Advertisements

Why Return the Child?

Recently, I wrote about the appalling Detroit-area doctor who has been mutilating little girls for her twisted cult. Both this perverse excuse for a human being and her accomplices – Fakhruddin Attar and his demented wife Farida – were indicted yesterday for scheming to disfigure little girls. When I wrote about this, I noted that Jumana Nagarwala’s claim that she was merely removing the children’s “genital membrane and giving it to relatives for burial” held about as much water as an ISIS member claiming to respect women (or Antifa claiming to respect free speech), and medical examinations proved otherwise.

But according to a juvenile protection petition filed in Minnesota, along with federal court documents, the injuries sustained by the Minnesota girls are far more severe than Nagarwala described. A doctor’s findings cited scarring, a small tear, healing lacerations and what appears to be surgical removal of a portion of her genitalia, the Detroit Free Press reported.

Seriously? What civilized human being with any shred of morality who was educated in one of the best medical schools in a developed country would harm little children in such a manner?

What galls me even more is that according to the report, at least one of the children was returned to her parents.

WHY??

The doctor pernicious cunt wad apparently exchanged texts with one of the mothers, confirming the time they were to meet so she could disfigure her little daughter.

The father allegedly knew about the trip through texts with his wife while she was in Detroit.

The little girl told a child protective services investigator that the doctor had “made her cry,” and the victims said they were instructed to keep what happened to them a secret.

It’s quite obvious there was conspiracy between the parents and the doctors.

And yet, at least one of the little girls was returned to her parents!

WHAT??? WHY?

Why are these people not held liable for conspiring to mutilate their children? Why have they not been charged?

Why have the children been returned to them?

Why haven’t they been sterilized with some rusty implements, so they’re never again able to create innocent life and then harm it? (I may or may not be joking about this last part. You decide.)

We already know that Nagarwala is a sadistic, sub-human savage, who apparently lied to investigators about even being present for the procedures!

But why are the parents not being held criminally liable, and WHY for the sake of everything that’s not fucked up in this world would you return a child to savages who conspired to mutilate her in a sick effort to assume control over her sexuality?

I hurt for these little girls so much! They were awake for the whole thing, and I can’t imagine the pain and humiliation. What kind of “compassionate” agency that’s supposed to look out for the welfare of the most vulnerable among us, would return a child to these monsters?

Someone explain this to me, because I just don’t get it.

Advertisements

49 responses

  1. They are a protected class for the left. that is exactly why they allowed the child to return

    Liked by 3 people

  2. In many cases, Child Services doesn’t seem to care about the unrepentant assbags who have produced offspring and either don’t care to take care of them or else actively hurt them. I don’t know why. Perhaps it’s because they can’t intimidate these people, or perhaps they are afraid of them. Child Services tends to prey on the parents who care, yet have been accused by someone, either due to misunderstanding, or plain hatefulness, because then they get to see panicked parents trying to scurry around and keep from losing their children into a system they have heard horror stories about.

    Of course, I could just be horribly bitter about what happened to us.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sorry to hear that. What was your story?

      Like

      1. Son is/was ADHD, so everything he did was 90 miles per hour, leading to bruises. He also crawled off the end of a bench seat at the Mall and landed on his face, leaving a bruise on his forehead. Mother-in-law decided we were abusing him, and CPS refused to believe that we weren’t either abusing him or at least neglecting him, although the lawyer we hired was able to get us to keep him, but we had to have a caseworker visit us once a month for a year after that.

        The public defender, which we met at the first hearing, just assumed we were guilty, and advised us to plead no contest, so we would just get community service or something for a first offense. Needless to say, I fired him and got a real lawyer.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Wow. Amazing how rampant abuse can occur and parents keep the child, but someone gets a bruise and social services goes apeshit.

          My kid was having an ADHD moment once and spinning around on the kitchen bench, falling off and splitting their ear. I felt bad for them of course and took to a Dr. that night, who did the check up to ask them (in their own words) what happened. I’m glad the Dr. checked it out that way, but at the same time I understood that I was a tad under suspicion for abuse, and lucky we were taken care of with no adverse outcome.

