You’re completely right. Taurens, at least Hamuul, sees their oath of allegiance was to Thrall’s Horde only. He said this in Baine’s short story before even Garrosh went off the rails and Theramore exploded.
Hamuul shook his head as if to clear it. “We existed in a time before the coming of the orcs, if you’ll remember. Your father may have owed a debt to Thrall for all he did for our people, but this is a new Horde. I have heard whispers of other tauren. Some are wondering if this Horde is really something we should be a part of anymore.” He snorted. “The Horde has done much and we owe much to it, but you must admit that their sentiments are not completely without merit.”
Hardly. They’d written a book (if not two, I can’t remember) where the Alliance and Horde are already fully at war. Varian kicks Garrosh out of Ashenvale, then has the Alliance invade the Barrens.
“b-but Treng, invading the Barrens isn’t an act of war!”
“k-killing the t-tauren isn’t an a-act of war! they’re n-not at war!”
Here’s the thing, Jazia. Baine’s betrayal of the Tauren is canon. It’s never been retconned. Garrosh enslaving the Magnataur, stealing Ashenvale from the Night Elves, and Varian kicking his butt?
Yep Bael Modan Shelling a tauren village was completely unintentional.
Listen Intention doesn’t matter, if a man accidently burnt down an apartment complex trying to create a fire for the homeless, he is still going to jail for arson, and the people who lost homes and family can hate the man without complaint.
It would be like a nation attacking a town because they thought the city was crucial to crippling the enemy, the revelation that it was a fishing town and therefore attacking it was a mistake does not change the fact you razed an entire town. Neither does letting people escape, as you still killed innocents, and deprived them of their jobs, their homes, and their possessions.
Good Intentions mean nothing when you cause more damage then what you started with. Taurajo was attacked by the alliance military, which, even if it was on faulty intel, is still an attack on the tauren.
A man who meant no harm yet still caused mass death and destruction is still going away for life, no matter what.
It’s the old phrase, actions speak louder then words. Their words and apology does nothing to change the fact there wasn’t even any COMPENSATION! You razed an entire town, destroyed innocent peoples live, and the best you can say is oops.
1: Garrosh literally enslaved magnataur and used them to invade Ashenvale, kill the night elves, and claim it for the Horde.
2: Varian came and kicked his can for it.
3: The Alliance is literally invading the Barrens.
4: The Horde re-invades Ashenvale.
Right, good intentions don’t matter if the outcome is disastrous … which is why Hawthorne and all his men payed the price for Taraujo. The perpetrators of that tragedy are dead, they’re gone, what more is there to talk about? Unless you’re suggesting that the death’s of the entire Alliance battalion responsible for Taurajo is not sufficient recompense for Taraujo? Baine at least felt justice was served.
Outside of that, again … you fail to address WHY the relationship with the Tauren and the Alliance is complicated (as well as the Horde). They wanted to leave the Horde; they rightly blamed their affiliation with Garrosh for the hardships they were suffering; and it was Jaina and Theramore that ultimately helped them put down the Grimtotem Rebellion (that was under orders to “attack Thunder Bluff and other towns and slaughter everyone in them”).
So … people wonder why Baine and the Tauren in general aren’t jumping at the bit to be invested in this faction conflict; because they’ve been both hurt AND helped by BOTH the Horde and Alliance. Hell, Runetotem doesn’t even believe that they’re bound by Cairne’s oath to Thrall anymore … so if people think that removing Baine as the leader of the Bloodhoof will magically change the race’s disposition; they don’t really understand the Tauren.
I’m not usually a fan of Treng’s argumentative style, but he has a point;
The characters say they aren’t at war
The events of the same stories show that this is untrue
The only logical outcomes are that the characters are wrong or their definition of war is alien to us and hence not relevant to our discussion of it.
‘They aren’t at war because they say they aren’t at war’ isn’t strong evidence. It’s barely better than a tautology. It’s only evidence of their beliefs, but it holds no argumentative value as a statement to the truth of those beliefs. Citing it is the argumentative equivalent of holding up a receipt for fish and chips to a murderous gorilla - there’s no actual value to it as a defense. All it does is show that you ate some fish and chips.
On one side, Treng has evidence of state militaries clashing for control of territory repeatedly in extended engagements involving the head of state.
On the other, you have the in-fiction words of a character, with no overarching narrative authority.
They clearly don’t determine if they go to war, because the war is clearly underway.
You can keep saying ‘They said so’, but you haven’t shown that they aren’t just wrong. And until you do that, Treng has evidence of war taking place and you have no counterevidence. You just have demonstrably false declarations, and the tautological assertion that these statements are evidence for themselves.
You can prove that they said there was no war. You can’t prove that this was right.
Sure it does. They were at war. they were performing acts of war. They were performing land invasions, land expansions, and land encaptures. People were killed.
![:roll_eyes:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/roll_eyes.png?v=6" ":roll_eyes:")
![:clap:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/clap.png?v=6" ":clap:")
CHARACTERS