Rooman33 Posted September 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) Hmm they're tearing through TDO's upper tier and you have the power to do something about it. You're trying to defend your values but at the same time you're saving your own skin. You really are because the bulk of your NS is in the upper tier. This is referred to as cherry picking. We're not allied to TDO. You seem to think our DTOM doctrine suggests we come to the aid of any neutral whenever they're attacked. Obviously, that's not the case. We've retaliated against MQ because MQ called for and is on a "Jihad" against neutrality - and that creates a very real threat and dangerous precedent (if left unchecked) for us. If you could point me to where DBDC called for a Jihad on neutrality, I'd gladly take a look and bring it to our leadership for consideration. Edited September 23, 2013 by Rooman33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny Side King Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) We're not allied to TDO. You seem to think our DTOM doctrine suggests we come to the aid of any neutral whenever they're attacked. Obviously, that's not the case. We've retaliated against MQ because MQ called for and is on a "Jihad" against neutrality - and that creates a very real threat and dangerous precedent (if left unchecked) for us. If you could point me to where DBDC called for a Jihad on neutrality, I'd gladly take a look and bring it to our leadership for consideration. Aw okay I see how you guys roll. Apparently the action of rolling a neutral alliance and trampling over it's values (and yours), doesn't quite cut it. It's the words that make all the difference. Cherry picking at it's finest depending on you ask. I hope you guys are having fun poping your cherry. :popcorn: Edited September 23, 2013 by Sunny Side King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penumbra Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 I believe that would be part politics. To each their own views and values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted September 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) Aw okay I see how you guys roll. Apparently the action of rolling a neutral alliance and trampling over it's values (and yours), doesn't quite cut it. It's the words that make all the difference. Cherry picking at it's finest depending on you ask. I hope you guys are having fun poping your cherry. :popcorn: With all due respect, the pages of this thread are littered with people baaaaawing that us even hitting MQ wasn't justified and somehow "unneutral." We had a cut and dry violation of our DTOM doctrine with MQ, so MQ is who we hit. It's really that simple. Edited September 23, 2013 by Rooman33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfcha0s Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 This doesn't sound very neutral to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 Go get 'em GOP :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Che Guevara Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 With all due respect, the pages of this thread are littered with people baaaaawing that us even hitting MQ wasn't justified and somehow "unneutral." We had a cut and dry violation of our DTOM doctrine with MQ, so MQ is who we hit. It's really that simple. I think people are just calling you out for being hypocrites. Having conditional neutrality is not neutrality. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willij Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 I think people are just calling you out for being hypocrites. Having conditional neutrality is not neutrality. Sorry. How are we hypocrites? We said we would defend neutrality if it was attacked. MQ declared a "Jihad on neutrality". We defended. DBDC did not declare a war on neutrality (they declared on a neutral alliance) so there is no call to defend. If DBDC has said they are going to destroy all neutrals please point us to that so that we can talk it over among the leaders and decide what to do. They haven't that we seen so we have had no reason to defend against them. Its pretty cut and dry in our DOTM Doctrine. You call it conditional neutrality, we call it standing up for your beliefs. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 GOP is one of the few neutrals who can fight a war, given their extensive TE experience. Best of luck to them :) Thanks :D Appreciate the TE love since I can't do TE this round. ^_^ All hail aggressive neutrality. o/ I've struggled to understand why neutral alliances would play it the way they do, but now that I have a grasp on the concept, I hate seeing it amended to things it can't represent. Why even have a charter if someone is just going to want to reference it? #ignoranceisbliss You still don't understand why neutrals play the way we do. I'll explain it to you. I'd say over half the people in this thread are applauding us for standing up for what we believe in, which is much more than I'd expect. And the rest are trying to bait us and badmouth us so as to put forth their own agenda and entertainment. We're not into drama, or people making empty threats behind a computer screen because it makes them feel good about themselves. We do our own thing because we simply don't have time for bullshit. Yes. Interesting indeed, "we are neutral except when we don't want to be" Neutrality =/= Pacifism And since our inception we have claimed to be "soft-neutral". We have never interfered in anyone's affairs. However, we are much more defensive minded than any other neutral. We have always reserved the right to defend ourselves or core values of our AA. TDO was declared on because they were neutral. By that logic, we could be declared on for the same reasons. Also, TDO was declared on because it's been well known for quite some time that they are a tech raidable alliance. People have pushed them and were met with little or no resistance. So now that war has been waged on neutrality is the GOP going to make that same mistake and let people declare an unprovoked war on neutrals for shits and giggles? The answer is no. You don't have to like it. If we cared what you thought, we wouldn't be neutral, would we? No you're totally right, just don't expect anyone to give credibility to their neutrality from this point forward. Some neutral alliances believe that their neutrality protects them. If they keep their nose clean, and play nice they think think they're protected. However, we now have proof that is not the case. What crime has TDO committed? None. Neutrality doesn't protect anyone, so we're defending our principles for the safety of our members. Every alliance has to do that, otherwise what's the point in having an alliance? DTOM is basically an ODP with all other neutral alliances. (I don't really have a problem with this, either, but having a charter which basically says "we reserve the right to defend other alliances whenever we want" makes it hard to really be considered neutral) We coined the term "soft neutral". And yes, we're considered the red headed step children of neutrality. We deal with it. I think people are just calling you out for being hypocrites. Having conditional neutrality is not neutrality. Sorry. Did the GPA put you up to this? :lol1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) A formal declaration is usually made for most military action on a sizable grouping, actually. Not to mention that MQ are not simply rogues, as the organization and spirit of community is better than most "alliances" What is and isn't is subjective, so formal declarations/recognition of hostilities aren't always required when deemed to be rogues as by doing so gives vindication that they're a normal alliance. Edited September 23, 2013 by the rebel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 I think people are just calling you out for being hypocrites. Having conditional neutrality is not neutrality. Sorry. Which would be why people have referred to GOP as quasi-neutral over the years. The fact that you didn't bother to know the diplomatic status of a protectorate of a major alliance doesn't make them hypocrites, it means that there are a lot of people who didn't do their fucking research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penumbra Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 it is all fun and games untill some one looses their soul! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Che Guevara Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 Which would be why people have referred to GOP as quasi-neutral over the years. The fact that you didn't bother to know the diplomatic status of a protectorate of a major alliance doesn't make them hypocrites, it means that there are a lot of people who didn't do their fucking research. Is quasi-neutral another word for "we want to be able to attack you, but not be attacked by anybody"? Incompetence isn't an excuse. Also, their treaty with VE is a non-issue. They attacked us, not the other way around. You like adding meaningless things to your arguments, don't you? Did the GPA put you up to this? :lol1: No, GPA says they're neutral and sticks to it. That makes them a far better alliance than GOP could ever dream of being. At least they don't change their neutrality state when convenient. How are we hypocrites? We said we would defend neutrality if it was attacked. MQ declared a "Jihad on neutrality". We defended. DBDC did not declare a war on neutrality (they declared on a neutral alliance) so there is no call to defend. If DBDC has said they are going to destroy all neutrals please point us to that so that we can talk it over among the leaders and decide what to do. They haven't that we seen so we have had no reason to defend against them. Its pretty cut and dry in our DOTM Doctrine. You call it conditional neutrality, we call it standing up for your beliefs. Sorry. Did you fight alongside NPO's coalition in DH-NPO? You might remember "Everything Must Die"? I mean, you're clearly a part of "everything" and we had said that it "must die", ergo we were saying that your alliance must die. See how retarded that logic is? See where I'm going with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 So many Jihadi tears were shed in this thread, we might have a great flood on our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 An alliance putting it on the line to defend what they believe in is a wonderful sight and I applaud GOP for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsabeast1 Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) Only the most delusional of MK supporters would be against other neutrals supporting other nuetrals. Keep the tears coming. Edited September 23, 2013 by salsabeast1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 Is quasi-neutral another word for "we want to be able to attack you, but not be attacked by anybody"? Incompetence isn't an excuse. That's not what it means at all, and if you read the several posts that state exactly why we're declaring war, you might understand. As much as I like TDO, if this war had been brought to them due to their faults, we would not be entering. Our sovereignty was threatened. On top of that, it was stated that more neutral alliances would be declared on. We felt it necessary to engage you to get rid of that threat. What's the matter? You don't like war? No, GPA says they're neutral and sticks to it. That makes them a far better alliance than GOP could ever dream of being. At least they don't change their neutrality state when convenient. I really like the GPA. I have some great friends that are in the GPA. My members that are fighting probably wouldn't be a good fit there. Did you fight alongside NPO's coalition in DH-NPO? You might remember "Everything Must Die"? I mean, you're clearly a part of "everything" and we had said that it "must die", ergo we were saying that your alliance must die. See how retarded that logic is? See where I'm going with this? :huh: You're really stretching there, bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes the wise Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 I think people are just calling you out for being hypocrites. Having conditional neutrality is not neutrality. Sorry. Call it what you want then, make up your own word for it. It is what it is. GOP has never kept their policy and own brand of "soft neutrality" a secret. Everyone knows where they stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattski133 Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 How are we hypocrites? We said we would defend neutrality if it was attacked. MQ declared a "Jihad on neutrality". We defended. DBDC did not declare a war on neutrality (they declared on a neutral alliance) so there is no call to defend. If DBDC has said they are going to destroy all neutrals please point us to that so that we can talk it over among the leaders and decide what to do. They haven't that we seen so we have had no reason to defend against them. Its pretty cut and dry in our DOTM Doctrine. You call it conditional neutrality, we call it standing up for your beliefs. Sorry. I don't really buy this. DBDC has aligned itself alongside MQ in this holy war in everything but an official statement. I do get why you'd prefer to have them attack you, and therein bring VE's attention to the matter, but to be honest, it looks like you'd be better suited fighting DBDC than VE would be. Regardless, you have some of my respect for standing up and fighting in a time when most try to word their way out situations like these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 GOP is one of the few neutrals who can fight a war, given their extensive TE experience. Best of luck to them :) Extensive TE experience means little when they are marching to war with 6:1 infra:tech ratios and sad, little warchests. I didn't see where DBDC posted a call to "Jihad" on Neutrality. Can you link me? I believe you misread that. Not once does the call to jihad include that phrase. Attempting to twist the words of Allarchon is a sin of the highest degree. May he have forgiveness on your soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted September 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) I believe you misread that. Not once does the call to jihad include that phrase. Attempting to twist the words of Allarchon is a sin of the highest degree. May he have forgiveness on your soul. Allow me to quote directly the relevant phrases from the thread entitled "A Call to Jihad." ... 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. ... 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... there you have it. Edited September 23, 2013 by Rooman33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) Allow me to quote directly the relevant phrases from the thread entitled "A Call to Jihad." So... there you have it. So, my suspicion is confirmed. You either misread or are a liar. The specificity of those statements is quite clear, yet you ignore it. "a certain neutral alliance" "the neutral menace" And to elaborate further, straight from the words of Ayatollah Tamlanei himself: "the wind of change is blowing to remove neutrality from the Aquatic Tradesphere of GunhammaD" In the end, you spread lies about the words and intentions of the Mushlim people merely to justify your own aggression and sate your own bloodlust. Edited September 23, 2013 by flak attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) So, my suspicion is confirmed. You either misread or are a liar. The specificity of those statements is quite clear, yet you ignore it. "a certain neutral alliance" "the neutral menace" It raises the question why did you guys feel the need to put the following part in. "starting with the most vulnerable of international infidels." If TDO was the certain alliance why did you guys state you were starting with them. To say starting in reference to TDO implies there is more come after TDO Edited September 23, 2013 by Commander shepard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted September 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) So, my suspicion is confirmed. You either misread or are a liar. The specificity of those statements is quite clear, yet you ignore it. "a certain neutral alliance" "the neutral menace" And to elaborate further, straight from the words of Ayatollah Tamlanei himself: "the wind of change is blowing to remove neutrality from the Aquatic Tradesphere of GunhammaD" In the end, you spread lies about the words and intentions of the Mushlim people merely to justify your own aggression and sate your own bloodlust. Hahaha, wow. Flak, come on man. We've known each other a long time. You're better than this. Since when has "the neutral menace" ever exclusively referred to TDO? Who do you think you're kidding with this nonsense? Folks can read for themselves. Specifically, the phrase "Every Mushlim, after this event, will seek out and destroy a certain neutral alliance starting with the most vulnerable of international infidels" speaks for itself. MQ obviously and without question called for a Jihad on neutrality. To pretend otherwise is just inherently dishonest. And then you call me a liar?! Ha! If you don't like the fact that we took MQ for their word (and their actions), I hate it for you. Edited September 23, 2013 by Rooman33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) Good to know who is actually neutral in the world. Love watching the world burn. Edited September 23, 2013 by Penlugue Solaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts