this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
526 points (99.3% liked)

World News

54755 readers
2920 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 95 points 4 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 30 points 4 days 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.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 29 points 4 days 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 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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 11 points 3 days 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 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Trex202@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The idea that preemptive strikes are defensive is Roman.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

IMO defensive would involve them not leaving the USA.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

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

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 3 days 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 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] Trex202@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Every strike is a defensive strike

[–] DavorS@piefed.social -1 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 4 days ago

It is in kid starvers twisted mind

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago

The best defense is a good offense...

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 days ago

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

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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?

[–] parsizzle@piefed.social 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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 16 points 4 days ago

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

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days 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 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days 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 1 points 4 days 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 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] daannii@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

I feel like we're slowly discovering that the UK is still in fact run by Tony Blair.