It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
An 8 year old child caught stealing bread in a market of Iran is punished in a public place, in the name of Islam!!!
His arm will be crushed and will lose its use permanently. A religion of peace and love, they say? How can anyone believe them when they commit such inhuman acts?
My first reaction to these pictures was "I don´t believe this, it must be a photographic trick".
Unfortunately, the truth seems evident, a little boy gets punished because he has stolen bread and they drive a heavy vehicle over his arm ....
What do you do when you receive a series of pictures like this? You ignore them???? Delete and think, thank God I am not living in Iran? This does not happen in my world ....
But the world is OURS - whether we live in Portugal, Sweden or in Iran. OUR children grow up in this world.
I feel helpless but I don´t want to think I received these pictures for no reason. Therefore, let´s use the power of the computer and internet to spread the information around the world. Maybe it can save some children from abuse in the future ...???
Ignorance can be defeated .... And the internet is a wonderful weapon.
Originally posted by magicmushroom
Et, I subscribe to the NSPCC, How does it make me feel, well it makes me feel the same as when I saw the photo's of the burnt children of Wako.
Man's inhumanity to his fellow man know's no bounds, our thirst for cruelty cannot be quenched.
We say these actions are wrong but then we go and kill children in Iraq and Afganistan. We allow our children to be murdered and raped, were just a bunch of savages that despite the best efforts of some change cannot be made. Every system, religion etc. is corrupt, only the strong survive, the weak perish.
We need one of two things to happen, a massive reprogramming of the Human mind or a global disaster that will rid this planet of its Human infestation. Were damaged goods and no one seems to want to change the situation, maybe the only answer is for most of us to perish and start all over again. Or could we ban all religions, nationalities, etc. is the one world the right way to go, is that the only option available to us. Total control of the population because we cannot be left to our own devices.
Those who oppose waging war without declaration point to Article I of the Constitution, which reads The Congress shall have the power to declare war.
In the case of smaller conflicts not requiring large commitments of manpower and money, many Americans believe that precedents have already been set for acting without the need for declarations of war. In the case of major conflicts, however, debate is centered around the aforesaid words of the United States Constitution.
Those who believe that formal declarations of war are not necessary, argue that since the Constitution expressly prohibits the states from engaging in war without consent of Congress unless actually invaded or in imminent danger, that if a similar prohibition had been intended for the President, then such words would have also been written to effect it. They also point to the military connotations of the phrases engaging in war (used in the aforesaid prohibition) and levying war (used in the definition of treason) as opposed to the diplomatic connotations of the phrase declare war. Further historical arguments point to the decisions to not issue a formal declaration of war preceding either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War, the latter decision being made by a Continental Congress comprising a number of those who went on to write the Constitution. Moreover, the term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the US Constitution. Instead the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War."
There are also diplomatic reasons for a dislike of "declaring war" on a country, as it can often be perceived as holding an entire nation responsible for the actions of a few of its citizens. In the case of the most recent public opposition, those who support such actions have noted that, in the case of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no 'target' for a legal declaration of war, rather political groups or individuals. On the other hand, many argue that since an invading army seeks to, or at least actually does, occupy and cause havoc to an entire target country and its population (as opposed to the target political groups or individuals), the aforementioned justifications are tenuous at best.
Many against formal declarations of war also argue that such declarations "acknowledge sovereignty" of a target government often contended by the United States to be an illegitimate regime. By declaring war, the United States must acknowledge diplomatically that the target of hostilities are, in fact, the recognized leaders of the country with which the war is declared, therefore often weakening the argument for "liberating" a people of the said country from a tyrannical or illegitimate regime. However, the historical record disagrees somewhat on this point. The Barbary Coast War was clearly waged against a political entity not regarded as the legitimate government of its nation of operation; the Border War, quietly declared as it was, was waged against a single person, Pancho Villa. Needless to say, in both instances many hundreds if not thousands of people belonging to neither a political entity or being Pancho Villa also died in the event. Furthermore, it is sometimes argued that there is nothing particularly wrong with acknowledging diplomatically that a target government is actually in power, be it through legitimate means or not.
 Current status of the U.S. debate
Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or around September 11, 2001. Opponents of the uses of military force since began to argue, chiefly, that the Iraq War was unconstitutional, because it lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a significantly sized demographic in the United States.
Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that greatly increased American participation in the Vietnam War, and the recent "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" (AUMF) resolution that started the War in Iraq. Some question the legality of these authorizations of force. Many who support declarations of war argue that they keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people while, at the same time, honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress.
Those who oppose requiring formal declarations of war argue that AUMFs satisfy constitutional requirements and have an established historical precedent (see Quasi-War). Furthermore, some have argued that the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief invest him with broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war.
The February 6, 2006 testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:
GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
The courts have consistently refused to intervene in this matter, and in practice presidents have the power to commit forces with congressional approval but without a declaration of war.
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The Oath of Office (for officers):
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
Originally posted by khunmoon
Is it because it suits your disinfo spreading?
"You have voted khunmoon for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.