Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ...
  1. #281
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    maybe, the problem is i don't trust blizzard capability of delivering something good, not even something related to what you said.

    i Rather him just stay "untouched", unmentioned, like not appearing at all, put him in one of those thousands of afterlives that we will not interact.

    Knowing then, they will do some shit to show how toxic male he is, to undermine him more, like is rly necessary
    I hear ya if they going to do something silly best to leave him out the story. Still wondering if they'll do something because of the afterlives clip. But then again it he may have been included there as an easter egg. So far no real sign of him at all in the beta.

  2. #282
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyhil622 View Post
    I hear ya if they going to do something silly best to leave him out the story. Still wondering if they'll do something because of the afterlives clip. But then again it he may have been included there as an easter egg. So far no real sign of him at all in the beta.
    I want him to join forces with Sylvanas. Not because it makes sense but because it would be cool in a "I'm putting together a team" kinda way.

  3. #283
    Quote Originally Posted by bagina View Post
    I want him to join forces with Sylvanas. Not because it makes sense but because it would be cool in a "I'm putting together a team" kinda way.
    I don't know about that but it would be cool to have some sort of callback to his line in Silverpine. Not the "bitch" one but riiiiight after. Very, very ironic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daevelian View Post
    So this is how far the Lore forum has fallen? Eesh.
    I take it back, BfA is not the lowest the games lore could have gone, this thread proves that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    And just like the thread before it, let's back away from sexualizing Azshara and return to the original topic at hand.

  4. #284
    Quote Originally Posted by faithbane View Post
    Mate, I am not sure what you are on about especially with the "pretty well credentialed in history" comment. I got multiple degrees in history although my first degree is in cams, I do have proficiency in early 20th century political history. I can also tell you non of my past colleagues from anywhere around the world talks the way you do so I am not sure what kind of credentials you have. Only people that I've seen that talk the way you do are older Americans who grew up with propaganda or a kid who read a single book and now thinks he is an expert. You have an extremely western-romanticized view of history which would prevent you from keeping an open mind and have an objective view. I am just gonna dissect some of your bullshit below, although I'm sure you will ignore it anyway like all the other real examples I provided.

    The only reason either party wasn't charged with war crimes after the ww1 was because the allies - specifically France, were the first to use chemical agents (with big encouragement from US btw - for reasons such as a positive trade impact, and weather forecast predicting strong winds blowing west to east that season) and not Germany, so after they won the war, they swept it under the rug. I can't believe that you even dare to say French use of tear gas in ww1 was legal.. it absolutely wasn't. The Hague treaty didn't just ban lethal gas, it banned ALL harmful gases and chemical warfare so what French did was absolutely illegal but they were with the allies so no one batted an eye and the only reason they didn't use a deadlier gas was because a method for industrial scale production of such a deadly gas wasn't invented until 1915... until Germany did it.

    By the way that "mad German chemist" is a Nobel chemistry prize winner, world renown scientist and Jewish. It was one of the biggest ironies in life that Hitler killed millions of Jews by synthesizing a gas using a method that he invented.
    Also, WW1 is discussed A LOT but it is just overshadowed by the impact and brutality of ww2 which is why you hear it less. First half of 20th century as a whole had a massive and rapid advancement in technology so trying to narrow it down just to ww1 is difficult. Even the advancements in ww2 which lead to modern computers, rocketry, the internet and many more had its foundations going back to 1920s. The roots of the "ww1" inventions go back to late 19th century wars, specially with France and Russia, as well as the battles in northern Africa and the Balkans.

    The reason chemical agents weren't used widespread in ww2 were because of multiple reasons and non of them are what you believe:

    1) they were unpredictable in the battlefield and could backfire easily. The gases were made colorless so a rogue wind blowing it back to your own frontline couldn't even be seen. Also, there were major problems with transportation for similar reasons. Tank warfare also made deploying chemical battles in the frontlines moot.
    2) WW2 wasn't a conventional trench warfare, especially on the western fronts unlike the long drawn out battles of ww1 and fronts were shifting constantly which made it ineffective to use chemical agents
    3) Chemical weapons were mainly a psychological warfare tool since its actual effectiveness were very small in battle. Throughout ww1, less then 1% of casualties were from chemical agents.
    4) No, Hitler didn't hold back on using chemical weapons on battlefield because he was obeying some international treaty, lol. The man put millions of people in gas chambers, are you high?

    When it comes to your "opinion" on the nuclear attacks on Japan - it reads like a 20th century US propaganda which is laughable really. The main reason Hiroshima was chosen as the first target was because it was a city that was not impacted by the conventional bombing runs that US was doing all over japan that destroyed many cities and it gave them a perfect test case to study the impact of the bomb. The obvious lie about the bomb being dropped to prevent the war from lasting longer has been proven false with documents showing Japan being ready to surrender and memos asking USSR to broker peace even but US just wanted to "play with their new toy" (Which is a rephrased direct quote from a ww2 general fyi..). You can't parrot US propaganda/opinion pieces as actual history. Many autobiographies, personal diaries, censored/hidden communications of the ww2 era has become public within the last couple decades, you don't have the luxury to be this ignorant with your "credentials".

    Not only those bombs were extremely barbaric acts that targeted civilian populations, even the previous acts such as fire bombing urban Tokyo is debated as a war-crime. The only reason US wasn't charged with anything after the war is again because they came out as the victors and the western propaganda machine played its role.
    Nice fabrication. Lets start with the most obvious point of all of this: Even a simple google search turns up the most important phrase related to gas in the Hague convention of 1899

    "projectiles the sole objective of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases."

    Since I know you cant be bothered to look things up, this means designed to cause choking or meant to cause injury. Injure, you know, sustain damage that has to be healed. Tear gas is a deterrent gas, it has minimal effects once the radius is left and 15-20 minutes is the standard "Maximum" of symptom time unless other underlying conditions such as asthma or allergic reaction occur. Meanwhile Fritz Haber is out there creating chemical agents left and right, trying to expand the use of gas constantly. The deployment of chlorine gas, phosgene, mustard gas- all of them meant to asphyxiate and injure, with the latter being one of the most hideous inventions ever to be seen. Its hard to argue that if any morality was applied at all the discovery of gas that causes skin to blister externally AS WELL AS internally would be hidden or declared unfit for use. The effects of it are not just to injure but to permanently cripple, survivors would never be able to live normally again.
    Even after strong international condemnation after the war, he continued most of the lethal chemical research that would benefit the Third Reich as well. I have no doubt that if you tried to argue them as equal infractions-much less tilted in the "moral" favor of the Germans, the majority of the historical community would have a hard time taking any of your work seriously.

    The sheer intellectual dishonesty you display is just not worth approaching. You know you're lying, I know you're lying. I humored you by answering one of your "points."

    Your Wehraboo is showing, and I sincerely doubt you lack any sort of formal education in historical studies beyond watching "The greatest story never told (The documentary they dont want you to see!)" Good to see you're passionate about something though. Try turning it towards factual history instead of pol and stormfront.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts