What happened to the CS sympathizer towns in Minnesota?

[Freemage]

Logic really does break this down:

1: If the field commander knows that a town contains C-Symps, he'll probably take efforts to get them clear of the battle zone. This isn't necessarily altruism, so much as 'keeping the loyalists loyal'.

2: If someone comes out and claims to be a C-Symp as the forces roll up, and they aren't armed, there's probably a two-step process: Let the Dog-boy or Psi-Stalker go forward and give 'em a sniff, then ask for some sort of corroboration; the names and locations of Tolkeen loyalists in town, particularly D-bees and magic-wielders of any sort, would be a fine example of such.

3: If the field commander has no knowledge of this, and the C-Symp can't provide any good evidence, they're likely taken prisoner and watched, as the troops proceed to march through the town on high alert.

4: If an entire town claims to be Coalition-aligned, then a more thorough version of 2, above, takes place, with the townsfolk ordered to march out of town in a single file, spaced out, so they can be inspected one-by-one by a Dog-Boy or Psi-Stalker (if the unit has multiple such detector-types, then multiple lines may be used, but not so many as to obstruct lines of fire if someone tries to make a break for it or launch an attack). Once everyone agrees the town is clear, the townsfolk are ordered to stand off to the side while the troops move through on a seek-and-destroy setting. Since all of the townsfolk are supposedly already out of town, it is 'safe' to assume that anyone found is fair game for target practice. If there's any indication that the town was actually deliberately attempting to hide the discovered target (a judgement call left to the field commander, who may be intelligent and fair or may be suspicious and bloodthirsty), then the townsfolk are likely to receive the summary judgement the commanders were ordered to give. Evidence of C-Symp status of the town as a whole can be provided by then providing quarters, fuel and food.

5: In some cases of 4, above, the troops are likely to be more aggressive in setting the bar for sufficient proof of 'Coalition Supporters'. So instead of a fresh-cooked meal and a bed for the night, they would indeed raid the larders, drain the fuel from the vehicles, make sure to confiscate every weapon or potential weapon they could find, and in at least some cases, yes, demand 'companionship' in those beds while they stay in town. The proof that this is likely to happen on some occasions is simply "Every war ever fought in human history." A corrupt field commander deals with 'snitches' (and potential/likely snitches) by sending them to do point duty until their luck runs out; once this winnowing out process is done with, well, everyone left is on-board with Plan Loot & Pillage. High Command turns a blind eye to such things unless they are so grotesque that they can't cover it up, because you don't sweat the small stuff, so long as your troops keep winning.

Now, towns that do have a D-Bee or a mage in them, and don't give them up immediately upon the CS troops rolling up? Yeah, they're ash. That's definitely canon.

[eliakon]

Logic really does break this down:

1: If the field commander knows that a town contains C-Symps, he'll probably take efforts to get them clear of the battle zone. This isn't necessarily altruism, so much as 'keeping the loyalists loyal'.

2: If someone comes out and claims to be a C-Symp as the forces roll up, and they aren't armed, there's probably a two-step process: Let the Dog-boy or Psi-Stalker go forward and give 'em a sniff, then ask for some sort of corroboration; the names and locations of Tolkeen loyalists in town, particularly D-bees and magic-wielders of any sort, would be a fine example of such.

3: If the field commander has no knowledge of this, and the C-Symp can't provide any good evidence, they're likely taken prisoner and watched, as the troops proceed to march through the town on high alert.

4: If an entire town claims to be Coalition-aligned, then a more thorough version of 2, above, takes place, with the townsfolk ordered to march out of town in a single file, spaced out, so they can be inspected one-by-one by a Dog-Boy or Psi-Stalker (if the unit has multiple such detector-types, then multiple lines may be used, but not so many as to obstruct lines of fire if someone tries to make a break for it or launch an attack). Once everyone agrees the town is clear, the townsfolk are ordered to stand off to the side while the troops move through on a seek-and-destroy setting. Since all of the townsfolk are supposedly already out of town, it is 'safe' to assume that anyone found is fair game for target practice. If there's any indication that the town was actually deliberately attempting to hide the discovered target (a judgement call left to the field commander, who may be intelligent and fair or may be suspicious and bloodthirsty), then the townsfolk are likely to receive the summary judgement the commanders were ordered to give. Evidence of C-Symp status of the town as a whole can be provided by then providing quarters, fuel and food.

5: In some cases of 4, above, the troops are likely to be more aggressive in setting the bar for sufficient proof of 'Coalition Supporters'. So instead of a fresh-cooked meal and a bed for the night, they would indeed raid the larders, drain the fuel from the vehicles, make sure to confiscate every weapon or potential weapon they could find, and in at least some cases, yes, demand 'companionship' in those beds while they stay in town. The proof that this is likely to happen on some occasions is simply "Every war ever fought in human history." A corrupt field commander deals with 'snitches' (and potential/likely snitches) by sending them to do point duty until their luck runs out; once this winnowing out process is done with, well, everyone left is on-board with Plan Loot & Pillage. High Command turns a blind eye to such things unless they are so grotesque that they can't cover it up, because you don't sweat the small stuff, so long as your troops keep winning.

Now, towns that do have a D-Bee or a mage in them, and don't give them up immediately upon the CS troops rolling up? Yeah, they're ash. That's definitely canon.

Its a nice, cute idea.
I am sure that all of the Coalition Defenders here love it because it makes the CS look like good guys...
...its not what the books say was happening though.

Look at it this way people.
K.S. grew up through the Vietnam war. He lived through the 'war is hell' and 'we had to destroy the village to save it' time. Mai Li was done by his nation in his time. He understands that in a nasty brutal war like this that the soldiers are not going to be nice, and methodical regardless of what the desk jockeys a thousand miles away, five years later might say from their armored command bunkers.
They roll in, and if they find the slightest hint that the place isn't so squeaky clean you can eat off of it. You mist the entire village and move on.

[Freemage]

Logic really does break this down:

1: If the field commander knows that a town contains C-Symps, he'll probably take efforts to get them clear of the battle zone. This isn't necessarily altruism, so much as 'keeping the loyalists loyal'.

2: If someone comes out and claims to be a C-Symp as the forces roll up, and they aren't armed, there's probably a two-step process: Let the Dog-boy or Psi-Stalker go forward and give 'em a sniff, then ask for some sort of corroboration; the names and locations of Tolkeen loyalists in town, particularly D-bees and magic-wielders of any sort, would be a fine example of such.

3: If the field commander has no knowledge of this, and the C-Symp can't provide any good evidence, they're likely taken prisoner and watched, as the troops proceed to march through the town on high alert.

