Statement from Nusantara Elite Warriors

[gantanX]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1292734929' post='2543841']
You are. You can say they're not an alliance, which is true, but the Dark Fist AA remains, well, an AA. A protected one. That you idiots raided anyhow.



GDIAF
[/quote]
there is no official Documents that saying Dark Fist is a protected Alliance, Dark Fist is dibanded, they're existence as a entity is no longer exist therefore we raided them..

[LegendoftheSkies]

I think I like where this is going

[Adrian LaCroix]

You keep thinking this way.

[Land of True Israel]

Good call, NEW o/
Quite honorable considering you were raiding a non-existent alliance.


[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1292734214' post='2543797']
Ummm...no? You raided an alliance that clearly had protection. Man up to your stupidity. Or not, we could all use a good war.
[/quote]

I am going to have to disagree here. They didn't [b]clearly[/b] have protection, unless I missed something of course. Vague insinuations and clear intent are two different things.


[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1292734419' post='2543809']
I must have missed the part where they canceled their treaties.. And i think i saw a warning in the OP about attacking them albeit a vague one. Within a few posts INT stated they would defend their MDoAP partner..

So I dunno what you're grasping at but if you think you're in the right you probably should think a little harder.
[/quote]

Technically, once an alliance disbands, they cease to exist, therefore any treaties they had could be considered null and void since one of the signatories no longer exist.
Some may call this "e-lawyer" logic, but it's really not. If anything, saying that non-existent alliances somehow have valid treaties would fall more under that classification of logic.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1292735461' post='2543866']
Call me a cynic, but as I was saying to WickedJ earlier: You want me to believe that Int and their SF allies are going to attack NEW and their Pandora's Box allies over 10 guys in a disbanded alliance? I mean can I get a rating on the Likelihood-Meter from some experts?
[/quote]
HMMMMMM.

Ok, NEW, I am changing my stance. Don't stop raiding DF! I don't know if Int will attack you, but either way, the results will be hilarious.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Geoffron X

[gantanX]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1292735058' post='2543847']
This is quite possibly the dumbest announcement you guys have ever made.

Thank you for wasting my day and then posting this without any warning.
[/quote]

i am terribly sorry if this announcement offended you and Poison Clan in any way, but this is NEW stance on this issue Zoom, Nothing will change this stance, we, in NEW feel that we are in the right Position, just because DF have more friends telling us wrong on OWF does not mean that it's true.

again, A sincere apologize to you

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='gantanX' timestamp='1292735508' post='2543869']
there is no official Documents that saying Dark Fist is a protected Alliance, Dark Fist is dibanded, they're existence as a entity is no longer exist therefore we raided them..
[/quote]

The official posts, authored by Int and TPE officials, that were disregarded, made it very clear that the AA was protected.

An AA is not the same thing as an alliance. Whether the alliance was active or disbanded is irrelevant, for they were protected nations nonetheless. And there's no way of getting around that simple, undeniable fact.

Edited December 19, 2010 by SirWilliam

[Varianz]

[quote name='TitoXV' timestamp='1292734771' post='2543829']
What AA? DF is no longer an AA....
who is stupid now?
[/quote]
Without going too e-lawyer, "alliance" is a good term for them as long as they are a group being protected by someone. It's the same situation as "trading" alliances like CTC, or RIA Trading Partner, etc.

You guys screwed up, and if TPE has any backbone or pride, you'll pay for it. Although I think I'd be on your "side" of that war...

[RePePe]

[quote name='gantanX' timestamp='1292735508' post='2543869']
there is no official Documents that saying Dark Fist is a protected Alliance, Dark Fist is dibanded, they're existence as a entity is no longer exist therefore we raided them..
[/quote]

[i]War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.[/i]

[Dibbun]

[quote name='Land of True Israel' timestamp='1292735609' post='2543872']Technically, once an alliance disbands, they cease to exist, therefore any treaties they had could be considered null and void since one of the signatories no longer exist.
Some may call this "e-lawyer" logic, but it's really not. If anything, saying that non-existent alliances somehow have valid treaties would fall more under that classification of logic.
[/quote]

Generally treaties come with a cancellation clause, like 72 hours or some other period. If an alliance disbands, and no notice was given publicly prior to that about cancellations, one can presume that the nations which were in the alliance would still be protected for the cancellation period.

[Locke]

[quote name='gantanX' timestamp='1292733919' post='2543783']
1. All of former treaties partner of DF (alliances) were signed a formal agreement with Dark Fist as an entity/Alliance, and now that Dark Fist has disbanded themself, therefore we consider their formal treaties are null and void because at the moment there's no such thing as Dark Fist As an entity/alliance now.
[/quote]
You think people would realize by now that "you need a treaty to take military action" is [i]incredibly[/i] silly. If I declared that I would protect Dark Fist, I'd be perfectly within my rights to do so without any sort of connection, past or present, just as you are within your own rights to raid them. The catch is consequences; your actions have them. Consequences for defending a disbanded alliance are unlikely, but the consequences of aggressively attacking an alliance are generally more severe.

That said, keep pulling these silly charades of empty justification to satisfy only yourselves so the real aggrieved parties can do something about it and get something interested started. Probably not going to happen and you'll eventually see reason, but I can still hope.

[Daikos]

I'll have to echo everyone's sentiments that this is one of the dumbest responses I have seen in some time.

Can you explain to me how attacking this nation: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=418807 is a tech raid? Seeing as he has no tech and had no tech prior to your attacks you are either INCREDIBLY bad at picking targets for raids or are using the "hurf durf tech raid" line as a cover. So which be it?

[gantanX]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1292735740' post='2543877']
The official posts, authored by Int and TPE officials, that were disregarded, made it very clear that the AA was protected.

An AA is not the same thing as an alliance. Whether the alliance was active or disbanded is irrelevant, for they were protected nations nonetheless. And there's no way of getting around that simple, undeniable fact.
[/quote]

No, that was just a warning from one nation saying that all the raiders who raid DF will be ZI'd.

Not an official INT Announcement, is it that hard to post an announcement on OWF if you were really intended to protect your friends ?!

[President S O]

Best of luck to all parties, especially irrelevant third parties hoping for war.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='gantanX' timestamp='1292735719' post='2543875']
i am terribly sorry if this announcement offended you and Poison Clan in any way, but this is NEW stance on this issue Zoom, Nothing will change this stance, we, in NEW feel that we are in the right Position, just because DF have more friends telling us wrong on OWF does not mean that it's true.

again, A sincere apologize to you
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure most of the people posting here aren't friends of DF, we just think you are wrong. Yes no one explicitly said "they are protected" but it was very strongly suggested and at some point common sense has to come into play.

[deathcat]

my guess is Tech=Land raid in that nations case.. or casualty raid would be another (he could have taken ALL the tech

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1292735659' post='2543873']
HMMMMMM.

Ok, NEW, I am changing my stance. Don't stop raiding DF! I don't know if Int will attack you, but either way, the results will be hilarious.
[/quote]
Or, you know, what's more: Do we really expect ODN to help out their super-duper bros forever ally International over their shiny new cool kids allies Umbrella? Just last month they dumped UPN rather than endanger their edgy new foreign policy. "I will pay this out of my own pocket to keep it from going to war."

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='gantanX' timestamp='1292735973' post='2543888']
No, that was just a warning from one nation saying that all the raiders who raid DF will be ZI'd.

Not an official INT Announcement, is it that hard to post an announcement on OWF if you were really intended to protect your friends ?!
[/quote]

No, that was a clear warning from the government of an alliance that the AA would be protected (to ZI).

Do you not recognize the announced state of protection because a new, separate thread wasn't created? [i]Really[/i]?

[gantanX]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1292735846' post='2543883']
You think people would realize by now that "you need a treaty to take military action" is [i]incredibly[/i] silly. If I declared that I would protect Dark Fist, I'd be perfectly within my rights to do so without any sort of connection, past or present, just as you are within your own rights to raid them. The catch is consequences; your actions have them. Consequences for defending a disbanded alliance are unlikely, but the consequences of aggressively attacking an alliance are generally more severe.

That said, keep pulling these silly charades of empty justification to satisfy only yourselves so the real aggrieved parties can do something about it and get something interested started. Probably not going to happen and you'll eventually see reason, but I can still hope.
[/quote]

yes, call me old school but i do think it required a treaty to defend anyone. except in regards to "none" Affiliation

@Azaghul : Fair Point

*idk how to do a multiquote *

[Gopherbashi]

You guys didn't learn from the first time, did you?

[Locke]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1292735461' post='2543866']
Call me a cynic, but as I was saying to WickedJ earlier: You want me to believe that Int and their SF allies are going to attack NEW and their Pandora's Box allies over 10 guys in a disbanded alliance? I mean can I get a rating on the Likelihood-Meter from some experts?
[/quote]
I think PB will do their damn best not to associate themselves with this fiasco, personally.

[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1292735874' post='2543885']
I'll have to echo everyone's sentiments that this is one of the dumbest responses I have seen in some time.

Can you explain to me how attacking this nation: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=418807 is a tech raid? Seeing as he has no tech and had no tech prior to your attacks you are either INCREDIBLY bad at picking targets for raids or are using the "hurf durf tech raid" line as a cover. So which be it?
[/quote]
"Tech raid" is the oldest trick in the book for saying "I want war." "Tech raids" generally are the convenient excuse for just about anything, even nukes.

[quote name='gantanX' timestamp='1292735973' post='2543888']
No, that was just a warning from one nation saying that all the raiders who raid DF will be ZI'd.

Not an official INT Announcement, is it that hard to post an announcement on OWF if you were really intended to protect your friends ?!
[/quote]
The statements of DF's allies in the disbandment thread were pretty clear.

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1292736112' post='2543894']
No, that was a clear warning from the government of an alliance that the AA would be protected (to ZI).

Do you not recognize the announced state of protection because a new, separate thread wasn't created? [i]Really[/i]?
[/quote]
No, not really; I refuse to believe anyone is that dumb. My guess is that they're just hoping someone, anyone will bite and take their side with it, since there really isn't any justification for their actions.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Locke

[kevin32891]

[quote name='gantanX' timestamp='1292736170' post='2543896']
yes, call me old school but i do think it required a treaty to defend anyone. except in regards to "none" Affiliation

@Azaghul : Fair Point

*idk how to do a multiquote *
[/quote]

As much as I like NEW stirring the pot, I can't agree with this statement.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1292736037' post='2543893']Do we really expect ODN to help out their super-duper bros forever ally International over their shiny new cool kids allies Umbrella?
[/quote]
Is super-duper bros forever above or below blood brothers? That could be the key to the whole mystery, methinks.

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1292736037' post='2543893']
Just last month they dumped UPN
[/quote]


Pretty sure it was the other way around.

Although I disprove of ODN preventing that war as much as I disprove of everyone trying to discourage NEW's stance here. Stop &#$@ blocking the warmongers damn it.

[Locke]

[quote name='kevin32891' timestamp='1292736424' post='2543903']
As much as I like NEW stirring the pot, I can't agree with this statement.
[/quote]
[url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Moldavi_Doctrine_(New_Sith_Order)"]I should hope so.[/url]