what you said makes literally no sense
the kaldorei aren’t malfurion, and it wouldn’t destroy them as a society or a group, malfurion WILL die eventually regardless of what the horde does
will they be destroyed?
literally every war ever waged in history
only if the intent is to destroy the group
welp, you just accused the alliance of genocide against the horde, congrats.
or are you saying that the kaldorei can’t be a group if they leave the continent? in which case they’ve been destroyed a few times
no, no it wasn’t
it was to destroy the alliance sure, but then did varian say that he was going to commit genocide when he claimed he’d destroy the horde?
the factions aren’t the people that make them up, they’re loose affiliations
just as destroying the U.N or U.K doesn’t destroy the people or the nations that make it up
again, genocide is a very…very specific crime, many things people think “should” be genocide aren’t
it’s a controversial topic because of JUST that
while for instance i want the trial of tears to be classified as a genocide, it currently isn’t and can’t be
there are specific check boxes that have to be met and they’re extremely hard to meet
If you kill their leaders and those expelled from their lands, forcing them to live as refugees and part of other groups, then they would disappear.
Yes,If he said they annihilated them, that fits in with the threat that if they water her again they will exterminate them.
That was the fear that actually caused the war
The horde was afraid of being annihilated by the Alliance so Varok followed Sylavanas.
The word has a broad meaning to ,you just don’t like it to be used.
To be honest I don’t want Horde to be good or have a treaty with Alliance. I play Alliance if and when I want to feel like the good guys. I feel the horde was getting too soft, which is actually why I like Sylvannas, she’s darker, mysterious, and has the right style of horde leadership. You betray her, you die.
The main problem is in the fault of writing and story line. They will have the factions make peace but then find stupid reasons to be back at war. They need to stop with that roller coaster and find a new style.
lol no they wouldn’t, are the worgen gone?
dude destroying an alliance isn’t destroying it’s people, the alliance has broken atleast twice now
the word genocide has a specific meaning, and ALL versions include the intent to destroy
either way gtfo this dumb genocide thing and focus on the topic of the thread
1 Like
Is that there is a difference between attacking and capturing villages and cities and making its citizens part of your population and good to do what the horde does.
the entire point of wars is to lessen or outright remove another group’s influence in a region.
it’s 100% the purpose of war, the active reason for that varies but the goal of wars are always the same
but innocents and children have no influence in a region. They just settle there any try to live their lives.
Without Genn and his family they would.
yes, but if they belong to a specific group we still seek to remove them
or in the case of “total” war we attack citizens to weaken the will of the fighting force
and that’s not a good thing, but it is what it is
1 Like
Obligatory, “Now you see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb.”
1 Like
yeah because the whole worgen identity is the royal family
Yes, but the difference between a genocide and the conflict itself are the methods.
The royal family and its territory.
If the Gilneanos lose their ruler and their lands they would be destroyed as a society and would become part of the place where they live.
Lordaeron and Alterac for example disappeared Lodaeron indeed fell with genocide included.
For example, if the horde captured the Tree and placed a ruler who took charge of the elves leaving them to be elves, it would not be considered genocide or a war crime.
Or if Sylvanas instead of enslaving and killing the Gilneanos had sought that Genn and these join the horde by force, he would not have committed war crimes against Gilneas.
the same but with less scope is south coast.
she used the strength to erase the place with its population included on the map.
no, no it’s not.
the difference is in intentions
carpet bombing used to be a common af practice and wasn’t outlawed until the 70s for instance
it wasn’t classed as an act of genocide even if there were huge populations involved or in the case of japan the situations you’re bombing could easily result in a nationwide fire
that isn’t how people work, and it’s downright offensive to suggest that if people lose their homes or their leaders they suddenly stop being a people
society isn’t the same thing as destroying something
society and being a people/group are entirely seperate topics
lodaeron didn’t stop being a people, as much as the alliance dislikes it the vast majority of the forsaken are the people of lordaeron
which anduin has made a point of, they’re not a “destroyed” nation
Alterac was absorbed for the most part, under your definition however they are still active in the form of the syndicate
you do know that the syndacite is members of the former alterac and led by the royal family yes?
what makes them different from the worgen?
so kill their leaders and take their land where they have to leave = genocide
kill their leaders and take their land BUUUT leave a ruler and suddenly not genocide
you don’t actually have a very set in stone definition do you?
1 Like
It could be described as such. I think that is one of the reasons to ban it.
It does not deny your ability as a person But if you lose your power structure and territory you stop being a nation.
Lordaeron disappear The Forsaken are a different group and a different nation with different customs and different rulers.
A destroyed nation can be refounded but it does not take away the fact that it was destroyed.
it wasn’t banned on the basis of being genocidal, it was banned because it is insanely unethical to carpet bomb cities
being a nation is secondary to being a people/group
there are tons of groups that have fallen into genocidal terms that have never and will never be a nation
1 Like
“you have a different ruler but the same people, you’re a different nation”
wanna bring that up with most countries the world round?
even the rightful ruler was brought up to potentially rule the forsaken after sylvanas
1 Like
Now and according to your ethics, what can we call the actions of the Horde in the War of the Thorns?
What would you call Darnasus and Gilneas?
Not only a new ruler that is being very simplistic,If identity as a nation changes, it is no longer the same nation.
Italy is not the Roman Empire.
good to know britain is a different nation than it once was
identities of nations change fairly regularly, often by choice
it doesn’t make them different nations
1 Like