May 31, 2007, - 4:42 pm

HOprah Watch: Oprah Says, “Love Yo’ (Islamic) Terrorist”; Dumbest New Word Ever – “She-roes”

By Debbie Schlussel
If you are a victim of (Islamic) terrorism, you should hug and love your terrorist.
That was the message of yesterday’s edition of the kumbaya-fest that is “Oprah.” In a show on forgiving violent criminals, Oprah introduced us to Gill (pronounced, “Jill”) Hicks, a British woman who lost both legs in the 7/7 London Tube bombing by (Islamic) terrorists.
I put the word “Islamic” in parentheses because this is Oprah’s show, and she doesn’t dare mention Islam in shows concerning terrorism. The word wasn’t uttered once. Because, after all, it was the Samoans and Icelanders, the Jews and Catholics and Hindus and Bahai Faithers, who homicide bombed the London subway in summer 2005. Right?
Gill Hicks–remember, she has no legs because (Islamic) terrorists took them with a bombing of a subway–told Oprah she forgives and loves her terrorists:

jillhicks.jpgoprahislamofascist.jpg

Gill Hicks Lost Both Legs . . . & Her Mind To Islamic Terrorists

(Islamofascist Oprah by Preston Taylor Holmes/Six Meat Buffet)

I’d love to meet the bomber. But I can’t meet the bomber to open my arms to show him that unconditional love because he’s not here.

Sickening. Her bomber isn’t here because he’s dead. He killed himself while trying to kill Ms. Hicks. And yet, she wants to “open up [her] arms” and show him “unconditional love”?! What a fricking dumbass. Better one of the dozens of other victims–who were murdered by the bombs–had lived. I’m sure most of them would not want to hug and make out with their Allah-obsessed killers.
Or would they? After all, it’s Europe a/k/a “Madonnastan,” where the men are girlie-men and everyone generally just wants to make love to the most radical, violent Islamists.
Oprah called this woman a “She-ro.” Puh-leeze. Quick, somebody at Lake Superior State College, please ban this most annoying of words. Forgiving terrorists is not heroic or even “She-roic” (another newly coined Oprah idiocy). It is just plain idiotic.
And here’s Oprah’s rejoinder to Hicks, equally as vomit-inducing:

Forgive them instead of drinking the poison every day . . . wanting to get back at them, to target them and their families. And then the cycle of violence continues. That’s what it’s about–peace and love. Don’t let the bomber own you.

HUH?! Cycle of violence? What violence did the 56 killed and 700 wounded riding on a subway to work commit to deserve this? What violence did 3,000 Americans traveling on business or working in their offices in the Towers commit?
Punishing terrorists is not only not “letting the bomber own you,” it’s necessary and vital. And sadly, far too many in Oprah-addled America forgot that.
But Thank G-d, that at least, in non-Oprahfied America, most sane families and relatives of 9/11 victims want to kick the asses of the terrorists. They don’t want to fondle them or have their babies. Sure, we have a few of those idiots here. But none as pathetic and disgustingly servile to Islamic terrorists as Gill Hicks.
That’s why Oprah had to look to Britain of Madonnastan to find someone as idiotic and repulsive as Gill Hicks.
She-ro, maybe (in HOprah’s deluded world). But hero? Uh, no.
Yet another reason why Oprah Sucks.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

32 Responses

Ca-r-e–full (with the yo’s). You don’t get a pass like some other people would. You’ll get “Imus-ed”, yet, if you don’t tread lightly.

steve ventry on May 31, 2007 at 5:59 pm

This exchange of mental illness is a great peek into the liberal mind. Vomit-inducing is merely the beginning of what I would call it. But then again, I have a foul mouth.

Preston Taylor Holmes on May 31, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Yes, what a horrible thing for a victim to do, give forgiveness. Last time I checked, isn’t that a major Christian value?
Debbie Said “HUH?! Cycle of violence? What violence did 3,000 Americans traveling on business or working in their offices in the Towers commit?”
My question to you is, what violence did the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s commit to deserve the violence that we brought to them?

D*Rek on May 31, 2007 at 8:14 pm

To Dreck: The Iraqis supported, condoned and harbored terrorists. That’s what they did. They are paying the price for it now.

lexi on May 31, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Dear Debbie;
Normally I would feel sorry for people like this. But this woman, Gill Hicks, is a frigging anal orifice. She would probably open, what’s left of her legs, to her terrorist lover as well. She reminds me of that other big dope, Reginald Denny. Remember him, at the Rodney King trail, hugging the mother of one of the bastards who tried to kill him?
You are absolutely right. Oprah SUCKS!!!
Sincerely;
EJO

EJO on May 31, 2007 at 9:03 pm

We did not bring violence to Iraq. Saddam Insane did. Do Lieberals believe in forgiving KKK lynchers and gay bashers? Does Dope-rah forgive the white slave traders and segregationists who oppressed black Americans? Where is her compassion for the KKK members who are poor unfortunate victims of a racist upbringing?

FreethinkerNY on May 31, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Yo, Dreck,
Answering a question with a question, is, well, NOT ANSWERING A QUESTION! BTW, what is this shit: “we brought violence to the Iraqis”???
And I suppose Hussein brought peace, freedom, and prosperity? Have you interviewed an Iraqi lately? Where do you come up with this drivel? Your college professors?

spiffo on May 31, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Lexi, I hate to break it to you but Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us. The only thing they had in common with the people that did attack us is that their country is in the same part of the world as the countries who did attack us.
I’m amazed at the responses on this page. I thought conservatives were supposed to be, by and large, Christians. Apparently I missed the section of the bible where Jesus says to “smite your enemies”.

D*Rek on May 31, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Spiffo, The violence that Hussein brought his people pales in comparison to what we brought to them. We took a bad situation and made it worse. Under Hussein they only had to worry about his goons killing them, now they can’t even go to the market without worrying about being gunned down or blown up. Because of the chaos that we have unleashed, two million people have fled the country (roughly 10% of the population), and another two million have been displaced.

D*Rek on May 31, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Then consider this, Drek: Saddam paid cash rewards to Hamas suicide bombers’ families. These bombers were attacking innocent Israelis, for no other reason than the mere existence of Israel. Do you think this is OK? Israel is our ally. Saddam was a proven madman. He was, indeed, attempting to build an arsenal of WMD’s, and actually had made progress; evidence of which was hustled out of Iraq before American attacks on Baghdad. This was designed to make George Bush look like a fool, which worked very well among your ilk. A direct connection to Al-Quieda? Perhaps not. Who cares? We were simply trying to avert another attack on American soil by another Islamic psycho. Why is this wrong?

spiffo on May 31, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Spiffo,
What are you basing your WMD claim on? There is a mountain of evidence that he did not have an arsenal of WMD’s, nor an infrastructure to support one. The only thing that has been found so far as some plans, which with a little searching can be found floating around on the internet (god knows everything else is).
And regarding your claim that we are trying to prevent another attack on our soil, we haven’t done that. Look at our intelligence reports that say that we’ve helped Al Queda by being in Iraq. We attacked someone who didn’t attack us, tied up all of our resources fighting people who are only interested in fighting themselves, and not only have we given Al Queda a training ground for their new recruits, we have given them a base of operation that is a full Thousand miles closer to us and Europe. Not to mention the fact that us being in Iraq has given Al Queda a flood of new recruits.
There is nothing wrong with trying to avert another attack on our soil, but wouldn’t it have been more productive to finish off the people who attacked us rather than ignoring them to run off to fight someone who didn’t attack us?

D*Rek on May 31, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Forgiveness is a Christian value but stupidity is not. Forgiving someone who is TRULY SORRY for hurting you would be the Christian thing to do. Hugging a terrorist that would have preferred you died instead of taking your legs is plain dumb. Maybe if a terrorist renounces violence and tries to make amends for his/her misdeads, then yes Christians are obligated to forgive them but oops, these terrorists died, so sad, too bad.

Minnie Mouse on May 31, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Dreck–all you do is spout Democrat talking points. Liberals are only interested in appeasing their enemies and bashing America. It really is a psychiatric phenomenon. It’s called identification with the agressor. Why the self-hate, Dreck?

lexi on May 31, 2007 at 10:36 pm

I really am shocked that this woman would want to hug the terrorist that blew her legs off! Obviously this traumatic event has impeded her ability to think clearly about what needs to be done. These coward terrorists only understand one thing- swift and blinding violence.

CobraKai on May 31, 2007 at 11:12 pm

Geez Drek, I’m not a Christian but even I know that Jesus was not a pacifist! I think you need more education before you embark on theological discussions.
I used to think Ann Coulter was being a little over the top when she described liberalism as a mental illness; now I see that she was right on the money. Wow. These people are craaaaazeeeeeee!

AmericanJewess on June 1, 2007 at 1:50 am

Posted by Minnie Mouse:
[Forgiveness is a Christian value but stupidity is not.]
Debatable. Wasn’t it Jesus who said, “forgive them for they know not what they do”; “forgive your brother 77 times 7 (or something like it)”; and “turn the other cheek”? If this woman is acting stupidly, it’s only because of her WWJD mentality.
[Forgiving someone who is TRULY SORRY for hurting you would be the Christian thing to do.]
Yes, but Christ’s message is to forgive no matter what. I know some right-wing Christians will dispute this, but that’s what’s there in the Bible.
Posted by spiffo:
[He was, indeed, attempting to build an arsenal of WMD's, and actually had made progress; evidence of which was hustled out of Iraq before American attacks on Baghdad.]
spiffo, you are either playing dumb or you’re being willfully stupid. If America had to do the whole Iraq thing over again, I think most Americans, including conservatives, would choose not to.

Norman Blitzer on June 1, 2007 at 1:55 am

Christ never asked us to embrace, love, forgive evil…and those islamist terrorists are nothing but evil..with their evil seed the koran planted.
There is a huge difference between a sin and an actual evil person/act.

Highrise on June 1, 2007 at 2:27 am

Lexi,
How is it appeasing our enemies to point out that we should actually be going after our enemies instead of spending our resources going after people who didn’t attack us?
The fact is we’ve spent an untold number of lives and dollars and all we have been able to accomplish in Iraq is make our enemies stronger.

D*Rek on June 1, 2007 at 3:35 am

Drek, so by “making our enemies stronger,” do you mean the liberal Left in America? They are our worst enemies; we could defeat the enemies at the gate if we didn’t have so many inside the gates.

AmericanJewess on June 1, 2007 at 5:30 am

Although I don’t agree with her. I can understand her forgiveness. I’m sure it helps the mental healing process. I am not a Christian but I believe Jesus would have forgiven those Muslim maniacs just as he forgave the people who crucified him. In both cases the perpetrators thought they were doing the right thing so I don’t think he would have thought of them as evil. If anything I think the Romans were worse because they seemed to take pleasure in mocking and torturing him prior to his death. I myself am not capable of such forgiveness. I would want retribution against every one of his family members. As barbaric as that sounds it may very well act as a deterrant against future homicide bombers.

PHEDUPP on June 1, 2007 at 8:43 am

Everyone forgot that it was a “poor Palestinian” that shot Bobby Kennedy???
Okrah clearly DEMONstrates why all this PC crap is dangerous no matter what side of the aisle you’re on—Hitler was PC one time too.

EminemsRevenge on June 1, 2007 at 8:53 am

Dreck–all you do is spout Democrat talking points. Liberals are only interested in appeasing their enemies and bashing America. It really is a psychiatric phenomenon. It’s called identification with the agressor. Why the self-hate, Dreck?
Posted by: lexi
Actually I think the liberal elements of America are chartering a special indoctrination college named after Patty Hurst…

Mistress_Dee on June 1, 2007 at 9:07 am

For the record:
Iraq attacked us.
Saddam Hussein attacked US servicemen THOUSANDS of times during the decade between the Gulf Wars.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/no.fly.zones/
Essentially, the two countries were still in a state of conflict that never ended.
It’s astounding to me how deceptive factoids such as “Iraq never attacked us!” get passed around on the internet by the same people who scream “LIES!” the loudest.
Obviously, truthfulness is only good for some, and not required from others.

Koozebane on June 1, 2007 at 9:31 am

American Jewess,
So let me get this straight. Republicans were in total control of the government for 6 years. They started the Iraq war instead of going after Al Queda, they have ignored Bin Laden (remember him? The guy that attacked us?). Not only that, but they have botched the Iraq war planning to the point where we are going to be stuck there for a number of years just to get an outcome that we won’t be happy with.
Yet in your mind, it is the Liberals fault?
Lexi,
Wow, you just pretty much repeated your previous post. Way to actually address the points I made. Good to know you have no comeback.
Koozebane,
And seriously, that is possibly the lamest excuse for war I have ever heard. “Oh, they fired rockets at our planes who were BOMBING them at the time”. That hardly seems like grounds for invasion.

D*Rek on June 1, 2007 at 11:31 am

to D’Rek. You repeat all the talking points you heard on air-America, All of them lies.1) Re; ” Saddam had no connection to Al Queda. Tha close connections between Iraqi intellegence and Al-Queda are ell documented in Steven Hayes book “The Connection” and in Hayes aqnd Thomas Jocelyn’s many articles in the Weekly Standard Magazine. They are also documented in Tenet’s recent book and in the Senate Select Committee’s report. 2) Re; “we klled more Iraqis than Saddam”. After signing a peace treaty with Iran, Saddam attacked this country massecering the entire population of every town he conquered, and executing the Iranian Oil minister. The war he instigated, led to the deaths of 1 million Iranians and Iraqis. Saddam murdered 300,000 Kurds in operation “Anfal” and later by gassing 70 Kurdish towns including Halabja. He kidnapped Kurdish children gouged their eyes out and shot them. He then charged the parents for the price of the bullets. ( my source David Price-Jones book ” The Closed Circle”) Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of Shi’ite Moslems and “marsh Arabs”. He murdered the Ayatollah Muhhamed Sadr by driving a nail through his head and had the Ayatolah’s sister raped in front of him.( my source; “Saddam Hussein and the Gulf War” by Judith Miller, of the NY Times and Proffessor Lauri Mylroi, Seee also “Cruelty and Silence” and “Republic of Fear”by Kannan Makiya). Saddam was respnsible for torturing thousands to death, including his own health minister. This doctors youg wife got his body back chopped into pieces. As far as the wildly exxagerated figures of deaths caused by the US invasion, they are totally without foundation. Most of the deaths are caused by suicide bombers, 70% of whom are brought into Iraq by Al Queda with the help of Syria and Iran, not by US Troops. It seems, no matter how monstrous our enemies are, whether it is Saddam, Castro or Stalin, the left is ready to embrace them as long as they share its hatred of the USA. Yes, Drek an appropriate name for you!

Tim on June 1, 2007 at 12:23 pm

FYI: “Shero” is not a new slang term. It’s been used by radical feminists for years.
This is, perhaps, something of a “Stockholm syndrome”–wanting to love the person who wants to kill you.
For Oprah to encourage this as international policy is suicide. Give in and love those who want to kill you?
Oprah is “Mickey Mouse.”

barrypopik on June 1, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Since Oprah wanted to make a “show” of it, why didn’t she go kiss the graves of Bull Connor and George Wallace? I mean since she wanted to show examples of forgiveness to very evil people an all…
I believe in forgiving, but that does not mean you need to make a fool of yourself or treat the person who did you wrong as if they should not face prosecution for their crimes.
I think if possible, Oprah and Gill would pull the terrorist straight from the flames of Hell if they could!

