Yeah man so much mass rape that the UN found it to be baseless:
I’m so glad that you chose to respond to my bait. I have to admit I played a trick on you. There is nothing in that Amnesty Internation article about rape. It’s about the murder of bound prisoners of war. I just wanted proof that you aren’t reading the proof and therefore aren’t arguing in good faith. Now I don’t need to waste my time engaging with a liar and a fraud anymore.
I’m arguing in better faith than you dude. At least I engage with what you write.
And would I read the your “sources”? I know the stories, I’ve read them too. You seem to think I believe Gaddafi was some sort of Saint, which is odd, because that’s not what I have written at all - Which you would understand if you argued in good faith.
It’s about the murder of bound prisoners of war.
Which, again, happened after the intervention. You still fuck up at this step. You’re using the things happening after the US colour revolution to justify the colour revolution.
So you’ve been arguing with a child this whole time? Lmao what a loser you are
Anyway. I think you forgot the “… and here’s why you are” part. But you are quite forgetful, like how you constantly forget what I write and respond to something I didn’t! Or like when you forget to respond to parts of what I write! Whoops there came some the reasons why again, my bad
I’m so glad that you chose to respond to my bait. I have to admit I played a trick on you. There is nothing in that Amnesty Internation article about rape. It’s about the murder of bound prisoners of war. I just wanted proof that you aren’t reading the proof and therefore aren’t arguing in good faith. Now I don’t need to waste my time engaging with a liar and a fraud anymore.
I’m arguing in better faith than you dude. At least I engage with what you write.
And would I read the your “sources”? I know the stories, I’ve read them too. You seem to think I believe Gaddafi was some sort of Saint, which is odd, because that’s not what I have written at all - Which you would understand if you argued in good faith.
Which, again, happened after the intervention. You still fuck up at this step. You’re using the things happening after the US colour revolution to justify the colour revolution.
“No, you are” is the only answer you have. Lol. What a child.
So you’ve been arguing with a child this whole time? Lmao what a loser you are
Anyway. I think you forgot the “… and here’s why you are” part. But you are quite forgetful, like how you constantly forget what I write and respond to something I didn’t! Or like when you forget to respond to parts of what I write! Whoops there came some the reasons why again, my bad