This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
The Future of Lordaeron
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
4dehorde
You may have me there, but as for the Bloodfang pack mess, keep in mind the Forsaken have had a presence in Silverpine for quite some time, since close to their formation. The Sepulcher and northern outposts have been in-game since vanilla. It's just with Cataclysm and beyond we see the Forsaken expand their territory in Silverpine to the entire forest, so don't go saying the Forsaken have absolutely no claim to Silverpine. And the Bloodfang pack was pretty invested in their own invasion of Gilneas, as the worgen starter quests show. The Forsaken could have expanded in Silverpine during that time.
I'm not saying that the Forsaken don't have a claim to Silverpine. Hell, it's technically part of the Scourged Lordaeron- that is, the Lordaeron that was wiped out by the Lich King's armies, unlike Hillsbrad. I'm just saying that you're claiming the Bloodfang pack isn't defending it's home when they're attacking the Forsaken in Silverpine when they clearly are. You know what else has been in Silverpine since Vanilla? The Bloodfang Worgen. They might not have been Bloodfang in Vanilla, but they joined with Ivar. It's not revenge if you're attacking an enemy that is invading (what you believe) to be your home.
Except I never called what the Bloodfang worgen were doing revenge. I called what the Hillsbrad worgen were doing revenge.
Post by
Adamsm
I did, believe it or not. And its a mute point anyway. The worgen starter quests do not show what happened in Silverpine afterwards, which was largely the worgen attacking the Forsaken in Forsaken land. That is true: But it does show the Gilneas Liberation Front fighting alongside the Bloodfang worgen, after the Forsaken had just waged war on Gilneas...or does that not count?
I still wouldn't call Southshore a city. Its a large town to be more accurate. Or rather, it was.
You are also missing the point. I never argued whether or not there was a point in defending Southshore, I was saying to flee the town and attack later is not defense.No, that would be war for their lands and trying to get them back after the Forsaken blew up their town, killed their people and stole their lands.
Really? One of the first quests in northern Silvepine involves slaying worgen terrorists. One of the text the Forsaken troopers say is "They won't take our land without a fight!" Sounds a lot like defense to me.And as bad as it is, I chuckled when the Bloodfang pack blew the hell out of that group of Forsaken in the mine right after that statement was made. But again: That's the Bloodfangs...and Silverpine was their home too, so that is self defense.
And the Forsaken have not taken Stromgarde, yet. The furthest they've gotten into Arathi is Galen's Fall.....Yeah cause raising up the Prince of Stromgarde as a slave of the Forsaken, and sending forces in to clean it out means it's still standing.
Post by
Lordplatypus
"They won't take our land without a fight!" Sounds a lot like defense to me.
And it's there lands why?
Because they stole it. It's never been their land, the forsaken just have a twisted self-serving sense of what belongs to wholm.
Post by
oneforthemoney
I can't help but question that at times. Blighting Southshore doesn't seem as pragmatic as it was actively malicious, considering the community was hardly big enough to pose much of a threat. It didn't even have a wall around it.
As I have said before, it was a military staging ground and supply port. Having one of those in enemy hands so close to their territory gives the Forsaken justification to remove it from play.
There is such a thing as overkill. Southshore was decidedly such. It would quite literally be a matter of riding in and taking over the town, since it's only a collection of houses with a small militia. However, for reasons of their own, the Forsaken decided to throw blight at it until they were blighting blight. It really makes no tactical sense there.
Post by
Skreeran
I can't help but question that at times. Blighting Southshore doesn't seem as pragmatic as it was actively malicious, considering the community was hardly big enough to pose much of a threat. It didn't even have a wall around it.
As I have said before, it was a military staging ground and supply port. Having one of those in enemy hands so close to their territory gives the Forsaken justification to remove it from play.
There is such a thing as overkill. Southshore was decidedly such. It would quite literally be a matter of riding in and taking over the town, since it's only a collection of houses with a small militia. However, for reasons of their own, the Forsaken decided to throw blight at it until they were blighting blight. It really makes no tactical sense there.I stand by the idea that it was a weapons test. Doesn't make it any more right, but it works with the concept of them being pragmatists rather than sadists.
It also would explain
this
: Before my capture and imprisonment, I was stationed at Southshore. My primary job at the ruins was to take slime samples and make sure that the blight that we released was safely dissipating. And
this
. We used a fairly potent strain of blight against the humans of Southshore. As you can see, it worked. The trouble with blight use, though, is that blight tends to stick around after it's served its purpose.
And it's there lands why?
Because they stole it. It's never been their land, the forsaken just have a twisted self-serving sense of what belongs to wholm.Wrong. Yes, the Forsaken are technically dead, but they can still think and feel and possess all of the characteristics of sentience. So land that they owned in life still belongs to them in death.
If some Stormwind pioneers want to settle on my priest's land--land that has been in his family for generations--then they can come pry the deed from his cold, dead, unmoving fingers.
Post by
Lordplatypus
Southshore is not part of the kingdom of lordaeron.
Post by
4dehorde
That is true: But it does show the Gilneas Liberation Front fighting alongside the Bloodfang worgen, after the Forsaken had just waged war on Gilneas...or does that not count?
The Gilneas Liberation Front is justified to attack the Forsaken to try and liberate their lands, but for them to attack the Forsaken outside of Gilneas is an invasion.
No, that would be war for their lands and trying to get them back after the Forsaken blew up their town, killed their people and stole their lands.
If that were true, why were they fighting the Forsaken in Silvepine and not the Forsaken in Hillsbrad?
And as bad as it is, I chuckled when the Bloodfang pack blew the hell out of that group of Forsaken in the mine right after that statement was made. But again: That's the Bloodfangs...and Silverpine was their home too, so that is self defense.
And as cruel as it may seem, I laughed when Sylvanas used Crowley's daughter to force Crowley into a full retreat and end his invasion. While it may not be a clean tactic I was happy to see the Gilneas Liberation Front retreat. Again, I'm not calling the Bloodfang worgen fighting in Silverpine an invasion. I'm calling the Gilneas Liberation Front fighting in Silverpine an invasion.
....Yeah cause raising up the Prince of Stromgarde as a slave of the Forsaken, and sending forces in to clean it out means it's still standing.
I wouldn't exactly call Galen a slave. There isn't much to suggest he is mind controlled. We've discussed this before. He seems to simply be resigned to his fate, sad as that may be.
Southshore is not part of the kingdom of lordaeron.
I do believe it was.
Post by
Lordplatypus
Then why was it not in the map?
*Rechecks*
Either way, it's clearly stated to be a area the forsaken invaded later on, then called their own.
Post by
4dehorde
Then why was it not in the map?
*Rechecks*
Either way, it's clearly stated to be a area the forsaken invaded later on, then called their own.
You cannot really fault the Forsaken for the attack on Southshore itself. There is a war going on after all, and attacking a military target makes good sense.
Post by
Monday
Then why was it not in the map?
*Rechecks*
Either way, it's clearly stated to be a area the forsaken invaded later on, then called their own.
You cannot really fault the Forsaken for the attack on Southshore itself. There is a war going on after all, and attacking a military target makes good sense.
/deadhorse
So why is attacking Taurajo, a military target, different?
Post by
4dehorde
Then why was it not in the map?
*Rechecks*
Either way, it's clearly stated to be a area the forsaken invaded later on, then called their own.
You cannot really fault the Forsaken for the attack on Southshore itself. There is a war going on after all, and attacking a military target makes good sense.
/deadhorse
So why is attacking Taurajo, a military target, different?
As long as people bring it up, I will address it.
As I've pointed out already, Taurajo was NOT a military target. Unlike Southshore, which as I have stated time and time again, served as a military staging ground and supply port, Taurajo was a hunter's camp. One has military and serves for the military, and the other is entirely civilian. And unlike Southshore where many people escaped, the number or deceased at Taurajo, including the survivors who were later killed by the quillboar, which the Alliance holds blame for, is greater.
The bottom line is, while the Forsaken had just cause to remove a military target from play, the Alliance had no reason to attack a civilian town. If they had attacked a military target, things would be different, and I am being generous there I believe. I've held the Alliance in pretty low regard since they started the war.
Post by
355559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
4dehorde
Then why was it not in the map?
*Rechecks*
Either way, it's clearly stated to be a area the forsaken invaded later on, then called their own.
You cannot really fault the Forsaken for the attack on Southshore itself. There is a war going on after all, and attacking a military target makes good sense.
