Indeed the blocs have differing views on many things, that’s why we don’t agree or side with each other on every occasion.
4 Likes
It is mindboggling how you keep repeating the same thing like a broken record despite I explained it multiple times already.
First of all, who do you think CEP are to disagree with their soldier? I doubt they even know about my existence. Maybe when I will become a megacorp CEO, they will consider what I think. I don’t ask them about my opinions, I only follow their orders.
Second, if CEP will ORDER Dragonaurs to be terrorists - I can completely understand and accept it - just because someone has to do the job.
But you can’t declare a corporation to be terrorist without either ordering them to do so or without them actually committing a terror act - and expect others accept such declaration as truth. Consider, for example, me declaring you dishonorable. Would you become dishonorable because Diana Kim said so? Obviously, not. You become dishonorable only when you yourself commit a dishonorable deed, and when I refer to you as dishonorable or as a liar - I refer to the deeds you have committed. I don’t think there’s need to give exact reference to it now, since, I believe, the whole IGS knows about your lies and dishonor already (and those, who aren’t, but interested - could ask me directly over NeoCom, in this - or even better, in offtopic thread).
Yes, we have a fact in your example. But in example of Templis Dragonaurs? We have fact only about 200 year attack - and I don’t think anyone who participated in or planned this demolition operation are still alive. Though, again, right, if you can bring an active participant of the Nouvelle Rouvenor termination, who is still alive and member of Templis Dragonaurs, or bring evidence of any other terror act they staged - yes, I change my opinion. I might even bring my apologies - act, that people like you are probably even physically unable to comprehend.
Until then, I’ll just keep trusting what I know and can verify myself instead of listening to infamous liar like you.
Have a nice day.
And, you know, the recent Kyonoke attacks, which were part of a failed terror plot. You don’t have to succeed at the crime to be a criminal. You only have to attempt it.
7 Likes
But if you strike a blow aimed at the Caldari people…
1 Like
Goodness me.
Spending the last week ‘catching up’ on things has lead me to believe… I missed very little.
Perhaps I should start a discussion about olives?
2 Likes
Black or green?
4 Likes
We still have no idea what happened in there, except it was a huge ■■■■ up.
FIO involvement in this is highly likely. Dragonaurs involvement is suspected.
In any way, I myself has taken a precaution and made sure there are no ties between Dragonaurs with any of my crewmembers until the situation about this incident becomes clear.
And I see a crime, I don’t see terror. Please make sure you understand these two words and do not use them interchangably. The act of terror doesn’t guarantee it to be a crime, just as an act of crime doesn’t guarantee it to be an act of terror.
You don’t see terror? You don’t see that the plot—which at least one family member admitted to—was intended to cause sow terror and cause political upheaval and chaos?
Well… ok. You should probably look into it again, though, because that was all there.
3 Likes
What I see was a theft of a potent reagent, probably with weaponizing purpose - not a terror. It could have made either a very efficient weapon or bring a nasty disaster. And, as we can see - the latter has happened.
As for “political upheaval and chaos” - some people are terrified from weapons in general. Others are terrified from unknown. Yet, neither of these constitutes terror, which eventually comes down to actions of humans, disregarding tools they use.
A typical example of criminal terror without any weapons or mystery reagents would be taking hostages and choking them with bare hands one by one every minute until corporate CEO pays you ransom. Maybe even with GalNet live feed for greater impact.
Diana, ‘terrorism’ is using violence or the threat of violence—which includes chemical and biological agents—to incite public panic and lack of confidence in the institutions of society, in order to push a socio-political agenda.
No, taking a bunch of hostages and threatening violence against them in order to extort financial gain is not terrorism.
Yes, stealing a biological weapon with the intention of distributing it in an attack against another nation is a terrorist plot.
2 Likes
I think we are just using different terms.
Funny, we both seem to be using the same term. You’re just not using it correctly.
3 Likes
No, it is not. We lack the main component of the terrorism in here - even by your definition - “to incite public panic and lack of confidence in the institutions of society, in order to push a socio-political agenda”. To estimate their goals we will need a list of their targets to see if they compromise any military significance, or just random useless civvies centers. And that we don’t have.
And, I think I will agree with your definition of terrorism. Though for other discussions, my understanding of the word implies any military or civilian action, that has no other military significance than instilling fear or panic into soldiers or civilians of the enemy.
No, we don’t. Attacks on military targets that are undertaken with the intent of demonstrating that attacks can happen anywhere, at any time, and so cause mass fear, are still terrorism—and we have that description of their intentions from the one family member.
2 Likes
No, unless the enemy lacks scouting resources and terrified of own ignorance.
Speaking with strategical point of view, random attacks are made not to “scare” the enemy or inflict any panic - but to mess with their prediction strategy so they wouldn’t know where to expect the main strike. That’s quite a professional approach. The opponent will either have to scatter forces and won’t be unable to repent your main attack, or will held them ready for your main attack, but let these small attacks achieve their goals. It is a proper military goal.
While terrorism is only a psychological warfare that doesn’t inflict noticeable damage to opposing forces.
Reference, please.
This line of thinking is very limited and myopic, Diana. Imagine you are a group that doesn’t have a ‘main attack’ planned. You’re a small group, a few thousand at best. You don’t have the wherewithal to challenge any significant military force directly. There is no way you can take and hold a strategic objective, no way you can prosecute a conventional war without being utterly annhilated, and quickly. So you take to asymmetric warfare.
There are ways to prosecute an asymmetric war without verging into terrorism: restrict your target list to valid military targets, make your actions, and affiliations known at the initiation of hostilities, and (and this is important and required) make a legitimate effort to remove civilians and non-combatants from danger, and minimize the collateral damage inflicted upon them.
The classic example is an armed party boards a civilian transport. Asking everyone to remain calm, they tell the passengers they are member of an insurgent milita, giving the name of the militia. They then explain that there are members of the armed forces of the oppressor nation they are at war with on the transport, and ask those members to identify themselves and surrender to ensure no legitimate civilians are harmed. These steps are required in order to engage in legitimate, ‘legal’, asymmetric warfare that does not involve war crimes.
Failure to take these minimal actions—identifying the attacking party by means of announcement, uniform, or other livery (like your ident transponder that says you’re part of CalMil), and making an effort to avoid civilian loss of life—is considered indicative of a desire to sow fear among the civilian populace, and the attack is considered terrorism, and a war crime.
And that’s true whether the attack is shooting soldiers on a transport, or detonating an AM charge that annihilates a Navy space station. The scale of the attack has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the action.
2 Likes
Well… it depends on the occasion, but black is for me please.
The 
of Gallente are good for one thing…
Target practice.
1 Like
There are too many of them, however.