Arjay, I understand that you are trying to retain face here, but
you really arn't very good at telling fibs, especially when you
contradict yourself in the very same post.

*For the USA to have the high moral ground they should not have killed Bin laden.*

Err, I thought the man died in 2001, according to you? Your
cover up here is a bit bleedingly obvious, I am afraid.

Arjay, I've shot a sheep with a .223 I can only assume that the
Americans use much larger bullets. I can tell you, these are not
pop guns, its an awfull mess. Apparently the brains were emerging
from the eye socket, not ideal for public viewing.

But of course no matter what the Americans released, convinced
conspiracy theorists would never be convinced, they can't help
themselves, its gotta be how those brains are wired. I'd love
to see a brain scan of some of you blokes :)

But right now we have Al Qaeda websites confirming they got Bin Laden.
We have the Taliban confirming they got bin Laden.
We have the wives and young children confirming that they got bin Laden.
We have the older sons complaining that they got Bin Laden and that
he should have been put on trial.
We have the Americans claiming that they got bin Laden.
We have the Pakistanis, losing face in the process, admitting that
they got bin Laden.

Perhaps Bhutto's 2001 speculation without evidence, was simply wrong.

I'm sure I saw Bin Laden working at a service station with Elvis the other day .

Yabby,for the US to have the high moral ground they should not have killed the alleged Bin Laden.We know why they did this cover up.It probably wasn't him.

*It probably wasn't him.*

Ah Arjay, in that case the Pakistani Govt will be able to announce
with great pride, that the Americans got it wrong. For of course
the Americans have been proven correct. Either there was a cover up
going on, with Pakistan playing a two faced game, or they are simply
useless.

The bin Laden children, the bin Laden wives, the bin Laden sons,
the Taliban and Al Qaeda might well know why they got it wrong and
who was really shot instead.

Either that or you have some severe egg on your face.

Yabby,
Here’s another believer in Osama’s death –The Pakistan chapter of the Taliban:

“Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, told The Associated Press in a phone call that its fighters conducted the attack on the Frontier Constabulary in Shabqadar in retaliation for bin Laden's death.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/05/13/pakistan-bomb-attack-revenge-for-osama-bin-laden-death-taliban-claim-115875-23127357/

Now, all I’m waiting for is the usual suspects to come forward with the claim that “The US stirred things up, if they’d just left things alone, it would have settled down and there would have been peace and prosperity in the region” (or some variation on that!).

I think we should stop talking/worrying about Osama .We should be more concerned about the (potentially) thousands of Osama wannabes living a-- law-abiding life-- in an Abbottabad near by --just waiting.

I think Yabbie is closest to the mark so far. I'd like to add that Kevin is right when he describes the changing nature of warfare over the last 100 years. (Warfare is always changing, socially and technologicaly.) What I think Kevin misses is that wafare is policy carried out by directly violent, rather than by other, means.
Having read a lot about Muslim-inspired terrorism over the last few years, it's clear that Muslim terrorists had many, interlocking goals, all tied up around their perception of Islam's current political weakness and religious (that is, social, rather than economic) corruption.They all thought that a strict enterpretation of Islam was a cure to society's ills, and that the more widespread the application of such an Islam, the better. So many, but not all, had nationalist goals: all had, as at least a distant goal, the dominance of the world by Islam.
But Islam is politically weak, and Islamic terrorist groups even moreso. So if they want to engage in direct violence, they must do so differently. And killing military personel is not important to the goals - in Islamic countries the military was to be won over; elsewhere it was to be neutralised. The civilian population was always the direct target, so as to force political change. This is contribution that terrorism has made to the change in warfare.
The sought-after change was political: the adoption of a strict Islam; and in both the 'corrupt' west and in 'corrupt' Muslim countries, they hoped that a terrorised populace would demand adoption of a strict Islam to end the violence.
Because Islam claims a global reach, and because its chief enemy, the US, is itself global, Islam's version of terrorism became global. But that only made the change more visible. But for anyone with eyes to see, it's been clear for a long time in the violence perpetrated by and on behlaf of the palestinians against Israel (who did not need to join an international group to fulfill the demands of jihad, and have become very suspicious of others tying to control their fate).