Great song, but… Sydney Youngblood was in the US-armed forces stationed in Germany at the time. If only he could what? Have left the military, perhaps? What an ass.
“Fighting for peace” <- oh how my grandfather would have kicked his butt for that oxymoron.. Fighting, just like Franky Gee (Captain Jack), Turbo B (Snap), Captain Hollywood (More and more and more what? Weapons?), Terence Trent D’Arby, Culture Beat and many more were all German based US-marines or soldiers. And of course Haddaway; “What is Love?” baby don’t hurt me (by taking the shot) don’t hurt me, no more (by ending those non-stop wars, doh!). Fuckin’ hypocrites trying to erase their deeds with fake hippy-like lyrics. Still not buying it.
“Joining together, sharing the feelings” <- feelings of guilt? Doubt that any of them ever went AWOL with regrets or something. They were producer's whores as well as slaves of the military industrial complex.

So, ‘they’ murdered some man they claim is called Osama Bin Laden. Did they ask for his ID first, or how were they so certain it was him? Was there a jury present? And does his being an arguably contemptible person remove his right to public trial by jury? Aren’t all men supposed to be created equal – even the worst of us? Successive US presidents are guilty of war-crimes as serious as 9/11. The appropriate response to that is a trial, not assassination. Oh wait, there are presidential elections coming up. Already wondered why killing Americans suddenly waives your right to a fair trial. How sad that this is the result of so many years of ‘civilization’; a modern special forces version of the primitive hanging of an alleged perpetrator of crimes. Do these primitives now think the crap at the airports is over or..?
It seems to me that the whole point at issue here is whether bin Laden received justice as distinct from vengeance. All those ‘patriots’ who rejoice in his death should reflect that if they’re so extremely certain that the man was totally guilty of everything they accuse him of, they had nothing to fear from subjecting him to a proper public trial by jury. As an accused terrorist or war criminal or whatever, the appropriate venue for such a trial would be the International Criminal Court, a body which the United States notably regards itself as exempt from the jurisdiction of. A trial at that venue would remove all suspicion of mere vengeance, and declare to the world that the United States was above mere vengeance and totally confident of the strength of its case against bin Laden. Presumably, since all the angry americans regard bin Laden’s guilt as already proven beyond all possible doubt, they could have no logical objection to this process, since according to them it could only result in his conviction.

Bin Laden was reportedly unarmed and had been secured by the ‘courageous’ people who raided the compound, since the only reported armed resistance had come from one person, who had already been killed (along with his wife) when the compound was first entered. I have read nothing which suggests that bin Laden could not have been airlifted out of the compound and straight into custody, quite possibly out of Pakistan into an American base or whatever. I cannot believe that the soldiers who are being praised so vehemently for having secured bin Laden could not have kept him secure against any counter-attacks which could have been mounted by anyone. And yet he was shot. How and why? Jack Bauer would at least have shot him in the knees first, and got some info out of him.