Rebels were supported covertly before they were supported openly.
If west gets cold feet after rebellion is underway, and doesn't send rebels promised support, its ends a lot like Bay of Pigs incident.
If west never supports them, not even covertly at first, rebellion doesn't go anywhere at all in the first place.
Do you have any evidence of this support? As frankly comparing it to the bay of pigs ignores for starters that they were originally protesters against his regime and were normal Libyan citizens as opposed to the exiles seen in the bay of pigs.
Now there's some hyperbole. If Gaddafi wins, there'd be an initial bloodletting as he goes after a lot of the people who fought against him, but it would hardly be anything on that scale.
Whether that will cost more then toppling him ultimately would... actually remains to be seen. Things in Libya are still horribly unstable, with lots of angry militias at odds with each other flirting with the idea of Civil War. There's been semi-frequent exchanges of gunfire and even a few suicide bombings in Tripoli, with ISIS guerrillas raising their ugly heads. It remains to be seen whether it will stabilize or descend into a Syrian-esque bloodbath.
He threatened to destroy Benghazi and given how he has bombed civilian airliners I don't think any threat by him should have been taken lightly espailly given the 1996 prison massacre
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/12/libya-benghazi-gaddafi-revolution
https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/03/17/libya-benghazi-civilians-face-grave-risk
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/09/20119223521462487.html
Also looking at how many have died during the separate periods of fighting
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...eign-policy-plans.390691/page-3#post-12534099
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/08/libyan-revolution-casualties-lower-expected-government
http://www.libyabodycount.org/table
I think its fair to say the fighting from 2014 isn't as deadly as the 2011 civil war which to me looks like an indication that Gaddafi did indeed increase the body count.
Prove that, please. Prove that as evidenced by his previous decades of rule and previous decades of fighting the same rebels in that same territory. Prove it by producing the body counts. The man, Khadaffi, was great at making threats and grand pronouncements. But the reality? Not so much. Oh, he was a tyrant alright. And his regime was brutal, at times. But after American tanks were live on TV roaming at will through the streets of Baghdad, Khadaffi suddenly saw the error of his ways and fell all over himself to be on the "right side" of history.
Would he have put down that rebellion with "all due prejudice?" You bet. A "bloodbath?" Not likely. Neither he nor his regime was known for being so bloody minded about how it ran. He had decades, literally, of dealing with rebels in that region and yet he never once razed it nor slaughtered all who stood against his rule. This, when he had plenty of previous opportunities.
There's nothing in Khadaffi's decades of actual rule and actual fighting against those same rebels to give support to your contention that his response to their latest rebellion would'be been any different or any more lethal than his decades worth of previous responses.
So Lockerbie bombing doesn't mean anything then? Also considering how more than 1000 people were massacred in the 1990's I think its fair to state a blood bath would be indeed likely http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/09/20119223521462487.html
Libyan human rights groups outside the country say up to 1,200 inmates were killed, out of a population of roughly 1,700. Only a few witnesses have come forward; one spoke to Human Rights Watch in 2004 and 2006. But the Libyan government has never given a detailed account.
And further looking at the inflation above on how many have died from the 2014 fighting vs the overthrow of Gaddafi I think its reasonable to conclude Gaddafi was creating a blood bath.