/deadhorse
So why is attacking Taurajo, a military target, different?
As long as people bring it up, I will address it.
As I've pointed out already, Taurajo was NOT a military target. Unlike Southshore, which as I have stated time and time again, served as a military staging ground and supply port, Taurajo was a hunter's camp. One has military and serves for the military, and the other is entirely civilian. And unlike Southshore where many people escaped, the number or deceased at Taurajo, including the survivors who were later killed by the quillboar, which the Alliance holds blame for, is greater.
The bottom line is, while the Forsaken had just cause to remove a military target from play, the Alliance had no reason to attack a civilian town. If they had attacked a military target, things would be different, and I am being generous there I believe. I've held the Alliance in pretty low regard since they started the war.
A hunter's camp functioning as a bottleneck. Any half-wit general would realize that you HAVE to take that bottleneck.
You know the thing about war? People die. It is not about sparkly heroes and bravery and and the valiant charge and and that crap. It's about killing people. We honor our soldiers because they are capable of putting up with the most horrible environment on the face of the planet, and succeed. He does the fighting when some politician couldn't shut their bloody trap, and fixes the wrongs of someone else. But in the end, war is about killing people, and enforcing your will upon someone who didn't want it, reasons are reasons, be it you wanted to, or if you didn't they would enforce their will on you. And call me what you want, my family>your family as far as I am concerned. I will do what I must, and if society wants to blame me for it later, then feel free.
As I've pointed out already, he could have gone about the attack in a better manner. The Taurajo Massacre should have never happened. The entire war should never have happened. But the Alliance started it, and here we are today.
Don't lecture me about war. I know about the harsh realities of it. So you're saying its okay for soldiers to go around and butcher innocent civilians? Please elaborate on that, because it really looks like that is what you are saying.
Post by
355559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
4dehorde
No, I'm not going to sit down and nod over your insistence that Taurajo was not a target. Just because you want to to be so does not mean it is, stop warping facts. The sheer blindness and bias you hold on the topic is terrifying, even maddening.
And, no, never mistake that I am saying it's okay. I'm saying it's wrong, and sometimes it must happen. Sometimes there is no choice, and the only option is to be wrong. And I'll take that option. If the US was invaded, I would not sit idle. If a foreign soldier marched into my home, I would fight for it. And if I killed him I would feel guilt because I murdered a man. But I would not delude myself that there was any other option. And if he killed me, he too would be a murderer. And he would be no more or less guilty than I.
Stop trying to justify murder. Stop trying to say 'but in this condition it's okay, or he's a worse person than I, he killed two people, or he's better than I, he didn't actually kill anyone, he just lead a hundred people to their deaths.' Evil is evil. Good is good. There is only how you live with yourself in the end, if you do. No one walks away from conflict innocent.
I'm sorry, but no matter what you say it will not change the fact that Taurajo was a simple civilian town annihilated by the Alliance war machine. I am not warping facts, I am stating the facts. I may be biased, but so are you. Your refusal to admit these simple facts show that.
I disagree very strongly. The wanton slaughter of innocent civilians, men, women, and children, should NEVER happen under any circumstances, despite what you may believe.
I'M trying to justify murder? YOU'RE the one who just said the massacre of civilians MUST happen. Never once have I ever tried to justify murder as you just did.
Post by
355559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
4dehorde
I'm neutral. Everyone seems to know this but you. The alliance are stupid, the horde are stupid, and I hate both. But I'm capable of looking at facts.
You can disagree all you want, you can hide in your bubble of self-righteousness and pretend the world is so nice and pretty and nothing can go wrong. That doesn't change anything. SHOULD does not equal WILL. Sometimes it must happen, and it is ALWAYS wrong when it does. But dead people can't complain.
You defend Southshore as a military camp and one worth attacking. You are justifying war. Are soldier's lives suddenly worth less because they chose to act, rather than let someone defend them? ALL conflict is wrong. Conflict is inevitable. It's human nature. It's human nature to be wrong. Every living human being has the choice to do right or wrong. Yet daily we choose wrong over right. These are the consequences.
It certainly does not look like you are neutral as you claim. Your refusal to admit the Alliance was wrong to conduct a massacre really does not say you are neutral. And I look at the facts every day, but it seems you can't.
