You are quoting the discredited House Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry that used fabricated evidence and the testimony of an academic who had earlier received money from the Gaddafi family?
Out of curiosity: Does @theintercept employ fact-checkers?https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/of-levant-and-leviathan-cautionary-tales-from-a-turbulent-world/ …
Why did the U.S. and its allies bomb Libya? Corruption case against Sarkozy sheds new light on ousting of Gaddafi.https://interc.pt/2jdu2jZ
-
-
-
Who is quoting? Check the byline. Do your tweets employ checking if you’re accidentally
@ing the wrong person? -
Fair point: I should certainly aim to uphold higher standards in my tweeting than the intercept does in its journalism. But you shared an article which is trying to rewrite history based on dubious evidence. Condemn Sarkozy all you want, but why whitewash Gaddafi?
-
It’s an interesting article, so I shared it, that’s all
-
Fair enough. But the article makes a claim that needs correcting. It follows the ritual of objectivity in citing a UK parliamentary report to claim Gaddafi wasn't targeting civilians. But the claim is false. The
@HRW report the inquiry referenced said the opposite.pic.twitter.com/UJlfW6mV0S
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Gaddafi had tons of gold reserves and plans for his own currency. Once the bombs started somehow an exchange was setup to assure oil commodities wouldn't be recognized in anything but USD. I believe this came up in Clinton's emails, but was tellingly not the focus.
-
Gadaffi was a mass murdering thug who brutalized his country for 4 decades. The only danger he posed was to his own people. 1 of the few good things to happen in the last few years is his removal.
-
No doubt, should have been gone long before
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.