Is it a Genocide? Lets settle this.

[OIS]

Who came up with the word genocide in Azeroth? IRL it's a made up word because some guy wanted to name... you know, genocides. Its use in Warcraft is relatively recent if memory serves me right, it was first used in War Crimes by a night elf(Tyrande), now this. I don't recall anything being called explicitly a genocide before. The game didn't call orcs burning Stormwind or the Scourge killing high elves a genocide, for instance. So why are we now using this word all of a sudden?

[Enkrypt]

It was genocide.

She is Lich Queen.

She is undoubtedly evil.

She has an ulterior motive. (Hopefully.)

And it's all exactly the way it should be.

[Aleksej89]

It only matters what you do/did, not what you intended or wanted.

From the point of our IRL modern justice views then Sylvanas and the Horde commited many crimes and atrocities and genocide during BFA start.

But in the warcraft universe all those are highly subjective in terms of who gives a sh*t about other people and who views civilians/innocents as fair targets.

[Deleted]

Who came up with the word genocide in Azeroth? IRL it's a made up word because some guy wanted to name... you know, genocides. Its use in Warcraft is relatively recent if memory serves me right, it was first used in War Crimes by a night elf(Tyrande), now this. I don't recall anything being called explicitly a genocide before. The game didn't call orcs burning Stormwind or the Scourge killing high elves a genocide, for instance. So why are we now using this word all of a sudden?

because writers started to project our 2018 modern world social justice views into a video game.

[Malikath]

It was genocide.

She is Lich Queen.

She is undoubtedly evil.

She has an ulterior motive. (Hopefully.)

And it's all exactly the way it should be.

yeah, it's called ending all life.
we've had several mentions of this since vanilla, which since her intent is to eventually kill all night elves, in addition to every other living race and being(this is why she says even elune would oppose her), it makes this a genocide along side the actions at gilneas, andorhol, southshore, and her dreamed of conquering of stormwind.
because in the intent to end all life is several full genocides against several races.

[Smoe]

I know it's pointless posting here, but work is slow and I need to kill some time. There are (Were) 8 zones within the Night Elf Sphere of influence. They are (Were) as follows: Darnassus, Dark Shore, Ashenvale, Felwood, Moonglade, Mt. Hyjal, Faralas, and Val'Shara.

Of those, Faralas and Felwood are contested territory and are military installation and relief operations respectively and Val'Shara, Mt. Hyjal, and Moonglade, belong to the Cenarian Circle and only house druids resting in the barrow dens while they do their work in the Emerald Dream and focus relief operations elsewhere (Felwood).

That leaves Darnassus, Dark Shore, and Ashenvale as the actual residential zones of the Night Elf Empire (not counting the druid barrow dens in Moonglade, Hyjal, and Val'Shara (If you would even count those)). The War of Thorns sees the Horde burn and slaughter every elf they encounter throughout all residential zones. This effectively ends the Night Elf civilization.

TL;DR Horde torched every civilian zone the Night Elves had and slaughtered them wholesale effectively ending Night Elf civilization. This is considered genocide.

[Ielenia]

Could be, but if literally no one listened to her it's not like she would have killed them all.

She wouldn't have to kill them all. Just a few to show as example of the price for insubordination.

The horde is supposed to be about honour

Actually, only the orcs are about "honor". Not even the tauren share the same drive toward 'honor' as the orcs.

[Mehrunes]

So there is a lot of talk in Sylvanas threads about War of Thorns being a genocide or not in the end.

First lets have some sources on what is a Genocide:
Wikipedia
Urban Dictionary
UN site

So i would start ba saying that the original attack or the original intent clearly was not a genocide, she wanted to kill a symbol - Malfurion,
And capture the the world tree, which isnt merely a city, it is a whole country, homeland to Night Elves as Tyrande said in Elegy i think most of Night Elven population was locaten on Teldrassil.

I would personally take the UN definition as most accurate, so lets look at what UN has to say about this:

There are two partr, the definition and the elements of the crime itself:
Definition:


Elements of the Crime:


So lets break this down:

Mental element - The Intent, many argue that its not personal and that it could be any other race if they were in Darnassus, no. Intent of Sylvanas is to destroy "atleast" in part Alliance, plain and simple, she even actively intends to genocide Stormwind and raise the whole population. And honestly because genocide applies as destroying even a part of a group, there cant be discussion to be had about the intent of the genocide, even if that was a means to the end. You can even have "peaceful" genocide as seen above,

The Physical element:

She killed alot of people on massive scale,
It was systematic destruction, wasnt accidental, not being part of original plan doesnt make it non systematic:
Definition:

While unplaned, she as a responsible leader of a force consensually gave order to destroy the country/world tree.
The order was then systematicaly executed by the Army, with the intent of destruction,
Everyone knew what they were doing, nothing much to be said here.

And frankly as seen above in physical elements it doesnt even have to be systematic destruction or extermination

Genocide does not have to be as systematic as holocaust, done in concentration camps, nuking or bombing lets say Prague to ash, because the city defenders wouldnt give up after you failed to assassinate the president for example, would be genocide.
Even if your end goal isnt extermination and just subjugation or annexation and you sentence alot of people to death just so enemy surrenders is still a genocide in my understanding of UN definition.

So i guess Sylvanas did commit a genocide

It'd be nice if you could actually understand your own sources. The bolded part is you making a clear cut on how it's not a genocide. Because the Alliance is not a "a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". It's a political group. And if you could bother to read your own sources (both the wiki and UN site mention it), political groups are exempt from it.

Secondly, the intent to destroy must be direct intent, not accidental or indirect. You yourself pointed out how the initial intent of War of Thorns was not genocide, because her intent was to capture the city and to kill a symbol. The latter was to break Alliance spirit. Since Malfurion survived, she needed to break the Alliance spirit in another way and settled on burning of Teldrassil, A Good War makes that clear. Ergo, the direct intent of burning of Teldrassil was also breaking the Alliance spirit, which you yourself argued was not genocidal.

Thirdly, we not only do not know how many she actually killed, but we also don't know how much of the whole did she kill. And, again, if you could bother reading your own sources, you'd know there are specific criteria the "part" must meet. Like the part that died being so significant the survival of the whole is at risk. Without knowing that data, it's impossible to prove genocide with that. And there are sources indicating Night Elves are going to survive just fine.

There is nothing to discuss. The writers outright stated in the short-novel Elegy that Sylvanas Windrunner committed genocide. It was not a biased in-universe character who made that statement, it was the 3rd person omniscient narrator.

Except it wasn't. The context of that part of Elegy makes it clearly a part of Anduin's thoughts on Sylvanas. Alas, context is hard. And even if it wasn't the case, Blizzard doesn't get to reinvent language.

Were most of the casualties civilian? Yes. (Delaryn informed Sylvanas that the only people left on Teldrassil at the time of burning were civilians)
Was it intentional? Yes. (Not at the outset of the war, but after her conversation with Delaryn, Sylvanas intentionally burned a world-tree she knew was full of civilians simply to prove her wrong)

Whether the people killed are civilians or not matters nothing for genocide. Secondly, the direct intent behind burning the tree was to break Alliance spirit and lower their morale in the following Battle for Lordaeron. That's Sylvanas' explicit statement to Saurfang.

Did the third-person omniscient narrative explicitly call it genocide? Yes.

Except it didn't. That part of Elegy is Anduin's thoughts. The statement that "Sylvanas has committed genocide" is instantly followed by "Anduin has thought X and Y about Sylvanas, but he didn't expect her to do 'this'" with "this" clearly referring to the aforementioned statement about genocide, making it a part of his thoughts.

I'm honestly impressed at the straws people will grasp at so they don't have to acknowledge that their faction leader is a genocidal maniac, who was directly compared to Arthas by the narration, whose actions were directly compared to Arthas's genocide of the high elves (for similarly-petty reasons, as both were carried out in the heat of the moment after an elven commander sassed the invading undead overlord). This is not just something Blizzard's writers tossed in. Even in a story as hackneyed and pulpy as Warcraft's, narrative allusions are done for a reason; Blizzard is doing everything it can shy of putting a flashing neon sign over her head and giving you a raid warning every time she's on screen telling you she's on the same moral complexity as Snidely Whiplash.

TIL proper usage of language is "grasping at straws". Alternatively, people hyperbolizing the event (with their blatant ignorance and misreading of the definition of what genocide is) are the one's grasping at straws.

pssttt do not tell the horde this...they have like 10 threads about it not being one...even though the things they do is the very definition of it.

Only if one has problem understanding said definition. The OP argues against the burning of Teldrassil being a genocide by the way. They outline that it needs to be an act against a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, yet they argued that Sylvanas' intent was to"destroy "atleast" in part Alliance". Lo and behold, Alliance is not a national, racial or relogious group. It's a political one. Which is exempt from the definition the OP linked. Which is stated black on white in two of the sources OP provided.

No, it doesn't. Genocide requires you to conciously bring about the destruction of a people. Intent, as you quote it, is to be taken by its leagal meaning of the word: "The decision to bring about a prohibited consequence." If you'd want to go by exclusion, intent means it didn't happen by accident, nor did it happen due to neglect.

Since we can all agree that there was intent, now we check the act.

For any criminal incident to qualify as genocide, going by international law,

First of all, congrats on outright ignoring the "a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" part of the definition. Which isn't met, because Sylvanas started the war to weaken the Alliance, i.e. a political group, and then burned the tree to break their spirit.

Secondly, if only there were different types of intent and if only genocide required specifically direct intent... Oh, wait, there are and it does. And as has been outlined above, the direct intent was to break the Alliance.

Now, we can rule out (c), (d) and (e). None of that happened. But (a) and (b), sure.

No, she deliberatly destroyed the World Tree for the sake if its destruction. She accepted the death of the civilian population as an inevitable outcome. She had multiple options at her disposal to prevent that. She could have informed the Alliance of her intention to burn the tree, giving them a brief window to evactuate remaining civilians from the tree. Make it a crisp period, lets say 24 - 48 hours, to make sure the Alliance has no means to assamble a relief force. She could have sent in Horde personnel to force civilians out of the city, taking them as hostage for ransom, releasing them into the care of the Draenai, putting them on the freshly arrived Night Elven Fleet.

And here you're even pointing out as to why the death of the population wasn't the direct intent behind the burning. Secondly, you're still ignoring the part about what groups. And before you make the predictable reply about "welp, Night Elves are a racial group and they died", them belonging to that race must have been a reason for them being attacked, which 1. you'd know if you read the rest of the article and 2. wasn't the case here because the reason was still the Alliance bit.

[baskev]

Only if one has problem understanding said definition. The OP argues against the burning of Teldrassil being a genocide by the way. They outline that it needs to be an act against a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, yet they argued that Sylvanas' intent was to"destroy "atleast" in part Alliance". Lo and behold, Alliance is not a national, racial or relogious group. It's a political one. Which is exempt from the definition the OP linked. Which is stated black on white in two of the sources OP provided.

night elf is a race. Japan is in NATO. If china nukes them ( the whole of japan) and 99% of the japansese people die its not genocide because they are in NATO. This is your argument...
The status of country/race/etc does not matter. War, peacetime, part of a group. If the target is to wipe out a single or multiple national, ethnical,racial or religious group. Its genocide.

Read up on what the definition is. Genocide is a targeted attempt to destroy,wipe, kill a national, ethnical,racial or religious group.
What her plan was does not matter. The action she takes makes it a genocide. She chose in a fit of rage/revenge on a remark of a dying elf to burn down a whole tree with a extremly large protion of the people of 1 race in it.


some reading:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-11108059

https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2009-...42/354521.html
the intent to destroy – in whole or in part – an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group as such.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...re-key-factors

[Skulltaker]

It'd be nice if you could actually understand your own sources. The bolded part is you making a clear cut on how it's not a genocide. Because the Alliance is not a "a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". It's a political group. And if you could bother to read your own sources (both the wiki and UN site mention it), political groups are exempt from it.

Secondly, the intent to destroy must be direct intent, not accidental or indirect. You yourself pointed out how the initial intent of War of Thorns was not genocide, because her intent was to capture the city and to kill a symbol. The latter was to break Alliance spirit. Since Malfurion survived, she needed to break the Alliance spirit in another way and settled on burning of Teldrassil, A Good War makes that clear. Ergo, the direct intent of burning of Teldrassil was also breaking the Alliance spirit, which you yourself argued was not genocidal.

Thirdly, we not only do not know how many she actually killed, but we also don't know how much of the whole did she kill. And, again, if you could bother reading your own sources, you'd know there are specific criteria the "part" must meet. Like the part that died being so significant the survival of the whole is at risk. Without knowing that data, it's impossible to prove genocide with that. And there are sources indicating Night Elves are going to survive just fine.

