Hello to the Syndicate

[Buorhann]

 we can go back to negotiations and keep this behind close doors. 

 

I realize your status as only being a "member" of Alpha hinders your insight into things, but I'm pretty sure that boat sailed a while back since the last war.  You know, Steve saw fit to that.

[Moreau]

I'd say our intend to attack Alpha is lower than Alpha's intend to [get other people to] attack t$.

 

The story keeps on changing: First Alpha's about to attack t$, and now Alpha's planning to get their allies to do it instead. 

 

Please leave the story telling to Partisan. 

[Tali]

To be Frank, dragging this out to the public was a mistake and shows how "professional" Alphas FA policies are.

 

 

You have the right to hate The Syndicate, but don't play the victim card.

[Roy Mustang]

Holy Jesus...

 

I hate to tell you this Partisan/Roy, but Alpha isn't planning to attack you. I'm pretty sure their closest allies would have been informed. What is also pretty clear is that the logs aren't talking about defending. They're talking about using Alpha's supposed bad mouthing (which I have never witnessed btw, and I hang with some Alpha members) as a reason to "preemptively" strike Alpha and their allies. 

 

Ah yes the membership of an alliance that historically has been entirely incapable of keeping even tactical information confidential hasn't been told about a plan to hit another alliance. Clearly nothing's happening.

 

Time to pack it up y'all! The rank and file hasn't been told about an ally's plan!

 

 

Still not a yes or no answer.

 

It's so simple! If t$ is willing to say that the logs are a mistake, and this is all just a misunderstanding and the Syndicate doesn't intend to attack Alpha, then this thread can end here, and we can go back to negotiations and keep this behind close doors. 

 

 

 

 

I'm simply asking whether or not the comment from t$'s top government officials about preempting Alpha is true or not. It's simply a question of security and reassurance that this won't escalate past words on a backchannel in the IRC

 

You don't get to go back to backchannels once you drag shit out into public. So you'll just have to wait for our formal, long-winded, extensively documented, rebuttal.

[Moreau]

 

To be Frank, dragging this out to the public was a mistake and shows how "professional" Alphas FA policies are.


You have the right to hate The Syndicate, but don't play the victim card.

 

Look at their size and then look at t$.

 

[EliteCanada]

So, then let's get a clear answer. 

 

Does the Syndicate intend to attack Alpha? Yes or No? 

 

So you admit there is something to pre-empt? 

[Eumirbago]

So, then let's get a clear answer.

 

Does the Syndicate intend to attack Alpha? Yes or No?

Do you admit that there is something to preempt?

[Caecus]

Ah yes the membership of an alliance that historically has been entirely incapable of keeping even tactical information confidential hasn't been told about a plan to hit another alliance. Clearly nothing's happening.

 

Time to pack it up y'all! The rank and file hasn't been told about an ally's plan!

 

 

 

You don't get to go back to backchannels once you drag shit out into public. So you'll just have to wait for our formal, long-winded, extensively documented, rebuttal.

 

Is that rebuttal going to come around update? 

Do you admit that there is something to preempt?

 

I don't understand. Preempt means to attack right? 

 

 

Alpha certainly has something to pre-empt, yes.

 

Somebody should tell me what I'm missing here. I'm too low on the totem pole to be familiar with what pre-empt means, apparently. 

Edited April 20, 2016 by Caecus

[Moreau]

So you admit there is something to pre-empt? 

Do you admit that there is something to preempt?

 

Alpha certainly has something to pre-empt, yes.

[Moreau]

30 user(s) are reading this topic

22 members, 7 guests, 1 anonymous users

 

• Buorhann, Hooves, Chewbacca, Vosunda, Kurdanak, Jodo, EVA, Boony, Saruman, Moreau III, Roy Mustang, Valdoroth, JR95, Satisfriend, Partisan, Clover, Lyrositor, Oliveira, Bluestrike, Roll Sheepy, Memph, Clarke

 

 

Christ.

 

 

41 user(s) are reading this topic

25 members, 12 guests, 4 anonymous users

 

• Moreau III, Boony, Hodor, donsberger, Partisan, Eumirbago, Fistandantilus, Hooves, Caecus, Comrade Enver Hoxha, Zoot, Woot, Beowulf, EliteCanada, Ivan the Red, Roy Mustang, Yosodog, Manthrax, Lordship, EVA, SoS, Saruman, Cromstar, Memph, Victor Truchev

 

Allah.

[Lordship]

Mate, it is very cute that you are yelping at me while you run to defend t$ to protect their doctored dumplog claims. I compared both conversation and both are same except that Paristan deleted the preemptive strike part to deny OP's legit dumplog. You probably missed the spoiler tag that Placenta included in his original post. 

