Jump to content

An analysis of Mushqaeda political dynamics


The Zigur

Recommended Posts

You're assuming that your crackpot theory is true.

 

I'm sorry, did you not see the screen shots in my original post that shows MK AA members joining the war at will against MQ enemies? The only question is how well organized the MK government remains, but the rest of the situation I have explained is proven fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm sorry, did you not see the screen shots in my original post that shows MK AA members joining the war at will against MQ enemies? The only question is how well organized the MK government remains, but the rest of the situation I have explained is proven fact.

No, the only thing you have proven is that some people declared wars while still wearing the MK AA, the rest is simply your interpretation of that fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, TOP is a sovereign alliance and if it chooses to indirectly support Mushqaeda by sheltering its de-facto strategic reserve, that is within TOP's prerogative. I am merely here to assist all parties in seeing the truth as I view it, any consequences that follow are not my responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, did you not see the screen shots in my original post that shows MK AA members joining the war at will against MQ enemies? The only question is how well organized the MK government remains, but the rest of the situation I have explained is proven fact.

That proves that select members of MK decided to join MQ after the fact... Not that MK has been plotting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, TOP is a sovereign alliance and if it chooses to indirectly support Mushqaeda by sheltering its de-facto strategic reserve, that is within TOP's prerogative. I am merely here to assist all parties in seeing the truth as I view it, any consequences that follow are not my responsibility.

A handful of nations joining the terrorist wing a day or two into the conflict does not a strategic reserve make.

 

All men are responsible for the consequences of their actions.  The Mushahadeen (or whatever) is responsible for their own, Paradoxia is repsonsible for her own, and you are responsible for your own.  Your attempt to argue otherwise is without merit.

 

I am unamused by your continued efforts to libel Paradoxia from an alliance of complex alignment, ex-Pacifican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am disappointed if this represents TOP's official position in light of recent events. Redirecting attention to me and my past does not make my argument invalid. I wish TOP the best of luck in the future and hold no hostility toward Paradox or any other alliance.

The affinities of your past and present are without distinction, and given the presumed alignments placing Paradoxia and your beloved Pacifica in conflict, you have a clear and present bias that taints your argument, contrary to your asserted claims of "no bias."  Your argument has nonetheless been otherwise challenged on a number of grounds, a few of which you contested and a few of which have not.

 

At present a few nations joined the extremist cause later than the bulk of actors.  It is too early to tell if there is some malevolent deception at play.  I do not believe there is and I do not believe our old friends would make the mistake of taking advantage of our own loyalty.  If they in fact are so taking advantage of us, it will become self-evident and we will act accordingly, but your present prognosis is premature and thus invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The affinities of your past and present are without distinction, and given the presumed alignments placing Paradoxia and your beloved Pacifica in conflict, you have a clear and present bias that taints your argument, contrary to your asserted claims of "no bias."  Your argument has nonetheless been otherwise challenged on a number of grounds, a few of which you contested and a few of which have not.

 

Your analysis of my personal opinions are short sighted and based upon a two month stint with the NPO in 2010 before going inactive for three years. You wouldn't know this, but I was a TOP ally (and later NPO enemy to the point of EZI) long before being a low level NPO recruiter. You also misinterpret my identity as a Francoist as meaning I am pro-NPO.

 

What it really means to be a Francoist, is that I support stability, regardless of whoever is in charge. MQ represents present instability, and an even greater threat to stability in the future, by setting a precedent if allowed to go unchallenged. MK's policies also represented instability, and is why they could never create another true hegemony.

 

Now Ardus, my question to you is this: If MK was really disbanding, why not simply cancel all treaties and make one last glorious charge into NPO? That would be the Mushroom Kingdom I know. Instead, we are supposed to believe that a harmless neutral is this final blast of glory, while the majority of MK remains safe and protected by TOP. That sounds like part of a long term strategy, not leaving the world LUE style to me.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Ardus, my question to you is this: If MK was really disbanding, why not simply cancel all treaties and make one last glorious charge into NPO?

