A War on Terror: GOP Retaliates in Defense of Neutrality

[Roadie]

Let's all cut out this nonsense about whether or not we pretend those words were there or not, they were. GOP read that in a way that MQ says they did not intend it to come across. We can hardly expect GOP to be psychic. War may have not been the best way for GOP to respond, but that's done now. It seems an odd reading of the sentence, I'd understand it more if the "starting with" preceded "a certain neutral alliance", but it wasn't our doctrine in question and it's not for us to tell GOP what they're doctrine means. As far as I understand it, GOP doesn't have to feel itself threatened directly for the doctrine to activate military actions.

 

Odd reading or no, can we all stop pretending the words don't exist and stop trying to tell MQ what the words meant?

Edited October 10, 2013 by Roadie

[Dochartaigh]

Blah, blah, blah. blah, blah, blah ,blah, blah...

 

And thank you Roadie for hopefully breaking the idiocy of GOP and others. Reading comprehension is apparently a rather difficult thing for some but you broke it down Barney style. 

 

Man, reading Rooman's and other's posts about the MQ DoW felt like I was beating my head against solid, dense rock. 

[Commander shepard]

Blah, blah, blah. blah, blah, blah ,blah, blah...

 

And thank you Roadie for hopefully breaking the idiocy of GOP and others. Reading comprehension is apparently a rather difficult thing for some but you broke it down Barney style. 

 

Man, reading Rooman's and other's posts about the MQ DoW felt like I was beating my head against solid, dense rock. 

 

How does MQ using words they did not mean to use result in bad reading comprehension.

You're the fittest cheerleader I saw in a while.

[Prince Corwin]

After having read through this entire morass, I've pondered the sentence that brought the GOP in, and the conclusion I've reached is: while it is understandable that they reached the conclusion they did, the sentence in fact could be saying something different.

 

If one posits that the word 'infidel' has both a corporate meaning as well as referring to individual nations, it changes the meaning of the sentence. Thus

 

 

 

"Every Mushlim, after this event, will seek out and destroy a certain neutral alliance starting with the most vulnerable of international infidels."

can mean:

 

- "...destroy a certain neutral alliance (to be named later) starting with TDO."

 

or

 

- "...destroy TDO starting with its most vulnerable members."

 

It is apparent that the two sides are arguing over which meaning is meant, mostly for the spin benefit towards us in the peanut gallery. It is unlikely that they'll ever convince each other.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Prince Corwin

[Roadie]

After having read through this entire morass, I've pondered the sentence that brought the GOP in, and the conclusion I've reached is: while it is understandable that they reached the conclusion they did, the sentence in fact could be saying something different.

 

If one posits that the word 'infidel' has both a corporate meaning as well as referring to individual nations, it changes the meaning of the sentence. Thus

 

 

can mean:

 

- "...destroy a certain neutral alliance (to be named later) starting with TDO."

 

or

 

- "...destroy TDO starting with its most vulnerable members."

 

It is apparent that the two sides are arguing over which meaning is meant, mostly for the spin benefit towards us in the peanut gallery. It is unlikely that they'll every convince each other.

 

I read it to say the latter of two. It triggers the doctrine either way though which is why we're endlessly debating something that matters not.

[tamerlane]

Rooman - do you make a post then walk away patting yourself on the back believing it had some kind of impact on the general impression that you have created regarding GOP? 

 

If so, stop posting.

Edited October 10, 2013 by tamerlane

[Rooman33]

Rooman - do you make a post then walk away patting yourself on the back believing it had some kind of impact on the general impression that you have created regarding GOP? 

 

If so, stop posting.

 

Says the guy emulating terrorists...

[AlmightyGrub]

The logic is overwhelming Rooman, congratulations you have convinced me, unfortunately it is probably not what you were intending.

[Rooman33]

The logic is overwhelming Rooman, congratulations you have convinced me, unfortunately it is probably not what you were intending.

 

Aw, really? :( And here we were hinging our entire strategy on your approval. 

[Dochartaigh]

How does MQ using words they did not mean to use result in bad reading comprehension.

You're the fittest cheerleader I saw in a while.

 

Fairly certain MQ used the words they wanted to use. GOP and others simply cannot comprehend what those words mean. For example, Rooman, in a post 10 above this one, bolded and underlined a statement that clearly indicated TDO and solely TDO. Unless of course GOP moved to the Aqua sphere? If so, they should truly change their name to AOP instead of GOP. The fact that TDO is the only alliance ever named throughout the document, the fact that the DoW is solely against TDO, and other facts that have already been presented, shows bad reading comprehension by Rooman, yourself, and others. 

 

But I do thank you for the compliment. I am fairly fit, particularly in how to read. 

[Dochartaigh]

Says the guy emulating terrorists...

 

One is pretending to be something, the other is not...

[the rebel]

Fairly certain MQ used the words they wanted to use. GOP and others simply cannot comprehend what those words mean. For example, Rooman, in a post 10 above this one, bolded and underlined a statement that clearly indicated TDO and solely TDO. Unless of course GOP moved to the Aqua sphere? If so, they should truly change their name to AOP instead of GOP. The fact that TDO is the only alliance ever named throughout the document, the fact that the DoW is solely against TDO, and other facts that have already been presented, shows bad reading comprehension by Rooman, yourself, and others.

 

When MQ posted a wall of text instead of a short and sweet "we declare war on TDO". It gives everyone options to interpret it however they please, even if it means GOP cherry picked lines/words to validate their reason for war.

 

Its not really a matter of reading comprehension, its more of an argument about a CB (and that horse died many years ago) and there is always going to be those for or against it dependant on which side of the fence you sit.

Edited October 11, 2013 by the rebel

[Dochartaigh]

When MQ posted a wall of text instead of a short and sweet "we declare war on TDO". It gives everyone options to interpret it however they please, even if it means GOP cherry picked lines/words to validate their reason for war.

 

Its not really a matter of reading comprehension, its more of an argument about a CB (and that horse died many years ago) and there is always going to be those for or against it dependant on which side of the fence you sit.

 

See, there is no CB regardless except for MQ wanted to hit TDO and GOP wanted to hit MQ. Those are the only reasons. GOP is the only alliance left that is actually trying to state they entered the war to defend TDO instead of for selfish reasons.

[Commander shepard]

Fairly certain MQ used the words they wanted to use. GOP and others simply cannot comprehend what those words mean. For example, Rooman, in a post 10 above this one, bolded and underlined a statement that clearly indicated TDO and solely TDO. Unless of course GOP moved to the Aqua sphere? If so, they should truly change their name to AOP instead of GOP. The fact that TDO is the only alliance ever named throughout the document, the fact that the DoW is solely against TDO, and other facts that have already been presented, shows bad reading comprehension by Rooman, yourself, and others. 

 

But I do thank you for the compliment. I am fairly fit, particularly in how to read. 

 

It really does show, I like you when you're cheerleading, you go much higher than all the other girls.

Your ignorance and blind support for MQ and DBDC is admirable, I only wish I could be as ignorant of reality as you.

[Rooman33]

 
See, there is no CB regardless except for MQ wanted to hit TDO and GOP wanted to hit MQ. Those are the only reasons. GOP is the only alliance left that is actually trying to state they entered the war to defend TDO instead of for selfish reasons.

Please link to a single instance where we've said we entered to defend TDO. I'll wait.

[Dochartaigh]

It really does show, I like you when you're cheerleading, you go much higher than all the other girls.

Your ignorance and blind support for MQ and DBDC is admirable, I only wish I could be as ignorant of reality as you.

 

Ignorance and blind support? You realize that I have always stated that both are groups have rogued TDO? You realize that I have always said TDO is the victim right? You realize I have said that everyone in this war has the right to war the other correct? The only issue I am "cheerleading" is the BS shit alliances are/were trying to use to hit MQ/DBDC. Now that most have finally ackowledged/agreed that the true reasons they hit MQ was cuz cuz they could/revenge/hatred, I have not really bothered those alliances. The only alliance who has stuck to their idiotic original reason is GOP and you. 

 

Please link to a single instance where we've said we entered to defend TDO. I'll wait.

 

You entered to defend "neutrality", thus entered to defend TDO. That is far more clear-cut than the logic you are using to state that MQ was going to hit every single neutral alliance.

[Commander shepard]

Ignorance and blind support? You realize that I have always stated that both are groups have rogued TDO? You realize that I have always said TDO is the victim right? You realize I have said that everyone in this war has the right to war the other correct? The only issue I am "cheerleading" is the BS shit alliances are/were trying to use to hit MQ/DBDC. Now that most have finally ackowledged/agreed that the true reasons they hit MQ was cuz cuz they could/revenge/hatred, I have not really bothered those alliances. The only alliance who has stuck to their idiotic original reason is GOP and you. 