Now you're just making things up. I am quite aware of reality, despite the fact that you prefer to see me as deranged as its more convenient for you. Please explain to me, I want to know. Why must the massacre, the outright slaughter, of civilians, even children, happen? Why must it happen? I simply do not see why people who have nothing to do with a war have to die in it. I don't know where you live, but where I come from we don't believe the innocent must die.
I defend the attack on Southshore because it was justified. I am not justifying war as you claim. Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I am justifying the Forsaken's right to defend themselves from Alliance aggression.
Here's the reality about war my friend, soldiers die in it. That cannot be avoided. But civilian deaths? That CAN and SHOULD be avoided no matter what. Despite your warped beliefs, the innocent do not deserve to die.
Post by
355559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Here's the reality about war my friend, soldiers die in it. That cannot be avoided. But civilian deaths? That CAN and SHOULD be avoided no matter what. Despite your warped beliefs, the innocent do not deserve to die.
So it's totally cool that Southshore civilians die, but not Taurajo ones?
And before you spout some crap about Southshore being a military staging port... it wasn't always that way. It used to be a town and was only recently converted, if it was at all. Is it okay for those Alliance citizens to be killed horribly and painfully by a biological weapon? If so, why is it not okay for the Taurajo citizens to have been killed face to face, quickly and with a chance to escape?
Also: Have you ever heard of the word "strategy?" Taurajo is indispensable. It is absolutely important that the Alliance must control the area around Taurajo to effectively corral the Tauren inside Mulgore. Controlling Taurajo would separate a large portion of the Tauren, blocking supply and reinforcement routes. It may be a civilian town, but it was guarded and was strategically important. Thus, it was a target.
And again, before you spout some crap about how it was a "civilian town" and Southshore is a "military town," have you ever looked at wars IRL, which Warcraft wars are based off of? Most battles in WWII, for example, took place in towns and cities, which were ALL CIVILIAN. Both sides fought and bled over these civilian population centers.
Why?
Because they were strategically important. Supply lines and all that. So if you're to claim that ONLY military towns should be invaded...
... well, then get out of Warcraft. This universe clearly isn't for you; since, contrary to your belief, the Horde has raised civilian towns as well.
But it's totally cool, because they're the Horde and you like them. /logic.
Edit:
Also: I defend the attack on Southshore because it was justified. I am not justifying war as you claim. Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I am justifying the Forsaken's right to defend themselves from Alliance aggression.
Riddle me this: why is it Alliance aggression if it was Alliance controlled territory harboring fugitives from FORSAKEN aggressive actions (aka the invasion of Gilneas). That sounds very much like Horde aggression to me. Invasion of a non-hostile and completely neutral power, along with the usage of biological weapons, is about as aggressive as you can get.
Post by
4dehorde
Let me be explicitly clear here. No one deserves to die. No one. Not anyone on the goddam planet. Some people MUST die.
Did I not just say that the alliance AND horde are stupid? They're stupid. Let me restate this. They are STUPID. They are some of the stupidest organizations of all fantasy. They are the single most destructive forces on all of Azeroth, and their blatant stupidity may destroy it for everyone. I. Cannot. Stand. Either.
Soldier's death's can be avoided. We can avoid this by not having wars, and singing cumbayah. Have you ever seen this idea work? No. Yet you think it's okay for the hordeto kill people in southshore. Defending themselves or not, the forsaken are KILLING PEOPLE. Stop dancing around this. Stop pretending there weren't innocents in southshore. The Forsaken scoured that place out of necessity. The alliance burnt taurajo out of necessity. They were almost the exact same target, quite literally. Somehow the horde is on the right side of conflict because it's okay when they kill people. Somehow the alliance is more wrong for doing the exact same thing. They are both EQUALLY wrong. It is a grey and gray conflict, and no amount of finagling little details will change anything. This is the exact portrait Blizzard is trying to display. Neither side is right.
The only truly right answer in this whole bloody story is to stop fighting, to forgive the grievances both sides have acrued over countless years of warfare and learn to live in peace. Both sides refuse to. Both sides are murdering each other. Both sides won't give up the fight for stupid reasons, because the only conclusion can be the complete and total mutual destruction of each other.
If you really are neutral, stop defending the war crimes committed by one side. It's that simple.
