I was reading the text of the last Bin Laden letter. Again, his statements are largely ignored in the Middle East, although I am told that he has a cult following in Saudi Arabia. (But I should also add that Bush is really pushing people in the Middle East to the ranks of radicalism and militancy by his words and actions. I was recently told of an Arab Christian who works at a major company in London and who is now a cheerleader for Bin Laden becuase he believes that he is effective against US.) But I found it ironic that Bin Laden is in full agreement with Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. Here is what Bin Laden said: "The conflict is an ideological-religious conflict, and the clash is a clash of civilization..." I also noticed that Al-Quds Al-`Arabi (the editor of which is an Arab nationalist who manages to combine admiration for Saddam and Bin Laden simultaneously) did not print a particularly sinister and nasty threat contained in the full text of the Bin Laden message. Among the fanatical fundamentalist circles of Egypt--the branch headed by Ayman Adh-Dhawihiri, they sometimes rule that an enemy''s blood is "spillable" (mahdur ad-dam--which unfortunately is the Islamic legal rule on Baha'ism) and his money is made available for all. Bin Laden used that same fanatical rule against his Muslim enemies. And he adds that their wives can be divorced from them. I have received from an anonymous source via email a recording of the message by none other than Abu Mus`ab Az-Zarqawi. I have never heard his voice before, and there are not even recent pictures of him. I was surprised how theatrically staged and choreographed the message was. A man comes and introduces Zarqawi as the head of the organization of Tawhid and Jihad in Iraq, and then Zarqawi proceeds to read his message. From the standpoint of communication, Zarqawi has a strong speaking voice and effective oratorical skills. I do not know whether he wrote his own message (as Bin Laden and Saddam do--Saddam began writing his own speeches after the defeat of 1990, and it shows. He is a lousy and boring writer of Arabic, and has the most annoying nasal voice to boot) but he produces the typical fanatical fundamentalist line, although there is none of the anti-Shi`ism that was contained in the statement that US had attributed to Zarqawi. Zarqawi mostly railed against the Jordanian government, and disputed its version of event regarding a plan for chemical bombing in Amman. He insisted that his plan was directed against the mukhabarat (intelligence) headquarters. He also denied the intention of harming innocent civilians. I find that latter point surprising especially if he is truly responsible for the series of car bombings in Iraq. I also find that surprising because Al-Qa`idah kooks never even apologize for their killing of innocent people. Is that yet another indication that Abu Mus`ab's organization is separate from Al-Qa`idah? He, however, did call Abu Zubayda (of Al-Qa`idah) a "brother" but that is not unusual. I must once again remember what Anis Naqqash had told me (see below somewhere): that there is Al-Qa`idah, and then there is a parrallel organization of experts and civilians who aid Al-`Qa`idah. I say that because I have noticed that political literature of Al-Qa`idah (and even of Zarqawi) have become very aware and attuned to international press, and seem to have a wide and sophisticated intelligence network. You will find them referring to articles in a German magazine, or a French daily, and Zarqawi even identified the loads of trucks from Jordan to Iraq.