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.
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.
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.
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'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.
Yes, it's quite a bit stranger actually. I based my opinion on a statement made public. You based yours on ... nothing. It is not at all hard to believe that the leader of a country is not aware of all that goes on. That never happen in Britain? Wow!
I don't think answering a baseless supposition with a supposition is going to advance this any closer to reality. You are free to spin your theories without opposition.