Hey, professor. You can massacre a camp or village, so your semantic argument is already invalid.
I’m sorry burning a village/camp/pow-wow/settlement down and looting the bodies isn’t enough for you. Keep moving the goalposts, though. It’s funny in a sad kind of way.
Most Alliance players pretend to be so upset about Teldarassil, but it’s clearly just an excuse to absolve themselves and blame the Horde.
Dear lord your logic is absurd.
Yes the horde should be held accountable for blighting villages and cities, bombing cities and burning down entire unarmed civilizations.
vs the alliance conquering a campground and allowing civillians safe passage.
That’s thousands of innocents vs maybe a dozen tauren and their tents.
It’s basic humane logic at this point which you seem to lack. You know you’re allowed to see past your background color occasionally right?
So, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Adorable.
That shining armor has some blood stains on it. You’re not as pure as you pretend to be.
The Zandalari while not formally allied with the Horde yet allowed their island to be used as staging grounds for assaults on KulTiras and Alliance forces on KulTiras. This makes the Zandalari leadership, military and fleet a fair military target.
You clearly haven’t played both sides, adorable.
Also good job disregarding the rest of my post, fun to see you lose so easily.
Hey, you wanna sell that wood… I’ll pay 50 copper… On second thought 10 copper per stack.
I disregarded it because it was irrelevant. What the forsaken did has nothing to do with Taurajo.
You’re defeated and grasping for straws. I’m not humoring it.
I’m gonna speak on this one. I don’t think engaging him in combat at all should have been on the agenda. Which it is sanctioned by Greymane. It’s war, the king wasn’t gonna stop, and no one else was, especially after the Alliance had mowed down how many people on their way in?
In the throne room.
“Alright well. We totally occupied your city, blew up your ships, instigated an attack, killed your wildlife, forced the Horde’s hand by dragging them out to Nazmir, went so far as to send in a suicide squad, have broken into your sanctum of religious belief, killed people who had direct links to your gods, annnnd…well, I mean. We’re here now. So…Look man, I don’t wanna fight you. But I kinda gotta.”
Half way through the encounter.
“…Wasn’t the plan supposed to be we don’t kill this guy? Eh, it’ll be fine.”
10% left on the encounter.
“…Ohhh…the king’s not gonna like this.”
Rastakhan ded.
“Crap.”
It’s kinda hollow after the Alliance did all of that to say: “Well, the king’s death was his own fault because he was trying to save his people after we murdered the hell out of everything on the way up.”
Alliance - Kills a small group of (still armed) Tauren. Still morally wrong, yes.
Horde-
Blows up a city, civilians and children (the one group that a human being should never, ever be able to justify murdering).
Invades walled city and uses chemical warfare on inhabitants.
Slaughters its own people at a peace summit (Before the storm)
BURNS an entire continent of innocent noncombatants. BURNS children to death in their homes.
If you can justify all of that because of "Well, Alliance did something bad once), you’re a bad person in real life.
Don’t let it be in vain, sell me that wood at 5 copper a stack… it’s singed so…
You literally pointed out that the alliance are just as bad as the horde. I proved you wrong with several examples. You haven’t come up with any examples to prove me wrong.
So yes it absolutely does have to do with the forsaken since you’re the one who threw yourself in front of a bus with that silly comment.
Your petty snide remarks don’t change anything, own up to it instead.
Fixed that for you, dishonesty isn’t something I care for.
No you haven’t, so the rest of your post is moot.
Keep grasping straws, blueberry.
Well first war is not logical.
If the Alliance wins the war, I would totally expect the Alliance to convict and execute Sylvanas. Then burn all the Forsaken in a giant bonfire. Lock the Orcs in intermement camps. Send the Tauren home and give the Pandrians a stern lecture on life choices.
What is absurd is the idea that if Sylvanas is removed as Warchief everything goes back to a hippy, dippy Horde and self-righteous Alliance.
Of course Camp Taurajo was a war crime. If you suspect a village is preparing for an attack, you conduct a search and destroy mission. You search the village for weapons and destroy what you find. You don’t encircle the village and fire bomb them from the sky. Then claim you left a route for them to escape.
You don’t speak for “Most Alliance players”
So stop strawmaning to justify your dismissive attitude.
Secondly your post demonstrates a willfull ignorance of the function of war and military actions.
War has two purposes diplomacy or Supremacy. One forces an adversary to come to terms even if they’re unfavorable by deplete the ability to resist your demands.
Supremacy means that you don’t care if your adversaries exist or not. It can also extended into enslavement. But you can’t negotiate not existing.
So let’s compare camp taurajo goal with any other city the horde has wiped out and what their goal was.
Theremore - hordes goal was for it and it’s people to cease to exist. Goal was achieved and leftover were enslaved. Goal extended to all Alliance nations at the time.
Gilneas - hordes goal was again annihilation of the city and its people.
Southshore - goal was to test blight understanding that it should wipe everything out of it worked properly.
Teldrassil - the goal was to capture it but Sylvanas settled for genocide of a surrendered people. Her current stated goal is for the Alliance nations and populace to not exist. That is not really something you can negotiate.
Camp Taurajo: the settlement was the target and destroying it as an obstacle. The fleeing occupants were not pursed and only their opposition was treated with force. The end result was tragic but the attempt to make moral equivalency is just sickening if you are going to play tit for tat.
I’m dismissive of hypocrites and people who argue a topic they have no understanding of. Seems reasonable to me.
1: there was no opposition. They were lured away.
2: Non-combatants were slaughtered. Few managed to escape with their children, but were claimed by the dangerous land.
At least learn what actually happened before you go and try to argue about it.
Nobody is doing that. They are all reprehensible acts.
I’ve come to hate the mental gymnastics people go through in order to defend their rightousness.
It’s a VIDEO GAME, people.
Video games don’t define IRL morals. You lovey-doveys need to learn to get over yourselves and stop trying to demand, “Teldrassril was so evillllll!!! You are evil!!!”
WHO
CARES
WHAT
HAPPENED?
Again, it’s a video game. It’s a story.
Nobody. And I mean NOBODY should care as much as everyone does. All the crying about this war and the events of it is absolutely weak and pathetic. When did humans become so sensitive??
I remember when I could play a video game that would have good and evil characters and no one would bat an eye because, at the time, people were less sensitive.
How times have changed.
Overanalysis of story has been a part of nerd culture from at least 1964. Probably since the dawn of time. And arguments about that analysis is just as old. This is nothing new.
Oh damn, I thought we were talking about the actual slaughter of that camp of cow-people that took place in 2010.
I agree. Overanalysis has always been a thing.
But I think you missed my point entirely. I’m not talking about over analyzing being the problem. It’s the fact that people get offended and scream and cry over things like WoW and the characters being immoral. There was once a time when people just appreciated the art of video games and their methodology of storytelling. Sure, there has always been critique, but it’s become more common to go crazy over these sorts of things.
I will let you know that I wasn’t posting in response to your conversation - more in response to the beginnings of this thread 3 days ago that I missed.