Is it a Genocide? Lets settle this.

[Aucald]

You don't understand legalese used there.

I'm not a lawyer, no; of course I'm also pretty sure you're not either - my breakdown is more or less a lay individual's take and understanding of the terms of the convention, stripped of its rather specific legalese. This wouldn't be a strictly legal qualification, I know - but of course we're not in a courtroom before a judge or a jury.

Kaldorei qualify as a an ethnic or racial group? And?

Every person belongs to a racial, national, ethnic and religious group because every person belongs to some race, nationality (stateless status also counts), ethnicity and religion (irreligious status also counts).

Except Teldrassil is quite obviously the concentrated home of a single, predominant people - the Kaldorei. Losses of other races or groups in the burning of Teldrassil would be extremely minor because the population of Teldrassil is majority Kaldorei. And it's not the Worgen who are considered endangered from the loss of their home, after all.

As such, according to your wondrous interpretation of the definition you linked:

• Every murder (nay, even every death penalty) is killing members of a racial, national, ethnic and religious groups.
• Every aggravated battery is causing serious bodily harm against members of a racial, national, ethnic and religious groups.
• Every act of torture is causing mental harm to members of a racial, national, ethnic and religious groups.
• Every act of, I dunno, burning crops, is deliberately inflicting on the group conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction of racial, national, ethnic and religious groups (through starvation).
• Every case of using contraception would be imposing measures intended to prevent births within members of a racial, national, ethnic and religious groups.
• Every case of a court taking someone's away and giving them to people that are of different race, etc. would be forcibly transferring children of members of a racial, national, ethnic or religious groups

And as such, every of these acts would be genocide, regardless of whether or not they were committed with "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." and regardless of what impact on the group the act has. Which would be bizarre to say the least. And which would run contrary to the purpose of making genocide a separate crime, particularly separate from mass murder and ethnic cleansing.

You failed to acknowledge the overriding stipulation of the list: "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." A single murder, even a score or murders, isn't going to destroy even a part of an ethnic or racial group. A single act of violence, or 100 acts of violence, isn't going to do it, either. Ditto for the rest of your charges - you've confused singular acts for the broad and universal nature that genocide encompasses. Even a single a "concentration camp" wouldn't constitute genocide (despite being a horrid thing), but a network of them operating at peak efficiency certainly could be. Scale is a factor when it comes to the charge of genocide - but destroying the single major population center of a given people with the stated goal of "breaking their hope" certainly seems to qualify in my view.

As anyone who took a single class on reading and understanding legalese would tell you, committing an act with "the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." means that your intent to destroy is caused explicitly by the people you're intending to destroy belonging to a specific national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Yes - and she intended to destroy the Kaldorei, to break their hope, targeting their single major population center (which she already knew from Delaryn's admission was, at the time, not a true military target because the Kaldorei military was en route to Silithus). So I don't think your defense here is valid.

And in case you quoted the definition from Wikipedia or UN's site on genocide, which is a fair chance what happened given how they are on top of the list on Google, you'd know that too had you actually read said sources, even without taking a single legalese class in your life. And in case you got it from somewhere else and that source contained just the barebones definition, you really should have participated in further reading because you made it crystal clear you don't know much about the topic.

I prefer not to litter these forums with excessive legalese - and, to be quite honest, neither do I think it is really necessary to state the claim. Neither one of us can truly determine the content of Sylvanas' proposed crimes, that would be for a true court of some kind to determine. We're just having a fantastical discussion about the ramifications of a fictional occurrence, using the only baseline we have to make a layperson's determination. Belittling me for the crime of "not having taken a class in law" is kind of besides the point - although I actually have taken a class or two in basic law as part of my college education (purely elective). My recall of the material is spotty at best (it was 20 years ago), though; and law wasn't the career-choice for me.

Was Teldrassil targeted because of anyone's race, nationality, ethnicity or religion? No. The entire war was started because of Darnassus' membership in the Alliance, which is a political international organization. And Teldrassil was burned to reduce Alliance's morale to ash and make future fights easier for the Horde, as per Sylvanas herself:

And as such, as per above quote from UN's own article on the topic, is exempt from the topic of genocide.

Furthermore (this would require more specific reading into the topic, but there are still legal sciences articles on the topic of genocidal intent available on Google), genocide requires a specific form of intent, i.e. direct intent, because of how specific the intent to destroy a whole group is. It cannot be done through indirect intent or recklessness type of intent. And Night Elves dying and being harmed would fall under one of these (an argument could be made for both). It was a side effect to Sylvanas' direct intent, laid out in the previous paragraph, caused by Sylvanas not giving a shit about casualties on her way to her goals.

It sounds like you're alluding to the ECHR ruling on "intent" - in which, had it not been for Sylvanas' stated alteration of goal in her conversation with Delaryn, would probably actually be a strong factor. The original intent to storm Kaldorei lands then take and hold their capitol city as a means of pressing the Alliance into specific actions would not have been genocide, even if a fair portion of the Kaldorei people died in the struggle to prevent or undo her taking of their city. The Kaldorei dead in the theaters of Ashenvale, Darkshore, and likely Teldrassil also wouldn't count under those auspices. The equation changes significantly, however, when Sylvanas opts to destroy the hope of the Kaldorei people by burning their major population center in a quite literal holocaust as means of permanently breaking their spirit as a people. This more than satisfies the second criteria of my listing from the UN convention, which I remind you, only one of which needs to be met. It also underpins the first act, as without murdering a massive segment of the population she can't possibly carry out the act of breaking said hope - which, perversely, also helps satisfy the first article of the convention's defining points for genocide.

And the thing is, we lack hard data on this particular topic to make any hard statements related to these criteria here. Even if we could, we still are missing the direct intent to destroy anyone because of their nationality, ethnicity, religion or race and as such don't meet the criteria of genocide.

We do lack hard data (and the quest itself is more or less a murky guideline), but the stated goal of Sylvanas itself more or less shows us her guiding light - she wanted to break the spirit of the Kaldorei people, specifically by killing the majority of their civilian population in a particularly heinous fashion. Intent to destroy is pretty much embedded in the cause here, and I'm not really sure how you can separate the two concepts without also breaking the rationale that Sylvanas herself stated.

By arguing from a position of ignorance (and potentially not reading your own sources, in case you used Wiki or the UN site) and by blatantly skipping the intent and the topic of "part" of the definition from your commentary you're doing a disservice to this forum. Because of your position as a mod people are going to treat your post more seriously, even though it's not informed beyond the mere awareness of what words happen to be in the definition (but not even extending into knowing what they actually mean in the context they're being used). Which already happened, as per some of the comments below your post.

Ad hominem attacks weaken your position, they don't enhance it - my source is outlined in the original post, and easily checked if you wish to do so. I've also dismantled your arguments for trying to obscure both intent and scope rather handily - not that your arguments were very persuasive or well-constructed to begin with. My position as a moderator has nothing to do with the quality or purpose of my posting, so that is a rather weak deflection that fails to bolster your claims in any way. If you wish to debate then stick to the actual meat of the issue, as it seems here like you're wandering far afield in the hopes of scrabbling together a defense from unrelated and inconsequential matters.

It's referenced twice in the novel. Both times as thoughts of characters, which means little. It not being genocide is simply a fact. And it not being genocide does not excuse Sylvanas in the slightest. Because something doesn't have to be genocide to be wrong and evil.

Well here I do somewhat agree - I find the necessity of the label of "genocide" to be unnecessary, as well. Sylvanas' act of spiteful and malicious cruelty doesn't need a specific term to be recognized for what it is, and it's good that the majority of people can see it for what it is even if there is disagreement on the specific term to use. Me, I think genocide certainly fits the crime here, but it's also not of consequence. What Sylvanas did to the Kaldorei was an abomination of an act, horrid beyond easy description.

[Izalla]

Can we all just agree that it was a mass murder and she and all horde members who were there with her are responsible for it? Why fucking 6 pages over 1 word?

This is what I mean in regards to the post I've been discussing: Sylvanas ordered the burning, and the horde forces, including her, committed it. This is not just on her. Saurfang almost ditched over it in that cinematic, BECAUSE it wasn't just on her. Because he was complicit and did not want to continue being complicit in the shit she was causing.

[Aucald]

But there's no UN in Warcraft. There isn't an equivalent of the UN in Warcraft either. So why do we look at this from our criminal standards?

The Warcraft universe has no such standards, so the only ones we have are from the "real world," as it were. That being said - if Sylvanas were hauled before an international court (say, for example, one in Pandaria as occurs in "War Crimes") I would feel quite comfortable with landing her with a charge of genocide if I were the prosecutor of that court. Garrosh himself got hit with the charge for crimes that were, in my view, lesser than Sylvanas' - and although Garrosh's crimes were never formally finalized by that court he certainly was charged with it. Sylvanas too seems more than eligible for a similar charge.

[Every Pwny]

It's referenced twice in the novel. Both times as thoughts of characters, which means little. It not being genocide is simply a fact. And it not being genocide does not excuse Sylvanas in the slightest. Because something doesn't have to be genocide to be wrong and evil.

It being genodice is true, but you are defending Sylvanas for no reason. That however was the the point of me saying it was referenced there. It being mentioned in the book means they have a word for genocide and find it horrid. So calling Sylvanas's genocide a genocide is correct, even if you attempt to say that kind of thing doesn't really apply to wow, when here you can see that concept exists and is exactly what Sylvanas is doing here, trying to kill as many people from a racial group as she can to basically defunct them as a people. Teldrassil is also not just a city, it's an entire land, again it would be akin to intentionally wiping out all the orc in Orgrimmar and Durotar. It's very clearly genocide, but you just like Sylvanas so much you don't want to apply that use of the word here for some very strange reason.

[SinAscendant]

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

There was no genocide. Genocide would imply she would have to kill a significant amount of night elves while specifically targeting night elves. She did not. She burned down a city that they had already had a full week to evacuate, and that they literally had a giant teleport out of. If even one person died during that, honestly, it's their own fault, like people who stay in their house when a hurricane hits.

[enragedgorilla]

The Destruction of a capitol city where most if not all the inhabitants are of one ethnic group ,but that ethnic group is spread out over many areas and thriving in those areas.


Not sure that qualifies.

She did not say," I am going to kill ALL the Night Elves because..."
She nukes the capitol city.
Night Elves,
Not being hunted down and eradicated.
not being gathered into one place(nelfs already did that on their own...in a big tree)to be dealt with.

Going to cross real life with a game...sorry in advance for breaking "that wall"

Nuking Washington D.C. would not be genocide, would it?

Nuking Berlin Germany would not be genocide , would it?

Hell, was the nuking of Nagasaki or Hiroshima a genocide?

As for the writers saying ,"it was a genocide" I can reasonably figure that it is a misuse of the word, by ignorance of the words true meaning and definition or wanting to drama their script up by using a trigger word to make it more than it really is.

Do not put all your eggs in one basket.

[Every Pwny]

The Destruction of a capitol city where most if not all the inhabitants are of one ethnic group ,but that ethnic group is spread out over many areas and thriving in those areas.

Teldrassil is more than just a capital city. This is an error people keep making for some reason, it's akin to all of Mulgor that also contained Thunderbluff. Darnassus is not the only thing there. Also you use Nagasaki or Hiroshima are incorrect as well in comparison, as fliers were dropped telling people to evacuate the city before the bomb was dropped, no such warning here was given here, it was to kill as many night elves as she could. It's a very clear case of genocide, pretending the word is used incorrectly, but then using inaccurate comparisons is telling here.

[Aucald]

Teldrassil is more than just a capital city. This is an error people keep making for some reason, it's akin to all of Mulgor that also contained Thunderbluff. Darnassus is not the only thing there. Also you use Nagasaki or Hiroshima are incorrect as well in comparison, as fliers were dropped telling people to evacuate the city before the bomb was dropped, no such warning here was given here, it was to kill as many night elves as she could. It's a very clear case of genocide, pretending the word is used correctly, but then using inaccurate comparisons is telling here.

That's a very good point - Teldrassil is not just Darnassus. It is also Dolanaar, Rut'theran Village, Starbreeze Village, the Ban'ethil Barrow Den, and the Oracle Glade - all population centers of varying sizes of for the Night Elves. All manner of freeholds, homesteads, Druid dens, and single dwellings could dot the landscape of the World Tree's boughs that aren't accounted for in the in-game scale of the place.

[Skulltaker]

Except it is: https://works.bepress.com/devrim_aydin/1/

I'm not sure what you intended to link here, mate. I'm not taking some unpublished paper over the wording of the UN charta, though.

“This was your battle. Your strategy. And your failure. Darnassus was never the prize. It was a wedge that would split the Alliance apart. It was the weapon that would destroy hope. And you, my master strategist, gave that up to spare an enemy you defeated. I have taken it back. When they come for us, they will do so in pain, not in glory. That may be our only chance at victory now.”

So this is the bullshit Sylvanas tells the Varok to justify her genocide, and you bought that? He didn't. Anyhow, seeing how Anduins classification of the term 'genocide' was ignored due to it being 'his inner monologue', I'm going to ignore what the genocidal psychopath said, since these people aren't usually the most stable and reliable. Sylvanas has a history of deceit and lies, and therefor, whatever she has to say about the matter is to be considered just that: the ramblings of a psychopath.

Did Sylvanas burn Teldrassil with the intent to kill Furbolgs? She most likely didn't even think of the Furbolgs at the time. Or treants. Or even the few Satyr roaming about. I mean, pause for a moment and read what you're actually writing.

She doesn't have to have the intent to kill Furbolgs. She had the intent to burn the tree. All other outcomes of the crime are therfor to be treated as intentional. So, she burned the Furbolgs intentionally. But, I agree, there is a chance she didn't know about them. She did, however, know about several Night Elven settlements, and that the Gilneans took refuge there. So, genocide.

If we assume "for a moment" that Sylvanas burned Teldrassil to deal a moral, strategical blow to the Alliance, by the criteria of your own argument here she didn't burn it with the intent of eradicating Furbolgs and whatnot. Once again you didn't even think your own argument through.

Mate. If you do something intentionally, and it has other outcomes that you were fully aware of, you are guilty of intentionally bringing each and every one of them to pass. You intend to shoot someone, you don't intend to shatter the window he is behind. You still know it will happen. Legally, you had the direct intent to kill that person, and the oblique intent to shatter the window. You now commited intentional murder and intentional destruction of property. It is simple as that.

So, Sylvanas knew about the people there, she knew they would die, she accepted it as an outcome, that is criminal intent. Simple as that.

And zero genocides is still better than three. You still pretending you know what you're talking about when you repeatedly make it blatantly clear that you don't takes the cake though. Or, to be more specific, it's the cherry on top of the cake that is your previous post in which you misread the shit out of my post (and the topic of genocide) and talked some abject nonsense about how "by my logic" members of NATO aren't people.

Again, you were not able to provide a single credible source for any of your arguments. You can try to talk me down all you want, it won't help to make your case.

[Mehrunes]

I'm not a lawyer, no; of course I'm also pretty sure you're not either - my breakdown is more or less a lay individual's take and understanding of the terms of the convention, stripped of its rather specific legalese. This wouldn't be a strictly legal qualification, I know - but of course we're not in a courtroom before a judge or a jury.

Except I am one. What on earth "made you pretty sure" I'm not one other than trying to score a weak-ass point in your counterargument here?

Except Teldrassil is quite obviously the concentrated home of a single, predominant people - the Kaldorei. Losses of other races or groups in the burning of Teldrassil would be extremely minor because the population of Teldrassil is majority Kaldorei. And it's not the Worgen who are considered endangered from the loss of their home, after all.

And? Does Teldrassil being a home to the Night Elves mean any action against Teldrassil is done with the intent to destroy Night Elves because of their race, ethnicity, religion or nationality? No.

You failed to acknowledge the overriding stipulation of the list: "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." A single murder, even a score or murders, isn't going to destroy even a part of an ethnic or racial group. A single act of violence, or 100 acts of violence, isn't going to do it, either. Ditto for the rest of your charges - you've confused singular acts for the broad and universal nature that genocide encompasses. Even a single a "concentration camp" wouldn't constitute genocide (despite being a horrid thing), but a network of them operating at peak efficiency certainly could be. Scale is a factor when it comes to the charge of genocide - but destroying the single major population center of a given people with the stated goal of "breaking their hope" certainly seems to qualify in my view.

The definition is an act done with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. Not necessarily achieving that destruction. Intent is the key point. And a person is a part of the group.

Besides, the entire purpose of this argument was an argumentum ad absurdum to point out how you stating that Night Elves have a race and ethnicity in regards to the "national, ethnic, racial or religious group" part of definition isn't sufficient here. Because that's all you stated in that regards. As if there was a group of people that lacked nationality or ethnicity. Which on a side is a fact that should make you think twice, because if the mere fact that people someone targeted had a nationality or ethnicity was enough to classify something as genocide, almost everything would be genocide. Which was my point. Anyway, back on track, you stated they have a nationality or ethnicity, without even attempting to state whether or not they were targeted because of said nationality or ethnicity, which is a requirement of genocide as per the UN article I quoted. Which was the other part of my point.

And, speaking of aspects of the definition you failed to address, what size the "part of the group" must be is one of them, which I pointed out later on as well.

Yes - and she intended to destroy the Kaldorei, to break their hope, targeting their single major population center (which she already knew from Delaryn's admission was, at the time, not a true military target because the Kaldorei military was en route to Silithus). So I don't think your defense here is valid.

Weird. I'm pretty sure the direct intent was to burn Teldrassil to break Alliance morale. Which is why she said to burn Teldrassil, rather than to kill all Night Elves.

I prefer not to litter these forums with excessive legalese - and, to be quite honest, neither do I think it is really necessary to state the claim. Neither one of us can truly determine the content of Sylvanas' proposed crimes, that would be for a true court of some kind to determine. We're just having a fantastical discussion about the ramifications of a fictional occurrence, using the only baseline we have to make a layperson's determination. Belittling me for the crime of "not having taken a class in law" is kind of besides the point - although I actually have taken a class or two in basic law as part of my college education (purely elective). My recall of the material is spotty at best (it was 20 years ago), though; and law wasn't the career-choice for me.

For some inexplicable reason it didn't stop you from quoting legalese when you thought it supported your point. And we have plenty to judge Sylvanas. I.e. her own words on the topic. Words that contradict the notion she decided to burn Teldrassil because of anyone's race, ethnicity, nationality or religion. With nothing indicating the opposite.

And I'm not belittling anyone. I'm making an observation. You didn't even to address whether or not Sylvanas' actions meet the criteria for genocidal intent, the specifics of the "part of the group" targeted and the only thing you had to support the notion that the attack was done with the intent to destroy "a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" was making the observation that Night Elves have a race and ethnicity (as if they had the capacity not to have those), clearly without understanding that them having those traits isn't nearly enough to determine that there was intent to destroy a racial, ethnic, national or religious group as it is understood in regards to establishing genocide. All of those details indicate your serious misunderstanding of the definition. If you feel "belittled" by me stating those aspects of your argument indicate that, that's on you.

It sounds like you're alluding to the ECHR ruling on "intent" - in which, had it not been for Sylvanas' stated alteration of goal in her conversation with Delaryn, would probably actually be a strong factor. The original intent to storm Kaldorei lands then take and hold their capitol city as a means of pressing the Alliance into specific actions would not have been genocide, even if a fair portion of the Kaldorei people died in the struggle to prevent or undo her taking of their city. The Kaldorei dead in the theaters of Ashenvale, Darkshore, and likely Teldrassil also wouldn't count under those auspices. The equation changes significantly, however, when Sylvanas opts to destroy the hope of the Kaldorei people by burning their major population center in a quite literal holocaust as means of permanently breaking their spirit as a people. This more than satisfies the second criteria of my listing from the UN convention, which I remind you, only one of which needs to be met. It also underpins the first act, as without murdering a massive segment of the population she can't possibly carry out the act of breaking said hope - which, perversely, also helps satisfy the first article of the convention's defining points for genocide.

I'm alluding to the rulings that specify that the intent to destroy in genocide must be direct intent, i.e. dolus directus. As opposed to indirect intent, i.e. dolus indirectus (which means that the perpetrator knows of his or her crime’s secondary consequences and commits the crime anyway) and eventual intent/recklessness, i.e. dolus eventualis (which means the perpetrator predicts possible, though uncertain, consequences. Then they commit the act regardless of the consequences - or recklessly, depending on the specific model). Back to direct intent, it means that the perpetrator desires the consequences in question, in this case the deaths of the Night Elves. Nothing Sylvanas said indicates her giving a shit about the Night Elves still being on the tree one way or another. From what she said, the desired consequences of her actions was breaking Alliance's spirit.

Also, while the intent behind the invasion as a whole matters little because it's the specific action, in this case burning, that matters, the invasion is also an indication of Sylvanas not giving a shit about Night Elves in national, ethnic, religious or racial context. Everything she said about War of Thorns, be it during the preparation or the execution, was presented as an action against Alliance.

And her actions could fit even all five types of actions that fall under genocide. If the (direct) intent to destroy was missing, as well as other elements like Night Elves being targeted specifically because of their race, nationality, ethnicity or religion instead of their political affiliation (which is exempt from the definition of genocide), or the details about what "in part" means in context of genocide, it still wouldn't be genocide. If every Night Elf was a communist and Sylvanas killed all Night Elves because of her crusade against communism, she still wouldn't commit genocide.

We do lack hard data (and the quest itself is more or less a murky guideline), but the stated goal of Sylvanas itself more or less shows us her guiding light - she wanted to break the spirit of the Kaldorei people, specifically by killing the majority of their civilian population in a particularly heinous fashion. Intent to destroy is pretty much embedded in the cause here, and I'm not really sure how you can separate the two concepts without also breaking the rationale that Sylvanas herself stated.

And where exactly did she say anything about killing the "majority" (as if a somewhat specific number like this was stated either) in a particularly heinous fashion? We know for a fact that Sylvanas previously wanted to break their spirit by killing Malfurion. Which indicates that in her mind breaking the spirit was to be achieved by destroying some kind of a symbol. What is non-Malfurion symbol in Night Elven lands? A part of their population that didn't manage to evacuate in time or their big-ass tree? What does Sylvanas order to be burned? The aforementioned part of their population or their aforementioned big-ass tree?

