It may in fact be safe to say that while al-Quaeda has managed to carry out a few spectacular and horrible attacks, it was never the omnipotent, all-encompassing force that the Bush administration made it out to be, and probably could have been effectively destroyed if we had focused on eliminating their leadership rather than diverting immense resources by invading Iraq.

The threat shouldn't be downgraded. It should be rightgraded.

If it isn't an "all encompassing threat"...lets keep invading muslim nations until it is!!! Their is a lot of money to be made in the MIC.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WESTERN WORLD!

AND THEY ARE STARTING IN IRAQ!

Question to readers: if there is no spectacular terrorist attack in the next year -- on a par, say, with either the London or Madrid bombings -- is it safe to say that the threat from Al Qaeda should be seriously downgraded?

If I understand correctly, the London and Madrid bombings were carried about by "self-starters", not by Al Qaeda. (See Benjamin and Simon, The Next Attack.) It's not the Al Qaeda organization that's the danger--it's the plausibility of AQ's claim that the West is at war with Islam, fuelled by Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If the motivation is there, it's not expensive or difficult to carry out an attack.

Any comments on the release of this tape followed by the coordinated attack on the Dahab resort?

The worst part about bin Laden's latest bluster is it is enough to scare the skittish United Nations from intervening in Darfur to protect the Darfurian Muslim population from continuing to be slaughtered by the purpoted Islamic Sudanese government and its proxies.

Of course nobody can be bothered to suggest that maybe the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have something to do with this. I mean, the allied forces have killed literally tens of thousands of Mr Bin Laden's associates, destroyed almost all of their training camps and denied them a stable host country.

Nothing to see there, folks. Just move along.

Yeah, what about Dahab? Al Qaeda related? Inspired? I.e. al Qaeda really a spent force? If not, and its still less than a year since the Al Qaeda inspired London attacks, then what the heck have the billions in Iraq and Afghanstan been spent for? Not to mention the US lives and lives of civilians.

That's so harsh on the Devil Rays in so many ways . . . .

Al Qaeda is the ultimate brand name. They spend nothing to set up their franchises -- in fact their arch-enemy the Saudi government funds the bricks-n-mortar of the Mosques were Muslim yutes are radicalized. But nobody bombs in the name of the Saudi dynasty, or Wahabi clerics. They all want that Al Qaeda cache. So Ben Laden has now the ultimate terror network -- self financing, responding to his periodic missives from his mountain lair. Al Qaeda has become a brand.

But sure, the fact that Afghanistan has been denied, mostly, to Al Qaeda has to hurt. Iraq, of course, has about zero to do with Bin Laden.

It seems that no Westerners were hurt in Dahab, which makes the whole event rather uninteresting. America is winning, Al Quaida is vanishing.

It seems that no Westerners were hurt in Dahab, which makes the whole event rather uninteresting. America is winning, Al Quaida is vanishing.

Bin Laden's big statements to the umma don't recognise the multi-faceted nature of the "West vs Islam" argument. There are at least two major streams here. One is international, which the US has undertaken on foreign soil for reasons that many of its citizens understand (although they're growing war-weary). The other is the domestic West v Islam struggle, which is mostly relegated to continental Europe and is largely due to intolerance shrouded under the guise of euro-centric cultural identity. The UK falls in both camps, so it's got a tough dilemma on its hands.

The realisation by parties on all sides that there is real complexity to the issues and there are actually different arguements to be had for each issue seems to be making AQs job more difficult to rally the constituency, especially as more time goes by and as bin Laden stakes claim to issues that are not his (Sudan, Palestine, etc).

The tapes from bin Laden are not unlike a series bad Saturday Night Live skits that were once a hit, but just can't keep the audience's interest anymore. Even if there is another major attack, his message will not be a new one - the same droning polemics that we've seen for years. We all know his issues. However, I'm less convinced the attack would be on America than it would be on Europe, where Muslims see a very real apartheid from mainstream European society. Proximity and intolerance are real problems in Europe and AQ well understands how to polarise neighbour against neighbour on European soil.

I saw the video and boy, did I have a good laugh! That scarecrow goat herder in the dirty skirt is ... funny. A laugh is the best remedy - against binladens and other bugs.

no westerners injured.

Actually several Westerners, including an United Statesian, were injured and a German boy was killed.

I saw the video and boy, did I have a good laugh! That scarecrow goat herder in the dirty skirt is ... funny. A laugh is the best remedy - against binladens and other bugs.

You must've been watching something else because his latest tape was audio only.

Bin Laden hasn't made a video since his oh so convenient (for Bush) pre-election 2004 rant.

After that vid, a lot of people said Osama just didn't look like his old self. I wonder whether he's taken all that criticism about his funny appearance to heart?

Jaimito, thanks for remind us that dead wogs don't matter. I almost forgot.