Why does Ned associate the rebellion with "put[ting] an end to the murder of children"?

[FictionIsntReal]

Aerys' victims seems to have been adults. Brandon was younger than Rickard, but still about 20 years old. Ned was younger, but still fought (and won) a war (during which he also married, fathered a legitimate son & carried back a bastard). Robert is often thought of as romanticizing his youth from that time (and his imagined marriage to Lyanna, whose reality he never had to deal with), but Ned himself seems to be misremembering the actual casus belli in favor of something painting his side in an even better light.

[Foot_Of_The_King]

He said it once and in the heat of the moment. I think he meant it as “You were supposed to be a more honorable king than Aerys.” 

[zionius]

SSM July 2012, translated from Spanish:

When Ned and Robert are arguing over the murder of Daenerys in Game of Thrones , Ned says "Why did we rise up against Aerys Targaryen, Robert, if it was not to end the killing of children?" Since Aerys did a lot of atrocities but never talk about killing children again, is it a slip of Ned or is there something we still do not know? 
Well, there were times when Aerys ordered the killing of children. It is discovered in later books, as in the Defiance of Duskendale, when they take the city and give most people to the sword, including the younger children of the Houses that challenged them, such as the Darklyns and Hollards. And I imagine that there would be other situations in which the same thing happened: the whole line of a House is eliminated, you do not limit yourself to simply killing the father and you let the children grow up so they can take revenge. But this becomes an endless circle, the Targaryen children themselves are killed. 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

9 hours ago, zionius said:

SSM July 2012, translated from Spanish:

When Ned and Robert are arguing over the murder of Daenerys in Game of Thrones , Ned says "Why did we rise up against Aerys Targaryen, Robert, if it was not to end the killing of children?" Since Aerys did a lot of atrocities but never talk about killing children again, is it a slip of Ned or is there something we still do not know? 
Well, there were times when Aerys ordered the killing of children. It is discovered in later books, as in the Defiance of Duskendale, when they take the city and give most people to the sword, including the younger children of the Houses that challenged them, such as the Darklyns and Hollards. And I imagine that there would be other situations in which the same thing happened: the whole line of a House is eliminated, you do not limit yourself to simply killing the father and you let the children grow up so they can take revenge. But this becomes an endless circle, the Targaryen children themselves are killed. 

Ned is the honorable sort and Robert, for all his faults, had qualities too.  They had compassion most of the time.  

I would like to point out that it wasn't just Aerys who killed off families.  Tywin did the same thing to the Reynes.  Aerys actually had better reasons than Tywin.  Hoster Tully destroyed an entire village.  The rebellion itself indirectly caused the death and suffering of children.  And I would not be at all surprised if the Starks themselves were not guilty of the same thing during their conquest of the north.

[Trigger Warning]

I think it's safe to assume Aerys has had children killed, he had the Darklyns and Hollards put do death (minus Dontos). Even beyond that I doubt he has a clean record for killing children. 

[Shi Qiang]

Eddard was probably referring to violence in general that were committed against children.  I don't think Eddard approved of the Lannisters killing off the Tarbecks and the Reynes.  Likely, he probably did not approve of the killing of the entire Darklyn family.  But taking a side like that also puts him in a position of hypocrisy because his side of the war also killed innocent children.  Rhaegar's family was innocent.  The children of the Goodbrookes were innocent.  The children of the village that Hoster Tully destroyed were innocent.  Let's not say one side had the moral upper hand over the other.  That's the problem with Robert's reign.  So if they plotted against the Targaryens on the platform that they want to protect the innocent, let's just say they ended up becoming failures.  Robert not only tolerated the murder of Rhaegar's family but he forgave the perpetrator.  The murderer of an entire village, Hoster Tully, got away with it.  

[TheThreeEyedCow]

I'm going to guess. He, like many others thought he was fighting the ultimate battle. The battle of all battles. And when/if they won, all the children would be safe and there'd be no more senseless killing. The reality is that it didn't make any difference who won that war. The realm bleeds all the same. 

Ned is a great man. But he's also idealistic and I'm willing to wager that the Ned we meet, despite being a decent and honourable fellow, is but a patch on how idealistic he was in his youth. It's a relatable trait. People truly believe they can change the world once and for all.  

[Pontius Pilate]

22 hours ago, Allardyce said:

Eddard was probably referring to violence in general that were committed against children.  I don't think Eddard approved of the Lannisters killing off the Tarbecks and the Reynes.  Likely, he probably did not approve of the killing of the entire Darklyn family.  But taking a side like that also puts him in a position of hypocrisy because his side of the war also killed innocent children.  Rhaegar's family was innocent.  The children of the Goodbrookes were innocent.  The children of the village that Hoster Tully destroyed were innocent.  Let's not say one side had the moral upper hand over the other.  That's the problem with Robert's reign.  So if they plotted against the Targaryens on the platform that they want to protect the innocent, let's just say they ended up becoming failures.  Robert not only tolerated the murder of Rhaegar's family but he forgave the perpetrator.  The murderer of an entire village, Hoster Tully, got away with it.  

 

47 minutes ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

I'm going to guess. He, like many others thought he was fighting the ultimate battle. The battle of all battles. And when/if they won, all the children would be safe and there'd be no more senseless killing. The reality is that it didn't make any difference who won that war. The realm bleeds all the same. 

Ned is a great man. But he's also idealistic and I'm willing to wager that the Ned we meet, despite being a decent and honourable fellow, is but a patch on how idealistic he was in his youth. It's a relatable trait. People truly believe they can change the world once and for all.  

Isn't it ironic?  Their families wanted to change the kingdom to make it better for the children but it made no difference.  Micah died because of a Lannister (Joff and Cersei), a Stark (Sansa), a Clegane (Sandor), and a Baratheon (Robert).  Bran was senselessly crippled by a Lannister (Jaime).