Leary:
> > 7) 2173 - SUMANI IV incident - NAC and ESU reps killed by IF
Atkinson:
> Crap.
( a Byzantine diplomatic expression, meaning "I should point out another
possibility, which you may or may have considered yet")
> Was terrorist incident who's perpetrators were never identified,
Leary:
> The failure to identify the IF attackers only applies to the
The players also know how to build a Sa'Vasku cruiser, so I wouldn't lend too
much weight to this argument.
> The success in hiding the identity of the attackers infers the
If the US & Russia held a diplomatic conference in Iran--sounds pretty
improbable already--and a terrorist attack took place, don't you suppose
it might occur to someone that those terrorists just possibly might have been
Muslim fanatics instead of representatives of the other side? The way I'd
write it would be a biological attack which affected the
target's brain. "Ha!" thinks the investigator, peering into his
microscope, "it seems to have mutated--or those idiots from the other
side just miscalculated. Instead of being harmless to them and making our guys
more susceptible to suggestion, it got past their immunizations and killed
everyone. What a low down dirty trick--and against diplomats, no
less!" The fact that no one loves the IF doesn't mean they can't be subtle.
> Laserlight wrote:
XXX
(or: Battle of the Johns) Nice pun! JTL
XXX
In a last effort to clarify the position with reguard to the Sumani IV
incident I offer this quote from FT: "2173 The Sumani IV incident. ESU and NAC
peace negoiators assassinated by an Islamic Federation terrorist attack...." I
trust that clarifies my position.
In reguard to my SUGGESTED location IN/NEAR IF space:
If you have a better idea, send it in. Your reasons may be much more valid
than mine.
Bye for now,
> Laserlight wrote:
Leary said:
> In a last effort to clarify the position with reguard to
Yes, but...
a) players have knowledge that people in the milieu don't have--remember
my point about the SaVasku? b) terrorists don't have to be in their home
territory. c) who would go to New Arabia for a conference? No alcohol, all
women swathed in 32 yards of fabric, a politically hostile environment.
Why not head for Nouvelle Suisse, or some other pleasant neutral place?
In
fact, they chose the fleshpots of Sumani IV. I'm not an astrocartographer
[the crowd sighes in relief] but why not put it in the Inner Systems?
Conveniently close by, the UN can make sure no one is shooting as they go in,
and it's had enough time as a settlement to get some decent landscape and
weather.
> J Leary writes:
This leads to a visual I really didn't need. ;-)
> XXX
Finishing up the quote:
"...Years of distrust between the two powers lead to them blaming each other
and a failure to identify the real culprit."
This gives no clue that the Sumani system is anywhere near IF space. All it
tells you is that there was a peace negotiation meeting between the ESU and
the NAC, that this would very most likely be in a neutral
place (UN-controlled space?), and that the delegates were all killed
in a manner that made it appear as if the other side performed the deed.
Prejudices against each other's enemy here prevented each side from doing a
proper investigation. And that's really all you know from the incident as
stated.
> In reguard to my SUGGESTED location IN/NEAR IF space:
I always kinda thought the meeting took place in either UN space or in one of
the minor powers which did not have hostile relations in any way, shape, or
form with either the ESU or NAC [at the time]. The IF are *immediately* ruled
out in my mind (going back to a question from a week or two ago: who gets
along with the IF aside
form the FSE? b'sides, see the entry for 2163 :-)
Just buttin' in. :-)
Mk
> Laserlight wrote:
XXX I agree. JTL XXX
> c) who would go to New Arabia for a conference? No alcohol, all women
XXX Perhaps the ESU and NAC, after 8 years of war the two parties may be
a bit tired. The third party claims that the war is hurting
development
on the third worlds. The third party, while not happy with either of
the main parties, nevertheless wishes to broker a peace treaty to end this
terrible waste of lives and recources. JTL
> Why not head for Nouvelle Suisse, or some other pleasant neutral
Because you, (the IF), will need to smuggle in the substance to a place with
high security, a place where you have not been invited. The people hosting the
affair may be a bit upset that you have killed the guests, this will lead to
an invertigation of the incident and a
REAL desire to find the persons responsible. This sort of thing is
much harder to control. JTL
XXX
Well, enough.
Out for now,
> Umm, boss? Ship broke... wrote:
> I always kinda thought the meeting took place in either UN space or
XXX
That ok by me. It just becomes harder to cover things up.
(Unless it was the UN flunkies that covered it up....Aah yes!
Mohammed and the UN security guards did it.) JTL
> Just buttin' in. :-)
XXX
I thought you didn't want to go there! JTL
XXX
> Mk
> Laserlight wrote:
> Atkinson :
> ( a Byzantine diplomatic expression, meaning "I should point out
Hey, I think of myself as a Domestic of the Scholae, a simple soldier and not
much given to rhetorical flourishes. Were I one of the City aristocracy,
undoubtedly I elucidate on this point at great length, with four obscure
literary allusions, three puns, an allegory, and end it all with a pithy
aphorism.
But I'm not.[1]
<snip plausible scenario>
> John wrote:
'Cause you left out the word "could", where I've put the "___"? :-)
> I always kinda thought the meeting took place in either UN space or
(warning: random, sometimes interrelated thoughts follow)
Wellll....I don't see how it becomes harder to cover up than if the conference
took place on an IF world (or near one). It seems obvious to me that with the
hostile attitude the IF has with the ESU *and* the NAC, they would be the
absolute *last* people to host a peace negotiation gathering. And if such a
conference *were* to have taken
place in/near their realm, they would be the first to fall under
suspicion by both powers (and no way they are going to hold out
against a combined NAC/ESU force intent on finding out the truth
of the matter should suspicion fall upon the IF). The easiest way that the IF
can sabotage said conference is to have no connection
to it. Having the conference in a UN-controlled area (ie, the
Inner Worlds) would:
1) allow for a neutral area both parties feel 'safe' in meeting with each
other (ie, who is going to mess with UN security in this
matter? well, other than the now-obvious IF... ;), and
2) allow for anything to go wrong (ie, the IF sabotage of the conference) to
seem as if the other party in the negotiations was at fault (for why in the
universe would the *UN* sabotage things?)
Now you may argue that it would be harder for a Middle-Eastern-decent
person to infiltrate a UN-secured conference. Well...who said that the
entire population of the IF is Middle-Eastern in heritage? Unless you
are thinking ethnocentric for all powers in the GZGVerse here (America's
treatment of US/Japanese citizens during WW2 obliquely comes to mind).
Just because the sophistication of security then is far far greater than now
doesn't mean the sophistication of terrorists hasn't increased accordingly.
All in all it would be a classic case of misdirection: hold the conference
anywhere BUT near an IF-controlled world, and the IF can far more easily
do damage to it, making it seem as if someone else did it. I'm sure the IF
were not instrumental in the decision of having the conference, or where it
was decided to be held. They very most likely just took advantage of a
situation as it presented itself (damned opportunists!;).
Question, John: if Jon had written the events of 2173's Sumani IV incident as:
"The Sumani IV incident. ESU and NAC peace negotiators are assassinated during
a peace conference. With no other obvious culprit, each side believed the
other sacrificed their own delegates in order to bring the other down. The
Third Solar War intensifies."
how would you have interpreted what had happened? There is absolutely no hint
the IF were involved if written this way. Or anyone else, for that matter.
> Just buttin' in. :-)
You forced the issue! ;-)
Mk
> Umm, boss? Ship broke... wrote:
...Snip
> Question, John: if Jon had written the events of 2173's Sumani IV
> Mk
Mk, It would be up to the player to assign blame, depending on the background
the player wishes to
develop. NAC, ESU, or any third party would be
a valid choice. Under the conditions you stated, the suggested location would
have been someplace between the two capitals, with a preferance for a location
equidistant from both.
Something like the Stig IV entry, (this event happened) it needs to be put
someplace logical.
Hopeful this will suffice.
Bye for now,
> Andrew & Alex wrote:
> >[1]Five points for anyone who explains why this post is terrifically
:-)
Feh. That's a typo, not a joke. And would be "should" in any case.