Rayvon

Per their request - all traces of Kashmir have been purged from the Sith boards. Ciao.

No one here is entertaining enough to antagonize atm. Jesters need to jest. Sith need to Sith.

... And the day SNX starts to catch up ... "ANTAGONIZING!! HURR VIOLATION DURR!!"

By such a wide open and undefined "we will not antagonize", you did. Anything you do, they can claim as 'breaking the terms' just because they feel like it. Remember the silliness that you spoke out against that even caused this ordeal. Emphasize on 'spoke out' - you did nothing except a few words of protest, and got attacked for 'antagonizing' while the party you defended merely tech dealed with someone they didn't approve of and were 'antagonizing' ..

Or simply tech dealing with someone they don't like ... SNX must put every FA move they make through Sengoku lest they risk violating terms - and till they figure out that mole, perhaps every internal move too.

No, you just enjoy !@#$@#$ with him. Much like people like myself. Difference is, people like myself limit it to our words and take our "hurt feelings" and move on. While you, like a school yard child, lash out and attack over your feelings.

Some of his supporters as well ....

I think he was more making a comment towards the whole fact this war is happening .. The questioning of "honourable actions" (as you call them) is exactly what Junka did too to get rolled.

And little Scotland was no threat to you; but you strong-armed and manipulated them into kowtowing to your demands with a boot to the throat picked on them. Very disturbing indeed. Scotland is nearly half your NS, and some 200 wonders short of yours (and only 6 of theirs are military). You must have some awfully low self-esteem to be so heavily threatened by them.

If I were any member of SNX, I'd be more worried about rooting out the mole than worrying about Junka. At least you know exactly where and who Junka is and can keep tabs on him while he runs you to the ground. This mole is building a brick wall behind a curtain that you're about to run face first into; and you enable your own disaster by falling to his will and dividing yourselves - especially in public.

My god. The barbarism. All those attacks against Minc and their ilk. However are you all surviving under the attacks of this terrorist cell?

Pretty much this .... Some "big picture" that Caustic kept going on about in his disappointment that I didn't see nor share ...

I think this is the only part worth reading.

A task that will never see an end.

You have quite the fascination with buttache. Try some lube, kiddo. I realize now that your phys ed teacher must missed that lesson in your after-school one-on-ones, but it helps.

If my teenage daughter makes me a grandfather before I pass 40 I'll be skinning some young boy alive. You couldn't be any further from the truth if you tried. First off - I'm about the most anti-Occulus you'll find in NSO. Pacifica and Grata can burn in hell for all I care. We're fighting MI6 for our Bearly friends. And where your little thing crosses into Occulus territory barely even registers as a blip - both to us who don't give a rats ass, and to those who are in Occulus. Second - my first comment was to you, regarding your ghosting. And that, like it was when you did it against us, it is a legitimate reason for TIR as a whole to be hit. This doesn't matter if you're fighting an Occulus alliance or a Doom alliance or an alliance that has nothing to do with either. Third - you think I even care about you in that you can supposedly see what I'm doing; I've told you multiple times that that 'second' point was all that I've had to say to and about you - the remainder of my posts have been for Junka. You keep riding those coat tails though. I'm not playing any spin for Occulus. I had an exchange with Junka over his philosophical disagreement. As for any discussions you've had with them, I know even less about those than I know about their intentions and desires for this war. I'm just plugging away at MI6 nations as my Emperor wills it.

Edgy. While you keep calling me grandpa, keep in mind I'm only in my 30's. But I really don't mind at all, my mind is far older than my body.

Butthurt? lol .. Ok ... Cause you're definitely showing comprehension now. All I've had to say to you, and you've agreed with it, is that your actions were aggressive. Leave it at that, and move on. The rest was all for Junka - not you. Sorry to hurt your little ego - but that doesn't make me butthurt, it just means his nonsense was more entertaining than your nonsense.

Colour me surprised. You.. You don't understand? I'm shocked and appalled. You rarely understand anything you're reading. "Whereas the rest, you seem to think I'm talking about you, when I'm addressing Junka's philosophical disagreement derailment." -- See, you're right - it is irrelevant. If you understood what I was saying, if you read it, you'd have seen this. Or this, "Go start a new philosophy thread if you want to keep talking in circles on this .... The outcome of that particular debate doesn't change the fact that, back on thread topic, Doornail and Ace ghosting Kaskus were an aggressive action on their part" The only parts I said that had anything to do with you, from my first post in this thread to this one, are the parts of which you are here agreeing with. The part where you made an aggressive choice to attack on behalf of your attacker (where in my first post I pointed it out as a behavioural pattern combined with the pattern of confusion about why you're being attacked for your actions). This is where Junka stepped in with his philosophical disagreement. Keep dancing my jesters, keep dancing.

You're still on the semantics in your little philosophical haven. When one is on the offensive, they are aggressors. They are making an aggressive action towards another; they are not making any sort of benevolent offensive action. Defense pact on one side counters the offensive action of another, yes. And this is an aggressive action to stand up and act - even if the action is dictated by a treaty. "X alliance declares war on Y alliance in accordance to Article 420" where Article 420 is a Defensive Clause. The key words in there are "declares war" and "in accordance to" as the denotation of aggressive actions. Go start a new philosophy thread if you want to keep talking in circles on this .... The outcome of that particular debate doesn't change the fact that, back on thread topic, Doornail and Ace ghosting Kaskus were an aggressive action on their part ... If Joe gave permission for any of our gov to go ghost (which he has, and which I am not against the idea of) one of our allies, I would fully expect the other side to recognize the actions as aggressive and act upon them (if they have the capability and desire to do so) .. Especially so if it was any of our actual gov ..

"Protection agreement" - Kaskus agrees to protect you unilaterally. Otherwise it is an MDP and not a Protection Agreement. If you want to traverse that conversational road, it's far from the road that Junka decided to derail down - but at least it's about you and on-topic. Whereas the rest, you seem to think I'm talking about you, when I'm addressing Junka's philosophical disagreement derailment. You made a choice to go and ghost, which you also admit you realize might get the rest of TIR declared on [" we knew it was possible for TIR to be declared on because of our ghosting"]. This is because you know that you are making a choice to insert yourself when you were not attacked. You are taking an aggressive action (again - you've done this before, my 'definition of insanity' reference) against those alliances. That this protection agreement that you've got confused with an MDP is your only treaty, is irrelevant. It's still a unilateral treaty you have confused and can't keep straight. Just sign an MDP already and you're good to go - hell, make it an MADP and y'all can run together tied to the hip till the cow's come home with no question. That doesn't change the fact that, even with an MDP/MADP, if you as a government member ghost an alliance (or a step further, multiple government members ghost and attack), you are taking your full alliance along for the ride. As I said at the end of my previous post: "Besides - this was all about two government members of TIR choosing to ghost their ally to take an aggressive action against an alliance that hit their protector. A choice made by TIR, and a consequence that followed TIR." But I'll go back to Junka's derail: Who said anything about my perception intending to make it acceptable for anyone to not defend? The agreements are made. If I give you my word (especially on paper) that I'm going to defend you, that's that. I'm going to defend you. That's why we sign an agreement together. Neither you or I are giving up our sovereignty. Neither you or I are seeing it acceptable or expected that each other is going to break our word. You alliance and my alliance remain entirely sovereign, but we have a public agreement that if you $%&@ with one of us you're !@#$@#$ with the other. Again, as my previous example wrote: if one half of a treaty get's hit, the other half has not been hit. But they have an obligation to take action. The hit alliance activates a defense clause in the treaty, asking the other alliance to take action. "take action" .. I step in to defend you, you're on the defense and I'm on the offense against the same party. That other party is offensive against you and defensive against me. Exactly so, all treaties are essentially optional due to sovereignty. Your entire philosophical argument is in contradiction to this fact. Your philosophical argument is that once that treaty is signed, each alliance is now one. One gets hit, both are defensive. That means if you get hit, my other allies would have to act as if it was I that got hit. This takes nothing away from the fact that a defensive pact is a defensive pact. You're agreeing to defend your ally from attack. You're agreeing to "take action" and "go hit" the person who hit your ally.

Wow - good reading. You saw where I said that was one of two possible outcomes [the cowardice outcome to be specific] with non-chaining treaties and correlated it to a supposed statement you think I am making. Read in full: "Then you see one of two basic things: 1) cowards who hide behind 'non-chaining' clauses - "Oh, well they were hit first and you're hitting in their defense - you're on your own. See ya!" and 2) leaders who step forward and continue the chain of aggression " If an ally said that to me as well, I'd also ensure we weren't allies anymore. Additionally, I wouldn't sign a non-chaining treaty to begin with. In for a penny, in for a pound. As for : Right - sovereignty. Each alliance sovereign is making an agreement to work together, neither is giving up their sovereignty. Each alliance is still an individual entity working in conjunction, order and agreement with each other. Each is making a decision to make an action in every action they take. They are still two separate alliances, and thus one being hit does not literally indicate the other being hit. For example: NSO and RIA hold an MDoAP. When NSO gets hit by NPO, RIA doesn't activate their defensive treaties "because a hit on NSO is a hit on RIA" - GOD, CRAP or TTK aren't going to "defend RIA in the aggression against NSO" .. RIA still maintains 100% sovereignty, and by way of their treaty, takes an aggressive stance against the alliance hitting NSO. Their allies, who are also fully sovereign, are going to engage when RIA actually gets engaged by an aggressive action. By your definition, signing a treaty releases sovereignty. And regarding my status, you brought it up. You thought you could score a cheapshot, and when rebutted it all of a sudden doesn't matter. Don't bring it up to begin with; the positions I have held don't change my opinion and my definition of a treaty and alliance sovereignty. Besides - this was all about two government members of TIR choosing to ghost their ally to take an aggressive action against an alliance that hit their protector. A choice made by TIR, and a consequence that followed TIR.

As an Imperator of an Order of Ivan - a claim your puny worthless ass doesn't hold as you arrogantly tell me what I should and shouldn't understand, I understand that for Order to exist, every action must have a reaction and every choice a consequence. Every action starts with a choice. Your "philosophicals" make no difference, you are either in an aggressive stance or a defensive stance. There is little wiggle room in between. That you choose to hide behind semantics does not further Order nor justice nor anything. When your ally gets hit and put on the defensive, you per your agreement military up and take offensive aggressive action in reaction to the choice of the leaders of the alliance whom hit your ally. You build up, you step up and step forward, and you provide an aggressive response. This offensive action then triggers a defense clause in the alliance you hit, putting them on the defensive. Then you see one of two basic things: 1) cowards who hide behind 'non-chaining' clauses - "Oh, well they were hit first and you're hitting in their defense - you're on your own. See ya!" and 2) leaders who step forward and continue the chain of aggression ... Till a point of Order eventually rises out of the chaos.

"an offensive kinetic action" ... Yes. Offensive, not defensive. You were not attacked, GATO and TAO were put on the defensive and then you attacked on their behalf due to your mutual security agreement.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result ...... Every single time you do this TIR gets attacked ... Have you not figured out yet? When you take your alliance, the one that was not hit, then you are acting in aggression not defense ... Doesn't matter if your protector got hit, their actions then become defensive. You, not being them, are acting in aggression to go in defense of them. YOU are leading Defense gov; Ace is second-in-command of TIR -- your gov status makes your movements a TIR-condoned action, and just like nearly every other ghosting alliance you get hit.