Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama's claim the U.S. killed Osama bin Laden raises more questions than answers

In celebrating the alleged assassination of Al Qaida boss Osama bin Laden in a Hollywood style top secret raid, U.S. president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack obama asserted that "we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to."

He added: "That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place." Then he concluded: "Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are:  one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Immediately U.S. flags began waving and people began to celebrate the death of Washington’s declared enemy number one. Is it correct to celebrate the death of a man, even one guilty of acts of genocide? History is never a one sided affair and as a consequence there are many unanswered questions.

1) Osama bin Laden and others were trained and financed by the CIA during the last phase of the Soviet Union, when it invaded Afghanistan. That was one of the frequent "flare ups" which took place during the Cold War. Later on, around 1988 according to news reports, bin Laden organized the Al Qaida and turned anti-U.S. What led him to turn about?

2) For a very brief period following the fall of the Soviet Union Washington had no declared enemy. However, the U.S. continued to strengthen ties with dictatorial regimes in oil producing Arab countries--showing little concern for the lack of democracy there. Not a few observers wondered if the bi-polar system was not inevitably deemed to manufacture another antagonist, as in the Greek tragedies.

3) The terrorist attack against the Twin Towers led then U.S. President George Bush to declare "war" against terrorism, a strange war in view of the fact that wars are usually carried out between countries. Shortly thereafter, however, real war appeared in U.S. attacks against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and later against Iraq. Had washington found a new enemy?

4) According to reports at the time bin Laden, accused of masterminding the Twin Towers attack, escaped from Afghanistan due to a supposed mix up in intelligence. Then for years he was enemy number one and there were bloody terrorist attacks--mostly in Arab nations. Did the U.S. really not know where bin Laden was or was his existence convenient to prolong the war?

5) Did Pakistani authorities really know nothing about the Al Qaida stronghold, located near a military base? With years of strong influence in Pakistan--one of a series of countries chosen by washington for special military aid--did U.S. military authorities not have contacts indicating the whereabouts of bin Laden?

6) Was there a reason for carrying out the secret attack at this precise moment, when President Obama is biddding for election and his popularity and the economy sliding?

6) Who circulated the hoax picture of bin Laden, allegedy dead? Why? Why was his body so rapidly thrown into the sea, in flagrant violation of muslem funeral practices? Why are authorities still dragging their legs on whether to release the authentic pictures of the assassinated Al Qaida leader?

7) Bin Laden is accused of planning the Twin Towers attack and other bloody strikes, yet he was not brought to trial nor was judicial proof given of his participation in the attack. Nevertheless, in the U.S. his death was described as an act of justice. The order was apparently to kill, not capture him. In any event, the U.S. government has admitted he was unarmed when killed. World War Two Nazi leaders were brought to trial and condemned for atrocious criminal acts and sentenced. They were not murdered by executive order.

8) In the context of the U.S.--NATO attack against libia, will the successful attack and death of bin Laden serve to justify similar actions in diverse parts of the world, converting the U.S. into the world’s policeman? Is the U.S. military justified in sending specially trained forces into any country in the world to kill or capture persons suspected of horrible crimes or anti-american acts? What does this mean for the functioning of the world's judicial system?

9) When Obama assumed the presidency, he appeared to be designing a foreign policy different from the warlike actions of George Bush and the Pentagon. But he significantly retained many key functionaries of the Bush era and inspite of his Nobel Peace prize has actually pumped more money and vigor into the Pentagon. Does this indicate a continuity in U.S. attempts to increase its role as world policeman and power number one?

10) According to most authorities, the death of bin Laden will by no means signify the end of the war against terrorism. But should it phase out, what conflict lies in wait? The history of the U.S. and of the world is one of constant wars.