With bin Laden, I think the media failed in the way they would describe him as bit of a James Bond supervillain, a kind of islamistic Hugo Drax, who would sit in his bunker or tent, commit his heinous crimes on long distance and pull people in simply because of hunger for power and a splendid sadistic madness that supposedly appealed to young people in the Muslim world. The guy always had a tendency to come across as a bit cartoonish, because what he did and said was so outlandish - but this way of sizing him up as just a villain maniac misses the fact that he won over his converts by appeal to martyrdom and duty, a moral or religious duty. So there would have been a real sense of grievance, on more than one level, that he could exploit, or his appeals would have been totally ineffective. People don't line up to put on a bomb belt on or to kill a hundred people plus themselves in a vacuum. If those guys tended to think of themselves as martyrs there ought to be more discussion about just why they could hit on that idea and what kind of a role the concept of martyrdom plays to those people. That is not the same as accepting what they would be doing, or their rationale for doing it.
I don't see that discussion happening now either and I really don't think bin Laden's death will mean any cutting off of the flow of new people to al-Qaeda and similar movements. It's okay to celebrate his death, in a way. I can see it brings a sense of closure to his victims and their families and friends. The guy was responsible for a number of atrocious attacks; obviously they were a shock to so many people, but there's no reason to feel his death has changed the game.