do you understand proximate cause? apparently not
Moderates And Independents Are Flocking To Trump.
- Thread starter philly rabbit
- Start date
You cannot have an honest debate with a pathological lying hyper partisan hack.
Yes, he did target civilians...he just called them "rebels".
But remember, you first said that he didn't kill any civilians. Then you shifted the goalposts to say that he did kill civilians, but they were "collateral damage."
Seems to me that if you're not targeting civilians, you wouldn't try to excuse their deaths as "collateral damage" well after the fact.
Althea
Althea told me...........
Put him on ignore. It shrinks the pages.
LOL!
really? you are going to argue collateral civilians in Misrata
( the only place I know of where Qadafi was forced to lay seige - and by definition can cause civilian deaths)
is the same as targeting civilians?
How about the NATO bombing of Misrata? do you think civilians were killed by that?
Althea
Althea told me...........
Ask him what country, if any, has ever invoked article 5.
Was...what happened with that?
All world leaders give speeches at the UN. Ahmadinejad even spoke at the UN. So did Chavez. And Kim Jong Il. And Putin. And numerous dictators. Speaking at the UN doesn't make you not a dictator or murderer.
LOL! Do you honestly believe that Russia wasn't selling weapons to Gaddafi the entire time?
Report: Russia to sell Libya weapons in $1.8 billion deal
January 30, 2010
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/30/russia.libya.arms/index.html
Delete your account.
Do we have proof that Winnie the Poo ordered that attack?
No.
But we have proof Putin ordered the attack on us. Trump was even given that proof two weeks before he became President. Comey was investigating those attacks, and then Trump fired Comey "because of Russia."
YOU SAID GADDAFI DIDN'T KILL CIVILIANS.
Then you changed that to say he did, but they were "collateral damage".
Your response to your goalpost shift being called out is to whatabout...literally a KGB tactic.
You're a Russian, aren't you?
more grotesque ignorance on display.
... In the same speech, he offered a total amnesty to protesters who put down their arms, he even offered to assure them safe passage to Egypt if they wanted to leave Libya. For point of reference, NATO dropped leaflets last week that warned Libyan loyalists that they would "be obliterated' if they continued to fight in Misurata.
This gets to the very core of why R2P was misused in this case. NATO was going to war based on completely one-sided information - basically rebels calling media agencies to tell them "protesters" were being attacked, before the world fully realized they were dealing with an armed insurrection, not a non-violent protest.
International Law, the US and NATO is clear that States have the right to put down armed insurrections.
https://www.economist.com/node/18709571/comments
You didn't say that! You're changing your story and shifting the goalposts.
You can't prove that Gaddafi didn't think those civilians were also part of the rebels overthrowing him.
He killed thousands of people. It's strange you're defending him. Makes me think you're a Russian troll.
"How about the NATO bombing of Misrata?"
Classic whataboutism; a KGB tactic. You're a Russian propagandist, aren't you?
TOPIC = Moderates And Independents Are Flocking To Trump.
Why would Gaddafi keep his word?
Yet Gaddafi continued to kill civilians, except you said before he didn't, then you said he did, but that they were "collateral damage".
So your narrative keeps changing. Not hard to understand why.
Althea
Althea told me...........
Yep. A recent 'walkaway' meme was exposed as using stock photos from the internet.
Sure. But Gaddafi was bombing civilians indiscriminately because he associated anyone that was residing in areas controlled by rebels, as rebels themselves.
That's why you started off by saying he didn't kill any civilians, then changed that to say he did kill civilians but they were simply "collateral damage".
It would seem like you're moving goalposts.
you are straining on a word like a gnat. do you really think it anywhere the same that incidental damage
is the same as targeting civilians?
But hey. If you want to claim this as some pyrrhic victory after all the misinformation you posted -be my guest
You know nothing more than What Hillary put out as talking points. -her of the "we came we saw he died"
mentality of regime change