EVE Search - To those who would support slavers in Catch

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Intergalactic Summit

To those who would support slavers in Catch

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
O Thief The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.20 16:39:00 - [121] Edited by: O Thief on 20/01/2009 16:42:34 Originally by: Tharrn How fitting that the Hobos have joined UK while I was away - they have been eating out of other people's bins for quite some time. To read all this '-A- is doing this, -A- is waiting for that' by Smackdog and his cronnies reads like some pimpled kid that gets beaten up at school regularly and thinks it can threaten people with it's big brother. Ah well, at least you know people aren't afraid of you. Perhaps you are being too selective in your reading? The vast majority of our reports from Catch focus on U'K only actions and achievements. We tend to act alone, unlike the CVA who have a rich history of hiding their weaknesses behind meatshields. Regarding my corporation, since you brought it up, we have a long and rich history of working with Ushra'Khan, since they first deployed Unity. You should should be more than aware of this, and it should be no suprise that we are brothers in arms with U'K today. As for people being afraid of us, I think actions speak louder than words, and the results of our campaign in Catch are clear for all to see. And whilst we are on the subject of fear, let me assure you of this - not one of us is afraid of you, slaver has-been.
Il Morte	Posted - 2009.01.20 20:01:00 - [122] Ahh an interesting turn of events I see. It seems OÆ thief and his freedom fighters have planted a tower in Catch, and are assaulting KW regularly with great success. Does this mean that the once and mighty UshraÆKhan are looking to have space in Catch. Or is it just a way of eliminating SSI? I thought UK had stated that they want no space of their own and are happy not having sovereignty but it seems this has changed. My networks have also passed on that ûA- is talking about handing over Sovereignty to an old IAC system with an outpost in it as well near Jamunda. It looks as if UK is making a comeback here with force, or the rumors they are being pushed out of Curse is true and they need a home. The summary of events I see here and the future they hold are as follows. SSI has no chance of holding their space for long without direct help from CVA and the other alliances in the area. They have not the leadership, the pilots or the skills to do so. Therefore it is up to CVA, Sylph, Paxton, Sev3rance and others to keep those systems in SSIÆs hands at risk of their own losses. SSI does not seem willing to do anything to guarantee this success from them or non that I have seen. SO it would really be the goodness of the hearts of those alliance or their hatred of UK. Which means eventually UK will take over those systems, unless SSI hands them over to another alliance, or becomes a pet. Uk takes over the systems eventually. CVA, Sylph and anyone else use this opportunity to have a place they can then attack UK at. UK then goes on the defensive instead of the offensive and wind up trapped in the very systems they took from SSI. UK asks for help from ûA- to protect them from the onslaught of CVA and company. ûA- looks at the situation and says no thank you, hope you liked your freedom while you had it now go be taken over by the slavers, as ûA- and I have great respect for their abilities do not need to have CVA and allies (Who have remained neutral) against them as well in their conflict. If ûA- comes to aide UK in KW then Goons and the NC will be involved as well, CVA possibly being the part that turns the tide on ûA- and BoB. So Uk will be forced on their own. End result this endeavor all though being loads of fun to kill slavers is a lose lose for both SSI and UK. For SSI will lose their systems eventually, and UK will be assaulted and forced on the defensive again; eventually being pushed out with no help from ûA- and company. Yes the Firm and others might help out for awhile but they will grow weary of it as all mercenary alliances and corps due with time. SO I wonder what the end game is here for UK and for SSI, for the only ones I see benefiting in the end would be CVA itÆs holders and Sylph (nice non response by them), as they would then be able to offensively strike at UK .
O Thief The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.20 21:38:00 - [123] Edited by: O Thief on 20/01/2009 21:43:14 Il Morte, thank you for sharing your views with us on GalNet. I would like to take the opportunity to offer you a few facts to help round off your analysis. Firstly, U'K at no stage have been forced out of Curse. Indeed, we have strengthened our position there with more infrastructure, and we are unchallenged in our chosen base. We did however rebase from more central Curse to be closer to Catch, and this was planned and executed well before other parts of Curse became busy due to wider galatic developments. The second point I would seek to make, is that we are not challenging sov in any system in Catch. We do not have tower superiority and have no plans to gain it. The reasons for anchoring the tower were simply the generation of fights around it, and the destruction of slaver-friendly vessels. In that aim, it has proved a most judicious investment (I say investment, the tower was liberated from SSI). I might also say that your analysis regarding -A- is somewhat lacking. -A- have demostrated a great love of opporunistic kills, and have demostrated this against the Providence block before, and no doubt will do so again. Needless to say, U'K are not lacking in foresight, and if we aquire static assets in the future such as outpost, we would certainly not do so without adequate defensive arrangements in place. As always we are open to peaceful resolution.
Il Morte	Posted - 2009.01.21 22:39:00 - [124] Thank you O'thief I stand corrected.
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.22 02:40:00 - [125] It's surprising just how much confusion there is regarding U'K motivations and methods. It's really quite simple; I'll summarize: * Those who are slavers are our enemy. This includes any action that we deem as furthering the institution of slavery. * Those who give aid to enemies are our enemy. This includes supporting (in terms of military, economics, logistics, or intel), forming political ties with, or otherwise aiding and abetting our foes. Note that peaceful coexistence with the ruling regimes of slaver-dominated Providence and Catch furthers their interests in securing their slave-fueled hell. * Those who attack us are our enemy. * Conversely, those who show an inclination toward opposing slavery or otherwise aiding our cause are welcome to discuss friendly status. For whatever reason, SSI has qualified for all three of the negative points listed above. They have members who have gleefully boasted on broadcast channels about how they mistreated slaves. They have admitted to negotiating friendly standings with an enemy and peacefully coexisting with the slaver overlords of Providence. And they have threatened and engaged our pilots. As to the onerous "demands" we've made upon SSI in several previous attempted negotiations, it shouldn't be too difficult to determine them based on the information above -- though we did find it necessary to add an additional requirement relating to a distressing lack of common courtesy from several of their members. We are confident that when SSI is tired of fighting, they know how to end the conflict. And as O Thief stated, "[We] hold no grudges against those who see the error of their ways."
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.22 12:55:00 - [126] Edited by: Niding on 22/01/2009 13:00:25 Considering the seemingly strong, tho misplaced, conviction with regards to "freeing slaves" from Amarrian rule, I find it curious that you embrace the power that is -A-. In many intergal communications UK have strongly objected to CVAs claims that shooting neutrals in Providence/Amarr space is NBSI, but infact all that live in Providence support CVA and are as such valid targets. What about Catch? Is NRDS embraced by UK there? If so, how does flying alongside an entity that personifies NBSI, namely -A-, measure up with your beforementioned "convictions and principles"? Dont get me wrong, Im not at all suprised to UKs twisting of the ROE as it suits them, such is the way of the terrorist afterall.
Algey The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.22 13:44:00 - [127] This may surprise you slaver, but we do not feel the urge to hold all of the -A- pilots for nine generations of brainwashing to make them act as we do. We no longer hold space, and as such are not really in a position to request that -A- follow any ROE within our space now are we. That said even if we were to hold space I doubt we would be interested in negotiating on the behalf of those who were not actively fighting to end slavery with any NBSI group. There are those who fight slavery, and those who give comfort and support to slavery as far as I can see.
Cribb Minmatar Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.22 15:01:00 - [128] Edited by: Cribb on 22/01/2009 15:02:03 Originally by: Niding Edited by: Niding on 22/01/2009 13:00:25such valid targets. What about Catch? Is NRDS embraced by UK there? If so, how does flying alongside an entity that personifies NBSI, namely -A-, measure up with your beforementioned "convictions and principles"? Dont get me wrong, Im not at all suprised to UKs twisting of the ROE as it suits them, such is the way of the terrorist afterall. Catch along with providence have never been NRDS. These two regions are the only exception, since they hold entities that support the Amarrian view on Slaves. And therefore are valid targets even if the are neutral. Understand this that those who support the CVA or its Amarrian Empire views in anyway be it mining, building, giving firepower support or generate isk for them or rent an office in one of there stations. Is a valid target for the U'K. As for SSI they had the change to redeem there selfs but as it turned out they tried to please bothsides by lying. And eventually choose their side, and now pay the price for it. ------- When in doubt, play loud
ZAXIMUS	Posted - 2009.01.22 22:41:00 - [129] hmmmmm ive talked to a few ppl and made inquires in to this matter SSI seems to have wanted to be nuetral to both sides they didnt want to get involed in uk's and cva little lover's spat and un uks lack of wisdom they decided to force ssi to pick sides. that is most troublesome cause if uk is looking to force ppl to do stuff your no better than the slavery you fight against and all the word play you can possiably come up with will not change the fact that your now demanding to make ppl slaves of your own uk has now become the monster they fought against i call upon the ppl to destroy both these beast uk and cva its time to end these games they play once and for all
Algey The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.22 23:12:00 - [130] If that were true Zaximus, then SSI would not have had the Providence slavers defend their outpost deployment, have been using Sylph jump bridges, or been in the intel channels used by the pro slavery forces. It is hard to be neutral under those circumstances.

Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 03:11:00 - [131] For those who, as Niding did, missed the announcement, Ushra'Khan publically announced our policies regarding RoE in the enslaved regions of Providence and Catch a year and a half ago: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=535036&page=1#3 The remainder of your commentary makes little sense. While CVA imposes their RoE on their pawns with an iron fist and threats of abandonment if not outright violence, Ushra'Khan does nothing of the sort. Those we choose to fight alongside are subject to their RoE, not our own -- so long as they don't make common cause with slavers. And we are not in the habit of soliciting advice from CVA regarding who we might choose to fight alongside against common foes. -- Becq Starforged The Flame of Freedom Burns On!
Conlin Gallente Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 05:46:00 - [132] Originally by: ZAXIMUS hmmmmm ive talked to a few ppl and made inquires in to this matter SSI seems to have wanted to be nuetral to both sides they didnt want to get involed in uk's and cva little lover's spat and un uks lack of wisdom they decided to force ssi to pick sides. that is most troublesome cause if uk is looking to force ppl to do stuff your no better than the slavery you fight against and all the word play you can possiably come up with will not change the fact that your now demanding to make ppl slaves of your own uk has now become the monster they fought against i call upon the ppl to destroy both these beast uk and cva its time to end these games they play once and for all And joined Providence block fleets long before they decided to setup home in Catch . So nuetral they were not .
Poreuomai Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 10:28:00 - [133] ZAXIMUS, are you by any chance related to Kelban Kevar? You both have the same strange dialect which seems to only know long single sentences. *Let My People Go*
Wotlankor Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 12:27:00 - [134] Originally by: ZAXIMUS hmmmmm ive talked to a few ppl and made inquires in to this matter SSI seems to have wanted to be nuetral to both sides they didnt want to get involed in uk's and cva little lover's spat and un uks lack of wisdom they decided to force ssi to pick sides. that is most troublesome cause if uk is looking to force ppl to do stuff your no better than the slavery you fight against and all the word play you can possiably come up with will not change the fact that your now demanding to make ppl slaves of your own uk has now become the monster they fought against i call upon the ppl to destroy both these beast uk and cva its time to end these games they play once and for all Compare style of writing to: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=958790&page=1#27
Il Morte	Posted - 2009.01.23 14:16:00 - [135] Edited by: Il Morte on 23/01/2009 14:16:47 . Originally by: Becq Starforged And we are not in the habit of soliciting advice from CVA regarding who we might choose to fight alongside against common foes. WHAT? I am a little confused here must be the mulled wine I am drinking I think it might be spiked wiht something, but why are you soliciting advice from CVA. If it is sarcasm then I must have missed it. Or, are you referring to someone else seeking advice from CVA. I thought the issue at hand here was the fact that UK is stomping on SSI and it seems that CVA doesn't want to help them, and UK doesn't want the space so if GMLH is left alone and no one goes there what will happen? Will UK simply pack up there tower and go? Kind of the old joke from long ago I once saw from Jove, "What would happen if someone threw a war and no one showed up" Oh and yes to the previous post it does seem that SSI is posting under an alt about attacking CVA, know this is getting interesting. Let me get some long limbed Roes and watch
Conlin Gallente Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 14:27:00 - [136] Originally by: Il Morte Edited by: Il Morte on 23/01/2009 14:16:47 . Originally by: Becq Starforged And we are not in the habit of soliciting advice from CVA regarding who we might choose to fight alongside against common foes. WHAT? I am a little confused here must be the mulled wine I am drinking I think it might be spiked wiht something, but why are you soliciting advice from CVA. If it is sarcasm then I must have missed it. Or, are you referring to someone else seeking advice from CVA. I thought the issue at hand here was the fact that UK is stomping on SSI and it seems that CVA doesn't want to help them, and UK doesn't want the space so if GMLH is left alone and no one goes there what will happen? Will UK simply pack up there tower and go? Kind of the old joke from long ago I once saw from Jove, "What would happen if someone threw a war and no one showed up" Oh and yes to the previous post it does seem that SSI is posting under an alt about attacking CVA, know this is getting interesting. Let me get some long limbed Roes and watch Correct !....your confused !!!
Xennith Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 14:28:00 - [137] Please note the use of the word "not" in the above quoted sentance. "We are not in the habit of soliciting advice from CVA..."
Il Morte	Posted - 2009.01.23 14:34:00 - [138] lol yeah I got that part. I was wondering if you meant that someone else is in the habit of soliciting advice from CVA and if so whom were you talking about. I would not think that UK would be soliciting advice from CVA in any way. The original post seemed a bit vague to me as to where it was going. It is early for me and I have been up all night with my mulled wine.
O Thief The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 15:21:00 - [139] Originally by: Il Morte lol yeah I got that part. I was wondering if you meant that someone else is in the habit of soliciting advice from CVA and if so whom were you talking about. I would not think that UK would be soliciting advice from CVA in any way. The original post seemed a bit vague to me as to where it was going. It is early for me and I have been up all night with my mulled wine. CVA do pretty much enforce their blue list and NRDS policy on all providence residents. It is impossible for them to break away from it. We do not enforce any ROE on anyone.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.23 15:25:00 - [140] Originally by: O Thief We do not enforce any ROE on anyone. Beyond 'you must be hostile to CVA to be friendly with us,' of course

Poreuomai Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 15:38:00 - [141] Mirkur was friends with U'K before joining the alliance, so I know that U'K don't enforce any blue list and that they don't enforce ROEs. *Let My People Go*
Conlin Gallente Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 15:55:00 - [142] Originally by: Garreck Originally by: O Thief We do not enforce any ROE on anyone. Beyond 'you must be hostile to CVA to be friendly with us,' of course Further beyond 'you must be hostile to U'K to be friendly to us , ' of course
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.01.23 16:07:00 - [143] Originally by: Conlin Originally by: Garreck Originally by: O Thief We do not enforce any ROE on anyone. Beyond 'you must be hostile to CVA to be friendly with us,' of course Further beyond 'you must be hostile to U'K to be friendly to us , ' of course Monkey see, monkey do.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.23 16:27:00 - [144] Originally by: Conlin Further beyond 'you must be hostile to U'K to be friendly to us , ' of course Neutral status to CVA is not dictated by whom you shoot at, rather whom you do not shoot at. The burden of enforcement of our policy in Providence is not "shoot these folks," but "you may only shoot these folks if you're going to be doing any shooting at all." Neutrality to Ushra'Khan has never been and is not currently grounds for CVA to fire upon an organization. This is a key difference in our policies, a difference which has changed minds about both of our organizations one way or another in the past.
Liza la'fabre Gallente Keep It Simple Stupid	Posted - 2009.01.23 16:29:00 - [145] hmmmmm ive talked to a few ppl and made inquires in to this matter SSI seems to have lied to be nuetral to both sides they did want to get involed in uk's and cva little lover's spat and un SSI lack of wisdom they decided to force CVA to pick ther sides. that is most troublesome cause if ssi is looking to force ppl to do stuff your no better than the slavery you fight for and all the word play you can possiably come up with will not change the fact that your now crying to make ppl slaves of your own ssi has now become the monster to be fought against i call upon the ppl to destroy both these beast ssi and cva its time to end these games they play once and for all Ooh i no means am i an alt really i'm not, cause i have a real corp.
Conlin Gallente Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 16:52:00 - [146] Originally by: Garreck Originally by: Conlin Further beyond 'you must be hostile to U'K to be friendly to us , ' of course Neutral status to CVA is not dictated by whom you shoot at, rather whom you do not shoot at. The burden of enforcement of our policy in Providence is not "shoot these folks," but "you may only shoot these folks if you're going to be doing any shooting at all." Neutrality to Ushra'Khan has never been and is not currently grounds for CVA to fire upon an organization. This is a key difference in our policies, a difference which has changed minds about both of our organizations one way or another in the past. No need to spin slaver , as your boss says , Mr Rodj .......... Monkey see , monkey do
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.23 17:00:00 - [147] Edited by: Garreck on 23/01/2009 17:05:38 Originally by: Conlin No need to spin Quite right. Neutrality to CVA is good enough grounds for Ushra'Khan to fire upon an organization, while neutrality to Ushra'Khan is not good enough grounds for CVA to fire upon an organization. No need to spin that at all. Kind of speaks for itself for most folks.
Poreuomai Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 17:16:00 - [148] Originally by: Liza la'fabre Ooh i no means am i an alt really i'm not, cause i have a real corp. you cant fool me i no who u r also one one was a race horse two two was one two two two one one race and one one one one two although that works better on voice coms *Let My People Go*
Algey The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.23 17:59:00 - [149] Originally by: Garreck Quite right. Neutrality to CVA is good enough grounds for Ushra'Khan to fire upon an organization, while neutrality to Ushra'Khan is not good enough grounds for CVA to fire upon an organization. No need to spin that at all. Kind of speaks for itself for most folks. That isn't true at all. We only fire on neutrals in the two dedicated free fire zones, and those are zones where pilots entering the space contribute to the finances of slavery. There is no way you can contribute to the coffers of the slavers and be neutral, no way at all.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.23 18:21:00 - [150] Originally by: Algey We...fire on neutrals in the two dedicated free fire zones, and those are zones where pilots entering the space contribute to the finances of slavery. Yes. I'm not sure what the argument is. I'm not sure what I said that "isn't true at all." You fire on neutrals for docking in Providence, mining in Providence, transporting goods through Providence (whether you can prove they docked at a station or not.) Bit rediculous, in light of what Becq said earlier concerning who may be considered hostile to Ushra'Khan and why, and in light of what you're saying right here, for anyone in Ushra'Khan to claim that they do not try to impress an ROE upon anyone. Indeed, Ushra'Khan want to dictate who neutrals are hostile to, where they fly, where they conduct business, what route they transport their goods. To say "only as regards CVA and Providence" doesn't undo the above, it merely makes it more specific. These are the results of your policy...no spin required. This is the impression you leave on pilots who may otherwise not know anything at all about CVA or Ushra'Khan. This is what CVA pilots refer to as Ushra'Khan's diplomatic mistakes of the past being repeated. That is all. It is not an indictment. It is a fundamental difference in the way CVA and Ushra'Khan conduct our affairs.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.