Alliance Major War Crime is Discrimination!

[Deleted]

Attempt 1: to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect <attempted to swim the swollen river>

Jaina attempted genocide and murder. Thrall was plenty match enough to stop her empowered tsunami. He chose not to fight her.

Jaina attempted murder, that is all.

[Aquamonkey]

Nor does that make you guilty of attempted robbery.

It does if you already broke into the store, knocked out the guard, and smashed open the case. Just because you changed you mind and walked out without the item, doesn't mean you didn't attempt the robbery.

[Deleted]

Nor does that make you guilty of attempted robbery.

Precisely. We don't condemn people based on ideas, but on acts.

[Aquamonkey]

Jaina attempted murder, that is all.

Jaina went through considerable effort to summon that tsunami against Orgrimmar for purposes of genocide. She very much attempted genocide.

[apepi]

Ok so heres the Orcs story, and why the Alliance want to destroy them.

An Alien race comes through a dimensional portal opened by a lunatic. This race is large, brutish and armed to the teeth, the first thing they do? Is it speak to the natives? Request to see their leader? Nope, its to slaughter them, killing thousands of humans and threatening the entire species. The aim wasn't to beat back the humans, it was to destroy them. The humans fought back and won against this Alien species, who they then enslaved. Yes, slavery is bad, however they didn't genocide the entire species, as the aliens had planned to.

So what happens next? Well the Aliens are freed from slavery, and then start looking for a new homeland on this new planet, going so far as to claim it as their RIGHT to land on the planet. Despite the fact that they were the invaders, with no claim to the land they were invading whatsoever. The humans, having lost their alien slaves, now resolve to kill them off, worried that if they don't, they'll come back in full force. Which they do, with allies.

Speaking of which, the allies the aliens take on have some interesting ideas concerning their right to land. The Tauren commit genocide against Centaurs, the Orcs and Trolls slaughter Quillboars for their land, the Forsaken betray the humans they were allied with to take over Lordaeron. Surprisingly, only the Blood Elves and Goblins didn't oust an entire race from the land they took.

But going back to the Orcs looking for land, they go to Kalimdor, the Night Elven lands. Start cutting down every tree in sight as though they have a right to, which pisses off the Night Elves. The Night Elves fight back against the invaders, only for the invaders to kill their demigod and wonder "Why are these people attacking us? What'd we do?". The orcs then settle themselves in Quillboar land, call it "Durotar" after their leaders dad, and then start planning on how to take more land that is "rightfully theirs".

All the while though, the Alliance are the bad guys because "Slavery is bad and they shouldn't discriminate."

So many things to correct. First of all the crazy man who opened the portal saved your ass. If he did not open the portal the burning legion would have wiped the floor with you. The Centaurs were committing genocide of taurens, not the other way around. The humans betrayed the undead and not the other way around. If you don't think goblins oust anybody you got another thing coming. They will oust anyone as long as they can get money out of it. The horde helped fight of the burning crusade, it is as much theirs as it is yours now. Learn how to share.

[Deleted]

It does if you already broke into the store, knocked out the guard, and smashed open the case. Just because you changed you mind and walked out without the item, doesn't mean you didn't attempt the robbery.

Yes, it does mean. It's how it works.

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 03:42 AM ----------

Jaina went through considerable effort to summon that tsunami against Orgrimmar for purposes of genocide. She very much attempted genocide.

Yet, she didn't do it. Meaning the "attempt" word is utterly wrong. She thought until the last minute.

Again, we don't condemn people based on thoughts and ideas.

[delus]

Jaina went through considerable effort to summon that tsunami against Orgrimmar for purposes of genocide. She very much attempted genocide.

So what? So she went through a lot of effort to attempt the crime but chose not to attempt the crime.

[Aquamonkey]

Yes, it does mean. It's how it works.

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 03:42 AM ----------



Yet, she didn't do it. Meaning the "attempt" word is utterly wrong.

Attempt 1: to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect <attempted to swim the swollen river>

Words don't change meaning just because you don't like the implication. Jaina made an effort to commit genocide. Therefore, Jaina attempted genocide.

---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 07:45 PM ----------

Jaina attempted murder, that is all.

Your hypocrisy is so glaringly obvious. How can she be guilty of attempted murder but not genocide? Kalec talked her out of both actions.

[delus]

It does if you already broke into the store, knocked out the guard, and smashed open the case. Just because you changed you mind and walked out without the item, doesn't mean you didn't attempt the robbery.

No, that makes you guilty of assault and vandalism.

[Deleted]

Attempt 1: to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect <attempted to swim the swollen river>

Words don't change meaning just because you don't like the implication. Jaina made an effort to commit genocide. Therefore, Jaina attempted genocide.

Words have context, the context that you are clearly ignoring for argument sake, because "accomplish, solve, or effect" pretty much show what it means.

She stopped. Her "effort" ended. She can't be condemn for an action that she didn't finished.

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 03:50 AM ----------

Your hypocrisy is so glaringly obvious. How can she be guilty of attempted murder but not genocide? Kalec talked her out of both actions.

Do you even know the difference between acting and not acting? She DID assaulted Thrall, she DIDN'T release the Tsunami.

[Aquamonkey]

Words have context, the context that you are clearly ignoring for argument sake, because "accomplish, solve, or effect" pretty much show what it means.

She stopped. Her "effort" ended. She can't be condemn for an action that she didn't finished.

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 03:50 AM ----------



Do you even know the difference between acting and not acting? She DID assaulted Thrall, she DIDN'T release the Tsunami.

She did release the tsunami. Thrall held it back with air spirits.

Attempt crimes are crimes where the defendant's actions have the form of the actual enaction of the crime itself: the actions must go beyond mere preparation.

[Deleted]

Attempt crimes are crimes where the defendant's actions have the form of the actual enaction of the crime itself: the actions must go beyond mere preparation.

Read the Abandonment part, which you chosen to ignore again.

[delus]

She did release the Tsunami. Thrall held it back with air spirits.

Attempt crimes are crimes where the defendant's actions have the form of the actual enaction of the crime itself: the actions must go beyond mere preparation.

That actually proves that she didn't attempt the crime.

[Aquamonkey]

Read the Abandonment part, which you chosen to ignore again.

Maybe you should read that part.

Abandonment can also be a defense to either element (mens rea or actus reus) of attempt, if the defendant "walks away" from the crime.

However, many jurisdictions do not recognize abandonment. Courts that do recognize this defense generally apply it only where the defendant completely and voluntarily renounces any criminal purpose (Understanding Criminal Law, J. Dressler, 2006). However, the abandonment is not complete and voluntary where the defendant desists from criminal efforts due to unexpected resistance (e.g., from victims), the discovery of the absence of an instrumentality needed for the completion of the offense, or other circumstances that increase the probability of arrest, or decrease the probability of successful completion of the crime (e.g. proximate arrival of police). Abandonment is also invalid where the defendant simply postpones the criminal plan until another time.

Under the Model Penal Code, the defendant is not guilty of an attempt if they (1) abandon the effort to commit the crime or prevent the crime from being committed, and (2) their behavior manifests a complete and voluntary renunciation of the criminal purpose (MPC § 5.01(4)). However, the renunciation not complete if motivated in whole or part by one of the following:

They postpone the criminal conduct to a more advantageous time, or to transfer the criminal effort to another but similar objective or victim.
They are merely reacting to circumstances that increase the probability of detection or apprehension.
They are reacting to a change in circumstances that makes the crime harder to commit.

Thrall and Kalec showing up make abandonment no longer a valid defense.

[Herrenos]

By the time attitudes about the undead had changed enough that DKs could be accepted into the Alliance, any bridges between the Alliance and the Forsaken had been long burned. There's probably not any reason that an undead of free will not raised by a Sylvannas nor loyal to the horde before the death of Arthas could be taken into the Alliance now from a lore standpoint. It's just a game mechanic that all playable Forsaken are either one or the other.

Also wiping out an enemy city =/= genocide. If it was, then the mana bomb on Theramore was actual genocide.

[Deleted]

Maybe you should read that part.


Thrall and Kalec showing up make abandonment no longer a valid defense.

Read the ALL of the "Model Penal Code". Stop picking up just parts that makes your "argument".

Thrall failed to stop her, Kalec simply talked her out. She abandon, by herself, the effort to commit the crime. All she can be accused is of attempted murder.

Anyway, this is pointless, we will keep talking in circles.

[Whidbey]

I honestly thought Dk's were dead , but got their souls back when frostmourne shattered. Corpses but ones with souls, not unlike sylvanas. Forsaken have no souls apparently as they are just rezzed corpses.

[delus]

Maybe you should read that part.


Thrall and Kalec showing up make abandonment no longer a valid defense.

They do talk her into abandonment. Thrall and kalec were not able to stop her. They convince her not to out of her own free will. And since we are talking about free will, may I remind you that she was still under the effects of the mana bomb?

[Aquamonkey]

Read the ALL of the "Model Penal Code". Stop picking up just parts that makes your "argument".

Thrall failed to stop her, Kalec simply talked her out. She abandon, by herself, the effort to commit the crime. All she can be accused is of attempted murder.

Anyway, this is pointless, we will keep talking in circles.

Especially when you offer no direct evidence. All you are doing is "look at this". You are not showing the evidence or describing how it supports your side. I'm not going to research your arguments for you.

---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 08:07 PM ----------

They do talk her into abandonment. Thrall and kalec were not able to stop her. They convince her not to out of her own free will. And since we are talking about free will, may I remind you that she was still under the effects of the mana bomb?

So when an armed robber is talked down by the police, that's completely fine? No harm, no foul?

[delus]

Jaina was guilty of theft from the blue dragonflight and Dalaran. That is all.