this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
312 points (99.4% liked)

World News

54677 readers
2661 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KiwiTB@lemmy.world 62 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

What a surprise.... No one could have seen this coming.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 20 points 18 hours 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.

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Yall are naive as shit. The fucking pedophiles are against their buddy pedophiles they’ve been fucking kids with? Do you really believe that shit?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 24 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

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

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours 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.

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

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.

[–] MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

IMO defensive would involve them not leaving the USA.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Yes, that's a good way to define it.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

That's still going too far IMO. USA had the option to stay out, we should not aid them in their illegal wars.

[–] Trex202@lemmy.world 12 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Every strike is a defensive strike

[–] DavorS@piefed.social 1 points 16 hours ago (2 children)
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 15 hours ago

It is in kid starvers twisted mind

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 12 hours ago

The best defense is a good offense...

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 15 hours ago

Wasn't that also when he was admitting that the UK was helping do the preemptive strikes?

[–] parsizzle@piefed.social 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours 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.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 10 points 18 hours ago

Nnnnope. They are RAF bases, with a nominal RAF CO. The USAF are tenants.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

This is a common misconception (it doesn’t actually apply to embassies either, from which the myth arose). Every military base of a nation within another nation’s territory is governed by a status of forces agreement (SOF); usually a large general SOF for all locations in the territory and also a narrower SOF that applies to that site specifically.

[–] parsizzle@piefed.social 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Thank you for the correction! That makes what they're doing against the SOF rules/law, then?

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 1 points 59 minutes ago

That really depends tbh.

These munitions could be just being moved from one site to another, not destined for a site supplying the Iranian theater. They could be being sent for decommissioning. They could be loaded just for regular evaluation, loaded test flights. They could be going to the Iranian theater, but the UK government gave special exception for this case. Or it could be what we all thought right when we saw the headline and these are going directly ti theater to be used on Iranian targets.

Without more information, it’s impossible to know. Brits should be demanding more information for sure; I just told my partner and she is emailing her MP right now about this.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours 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.

[–] Shameless@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Starmer the flim flam man. He stands for nothing and will go with anything, he has no morals.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Probably in the Epstein files. (The UK leaders).