          Like

        2. I knew someone who had been reported to the CPS as abusive because the family’s good friend, who lived a few houses down and they played MMOs with, was being stalked and controlled HARD by a crazy cunt who the friend had originally gotten into an online e-girlfriend relationship with and had been trying VERY hard to break it off once he discovered how insane she was. She did it specifically to ensure that he would stay with her. As in, “If you don’t stay with me I will make sure those loving parents will lose their kid, and it’ll be YOUR fault.” The parents in question were young, and if it wasn’t for the fact that the child – a very young boy – refused to tell the CPS despite leading questions that he’d ever been spanked or hurt and the fact that he was in no way injured and was healthy. That and there was a voice of reason in the group that noticed that the child was always running happily back to the parents, and clinging hard.

          I also know a few friends who were the kind of kids who regularly visited the emergency room. Ergo, they were known by first name and they ALWAYS got into accidents because for whatever reason, pain is not a deterrent, nor broken bones or knocked out teeth. A couple of them demonstrated their extreme klutziness in front of the police and doctors, in the hospital (One was called, and tried to get up, tripped on his shoelaces trying to get up from the chair, picked himself up by pushing himself to his feet and cannoning straight into a support pillar, headfirst, then caught himself from falling, then proceeded to trip on his own two feet and crack his head against the nurse’s station. Case dropped!) The one I knew from England used to come to the ER twice a month, and finally someone was CPS was sent to observe the parents for two weeks. The CPS guy was there for only a week, and reported that they were lucky that he didn’t come in every week, or that he didn’t get himself killed. Apparently the first thing he did as soon as they got home was climb up the bookshelf, and before anyone could stop him, jumped off to bounce off the couch and through the glass coffee table. This was also an era where boys were still expected to be rough and tumble and oy vey.

          Like

        3. Older son wasn’t QUITE as clutzy as that, but as he got older (the accusations happened when he was about 18 months old) he did do things like run through the house and quite literally change direction by crashing into the door frame. You could tell that he actually took the crash into account, because he didn’t even try to make the turn without it.

          But yeah, the lawyer told them that son probably got at least two bruises just during the time we were in his office, from bebopping around, climbing over chairs, etc. They didn’t even act like they heard him.

          I mean, hell, when he tripped and rammed his head into the edge of the console television, and we took him to the hospital, about six months earlier, no one said anything there, but someone makes an accusation, and it doesn’t matter what the FACTS are…

          Liked by 1 person

        4. My daughter was terrified after a doctor’s visit with one of her girls. She had a little bruise on her shin half the size of a dime and the doctor asked about it but didn’t make a fuss. Months later another trip to the doctor and Cellie had a tiny tiny bruise on one side of her forehead. The doctor threatened that if he saw another bruise he would call child protective services.

          She was a clumsy 2 1/2 year old. Any parent can tell you they lost count of how many times their kid fell down, bumped their head, pinched a finger in the door. My daughter cried for so long. I felt helpless to do anything for her.

          Liked by 1 person

        5. My son had a rapid admission card to a nearby hospital by the time he was 3 years old. When my grandson was in the ER after swallowing a glass bead I told my daughter-in-law that going to the ER is part of being the parent of a boy.

          How many adult males do you know who don’t have a scar on their chin?

          Liked by 1 person

        6. Actually, I don’t know many who have a scar in one particular place, but yeah, ER visits were a normal thing for a lot of people when I was growing up. I was lucky or chicken enough to not get too many significant injuries after the time I whacked my noggin on the footboard of my parents’ bed.

          Oddly, the only long-term scar I ever had when I was young was one on my cheek that was caused by a mere scratch by a bush, while I normally didn’t get scars from even things like the “rug burn” I got when i skidded on my face on a trampoline that was made from woven canvas straps, rather than the relatively finely-woven smooth things you see today.

          Like

  3. fn rabbits

    1000 cuts would be appropriate.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. For the sperm donors castration by crushing the balls in a vise.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I mean it is sooooo patently obvious that they did clandestinely, conspired to hide that it was done, and lied that it was done — all things indicating they knew what they were doing was WRONG, if not ILLEGAL. And yes, DCF should remove both children from the home and NOT return them.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Every piece of subhuman scum involved in mutilating these children should be hanging from a lamp post- alive-( temporarily)- so people who actually do care about children can walk by and toss rocks,bricks, beer bottles or their projectile of choice at them.
    After a few days of that, then someone- I’m sure there would be plenty of volunteers- could perform the same “surgery” on them with a rusty chainsaw.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. “I hurt for these little girls so much! They were awake for the whole thing, and I can’t imagine the pain and humiliation”

    What happed to them (as you mentioned, the severe pain and humiliation) was on a par with molestation. I don’t know why social services would return to parents. Justice system gone awry, I guess.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am more cynical. There have been plenty of instances where the CPS returned or failed outright to remove very obviously sexually abused children from pedophiles posing as gay couples (One particular pair had 19 boys in their care, and didn’t abuse all of them so that the ones who weren’t abused were their witnesses to the contrary.) The reasoning they gave was that they didn’t want to be called bigoted against gays. Also, Rotherham’s collective turning a blind eye to the sexual slavery of children carried out by a Muslim gang of men because they were afraid to be called racist.

      Because when it comes to the protected groups, the real victims are on a far lesser priority list than the Saintly Victimized Groups who can do No Wrong Because Culture, and ‘white racist bigot Nazis’ aren’t allowed to question those ever.

      Like

      1. The irony of the situation is that, when all things are done and said, not only did they allow horrible crimes, they actually HURT the groups they wanted to seem to protect.
        Everytime something like this comes up, it burns itself in the collectiv memory of people of why “those people” are horrible/should not be allowed to adopt children/don’t belong here, etc.
        Equal protection under the law HAS to entail equal accountability under the law. Without the latter, AT some point, people will have had enough and then the first one goes out the window. And those who actually just want to live their life in peace will, as always, get caught in the crossfire.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. BillyBob Texas | Reply

    Deport these camel f@ckers back to where they should still be…..

    We don’t do that stuff here in the civilized world. Go back into your caves to live…..

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Shooting them would be cheaper. That’s what we should do to child molesters.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. No they should not. They came to a western country and comitted a crime on western soil and are to be held responsible here. Sending them back to where this kind of bullshit flies would not quite be as bad as giving the children fucking BACK but it would still be spitting in their faces.
      Also, from what i gather, the women is a U.S. born citizen, if of indian descend. And as far as i am concerned, revoking the citizenships of people BORN with it, even if they commit a crime, just because of their race, is actual unjust discrimination.
      She’s an american and deserves to be treated the same way any u.s. citizen is treated when he commits such an act.
      As for the specifics, i second Shadowdancer.

      Like

  8. Words fail me in this instance. Thank you for yours, on behalf of the children, Nicki.

    Like

  9. What civilized human being with any shred of morality who was educated in one of the best medical schools in a developed country would harm little children in such a manner?

    That’s because their morals are not ours, and not remotely equivalent. Their values do not mesh with those of a Western civilization. They don’t hold girls as important, and it is notable that the women of those cultures are often the ones who carry out these same ‘cultural practices’.

    But to be upset about these things, never mind thinking them as pure evil, is wrong and badthink and bigoted.

    That’s why they were given back. Because why remove a girl from a culture that’s harmful to her for her own good by ‘pretending’ we are ‘any better’ as a culture?

    It’s sickening.

    Like

  10. Michigan went all in for muzzies generations ago.

    Like

  11. Why did they return the children?
    Answer-For the same reason that parents in California can have a doctor mutilate the genitals of their children into the opposite sex and the children aren’t taken away. Sick perverse society that calls evil good and good evil.

    Like

  12. Like insane incident in Australia where an UBER driver told a passenger he was ISIS and started driving her to a destination 40 miles away. She escaped by saying she had to go to the bathroom and then getting someone to help her. The police arrived when the terrorist kidnapper was still there but instead of arresting him for kidnapping they let him go.

    Like

  13. It’s hard for me to decide which I hate more — Islam or Children’s Services. I wouldn’t wish either on a child.

    Like

  14. I wonder why he denied being there? Maybe because he knew it was illegal and morally lacking. I believe that is evidence of malice.

    Like

  15. Sure this a place for pointless ranting and venting, but you know in the real world you aren’t going to get rid this without also getting rid of the bris.

    Like

  16. And meanwhile, genital mutilation in the form of circumcision is done to millions of little boys (including myself), and no one says a thing.

    Like

    1. “And meanwhile, genital mutilation in the form of circumcision is done to millions of little boys (including myself), and no one says a thing.”

