this is why I was hesitant to list more examples, because I knew I might get a five-seconds-on-google shotgun response like this and then I would have to write an arduous reply with a lot more effort than you put in, and in the time it takes me to write that reply people see a few paragraphs with links and assume you wrote a slam dunk.

fuck it, I'm posting this now and then editing in more stuff as I go

for starters, your scary-looking "misinformation circulation online" link is talking about death figures due to the bombing. That's not the fucking point, the point is the removal of Qaddafi and the ensuing power vacuum and political breakdown in Libya. You get there in your next sentence, where you act like you're correcting me (and misspell Libya), but then take all the blame off NATO with a vague wave of the hand. Who do you think overthrew Qaddafi? Who armed and supported the rebels? Who bombed his fucking motorcade?

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna44234613

Through months of military stalemate in Libya it was an open secret among NATO allies that countries inside and outside the alliance were quietly but crucially helping rebels gain their footing against the much stronger forces loyal to longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Covert forces, private contractors and U.S. intelligence assets were thrown into the fight in an undercover campaign operating separately from the NATO command structure. Targeted bombings methodically took out Gadhafi's key communications facilities and weapons caches. And an increasing number of American hunter-killer drones provided round-the-clock surveillance as the rebels advanced.

These largely unseen hands helped to transform the ragtag rebel army into the force storming Tripoli.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/covert-teams-from-nato-members-provided-critical-assistance-to-libyan-rebels/

(warning, Atlantic Council link)

As the battle in Libya appeared at stalemate, it was an open secret that foreign military advisers were working covertly inside the country providing guidance to rebels and giving tactical intelligence to NATO aircraft bombing government forces. [...] The assistance included logisticians, security advisers and forward air controllers for the rebel army, as well as intelligence operatives, damage assessment analysts and other experts, according to a diplomat based at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue. [...] Foreign military advisers on the ground provided key real-time intelligence to the rebels, enabling them to maximize their limited firepower against the enemy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/france-sent-arms-to-libyan-rebels/2011/06/29/AGcBxkqH_story.html

French officials announced Wednesday that they had armed rebels in Libya, marking the first time a NATO country has said it was providing direct military aid to opponents of the government in a conflict that has lasted longer than many policymakers expected.

Surprise, it was the fine countries of NATO!

I wonder what sort of motives NATO countries had to intervene in Libya?

https://www.foia.state.gov/Search/results.aspx?searchText=C05779612&beginDate=&endDate=&publishedBeginDate=&publishedEndDate=&caseNumber=

According to these individuals Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:

a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

b. Increase French influence in North Africa,

c. Improve his internal political situation in France,

d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa)

Shit, it was oil and imperialism!

And what about the public reasons for the intervention?

https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

Article title: U.K. Parliament report details how NATO's 2011 war in Libya was based on lies

subtitle: British investigation: Gaddafi was not going to massacre civilians; Western bombing made Islamist extremism worse

[...]

The Libya inquiry, which was launched in July 2015, is based on more than a year of research and interviews with politicians, academics, journalists and more. The report, which was released on Sept. 14, reveals the following:

• Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians. This myth was exaggerated by rebels and Western governments, which based their intervention on little intelligence.
• The threat of Islamist extremists, which had a large influence in the uprising, was ignored — and the NATO bombing made this threat even worse, giving ISIS a base in North Africa.
• France, which initiated the military intervention, was motivated by economic and political interests, not humanitarian ones.
• The uprising — which was violent, not peaceful — would likely not have been successful were it not for foreign military intervention and aid. Foreign media outlets, particularly Qatar's Al Jazeera and Saudi Arabia's Al Arabiya, also spread unsubstantiated rumors about Qaddafi and the Libyan government.
• The NATO bombing plunged Libya into a humanitarian disaster, killing thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands more, transforming Libya from the African country with the highest standard of living into a war-torn failed state.

Well shit, this all sounds a lot like Iraq. Why do we keep falling for the same bullshit over and over and over again?