Re: [FT][FH]Sumani Incident (or: Battle of the Johns)

>> 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 :-)
>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

(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.  :-)
>XXX
>     I thought you didn't want to go there!   JTL

You forced the issue!  ;-)

Mk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
   o/		      ..     .
  /@		       .  .	      If you insist on reaching for a
  <|\			  .  )	      star, be prepared to take a long,
   |		     /\ 	      hard fall.
   |		    //
   /		 o //*		      Indy - climber, astronomer,
adventurer
  /		<%- /|\ 	      supreme. Have rope, will travel.
 /		/\ / | \