 
Rune said:
At least you are still rational enough to admit she was just a cabinet member, not the comander in chief.
Click to expand...
captain_obvious.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top