That’s probably who Zekhan is supposed to be, but they just failed utterly in the execution.
7 Likes
To work, Zekhan would have to have been around for more than five minutes, yeah. We’d have to be watching HIS story arc, and the writing seems to still be fixated on Saurfang.
2 Likes
On the other hand, he is apparently getting a pretty snazzy custom rig … so hopefully that suggests blizz intends to put some investment in the little guy. Honestly, I STILL expect/hope for custom rigs for Rokhan and Shandris … but getting a brand new Darkspear AND Shaman rep to root for aint a bad thing. We were really scraping the bottom of the barrel for both Horde-side. 
8 Likes
I can’t wait for Zekhan to start his own arc and come into his own as a loyal member of the Horde. Especially if he specializes in different elements than the original prominent shaman Thrall- lightning is easily one of the cooler shaman abilities and Zekhan looks like he’s pretty good at wielding already despite his lack of experience
2 Likes
To the OP because its easy and low-effort.
Unless Puppies was being bad, part of that custom rig is him lying dead.
He’s using the same rig as a Darkspear Troll … so its unsurprising that he has a death animation. Same goes for Saurfang … he’s using the upright Orc Rig. Hell, if we ever see any new Goblins with custom rigs (like Gazlowe should he take over the cartel) … its very likely we’ll see a death animation for that rig too.
3 Likes
Then to quote you quoting you , by your standards, the crew of the Enola Gay as well as President Truman should have been executed for war crimes. Or do you think that there were no children in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo?; Or for that matter let’s throw in Roosevelt and the bombing crews for Dresden. Or do you think there’s some higher morality to just bombing them from the air where you can’t see the faces of those you kill, as opposed to doing the deed up close and personal?
Innocents die in war. they are legitimate targets in war, because war knows no immunities, respects no boundaries. And no one will draw any boundary that crosses a path to victory.
I think the answer might be situational. What was at stake, what were the pros and cons. People can’t just do anything they want during a war and then shrug their shoulders and say “hey man, that is just how war is.” And I suspect that more than a couple of US presidents probably should have been tried for war crimes.
3 Likes
The answer is always situational. The plain fact of the matter is that the only countries that are ever brought up on war crimes are those that make the ultimate crime… losing the war.
1 Like
Pretty sure we have laws these days that say the exact opposite of this. Even if they didn’t, are you high? Why would civilians be a valid military target? You start crossing that line and you might as well just start slaughtering children because they might grow up to oppose you.
5 Likes
An immoral and outright evil perspective.
I disagree. What happens in realspace doesn’t change what is morally right or wrong.
For example, if Galenar is robbed and killed by Drahliana, that makes Drahliana a villain who has acted immorally. Whether or not Drahliana ever faces justice is irrelevant to those facts.
The capacity of the righteous to execute justice upon the wicked has no influence on whether or not the actions committed are good or evil.
4 Likes
Reading your comment is hard cringe dude. Like you’re literally the CEO of Whiteknights. Can we finally stop putting politics etc. into WoW and can discuss like a adult person and not like a little child?
1 Like
Answer: Blizzard is extremely black and white about everything.
You can’t oppose Sylvanas and still be a bad person, because blizzards brains aren’t wired like that, they think you are either a good guy or bad guy and that if you oppose a bad guy your a good guy.
7 Likes
Good. People with your mindset can cringe away. I would hate for some one such as you to find me agreeable. Especially because you used literally wrong.
No. I have never had a coronation or a vote from “the board” - if one exists - and no other white knights have recognized me as such. I am not a CEO. So that is not literal.
You mean figuratively.
No. The thread is inquiring about our views on the perspective we are being shown, and the choices of the IRL company and IRL people who make this portrayal.
Especially because the portrayal falls flat.
If I feel it is relevant, I will mention it.
4 Likes
Because there are different ways of winning a war. The most cost effective in regards to your own troops is persuading them not to fight.
The Tokyo Firestorm Technique, as well as the explosion altitude of the atomic bomb were deliberately designed to maximise civillian casualties. (The Dresden Firestorm was far more effective than the atom bomb actually in this regard.)
When the only people getting killed are soldiers sent off to foreign wars, the populace takes it a lot less personally when when they themselves and their family and livelihoods are directly targeted. That was the whole reason for the V1 and V2 attacks on London, they were aimed at British morale.
In Hiroshima’s case the additional complication was that the real target was not the Japanese whom we were keeping from surrendering by manipulating Hirohito’s desire to keep his own skin intact, but the Russians whom we had decided at the time was our primary rival for ownership of this planet. So we had to demonstrate our ability to slaughter their population wholesale in our extremely misguided reading of the Russian psyche.
1 Like
Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.
Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention. Targeting civilians, not a valid strategy.
4 Likes
You know they never mention it but the US did drop info saying they were going to drop nuke on their two targets and people should flee. It was not the brightest idea given no one knew what a nuke was abd fire bombs were already destroying villiages so kind of a grown as pathy towatds running away.
Trying to warn them doesn’t exactly make up for the fact they were planning to drop two atomic bombs and destroy the entire city.
3 Likes
To be fair about the destory a city thing bombings were slready doing that to more or less the same degree just with more bombs. Now the knowldge of how radation can screw with people after its dropped and for generations that is the messed up part.
Actully the conventional bombs and their warnings grew an apathy about the bombings which might have made it worse