NationStates Jolt Archive

So I was thinking, back some years ago, Al-Queda told the world that 8 countries specifically would be attacked, I don't remember them all, however I do know that Canada was on the list, and I think we are actually the last one left on the list to go, so my question is do you think that Canada will fal victim to a terorirst attack any time soon?

Canada foiled one didn't it?

No one cares enough about Canada to attack it.

It may be inevitable. The question is ... how will we react?

It may be inevitable. The question is ... how will we react?

I think after so many bombings everywhere around the world, we've become a little numb to it, not to say it wont affect us, but depends on the size, target, etc.

Nah, not happening.

I don't doubt that there will be further attempts at some sort of terrorist activity. However, if the latest foiled attempt is any indication, Canada has a large muslim community that doesn't want anything to happen in Canada. The man who turned in the Toronto group was a radical in his own way, but loves his adopted country.

It would be naive to rule out the possiblity, but I don't believe we would rank high on the list of priorities.

Canada foiled one didn't it?

Yes indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Toronto_terrorism_case

Whoever originally coined the phrase "the people have long memories" certainly wasn't talking about NSG.

(That's not to imply that there's been a sucessful al Qaida attack in Canada, just that Canada is being targeted.)

Of course there have been a fair handful of terrorist attacks in Canada by other groups, both domestic and foreign. Lets see... there were the Front de Libération du Québec, several attacks against the Cuban consulate in the late 60s and 70s, some Sikh-India attacks, some Armenian-Turkish incidents, a few of Croat-Serb incidents, and the Squamish Five.

Nah, dude ... everyone love Canada!

If there were a terrorist attack on Canada - note this for the record all you Bush-dick-sucking-conservatives :

If there were a terrorist attack on Canada, I'd buy some arms and find the son of a bitches myself. I'd go total commando on all your asses.

Seriously. You want this liberal hippie peace-nik to go off? Attack Canada.

Canada isn't dense enough to attack... and don't start babbling about Toronto or any other big cities, because we all know that Canada consists entirely of four drunken lumberjacks in a cabin somewhere.

Canada isn't dense enough to attack... and don't start babbling about Toronto or any other big cities, because we all know that Canada consists entirely of four drunken lumberjacks in a cabin somewhere.

Plus two stoner hippies out in BC, a mountie, and two guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_and_Doug_McKenzie) at Kanadian Korners watching hockey, wearing tuques, and saying stuff like "Great white north, eh? You hoser!"

Plus two stoner hippies out in BC, a mountie, and two guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_and_Doug_McKenzie) at Kanadian Korners

Dude ... ya'll would have already totally found Osama.

A lot of the answers in here sound just like what anybody in the U.S. would have said on Nov. 10, 2001.

Canada's definitely on the list, don't know if it's next though.

You need to be careful when you talk about Bin Laden's or Zawahiri's statements though. They aren't really a list as such.

It's randoms in our countries who don't necessarily have any connection with established groups other than internet contact. They then go to the various relevant websites and get the freely downloadable training manuals AQ has published by now (originally they were kept very secret, but after the Afghanistan war some dude in Pakistan put them on the web for everyone to train by themselves) - and then they do what they can, when they can.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432133,00.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050331091340/http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

So if Canada is next, it'll be by coincidence. It might as well be Britain again.

I predict that the skydome will be hit by an airplane next time the bluejays are in the world series. So Canada is relatively safe for some time to come.

I predict that the skydome will be hit by an airplane next time the bluejays are in the world series. So Canada is relatively safe for some time to come.

No, I don't think it will be airplanes. Everybody's watching for airplanes.

My guess, is with the great number of middle-eastern immigrants who work in the transportation industry, that you would be far more likely to see a Timothy McVeigh style explosion. The trick would be getting ahold of something with significant explosive force. None of the places in Canada likely to be targeted by such an attack would be highly gaurded (with the possible exception of nuclear plants).

(But you're on the money on the bluejays thing.)

To those who don't think Canada is truly a potential target because it has nothing of importance....think again. Not only is Canada the U.S largest trading partner, but it has relatively large oil reserves and refining areas, such as the area just a minute or so to my south.

Third paragraph, although relatively wrong about how/why the nickname is used, its still used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambton_County%2C_Ontario

A terrorist attack on those barely guarded (rent-a-cops) refineries would have relatively disasterous repercussions economically and environmentally for both the U.S and Canada.

Then you have the oil sources in Alberta, the Rig off the Atlantic coast, the blue water and/or ambassador bridges (the former are also in the Sarnia-Lambton area) which is home to 50% of Canada-U.S trade.

The Skydome wouldn't be a very good target if you're looking to kill people as so few actually show up to games...even if they win. You're best bet would be a NASCAR race or something.

No one cares enough about Canada to attack it.
And it is attitudes like that that have managed to alienate virtually every country in the Western world from your "war on terror".

Due to the fact that the Government of Canada is more tactful than the United States Government, from what I've seen (at least before the new Conservative government took over), they're not likely to be attacked.

After all, they are usually not aggressive and tend not to intervene in foreign states' domestic affairs.

To know what country is gonna be bomb next we must think like a pyschotic nutcase muslim extreamist bent on wiping America and all other "muslim hating nations" off the map...

So......we have

Britian
America
France
Spain

on my top 4 list

And it is attitudes like that that have managed to alienate virtually every country in the Western world from your "war on terror".

So Canada is worthy of a terrorist attack? :)

Al Qaida is currently working on a substance that can defoliate maple trees, and maple trees alone. Once they've got it right, they will hire 1,000 crop dusters to spray it all over Canada.
All those fallen maple leaves, that'll be a huge dent in Canada's national identity!

But rest assured for a while, sources in Al Qaida say that the plan can't be put into action before december.

Yes indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Toronto_terrorism_case

Whoever originally coined the phrase "the people have long memories" certainly wasn't talking about NSG.

(That's not to imply that there's been a sucessful al Qaida attack in Canada, just that Canada is being targeted.)

Of course there have been a fair handful of terrorist attacks in Canada by other groups, both domestic and foreign. Lets see... there were the Front de Libération du Québec, several attacks against the Cuban consulate in the late 60s and 70s, some Sikh-India attacks, some Armenian-Turkish incidents, a few of Croat-Serb incidents, and the Squamish Five.

Don't forget the recent firebombings of Jewish Schools. That's terrorism, too.

Plus two stoner hippies out in BC, a mountie, and two guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_and_Doug_McKenzie) at Kanadian Korners watching hockey, wearing tuques, and saying stuff like "Great white north, eh? You hoser!"

Don't forget French Canada... we must have a mime, and someone to make the poutine (that's french fries with cheese curds melted by gravy).

Due to the fact that the Government of Canada is more tactful than the United States Government, from what I've seen (at least before the new Conservative government took over), they're not likely to be attacked.

After all, they are usually not aggressive and tend not to intervene in foreign states' domestic affairs.

Wow do you have that wrong. Our LIBERAL Prime Ministers were the ones who sent condolence letters to governments in the days BEFORE their leader died... who failed to attend a foreign state funeral because he was on a ski vacation, and couldn't be bothered to send anyone else, either.

Oh yeah, and it was the Canadian Liberals who promoted the elitist 'holier-then-thou' attitude that many Canadiens have, while looking down their noses at Americans.

12 years of a Liberal Government meant 12 years of conflicts with out trading partners (primarily the U.S., but not exclusively) over matters that have now been SOLVED or are progressing towards resolution within 8 MONTHS of a Conservative government.

No sir, for tactlessness, idiocy, inefficiency, and just plain ego, you speak to a Canadian Liberal.
Harper has managed to IMPROVE our relations with our allies, not harm them.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and if you think tacktfullness is going to protect anyone from an irrational and insane hatred caused, in this case, by the perversion of a religion, you are not thinking clearly. In fact, you are LIEING to yourslef. Fundamentalists don't hate because they were mistreated or spoken to badly, they hate because they believe in a perverted idea of G_d... they would just as soon kill people like Mother Theresa or Carroll Spinney (Big Bird) as they would anyone else.

Al Qaida is currently working on a substance that can defoliate maple trees, and maple trees alone. Once they've got it right, they will hire 1,000 crop dusters to spray it all over Canada.
All those fallen maple leaves, that'll be a huge dent in Canada's national identity!

But rest assured for a while, sources in Al Qaida say that the plan can't be put into action before december.

You'd have been better off saying next month... by December 1st, we're probably going to have several feet of snow... you can't tell if there are leaves on the trees or not.

Wow do you have that wrong. Our LIBERAL Prime Ministers were the ones who sent condolence letters to governments in the days BEFORE their leader died... who failed to attend a foreign state funeral because he was on a ski vacation, and couldn't be bothered to send anyone else, either.

Oh yeah, and it was the Canadian Liberals who promoted the elitist 'holier-then-thou' attitude that many Canadiens have, while looking down their noses at Americans.

12 years of a Liberal Government meant 12 years of conflicts with out trading partners (primarily the U.S., but not exclusively) over matters that have now been SOLVED or are progressing towards resolution within 8 MONTHS of a Conservative government.

No sir, for tactlessness, idiocy, inefficiency, and just plain ego, you speak to a Canadian Liberal.
Harper has managed to IMPROVE our relations with our allies, not harm them.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and if you think tacktfullness is going to protect anyone from an irrational and insane hatred caused, in this case, by the perversion of a religion, you are not thinking clearly. In fact, you are LIEING to yourslef. Fundamentalists don't hate because they were mistreated or spoken to badly, they hate because they believe in a perverted idea of G_d... they would just as soon kill people like Mother Theresa or Carroll Spinney (Big Bird) as they would anyone else.
Then perhaps you have been on the wrong political ideology for quite a long time already, and have had a change of heart while on the Liberal Party and simply never realized it. Or are you actually Conservative yourself?

And as for the point on irrational hatred - well, I will agree with you that it is irrational to slaughter innocent civilians simply because they were American and likely had absolutely nil to do with the Soviet War (the fundamentalists got pissed because America dumped them away when the USSR collapsed, the CIA assisted them with anti-aircraft rocket launchers against Hinds and trained them). But the thing is, my good man, there is something called realpolitik.

Virtually any country has it as an influence with regards to government. They act not out of sheer benevolence, but to ones interest, to paraphrase Adam Smith. The United States is still limping from relations with Pakistan because the Pakistani Government and people saw them as ditching them when they had no longer any strategic use for them at the time. Great Britain also has had used mercenaries and intelligence and regime change. If Canada were to become a superpower and succeed the USA in terms of international relations, there would be little to no difference. Hell, if the USA collapsed and the USSR became the sole undisputed power, there would be little difference except for terms of ideology. It simply would also be executing similar methods behind the public eye to carry out its goals of realpolitik.

And how does being tough on terrorism, have anything to do with Iraq? Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and even Saddam Hussein despised him because the ex-dictator was a staunch secularist. Hell, during the first Gulf War, when he declared Jihad, not many Arabic nations listened to him because he was a staunch secularist and oppressed the more popular subdivisions of Islam religion in Iraq.

Harper has no sense of tactfulness, and is being a blind and belligerent if he were to think that the conflict could have been stopped in Israel and Lebanon if Hezbollah pandered over and sent over the prisoners. Face it Harper, both sides are too entrenched in a vicious animousity toward one another, and while Israel had the right to self defense alright, it massacred a lot of civilians in the process due to faulty intelligence (for example one civilian was killed just when he got into his car and got bombed by an Israeli air-strike, thanks to faulty intelligence when the IDF pulled out of Israel, including the majority of its spies...the man was thought to be one of the upper echelons in Hezbollah). That, cannot be excused. And it makes the conflict worse.

True, Canada could easily become more influential in international affairs, but running around in blind support of an adminstration who is very much frowned upon by various members of the global community is not the way to do so. Harper should take his own stance and act more like a leader, not drag on somebody else's tailcoats, and learn how to beat around the bush.

I don't doubt that there will be further attempts at some sort of terrorist activity. However, if the latest foiled attempt is any indication, Canada has a large muslim community that doesn't want anything to happen in Canada. The man who turned in the Toronto group was a radical in his own way, but loves his adopted country.

It would be naive to rule out the possiblity, but I don't believe we would rank high on the list of priorities.
Perhaps the more aggressively we pursue Afghanistan, the larger the X on our backs?

Perhaps the more aggressively we pursue Afghanistan, the larger the X on our backs?

Yeah, you guys should be really careful of Afghanis with fluroescent paint hiding under the bed :D

EDIT: Unless you're CanuckHeaven, where you should be more careful of USAlpenstock with fluroescent paint hiding under the bed.

Canada isn't dense enough to attack... and don't start babbling about Toronto or any other big cities, because we all know that Canada consists entirely of four drunken lumberjacks in a cabin somewhere.
Besides... the terrorists HAVE to like Canada, we let then come here for practically nothing!

Nah, dude ... everyone love Canada!

Seriously. You want this liberal hippie peace-nik to go off? Attack Canada.

Just as an observation what is it you did when the US was attacked?

Seriously. You want this liberal hippie peace-nik to go off? Attack Canada.
Do you live in or near Canada?

Perhaps the more aggressively we pursue Afghanistan, the larger the X on our backs?