Except it wasn't. The context of that part of Elegy makes it clearly a part of Anduin's thoughts on Sylvanas. Alas, context is hard. And even if it wasn't the case, Blizzard doesn't get to reinvent language.

Whether the people killed are civilians or not matters nothing for genocide. Secondly, the direct intent behind burning the tree was to break Alliance spirit and lower their morale in the following Battle for Lordaeron. That's Sylvanas' explicit statement to Saurfang.

Except it didn't. That part of Elegy is Anduin's thoughts. The statement that "Sylvanas has committed genocide" is instantly followed by "Anduin has thought X and Y about Sylvanas, but he didn't expect her to do 'this'" with "this" clearly referring to the aforementioned statement about genocide, making it a part of his thoughts.


TIL proper usage of language is "grasping at straws". Alternatively, people hyperbolizing the event (with their blatant ignorance and misreading of the definition of what genocide is) are the one's grasping at straws.


Only if one has problem understanding said definition. The OP argues against the burning of Teldrassil being a genocide by the way. They outline that it needs to be an act against a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, yet they argued that Sylvanas' intent was to"destroy "atleast" in part Alliance". Lo and behold, Alliance is not a national, racial or relogious group. It's a political one. Which is exempt from the definition the OP linked. Which is stated black on white in two of the sources OP provided.

Talk about grasping at straws there, buddy. You could fill a barn with straw at this point. It can cover up all of your bullshit, too!

In regards of genocide, 'intent' is used in the legal meaning of the word. In case you don't know what that means: "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence." IT stands opposite to neglect and accident. She is acting intentionally. And the Alliance is composed of ethnical and/or natinal groups. So, aiming to destroy the people of the Alliance is multiple counts of genocide. If she proceded, she'd be tried and found guilty on the charges of genocide against the gnomes, the humans of stormwind, the Night Elves, and so on. Being part of a political group doesn't stop you from being part of any other group. If that was the case, there'd never have been an American President (unless there was one who wasn't a member of a party, that is.) The paragraph of political groups being exempt is mostly due to the fact Russia didn't want to be prosecuted for their killings of political enemies, they vetoed respective additions to the bill.

Second, no, it doesn't. If you bring by the unnecessary and avoidable destruction of a people outside of combat action, you'll probably go on trial for genocide. There are, for example, historians who make a case for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being genocides. And, as for paragraph (b) of the UN resolution, the willful cause of mental damage to a people, or as you put it, 'crushing their spirit', also constitutes genocide. And the same goal could have been achieved if she had allowed the citizens of Darnassus to evacuate.

Thirdly, it doesn't matter how many she kills. You can commit genocide without killing a single individual. I know it seems counterintuitive due to the name, but the crime of genocide also applies for hindering a people to procreate. If you'd conquer a town and sterilize all its inhabitants, that is genocide too. The survival of the entire race has exactly 0 bearing on the crime. You pulled that one right of ouf your ass.

It also doesn't matter whan Anduin thinks. He IS right in thinking it so. Of the five possible acts that constitute genocide, Sylvanas is guilty of two.

It does matter if they are civilians. And as I've said; Brekaing their spirit also constitutes genocide.

So far, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to make a defense as to why it ISN'T genocide, while more then enough proof has been presented to you. And from what is obvious, you're the one who doesn't understand the definition of genocide. Here it is again:

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Guilty on points (a) and (b). All three of these could have easily be prevented. You can keep on pretending she was forced - she wasn't. Of course, she provides a cock and bull story as to why she actually was, like every single genocidal psychopath has, so far, in the history of ever, and of course, there are gullible fools who swallow it hook, line and sinker. But the truth is: She could have turned back at any given point. But she didn't. She was fully aware of what would happen when she put the torch to Teldrassil. All of its citizens would die. That is the direct consequence of her action. And that constitutes genocide.

[Polarthief]

Here's the easiest way I can think of to say if it's a genocide or not. Think of the Holocaust. Would you consider that a genocide even though the types of people targeted are still alive and existing?

Well, with Azeroth being a significantly smaller planet than Earth, it'd essentially be the same as nuking the entirety of a country (not a city, a country). Imagine literally all of the US being obliterated. You'd still have Caucasian-Americans still existing outside the country, they would still continue to breed and make Caucasian-non-Americans (since in our world, it depends on your family tree AND location of birth), but the country would be gone. Night Elves and Teldrassil are the same. It's not like every single Night Elf is dead, but their capital (country) is gone.

Again, if you consider the Holocaust or any other mass murdering event such as that as a genocide, you MUST consider the burning of Teldrassil (which IMO may actually be worse in a Real World to Game Lore comparison) to also be a genocide.

[Skulltaker]

First of all, congrats on outright ignoring the "a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" part of the definition. Which isn't met, because Sylvanas started the war to weaken the Alliance, i.e. a political group, and then burned the tree to break their spirit.

Secondly, if only there were different types of intent and if only genocide required specifically direct intent... Oh, wait, there are and it does. And as has been outlined above, the direct intent was to break the Alliance.

And here you're even pointing out as to why the death of the population wasn't the direct intent behind the burning. Secondly, you're still ignoring the part about what groups. And before you make the predictable reply about "welp, Night Elves are a racial group and they died", them belonging to that race must have been a reason for them being attacked, which 1. you'd know if you read the rest of the article and 2. wasn't the case here because the reason was still the Alliance bit.

So, by your bullshit, the members of NATO aren't people, and as thus not subjected to genocide, ever? I'll tell Russia. They will be happy to hear it. "No, no, us nuking the entirety of Europe wasn't genocide. See, Boris and I just wanted to destroy capitalist fortress! Intent was to bring victory for Mother Russia!"

This argument is dumb even by this forums standards, and even by yours. I've seen you post a lot of dumb shit but this actually takes the cake. Just because you're part of an Alliance you don't stop being part of an ethnical group. And if you destroy part of said alliance, depending on the cricumstances, you commit genocide.

Even if they are a member of the Alliance, the Night Elves remain Night Elves. Destroy them, and you commit genocide. Seriously, how desperate are you?

Secondly, oh wait, it doesn't. You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Intent means a deliberate action. The killing of the Night elves was neither an accident, nor was it neglect. Which, by law, leaves only intent. If you set out on a fishing trip to the Philipines and end up butchering a tribe there in the process, that is still genocide.

'Direct intent', that one is cute. As if one can only have one. The 'act' in question is the burning of the tree. The people dying is a result. She intended to burn the tree? The people died. Simple as that. If she DIDN'T intend for them to die, she hand't burned the tree, of given them time to escape. But she didn't do any of that. She commited genocide. Simple as that. Them being a part of the race isn't a prerequisite of the crime being genocide.

[Izalla]

She wouldn't have to kill them all. Just a few to show as example of the price for insubordination.


Actually, only the orcs are about "honor". Not even the tauren share the same drive toward 'honor' as the orcs.

Hasn't stopped Blizz from pushing that, storywise. With the orcs in charge, making up most of the population (tauren were being wiped out and trolls were a small tribe that was under attack), they were what set the groundwork and ideals for the horde. And Thrall intended the horde as a whole to maintain honour. The whole thing originally was basically other groups joining the orcs, not a bunch of groups coming together on equal footing to create something new. Hell they still even called themselves "The Horde".

Also my point is more that the morally right thing to do would have been not to listen to her, regardless of what she does to you for it. "Just following orders" doesn't absolve you. And Judging by how many orcs and goblins were following Garrosh even when we had turned against him, you know full well that there were plenty of people involved in the attack that gave absolutely no shit about the tree or civilians on it, and had no qualms about participating.

[FelPlague]

-snip-

Where massive amounts of civilians killed? Check
Where they killed because of their specific political party or race? Check
Where they killed without mercy? Check

Yes genocide in every single way.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

That's an interesting phenomenon I have noticed myself too. These Alliance posters want to be as bad, if not worse than, as the Horde they claim to be. It's telling that they don't hate the crime, but having it acted upon them. Ironically they would claim moral high ground at the same time.

the alliance is objectively better then the horde there is a reason only one side goes around mass murdering civs.

[Mehrunes]

night elf is a race. Japan is in NATO. If china nukes them ( the whole of japan) and 99% of the japansese people die its not genocide because they are in NATO. This is your argument...

It'd be nice if you could reply to what I actually posted instead of your wonderful fantasies. If China nuked Japan because of their status in NATO, it wouldn't be genocide. That is my argument. Because that's what the definition says. If they were targeted because they were Japanese, it would be. Got it, or do I need to explain more slowly?

The status of country/race/etc does not matter. War, peacetime, part of a group. If the target is to wipe out a single or multiple national, ethnical,racial or religious group. Its genocide.

Which is why I said nothing about a war or peace status. And yes, if the target is to wipe out a national, ethnic, racial or religious group it's genocide. It is exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how exactly do you think this is supposed to work as a counterargument.

Alliance does not meet any of these criteria. It's a political entity. Teldrassil being Alliance is why it was targeted. Again, this isn't even remotely complicated.


Read up on what the definition is. Genocide is a targeted attempt to destroy,wipe, kill a national, ethnical,racial or religious group.
What her plan was does not matter. The action she takes makes it a genocide. She chose in a fit of rage/revenge on a remark of a dying elf to burn down a whole tree with a extremly large protion of the people of 1 race in it.

some reading:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-11108059

https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2009-...42/354521.html
the intent to destroy – in whole or in part – an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group as such.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...re-key-factors

Again, I'm not sure why do you think replying what I said is supposed to work as a counterargument. Sorry to break your bubble, but it doesn't.

Where massive amounts of civilians killed? Check
Where they killed because of their specific political party or race? Check
Where they killed without mercy? Check

Yes genocide in every single way.

Neither lack of mercy nor civilian status are actually elements of genocide. Massive amount is unspecified since we lack the details. Political status is exempt from it as well. Your "every single way" seems to be a road to nowhere in actuality.

Talk about grasping at straws there, buddy. You could fill a barn with straw at this point. It can cover up all of your bullshit, too!

In regards of genocide, 'intent' is used in the legal meaning of the word. In case you don't know what that means: "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence." IT stands opposite to neglect and accident. She is acting intentionally. And the Alliance is composed of ethnical and/or natinal groups. So, aiming to destroy the people of the Alliance is multiple counts of genocide. If she proceded, she'd be tried and found guilty on the charges of genocide against the gnomes, the humans of stormwind, the Night Elves, and so on. Being part of a political group doesn't stop you from being part of any other group. If that was the case, there'd never have been an American President (unless there was one who wasn't a member of a party, that is.) The paragraph of political groups being exempt is mostly due to the fact Russia didn't want to be prosecuted for their killings of political enemies, they vetoed respective additions to the bill.

Given how direct and indirect intent are legal terms and the subtypes of intent in the legal meaning, you trying to humblebrag about knowing what intent means in the legal sense is all sorts of failed. Yes, intent stands in opposition to negligence. So what? Neither indirect intent (dolus indirectus) nor reckless/accidental intent (dolus eventualis) are negligence (culpa). What you said adds nothing to the discussion, let alone works as a counterargument to what I said.

And what the Alliance is composed of matters nothing. A genocide is a crime committed specifically because of the race, nationality, ethnicity or religion of the targeted group.

Every group of people is composed of people of some nationality or ethnicity, because every person belongs to some nationality and ethnicity. By your logic, every crime that results in some harm to any group of people would constitute genocide, because said group "is composed of etnical or national groups". Which would be bizarre and would run contrary to the point of establishing genocide as a separate and specific crime, particularly as a subset of mass murder (which it is often considered to be). Try to actually think your argument through.

But it was separated for a reason and the reason was punishing crimes performed against people specifically because of their nationality, ethnicity, religion or race. That belonging to other groups doesn't mean you stop belonging to a race, nation, religion or ethnicity doesn't change that fact. As such, if a group is targeted specifically because of political affiliaiton it's not genocide. And no, that also doesn't mean those people stop belonging to a nationality, ethnicity, religion or race.

And the reasons why political groups are exempt of it is immaterial to the fact that it is indeed exempt.

Second, no, it doesn't. If you bring by the unnecessary and avoidable destruction of a people outside of combat action, you'll probably go on trial for genocide. There are, for example, historians who make a case for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being genocides. And, as for paragraph (b) of the UN resolution, the willful cause of mental damage to a people, or as you put it, 'crushing their spirit', also constitutes genocide. And the same goal could have been achieved if she had allowed the citizens of Darnassus to evacuate.

