Is it just me or does Osama Bin Laden remind you of Goldstein from 1984? In the book Goldstein is described as a weak looking cowardly man representing all that is opposite to the totalitarian regime portrayed in the book. No one knew where he was or if he was alive, he was just a personification of all those against the regime.

I therefore believe that the West, particularly America, want Bin Laden to stay at large because:

A) The continued war on terror will keep up support for the Republicans, as US voters tend to agree with their hard line on terror.

B) Any anti-American sentiment can be linked to this man, a weak cowardly looking terrorist. Any suggestion of unfair trade or double standards and you are linked immediatly to this lunatic.

Although this is just an opinion, I am sure that it cannot have escaped the minds of those in power, that Bin Laden is more useful at large...

[Edited on 21-11-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]

The orwellian nature of this war and its existence has been brought up before.

I agree, this whole thing is very 1984.

perpetual war against an undefined amorphous enemy of humanity, great way to get a nation under control and keep it there.

I have been thinking along similar lines for about 6 months now.
How long before a photograph of Bin Laden appears on US television screens daily for a 2 minute hate session?

Goldstein was probably Trotsky originally.Orwell uses a unifying hate figure in Animal Farm also.

Chant after me:

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

It's nice to see people agreeing with me, but I really wanted to see those who disagreed and why...

It's a shame that when the arguement gets too deep, many on this forum just seem to disappear. The prime example being my post on the Israeli spy ring, when the pro-Israel peeps didn't post beyond "anti-semi crap".



[Edited on 25-11-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]

I disagree. Osama is hardly cowardly.

Much as I despise the man and what he stands for, he didn't jet off to Spain or other places while his people were being attacked in Afghanistan. You can't lead an army of mercenaries/terrorists if you're going to sit in a nice hideout somewhere and send off orders and money. The people with the kind of mindset to join that type of organization don't follow distant figures. You have to be "up close and personal" and you have to be charismatic.

He's far from being a coward. He's (unfortunately) very charismatic (if you're a Muslim fundamentalist) and very clever.

Whether he is cowardly or not is beside the point, it is whether he is a Goldstein figure that is the question in issue.

Goldstien was a made up figure in 1984, Bin Laden is very much a real person. His actions are historical fact and he is in reality dangerous fanatic. Besides, most people understand that he is more of a fugurehead than an irreplacable part of the terrorist network. Wether he lives or dies will not decide the outcome of the "war on terrorism". In any event of mass tragedy people look for a single person to blame and to focus their anger. Because UBL has been the most visible terrorist leader in the past few years, its only natural he would become the primary suspect and most wanted terrorist.

F-D, that possibility can't be denied. While it can't be presented as the fact of the matter, nobody can say that it isn't a definite possibility. I've wondered about that as well.
Having not seen a reason yet to doubt Shrub (hush up, B-T, this is no time for your rabid anti-conservative rantings) I doubt it to be the case, but not believing any politician has our best interest at heart, keep those ideas in the back of my head.

Goldstien was a made up figure in 1984, Bin Laden is very much a real person.

There was ambiguity as to whether he had existed, did exist, or had never existed. Just as there is ambiguity as to whether bin laden is alive or dead. In this way he kept alive in the minds of people for ever, as no one will know if he is dead or not.