The words of Mubin Shaikh, the man who turned in the 17 Toronto terror suspects;

"They put to me the prospect of working with them (CSIS), giving information on certain people, certain groups, getting close to leaders of certain groups, talking to them, seeing what kind of views they had and reporting on those views," he said.

Shaikh said he was ideal for job of informant because he was born and raised in Canada, but also has a solid foundation in Islam.

"Toronto's home, so I understand what concerns they have, but at the same time as a Muslim, I understand what concerns Muslims have. So I felt that I could be a link between the two sides," he said.

Shaikh said he consulted Muslim religious leaders before joining the CSIS investigation as a paid informant and they gave him their blessing.

In October 2005, Shaikh was instructed to infiltrate a group of young Muslims that CSIS had been tracking. He went to a meeting in a Toronto banquet hall, where he was approached by one of the men, who asked him about his commitment to jihad.

"I told him exactly what he wanted to hear," he said.

"I got pulled over to the side. They gave me the lines, what's happening in Iraq, Afghanistan. They're raping our women, killing our children, and that's the thing, the emotional things that they use," Shaikh said.

Shaikh said the man urged the young Muslim men there to take action, to take their anger and emotion and do something with it.

"My comment to my CSIS handler at that time afterwards was, 'This guy is an effing time bomb waiting to go off.'"

No doubt, that our being in Afghanistan would disenfranchise some young muslim men in Canada. Of course, stories of raping women and killing children by our soldiers is a convenient recruiting tactic, whether or not it has any basis in fact.

SOURCE: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/toronto-bomb-plot/shaikh.html

I think Canada would be relatively safe for no other reason than having a land border with USA. If they can do a land attack on Canada, they'd probably rather drive a few miles and do something in USA, as a more hated enemy.

Due to the fact that the Government of Canada is more tactful than the United States Government, from what I've seen (at least before the new Conservative government took over), they're not likely to be attacked.
This is for everyone, not just you: Government policies don't matter! Germany recently narrowly escaped a train bombing. But it is not in Iraq, not taking part in combat in Afghanistan, and generally fairly well liked in the Arab world. The reasoning, the last time I heard, was that the guy lost a few mates in the Lebanon war...which illustrates nicely that they don't make those distinctions - the target is the West in general and what it represents.

AQ is using a strategy of everyone bombing who they can, when they can. There is no other strategy, no further reasoning.
Angry Muslim in Germany? Blow up Germans.
Angry Muslim in Canada? Blow up Canadians.
Angry Muslim in the US? Blow up Americans.
Provided they are that way inclined and go look for the relevant websites telling them how to do it.

Canada foiled one didn't it?
Those were locals.

I don't think Canadian assets have ever been attacked by foreign terrorists.

They could, though. We have plenty of targets. The BC ferry system is vulnerable to attack. The many pipelines leading in and out of Edmonton would be a nice target. Any nuclear facility in Ontario. The uranium mines in Saskatchewan. The many hydro-electric dams in BC, Ontario, and Quebec. The world's tallest free-standing structure (the CN Tower, in Toronto).

This is our Counter-Terrorism force:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/Chilly_Beach.jpg

Nothing gets by us.

To those who don't think Canada is truly a potential target because it has nothing of importance....think again. Not only is Canada the U.S largest trading partner, but it has relatively large oil reserves and refining areas, such as the area just a minute or so to my south.

Third paragraph, although relatively wrong about how/why the nickname is used, its still used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambton_County%2C_Ontario

A terrorist attack on those barely guarded (rent-a-cops) refineries would have relatively disasterous repercussions economically and environmentally for both the U.S and Canada.

Then you have the oil sources in Alberta, the Rig off the Atlantic coast, the blue water and/or ambassador bridges (the former are also in the Sarnia-Lambton area) which is home to 50% of Canada-U.S trade.

The Skydome wouldn't be a very good target if you're looking to kill people as so few actually show up to games...even if they win. You're best bet would be a NASCAR race or something.


Al Qaeda and similar organizations do not attack economic targets. They attack symbols, or people. Al Qaeda will not blow up an oil refinery because it does not terrorize people the way blowing up a subway line or a skyscraper does. Their goal is not to injure the West's economy, but their spirit. That is how I view it.

Al Qaeda and similar organizations do not attack economic targets. They attack symbols, or people. Al Qaeda will not blow up an oil refinery because it does not terrorize people the way blowing up a subway line or a skyscraper does. Their goal is not to injure the West's economy, but their spirit. That is how I view it.
Exactly. My Economics teacher once told me that the WTC wasn't an economic target - it was a target of pride. The way those towers stood erect in New York City... basically they formed America's penis. You cut those down and the USA's pride takes a hit (a massive one at that).

Exactly. My Economics teacher once told me that the WTC wasn't an economic target - it was a target of pride. The way those towers stood erect in New York City... basically they formed America's penis. You cut those down and the USA's pride takes a hit (a massive one at that).

That's certainly an interesting take. I more figured it was because the World Trade Center were pretty much the acknowledged symbol of Western capitalism and decadence.

That's certainly an interesting take. I more figured it was because the World Trade Center were pretty much the acknowledged symbol of Western capitalism and decadence.
My Economics teacher is a very interesting guy. His take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it's all about control over water. But I digress.

My Economics teacher is a very interesting guy. His take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it's all about control over water. But I digress.

I've heard that take on the conflict, and it holds a lot of water, no pun intended.

I've heard that take on the conflict, and it holds a lot of water, no pun intended.
I haven't taken a look at that yet, so I wouldn't know enough about it.

Anyway...

I'd imagine some of the top strike zones in Canada would be the CN Tower - the pride and joy of Toronto and major tourist attraction, The Big O (actually forget it, it's a decrepit old building looked upon with regret and animosity by the tax-paying Montrealers), Parliament, and the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver (but really... the terrorists would freeze before being able to pull that off).

there was a failed attempt. don't you read the news?

there was a failed attempt. don't you read the news? But the OP seemed more concerned with Al-Qaida plots, and the failed attempt had nothing to do with AQ.

Nah, dude ... everyone love Canada!

If there were a terrorist attack on Canada - note this for the record all you Bush-dick-sucking-conservatives :

If there were a terrorist attack on Canada, I'd buy some arms and find the son of a bitches myself. I'd go total commando on all your asses.

Seriously. You want this liberal hippie peace-nik to go off? Attack Canada.

so you can go commando..but we cant?

seriously,i am afraid it is the most likely target.
at least from the terrorist theorem.

you probe and attack the weakest link..they have done it to spain,england,russia and hope for a favorable responce to your tactics..which is..hold your breath...dissension and confusion.

hypothetically..say if canada is attacked,on even half the scale of 911,what would their response be?
as i am not canadian,i cant in all honesty have a valid opinion on their response.

now this is just speculation..but if the response is the country divided,with half saying lets cut our ties or downplay our relationship with our allies in the us..then they have achieved an important objective...and if they dont even attain that objective..they have indeed divided the public at the least.

now saying that does not occur..and canada rallies and rallies behind the us..they can also use that to say to their(i'm afraid to say uneducated masses)"see..we were right..the west is against us"

or would you have someone that in cold blood murdered your innocent family and friends, over for a cup of tea so you can discuss the issue?

it's lose lose with terrorism,and i hate being from the school of thought that things cant be worked out rationally..but at some point,you have to realise that your dealing with irrational people and you better fight them,as they will not negotiate or deal in good faith.
blaming the us for past mistakes is a valid point,but irrelevant at this point.
you can blame the english or french for past grievances..rightly..but would you blow up innocents to make your point?i wont,but they will.

canada is the best target of them all to me,americans are cowboys apparently..all it accomplishes is pissing us off..bad for them..the brits wont back down either..and even the french wont make many concessions to scumbag evil thugs..but canadians are so damn nice..they have a shot at dividing you guys.

either way they accomplish their goals..smart ..yes indeed..but evil and horrid to the extreme...i will worry about being decent to people that appreciate decency.

That's certainly an interesting take. I more figured it was because the World Trade Center were pretty much the acknowledged symbol of Western capitalism and decadence.

that one makes the most sense...the WTC was, in reality, an office building. There was no real economic power in the building itself, compared to the NYSE. The only companies it would effect are those that have heavy base opperations in it. Yet it dragged down every company on the market.

More than anything else, the WTC was a symbol of Americas dominance, weath, and economic power.
The pentagon was a symbol of our military power (hitting it really has no impact on our militaries ability to function, but has a huge psychological factor)


If there is a terrorist attack, I would pick something in Montreal...maybe the underground city, the subway system...maybe the Jacques Cartier Bridge, St. Josephs, Tour de la Bourse...something like that.

Exactly. My Economics teacher once told me that the WTC wasn't an economic target - it was a target of pride. The way those towers stood erect in New York City... basically they formed America's penis. You cut those down and the USA's pride takes a hit (a massive one at that).

possibly...

but kick me in the nether regions,you best kill me..cause that aint cool!
and when i get up..you better kill me cause i will stomp you stupid.

Then perhaps you have been on the wrong political ideology for quite a long time already, and have had a change of heart while on the Liberal Party and simply never realized it. Or are you actually Conservative yourself?

And as for the point on irrational hatred - well, I will agree with you that it is irrational to slaughter innocent civilians simply because they were American and likely had absolutely nil to do with the Soviet War (the fundamentalists got pissed because America dumped them away when the USSR collapsed, the CIA assisted them with anti-aircraft rocket launchers against Hinds and trained them). But the thing is, my good man, there is something called realpolitik.

Virtually any country has it as an influence with regards to government. They act not out of sheer benevolence, but to ones interest, to paraphrase Adam Smith. The United States is still limping from relations with Pakistan because the Pakistani Government and people saw them as ditching them when they had no longer any strategic use for them at the time. Great Britain also has had used mercenaries and intelligence and regime change. If Canada were to become a superpower and succeed the USA in terms of international relations, there would be little to no difference. Hell, if the USA collapsed and the USSR became the sole undisputed power, there would be little difference except for terms of ideology. It simply would also be executing similar methods behind the public eye to carry out its goals of realpolitik.

And how does being tough on terrorism, have anything to do with Iraq? Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and even Saddam Hussein despised him because the ex-dictator was a staunch secularist. Hell, during the first Gulf War, when he declared Jihad, not many Arabic nations listened to him because he was a staunch secularist and oppressed the more popular subdivisions of Islam religion in Iraq.

Harper has no sense of tactfulness, and is being a blind and belligerent if he were to think that the conflict could have been stopped in Israel and Lebanon if Hezbollah pandered over and sent over the prisoners. Face it Harper, both sides are too entrenched in a vicious animousity toward one another, and while Israel had the right to self defense alright, it massacred a lot of civilians in the process due to faulty intelligence (for example one civilian was killed just when he got into his car and got bombed by an Israeli air-strike, thanks to faulty intelligence when the IDF pulled out of Israel, including the majority of its spies...the man was thought to be one of the upper echelons in Hezbollah). That, cannot be excused. And it makes the conflict worse.

True, Canada could easily become more influential in international affairs, but running around in blind support of an adminstration who is very much frowned upon by various members of the global community is not the way to do so. Harper should take his own stance and act more like a leader, not drag on somebody else's tailcoats, and learn how to beat around the bush.

First of all, I am, and have long been, a very involved member of the Conservative Party of Canada, and it's prior incarnations. They have embrassed me from time to time, but unless you are one of those "my party can do no wrong" people, any political party will do that.

Realpolitik is a theory as to how nations will react. As Political Science is not actually a science, it is a theory that can't be proven nor disproven. You speak about it as if it were gospel. I have complete a minor in Political Science, and so terms like those don't intimadate me.

Harper supports Israel the way he does for a variety of reasons, firstly it has won back a large portion of the Jewish vote in Canada. With the exception of the Token Jew in the Liberal Cabinet (Irwin Cotler) Canadian Liberal leadership has been very quietly anti-semitic, and now an open support of Israel is winning votes. The Government will fall soon, and there are Liberal Seats available accross Quebec and Ontaio where the Jewish vote is key.

He also supports Israel because the Canadian Conservatives believe in freedom, and see it in Israel, and nowhere else in the middle east. Sure they're still getting over socialism, but they are much more free then their neighbors.

You are wrong in saying that prisoner return would not have worked. At one point it very well may have. Israel pulled out of Southern Lebanon, after a decade, in 1999. ***They want nothing to do with it anymore***, and they know Lebanon is just a puppet to Hezbulah, Syria, and Iran. The problem is that Israel cannot afford to ignore captured soldiers. Failing to get them back has forced them to dig in, and the further in they get, the more they need to accomplish to justify the cost, in money, Israeli Lives, Lebanese Civilian Lives, and in political credit.

My Economics teacher is a very interesting guy. His take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it's all about control over water. But I digress.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was caused by the British Mandate being manhandled. Explaining it away with water is a way of washing one's hands with it... It's a rationalization that westerners are comfortable with... to a western ideal, fighting over a limited resource like water makes sense.

It's a partially emotional war, and it's a war over LAND, because both sides were screwed with on that score by the British Mandate. Water is just a stone in the quarry.

I am now loosing coherency, so I will stop writing... tired getting I am.