"Deuc. I am almost certain that there is nothing I can write nor evidence I can produce that will change your opinion."

Well that depends on whether there is evidence to produce, if there is none that shows a significant/material connection with terrorism then you are correct. I am interested in any evidence you have, and I am explicitly asking for it. If a significant link to global terrorism can be shown then I will happily change my position. Semantics issues do exist, but as I said in my last post it is the strength of connection that is important; only if Iraq was a real danger would the war have been justified on the basis of terrorism. Small connections aren't much of a problem, deep links or cooperation would be.

"At this point we (humankind) just have to hope North Korea doesn't start meeting with terrorists."
I think it already would be supporting terrorism, but I don't think there is much risk of NK giving a nuke to terrorists. And there is very little the UN can do now. Military intervention is currently not possible and diplomacy would only involve aiding NK in ways that would assist the totalitarian regime.

"Similarly I doubt you will find any Islamic Fundamentalist who would be willing to attack Israel but not America."
Where the reason for attacking Israel is a religious rather than political motivation then they would probably happily attack the West, but I don't think all suicide bombers are attacking Israel for purely religious reasons.

The sad fact is Americas engagement with Al Qaida is little more than symbolic - and always has been; The move to Afghanistan on the trail of Osama was appropriate but a failure. And again, the US has essentially left Afgahnistan to its own devices with Kabul isolated and the rest of the country still in relative chaos.
The move into Iraq was rooted in the Wests failure to get public enemy number one and the need to get at least one notch on Sherrif Bush's belt and also to exact some revenge on those pesky "towel heads". Apart from the fact Sadaam is a bad guy, all the other justification for going to Iraq has proved to be false. And the role of the US again is half baked - they have a great tendency to police the place during the day and leave the night to the bandits!They are not a good army - just a big one.
Al Quida needs to be engaged but as long as we are committed to the dumb notion of symettrical war fare against a foe spread across the world we will lose.

Peace –

The first Gulf war was embarked upon to reverse the unilateral annexation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein -

A bit like the way WWII commenced with Germany’s Annexation of Poland

The second Gulf War commenced following Saddam Hussein’s continuance to ignore UN resolutions.

As for your statement “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.”

The London Bombings and police actions, whilst unfortunately producing the death of an “innocent bystanders”, are exemplary actions which prove the effectiveness of CCTV and the UKs last 40 years experience in dealing with terrorist filth.

You can be as cynical all you wish and whimsical about George Orwell as much as you want but remember – London has lost a lot more “innocent victims” to terrorist bombers of both Fanatical Muslims and Fanatical IRA varieties than it has to police shootings.

I would suggest the idea that the number of arrests and containment of terrorists in the few weeks since London’s most recent atrocities is a cause for pride and relief for law abiding Londoners – and a reason for fear by wannabe terrorists and murderous bombers.

– If I were Osama Bin Laden - I would forget about spreading an undemocratic program of terrorist attrition and look for a very very deep hole to crawl into – before the English police get serious about exterminating him.