 

Huh? I'm not stating a reason for why MQ was hit, I don't know what the hell you're drinking.

I'm stating their use of English was poor if that was not what they intended to say and GOP had good enough reason to hit them.

You're supportive of a rogue alliance like MQ/DBDC and generally negative to the alliances fighting them, even so much to call them rogues.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Commander shepard

[Rooman33]

You entered to defend "neutrality", thus entered to defend TDO. That is far more clear-cut than the logic you are using to state that MQ was going to hit every single neutral alliance.

 

Ah, so you can't reference a single instance where we've said we entered to defend TDO. Thanks for making my point.

 

We entered to defend neutrality, as you noted. And, therefore, our own interests (see the 3+year old DTOM we referenced in the OP). And so your earlier statement that GOP "is the only alliance still pretending to have entered to defend TDO" is completely false, because we've never said we entered to defend TDO. 

 

You seem to have a real problem reading words as they appear, and not as you'd like them to - that's true both of MQ's obvious, broad "jihad" on neutrality, and of our transparent reasoning for involvement.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Rooman33

[Ardus]

When MQ posted a wall of text instead of a short and sweet "we declare war on TDO". It gives everyone options to interpret it however they please, even if it means GOP cherry picked lines/words to validate their reason for war.

Create content, get punished.

[Dochartaigh]

Ah, so you can't reference a single instance where we've said we entered to defend TDO. Thanks for making my point.

 

We entered to defend neutrality, as you noted. And, therefore, our own interests (see the 3+year old DTOM we referenced in the OP). And so your earlier statement that GOP "is the only alliance still pretending to have entered to defend TDO" is completely false, because we've never said we entered to defend TDO. 

 

You seem to have a real problem reading words as they appear, and not as you'd like them to - that's true both of MQ's obvious, broad "jihad" on neutrality, and of our transparent reasoning for involvement.

 

No, I am simply using your tools against you mate. I chose to interpret neutrality to mean TDO and thus did. Just like you interpreted MQ DoWing TDO as DoWing all neutral alliances. But thanks for making my point for me as well. 

 

Also, loving your last sentence since you have an issue with reading words as they appear and not as you would like them to appear. The second half of your last sentence pretty much proves this to be true. So yet another thanks for making my point for me again. 

[Londo Mollari]

Ah, so you can't reference a single instance where we've said we entered to defend TDO. Thanks for making my point.

 

We entered to defend neutrality, as you noted. And, therefore, our own interests (see the 3+year old DTOM we referenced in the OP). And so your earlier statement that GOP "is the only alliance still pretending to have entered to defend TDO" is completely false, because we've never said we entered to defend TDO. 

 

You seem to have a real problem reading words as they appear, and not as you'd like them to - that's true both of MQ's obvious, broad "jihad" on neutrality, and of our transparent reasoning for involvement.

 

 

You sure did a good job of "defending your interests". 

 

http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_stats.asp?ID=10068&View=Charts

 

Also burning all your PR.  Lol.

[Auctor]

I don't get it, losing half your NS is a sign of what now?

[Rooman33]

 

You sure did a good job of "defending your interests". 

 

http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_stats.asp?ID=10068&View=Charts

 

Also burning all your PR.  Lol.

 

I don't get it, losing half your NS is a sign of what now?

 

Winning? A desire to fight on our own terms? To not have the conditions of our fight dictated to us by bullies? Three weeks of fighting against an enemy who for most of that time has had more than twice our avg. NS? I dunno, take your pick. We're fine with it. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees, etc. 

Edited October 12, 2013 by Rooman33

[The Zigur]

Ultimately this whole experience is a lesson that no matter how righteous one side is in the war, many people in today's world will still side with who they think are their friends even when it doesn't make any sense to.

 

Edited October 12, 2013 by Tywin Lannister

[Dochartaigh]

Ultimately this whole experience is a lesson that no matter how righteous one side is in the war, many people in today's world will still side with who they think are their friends even when it doesn't make any sense to.

 

 

What happened to the international consensus being on y'alls side? 

 

As for what is right and what is wrong, that has and always will be subjective. To make some sort of claim otherwise is ridiculous. 

 

Also, in this instance Auctor, losing half of your NS is an indicator that you will be far less likely to be capable of defending yourself in the future. This is one of the premises for GOP's entrance into this war. To defend neutrality and protect themselves against future assaults.