 Hosni Mubarak, even in the death throes of his regime, did not have the temerity to blame al-Qaida for his downfall. Not so Colonel Gaddafi, who says Osama bin Laden has been drugging Libyan youth to foment violence. Both the accusation of involvement in narcotics and domestic unrest have long pedigrees. Many have claimed Bin Laden is involved in the heroin trade, though no evidence for such a link exists. and dozens of unsavoury and repressive regimes (mainly allies of the west) have invoked the name of the al-Qaida leader to gain diplomatic, military, financial or commercial benefits, or to explain away internal discontent and dissent.  The truth is al-Qaida's leadership is physically, culturally and ideologically too distant from current events to play a significant role in them. This is demonstrated by the failure of Bin Laden or his lieutenant ayman al-Zawahiri to even issue a timely, pertinent comment on events. all we have had is a longwinded statement by Zawahiri, released weeks after it was recorded, and an online pledge from an unidentified spokesmen "to help in any way possible".  That recent events pose a challenge to al-Qaida is clear. Its rhetoric was already tired before the "arab spring". a sudden interest in global warming last year was a feeble attempt to rejuvenate it. Zawahiri even took his glasses off in one video. But to no avail. The slogans of Cairo or Benghazi are an explicit rejection of al-Qaida's message. They make no references to faith or the "Crusader-Zionist alliance". If Gaddafi and Mubarak are described as traitors, it is the nation - an idea seen by al-Qaida as an illegitimate western creation - that they have betrayed, not the ummah, the global community of Muslims.  Read the full blogs and join the debate guardian.co.uk/commentisfree