just a thought

they spent three intense days in a conference to talk about democracy. but, frankly, it surprised me, that for somebody who came from a country who recently experienced a revolution did not make a connection between whether or not they need the revolution. or whether it was a fed revolution or a real one. did egypt really need a revolution? was their leader really corrupted? not only financially, but more important than money is ideology. was he? did libya or yemen or syria needs a revolution? or did some other country(ies) need sources to pay their invisible (or a non-admitted) debt. libya for sure was (and hopefully still is) the richest african country, thanks to muammar gadaffi. why would they need a revolution? the most ancient reason for war is economy. if there is nothing wrong in a country's economy, why would it need a revolution? were they forgot that iran and uganda was fed with the same pattern to make them start a revolution and it failed, because apparently, iran and uganda still have a firmer conviction and sovereignty over their countries. or in the believers words, god still protects them.

 

i think the world needs to wake up, that it is true that once some centuries ago european and northern american countries were the world's power source. but, this is a new century, where things are borderless, and everything should therefore inevitable to be equal. so, why not let asian and african countries to be the next best things? we were after all the ones with the more brains and muscles.

 

then i realistically go back to the reality, that the conference was paid by one of the european countries. let them say what they think they know. may god have mercy upon us all.

 

insha allah.