But breaking their spirit was a point about intent. It'd be swell if you could avoid mixing separate aspects of genocide. Secondly, lowering enemy morale isn't mental harm. Thirdly, I said breaking Alliance spirit. And Alliance still isn't a race, ethnicity, religion or nation.

Thirdly, it doesn't matter how many she kills. You can commit genocide without killing a single individual. I know it seems counterintuitive due to the name, but the crime of genocide also applies for hindering a people to procreate. If you'd conquer a town and sterilize all its inhabitants, that is genocide too. The survival of the entire race has exactly 0 bearing on the crime. You pulled that one right of ouf your ass.

Another thing that'd be swell would be you reading entire points instead of individual words and phrases and making "counterarguments" to said words of phrases. I said the survival of the whole could be at stake in regards to what the "in part" of the "in whole or in part" part of the definition means. Which I pulled from wikipedia.

The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute].

I'm perfectly aware you can commit genocide without killing anyone. That's completely irrelevant in the context I brought up survival of the whole. Especially since that survival can be at stake even without anyone dying anyway. So your attempt at a counterargument here is a flop from every perspective.

It also doesn't matter whan Anduin thinks. He IS right in thinking it so. Of the five possible acts that constitute genocide, Sylvanas is guilty of two.

Except she didn't target them because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion or race, so no. Nor did she have the direct intent to destroy them. Nor is there proof that it meets the "in whole or in part", because "the part" must meet specific criteria, in regards to which we lack enough info.

It does matter if they are civilians. And as I've said; Brekaing their spirit also constitutes genocide.

And enemy soldiers cannot be broken?

So far, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to make a defense as to why it ISN'T genocide, while more then enough proof has been presented to you. And from what is obvious, you're the one who doesn't understand the definition of genocide. Here it is again:

Right, aside from explaining how the direct intent wasn't to destroy a national, religious, ethnic or racial group in whole or in part, I totally haven't provided a shred of evidence.

Guilty on points (a) and (b). All three of these could have easily be prevented. You can keep on pretending she was forced - she wasn't. Of course, she provides a cock and bull story as to why she actually was, like every single genocidal psychopath has, so far, in the history of ever, and of course, there are gullible fools who swallow it hook, line and sinker. But the truth is: She could have turned back at any given point. But she didn't. She was fully aware of what would happen when she put the torch to Teldrassil. All of its citizens would die. That is the direct consequence of her action. And that constitutes genocide.

Focusing on what actions committed against the group constitute genocide while ignoring what that group may be and that it must be targeted specifically because of being said group isn't an argument.

So, by your bullshit, the members of NATO aren't people, and as thus not subjected to genocide, ever? I'll tell Russia. They will be happy to hear it. "No, no, us nuking the entirety of Europe wasn't genocide. See, Boris and I just wanted to destroy capitalist fortress! Intent was to bring victory for Mother Russia!"

Which part of what I said implies members of NATO aren't people? Point it out specifically.

Since you can't, let me explain you something. If members of NATO are targeted because of their membership in NATO rather than their race, ethnicity, nationality or religion (which they *gasp* still have despite being in NATO), they aren't victims of genocide. Because the definition of genocide excludes a membership in a political group, like NATO, as one of the protected groups. Just like it exludes disabled status, sexuality, gender identity etc. That doesn't mean homosexual people aren't people either :O

This argument is dumb even by this forums standards, and even by yours. I've seen you post a lot of dumb shit but this actually takes the cake. Just because you're part of an Alliance you don't stop being part of an ethnical group. And if you destroy part of said alliance, depending on the cricumstances, you commit genocide.

And just because you are a member of an ethnic group doesn't mean every time you're attacked is because of you belonging to that ethnic group. Again, not complicated. And that is my actual argument, not what you graced the forum with here because of your wondrous reading of my post. And being targeted because of belonging to an ethnic (or religious, national or racial) group is what genocide is about. And yes, destroying a part of the Alliance is genocide depending on circumstances. Those circumstances are (among other things) intending to destroy them because of their race, nationality, religion or ethnicity. Destroying them without a direct intent to do so (because the direct intent was something else in this case) because of their political affiliation does not fall under those circumstances.

Even if they are a member of the Alliance, the Night Elves remain Night Elves. Destroy them, and you commit genocide. Seriously, how desperate are you?

