This is an important point because it describes their political inclinations - something that has influenced Orgrimmar before, such as during the Shattering when Orcish aggressiveness directly led to Thrall feeling that he had to step aside for Garrosh, who went on to prosecute a destructive and genocidal war of his own. That matters when we approach the question of whether this entity will just repeat what they’ve done twice already, only harder this next time.
You didn’t even include the answer to the question that was being raised, and nor did you include the sentence in which that answer was contained. The question is NOT all there is to it.
After that event it was known. Before the burning they just wanted to occupy Teldrassil and we know how nice the Horde is to their conquered captives! *Looks at the Draenei
He certainly knew at the beach.
Lol considering my background I think I just have perspective. There is no justice or laws when it comes to war.
America can claim their morality but there are hundreds of thousands of dead Afghans and Iraqis that disagree. The point is we can preach all we want but its all BS.
If you nuke me. I will nuke you.
So lets not nuke each other.
Lets have gentleman’s agreement that you will fight with dignity and so will I.
Back in the day, the armies of each side will allow their opponent to pick their dead and have funerals after the fighting. If you sack or raze my city, when and if I manage to have a force of my own I will burn down yours.
That’s why Alexander reportedly burned (that or he was drunk, we don’t know for sure) Persepolis because the Persians burned Athens in another retaliation.
This mind set is old as time.
What? That’s not true at all. Where are you getting this from? Thrall stood aside to save the world. To become a better shaman. He stood aside to go against Deathwing.
That’s a different discussion entirely from: “People knew and deserve to be butchered.”
No matter what: Slaughtering the civilians is not justified. Even helping to rebuild and school their next generation will serve you more as you can see at the German example.
Of course I did.
That’s not a question at all for during a war. Only the first part. Killing civilians is wrong. That’s it. The longer answer is above.
Yes, and he appointed Garrosh because he felt that’s what the people wanted. This is also why he refused to allow the Alliance to investigate the skinning of Sentinels in Ashenvale, which was being blamed on Horde agitators - specifically because this would have been viewed as weak.
I agree with this - but what you should also note with the German and the Japanese example is that we successfully disarmed them for years - this was in line with Allied policy decided upon during the war to insist upon unconditional surrender, and to demand disarmament.
Not at the time - you have now, but not at the time.
And they can’t be used as a shield against retaliation unless only and only the bad decision makers are held accountable.
No I am saying your morality is fundamentally wrong because it cannot manifest.
Its the nuke analogy.
You need to figure out how to make the nukes stop flying towards you without using your own. Once you find the solution to that then you have a solution for this.
The Nuke in this case is the mass slaughter and sudden attacks by the Horde who devastate their victims and then go back, take a sabbatical and attack the next target until there are no targets left.
Thats their nuke. How do you stop it from going off?
The thing is, whether vengeance or justice, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that letting Sylvanas escape to continue doing awful things on her and Zovaal’s behalf is a worthwhile price for teaching Tyrande (and presumably us) some lesson about revenge being wrong.
She’s basically an enemy general in our war against the Jailer, and if they suggest that Tyrande was denied vengeance because “vengeance bad,” they’re effectively deciding that the villains are morally deserving of victory because one of our allies has a more personal investment in our shared goal of eliminating Sylvanas from the conflict, and that irrespective of who started said conflict, the only party worthy of victory in war is a third party with no grievances against either side.
I.e. that it’s immoral to fight back against an aggressor because said aggression has by default made you an aggrieved party with an axe to grind.
It’s the same sort of nonsense as the August Celestials’ ruling in War Crimes. I’m sure they feel high and mighty about not letting faction biases decide Garrosh’s fate, but I feel like the mountains of dead and suffering people resulting from his subsequent escape would rather he’d have actually been stopped from ever doing that sort of thing again.
Arguably an important part of justice is the implication of ostensibly preventing the commission of further wrongs by the guilty party, be it through incarceration, rehabilitation or execution. Flat-out letting a perpetrator go just to prevent a vengeance from happening, thereby allowing that perpetrator to continue their perpetrating is pretty downright unjust to their subsequent victims.
Especially when it’s been broadly agreed upon that they need to be stopped. That should be the priority. Tyrande’s heart being in the wrong place while she accomplishes what we’ve all decided objectively needs to happen isn’t sufficient grounds to justify the disservice to future victims of leaving Sylvanas roaming free to keep doing what she’s been doing.
