The Forgotten Slaughters of the Innocents
For now, everyone knows the sonorous name and cherubic face of 8-year-old Saffie Rose Roussos.
She's the littlest known victim of Monday night's jihad attack in Manchester, England. Her doe-eyed image spread as rapidly across social media as the #PrayForManchester hashtags and Twitter condolences from celebrities.
But I guarantee you that beautiful Saffie Rose will evaporate from the memories of those most loudly proclaiming "Never forget" faster than a dewdrop in the desert.
Look no further for proof of the West's incurable terror attack amnesia than the reaction to the Manchester massacre. Reporters, politicians and pundits expressed shock at the brutality of Muslim murderers targeting children and young people.
Labour Party leader Yvette Cooper posited on BBC Live that it was a "first."
"The architects of terror have hit a new low," a Liverpool newspaper editorialized.
U.K. columnist Rosie Millard described the bloody bombing as an "attack unique in its premeditated targeting of the young."
What planet have these people been living on for the past 16 years? How quickly the blind, deaf and dumb virtue signalers forget.
Last year, the Orlando, Florida, nightclub jihadist purposely targeted young people simply having a good time. Among the youngest victims cut down in their prime: Jason B. Josaphat, 19, and vacationing high school honors student Akyra Monet Murray, 18.
Somali jihadist Abdul Razak Ali Artan plowed his car into Ohio State University students last fall before stabbing several of them. The attack was swept under the rug as the usual, terror-coddling suspects worried more about a nonexistent "backlash" against Muslims than they did about the steady infiltration of refugee jihadis and Islamic extremists at colleges and universities across the country.
In 2004, Islamic baby-killers attacked a school in Beslan, Russia, during a three-day siege that took the lives of 186 young children.
At Fort Hood in 2009, soldier Francheska Velez and her unborn child were murdered by jihadist Nidal Hasan with 13 other victims. Her last words: "My baby! My baby!"
Eight children were murdered on airliners that jihadists hijacked and crashed on Sept. 11, 2001.
Christine Hanson, 3, was on United Airlines Flight 175 with her parents. She was on her first trip to Disneyland. Juliana McCourt, 4, was traveling with her mom — also on her way to Disneyland. David Brandhorst, 3, was traveling with his adoptive dad and his companion.
Sisters Zoe Falkenberg, 8, and Dana, 3, were headed to Australia with their parents on American Airlines Flight 77.
Bernard Brown Jr., 11; Rodney Dickens, 11; and Asia Cottom, 11, all from Washington, D.C., were also on the Falkenbergs' flight. They were public schoolchildren traveling with their teachers on an educational trip.
An additional 10 pregnant women and their unborn babies died as the Twin Towers toppled. Eight years before, during the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, one pregnant woman and her unborn child also perished.
The Boston Marathon bombing of 2013 injured 263 and claimed three lives, including 8-year-old Martin Richard. Authorities recounted at trial that Martin suffered "visceral pain" in nearly every part of his body as shrapnel — metal, wood, nails and pellets — from the jihadists' pressure cooker bomb ripped into him.
Yes, the same type of sadistic torture bombs suspected of maiming and killing kids and teens in Manchester this week.
Newsflash: There is nothing new or unique about the barbaric soldiers of Allah executing premeditated attacks on our young. History teaches us there is no appeasing the unappeasable. They will not be bought by welfare subsidies, sensitivity programs, college educations or diversity-is-our-strength platitudes. The slaughter of the innocents will continue unabated as long as the West's useless last responders to jihad violence — addled by short-term memories and child-like comprehension of the Islamic imperialism imperative — prevail. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/michelle-malkin/forgotten-slaughters-innocents
She's the littlest known victim of Monday night's jihad attack in Manchester, England. Her doe-eyed image spread as rapidly across social media as the #PrayForManchester hashtags and Twitter condolences from celebrities.
But I guarantee you that beautiful Saffie Rose will evaporate from the memories of those most loudly proclaiming "Never forget" faster than a dewdrop in the desert.
Look no further for proof of the West's incurable terror attack amnesia than the reaction to the Manchester massacre. Reporters, politicians and pundits expressed shock at the brutality of Muslim murderers targeting children and young people.
