- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Those must be them defensive bombs that only fall on people who are attacking you.
I thought the UK wasn’t going to be complicit in this illegal US/Israeli mass murder campaign?? I thought they denied access to their bases for this. Guess not.
The planes are just transporting the bombs. The uk is fine with that. If they accidentally fall on a school in Iran it’s not their fault.
Crickey!! 😮😮😮LOL so they are complicit AF.
Poking around an ADSB tracking site will very quickly illustrate the flight path of the logistics chain to the middle east, as well as the European bases passed through along the way.
Guys, I’m starting to think that the US is dropping bombs somewhere
Like a country that is similar to A Flock of Seagulls song?
Imagine if all US miitary assets were targeted, globally
Nobody could do this.
I don’t understand the downvotes, you are absolutely correct. No one nation would be capable of targeting every US military base in other countries.
Dozens of countries host US military bases. While currently unlikely, the individual host nations could absolutely forcefully overtake or otherwise expel the bases within their borders while the US flounders about in Iran.
The US has just shown it can’t protect it’s bases, and their presence only invites more conflict.
True and that would deal with a lot of infantry and logistical folks, but spin up a fist of retribution that would literally turn cities to rubble and fuck up naval traffic forever
That’s a Lancer in the article, the B1 was first flown in 1986 and is still fully capable of dropping literal tons of explosives anywhere on the globe within hours. We’re still using Cold War tech that works but think about how much DARPA have built since then…the only thing that can kill the US military is the US military, there’s just gonna be a lot of collateral damage
These bombers can only fly when the target nation has depleted air defence. Take Iran for example, the only reason the US government was able to drop bombs at Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow in June, 2025 was because the Israelis has damaged the Iranian air defence network. If those systems were still intact, those bombers would become a very expensive firework display, even more colorful than the ones we see during festivals.
All I am saying is every nation has a right to defend themselves, and if you can not, you will be bombed to smithereens. The winners get to tell the rest of the world your story…like Japan and Germany.
Iran is literally bombing US military bases. Like, right now.
I get you think America is the greatest country in the world, but your people are literally being bombed as we speak.
The US government can not be trusted. The UK government can not be trusted. The Iranian government can not be trusted. The Israeli government can not be trusted.
I think I am starting to see a pattern.
We once had empires, ruled by emperors
And we had kingdoms, ruled by kings.
Now we have countries…
This is also a pattern…
…ruled by counts? Like the etymology of the word?
I think this statement works better in an audio format.
No war but a class war.
Countries whose names start with vowels can’t be trusted?
Austrians right about now
Heck, Australians too
And maybe the aliens idk
Given they banned Palestine action/slogans (18-year old girl jailed for 2 years for wearing a shirt saying “from the river to the sea”).
Yeah, our government’s tonguing the Netanyahu-owned Orange Anus, too.
Is there any government that can be trusted? I feel like no matter what system or ideology is used, a society is always going to end up with a weird ruling class that’s corrupt, power hungry, and is fond of using authoritarian tactics.
I don’t know Spain looks like they have a halfway decent one
Mother anarchy loves her children
Isn’t that curve the basic nature of capitalism, since the beginning of money and commerce that has been discussed since ancient Greek.
if i was president you can trust me 👍👍👍👍 lol
No current country deserves humanity, perhaps some future government will.
Those are “defensive” bombs!
Another Starmer lie?
Goddam UK, didn’t Starmer say he WOULDN’T allow this?
This is participation in war crimes!No, after Iran started targeting the gulf states and Cypress the UK shifted its position to allowing the US to use the UK’s bases for missions targeting Iran’s long range strike capabilities but not anything else. This video is consistent with that.
It’s funny how Ukraine has done that against Russia without ever using bomber planes and without even having bunker buster bombs.
So I maintain that it remains a no. USA does not need bombers to defend itself. In fact all it needed to not even have to defend itself, was to not wage an illegal war on Iran.
USA and Israel should not be aided in their illegal war in any way IMO.Bombers have always and only been needed to blow up something very far away. They were needed in WW2 but we should have shifted funding to NASA and the USCG after that. The only reason we developed long range supersonic bomb delivery trucks that cost $2 billion a piece was waving dicks at the Soviets.
Could’ve done a lot more with that money building a defense force and functional water pipes and trains to every town than long range bombs but 🤷
I agree, for the most part, the UK should have as little to do with this as possible. Though there is the consideration of protecting the Gulf states we have a commitment to.
But my point is that this isnt going against the stated UK government position as lots of people (including you) are saying in this thread.
Yes it does, because an attack with a bomber plane dropping a bunker buster bomb, is not defense, when USA and Israel started it. What Iran is doing on the other hand, is defense, because they were the ones that were attacked.
You can’t hit someone in the face, and then if they hit back you hit again. And then call it defending yourself.
It’s abuse of terminology to mislead and manipulate.
The attacker does not suddenly became the defending party when they keep attacking.Next you will claim that if USA drop a tactical nuke, that that is defense too?
I’m sorry I had to downvote you, because although what you write may be the official take, it is outrageous.
Did Cypress attack Iran? Did Dubai, Jordan, the UAE? They were all struck by Iran and only after that did the UK allow the US to use its bases. Based on your “if you get hit first then hitting back is legitamate” why does that apply to Iran but not those countries?
I completly agree that Iran attacking Isreal after being attacked is fair, but i dont see how you can make that argument without saying the Gulf states have the right to defend themselves too.
The Arab countries Iran is attacking are all part of the Israel/US effort to oppress Iran. And USA has bases there and is attacking from those countries.
USA also has intelligence offices in those countries, that Iran have hit, and was acused of hitting a civilian target because it was a hotel. When in reality US intelligence was hiding behind civilians.
The Arab countries are also a key part of the Petrodollar, that is a HUGE factor in why USA is waging war against Iran in an attempt to control the area.Actually this war could change the political picture in the world as we know it, if Iran succeeds with their strategy, and the petrodollar collapses. So Iran was in fact at war with all those countries by proxy when USA attacked.
It would be more out of character for Starmer to keep his word.
All the little pedos gotta stick to the script
Yes they lie to pit working class British against working class Americans.
What a surprise… No one could have seen this coming.
I feel like we’re slowly discovering that the UK is still in fact run by Tony Blair.
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.
Didn’t he literally say he’d allow their use for “defensive” strikes? He’s never really been hiding it.
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.
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
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.The idea that preemptive strikes are defensive is Roman.
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.
IMO defensive would involve them not leaving the USA.
Yes, that’s a good way to define it.
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.
That’s still going too far IMO. USA had the option to stay out, we should not aid them in their illegal wars.
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.
Every strike is a defensive strike
No it’s not.
It is in kid starvers twisted mind
The best defense is a good offense…
Wasn’t that also when he was admitting that the UK was helping do the preemptive strikes?
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?
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.
Nnnnope. They are RAF bases, with a nominal RAF CO. The USAF are tenants.
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.
Thank you for the correction! That makes what they’re doing against the SOF rules/law, then?
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.
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.
Starmer the flim flam man. He stands for nothing and will go with anything, he has no morals.
Probably in the Epstein files. (The UK leaders).
Operation: grab em by the pussy is a go!
🫲🍊🫱
So UK bases are just a valid military targets now lol
Enter an “always has been gif”… I mean, who in his right mind would think that military installations would NOT be valid targets?
Iran considers UK military bases to be valid targets anyway.
I would assume anything the epstein empire (america/israel) have bombed are now legitimate targets in any country that loads bombs onto their planes. This would suggest junior schools, hospitals, shopping malls all have targets on them and there’s nothing you can do about it. americans voted for WWIII. congrats.
If you’re Iranian. So are all your neighbors, including hotels, and any ship in nearby waters.
Soooo WWIII it is then?
Fun fact, that’s a 1980s era bomber being loaded and is still flying just fine. We haven’t even started with the robot dogs yet so the WW is gonna get waaay worse before…whatever is next
So they’re just loading the bombers right by the fence where journalists can see? Probably an order from Trump to stir up things up because the UK said they couldn’t launch attacks from the UK.
Fascists helping fascists. The new Axis of evil.
