Why libyans revolted against gaddafi

Want to visit the US? Most Read. Kashmiris beaten, player abused after India loses to Pakistan. Erdogan walks back threat to expel 10 Western envoys. Spy vs spy in Turkey over hunt for Iranian conscientious objector. During Gaddafi's dictatorship, there has been no progress whatsoever and if anything, he has brought the country back at least years. The education system is poor as well as the health care. Even though Libya is rich in oil, the citizens greatly suffer economically and this is because Muammar Gaddafi was selfish enough to keep all the money to himself and stashing it away in banks.

I also understand that the Libyans never loved Gaddafi. From the very beginning of his brutal dictatorship, he threatened the Libyans not to turn against him by massacring and publicly hanging innocent people all because they protested against his regime. Therefore, the Libyans were afraid and didn't have the courage to stand up against him until the Arab uprising. I would also like to say that yes, Nato did an excellent job and truly helped the Libyans. However, you must remember that it was the Libyans on the ground, they were the ones that fought and sacrificed their lives for the country.

Their bravery and courage should be recognised, as without them also, the toppling of the regime would never have succeeded! They are Libya's heroes. By LAz - Tue Jan 10, am. There is undeniable evidence that contrary to the spontaneous, unarmed and peaceful protest demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain, therebellion in Libya has been nurtured, armed and orchestratedlargely from abroad, in collaboration with expat opposition groups and their local allies at home.

By roxunreal - Tue Jan 10, pm. Literacy increased after almost half a century, stunning! I thought societies don't change and improve at all over half a century.

I love it when people praise "great leaders" for positive developments over long periods of time, as if it wouldn't happen anyway under any other leader like in most of the world So my question is, why were the people of Libya so dissatisfied? Frequent public hangings of students deemed to be "politically active" up until the 90's, arbitrary imprisonment and torture, assassination of dissident Libyans abroad, shitty healthcare and education, neglect of the east of the country where he was never liked, killing of prisoners in Abu Salim, violent suppression of frequent protests in the east long before the uprising People don't like their children and siblings killed, imprisoned and tortured over someone's personality cult and political paranoia.

The population loved Gaddafi? How would you know that? He was never elected, his legitimacy stems from nothing. These reports included charges of a Libyan hit squad targeting American officials, of coup attempts against Gaddafi and of the presence of a large underground chemical weapons factory. Subsequent investigations found all of these reports were false. Reagan, for example, referred to him as the "mad dog of the Middle East. Since, at that time, US-backed terrorists in Central America were killing far more civilians than were Libyan-backed terrorists, and the United States was supporting repressive Central American dictators with even worse human rights records than Gaddafi's, there were also serious questions as to whether the United States had any moral standing in its crusade against the Libyan dictator.

In certain respects, these hyperbolic and hypocritical attacks on Gaddafi created a kind of "crying wolf" effect, making it easier for some critics of US imperialism to downplay his repression, foreign intervention, support for terrorism and general thuggery.

In April , following a terrorist bombing in Berlin that killed an American serviceman, the United States bombed Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya's two largest cities, killing up to two dozen civilians, including Gaddafi's daughter.

The attack was widely condemned as a violation of international law, which recognizes the legitimacy of the use of military force only in self-defense from an armed attack, not for retaliation. The civilian casualties from the air strikes and the serious damage caused to the French embassy and other diplomatic facilities provoked outrage throughout the world and bolstered Gaddafi's standing both at home and abroad.

The US justified the air strikes on the grounds that it would prevent future Libyan sponsored terrorism. Instead, it had the opposite effect: two years later, in retaliation for the bombing, Libyan agents blew up a US airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing people.

When Gaddafi refused to hand over for trial in Britain two Libyan agents indicted for the terrorist attack, the United States successfully pushed the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions against Libya to force the government to hand over the suspects, an unprecedented action for an extradition dispute. Ironically, during this period, and to this day, the United States has refused to extradite a number of right-wing Cuban exiles indicted on terrorist charges in several Latin American countries, including those responsible for blowing up an airliner.

These international sanctions prohibited the export of petroleum, military or aviation equipment to Libya, banned commercial flights to or from Libya, limited Libyan diplomatic representation abroad and placed restrictions on certain Libyan financial activities. When Libya eventually turned over the suspects for trial in , UN sanctions against the country were suspended, though US sanctions remained in place for another five years.

In , following prolonged negotiations with the United States and Great Britain, Libya announced that it was giving up its nascent biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs and accepting international assistance and verification of its disarmament efforts. In return, the United States ended its sanctions and restored diplomatic relations the following year. The successful elimination of the threat of Libyan weapons of mass destruction WMD should have been recognized as a triumph of patient diplomacy.

However, in June , a large bipartisan majority in the US House of Representatives passed a resolution claiming that the elimination of Libya's nuclear program "would not have been possible if not for Indeed, given that Iraq had disarmed and was invaded anyway, the Iraq war could hardly be seen as an incentive for Libya to give up a potential deterrent.

Even prior to the protests that were launched a few weeks ago following the Tunisian uprising, there were signs that Gaddafi's rule was beginning to slip. Gaddafi's leadership style has always been repressive, impulsive, unpredictable and seemingly arbitrary. Yet his nationalism, anti-imperialism and professed socialism led many educated Libyans who formed the backbone of the government to stay loyal despite their misgivings, in large part in reaction to what was seen as the punitive and hypocritical sanctions imposed by Western nations and the constant threat of renewed US air and missile strikes against the country.

It was only when the sanctions and threats of war subsided that there began to be a dramatic increase in resignations and self-imposed exile by prominent Libyans who had been members and supporters of the government.

In short, the US-led efforts to isolate, punish and threaten the regime likely contributed to Gaddafi's longevity as dictator. Once relations were normalized and the isolation and threats subsided, Gaddafi was seen less as the strong leader defending his nation against Western imperialism and more as the mercurial and brutal tyrant that he is.

The crimes committed over the years by Gaddafi's Libya, while frequently exaggerated and not always unique, were and are still very real. Nevertheless, people are still out on the streets in cities to mark the eighth anniversary of the revolution. The offensive has fuelled new tensions in a country already wracked by violence and torn between rival administrations since the overthrow and killing of Gaddafi.

The vacuum has also been exploited by unscrupulous people traffickers taking full advantage of the migration crisis.