      Uhh…. You DO realize there’s a huge differnce, right? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

      Like

      1. Yes, he’s being obtuse.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Actually lots of people object to it loudly, even hysterically. And that’s even though in males it has known, definite health benefits.

      Like

      1. BillyBob Texas | Reply

        Does ANYONE know of a child’s circumcision that occurred AGAINST the parent’s wishes? Is anyone claiming the State REQUIRES a circumcision before the baby is released form the hospital? IF YOU DON’T WANT YOUR BOY TO HAVE ONE – DON’T ALLOW THEM TO DO IT !!!!!!!
        This is NOT rocket science……..

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Are you replying to me or to John C?

          Like

        2. BillyBob Texas

          I am replying to EVERYONE who thinks that some governmental or hospital entity FORCES male circumcision upon all newborns. This is QUITE opposite of what is happening to those girls…..their parents COULD stop it….IF they REALLY wanted to…

          Like

  17. The “parents” and “doctor” should simply be destroyed as the dangerous animals, unfit for civilized society, that they are. I see them as exactly equivalent to dangerous dogs.

    Like

  18. Yeah I know this a place for pointless venting and ranting, but you aren’t going to justify getting rid of this without also getting rid of the bris. Legally both are ok or neither is.

    Like

    1. Yeah, I know some of the commenters are obtuse jackholes who have trouble discerning simple concepts which have already been addressed in the post, but you aren’t going to justify your claim until you can show that bris causes as much damage and is done for the same purpose as the FGM.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Since you don’t know FGM ranges from a surgical minor nick to taking out all the fun parts with a broken bottle, why should care about what you think about what you don’t know anything about?

        Like

    2. Nonsense. That is like saying there is no difference between a dentist and a thug who punches your teeth out. Or that Jack the Ripper can’t be declared a criminal until the UK outlaws the horror that is steak and kidney pie.

      You know, it would be possible to disagree with male circumcision without being anti-Semitic or pretending it is the same as castration (thus insulting millions of men hurt in that way through the ages). I would take today’s anti-circumcision folks more seriously if they had any concern for Muslim or African circumcision, which takes place at elementary school age or after puberty. But instead, they always take this opportunity to troll a post like this, about a condition leaving girls and women in constant lifelong agonizing pain, by arguing it as being exactly the same as infant circumcision, which some people might not like but is one of the oldest successfully accomplished elective surgery techniques. They are hurting their cause by not arguing in a useful way.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Or that Jack the Ripper can’t be declared a criminal until the UK outlaws the horror that is steak and kidney pie.”
        Hah! Nicely put.

        Like

      2. Works for this too.

        “That is like saying there is no difference between a dentist and a thug who punches your teeth out. ”

        Since you don’t know FGM ranges from a surgical minor nick to taking out all the fun parts with a broken bottle, why should I care about what you think about what you don’t know anything about?

        Like

  19. Someone might screech “Islamaphobia!” so it is better to sacrifice the helpless little girls than to face that.
    It’s a question of priorities.

    Like

  20. They are muslim. That is the explanation.

    Like

  21. Minnesota law was written by loving, caring Liberals. When there’s a problem, the law requires the state to develop a family reunification plan to get the children back with their parents as soon as it’s safe. In this instance, there’s no danger of a repeat occurrence so no reason to keep the children out of the home. The fact they belong to a highly vocal minority only adds to the urgency of restoring Muslim girls to a Muslim family.

    Like

    1. @joedoakes–I can’t tell if this response is supposed to be sarcastic.

      Like

  22. “Why haven’t they been sterilized with some rusty implements, so they’re never again able to create innocent life and then harm it? (I may or may not be joking about this last part. You decide.)”

    I don’t know if you are joking or not; but to me, I don’t think it is a joke. I think that it is a very just punishment of making the crime. It should be just the FIRST punishment.

    I think gamegetter ll’s idea is an emotional satisfying punishment, but then it is crossing over our Constitution ban against no ” unusual punishment” allowed, and then takes us down to these rabid dog savages level.

    Like

    1. Be careful of unintended consequences.

      A sufficiently harsh punishment will lead to the perp killing the victim (who is, perforce, a witness) afterwards.

      Like

We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: