547
Al Jazeera sees bombs being loaded onto US planes at UK base (www.aljazeera.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 33 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I may be naive, but I honestly didn't think UK would allow this, when Starmer clearly stated the war on Iran is illegal. Especially not after USA has been caught in several war crimes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Didn't he literally say he'd allow their use for "defensive" strikes? He's never really been hiding it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Every strike is a defensive strike

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    How is a bunker buster on a bomber defensive?
    Defensive is to scramble planes to shoot down missiles. An attack is not defensive in my book.

    Edit: A word.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah but that's because you're using logic, reasoning, and commonly understood meanings of words. In Kid Starver's authoritarian mind none of those things matter.

    The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth's centre.

    • 1984, George Orwell
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Absolutely, the idea that "preemptive" strikes are defensive is Orwellian.
    Also how does UK know what target they will hit? Will it be a kindergarten killing innocent children? Will it be a refinery constituting chemical warfare on civilians? There is no plausible reason to believe these strikes are purely defensive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The idea that preemptive strikes are defensive is Roman.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Imagine the number of attacks the world could "morally" do on USA, if preemptive strikes were considered self defense.
    How many countries even allies has Trump threatened? Panama, Cuba, Denmark/Greenland, Canada. Are some that I remember for sure. Besides actually attacking Venezuela and now Iran.
    All these countries could legally perform strikes against USA by the logic of the current American Government. And then they wonder why so many people hate USA.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Yeha that's why "defensive" is in quotes, but the idea is that America is only allowed to use UK bases to bomb Iran's offensive capabilities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    I could be wrong but I think the way foreign litany bases work is that they are in the thinnest legal sense "sovereign foreign territory." To which I mean, the activities conducted on these bases are outside the control of the country who's land they occupy.

    Edit: I was wrong, amd the US are just tennants on the land which makes this a very questionable thing that they are doing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child)

    This comment should be deleted soon

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    That does not sound like a good idea. I would expect a country would want to maintain sovereignty of their own territory.
    Of course embassies have something similar to what you describe, but if an embassy is breaking the law, the diplomats can be expelled.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent