Stephen Harper’s search for the root causes of terrorism

‘We need to know as much as we can about terrorists, their tactics, and the best solutions to protect people …’

by Paul Wells

Despite his insistence that Real Leaders shouldn’t “sit around trying to rationalize” terrorist violence “or figure out its root causes,” Stephen Harper has announced a multi-year program worth millions of taxpayer dollars designed to do just that.

I’m indebted to CBC blogger and Former Colleague Kady O’Malley for pointing this out. On June 23, 2011, during his annual St. Jean Baptiste sojourn through Quebec, the prime minister marked the seventh annual National Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism by launching the Kanishka Project, a five-year, $10 million program to “invest in research on pressing questions for Canada on terrorism and counter-terrorism.”

From the PM’s speech that day:

“…the first and most solemn duty of government is to keep its people safe. It took far too long to learn the lessons of Flight 182. One of those lessons is that information is an important tool in the struggle against terrorism. We need to know as much as we can about terrorists, their tactics, and the best solutions to protect people…

We will engage Canada’s best and brightest minds, and we will provide funding for publications, conferences and research projects – anything that can help us build the knowledge base we need to effectively counter terrorism.

 The Kanishka Project is named in memory of everyone who boarded the aircraft, and we will ensure that the families of the victims are involved in helping to guide the project’s work.”

The Kanishka project, designed to commemorate the Air India bombing, builds on such excellent Harper Government root-causes work as the 2009 RCMP guide Radicalization: A Guide For The Perplexed, which I am not making up. It includes this paragraph published by your national constabulary:

“Geopolitical factors — particularly the perceived suffering of the Ummah (global community of Muslims) at the hands of the West — are also critical drivers pushing individuals into extremist thought, if not action. The message that the world is fundamentally “at war” with Islam is key to the Islamist “single narrative”, or “one size fits all explanation”, that drives terrorism the world over. This narrative is reinforced by current events, such as the Israel / Palestine issue and the conflict in Afghanistan, which characterize the embattled Muslim communities as small but stalwart Davids beset by a lumbering and brutal Goliath. The romance of this unequal struggle may be especially appealing to young Muslims, who feel both justified and compelled to come to the aid of their brothers and sisters against the powerful forces arrayed against them.”

On May 30, 2012, Jason Kenney and Vic Toews, two tough guys who don’t take no guff from fancy boys, announced the first round of projects funded under the Kanishka project. “Research supported by the Kanishka Project will increase our understanding of terrorism,” Kenney said. “This will help produce more effective policies and tools for people on the front lines, including community leaders, police, lawyers, and judges.”

Recipients of your tax money dollars in the research round Kenney and Toews announced on behalf of the steely-eyed and morally serious Prime Minister included the Mosaic Institute, which is all about “harnessing Canada’s diversity for peace at home and abroad” and which operates UofMosaic, which was praised by Conservative Senator Hugh Segal for “addressing the root causes of long-simmering conflicts.”

Funding recipients also included the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society (TSAS). That ambitious multi-disciplinary group of academics held a terrorism workshop last November on “Social Conditions and Processes of Radicalization” that I’m sorry I missed. The entire conference agenda is worth reading, but I’ll note that participants included Laval University’s Aurélie Campana, whose biographical note mentions that her “publications include a systematic review of the root causes of terrorism.” And, looking further down the grant list, we notice that Dr. Campana is herself a Kanishka grant recipient for her summer study program on terrorism. Don’t tell the PM!

The TSAS Twitter account pointed me to this thoughtful video by University of Waterloo sociologist Lorne Dawson, who describes the profile of young men likely to become terrorists, on the perhaps non-insane hunch that it is better to anticipate such events than to wait until something blows up and then get tough.

Here are the recipients of the second round of Kanishka grants. They included McGill’s Myrna Lashley, whose study subjects include “cultural aspects of radicalization leading to violence.” I note that she wrote to Vic Toews last summer after a national roundtable meeting raised concerns about possible government interference in academic work on issues surrounding terrorism.




Browse

Stephen Harper’s search for the root causes of terrorism

  1. Way to go Paul.. you’ve ruined the Conservative Party’s narrative. More “media party” hanky-panky anti-Conservative “We hate Harper” bias.

    • Well, if it weren’t for the corporate owned mass media, maybe we could get the truth out to more Canadians…

      • That was pretty cool how Wells figured out the NP headline a day in advance… almost like he has a mole inside.

  2. Perhaps Trudeau would like to lead the Kanishka Project instead of the country.

    • And how prey tell, do you propose to stop terrorism if you don’t care to find out how it starts?

      • Let me put in a plug for this week’s edition of The House. A former Director at CSIS was interviewed… according to him you look for the root cause of any terrorist act immediately (concurrent with catching the guilty parties & protecting other potential targets.) His wording was remarkably similar to JT’s.

        • What a joke! How could ‘looking for the root cause immediately’ be of any help to any inverstigation.

          Motive: yes

          Root cause: no!

          You and the former director are mixed up about the wording, on purpose it seems.

          • Thanks. You’ve just inflicted me with a Jethro Tull earworm.

          • Hmm, I put your knowledge of counter terrorism to be intermediate between SH and Dean Del Mastro with both perhaps slightly less than the professional opinion. However, thanks for the complement regarding the humour… I am here all week.

          • Thank god for telling me you’re here all week! I feel very excluded as of late and I’ve asked Justin to look into my root cause but he’s busy (that’s what he said and I believe him) and so I need to know that other people are there for me, so I won’t feel so excluded all the time (I am an immigrant you know – or maybe you didn’t know that – yes, you must have known – they talk about it all the time – those immigrants and their broken english)

            Thanks for telling me you’ll be here all week. Now I know I have a friend.

          • How? Try using your brain for half a second.

            I don’t expect any results, but the novelty of it could be interesting.

            Once you’re done with that, I’ll point out that knowing the motive for a crime is extremely useful in eliminating a lot of potential suspects, thus allowing us to focus the investigation where it’s most likely to present results.

          • How? Like this:

            (Ever seen the Niquil cold commercial, the one in which the guy lays on the bed and asks his wife to call his mother….? Well, keep that picture in mind!)

            “Pam……Pam…… can you call my mom?”

            Pam pushes Justin through the door. Justin hears the man’s snivel and throws him one of his root causes…….HAHAHAHAHHA Hilarious!

    • What would be is not what exists.
      In the realm of phantasy, anything goes.

  3. Nicely done Paul: that switch from subtle mockery on the one blog to subtle mockery on the the other.

    I think you [and Kady] might have just written the liberals response for them…no senate seats for you guys…yet.

    • Certainly it will be a very long time before there are any Senate seats available for journalists like Paul Wells. Of course, Paul Martin Junior, the Desmarais family and the evil elites of SNC Lavalin have loads of ill gotten cash.

  4. Nice work. Looking forward to seeing how the spin monkeys will work their craft. C’mon lil monkeys…. Spin spin spin!

    • Jounalists who attack the words of the Prime Minister of Canada and offer no semantical or hermeneutical arguments whatsoever in favour of their so-called interpretations, should be fired. Why? Because they are mentally defective people.
      We want journalists with good critical thinking and analytical skills. Canada is not the USSR. They are sophists who maintain that they know that ultimate linguistic and journalistic reality is unknowable. Paul Wells offers no such semantical and hermeneutical arguments in favour of his so-called interpretation of the words of the Prime Minister. He should be fired. The services of a doctor that cannot perform medicine are not needed.
      God bless the Prime Minister and Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

      • And what about Harper attacking the words of Justin Trudeau, which Obama has now also stated “root cause”? Or is it OK for HARPER, your idol, to attack at any time with FALSE statements.

        • “Or is it Ok for HARPER, your idol, to attack at any time with FALSE statements?”
          Where is the Triple A Alberta Angus Beef?
          The burden of proof is on your shoulders.
          God bless the Prime Minister and Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

          • Got anything to say or just repeating the same old? Harper is a liar and this is the truth. This has been proven many times over. There is no burden here.

          • “This has been proven many times over.”
            Where exactly, if you please.

          • Every time Harper opens his mouth,that’s where !

          • You are just too weird for me.

          • Is that your argument? Name calling?
            It is a symptom of sophism, which is the disease of the sophists.
            Socrates, Plato and Aristotle fought against this malediction and their triumph is called Westernism.

      • Since when does hypocrisy need an explanation?

        • Where is the Triple A Alberta Angus Beef?
          The burder of proof is on your shoulders.
          God bless the Prime Minister and Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

          • Shouldn’t you be tells us how your sister makes 8667$ a day from home, or something ? I’m not sure you have this “trolling” figured out yet bud…

          • What should be is not what is. Reality is not appearance.
            Bad metaphysics.

          • Ah, I get it now! You are just another Con nutcase – with all of your “semantical” and “hermeneutical” fancy-shmancy pseudoacademic language and your desire for the red meat! Ha ha ha!! No one is attacking the *words* of Mr. Harper! We are attacking his *actions*!

          • Premises without conclusions and conclusions without premises–none of this is critical or analytical thinking. As for the exact difference between words and actions in politics, it is your problem.

      • It seems tragic that the esteemed Prime Minister or his PMO has decided to basically shut down the Canadian Archives, making it well nigh impossible to research historical antecedents in Canadian terrorism. Well done, Mr. Harper. Those who do not know their own history are doomed to repeat it.

        • What seems is not what exists. For reality is not appearance.
          What is possible or impossible is your problem.
          Why not ask Jean Chretien for full access to his archives? Perhaps Ottawa should release all of its archives of the Quebec Regime in Ottawa 1968-2006? That will cost a lot of pseudo aristocrats their reputations. We will learn that the Chateau, Rolls Royce and vast resource holdings as well as Swiss bank accounts were the result of organised crime, not mental power. And the fires of civil strife will be stoked and in need of even greater repair because our institutions will be further debased in a time of global political and economic upheaval. Canada has the luxury of moving slowly in this regard. The best way to exterminate an inferior ruling class in democratic civilisation is to vote often for the superior ruling class. Our exact historiography is more than fit for this task–and I have seen some of it. Our ancestors built up this mighty world civilisation and nobody will ever tear it down.
          God bless the Prime Minister and Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

          • Ah so the oh so principled and learned wordsmith resorts to the classic Conservative refrain…. “But they did it too!”

          • I do not know exactly what you mean by principled.
            Perhaps you mean that you know that ultimate reality is unknowable.
            Is this what you call a principle?

          • Shouldn’t have to ask Jean Chretien for things that belong to Canadians. The Canadian Archives belong to us. We paid for them with money and lives. You are a piece of work. You cannot even see what your idol is doing to this once great country of ours. Very sad indeed.

          • Agian, what should be is not what is.
            Some of the Canadian archives of Canada are open and some are closed.
            This is how it always has been and always will be.
            It is called raison d’etat.
            Why do I have to do all the work?

          • Great spoof.

          • But shouldn’t God also bless Lila Wagner, SAM, Beibs, harebell and, well, even Dean Del Mastro?
            Why stop at just the PM and Lilibet?

          • What should be is not what is.
            Because reality is not appearance.
            You are missing a few premises as well as a conclusion.
            Aristotle calls talk without argument babble: On Sophistical Refutations.

          • So change your handle to Babble since talk without argument seems your speciality.

          • What seems is not what is.
            Ultimate reality is not appearance.
            Why?
            Because it is not the case that ultimate reality is unknowable.
            Move.

          • ralmfao

          • Aristotle calls talk without argument babble.
            Where is the argument?

      • Interesting use of words there, shame they do not mean what you think they do. It’s also interesting that you refer to journos being mentally defective because they don’t do as you wish them to.
        The author of this article has just pointed out that a leader who attacks other people for doing something while all the time doing the same thing himself has a problem. Either he is wasting our money on stuff he doesn’t really believe matters or he indulged in hypocrisy when he had made his attack.
        Neither of these qualities are really what one looks for in a leader, but as this is not the first time our leader has exhibited either of them I think it is possible to say that our PM is at the least in fact an inveterate hypocrite and waster of public monies.

        • This comment was deleted.

          • Would you muzzle Paul Wells by firing him, comrade?

          • What would be is not what is.
            Because reality is not appearance.
            Better journalists exist in Canada.
            Profit always justifies what is better.
            Comrade.

          • Asking “wars da beef” and “Where is the rational argument?” when all the evidence is right infront of you does not make you sounds very intellegent. Using a thesaurus to find big words doesn’t make you smart. I will never understand how people can blindly defend someone who has shown poor judgement for over 8 years. If a few liberal MPs didn’t get caught with their hands in the cookie jar 9 years ago then Harper would have never got elected.

            Now Harperand his MPs have their hands perpetually in the cookie jar and you are defending him. This party has used misleading robocalls (or at least one member has), illegal funding practices (in-and-out, among others).
            I cannot afford the time to pull up all the proof you may need, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

          • What exactly is it that you call evidence?
            The thirty volume Oxford dictionary of the English language at the McGill library has 30 definitions of the word love, if I am not mistaken.
            What exactly do you mean, and more importantly why?

          • That question would be better asked of you. You are the one who keeps asking for proof! And how does the number of definitions of love have anything to do with the definition of proof?

            You have a whole lot of facts, but you seem to have trouble forming them into a proper argument. Your posts sound an awful lot like denial to me! Using verbose and grandiose statements does not make your comments and more credible or significant.

          • When I say “Proof” I mean a noun defined as “evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement” as stated in the Oxford dictionary.

            I do not mean: “a trial impression of a page, taken from type or film and used for making corrections before final printing.”, “the strength of distilled alcoholic spirits, relative to proof spirit taken as a standard of 100″, “a test or trial of something.”, or “a trial or a civil case before a judge without a jury. ” which are also definition found in the oxford dictionary.
            There is a lot of sources of proof, but I do not have the time right now to look for them.

          • As for “why”, I thought that would be obvious. You seem like a poorly informed man, but you also seem to have a capacity for learning. You ask a lot of questions like “wars da beef”, which I take to mean “where is the beef?” which would suggest that you are looking for substance in the arguments. And another question you asked was “Where is the rational argument?” and I am trying to provide that for you.

            I only hope that you are open to learning and expanding your mind. If you are not, then my efforts are wasted. There are too many people out there so caught up in being right, that they choose to ignore the evidence that is provided to them. (this evidence would be the only definition for the noun form of this word as found in the oxford dictionary: “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”)
            I am terribly busy right now between work and my home life, but I will try to make some time soon to find this proof and evidence for you.

          • What exactly is it that you call a rational argument?
            Is it that which you maintain proves that you know it is certain or probable that ultimate reality is unknowable?
            Abandon sophistry.
            Come into the stronghold of American Idealism.

        • Well said harebell. :)

          • Why well said?
            Where is the rational argument? Pravda.

          • Honestly Christopher, would you just go away for a while please.

          • Good question – where exactly is your rational argument.
            From your comments, you are either raving or the latest in a long line of paid CPC trolls.

          • What exactly do you mean by rational argument?
            I know exactly what I mean but I do not know exactly what you mean.
            Sorry.
            Do you mean that rational argument proves that ultimate reality is unknowable?
            Move.

          • Thanks
            I’m not sure I can take any plaudits as in CRWD I’m not sure I’m dealing with anyone who can speak, let alone formulate an argument. It appears to be some kind of Turing test and unless it has an algorithm that enables some kind of learning and adaptation I think it is set to fail.
            I for one will ignore it until it demonstrates a level of intelligence beyond random gibberish and stock quotes.

      • lmfao

        • Aristotle calls talk without argument babble: On Sophistical Refutations.

          • out of context citations of dead philosopher, quoted as gospel. Ayn does not approve.

          • “Out of context”?
            What exactly is it you call context–Marx and Lenin?
            Appearance or reality?
            Please advance a rational argument.
            Words are a dime of dozen.
            That is why philosophy is not sophistry.
            As Hitler, Stalin and Mao discovered to their chagrin.

            To Mark Parton below:
            Is that your rational argument?

          • Ayn Rand didn’t even bother to read Aristotle, and I would imagine you fit into her world more than you do his. Pulling the Marx card is nowhere near context – in fact it’s quite the opposite. More meaningless babble from a comment troll. And contrary to your small minded simplifications, I agree no more with Marx than I do with your champion of American Libertarianism. I do not believe in violent revolution, tyrannical rule or socialism. But of course that’s all you would understand. Left or Right. Marx or Machiavelli.

            Why move when I can groove?

      • Please point out where Mr. Wells puts forward any interpretation of the Prime Ministers words that he doesn’t immediately back with.. well.. the Prime Minister’s words.

        • What exactly do you mean by interpretation?
          Certainly not that it is the case that ultimate linguistic reality is unknowable?
          Move.

          • I think when he says “move” he thinks he’s just made a chess move and now it’s your move. He’s outplaying you with his brilliance. Aristotle through the eyes of Rand might as well be nobody. Read more contemporary philosophy, or look to a distraught Greenspan on the eve of economic collapse to see how that way of thinking holds up in practice. Don’t feed the troll.

          • What exactly is it you call contemporary philosophy–Marx and Lenin?
            Where is the rational argument?
            Move.

  5. The Ministry Of Truth will be working overtime ! Li’l steve never let facts get in the way in press releases or throwing someone under the bus .

  6. Harper spouts nonsense continually..a perpetual attack dog on election campaign

      • No comprendo.

    • Where is the Triple A Alberta Angus beef?
      The burden of proof is on your shoulders.
      Perhaps you prefer the Montreal cuts.
      Very expensive lard.

      • Tripe?

        • Aristotle calls talk without argument babble: On Sophistical Refutations.
          Where is the argument?

          • It’s a rather unsophisticated stab at humour.
            Tripe is an animal part some people enjoy, and also has another meaning….

          • The rational animal, no doubt.

    • Oh? So who is a perpetral Harper attack dog?

  7. Good! Considering the threat it is small change.

  8. No one tell Barbara Kay at the NP.

  9. Good to hear President Obama pretty much echo the “root causes” Trudeau statement in his speech late Friday. What an intelligent , thoughtful, open minded, almost philosophical politician he is. That’s Obama of course, not Trudeau!!!
    In Canada politicians are obligated to take the petty, small minded, angry but focussed, narrow road.

    • Nice cover up. Obama gave the same claptrap comment that Trudeau did the day of the incident. He got beaten up so badly about it, he had to declare the following day that it was terrorism.

      • Just not true. As many commenters have pointed out, he didn’t use any line like that in his initial response. Only after it was over. That point has been used by people on YOUR side.

        • The day of the bombing, Obama made and official statement: “We still do not know who did this or why. And people shouldn’t jump to
          conclusions before we have all the facts. But make no mistake — we will
          get to the bottom of this. And we will find out who did this; we’ll
          find out why they did this.” After the American people lambasted him on this, on day two he made the following speech: “This was a heinous and cowardly act, and given what we now
          know about what took place, the FBI is investigating it as an act of
          terrorism. Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is
          an act of terror.”

          Well funnily enough – the Prez knew on day one bombs had been used but it wasn’t terrorism then, was it? We shouldn’t jump to conclusions. I suspect Mr. Trudeau knew what Mr. Obama had said and was merely parroting the party line.

          • What are you even talking about you loon. Obama was saying people shoyld jump to conclusions until we find out who did it. He never said it wasn’t terrorism. What is your point? Should he have been more predudiced and blamed muslims. All ready before anyone even knew whi did this a muslim sister was punched by a man in mass. near Boston. That retoric you wish for promotes bigotry like this. Yesterday I we.t to prayer ib a khemis and some bigot on the street shouted at me and called me a terrorist and told me not to blow up my city this is not good enviroment fir the unstable muslims who might di evil acts in the name of Islam. Acts that lead to hellfire.

          • There wasn’t a shred of doubt in my mind that it wasn’t terrorists and I’m sure they knew too. Oh yes, the media tried very, very hard to pin it on white supremacists or the extreme right wing however, those people would not have targeted ordinary Americans in a marathon. There was no political target. Unstable Muslims will do it anyway. If you are so incensed about it why not stand up for your religion and getting rid of the radical imams?

          • Because obviously the smart thing to do is treat absolutely any explosive going off as an act of terrorism before any facts are known. Wait.. no.. the opposite of that.

          • Not old enough to remember Oklahoma City?

          • You guys keep hauling out Oklahoma City without looking at the facts. McVeigh blew up a government building full of government employees. Anders Breivik shot up kids at a camp for the children of politicians. There was a target. The target was the government. A marathon race full of random Americans was not a target. There was no statement there other than to kill and maim which meant Americans were the target.

          • A good many right-wing guns nuts have been plenty angry over the attempts to somewhat rein in access to weapons. The impetus for that was the Sandy Hook shooting; the last leg of the marathon (where the bombs were planted) was named in their honour. Many of those opposed to gun control have been specifically saying you don’t need guns to kill people; bombs would work just fine. So yes, the potential that this was a home-grown attack by gun nuts was a very valid hypothesis in the wake of the attack.

          • You still don’t get it. Right wing gun nuts don’t blow up random people despite the name of the course, the date whatever. They target what they hate and random people are not it.

          • I had several people post on this site, in answer to my comments about gun laws, that you can kill people as easily with bombs as with guns. It would not be a stretch to think that one such person chose to make the point.

            I’m sure the vast majority of them would not, but it takes only one deciding that actions speak louder…

          • There is no statement in killing random people. If you want to make a statement you make it blatantly obvious exactly what your message is. There is no point if officials are scratching their heads and looking for root causes. The only case I can think of where random people were sacrificed has been jihad. They didn’t care that quite a few Muslims worked in the Trade Centre. And the only reason government officials were scratching their heads over root causes this time, is they didn’t want to admit what they knew.

          • “There is no statement…”

            Says you. If these guys thought there was no statement, then why did they do it?

            Just because you don’t see a statement to be made by doing so doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t. There was a law being voted on in the Senate on gun control – and the section bombed was named in honour of those who lost their lives at Sandy Hook. I can easily see a potential message there: Take away our guns and there will be bloodshed. There are people out there for which this would seem a perfectly reasonable thing.

          • Yeah, the message will be take away our guns and there will be bloodshed against the government not innocent Americans running a race. Nobody cares that a section of the race was named after Sandy Hook. Blowing up people running a race isn’t getting even with the government. Setting a bomb beneath a politicians’ viewing stand is getting even. There is a reason the IRA burned down the Dublin Post Office Building – it was a government building. The IRA bombed a Conservative Party convention. McVeigh – a government building, Breivik – the children of politicians. I could go on. Non of these politically motivated groups bombed innocent people – well except for the IRA and they were letting the government know that if they didn’t get a united Ireland British civilians would pay.

        • “Your side” ??? …… I am on the side of Canada and the western capitalist free democratic society …. So… What are the ‘sides’ are you talking about?

    • Indeed, some politicians are lovers of the inferior ruling class.
      Thank God we have President Obama and Prime Minister Harper to lead Americanism in the world.

  10. Justin Trudeau made a rookie mistake (he answered a hypothetical “if” question about something he didn’t know anything about i.e who committed the Boston Marathon bombings and why, something Jean “if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bus” Chretien would never do. Justin’s mistake is after a terrorist attack has been committed and the perpetrators are still at large, and a leader is asked what he will do, a leader says “just watch me,” not “lets try to understand what has happened from the murderers point of view.”

    PM Harper would be crazy not to point this out when Justin makes such a foolish mistake. When a mass murder has occurred the people want to hear their Leaders say they will harshly hunt down the murderers, not explain that the unknown murderers might feel “excluded” or something when he is in no position to possibly know.

    Kanishka is about prevention of attacks before they happen, not about investigation into and capture of terrorists who have already committed an attack and when people are already dead amd maimed. The PM’s speech says it: “anything that can help us build the knowledge base we need to effectively counter terrorism.”
    I am happy to have the experts and the RCMP try to figure out what motivates terrorists and terrorism becasue that is their job. I don’t need to know that the Prime Ministers understands terrorists, but I want to know what he’ll do about it when it happens. Justin didn’t do that, but Stephen Harper did. Justin just learned a valuable lesson.

      • So.

      • There was no reason for Justin to comment on the possible motivation of the Boston Marathon bombings. But he did. It was an unforced error. He gave an opening to Stephen Harper to make a “just watch me”-style quote about a terrorist attack in another country while Justin has had to do damage control over his “soft-on-terrorism” comments.
        Justin has been Liberal Leader for less than a week and the media coverage has been exclusively on Conservative ads and now his “soft-on-criminals” viewpoint. First impressions matter, but there is no minority government situation now so unlike with Dion and Ignatieff he has lots of time until the next election and he can learn from his mistakes and improve his ability to compete at this high political leadership level. Assuming of course that he stops making mistakes.

    • “Kanishka is about prevention of attacks before they happen, not about
      investigation into and capture of terrorists who have already committed
      an attack and when people are already dead amd maimed.”

      Rubbish. You’re splitting hairs. That’s exactly what JT called for, even if he didn’t have to pontificate as much as he did.

      • BS, you’re on that lee shore yet again, with all of the other posters on here who suffer from Leftist Mental Disorder, JT spouted the same old Leftist hug a thug clap trap.

    • “Justin Trudeau made a rookie mistake (he answered a hypothetical “if”
      question about something he didn’t know anything about i.e who committed
      the Boston Marathon bombings and why,…”

      No such questiion was asked or phrased that way. Stop BSing.

      • From CBC website: In the interview, Mansbridge asked Trudeau what he would do IF he were prime minister on the day the bombings occurred.

        Trudeau replied, after saying he would offer help and condolences, that “over the coming days” it would be necessary to “look at root causes.” He continued, “We don’t know if it was terrorism, or a single crazy, or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions. But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.”

      • From CBC website: “In the interview, Mansbridge asked Trudeau what he would do IF he were prime minister on the day the bombings occurred.

        Trudeau replied, after saying he would offer help and condolences, that “over the coming days” it would be necessary to “look at root causes.” He continued, “We don’t know if it was terrorism, or a single crazy, or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions. But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.”

        • You know, you should read Remnick’s bit in the New Yorker.

          Here: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2013/04/29/130429ta_talk_remnick

          He basically shows that these two guys were mostly – or completely, in the case of the elder – alienated from the culture they’d joined a decade ago. Kinda shores up the ‘completely excluded’ part of Trudeau’s point.

          Nothing Trudeau said suggests ‘hugging thugs’. Nor does it dismiss the horrors of that event. The problem of social and cultural alienation leading to violence is real, Remnick points this out. Mr. Harper seemingly gets that and has wisely decided to comprehensively survey it. That should be applauded.

          • Most loyal Americans would have told these two foreigners that they were free to pack their bags and leave the US if they felt so excluded there. Instead, they decided to commit an act of terror.

    • Yeah, he learned that conservative idiots don’t care about preventing problems, only vengeance.

      • Yes, which is what most Canadians associate with; a vitriolic hatred towards any and all suspected terrorists is not a difficult sentiment to tap into. Ignorant? Yes, but you assume voters are rational and intelligent.

