GamiSB wrote:

Terms of the Truce:
Zion is allowed to free the minds of those that want out without interference on the Machine's part or fear of being attacked in the real.

You know this as fact to be the only text in the truce?

Given that the only time either side ever said "Hey you can't do that!" was because of these two issues and the information obtained shortly after Neo did his thing, yeah I do.

People like to make the truce out to be some written hard coded document with a bar code and the councils signature on it but really all it was was a mutual understanding of some of the needs and wants of both sides.

Pyraci wrote:

The Machine threatens us with a war, we fight back. Of course people are going to attempt to go on the offensive if you declare war on them. It's war, after all. It's silly to play dirty yet expect the enemy to play fair, just because you have more to lose than them.

"but then again we won't know now as they'd most certainly be re-activated now."

The same way it's not certain that EPN would have made and acted on a plan to attack the lines because it was AFTER the war started again. As such, the war is what drove them to decide it was possible and act accordingly.

And if all these ideas are just assumptions with no claim to be correct, why defend as the truth and argue them as such, without scrutinizing the authority for confirmation? I always thought that the Machinist argument would be based in hard evidence and fact, not assumptions made on limited, groomed, and questionable information.

So EPN wouldn't have taken the opportunity to try to achieve what they want, freeing mankind at the cost of the Machines if there wasn't a war going on? They could have attempted it at anytime, anytime during the truce. It wasn't the war that drove them to it, it was the availability of resources.

I'm sure we both know that if the opportunity was there they would have attempted it anyway and if the truce was still in effect and Zion having nothing to do with EPN, Zion could claim innocence and if the EPN attack was destroyed or if there were survivors who made it back, could hide them without the Machines knowing or having any way to prove that they were there. Yes these are assumptions, but can you say for absolute certainty, knowing what we know about Zion and EPN, that it wouldn't have happened, that it wasn't possible?

I defend my ideas and assumptions with the same reasons why others defend theirs... because I believe them to be true or what would most likely happen given what I know. The Machinist argument, one that is put forward by Machinists as a whole would be mostly limited to hard facts, but these are my personal beliefs and arguments, of which I'm perfectly entitled. I've never claimed to be the voice of the Machinists, I let our liaisons present our unified voice.

EPN were already outside the Truce. They were already being hunted down. Anything concerning them is not really viable as a contribution towards the degradation of the Truce. However, I would say that much of the past Cypherite action is admissable as action against the Truce since there is a clear link between their management and the Machines. In other words? The Cypherites were puppets, EPN are "rogue" and under their own direction.

It still strikes me as incredibly odd that the Machines could construe a base placed considerably further away from the Machine city, proven only to have defensive capabilities as an act against the Truce. After all, if we were mounting an assault, don't you think we'd want to have a base closer to where we'd be hitting them? Don't you think we'd have mobile attack units (and, please, if you're considering the APU a mobile attack unit, that's a joke. Aside from the fact that they're incredibly slow, they'd get there faster leaving directly from the old city - so why position them at the new city?)

If anything, it was a push towards isolationism, which has historically been a pacifistic move. We wanted to concentrate on internal affairs, and with good reason. We've had a tumultuous past with the Machines, and didn't want to risk anything. And why should we? We'd no evidence that they had anything to lose in attacking, and nothing to fear in doing so. Hell, in a way they'd already been on the offensive, especially when they'd been sending sentinels out after every EPN ship they could find and guiding the Cypherites in sabotaging our every move under the guise of "holding us to the one percent" (I'm certain the EMP blast of Zion's gate helped a whole lot in that goal).

But building a new city was out and out against the Truce, right? Gimme a break. When had you heard a *CENSORED* word of that before it happened? You give me hard evidence that it had been said that no new cities could be built and no new fortifications could be used before the discovery of New Zion, and you can have all the justification you'd ever want for your war. But it's not there, and neither is the justification.

And you wonder why I'm hesitant to engage in another "peace."

Ah, but how do you *know* your leadership tells you everything, Machete? 

Also, there is a bit of a difference between the Machines not telling us more about the Intruder (and perhaps delaying us in doing our "job" ) and Zion not telling its citizens about something that will put the lives of every one of its citizens at risk.

Illyria

It still strikes me as incredibly odd that the Machines could construe a base placed considerably further away from the Machine city, proven only to have defensive capabilities as an act against the Truce. After all, if we were mounting an assault, don't you think we'd want to have a base closer to where we'd be hitting them? Don't you think we'd have mobile attack units (and, please, if you're considering the APU a mobile attack unit, that's a joke. Aside from the fact that they're incredibly slow, they'd get there faster leaving directly from the old city - so why position them at the new city?)

If anything, it was a push towards isolationism, which has historically been a pacifistic move. We wanted to concentrate on internal affairs, and with good reason. We've had a tumultuous past with the Machines, and didn't want to risk anything. And why should we? We'd no evidence that they had anything to lose in attacking, and nothing to fear in doing so. Hell, in a way they'd already been on the offensive, especially when they'd been sending sentinels out after every EPN ship they could find and guiding the Cypherites in sabotaging our every move under the guise of "holding us to the one percent" (I'm certain the EMP blast of Zion's gate helped a whole lot in that goal).

But building a new city was out and out against the Truce, right? Gimme a break. When had you heard a *CENSORED* word of that before it happened? You give me hard evidence that it had been said that no new cities could be built and no new fortifications could be used before the discovery of New Zion, and you can have all the justification you'd ever want for your war. But it's not there, and neither is the justification.

And you wonder why I'm hesitant to engage in another "peace."

Ah, but how do you *know* your leadership tells you everything, Machete? 

Illyria

It's fair to say they don't.

They knew as much about New Zion as we did the whole Cypherite debacle.