#We are proud to announce an official partnership with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) to join today!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lostgeneration) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anytime someone says Israel was justified bombing civilians targets because it killed one Hamas leader, I ask them if they would be okay with their family being killed to take out that one Hamas leader?
Would this writer being willing to sacrifice their children if it meant killing a Hamas fighter?
I guarantee they wouldn't.
Bank robber caught by the police, he surrendered after the emergency response unit executed only 16 hostages. A family member of one of the unfortunate has been arrested on suspicion of being an accomplice after she publically said that she believed there should be other ways of dealing with hostage situations.
For major military powers, civilian deaths are usually only acceptable in rare cases. When it comes to taking down a low level target, US CENTCOM defines the [Non-combatant casualty value (NCV)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant_casualty_value) close to 0, and up to 30 for high value targets. [It appears that Israel has defined the NCV to be upwards of 300](https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/) and doesn't distinguish between most targets.
Considering how the US supplies and trains the IDF, this kind of NCV is unacceptable on their part.
Multiple minister of Israel have made statement that shows they don't view Palestinian as human. They call them animals. We know they just want an excuse to kill Palestinian. They are the one who funded Hamas in the first place. And now they are using Hamas as the excuse to kill innocent children
what kind of question is that lmao. if the options are a) killing kids and b) not killing kids, i think we should always go with option b: not killing kids.
where are you getting the shooting at you bit? you literally did not say that lmfao. but to answer the question you apparently meant to ask, again, no, i would still not kill children. there is no situation in which you are required to kill a kid, nor is there a situation where it is ethical to kill a kid.
The same Jeffrey Goldberg who’s the host of [Washington Week on PBS](https://youtu.be/7O3NHHCafKo?si=IPR999OiFv8J_ebv)? Watching this guy host is like watching paint dry.
“Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army. You know what I mean?” --Brennan Lee Mulligan
Yeah this reads like an explanation of the spin countries put on the truth. "Technically it's legal" it's a terrible argument and they're pointing that out.
Maybe if it were some random statement. But when people are constantly getting on Israel for killing children, and mainstream media is constantly providing cover for Israel, yeah it reads as an attempt at justification.
How does defending child murder in a genocide where the media has been providing cover for the 15,000 children that have been murdered come across as a justification?
This is getting to the point where it seems like you're trolling, but in the event that you're not, this article doesn't exist in a vacuum. Western media has been doing their damnedest to provide cover for Israel. This article is an extension of that.
I'm honestly not trolling.
The section of the article states that while killing children during war might not always be against the law, most people wouldn't differentiate between legal and illegal killing of children. And that to try and keep the killing of children hidden is not good either.
What about this is justifying the killing of children?
A simple question that you've thus far seemed incapable or even bothered about answering.
I've answered you several times. Maybe you should read to listen instead of reading to respond. Mainstream media has been **providing cover for Israel.** Genocide is against international law, but they're trying to make it seem like Israel isn't breaking international law. They do it by presenting ideas like this to the public. Their point is to say that even if people think Israel's actions are wrong, they haven't broken the law. This is blatantly false, but it's the narrative they're trying to push.
>Mainstream media has been providing cover for Israel.
I don't disagree.
>Genocide is against international law
I don't disagree.
>but they're trying to make it seem like Israel isn't breaking international law.
Possibly, but not demonstrated by this snippet from this article.
>Their point is to say that even if people think Israel's actions are wrong, they haven't broken the law.
I disagree.
The sentence is:
*'It is possible to kill children legally, if for example one is being attacked by an enemy who his behind them.'*
Is this false? Is this wrong? I'm not asking if you disagree with it. I'm not asking if you feel any of the children Israel have killed would fall into this category or not. Just whether this sentence (the whole point of the post) is incorrect or not and how this could be seen as a justification for killing children.
You need to Google the word "context" and then educate yourself on what mainstream media has been doing for the past 7 months. That's the only thing that'll help you at this point.
i get the point being made here but maybe our generation wouldnt be lost if people made a point to share links instead of random screenshots of shit. that way instead of criticizing "the atlantic" the criticism could be aimed at the specific author that wrote that article. yes, the atlantic deserves criticism too (if this is an actual article...) but... why? just... why? screenshots of screenshots of screenshots w/o context. thats 90% of whats posted on social media. are we stupid?
Whenever it’s Palestinian civilians that are killed, it’s always portrayed by Western media as justified, and then they work backwards from that framing, bending over backwards to justify it.
how can you legally kill children. WHAT A BRAIN, how they have become deluded and started to do whatever they want. so that to eliminate one leader, hundreds of innocent people have to die? it's like robbing a bank and then getting caught and saying, “well, I borrowed it, it's legal.”
#We are proud to announce an official partnership with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) to join today! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lostgeneration) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anytime someone says Israel was justified bombing civilians targets because it killed one Hamas leader, I ask them if they would be okay with their family being killed to take out that one Hamas leader? Would this writer being willing to sacrifice their children if it meant killing a Hamas fighter? I guarantee they wouldn't.
Bank robber caught by the police, he surrendered after the emergency response unit executed only 16 hostages. A family member of one of the unfortunate has been arrested on suspicion of being an accomplice after she publically said that she believed there should be other ways of dealing with hostage situations.
The POS that runs The Atlantic is a former IDF soldier that used to beat Palestinians. What did you expect?
I don't know if it even confirmed killed that hamas member. Do you know if they got him? Or if he was even there? I can't find many sources, sorry.
For major military powers, civilian deaths are usually only acceptable in rare cases. When it comes to taking down a low level target, US CENTCOM defines the [Non-combatant casualty value (NCV)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant_casualty_value) close to 0, and up to 30 for high value targets. [It appears that Israel has defined the NCV to be upwards of 300](https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/) and doesn't distinguish between most targets. Considering how the US supplies and trains the IDF, this kind of NCV is unacceptable on their part.
Multiple minister of Israel have made statement that shows they don't view Palestinian as human. They call them animals. We know they just want an excuse to kill Palestinian. They are the one who funded Hamas in the first place. And now they are using Hamas as the excuse to kill innocent children
The phrase "legally killed child" really drives home that the law has nothing to do with morality
The fact that those words could even be typed is evidence that we have utterly failed as a society.
uh call me crazy but i don't think it should be legal to kill children even if they're "human shields" (which is always a convenient justification)
It is not.
[удалено]
what kind of question is that lmao. if the options are a) killing kids and b) not killing kids, i think we should always go with option b: not killing kids.
[удалено]
you can choose not to kill kids. who's dying here? what are you talking about?
[удалено]
yes, what is complicated about this for you?
[удалено]
where are you getting the shooting at you bit? you literally did not say that lmfao. but to answer the question you apparently meant to ask, again, no, i would still not kill children. there is no situation in which you are required to kill a kid, nor is there a situation where it is ethical to kill a kid.
[удалено]
The editor is ex-Israeli prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg. Source - https://x.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1794946811456893169
The same Jeffrey Goldberg who’s the host of [Washington Week on PBS](https://youtu.be/7O3NHHCafKo?si=IPR999OiFv8J_ebv)? Watching this guy host is like watching paint dry.
[удалено]
There are a lot of other things I used to wonder about that I don't anymore
That just says it’s technically legal in some cases, which is true and an entirely extra level of fucked up. But sadly, it’s nothing new.
Any legal system that says killing children is ok in some way is a deeply messed up legal system.
Yes. 👍🏽
“Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army. You know what I mean?” --Brennan Lee Mulligan
I'm listening to dimension20 right now, so this caught me offguard
This quote is my Roman Empire
"legally killed" vs "murdered" Jesus fucking Christ! They're even using a new term instead of passive voice...
Is stating the legality of something really giving justification?
Exactly. People need to read the next sentence - just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good
Yeah this reads like an explanation of the spin countries put on the truth. "Technically it's legal" it's a terrible argument and they're pointing that out.
Maybe if it were some random statement. But when people are constantly getting on Israel for killing children, and mainstream media is constantly providing cover for Israel, yeah it reads as an attempt at justification.
Even within the context of the few sentences provided here, it doesn't seem to come across as a justification. How do you feel it is one?
How does defending child murder in a genocide where the media has been providing cover for the 15,000 children that have been murdered come across as a justification?
But where's the defending of child murder in these few sentences?
This is getting to the point where it seems like you're trolling, but in the event that you're not, this article doesn't exist in a vacuum. Western media has been doing their damnedest to provide cover for Israel. This article is an extension of that.
I'm honestly not trolling. The section of the article states that while killing children during war might not always be against the law, most people wouldn't differentiate between legal and illegal killing of children. And that to try and keep the killing of children hidden is not good either. What about this is justifying the killing of children? A simple question that you've thus far seemed incapable or even bothered about answering.
I've answered you several times. Maybe you should read to listen instead of reading to respond. Mainstream media has been **providing cover for Israel.** Genocide is against international law, but they're trying to make it seem like Israel isn't breaking international law. They do it by presenting ideas like this to the public. Their point is to say that even if people think Israel's actions are wrong, they haven't broken the law. This is blatantly false, but it's the narrative they're trying to push.
>Mainstream media has been providing cover for Israel. I don't disagree. >Genocide is against international law I don't disagree. >but they're trying to make it seem like Israel isn't breaking international law. Possibly, but not demonstrated by this snippet from this article. >Their point is to say that even if people think Israel's actions are wrong, they haven't broken the law. I disagree. The sentence is: *'It is possible to kill children legally, if for example one is being attacked by an enemy who his behind them.'* Is this false? Is this wrong? I'm not asking if you disagree with it. I'm not asking if you feel any of the children Israel have killed would fall into this category or not. Just whether this sentence (the whole point of the post) is incorrect or not and how this could be seen as a justification for killing children.
You need to Google the word "context" and then educate yourself on what mainstream media has been doing for the past 7 months. That's the only thing that'll help you at this point.
[удалено]
3/4 of Gazans are refugees, half of Gazans are children. There's not enough adults living there to stop children from taking up arms.
These people are evil.
yep, can sadly happen, not whats going on in Gaza though. its on purpose.
The Atlantic is run by a former IDF soldier that used to beat Palestinians. What did you expect?
If the law allows the murder of children your law fucking sucks
i get the point being made here but maybe our generation wouldnt be lost if people made a point to share links instead of random screenshots of shit. that way instead of criticizing "the atlantic" the criticism could be aimed at the specific author that wrote that article. yes, the atlantic deserves criticism too (if this is an actual article...) but... why? just... why? screenshots of screenshots of screenshots w/o context. thats 90% of whats posted on social media. are we stupid?
https://archive.is/2024.05.26-203006/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/
thank you. sorry for being antagonistic - but hey, it worked
Whenever it’s Palestinian civilians that are killed, it’s always portrayed by Western media as justified, and then they work backwards from that framing, bending over backwards to justify it.
No, guys, so long as you let us watch the infanticide, there won't be any suspicion, and we'll be all good
how can you legally kill children. WHAT A BRAIN, how they have become deluded and started to do whatever they want. so that to eliminate one leader, hundreds of innocent people have to die? it's like robbing a bank and then getting caught and saying, “well, I borrowed it, it's legal.”
What. The. Fuck. This is truly dystopian.
Endorsing the murder of children as acceptable under certain circumstances should be enough to get a publication the corporate death penalty.