      • The terrorists blew up a 8-year old boy waiting for his father, among other innocents. Then they murdered a police officer in cold blood to get away. Even Obama said we will hunt these killers down. Harper is right. Leaders don’t talk about “root causes” at a time like this.

    • No need for policymakers to know anything about the subject they are making policy about?
      This explains a lot.

  11. I guess the old mantra ” as situations change, so does our directives ” – flaherty. Steve is a lying,moving variable or hypocrite you choose.

    • “Steve is lying”
      You guess?
      Is this slander?
      Guesses, like words, are a dime a dozen.
      Why?
      Because there is a rational distinction between good and bad guesses.

  12. If we’re only 10months into this 5yr search for answers, what is the point/urgency of S-7? Are the PMO releasing some early results?

  13. I hope other media outlets will follow up on Kady O’Malley’s & Paul Wells’ postings about
    the hypocrisy of Harper’s gov’t funding research into root causes of terrorism while simultaneously pillorying Trudeau for suggesting such research is needed.

    CBC’s The National, among others, should jump on this one, as Harper’s gang needs to be called out on such two-faced dishonesty.

    Also, some Globe reader dug up this Peter MacKay quote re. the 2011 Oslo massacre (apparently found in a MacLeans article)
    QUOTE: “It’s also sobering for a country like Canada that shares values with
    Norwegians and a demonstration of … the volatility that’s still there,
    the vigilance that we have to demonstrate and persevere and work
    together to try to FIND the ROOT CAUSES but also try to pre-empt and
    interrupt these types of attacks.”

    • You notice the weight the other comments place on finding the ‘root causes’ and on stopping the attacks is different, right? One sounds like blaming the victim, the other puts the blame on the perpetrator. One is appropriate to express with our friends, families and neighbors in a time of loss, the other is asinine and offensive to anyone of intelligence. Or do you really go on about the root causes to victims of crime immediately after the crime? Please yet, go discuss that with a murder victim’s family or a rape victim immediately after the act. I’m sure they will support you 100% and not want to punch you in the mouth. But I guess we should look at one critically and assume everything they state is evil and has a hidden agenda, while the other is a saint who we must interpret their words in only the best light possible. Everyone should think before they speak. And if you are going to take quotes from the past, remember the context in which they were spoken is as important, if not more so, than the words themselves.

      • Umm… by my reading they said essentially the same thing. I think the differences you percieve are called “observer bias”. And how does the timing of the words relate to their truthfulness?

  14. Harper is a contrarian.

    • He is also a harpercrite

  15. Actually if O’Malley/Wells watched the video of the PM’s remarks, he clearly states that when this type of terrorist attack occurs, it must be quickly denounced, and is not the time to bring up things like root causes.. Wells also provides a link to Harper’s 2009 speech, but doesn’t include this quote?
    “There is an important message that the families asked me to deliver last year and it’s worth repeating now. It is a message to my fellow political leaders of every party and at every level of government. We must denounce violent extremism at every opportunity. And we must also denounce the extremist organizations and individuals who advocate violence and often try to conceal it.”

    • Of course violent terrorism should be denounced, and Harper isn’t saying anything that we all didn’t know. My question is, however, are they looking for the root causes so that people can feel that they don’t have to blow themselves up as the only means of fighting back? Or are they just trying to find enough “root causes” to make the police and military forces more efficient at identifying potential threats and suppressing them?

  16. Monday and Tuesday’s debate an anti-terrorism bill that was supposed to be the Liberals opposition day is going to be interesting. Especially when the Libs throw this back in Harper’s face.

    • If Liberals are smart they will not belabour this. They need to get this “exclusion” comment out of circulation fast. JT needs to give a forceful determined speech denouncing terrorism and stating his implacable will to fight it. Let the NDP talk about the murderers and “root causes” and not the victims if they want. JT wants to be PM someday, not Director of CSIS. So here is his audition.
      Like Harper did after the whole Cadman “financial considerations” fiasco, JT has to learn from his mistakes and then be self-disciplined and do better the next time. Rookie mistakes (e.g. answering hypothetical questions or opining about things you don’t know) are to be expected. Repeating those mistakes is unforgiveable.

      • Where I come from, trying to figure out how to prevent a disaster, is called common sense.

        • I believe Orval’s point was very few voters will read this or remember CPC commentary regarding root causes of terrorism, facts are less important when no one is aware or interested in them. A consistent reaffirmation bias is much more comforting. This is how conservatives win elections, emotional conveyance is much more significant than logic.

          • Actually, conservatives win elections because regular folk don’t buy into the garbage you and other sell.

            “I feel excluded. :( (( Can you call Justin so that he will look into my root cause?” HAHAHAHAHHA! Hilarious!

          • Thank you…I rest my case.

          • But is Justin coming to my rescue? THAT is the question!

            HAHAHAHAHAHA! Hilarious!

          • I find it absolutely hilarious that people like you, who, unless you are wealthy, an upper level corporate executive, or a lobbyist working for money, support a governance philosophy that is working in direct opposition to your best personal interests. Of course, it’s pretty easy. You don’t have to read the news, or look for truth. Mr Harper will tell you all you need to know.

          • See, there we go again. Always, always blaming the immigrant for everything. Can immigrants not make money?

            Always thinking that immigrants can’t read the news! “Look”, they say ” there goes another immigrant not reading the news!”

            “How could they read the news, can’t even speak english!”

            Stop blaming the immigrants for your shortcomings!

          • Funny, I don’t see that George has mentioned immigrant anywhere in his post. I would blame yourself for your own shortcomings.

            George is making a comment about the wealthy, upper level corporate exec. or lobbyist and Conservative supporters and that all they need to do is to wait for instructions from their fearless leader to tell them how to respond, much like Harper does with his own MP’s.

          • Yep. Missed the point again Francien. Deflect, divide, and distract like a good con troll.

          • Tjee, Gretchen is it really starting to show now. You do miss me.

            Don’t worry, I will be back at the Green Party comment boards sooner or later. Don’t appear too desperate without me!

          • still stirring Francien?

            Is your real point: philosophers weren’t meant to ride unicycles?

          • lmao

          • You’re a typical Leftist twerrp.

          • How insightful…

          • Actually conservatives win elections by unethical manipulation, cheating, lying, etc. etc. And I don’t find that funny in the least.

          • Thank you once again, Gretchen for following me around. I do appreciate a fan base. See you at the next event!

          • That and the context in which it was said is as important if not more important than the words themselves. When consoling a victim or victims family, you don’t go spouting non-sense about finding the root causes. Yes, intellectually is all great and all, but lets face it, it insensitive and sounds like victim blaming. They/we don’t want to hear about how its not the perpetrators fault they did the crime, and how we are going to tackle the homeless/metal health/education issues that may a small influence on their behavior. But by all means, if you really think it was tactful – try doing so to say a rape or murder victim’s family right after the crime. Our closest neighbors, allies and family and friends were just attacked in a horribly cowardly terror attack and you think mentioning how you are going to solve the root causes is going to win you support? Brilliant statesman move. Not.

          • First things first, unless you were there you are not a victim. Thatcher was right about one thing, this generation is too concerned with feelings and not with thinking. Your emotional response was just that, emotional; the root causes by very definition are not small, minor influences. If you still cannot grasp the concept of prevention I suggest you read the statements by the U.S. president and the UN, they’re very similar to Trudeau’s. As far as speculation goes, I would encourage you not to assume the state of mind of anyone else unless you happen to be a qualified expert.

          • What is conveyed and how is as important as the message itself. Go ahead, talk to those touched by a tragedy and discuss getting to the root cause of the issue and see how it will be taken. All depends on if they feel you have an agenda, now wouldn’t it? I do not disagree that finding root causes and dealing with them is important. That is one of those duh moments. But.. when coming from certain sources, root causes usually match political agendas. Think gun control in the US. Root causes coming from certain groups always means more gun control. Not everyone feels the way you do about Trudeau, to some he is just another Liberal. So you can understand what ‘root causes’ might mean to those non-Liberal leaning individuals. It IS wrong to start trying to score political points after a tragedy. What should be said by a politician is an expression of condolences and that is all. His supporters may cheer his expression that are obvious attempts to imply our government doesn’t do enough for what he feels are ‘root causes’ but the rest of the world can see it is a political misstep – it is divisive.

          • I’m a bit perplexed as to why you felt the need to respond with an even less intelligible set of ramblings. You’re simply imposing formal syllogistic fallacies and bare assertions as major points in your argument, which convolutes and deteriotes your implied message. I would surely hope you are not suggesting we judge or reject an idea because of its source and not its merit. Yet, this seems to be the crux of your argument; it’s wrong for Trudeau to mention prevention following an attack, but correct for Harper. If your issue is with the morality of politics than your naivety will only further hinder your thought process. But again, I am not concerned with your feelings or your assumption of the feelings of others, they bear as much significance as your failed attempt to characterize my personal political ideologies and/or endorsements. Perhaps the most disconcerting comment was your inference that this is a divisive issue, it is not; that is what this article highlights. Quite simply, it’s a political tactic from the conservatives to portray liberals as soft on crime—nothing more.

