Here is a question possibly even  something others may wonder, I don't know. Now I mean no disrespect, I am not even officially a member of a family, merely a hang around.

BUT  I have seen and would like to know : Why it is okay to send people out to shoot infants in this world? Bloodlining aside.

I have seen this during wars twice.

Once a friend of my family was gunned downed before she even had a gun to use, barely old enough to even obtain one she certainly was not capable of causing any harm. The other was another family friend, a different one, who  was sent out to shoot an infant  who was quote "too young to die." This target was certainly not old enough to cause any harm, not being 0 days and only hours old.

What happened to the rule no women , no children?

Now never mind the , women part we can take of ourselves, but it is senseless killing to go after the infants.

So why is it okay to kill the children of this world? Is it out of fear, during the upheaval of war?  Is this even honorable? Could  this be a policy that needs to be changed, or possibly clarified ?
 

Children? To what children do you refer to?

Mr_Jet  still remembering the days when neck was likely to that of a cup of jello which has been out for days on end was intrigued by the conversation the adults and elderly were beginning to stir.

I agree that the slaughter of children whether due to personal sport or affiliation is an inhumane practice.

Mr_Jet then retreats to his 1938 Buick and shortly falls asleep holding a blanket and bottle in each of his two hands.

I do not believe naming who the young ones were or are even has a bearing on my question. Nor does naming the person or persons who were sent after said "too young to die " targets. 

I've just not seen any children die so I wondered why you were asking that question. Even in the recent war, I hadn't seen heard of there being children amongst the fallen.

With the influx of female mobsters who have the capabilities to become fully trained hitters, we can not afford to discriminate and they must be eliminated also, however we draw the line at children. They are innocent after all.

The most recent I have seen this in was when New York was last taken out.

A hitter was sent to kill someone who was  "too young to die."

The next recent war  after that I saw in was in September.

A Infant was killed before they even acquired a gun.

So I ask :

Why it is okay to send people out to shoot infants in this world? Bloodlining aside.

So why is it okay to kill the children of this world? Is it out of fear, during the upheaval of war?  Is this even honorable? Could  this be a policy that needs to be changed, or possibly clarified ?

And I did say :

Now never mind the , women part we can take of ourselves, but it is senseless killing to go after the infants.

Might be a simple question but why not come and speak about it at the time? Vague references to historical events is unlikely to produce any helpful responses I feel.

I have to echo that I don't remember seeing child casualties in recent times - I think all are very well informed now...

Just because you don't see the man in the shadows, does not mean he is not there.

Why do it now, because I can.

And vague why is it vague , because I won't name names?

I have seen this with my own eyes, so I know it has happened.

 I mean no disrespect to anyone, I have seen this.  I am curious.  So I ask still, because my questions are  not answered.

Just debate for the need of what names?  Why to turn this into a bloodlining issue?  It is not.

Could you define to me what your perception of an infant/child is? Perhaps we have different meanings.

New York was taken out some time ago and September was 3 months ago, so even if these things were actual issues that needed addressing, which I don't feel they are, then they both would have been isolated incidents. So probably not something that we need to be writing up policies over I think.

I am all for addressing issues if we feel that something negative is affecting our community but in this instance as Tellurium has said, it would probably have been more useful if you came out and spoke out about it at the time. I'm aware that Space-pole came out in recent weeks and asked if people had any problems or issues they felt worthwhile bringing to the crew leader meetings, I'm surprised I didn't hear you vent your frustrations on this topic then as that might have been a better opportunity.

Anyway, maybe once you've clarified what it is you mean by infant then I can answer your questions more appropriately.

To be honest the only person that has mentioned bloodlining is you DinelasSthero.

You have asked for comments on historical events that some may not of even yet been born into and for those that were appear to not have the same recollections that you do - if others do they should come here and speak.

I didn't ask for names I simply said that after this amount of time I am not sure what helpful comment could assist here - had you come and said - surely I am not the only one to notice that 2 days ago children were killed - then fair enough we could all contribute and discuss it.

As is stands my answer is simply - I don't know because it was a long time ago and I do not recall this myself and in the absence of any other info there is nothing more to add.

I will say again that in recent times I do not recall children's blood on our streets and I think the communication around that is more than clear really.

I have stayed away from the 'women' subject as to me we are all in this world of crime and judged on merit or otherwise not gender.

"Some of these children and infants are killed because people are too hungry and want a quick extra notch to their gun. If a takedown or war is currently in place with no protection order, whether people are part of it or not they will look for a quick kill from the said families being attacked. So maybe this is where you think children and infants are affected?

I think this would most likely be the case as I couldn't see a crewleader ordering the death of a one day old gangster on these shores for any reason other than to protect their own crewleader. Like I said, some people just have no care and want that extra kill added to their kill list. I don't believe this is something that can be stopped unless the takedowns are smooth and all done in one wave with no misses or repercussions.

This is all providing that your definition of a child and infant is one who has just stepped foot on these shores."

I mentioned to make sure it was clear this was not a bout bloodlining.

And why  talking about it  now because I can as I stated.

yes time has passed, which means those that are intellectual people are not holding grudges over tat death , as we know people do in this world. And in my opinion is fickle.

Statistically if I have seen this twice , that means it has happened before and will happen again.

By avoiding the questions, It makes me wonder if you have not done this very act.  Now I do apologize if you have chosen to take offense over that. 

My questions are still unanswered, due to this sad debate to keep it off topic.  That is how I feel.

"I think you'll find your questions are unanswered because there is lack of detail of what we need to actually comment on.

Can you clarify your definition of children and infants?"

Once a friend of my family was gunned downed before she even had a gun to use, barely old enough to even obtain one she certainly was not capable of causing any harm. The other was another family friend, a different one, who  was sent out to shoot an infant  who was quote "too young to die." This target was certainly not old enough to cause any harm, not being 0 days and only hours old.

Please refer to bold as that is the age ,in both scenarios.

There is enough information here to answer my questions.

You all just want names and I will not provide those.

"Names were not the issue here, it was lack of information... Or at least I think that way.

So even if they were still zero as you say, they didn't actually die then?"

My point is not they had died, my point is that

an order was made to take that "infant " out.

Again more debate to avoid my questions.

So then the "children" you speak of are not always children. At Gangster, you are capable of making the decisions of an adult and should be treated as such, I would consider thug or below as an infant/child.

During war times, Innocent or Unsponsored Gangsters are sometimes killed in order to stop certain actions from happening. Not everyone may be privvy to the information that you seem to be in that she had no gun, so sometimes the order to kill these Gangsters will be due to limited knowledge.

Personally, I'm not "debating to avoid your questions" I'm just struggling with the language barrier and what you initially understood to be an infant or child. We've gotten that out the way now, so hopefully my answer is sufficient enough that you understand a little better why these people die at times.

Will there be a policy put in place? I doubt it. As I have said, from your descriptions these appear to be isolated incidents and happened some time ago, I'm not even sure if those who made the shots (or attempted to in the case of the thug) are even still alive, so that makes it more difficult to address it or even prove if what you say is truthful.

It has come to my attention that maybe I have not been clear.

 Both the "infants":

Infant one was not old enough to obtain a gun, and not a threat. Killed.

Infant two was not even an hour old is still alive. but was targeted.

Point this has happened. If it has happened twice , it has statically happened many times over.

 So I ask.

Why it is okay to send people out to shoot infants in this world?

So why is it okay to kill the children of this world? Is it out of fear, during the upheaval of war?  Is this even honorable? Could  this be a policy that needs to be changed, or possibly clarified ?

And through messaging with Artus I also now am curious, was this bad leadership?