Political Climate - The Neutrals

[Rodriquez]

While traveling in Borealis, I happened upon a conversation wherein neutrals were discussing the clanner threat of Simon Silverstone. Apparently, the Sentinel and his newly appointed High Commander, Fisk, are making good on their threats against the neutral position and whispers of an attack on Newland City can be heard. This situation is most grave to the neutrals, who are threatened with a total loss on multiple fronts.

Without sympathetic Clan or Omni-Tek support, an assault on Newland by the Sentinels is expected to be successful, despite the neutrals best efforts. However, the situation is complicated on a number of levels.

First, should the Sentinels attack and if Omni-Tek send official aid in defense of Newland (or any neutral city for that matter), the neutrals will soon find themselves hand in hand with Omni. The ICC may have to conciede that protection of the neutrals of Rubi-Ka is a job for the Omni's, wether they like it or not. This scenario completely destroys the neutral position and works to polarize the conflict.

Second, should the ICC interviene with threats to the Clans, this might serve as a reason for Omni's to entice the Clans into a conflict. For example, should the ICC threaten to revoke Notum Mining Rights on Rubi-Ka if an attack is made, it is all the more reason for the Omni's to covertly make it happen, and reassume dominance of Rubi-Ka. While some Omni's might approve of this course of action, I'd say that it would inevitably lead to another rebellion, like the ones that began the Clan faction to begin with (but only after years of Omni-Tek dominance).

The solution is one of cooperative efforts on all front, but mainly, I must admit that clanners who are sympathetic to the neutrals must be found immediately. It is important that someone within the Clan's openly work against the Sentinels. This is not a military conflict, but a social and political one. One that can be won by the Clan's, should they chose to fight.

As for Omni's, like myself, I think that no official Omni-Tek force can be sent to the defense of Newland (or any neutral territory). This only reinforces the neutrals dependency on Omni-Tek. Instead, I would urge employees of Omni-Tek to volunteer to serve under neutral command. I would urge Omni doctors to follow my example and offer volunteer medical relief to neutral fighters, should a conflict arise.

Finally, I strongly urge neutral organizations to put up tower perimeters around Newland and create a military chain of command now, so that, should a battle happen, they are prepared and organized. I am not a strategist, nor a soldier, so I will give no further advice here, other than to urge the neutrals to nominate canidates for members of a neutral standing army, then hold private debates where the positions are solidified.

If nothing else, it is crucial that action be taken. The neutrals are literally between the Omni-Tek anvil and the hammer of the Clans.

(Rodriquez is an intern with Omni-Med. Her current assignment is adminstering healing to any injured person[s], gaining proficiency in restorative nano-technology and spreading a positive Omni-Med image.)

[Aerinyi]

I'm very interested in what sort of evidence you have to back the claim that the Sentinels are planning to actively threaten neutrals outside of Sentinel territories.

[Racquel]

No need for proof. Simons a nutjob, everyone knows it.

Vote No to four more years!

[Maephina]

For many months now so called Neutral organizations have afflicted great atrocities on both Clan and Omni interests.
With that in mind it would come as no surprise *if* the Sentinel leader did desire a means to place the Neutral populace under some form of tangible control if only to try and stem the tide of continued violence that seems to originate or have origins from within "Neutral entities".

However...

This seems highly unlikely in my opinion. Simon Silverstone, although very unsympathetic to the Neutral ideology is not a fool. With the alien threat on everyone's door step and the recent shake down within the Omni Tek political make up it seems to me a tactical error to plan or even consider aggressive action against the Neutral populace.

Doing so would only fuel the fire between those who support the clans and those who do not. Doing so would only deepen the rift between the clans and those "neutral" citizens who truly wish for a peaceful coexistence.
Although I can not say at this time I my self feel a need to go waltzing through Omni-HQ, hand in hand with the Omni citizenry, I can certainly say that at the moment I find my self with bigger fish to fry, and this thought alone leads me to wonder how isolated and alone the Neutral populace must feel during these troubled days on Rubi-Ka.

After all, with no real political or militaristic involvement in the conflict between OT and the Clans, and now with the arrival of xenomorphic invaders, I would have to imagine someone so 'in the middle' would be quite unsure of their future and the fate of their loved ones.

Change of topic: "A Neutral Army"...this idea in it's self is a contradiction of terms. As with any weapon made by the hands of men throughout the ages, once you have it chances are greatly in favor of your eventual use of it. And the use of a 'neutral army' negates it's neutrality all together. IF this were to occur I would go so far as to guess there would be a great reckoning placed upon the neutral citizens of this isolated planet. With Omni to the one side, clans on the other and alien invaders looming over head, a neutral army would I think be caught quite literally and deliberately in the cross fire of all sides involved.

So my suggestion and word of caution to you and the 'true neutral' citizens of Rubi Ka is this: Stay out of the fight. Don't set about arming your selves with the intent of disintegrating your neutrality from beneath you. If you create a standing 'army' to 'defend your selves' without the support of, lets say the ICC, you may in fact find your selves at the mercy of those whom you claim to respect and 'trust'.
If you arm your selves and raise a military, you may give the Sentinels and other militant groups across the globe reason to take pause, take notice and take action against a 4th faction that no one has the time or patience to deal with.
It may be all anyone would need to regard the neutral people of RK as a threat to their safety.

With terrorist organizations such as the NLF (Nanomage Liberation Front) in your midst for example, plotting and scheming against the political and sociological interests of all sides, you would do well not to portray your selves as being on the same footing as they.

On a final note I'd like to also suggest you not believe everything you hear. It could be the individuals you overheard were speaking metaphorically or even hypothetically and there is absolutely no substance to their statements. I too would be very interested in any proof you or anyone else might have to substantiate this 'rumor'.

[BigGreen]

If Silverstone attacks the Neutrals, I personally will take pleasure in showing the neutrals what it looks like when people sit on the sidelines.
Biggreen goes and looks for his lawn chair and beer

[Rodriquez]

Maephina, your comments are thoughtful, insightful and welcome. I'm flattered that such a distinguished person has chosen to respond.

I'll admit that I haven't reliable sources behind the the allegation that Silverstone or the Sentinels plan such an attack, but a violent threat still looms over the neutrals. You've brought up a valid point by mentioning the violence purpetrated by the neutrals themselves. Going out and launching an attack negates their position, and this seems to be some of the reason why they're being threatened by the Clans.

This then suggests that this is a matter of inefficient neutral policy backfiring on itself, which is all the more reason to support a more organized neutrality. You're correct to point out that a 'neutral army' is inappropriate, I believe the term 'defense force' or 'police force' might be more appropriate.

However, this still does not address the Clan rhetoric (clearly laid out by High Commander Fisk), which draws neutrality itself into contempt. The neutral position is not something that can be attacked, doing so changes their position immediately to not-neutral.

I'm sorry this isn't very cohearant, but I was distracted while writing and apologize for my inattention. I simply wished to acknowledge an excellent response and provide some thoughtful (be it inarticulate) commentary.

[Dabblez]

For many months now so called Neutral organizations have afflicted great atrocities on both Clan and Omni interests.
With that in mind it would come as no surprise *if* the Sentinel leader did desire a means to place the Neutral populace under some form of tangible control if only to try and stem the tide of continued violence that seems to originate or have origins from within "Neutral entities".

Right. And here it comes. The Clan are always the victims, The Clans are always justified in what they do. Long live the Clans.

Let's look at the big picture. So maybe Neutral organisations have raided Clan and Omni interests. But then Clan have raided Omni have Neutral interests and Omni and raided Clan and Neutral interests. We all have blood on our hands. No one is walking away from this conflict smelling of roses.

If the situatation were reversed, if a coalition of Neutral forces occupied Athen, would that be right? Would you be trying to justify it as an attempt to "stem the tide of continued violence that seens to originate or have origins from within Clan entities" ?

Would it be so bloody difficult to just admit that Silverstone is a mad butcher and even the holy Clans might just have a bad apple amongst them?

Savoy

[Dabblez]

If Silverstone attacks the Neutrals, I personally will take pleasure in showing the neutrals what it looks like when people sit on the sidelines.
Biggreen goes and looks for his lawn chair and beer

You just don't get it do you? The Neutral have as many reasons to fear and hate the Clans as they do Omni-Tek, maybe more if you consider Silverstone. What possibly reason can there be for them to desire to choose a side?


Savoy

[Slicse]

I'd like to point out that neither one of you have any idea what the word "neutral" means, so you might want to stop discussing it until you do

also, this whole sentinels/neutrals issue is ANCIENT, and its been beaten to death a million times over. let it go

[Fixerben]

Going out and launching an attack negates their position, and this seems to be some of the reason why they're being threatened by the Clans.

However, this still does not address the Clan rhetoric (clearly laid out by High Commander Fisk), which draws neutrality itself into contempt.

Ok, First, Lets make sure we keep these 2 groups seperate here. The Sentinels do NOT define the Clans. If the Sentinels are going to attack Neutrals thats them. Your doing the same "throw all the clanners in a bag and say they are all the same" thing that every Omni before you has done. You need to make sure your not grouping those who want peace together with those who dont want peace. Dont stereotype all Clansmen because of the actions of one Clan.

And Slicse is right, this topic is ages old and has been beaten to a bloody pulp many times over.

Would it be so bloody difficult to just admit that Silverstone is a mad butcher and even the holy Clans might just have a bad apple amongst them?

Umm...yeah I beleive we've admitted this many times. Did you lose your memory, Savoy? But there are still those who support him and dont think hes a "bad apple". So you just have to talk to the right people.

[Astera]

*helps Biggreen look for two seats*

Well, as much as Fisk and a few others, including myself, have spoken about razing Borealis, they never did it. History has proven that. Now... The entities who actually DID attack in Borealis have been (and this is a fact) The Dust Brigade (unknown faction) and the Unicorn Company (Omni Tek). So, my advice is to keep watch on your "friends" and stop worrying about here-say.

...and Savoy *sigh*

I'll be the first to admit that Silverstone is not an angel, but you said it yourself, there isn't anyone among us without blood on our hands. So I have to wonder what your point is after that...

[kymaene]

silly savoy ... many of us 'clanners' don't have a problem with omni or neuts ...

i think perhaps you've been too good of a citizen and need a vacation ... all that overtime is getting to you ...

[Maephina]

Right. And here it comes. The Clan are always the victims, The Clans are always justified in what they do. Long live the Clans.

Let's look at the big picture. So maybe Neutral organisations have raided Clan and Omni interests. But then Clan have raided Omni have Neutral interests and Omni and raided Clan and Neutral interests. We all have blood on our hands. No one is walking away from this conflict smelling of roses.

First Savoy, you must be reading between lines that are not present in my response. I stated clearly that the organizations in question have threatened both Clan and Omni interests. My statements were not one-sided as your response seems to suggest.

If the situatation were reversed, if a coalition of Neutral forces occupied Athen, would that be right? Would you be trying to justify it as an attempt to "stem the tide of continued violence that seens to originate or have origins from within Clan entities" ?

If this situation were to occur, as I already stated, I believe it would be a prelude to severe retribution against the "neutral" group/s. It would also completely negate any neutrality such forces previously claimed to be.

Would it be so bloody difficult to just admit that Silverstone is a mad butcher and even the holy Clans might just have a bad apple amongst them?

What acts have you personally witnessed that would substantiate your label of Silverstone as a 'mad butcher'? Or are you going on what you've been told and what you've heard?

Savoy, don't you have some greasy mechanical contraption you could be underneath trying to fix at the moment? Leave the politics to those who actually have a political voice in the first place.

[Slicse]

If this situation were to occur, as I already stated, I believe it would be a prelude to severe retribution against the "neutral" group/s. It would also completely negate any neutrality such forces previously claimed to be.

You obviously didn't read my post. What exactly is your definition of a neutral?

[Dabblez]

Savoy, don't you have some greasy mechanical contraption you could be underneath trying to fix at the moment? Leave the politics to those who actually have a political voice in the first place.

(( Mixing up Savoy with Dabblez perhaps? ))

[Maephina]

You obviously didn't read my post. What exactly is your definition of a neutral?

My definition of Neutral and/or neutrality is not the topic of this discussion nor will I allow you to butt in and turn the conversation into exactly that.

[Slicse]

On the contrary, it is very much so the topic of discussion. Given the fact that you are stating that if individuals who are neutral to a conflict band together in a force, without specifying any intent of that force, are suddenly no longer neutral shows that you have no grasp on the concept or definition of neutrality, because what you state is incorrect. Since you don't understand neutrality, you aren't exactly in a position to be discussing it or anything related to it.

[Maephina]

On the contrary, it is very much so the topic of discussion. Given the fact that you are stating that if individuals who are neutral to a conflict band together in a force, without specifying any intent of that force, are suddenly no longer neutral shows that you have no grasp on the concept or definition of neutrality, because what you state is incorrect. Since you don't understand neutrality, you aren't exactly in a position to be discussing it or anything related to it.

1. neutral -- (neither moral nor immoral; neither good nor evil, right nor wrong)
2. impersonal, neutral -- (having no personal preference; "impersonal criticism"; "a neutral observer")
3. inert, indifferent, neutral -- (having only a limited ability to react chemically; not active; "inert matter"; "an indifferent chemical in a reaction")
4. neutral -- (not supporting or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest)
5. neutral (vs. positive) (vs. negative), electroneutral -- (having no net electric charge; not electrified)
6. neutral -- (lacking hue; "neutral colors like back or white")
7. neutral (vs. positive) (vs. negative) -- (of no distinctive quality or characteristics or type)
8. neutral -- (lacking distinguishing quality or characteristics; "a neutral personality that made no impression whatever")

See number 4. By definition the very creation of and/or use of a military force in an attempt to influence an on going conflict is a contradiction of the very definition and in my opinion (as stated previously) negates the position of Neutrality. Period.

If you read my original statements again you will see that this is exactly what I am saying. I have plenty of right and reason to comment on these issues and in fact my response was towards the originator of this post, not you. For you to step in and say I have no concept of neutrality or that i have no right to say a thing about it is in fact a judgemental, defensive and baseless statement on your part.
But, truth be told, it amuses me none the less.

[gergiskoo]

As a clanner, I find this news very disturbing. Silverstone is a total psycho.

I was, unfortunately, born into this state and various events in my lifetime have made it impossible for me to change sides or step out of the conflict.

[Slicse]

4. neutral -- (not supporting or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest)

See number 4. By definition the very creation of and/or use of a military force in an attempt to influence an on going conflict is a contradiction of the very definition and in my opinion (as stated previously) negates the position of Neutrality. Period.

Suddenly you throw in "in an attempt to influence an ongoing conflict." You never said what the intent was of this "neutral army" before, you just immediately filed a force of neutral-to-conflict people as now not neutral. Also, "influence a conflict" is entirely too vague to determine whether a side is supported or favored, which according to your own posted definition, must occur before an entity is no longer neutral. Just because a force is created does not mean it supports or favors any side in any conflict until actions or intents of the force exist. You are entitled to your own opinion, however these are the facts. You should expect your factually incorrect opinions to be contested and corrected.

I have plenty of right and reason to comment on these issues and in fact my response was towards the originator of this post, not you. For you to step in and say I have no concept of neutrality or that i have no right to say a thing about it is in fact a judgemental, defensive and baseless statement on your part.
But, truth be told, it amuses me none the less.

I'm sorry, but these messages are public. Anyone has every right to post and comment on every discussion here, regardless of who the original statements are directed toward. I believe I have made a clear basis for my statements about your position on neutrality, and NOWHERE did I say that you did not have the right to say whatever you wanted to say. I said that you aren't in a position to do so due to your ignorance of the facts. It would help your arguments if you paid closer attention.