I'd really love to answer that, but going into detail about the violence in the region is not something I discuss on forums. This requires a debate in person.

I find it funny that some users suggest the US was the only reason for Libya's uprising.

Seriously if Libyan's had it so good and such why would so many millions of them rise up in the first place? Now how could the US have caused these Libyan's to rise up on their own if Libyan's had it so well? What did the US brainwash all of them, hypnotise them , use mind control? The Libyan's who rose up did so of their own free will and in droves, infact I'm not even sure its in America's best interest to have spent months in a Nato conflict. Heck voters don't like word of billions of dollars being spent.

Also if the US directly manufactured the rebelion in Libya what about the ones in Egypt (Their ally) and Tunisia? If those weren't caused by America then how would the rebellion in Libya have gotten inspiration?

Its funny that right now their are multiple rebelions occuring accross the arab world, some US allies other enemies. But this one is the only one caused by the US.

Also the idea that Spec Op's of any Nato country were behind or instrumental in the capture of Tripoli is hilarious. Now you may believe that the American press is spinning things. But what about Al-Jazeera and all the arab news networks, does the US control the whole worlds media? Infact not even Gaddafi's own state TV reported Nato Spec Op's invading Tripoli. You'd think Gaddafi's own television network would report such an event if it occured.

Why did Tripoli fall to a ragtag army of rebels.

A- The military and many of the troops fighting for Gaddafi had divisions. Many did not agree with firing on civilians or the orders they were given. These divisions led to insabordination. But since Gaddafi had every defector shot and killed many just kept following orders. But the second the rebels arrive in thousands, will all those soldiers just following orders give their lives following orders they don't agree with?

B- Nato bombed the shit out of Tripoli for six months. Their were virtually no command structures left. No command and control centers left in Tripoli. So when rebels arrive by the thousands and their is no command structure or anybody giving orders. Only a few are going to stand up and start fighting blindly.

C-The city was surrounded. To the East West and South the rebels were moving in on Tripoli. Supplies were cut off and their was two options. Fight to the death, go down with the ship. Or surrender. Reports indicate the majority of Gaddafi's forces fled and melded in with the population. They knew that even if they fought they would loose eventually and many of them due to the divisions didn't want a blood bath.

D- Not fact, however Gaddafi already stated that the take over of Tripoli would result in a Guerilla war like Iraq. If Gaddafi's forces all fought to the death. Who would do this Guerilla war. I wouldn't be suprised if Gaddafi himself ordered some troops to meld in with the population so that they could attack later.

E- The tribes, very strong in Libya. But barely any tribes remained in support of Gaddafi. Most of his troops show loyalty to the tribes over him. So they would see their whole country against them. Would you stand up against your own tribe if you were Libyan?

Their are so many more reasons for the take over of Tripoli. Infact the major military base that was supposed to defend Tripoli was abandoned. So did the Spec Ops or Nato drive all those troops out? Or more logically did they abandon their positions and retreat? Also very little opposition was met in Tripoli. So did Nato's Spec ops kill 65,000 troops? Remember Gaddafi himself said he had 65,000 troops stationed in Tripoli to defend it, or were these 65,000 troops secretly loyal to the US and helped the Spec Op's clear the way for the rebels?

I'm one to always question what I am told. But seriously a conspiracy theory that the US had boots on the ground and the rebels never actually took Tripoli. Or that the troops Gaddafi had hired would abandon Tripoli due to the US brainwashing them or something.

No the US did not start the revolution. Did they assist it and cause it to succeed, maybe. But they didn't cause it and they didn't send troops into Tripoli. If they did they weren't instrumental in taking Tripoli their would have been only a few.

Do I believe everything the American media is saying? No. But what about all the arab media and European media and African media? I follow multiple media outlets and all seem to concur that Libya's Government fell at the hands of the Libyan people. Not American Spec Op's!

^ You're correct, the spec ops thing is all a silly conspiracy theory. Aside from what you mentioned, one of the biggest reasons the outskirts of Tripoli were breached was because the forces that were tasked with defending it were secretly aligned with the rebels all along, so when they finally reached Tripoli, the gates were opened.

Also, a Libyan higher up came on an interview with Aljazeera. They were talking about Gaddafi's relations with the West and how his rule benefited them in some ways more so than it did the Libyans.

It's said he escaped.

But we'll see what truly happened. The way these captures unfolded is weird.

Not defending Iran but they are very anti-Gadaffi and have been for a while now. They did support the uprising but not the the NATO intervention.

It's all more than likely just another silly conspiracy theory. Aljazeera reports that the people tasked with defending the outskirts of Tripoli were secretly aligned with the rebels, so when the rebels arrived, they opened the way for them.

However, just to let you know why I said your first comment was fallacious:

- You said there's flags of the countries involved in the intervention being waved: The overwhelming majority of the flags are just the NTC's flag. But yeah some of the flags being waved are from NATO countries.

- About it turning into another Egypt. All the chaos that you're seeing in Egypt, including the persecution of the Coptics throughout all these years, is really the dirty work/manipulation of the old regime (mainly). When Mubarak was still in power, he was trying to use this as a mind game to the people as if he's man that holds the country together and that there's no alternative. He uses Islamists as the scapegoat for the country's chaos.

A defected commander from Gaddafi's army said Muammar had a similar plan in which he'd plant bombs on several embassies (and the commander's group captured these parcels too to prove it), destroy them, and blame Islamists (al Qaeda namely) so as to find an excuse to have the international pressures on him to leave reduced.

Mohammed Gaddafi's interview. When the shots rang out and he was talking about shots inside his house. The first thing that entered my mind was "Rescue mission". Now reports he is free from house arrest lead me to believe Gaddafi's troops were the ones firing in his house. I wonder how many rebels got killed trying to keep Mohammed Gaddafi in custody.

Word that Saif al-Islam is also not in custody makes me believe it was an error made by rebels. Not some conspiracy by western media.

But the rest of Tripoli will fall sooner or later. Even with the Government controlling parts of the city I doubt Gaddafi will hold on much longer. Infact I bet he's coming up with an escape plan as we speak. Get the remainder of the troops loyal to him to get him and his sons out of the country.

Also the part about the commander supposed to defend Tripoli secretly being with the rebels this whole time. While it might sound like a conspiracy it is porbably true. I mean alot of the military under Gaddafi were their out of nescessity. Given the chance the majority of them would surrender or leave his side by defecting!

You know that libyan population is only about 6 millions, right? Don't make those silly mistakes, if there were even half a million who rebelled, we wouldn't have been in need for the intervention in the first place. And the campaign wouldn't have lasted for 6 months.

I didn't see this edit. To an extent, I agree.