Griff Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 Uh, since when? I wouldn't bother, he just makes it up as he goes along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longshadow Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 I believe your government is now requesting reparations. You are so funny that you think you know what we are asking for when you aren't even involved in any discussions with us. So please continue trying to talk like you know whats going on :v: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Che Guevara Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 You've been around long enough to know that as soon as you announced that any (aggressive or otherwise) action that was going to come against NEW would have waited out your 7 day cancellation period. Multiquote needs to come back, I feel your pain. In terms of NEW, yeah, you're right, we had hoped that the 7 days would let things blow over. Regardless, it isn't really relevant to this thread and I feel like I've derailed enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Uh, since when? EDIT: Longshadow is correct, I am not in govt. to govt. communications (and neither is he for whatever that is worth) so I do not know for sure, but 1+1 is 2. Edited February 8, 2013 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Holton Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Brehon said on his radio show the other day that if any alliance deserved to pay reps it was Kaskus. What's your point in bringing this up like it's news? I don't understand why you'd let 2/3rd's of your alliance (really all of you alliance, just 2/3rd's no longer have any capacity to rebuild without significant aid) crash and burn out of spite, or pride, or whatever. I understand the thought of "they're just pixels" but Kaskus should seriously consider the terms that've been offered. You've all fought your hearts and nations out and yes: You took a few of our nations with you as you burned. What now? What's the point of continuing this fight? In the effort to "protect your little brother" you've managed to convince everyone in CN that your alliance is insane and reckless, while letting all but one kaskus member burn. You didn't even manage to save Smurf from ZI. All of your nations are so low that the casualties they're receiving can't even be worth the fight. I just don't understand the logic. Edited February 8, 2013 by Tiber Septim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Brehon said on his radio show the other day that if any alliance deserved to pay reps it was Kaskus. What's your point in bringing this up like it's news? Those billion dollar warchests will only last so many rounds of war. He asked since when NSO/NPO were requesting reperations; I was just telling him where I got that notion from. Edited February 8, 2013 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Holton Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 He asked since when NSO/NPO were requesting reperations; I was just telling him where I got that notion from. Sorry, not the main point of my post anymore. lol. I edited it into a WoT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 Brehon issuing terms to Kaskus would be a nice start of "Pax Pacifica II - The return of the baby eaters." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 Keep back-peddling. What happened to this being a defensive war for NSO because your attack on a Kaskus member (me) was an aggressive action but not a declaration of war? Shangri La did not consider itself to be at war with Kaskus after aid bombing NSO; but you guys considered NEWs actions to be an act of war? If you're going to make up all these rules about how Bob works, at least be consistent. That's not a backpedel, dickwad. No, an 'aggressive action' is not always an act of war. However, an 'act of war' is certainly always aggressive. The 'act of war' is in the interpretation - which is subjective to each individual. Read after what you bolded, "It is still aggressive by nature, by way of causing intended harm." The intended harm is up to the harmed to make the final determination to treat the harm as an act of war and 'do something about it' [which would still be aggressive by it's very nature]. It's not up to Shangri-La to have considered themselves in a state of war with Kaskus for aiding us; it's not up to NEW to consider themselves in a state of war with NSO for aiding Kaskus. The former is up to Kaskus, the second is up to us. A lack of declaration on NEW does not make recognition of their actions being aggressive or hostile any different. Kaskus didn't choose to [albeit because you have no ability to, but that's a frivolous detail] do anything about SL's aid - and when NEW did they were shut down. The ebb and flow of war, the form of response is the difference from an 'aggressive act' becoming an 'act of war' or just remaining an 'aggressive act.'Also - "if any alliance deserved to pay reps it was Kaskus" does not mean they are being asked/demanded reps. It's an opinion that they should be. "if any alliance deserved." Wow, are there any straws left? Smurf, you fucking twat - I've told you multiple times and quoted you of myself saying NO REPS. Do you think a little time and other war distractions would make this forgotten? Brehon and I have had our personal discussions in passing on the subject since, as you guys choose to continue to drag this shit on. But no one has demanded it as a requirement for peace now, and no one did before when you claimed it. Thanks for comin out though. You too, Mr Objectivity, who can see more from outside the war than inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) That's not a backpedel, dickwad. No, an 'aggressive action' is not always an act of war. However, an 'act of war' is certainly always aggressive. The 'act of war' is in the interpretation - which is subjective to each individual. Read after what you bolded, "It is still aggressive by nature, by way of causing intended harm." The intended harm is up to the harmed to make the final determination to treat the harm as an act of war and 'do something about it' [which would still be aggressive by it's very nature]. It's not up to Shangri-La to have considered themselves in a state of war with Kaskus for aiding us; it's not up to NEW to consider themselves in a state of war with NSO for aiding Kaskus. The former is up to Kaskus, the second is up to us. A lack of declaration on NEW does not make recognition of their actions being aggressive or hostile any different. Kaskus didn't choose to [albeit because you have no ability to, but that's a frivolous detail] do anything about SL's aid - and when NEW did they were shut down. The ebb and flow of war, the form of response is the difference from an 'aggressive act' becoming an 'act of war' or just remaining an 'aggressive