| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
   |
Posted - 2009.08.02 23:54:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Ikar Kaltin
I see how time dulls the memory of the Ushra'khan. Either that or the terrorists twist the truth to suit their own purpose, either way you teach the history of events wrong.
....
I'm sure that Sylph don't need you to fight for them in a war of words as well Ikar....
|
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 13:04:00 -
[2]
yes nutmunch, if you ask a few more questions I'll give you a detailed outline of our plan based on suprise and out maneuvering a larger enemy force. Then we'll deploy static assets within your jump bridgeable space, and then we'll just keep doing it again and again and again....
U'K doesn't take full credit for Sylph's current predicament. The lack of support from their allies, the untimely demise of their command staff due to internal strife, the distinct lack of coordination that has been shown at maintaining key infrastructure these past months... these are all factors that have led to nearly half of Sylph alliance membership leaving in the past months. Having recieved several communiques from departing Sylph members however, I feel quite confident that we have helped them to realise we take betrayal somewhat personally.
You ask us straight if we're going to deploy and take Sylph space. I ask you why the providence bloc haven't defended better against our attacks? Sylph has suffered far more in these attacks than other amarrian holder groups and still they are left to fend alone. Whilst i'm sure you'd like a full frontal war against a force 1/10th the size of the provi bloc, we're quite happy with our successful guerilla warfare which quite clearly works.
|
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 14:13:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Sapphrine on 03/08/2009 14:15:29
nutmunch, you seem to have a way with selective wording. The answer to your question is that it is both, as I stated. The effort required for CVA and co to form up a giant grouping and hit a static asset at the time of their choosing is relatively little. The effort required to keep sylph space viable and protected is significantly more and quite rightly is the responsibility first and foremost of Sylph.
edit: you seem stuck with this belief that we have to take their space to deny them the use of it... how much does the infrastructure to hold that space cost do you reckon? And where does the income come to keep it going? I'd vouch that running the same infrastructure with half as many people is quite a strain right now :)
|
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 19:22:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Tyneara
I don't claim to make any statement for Sylph alliance today, I'm not part of them. They are my own.
Might I suggest then that you research your new alliances longer standing blue's a little more and then consider your statements a little more :P
|
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 19:36:00 -
[5]
As the main U'K diplo in the break down of the mutual blue with Sylph I can tell you that Sylph's idea of u'k shot first was to say they'd engage us if neutral and then they wandered why an NRDS organisation set them red based off that statement.
Further to this, Sylph engaged the S25 POS before this standing was formalised resulting in significant bad will.
Finally Sylph have never been a good ally to anyone. Sure they make a good buffer for CVA and I must congratulate CVA on some artful diplomacy. Giving the semblance of caring, just enough support to keep them hooked... and then leaving them to bare the brunt of the losses.
Chooch, in your own words, Sylph are tearing themselves apart, the process started long ago and has accelerated substantially recently. U'K may well not be the underlying issue to you, or any other command staff. I can tell you that when I chose to take a leave of absence from U'K it had little to do with the Amarrian slavers in our space and a lot to do with my perception of commitment from within u'k at the time.
My point? As a commander, it is easy to blame your own guys for the failure to react you see within an alliance. The reasons behind those failures are external normally. You say that 15 u'k sat in a system in gang ready to engage you? I percieve maybe 2-3 were even awake at the time, the rest, busy with other tasks internal to their ships. You say you had 5-8 ships escorting 4 freighters? I tend to know you have 30-40 sitting on a jump bridge waiting us to take the bait. Sylph tried the same even yesterday, ever predictable.
Sylph alliance is rotten from within, their is no doubt, greed spurred your decisions years ago to side with CVA and it spurs your pilots even now. Sylph are allied with CVA, they are defended by all the most determined POS attacks by the threat of CVA retaliation and yet even now, a debate rumbles on (according to Sylph informants) to whether u'k might leave them alone if they were to declare they no longer supported the slavers. Where is the loyalty to those that have been your allies sylph? where is the resolve to kill us till we are dead and dead that SOME of your command professed to IC just 2 days ago?
I respect the effort that both you and Drakmore put in Chooch even though I may not respect your decisions, but lets not claim that Sylph are worth anything at this stage. Hell if you guys thought that you'd have stayed with them. you don't put that much effort into a group only to walk away after years unless the cause is utterly hopeless.
|
| |
|