Forum menu
Fat tanky 😀
McBoom! 😀
Have you served?
YesI'm off to the pub. See you later.
Oh, are you a barman then?
Pint of wheat beer for me please, ta.
piss poor start for Libyan 'democracy', that's for sure..
I'm stunned that you seem to be defending him. Yes they may have enjoyed all those things but at what price?
It amuses me how some people appear to believe that the alternative to Gaddafi's 42 year dictatorship was a liberal democracy such as ours. There is not the slightest reason to believe that. The alternative to Gaddafi was a US/Western backed [i]dictatorship[/i] - just like every other country in the region.
Gaddafi was brutal, repressive, unpredictable, and quite mad. He interfered in the internal affairs of other countries and supported terrorism, and whilst this was never on the scale of the CIA, it was still nevertheless, wholly unacceptable.
However there is little doubt that the Libyan people did considerably better under Gaddafi than they would have done under a US/Western backed dictatorship - the only possible alternative.
The fact that it took 8 months and 26,000 air missions by NATO to topple him is testament to that. US/Western backed dictatorships have been toppled within days without any outside interference due to overwhelming public opposition .... although they now are busy trying to establish new US/Western backed dictatorships to replace the old ones.
It would also be amusing, if it wasn't so tragic, how some people appear to automatically assume that the replacement for Gaddafi's 42 year rule will be a liberal democracy - what exactly is that based on, apart from 'wishfully thinking' ?
I truly hope that the Libyan people build themselves a more tolerant society than existed under Gaddafi, and one which doesn't make the sort of appalling mistakes he made. I fear however that they are very likely to end up with one which is equally intolerant, but without the positive achievements which occurred under Gaddafi.
Western military involvement in Libya was never about 'saving civilian lives'. It was for economic and strategic reasons. Furthermore the West has not got a clue who they've backed - they're just hoping it was "the good guys". None of this bodes well, specially when the behaviour of the anti-Gaddafi forces, which includes substantial elements of the old regime and a significant Al-Qaeda presence, is considered. Including repeated condemnations over many months by human rights organisations.
Given TJ's views on the legitimacy of the rebels I can't wait for the debate about independence for Jocklandia, when he realises that the legitimate government by his terms is the UK as a whole and that there would therefore be less than no chance of the jocks hsving their way other than us, "the legitimate authority" getting bored with their whining, which to be fair is not to big a leap of the imagination.
Get grip for Christs sake, the guy with the big stick gets to write the rules, the history and the constitution. It was ever thus, and ever will be. You benefit from it hugely, live with it or stop yer whining and sling your hook and prepare for new rules, history and constitution to be imposed upon your worthless backside. 😉
I fear however that they are very likely to end up with one which is equally intolerant, but without the positive achievements which occurred under Gaddafi.
Why? Because they are Arabs? Muslims? What is it about the population thats convinces you they are incapable ever of creating for themselves a civilised society?
Lincoln had it
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that[b] government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. [/b]
mcbooWhy? Because they are Arabs? Muslims? What is it about the population thats convinces you they are incapable ever of creating for themselves a civilised society?
Copy and paste the bit where I said that [i]"they are incapable ever of creating for themselves a civilised society"[/i]
And if you are interested in knowing why I think it is "very likely" that they'll end up with an equally intolerant society after Gaddafi, why don't you read my post again properly, instead of quoting Abraham Lincoln......I don't see the point of repeating myself.
Live by the sword, die by the sword . . . . . .
Where's my ****ing beer?
Useless..... 🙄
Live by the sword, die by the sword . . . . . .
Ah yes, Matthew verse 26:52 ........ [i]"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"[/i]
This was of course said to a disciple who drew his sword to protect Jesus.
I never had you down as a religious person who quotes the bible Oxboy ........ do you draw much moral inspiration from the bible ? Good for you.
It would also be amusing, if it wasn't so tragic, how some people appear to automatically assume that the replacement for Gaddafi's 42 year rule will be a liberal democracy - what exactly is that based on, apart from 'wishfully thinking' ?
The intention of educated and articulate Libyan exiles to return and work for it. The desire of western Governments to enable it. The intent of multinational companies to open and exploit the new market created by it. The will at the U.N. to make it happen.
For starters.
Get the buggers signed into the €urozone, what with all that oil and it's not that far away... Several birds and one stone.
The intention of educated and articulate Libyan exiles to return and work for it.
Seems as if it's almost buttoned-up then.
The desire of western Governments to enable it.
🙂 Like they have also desired in every other country in the region ? Before Britain left Libya after the mandate, it invented a monarchy so that a dictatorship could be established to serve it's best interests.
The intent of multinational companies to open and exploit the new market created by it.
😀
The will at the U.N. to make it happen.
I don't think you understand the role of the UN. It is not the job of the UN to dictate to countries how they should be governed. None of the Arab countries in the UN are liberal democracies.
I understand the role of the U.N. perfectly, thankyou. Majority vote, isn't it? Finagled in the way these things usually are, I would imagine, given the desire to cooperate on advancing the cause.
Tunisia on Sunday is going to be a useful bell-weather prediction on how the situation in the Maghreb and therefore the rest of the "Arab world" is likely to move, given time and encouragement. Personally, I prefer to be more optimistic, not having any "Marxist"-type axe to grind and a wish to see it all go t1ts up.
Hopefully, as don has suggested, let's get it sorted and everybody can make a few bucks out of it and move forward. * (Smiley emoticon to indicate whatever...).
* Opportuity for segueing into a rant about "Capitalism" there, if you like.
I understand the role of the U.N. perfectly, thankyou.
Obviously you don't. You proved that by claiming that the UN will decide how Libya will be governed.
Personally, I prefer to be more optimistic, not having any "Marxist"-type axe to grind and a wish to see it all go t1ts up.
Optimism is great, and I'm all for it, but it's useful if it's based on something. The evidence exists that it is "very likely" Libya under the new regime will not be a tolerant society.
Serious human rights violations, documented for some time by human rights organisations - without a "Marxist-type axe to grind", in areas controlled by the NTC does not bode well. Nor does the behaviour of the NTC itself which has repeatedly acted in a highly dubious manner, including the arrest of it's own military leader who was then murdered whilst in custody; the repeated lies and misinformation they have released; and the rescheduling of promised elections. And of course the actual composition of the NTC is also a cause of serious concern.
And btw, far from wanting wishing "to see it all go t1ts up", the complete reverse is true. The overwhelming evidence is that public opinion in the region is deeply hostile to Western hegemony. It is for this very reason that the Western powers have installed and propped up over many decades highly repressive regimes in the region. Allowed to freely choose their own governments, without interference, it is highly unlike that the people in the region will freely elect governments which will serve the best interests of Western multinational companies.
It is for this very reason that Western governments are extremely unlikely to allow the people in the region to freely choose their own governments without interference. And why they are now rushing to help themselves to Libya's vast wealth without even the Libyan people's consent - there is always the possibility that elections might eventually be held, and there's always the possibility that despite the best effort to do so, these elections might not be manipulated sufficiently to produce the desired result. So best fill yer boots before anyone asks the Libyan people if they mind.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/british-firms-libya-business ]British firms urged to 'pack suitcases' in rush for Libya business[/url]
I have far more idealogical commitment to democracy in the region than Western governments Woppit.
Obviously you don't. You proved that by claiming that the UN will decide how Libya will be governed.
It is interesting to note that, whilst you often complain that others misinterpret and misquote what you have written, you are quite prepared to engage in misquoting others, yourself.
Nowhere did I say that the U.N. will "decide" how Libya will be run.
The rest of your suppositions are just suppositions, although I take your points about the NTC. It is interesting that, despite their objectionable past behaviour, they are being portrayed as the "Mr Clean" option for the transitional phase.
I have no objection to "The West" trying to engineer the situation to it's advantage. Having a lot of oil and being able to sell it is good for Libya and potentially good for us. I am "intensely relaxed" with the idea that the nations who supported the revolution would get preferential status with regard to those sales and other investment opportunities. If it takes an engineered liberal capitalist democracy to do it, so much the better.
The argument for a government that supports Western interests, is stronger inside the North African debate than you seem to give it credit for, in my opinion, although of course there are other voices - nationalistic/Islamic/anti-capitalist and so forth.
