'haha nice

God im stiff!

I see where TXB is coming from,, just about every third woman online has a second photo which is a link to another web site for sex photos and some even have two different profiles with the same photo.
But has Soufie has written, write with your head (on your shoulders that is) and you will find one to reciprocate with.

Be yourself, meet somewhere neutral and dont put pressure on the other person, Ive met two as friends on numerous occasions at coffee shops.
a lot can be learned by reading there profile, so many woman online here are now seeking ""favours" so it can be frustrating sorting the wheat from the chaff.'
Another consideration...is your photo nice?

I posted the original message and now it's occurred to me how far of tangent so opinions go.
Some people are incapable of sticking to the original question, for instance if i quote 10% more fatalities in 2014 from Boko Harem compared to Isis, that does not translate to 10% more publicity in my logic.
All terrorists activities irrespective of size or location should be publicized to raise awareness of what is really going on. Isis grew out of Syria and the West did nothing for the best part of 4 years ...why not?
Israel v Palestine ...since I was born.
Afghanistan.....same.
Unless those that have the resource get real with there rhetoric and shut these wars away once and for all they will never cease.
So why don't they?
Because there is a thriving industry in defence .... no war, no income.
So once again as I said in my opening piece, media pick and choose what they want based on there interests.

Please read my original post again. I do know what I'm referring too, and once again the question was not about foreign aid/ak47,s/ white men in africa/vuvuzelas or ebola. It was about the balance of publicity afforded to different acts of terrorism in different parts of the world.
I have seen two reasoned responses, I thank you and I agree with your opinions.
The rest are not worthy of comment.

Interesting feedback and somewhat predictable from certain quarters but In essence to some opinion I feel the following needs to be addressed. In 2014 isis killed approx 6000 " victims". Boko harem for the same period killed 6600, a 10% higher mortality rate. ( source: international terror watch)
I, like a few others online are well read and listen not only to western news feeds such as BBC and CNN but also to alternates such as AL Jazeera and RT as well as independent press.
The question wasn't relating to troops on the ground and Ak47s ..(.where were they in Rawanda? ) it was referring to the observation that attacks in western white countries generate more air time than prolonged wars in distant or third world countries.
Media and commercial interests will always prevail, wether we like it or not, until there is a shift in human values.

Did you mean Mali?
True, reactionary forces do move in, but the coverage through the media is dramatically less.
Another example was rawanda with the tribal war that killed thousands

Why is it that isis can hog the headlines of the world media especially in light of the Paris attacks yet boco harem in central Africa recieve paltry coverage at best for there terror, yet have killed more???
Answer: because the white populace of the western world care little about there fellow man, uncomfortable to the deniers but the truth? I think so.