And certainly violence is the appropriate response to a dispute with an ally.



The Republic stated the intentions of it's incursion into Federation space quite clearly. Assuming some other hidden justification is pure speculation on your part.

Yeah, peace, aside from the repeated slave raids against us. Of course, your lovely government claims they weren't official and that they're working to eliminate illegal slavers to keep Concord off their back.

And war or not, regardless of who started it, any decision to attempt a Reclaiming against the Minmatar is on the Empire's hands, not ours. War does not equate to Reclaiming.

No, it really doesn't. First, there had been continued attempts at negotiation with the Federation, all of which failed. Second, no statement has been made by the Tribal Council as to the exact reasons for the battle at Colelie, so any speculation as to the reason it occurred and whether or not there really was justification is just that, speculation.

Would you care to show me where they made this statement? I have not seen any official statement from the Tribal Council or Shakor on the matter.

Considering the impressive amount of occurrences of the word "race" in this "discussion" - even "race traitor" - this "discussion" is starting to flirt with ridicule and absurdity.

Races apply for dogs.

Races also apply to humans. Or, are you going to try to say that we're all absolutely physically identical with no distinctive anatomical and/or physiological characteristics? Please...

So what's your point anyway, Farel? Do you have one or do you just enjoy climbing down from your mountain of wisdom every so often to grace us mortals with your presence? If the former, please state your case rather than pontificating. If the latter, well, please just keep your thoughts to yourself.

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with Lyn...
There is one human race.
The genetic and morphological variations from one ethnicity to another exists, but are not enough, on a biological standpoint, to talk about "human races".

Though I have to admit I'm amused at the description of Slavery 1.0. By that logic, after Colelie, the Republic are slavers.

Can we have a GalNet rule specifically to cover this? We can call it Shin's Law: "Any debate which goes on long enough will eventually be cast in terms of slavery."

"Do what I say or I will hurt you"

I'm a big fan of consequences.

Races also apply to humans. Or, are you going to try to say that we're all absolutely physically identical with no distinctive anatomical and/or physiological characteristics? Please...

So what's your point anyway, Farel? Do you have one or do you just enjoy climbing down from your mountain of wisdom every so often to grace us mortals with your presence? If the former, please state your case rather than pontificating. If the latter, well, please just keep your thoughts to yourself.

Call it a culture if you want instead of race. Race is just easier to type.

The Federation is free to make their own decisions.

Decisions have consequences.

Like Caldari Prime?

Quite the paradox, humanity is full of them like "fighting for peace" or "enforcing freedom."

At the end of the day ppl do what they think is right, live how they want.

Just don't call yourself "righteous" or I might accidentally have a fit of uncontrollable laughter.

Red velvet cake is a product of slavery since it is made with flour. The bulk of the cluster's grain comes from the Empire. Since anyone who benefits from slavery or doesn't actively oppose it can be considered a slaver, anyone enjoying cake, is a slaver.

Species apply to humans. And subspecies is the word you are looking for if you want to point at physiological differences due to geographical isolation over long periods of time.

Race apply for dogs or plants and every artificially created species and subspecies through repeated and selective interbreeding.

My point is simply that your drivels about race traitors, aside from being completely inaccurate, is ethically obnoxious. Being a traitor to a pug nose, slit eyes, white skin or dark skin sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Or intellectual laziness.

Slaves are also free to make their own decisions. It might of course be bad for their health.

Like a lot of conflicts and galactic events. But it still fits to your definition of slavery 1.0. I think that definition might be incomplete.

or yours.

My point was made. Doublespeak just twists it into circular logic.

"bu bu anybody can coerce anybody"

You don't say.

"bu bu that's slavery too"

Yeah no, not really.

Matters of state always involve some level of coercion ie "do this or else" but that's govts coercing each other.

Individuals coercing each other is universally shunned. Forced prostitution, human trafficking, slavery, piracy, robbery these are social ills.

If you don't know the difference between political pressure and social diseases, please ask a parent, they'll explain it alot better than I can.

You want to play the pedant and semanticist with me, Farel? You should consult an electronic dictionary first:

Race: noun, 1. A group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. A population so related. 4. A group of tribes or people forming an ethnic stock.

By those definitions I indeed used the word correctly and it's you who are spouting drivel and attempting to pass it off as fact.

Do you have any proof of this claim? Because those are ilegal activities and should be reported to the authorities so they can be handled. But then, if you have no proof...

It is true, war doesn't equate to Reclaiming. Amarrian wars against external hostiles usually do. And don't believe that because we name it Reclaiming we can forget that you started it.

I see, so the failure in diplomacy justifies military action, instead of further diplomacy?

I don't completely disagree with this statement, don't take me wrong, I just want to make it clear.

There was proof of Amarrian military involvement in the raid that killed my husband a decade ago. It was presented. The Empire claimed that the soldiers involved were not acting under orders and were not on active duty at the time it occurred, and that it was an isolated incident. That's not the only time Amarrian soldiers have been found involved in these slave raids, however.

This just brings us back to the previous argument we've had, one that's not going to be reconciled until one side or the other wins the war and writes the history books according to their perspective.

As I said at the end of the statement, we can only speculate as to whether or not there was justification for the action. It depends on whether or not there's further information we don't have yet and what that information is, if it exists.

But yes, failure in diplomacy can potentially justify military action, as much as military action can be justified anyway. There's a lot of factors involved in determining that, however.

What does my health has to do with that ? Is that a threat of some kind ?