          • No, I am not suggesting we ignore a message because of where it comes from. Just pointing out, using politically charged words doesn’t help to create a unifying message. Those exact same words from Harper would also be construed by his opponents as divisive precisely because they come from Harper. Why does Trudeau always get a pass? Well, this time he didn’t, and if his followers cannot see his words for what they were, that is their loss. To say it is only Harper supporters is silly and divisive. It is musings like this that drive support to Harper and the conservatives- it really is a you are with us or against us type statement. Not everyone agrees with general Liberal root cause analysis but could have agreed with other parts of a future platform. Hopefully for the Liberals they haven’t been too offset.

            As a political tactic, pointing out this leadership whole is quite effective isn’t it? By not even mentioning the need to catch and harshly punish the perpetrators, what exactly does this do to his image of being soft on crime exactly? So his statements are entirely aimed at his base, not the rest of us, and not our allies in the south who are dealing with the aftermath of a terror attack. Not a very good first attempt at statesmanship now is it? He’ll have other chances I’m sure.

            As for my ramblings. meh, you aren’t exactly one to talk. You are welcome to believe my naivety hinders me in anyway, or that you are more wise in the way the world works. As I mentioned, try using the same statements to a victim and tell me how it goes. Not too many will appreciate finding root causes after losing a loved one while the perpetrator is still at large. If it is not divisive, it is because you are surrounded by like minds all fawning over JT, or you have never been with victims. Or I am wrong. It happens.

          • By the way, yes, we were all victims. This targeted random people in America. I am a random American, so I was a target. It could have easily have been me or my family blown to bits as that small child was, so damn right everyone who is American has the right to be offended as if they were victims. We are. If the crime is aimed at an individual in particular, that individual is a victim. If it is aimed at a community, that entire community is a victim. This was aimed at America and its ideals – all who are American and share those ideals were attacked. Damn right we should take it to heart. Attack one of us, you attack us all. My grasping of prevention does not preclude my immediate demand that actions be taken to punish perpetrators to the full extend of our laws. After the perpetrators are caught and made an example of, then we can look at root causes. Justice first thanks. Not everyone feels the way I do about trudeau, but I think may can see how silly it was for him to alienate such a large segment of the voting public with catch words that work on his party faithful. Alienation is not what our country needs in a leader during a crisis.

          • If you’re an American his statements don’t affect you, it’s quite clear you lack basic reasoning skills and likely did not read the article above. You seem to be the only one alienated as the liberal now has greater national support than the conservatives. Canadians prefer facts and results over rhetoric and jargon, do not confuse our ideals as being aligned with yours— you are a neighbor, not a family member.

          • We are all Americans. The US doesn’t own the continent do they? I also treat many of my neighbors and friends as family. Nice to see you can speak for all Canadians though. It would be nice if they prefered facts, but you have not shown it to be true. What facts did Justin divine during the interview that I missed?

            As for divisiveness – isn’t it the LIberals who claimed Harper is divisive because he doesn’t consult or include them in everything? Now Trudeau is not divisive, when he is issuing statements that are clearly not aimed at a portion of Canadians who do not agree with Liberal root cause analysis, and do associate those statements with a soft on crime approach. Yes, I know that is how it goes, and there is a word for it. Hypocrite? You might not be in that camp. But unless Trudeau has 100% support for those statements, damn right they are divisive. The smoke hasn’t cleared, the perpetrator is at large, and he is using the same exact language he would to get to the root cause of social injustices or homelessness. Doesn’t take too much reasoning skills to see that it might be divisive One set of comments touch base on both the need for finding and preventing future attacks (aka root causes) AND catching and punishing the perpetrators. The other does not. Which do you think is more inclusive? What facts did either give?

          • No they don’t own the continent and you are a long way from the black and white world of Fox News. Him mentioning a need for prevention doesn’t preclude apprehending the suspect, who has been apprehended. The fact you consistently overlook is that what Trudeau said in no way was a liberal tactic or policy, this is verifiable if you’d simply scroll up. The rest simply makes no sense, your reasoning is entirely illogical and quite frankly stupid. You assign such significance to a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. Hopefully, for the last time, emotional reactions cannot be predicted and I nor should you attempt to discern a greater significance from an assumed reaction. I thought macleans would be home to more reasonable and intelligent discourse—I was wrong. I bid you good day sir

  17. A couple of points…

    1) Trudeau’s comments were problematic more because of their timing…no one should be waxing philosophic about “root cause” analysis while blood is still flowing, wounds are still raw, and suspects are still at large. That’s just dumb. The BS about terrorist buddy “definitely feeling excluded” was also unbelievably stupid when radical Islam being the cause was still a possibility.

    2) From what little I just read of this Kanishka program, presumably “understanding” terrorism to help with policies to combat it includes understanding the “how” as well the “why” (i.e. tactics, like the PM referenced); something that I expect our government to be on top of at all times.

    • I can’t imagine someone so utterly sick and evil they WOULDN’T want to understand what causes these terrible things could happen. Must be a CPC thing.

      We need to look at the causes of terrorism yesterday, today and tommorow.

      • I am not sure but it seems to me that the first thing we talk about after a mass killing with a gun is “gun control”. We don’t usually discuss the root causes much because the shooter usually has an axe to grind or “he” is a sociopath or is mentally ill. We kind of understand that we can’t exactly eliminate these people from society. All we can do is try to identify them before they strike and keep weapons out of their hands. Now, we have a killing with a bomb and suddenly we believe we can eliminate everyone “axe”? How likely is that? You are dealing with people’s perceptions that their country; their religion; their person has been wronged. You are dealing with paranoia. Working in mental health, I can tell you, not everything is based on facts or is rational.

        • You don’t need to work in mental health to know not everything is based on facts or is rational. Hell, a simple reading of the comments posted here by ChristopherRichardWadeDettling is all the proof you need.

          • Yes that is true. I guess we realize we can’t really reasonably stop selling pressure cookers so now we start thinking maybe we can stop “crazy”.

  18. The ideology of radical islam is the root of the problem……..accordingly they think we are the great satan, infidals, dogs, and we must bow the Allah and sharia law, or we are worthy of death and beheading………and they will not give up either. Kill one, and another one sprouts up…..it is rooted in falsehood from the beginning. Why do you think the devil himself fights against the christian faith so much in the middle east. It is a strong foothold for the devil, and he has blinded the minds of so many is Islam………

    ……..2 Corinthians 4:3-4……..

    3 If the Good News we preach is hidden behind a veil, it is hidden only from people who are perishing. 4 Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

    • Try me again when there aren’t a LOT of so-called Christians who are just as violent and domination-minded as those radical Muslims you attack.

      • Some facts for Leftards;

        Islamics Launched their Crusades in 630 A.D.
        Western Crusades started in 1095 A.D. to Stop Muslim Invasion

        The Crusades were started by the Muslims in the year 630 A.D. when
        Muhammad invaded and conquered Mecca. Later on, Muslims invaded Syria,
        Iraq, Jerusalem, Iran, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Italy, France, etc. The
        Western Crusades started around 1095 to try to stop the Islamic
        aggressive invasions. Islamic Crusades continued even after the Western
        Crusades.

        Islam – Not a Religion of Peace
        Islam has killed about 270 million people: 120 million Africans*, 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists, etc.”

        Forced conversions to Islam have been the norm, across three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe—for over 13 centuries.

        Orders for conversion were decreed under all the early Islamic
        dynasties, under both Seljuk and Ottoman Turkish rule, and in
        Persia/Iran and the Indian subcontinent, etc.

        Islam has been at a continuous war against non-Muslims for
        almost 1400 years (since Muhammad.)

        • A little fact for the righthole who wrote the above… a “crusade” is a holy war waged by Christians- it is taking up the cross and going to war in the name of Christ. I don’t think Muslims would have gone to war using the Christian cross as their symbol.
          Try looking up a definition or two.

      • Compare the nations that HAVE BEEN predominately christian, with nations that are presently muslim or hindu……Where is all the war and strife today? Is it not in the middle east? Christianity has left its lingering influence on the countries of peace, as the embers of a fire still bring warmth……

      • When in the past 500 years have Christians been as “violent and domination-minded” as today’s radical Muslims?

        • How about Nazi Germany, 1939-45?

          • Sorry, Guest. The Nazis you can blame on atheist socialists

        • It wasn’t called “the Dark Ages” because the sun was dimmer.

          • If you knew anything about history, you’d know that the Dark Ages began with the collapse of the Roman Empire and ended with the Christian Crusades. Christianity hadn’t brought us darkness as much some of you might like to think. In fact, it was instrumental in shedding light upon Europe. Give a google to a man named Sir Francis Bacon.

  19. You have to be Liberal to think that funding to “stand up for victims of crime/terrorism” is funding to “uncover the root causes of terrorism so that we can find out why WE – the excluders – are to blame.” Yes, thank you to Paul Wells and his former colleague Kady O’Malley for beginning this idiotic conversation suggesting that these are the same thing. Bedazzled by Trudeaumania me thinks they are.

    • I guess that means you have to be conservative to be stupid enough to think that trying to prevent a problem is a waste of time.

      • Trudeau was suggesting that “WE – the excluders – are to blame” and wants to find out what those root causes are so we can stop “causing” terrorists to be violent. It’s stupid, Liberal thinking. Is this how you think too, Stephen Bryce?

        • Please tell us what Trudeau’s phrase/sentence is even close to “WE- the excluders- are to blame?

          • “I feel excluded. Seriously!” You think Justin should rush over to search for my root cause?

            How would he know I’m not gonna blow up a stadium next week? Or tomorrow? Wait, I will do it today, just to p$ss everyone off.

            What? You don’t believe me? I am an immigrant you know!

          • You do seem alienated from everyone except Harper…

          • Stop putting me in a box! You people are all the same, trying to place immigrants such as me in a box, a corner of sorts. We have rights too you know! Don`t do the seeming about me. I am a person like anyone else!

          • Yes, and you make a good case for a restrictive immigration policy!

          • So now you are telling me that I should never have been allowed in this country? Who are you to decide? I have rights too.

            You are insulting me. I will tell Justin that you are insulting me. We immigrants feel excluded because you people insult us all the time. Stop insulting the immigrants!

          • It’s spelled “idiot”.. immigrant is something else.

          • Congrats Francien you just made the terrorist watch list. Hope you aren’t too settled in you may be going home soon.

          • You guys are so pathetic! Justin is looking for root causes, is he not?

            Well, I am an immigrant and I am excluded and insulted by you too now!

            Why don’t you guys make up your mind: either you look for root causes or you don’t.

            Oh, I see; you and Justin are only looking for particular root causes! It is not important if I feel excluded, or if I am insulted!

            See how this world works, this world of looking for root causes? It is all a sham! You even exclude some when looking for root causes!

        • Trudeau said ‘feel excluded’. This is not the same as saying we exclude. Some of you really need to improve your comprehension skills.

          • But Justin says he will search for root causes. And when you are doing the excluding you are the root cause he is searching for.

          • It’s not complicated, I don’t know why you’re having so much trouble with this.

          • Then JanBC, why don’t you do us all a favour here at the Macleans comment boards: let it be your first: for once, just for once in your life EXPLAIN to us how you think Justin’s search for root causes should be interpreted!!!!

            Give it a try JanBC – for once!

          • Five hours ago, and still not reply from JanBC. Never a reasoned reply from JanBC. Did you not quite understand what I pointed out to you?

            Do you not quite understand what root causes are all about?

            Perhaps your great leader Justin should try and explain himself better. Or does he feel that Paul and Kady must rush to your leader’s rescue, since he might be incapable of setting his own record straight?

    • Liberals (and Kady and Paul) don’t understand the difference between finding out how terrorists organize, congregate and behave in order to help flush them out before harm can be done, and the searching for ‘root causes’ Trudeau II is talking about.

      “I feel excluded! :( ((( Could anyone call Justin to tell me my root cause?” No one will call Harper for that one; he won’t be fooled that easily!

      • I think in your case it might be root rot.

        • Oh, JanBC: do yourself a favour and grow up!

      • spare the rod and spoil reviled?

    • Paul’s a smart man, he knows that, he also knows lefties will jump on any bone thrown their way.

    • Providing free advertisement for Justin methinks!

  20. Harper, unable to stand on his pitiful record, lowers the bar as he resorts to character assassinations, bullying, and fear mongering to make himself look like the top dog.
    This is leadership? What a mangy mutt!

    • Where is the rational argument?
      Words are a dime a dozen.
      The Prime Minister has a wonderful record of conservatism.
      Why?
      He cleared organised crime out of Ottawa.
      God bless Prime Minister Harper and the superior ruling class of the Western people.

  21. Obama has legitimized drone missiles (punctuated with terrorist double-tapping of first responders with a second missile) as a valid state tool (without thought of the collateral damage to innocents). So much for root causes. Obama just lets the missiles raining down do his talking and studying of root causes.

    Progressives are never going to be able to live that down.

  22. Dearest Kady and Paul must be so happy now that they have found something, anything, with which to caress the open wounds Justin is still suffering from.

    My oh, my: for a Prime Minister, any Prime Minster, to say that understanding terrorism is important is nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, it is to be expected.

    But nowhere in this can it be found that the PM said we should look into the ‘root causes’ in order to come to an understanding of terrorism.

    Oh, and Kady and Paul: say hello to Justin when you bring him his apple juice………………………..HAHAHAHHAHA~! Hilarious!

  23. Oh god. You guys blather on like a bunch of jackaninnies. You sound just like the whiny defeatists that your respective parties are.That your narrowminded opinions mean anything to anyone other than the likeminded souls who help buoy your own delusions on this website sure seems to elude you. Quite obviously Canada has a conservative bend in politics at the moment as the conservative government in power clearly shows. But wait, I forgot. We wold be so much better off if the tax and spend liberals or the my paycheque is your paycheque bleeding heart NDp ers were to be in power.

    • Ya, Harper just spends! Not to worry, when it is finally out of control, he will tax. Oh that’s right he increased the tariffs…hmm basically the same thing as a tax, but that’s ok because it is NOT classed by the Cons as a tax.

    • Harper whips out the credit card, racks up the nation’s debt, and leaves it to future (Liberal? NDP?) governments to pay off the debt AND the interest. This is your idea of sound leadership?

  24. Not if they were Christians, they wouldn’t!

  25. Harper’s response to Justin Trudeau’s statement about the Boston Marathon bombing was very enlightening. It could have been taken directly out of an Old Testament context: Condemnation followed by Vengeance unadulterated by reason or compassion. One could visualize Harper searching for the biggest stick to beat someone with; all the while ignoring or overruling the advice of security experts and making political hay out of a horrific event.
    It is obvious from the media coverage of the bombing investigation, that “root cause” understanding is an integral aspect of the tools the security and police personnel used to predict what the suspects might do, where they might go, how violent they could be and what methods they may use. Most importantly they are now focussing on “root cause” concepts to learn how to prevent repeats of the bombings. The US media also obviously used “root cause” knowledge to inform the public, prevent panic and avoid vigilante
    justice against communities associated with the suspects. All of this appears to be far too subtle for Harper and his partisan colleagues. Harper’s comments suggest that it would be enough to charge the suspects on flimsy evidence, make a lot of noise about it to raise funds from his base, have a fast and loose show trial and brag about locking them up and throwing away the key. At the same time Harper would ignore the collateral damage to an ethnic community. More important he would refuse to learn anything about how to
    prevent the same thing from happening in Canada outside of abusive public punishment for perpetrators.

    Epic fail for Harper. This is one more illustration that if Harper had been Prime Minister at
    the time after 9/11, Canada would have joined the war in Iraq on George Bush’s command and the cost would now be a bankrupt country, hundreds killed and thousands maimed all for a war waged on deceitful evidence and that created far more problems than it solved.

    • “I feel excluded. :( (( Can you call Justin so he can tell me about my root cause?”

      hahahhahahahahaha hilarious!

      • You might want to consider the fact that the topic of discussion is how political leaders should respond in the situation of horrific tragedies that have an impact on national security. Nothing about this should be taken as hilarious. Your belittling of serious debate and juvenile attempt at humor does you and your Harperite cause no favor. Your comment is below a grade school bully. Abouit par with Harper.

        • You don`t think I am serious……I am an immigrant and i don`t like it when you won`t take me seriously enough! Enough is enough! Immigrants have rights too! I know we do because I have heard about the Charter of Rights. Justin says he is very proud of that. I am too. I have rights you know!

          • Now you’re making fun of the Charter?

          • Why do you keep making fun of me? Just because I am an immigrant does not mean I don’t know about my rights. And the Charter of Rights is nothing to sneeze at!

            More rights: yes

            More responsibilities: not so much!

            And I am making fun of the Charter! Stop insulting me!

          • Francien says: “And I am making fun of the Charter! Stop insulting me!”

          • Oh, hi there Gretchen. Did you miss me that much on Ms.May’s comment boards?

            Thank you for being my loyal follower!

      • omg, how many times are you going to post the exact same comment Francien? I am losing respect for you.

        • Justin, Justin, where are you? Come quick, look!: another poster making fun of me because I’m an immigrant. I am excluded. Please Justin, come check out one of those root causes!

          Gretchen is losing respect for me. HAHAHAHAHHA!

    • He had dinner with Dick Cheney the night before at 10 Downing – the man is a bad influence.

  26. This may be a little out of context with the other discussions. Perhaps NOW we have an inkling as to why M. Trudeau played his card so close to the chest during his leadership campaign …chalk up one policy theft to MR. Harper!

  27. Any excuse to militarize Canada, encourage racialized profiling, and criminalize “foreign financed radicals” such as environmentalists, and other pacifists who love Canada, and any others want to protect our resources from pollution will do, thank you. Harper’s Department of Religious Freedom, the Mosaic Institute, and the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society…remember George Orwell’s Newspeak and his Ministries of Love, Plenty and Truth? There is a reason for these new departments- criminalization of Canadians, and an expensive place to put us, the new Super Prisons. Be afraid, very afraid.

    • War Measures Act, arrests without warrant, troops in the street…courtesy of “just watch me” Pierre Trudeau —Liberal.

      Internment of Japanese Canadians during WWII — Mackenzie King — Liberal

      Chretien’s Anti-Terrorism Act. — Liberal

      • Oh, please don’t clutter this comment board up with facts. The partisan Liberal hacks who hang out here don’t like you derailing their narrative.

  28. Well said, I guess it is something like being a good liar, you had better have a good memory if you are going to be holier than thou

  29. One idiotic and deceitful move after another. He’s become our ‘George Bush’ He’s not a goofy imbecile, but a greedy one.

  30. What if the root causes of terrorism are found to be Islamic extremism and the silly immigration policies that create ghettos or encourage the control of new immigrants by the same demagogues and thugs that they are trying to get away from.

    • Right on! Thus the most effective prevention would be to stop all Muslim Immigration and ban Islam categorically. Only a fool would take any chance that allowing in, accepting, monitoring or sanctioning with conditions, the religion from which all their worst threats,, enemies, spies etc…. stem from, would, in any measure, be worthwhile to risk the lives of their historically stable citizenry. Ignorant of history… doomed to repeat it! The Arab Muslim doctor you know could be the next one to blow something up and kill or main you or your friends and further limit YOUR freedoms and ruin your way of life. Discrimination is a valid process when applied not to harm or disadvantage, but to prevent harm and disadvantage. Do I believe this is achievable?…no. I am prepared to die… see my friends and family killed… see our Canadian freedoms, jobs and way of life evaporate in a truth obscurring cloud of political correctness, because doing anything truly effective about it now is not practical and would be too little too late. Bad stuff is going to happen I would expect. We shall have to deal with such events one at a time and live as best we can just being grateful we don’t yet have civil war or Sharia law…. Not yet at least.

  31. This comment was deleted.

  32. I could have told him for half that.

  33. Where is the beef? Is that a true interpretation of the words of Stephen Harper or nonsense? We do not know. This journalist offers no argument in support of a true interpretation. Patch and glue. But he implies that his utterances are the true interpretation.
    Sophists maintain that ultimate linguististic and journalistic reality is unknowable.
    We should attack sophistry in journalism. The best method is the firing of sophistical journalists. Hire more journalists with analytical skills, ones who offer semantical and hermeneutical arguments in support of their interpretations of political and economic statements.

    God bless the Prime MInister and Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.
    God bless Canada.

    • Agree with the God bless Queen Elizabeth and Canada. But not Harper.

      • Why?
        Where is the Triple A Alberta Angus beef?

        • Why? Because Harper is a greedy greedy man that’s why. One of the things, GOD does NOT like. So why would you want Harper blessed?

    • Very easy to verify, that internet thing is quite handy for that, but I suspect you are more comfortable with your ignorance than actually checking out the sources given.. Makes it much easier to be a Harper supporter.

      • If so handy then use your hands.
        Wars da beef?

  34. This comment was deleted.

    • I think she has wood for Justin.

    • Wow, this is a profound response to this article.

  35. Except, of course, Harper’s bit was specifically what to do in response to an individual violent act (which may be why he explicitly stated so), rather than a slow long-term government policy that is calmly and rationally acted on during more ordinary times. Of course in general the government wants to find out why these things happen and how to prevent or identify them (and notice how much “anti-science” Harper is throwing at academics here). However, no matter what they are funding on a steady long-term basis, when s**t like this hits the fan and there are victims of brutality suffering and a populace angered and worried and upset, its not the time to look at the specific incident with some touchy-feeling “find the root causes” nonsense — or, especially as Justin did, pretend he had already DISCOVERED the root cause (“exclusion!”) — the job of elected leaders is to speak and act towards the immediate short-term goal of finding the persons responsible and beginning legal proceedings against them.

    • We must reassure the families we will take the nenessary action to work against the kind of tragedy that just occurred.

  36. I wonder if they will ever get down to the root causes of terrorism, such as invading sovereign countries to get their oil, supporting repressive regimes that sell us oil, or supporting Israel in their suppression of the Palestinians. These things are pretty much guaranteed to get people upset.

  37. it’s funny how J,T. was bashed for using the words “root causes”, and then the PM uses the same terms, how pathetic of the CONS supporters……….

    • not just Harper,,

      “It’s also sobering for a country like Canada that shares values with Norwegians and a demonstration of … the volatility that’s still there, the vigilance that we have to demonstrate and persevere and work together to try “to find the root causes” but also try to pre-empt and interrupt these types of attacks.” Peter MacKay, commenting on the Norway massacre.

  38. It sounds to me that Mr. Harper is doing his best to understand our enemies from Islam so we can protect ourselves better. What is wrong with that? if this were the little Trudeau twerp doing it, then it would be brilliant strategy now wouldn’t it. Katie O’Malley would be sitting at his feet with a Pan flute and a toga. Paul Wells, you couldn’t carry Mark Steyns brief case. Give it up, you are a clown.

    • Whats wrong with that is that he slammed Trudeau for suggesting the EXACT SAME THING.

  39. The root cause of terrorism in N. America and W. Europe is pro-immigration politicians who insist on flooding our countries with people from hostile 3rd world cultures. I’ll be
    e-mailing my MP today and you should do so as well. How strong do we want terrorist networks in N. America to become?

  40. Hmm — Harper’s speech sounds very much like what he jumped on Justin Trudeau for saying following the Boston bombings — hypocrisy anyone?

    • There’s a big difference between studying the reason why terrorism exist and cuddling the terrorists and trying to make their lives better after they have taken so many innocent lives away.

      • Didn’t know Trudeau was cuddling the terrorist.

      • Did you make that up yourself or did you have help? I’d love to see any proof you have that Trudeau suggested making their lives better after they committed their crimes, This one of those things Cons do, make up stuff to justify their classless behavior like using the victims to falsely score cheap poltical points. I don’t expect to see any proof because it doesn’t exist. I await the Trudeau quotes that back up your statements

        • What exactly do you mean by proof, and why?
          We will see or we will not see.

      • Most terrorists attacks are basically suicide missions, so I don’t see where much cuddling that could take place. Searching for causes is motivated by trying to thwart future attacks.

      • you are correct. But nobody suggested the latter.

    • Do you have good or bad ears?

  41. There is a time to be contemplative and a time to act. Yes, we need accurate intelligence to properly assess threats to our respective nations. Part of this is understanding the psychology of the moral monsters who carry out these kind of attacks. But the time to do this is not in the immediate aftermath of the worst terror attack since 911. Bleeding hearts should at least wait until the blood of the victims is dry. But Trudeau’s comments are in no way similar to the mandate of the Kanishka project or the recent comments of President Obama (made after the final terrorist was captured); it was simply pop-philosophy gone wrong – a morally arbitrary approach to geopolitics that was not only irresponsible but dangerous if acted upon.

    • We must reassure the families we will take the nenessary action to work against the kind of tragedy that just occurred. Yesterday, today, tommorow.

  42. While Kady and Paul do have a point… a very small point, because Harper’s words are not exact… I do think they are mostly wrong.

    I think that Harper is more or less saying that idle speculation is useless. A research project into root causes is not the same as the leader throwing out his personal opinions that have no basis in fact but are rather based on intuition, that are easily debatable, and that are said long before the facts relating to the current attacks are known.

    As Frum (and I’m not a big Frum fan but this article hits the mark) says, there’s a lot that can be debated about what he said. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/20/justin-why-trudeau-s-heir-should-stop-talking.html

    Harper is saying that the immediate reaction to a terrorist attack is not idle speculation, but condemnation. That doesn’t mean root causes should never be investigated. For those of those who disagree with Trudeau’s opinion, the last thing we want to see from a leader is controversial and debatable statements when we’re looking for leadership.

    • Why exactly do you think that Prime Minister Harper is more or less saying that idle speculation is useless? Why exactly do you think he is saying that the immediate reaction to a terrorist attack is not idle speculation, but condemnation? Perhaps you do not really mean what you say.
      Wars da bif?
      Whoops.
      Where is the Triple A Alberta Angus beef?
      What is your favorite cut, if I may ask?
      I prefer the best filet mignon of the beast.

      • I am saying that because you can interpret Harper’s words that way.
        I don’t have a favorite cut – that’s a good question, I’ll have to think more about that. I do know I tend to like beef medium rare.

        • What can be is not what exists.
          Please stop pretending or saying that it is.
          Where is the rational political and economic argument?

          • You missed it. Please stop saying “please stop”. I can assure you I will ignore such requests.

          • You can assure me?
            Do you really mean it?
            Prove it.
            Words are a dime a dozen, especially amongst the inferior ruling class of the morbid eastern establishment.
            Charbonneau and the Montreal Clique, Monsieur Desmarais and his boys.
            Hubert is laughing his balls off.

    • Obama is talking about the how’s and and why’s and he’s had to deal with numbers of these kind of events during his time in office. I am waiting for Harper to condemn him for his lack of leadership. Nothing like claiming expertise when you have never had to handle one of these .

