imo we'll never get a clear image of libya.
has anyone read al jazeera's english articles on it? they're all terribly biased in support of the rebels.
Libya is one of the last countries i expected to undergo this kind of instability, as the oil wealth is very well spread. even tiny gulf states like the UAE and bahrain only have well-invested into capital cities, outside of which are villages without even plumbing. this is due to the fact that libya has a very centralised economy. i doubt that people in such a wealthy and decent (relatively; libya is the most developed african country according to UN's HDI, and also surpasses several european nations on this scale) country are so hard for democracy that they're willing to die in a civil war.
libya is a country of less than 10 million, encompassing a large segment of the sahara desert, and they don't export nearly as much oil, per capita, as the gulf states. yet there are several large cities and everyone has basic necessities.
what many don't think about is that muammar never tore apart the tribal factions when he came to power, as socialist leaders always do. because libya's borders are 100% artificial (as in, drawn by europeans), many people with large followings were left within one country, and so the sole leader of libya had to have the support of some of these people to be in that position.
i think that the riots could have been instigated by an unhappy few of these people, who decided that their loyalty to qaddafi was no longer profitable. if this were true, they would most likely would have had help from outside sources who would also benefit from his deposition (US, UK).