The Real Problem.


We’re only just 5 months into 2011, and, already, politically, a lot has happened; from the Middle Eastern uprisings to the death of the leader of the world’s deadliest terrorist group. The world has, as a result, become more politically aware, more dangerous and, most importantly, more at ease with pointing fingers at the so-called ‘wrong-doers’.

There is no doubt that, in most cases, those to be blamed are not completely guilt-free; however, it is also true that in most cases, the people these men are said to represent feel the brunt of the blame. It is they who come under fire and not their ‘glorious’ leaders.

Gaddafi, for instance. While the man maintained that the people ‘loved’ him and that the uprisings were purely terrorist-inspired acts; he was greatly responsible for the hardships faced by the Libyan people, which finally caused them to revolt. However, it is also his refusal to leave that lead the UN to create the No-Fly zone. Sure, the people wanted the support; sure they want Gaddaffi gone.  Do they really want to be another Iraq? Another Afghanistan? I doubt it. They want to be able to get on with their lives.

Then there’s Pakistan and Osama Bin Laden. Obama has suggested that the government or the military must have known. So, they must have. Is it reasonable for the people to be denied of potential aid? After all, the government officials are not the ones potentially suffering.  No. They just want to survive.

Take any political uprising this year; the most common denominator would be the unhappiness of the people. But, chances are, that out of those millions that marched through squares and towards governments, not all were persuaded by political freedoms. The majority of the people want to be able to survive. Their despot leaders prevented their survival on an everyday basis. Sure, they were being stifled politically, but those that care of political indecencies are usually those that are being fed, have a roof over their heads and can afford some form of education. It was these people that framed the rebellions;  but those barely surviving were the body, it was because of them that any marching happened. These statements are at best, generalisations, but they are representative of any nation of the world. The key aim of any body of people is survival, thus, most people are apathetic to the doings of their governing bodies. But when survival is a challenge, people begin to see the glass that cages them in.

Is it then fair, to attack the people? Is it then fair, that when a leader starts butchering his own people that it is still the people that die when the interventionist forces come? Is it then fair, that when the corrupt leaders are to blame, that the people starve? Is it then fair, that because of the actions of the few in power, millions are blamed?

In today’s world, priorities have been shuffled. Focus is on killing a few rather than helping the masses. The survival of the many is no longer our primary objective – something is quite obviously wrong.


Discussion5 Comments

  1. avatar

    It was all total rubbish. He did not die then.

    He either died before or is still alive.

    Why? No photos released; the headcams on the US soldiers mysteriously cut out for 20 minutes, during which time he was ‘killed’; sea burial done very quickly. It’s all Illuminati controlled.

    Didn’t believe a word of what the news said.

  2. avatar
    Batman's silly kangaroo

    So your argument states that the common denominator to revolution is unhappiness regardless of politics. People just want to survive. Does aid, which is always tied up in political motives, prop governments by letting people just survive? If we take away aid, populations will see the glass that cages them in and revolt. Right?

    • avatar
      Yusra Hussain

      The aid I meant was any that’s given at times of natural disasters etc, (I guess I should have made that more clear).
      If we take away every-day aid, people will probably still go on living as I very much doubt that the money from the aid trickles-down very far.

      I suppose my point would’ve been clearer with the example of sanctions. When sanctions are imposed, the people are more likely to revolt…

  3. avatar

    The biggest clue that these uprisings are being “framed” by a politically aware middle class is that they are using the internet’s social networking sites; Egypt is the most apparent example of this. However, how inclusive these movements are remains to be seen.

    When you point to Iraq as an example of what to expect, I think you should point to a pre-invasion Iraq, with sanctions, starvation, major sanitation problems, high infant mortality, etc. (Oh, it never did revolt).

    And with Obama’s speech to AIPAC yesterday, it is unlikely that until the US-Israel bond is seriously questioned any foreign agendas will be met with anything but well-placed scepticism.

Leave A Reply