So we're now cool with the Horde?

[Araphant-defias-brotherhood (Araphant)]

I am unsure what exactly is the matter here, but Alexstrasza was called as a witness for Dragonmaw Clan conduct as the Dragonmaw Clan served Garrosh and continued with the enslavement and torture of dragons in the war we had, possibly with his blessing.

As such, it is not an accusation against all orcs, it is a rather specific charge leveled against Garrosh for allowing this to happen during his reign.

That is neatly outlined in War Crimes, page 223 of my edition. Tyrande explained where she’s going with this, the pandas said its cool.

So, Garrosh was not prosecuted for what happened to Alex, Garrosh was prosecuted for what the Dragonmaw did during his reign, as Tyrande clearly states.

Further more, they were not allied with the Horde, they were welcomed into the Horde, as is visible in this quest.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Death_to_Mor%27ghor

As such, they were under Garrosh’s direct command.

Further more, the Dragonmaw were in the possession of this artifact as they were doing it.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/The_Demon_Chain

[Sereluna-silvermoon]

If I remember correctly, Alexstrasza was brought up as a witness to testify what the Dragonmaw did to dragons, to incriminate Garrosh for allowing the Dragonmaw under his command to continue, and not to blame him for what happened to her and her dragons. Is that correct?

[Araphant-defias-brotherhood (Araphant)]

This is correct, yes.

[Telaryn-argent-dawn (Telaryn)]

I mean, you seem to miss an important detail here. Even if the Alliance behaved dishonestly during the trial, that does not prove they blame the Horde for Garrosh’s crimes and vice versa. They may simply have raised those charges, knowing they are untrue, to guarantee a punishment, not because they believe they are just, but because they believe they can argue and win. I fail to see how this is inconsistent with my initial statement.

“Prophet, I am sure everyone in this court today recognizes you as one who has been witness to atrocities ere now,” Tyrande began.

And there it is, thought Go’el. She will now proceed to paint us all black—or red, with the stains of blood spilled in years gone by.

Because it’s not just one instance where Tyrande tries to go for the clutch collective punishment. In this particular example, she’s looping outside of the initial premise – Garrosh’s crimes – to go after all orcs by referencing the slaughter of Telmor.

Even Anduin and Wrathion talk about her real motive no longer being just Garrosh’s prosecution.

“And yet, she is telling us nothing new,” Wrathion continued. “Everyone already hates Garrosh. Why bring up an event that happened even before his birth? It is a curious tactic.”

“Not really,” said Anduin. “She’s showing us that the orcs can’t hide behind the ‘we drank demon blood’ excuse. Garrosh is completely untainted—by that, at least.” Garrosh was not untainted by a desire for power, or a callousness toward the suffering of others so all-consuming Anduin couldn’t even begin to fathom it.

“And yet he did such terrible things,” mused Wrathion, frowning and stroking his small tuft of beard thoughtfully. “Still… painting an entire race with so broad a brush will only backfire if she persists. Nuance is required.”

And your point is…?

Point is that these aren’t Tyrande’s fringe beliefs.

Tyrande had spoken the truth. She could win the trial simply by showing up each morning and letting the facts speak for themselves. But this new element of being able to display scenes from the past troubled him.

If words could be twisted, then surely images could be. His thoughts went to the angry initial cries of some in the Alliance who wanted to put the entire Horde on trial.

Later:

“Baine is honorable,” Anduin said, “and there is no doubt in my mind he will endeavor to do the job to the best of his ability, despite how he feels personally.”
“But I do not think it is a task he is relishing,” said Kalec.
“True,” said Varian. “As opposed to Tyrande’s task, which I think everyone in the Alliance coveted.”

So, Garrosh was not prosecuted for what happened to Alex, Garrosh was prosecuted for what the Dragonmaw did during his reign, as Tyrande clearly states.

The Dragonmaw continued to do that under his rule too, yes, but the actual rape charge Garrosh got accused with in the first place refers to the actual binding of Alexstrasza herself. That the Dragonmaw continued to enslave dragons (a separate charge laid down) afterwards does not mean that they were still raping Alexstrasza under his rule.

She began to walk, counting off on her fingers as she had after Vol’jin’s testimony. “Enslavement. Torture. Forced pregnancy. The abduction of children. The killing of prisoners. Five counts are laid against Garrosh, once again, by the evidence of a single witness.”