4: If an entire town claims to be Coalition-aligned, then a more thorough version of 2, above, takes place, with the townsfolk ordered to march out of town in a single file, spaced out, so they can be inspected one-by-one by a Dog-Boy or Psi-Stalker (if the unit has multiple such detector-types, then multiple lines may be used, but not so many as to obstruct lines of fire if someone tries to make a break for it or launch an attack). Once everyone agrees the town is clear, the townsfolk are ordered to stand off to the side while the troops move through on a seek-and-destroy setting. Since all of the townsfolk are supposedly already out of town, it is 'safe' to assume that anyone found is fair game for target practice. If there's any indication that the town was actually deliberately attempting to hide the discovered target (a judgement call left to the field commander, who may be intelligent and fair or may be suspicious and bloodthirsty), then the townsfolk are likely to receive the summary judgement the commanders were ordered to give. Evidence of C-Symp status of the town as a whole can be provided by then providing quarters, fuel and food.

5: In some cases of 4, above, the troops are likely to be more aggressive in setting the bar for sufficient proof of 'Coalition Supporters'. So instead of a fresh-cooked meal and a bed for the night, they would indeed raid the larders, drain the fuel from the vehicles, make sure to confiscate every weapon or potential weapon they could find, and in at least some cases, yes, demand 'companionship' in those beds while they stay in town. The proof that this is likely to happen on some occasions is simply "Every war ever fought in human history." A corrupt field commander deals with 'snitches' (and potential/likely snitches) by sending them to do point duty until their luck runs out; once this winnowing out process is done with, well, everyone left is on-board with Plan Loot & Pillage. High Command turns a blind eye to such things unless they are so grotesque that they can't cover it up, because you don't sweat the small stuff, so long as your troops keep winning.

Now, towns that do have a D-Bee or a mage in them, and don't give them up immediately upon the CS troops rolling up? Yeah, they're ash. That's definitely canon.

Its a nice, cute idea.
I am sure that all of the Coalition Defenders here love it because it makes the CS look like good guys...
...its not what the books say was happening though.

Look at it this way people.
K.S. grew up through the Vietnam war. He lived through the 'war is hell' and 'we had to destroy the village to save it' time. Mai Li was done by his nation in his time. He understands that in a nasty brutal war like this that the soldiers are not going to be nice, and methodical regardless of what the desk jockeys a thousand miles away, five years later might say from their armored command bunkers.
They roll in, and if they find the slightest hint that the place isn't so squeaky clean you can eat off of it. You mist the entire village and move on.

Note: My accounting above refers to:

1: Towns known to the local field commander to be cooperative and useful (you keep your assets, frankly, even if the higher-ups might prefer you didn't--that's the flip-side of the 'dirtiness' of war);
2: Towns that go to extreme lengths to show obeisance to the troops, and which prove (in the face of an intrusive examination) to be squeaky-clean, as you put it.

Any sign of resistance? Any indication that they were trying to conceal a D-bee or Magic-wielding resident? Then yes, the village is ashed, and so are the villagers, with maybe a few tokens taken prisoner to be given the opportunity to 'confess' to the town's innumerable crimes.

And there's an unknown percentage of those field commanders who are absolutely corrupt with the effects of war, and thus would go to darker territory, some with and some without killing everyone afterwards to prevent witness testimony. I'm not arguing for "good guy" status by either High Command OR the field troops--merely competency on the part of most of them.

Also note: As you get closer to the city of Tolkeen, the percentage of towns both capable of and willing to play nice drops off dramatically--more people using magic (either directly or via TW enchanted gear in town), more d-bees in the population (and closer ties between the D-bees and the humans). Most of the C-Symp towns are likely to be located near the borders, which is also when the troops are going to feel the least rushed and the most confident.

C-Symps who happened to be living very close to Tolkeen proper? Yeah, they got crushed during the final days of the Siege; artillery strikes aren't particularly choosy.

[Axelmania]

Eliakon given that the d-bee slaves working the farm are not listed under the town population, the farmlands are clearly not considered part of the town, so the town doesn't qualify as harbouring them.

The farmlands are proximal to the town and would be treated separately.

[Killer Cyborg]

Logic really does break this down:

1: If the field commander knows that a town contains C-Symps, he'll probably take efforts to get them clear of the battle zone. This isn't necessarily altruism, so much as 'keeping the loyalists loyal'.

2: If someone comes out and claims to be a C-Symp as the forces roll up, and they aren't armed, there's probably a two-step process: Let the Dog-boy or Psi-Stalker go forward and give 'em a sniff, then ask for some sort of corroboration; the names and locations of Tolkeen loyalists in town, particularly D-bees and magic-wielders of any sort, would be a fine example of such.

3: If the field commander has no knowledge of this, and the C-Symp can't provide any good evidence, they're likely taken prisoner and watched, as the troops proceed to march through the town on high alert.

4: If an entire town claims to be Coalition-aligned, then a more thorough version of 2, above, takes place, with the townsfolk ordered to march out of town in a single file, spaced out, so they can be inspected one-by-one by a Dog-Boy or Psi-Stalker (if the unit has multiple such detector-types, then multiple lines may be used, but not so many as to obstruct lines of fire if someone tries to make a break for it or launch an attack). Once everyone agrees the town is clear, the townsfolk are ordered to stand off to the side while the troops move through on a seek-and-destroy setting. Since all of the townsfolk are supposedly already out of town, it is 'safe' to assume that anyone found is fair game for target practice. If there's any indication that the town was actually deliberately attempting to hide the discovered target (a judgement call left to the field commander, who may be intelligent and fair or may be suspicious and bloodthirsty), then the townsfolk are likely to receive the summary judgement the commanders were ordered to give. Evidence of C-Symp status of the town as a whole can be provided by then providing quarters, fuel and food.

5: In some cases of 4, above, the troops are likely to be more aggressive in setting the bar for sufficient proof of 'Coalition Supporters'. So instead of a fresh-cooked meal and a bed for the night, they would indeed raid the larders, drain the fuel from the vehicles, make sure to confiscate every weapon or potential weapon they could find, and in at least some cases, yes, demand 'companionship' in those beds while they stay in town. The proof that this is likely to happen on some occasions is simply "Every war ever fought in human history." A corrupt field commander deals with 'snitches' (and potential/likely snitches) by sending them to do point duty until their luck runs out; once this winnowing out process is done with, well, everyone left is on-board with Plan Loot & Pillage. High Command turns a blind eye to such things unless they are so grotesque that they can't cover it up, because you don't sweat the small stuff, so long as your troops keep winning.

Now, towns that do have a D-Bee or a mage in them, and don't give them up immediately upon the CS troops rolling up? Yeah, they're ash. That's definitely canon.

Its a nice, cute idea.
I am sure that all of the Coalition Defenders here love it because it makes the CS look like good guys...
...its not what the books say was happening though.

Look at it this way people.
K.S. grew up through the Vietnam war. He lived through the 'war is hell' and 'we had to destroy the village to save it' time. Mai Li was done by his nation in his time. He understands that in a nasty brutal war like this that the soldiers are not going to be nice, and methodical regardless of what the desk jockeys a thousand miles away, five years later might say from their armored command bunkers.
They roll in, and if they find the slightest hint that the place isn't so squeaky clean you can eat off of it. You mist the entire village and move on.

You believe that's how all US soldiers operated during that war?

[guardiandashi]

Logic really does break this down:

1: If the field commander knows that a town contains C-Symps, he'll probably take efforts to get them clear of the battle zone. This isn't necessarily altruism, so much as 'keeping the loyalists loyal'.

2: If someone comes out and claims to be a C-Symp as the forces roll up, and they aren't armed, there's probably a two-step process: Let the Dog-boy or Psi-Stalker go forward and give 'em a sniff, then ask for some sort of corroboration; the names and locations of Tolkeen loyalists in town, particularly D-bees and magic-wielders of any sort, would be a fine example of such.

3: If the field commander has no knowledge of this, and the C-Symp can't provide any good evidence, they're likely taken prisoner and watched, as the troops proceed to march through the town on high alert.

4: If an entire town claims to be Coalition-aligned, then a more thorough version of 2, above, takes place, with the townsfolk ordered to march out of town in a single file, spaced out, so they can be inspected one-by-one by a Dog-Boy or Psi-Stalker (if the unit has multiple such detector-types, then multiple lines may be used, but not so many as to obstruct lines of fire if someone tries to make a break for it or launch an attack). Once everyone agrees the town is clear, the townsfolk are ordered to stand off to the side while the troops move through on a seek-and-destroy setting. Since all of the townsfolk are supposedly already out of town, it is 'safe' to assume that anyone found is fair game for target practice. If there's any indication that the town was actually deliberately attempting to hide the discovered target (a judgement call left to the field commander, who may be intelligent and fair or may be suspicious and bloodthirsty), then the townsfolk are likely to receive the summary judgement the commanders were ordered to give. Evidence of C-Symp status of the town as a whole can be provided by then providing quarters, fuel and food.

5: In some cases of 4, above, the troops are likely to be more aggressive in setting the bar for sufficient proof of 'Coalition Supporters'. So instead of a fresh-cooked meal and a bed for the night, they would indeed raid the larders, drain the fuel from the vehicles, make sure to confiscate every weapon or potential weapon they could find, and in at least some cases, yes, demand 'companionship' in those beds while they stay in town. The proof that this is likely to happen on some occasions is simply "Every war ever fought in human history." A corrupt field commander deals with 'snitches' (and potential/likely snitches) by sending them to do point duty until their luck runs out; once this winnowing out process is done with, well, everyone left is on-board with Plan Loot & Pillage. High Command turns a blind eye to such things unless they are so grotesque that they can't cover it up, because you don't sweat the small stuff, so long as your troops keep winning.

Now, towns that do have a D-Bee or a mage in them, and don't give them up immediately upon the CS troops rolling up? Yeah, they're ash. That's definitely canon.

Its a nice, cute idea.
I am sure that all of the Coalition Defenders here love it because it makes the CS look like good guys...
...its not what the books say was happening though.

Look at it this way people.
K.S. grew up through the Vietnam war. He lived through the 'war is hell' and 'we had to destroy the village to save it' time. Mai Li was done by his nation in his time. He understands that in a nasty brutal war like this that the soldiers are not going to be nice, and methodical regardless of what the desk jockeys a thousand miles away, five years later might say from their armored command bunkers.
They roll in, and if they find the slightest hint that the place isn't so squeaky clean you can eat off of it. You mist the entire village and move on.

You believe that's how all US soldiers operated during that war?

No because the US soldiers were still operating under the rule of law. The Coalition troops were not, they were actually under orders that today would be war crimes, and disciplined if they were caught being "TOO NICE"

[Killer Cyborg]

Having different rules is not the same as not having rule of law.

[Axelmania]

There's a difference between the CS razing some towns with D-Bees in them (having the leeway to do so at their discretion) and being under orders to do it.

The only actual orders I recall being discussed before were not to allow D-Bees to escape, which is very different being obligated to raze any towns that haven't managed to chase them out.

[Freemage]

There's a difference between the CS razing some towns with D-Bees in them (having the leeway to do so at their discretion) and being under orders to do it.

The only actual orders I recall being discussed before were not to allow D-Bees to escape, which is very different being obligated to raze any towns that haven't managed to chase them out.

The passages in the book that talk about razing towns makes it clear that any town that gets busted for 'harboring' is razed. Not just some, or the occasional town where a field commander chooses to go that route. If there's exceptions, they're rare enough that they aren't even mentioned. It's the standard--which means that one of two things is true:

1: That was the actual order given.

2: Every member of the CS brass, from Karl Prosek down to the freshest Second Lieutenant, is complete $#!^ at their job.

If you have a third magical option that actually fits the evidence presented to us in the books, I'd love to hear it.

[Axelmania]

You underline "any" but where is that in the passages?

Sedition 112's "The Fringes of Tolkeen" for example:

Those who were human were given a modest stipend and told to move, effective immediately.
Those who refused were picked up, carted off and moved by the troops.
Those who dared to fight back or even draw weapons, were "extricated with force" (a euphemism for killed) and their homes bulldozed and overrun.
At least humans, Psi-Stalkers included, were given the option.
D-Bee settlements were obliterated without warning

Policy is clear here: humans get warnings. A "d-bee settlement" would be one that's 100% D-Bees, if there's a known human inhabitant, it's not purely a D-Bee settlement.

Page 111's left column policies are about the kingdom itself, not towns which aren't part of the kingdom, and even then retreat is allowed:

the less heavily populated outskirts of the kingdom as the Coalition Army slowly marches inward to its heart,
destroying all in their path or forcing them to retreat to the center of the kingdom

111's right column doesn't say any:

As for communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found, they have no hard choice to make. They are systematically
destroyed, down to every last man, woman and child

"they are" isn't "they all are". The CS is explicitly doing this to multiple communities where magic or D-Bees is found, but not necessarily to all of them.

112's start also exhibits some tolerance:

Villages, towns, cities and outposts are destroyed, their inhabitants killed or scattered to the wind, livestock seized or slaughtered

So even if a place is destroyed, inhabitants are sometimes spared death and can simply scatter. Farms are also not explicitly purged.

I think some people aren't grasping how the CS are liberators here. I went to the trouble of putting some red circles around what looks like the little dots representing their sympathizers:

https://i.imgur.com/kR1vOTs.jpg

All these towns which sympathize with the CS may, as a means of survival, tolerate D-Bees and mages who stop by, lest they anger them and get killed in response. But as the CS nears, their human-first policies will gain confidence and become stronger, both because the nearness of the CS allows them to brave the risks, and because they don't want their CS liberators to view them as enemies.

[Freemage]

You underline "any" but where is that in the passages?




111's right column doesn't say any:

As for communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found, they have no hard choice to make. They are systematically
destroyed, down to every last man, woman and child

"they are" isn't "they all are". The CS is explicitly doing this to multiple communities where magic or D-Bees is found, but not necessarily to all of them.

At this point, we're done with practical discussion. Communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found are systematically destroyed. Exceptions or modifiers are not included in those sentences, so yes, basic grammar says it applies to ALL communities that meet that definition. At this point, I truly believe nothing short of Kevin S coming in and telling you, personally, that yes, that was what was meant will convince you, however, so as I say, we're done.

[Axelmania]

I don't find your "basic grammar" argument holds water.

If I say "I systematically eat apples in my refrigerator" it doesn't mean I eat EVERY apple I see there. I may for example wash an apple to give to someone else, or throw it out because it is rotten.

If I say "I systematically pick up cat poo with paper towels" this does not mean I use paper towels on every piece that I see. I could be referring to the ones on the floor. Towel is unnecessary when my cat goes in the litter box. I can then use a sifting scoop instead of paper towel.

You're assuming a meaning which just isn't there. Grammar doesn't work the way you think it does.

[Freemage]

Whatever you say, dollink.

[Mack]

Boys, play nice.

[Shorty Lickens]

I don't find your "basic grammar" argument holds water.

If I say "I systematically eat apples in my refrigerator" it doesn't mean I eat EVERY apple I see there. I may for example wash an apple to give to someone else, or throw it out because it is rotten.

If I say "I systematically pick up cat poo with paper towels" this does not mean I use paper towels on every piece that I see. I could be referring to the ones on the floor. Towel is unnecessary when my cat goes in the litter box. I can then use a sifting scoop instead of paper towel.

You're assuming a meaning which just isn't there. Grammar doesn't work the way you think it does.

How do you get inside your refrigerator with all the stuff in there?

[eliakon]

I don't find your "basic grammar" argument holds water.

If I say "I systematically eat apples in my refrigerator" it doesn't mean I eat EVERY apple I see there. I may for example wash an apple to give to someone else, or throw it out because it is rotten.

If I say "I systematically pick up cat poo with paper towels" this does not mean I use paper towels on every piece that I see. I could be referring to the ones on the floor. Towel is unnecessary when my cat goes in the litter box. I can then use a sifting scoop instead of paper towel.

You're assuming a meaning which just isn't there. Grammar doesn't work the way you think it does.

Your making strawmen again
Your not using the word in the same context so of course you will get a different result.
That is just how language works.

When the word "systematically" is applied to a process that is being performed though then that process is presumed to be completed completely.

The sentence provides us with a criteria (those communities that fit the category "have D-Bees, and/or magic and/or refuse the CS) those communities then have the second part of the sentence applied to them. That second part is "systematically destroyed"
There is no qualifier.
The only way that there would be a chance that they do NOT destroy such towns is if the sentence adds a qualifier that states that the systematic destruction is not an automatic result.
For example "are most likely systematically destroyed" or "are liable to be systematically destroyed"
as written it is simple If A then B
Then is a logical condition that is not conditional.

[Killer Cyborg]

Here's how grammar works in this situation:
As for communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found, they have no hard choice to make. They are systematically
destroyed, down to every last man, woman and child.

"They" in the second sentence refers back to "communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found."
What is written is that the set of [communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found] = [Destroyed, down to every last man, woman, and child]

However, this passage is written in common English, with standard usage; it is NOT meant to be an absolute law with zero room for any exceptions.
It's stating the rule, but not in such a way that nothing ever can escape that rule.
It's akin to somebody saying, "lily pads don't grow in a desert."
It's true, as a rule.
But it's not an absolute truth that is completely universal; it's perfectly possible for lily pads to grow in a desert, if somebody installs a pond and cultivates water lilies in that pond, even if that pond is in a desert.

IF the CS finds D-Bees or use of magic, the rule is that they destroy the town down to the last man, woman, and child.
But that doesn't exclude the possible of exceptions; it simply indicates the most common result.
The passage is not writing computer code, nor making a logical argument or claim. It's simply a writer writing as they would talk.

[Killer Cyborg]

I don't find your "basic grammar" argument holds water.

If I say "I systematically eat apples in my refrigerator" it doesn't mean I eat EVERY apple I see there. I may for example wash an apple to give to someone else, or throw it out because it is rotten.

If I say "I systematically pick up cat poo with paper towels" this does not mean I use paper towels on every piece that I see. I could be referring to the ones on the floor. Towel is unnecessary when my cat goes in the litter box. I can then use a sifting scoop instead of paper towel.

You're assuming a meaning which just isn't there. Grammar doesn't work the way you think it does.

Your making strawmen again
Your not using the word in the same context so of course you will get a different result.
That is just how language works.

Since we're discussing how language works:
You probably meant "You're," not "your."
The first is a contraction of "you are," and the second is the possessive form of "you."

[eliakon]

I don't find your "basic grammar" argument holds water.

If I say "I systematically eat apples in my refrigerator" it doesn't mean I eat EVERY apple I see there. I may for example wash an apple to give to someone else, or throw it out because it is rotten.

If I say "I systematically pick up cat poo with paper towels" this does not mean I use paper towels on every piece that I see. I could be referring to the ones on the floor. Towel is unnecessary when my cat goes in the litter box. I can then use a sifting scoop instead of paper towel.

You're assuming a meaning which just isn't there. Grammar doesn't work the way you think it does.

Your making strawmen again
Your not using the word in the same context so of course you will get a different result.
That is just how language works.

Since we're discussing how language works:
You probably meant "You're," not "your."
The first is a contraction of "you are," and the second is the possessive form of "you."

I stand corrected.

[eliakon]

Here's how grammar works in this situation:
As for communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found, they have no hard choice to make. They are systematically
destroyed, down to every last man, woman and child.

"They" in the second sentence refers back to "communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found."
What is written is that the set of [communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found] = [Destroyed, down to every last man, woman, and child]

However, this passage is written in common English, with standard usage; it is NOT meant to be an absolute law with zero room for any exceptions.
It's stating the rule, but not in such a way that nothing ever can escape that rule.
It's akin to somebody saying, "lily pads don't grow in a desert."
It's true, as a rule.
But it's not an absolute truth that is completely universal; it's perfectly possible for lily pads to grow in a desert, if somebody installs a pond and cultivates water lilies in that pond, even if that pond is in a desert.

IF the CS finds D-Bees or use of magic, the rule is that they destroy the town down to the last man, woman, and child.
But that doesn't exclude the possible of exceptions; it simply indicates the most common result.
The passage is not writing computer code, nor making a logical argument or claim. It's simply a writer writing as they would talk.

