lies. Qaddafi did not bomb anyone especially civilians
- he fought the NTC -and I just showed they were armed revolutionaries
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
4 Dead In Capitol Attack, Same as Benghazi. How Many GOP Hearings?
- Thread starter Hoosier Daddy
- Start date
- he fought the NTC -and I just showed they were armed revolutionaries
lies. Qaddafi did not bomb anyone especially civilians
Gaddafi not just bombed civilians, he bombed American civilians on a plane.
STFUGaddafi not just bombed civilians, he bombed American civilians on a plane.
you have been disposed of this notion of Qaddafi bombing civilians -never happened
in fact WE BOMBED CIVILIANS
as to Lockerbie I have already gone over this; and Qaddafi being a member in good standing of the world community when we decided to kill him
Barr characterized but Mueller published the report's finding of no collusion. you are insane
Mueller did not say that in his report. You would know that IF YOU READ HIS REPORT.
But you are here proudly saying you haven't read his report. The only reason why at this point is because you're too scared.
completely twisted. MI6 backed the pertinent intelligence, which is NOT the report.
NO THEY FUCKING DIDN'T. You literally said earlier in this thread that they didn't. You made it a point to say that the IC lies. So if the IC lies, then how can you say that MI-6 backs this up? Is MI-6 NOT a part of the IC????
You moved those goalposts to say the report had things in it FROM the IC, but the report was written by people who weren't in the IC at the time!
So now you're moving goalposts for a fourth time.
I swaer to great Buddha your confusion is purposeful
No, you're the one trying to conflate and confuse here by misrepresenting a report that you haven't even fucking read. You switched your argument four times during the course of this thread, and the reason you did that was because you didn't even bother to read or vet your source. Why? Who fucking knows? Maybe because you're lazy. Maybe because you're stupid. Maybe because you're a propagandist working on behalf of Russia. At this point, it doesn't even matter because nothing you say is truthful! It always has to be qualified later on, post-hoc, because you enter into debates without knowing what the fuck you're talking about.
I read it, why didn't you?
you read the useless Mueller that came to the conclusion there was no collusionI read it, why didn't you?
as to the UK report you havent a clue,never cite it,and didn't know it was a Parliament report
You waste your time reading Mueller -and then argue over what you didnt read .LMAO
you read the useless Mueller that came to the conclusion there was no collusion
Nope. Not what the report says. You would know if you read it, but you refuse to read it. So you are choosing to be ignorant.
as to the UK report you havent a clue,never cite it,and didn't know it was a Parliament report
YOU didn't know it was a Parliament report until I told you it wasn't an IC report.
You shifted the goalposts on it four times.
You said "the IC lies for their agenda" and then in the next post, said MI-6 "backed it" (even though they didn't).
What you did was stretch the definition by saying former members of MI-6 backed it, but left out the "former" part. So the people who wrote that report or who "backed it up" weren't working in the IC at the time.
You kept that information hidden during this debate, and I had to drag it out of you.
So why do you do that?
done with you.. thanks for bumping the thread -i TOLD YOU IT WAS A UK REPORT.. liarYOU didn't know it was a Parliament report until I told you it wasn't an IC report.
done with you.. thanks for bumping the thread -i TOLD YOU IT WAS A UK REPORT.. liar
LOL! You only said that AFTER first misrepresenting it.
You said "MI-6 backed it up". They didn't back it up. You lied. You said former members backed it up, then you said that there was IC Intel in there that backed it up.
So you moved quite a bit there, didn't you?
All of this is because you don't bother to do the work. So everything with you always goes the same way: You lie, you get called on it, then you qualify the lie, then you walk back the lie, then you change the lie, then you pretend you never lied in the first place.
You do it all the time. You deliberately withhold exculpatory information because you are a propagandist and that's what they do.
But what you don't count on is someone coming here and tearing it all apart, which I've done to you in this thread.
It turns out that everything you posted here wasn't the full truth. Just half-truths, lies, self-contradictions, and innuendo.
What a phony baloney.
A woman was shot by the police, 3 others died due to medical complications connected to this attack, the same as the number of Americans killed in a late night attack in a small town at a foreign mission station in Libya.
Republicans' $7 Million Benghazi Report Is Another Dud ...www.vanityfair.com › news › 2016/06 › house-select-c...
Jun 28, 2016 — After a more than two-year investigation, encompassing 33 hearings held in congressional investigations and four public hearings, at an .
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/house-select-committee-benghazi-report
So heart attacks and strokes(medical complications) are the same as being dragged out tortured burned and than killed? fucking POS idiot
Last edited: