Utopia Talk - Politics - UK planes 'in the sky' in Middle East

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Mar 02 14:58:51 UTC 2026

Utopia Talk / Politics / UK planes 'in the sky' in Middle East

murder
rank Sat Feb 28 20:34:02
UK planes 'in the sky' in Middle East as part of defensive operation, PM says

British planes "are in the sky" in the Middle East as part of a defensive operation "to protect our people, our interests and our allies", the prime minister has said.

In a pre-recorded statement on Saturday, Sir Keir Starmer said protections for British bases and personnel had been stepped up to their highest level.

The US and Israel launched strikes across multiple Iranian cities including capital Tehran on Saturday morning, after negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear programme ended without a deal. The UK did not participate in the strikes.

Earlier, the PM released a joint statement with the leaders of France and Germany, calling for Iran to "refrain from indiscriminate military strikes".

In his speech, Sir Keir said he wanted to see "peace and security" in the Middle East and the "protection of civilian life".

He added: "Iran can end this now.

"They should refrain from further strikes, give up their weapons programme and cease the appalling violence and oppression of the Iranian people – who deserve the right to determine their own future."

The prime minister condemned Iran's retaliatory attacks "on partners across the region" after explosions were heard in several Middle East countries with US facilities.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20l1v0ldqzo

murder
rank Sat Feb 28 20:34:48

European countries will forever be the US's lap dog ... and the US will forever be Israel's lap dog.

-

murder
rank Sat Feb 28 20:40:55

All these guys would be Trump if they could be.

Sam Adams
rank Sat Feb 28 20:46:05
Lol seb is impotent. The UK will help take out the ayatolla, and seb will cry.

pillz
rank Sun Mar 01 01:34:29
Why do we need 3 threads on iran

obaminated
rank Sun Mar 01 01:45:17
Its a big deal. Trump just did something Bush Obama and Biden talked about doing

Habebe
rank Sun Mar 01 02:12:14
I mean, IF Trump can pull this off well (big IF) and if Venezuela and Cuba work in his favor, he will have positioned the US back towards 1990 status.

murder
rank Sun Mar 01 02:55:10

"Why do we need 3 threads on iran"

This thread isn't about Iran. It's about the UK being as garbage as the US is.

-

murder
rank Sun Mar 01 02:56:41

"I mean, IF Trump can pull this off well (big IF) and if Venezuela and Cuba work in his favor, he will have positioned the US back towards 1990 status."

Were we the enemy of the world in 1990?

Were we the country everyone feared they needed protection from?

-

Sam Adams
rank Sun Mar 01 04:20:55
Only far left shitlickers like CBC and BBC think we are the enemy of the world.

Seb
rank Sun Mar 01 10:41:10
Murder:

We've got bases in the gulf states and we are protecting them from drones and missiles.

That's all.

Seb
rank Sun Mar 01 10:42:15
NaMBLA:

Incorrect.

williamthebastard
rank Sun Mar 01 11:03:02
csam hiding away deep in his fantasy world again, terrified of reality. How sweet to be an idiot.

williamthebastard
rank Sun Mar 01 12:18:28
I see Trump currently has 96% "strongly disapprove" in Denmark. I would expect even Hitler had slightly better figures than that.

TheChildren
rank Sun Mar 01 13:34:32
da planes and jets patrollin...

obviously workin as intended

just like all da supreme air defenses and shit

acc is over 8 percent bitches, take that!

murder
rank Sun Mar 01 14:19:15

"We've got bases in the gulf states and we are protecting them from drones and missiles. That's all."

I see. And blaming Iran for defending itself and trying to sell the bullshit that the path to peace for Iran is to make itself even more vulnerable to attack ... are the acts of a non-participant?

-

Seb
rank Sun Mar 01 18:07:59
Murder:

"And blaming Iran for defending itself and trying to sell the bullshit that the path to peace for Iran is to make itself even more vulnerable to attack ... are the acts of a non-participant?"

You might remember we had control of the Shia bit of Iraq and Iranian backed militias killed a lot of Brits there in Iran's quest to bring the siren of Iraq under their sway. They also grabbed one of our boats, paraded our servicemen etc.

And on a wider perspective they destabilise and attack our allies in the region.

Iran is an enemy state to the UK, even if we are not at war.

So what do you expect? That the British Govt is suddenly going to rally to make statements in support of this regime? We don't want them to have a bomb. We don't think they are "just defending themselves". We think they are a murderous regime. Last year we caught three guys with links to the Iranian state plotting a terror attack in the UK. So we aren't really that concerned that Iran's current govt be would be less able to defend itself.

But equally we don't support breaking international law to murder their leadership and bomb the country flat. Not because we love Iran, but because we do value internal law and norms generally, and because the likely result of a shattered failed state in Iran is negative to UK security. Absent a friendly and stable govt in Iran, a contained Islamic Republic is the best option in the interests of the UK. But if Israel and the US are going to do an illegal attack, there's not much the UK can do about it other than stay out.

Why do people find this idea that you have to definitively fall into one camp or another?

Seb
rank Sun Mar 01 18:08:43
Also, how is attacking gulf states civilians "defending itself"?

murder
rank Sun Mar 01 18:21:44

Armies don't go to war, nations do.

Also, completely unrelated ... fuck those 9/11 supporters. All those gulf states should have been nuked off the face of the Earth a quarter century ago.

-

murder
rank Sun Mar 01 18:27:11

"You might remember we had control of the Shia bit of Iraq and Iranian backed militias killed a lot of Brits there in Iran's quest to bring the siren of Iraq under their sway. They also grabbed one of our boats, paraded our servicemen etc."

I have a vague recollection of that. That was in the English Channel, right?

Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, maybe they hate you because you're a fucking imperial power with a history in that part of the world.

-

Sam Adams
rank Sun Mar 01 18:29:26
"But equally we don't support breaking international law to murder their leadership and bomb the country flat. Not because we love Iran, but because we do value internal law and norms generally"

No, it's because you are a coward. Churchill would have cut their throats long ago.

"Last year we caught three guys with links to the Iranian state plotting a terror attack in the UK."

Lol. Yet you still cry and scream about how we shouldn't fight back

Forwyn
rank Sun Mar 01 21:34:33
"But equally we don't support breaking international law to murder their leadership and bomb the country flat. Not because we love Syria, but because we do value internal law and norms generally, and because the likely result of a shattered failed state in Syria is negative to UK security."

Seb, 2013, if he had an ounce of consistency

Seb
rank Sun Mar 01 22:22:18
Murder:

We aren't at war though.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Seb
rank Sun Mar 01 22:28:37
Also why does the UK give a shit about the gulf states opinion on 9/11?

"That was in the English Channel, right?"
No, it was on the Iraqi side of the gulf.

"maybe they hate you because you're a fucking imperial power with a history in that part of the world."

And so we should be happy if they bomb our bases and allies, and welcome their murderous regime spreading chaos, anarchy and terror.

I don't think so.

There was an opportunity for detente, but the US fucked it up; and it's an all or nothing thing.

But nobody in the UK govt or state is crying tears for the Islamic Republic.

Seb
rank Sun Mar 01 22:35:54
NaMBLA:

It's pretty easy to talk tough when you've been rejected from military service due to poor mental health, isn't it?

"Yet you still cry and scream about how we shouldn't fight back"

You know the old story about getting into a wrestling match with a pig?

Forwyn:

"Seb, 2013, if he had an ounce of consistency"

Well no, because there was a basis in international law to intervene in Libya to prevent a crime against humanity.

There might have been an argument a few weeks/months ago in respect of Iran, but not for this kind of action. Also, as I said, I supported it with the assumption of an international stabilization force.

The question is why you, opposing intervention against Libya, are supporting this one now even though this is like Libya on steroids.

Seb
rank Sun Mar 01 22:36:48
By the way, why is it you guys are so obsessed with Libya?

It's just an Obama thing right?

TheChildren
rank Sun Mar 01 22:54:53
holy crap, is happenin!?

first jet downed?
a fatamy? 22? 35?

___________

" An unidentified aircraft was downed near Damavand, Iran

report it is a fighter jet, however I would urge EXTREME caution"

>>
is it happenin O.o?

TheChildren
rank Sun Mar 01 23:02:55
https://x.com/AryJeay/status/2028207284002623515

Forwyn
rank Mon Mar 02 00:16:11
Seb unironically says that civilian massacres are crimes against humanity, but not always.

And we should prioritize toppling secular regimes that do it, not Islamist ones.

Literally retarded

Sam Adams
rank Mon Mar 02 00:37:11
"There might have been an argument a few weeks/months ago in respect of Iran, but not for this kind of action."

According to seb the pedo importer, the statute of limitations on 38,000 murders is 1.5 months.

Lmfao what a retard.

obaminated
rank Mon Mar 02 00:42:57
I think seb is arguing that if a government has successfully slaughtered unarmed protesters into submission then they should no longer be toppled, only active civilian slaughter needs to be responded to.

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 00:45:53
Forwyn:

No. Pay attention moron.

Intervention to *prevent* a massacre, isn't the same thing as intervention *after* the regime has commited a massacre and is no longer committing a massacre because you stood by and let the massacre happen.

At that point all you are doing is just pointless aggression.

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 00:48:31
NaMBLA:

The purpose of intervention isn't to bring people to justice, or punish them, it is to prevent an imminent crime against humanity.

If the US cared about crimes against humanity it would have not have waited while Iran's govt slaughtered protestors, then started this conflict by blowing up a school full of young girls.

Nor would it be trying to force Ukraine to surrender to Russia so it can get on with doing business with Putin.

Sam Adams
rank Mon Mar 02 00:49:49
Lmfao how utterly retarded. In the mind of seb no criminal should ever be punished unless you catch them in the act.

No wonder he tries to import so many african child rapists. Pure retardation.

This might be the single most retarded thing he has ever said, and that is saying A LOT.

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 00:50:29
Obaminated:

Well fuck me, a brief flicker of comprehension. Try to keep it up.

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 00:56:39
NaMBLA:

In your mind the police should shoot the hostages and bystanders so they can bring the criminals to justice. Doesn't matter how many bystanders get killed. God will know his own.

As I type this I realise that it will go way over your head because actually that's exactly what you do believe in practice.

So let me make it clear: intervention isn't "policemen stopping crime" because war creates havoc and nearly always involves further deaths of innocent. It can be justified on humanitarian grounds when you can be certain it is the only option to prevent even greater atrocities.

And even policemen stopping crimes are careful to avoid lethal force or risk to bystanders and will prioritise that over capturing criminals.

So yes you paedophila supporting fuckwit, you don't invade a country to punish it's leader for attacking they population because directly or indirectly you are likely to cause further harm to the population of that country.

obaminated
rank Mon Mar 02 00:57:53
Seb, it's a very dumb and short sighted take. The Iranian government has a history of killing protesters. We had to get everything organized and in place before we could do anything. Apparently it takes longer to assemble a massive armada than it does to kill 32k unarmed civilians.

Sam Adams
rank Mon Mar 02 01:00:48
Lol pedo seb is as retarded as the ayatolla.

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 01:10:41
Obaminated:

Ok, so you destroy the Islamic Republics chain of command.

What happens next? Peace and liberty breaks out? Or a brutal civil war amongst many armed factions.
Will that kill more than 32k? Seems likely.

So no, its not a short sighted take.

I can fully accept my position on Libya was short sighted - I expected a UN backed stabilisation force not the west walking away. You saw how that went. Now you want to replay it with a population of 90m people and a stockpile of HEU.

That's fucking nuts.

Sam Adams
rank Mon Mar 02 01:14:10
Speaking of retards, Hezbollah is firing at Israel. Joining the war on irans side.

The IDF is like "bahagahagaha so be it"

These Iranians/Palestinians have seb level iqs

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 01:15:33
The Israeli/US intervention isn't a humanitarian intervention.

This is just Netenyahu's doctrine: smash neighbours up and leave them as failed states, rince and repeat forever (no matter that this strategy keeps blowing up in Israel's face, and no matter that it's only sustainable because normally it's aimed at tiny countries and he doesn't care about the strain on us military supply chains).

He's talked Trump into it (not hard) and MBS will go along with it if it takes out a rival.

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 01:19:09
NaMBLA:

What happens to Hezbollah once the Iranian state is shattered? IDF invades. Because Netenyahu's got to keep the permacrisis ongoing or he goes to prison. It's a nailed on certainty.

Might as well roll the dice now.

You don't have to be a genius to see the logic, which is why it evades you.

Sam Adams
rank Mon Mar 02 01:29:28
Iran/Hezbollah have launched a large number of missiles at Cyprus, probably targeting the RAF installation that seb was so cowardly trying to protect by not fighting.

Sam Adams
rank Mon Mar 02 01:30:53
Lmfao perfect timing.

Seb you utter retard.

obaminated
rank Mon Mar 02 01:30:56
Dragging uk into the war, brilliant.

Forwyn
rank Mon Mar 02 03:17:37
"Intervention to *prevent* a massacre, isn't the same thing as intervention *after* the regime has commited a massacre"

LOL yeah. If the civilian population has been successfully subdued by massacres, it is no longer justified.

If foreign-armed jihadis keep fighting, well, we must intervene to stop this crime!

murder
rank Mon Mar 02 03:55:52

"Starmer says he will give US permission to use UK bases for Iran missions"

Keir Starmer is reversing his decision to bar the U.S. from using U.K. bases, saying in a social media post late Sunday that he will allow U.S. “defensive” missions aimed at destroying Iranian missile capabilities.

“The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source, in their storage depots or the launchers which are used to fire the missiles,” Starmer said, after a day of escalating threats against British military, civilian and commercial interests in the Middle East.

“The US has requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose,” he added. “We have taken the decision to accept this request.”

The U.K. also published a summary of its legal advice which said the action would be “solely focussed on ending the threat of air and missile attacks against regional allies unlawfully attacked by Iran and who have not been involved in hostilities from the outset. It does not signal the U.K. having any wider involvement in the broader ongoing conflict between the U.S., Israel and Iran.”

https://ww...ses-for-iran-missions-00806454

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 11:14:34
Murder:

Nope. It's entirely consistent with what he has said. He said he would not let them be used to attack Iran without a legal basis.

Iran is attacking civilian infrastructure in the gulf states, so there's a basis in law for the UK to act to defend those and itself.

jergul
rank Mon Mar 02 11:22:31
A horrible move. The UK is supporting offensive military action led by a man threatening to annex key UK partners. The only thing Starmer has done here is solidify the perception that Western Europe are American lapdogs.

I think we can dispense with talking about how we will oppose the US, for we will not oppose the US.

jergul
rank Mon Mar 02 11:23:41
Denying US the use of bases for attacks would inconvenience its planning. Symbol politics, but symbols matter.

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 11:51:47
Jergul:

1. US & Isreal begin strikes with no clear legal basis - UK stays out of it.
2. Initial strikes fail to bring swift end and Iran strikes back.
3. Those retaliatory strikes start to target civilians (including UK ones) and UK military/bases.
4. Attacked Nations invoke their inherent right to collective self defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
5. UK grants the US permission to use 2 UK bases to conduct strikes on Iranian missile sites & storage being used to make these attacks, on this basis.
6. UK decides (for now) not to join these preventative strikes, but continues to provide active defence over & around its bases & host Nations.

Very clearly on Iran here, it expanded the scope by attacking gulf states and UK bases not party to the initial attack.

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 11:58:14
Greenland is an ally. We'd strongly oppose that.

Iran is not an ally, and Iran is now attacking UK allies and bases who did not participate in the US and Israeli strikes. We and they have a right to self defense.

Permitting the US to take preventative strikes on ballistic missile launchers is justified in law and proportional.

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 11:58:14
Greenland is an ally. We'd strongly oppose that.

Iran is not an ally, and Iran is now attacking UK allies and bases who did not participate in the US and Israeli strikes. We and they have a right to self defense.

Permitting the US to take preventative strikes on ballistic missile launchers is justified in law and proportional.

TheChildren
rank Mon Mar 02 12:01:20
apparently these be fattie amies 15s...

but word on da streets is, a b2 is also gone. unconfirmed of curse. but peoples be talkin. this wuld be HUUUUGGGEE if true

TheChildren
rank Mon Mar 02 12:08:17
dat shit wuld be WILLDDDDD...

if true of curse lol

TheChildren
rank Mon Mar 02 12:41:26
word is 4 jets so far. mostly fatties 15s

but possible 1 fattie amy 35

O.o

TheChildren
rank Mon Mar 02 12:42:14
ahemmm..."friendly fires"

lol

TheChildren
rank Mon Mar 02 12:56:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7QGNWR1BPk

is now official, no longer deniable

murder
rank Mon Mar 02 13:07:51

"Nope. It's entirely consistent with what he has said. He said he would not let them be used to attack Iran without a legal basis."

The UK helped intercept Iranian drones headed for Israel the last time Iran was attacked by Israel, and they are doing it again. That makes you a participant just like if you were dropping bombs on Tehran yourselves.

Seb
rank Mon Mar 02 14:06:27
Murder:

Gulf states, not Israel.

show deleted posts

murder rank	Sat Feb 28 20:34:02 UK planes 'in the sky' in Middle East as part of defensive operation, PM says British planes "are in the sky" in the Middle East as part of a defensive operation "to protect our people, our interests and our allies", the prime minister has said. In a pre-recorded statement on Saturday, Sir Keir Starmer said protections for British bases and personnel had been stepped up to their highest level. The US and Israel launched strikes across multiple Iranian cities including capital Tehran on Saturday morning, after negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear programme ended without a deal. The UK did not participate in the strikes. Earlier, the PM released a joint statement with the leaders of France and Germany, calling for Iran to "refrain from indiscriminate military strikes". In his speech, Sir Keir said he wanted to see "peace and security" in the Middle East and the "protection of civilian life". He added: "Iran can end this now. "They should refrain from further strikes, give up their weapons programme and cease the appalling violence and oppression of the Iranian people – who deserve the right to determine their own future." The prime minister condemned Iran's retaliatory attacks "on partners across the region" after explosions were heard in several Middle East countries with US facilities. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20l1v0ldqzo
murder rank	Sat Feb 28 20:34:48 European countries will forever be the US's lap dog ... and the US will forever be Israel's lap dog. -
murder rank	Sat Feb 28 20:40:55 All these guys would be Trump if they could be.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Feb 28 20:46:05 Lol seb is impotent. The UK will help take out the ayatolla, and seb will cry.
pillz rank	Sun Mar 01 01:34:29 Why do we need 3 threads on iran
obaminated rank	Sun Mar 01 01:45:17 Its a big deal. Trump just did something Bush Obama and Biden talked about doing
Habebe rank	Sun Mar 01 02:12:14 I mean, IF Trump can pull this off well (big IF) and if Venezuela and Cuba work in his favor, he will have positioned the US back towards 1990 status.
murder rank	Sun Mar 01 02:55:10 "Why do we need 3 threads on iran" This thread isn't about Iran. It's about the UK being as garbage as the US is. -
murder rank	Sun Mar 01 02:56:41 "I mean, IF Trump can pull this off well (big IF) and if Venezuela and Cuba work in his favor, he will have positioned the US back towards 1990 status." Were we the enemy of the world in 1990? Were we the country everyone feared they needed protection from? -
Sam Adams rank	Sun Mar 01 04:20:55 Only far left shitlickers like CBC and BBC think we are the enemy of the world.
Seb rank	Sun Mar 01 10:41:10 Murder: We've got bases in the gulf states and we are protecting them from drones and missiles. That's all.
Seb rank	Sun Mar 01 10:42:15 NaMBLA: Incorrect.
williamthebastard rank	Sun Mar 01 11:03:02 csam hiding away deep in his fantasy world again, terrified of reality. How sweet to be an idiot.
williamthebastard rank	Sun Mar 01 12:18:28 I see Trump currently has 96% "strongly disapprove" in Denmark. I would expect even Hitler had slightly better figures than that.
TheChildren rank	Sun Mar 01 13:34:32 da planes and jets patrollin... obviously workin as intended just like all da supreme air defenses and shit acc is over 8 percent bitches, take that!
murder rank	Sun Mar 01 14:19:15 "We've got bases in the gulf states and we are protecting them from drones and missiles. That's all." I see. And blaming Iran for defending itself and trying to sell the bullshit that the path to peace for Iran is to make itself even more vulnerable to attack ... are the acts of a non-participant? -
Seb rank	Sun Mar 01 18:07:59 Murder: "And blaming Iran for defending itself and trying to sell the bullshit that the path to peace for Iran is to make itself even more vulnerable to attack ... are the acts of a non-participant?" You might remember we had control of the Shia bit of Iraq and Iranian backed militias killed a lot of Brits there in Iran's quest to bring the siren of Iraq under their sway. They also grabbed one of our boats, paraded our servicemen etc. And on a wider perspective they destabilise and attack our allies in the region. Iran is an enemy state to the UK, even if we are not at war. So what do you expect? That the British Govt is suddenly going to rally to make statements in support of this regime? We don't want them to have a bomb. We don't think they are "just defending themselves". We think they are a murderous regime. Last year we caught three guys with links to the Iranian state plotting a terror attack in the UK. So we aren't really that concerned that Iran's current govt be would be less able to defend itself. But equally we don't support breaking international law to murder their leadership and bomb the country flat. Not because we love Iran, but because we do value internal law and norms generally, and because the likely result of a shattered failed state in Iran is negative to UK security. Absent a friendly and stable govt in Iran, a contained Islamic Republic is the best option in the interests of the UK. But if Israel and the US are going to do an illegal attack, there's not much the UK can do about it other than stay out. Why do people find this idea that you have to definitively fall into one camp or another?
Seb rank	Sun Mar 01 18:08:43 Also, how is attacking gulf states civilians "defending itself"?
murder rank	Sun Mar 01 18:21:44 Armies don't go to war, nations do. Also, completely unrelated ... fuck those 9/11 supporters. All those gulf states should have been nuked off the face of the Earth a quarter century ago. -
murder rank	Sun Mar 01 18:27:11 "You might remember we had control of the Shia bit of Iraq and Iranian backed militias killed a lot of Brits there in Iran's quest to bring the siren of Iraq under their sway. They also grabbed one of our boats, paraded our servicemen etc." I have a vague recollection of that. That was in the English Channel, right? Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, maybe they hate you because you're a fucking imperial power with a history in that part of the world. -
Sam Adams rank	Sun Mar 01 18:29:26 "But equally we don't support breaking international law to murder their leadership and bomb the country flat. Not because we love Iran, but because we do value internal law and norms generally" No, it's because you are a coward. Churchill would have cut their throats long ago. "Last year we caught three guys with links to the Iranian state plotting a terror attack in the UK." Lol. Yet you still cry and scream about how we shouldn't fight back
Forwyn rank	Sun Mar 01 21:34:33 "But equally we don't support breaking international law to murder their leadership and bomb the country flat. Not because we love Syria, but because we do value internal law and norms generally, and because the likely result of a shattered failed state in Syria is negative to UK security." Seb, 2013, if he had an ounce of consistency
Seb rank	Sun Mar 01 22:22:18 Murder: We aren't at war though. I'm not sure what your point is.
Seb rank	Sun Mar 01 22:28:37 Also why does the UK give a shit about the gulf states opinion on 9/11? "That was in the English Channel, right?" No, it was on the Iraqi side of the gulf. "maybe they hate you because you're a fucking imperial power with a history in that part of the world." And so we should be happy if they bomb our bases and allies, and welcome their murderous regime spreading chaos, anarchy and terror. I don't think so. There was an opportunity for detente, but the US fucked it up; and it's an all or nothing thing. But nobody in the UK govt or state is crying tears for the Islamic Republic.
Seb rank	Sun Mar 01 22:35:54 NaMBLA: It's pretty easy to talk tough when you've been rejected from military service due to poor mental health, isn't it? "Yet you still cry and scream about how we shouldn't fight back" You know the old story about getting into a wrestling match with a pig? Forwyn: "Seb, 2013, if he had an ounce of consistency" Well no, because there was a basis in international law to intervene in Libya to prevent a crime against humanity. There might have been an argument a few weeks/months ago in respect of Iran, but not for this kind of action. Also, as I said, I supported it with the assumption of an international stabilization force. The question is why you, opposing intervention against Libya, are supporting this one now even though this is like Libya on steroids.
Seb rank	Sun Mar 01 22:36:48 By the way, why is it you guys are so obsessed with Libya? It's just an Obama thing right?
TheChildren rank	Sun Mar 01 22:54:53 holy crap, is happenin!? first jet downed? a fatamy? 22? 35? ___________ " An unidentified aircraft was downed near Damavand, Iran report it is a fighter jet, however I would urge EXTREME caution" >> is it happenin O.o?
TheChildren rank	Sun Mar 01 23:02:55 https://x.com/AryJeay/status/2028207284002623515
Forwyn rank	Mon Mar 02 00:16:11 Seb unironically says that civilian massacres are crimes against humanity, but not always. And we should prioritize toppling secular regimes that do it, not Islamist ones. Literally retarded
Sam Adams rank	Mon Mar 02 00:37:11 "There might have been an argument a few weeks/months ago in respect of Iran, but not for this kind of action." According to seb the pedo importer, the statute of limitations on 38,000 murders is 1.5 months. Lmfao what a retard.
obaminated rank	Mon Mar 02 00:42:57 I think seb is arguing that if a government has successfully slaughtered unarmed protesters into submission then they should no longer be toppled, only active civilian slaughter needs to be responded to.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 00:45:53 Forwyn: No. Pay attention moron. Intervention to prevent a massacre, isn't the same thing as intervention after the regime has commited a massacre and is no longer committing a massacre because you stood by and let the massacre happen. At that point all you are doing is just pointless aggression.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 00:48:31 NaMBLA: The purpose of intervention isn't to bring people to justice, or punish them, it is to prevent an imminent crime against humanity. If the US cared about crimes against humanity it would have not have waited while Iran's govt slaughtered protestors, then started this conflict by blowing up a school full of young girls. Nor would it be trying to force Ukraine to surrender to Russia so it can get on with doing business with Putin.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Mar 02 00:49:49 Lmfao how utterly retarded. In the mind of seb no criminal should ever be punished unless you catch them in the act. No wonder he tries to import so many african child rapists. Pure retardation. This might be the single most retarded thing he has ever said, and that is saying A LOT.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 00:50:29 Obaminated: Well fuck me, a brief flicker of comprehension. Try to keep it up.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 00:56:39 NaMBLA: In your mind the police should shoot the hostages and bystanders so they can bring the criminals to justice. Doesn't matter how many bystanders get killed. God will know his own. As I type this I realise that it will go way over your head because actually that's exactly what you do believe in practice. So let me make it clear: intervention isn't "policemen stopping crime" because war creates havoc and nearly always involves further deaths of innocent. It can be justified on humanitarian grounds when you can be certain it is the only option to prevent even greater atrocities. And even policemen stopping crimes are careful to avoid lethal force or risk to bystanders and will prioritise that over capturing criminals. So yes you paedophila supporting fuckwit, you don't invade a country to punish it's leader for attacking they population because directly or indirectly you are likely to cause further harm to the population of that country.
obaminated rank	Mon Mar 02 00:57:53 Seb, it's a very dumb and short sighted take. The Iranian government has a history of killing protesters. We had to get everything organized and in place before we could do anything. Apparently it takes longer to assemble a massive armada than it does to kill 32k unarmed civilians.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Mar 02 01:00:48 Lol pedo seb is as retarded as the ayatolla.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 01:10:41 Obaminated: Ok, so you destroy the Islamic Republics chain of command. What happens next? Peace and liberty breaks out? Or a brutal civil war amongst many armed factions. Will that kill more than 32k? Seems likely. So no, its not a short sighted take. I can fully accept my position on Libya was short sighted - I expected a UN backed stabilisation force not the west walking away. You saw how that went. Now you want to replay it with a population of 90m people and a stockpile of HEU. That's fucking nuts.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Mar 02 01:14:10 Speaking of retards, Hezbollah is firing at Israel. Joining the war on irans side. The IDF is like "bahagahagaha so be it" These Iranians/Palestinians have seb level iqs
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 01:15:33 The Israeli/US intervention isn't a humanitarian intervention. This is just Netenyahu's doctrine: smash neighbours up and leave them as failed states, rince and repeat forever (no matter that this strategy keeps blowing up in Israel's face, and no matter that it's only sustainable because normally it's aimed at tiny countries and he doesn't care about the strain on us military supply chains). He's talked Trump into it (not hard) and MBS will go along with it if it takes out a rival.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 01:19:09 NaMBLA: What happens to Hezbollah once the Iranian state is shattered? IDF invades. Because Netenyahu's got to keep the permacrisis ongoing or he goes to prison. It's a nailed on certainty. Might as well roll the dice now. You don't have to be a genius to see the logic, which is why it evades you.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Mar 02 01:29:28 Iran/Hezbollah have launched a large number of missiles at Cyprus, probably targeting the RAF installation that seb was so cowardly trying to protect by not fighting.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Mar 02 01:30:53 Lmfao perfect timing. Seb you utter retard.
obaminated rank	Mon Mar 02 01:30:56 Dragging uk into the war, brilliant.
Forwyn rank	Mon Mar 02 03:17:37 "Intervention to prevent a massacre, isn't the same thing as intervention after the regime has commited a massacre" LOL yeah. If the civilian population has been successfully subdued by massacres, it is no longer justified. If foreign-armed jihadis keep fighting, well, we must intervene to stop this crime!
murder rank	Mon Mar 02 03:55:52 "Starmer says he will give US permission to use UK bases for Iran missions" Keir Starmer is reversing his decision to bar the U.S. from using U.K. bases, saying in a social media post late Sunday that he will allow U.S. “defensive” missions aimed at destroying Iranian missile capabilities. “The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source, in their storage depots or the launchers which are used to fire the missiles,” Starmer said, after a day of escalating threats against British military, civilian and commercial interests in the Middle East. “The US has requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose,” he added. “We have taken the decision to accept this request.” The U.K. also published a summary of its legal advice which said the action would be “solely focussed on ending the threat of air and missile attacks against regional allies unlawfully attacked by Iran and who have not been involved in hostilities from the outset. It does not signal the U.K. having any wider involvement in the broader ongoing conflict between the U.S., Israel and Iran.” https://ww...ses-for-iran-missions-00806454
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 11:14:34 Murder: Nope. It's entirely consistent with what he has said. He said he would not let them be used to attack Iran without a legal basis. Iran is attacking civilian infrastructure in the gulf states, so there's a basis in law for the UK to act to defend those and itself.
jergul rank	Mon Mar 02 11:22:31 A horrible move. The UK is supporting offensive military action led by a man threatening to annex key UK partners. The only thing Starmer has done here is solidify the perception that Western Europe are American lapdogs. I think we can dispense with talking about how we will oppose the US, for we will not oppose the US.
jergul rank	Mon Mar 02 11:23:41 Denying US the use of bases for attacks would inconvenience its planning. Symbol politics, but symbols matter.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 11:51:47 Jergul: 1. US & Isreal begin strikes with no clear legal basis - UK stays out of it. 2. Initial strikes fail to bring swift end and Iran strikes back. 3. Those retaliatory strikes start to target civilians (including UK ones) and UK military/bases. 4. Attacked Nations invoke their inherent right to collective self defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. 5. UK grants the US permission to use 2 UK bases to conduct strikes on Iranian missile sites & storage being used to make these attacks, on this basis. 6. UK decides (for now) not to join these preventative strikes, but continues to provide active defence over & around its bases & host Nations. Very clearly on Iran here, it expanded the scope by attacking gulf states and UK bases not party to the initial attack.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 11:58:14 Greenland is an ally. We'd strongly oppose that. Iran is not an ally, and Iran is now attacking UK allies and bases who did not participate in the US and Israeli strikes. We and they have a right to self defense. Permitting the US to take preventative strikes on ballistic missile launchers is justified in law and proportional.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 11:58:14 Greenland is an ally. We'd strongly oppose that. Iran is not an ally, and Iran is now attacking UK allies and bases who did not participate in the US and Israeli strikes. We and they have a right to self defense. Permitting the US to take preventative strikes on ballistic missile launchers is justified in law and proportional.
TheChildren rank	Mon Mar 02 12:01:20 apparently these be fattie amies 15s... but word on da streets is, a b2 is also gone. unconfirmed of curse. but peoples be talkin. this wuld be HUUUUGGGEE if true
TheChildren rank	Mon Mar 02 12:08:17 dat shit wuld be WILLDDDDD... if true of curse lol
TheChildren rank	Mon Mar 02 12:41:26 word is 4 jets so far. mostly fatties 15s but possible 1 fattie amy 35 O.o
TheChildren rank	Mon Mar 02 12:42:14 ahemmm..."friendly fires" lol
TheChildren rank	Mon Mar 02 12:56:37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7QGNWR1BPk is now official, no longer deniable
murder rank	Mon Mar 02 13:07:51 "Nope. It's entirely consistent with what he has said. He said he would not let them be used to attack Iran without a legal basis." The UK helped intercept Iranian drones headed for Israel the last time Iran was attacked by Israel, and they are doing it again. That makes you a participant just like if you were dropping bombs on Tehran yourselves.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 02 14:06:27 Murder: Gulf states, not Israel.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: