Attention: The forums will be placed on read only mode this Saturday (Oct. 20, 2018)

During this outage (6:30 AM to 8 PM PDT) the forums will be placed on read only mode. We apologize for this inconvenience. Click here to read details

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The subhuman bin Laden's warning to "red" states

by David Evans / November 1, 2004 1:19 AM PST
Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race - and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.


Let's tell this p*ssant to go **** himself and vote for the real American running. He wants John "I ain't showing my records, no way!" Kerry in, and that endorsement along with Kim Jong il's and some others is enough. All subhumans and leftists are rooting for Kerry. This country needs a real American president, not a stinking "internationalist" who pittypats around with some "Global Test" and turns into a UN bootlicker when the security of the US is threatened.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The subhuman bin Laden's warning to "red" states
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The subhuman bin Laden's warning to "red" states
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
"subhuman bin Laden"
by drpruner / November 2, 2004 1:32 AM PST

Hmmm ...

"Subhuman" is on many threads lately, especially from those who are not "moderators." That was the word Goebbels repeated to describe Jews, Poles, and others in early 1930s. End result in 1945 was that few Europeans could look each other in the eye.

Cf. Language in Thought and Action, S.I. Hayakawa

I understand the feelings, but ...

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
I don't like subhuman either
by dirtyrich / November 2, 2004 2:05 AM PST
In reply to: "subhuman bin Laden"

because it connotes a sense of innocence due to lack of knowledge or reasoning capability... as if he were simply an animal. The fact is, he's a powerhungry, evil, despicable villain that should be put to rest ASAP because he only intends to do harm to others in the effort to gain power.
His recent tape, not only a warning to the US, is also an attempt to appear more reasonable and noble, to present himself as a figurehead to Muslims and all others caught up in the Palestinian cause. We've done some serious damage to his organization, he is now seeking to gather existing terrorist organizations (especially in the light of Arafat's condition) under his guidance.
I'd almost say that this was his primary goal of the tape, because no matter what the current stance of the US is, he needs followers to be a power. Arafat has always blanketed himself in the Palestinian cause to make himself appear noble, bin Laden's Al Qaida, on the other hand, was too distanced and violent to receive popular support even among the most fundamentalist communities. Now with the power vacuum that Arafat will soon leave, bin Laden is simply trying to rationalize his previous attacks to make himself seen as the noble hero of the Muslims.

Collapse -
Such is what I suggested here before
by TONI H / November 2, 2004 2:14 AM PST

that the timing of Arafat being hospitalized and OBL's tape may have been a message to Arafat's followers that they will still have a 'leader'.....


Collapse -
Re: Such is what I suggested here before
by dirtyrich / November 2, 2004 2:17 AM PST

Didn't mean to steal your thunder Toni...sorry, must've missed your post. Mucho apologies.

Collapse -
You didn't, hon
by TONI H / November 2, 2004 2:19 AM PST

I was only pleased to see somebody else didn't see my 'theory' of the timing of OBL's tape as 'whacko'. LOL


Collapse -
Re: I don't like subhuman either
by Josh K / November 2, 2004 3:10 AM PST

The term refers to a being lower on the "food chain" than a human being. That would include the entire animal kingdom, and with that in mind I think that the word used in this context is insulting to "subhumans" everywhere. Animals are not good or evil. There is a huge difference between being amoral (animals) and immoral (bin Laden). Immorality is a uniquely human trait.

Collapse -
Re: I don't like subhuman either
by drpruner / November 3, 2004 2:39 AM PST


A couple of quibbles:

Mark Twain precedes us (as usual) on human folly: "Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to."

"Amoral" can be applied to humans. It's what the psych people call "lack of affect." Relates to those who were "only folloving orders" and parents who kill their children because they were 'annoyed' by them (as opposed to other reasons), and grown children who abuse their elderly parents. Here the Bible precedes us: 2Ti 3:1-5 has a laundry list of prophesied bad behavior, including v.3: "having no natural affection." Timing of fulfillment is in v. 1.

Regards, Doug in New Mexico (US headquarters for child abuse & neglect)

Collapse -
Re: I don't like subhuman either
by Josh K / November 3, 2004 3:20 AM PST

Hi Doug:

Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to have said that humans are capable of being amoral, but animals are not capable of being immoral.

I've called bin Laden a pig, but then I realized that I was insulting pigs so I try to avoid doing that now.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) "I realized that I was insulting pigs" LOL
by drpruner / November 4, 2004 1:19 PM PST
Collapse -
Josh, sorry for the mistake:
by drpruner / November 6, 2004 1:01 PM PST

I called you "John" earlier. Very sorry.

Regards, "Dork" in New Mexico

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) No problem at all, don't worry about it
by Josh K / November 7, 2004 10:26 PM PST
Collapse -
We'll have to test bin Ladens DNA
by Dragon / November 8, 2004 10:47 PM PST

To see if he is an amoral "lower on the food chain" critter, or if he is an immoral **** Sapien sapien

Collapse -
Re: "subhuman bin Laden"
by Dan McC / November 2, 2004 2:05 AM PST
In reply to: "subhuman bin Laden"

You are obviously not a real American!



Collapse -
Re: "subhuman bin Laden" (sarcasm noted)
by drpruner / November 3, 2004 2:41 AM PST

Exactly! A real American is more trendy in his hatreds.

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
Couldn't agree more
by Ziks511 / November 2, 2004 9:01 AM PST
In reply to: "subhuman bin Laden"

Like tarring all Italian Americans as Mafiosi.

This is a political movement rooted in a certain kind of Islamic isolationist fundamentalsism. Basically a few thousand or tens of thousand nasty, desperate people would like to control all the states with a majority muslim population. To stigmatize an entire religion through the actions of a relative few is the religious equivalent of racism. But the word creedism, if it is a word, wouldn't excite any one. It is precisely analogous to the Nazi demonization of the Jews.

Condemn the criminals and the crime not their supposed religious affiliation, they are just using it as a flag to wrap their ambitions in.

Rob Boyter

Collapse -
Re: Couldn't agree more
by drpruner / November 3, 2004 2:48 AM PST
In reply to: Couldn't agree more


Apropos of that, I remember a conversation with an eldery woman some years ago in California. She was a war orphan - courtesy of the US Army Air Corps! (She was a child in Germany.) We began by commiserating over the existence of such tragedies, and wondering if wars would ever cease. Suddenly she began telling me, in the most matter-of-fact way, that Hitler didn't know about the camps et al., and that anyway 'the Jews had it coming.' Their crimes? She mentioned that 'the Jew peddlers would keep coming to the front door with their trinkets, and when you finally got them to stop that, they would go around to your back door!'

I really wish I were making this up.

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
The best way to injure Islam
by James Denison / November 3, 2004 8:32 AM PST
In reply to: Couldn't agree more to let those like Osama rule those middle eastern islamic countries for a couple decades.

Collapse -
This may be true though unpalatable,but if people didn't
by Ziks511 / November 3, 2004 8:43 AM PST

learn from Saddam how would they learn from Musaab al Zarqawi? I just don't know what the answer is except to let them fight it out while defending ourselves. Perhaps it would be best to make a very large world wide announcement saying if your violence is confined to islamic countries fine but if your violence spreads beyond those countries prepare for retaliation. Its not an alternative I like or am happy with but 1) it may make the muslim nations broaden their democratic base and 2) keep them from hurting us.

I still say that a gaurantee for the right of Israel to exist combined with moving back to something close to the pre-1967 borders While ensuring proper housing and services tor those on a Palestinian state would make a difference.

Rob Boyter

Collapse -
since when should iseral give back
by Mark5019 / November 3, 2004 8:54 AM PST

let saudi take them in as they all attacked iseral and isearl gave them all whoop azz

Collapse -
We should insist Israel give back land...
by James Denison / November 3, 2004 10:05 AM PST

...but only after we give back all states west of the Mississippi to the native Americans. Anything less would be hypocrisy.

Collapse -
and iseral should tell us to go to hell
by Mark5019 / November 3, 2004 12:12 PM PST

when we need there air space

Collapse -
Could you settle for "beast"?
by James Denison / November 3, 2004 8:10 AM PST
In reply to: "subhuman bin Laden"

2 Peter 2:12 - But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Jude 1:10 - But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

Or maybe using "subhuman" is just giving Osama a step above "beast".
Collapse -
Try bestial (as in acting like a beast) it is the actions
by Ziks511 / November 3, 2004 8:46 AM PST

that make them seem less than human, but they're not.

Rob Boyter

Collapse -
Re: Could you settle for "beast"?
by drpruner / November 5, 2004 2:13 PM PST

I agree that Peter's strong language can be applied by men to anyone we dislike.

