It's not a weird distinction between a goal (why they're going there) and a (side-)effect (what is something that's happening as a result of it), when someone seems to confuse the two lol

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The only one confused here is you. The goal is to enable military operations against Iran. That's why those bases exist in the first place. These troops are part of the war of aggression, and whether they have an offensive role or not is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. To put it in terms you might understand easier, if you're a getaway driver for a bank robbery, you can't use that an excuse to claim that you weren't part of the robbery.

[–] Saapas@piefed.zip 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn't look like that's why those troops are being send there right now though. These troops are for the Gulf allies and Cyprus.

You are angry about the British role in the Iran war and I feel you, but I'm just talking about why these troops are going there.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not angry. I'm pointing out the simple fact that the reason those bases are being attacked by Iran is because they're used to wage a war of aggression against Iran. I'm just trying to explain to you why those troops are active participants in this war. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand that frankly.

[–] Saapas@piefed.zip 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

It's just that you're talking about a different thing to me. You're explaining things that weren't under question and don't really relate to what I said. I was solely talking about why these troops were being sent there right now.

I appreciate the enthusiasm but it's just a bit off this topic and more a general discussion about the war.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago

And I was solely explaining how that makes them part of the war.