I never said it was okay for civilians at Southshore to die or that there weren't innocents in that town. Why do you people insist on seeing what clearly isn't there in my posts? I know the Forsaken are killing Alliance. It's understandable. I'd try to fight against an aggressor trying to genocide my entire people too. Even if the Alliance had reason to attack Taurajo, they did not have to specifically target civilians like they did.
Taurajo and Southshore are only somewhat equal at best. Both towns had a large civilian population and both had strategic value. However, one had a strong military presence and was used by the military. The other was not. One was mostly evacuated before the attack. The other wasn't.
Here's the reality about war my friend, soldiers die in it. That cannot be avoided. But civilian deaths? That CAN and SHOULD be avoided no matter what. Despite your warped beliefs, the innocent do not deserve to die.
So it's totally cool that Southshore civilians die, but not Taurajo ones?
And before you spout some crap about Southshore being a military staging port... it wasn't always that way. It used to be a town and was only recently converted, if it was at all. Is it okay for those Alliance citizens to be killed horribly and painfully by a biological weapon? If so, why is it not okay for the Taurajo citizens to have been killed face to face, quickly and with a chance to escape?
Also: Have you ever heard of the word "strategy?" Taurajo is indispensable. It is absolutely important that the Alliance must control the area around Taurajo to effectively corral the Tauren inside Mulgore. Controlling Taurajo would separate a large portion of the Tauren, blocking supply and reinforcement routes. It may be a civilian town, but it was guarded and was strategically important. Thus, it was a target.
And again, before you spout some crap about how it was a "civilian town" and Southshore is a "military town," have you ever looked at wars IRL, which Warcraft wars are based off of? Most battles in WWII, for example, took place in towns and cities, which were ALL CIVILIAN. Both sides fought and bled over these civilian population centers.
Why?
Because they were strategically important. Supply lines and all that. So if you're to claim that ONLY military towns should be invaded...
... well, then get out of Warcraft. This universe clearly isn't for you; since, contrary to your belief, the Horde has raised civilian towns as well.
But it's totally cool, because they're the Horde and you like them. /logic.
Edit:
Also: I defend the attack on Southshore because it was justified. I am not justifying war as you claim. Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I am justifying the Forsaken's right to defend themselves from Alliance aggression.
Riddle me this: why is it Alliance aggression if it was Alliance controlled territory harboring fugitives from FORSAKEN aggressive actions (aka the invasion of Gilneas). That sounds very much like Horde aggression to me. Invasion of a non-hostile and completely neutral power, along with the usage of biological weapons, is about as aggressive as you can get.
I am growing tired of people ignoring me and putting words in my mouth. I have said over and over that the civilian deaths at Southshore were wrong. I never once said it was okay, so please cut the crap. And it was ALWAYS a military staging ground and supply port. Ever since vanilla, and there simply is no denying that.
You're talking to a historian pal. I know all about military tactics and strategy. And you say I beat the dead horse. How many times am I going to have to repeat myself? Even if the Alliance had reason to attack Taurajo, they did not have to go about it the way that they did. Outright massacre and the specific targeting of civilians is never okay under any circumstances, and that is just what the Alliance did at Taurajo.
You have the nerve to tell me to leave Warcraft and that it is not for me? Careful pal, you're dripping arrogance. Sorry, but I will always believe massacring civilians is wrong, even in wartime. I will not abandon these games just because I have more morals than you guys. And again you put more words in my mouth. I have admitted the Horde's wrongdoings, but I am trying to convince you Alliance fans to swallow your pride and admit your side has done wrong as well. I have yet to meet a single Alliance fan who admits their side does wrong.
I don't know how long you've played Warcraft games, or how much you know of the actual Lore, but the war in Lordaeron started long before the Invasion of Gilneas. Alliance forces had been hampering the Forsaken for years and countless lives were lost on both sides before the Alliance officially declared war on the Horde before Cataclysm. In all honesty I enjoy doing the Forsaken Cataclysm quests. The Forsaken are finally pushing back against the Alliance, and its long overdue.
I must ask if you guys are to keep this up, I must insist you stop putting words in my mouth, twisting my words, or simply making assumptions. Yes, I am Horde biased and damn proud of it too. But I am not blind to the fact both sides do good and evil. I am not trying to say the Horde and the Forsaken are the good guys in this war, I am trying to get you guys to realize and admit that the Alliance is not so nice either.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.