It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Niger is dying, and the world is merely watching" This dramatic message was heard all over the world in July 2005. News media all over the world reported the famine in the worlds poorest country. Why would anyone doubt it when the UN, the BBC and the big relief organisations reported of a famine in Niger, and that millions needed immediate relief? But what if this wasn't a famine? What if it was not free food that was the right medicine for the crisis in Niger?
Originally posted by LiquidLight
Excellent post. One more reason for faking a crisis in the media is to divert attention from a genuine matter. Was there anything going on in 2005 that may have been overlooked because of this?
Originally posted by star in a jar
Fantastic post, I agree that it would be impossible for 25% of a population to be in a chronic stage of starvation and still maintain the cohesion of their society.
Aside from the points you made with your post, I think the reason why the UN is giving out food handouts to a country who doesn't really need it is to make the populace more fragile in a SHTF event because, they, despite being poor, are much more likely to be able to survive on their own because they usually have to grow their own food.
The UN wants to make sure 'their subjects' have increased reliance on governments so the UN will be able to control the populace more easily.
Most of us in the wealthier worlds don't grow our own food on a significant scale. If the food suddenly stops coming for us, a lot of us will be gone.
One day, the food might suddenly stop coming for these people, and it will be too late for them... They will have abandoned their gardens a long time ago and will not be able to grow well enough again for perhaps years.
Not only is it about money, it's about control too, IMO.