When a man becomes the most wanted on the list of a super power he will eventually be caught. This happened to Ernesto “Che” Guevara, and now finally to Osama bin Laden. All that remains is what that man stood for when he was alive. It is important for the political ambitions of the leaders of the super power not only to kill one man, but to destroy the symbol that man has become. That is by far a more difficult task than killing one person. It is difficult as long as the super power,  against which the person was brave enough to set his life,  stands for injustice, tyranny and imperialism. Injustice in that it uses its military power to redistribute the wealth of the world for the benefit of its own citizens and especially some very rich among those. Tyranny in that it continues to support puppet governments, that oppress their citizens. All this just to gain military foothold and economical rights for its corporations to extract raw materials from the developing countries. That is the fabric of imperialism.

Osama was an agent of the CIA. He participated in driving the Soviets out of Afghanishtan.  Then something happened and he turned against the US. Why? Did he come to realize the imperialism of the US?  He had first hand knowledge of how the US agencies operate and for what gains in the world. He drew much of his political power from islam. That was the unifying ideology by which he felt for the Afghans fighting their never ending war against foreign invaders. That was also a tool for him to get the young men to participate in the suicide attack against the symbols of US political, military and economical might. The White House, the Pentagon and the WTC. He knowingly provoked a war between the islamic world and the now sole super power. He must have known there will be retaliation. So, what was his goal?

The Iraqi nation and its leader Saddam Hussein (a former puppet ruler of the US and later himself on the most wanted list) was the first target of this war on terror. They were in no way connected to Osama, or his organization, but the oil producer president W. wanted to control Iraq and it was a stone in the US shoe. I think Osama could not have cared less what happens to Saddam Hussein, they were not exactly buddies. However, he had seen the Soviet Union fall and how the strain on its economical power and total failure in the war at Afghanishtan was in no small part in that. Osama knew how empires fall. Now the war on terror has proven to be a terrible strain on the western economics and eaten away much of our precious freedom. Both the US and EU are in economical crisis. Worst of it is, that it is the super rich of this world who actually benefit from the current crisis. The property of nations is sold to pay the debt of the nations and to save the banks, that have ended in their current perdicament by taking high risks whith our money. This will mean poorer social security, poorer waiges and poorer consumers. The rich will remain rich (and become ever richer), but the poor will suffer. Osama has proven to be a true agent of chaos. The wellfare provided to the western population by robbing the natural resources of the developing countries has come to an end.  As far as I can see that was the motivator of Osama.

When the navy seals attacked the Osama compound, they used the most advanced military technology and as usual it backfired. The stealth helicopter went down. Alledgedly by a malfunction. For some particular reason it flew all the way from Afghanishtan to the middle of Pakistan and then broke down on Osamas front lawn. Literally into srapnell. The US is missing a lot of helicopters by malfunctions. Wether they are shot down or simply break down in the middle of an operation, is actually not even relevant. It sets a serious question, wether if helicopters are such an ideal transportation for military anyway? Well, they are, from the perspective of Sikorsky shareholder, but in actual military logistics they hardly seem worth the big money spent. Now doubt they do save lives as ambulances for the troops, but in inserting an attack, they do seem a bit awkward. Now you think,  that I am on a tangent to my point, but this is the point. Wars are not about who gets to live or die. They are about who makes a load of money.

We hear Osama was shot to the head and alledgedly he was in such bad condition, that his picture could not even be published. He was unarmed, but resisted. So, did the seals do an amateur job? Could they really not detain one unarmed sick old man? Any department store guard would have easily managed where these “elite of the elite” failed miserably. They did manage to shoot his son and and wound a young woman, the wife of this notorious terrorist leader. She was also unarmed and for all we know had nothing to do whith any terrorist activity. This is what the media has told us. Is it true? The US military was the sole provider of information on this subject to the media. So, if they are not telling the truth, then it is even more appalling.

Would it have been convinient for the US government to bring Osama in for questioning and trial? I suppose not. The Guantanamo is still full of detainees who have no knowledge of what they are accused of, nor when, nor even if they are going to have a trial. They have been there for years and some have been tortured. Well, they have other names for it, but if any of us was put under those conditions and abused like that, we would call it torture and nothing else. Arresting the old unarmed and sick Osama, would have brought all this once again to the surface for weeks and months of all the media around the world. What if they had held him a trial and it would have shown there is not enough of evidence to link him to be the designer of the terrorist attacks on WTC, White House and Pentagon? They would have simply had to let him go. This in mind,  the US had every reason to execute him. Still one wonders, why his body was not shown, if the seals were simply sent there as assasins, one would expect the professionals of their calibre to kill a man so that his body remains recognizable. Especially as it would have been a media victory for them to parade him around. Do not think for one second that they would have restrained themselves from that, out of courtecy. They surely did not restrain themselves with Che.

Of course we have to remember the role of the acting president of the US. He had everything to gain by getting Osama killed. For the ridiculous reason, that there is a major part of US constituants that are unable to grasp, how Obama and Osama do not have any relation, or religious, nor political affiliation though their names sound a bit the same. The president of the US is, however an educated man, a prisoner in political decisions of the most moronic part of his nation. Or should I say the most ruthless part of his nation leading the most moronic and ignorant part by the balls. That is the “tea party movement for you”.  That is democracy for you. And the US nation was out for a vengeance. Did they finally get retribution? Could the Iraqi and Afghan nations be now freed from their servitude of being punished for the satisfaction of the loss of security of the US citizens?

Vengeace, revenge, payback and retribution. Why are there so many words for revenge in english language?

It is said, that all means are acceptable in war and in love. The proverb is commonly quoted, but rarely accepted as true. In my opinion Osama and Che stood against the imperialism of the US. Sometimes fire has to be fought whith fire, but still there is a big difference between these two characters and while Che fought fairly and for the right cause, Osama did not. Maybe it was because Osama was a religious demagogue, or because he was a product of the culture of  secret wars of the CIA. The truth is however, that the super power has used for generations and is using all and any means legal and illegal, moral and immoral, secretly, but also in growingly arrogant and open ways to further its gains. That is, the gains of corporate magnates, behind the “democratic” throne.