Britain's government recently complied a list of "significant terrorist attacks" that it believes are associated with al-Qaida or groups affiliated with Osama bin Laden. This of course surfaced days after London was attacked with bombs set off during the morning rush hour killing at least 52. For days our televisions and newspapers were filled with pictures of the devastating scenes.

These images are nothing new, just as they haven't been for years, since the September 11 attacks in the United States. And since 2001 there have been many terrorist attacks all over the world. Many such attacks took place in Third World countries. Have they had as much air time as the First World stories?

While the Third World terrorist attacks are reported they tend to land on back pages of the newspaper and late in the newscast on television. The argument is used that Third World countries aren't "in my backyard" so there is no need to worry about them. But London isn't in our backyard. We may have affiliations with England but because of that is it reason to be more devastated with what happened in London than a place like Indonesia, where nine people were killed and 100 injured by a car bomb in September 2004? Or nearly a month later in Egypt where explosions killed more than 30 people? The number of victims in the First World attacks may be what is prompting them to get more coverage than that of attacks that happen in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kenya or Pakistan. Is it the number of victims that makes a terrorist attack worse than another? One life lost should be considered devastation.

Perhaps the difference is that because these countries are attacked on a regular basis it is no longer considered news. In Britain's list of "significant terrorist attacks", Egypt appears five times since 1993.

Pakistan makes the list seven times -- five of those instances being in one year. And Saudi Arabia appears at least eight times.

Many of us in Canada feel the need to change the channel right away or turn the page fast when we see attacks in the Middle East. Those countries are in greater turmoil and civil unrest than we are. But because it isn't happening to us, we don't care about it, right? Although, it is happening to us. Many Canadians have family members overseas and many Canadians lose loved ones in these attacks. Why aren't their pictures in the paper with the stories of how these people feel about losing a loved one in Uzbekistan, Yemen or Tanzania?

Maybe the titles of "first" and "third" are what make Canadians and Americans feel that we do come first in the face of destruction, despair and devastation in the world. But there is a reason we have the term "world peace", because we are all affected by terrorism whether it happens in this country or halfway around the world. Any attack is an attack on us no matter where we live.

That's my point. What's yours? Tell me at SpeakFree.