Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Al-Quds Al-`Arabi printed more of the statement by Abu Hafs Batallions. No wonder Al-Hayat quoted a few excerpts from it. It contains anti-Saudi rhetoric. It contains a pledge that the US will NOT be attacked because they want Bush to be re-elected. And they said "Democrats are cunning and can "sex up" infidelity and pass it to the Arab and Islamic nation in the name of civilization." It basically argued that Bush is good because his actions are so provocative (to Muslims and Arabs) that they succeed in waking up people. I remain suspicious and skeptical about the statement. It also had a slight off-handed insult against the Taliban, referring to their "mountain withdrawal." Is that an indication of some split and conflict? The statement went on to say that Al-Qa`idah is now freer to operate than before. Also, would a true extremist fundamentalist refer to the "Arab nation," I wonder. Some mainstream ones even avoid recognizing any ummah aside from the "Islamic nation." And it is not characteristic of Al-Qa`idah propaganda and literature to talk about details of domestic politics of countries that they dismiss as "infidel"? I feel more worried than less worried. I believe the danger is lurking but from unexpected sides and groups. What if it is neither ETA, nor Al-Qa`idah? And who is capable of running operations in Europe for Al-Qa`idah when Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad are in US custody, and Sayf Al-`Adl is in Iran (most likely under house arrest, and others have been killed? By the way, Aljazeera in English is reporting that the Hotel was close to an office of Iraqi intelligence, and yet that item is not on Al-Jazeera Arabic website, and did not hear it in their news reports. But Al-Jazeera's office is also close to the blast site. I forgot to say that the statement cited above also contained tons of condemnation of the UN.