Replies

...there is always the possibility that Gaddaffi was lying when he said that.

What possible reason would he have to lie to an underling in a private conversation? Think, man, think!

If Libyan security was acting without Gaddaffi's knowledge, and he was so angry about it, would he not have taken out his anger against them?

Exactly the point I made earlier about having a disagreement with Shalgam and whoever else was pushing to pay reparations. We don't know that he didn't execute some security personnel for it do we? There are other circumstances where we know that he did.

Libya WAS involved.

But no evidence that Gaddafi was. You seem to sail right over points of logic.

I see you are taking this point to be proof positive that although Libya had a part, Colonel Gaddaffi did not personally know about it. Assuming Mr Shalgams evidence is correct (and as you say, he has no real reason to lie, unless he is a Gaddaffi "plant") there is always the possibility that Gaddaffi was lying when he said that.

First of all, we only know that Shalgam says he said that. Secondly, you keep ignoring the fact that is illogical for Shalgam to make that up now. Your ridiculous "Shalgam may be a double agent" theory notwithstanding.

I am prepared to concede that they were all guilty, if it makes you feel any better.

You can't make me feel better when I have no interest in feeling anything about it. The fact that you considered feelings a motivation does explain your fuzzy thinking though.

What possible reason would he have to lie to an underling in a private conversation? Think, man, think!

Well Gaddaffi is a Dictator. And dictators, understandably, are very paranoid and play people off against each other. Mabybe he thought the conversation was being recorded. Maybe he suspected Mr Shalgams loyalty even then. Maybe anything. However, even if Gaddaffi was not personally involved, he is still responsible. He is, after all, the head of State of Libya (in actuality if not in title). If he cannot control his own security services, he's of no use to the west against the islamists anyway.

That's true.

But no evidence that Gaddafi was. You seem to sail right over points of logic.

No, I was only commenting on the proceeding paragraph. I address the other points of logic later.

I'm not ignoring the fact that it is illogical at all. I was saying that Gaddaffi might have been lying to him. And why is the "double agent" theory ridiculous? Do you have any "facts" to counter the supposition? Its no stranger than assuming the absolute controller of Libya has no knowledge of what his own security services are doing.