The reaction says it all, there is celebration in the streets of New York, whilst silence prevailed in the streets of the Islamic world. Freedom fighter or terrorist depends on whose perspective. There is no doubt many in the Islamic world and the non-Islamic world (e.g. Latin America), are privately mourning the death of Osama Bin Laden, seen as a symbol of resistance to Western imperialism. Unlike Saddam Hussein and his ilk, Osama Bin Laden died fighting like a Mujahid, as the old proverb says, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. It is disgusting the way the media constantly highlights the 3000 that perished in 9/11, as if the American and western lives are more valuable than others. The message construed is simple, its Bin Laden and 9/11, there are no other casualties and no other factors. Indeed, the entire narrative is false. They say 9/11 marks the beginning of the conflict, whereas the conflict started from the end of the First World War; the Arabs seeking independence were betrayed (Sykes-Picot treaty) for their support to the Allied forces. Their lands were carved up to suit the interests of the colonialists, who facilitated the migration of the Zionists to Palestine, paving the way for the creation of Israel. Eventually, the Arabs were 'rewarded with Israel and the Palestinian Diaspora (nakba), for their cooperation and service to the colonialists. What is even more absurd about the simple narrative of Bin Laden and 9/11 is that America is portrayed as the victim. Just the thought makes you laugh, its like you have to imagine the US Soldiers dressed as benign priests, rather than killing Iraqis for fun, as the numerous clips leaked on the internet with the awful images of Abu-Ghraib confirms Prior to 9/11, 500,000 Iraqi children were killed through barbaric sanctions, and post 9/11 almost a million innocent Iraqis died for those mythical WMDs To date, nobody has been bought to account for the illegal war built on lies. The losses of innocence are conveniently classed as collateral damage that can be swept under the carpet like dirt Has anyone been bought to trial for the carnage in Gaza, when the Israelis unleashed disproportionate force on the civilian population, a clear act of state-terrorism? It is simplistic to call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist, when his opponent has murdered much more civilians in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, that pre-dates 9/11. Likewise, to call Osama a religious fanatic is hypocritical, when George Bush is the one claimed to be talking to providence who allegedly inspired him to launch the war on the innocent people of Iraq. Regardless if you agree with the methods used by Osama and his men, as an individual he outdid his opponents. He was far more eloquent than George Bush, a semi-literate guy with a drink problem, who often embarrassed the US by his numerous idiotic statements. Osama also had far more integrity than Tony Blair, as unlike Blair he never lied and was generous with his wealth, constantly helping the needy. Jason Burke elaborates this fact in this in his book, Al-Qaeda. Whereas it took a lot of media pressure for Tony Blair (who did so well out of the Iraq war), to make some nominal contribution to the British soldiers who suffered losses. The most important question is did Osama succeed to any level or was he a total failure. This depends on how you define success and failure. Yamin Zakaria