Further more, they were not allied with the Horde, they were welcomed into the Horde, as is visible in this quest.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Death_to_Mor%27ghor

As such, they were under Garrosh’s direct command.

Irrelevant semantics, unless you’re somehow trying to argue that the Dragonmaw situation doesn’t apply to Garrosh to begin with:

“Garrosh Hellscream. You have been charged with war crimes, and crimes against the very essence of sentient beings of Azeroth, as well as crimes against Azeroth itself. You are also charged for all acts committed in your name, or by those with whom you have allied.”

:S

[Araphant-defias-brotherhood (Araphant)]

The Dragonmaw continued to do that under his rule too, yes, but the actual rape charge Garrosh got accused with in the first place refers to the actual binding of Alexstrasza herself. That the Dragonmaw continued to enslave dragons (a separate charge laid down) afterwards does not mean that they were still raping Alexstrasza under his rule.

Not really, it only shows to me that the Dragonmaw continued dragon breeding under Garrosh’s rule, which is basically what this accusation means.

Irrelevant semantics, unless you’re somehow trying to argue that the Dragonmaw situation doesn’t apply to Garrosh to begin with:

Those really aren’t irrelevant semantics. If I am allied to someone, yet he is not under my command, I am not responsible for what he is doing. I am allied to someone, but he is under my command, I can be charged. Simple as that.

Zaela was under Garrosh’s direct command, as was her clan. Further more, the statement that the “Alliance tried to accuse Garrosh for what happened in Grim Batol during the second war” is blatantly false, and that is easy to prove.

[Telaryn-argent-dawn (Telaryn)]

Not really, it only shows to me that the Dragonmaw continued dragon breeding under Garrosh’s rule, which is basically what this accusation means.

Going to have to ask for a source on that, chief, because Tyrande specifically talks about Alexstrasza’s rape there. At no point does anyone suggest that the Dragonmaw were still doing it.

Those really aren’t irrelevant semantics. If I am allied to someone, yet he is not under my command, I am not responsible for what he is doing. I am allied to someone, but he is under my command, I can be charged. Simple as that.

And the Alliance disagrees, as the charge laid is that you are charged for the actions of all who you are allied with, even if they’re not your direct subjects.

[Araphant-defias-brotherhood (Araphant)]

Going to have to ask for a source on that, chief, because Tyrande specifically talks about Alexstrasza’s rape there.

I don’t need to provide you with a source, as Tyrande clearly states why Alexstraszsa is called to the trial and what her agenda is. Nowhere is such a ludicrous charge as “Its Garrosh’s fault for the Second War” presented.

Further more, the Dragonmaw maim, flay, and torture their dragons. If you believe that I need to provide you with a source for forced breeding in such a situation, I really don’t feel that way.

Especially as you are well aware that such content won’t make it into this kind of game.

And the Alliance disagrees, as the charge laid is that you are charged for the actions of all who you are allied with, even if they’re not your direct subjects.

I fail to see your point here.

[Telaryn-argent-dawn (Telaryn)]

I don’t need to provide you with a source, as Tyrande clearly states why Alexstraszsa is called to the trial and what her agenda is. Nowhere is such a ludicrous charge as “Its Garrosh’s fault for the Second War” presented.

Further more, the Dragonmaw maim, flay, and torture their dragons. If you believe that I need to provide you with a source for forced breeding in such a situation, I really don’t feel that way.

Especially as you are well aware that such content won’t make it into this kind of game.

So in other words, you don’t have a source for that claim. As it stands, Tyrande specifically tries to prosecute Garrosh for Alexstrasza’s rape. =)

I fail to see your point here.

Allied with, and being direct subject are the same thing far as the law is concerned. Making a distinction there is arbitrary and irrelevant.

[Araphant-defias-brotherhood (Araphant)]

So in other words, you don’t have a source for that claim. As it stands, Tyrande specifically tries to prosecute Garrosh for Alexstrasza’s rape. =)

I am currently looking for one, but I honestly don’t understand what you expect me to prove. The Dragonmaw continued their Second War traditions in its entirety, complete with Demon Soul off-shots being used for forcing drakes into servitude.

Further more, Tyrande quite clearly states in the book that Alex is called as a witness for what happened to dragons during OUR war, so kindly stop lying.

Allied with, and being direct subject are the same thing far as the law is concerned. Making a distinction there is arbitrary and irrelevant.

It really isn’t, and I explained why.

[Telaryn-argent-dawn (Telaryn)]

I am currently looking for one, but I honestly don’t understand what you expect me to prove. The Dragonmaw continued their Second War traditions in its entirety, complete with Demon Soul off-shots being used for forcing drakes into servitude.

All I want is a source that states the Dragonmaw continued to forcefully breed dragons. Should be easy if it happened, right? All I ask is that you prove me wrong with an actual source.

Further more, Tyrande quite clearly states in the book that Alex is called as a witness for what happened to dragons during OUR war, so kindly stop lying.

Then why does she make Alexstrasza recount the events of Second War? Surely if she was there as a witness for what the Dragonmaw did during this war alone (Read: the rape part) then they’d have maybe focused on that part and not exclusively on her rape during Second War :S

[Sereluna-silvermoon]

Because it’s not just one instance where Tyrande tries to go for the clutch collective punishment. In this particular example, she’s looping outside of the initial premise – Garrosh’s crimes – to go after all orcs by referencing the slaughter of Telmor.

Nice cutoff there.

Although, I still fail to see your point? She goes out of the constraints of her position as prosecutor to demonize orcs and what…? What do you want to say with this? I agree, that is unethical, but what does this have to do with the conversation at hand?

Also, you need to get better at citations. The citation provided does not prove what you claim it does. It only proves Tyrande brought up Velen as a witness and referenced the orcs’ past crimes, not that she used them to charaterise all orcs. Taken at face value, it just seems as though you are taking quote out of context that indicate they are leading into a conversation you want them to have, rather than the one they actually have.

Even Anduin and Wrathion talk about her real motive no longer being just Garrosh’s prosecution.

So? I never denied she used the trial to spite the Horde.

I mean, again, you show that you are not very good at citations. You previously showed a citation of Tyrande bringing up the orcs’ genocide of the draenei, then asserted she “went after the orcs”, the exact meaning of which is not clear in your post and is subject to interpretation, and now you post a citation stating that Tyrande used the example to prove the orcs could not erase their complicity with the demon blood, Garrosh least of all. Sure, Wrathion agrees with you, but because Anduin states one thing and Wrathion another, and the conversation referenced is not shown, it just seems as though you are cherry-picking.

Tyrande had spoken the truth. She could win the trial simply by showing up each morning and letting the facts speak for themselves. But this new element of being able to display scenes from the past troubled him.

If words could be twisted, then surely images could be. His thoughts went to the angry initial cries of some in the Alliance who wanted to put the entire Horde on trial.

Again, bad citation. It literally says here that what Tyrande presents is factual, and indicates that collective Horde blame is more a result of people’s interpretation than her own bias as it states the facts speak for themselves.

And I never stated any of this was Tyrande’s “fringe beliefs”, so I do not understand why you would deny that.

“True,” said Varian. “As opposed to Tyrande’s task, which I think everyone in the Alliance coveted.”

Everyone wanted to prosecute the guy who commited war crimes against them. How surprising.

I mean, none of this proves that the Alliance’s opinion, which should best be taken as the opinion of the majority amongst those who care and/or the opinions of their leader, was the Horde has some weird collective blame, only that they were willing to play with it when convenient in order to ensure a conviction.

[Araphant-defias-brotherhood (Araphant)]

All I want is a source that states the Dragonmaw continued to forcefully breed dragons. Should be easy if it happened, right? All I ask is that you prove me wrong with an actual source.

I can not provide you with such a source at this time, no. But I honestly do not see why I should have to provide you with it, as the situation is rather obvious. The Dragonmaw subjugate dragons just as they always did.

Then why does she make Alexstrasza recount the events of Second War? Surely if she was there as a witness for what the Dragonmaw did during this war alone (Read: the rape part) then they’d have maybe focused on that part and not exclusively on her rape during Second War :S

Probably for shock value. I mean, her intention is to see Garrosh killed. But do you honestly expect that I can make sense of the tangled webs Golden weaves? That novel is a travesty in every possible sense.

But saying that “The Alliance tried to charge Garrosh for the Second War” rings rather hollow to me, especially as we have proven that the rest of the charges apply to this war and the conflict we had in MOP.

[Telaryn-argent-dawn (Telaryn)]

Also, you need to get better at citations. The citation provided does not prove what you claim it does. It only proves Tyrande brought up Velen as a witness and referenced the orcs’ past crimes, not that she used them to charaterise all orcs. Taken at face value, it just seems as though you are taking quote out of context that indicate they are leading into a conversation you want them to have, rather than the one they actually have.

I mean, again, you show that you are not very good at citations. You previously showed a citation of Tyrande bringing up the orcs’ genocide of the draenei, then asserted she “went after the orcs”, the exact meaning of which is not clear in your post and is subject to interpretation, and now you post a citation stating that Tyrande used the example to prove the orcs could not erase their complicity with the demon blood, Garrosh least of all. Sure, Wrathion agrees with you, but because Anduin states one thing and Wrathion another, and the conversation referenced is not shown, it just seems as though you are cherry-picking.

Think it’s pretty clear if you actually tried to read the novel that she’s trying to prosecute all orcs for war crimes, no matter how recent or distant in the past they were. You realize that the conversation Wrathion and Anduin have takes place literally after the Telmor scene, and that they’re still discussing the same thing? They’re not two disjointed parts cherry picked out of context, it’s continuation of the previous scene.

Tyrande tried to capitalize on the trial to punish all orcs, and Wrathion and Anduin are discussing that being her true motive after she showed the Telmor massacre to paint all orcs black.

So? I never denied she used the trial to spite the Horde.

And I never stated any of this was Tyrande’s “fringe beliefs”, so I do not understand why you would deny that.

The fact that she presented the arguments does not mean she, or anyone else in the Alliance believes in them.

hmmm

Again, bad citation. It literally says here that what Tyrande presents is factual, and indicates that collective Horde blame is more a result of people’s interpretation than her own bias as it states the facts speak for themselves.

It’s two different statements. The facts that Garrosh has committed crimes speak for themselves, of that there is no denying. Then Thrall’s thoughts went to the Alliance’s wishes to also prosecute the entire Horde while at it. It was a shared stance among the Alliance.

I’ll admit that one was an actual bad citation on my part because I didn’t want to make it too short with one sentence. The two paragraphs in full context aren’t related to each other.

I can not provide you with such a source at this time, no. But I honestly do not see why I should have to provide you with it, as the situation is rather obvious. The Dragonmaw subjugate dragons just as they always did.

And I don’t deny that. I’m only contesting that they continued to rape them, which is what Garrosh is charged with. A crime of which the only evidence is Second War.

But saying that “The Alliance tried to charge Garrosh for the Second War” rings rather hollow to me, especially as we have proven that the rest of the charges apply to this war and the conflict we had in MOP.

And I’d hope for the sake of continuity (which exists only to enhance the story, not tie the hands of creators ) the factions would maintain the legal stances they took in MoP regarding war crimes.

It all boils down to collective punishment (Alliance) vs. individual punishment (Horde). Make what you will of the novel, but at the very least that division in ideology regarding punishment is an interesting story hook for me.

The Alliance shouldn’t just forgive the entire Horde for all they’ve done; they have valid reasons to pursue collective punishment. And in the Horde’s defense, individual punishment for those who actually committed all those crimes is the logical choice.

Don’t mistake my arguments as me trying to justify the crimes themselves; I don’t really like war crimes in writing if they’re done poorly (see all the times in the Alliance War Campaign where you commit them like a bucket list, but it’s constantly played for gags with lmao murder goblins because they have a whacky death sound xDD).

If you’re going to do them, I hope you’d also follow through with the necessary consequences of them and that means dealing out punishment. And for that we need to know each faction’s stances on assigning guilt.

[Araphant-defias-brotherhood (Araphant)]

And I don’t deny that. I’m only contesting that they continued to rape them, which is what Garrosh is charged with. A crime of which the only evidence is Second War.

I can not provide you with in-game evidence, no. But what I am doing here is trying to make sense of what we have. Blaming Garrosh for the Second War is downright moronic, I don’t even need to explain why.

Thus, in order to make sense, I claim that they continued with this tradition, and it makes sense to me, as I have seen this particular clan enslave, flay, torment dragons and steal their whelps.

I add breeding dragons to the list in order to make sense of what I was given, and I have to say that the accusation does not seem far-fetched to me in the light of what we have.

You are, of course, welcome to disagree with my opinion, and I am sure you have rather rational and good reasons for doing so.

It all boils down to collective punishment (Alliance) vs. individual punishment (Horde).

You are debating this with Serelune, I do not really have an opinion. But I must remind you that our King Anduin Holy-bones goes to war only against Sylvanas, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

A small rant about the factions and their philosophies, though. I honestly can not stomach what Blizzard did to both factions since Cataclysm, and the joke which is happening to both factions now.

If we let Christie Golden or Blizzard define what the Alliance and the Horde stand for, especially after the fiasco which is BFA, we might as well unsubscribe.

Can we honestly debate about faction philosophy or stances during THIS expansion?

[Telaryn-argent-dawn (Telaryn)]

I can not provide you with in-game evidence, no. But what I am doing here is trying to make sense of what we have. Blaming Garrosh for the Second War is downright moronic, I don’t even need to explain why.

Thus, in order to make sense, I claim that they continued with this tradition, and it makes sense to me, as I have seen this particular clan enslave, flay, torment dragons and steal their whelps.

I add breeding dragons to the list in order to make sense of what I was given, and I have to say that the accusation does not seem far-fetched to me in the light of what we have.

You are, of course, welcome to disagree with my opinion, and I am sure you have rather rational and good reasons for doing so.

I respect your choice to disagree. I just think it’s more interesting that the Alliance would resort to dirty tricks like bringing up Second War to go for the clutch, as that’s definitely something Tyrande would try to go for. I don’t think she’s in the right to bring it up, but when the alternative is Lawful Stupid Alliance, I’d prefer they take off the silk glove for once and equip the steel gauntlet.

You are debating this with Serelune, I do not really have an opinion. But I must remind you that our King Anduin Holy-bones goes to war only against Sylvanas, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

A small rant about the factions and their philosophies, though. I honestly can not stomach what Blizzard did to both factions since Cataclysm, and the joke which is happening to both factions now.

If we let Christie Golden or Blizzard define what the Alliance and the Horde stand for, especially after the fiasco which is BFA, we might as well unsubscribe.

Can we honestly debate about faction philosophy or stances during THIS expansion?

Yeah, Anduin is idealistic but characters like Genn and Tyrande don’t have a reason to be as thrilled about peace and unity like he is. Having some discord in the Alliance as other leaders try to go for that clutch victory while Anduin’s trying to forge a lasting peace is more interesting than everyone kow-towing to Anduin’s magic bones.

It might be a lot to ask from this expansion, but I’d rather remain optimistic than hate everything. At that point you might as well consider a different game for your own sake.

[Araphant-defias-brotherhood (Araphant)]

It might be a lot to ask from this expansion, but I’d rather remain optimistic than hate everything. At that point you might as well consider a different game for your own sake.

Eh, I don’t hate everything, but the lore is a travesty. You must understand that I have quite the problem accepting Blizzard’s opinion on my faction as Blizzard forced my faction to attack Undercity without any precautions or at least back-up plan in case of Blight application. While attacking Sylvanas. With the King who’s country was blighted being present.

I don’t think it can get more stupid then that, that’s the rock-bottom of Alliance writing.

[Telaryn-argent-dawn (Telaryn)]

It might be a lot to ask from this expansion, but I’d rather remain optimistic than hate everything. At that point you might as well consider a different game for your own sake.

Eh, I don’t have everything, but the lore is a travesty. You must understand that I have quite the problem accepting Blizzard’s opinion on my faction as Blizzard forced my faction to attack Undercity without any precautions or at least back-up plan in case of Blight application. While attacking Sylvanas. With the King who’s country was blighted being present.

I don’t think it can get more stupid then that, that’s the rock-bottom of Alliance writing.

My biggest problem after getting around to playing the Alliance side of the story (I play alliance btw) was the War Campaign. Everyone kept on going on about how evil the Horde is (which I don’t really deny) while at the same time going through some weird mental gymnastics to justify the sheer amount of the Alliance player does. A while back I had an argument with someone who was taking a page out of Pol Pot’s book to justify things. That’s a major yikes from me.

I took the time to count the tally, and the Alliance Player Character commits more war crimes by sheer volume than the Horde (although when Horde does things, the impact is greater). In the Horde narrative the player character is conveniently being left out of the bad things to maintain plausible deniability for propaganda purposes. The Alliance player goes gung ho and commits like 5 or 6 counts of civilian mass slaughter, but none of it is ever brought up because it’s swept under the rug and you’re patted on the back for being the good guy.

It gets even worse when you read the actual quest text with Wyrmbane which points out that he was officially appointed to represent Anduin’s voice in the campaign and then he goes to do his thing.

The Alliance writing is a hot dumpster fire and I wish it weren’t so.

[Araphant-defias-brotherhood (Araphant)]

The Alliance writing is a hot dumpster fire and I wish it weren’t so.

Welcome to BFA, I suppose, enjoy your stay, there’s a dragon mount (heh) in the store.

[Sereluna-silvermoon]

Think it’s pretty clear if you actually tried to read the novel that she’s trying to prosecute all orcs for war crimes, no matter how recent or distant in the past they were.

I never denied such. I pointed out that the citations your provided did not show her doing this, only one person assuming she will, and another person interpreting so, against conflicting statements.

You realize that the conversation Wrathion and Anduin have takes place literally after the Telmor scene, and that they’re still discussing the same thing? They’re not two disjointed parts cherry picked out of context, it’s continuation of the previous scene.

I never denied this. As I said, you only provide citations around the conversation of importance, not the actual conversation, that say what you want them to say. It looks like you know the actual conversation does not contain the information you want and try to get around it by providing citations of people talking about the conversation in the manner you find befitting.

Tyrande tried to capitalize on the trial to punish all orcs, and Wrathion and Anduin are discussing that being her true motive after she showed the Telmor massacre to paint all orcs black.

I am going to need you to be clearer. Are you saying she demanded all orcs be punished as a result of the trial? Putting that forth as a legitimate demand. I do not have the book at hand, but I sure think I would remember reading something like that.

hmmm

Hmm indeed. I do not know why you presented those citations of me. None of them contradict each other.

It’s two different statements.

That, actually makes things worse for you. If they are separate, that means Tyrande spoke the truth, without the baggage of the Alliance interpreting her words to suit their agenda.

And seeing as the second one is Thrall’s thoughts, that means your evidence of some members in the Alliance wanting to prosecute the entire Horde, which does not equate to thinking all Horde share blame, comes from a biased assumption of a non-Alliance member. Does that seem like strong evidence to you?

[Telaryn-argent-dawn (Telaryn)]

I never denied this. As I said, you only provide citations around the conversation of importance, not the actual conversation, that say what you want them to say. It looks like you know the actual conversation does not contain the information you want and try to get around it by providing citations of people talking about the conversation in the manner you find befitting.

It’s more a case of character limit per post. Would that I could, I’d copy paste the entire novel for you, but just citing a single scene is difficult. But if you’d like, I can spam this thread up for you =)

I am going to need you to be clearer. Are you saying she demanded all orcs be punished as a result of the trial? Putting that forth as a legitimate demand. I do not have the book at hand, but I sure think I would remember reading something like that.

She’s not demanding the orcs be punished as a result of the trial, but rather uses it as a platform to lump them all in with Garrosh while it’s still going on. It’s an active attempt she made through out the novel, but one that failed in the end as Taran Zhu rebukes her many times to put her back in her place.

That, actually makes things worse for you. If they are separate, that means Tyrande spoke the truth, without the baggage of the Alliance interpreting her words to suit their agenda.

And seeing as the second one is Thrall’s thoughts, that means your evidence of some members in the Alliance wanting to prosecute the entire Horde, which does not equate to thinking all Horde share blame, comes from a biased assumption of a non-Alliance member. Does that seem like strong evidence to you?

Both paragraphs are from Thrall’s POV. Garrosh is done for and he acknowledges that. But he still brings up that Tyrande is twisting the truth to fit her agenda with the agenda being revealed as prosecuting all orcs, because images could be twisted too (and lo and behold, Tyrande does exactly that and cherry picks information from the scenes to paint as bad a picture of the orcs at Telmor as possible, suggesting that even Durotan was morally bankrupt and evil to show that no orc can be redeemed until Baine shows full context with his turn that debunks Tyrande’s attempt).

Thrall also thought back to the cries of the Alliance to put the entire Horde on trial – he’s not imagining that, it’s something that actually happened. He’s not assuming those things, he witnessed them. Read the paragraphs again :S