Deuc. When Sadam paid the families of men connected to Islamic Jihad, and The Martyrs Brigades to murder in shopping malls it is impossible to 'disentangle' him from or find an 'escapable' connection between Hussein and terrorism.
Secondly stating that bombings in Israel are 'not the same form of terrorism that threatens the west' is inexplicable. The intelligence community has ample evidence that indicates the global connection and cooperation between radical Islamic terrorists. So much so it is considered a given. Besides how often have we heard Bin Laden refer to 'jews' and 'crusaders' in the same press release?
Thirdly Bin Ladens' stay in Sudan was punctuated by numerous visits from Iraqi intelligence. Records exist to prove these visits took place. The fact nobody can find evidence suggesting Hussein officially sanctioned such ventures is not surprising. In any case nobody did anything in Iraq without Sadam's approval for obvious reasons. Please stay posted because I'll supply the name of the Sudanese cleric who acted as liason for Bin Laden in Sudan, and was a trusted mentor of Hussein as soon as possible.
Finally Zarqawi wandered in and out of Iraq so many times, Jordans' king officially sought the extradition of him just months before the war started. He wasn't there bathing in the Euphrates either. As time has told he was establishing an armed resistance that threatens/aims to pitch arab against arab. Do you think this was possible without Husseins'knowledge? Not exactly an original tactic either is it?
As for Iran gassing the Kurds that is the first I've heard of it.Perhaps it is of similar validity to Husseins' well publicised contention that CIA agents flew planes into the 'twin towers'!

"When Sadam paid the families of men connected to Islamic Jihad, and The Martyrs Brigades to murder in shopping malls it is impossible to 'disentangle' him from or find an 'escapable' connection between Hussein and terrorism."

AFAIK it was only post-hoc compensation to the families of terrorists, ie. moral support for their actions but not funding them or giving them practical assistance. If that is enough for them to be "inextricably linked" then it is not important that they were. What matters is whether Saddam was willing and able to aide global terrorism to such an extent that the costs of war were justified.

"Secondly stating that bombings in Israel are 'not the same form of terrorism that threatens the west' is inexplicable."
No it is easy to explain, it is an attack directed against a single nation rather than Western nations and values in general. Cooperation between Islamists is no suprise, but Saddam wasn't one so unless you have evidence he knew that money was going to be directed towards attacks on western interests then this argument will go nowhere.

"Besides how often have we heard Bin Laden refer to 'jews' and 'crusaders' in the same press release?"
Relevance?

"Thirdly Bin Ladens' stay in Sudan was punctuated by numerous visits from Iraqi intelligence."
Perhaps you are referring to the '94 meeting that didn't result in any actual cooperation?

"In any case nobody did anything in Iraq without Sadam's approval for obvious reasons."
Except in US controlled areas, such as where Zarqawi's base was, do you have any evidence that Zarqawi was freely moving about Iraq proper? Of course, Zarqawi isn't the best example re: using terrorism as a justification for war, considering the many opportunities to kill Zarqawi turned down by the Bush administration prior to the war.

"As for Iran gassing the Kurds that is the first I've heard of it.Perhaps it is of similar validity to Husseins' well publicised contention that CIA agents flew planes into the 'twin towers'! "
I said evidence, the facts are still in issue and it probably was Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Comedy Relief Time.
London now has Sewer Side Bombers that specialise in blowing up toilets.Upon reaching their heaven,the sight of 72 virgins made them so excited that they mistook detonators for Gerbals and it rectum.
by Arjay

Now Graham,I think you need a joke section on topical events.It would definitenly spriten up interest.

A newspiece from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4711003.stm

"Pakistan clerics explain 'jihad'

"Pakistan's top Muslim clerics have said it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to preach the real concept of jihad, or holy war, to young Muslims.

"The situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine is radicalising young people," says Mufti Rafi Usmani, one of Pakistan's highest-ranking clerics.

"And an angry young man is in no-one's control," he said.

Other high-ranking Islamic scholars have also endorsed these views."

I thought that there have been two gulf wars.
The first destroyed most of the infrastructure in Iraq.
This was followed by 12 years of sanctions, which prevented Iraq from repairing its water treatment and sewerage plants.
Then followed the second gulf war which is still in progress.
All of the above actions resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians, many of whom hated Sadam Hussein.
Killing civilians is terrorism even if it is carried out by members of the coalition forces.
How can we have a war on terrorism waged by terrorists on both sides of the fence?
What comes around goes around. If the response to terrorism is terrorism then there can be no end to conflict and killing.
The terrorists are winning the war as we have seen by the recent action by the British police, (holding a person down and then shooting them) shows that we are decending to a level not seen in Britain for over a hundred years.
When George Orwell wrote 1984 I doubt that he meant it to be used as a text book.

Deuc. I am almost certain that there is nothing I can write nor evidence I can produce that will change your opinion. I respect that, and at the risk of sounding cliche, thankfully we live in a country where we are all allowed to discuss these issues.
However I fear that you have become preoccupied with discussing semantics. For example if "actual cooperation" and not just meetings had taken place between Iraqi intelligence and Bin Laden throughout the 1990's I fear that September 11 may have happened ten times over. Yes wars are horrible. Yes wars should be avoided. But Sadam had 15 years to comply with the UN (not the US).
If we transpose that timeline to North Korea for example, evidence suggests the regime there will have killed hundreds of thousands before the world provides tangible relief to that population. The UN's supposedly effective sanctions killed more people in Iraq than any war there, and North Korea is travelling down a similar road.
At this point we (humankind) just have to hope North Korea doesn't start meeting with terrorists. That would really be embarrassing for the UN. "Actual cooperation" probably already exists but the UN still stands back and waits.
By the way the relevance of Al Qaedas' "jews and crusaders" comment is that Bin Laden (and Islamic terrorists) don't distinguish between the two. Similarly I doubt you will find any Islamic Fundamentalist who would be willing to attack Israel but not America. In addition Hassan al-Turabi chaired the PAIC in Sudan, and instigated an attempted revolution in Sudan. He has recently been released from jail in an attempt by authorities to appease the muslim population in Sudan. He openly admits to having been close to both Hussein and Bin Laden. Not evidence of "actual cooperation" but if we played a game of logical link the dots I'm sure we would have established a connection.