▲ 547 ▼ Al Jazeera sees bombs being loaded onto US planes at UK base (www.aljazeera.com) submitted 5 months ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world 84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 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 replies: [–] Trex202@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) Every strike is a defensive strike permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DavorS@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (2 children) No it's not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 5 months ago It is in kid starvers twisted mind permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago The best defense is a good offense... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] Zombie@feddit.uk 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 replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] Trex202@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The idea that preemptive strikes are defensive is Roman. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 [–] MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) IMO defensive would involve them not leaving the USA. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago Yes, that's a good way to define it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 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 replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's still going too far IMO. USA had the option to stay out, we should not aid them in their illegal wars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 point 5 months ago Yes but that's not really what I'm saying. My point is that Starmer has been very clear (in his slimy lizard way) that the UK would be helping America. permalink fedilink source parent [–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago Wasn't that also when he was admitting that the UK was helping do the preemptive strikes? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Trex202@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 child) Every strike is a defensive strike permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DavorS@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (2 children) No it's not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 5 months ago It is in kid starvers twisted mind permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago The best defense is a good offense... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DavorS@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (2 children) No it's not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 5 months ago It is in kid starvers twisted mind permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago The best defense is a good offense... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 5 months ago It is in kid starvers twisted mind permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago The best defense is a good offense... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] Zombie@feddit.uk 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 replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] Trex202@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The idea that preemptive strikes are defensive is Roman. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 [–] MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) IMO defensive would involve them not leaving the USA. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago Yes, that's a good way to define it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 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 replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's still going too far IMO. USA had the option to stay out, we should not aid them in their illegal wars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 point 5 months ago Yes but that's not really what I'm saying. My point is that Starmer has been very clear (in his slimy lizard way) that the UK would be helping America. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 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 replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] Trex202@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The idea that preemptive strikes are defensive is Roman. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] Trex202@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The idea that preemptive strikes are defensive is Roman. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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
[–] Trex202@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The idea that preemptive strikes are defensive is Roman. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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
[–] MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) IMO defensive would involve them not leaving the USA. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago Yes, that's a good way to define it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago Yes, that's a good way to define it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 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 replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's still going too far IMO. USA had the option to stay out, we should not aid them in their illegal wars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 point 5 months ago Yes but that's not really what I'm saying. My point is that Starmer has been very clear (in his slimy lizard way) that the UK would be helping America. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's still going too far IMO. USA had the option to stay out, we should not aid them in their illegal wars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 point 5 months ago Yes but that's not really what I'm saying. My point is that Starmer has been very clear (in his slimy lizard way) that the UK would be helping America. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 point 5 months ago Yes but that's not really what I'm saying. My point is that Starmer has been very clear (in his slimy lizard way) that the UK would be helping America. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago Wasn't that also when he was admitting that the UK was helping do the preemptive strikes? permalink fedilink source parent