Labour Party leader Yvette Cooper posited on BBC Live that it was a "first."
"The architects of terror have hit a new low," a Liverpool newspaper editorialized.
U.K. columnist Rosie Millard described the bloody bombing as an "attack unique in its premeditated targeting of the young."
What planet have these people been living on for the past 16 years? How quickly the blind, deaf and dumb virtue signalers forget.
Last year, the Orlando, Florida, nightclub jihadist purposely targeted young people simply having a good time. Among the youngest victims cut down in their prime: Jason B. Josaphat, 19, and vacationing high school honors student Akyra Monet Murray, 18.
Somali jihadist Abdul Razak Ali Artan plowed his car into Ohio State University students last fall before stabbing several of them. The attack was swept under the rug as the usual, terror-coddling suspects worried more about a nonexistent "backlash" against Muslims than they did about the steady infiltration of refugee jihadis and Islamic extremists at colleges and universities across the country.
In 2004, Islamic baby-killers attacked a school in Beslan, Russia, during a three-day siege that took the lives of 186 young children.
At Fort Hood in 2009, soldier Francheska Velez and her unborn child were murdered by jihadist Nidal Hasan with 13 other victims. Her last words: "My baby! My baby!"
Eight children were murdered on airliners that jihadists hijacked and crashed on Sept. 11, 2001.
Christine Hanson, 3, was on United Airlines Flight 175 with her parents. She was on her first trip to Disneyland. Juliana McCourt, 4, was traveling with her mom — also on her way to Disneyland. David Brandhorst, 3, was traveling with his adoptive dad and his companion.
Sisters Zoe Falkenberg, 8, and Dana, 3, were headed to Australia with their parents on American Airlines Flight 77.
Bernard Brown Jr., 11; Rodney Dickens, 11; and Asia Cottom, 11, all from Washington, D.C., were also on the Falkenbergs' flight. They were public schoolchildren traveling with their teachers on an educational trip.
An additional 10 pregnant women and their unborn babies died as the Twin Towers toppled. Eight years before, during the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, one pregnant woman and her unborn child also perished.
The Boston Marathon bombing of 2013 injured 263 and claimed three lives, including 8-year-old Martin Richard. Authorities recounted at trial that Martin suffered "visceral pain" in nearly every part of his body as shrapnel — metal, wood, nails and pellets — from the jihadists' pressure cooker bomb ripped into him.
Yes, the same type of sadistic torture bombs suspected of maiming and killing kids and teens in Manchester this week.
Newsflash: There is nothing new or unique about the barbaric soldiers of Allah executing premeditated attacks on our young. History teaches us there is no appeasing the unappeasable. They will not be bought by welfare subsidies, sensitivity programs, college educations or diversity-is-our-strength platitudes. The slaughter of the innocents will continue unabated as long as the West's useless last responders to jihad violence — addled by short-term memories and child-like comprehension of the Islamic imperialism imperative — prevail. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/michelle-malkin/forgotten-slaughters-innocents
Tags
Who is online
83 visitors
You have forgotten the children of Sandy Hook.
Or do they not count? Why not? Because they were slaughtered by an American? Because we don’t need to invade any other country to prevent a repetition? Because YOU don't want to do the simple things necessary to prevent a repetition?
Sandy Hook was a false flag.
Sandy Hook was a false flag.
Another right-wing "everything is fake news" (except for the fake news I post myself and foist as "truthful").
It makes me wonder if the right-wing gun nuts are born with souls.
It would not surprise me if Fermit (?) is a "pro-lifer" …
Right wing gun enthusiasts are not the ones using their weapons in gun crimes. They have them to protect us from crimes.
Right wing gun enthusiasts are not the ones using their weapons in gun crimes. They have them to protect us from crimes.
Inaccurate … many more gun violence incidents occur between individuals who know one another (i.e. spouses and other family members) as contrasted with "gun enthusiasts using their weapons in gun crimes.
Between 2005 and 2010, 60 percent of all violent injuries in this country were inflicted by loved ones or acquaintances. And 60 percent of the time those victimizations happened in the home. In 2011, 79 percent of murders reported to the FBI (in which the victim-offender relationship was known) were committed by friends, loved ones, or acquaintances. And in 2009, most of the homicides for which the FBI has location data were committed in the home. Of the 3.5 million assaults and murders against family members between 1998 and 2002 (the last time such a study was done), almost half were crimes against spouses. Eleven percent were against children. But the majority of violent deaths are self-imposed. Suicide is the leading cause of violent death in the United States, and most of those self-killings happen at home.
You guys live in the fantasy world you prefer … a world, the faux-existence of which, is exploited via NRA reinforcement.
If you want to have a serious discussion with me, come with the facts … not the bullshit.
You use that "arrogant" appellation to console yourself; be it with arrogance or humility, when someone metaphorically hands you your ass because your rebuked point is either twisted, fallacious, without conscience or just plain wrong, attacking the messenger makes you twice wrong.
Get the facts or get to the side; your arguments too often come from the land of Alternative Facts fed to you by those who pander to your fantasy state ... of mind.
I'd rather be arrogant and accurate than smug and self-delusional.
Of course this seed has nothing to do with a mentally unbalanced person stealing a gun and killing kids and their teachers. It is about the planned execution of as many kids as possible by a terrorist Muslim organization.
When did you post an analogous condemnation of the slaughter of American children? There's a massacre or two every year, from elementary school to university. Or haven't you noticed?
Bogus argument. How many of those murders did you support by not posting a comment on the internet?
Were they all done by gun, Mac? Or were some of them, stabbings, blunt object, beatings, strangulations, poisoning, electrocution's, and so on?
Were they all done by gun, Mac? Or were some of them, stabbings, blunt object, beatings, strangulations, poisoning, electrocution's, and so on?
The study was with specific regard to gun violence, Spikegary.
And it's not the only one.
Abstract
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
What are you talking about?
Nothing. As usual, a tediously large bunch of pasted facts and lies are tossed together randomly, with no intent to drive to any on topic conclusion. It's a grade school debate club tactic designed to confuse equally childish opponents. Most adults grow out of it.
Nothing. As usual, a tediously large bunch of pasted facts and lies are tossed together randomly, with no intent to drive to any on topic conclusion. It's a grade school debate club tactic designed to confuse equally childish opponents. Most adults grow out of it.
None of which you specifically refuted!
While I commend you for better than usual syntax, nevertheless, even well-structured ad-hominem is still attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message.
And now, I shall resume ignoring you.
An empty promise at best.
An empty promise at best.
Alas, it's true. Your relentless bad commentaries defy being ignored; to simply allow them to stand unchallenged would constitute negligence belying those with the intelligence, facts and sense of responsibility warranted to knock them down.
So, for once, we agree.
The real victim of the Macnhester bombing was the girl who had mean things said to her. Luckily, the media will hype and focus on her story so we can learn the approved lessons from a slaughter of little kids.
Sean , do you think you will end terrorism by harassing the 99.99% of Muslims who do not commit terrorist acts?
Do you think you will end terrorism by relentlessly promoting any bit of harassment of Muslims the internet can dig up?
So you are okay with peaceful Muslims being harrassed.
Of course not.
but I'm more concerned by orders of magnitude with innocent kids getting blown up.
Sean, you will not ever hear me say that anyone should go easy on the terrorists. I would join a firing squad to execute them myself.
There are people though who lash out at all Muslims, regardless of their age or their location. We see it after every incident.
I think there is a difference between an act of terrorism carried out by a person suffering from genuine mental illness, and one caused by religious fervor. The former might not have the same element of intent as the latter. Both are despicable and good people will never be safe from such incidents. Especially when they deny the intent.
I don't understand why an 8 year old was at this concert.
Good point.
Duh...maybe 8 year old's go to concerts. Mine did. Millions do.
A parenting decision on your part is just that. Doesn't mean it was right or wrong.
I'm not talking about the ethics or morality here. Some people are just way too old and cloistered. They obvious don't have children, never took their kids to a Hannah Montana or any number of these Disney concerts for kids.
True. The parent and or an older sister was likely there too.
I don't understand why an 8 year old was at this concert.
The first three words of the comment pretty much sum it up.
To much of the right-wing, be it rape, domestic violence, Trayvon Martin or disagreement with Trump … it's always the victim's fault.
A. Mac-your comment contributes nothing to the discussion at hand. It's rude and condescending.
You can do better than that.
A. Mac-your comment contributes nothing to the discussion at hand. It's rude and condescending.
You can do better than that.
My comment addresses a rhetorical question that implies victimization resulted from poor parenting rather than an act of terror alone.
No … I can't "do better" than taking apart a fallacious argument and citing previous, similarly flawed "reasoning".
Nobody is blaming Zimmerman for Trayon's crime.
Nobody is blaming Zimmerman for Trayon's crime.
The prosecution rests.
"It's rude and condescending."
A strawman too. Sick.
"It's rude and condescending."
A strawman too. Sick.
Whoa! You forgot "arrogant"!
And, you also forgot to post an actual content-rebuttal.
You saw my rebuttal. You claimed she blamed the victim. Since her post made no such statement, your post was a strawman. A weak, detestable one.
You saw my rebuttal. You claimed she blamed the victim. Since her post made no such statement, your post was a strawman. A weak, detestable one.
To question, even by implication, the propriety of an unprovoked victim's presence at a terrorist attack, is irrelevant to the unprovoked murder of that victim.
Raising such a question as a matter of curiosity is understandable; but, raising it without specifically noting that, in-and-of-itself, it is not germane to decisions or judgements related to ANY OF THE VICTIMS … is an oversight that invites irrelevant speculation.
What is "weak and detestable" is your consistent propensity to attack-the-messenger.
I don't understand why an 8 year old was at this concert.
I wondered the same but then I also remember when I was about 8 or 9 years old, I was able to go to the Movie Theater with my Brother who was perhaps 16years old at the time, so I don't find it that unusual, also, I wondered about the day of the week which was on Monday a School night..I believe the Time zone is 5 hours ahead of the East Coast, we received the News at approximately 5:00PM New York time..Looks like this bombing took place perhaps between 6-8Pm UK Time which would make the concert a Matinee...8Year old are allowed to attend Matinees...It may also be a school day off on that particular Monday..
Actually, if you read the news articles, the bombing occurred approx. 10:33 P.M. local time. ( Link ). I don't know if it was a regular school week or not. Again, the choice of taking an 8 year old to a concert (This isn't Hannah Montana) is a parental choice. If it were me, I'd likely have to look over the lyrics and listen to the music and od a bit of research before allowing an 8 year old to go. But, again, parenting rules are choices each of us has to make as a parent.
Actually, if you read the news articles, the bombing occurred approx. 10:33 P.M. local time.
Finished at 10:30PM means started probably at 6:00Pm...Matinee..Ok for Children...Nothing outrageous about Ariana Grande..Some People only allow their children to Church Concerts..Those Children have no Idea of the Real World and wants to pass their "CHURCH" beliefs to the Rest of the World NO Different from "RADICAL ISLAMIST"..
Bomb went off at 10:33 P.M. by all accounts. 10:30 P.M. to start to go home from a concert on a weeknight for an 8 year old is acceptable to you? I disagree, but we all have a right to our own opinion.
As an occasional treat, not everyday practice, I have a feeling many many people take 8 year olds out until 11:00 at night.
The issue of "what was an 8 year old doing there" is a non-starter.
To your mind. Fortunately, you're not everyone.
There is a 12 year old in a family. She likes Arianna Grande's music, and plays it a lot. Her 8 year old sister sees her older sister liking Arianna Grande, and so she does too. Maybe Mom too , or Dad. The whole young family likes Arianna Grande.
The 12 year old had a birthday recently. Mom and dad tell her she can go see Arianna Grande as a birthday present.
The 8 year old pleads "why can't I go too?" So she gets to go.
Happens every day.
When I was 7 years old, my mother took me to a string quartet concert in someone's home in Kansas City-- and we got home late. She felt the opportunity to listen to the music and be present at the fancy concert was worth being a little late to school the next day. Of course, this was 1963-- but I still remember the gorgeous home and the wonderful music! To me, it was worth it! I only missed an hour of school-- no big deal. I certainly don't want to criticize the parents for making use of a good opportunity for their children.