      • Why would Harper condemn him? That makes no sense. But I commend you for your record-breaking 4 line comment.

      • Well he certainly handled this one better than the last one. At least no YouTube video makers have needlessly gone to jail this time, and Obama managed to avoid jetting off to Vegas the next day.

  43. Harper is the biggest threat to Canada

  44. I fail to see how any of what’s written in this could be considered negative publicity for Prime Minister Harper and his government. Consider how miniscule 10 million dollars is for the federal budget. Consider that such a study has the potential to save lives. Frankly it was a good investment. Or are you putting a price tag on people’s lives Mr. Wells? Seriously was your journalism degree made with crayon?

    • The public schools of the morbid Eastern Establishment are the fountainhead of the Trudeauist apparatchiki.
      Obviously you have good sight, if I am not mistaken.
      Investments in the War on Terror are necessary, because they save lives.
      The many success stories of Homeland Security in the United States are proof of the fact.
      God bless the Prime Minister and Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

    • The fact that Harper tried to paint Trudeau as a terrorist sympathizer for suggesting THE EXACT SAME THING probably has something to do with it. Meaning Steve tried to score cheap political point on the backs of the victims . Thus making him a quite classless and very large hypocrite.

  45. Another story you won’t find on SUN TV.

  46. it’s as though this government really really believes it is immune to saying one thing the one day and then doing something in contradiction to what they said the next day.
    bewildering that they are not taken to task more often for this behaviour.

    • The Philosophy of As If.
      Wars da bif?

  47. Here is the plan. Fire Paul Wells and hire Christopher Richard Wade Dettling.
    He will work at least twice as hard for half the salary and donate most of it to the Government of Canada. Sounds fine to me. Check out the ears of Dettling–they are pretty good.

    • You’re in luck! A ‘hermeneutics and phantasy’ guy with an Alberta meat fixation is exactly what ‘Canada’s National News Magazine’ needs! This could be a huge break for you and your double-double hard-working ears! You could write a weekly post-modern take on Canadian politics called ‘Ou’est le bouef?”

      Look out! Subscription overload a-comin’!

      • Meat fixation?
        Certainly there exists a rational distinction between scientific and unscientific psychology, but that is your problem.
        Where is the argument?

        • What are you? A philosophy beer leaguer? An escapee? A threat to national security?

          Here’s the skinny, fella: Justin said something. Stephen said the exact same thing. And then threw $10 million at it. Clearly, they are both concerned about it. As should we all be. -30-

          • “Stephen said the exact same thing”
            Where and when did he say that?
            Where is the argument?
            And where is the argument in favour of the interpretation?
            Words are a dime a dozen, especially at the public schools controlled by the apparatchiki of the morbid eastern establishment.
            God bless the Prime Minister and Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

  48. Conservatism depends on our right amygdala. It is a small part of our brain that is larger in conservatives than liberals. The right amygdala seems tied to reactive thinking. The part of of our thinking Martin Luther much preferred over reason. Reason, Martin Luther noted, leads to people not needing God, as Plato noted was possible to do, and be good and find reason and purpose. The reactionary part of our brain, Daniel Kahneman writes about in his book is primarily there to protect us from the tiger by fleeing in a panic. This unreasoned fear is useful Warren Buffett reasons for watching for because it has the heard running of some cliff with their investments in hand. When they hit bottom Warren Buffett, having taken the time to use reason, looks for opportunities to profit off of right amygdala thinking. Reason, I conclude, is also to protect us from the tiger. Not by fleeing but by confronting the tiger. The military know one example of this competitive advantage as “small unit cohesion”. Goggle know it for being key for being innovative. Stephen Harper is too authoritarian and to reliant on Canadians feeling like cornered rats with only our right amygdala thinking for us. Not me though. I am a liberal. Not sure if I am a Liberal. But there is no way I can ever not vote if it means a conservative might get elected.

  49. Confronted with facts of the Nazi Holocaust, and asked whether he
    acknowledged and condemned them, Jean-Marie LePen, leader of the French
    extreme Right, winced and bit his lip, and then said, “The death of the
    Jews is one historic detail [among many others] (c’est UN détail de l’histoire, the word ONE stressed).” He thereby provoked an outpouring of condemnation of himself.
    One wonders whether France’s version of MacLeans rushed an article into print the next day, demonstrating that, by golly, there were other details in history, you know, the old boy was right.

  50. As a guy who pals around with neo-Nazi skinheads and white supremacists, I’m guessing Harper knows more about the roots of terrorism than he’s willing to admit.

  51. Stephen is a cause of terrorism in Canada

    • I bet you’re a cause of migraines for your friends, family and coworkers.

  52. Pretty straightforward evidence that Harper doesn’t rule out root causes except in relation to how you should be responding to an attack that just happened. Harper was right to criticize but I found it objectionable that he did as bluntly as he did, and in doing so he misrepresented his own views most of all.

  53. What kind of horrific person looks at terrible tradgedy ont he day it happens and thinks “Boy, I better NOT tell the families we will explore the causes of this kind of thing.” Do they honestly think that these families lose all reason and become seething masses of rage unable to comprehend basic ideas? What does this say about these politicians?

  54. I don’t think calling out Harper on this matter, in this way, will even things out at all in the court of public opinion. Harper presses for the advantage as hard as he can because he has the public’s ear (sort of) in the first place. Yet, I see I feels he has to make the news as often as possible, with the arrival of Mr. Trudeau. Harper is even meeting with the Nova Scotian premier about that terrible bullying-suicide case. The more he appears in the media, the more he needs to appear in the media.

    About Mr. Trudeau’s Boston remarks, perhaps the jury really is still out as far as the court of public opinion is concerned.

    But just to show that I too (in reference to the story directly at hand) can try to do things that have little chance of success, I say the following:

    The argument over Trudeau’s remarks has do with the way we give ‘weightings’ to the words. Trudeau’s use of ‘excluded’ in no way leads to the suggestion of coddling the terrorists; the tape clearly indicates that he is thinking out loud, using words to get towards the right words. Of course, the opposition (CPC) will put the wrong emphasis on the words.

    For a better example of how we give words their relative weighting, I quote something the hard-talking PM said when he was in opposition in 2003. He said ‘We will join the battle in Iraq but we will be at the back of the parade.’ Seems that he is taken the gravity of the situation in the opposite direction, as a way of showing how he thinks about these matters.

  55. Root Causes of Terrorism… the Middle Eastern variety… read
    The Mohammed Code: Why a Desert Prophet Wants You Dead by Howard Bloom. It was just released two days ago on Smashwords.

  56. Think of all the groups that Harper has “touched” in an aggressive nasty ugly way…Enivronmentalists (See the new movie “Revolution” and you will get the rest of the picture), Hard working Canadians whose GST taxes to the tune of 23 Billion a year lost; Women, Veterans, Native Indians, new Canadian Immigrants, ALL of the Unemployed Youth in all of Canada; Robo Calls illegal insult to all Canadians; Misdirection of Millions of Canadian tax payer dollars; Stuffing the Senate to control all legal decisions and the list goes on and on…Manipulative and in my mind completely Psychopathic…I spoke to a Psychiatrist and asked them “How do we deal with a psychopathic Prime Minister?” I really wanted to know. Here is the KEY: Everytime they say something: THINK THE OPPOSITE. Nothing they say is sincere..they always have an alternative plan. If they say they are trying to HELP the Natives of Canada then you know: The PM is trying to HINDER the Natives of Canada. So above in this article, it says that this character that no one trusts (Harper) is trying to Stop Terrorism. BUT we know that when this comes from the mouth of any Psychopath that their REAL thought is to Create Terrorism….. Perhaps by provoking terrorists by pretending to have an army that you don’t really have then dropping bombs on terrorists who KNOW WHERE YOU ARE and WILL respond. I truly believe that the only reason why Canadians FEAR Terrorists is because of the arrogance and ignorance of our Prime Minister as to how dangerous it is to provote them with such limited resources to stop a full scale attack. This same man who is pretending to be a strong Despot and Ruler (Harper) with a puny army is spending every last nickel just to show the Emperor has no clothes….We are over 60 Billion in Debt from Harpers MiSMANAGEMENT of Canada and from what I hear the Harpers will push Canada way beyond 100 Billion if they think another party will come to power….And we all know thats going to happen for sure…Even his party knows that he has had NO positive increase in his popularity of his party..so he HAS TO GO! The youth of Canada know what a lost future is due to Harper and the average tax payer know the over spending of the man who would be King. The enemy is within…After the next election we will have to clean up the Right Wing radical Harper mess Harper created but good clean honest Canadian values will prevail and we can all be proud to say we are Canadians again! Amen to that.

  57. The resemblance to Republican Obama Derangement Syndrome is eerie

  58. 2 hours after a terrorist attack – I don’t think so!
    Nice deflection though. Canadians won’t be fooled.

  59. First Hon. Mr Prime Minister you need to define “Who is a terrorist” with all due respect to all of mankind. And remember “to whom much is given much is expected”.

  60. Wells – why are u kissing Justins a$$?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *