the moment at which I found mysef writing the phrase "legally killed child" I would at a minimum ask the editor to spike the story instead of having my name attached to it forever, and then I'd go take a long walk and contemplate every poor choice of mine that had led me to this point.
You know, it is so close to getting it. Yes, it is possible to kill a child without violating the law. But people will still get upset! Why? It is almost as if just because a thing is legal, that does not mean that it is morally acceptable or that it will not lead to some consequences.
Maybe the point needs embellishment, as in "...legally shredded by shrapnel until their brains fall out of their heads".
The Atlantic Monthly is definitely not an outlet where an article nominally supporting Israel is going to get spiked.
what i don’t get is that there are so many ways you can write that without sounding utterly soulless “[War is messy.] And yet, an atrocity is an atrocity, and the average person will not, upon seeing a murdered child, ask if their death was strictly legal under the rules of war.”
Man, when I looked up the author, I was even less surprised than when JJ Abrams brought Palpatine back
Where was this?
A very strange choice is being made here, to ignore the clearly defined right to resist while mounting a nebulous defense of purposefully killing children.
I think the endless reserves of polite and well-educated people who would line up to write about child murder for a byline in The Atlantic are a big reason we are in this nightmare.
humans can talk themselves into believing any evil act is justified until the reality becomes so overwhelming, they have to admit to the wrongfulness & then of course, humans immediately look around for someone else to blame for their behaviour Curious what angle the Atlantic will take at that pt