The Mushroom Kingdom was sworn to its oath of reconciliation to the New Pacific Order from the end of DH/NPO.  You would have likely missed this detail from your absence, as it was not written and thus I do not believe recorded in the wiki, but rather agreed to alongside the Limited War clause by those who negotiated it:  Brehon and I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Ardus, my question to you is this: If MK was really disbanding, why not simply cancel all treaties and make one last glorious charge into NPO? That would be the Mushroom Kingdom I know. Instead, we are supposed to believe that a harmless neutral is this final blast of glory, while the majority of MK remains safe and protected by TOP. That sounds like part of a long term strategy, not leaving the world LUE style to me.

 

Because that would be boring and be the obvious move.  We're about keeping the world on it's toes.  We did this because we're tired of doing things we've already done.  We've fought NPO enough already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have you neglected to include TLR into this crackpot theory?

 

I don't believe TLR stated they will protect MK post-disbandment. After all why would they? What benefit is there from protecting a disbanded alliance that has at minimum close ties to a rogue-terrorist front? In enabling long term MQ aggression?

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highlighted the relevant part from you: 

 

The Mushroom Kingdom alliance affiliation will be protected by The Last Remnants and The Order of the Paradox for as long as they see fit. The Alchemy AA will also be protected for thirty (30) days.

 

Original post is found here

Should I take it that you just decided to come up with crackpot theories off the cuff withouth actually researching the topic or does it not fit in with your anti-Paradoxian rhetoric if other alliances are also defending thier long standing allies, a practice that has been part of polotics on Bob for quite a long time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy gangbang batman, you guys aren't pulling any punches on the discredit wagon. We have half of TOP's membership on the job for this one. With some Jihadi cameos of course.

 

Sometimes the only answer to idiocy is excessive force

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe TLR stated they will protect MK post-disbandment. After all why would they? What benefit is there from protecting a disbanded alliance that has at minimum close ties to a rogue-terrorist front? In enabling long term MQ aggression?

 

Damn, you are dense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At present a few nations joined the extremist cause later than the bulk of actors.  It is too early to tell if there is some malevolent deception at play.  I do not believe there is and I do not believe our old friends would make the mistake of taking advantage of our own loyalty.  If they in fact are so taking advantage of us, it will become self-evident and we will act accordingly, but your present prognosis is premature and thus invalid.

That's a reasonable perspective as far as nations moving to MQ and time will tell if there is further movement between MK and MQ.

 

Of course this calls into question the aid that is flowing from MK to MQ during this conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow besides all the "MK still lives. They're with Elvis and PAC!" Stuff, this is a good question. So are the members on the MK AA engaging in aggressive action still under protection TOP?

no, they aren't. This has been said at least 5 times by various members of TOP gov in at least 2 different threads (including MK's disbandment notice)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I appreciate the mass response by the many TOP members in this thread, my target was not TOP (or TLR). Rather, I had hoped to highlight what I believe to be the shenanigans of a few radical former MK members. It's unfortunate that TOP does not see eye to eye with me. However, I am still optimistic; now that the issue has been demonstrated, all eyes are on Mushroom Kingdom, watching to see whether my words will continue to ring true.

 

This should have a limiting effect on MQ's strategic reserve in MK, and I'm sure TOP will be applying the necessary pressure behind the scenes to reign in any more rambunctious actions from MK. This, after all, is my sole goal here: to reign in threats to global stability. That wars be limited, and prosperity be widespread for all worthy nations, including neutral nations.

 

As long as Mushroom Kingdom does not continue to send reinforcements or aid to MQ/Doombird/etc, I don't see any further issues. Let's all hope the following does not continue:

 

599289_621354331238503_1223856954_n.jpg

 

I do believe the highlighted MK nations are legitimate war targets for the neutral coalition?

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...