That is a nice contention.
But it is, as you like to say, lacking in proof.
You want to claim that the CS did not, in fact, actually do what the book said, that's great. Prove it with an in book citation.
Otherwise it is simply your contention that the book is wrong and that your personal interpretation is actually the correct one.
Because as it stands, yes the CS did in fact destroy all these communities since it is a statement of the if A then B sort. Now I am amiable to accepting that there may have been exceptions sure... but as written there were not, so it falls to the claimant to provide support for the claim.
And "well I think the book is wrong" is not support.

[Killer Cyborg]

Here's how grammar works in this situation:
As for communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found, they have no hard choice to make. They are systematically
destroyed, down to every last man, woman and child.

"They" in the second sentence refers back to "communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found."
What is written is that the set of [communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found] = [Destroyed, down to every last man, woman, and child]

However, this passage is written in common English, with standard usage; it is NOT meant to be an absolute law with zero room for any exceptions.
It's stating the rule, but not in such a way that nothing ever can escape that rule.
It's akin to somebody saying, "lily pads don't grow in a desert."
It's true, as a rule.
But it's not an absolute truth that is completely universal; it's perfectly possible for lily pads to grow in a desert, if somebody installs a pond and cultivates water lilies in that pond, even if that pond is in a desert.

IF the CS finds D-Bees or use of magic, the rule is that they destroy the town down to the last man, woman, and child.
But that doesn't exclude the possible of exceptions; it simply indicates the most common result.
The passage is not writing computer code, nor making a logical argument or claim. It's simply a writer writing as they would talk.

That is a nice contention.
But it is, as you like to say, lacking in proof.

I don't need proof that the writer is using common speech; common speech is the default.

You want to claim that the CS did not, in fact, actually do what the book said, that's great.

Not at all.
The CS most likely destroyed any number of towns.
The books never state that the CS destroyed ALL the towns, especially not all of the CS sympathizers towns.

Otherwise it is simply your contention that the book is wrong and that your personal interpretation is actually the correct one.
Because as it stands, yes the CS did in fact destroy all these communities since it is a statement of the if A then B sort.

Oh, sure... IF you ignore the rules of common language, and you pretend that every statement is intended to be an absolute.
Like, for example, if you're the kind of person to read about TW weapons in FoM, to see the statement "Borgs love them," and to assume that the statement--like all statements everywhere--is intended to be an immutable law of nature, that every single borg LOVES those weapons, from every single slave borg, to every single hard-core CS borg trooper.

But that's not how language actually works.
Most statements are not actually intended to be absolutes, only generalities.

[Killer Cyborg]

I stand corrected.

Everybody slips up.
Good people own up to them, and try to improve.
Kudos.

[Axelmania]

Whatever you say, dollink.

this is the coolest thing I have ever been called

How do you get inside your refrigerator with all the stuff in there?

Youko Minamida

The only way that there would be a chance that they do NOT destroy such towns is if the sentence adds a qualifier that states that the systematic destruction is not an automatic result.

The need for qualifiers for clarity works in both directions.

"I eat the apples from my fridge" could mean anything from 2 apples to all apples.

"all the apples" is needed to exclude numbers less than all.
"most of the apples" is needed to exclude numbers half or less. It also implies you did not eat all.
"some of the apples", similarly implies you did not eat all or even eat most.

However, this passage is written in common English, with standard usage; it is NOT meant to be an absolute law with zero room for any exceptions.
It's stating the rule, but not in such a way that nothing ever can escape that rule.
It's akin to somebody saying, "lily pads don't grow in a desert."
It's true, as a rule.
But it's not an absolute truth that is completely universal; it's perfectly possible for lily pads to grow in a desert, if somebody installs a pond and cultivates water lilies in that pond, even if that pond is in a desert.

IF the CS finds D-Bees or use of magic, the rule is that they destroy the town down to the last man, woman, and child.
But that doesn't exclude the possible of exceptions; it simply indicates the most common result.
The passage is not writing computer code, nor making a logical argument or claim. It's simply a writer writing as they would talk.

If you mean "most common result" and not "law" I would opt to go with a word like "norm"' rather than "rule".

I don't see why this should mean that though. If I systematically eat bread slices it doesn't necessarily mean that I eat every bread slice I come across.

You want to claim that the CS did not, in fact, actually do what the book said, that's great. Prove it with an in book citation.
Otherwise it is simply your contention that the book is wrong and that your personal interpretation is actually the correct one.
Because as it stands, yes the CS did in fact destroy all these communities since it is a statement of the if A then B sort. Now I am amiable to accepting that there may have been exceptions sure... but as written there were not, so it falls to the claimant to provide support for the claim.
And "well I think the book is wrong" is not support.

This feels like you're not understanding KC or me.

We all agree the CS has done this to at least 1 town. We are discussing how often they do it.

It doesn't say the CS destroyed ALL communities. It is not an if..then mandate but rather an if..then option.

Like, for example, if you're the kind of person to read about TW weapons in FoM, to see the statement "Borgs love them," and to assume that the statement--like all statements everywhere--is intended to be an immutable law of nature, that every single borg LOVES those weapons, from every single slave borg, to every single hard-core CS borg trooper.

But that's not how language actually works.
Most statements are not actually intended to be absolutes, only generalities.

This is such a great example.

We should have a thread dedicated to finding no-qualifier statements like this and explore the ramifications of Rifts if we interpret all qualifierless statements as meaning all/every/always.

This is another place where I will posit that only some rather than most Borgs love TW weapons. TW stuff is so expensive that it doesn't seem feasible for most Borgs to have tried them out and developed affections toward them.

If for example it said "men love Aphrodite" I wouldn't take that as most. Maybe most men WOULD love her if they met her, but I don't think that she gets around enough to assume the majority of men actively love her.

[Killer Cyborg]

However, this passage is written in common English, with standard usage; it is NOT meant to be an absolute law with zero room for any exceptions.
It's stating the rule, but not in such a way that nothing ever can escape that rule.
It's akin to somebody saying, "lily pads don't grow in a desert."
It's true, as a rule.
But it's not an absolute truth that is completely universal; it's perfectly possible for lily pads to grow in a desert, if somebody installs a pond and cultivates water lilies in that pond, even if that pond is in a desert.

IF the CS finds D-Bees or use of magic, the rule is that they destroy the town down to the last man, woman, and child.
But that doesn't exclude the possible of exceptions; it simply indicates the most common result.
The passage is not writing computer code, nor making a logical argument or claim. It's simply a writer writing as they would talk.

If you mean "most common result" and not "law" I would opt to go with a word like "norm"' rather than "rule".

I don't see why this should mean that though. If I systematically eat bread slices it doesn't necessarily mean that I eat every bread slice I come across.

It's not about the word systematically. It's about the structure of those two sentences.
"They" stands in place for "communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found."
Which means that "communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found" are "Destroyed, down to every last man, woman, and child."

The key part, though, is not pretending that it's an absolute statement.

We should have a thread dedicated to finding no-qualifier statements like this and explore the ramifications of Rifts if we interpret all qualifierless statements as meaning all/every/always.

I had the same thought.
And the initial post should state that the thread is ONLY for posting examples, not for arguing about stuff.

[Axelmania]

So 1 thread just for amassing the quotes with possibility of a spinoff to world-build based off it?

I'm kind of falling in love with the idea that every CS Borg dreams of owning a Techno-Wizard weapon. After all they do understand how meeting with tech makes you better. Maybe merging with tech is what can salvage magic?

I have a pet theory that the master psychics in the vanguard are all psi-net infiltrators, maybe they have been sneaking pro-TW VR propaganda to all Borgs.

Borgs all get a bonus to save vs magic. They are the hardest to influence. So they would be prime to court with diplomacy and seduction.

Borgs know what it is like to feel alienated... Less than human... Cast out for the sacrifices they made to defend humanity... In a way the CS Borgs are.the most capable of empathizing with the Vanguard... And the Vanguard Techno-Wizards could bridge that gap.

[Killer Cyborg]

Here's the quote from FoM 115, under TW Force Cannon:
Dragon Juicers and 'Borgs especially, love this weapon because they can carry it without problem and it deals out lots of damage.

So if we go with absolutism as a rule, then ALL dragon juicers and ALL borgs love this weapon specifically.

A couple pages later, the Starfire Pulse Cannon description starts with:
This is a large, heavy weapon that can only be mounted on vehicles and robots.

So if you wanted to mount one of these on your castle walls, or if you wanted a Pogtal to carry one or something... too bad.
Only vehicles and robots.

P. 118
Firestaff
This staff is a favorite of Fire Warlocks.

So I guess that means that all Fire Warlocks everywhere have a favorite weapon, and that's the Firestaff.

The Battle Fury Blade (119) is "a favorite of Battle Magi, Mystic Knights, Cyber-Knights, and Juicers," so I guess every member of every one of those classes also have a favorite weapon.
This might particularly suck for CS Juicers, who hate magic... but apparently love this weapon.
Also, it makes Cyberknights more conflicted, because they spend years of their life learning to summon a Psi-Sword, but their favorite weapon will always be a Battle Fury Blade according to canon.

But hey... we don't have to go into weapon preferences to make the whole "anything written is a universal rule" schtick pretty interesting.
CW1 17
Line Walkers, Shifters, Mystics, and Temporal Raiders frequently use magic spells to surprise and ambush the enemy.
Since it doesn't say "most" LLWs, Mystics, & Raiders, I guess that means ALL of them.
So no life of peace of contemplation for any of those classes--Each and every one of them MUST NECESSARILY frequently use magic spells to surprise and ambush their enemies.
I guess they're just warlike by nature, and I never really realized it before, because I assumed that Palladium writers were using common speech that allows for exceptions.

[Freemage]

Here's how grammar works in this situation:
As for communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found, they have no hard choice to make. They are systematically
destroyed, down to every last man, woman and child.

"They" in the second sentence refers back to "communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found."
What is written is that the set of [communities where D-Bees and/or the use of magic are found] = [Destroyed, down to every last man, woman, and child]

However, this passage is written in common English, with standard usage; it is NOT meant to be an absolute law with zero room for any exceptions.
It's stating the rule, but not in such a way that nothing ever can escape that rule.
It's akin to somebody saying, "lily pads don't grow in a desert."
It's true, as a rule.
But it's not an absolute truth that is completely universal; it's perfectly possible for lily pads to grow in a desert, if somebody installs a pond and cultivates water lilies in that pond, even if that pond is in a desert.

IF the CS finds D-Bees or use of magic, the rule is that they destroy the town down to the last man, woman, and child.
But that doesn't exclude the possible of exceptions; it simply indicates the most common result.
The passage is not writing computer code, nor making a logical argument or claim. It's simply a writer writing as they would talk.

I agree with all of this, including the likelihood that there could have been exceptions. However, the initial point of contention was not, "Are there exceptions," but rather, "Did the CS order the destruction of 'harboring' towns"?

If it was an occasional thing, then one could conclude that this was simply the result of soldiers pushed to desperate acts by a confounding enemy, acting beyond the scope of their orders. However, since the destruction is, as you note, the actual rule of thumb, the only possible conclusions are that either the CS High Command did, indeed, give the orders to mist any village found harboring D-bees and/or mages, or the CS armed forces are the single most incompetent military in the history of the Megaverse.

[Axelmania]

I don't believe it says "the CS" ordered that. I believe they gave officers the freedom to use that as a precedent, so they could use their own judgement, and that many CS officers (mostly Diabolic) who wanted an excuse to kill (even innocent humans) abuses that freedom.

It is a false dichotomy to say the only options are incompetence or ordered annihilation. More likely it is "if you think the town is trying to hide Dbees or mages from you, you are free to treat them as enemy combatants at your discretion".

The CS is probably turning a blind eye to official punishments for abusing that freedom. But if an officer is misting towns because some invisible Brodkil was there eating their cabbages, the good troops are going to be bothered by it, and maybe not have his back so much if he is in danger, be slow to cooperate, give negative reviews if asked, etc.

Realistically a bunch of normal humans couldnt do a thing to run a single invisible Brodkil out of town. They may not even know he is there, just that some thing is eating their cabbages.

The CS is more likely to simply help them hunt it down.

The freedom to mist towns is obviously an option to be used at discretion of officers who expect collusion with enemies, not an inability to detect them or drive them out.

It can't possible be a mandate since the taking of Dbee children as servants is tolerated. Few would be doing that if it was treason not to kill every encountered Dbee.

[eliakon]

Here's the quote from FoM 115, under TW Force Cannon:
Dragon Juicers and 'Borgs especially, love this weapon because they can carry it without problem and it deals out lots of damage.

So if we go with absolutism as a rule, then ALL dragon juicers and ALL borgs love this weapon specifically.

A couple pages later, the Starfire Pulse Cannon description starts with:
This is a large, heavy weapon that can only be mounted on vehicles and robots.

So if you wanted to mount one of these on your castle walls, or if you wanted a Pogtal to carry one or something... too bad.
Only vehicles and robots.

P. 118
Firestaff
This staff is a favorite of Fire Warlocks.

So I guess that means that all Fire Warlocks everywhere have a favorite weapon, and that's the Firestaff.

The Battle Fury Blade (119) is "a favorite of Battle Magi, Mystic Knights, Cyber-Knights, and Juicers," so I guess every member of every one of those classes also have a favorite weapon.
This might particularly suck for CS Juicers, who hate magic... but apparently love this weapon.
Also, it makes Cyberknights more conflicted, because they spend years of their life learning to summon a Psi-Sword, but their favorite weapon will always be a Battle Fury Blade according to canon.

But hey... we don't have to go into weapon preferences to make the whole "anything written is a universal rule" schtick pretty interesting.
CW1 17
Line Walkers, Shifters, Mystics, and Temporal Raiders frequently use magic spells to surprise and ambush the enemy.
Since it doesn't say "most" LLWs, Mystics, & Raiders, I guess that means ALL of them.
So no life of peace of contemplation for any of those classes--Each and every one of them MUST NECESSARILY frequently use magic spells to surprise and ambush their enemies.
I guess they're just warlike by nature, and I never really realized it before, because I assumed that Palladium writers were using common speech that allows for exceptions.

Nice straw man arguments
the CS destruction of towns is pretty clear cut if A then B
where as "a favorite of x does NOT make it universal.

There for since you have a track record of doing this sort of thing I can only assume that your purpose here is to either
1) try and defend the CS by engaging in the practice of arguing that all statements that cast the CS in bad light are really false
or
2) that you are here in this discussion just to troll people and not here for a real discussion but just to stir up stuff
or
3)that for your own amusement you seek to use your extensive knowledge of grammar and logic to bully everyone by constantly shifting topics, twisting words and using differing standards of evidence for yourself and everyone else.

Since I really have better things to do that either argue with trolls, bullies or CS apologists I will bow out of the discussion.

Warning: Please argue the post, not the poster

[Axelmania]

The CS is already cast in a bad light by tolerating this stuff with little oversight. Disagreeing with your casting them in a worse light isn't scrubbing them clean.

I see this as more of an if..may rather than an if..must.

It would be impossible for the CS to take Dbee servants if they completely annihilated every gathering with a Dbee. Therefore we know they do not always do this. Its a sometimes thing.

[Killer Cyborg]

The CS is already cast in a bad light by tolerating this stuff with little oversight. Disagreeing with your casting them in a worse light isn't scrubbing them clean.

Yeah, I don't get why people ever thing that I'm making the CS out to be good guys.
I both think and say that they're Bad Guys.
It's just that I don't think that they're responsible for everything bad, and I don't think that they're always and only bad.

If the CS sympathizer towns were wiped out, I can certainly see the CS doing some of the wiping.
What I don't see is the CS doing all of it, with Tolkeen NOT going after the CS sympathizers in their midst and outskirts.
I don't see the random bandits and monsters running amok during the war skipping over the CS sympathizer towns.
I don't see the CS raping and pillaging every human town that joins their side.

I see this as more of an if..may rather than an if..must.
It would be impossible for the CS to take Dbee servants if they completely annihilated every gathering with a Dbee. Therefore we know they do not always do this. Its a sometimes thing.

Right.
We also know it because statements are commonly made all the time in the books that are NOT held as immutable laws with no exception--things are written in common speech.

[Axelmania]

Come to think of it, if "they are destroyed" were an inviolable rule, this would be describing outcome rather than attempt.

"To the last man"' being inviolable would mean nobody EVER escaped such a razing.

So if we ID one escapee wouldn't that disprove the assumption of unqualified statements being absolute?

[Killer Cyborg]

Come to think of it, if "they are destroyed" were an inviolable rule, this would be describing outcome rather than attempt.

"To the last man"' being inviolable would mean nobody EVER escaped such a razing.

So if we ID one escapee wouldn't that disprove the assumption of unqualified statements being absolute?

If you're thinking logically, sure.

[Freemage]

The CS is already cast in a bad light by tolerating this stuff with little oversight. Disagreeing with your casting them in a worse light isn't scrubbing them clean.

I see this as more of an if..may rather than an if..must.

It would be impossible for the CS to take Dbee servants if they completely annihilated every gathering with a Dbee. Therefore we know they do not always do this. Its a sometimes thing.

Sure. The 'sometimes' when this happened was during the war against Tolkeen, while dealing with towns within the theater of war. Other times and places, they don't always go to such extremes.

[Axelmania]

Interesting proposal. I disagree and believe it is a narrower sometimes.

The Dbee servants the CS took from Minnesota clearly prove not every place with a Dbee in it gets wiped out.

[Freemage]

Interesting proposal. I disagree and believe it is a narrower sometimes.

The Dbee servants the CS took from Minnesota clearly prove not every place with a Dbee in it gets wiped out.

Where is the reference specifically to D-Bee servants from Minnesota, and when (and where) were they taken? Before, during or after the time when the place was an active war zone--and did they come from the death camps, which we know were not all misted despite Drouge's orders, or were they taken straight from the towns?

[glitterboy2098]

Logic really does break this down:

1: If the field commander knows that a town contains C-Symps, he'll probably take efforts to get them clear of the battle zone. This isn't necessarily altruism, so much as 'keeping the loyalists loyal'.

2: If someone comes out and claims to be a C-Symp as the forces roll up, and they aren't armed, there's probably a two-step process: Let the Dog-boy or Psi-Stalker go forward and give 'em a sniff, then ask for some sort of corroboration; the names and locations of Tolkeen loyalists in town, particularly D-bees and magic-wielders of any sort, would be a fine example of such.

3: If the field commander has no knowledge of this, and the C-Symp can't provide any good evidence, they're likely taken prisoner and watched, as the troops proceed to march through the town on high alert.

4: If an entire town claims to be Coalition-aligned, then a more thorough version of 2, above, takes place, with the townsfolk ordered to march out of town in a single file, spaced out, so they can be inspected one-by-one by a Dog-Boy or Psi-Stalker (if the unit has multiple such detector-types, then multiple lines may be used, but not so many as to obstruct lines of fire if someone tries to make a break for it or launch an attack). Once everyone agrees the town is clear, the townsfolk are ordered to stand off to the side while the troops move through on a seek-and-destroy setting. Since all of the townsfolk are supposedly already out of town, it is 'safe' to assume that anyone found is fair game for target practice. If there's any indication that the town was actually deliberately attempting to hide the discovered target (a judgement call left to the field commander, who may be intelligent and fair or may be suspicious and bloodthirsty), then the townsfolk are likely to receive the summary judgement the commanders were ordered to give. Evidence of C-Symp status of the town as a whole can be provided by then providing quarters, fuel and food.

5: In some cases of 4, above, the troops are likely to be more aggressive in setting the bar for sufficient proof of 'Coalition Supporters'. So instead of a fresh-cooked meal and a bed for the night, they would indeed raid the larders, drain the fuel from the vehicles, make sure to confiscate every weapon or potential weapon they could find, and in at least some cases, yes, demand 'companionship' in those beds while they stay in town. The proof that this is likely to happen on some occasions is simply "Every war ever fought in human history." A corrupt field commander deals with 'snitches' (and potential/likely snitches) by sending them to do point duty until their luck runs out; once this winnowing out process is done with, well, everyone left is on-board with Plan Loot & Pillage. High Command turns a blind eye to such things unless they are so grotesque that they can't cover it up, because you don't sweat the small stuff, so long as your troops keep winning.

Now, towns that do have a D-Bee or a mage in them, and don't give them up immediately upon the CS troops rolling up? Yeah, they're ash. That's definitely canon.

Its a nice, cute idea.
I am sure that all of the Coalition Defenders here love it because it makes the CS look like good guys...
...its not what the books say was happening though.

Look at it this way people.
K.S. grew up through the Vietnam war. He lived through the 'war is hell' and 'we had to destroy the village to save it' time. Mai Li was done by his nation in his time. He understands that in a nasty brutal war like this that the soldiers are not going to be nice, and methodical regardless of what the desk jockeys a thousand miles away, five years later might say from their armored command bunkers.
They roll in, and if they find the slightest hint that the place isn't so squeaky clean you can eat off of it. You mist the entire village and move on.

You believe that's how all US soldiers operated during that war?

actually they often did. it was one of the reasons the vietnam vets had so much trouble with PTSD.

you see, during 1965 to the end of the vietnam war in 1975, the United States military employed a methodology called "free fire zones.". these were large regions where the military command was certain they had no friendly troops in, and which they declared, per the field manual FM-6-20's definition, "A specific designated area into which any weapon system may fire without additional coordination with the establishing headquarters."
what this basically meant practically was large zones in which everything was designated as an enemy. airmobile troops, helicopter gunships, and close air support missions were sent in to sweep the zone and destroy anything that appeared hostile. which given the nature of the guerilla war the vietcong were engaged in, meant "anything that moved." villages, farmers, kids in wagons... anything that the troops thought might harbor or be vietcong guerillas was blown to hell. and since the troops had learned from experiance that any house could hide a guerilla, any farmer could be VC, any kid could throw grenades or stab you.. yeah, everything was a a target. in the process we destroyed a lot of anti-VC communities, and drove many which had been staying neutral into the VC camp. not surprising since our troops would often strafe and napalm vilalges, shoot anyone they met that wasn't in american camo, including children.

this is one of the reasons that vietnam was such a heated issue. because we were basically conducting gruesome war crimes under the guise of counter insurgency, and when the details of this got back to america, it undercut the positive spin the government was trying to give the war.

[Killer Cyborg]

There's a difference between shooting from the air or artillery, and in using infantry.

[glitterboy2098]

they did it on the ground though. air mobile was more common and cover more territory, but foot infantry and APC mounted platoons were involved too. especially when clearing zones near firebases. it was a systematic slaughter.

and even outside the free fire zones, the doctrine of the time resulted in the ground patrols razing villages fairly often, since any time a village was found with any signs of VC presence (which basically amounted to "had guns" or "did not welcome the troops" as the lower end), the troops were encouraged to destroy the village as collaborators.

since most villages armed themselves for their own protection from the VC, and the pro-american ones tended to stay silent for fear of being targeted by the VC..

[Killer Cyborg]

they did it on the ground though. air mobile was more common and cover more territory, but foot infantry and APC mounted platoons were involved too. especially when clearing zones near firebases. it was a systematic slaughter.

and even outside the free fire zones, the doctrine of the time resulted in the ground patrols razing villages fairly often, since any time a village was found with any signs of VC presence (which basically amounted to "had guns" or "did not welcome the troops" as the lower end), the troops were encouraged to destroy the village as collaborators.

since most villages armed themselves for their own protection from the VC, and the pro-american ones tended to stay silent for fear of being targeted by the VC..

Sounds like the kind of thing Eliakon described was more "the low end" of what you're describing than a norm for US soldiers overall during the war.

[Axelmania]

Where is the reference specifically to D-Bee servants from Minnesota, and when (and where) were they taken? Before, during or after the time when the place was an active war zone--and did they come from the death camps, which we know were not all misted despite Drouge's orders, or were they taken straight from the towns?

Coalition Overkill page 15:

This exception may also be extended to informers, unallied adventurers, mercenaries, vagabonds and locals (D-Bees among them) who win the favor of one of the current, local Coalition commanders or units in the area. In some cases, D-Bee children are kept as gophers, servants or entertainers and treated like "pets."

I can't see what 'locals' would refer to here other than Minnesotan locals in the SoT.

There's a difference between shooting from the air or artillery, and in using infantry.

True: air/artillery can afford to be merciful and discriminate because they're not in direct danger. Infantry are in direct danger and can't take the risk of letting targets survive.

[Freemage]

Where is the reference specifically to D-Bee servants from Minnesota, and when (and where) were they taken? Before, during or after the time when the place was an active war zone--and did they come from the death camps, which we know were not all misted despite Drouge's orders, or were they taken straight from the towns?

Coalition Overkill page 15:

This exception may also be extended to informers, unallied adventurers, mercenaries, vagabonds and locals (D-Bees among them) who win the favor of one of the current, local Coalition commanders or units in the area. In some cases, D-Bee children are kept as gophers, servants or entertainers and treated like "pets."

I can't see what 'locals' would refer to here other than Minnesotan locals in the SoT.

Thanks, and fair enough. All this means is that there are exceptions to the broad rule--which are explicitly called out as being frowned upon by the higher-ups.

Note that these servants are NOT being taken back to the CS to serve--they're like the camp runners you see in war movies. I'm curious if there's any word what happened to these 'favored' D-Bees after the Coalition victory. Abandoned on the border of Minnesota to survive as best they can in the New West? Shipped down to Lone Star for 'study'? Given the Old Yeller treatment? Kept as slaves? Note that unless you're breeding your slaves, slavery and genocide aren't incompatible concepts. You're just extracting some value from the targeted population before they are allowed to die out.

[Axelmania]

True. Whether or not to breed them in captivity would be a species by species judgement I think.

Wolfen could simply be bred with the dog boys though its unclear what their offspring would be.

Ogres maybe not, pollute the human gene pool and too hard to breed.among themselves.

Troglodytes might be good for excavation. Kobolds to make mining equipment. Goblins good canaries. Hobgoblins good anti-psi assassins. Trolls would be good lifters but need extra security due to their MDC upgrades.

Changelings too dangerous, killm all. CS was doing this even before FoM invaded. Cobblers are magic, gotta die. Elves are too pretty and have been called creatures of magic like changelings, probably a death order with some unscrupulous commanders using them as sex slaves first. Or maybe selling them I to slavery on the sly to earn money, or maybe using elf pleasure slaves as payment to hire a merc group to assault Tolkeen.

Dwarves I like to think would be shipped to South America to live in prospective ally Cordoba.