If proper English and basic logic are desperation, I'm that desperate. Yes, Night Elves remain Night Elves despite of their political affiliation. However, that does not mean that if they are targeted because of their political affiliation they are automatically targeted because of their race. I shouldn't really have to explain it, yet here we are. And it's almost as if you didn't have an iota of a clue about what the subtypes of intent are.

Secondly, oh wait, it doesn't. You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Intent means a deliberate action. The killing of the Night elves was neither an accident, nor was it neglect. Which, by law, leaves only intent. If you set out on a fishing trip to the Philipines and end up butchering a tribe there in the process, that is still genocide.

I haven't stated it was accident or neglect, so you're arguing against your straw-men. Neither are types of intent. I'm not how "which by law leaves only intent" was supposed to work as a counterargument to me saying that there are subtypes of intent. Newsflash: direct intent, which is required for genocide, fits the criteria of "leaves only intent". Because it's a type of *gasp* intent. Shocking revelation. It's almost as if it had the word "intent" in its name.

'Direct intent', that one is cute. As if one can only have one. The 'act' in question is the burning of the tree. The people dying is a result. She intended to burn the tree? The people died. Simple as that. If she DIDN'T intend for them to die, she hand't burned the tree, of given them time to escape. But she didn't do any of that. She commited genocide. Simple as that. Them being a part of the race isn't a prerequisite of the crime being genocide.

I'm not sure which type of me saying that there are typos of intent or that genocide requires direct intent implies that one can only have one type of intent in a specific action, but by now I am forced to assume words work differently for you. Yes, one can have multiple types of intent at once. Genocide still requires direct intent. Destruction of Night Elves still wasn't direct intent. It was either recklessness type of intent, or indirect intent (an argument could be made for both). Precisely because Sylvanas exhibited different types of intent in this situation.

[Clone]

the alliance is objectively better then the horde there is a reason only one side goes around mass murdering civs.

Look around on the forums, Alliance wants to do the exact same thing.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Look around on the forums, Alliance want's to do the exact same thing.

I've only seen horde players say any thing of the short. being so far alliance or horde is silly but the alliance is still morally far better then the horde in pretty much every way.

[Feanoro]

The context of that part of Elegy makes it clearly a part of Anduin's thoughts on Sylvanas. Alas, context is hard. And even if it wasn't the case, Blizzard doesn't get to reinvent language.

You heard it here, folks, Blizzard is no longer the authority on the lore that they write and own. Their statements are only canon when new head writer Mehrunes decrees it so.

Man, and I thought we were getting a bad precedent with out of game overriding in game...

[Aucald]

Article 2 of the UN Convention on Genocide (drafted in 1948, enacted in 1951) defines the charge of genocide as any act of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The Kaldorei would definitely qualify as a either an ethnic or a racial group (of the Elven species) of Azeroth. The acts (again, with an eye to destroy, in whole or in part, said group) are defined as:

• Killing members of the group.
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

So with that in mind, let's take the burning of Teldrassil and see if any of its outcomes satisfies one of the acts of the charge:

• Killing members of the group - according to the in-game quest "A Flicker of Hope" there are 982 NPC's to evacuate from Teldrassil, and the quest is designed to be unable to be completed. On average, around 100 NPC's can be feasibly evacuated, which is a 90% loss of life. We know that, as a result of the loss of Teldrassil the Kaldorei people now either are or are dangerously close to being an endangered people. The certainly seems to quality as "an act with the intent of destroying" the Kaldorei.
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group - Sylvanas' question, spoken to the dying Delaryn Summermoon before she gave the order to burn Teldrassil, was a mocking rebuttal to Delaryn's assertion that Sylvanas could not "destroy hope." This heavily implies that Sylvanas' goal in destroying Teldrassil was to destroy their hope, which I think certainly qualifies as an intent to cause mental harm to all members of the group. Bodily harm, of course, is always a product when you are burning the capitol city of a given people.
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part - this is not really in evidence, excepting the notion that she is destroying their home and capitol in the commission of the above.
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group - this is not in evidence.
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group - also not in evidence.

So Sylvanas has satisfied 2 of the 5 main criteria necessary for the charge of genocide, with only 1 of the criteria necessary. By our criminal standards the burning of Teldrassil would be considered a genocidal act.