Irrelevant, and made less relevant from the fact that Chronicle tells us that she was going to do so regardless of Garrosh’s orders.
They’re not though. Everything that occurred with the Forsaken and the Humans occurred while Gilneas was behind the wall. So the prejudice the Forsaken experienced had nothing to do with the Gilneans.
Not her territory at the time of the attack. Dunno why you refuse to accept this.
See above.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but I have a feeling the lights aren’t all on upstairs.
She conquered it, why you cant wrap your head around that is beyond me.
Literally apart of this thread and you want to act like that conversation didnt happen? Sad.
Whether or not she conquered it has nothing to do with the argument, you utter buffoon. Do you deny that the attack on Gilneas was completely unprovoked?
Oh, you’re talking about the dwarves in this thread.
Yeah I still don’t know what you mean by that, but again, the lights aren’t on upstairs with you. If you think that “Ahem… dwarves” was some monumental argument you made, then I got some bad news for you.
In other words “i dont want that, so uou’re an idiot” ok.
but the point grandblade is getting out is just because she conquered it, doesnt make it any less unprovoked. she convinced garrosh to let her invade a neutral kingdom that did nothing to her or her people. she was never ordered
1 Like
Answer the question Skippid, do you agree that the attack on Gilneas was unprovoked? I haven’t said anything about whether or not she conquered it - I know she conquered it, but that has nothing to do with the argument.
Oh, and then she immediately lost it in Cataclysm. And I don’t even think she owns it now, it’s contested at best.
Did she have a right to gilneas? Answer the question first.
i think the troll is trying to make the argument about whether or not gilneas was conquered instead of what it was really about which whether or not it was unprovoked or not.
the troll knows he doesnt have a leg to stand on if the argument is whether or not gilneas was attacked in a unprovoked invasion so he is trying to change the subject.
1 Like
Unprovoked? Definitely. Unnecessary and uncalled for, on the other hand…
There we go, it took us months for you to get here. I rest my case then.
No, you argued she had no right to gilneas. Which was wrong. Now let it die.
I never argued that. You argued that to avoid answering whether or not the attack was provoked.
YOU don’t get to decide when this monument to your shame dies.
what he means by she gave it all up, is that she lost gilneas when she lost lordaeron at the beginning of bfa
1 Like
You argued before that Sylvanas had a retroactive right to Gilneas before even conquering it, and therefore the attack was unprovoked. You’re backtracking now because you’ve been called out.
And now you’re running so you don’t have to face being wrong.
Read what YOU said. You made the argument she had no right to it before she gave it all up. Your words. Im done.
No, hes referring to me saying she gave it all up by leaving the horde. Goodbye.
I did. You clearly didn’t. She gave it all up in BFA, and the amount of time she ACTUALLY owned it was pretty miniscule.
YOU on the other hand argued that because Sylvanas conquered Gilneas, that somehow makes her attack retroactively unprovoked. That’s not how conquest works.
I mean both. How many times you gonna say goodbye? Can you just not handle being wrong?
Dude, a
I already said it was unprovoked, go stroke your ego with that for awhile, doesn’t mean you werent also wrong.
I wasn’t wrong, you just misconstrued what I was arguing. That’s on you. That makes you wrong TWICE over.
If you’re gonna leave, leave. Otherwise, stop talkin’ like you’re leaving. It’s not a good look for you.
I used what you said against you, but thats not what you meant? Ok buddy.