>I suspect that other countries have their own list that is as long or longer.
>
>Those countries apply as their yardstick 2 major factors I believe:
>1) Is there a territorial grab attempt involved;
>2) Is there a (viable) attempt to topple the government.

Just out of interest, Jim, has Canada ever had any terrorist problems? I know you guys tend to keep out of stuff. The Americans rib you about the power of your armed forces but you seem to be like a great big Switzerland (the Swiss, right in the middle of Europe, somehow managed to be left alone during WW II - I don't know the reasons why).

I was amazed a few years ago when I visted Ottawa and found I could walk around the Houses of Parliament car park and actually touch the MPs' cars. In London now they have steel fencing around the HP, and anti-car bomb bollards, etc. I know this is fairly newish but we HAVE had the IRA threat since the 70s (I can well remember the "report any unattended packages" notices all over the Tube), so we have had to be far more vigillant.

Strange that it's so high-profile nowadays, with armed cops on the streets of London, and in airports, cf. the 70s (when we had the Birmingham bombs, the Gillingham Pub Bomb, etc., etc.) right up to the Canary Wharf bomb in the 90s.

>
>To me Afghanistan was the "just war" after 9/11, but the cabal had bigger things in mind and so held way back on troops in favour of a purchased 'army' (the war lords). The result is what you see today in Afghanistan PLUS the escape of Bin Laden. In Afghanistan today "democracy" is at the whim of war lords.

And the women still need to wear burqas, and can't go out alone without a male member of the family, and we have sectarian govt. - seems no better than the Taliban.

Terry