I am in no way suggesting that terrorism is not a legitimate and life threatening problem. In fact, it has continued to increase. For example there were over 3,000 more attacks in 2006 than in 2005. Which supposedly we are "fighting" to stop.
In addition I heard an alarming stat recently over the radio. The USA is spending 40 cents of every tax $1 for the Afghanistan and Iraq attack on terror. Now I am not posting this to say whether that is good, bad or indifferent.
Therefore it is safe to conclude that fighting terrorism is considered a priority. It is explained this fight is for saving lives. Which no one would argue isn't important. But this raises questions.
Saving lives is certainly of utmost value. But if that is really the motive behind this, isn't there an even bigger danger looming over us that we are not fighting with the same determination?
How do we explain this - In 2006 alone there were 14,338 Terrorist attacks Worldwide. This led to the death of 20,000 people. Over 50% percent of these deaths were Muslim people, most of which occurred in the Middle East.
Now consider this - In that same year 15,000,000 children died of hunger! 1 out of every 8 children IN THE USA go to bed every night hungry!
In fact every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger! 1 child dies every 5 seconds from hunger!
Where as every 40 minutes someone is killed by a terrorist!
12,000,000 people in the United States alone are starving. 2,000,000 of them are homeless just in the USA!
Feeding people though does not turn the same profit that war does. Feeding people is more of charitable effort. Plus there are not as many investors and trustees in the food corporation.
So you tell me what is the truth? What poses more of a threat to human lives?
Fact is it is easier to convince people that the terrorists are coming. How do you quantify it? If we sunk a fraction of what we spend on war and stopped starvation you could see the end of that. No homeless people, no commercials with hungry kids. The fact is there is no profit in peace.
No question there are people profiting by oppressing and actually starving people. But the money you get from that is peanuts compared to the money in military goods. For the price of 1 missile a school of hungry children could eat lunch everyday for 5 years! In fact it is estimated that for $13 billion adequate sanitation and food requirements could be met. Oh by the way the US and Europe spend more than that on perfume each year.
So the next time you hear someone tell you that the world is a better place for the war on terror ask yourself is that what this is really all about?
Also consider also that the United States who is leading the charge against terror has 13% of its population in poverty. Who is fighting to save these people?