I still prefer to remain optimistic at this stage, despite the evidently poor record of Western-created governments "longevity falures" in the past. Setting up a democracy which is open to influence could be a much better bet than setting up a "Monarchy" or a "Dictatorship" as has been the habit in the past.
'engineered liberal capitalist democracy' I feel sick.
It is interesting to note that, whilst you often complain that others misinterpret and misquote what you have written, you are quite prepared to engage in misquoting others, yourself.Nowhere did I say that the U.N. will "decide" how Libya will be run.
You want to read what you post, me ol fruit.
I suggested that it was wrong to [i]"automatically assume that the replacement for Gaddafi's 42 year rule will be a liberal democracy"[/i]. You responded to that with, amongst other points, [i]"The will at the U.N. to make it happen"[/i]. It is not the role of the UN to 'make happen' liberal democracy. None of the other countries in the Arab League are liberal democracies, despite being members of the UN.
Of course if you didn't mean what you said then that's another story, but I don't see the point of accusing me of 'engaging in misquoting' ....I actually copied and posted your whole sentence.
Yes, shame the world wags the way it does, isn't it. Still, the engineered thingummy is infinitely preferable to, say, an Islamic Monarchy such as Saudi Arabia, in my opinion (yes, yes, I know - we sell them arms and all that...) or an engineered Chile or the like.
One day I daresay we'll all join hands all over the world and everybody will love everybody else and it will all be celebrated in the song that you'd like to teach the world to sing, eh billy?
Until then, just keep taking the Gaviscon.
Fair enough, Ernesto.
Is your blood pumping Mr Woppit?
Every thread descends into some form of cloaked/backhanded insult when clearly we all know absolutely naff all about each other.
Maybe one day when this capitalist democracy way has been shown only to create greedy people and a 'them and us attitude' some country that's not living on it's past will come and impose their regime onto the UK.
Is your blood pumping Mr Woppit?
Apparently, I'm still concious.
Every thread descends into some form of cloaked/backhanded insult when clearly we all know absolutely naff all about each other.
Does it? Oo-er. Seems a bit silly. Didn't mean to come across as insulting - just attempting humour old boy. Must remember to use the emoticon - should have been 😉 or something. Sorry.
Maybe one day when this capitalist democracy way has been shown only to create greedy people and a 'them and us attitude' some country that's not living on it's past will come and impose their regime onto the UK.
Seems a bit of a long shot but, O.K. then.
It's an interesting debate though - whether or not to "interfere" in another country's affairs. The argument that one should just stand back and let others get on with their own affairs seems seductive and morally "right"but, isn't there an echo of Chamberlain's "Chekoslovakia is a small country a long way away and is nothing to do with us" in that approach?
remembers what a supercilious humourless male hen whoppit is and just walks away shaking his head.
.....isn't there an echo of Chamberlain's "Chekoslovakia is a small country a long way away and is nothing to do with us" in that approach?
😀 Yes the similarity between the situation today in North Africa/the Middle East, and Germany's lebensraum policy of the 1930s, is obvious !
Tell me if I've "misquoted you" Woppit ........ won't you ?
'bye Junkyard.
Not obvious to me, I'm afraid, except that the shadow of an Islamic Theocracy taking over sort of "echoes" the threat of a National Socialist government taking the stage nearby...
Tell me if I've "misquoted you" Woppit ........ won't you ?
No worries.
Given TJ's views on the legitimacy of the rebels I can't wait for the debate about independence for Jocklandia, when he realises that the legitimate government by his terms is the UK as a whole and that there would therefore be less than no chance of the jocks hsving their way other than us, "the legitimate authority" getting bored with their whining, which to be fair is not to big a leap of the imagination.
I don't remember ever having called for armed rebellion.
I don't remember ever having called for armed rebellion.