 

 

 

Absolutely not. If you don't like direct and blunt thoughts, then perhaps t$ should've not tried to edit the dumplog to suit their claim. The outsider who has the leaked information from the converstation usually are true and I will choose to believe outsider's source than insider's source because they aren't always true; heck they will manipulate to defend their claim. 

Usually I refrain from posting on the OWF and getting involved in these clown fiestas but my whole body is telling me to respond to this.

 

The logs Placentia "Steve" posted are of Roy and Brooklyn from SK. The logs Partisan posted were of Roy and Placentia "Steve"

 

"I compared both conversation"

 

"I compared both conversation"

 

"I compared both conversation"

 

"both are same"

 

"both are same"

 

"both are same"

 

Also, I remember when you were hitting either TKR nations or an allied nation and I full milcomed to counter you. Was pretty sad to wake up and see you in vacation mode lol

Edited April 20, 2016 by Lordship

[Roy Mustang]

Is that rebuttal going to come around update?

 

Ah yes with our massive militarization levels, of course! (Protip: Ask whoever runs war or econ for you guys. Presumably they track actual militarization as opposed to wildly speculating based on the score chart)

(Serious answer: I am gainfully employed and Partisan is a full-time student in higher ed. Neither of us is really swimming in free time to write this shit up midday)

 

I don't understand. Preempt means to attack right?

 

https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=preempt 

 

pre·empt

prēˈempt/

verb

verb: pre-empt; 3rd person present: pre-empts; past tense: pre-empted; past participle: pre-empted; gerund or present participle: pre-empting; verb: preempt; 3rd person present: preempts; past tense: preempted; past participle: preempted; gerund or present participle: preempting

1. 1.

   take action in order to prevent (an anticipated event) from happening; forestall.

   "the government preempted a coup attempt"

   synonyms: forestall, prevent

   "his action may have preempted war"

   • act in advance of (someone) in order to prevent them from doing something.

     "it looked as if she'd ask him more, but Parr preempted her"
   • (of a broadcast) interrupt or replace (a scheduled program).

     "the violence preempted regular programming"
2. 2.

   acquire or appropriate (something) in advance.

   "many tables were already preempted by family parties"

   synonyms: commandeer, occupy, seize, arrogate, appropriate, take over, secure,reserve

   "many tables were already preempted by family parties"

   • NORTH AMERICAN

     take (something, especially public land) for oneself so as to have the right of preemption.
3. 3.

   BRIDGE

   make a preemptive bid.

noun

BRIDGE

noun: pre-empt; plural noun: pre-empts; noun: preempt; plural noun: preempts

1. 1.

   a preemptive bid.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Roy Mustang

[EliteCanada]

Alpha certainly has something to pre-empt, yes.

 

Solid response. 10/10

[Ivan the Red]

I'm simply asking whether or not the comment from t$'s top government officials about preempting Alpha is true or not. It's simply a question of security and reassurance that this won't escalate past words on a backchannel in the IRC

 

Well, if your intention is to keep this from escalating, I'd say your leader is doing a pretty poor job at it. He distributed the leaks to everyone and their mother in Orbis, then opened this thread. That doesn't sounds like "I do not want this to escalate", but rather as "finally I've got shit on you I [think I] can use to throw other alliances at you since I'm obviously too yellow to attack you by myself". Which is pretty consistent with what he has been doing since he backstabbed us last war.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Ivan the Red

[Cromstar]

I'm simply asking whether or not the comment from t$'s top government officials about preempting Alpha is true or not. It's simply a question of security and reassurance that this won't escalate past words on a backchannel in the IRC

 

It might help to remember what 'preempt' means in this context: to take action for the purpose of preventing someone else from taking a specific action.

 

In the course of events revolving around the Sparta-TEst incident, Alpha and others started to build up under the assumption that TEst was going to attack Sparta. At the time, people in t$ saw Alpha and friends building up over their mil without explanation and considering their testy relationship, builds up just in case. So then everyone else sees Alpha and t$ build up their militaries and other alliances begin to follow suit.

 

It is, at this point, that explanations are given and the Sparta-TEst issue is apparently laid to rest. However, at this point, a lot of people have militarized, and nobody knows who is planning to do what. t$, naturally, decides to make plans on the chance Alpha is looking to attack them. Under those circumstances, they decided that, if Alpha was planning to attack t$, it would be better to strike first and preempt that attack.

 

What we have basically stumbled into is the classic Cold War demilitarization problem: everybody has itchy trigger fingers and nobody wants to be the first to lower their guard for fear the other side will take advantage of that momentary weakness.

[Caecus]

 

https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=preempt 

 

 

So, it's the first definition? I was apparently using the second then. I always though prempt was just short for "preemptively strike"

 

2.

acquire or appropriate (something) in advance.

"many tables were already preempted by family parties"

synonyms: commandeer, occupy, seize, arrogate, appropriate, take over, secure,reserve

Edited April 20, 2016 by Caecus

[Boony]

 

It might help to remember what 'preempt' means in this context: to take action for the purpose of preventing someone else from taking a specific action.

 

In the course of events revolving around the Sparta-TEst incident, Alpha and others started to build up under the assumption that TEst was going to attack Sparta. At the time, people in t$ saw Alpha and friends building up over their mil without explanation and considering their testy relationship, builds up just in case. So then everyone else sees Alpha and t$ build up their militaries and other alliances begin to follow suit.

 

It is, at this point, that explanations are given and the Sparta-TEst issue is apparently laid to rest. However, at this point, a lot of people have militarized, and nobody knows who is planning to do what. t$, naturally, decides to make plans on the chance Alpha is looking to attack them. Under those circumstances, they decided that, if Alpha was planning to attack t$, it would be better to strike first and preempt that attack.

 

What we have basically stumbled into is the classic Cold War demilitarization problem: everybody has itchy trigger fingers and nobody wants to be the first to lower their guard for fear the other side will take advantage of that momentary weakness.

Just to add, it wasn't simply militarization. Alpha has been plotting in the back channels for a while now. Our gov didn't just assume Alpha would hit us now that they are militarized.

 

The truth will come to light eventually.

[Moreau]

Well, if your intention is to keep this from escalating, I'd say your leader is doing a pretty poor job at it. He distributed the leaks to everyone and their mother in Orbis, then opened this thread. That doesn't sounds like "I do not want this to escalate", but rather as "finally I've got shit on you I [think I] can use to throw other alliances at you since I'm obviously too yellow to attack you myself". Which is pretty consistent with what he has been doing since he backstabbed us last war.

 

Placentica made the right call. t$ are notorious for being bullies and would rather their victims endured silently rather than make them lose what little face they had left by publicly shaming them. 

[Cromstar]

Just to add, it wasn't simply militarization. Alpha has been plotting in the back channels for a while now. Our gov didn't just assume Alpha would hit us now that they are militarized.

 

The truth will come to light eventually.

 

I forgot to add a note that I'm not judging this issue because I've not seen it myself, but my trusted bros in t$ have said so. Obviously t$ feels there is reason to expect something from Alpha, and Alpha has reason to expect something from t$. It doesn't really matter if either is right or wrong, because the logical course of action is to assume the other side is a threat if you cannot trust them.

[Roy Mustang]

 

So, it's the first definition? I was apparently using the second then. I always though prempt was just short for "preemptively strike"

 

2.

acquire or appropriate (something) in advance.

"many tables were already preempted by family parties"

synonyms: commandeer, occupy, seize, arrogate, appropriate, take over, secure,reserve

 

 

The second definition doesn't even make sense at all in this context. Acquire and attack are not synonyms.

[Moreau]

 

It might help to remember what 'preempt' means in this context: to take action for the purpose of preventing someone else from taking a specific action.

 

In the course of events revolving around the Sparta-TEst incident, Alpha and others started to build up under the assumption that TEst was going to attack Sparta. At the time, people in t$ saw Alpha and friends building up over their mil without explanation and considering their testy relationship, builds up just in case. So then everyone else sees Alpha and t$ build up their militaries and other alliances begin to follow suit.

 

It is, at this point, that explanations are given and the Sparta-TEst issue is apparently laid to rest. However, at this point, a lot of people have militarized, and nobody knows who is planning to do what. t$, naturally, decides to make plans on the chance Alpha is looking to attack them. Under those circumstances, they decided that, if Alpha was planning to attack t$, it would be better to strike first and preempt that attack.

 

What we have basically stumbled into is the classic Cold War demilitarization problem: everybody has itchy trigger fingers and nobody wants to be the first to lower their guard for fear the other side will take advantage of that momentary weakness.

 

Nice spin but that's not what the logs show. It was a purely aggressive move on the part of t$.

[Caecus]

The second definition doesn't even make sense at all in this context. Acquire and attack are not synonyms.

 

I've always associated war with the want to take over something. But that wasn't exactly the word that I thought prempt meant. Again, I thought prempt was just short for "preemptive strike"

[Eumirbago]

Nice spin but that's not what the logs show. It was a purely aggressive move on the part of t$.

It is time for Rose to stop Syndicate aggression.

[Boony]

I've always associated war with the want to take over something. But that wasn't exactly the word that I thought prempt meant. Again, I thought prempt was just short for "preemptive strike"

It is

[Moreau]

I forgot to add a note that I'm not judging this issue because I've not seen it myself, but my trusted bros in t$ have said so. Obviously t$ feels there is reason to expect something from Alpha, and Alpha has reason to expect something from t$. It doesn't really matter if either is right or wrong, because the logical course of action is to assume the other side is a threat if you cannot trust them.

 

I'm glad you've admitted to not reading the logs before spinning the facts.