lol your serious? i dont feel sympathy for him or his family its all the normal people who suported him because they had to that i feel for the rebels have already been known to have started assassinating some police officers, no doubt any state television workers are gonna get it to and pretty much anyone else the rebels can point a finger at as beeing part of the gaddafi leadership.
they can stick gaddafis head on a pike for all i care hes had it good for ages, its sad though cos in some ways libya was one of the better run african countries mugabe etc just get totally ignored and their people are far worse off than most libyans who had running water , education etc
we have no garuntees libya is going to be any better than it was really
Well, I'm half serious. At least Libya used to be reasonably stable and, as you say, was one of the better run African countries. This civil war will probably do a lot of long term damage to the country, and I can't imagine that it will be better off than it would have been under Gaddafi control for many decades to come.
Even if the way he kept order in the country might have been a bit brutal, at least it worked. I don't actually know what proportion of people actually supported Gaddafi, but I don't like the way the rebels have been portrayed as the peoples choice, when I haven't heard any evidence for this (sure, I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the population do want Gaddafi violently overthrown, but there seems to be a lot of assumption and bias in the media reports I hear).
What seems 'unfair' (yes, maybe in a slightly tongue in cheek way) is that Gaddafi and his regime is being persecuted and toppled by our government, when there doesn't seem to be a clear case that Libya will be improved as a result.
In the days before the military action, it seemed to me that Gaddafi would either have to use force (which he tried to do, apparently, and was subsequently bombed for), or watch the country disintegrate into rebel control and turmoil. So I see him as doing what he had to do to keep the country under control, which NATO then interfered in. So, the only course of action he could have taken would have been to try and slowly cede control to some democratic process, after which he'd probably have been hanged for something anyway. There wasn't really anything else he could have done imo. I doubt a democratic process by that method would have been better anyway, it might even have kept the brutality, but added ineffective governance into the mix as well. I haven't heard anyone actually put forward a reasoned argument as to why some democracy gained in that way, or why some violent overthrow with a possibly uncertain outcome would be favourable to Gaddafi control. If there is such an argument, it seems then very poor form on the part of the media not to publicise it, and to instead show us loads of pictures of rebel hooligans firing heavy machine guns at posters of Gaddafi and making big holes in buildings for no reason.
.![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