To be fair to TJ, this is true - he clearly calls for an Election of a Scottish president:
[img] 
[/img]
Credibility of the NTC isn't looking good - the statement by the commander of forces appears to be contradicted by the video evidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15412529
Unless I've missed something - which appears quite likely.
im guessing the problem will be that all those guns, rpgs, rocket launchers etc etc etc france/uk/italy/nato supplied to the rebels will stay in the hands of various militias the NTC will fragment into
at least the predator drones were operated from texas! and the sas will be coming home
According to your link aracer :
[i]Acting Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril told the BBC: "At the personal level I wish [Col Gaddafi] was alive. I want to know why he did this to the Libyan people."[/i]
You would have thought that Mr Jibril had a chance to ask Col Gaddafi those sort of questions during the period from 2007 until a few months ago, when he was Gaddafi's head of the National Economic Development Board.
There are only seven nations left in the world that are not borrowing from a Rothschild cartel bank: Iran, Syria, Algeria, North Korea, Sudan, Iceland, and Cuba. Those countries create their own money for their own people; and interest rates are low or zero. National banks that recently fell to the Rothschild cartel include: Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently, Libya (on day 4 of the recent invas...ion). http://www.wearechange.org/?p=9351 Libya, the untold story. A Debt Free nation ransacked! Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but MOST are convinced intervention in Libya is ALL about Gaddafi's PLAN TO INTRODUCE THE GOLD DINAR, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth AND THE END of the western world trying to controlling the middle east.. "It's one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you're going to change over from the dollar to something else, you're going to be targeted," says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. "There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen." Source: http://www.RT.com/ Titled: 'Saving the world economy from Gaddafi'See more
Length: ?3:31..
from mumsnet
TandemJeremy - Member
Of course Gaddaffi had the right to put down armed rebellion by force - he was the legitimate and recognised leader of the country.
It was only armed rebellion after Gaddafi made it that
It was protests and demonstrations similar to others in the region until he freed prisoners, armed them and paid them to attack the protesters
More than that Yunki, war on Libya saved the Italian, and therefore European, banking system from collapsing.
[url= http://news.sky.com/home/business/article/16055496 ]Libya Revolt Helped Stop Italy Bank Collapse[/url]
I think it is fairly conclusive that the countries which handed over prisoners to Col Gaddafi so that he could torture them (we're not allowed to do that sort of stuff) weren't bothered about the plight of people under Gaddafi.
[url= http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/09/06/libya-david-cameron-orders-inquiry-into-claims-mi6-handed-over-terror-suspects-to-gaddafi-86908-23399862/ ]Libya: David Cameron orders inquiry into claims MI6 handed over terror suspects to Gaddafi[/url]
[i]"The move comes after papers suggesting close ties between MI6, the CIA and the Gaddafi regime were found in Tripoli".[/i]
British involvement in Libya was never at any time to do with saving civilian lives. It was to bomb the crap out of the country with complete disregard to loss of civilian lives, so that economic control could be established over the country.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/british-firms-libya-business ]British firms urged to 'pack suitcases' in rush for Libya business[/url]
It amazes me how some people here (and even more so in the US) never believe a word their government tells them, except when it comes to foreign policy, then they believe absolutely everything they're told. What's that all about ?
I've got a friend (Scottish raised Muslim) who is a professor at the University of Oman, and I asked him for his take on Libya after Gadaffi was killed and this is what he said
My take on the Libya sitauation has been against NATO intervention and thats because there was an alternative solution.One which was given little or no attention. It was a solution that entailed giving more time to ascertain whether the "imminent" massacre that was being portrayed in the corporate media was, in fact, a true representation of facts on the ground.There was, at the time of the passing of the security council resolution, very little evidence to support the idea. Also given the nature of the evidence that had been presented to justify a war on Iraq, any evidence presented should have been given the scrutiny that it obviously didnt get. The resulting resolution which was explicitly passed to "protect civillians" in the context of "humanitarian intervention", quickly became the "imperialist intervention" that it was designed to be, protecting the financial interests of western powers, and ensuring them a slice of the financial cake once Ghaddafi was eliminated from the equation.
What was interesting was that a few nations including India and China did abstain from the SC resoltion on those grounds (very little media space was given to the reasons why). They argued that there was very little evidence to support the claims being made and that, even if there was, there were alternatives to full scale military aggression.
One simple alternative being simple diplomacy and an attempt at a peaceful resolution to the internall problems of Libya. Of course there is the question of the hypocrisy. Bahrain being a prime example, and operation cast lead in Gaza being another. Both examples did not warrant any resoltution from the SC. Both were seen as "diplomatic" problems to be resolved by the "powerful elites" that were creating the problems. The other solution was support for the rebel elements from outside Libya entailing countries like Egypt and Tunisia taking a role in logistically and millitarily supporting the rebels.
Of course all of this assumes that the rebels and the TRNC are not just another bunch of western corporatist hell bent on streamlining the Libyan economy for a full on capitalist and neo-liberal assault.
As to the question of oppressive regimes. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel and ****stan should be next on the list then??????
I dont think there is any real question of support for democracy here. Its a question of resources and capital. The facts simply dont support that idea that the western powers and their stooges in the middle east could really cope with true democracy in the Middle East.The democratic election of HAMAS in the West Bank and the role that America and Israel played in trying to undermine and ultimately capitualte HAMAS testifies to the fact. Democracy in the middle east is really equated with "stability" and for all intents and purposes that means compliancy to the American corporate agenda for the region. A ring of compliant states that protect American and western oil interests.
I can send you links to any of the above if you want any further info
Morning, joined in late on this one and have not read all the posts but having been in Libya working for two years until Feb and since then worked providing local security for media teams here i thought i deserved an input. This trip from the 11th Oct i have covered Sirte, we travelled daily from Misurata and watched the destruction of Sirte, on Thursday the rumour Gadaffi was caught meant we travelled to the local dressing station to catch up with him, he was already en route to Misurata but we saw the lad with the golden gun etc. On Friday morning i took a chance and took the team to the barracks where he is now, by luck we got in to see him with a bunch of rebels at 1100, only 10 of us, really surreal anyway the whole point of letting the folk see him dead is to let them know it is a definate, the guy has led the country on fear, that fear is now going but they had to see him because alive even in a jail he had power and money to cause problems, yesterday they put the other two on show and they are stinking now to be honest. I and the other guys think it is wrong to have kids rocking up but you have to remember this guy killed thousands of Libyans over the last 42 yrs and this change is unbelievable to normal Libyans.
This is my fourth trip here with the media, i saw Misurata in April getting bombarded, not nice when a mortar lands 20m away from you and kills an 11 year old boy in front of you, i watched Zintan get gradded, i saw Zawahia and Tripoli fall and all the time this was happening he could have stopped it.
His family lived in luxury, the homes of his family and close thugs are in total contrast to normal Libyans who did not receive good health care, education etc etc, even normal Libyans would attempt to get health care in Tunisia, his body has just had an autopsy and is back in the fridge so we see what happens today.
You have to wonder how many Gadaffit Lookalikes there were in Libya, and also if the guy in the military uniform who is taking over the show will be any better.
There are only seven nations left in the world that are not borrowing from a Rothschild cartel bank
So we need to "bring democracy" to the Rothschilds?
An interesting analysis by your mate BenHouldsworth. Although I'm surprised that he doesn't mention the African Union's proposals for a peaceful resolution to the Libyan conflict. The AU peace plan was accepted by the Libyan government but rejected out of hand by the Western Powers. It included the following proposals :
* An immediate ceasefire
* The unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid
* Protection of foreign nationals
* A dialogue between the government and rebels on a political settlement
* The suspension of Nato airstrikes
I think it is fairly conclusive that the Western Powers weren't too bothered about civilian casualties, seeing them as merely the victims of collateral damage in a war which they were determined to win.
Although as your friend points out, there are all sorts of assumptions being made concerning the composition of the rebels and their motivations which doesn't appear to be based on any hard evidence. The truth is no one knows the true nature of rebel movement and where it will lead Libya. And when I say no one, I mean no one on here, no one in any of the Western governments involved, and no one even in the rebel leadership itself.
It is a measure of the lack of understanding of the situation that led to the gross miscalculation by British intelligence which resulted in two MI6 officers and six SAS soldiers being arrested by rebel fighters and thrown out of Libya back in March.
But we do however know some hard facts concerning some of those involved in the rebel movement. We know that Al-Qaeda are involved in the movement. We know that the rebel commander in charge when Tripoli fell has a long history within Al-Qaeda. We know that Al-Qaeda has long seen oil rich and wealthy Libya as an irresistible and potentially attainable prize. We know that much of the NTC was, until very recently, staunch supporters of Col Gaddafi. We know that the top commander of the rebels was murdered by individuals within the rebel movement. We know that the NTC has no control over the rebels in Misrata who operate quite independently. We know that human rights organisations have evidence of serious human rights violations by the rebels - the NTC fully accepts that, claiming it is beyond their control.
Of course we could just simply put our faith in our Western governments getting it right. The same Western governments who got it so wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same Western governments who financed and armed Osama bin Laden and built his training camps - because it seemed a really good idea at the time. The same Western governments who supplied arms to Saddam Hussein at precisely the same time as he was gassing Kurds. The same Western governments who unwaveringly supported Islamic Theocracies in the Middle East. The same Western governments who are driven by blind greed and have been proved to be so clueless so many times.
I don't know whether Woppit would describe the Daily Mail as a newspaper with a "Marxist-type axe to grind" 😉 but by far one of the best articles I've read concerning the dangerous and unpredictable game the West is playing in Libya is in that paper - it's well worth a read :
[url= http://www.****/debate/article-2029026/Libya-Tripoli-falling-moment-Islamic-extremists-prayed-for.html ]Why this is the moment Libya's Islamic extremists have prayed for[/url]
And just for the record, I'm not predicting what will happen in Libya - I have no idea. It might well turn out to become a model liberal democracy at peace with itself, I simply don't have a crystal ball. I'm just baffled why some people are so convinced, with complete certainty, that a movement which is led by Gaddafi's former henchmen, is backed by Al-Qaeda in Libya, and has carried out human rights violations including looting and summary executions, will establish a liberal democracy. And why they dismiss any suggestion that it's quite likely that they might not.
So to all of you who think somehow a liberal democracy will be formed in
libya.
In his speech on Sunday in Benghazi, NTC leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil...................
Mr Abdul Jalil said the new Libya would take Islamic law as its foundation. Interest for bank loans would be capped, he said, and restrictions on the number of wives Libyan men could take would be lifted.
The bodies of 53 Gaddafi loyalists have been found at a hotel in the Libyan city of Sirte after apparently being executed, a human rights group says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15428360
Thank god the good guys won and put a stop to Gaddafi's evil murdering ways. It's a victory for democracy.
The bodies of 53 Gaddafi loyalists have been found at a hotel in the Libyan city of Sirte after apparently being executed, a human rights group says.Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the victims - some of whom had their hands bound - died about a week ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15428360
Do you think someone somewhere knows what they are doing, I sure hope so.
Oh yes the western allies know what they are doing - turn Libya into a weakened divided country reliant on aid and help from outside so they can pick off the oil assets cheaply
Do you think someone somewhere knows what they are doing, I sure hope so.
Not really. I don't think any western government involved in Libya knows who they have been supporting and what the outcome will be. No doubt the temptation to attempt to create an indebted client state in a oil rich country which had a strong debt free economy was simply too much for Western powers to resist.
Also involvement in Libya was an attempt by the West to grab some initiative in a region in which the situation was out of control and in which they were rapidly loosing vital influence. The Arab Spring was fundamentally a rebellion by the people against Western imposed, and propped up, repressive regimes. By taking the side of the rebellion in Libya, a country which they had failed to dominate, the West was hoping to be seen less as the villains, and more as supporters of freedom and democracy. The jury's out on whether the strategy will work, I have my doubts - the West has a history of screwing up when it comes to foreign policy.
Nor is the NTC anywhere like in full control of the situation, that has been obvious for a long time. Basically no one knows what they are doing - not the Western governments, not the NTC, not the rebels themselves. Generally in a situation like that after a successful revolution, a reign of terror ensues. Hopefully Libya will be spared that, but it's far from certain that it will be.
With reference to the execution of prisoners by the rebels, anyone who has followed events in Libya beyond the narrow confines of our media, will know that human rights violations by the rebels has been reported throughout the rebellion - execution of government supporters in Benghazi was reported soon after the rebels took control. The only thing that's changed is that the BBC, ITN, etc, are now apparently willing to report them.