If that were the case, then should we have called off taking down the Burning Legion’s masters just because Illidan coming with us to bring about their destruction was satisfying his desire for vengeance?
Give me a source that’s contradicting Cata and the novels from back then. Thrall left to focus on shamanism and to fight against Deathwing.
Germans were armed rather fast. For example SS guards guarded the Nürnberg trials and their army was also rather fast reformed even with n**i officers in the new structure. Rather disgusting, but that’s what happened.
You aren’t wrong with the disarmament etc. But like I said, those are post war questions.
That’s insane and a disgusting take and is mostly if not only used as “justification” for your own war crimes against civilian populations. This take of yours sickens me to the core.
What do you want bomb a school? Insane.
It already did though. You are simply brainwashed.
I’m not naive about the cruelty of war. This though is simply insane.
Lol how incredible you truly think one life has more value that the other.
One side can indiscriminately slaughter one side but the other cannot because the aggressors people have more value than your own so you cannot retaliate.
Love the privilege.
Yeah… I can attack you but you can’t attack me because I am special! Oh i mean I didn’t know so my hands are clean. Teehee.
I guess I get it, in America some lives have more value than others. Thanks for clarifying Kaz.
It’s not contradicting it at all. It’s happening at the same time as he is leaving and describes why he picked Garrosh specifically - and these come from his conversation with Jaina during the Shattering.
Yes, that’s true, and as you pointed out, those were post-war questions.
Correct.
You don’t want to repeat the same crimes as the attackers. You want to defeat their army and to reform their society. It works.
Wrong.
You are the one claiming privilege. The privilege to murder civilians. To murder children, innocents, people possible living under a dictatorship, homeless, doctors etc.
That’s exactly your sickening argument. Get real. This is disgusting beyond anything. You are arguing for war crimes!
Are you insane?!
And your solution is for the Tyrant to expand his influence by killing and slaughtering from other nations and no one can attack him because there are innocents in his country.
I wonder when Saddam was gassing the kurds and iranians with chemical weapons supplied by the US and Germans these people had nothing on their minds but the peace and security of the innocent iraqis as they choked on mustard gas.
You are arguing for perpetual warcrimes and no one is allowed to defend themselves or put a stop to it because the Tyrant’s civilians > My civilians.
Pretty awesome logic.
No. That’s such a stupid take it’s hard for me to believe anyone would come up with such nonsense.
Wrong.
War crimes to murder civilians is offensive. That’s not defensive. Of course you can and should defend yourself.
How do you think defeating their army was meant otherwise?
You really are insane. How brainwashed are you really?
Arguing for war crimes on a WoW forum but not about the game. It’s not even Sunday.
You don’t get to do war crimes. You don’t need to do war crimes. In fact it makes everything worse and breeds more hate and the need for revenge against you and yes they would strike back and hard.
You are going against fighters, against the military. You stop them and their government. That’s it.
I can’t completely agree with this stance - returning to the Germany/Japan example - we determined that the people made the wrong decision in supporting the government that they did, and imposed new governments upon them, according to our supervision, during the reconstruction of both nations. The civilian population effectively lost the right to self-determination until circumstances changed or until we determined that they were ready to self-determine once again.
Then you are pro war crimes and everything after it is a immoral and bad take.
Ok, thankfully yo aren’t.
Yes it’s not ideal and you would take self determination away in such a case. I’m sure there would be other ways too, but too long and complicated for now and here. What you are describing is something very different. You would in such a case exercise control over a foreign state. For some time perhaps.
You aren’t committing war crimes on the population. You aren’t trying to murder them on purpose. That’s the important difference.
(Edit: Yes I’m fully aware civilians were targeted).
In the defensive war where Iraq attacked Iran with chemical weapons from Germany and assistance from US.
Over a hundred thousand civilians died on both sides, thats not including the Kurdish genocides. How do you think that happened? When you target objectives and locations that are important there will be civilians there. They will get killed. Their risk of dying due to a tyrant’s decision making has no bearing on the defending side from striking at this targets.
Orgrimmar is one such target and if Jaina targeted Orgrimmar with an WMD to end the war that would have been completely justified.
She would have neutered the Horde army, their officers, their leaders and whoever that was with Garrosh and maybe him too. Just because civilians might get killed is not relevant.
If you keep defeating the same army all you are doing is postponning your defeat. You need to win a siege everytime to survive. But the attacker needs to win once and its over.
