So what were the consequences of Theramore...

80 Human Warrior
8240
12/09/2012 10:31 AMPosted by Abal
But remember, we've no right to get mad. We have to be la-de-dah neutral and happy with whatever crap the Horde throws at us.


You can be mad as hell. You are a soldier of the Alliance. I understand that.

Jaina, however, is now the leader of a neutral nation. Despite being the former leader of Theramore, she must now put the needs of Dalaran ahead of her own personal feelings. When the Sunreavers betray that neutrality, that is when Jaina has every right to bring Dalaran back into the Alliance.


In her mind(and with the evidence presented at the time, as circumstantial as it was) they did betray that neutrality. Therefore, the purge was within her rights as a ruler who was acting under the assumption of a violation of Dalaran's laws.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Death Knight
11170

In her mind(and with the evidence presented at the time, as circumstantial as it was) they did betray that neutrality. Therefore, the purge was within her rights as a ruler who was acting under the assumption of a violation of Dalaran's laws.


. . .yes, I agree with you.
Reply Quote
93 Night Elf Priest
16870

*Yes - The Kirin Tor must remain above such faction squabbles.


Faction squabbles.

Faction. Squabbles.
*sigh* This is why we can't take neutrals seriously. They act as if we have no good reason to fight Garrosh. As if its as easy as saying "Let's talk about this. Oh, don't worry about all those people you've killed or those territories you invaded, it doesn't bother me at all!"

Their attitude is quite frankly unbearable. They are not 'above' the conflict. They're just too cowardly to take a side, and hope that whoever wins will not take them down once they are the only ones left. And seeing as Garrosh has already stated his intention to destroy whoever is not in the Horde, including neutrals, their hesitation to fight him if even more baffling.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
12/09/2012 10:31 AMPosted by Mordstreich
Why are those who stayed behind explicitly to fight the Horde still considered non-combatants?


Same reason why it's such an awful tragedy the Alliance soldiers killed off those poor Tauren who picked up knives and made a threat of themselves.

What's tragic isn't the people who picked up weapons to fight, it's those who died and weren't fighting or supporting those who fought (example: not the skinning trainer who stayed to give the children a chance to escape, but the inn keeper who was burned alive in the dead of night without any warning).

In the case of Theramore, every single person who stayed behind did so with the express intention of either fighting the Horde or supporting the forces doing the fighting, so it's disingenuous to claim the bomb killed any non-combatants.

That doesn't make the whole thing any less tragic or despicable, but it should make people more cautious when tossing around such knee-jerking expressions.
Reply Quote
80 Human Warrior
8240
Kellick, did you read the book?

In Tides of War, it states that the mana bomb destroyed not just Theramore Isle itself, but Theramore in EVERY TIMELINE. The bomb screwed with reality so much that Theramore has ceased to exist in every alternate timeline it existed in.

That's not the same as burning down an inn.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
As for the consequences of the whole thing, it set Jaina up to lead the Kirin Tor and indirectly led to the possibility of the Kingdom of Dalaran officially throwing its support behind the Alliance.

The entire thing was handled haphazardly, but it was also supposed to give the Alliance a rallying cry in the fight against the Horde (not that there should have been any lack of that already).

12/09/2012 10:45 AMPosted by Advic
EVERY TIMELINE

It says no such thing.

And if it did, then statistically, at least one of those timelines had a Theramore populated entirely by Old God clones of robo-Sargeras, making the bombing the single greatest act of good ever perpetrated by any character in the setting.
Edited by Kellick on 12/9/2012 10:47 AM PST
Reply Quote
93 Night Elf Priest
16870
Kellick, did you read the book?

In Tides of War, it states that the mana bomb destroyed not just Theramore Isle itself, but Theramore in EVERY TIMELINE. The bomb screwed with reality so much that Theramore has ceased to exist in every alternate timeline it existed in.

That's not the same as burning down an inn.


Once again, this theory is only one that was made popular before the book came out. Its spread so much that a lot of people, even after reading the book, think its true.

The truth of the matter is that the bomb made it possible to see alternate timelines/universes/dimensions, making it plausible that they were affected in some ways. Perhaps some were destroyed, perhaps some witnessed arcane anomalies, perhaps they only saw rips through the fabric of reality.

But there's nothing proving that Theramore was destroyed in every alternate realities and dimensions because of the bomb's explosion.
Reply Quote

In the case of Theramore, every single person who stayed behind did so with the express intention of either fighting the Horde or supporting the forces doing the fighting, so it's disingenuous to claim the bomb killed any non-combatants.


What's disingenuous is claiming that an Inn-Keeper who stayed behind because she didn't want to abandon her home when she had a theoretical chance to evacuate is automatically a "combatant" and that it somehow lessens the guilt of those who killed her and thousands like her with a WMD that was so powerful it tore apart the fabric of reality.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Hunter
5420
12/09/2012 10:25 AMPosted by Kellick
One boat of them, mostly the children, but they made a point about there being a lot of people who wanted to stay and protect their homes. The infirmary had a lot of volunteers.

Follow up question.

Why are those who stayed behind explicitly to fight the Horde still considered non-combatants?


If they are fighting the Horde, no, they cannot be considered non-combatants. What they are doing is normal and what many people do. Defend their home. Which is what I'd expect any citizen of a city to do for themselves. To defend their home. Especially if there's a hostile army outside the walls.
Reply Quote
90 Undead Warlock
11815
12/09/2012 10:48 AMPosted by Jaelara
What's disingenuous is claiming that an Inn-Keeper who stayed behind because she didn't want to abandon her home when she had a theoretical chance to evacuate is automatically a "combatant" and that it somehow lessens the guilt of those who killed her and thousands like her with a WMD that was so powerful it tore apart the fabric of reality.


That's not what he said at all.

12/09/2012 10:41 AMPosted by Kellick
That doesn't make the whole thing any less tragic or despicable


L2Read
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
12/09/2012 10:48 AMPosted by Jaelara
it somehow lessens the guilt of those who killed her


12/09/2012 10:41 AMPosted by Kellick
That doesn't make the whole thing any less tragic or despicable, but it should make people more cautious when tossing around such knee-jerking expressions.

Would you look at that, no one said any such thing.
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Paladin
14910
12/09/2012 09:23 AMPosted by Abal
Being rational is not one dimensional. Stay classy, though.


Her rational for leaving the Eastern Kingdoms and working with the Orcs amounted to "because Medivh told her to" Jania left Lordaeron even before !@#$ hit the fan. Everyone and everything she knew was still standing, but she left and took as many people as she could convince to go with her.

And she didn't take them to Ironforge. Or Stormwind. Or any of those other bastions of Alliance power. She took them half way around the world to a completely unknown continent...all because Medivh told her to.

Jania is a TERRIBLE character. She abandons everything and everyone. She abandoned Arthas. She abandoned Lordaeron/Dalaran. She abandoned her men who died fighting Thrall. She abandoned her father. She abandoned Theramore and the Alliance.

The only thing she hasn't abandoned...IS THE HORDE!
Reply Quote
If it's not to excuse the Horde, what's the point of arguing semantics like "combatant?"

Saying "Oh, it's still a HORRIBLE thing, but it's important that all those Civilians were totally COMBATANTS. This is IMPORTANT. And if you don't agree you're "disingenouous."

You're arguing these semantics for a reason. The only reason to argue that a Civilian Innkeeper is a combatant just because she didn't evacuate is to argue that somehow the people that murdered are less gulty.
Reply Quote
100 Human Warrior
15510
12/09/2012 10:41 AMPosted by Kellick
In the case of Theramore, every single person who stayed behind did so with the express intention of either fighting the Horde or supporting the forces doing the fighting, so it's disingenuous to claim the bomb killed any non-combatants.


Does it directly say this in the book, or did some civilians stay behind in the hopes they could weather the storm?
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
12/09/2012 10:59 AMPosted by Jaelara
If it's not to excuse the Horde, what's the point of arguing semantics like "combatant?"

To encourage people not to use incorrect expressions for the sole purpose of provoking an emotional response and disrupt civil discourse.

It's the same reason the term genocide is such a taboo.

It is more often than not used to provoke a knee-jerk reaction and prevent people from discussing the topic calmly. It derails threads by appealing to peoples' emotions.
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Paladin
14910
It doesn't really matter whether there were "civilians" at Theramore or not. It's not the Horde's responsibility to protect the Alliance's people from itself. If anyone is at fault for people dying at Theramore, it's the Alliance's.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
12/09/2012 11:04 AMPosted by Mordstreich
Does it directly say this in the book, or did some civilians stay behind in the hopes they could weather the storm?

I recall civilians electing to stay behind to help, and while it's entirely plausible others stayed behind because they thought it would blow over, I don't remember anywhere saying as much explicitly.

I don't have the book nearby at the moment, however, so someone else will have to confirm or deny that.
Reply Quote
12/09/2012 11:06 AMPosted by Cbredbeard
It doesn't really matter whether there were "civilians" at Theramore or not. It's not the Horde's responsibility to protect the Alliance's people from itself. If anyone is at fault for people dying at Theramore, it's the Alliance's.


I'd say it's the Horde's fault for making the attack in the first place.

I also don't think it's some sort of intellectually dishonest appeal to emotion to state that the Horde killed Civilians who were staying behind because they didn't want to leave their homes, because that is exactly what happened.
Edited by Jaelara on 12/9/2012 11:14 AM PST
Reply Quote
100 Human Warrior
15510
Weeeeelllll, Theramore was a valid target, sorry. It was. Doesn't mean Alliance can't be pissed about it or have different opinions on it than the Horde. But it was a valid target. It was just as valid as Taurajo was. It should not be shocking it was attacked, however the bomb was the shocking part. It caused destruction on an unprecedented scale, so it's really not all that surprising a weapon like that would be looked upon with disdain. Sort of like how the A-bomb is/was.

That being said, something tells me Garrosh doesn't care whether or not civilians were killed in the explosion.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
12/09/2012 11:20 AMPosted by Mordstreich
That being said, something tells me Garrosh doesn't care whether or not civilians were killed in the explosion.

Previously, I might have objected to this statement, but it's clear the whole Krom'gar incident and the lesson he'd allegedly learned from it has slipped his mind, so I can't imagine he gives one whit about it.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]