Ad hominem attacks weaken your position, they don't enhance it - my source is outlined in the original post, and easily checked if you wish to do so. I've also dismantled your arguments for trying to obscure both intent and scope rather handily - not that your arguments were very persuasive or well-constructed to begin with. My position as a moderator has nothing to do with the quality or purpose of my posting, so that is a rather weak deflection that fails to bolster your claims in any way. If you wish to debate then stick to the actual meat of the issue, as it seems here like you're wandering far afield in the hopes of scrabbling together a defense from unrelated and inconsequential matters.

What ad hominem? You entirely ignored multiple aspects of the definition and misconstrued (as per an article on the topic written by UN, i.e. the author of the definition you used) another, yet still thought you can prove genocide. What does it make other than a position of ignorance? Ignorance is merely lacking knowledge or information about something. It's not an insult unless one is a megalomaniac that pretends they know everything (even when their arguments indicate something else).

Secondly, ad hominem refers to avoiding addressing one's arguments and instead attacking their character. Did I avoid addressing your arguments? No, no I did not. In fact I addressed them all, thoroughly. Ergo, your claims of ad hominem on my part are utterly baseless.

Thirdly, ad-hominem have nothing to do with sources. And given that this is an online forum, when I talked about source it's clear as day I was talking about what site you copied the definition from. Because I kinda doubt you have the convention lying around your house, or that you wrote it down from there instead of copy-pasting.

And you didn't say a single word about different types of intent, nor did you even attempt to contest my claims as to what specific type of intent is required for genocide. And, because of the two points above you obviously made no attempts to prove whether or not Sylvanas had direct intent to destroy Night Elves (let alone did so because of their race, nationality, ethnicity or religion). Likewise, you supported your claims that Sylvanas ordered the burning with any kind of intent to kill the Night Elves with absolutely nothing and Sylvanas' own words on the matter, which I already quoted, disprove that notion. So you "dismantled" absolutely zilch in regards to my arguments "obscuring" intent.

The same applies to my arguments about the scope. Because in the part you addressed my remarks about scope, the fact that I was engaging in argument ad absurdum went over your head. And the part in which I made arguments about the scope, which made it clear that I was well aware of the point about scope you made in this reply (but not in the original post), went completely unaddressed by you, in a completely honest manner.

So you've got squat. Imagine my surprise right now.

And yes, I'm sure things quoting a part of UN's, i.e. the author of the definition you quoted, web page about genocide outlining how you failed to address a key aspect of what the definition actually means (with the way you phrased your claim in that regard and later defended it in this here reply indicating that you've done so because of your blatant misunderstanding of that part) weren't well-constructed. I'm even more sure that it wasn't persuasive. To you.

And I didn't claim you being a moderator has anything to do with either the quality or the purpose of your posting. Nor did I suggest in even the most remote way it bolstered my claims. It'd be swell if you could wander back to reading what's actually said rather than your fantastical fantasies.

[Nefarious Tea]

Very good post. However just a small correction:
Sylvanas ordered a genocide.
The horde commited a genocide.

Semantics aside I'm surprised that there are no regulations regarding war crimes in WoW.

[Mehrunes]

It being genodice is true, but you are defending Sylvanas for no reason. That however was the the point of me saying it was referenced there. It being mentioned in the book means they have a word for genocide and find it horrid. So calling Sylvanas's genocide a genocide is correct, even if you attempt to say that kind of thing doesn't really apply to wow, when here you can see that concept exists and is exactly what Sylvanas is doing here, trying to kill as many people from a racial group as she can to basically defunct them as a people. Teldrassil is also not just a city, it's an entire land, again it would be akin to intentionally wiping out all the orc in Orgrimmar and Durotar. It's very clearly genocide, but you just like Sylvanas so much you don't want to apply that use of the word here for some very strange reason.

Anduin isn't the god-emperor of Azeroth for his thoughts to constitute truth. And Sylvanas explicitly waged War of Thorns and burned Teldrassil because of Night Elves belonging to the Alliance. I.e. a political group. Political groups are exempt from genocide. Ergo, her actions aren't genocide, because words have meanings.

And really, I'm defending Sylvanas for no reason? Which part of "it not being genocide does not excuse Sylvanas in the slightest" and "Becauser something doesn't have to be genocide to be wrong and evil" did you not understand, exactly?

[Niaraa]

The Destruction of a capitol city where most if not all the inhabitants are of one ethnic group ,but that ethnic group is spread out over many areas and thriving in those areas.


Not sure that qualifies.

She did not say," I am going to kill ALL the Night Elves because..."
She nukes the capitol city.
Night Elves,
Not being hunted down and eradicated.
not being gathered into one place(nelfs already did that on their own...in a big tree)to be dealt with.

