Burning the tree=not a warcrime

General Discussion
Prev 1 5 6 7
Typical ignorance of history on display again. Never ceases to amaze me how dumb some people can be.
08/09/2018 06:59 AMPosted by Jezabel
I can't believe you just used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples to rationalize your point.


Really? I can.

But that may be because Riv is down in the SF arguing that Night Elves defending their homes is a war crime.
08/09/2018 07:13 AMPosted by Evylline
08/09/2018 07:01 AMPosted by Kyveli
...In what universe? Americans are still debating whether or not the nukes were justified 70 years after the fact.

Fun fact: the US printed so many Purple Hearts for the proposed invasion of mainland Japan that we only recently ran out of them. And the US was predicted to have a death toll a fourth the size of Japan's.


They weren't considered criminal because we won. No one was brought up on charges. There was no public defamation. That doesn't mean the bombings were not war crimes. The perpetrators just weren't prosecuted. I mean, who was going to do that, the defeated empire of Japan, or Germany? They had no say in the politics of the post war world.


Would you have rather had the US invade Japan and throw away the lives of nearly ever Japanese civilian and military soldiers and a Million American males?
08/09/2018 12:23 PMPosted by Ionadris
08/09/2018 07:13 AMPosted by Evylline
...

They weren't considered criminal because we won. No one was brought up on charges. There was no public defamation. That doesn't mean the bombings were not war crimes. The perpetrators just weren't prosecuted. I mean, who was going to do that, the defeated empire of Japan, or Germany? They had no say in the politics of the post war world.


Would you have rather had the US invade Japan and throw away the lives of nearly ever Japanese civilian and military soldiers and a Million American males?


Whether or not it's justified is up for debate, and entirely besides the point. The fact is we bombed and killed thousands of civilians and noncombatants. That alone is enough to be considered criminal. Let me put it this way. If you had prior knowledge that someone was going to blow up a stadium, and you stopped him by shooting him in the head, you may feel like you were justified in doing so because you potentially saved a lot of people. But guess what, you still committed murder. The justification and the motivation may have been good, but you still committed a crime. And the only reason, like I said, that Truman wasn't brought up on charges is because we won the war. If we didn't, you can be damn sure that he would've hung like the !@#$s did.
08/09/2018 02:08 AMPosted by Rivendel
Sylvanas intended to do something so shocking and terrible that it would force the Alliance to surrender, thus saving more lives in the long run by preventing a long protracted war of attrition. This is along the same lines of thinking as the US bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, terrible as it was, to save more lives in the long run. These things are not warcrimes, just unfortunate.


It was a crime against nature. Smokey the Bear shed a tear. I saw it.
08/09/2018 02:08 AMPosted by Rivendel
Sylvanas intended to do something so shocking and terrible that it would force the Alliance to surrender, thus saving more lives in the long run by preventing a long protracted war of attrition. This is along the same lines of thinking as the US bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, terrible as it was, to save more lives in the long run. These things are not warcrimes, just unfortunate.


Okay Harry S. Lets explore what a true "war crime" is. It is relatively simple in concept. A war crime is whatever the viewpoint of the speaker decides a war crime is in that place and time.

I would venture to say that to the Japanese both the Internment camps Hiroshima and Nagasaki were considered criminal acts perpetrated during war and those responsible for committing such atrocities were war criminals in their minds.

I know for a FACT that most Jewish peoples of Europe between 1941 and 1945 considered the Third Reich to be an organization of criminals bent on committing atrocities but the German High Command never saw themselves as such. So too was Stalin considered by his own people to be a war criminal for his actions yet Stalin seemed to be obsessed with his love of Mother Russia. Mussolini was killed by his own countrymen for being a war criminal but to those who served under him they did not consider him or themselves war criminals.

I would venture to say that even good old Joe Mengele never considered himself a war criminal. Yet we know better, or at least it is to be hoped that we have learned better.

Because we label something as "war crime" neither increases nor decreases the affront to the senses that the atrocity itself bears.
08/09/2018 02:30 AMPosted by Theodwulf
Both the burnt tree and UC are "terrain denial" moves that have made the Alliance weaker


Actually, the Horde losses in UC were listed as "Very Heavy" compared to the "Heavy" losses of the Alliance. When Your losses are heavier than your Enemies losses, you're doing something seriously Wrong.
I think you’re a little confused dear.
08/09/2018 02:34 AMPosted by Eyrinjia
You pick this day -- the 73rd anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki -- to make this post?


Didn't know that today was that day, but yeah ... rather tacky to equate in game activities to tragedies of full blown war.
You people would literally justify Hitler if that somehow justified Sylvanas.
08/09/2018 01:15 PMPosted by Verdre
08/09/2018 02:30 AMPosted by Theodwulf
Both the burnt tree and UC are "terrain denial" moves that have made the Alliance weaker


Actually, the Horde losses in UC were listed as "Very Heavy" compared to the "Heavy" losses of the Alliance. When Your losses are heavier than your Enemies losses, you're doing something seriously Wrong.


As one old soldier said: Your job is not to die for your country! Your job is to make that other poor bastage die for his!
08/09/2018 02:12 AMPosted by Rivendel
08/09/2018 02:10 AMPosted by Lavaforged
Jesus dude.
She wanted to force the Alliance into surrendering to prevent a long war with even more people dying from it.


You want to know the best way to prevent a war?

Don't start a damn war.
08/09/2018 02:22 AMPosted by Rivendel
08/09/2018 02:21 AMPosted by Adelphie
...

No it isn't.
Sylvanas wanted to break the Night Elves hope, break their will to resist, and force the Alliance to surrender, sparing the horde a long and bloody war.


Good job.
08/09/2018 02:11 AMPosted by Wariya
That nice dear

so are you going 2-3-5 or 2-2- 6 when raiding Slyvanas??


2-2-6 if everyone is decently geared.
Well... it's definitely a warmcrime!
This is your brain on Horde cultism
08/09/2018 05:14 AMPosted by Vaelrose


Forsaken arnt slaves and they can't reproduce.

In the end of the Stormheim Genn doesn't try to kill Sylvanas he bluntly states he's robbing her of the Forsaken future. He was being petty. He attacked her during a truce cause he could, not should.


If you missed it during the Siege of Lordaeron, Sylvanas is very much willing to enslave people when it's convenient.

But no, she was trying to enslave the Val'kyr. Or did you not notice that what's-her-name was none too pleased about being shackled by that lantern Sylvanas had dug up?

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum