Well let me clarify then: I do think the Intaki have a right to revolt and that those who do are exercising their prerogative as an ethnic group and as a nation. As far as the majority’s participation I state again: Revolutions are almost never fought by the majority. If majority participation is a prerequisite for justifying a revolution then Duvailer wouldn’t have been ousted back in the day.
Arrendis this is the very definition of a misrepresentation of someone else’s argument and frankly it’s exhausting to address. To me it seems like you’re more intent on being obstinate than facilitating a debate.
I wouldn’t say they’re the first because that’s essentially what happened during Yiona’s Revolution. The greater population of the Federation clearly judged their actions as necessary. Besides, there’s an important question to be asked here: How many of those who are unwilling to fight the Federation would raise their hand against those who were willing?
Furthermore, those who died during the Federation’s occupation of Placid had families. What of them? Where is the justice for those dead at the Federal Navy’s hand? I’d wager that many of those willing to rebel are doing so for that exact purpose.
And what if the majority abstain? To refrain from action is, in itself, a deliberate choice.
That’s not far from my point. The Stasis People that left their constructs behind became the Drifters. Keep in mind: They are firmly entrenched in Anoikis and some of their Hives are located near very peculiar spatial rifts that they appear to have some kind of control over. If the Second Empire managed to travel to Anoikis so long ago their potential modern capabilities are…concerning.
Then I have to ask: What’s the bare minimum degree of threat something has to pose in order to be considered an existential threat in an objective capacity? Do they have to be able to destroy an entire Empire, all the Empires, or our entire species?
And again I say: Forget fought and look at supported. Which you won’t, and can’t, and excuse ignoring by resorting to an ever-widening gyre of excuses and strawmen, which makes it clear, as I’ve said many times, that what you’re really after is justification to impose your will on the Intaki people, regardless of what they want.
Gonna have to make it clearer then, I suppose: That is exactly what your statements say to me. If you don’t mean exactly that, then you should find a way to communicate that without heaping on additional statements that tell me your denials are false, and just there to cover your butt.
As for debate… this is not a debate, it’s a discussion.
Kinda telling, that question. It’s another framing that makes it ok to oppress the Intaki yourself, because they won’t stop you. Why should they need to raise their hand against the revolutionaries? Shouldn’t there be a justice system in place to do that for them?
But make no mistake, some will, and they’ll do it when the revolutionaries start revolting. They’ll be police, local defense forces, people who enlist to protect their homes and families from the revolutionaries. Just because they aren’t fighting the Fed doesn’t mean they won’t fight you. That hypothetical ‘1/3 want to stay in the Fed’ of yours will include people willing to fight. And if the revolutionaries are of the ‘Let’s join the State’ persuasion, you’ll find a fair number of the 1/3 that want to just be independent will prefer staying in the Fed to being expected to subjugate themselves to a State where they won’t have any democratically-elected voice.
Doesn’t exactly argue against my statement that violence will only bring an increasing spiral of violence, now does it? And since that’s what the whole ‘abusive toward the constituency’ bit was about… thanks, you’re now arguing against the thing you were arguing for. Good job.
Then the majority are choosing the status quo. Refraining from attempting change is a vote for no change. Which seems to be the thing you refuse to allow them to choose.
Which is all still irrelevant, as nothing in that makes them the existential threat you claimed they were.
Well, first, they have to be threatening. Note that there’s a big difference between ‘you’re threatening me’ and ‘I’m scared of you because you’re different’. You pissing yourself because something out there is different does not mean that thing is threatening you in any way. If the mere existence of something you don’t understand makes you feel threatened, then the threat is you, because you are letting your fear control you. And that fear—your fear—is what is threatening you. The threat is all in your head.
For something to be an existential threat, they have to be threatening to end your existence. That is: they need to be taking the active stance that they are considering or attempting to do so, not that they simply need to be something that you don’t know can’t kill you. FFS, if that were all it takes, then literally every baseliner in the cluster is an existential threat to every other baseliner in the cluster. Hell, your own medtechs are existential threats to you, because one of them might screw up and pull the plug on your medical clone right before you need it.
EDIT: Now that I’ve had the chance to go look up Yiona and the post-Duvallier restoration… yeah, gonna have to say there’s a big difference between a bunch of revolutionaries overthrowing the government through violent conflict, and a number of nation-states mobilizing to be ready to invade the capital, but never actually pulling the trigger on it. Also, the government wasn’t overthrown! Duvallier called for elections, which means there was continuity of government. So, yeah. Continuity of government, lack of actual violent overthrow… not the same thing as what you’re suggesting at all.
That’s a bit dramatic isn’t it? I’m voicing my support for rebels, not flying to Intaki V to subjugate them.
I am attempting to communicate that, but it doesn’t appear to be working.
It was a legitimate question and not intended to frame anything. Besides, a justice system is presumably composed of the people we’re speaking of. They’re not mutually exclusive groups.
Are you implying that Intaki rebels would specifically target the homes and families of their own people? That’s bit a stretch don’t you think? As far as I’m aware the Federation military isn’t quartering their soldiers in civilian homes.
I’m having a difficult time seeing how attacks on a foreign military occupation by Intaki insurgents is an abuse of the Intaki people. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.
That is a potential outcome for this situation. If a growing political movement consolidates its power, acquires backing from allies, and issues a proclamation of independence it is perfectly possible for the Federal government to decide it’s time to relent. The “spiral of violence” as you put it can be ended by any party involved at any point and that includes Aguard’s administration.
Right now. While there’s no violent revolution in progress. You’re pushing for the agenda of revolution, ie: attempting to impose your will (that there be a revolution) on Intaki. The fact that you’re doing it with words and not bullets only means you’re using less objectionable methods that provide you with a layer of insulation from consequences.
A justice system, by definition, is willing to ‘raise its hand’ against offenders.
Not necessarily. But also… yes. Any attack will mean people dying. Do you think your revolutionaries would ignore loyalist police and civil defense forces? They’d just say ‘oh, well, those guys defending the Federal government’s assets here are Intaki, so we won’t shoot back when they try to stop our attack’?
Do you think that if there are particularly effective groups of Fed-loyal Intaki that cause problems for the revolutionaries, those revolutionaries won’t start targeting them? Do you think the revolutionaries—especially the most violent or angriest among them, or those who lose friends to Intaki they consider ‘traitors’—won’t decide at some point to ‘send a message’ intended to intimidate anyone considering joining the loyalist forces?
Do you think that the revolutionaries won’t just get more and more angry, frustrated, and desperate, more extreme in their tactics, as the years grind on? How quickly do you think it’ll be over, especially considering the additional money and manpower the Federation’s invested in ‘protecting’ (however sincere you may or may not think that term) Intaki?
My money’s on a decade, maybe more. Whole generations of Intaki growing up seeing one another as the enemy… yeah, they’ll shoot each other. They’ll detonate vehicle bombs outside one anothers’ houses. They’ll drive those bombs right into the businesses frequented or owned by Intaki known to have sympathies to ‘the other side’. Even Fed loyalists may start taking it on themselves to do things like that, because there’ll be so many people they ‘know’ are helping the ‘terrorists’ but nobody can prove it… so some ‘concerned citizens’ will take matters (and weapons) into their own hands.
And, beyond that, in any violent uprising, there will be collateral damage. Whenever you’re looking at asymmetric and irregular warfare, as your revolution would need to be, that means you won’t have time to clear the target areas of civilians. Locals who did nothing other than pick the wrong place to have lunch, go for a walk, take a job as a janitor… will die… and they’ll die at the hands of the revolutionaries.
Further still, those who start a war bear the responsibility for all of the loss of life that results from it, barring extreme circumstances. If you start a revolution, then anyone killed as the sort of collateral damage I’m talking about—even at the hands of the Federation—died because you started the fighting. They died because of you.
Clearly, you think warfare is a lot cleaner and neater than it is. See above.
And that is not the violent revolution you’ve been advocating.
Then what are the supplies Mister Trajanus is delivering to resistance forces for? To look vaguely menacing and pose for holo-reels?
Whose justice system? Did the Feds ship in Black Eagle black ops while I wasn’t looking?
Ignore them? No. But it would be wise to avoid them. An insurgency won’t get far making highly public attacks against well armed and well trained fighters. That’s why they’re an insurgency in the first place and not an army.
That’s a tough question. This is a ground conflict we’re talking about, well below the might of the FedNavy unless they plan on striking targets from orbit which would be catastrophic for their image. Same goes for Intaki rebels. Both sides have to fight an asymmetrical war and that is difficult to say the least.
That’s true in an abstract sense, but the way a population assigns blame is often not so simple. The chain of responsibility is unclear at best. Does it begin at the Federation’s original choice to occupy the region, the rebels’ choice to fight, or the individuals that carry out the attack? Ask a crowd of people that question and the answer will vary from person to person. Practically speaking police forces can only assign blame to those who carry out the attacks.
No, but it’s a preferable alternative. Unfortunately it’s also highly unlikely.
As we’ve heard nothing of actual violent uprising, I’d say ‘preparation’.
Any of them, but with responses like these, I can see why it took so long.
Yes, that’s why the places an insurgency is most likely to attack will be the ones most likely to have local defenders, rather than regular Federation military forces. And if you don’t attack, you don’t have an insurgency, you’ve got a bunch of people bitching around a campfire.
Do you seriously think the Federation doesn’t have large numbers of highly-trained, well-equipped ground forces? Who do you think the Caldari were fighting on the surface of Caldari Prime when they invaded?
You know, like this guy?
No, the Federation would not have to use irregular warfare. They’ll be fighting an asymmetric war, but only because that’s the war that’ll be waged against them.
Police forces can assign blame to whoever doesn’t have enough guns to stop them, and a big enough megaphone to convince people the cops are lying.
All of which, though, demonstrates that even you have to acknowledge that yes, this will mean Intaki killing Intaki. It will mean Intaki targeting Intaki. So no…
I don’t think it’s a stretch at all. This…
… is advocating for Intaki to kill Intaki. For people to die because they disagree with you. That’s a perfectly valid position to take, but if you’re going to take it… own it. Don’t go trying to weasel out and hide from consequences of your position.
The colonies were founded by the Caldari people. What was unequal about the exploration carried out? It seems to me that envy is the motivation of the Federation in this regard.
What is there to be confused about? There are layers of distinction between people. Caldari can see their own unity as Caldari, and distinction of the bloodlines within that unity, just as you may see yourself as part of a group yet still an individual. That may be hard if your Gallente identity has relegated you to simply being a consumer.
Distinct yet unified is possible, despite what your leaders may teach you.
Transfer them to the Syndicate and the State and Federation can see this as a middle ground. I doubt any Caldari would protest.
Independence within the Syndicate is an acceptable solution as far as I’m concerned.
And apparently DED is comfortable sitting around doing nothing when the law is violated so their opinion means less than nothing.
The readiness at which Ishukone and its proxies to quickly be so understanding of Federation interests is sometimes worrisome. It’s good to have flexibility as Ishukone is reputed, however too much and you quickly fall over. Luckily there are more unyielding Megas who understand the importance here goes far beyond the interests of “free trade.” A friendly word to you and yours, if you eat at the enemy’s table too often you may forget what your own food tastes like.
It seems concerns of legality ceased right before the Federation’s invasion of Intaki, and begun once more right after.
If you truly believe me to be associated with the Serpentis, if you believe that our interests in some way align, perhaps you should be more careful.
The Federation is, at the end of the day, a business and will make decisions for its bottom line.
Bloated government systems are the exact opposite of a business. They don’t have a bottom line. They are not interested in profit margins. They bloat their budgets, then when their fiscal year comes to a close, they spend spend spend in order to prevent that budget from being slashed. When they “need” more money they simply tax their citizens more, or print more money and cause inflation.
During the cited period of time, all exploration and founding of colonies was to be documented and reported to the entire body of the Federation. This was to prevent any particular member of the Federation grabbing territory rapidly and denying the expansion of other members, creating an imbalanced set of opportunities and growth. It was established after initial hiccups where the Mannar expanded extremely rapidly and denied opportunities to the other members, Caldari included.
The Caldari intentionally breached this agreement with the intent of creating a shadow source of economic power to gain an advantage over the other members of the Federation and, once discovered, changed their plans to a complete secession. It was duplicitous intent.
My confusion was your simultaneous disparaging of the Gallente for our unity and plurality of identity while practicing the very same thing yourself.
You clearly don’t know what is taught in the Federation if you believe “distinct yet unified” is somehow an alien concept to the Federation citizen.
Some of the Intaki and other citizens in the region might object, though. The fact that you completely disregard their voice in the matter in order to satisfy your own solution is the epitome of hypocrisy given your opening speech in light of all of this.
I’m beginning to suspect you may struggle with reading comprehension. I never once accused you of being associated with Serpentis, I stated that the Serpentis Corporation can’t be reasoned with in the same manner that you, who claim to care about the people of Intaki, can because their motivations are different. It was relevant to a different part of the discussion.
No, the Federation is a political entity. The Federal government is a government. Federation-aligned corporations are businesses and they may invest in political campaigns and representatives that reflect their interests but, thankfully, they are not the only voices heard in the government.
I’m sure that my old agents within the Sisters will loath me for admitting this, but I gained more than a passing familiarity with irregular warfare during the time I spent as a clone soldier. While no longer protected by the Mercenary Infomorph Act I found myself waging a guerilla campaign against Sansha’s slaves on worlds well outside of CONCORD and Empire jurisdiction.
There was simply no way of directly confronting the legions of true slaves washing over us like a tide, so we targeted anything we could. Infrastructure, habitations, True Citizens…anything that weakened their hold on the ground. I lost count of how many times I died and it still wasn’t enough to save everyone. I led good people to their first and final death. They knew the risks, but it still haunts me.
It is possible to fight a much larger enemy, even Federal Marines, until they can no longer sustain their efforts; but the cost is paid in blood. Those who are willing to pay that price must be mindful of whose blood is spilled, else the toll becomes even greater. I would not assume that the Intaki rebels are bad people, though as you say: Collateral damage happens.
Practically speaking I think you are wrong. Fighting an Intaki insurgency is fighting an enemy that usually can not be seen. The enemy is not only embedded in the civilian population, it is the civilian population. The risk of collateral damage and injustice is just as great for Fed Marines as it is for the insurgents. As such, the conflict can not be treated in the same manner as a conventional war.
Because I try to maintain realistic expectations. Living and fighting outside of the Federation for so long has allowed me to see how often we, the Gallente people, cling to idealistic visions over reality. Idealisms do not survive long in a foxhole.
It’s more than the collateral damage issue, though. Sustained conflict breeds emnity. The longer it lasts, the more the local population will see locals on the other side of the conflict as enemies first, and locals second.
As for ‘bad people’… most won’t be. Some will, however. Some will be vicious and bloodthirsty, joining the insurgency not out of principle, but out of a desire to inflict harm. And once the bloodshed starts, they’ll have very few qualms with targeting Intaki if those Intaki are getting in their way. Others will come to agree with them, embittered by the futility of the struggle, or by losses they’ve suffered. They’ll excuse more and more because all of the sacrifices made cannot be allowed to become meaningless. Over time, they’ll get more and more strident in that viewpoint, and they’ll use every setback as an opportunity to push for escalating the bloodshed, for becoming more indiscriminate in the targeting…
Those elements will always exist, and in an insurgency, where cells are kept isolated and separate, there’s very little chance of keeping the extremists on a leash.
No, but it’s not the same kind of warfare that the insurgency itself will wage. Counterinsurgency is a very different beast.
But they’re not in a foxhole yet. Advocating for violence before non-violent avenues have been expended isn’t ‘maintaining realistic expectations’, it’s ‘actively reducing any chance to avoid bloodshed’.
I definitely can’t argue against the perception of sunk cost among soldiers. It’s something I’ve experienced myself. Seeing the face of a person I fought beside turned into a true slave filled me with rage. It wasn’t enough to prevent Sansha from taking more, they had to pay for those they had taken many times over. I can rationalize it now because of the sheer evil Kuvakei had perpetrated, but it turned me into something terrible. If it weren’t for the Sisters and their guidance…honestly I’d rather not think about what I would have become.
Maybe, but that makes the discussion we’re having now that much more important. If I hadn’t advocated for it you would not have challenged my statements. Our exchange here can make a world of difference as events unfold and I’m grateful we have the opportunity to speak in an open and honest manner.
These were terms dictated to the Caldari when they were still far less technologically capable. Unlike the Gallente which developed in a hospitable planet, the Caldari had to struggle much more to advance technologically. On the other hand that very same lack of resources built a strong character. The Federation feared the Caldari as they not only caught up but in some areas surpassed the Federation. Of course the Federation’s agreements were ones which would benefit them and maintain others under their thumb.
Again you brought up the Caldari practice of encouraging the preservation of bloodlines as a negative. And I brought up that this does not impede the State’s unity but rather strengthens it. The Federation on the other hand has relegated the Gallente bloodline itself, not just the citizenship to the Federation, as meaning anything.
You seem to be under the impression that I place much value in democracy. Unfortunately democracy is merely the lies many believe told by the few rich enough to control the narrative. If you are concerned with what “Some of the Intaki might object to” perhaps you should petition this complaint to the Agaurd administration as surely they disregarded the voices of the Intaki happy to be under Caldari State protection.
I am quite apt at reading, especially between the lines.
There is a deeper meaning though to preservation of Caldari bloodlines than simple conservatism and preservation of culture. Our marriage agencies are used to match people to grow up better people. This is eugenics, this is the science. We procreate for our children to be better than us, for the better of the whole mankind.
Gallenteans on the other hand procreate indiscriminately, like savages, like wild animals, like filthy swines. This is revolting.