Going to cross real life with a game...sorry in advance for breaking "that wall"

Nuking Washington D.C. would not be genocide, would it?

Nuking Berlin Germany would not be genocide , would it?

Hell, was the nuking of Nagasaki or Hiroshima a genocide?

As for the writers saying ,"it was a genocide" I can reasonably figure that it is a misuse of the word, by ignorance of the words true meaning and definition or wanting to drama their script up by using a trigger word to make it more than it really is.

Do not put all your eggs in one basket.

and if Washington concentrate more than 80% of american and you nuke it? still not a genocide? sylvanas bring the NE near extinction if that is not a genocide nothing is.
You can mental gymnastic all you can, it's a genocide in fact and confirmed in lore.

and you pick history as reference ok, so pre colombian civilisation mass death are today rename the "silent genocide" by a lot of historians. the europeans never wanted to kill 90% of americans natives. but hey ... man... 25 million people lived in Azetec Mexico 2 millions after spanish arrival. the debate is still a thing but more and more historian agree the idea of a genocide. genocide is a difficulte thing because all are differents and its a matter of point of you. for nazi germany never cause a genocide, jew was not human for them.

[Skulltaker]

Anduin isn't the god-emperor of Azeroth for his thoughts to constitute truth. And Sylvanas explicitly waged War of Thorns and burned Teldrassil because of Night Elves belonging to the Alliance. I.e. a political group. Political groups are exempt from genocide. Ergo, her actions aren't genocide, because words have meanings.

And really, I'm defending Sylvanas for no reason? Which part of "it not being genocide does not excuse Sylvanas in the slightest" and "Becauser something doesn't have to be genocide to be wrong and evil" did you not understand, exactly?

Mmmmh... no. That is what she said. Sylvanas isn't the God-Empress of Azeroth for her words, or her word, to constitute truth. She has lied befor, multiple times, to her former Warchief, to her followers, she has broken her oaths, betrayed her allies.

She makes the deliberate and intentional decision to kill the Night Elves right there on the beach, for everyone to observe.

[Mehrunes]

I'm not sure what you intended to link here, mate. I'm not taking some unpublished paper over the wording of the UN charta, though.

That paper refers to legal cases about genocide establishing that genocide requires direct intent. You're arguing against legal precedents now, regarding the very law you accept as superior here, not just unpublished papers.

So this is the bullshit Sylvanas tells the Varok to justify her genocide, and you bought that? He didn't. Anyhow, seeing how Anduins classification of the term 'genocide' was ignored due to it being 'his inner monologue', I'm going to ignore what the genocidal psychopath said, since these people aren't usually the most stable and reliable. Sylvanas has a history of deceit and lies, and therefor, whatever she has to say about the matter is to be considered just that: the ramblings of a psychopath.

This is the only source of what her intent behind her action was. Are you capable of providing a source showing her intent was something else? And Anduin's classification of the action as genocide was ignored because Anduin doesn't get to redefine words. Sylvanas on the other hands gets to define what her intent was. You're comparing apples to oranges here and pretend it's somehow a valid point.

She doesn't have to have the intent to kill Furbolgs. She had the intent to burn the tree. All other outcomes of the crime are therfor to be treated as intentional. So, she burned the Furbolgs intentionally. But, I agree, there is a chance she didn't know about them. She did, however, know about several Night Elven settlements, and that the Gilneans took refuge there. So, genocide.

Yeah, no, she has to have the intent to kill Furbolgs. From UN (i.e. the author of the definition you obviously hold in such a high esteem) - http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”

If Sylvanas isn't deliberately targeting Furbolgs, particularly over those specific grounds, she's not committing genocide.

Mate. If you do something intentionally, and it has other outcomes that you were fully aware of, you are guilty of intentionally bringing each and every one of them to pass. You intend to shoot someone, you don't intend to shatter the window he is behind. You still know it will happen. Legally, you had the direct intent to kill that person, and the oblique intent to shatter the window. You now commited intentional murder and intentional destruction of property. It is simple as that.

And we're back to subject of direct intent vs other types of intent. Which you're describing yourself here (with an example from Wikipedia).

So, Sylvanas knew about the people there, she knew they would die, she accepted it as an outcome, that is criminal intent. Simple as that.

And genocide requires direct intent as per legal precedents on the topic, simple as that.

Again, you were not able to provide a single credible source for any of your arguments. You can try to talk me down all you want, it won't help to make your case.

Right, legal rulings that were referenced in the article I linked aren't credible source for an argument about law the rulings were about. Great thought you got there. So is the thought that Sylvanas' statements indicating her intent are invalid because reasons.

[Every Pwny]

Anduin isn't the god-emperor of Azeroth for his thoughts to constitute truth. And Sylvanas explicitly waged War of Thorns and burned Teldrassil because of Night Elves belonging to the Alliance. I.e. a political group. Political groups are exempt from genocide. Ergo, her actions aren't genocide, because words have meanings.

And really, I'm defending Sylvanas for no reason? Which part of "it not being genocide does not excuse Sylvanas in the slightest" and "Becauser something doesn't have to be genocide to be wrong and evil" did you not understand, exactly?

Again you are missing the point, genocide is a concept and term inside Azeroth, so trying to say something like you can't apply modern day morals to this is incorrect, as it's something that exists in their current thinking. She burned the tree to kill off as many night elves as she could, if she allowed for evacuations it would be different. She did not, and she destroyed an entire zone, not just a city of night elves, in order to basically wipe them out as a people so they couldn't really recover. You are defending her actions and pretending like they are something other than what they were, it was an attempt to wipe out the night elves by both taking their land, killing the people along the way and then slaughtering every night elf in their main zone. It's clearly genocide, but you are strangely trying to weasel around what it is to defend Sylvanas. Wiping out as many of a people as you can is indeed genocide, clear and simple, liking Sylvanas doesn't change the result of what she did. If the alliance wiped out all the tauren in Mulgor including Thunderbluff, that would be genocide as well, just like it is genocide here.

[Mehrunes]

Mmmmh... no. That is what she said. Sylvanas isn't the God-Empress of Azeroth for her words, or her word, to constitute truth. She has lied befor, multiple times, to her former Warchief, to her followers, she has broken her oaths, betrayed her allies.

She makes the deliberate and intentional decision to kill the Night Elves right there on the beach, for everyone to observe.

Sylvanas is, however, the authority on what she thought or intended. Because she's the one fully aware of what is going on in her mind. And since we lack some kind of narrator statement or even Sylvanas' thoughts that'd showcase she lied to Saurfang, you have no argument here. "She lied before" proves nothing.

[Aydinx2]

If we go by her words, she was not trying to destroy the Alliance. She wanted to ensure the Horde's survival by controlling the flow of Azerite on Kalimdor. I wouldn't think this is a genocide. If she then followed around the Nelfs and killed them in every area, then yes.

But that is my lowly opinion.

She literally explicitely says that there can never be peace between the two, and so she wants to strike first to gain the advantage.

[Mehrunes]

Again you are missing the point, genocide is a concept and term inside Azeroth, so trying to say something like you can't apply modern day morals to this is incorrect, as it's something that exists in their current thinking. She burned the tree to kill off as many night elves as she could, if she allowed for evacuations it would be different. She did not, and she destroyed an entire zone, not just a city of night elves, in order to basically wipe them out as a people so they couldn't really recover. You are defending her actions and pretending like they are something other than what they were, it was an attempt to wipe out the night elves by both taking their land, killing the people along the way and then slaughtering every night elf in their main zone. It's clearly genocide, but you are strangely trying to weasel around what it is to defend Sylvanas. Wiping out as many of a people as you can is indeed genocide, clear and simple, liking Sylvanas doesn't change the result of what she did.

And since we don't have Azerothian convention of genocide, Blizzard's writers used it in the RL meaning. That meaning contradicts Anduin's claims. And she burned the tree to destroy Alliance's morale. Night Elves dying can very well be a result of her not giving a shit whether or not they survived. And that isn't enough to establish genocide. Nor is there anything indicating she wanted to specifically wipe them out. Let alone do so because of their race, nationality, ethnicity or religion, which is a required element of genocide.

Me using the term genocide properly isn't defending anyone, nor is it pretending her actions are something else than what they were. Because if her actions weren't done to destroy Night Elves because of their race, nationality, religion or ethnicity (and Sylvanas repeatedly talks about Alliance being the driving force of her actions), it's not genocide.

And what you said is genocide in the last sentence indicates you don't know what you're talking about. Wiping out as many people as you can is mass murder. Genocide is a far more specific action.

[Feanoro]

and if Washington concentrate more than 80% of american and you nuke it? still not a genocide? sylvanas bring the NE near extinction if that is not a genocide nothing is.

Not according to our new Head Writer, who fortunately happens to be a legal scholar, and vocabulary expert.

At this point, this topic is going round and round, with three distinct views, much like all of BfA.

Alliance players: It's a genocidal event.
Horde players: It's a genocidal event, and it shames the Horde.
Sylvanas fans: We can't decide!