Saurfang was an idiot, and so is Baine.
The former blindly followed a terrible leader who put her own selfish agenda before the Horde and was absolutely fine with slaughtering Night Elves for no good reason until Sylvanas burned Teldrassil and THEN decided it wasn’t ‘honorable.’
Baine is a fool who is sweeping atrocities under the rug in his rampant desire for peace instead recognizing that true justice is holding those who engaged in said atrocities responsible instead of just giving them a free pass in the name of political convenience.
What kind of message do you think that sends to these people? That it’s ok to use the excuse ‘just following orders’ to perpetuate the worst atrocities imaginable and still expect a pardon and pat on the back afterwards. That’s not justice, that’s enabling.
And as long as that mindset is prevalent, these kinds of atrocities WILL happen again because, as Baine has proven, in the end nobody actually pays for it.
2 Likes
And having your Vengeance because you think it is Just is just as bad.
You’re confusing justice with vengeance.
That title needs a small correction.
“The entire BfA War Campaign: Writing the rest of the story into a corner.”
There we go.
They’re not mutually exclusive.
You can’t have justice without someone being held responsible and ultimately punished for what they did, which is in fact, vengeance.
Yes they are, you can’t simply commit atrocities and say ‘oh no, you wanting to hold me accountable is vengeance you horrible person!’
That’s just flat out wrong and an excuse to avoid repercussions for actions that you know are wrong.
2 Likes
It’s war.
People die.
Holding people responsible for what comes naturally in a conflict and punishing them after the fact for it is asinine and only leads to more conflict.
Burning Teldrassil wasn’t war, it was pointless genocide.
That’s why we have trials for war crimes, so that people can’t just torch whole villages out of spite and say ‘oh it’s war, people die.’
1 Like
Burning Teldrassil was strategically important for breaking the morale of an enemy and creating a division between that enemy and their allies.
Oh snap! Like literally what happened in the game.
The NE are broken psychologically, mentally and emotionally. So much so that their leader has gone rogue and taken part in a forbidden ritual to seek vengeance on her enemies.
Like, there’s no arguing that.
You can call it genocide, the Alliance can call it genocide. But she didn’t wake up that morning with the intention of slaughtering innocent civilians just because or for political or religious reasons. She wasn’t rounding them up to exterminate them.
They merely happened to be there when the tree burned and served to make thew psychological blow to the NE much worse.
Also, trials for war crimes are conducted for Moral justice, not actual justice. It serves to help the winners of a conflict feel morally superior in their victory and lord this victory over the vanquished.
I could use real world examples if you like to support why Teldrassil wasn’t a genocide. But I’ve already proven this argument half a dozen times on these forums.
1 Like
Ok I’m done.
You’re just making excuses for war crimes at this point.
2 Likes
Okay so real life examples it is then.
The Nuremberg trials were conducted to hold the very bad Germans responsible for the genocide of the Jews during the Holocaust,
The trials were not actually conducted for the bombardment of Britain during the war, or for the takeover of France, the campaign in Northern Africa.
The War Crimes conducted on the militaristic regimes in Africa, specifically Rwanda, were conducted not for the military campaign against the enemies of the war leaders but their specific execution and targeting of civilians themselves.
War crime trials aren’t conducted for civilians killed during the act of war, but, for lack of a better word, the extracurricular killings done while a conflict is happening.
War crime charges are also only ever brought against the losers of a conflict, otherwise, Israel, United States, England, etc., would be on trial now for the killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq as neither of those nations were responsible for what Al Qaeda did, a military group that actually was based in Pakistan.
People have written papers on what is and isn’t genocide or war crimes and what constitutes both. It’s not as simple as “oh you killed a bunch of people, that’s genocide.” There are other factors in play that actually label something genocide or not.
1 Like
Yeah, right. Because the Horde didn’t help Sylvanas.
Not the best example for the Horde here.
Here, have this seat.
Let me help you out there, so you don’t have to play with words or use semantics to make excuses for war crimes.
The writing team LITERALLY used the words : “Sylvanas Windrunner had committed genocide.”
So please, stop. Stop encouraging plausible deniability. There is no plausible deniability in mass murder.
2 Likes
Yeah right because the night elves didn’t support Azshara.
Not the best example of night elves here.
The Highborne supported Azshara.
The non Highborne were against it and fought against it. So, yes, it’s the best example as you’re comparing apples to pears here.
3 Likes
The forsaken supported sylvanas.
The non-forsaken were against it and fought against it. So yes they are the same situations here.
A corrupt leader with devout followers and rebels working against them. Literally every example you have uses can be used against the night elves too.
Saurfang is not a Forsaken
The Trolls landing on Ashenvale aren’t.
The Orcs either.
The Goblin machinery and miners on Darkshore aren’t.
The Blood Elves shown there aren’t either.
The Horde supported Sylvanas until, just until she said they were nothing. The Horde attacked the Night Elves, not the Forsaken.
1 Like
The night elves supported and Revered Azshara until she went to far as well.
The parallels and similarities are obvious and can be used against either of the sides.
1 Like
It’s way too different because the Horde attacked the Night Elves fully, waged war against them. So they have right to want vengeance.
While the Night Elves thought Azshara was not doing harmful things until they found out. THere’s a clear difference here, one was not an aggressor until finding out the bad thing. The other one was an aggressor and they didn’t leave Sylvanas because “she attacked the Night Elves”, they would’ve continued waging war with the NE. It was because Sylvanas gave them the foot. Not sure how you can find any kind of similarity here, being honest.
I would be mad if TYrande came and killed Zaapiboy, for instance, but he would’ve fought the Night Elves and invaded them if the Horde sent him to it.
While the Night Elves wouldn’t have continued supporting the Legion just because they were ordered to. These two instances are far from being comparable.
1 Like
Exactly right, you know Anduin’s going to be all "We can’t do this Tyrande, I will put you down myself!’ *War happens, Tyrande gets put down. Sylvanas returns as some kind of matyr because the only reason she escaped a crowd full of furious races, is her plot armor andthe way her loyalists just keep coming up excuses for her.).
Even if Tyrande is justifield in her vengeance. But apparently you have to be a human female mage to get away with wanting vengeance and not be put down. Looking at you Jaina. (Ten bucks says the roles are gonna be reversed. Garrosh bombed Theramore envoking the wrath of Jaina for a few expansions until BFA when suddenly she’s all “Let’s be friends?” Seriously Jaina? This is the time you relate to Tyrande and HELP her. Garrosh dies.
Now it’s Slyvanas genocided the night elves and Teldrassil Tyrande is vengenace, but instead of Slyvanas getting killed. Tyrande is made into a bad guy. Killed off. Sylvanas lives. >.>
Only difference was Garrosh didn’t have big boobs and a smoking body. So Sylvanas of course gets to live.
2 Likes