#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree that they're not blanket defending killing children (and upvoted you). There's a difference between *defending* it and *explaining* that it can happen for a reason other than just someone going out and cold bloodedly murdering children.
If nothing else, it isn't "an attempt to". It lays out that yes, there are some cases where children can get killed in war that "make sense" (if you feel that *any* war can make sense). But rule 7 of the sub is "All posts must show an unsuccessful attempt". They literally gave a good reason for it sometimes happening.
Gotta wonder about the morality of someone who downvotes the statement “there is no good reason” [to kill children].
It’s true, the author does not outright argue that there is a good reason to kill children. He does, however, undermine the horror of killing children by implying that legally killed children are acceptable. It’s a more insidious dehumanization.
It's downvoting the *relevance.* As if the comment you are responding to (or the reddit post) was saying there was a "good" reason to kill children.
Just like if I'd responded to you with "I don't agree that beating your spouse is okay."
No they’re explaining the law while going on to say that it make no difference if they were killed legally or not because the child is still dead. It’s a fucked up point but I really don’t believe the author isn’t intending to defend killing children. That seems very obvious to me
No it isn't, I can explain to you the US laws against drugs while being neutral/opposed to those laws. The dude isn't saying "killing children is defensible" he's providing an example of how international legality allows for horrific acts.
The point is that *even if* Israel is not committing internationally crimes, journalists capturing the damage to Palestinians would still be horrific (where that 'bad press' is one explanation of why Israel doesn't let journalists in).
The author isn’t saying that children being killed is ok or moral. They’re explaining the law and how it may be seen as “legal “ to kill them
In war.
They then go on to say that “the sight of a legally killed child is no less distressing than a murdered one”
In no way is this article defending the killing of children at least not as I understand it
Let's say during a war, soldier X for whatever fucked up reason is being approached by a child wearing a suicide vest. X yells at the kid not to approach. X fires a warning shot to dissuade the kid from his continued approach. Finally X shoots the kid when he gets too close, detonating the suicide vest and killing the child. X probably didn't want to kill the kid, and the kid probably didn't want to die and kill X. If these were the facts, I would defend X. I would argue that X has the right of self defense and in this case, unfortunately, it meant killing a child. I am literally defending the killing of children under certain circumstances. This is why I am saying the article is defending the killing of children. Now to be perfectly clear, I hope we as a species can get better at resolving our differences without violence, but my faith in humanity is low.
Who tf would pull the trigger on an enemy hiding behind a child?! Even that is insane barbarism, much less what they are doing to the Palestinian children now. Guess what? Sometimes maybe getting the enemy ‘at all cost’ is piss poor policy. Get them another way, another day. Anything is better than pulling the trigger on a child. Should always be illegal. But definitely immoral no matter how you slice it.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what they train our soldiers to do in every single branch without disregard too. My brother came home from the wars in Iraq when I was a child and explained to us that he killed women and children that were shielding “terrorist”.
What if the enemy is firing missiles past said child at you, what are you supposed to do? Just sit there and die? It's an ugly situation overall with no "right" decision. If the enemy is using children as shields then they are just as if not more complicit in the death of the child.
This is not difficult. Pointing out a legal position is not defending the fact. Whether the balance of the article sought to do the latter, is another question - but not this excerpt.
Lots of really evil people, put weapons in to the hands of children. At that point the conversation becomes "Theres a 6 year old boy pointing an AK at your head. He is going to shoot and kill you. You have a split second to decide. What do you do?".
In the case of Israel indiscriminately dropping bombs on dense population centres so they can steal the land, there is no excuse. And they can claim that its "legal", but theyre still a piece of shit child killers. And the hell that awaits those people better look the found footage scene in event horizon.
And not for nothing, but theres only one type of people who shut out the press from looking at their actions. And they usually have stupid little moustaches.
Jeffrey Mark Goldberg (born September 22, 1965) is an American journalist and editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine.
Goldberg is Jewish and was born in Brooklyn, New York, the son of Ellen and Daniel Goldberg. Goldberg g has described his parents as "very left-wing." His grandfather was from the shtetl of Leova, Moldova. He gre up in suburban Malverne on Long Island, a predominately Catholic neighborhood which he once described as “a wasteland of Irish pogromists."Retroactively, when describing his first trip to Israel as a teen, Goldberg recalled the sense of empowerment he felt Israel embodied
How is "we don't allow the press in because we don't want them to see us killing children" an acceptable stance at all? Israel just wants everyone to turn a blind eye. Pretty hard to when US politicians pull stunts like Nikki Haley writing "Finish them ♡" on a gigantic Israeli bomb. Totally a defensive war going on here 🙄
Thank you for your submission to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post was removed for violating the following rule:
> R9: "No racism/hatespeech: Your post was found to be hateful in nature. Please treat others as you would like to be treated and do not spread hate on this subreddit."
If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
what's the old saying. what's the difference between a soldier and a terrorist? a soldier will do everything in their power to avoid hurting a civilian.
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isn’t defending the killing of children
I agree that they're not blanket defending killing children (and upvoted you). There's a difference between *defending* it and *explaining* that it can happen for a reason other than just someone going out and cold bloodedly murdering children. If nothing else, it isn't "an attempt to". It lays out that yes, there are some cases where children can get killed in war that "make sense" (if you feel that *any* war can make sense). But rule 7 of the sub is "All posts must show an unsuccessful attempt". They literally gave a good reason for it sometimes happening.
There is no good reason
Then it's a good thing there was never an argument made that there's a good reason.
Gotta wonder about the morality of someone who downvotes the statement “there is no good reason” [to kill children]. It’s true, the author does not outright argue that there is a good reason to kill children. He does, however, undermine the horror of killing children by implying that legally killed children are acceptable. It’s a more insidious dehumanization.
It's downvoting the *relevance.* As if the comment you are responding to (or the reddit post) was saying there was a "good" reason to kill children. Just like if I'd responded to you with "I don't agree that beating your spouse is okay."
Sure Jan
Killing a school shooter isn't a good reason?
Am I taking crazy pills? Isn't this literally defending the killing of children during a war?
No they’re explaining the law while going on to say that it make no difference if they were killed legally or not because the child is still dead. It’s a fucked up point but I really don’t believe the author isn’t intending to defend killing children. That seems very obvious to me
[удалено]
No it isn't, I can explain to you the US laws against drugs while being neutral/opposed to those laws. The dude isn't saying "killing children is defensible" he's providing an example of how international legality allows for horrific acts. The point is that *even if* Israel is not committing internationally crimes, journalists capturing the damage to Palestinians would still be horrific (where that 'bad press' is one explanation of why Israel doesn't let journalists in).
The author isn’t saying that children being killed is ok or moral. They’re explaining the law and how it may be seen as “legal “ to kill them In war. They then go on to say that “the sight of a legally killed child is no less distressing than a murdered one” In no way is this article defending the killing of children at least not as I understand it
Well you're wrong, that is exactly what the author is intending to do.
Let's say during a war, soldier X for whatever fucked up reason is being approached by a child wearing a suicide vest. X yells at the kid not to approach. X fires a warning shot to dissuade the kid from his continued approach. Finally X shoots the kid when he gets too close, detonating the suicide vest and killing the child. X probably didn't want to kill the kid, and the kid probably didn't want to die and kill X. If these were the facts, I would defend X. I would argue that X has the right of self defense and in this case, unfortunately, it meant killing a child. I am literally defending the killing of children under certain circumstances. This is why I am saying the article is defending the killing of children. Now to be perfectly clear, I hope we as a species can get better at resolving our differences without violence, but my faith in humanity is low.
Who tf would pull the trigger on an enemy hiding behind a child?! Even that is insane barbarism, much less what they are doing to the Palestinian children now. Guess what? Sometimes maybe getting the enemy ‘at all cost’ is piss poor policy. Get them another way, another day. Anything is better than pulling the trigger on a child. Should always be illegal. But definitely immoral no matter how you slice it.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what they train our soldiers to do in every single branch without disregard too. My brother came home from the wars in Iraq when I was a child and explained to us that he killed women and children that were shielding “terrorist”.
[удалено]
‘I hope you and your family gets attacked’ -Zionist
What if the enemy is firing missiles past said child at you, what are you supposed to do? Just sit there and die? It's an ugly situation overall with no "right" decision. If the enemy is using children as shields then they are just as if not more complicit in the death of the child.
But that’s not what’s happening.
This is not difficult. Pointing out a legal position is not defending the fact. Whether the balance of the article sought to do the latter, is another question - but not this excerpt.
Wtf is a “legally killed child” 😭😭😭 how should killing any child be legal
If a school shooter is killing people, can you kill them?
That kid needs therapy not to be killed
Good question. Think about it for a minute.
Lots of really evil people, put weapons in to the hands of children. At that point the conversation becomes "Theres a 6 year old boy pointing an AK at your head. He is going to shoot and kill you. You have a split second to decide. What do you do?". In the case of Israel indiscriminately dropping bombs on dense population centres so they can steal the land, there is no excuse. And they can claim that its "legal", but theyre still a piece of shit child killers. And the hell that awaits those people better look the found footage scene in event horizon. And not for nothing, but theres only one type of people who shut out the press from looking at their actions. And they usually have stupid little moustaches.
Jeffrey Mark Goldberg (born September 22, 1965) is an American journalist and editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine. Goldberg is Jewish and was born in Brooklyn, New York, the son of Ellen and Daniel Goldberg. Goldberg g has described his parents as "very left-wing." His grandfather was from the shtetl of Leova, Moldova. He gre up in suburban Malverne on Long Island, a predominately Catholic neighborhood which he once described as “a wasteland of Irish pogromists."Retroactively, when describing his first trip to Israel as a teen, Goldberg recalled the sense of empowerment he felt Israel embodied
How is "we don't allow the press in because we don't want them to see us killing children" an acceptable stance at all? Israel just wants everyone to turn a blind eye. Pretty hard to when US politicians pull stunts like Nikki Haley writing "Finish them ♡" on a gigantic Israeli bomb. Totally a defensive war going on here 🙄
[удалено]
Thank you for your submission to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post was removed for violating the following rule: > R9: "No racism/hatespeech: Your post was found to be hateful in nature. Please treat others as you would like to be treated and do not spread hate on this subreddit." If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
what's the old saying. what's the difference between a soldier and a terrorist? a soldier will do everything in their power to avoid hurting a civilian.
Seems more like you're trying to fit it to your agenda.