>>8336204Gaddafi was somewhat of a tyrant ruler, it was a dictatorship, it wasn't a democracy, however Gaddafi wasn't a bad leader, he had restricted the rights of his citizens but gave them shit in return, they made a lot of money, gas was cheap, they didn't pay taxes and their education was free, he tried to balance everything out and still keep his rule strong so it didn't turn into Anarchy. But, he was indeed crazy so people started rioting for more rights and a better life.
Gaddafi knew where this was going so tried to quickly silence things by hiring a bunch of mercenaries and using them to fight in the riots (so he wasn't attacked for using military against civs) but that only escalated the whole thing further because more and more people rose up after seeing that Gaddafi tried to silence the words of the people. NATO and the UN turned their attention to this, quickly rebels got more aggresive and shit got out of hand, forcing Gaddafi to use more force, which in turn forced the uprisers to use more force as well. But NATO seeing this was Gaddafi using his military to simply DESTROY rebels decided to make things more equal. It wasn't a war of "bad or good" both sides were equally full of shit, I was just on the side that paid me money. After fairing out the playing field NATO tried to pull back, but Gaddafi was insulted and in turn attacked NATO fighters, which forced NATO to use even more force, tilting the game in the rebels favor. I don't think anyone was good or bad in this, this was a game for power, not for rights or freedom.