It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who is winning? no one! True stories of where we stand.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
why do i serve?

Source/Link:
www.snopes.com...



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?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

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.


Upon doing some independant research into this affair, i heard a story that the boy was not merely stealing bread for himself, but for his family, to include 3 younger siblings.

*GRAPHIC IMAGES*

www.snopes.com...

www.snopes.com...

www.snopes.com...

www.snopes.com...

www.snopes.com...

www.snopes.com...

What are your thoughts?

How does this make you feel?

Is this how you want children to be treated in this world?

[edit on 12-11-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/11/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

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.


Good point. i in no way wanted to say America or any other nation is perfect compared to iran. furthermore i don't want anyone thinking that all members of islam practice the same ideologies, or practice the same traditions.

You brought up a valid point. How does America treat our children? I would agree we are lacking in our responsibility to our youth and their future, and i don't think we are perfect either.

Having said that, i aslo believe we do not make it a habit to run over childrens' arms when they steal bread for themselves and their family. In this instance the 8 year old boy had his arm ran over with a large crowd looking on, and out of all of them, no one thought it wrong enough to put a stop to it. why do you think this is acceptable, or do we as outsiders have no say so in how another country chooses to punish their children?



Man's inhumanity to his fellow man know's no bounds, our thirst for cruelty cannot be quenched.


i have had my fill, and the smell of it was enough to know i would not like how it tasted.



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.


i see many ways to respond to the above. but for now i will just ponder it som more.

thanks for the contribution.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Source/Link:

en.wikipedia.org... f_war_by_the_United_States#Current_status_of_the_U.S._debate




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.


[edit] 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.



So, it is apparent that the United States Government has opted to disregard the Constitution of the United States of America in the way they chose to pursue war in Iraq, or this would have been resolved over 3 years ago.

So, let's look at the Oath of Enlistment that every military member who joins the United States Armed Forces makes:

Source/Link:

www.military.com... swearing_in,,00.html





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."



According to the contract that every service man and woman in the United States of America's Armed Forces (military) have taken, All service members have sworn on their souls to god that they would: support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So, if any entity be it foreign or domestic has disregarded or acted in a way that deminishes the Constitution of the United States, then according to the oath that all military members have taken, we should act against whatever entities (foreign and domestic) that have dishonored the constitution.

So, if the government (domestic) has acted in a way that is constitutionally illegal, then are the military not obligated by their oath and by god to act against their own government?

and since america is a democracy (people rule), then aren't the members of the military obligated by their oath to act in such a way as to preserve the constitution against both government and the people who put them in place?

So, i ask you all these questions:

1) Who is dictating American policy, the people's fear and hate?
2) Who is dictating American policy, the government devoid of the rules that
formed it?
3) Who is dictating American policy, the lobbiests and the corporations?
4) Who is dictating American policy, the terrorists?
5) Who has brought us to the point where all military members' contracts to serve are negated, and their oath of enlistments being MOOT. Or if not moot, is the American military not obligated to act against the government in order to fullfill their oath they took when they swore to god to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?



Can anyone else follow the logic here?
Can people not see how it seems no one is winning, without losing everything we believed in?



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Because it is the truth.

And, yes. I am in the United States Armed Services. And i believe in what i am doing.

But, after Veterans Day, listening to how much we are appreciated .... blah blah blah ........

I was wondering if people really realized the truth is all military members of America's armed forces are still doing what you are asking of us, even though it goes against all the rules we are suppose to follow according to our oath, the constitution, and the branches "core values". Where our souls are now is more than stuck between a rock and a hard place. Look where Americans and the voters have put every soul of their military members.

We serve you regardless, even though everyone has turned their backs on us and damned our souls.

we serve you regardless, because we love you. And we do not want to see hate obliterate a world we love, as well. What we are doing far surpassed patriotism, does it not?


[edit on 12-11-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Didn't anyone read the link?

According to the story, it was a street show! the kid wasn't harmed!He might just as well have been snake charming, or fire eating, or lying on a bed of nails while while brother stands on him.

If they really wanted to hurt the child, he'd have looked a whole load more scared, and he wouldn't have had a blanket under the arm.




[edit on 12-11-2006 by nowthenlookhere]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Oh, teacher you really get it going... eh!?
How many more threads you got going with those 6 out of 7 pictures?
Anyone I open this morning, you seems to be there.
Why don't you tell the whole story from Urban Legends Refference Pages?

Is it because it suits your disinfo spreading?

I'm not into double posting, so I won't repeat my answer here, but let me do you the favour and link to your other post with the same story.
politics.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
it would seem that the whole story concerning the 8 year old boy is incorrectly portrayed by many. even i was decieved, because my emotions (passion) got the best of me.

a member by the name of Khunmoon was nice enough to show me that their was another picture in the series, which came after the rest of them. there is also a story that this picture series has been used to belittle middle eastern belief systems and societies for at least a couple of years now.

at any rate, here is the child after his arm got ran over (for show and to make money):


www.snopes.com...

i apologize for my ignorance of the last picture and full story behind the photos. i assure all it was not my intention to decieve anyone, and i will admit when i have made a mistake, or been mislead myself.

thanks in advance for your understanding, and thanks again to khunmoon for showing me something that was not as ugly as first we thought.

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/11/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon

Is it because it suits your disinfo spreading?


Actually, and upon penalty of death if i am lying, i did not know.

i am in fact very greatfull for you showing me this, and whole heartedly thank you.


"You have voted khunmoon for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


thanks again,
john.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Please add comments here:

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join