this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
85 points (98.9% liked)

UK Politics

5406 readers
177 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
flamingos@feddit.uk
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
85
Flying some circles (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 day ago by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Supposedly, Britain doesn't use the same midair refuelling system as the US and Israel, so can't refuel US and Israeli planes. However, we do have a lot of our own planes in the air to shoot drones and missiles down if they're targeting allies. It seems pretty plausible that they might need fuel, and it's a bigger disruption to air defense if they've got to land and take off again. Also, a lot of the UK's allies in the area like Qatar and Saudi Arabia use a compatible refueling system, so it could be to refuel their planes, which are also in the air in the general region doing air defense, although it would be odd for any of them to be that close to Cyprus.

[–] TheWolfOfSouthEnd@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

When Palestine Action vandalised that plane the press were saying “it’s not even the same refuelling system”. Like that was the point. 

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Labour could not be any more pathetic at this point.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, they could. They could have joined this cluster fuck of a war. The Tories 100% would have. So there's that.

[–] TheWolfOfSouthEnd@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 18 hours ago

As many see it, the difference in joining and not joining is fuck all. 

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Every "democracy" appears to be functionally equivalent to capitalist dictatorship. When money owns the majority of the political class, the only difference is the illusion of choice.

The success of each countries corporations and 0.001% is the "national security"; not the lives of the actual population.

[–] tenebrisnox@feddit.uk 1 points 18 hours ago

I'd like to see landowners, owners of property and owners of physical businesses given a "national security" tax. That's what's really being defended. But you can imagine the squealing they'd do if they were told to put their hands in their pockets.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

Wheeee!

[–] theo@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

Just doing some sick doughnuts, nothing nefarious going on here.

[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Actually, refueling is indeed not an offensive action.

[–] idealism_nearby@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

In the same way that doing admin for Auschwitz is not taking offensive action, sure...

[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 23 hours ago

That’s correct. It is NOT an offensive action. Does it make their actions innocent? Of course not, because the whole chain of command is responsible, not just the one pushing the button.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Refueling bomber* planes is a very offensive action.

[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I suppose a bombed plane is quite bad at flying in general.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The typo has been fixed as have the planes

[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Jokes aside, in military terms, refueling/supporting is not an offensive act. They are obviously part of a whole offensive command chain, but that makes their actions not automatically offensive, too.

Still a dick move by Britain, because they are trying to fool the public.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's very much an offensive act and makes the Cyprus base a valid military target for Iran.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 2 points 23 hours ago

Sure bud, I'm just gonna needlessly condescend to you whilst retreating from the argument because I'm unable to see how openly helping just one side of a battle with their munitions and operations isn't the same as taking sides

[–] HermitBee@feddit.uk 1 points 22 hours ago

I don't think the point is whether it's actually an offensive act or not in general terms, it's "this is the technical definition they will weasel out on". Which is almost certainly true - refueling is not inherently offensive.

[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure bud, go and believe whatever you want. Just here to inform the more open minded people how military defines the term “offensive”. And with that, I will not continue to argue with you on this topic.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

By this logic Trump and Netanyahu aren't undertaking any offensive action either because they're not the people dropping the bombs

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

The persons fixing the planes have also been fixed