But verses 1-5 especially, and the references to the angels who disobeyed Jehovah, tell me that 2Peter ch. 2 was directed mainly at fallen-away Christians of Peter's day, and therefore of ours. (Assuming that Romans 15:4 is true for us also.)

So... We imperfect ones want to be sure we aren't saying these words into a mirror!

Regards, Doug [holier than thou] in New Mexico Happy

Collapse -
Re: Could you settle for "beast"?
by James Denison / November 6, 2004 3:04 AM PST

I'm not a supporter of self effacing, self flagellating Christianity. I also think the situation there is speaking of anyone that doesn't follow God's commandments, not restricted to "apostates" especially when compared to Jude and some old testament scriptures about the "heathens".

Collapse -
Re: Could you settle for
by drpruner / November 7, 2004 2:52 PM PST

My thoughts were related to my original post about the use of "subhuman."

We should be quick to apply scriptures, especially those hard to take, to ourselves. Here's what Peter said, leading me to believe his immediate concern was Christians, not "heathen:"

2 Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith, held in equal privilege with ours ...

2 Pe 2:1-- However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you [Christians]. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them [Jesus], bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth [Christianity] will be spoken of abusively. Also, with covetousness they will exploit you with counterfeit words. But as for them, the judgment from of old is not moving slowly, and the destruction of them is not slumbering.

Another reason for speaking mildly and with self-effacement is - it's a command: "But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of YOU a reason for the hope in YOU, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect." 1 Pe 3:15
And: 'The meek will inherit the earth.' Jesus, the lowly carpenter.

In any case, vengeance against the lowest, most foul of humans (bin Laden? Hitler? Judas?) is not ours: "Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah'" Ro 12:19

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
by James Denison / November 8, 2004 3:16 PM PST

That's an interesting study between it's use in the OT and the NT and how Paul took it out of context in application. It's later here, got an early morning, so won't go into depth but let you check it out for yourself. Find the quote that Paul uses in the OT and compare it to what he's saying. Either he meant something a bit different than what it's taken as, or he was taking liberties with it himself.

Remember, there's a difference between Vengeance and Justice. Look at other places where the word vengeance is used, such as King David wanting to take vengeance on Nabal, when he had no right to. Nevertheless, the man died anyway.

Collapse -
[i]Find the quote that Paul uses in the OT.[/i]
by drpruner / November 26, 2004 3:50 AM PST
In reply to: Vengeance

For Ro 12:19 I find four cross-references from the Hebrew Scriptures: Lev 9:18, De 32:35, Ps 99:8, Nah 1:2.

The first is from the Law, telling the Israelites not to take vengeance upon nor even hold a grudge against their fellows. That's useful for Christians even now, although we're not under Law; it keeps peace in the congregation.

The others are iterations of Jehovah's willingness and ability to take vengeance against his enemies. If we're obeying him, then his enemies are our enemies, so the matter is in the best possible hands. If we're not, our "vengeance" will be misplaced; just another feud. Moreover, the feud won't be well conducted even by human standards if we start with the emotional level I've seen on SE and was commenting on in my first reply a month ago. Even the world recognizes this: "Revenge is a dish best served cold."

I don't know why these same comments wouldn't apply to the topic of justice. In any case, the issue is that of trusting in Jehovah for all our needs. Adam didn't, and look where we are now!

You may have noticed that I try to avoid a distinction between the "Old" and "New" testaments, so called. My guide in this is Paul: "For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction" (Ro 15:4) and "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16,17) And, of course the "Old Testament" was the only Bible Jesus had!

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
Prime example of immoderation in self-moderation
by netsky / November 2, 2004 2:17 AM PST

my only comment aside from above:

to call Bin Laden "sub human" is to underestimante the wicked intelligence and resolve of our enemy.

Call him IN-human or inhumane or monsterous or warped deviltry or whatever.

as protested many times by this harpy-for-decency: a label like that sub thing is counterproductive on ever account. And it ADDS power to the enemy by deluding our population that he may, in some sense, be safely dismissed as less than us.

He is not "sub" us. He is all over us in an invisible web of fear and loathing and sleepers and peepers at our impotent, childish name calling.

The Devil.

Don't feed him, for God's sake!

Collapse -
having only now read the accompanying advisements
by netsky / November 2, 2004 2:22 AM PST

..they all say it better than i did, from remarkably similar veiwpoints.

there is some near-unanimity here, after all.

Sort through netsky's typos and emotionalism: My plea to forget "sub human" distills down to just a less definitively well-worded second to earlier motions.

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!