Intergalactic Summit

No, "blue-on-blue contact" is a military term denoting blue-on-blue contact.

Find any modern military textbook, fratricide is mentioned.

Yes, I understand the root words "fratre" and "cide" ie killing your brother, that's simply not how I'm using the word.

Republic law? Same as Luminaire

Trial, prison etc.

I don't know how many years.

Governments don't have "rage" they have interests.

When interests collide, there is conflict, and people die.

You can't "amend" people back to life.

On a personal level I am saddened by the hardships of our Gallente friends, they're good people and I wish them well regardless of politics.

I have no influence in govt, I am not a Republican, nor particularly loyal to any government, I love Matari people but generally consider myself a "citizen of the universe." I see the good and the bad of every race. I enjoy stargazing, coffee, love, history, and small gang warfare.

Thank you

You misunderstand.

In our culture, shooting someone and going "oops sorry" is considered patronizing.

Flowery words of sympathy ring hollow.

The way to "make amends" is to not shoot your friend anymore. You say "sorry" with your deeds, not your mouth.

It's not very political, but that's our way.



It's not a "message" it's just what I think, it seems disingenuous to repeat it as a means to an end.



Thank you for this advice, I'm not a politician, I should stop engaging in these kinds of discussions.

All I've been attempting to do is offer sympathy, but invariable end up being derailed by "MURDER! BUTCHER! GENOCIDE! RAWR!" and I'm like wait, can we treat this incident like an incident ie, something went wrong, but I invariably get caught up in the hystrionics and start arguing with people.

I need to stop arguing with people and go fly my ships, comment on stuff that's not so emotionally charged.

Oh you boys, pardon me for interrupting, but I notice late that Musana responded to something I said.



I disagree, the facts are plain, it was premeditated.

The Republic were refused permission to cross the border.

The Shakor regime made a conscious decision to ignore the Federal government, break Federal law, and cross the border illegally.

Of course, they realize before their ships had even undocked that the Federation would act to prevent them from doing so.

At this stage the Republic has rationally considered that they will be challenged, and armed themselves in an effort to stave off this challenge by force. They did not come with industrials. They did not come with cloaked frigates or blockade runners. There was no premeditated effort to evade the challenge, only a premeditated plan and intent to meet it head on.

For you to even attempt to make the defense that the Republic force didn't intend to kill anybody, and only came with the intention to "threaten" the Federal authorities is utterly disgusting when you know full well that the Republic capital ships fired first. Further to that, as has already been mentioned, the Republic forces were repeatedly ordered to withdraw and repeatedly refused to do so.

This was no threat. It was a calculated and utterly premeditated intent to use force against Federation personnel, to inflict casualties. The choices made and the chain of events demonstrates this is murder, by the very definition that you dropped into this thread yourself.

That depends on the form of government and the society it's part of.

In the Federation, the vox populi has literally performed acts of the judicial system by screaming a man to death.

The Republic and State have been dominated by leaders who ride to the top on acts of insurgency and military aggression.

A man takes a gun, loads it with lethal rounds, and sets out to rob a bank. He doesn't set out with the plan of murdering the bank guard, John. But he does intend to force his way into the bank.

The Republic Fleet did not undock with the specific plan to destroy Federation Dreadnoughts. But they did intend to break the law. Everyone's law, in fact, not just the Federation's. They intended to invade a sovereign empire and perform a jail break with the intent on shooting anything that got in their way that could not be talked aside.

It was a premeditated plan that was not directly meant to harm the Republic, it was meant to retrieve the criminal. But an obvious and unavoidable side effect was harm to the Federation. This was well known to the Republic forces. Either they were ok with this, which is a severely bad thing between allies, or they were oblivious to it, which is rather worse.

Look at this tactically, Musana. If you wanted to plan an operation to break someone out of a high security prison within a foreign power, you wouldn't bring a fleet. You'd assemble some small team of highly skilled people. The sort who have the abilities to break into someplace like this without attracting attention. You'd bring them into that foreign power in the hold of some ship that wouldn't attract attention. That's how these sorts of things are done.

Invading the Federation with a fleet of dreadnoughts was a political statement, and I find it hard to believe that the people who ordered the invasion didn't intend for it to end the way that it does.

Which, for the record, is why I've been arguing for some time now that the Federation-Republic alliance has lived past it's time and should be dissolved. From your point of view, I'd imagine you'd support this. It would, after all, get the Republic out from under the heavy boot of the Federation, right?

Everything about the Colelie incident was handed horrifically from a tactical viewpoint, suggesting that whoever ordered it was very insisted on X being done without any regard for whether it was the smart way to handle things, someone who lacks tactical experience and should have let those with it dictate the how after being told the what.

It's also very possible, and very likely, that a significant part of why it was handled in the specific manner it was handled in was to make a specific point. However, this in no way indicates or even suggests premeditated murder or the intent to actually kill anyone.

Frankly, what I see is a bluff that failed horribly. The Fleet made a large show of force and determination, expecting the Federation Navy to cave and back down. Instead, the Federation Navy called the Fleet's bluff. The Fleet then had the choice to either back down and leave, facing humiliation for themselves and the ones who ordered the incursion for not standing firm, for not having the determination and conviction to go through with the threat, for admitting it was a bluff and proving impotent; or they could go through with what they had threatened, showing the conviction and determination to follow through.

And, to be entirely honest, I can't say for sure which of those options is the better option. The Federation now knows that if we say we'll do something, we won't just back down because they told us "No," that we're not their pets or their children. Had the Fleet backed down and left, we'd be getting ridiculed and harassed for impotence, for not having the courage to follow through, and we'd have set a precedence of simply submitting to the Federation like good pets or children. That would be a dangerous precedence to set.

That said, just like the others from EM who I flew with that day, I was hoping for things to end in a way that would benefit the Republic (or at least come out not directly benefiting -either- side) without a loss of life on either side. Of course, the only way I could see that having happened is if the Federation had caved and given Broteau over to the Republic that day, and the Federation couldn't do that for the same reason that the Republic Fleet couldn't back down. It would set a dangerous precedence of impotence and submission.

Once the Republic Fleet had entered Federation space, the only way the day could've ended with neither a loss of life nor a severe political loss for either side is if there had maybe been a third, neutral party to act as mediator.

Regardless, I do not believe that the loss of life on either side was the intention of the Republic Fleet's incursion into Federation space. I think the intention was to force the "soft" Federation into caving and handing over Broteau while setting a precedence of Matari dominance, something that I have personal issue with that I will not elaborate on further here, as this is not the place to make my complaints. The Federation is clearly not as "soft" as those giving the orders believed them to be.




If the Federation will not learn and correct its own flaws and mistakes, then yeah, I'm inclined to think the alliance will not last. However, contrary to popular opinion, I'm not an idiot. We do need the Federation as an ally, and I would like to see the alliance grow and prosper and become fully beneficial to both sides.

Sure, I've voiced in the past that in many ways I would rather have the Caldari as an ally than the Federation, but that's largely because I have more respect for the Caldari than I have for the Federation.

Regardless, it is the Federation's help we need, and I would not see the alliance end while that is still the case, even if the Federation refuses to learn and correct its flaws. Still, I will not support letting the Federation push us around and treat us like children, pets, or uncivilized barbarians when we are none of the above.

The fact that we need the Federation does not give them the right to exploit our need, and if their attempt to do so gets them bit, then they should learn to be more careful, and to treat their allies like actual allies and not like pets, vassals, or children.

Simply put, I am all for the alliance remaining intact indefinitely, so long as the Federation can learn to treat its allies like allies and quit being condescending assholes. If they can manage that, I'm sure they'll find the Republic to be fiercely loyal allies with few complaints.