IndependentConservative on June 1, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Wow Tim, you’re all over the place there. For starters I don’t listen to Air-America, so i’m not repeating talking points.
1. Regarding Iraq and Al-Queda, you are just flat wrong. There is report after report stating that there was no relationship between the two.
2. And on all of your points regarding how evil Saddam was, I’m not saying that he wasn’t evil (although you should do your research on the Iran war. It was Republicans who gave him the weapons and encouraged him to attack Iran).
3. And guess who opened the flood gates for terrorist to come into the country. Not our troops, but our incompetent leaders who didn’t have a post war plan other than “They greet us as liberators”. Before we invaded Al Queda wasn’t in Iraq. The Republican leadership had no plan, and they still refuse to admit what is happening on the ground.
You want to turn this into a “well, Saddam was a bad man so what is the big deal with removing him”. And on principal, you’re right. However, the Right screwed up this war so badly that instead of making us safer, they have made things so much more dangerous.
We need real leadership in this war, not a bunch of people who spout out bumper sticker slogans and try to pass it off as a strategy.
And on a final note, just because we disagree on how to fight the war on terror, doesn’t mean that people like me are “America haters”. Quite the contrary, we love this country enough to try and get a competent leader in the White House.
SCORE: TIM: 1; DREK: 0.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

D*Rek on June 1, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Thank you Debbie, in your 5 word response you have completely summed up why we are so screwed up in this country. Tim responds to my points on how badly this administration has screwed up the war in Iraq with some ramblings on how evil Saddam was. And somehow in your version of reality he won the “debate”.
The problem is there is no debate in this country anymore. The only way conservatives can put forth their argument is to scream at the top of the lungs how evil the enemy is and how much anyone with a competent thought as an “America Hater”
The ironic thing is while conservatives are screaming how they are “protecting the country” they are in fact running it into the ground.

D*Rek on June 1, 2007 at 1:49 pm

NB: Don’t mistake me for a Bush supporter, or a supporter of the Iraq “conflict”. We certainly left a job in Afghanistan undone, and we went into Iraq ill-prepared and half-cocked. That does not, however, relieve my fear of Hussein. Call it willful stupidity if you choose, but this man, if left unchecked, would eventually make Bin Laden look like a school kid. I have heard interviews with Iraqi scientists that confirm, under Saddam, nuculear programs were being developed. Unlike Bin Laden, the Hussein regime had the infrastructure to pull something big off. I’d rather be scared stupid, and doing something about it, than to be blissfully ignorant when the real shit comes down.

spiffo on June 1, 2007 at 3:19 pm

“And seriously, that is possibly the lamest excuse for war I have ever heard. “Oh, they fired rockets at our planes who were BOMBING them at the time”. That hardly seems like grounds for invasion.”
I wasn’t justifying an invasion. I was proving you wrong.
Thanks to your kind admission that Saddam was indeed firing missiles at US Airmen, we can move on with the conversation knowing that the “Saddam never attacked us” mantra is false.
Although, before you continue any further debate, I highly recommend reading CNN’s report from 2001 entitled IRAQ: The Unfinished War.
Here’s the URL:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/
I’d also highly recommend looking up the definition of “provocation” while you’re at it.

Koozebane on June 1, 2007 at 6:07 pm

“I’d love to meet the bomber. But I can’t meet the bomber to open my arms to show him that unconditional love because he’s not here.”
And no doubt the bomber would have loved to meet her, too – so he could finish what he started when he failed to kill her the first time.

LibertarianBulbasaur on June 2, 2007 at 12:54 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field