Jump to content

A War on Terror: GOP Retaliates in Defense of Neutrality


Rooman33

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 530
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't ever mistake NpO's opinion that neutrals make their own bed and lie in it as an aggressive attitude. We don't attack neutrals and we don't condone it either. We just don't defend them.
 
I guess on this matter we are neutral!

Agent p-001, you're not supposed to leak the Dark Age of Neutrality plan*. Now go back to "re-educate" your colon- wait this isn't a PM???!!
* "where any kind of thought, positive or negative, is forbidden"
 
But seriously, I personally appreciate and reciprocate everything I quoted. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol @ you thinking MQ was "punished".  Or could have been.

From the amount of moaning we've been seeing, not to mention people fleeing the MQ banner in droves, something has certainly happened to Allarchon's forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for neutral, I think Jerdge/GPA has shown what neutral is. GOP have shown what is not neutral. Their well-being was not being threatened.

 

"In the name of Allarchon, the merciful and compassionate, I call upon the faithful from around Planet Bob to join us on our Holy Quest to remove the neutral menace from these lands."

 

You could view that line and others included in the opening post in "A Call to Jihad" thread as a threat to neutrals and its obvious soft/semi/non neutral GOP saw it that way as a threat to their ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In the name of Allarchon, the merciful and compassionate, I call upon the faithful from around Planet Bob to join us on our Holy Quest to remove the neutral menace from these lands."

 

You could view that line and others included in the opening post in "A Call to Jihad" thread as a threat to neutrals and its obvious soft/semi/non neutral GOP saw it that way as a threat to their ideology.

That's an entirely reasonable reading of the situation, for those who want a reasonable reading of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In the name of Allarchon, the merciful and compassionate, I call upon the faithful from around Planet Bob to join us on our Holy Quest to remove the neutral menace from these lands."

 

You could view that line and others included in the opening post in "A Call to Jihad" thread as a threat to neutrals and its obvious soft/semi/non neutral GOP saw it that way as a threat to their ideology.

 

 

That's an entirely reasonable reading of the situation, for those who want a reasonable reading of the situation.

 

Yes,  "reasonable" if you wish to cherry-pick:

 

"As to the The Democratic Order, I say to it's leaders and their people a few words: I swear to Allarchon that you will not live in peace until your kind is wiped from  in Aquatistine, and before all the army of infidels depart the land of GunhammaD, peace be upon him. "

 

That is the sentence directly above the one that rebel quoted, the one that names TDO and only TDO. Not to mention, if you read the entire post, TDO is the only neutral ever named. Even if you take the sentence I quoted and the one rebel quoted, it goes like this:

 

"As to the The Democratic Order, I say to it's leaders and their people a few words: I swear to Allarchon that you will not live in peace until your kind is wiped from  in Aquatistine, and before all the army of infidels depart the land of GunhammaD, peace be upon him. 

 
In the name of Allarchon, the merciful and compassionate, I call upon the faithful from around Planet Bob to join us on our Holy Quest to remove the neutral menace from these lands. The time is now! Join us and bathe in the warmth and glory of Allarchon. "  
 
So read together as one unit (which is how you usually read these things), it is easy to see that the "neutral menace" is the alliance that was actually named in the previous sentence, that being TDO. It is a bit of a jump to assume that MQ ever meant all of neutrality. So, can we please stop using that one sentence as a means to condemn MQ. It only shows that most of y'all can't read worth shit. If GOP honestly thought they were in trouble because they discarded everything that clearly pointed to a single target and misread a single sentence out of an entire post, then they are just plain stupid and the teachers of their fine lands should weep for the ignorance of the government. 
 
Now if GOP wants to just own up that they simply wished to war in Planet Bob because being neutral is rather boring and tedious, and their war thirst is not fully sated in Bob's sister planet, Steve; then they can do that by all means. But hiding behind ignorance and crappy reading ability is getting tiresome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd save your effort for the actual trial, Doch. If you want to provide witness for the defense.

 

What trial? I think you failing to remember I do not recognize your court as nothing more than the symbol of oppression and tyranny. Why would I give it any form of relevance by going to a sham trial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So read together as one unit (which is how you usually read these things), it is easy to see that the "neutral menace" is the alliance that was actually named in the previous sentence, that being TDO. It is a bit of a jump to assume that MQ ever meant all of neutrality. So, can we please stop using that one sentence as a means to condemn MQ. It only shows that most of y'all can't read worth shit. If GOP honestly thought they were in trouble because they discarded everything that clearly pointed to a single target and misread a single sentence out of an entire post, then they are just plain stupid and the teachers of their fine lands should weep for the ignorance of the government. 
 
Now if GOP wants to just own up that they simply wished to war in Planet Bob because being neutral is rather boring and tedious, and their war thirst is not fully sated in Bob's sister planet, Steve; then they can do that by all means. But hiding behind ignorance and crappy reading ability is getting tiresome.

 

Complains about bad reading skills and ignores the sentences below.

 

 
I say that the matter is very clear. Every Mushlim, after this event, will seek out and destroy a certain neutral alliance starting with the most vulnerable of international infidels. 

 

Probably will still not understand what it means, but I will have a chuckle if you don't understand what it means.

Edited by Commander shepard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complains about bad reading skills and ignores the sentences below.

 

 

Probably will still not understand what it means, but I will have a chuckle if you don't understand what it means.

 

Tries to show that I can't read, fails to read a key word in that sentence: "I say that the matter is very clear. Every Mushlim, after this event, will seek out and destroy a [b]certain[/b] neutral alliance starting with the most vulnerable of international infidels."

 

They later named that [i]certain[/i] neutral alliance. But please keep showing that y'all can't read well. 

I'd expect this type of stilted analysis from some folks, but not you.  Guess I better recalibrate my expectations.

 

How is it stilted? Because it disagrees with your assessment? That hardly makes it stilted. I could say the same of your analysis. Actually, I already have but please don't at least attempt to provide reasoning behind your statement. Just throw some off the cuff accusation without a shred of evidence. But considering the evidence thus far provided by your colleagues, you may as well stick to giving none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm chuckling now, you can usually tell who are cheerleaders for DBDC from their delusions of reality even when it is in written form.

I notice in the cheerleader images you posted earlier how most of the cheerleaders for DBDC are blonde, seems appropriate.

Edited by Commander shepard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the best part of the whole police action was destroying the expectation by some people, that they would be picking up alot of firepower from the mushrooms. I'm afraid that like House Reyne, all that will remain is the rubble of broken infrastructure, and rain weeping over empty halls with not a soul to hear.

 

 

1375722_628316617208941_257571266_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam Tamerussein may have engaged in extensive anti-neutral rhetoric, but there was no evidence of WMD's to be used against neutrals beyond The Democratic Order. You can point to the intelligence all you want, but ultimately you refused to let inspectors do their jobs and when you got to the Mushquaeda homelands, you found the intelligence was, in fact, bunk: a brief question session with literally anybody would have probably revealed that neither you nor neutrality generally were under any threat at all. Our own intelligence operations launched after the war began revealed that it was not in fact a prolonged jihad, but a two-week surge in terrorist activity which would ultimately wither, intelligence confirmed by the present attempts at exodus from MQ and general decline in its activity. Your actions have only drawn foreign fighters in DBDC into the fray, destabilizing the region, and caused your alliance substantial losses in lives and treasure it need not have risked.

But hey, at least you publicly declared your action and gave a reason. Even if the reason is bunk that's a damn sight better than nothing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the best part of the whole police action was destroying the expectation by some people, that they would be picking up alot of firepower from the mushrooms. I'm afraid that like House Reyne, all that will remain is the rubble of broken infrastructure, and rain weeping over empty halls with not a soul to hear.
 
 
1375722_628316617208941_257571266_n.jpg

Not the infra!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam Tamerussein may have engaged in extensive anti-neutral rhetoric, but there was no evidence of WMD's to be used against neutrals beyond The Democratic Order. You can point to the intelligence all you want, but ultimately you refused to let inspectors do their jobs and when you got to the Mushquaeda homelands, you found the intelligence was, in fact, bunk: a brief question session with literally anybody would have probably revealed that neither you nor neutrality generally were under any threat at all. Our own intelligence operations launched after the war began revealed that it was not in fact a prolonged jihad, but a two-week surge in terrorist activity which would ultimately wither, intelligence confirmed by the present attempts at exodus from MQ and general decline in its activity. Your actions have only drawn foreign fighters in DBDC into the fray, destabilizing the region, and caused your alliance substantial losses in lives and treasure it need not have risked.

But hey, at least you publicly declared your action and gave a reason. Even if the reason is bunk that's a damn sight better than nothing at all.

This cracks me up.  Amazing job of keeping the analogy together and I agree with your analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complains about bad reading skills and ignores the sentences below.

 

 

Probably will still not understand what it means, but I will have a chuckle if you don't understand what it means.

 

I also love their skipping over the phrase "starting with." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suicide bombers do not expect to live.

I don't know.  somehow I would think Allarchon would be more pleased to see his suicide bombers proudly carrying the MQ banner than to be scattered to alliances like Doombird Doomcave or Doom Squad and such.  Just doesn't have the same suicide bomber ring to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...