Haflinger Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I really don't think it's only because it's IS. As has been pointed out already, CG has been raided by other individuals in other alliances and have not brought it to the OWF. No, they have not. You've been getting fed false information. (Note also - the IS attack is not a raid. It's not in line with either IS raiding guidelines or standard raider practice.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Wouldn't matter if it was or wasn't, though it was in this case. CG has no treaties, they placed themselves in this position. If it wasn't IS, it would have just been someone else. The only reason this is getting so much attention is because it is in fact, Internet Superheroes who did this and everyone seems to have a grudge against them. Are you really going to play the "poor pitiful us" victim card? The reason it's getting attention is because Internet Superheroes launched an unprovoked war on another alliance and is trying to pass it off as a raid. Alliances do not subject themselves to attack simply because they lack contractual defensive obligations. Not in my world. In attacking another alliance without a legitimate grievance they've created a legitimate grievance against themselves -- they pose a threat to the safety and security of all who hold peace dear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) Has anyone from IS actually said the reason for war? I see tech raid being tossed around a lot, but it doesn't appear to be true.My ears are open. I have a few logs of King Xander from IS saying that it is, in fact, just a raid, if you are wondering, then again, I have seen so many contradicting views, I am starting to get confused myself. Logs (last night): [00:18] <~KingXander[iS]> its not a war [00:18] <~KingXander[iS]> its a raid [00:18] <~KingXander[iS]> pm for peace, etc etc Also, reading this quote, and researching it, I have found it to be true: (Note also - the IS attack is not a raid. It's not in line with either IS raiding guidelines or standard raider practice.) Edited August 21, 2009 by Asriel Belacqua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I figured it out! IS's and RAD's new strategy is to post so many conflicting, contradicting views that our heads will asplode before we can declare war. I believe they are doing fairly well in that regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stetson76 Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 No, they have not. You've been getting fed false information.(Note also - the IS attack is not a raid. It's not in line with either IS raiding guidelines or standard raider practice.) It may be false information, but I don't just take people's word for things. I'm going based on the fact that there wars from FOB that say "Just a raid, Peace sent", and another from PC that was declared this morning and is already peaced out. Now, I realize that they're against one guy, but claiming a raid and peacing out less than 20 hours later would tend to indicate that it's not a punative war. So, while there may be things that I'm not aware of, my conclusion is not a major leap. And yes, the IS attack not being a raid to anyone other than RAD is my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Personally I think IS is evil and deserves this beat down. This was a bad move IS, pay the reps or get rolled! o/ CG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 IS's war is the first "raid" on CG. The NSO raid was not a raid, deSouza left NSO after he made an oath not to, but we payed reps for allowing him to enter our alliance. Fair enough. My analysis with this additional information stands. Hitting your alliance as a training mission or raid is a bad idea. There are other alliances your size that make better training/raid targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) It's amazing how many times people have tried to gloss this over with throwaway sarcastic comments like the one above. Edit: above Hal's obv Edited August 21, 2009 by Poyplemonkeys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 [02:35] <~Starcraftmazter> i remember what xondor wondered if he should roll CG [02:35] <~Starcraftmazter> and i said, "yeh sure why not" [02:35] <~Starcraftmazter> xd Roll. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Time to pay up your reps IS.... Good luck crimson guard ... youve got my moral support Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
890765 Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Just a quick post, taken from IS's boards:See the underlined, as I had asked above, anything more than 2 GA's is an attack, not a raid. IS's raiding guidelines confirm that they also believe this. http://is.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=8 (you don't need to be masked to see it) Nations retaliated. Read the whole line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Nations retaliated. Read the whole line. But was that before or after CM's or bombers were used? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 [02:35] <~Starcraftmazter> i remember what xondor wondered if he should roll CG[02:35] <~Starcraftmazter> and i said, "yeh sure why not" [02:35] <~Starcraftmazter> xd Roll. Thank you. Old chap, you appear to be portraying a comment I made in the tone of humour to be something which is actually serious. I felt the need to state this, because not everyone has the capability to tell the difference between lulz and srsbsns, all while some choose to purposely portray the former as the latter. Pic related, is my cat; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyNail Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 To quote a wise man: "This is like watching a bunch of retards trying to hump a doorknob." Someone either needs to step up and do something about it or just drop it already. This is getting a little silly at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 It's amazing how many times people have tried to gloss this over with throwaway sarcastic comments like the one above.Edit: above Hal's obv Thank you for that clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Nations retaliated. Read the whole line. I would put 1mil (which is pretty much all I have in my nation) that they did not retaliate until after air strikes and CMs were used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I would put 1mil (which is pretty much all I have in my nation) that they did not retaliate until after air strikes and CMs were used. I am going to back my friend's 1,000,000 here and put my own $3,000,000 behind it as well. Seeing as I was there and heard what happened directly from CG themselves before they retaliated, I think someone owes me money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) Nations retaliated. Read the whole line. So after the next round of attacks (and any after that) have the IS nations offered peace? Because that is what your charter instructs them to do. If you're going to play the charter card then they better well be within its guidelines. Edited August 21, 2009 by Captain Flinders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 We retaliated after you declared war on the majority of our alliance. You thought we wouldn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Nations retaliated. Read the whole line. Besides the fact you probably launched CMs, airstrikes, naval blockades, and spy attacks before they retaliated, the line simply reads that you may repeat the ground attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 mainly because I dont have time to read all 30 pages here can some one update me.... Does CG have official backers here who will be willing to support them in retreiving what is owed to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Fact of the matter is, Crimson Guard didn't have a protector when IS raided them. IS sent them peace after the raids, which CG accepted. Now that TC has offered to aid CG, they feel they can capitalize with that by demanding reps or there will be war. I'm telling you now, that won't work. Actually, what really happened was that IS thought it would be a walk in the park to raid CG, I talked to PC and demanded that their protectorate offered us peace, and that started to happen. [03:19:44] <deSouza> hello. [03:23:27] <mushi> yo [03:23:51] <deSouza> Why did you attack me? [03:24:48] <mushi> i serously dont know [03:24:56] <deSouza> Ok. [03:25:06] <deSouza> CG is protected by the coalition [03:25:13] <deSouza> all attacks as of now [03:25:23] <deSouza> against CG will be considered an attack on the coalition [03:25:33] <deSouza> so I suggest that to avoid further conflict [03:25:43] <deSouza> and for it to escalate [03:25:49] <deSouza> that we reach a diplomatic solution [03:25:56] <deSouza> eg: IS stops raiding us [03:27:21] <mushi> give me a min [03:34:39] <mushi> CG nations can pm for peace [03:35:09] <deSouza> what do you mean [03:35:29] <mushi> CG nations can pm for peace and no new raids on CG [03:35:35] <deSouza> this was not a raid [03:35:39] <deSouza> IS nations blockaded me [03:35:44] <deSouza> that does not take place on a raid [03:35:55] <mushi> i m not really sure why they did that [03:36:00] <deSouza> raids are essentially to gain land/tech [03:36:14] <deSouza> they targetted my weapons of mass destruction [03:36:16] <mushi> so what would you like? [03:36:22] <deSouza> peace declarations. [03:36:31] <deSouza> Seems like they think this is some sort of war game [03:36:38] <deSouza> CG does not like to be seen as a target. [03:36:54] <mushi> they will be sending peace [03:36:59] <deSouza> that is all [03:37:04] <deSouza> thank you very much [03:37:11] <mushi> no worries Yet two things happened. A - I do not have the final word on the matter. B - Attacks beyond that point were continued on the part of IS Francesca, our leader, wants reparations, and she is right on demanding that. We were wronged, there was absolutely no casus belli, and it is only fair to assume that the damage made will be repaid. Otherwise nations will think all they have to do to raid CG is to offer us peace after that. That is not the way the world works. If you and RAD want to support IS in this strictly illegitimate war, be my guest, but its another brilliant political move on your account. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 mainly because I dont have time to read all 30 pages here can some one update me.... Does CG have official backers here who will be willing to support them in retreiving what is owed to them? Maybe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandal Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 On that note.... Shadoon's formal stance on this matter is..... Meh. So because CG gets rolled for the LULZ, everyone is E-lawyering and wondering who's going to roll IS. Does IS have any friends that will then roll the rollers who would roll them for rolling CG? Break out the jiffypop. Brilliant political move... Powerwhine for fun and profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 mainly because I dont have time to read all 30 pages here can some one update me.... Does CG have official backers here who will be willing to support them in retreiving what is owed to them? There answer to that will be tonight at update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.