And if the Empire remains a member of CONCORD—an organization ostensibly dedicated to peaceful coexistence—while intending a renewed violent, forced Reclaiming… then that is a lie, and the act of a Deceiver.
1 Like
I am not sure Concord is dedicated to peaceful co-existence given it’s own policy decision on many matters over the years. It’s a bureaucracy. It’s dedicated to perpetuating itself.
3 Likes
Fair point. Text corrected.
1 Like
CONCORD provides an ostensibly neutral platform for dispute resolution and arbitration among its signatories, nothing more. As for deception, House Sarum declared its intentions to undertake a new Reclaiming in the rebel provinces in advance giving the Republic adequate time to prepare for a new status quo.
1 Like
Don’t you slaver idiots realize that if you light the fuse of total war that there wouldn’t be enough of humanity left for you to reclaim?
Are you familiar with the doctrine of mutual assured destruction? Because I promise you that while you could overrun the Republic, the Federation would be obliged to fight you and there’s no way in hell you could win a multi-front war against the Gallente, Blood Raiders, Angels, Sansha, Trigs and Drifters who would take the opportunity to jump in and wipe up what was left of your empire, even with the help of your Caldari allies. Hell, you couldn’t even protect your empress from just the Drifters and what they attacked with was only a small portion of their fleet.
But hey, you go on believing in the concept of a winnable universal war. Just either pull the trigger and get it over with or abide by the treaties you signed and live in peace because I am damned sick and tired of your duplicitous rhetoric.
You preach the immutability of treaties and consequences of breaking them… curious given the company you keep.
The purpose for which is…?
I mean, the reason such a platform is created is kind of obvious: to avoid war. A commitment to peace is inherent in the establishment of such a platform, even if the peace is self-serving. There is a difference between a self-serving peace—for example, a peace that allows economic and military reconstitution while also permitting peaceful means of Reclaiming via proselytizing—and the lie of holding out one hand in fellowship while planning the other’s murder.
Which, you know, is fine from a realpolitik point of view. Just not so fine, again, for a group that so loudly proclaims itself to be tasked with spreading Truth. “Truth” built on lies has a tendency to be nothing of the sort. It demonstrates that those in power have no commitment to truth of any sort. Only power.
And which of us was that directed to? Rella, or myself? A lack of clarity in that regard, I’m afraid, is a failing of this particular platform. I can’t speak for Rella, but for myself, there’s two different bits of ‘company’ being kept. So…
With regard to the Republic:
See my statements above about realpolitik. From the standpoint of cosmopolitical strategy, such maneuverings are to be expected. The issue, rather, is where those deceptions cross paths with loud, frequent declarations of dedication to Truth. Lying in the service of truth only reveals that service to be another lie.
With regard to the Swarm:
We do not break our deals. We do not violate treaties. We withdraw from them, certainly. And the Empire could easily withdraw from their treaty obligations.
Withdrawing from a treaty isn’t violating that treaty. It involves clearly and openly letting the other party know that the previous agreement no longer serves the needs of one of the signatories. In normal operation, that’s done with an eye toward establishing an agreed-upon date, upon which the withdrawal takes effect. Until that date, the treaty remains in force, and both sides can, potentially, attempt to negotiate another treaty that does meet the needs of the potential signatories.
That’s hardly a point under contention. I’m simply saying that while the Empire does not withdraw, they continue to have an obligation to uphold the agreed-upon structure and purpose of the existing treaties and mutual commitments. To use those commitments to long-term peace as a cover for the intention of renewing war is, again, deceit.
And then we’re back to realpolitik vs devotion to Truth.
I don’t see the current situation— absent miscalculation at least, as a prelude to full scale war. I see it (and yes, I know you see it differently) as two nations probing legally ambiguous portions of a treaty. In each case there is enough uncertainty that the Inner Circle has reached no clear position.
The Empire has to my understanding has expressed willingness to discuss the legal status of planetary bodies in the areas covered by the Emergency War Powers Act, but only if the apparent loopholes in the anti-blockade clauses of the Yulai Accords are similarly revisited.
Were it merely a pause to regroup, I believe the robust reclaiming earlier alluded to would have come far sooner.
Whatever your position on the current crisis, at the sovereign level the Empire has a track record of far greater fidelity to the Yulai Accords than the Republic. My sincere belief is that despite the renewal of the Empire’s strength, once this issue is solved. Such fidelity to a more equitable treaty will endure.
1 Like
I don’t necessarily disagree. Keep in mind, everything I’m saying is a response to this:
And that is, quite clearly, suggesting this attack on a civilian population is a prelude to a more widespread implementation of the exact same approach.
As far as the quid pro quo of the Empire being willing to discuss the illegality of its actions in exchange for discussing reactions to other atrocities of mass-murder carried out by the Empire’s hierarchy… well, that’s rather generous of them, isn’t it?
“I tell you what, we get that you don’t like me killing your family, and as a result, you don’t want to sell me stuff. So let’s negotiate. If you agree to go back to selling me stuff, I’ll agree to consider not murdering even more innocent civilians.”
Such benevolence.
The only truth that matters to me is a return to the traditions of old. The Empire has been the Angel of mercy and all that occurred was attacks upon the Faithful; now it is time to be as the Angel of vengeance and to bring the wrath of God upon the enemies of the Faith.
1 Like
Finally. Some honesty. All you really care about is getting your murder-peen wet.
So objecting to the murder of ciivlians by artillery bombardment on Kahah III is an attack now? Fascinating.
The slaves of Kahah III rose up against their lawful masters under God and attacked the Faith, yes.
1 Like
You would absolve then the Republic of adherence to a treaty that accepted (grudgingly I’m certain) the continuation of slavery in the Empire?
However you feel about it, we’re discussing truth and realpolitik. The Republic is of course at liberty to withdraw from the treaty, but until it does so Kahah III was a lawful pacification.
EDIT: If it was otherwise, within that same criteria it remains an internal Imperial issue.
The slaves of Kahah III were attacked with a chemical agent that drove a small percentage of them mad for a short period of time. Rather than attempting a quarantine to see if the effects were temporary (which they are, they appear to last 24-48h and then leave the system), the Empire’s vassals undertook an indiscriminate artillery bombardment on slave ghettos populated by far more than just the direct victims of the Deathglow attack.
In addition, Empire loyalists in space self-destructed freightrs filled with roughly 2 million other slaves who were not in any way involved in the situation on the ground. Other loyalists did attempt rescue of those victims, as did non-loyalist forces, but no official condemnation of Fweddit’s actions has ever come.
No, not at all. The Republic should absolutely adhere to its diplomatic obligations, and continue to work through those diplomatic channels for the release of Imperial slaves. And yes, Kahah was an internal matter.
That doesn’t mean the Republic is obligated to condone it, and neither the Republic nor the Federation are obligated to provide the Empire with unregulated trade of any sort they desire. Specific forms of trade sanctions are clearly built into the Yulai Accords for the purpose of providing a non-violent means to exert pressure—if they weren’t, CONCORD wouldn’t have made the waffling statements they have about the sanctions.
But unless the Yulai Accords specifically prohibit these sanctions—which, again, they clearly don’t, or CONCORD would also have not made those waffling statements—then they’re legal, too, and attempting to use violence against civilians as a bargaining chip against a response to violence against civilians… yeah, it’s a pretty amazingly cowardly, dishonorable, and downright pathetic thing to do.
Even when that ‘it’s about the sanctions’ is only an after-the-fact justification for something Arrach Sarum ordered when he got mad at Amarr capsuleers.
1 Like
By the same token, Floseswin is not explicitly illegal. Else the same waffling statements would not be trotted out by the same bureaucrats.
1 Like
It may not be under international law. Last time I checked, though, even the Empire considers murder a crime.
While regrettable that many slaves were unable to find their salvation, the Kingdom violated no laws with its actions in Kahah.
1 Like
Which has no bearing on whether or not the Republic and Federation have the right to say ‘I don’t want my ISK supporting that kind of activity’.
I’d expect the Empire to offer similar objections—including active policy measures—to avoid Imperial revenues from being used to support slave liberation raids on Holder estates.
I have not objected to the use of sanctions by the Federation and Republic.
You absolutely have. The Republic and Federation sanctions are the ‘objection’ to the murder of civilians by artillery bombardment that you lumped into “all that occurred was attacks upon the Faithful”.