act.' Also - "if any alliance deserved to pay reps it was Kaskus" does not mean they are being asked/demanded reps. It's an opinion that they should be. "if any alliance deserved." Wow, are there any straws left? Smurf, you fucking twat - I've told you multiple times and quoted you of myself saying NO REPS. Do you think a little time and other war distractions would make this forgotten? Brehon and I have had our personal discussions in passing on the subject since, as you guys choose to continue to drag this shit on. But no one has demanded it as a requirement for peace now, and no one did before when you claimed it. Thanks for comin out though. You too, Mr Objectivity, who can see more from outside the war than inside. Paragraph 1: I don't agree with the distinction you are trying to make (nor fully understand it to be honest). Correct me if I am wrong but you believe all of the following: - NSO putting me on a ZI list is an aggressive action but not an act of war - NSO declaring war on me was an aggressive action but not an act of war - Kaskus attacking NSO as an alliance after some NSO nations declared on me was an act of war - Shangri La aiding NSO was an aggressive action but not an act of war - NEW aiding Kaskus was an aggressive action but not an act of war - NEW aiding Kaskus was an act of war (after NPO declared) Paragraph 2: Bold 1: If it is up to NSO to decide whether NEW aiding Kaskus results in a state of war with NSO (or not) then why was it NSOs decision to state that Kaskus defending its member being attacked was Kaskus declaring on NSO? It seems like a double standard. Remember that NSO vehemently argued that Kaskus declared war on NSO, not the other way around. Bold 2: I remember in the noCB war where GGA used a line "we're bigger" to defend their actions. You sound no different. Though you do have about 5 times as many WRCs to be fair. But then again its been 4.5 years, I would hope the number of WRCs increased... Paragraph 3: "if any alliance deserved." was not all that Brehon said, and you know it. I am not talking about the radio show, but where Brehon said he was going to do [22:28] <Brehon[away]> I am saying I am about to set terms [22:28] <Brehon[away]> Something I despise [22:28] <Brehon[away]> And I mean absolutely despise I'm going to assume that you have seen this conversation. Or is your communication as bad as you say Kaskus' has been throughout this war? That said, I don't say this in order to piss you off or anything, I am just stating where I got that idea from. If I misinterpreted what he meant by 'terms' then I will go ahead and apologize for that now. You know that English is not my first language. EDIT: Thanks for comin out though. Thanks for the OOC attacks? Edited February 8, 2013 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaoezen Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 till no end :facepalm: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 Paragraph 1: I don't agree with the distinction you are trying to make (nor fully understand it to be honest). Correct me if I am wrong but you believe all of the following: - NSO putting me on a ZI list is an aggressive action but not an act of war Correct, until your next point - NSO declaring war on me was an aggressive action but not an act of war Now it's gone from an 'aggressive act' to an 'act of war' by the minute point of WE DECLARED WAR - Kaskus attacking NSO as an alliance after some NSO nations declared on me was an act of war Semantics. Recognition. We declared [intent and action with DoW and attack] on you [with foreknowledge of their intent to defend], and they attacked the remainder of my alliance. - Shangri La aiding NSO was an aggressive action but not an act of war Correct - NEW aiding Kaskus was an aggressive action but not an act of war Correct, until your next point - NEW aiding Kaskus was an act of war (after NPO declared) Correct The distinction is in where it becomes war. The ever popular fight analogy: couple people can push each other around all they want [aggressive action], it's not a fight till someone throws a punch. Paragraph 2:Bold 1: If it is up to NSO to decide whether NEW aiding Kaskus results in a state of war with NSO (or not) then why was it NSOs decision to state that Kaskus defending its member being attacked was Kaskus declaring on NSO? It seems like a double standard. In both cases the aggressive actions were towards us. The latter, again, semantics. We hit you [by definition, yes, them as well - in the case of this scenario, it was our intent to separate 'you' and 'them' based on the entire reason this situation even exists], they hit us. Remember that NSO vehemently argued that Kaskus declared war on NSO, not the other way around. Bold 2: I remember in the noCB war where GGA used a line "we're bigger" to defend their actions. You sound no different. Though you do have about 5 times as many WRCs to be fair. But then again its been 4.5 years, I would hope the number of WRCs increased... If you want to compare us to GGA, go for it. It's not the first time in this thread. However, the fact is - you had/have no ability to do anything to take the aid from an 'aggressive act' to an 'act of war'. GOD ODP [unactivated], your protectorates, NEWs aid - this was all you had and it wasn't enough to trump our hand. Paragraph 3: "if any alliance deserved." was not all that Brehon said, and you know it. I am not talking about the radio show, but where Brehon said he was going to do [22:28] <Brehon[away]> I am saying I am about to set terms [22:28] <Brehon[away]> Something I despise [22:28] <Brehon[away]> And I mean absolutely despise I'm going to assume that you have seen this conversation. Or is your communication as bad as you say Kaskus' has been throughout this war? That said, I don't say this in order to piss you off or anything, I am just stating where I got that idea from. If I misinterpreted what he meant by 'terms' then I will go ahead and apologize for that now. You know that English is not my first language. Terms do not necessarily mean reps, no. "no reps" means no reps. The discussion of admitting how you guys fucked up the situation and whatnot from early stages of the negotiations - those are 'terms'. And as I said, yes - he and I did have a passing discussion regarding reps and perhaps that may have been what he was alluding to. But simply saying 'I am about to set terms' does not immediately or automatically mean he IS saying reps. They have not been made a demand. Yet. EDIT:Thanks for the OOC attacks? lol what? 'thanks for comin out' 'good game' 'good show' 'pip pip cheerio' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 I'm so happy I haven't read any of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 I'm so happy I haven't read any of this. Probably a wise decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.