99
Al Jazeera sees bombs being loaded onto US planes at UK base (www.aljazeera.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 31 points 8 months ago (1 child)

The UK always seems to be on board when it comes to killing innocent people in the Middle East.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago*

    They used to rule West Asia, until the US took the mantle, but they never stopped sticking their fingers in that pie, mostly as a junior partner to the US, and sometimes independently.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    You didn’t see nuttin, Al.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    81 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 144 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Countries whose names start with vowels can't be trusted?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Austrians right about now

    hehe

    Heck, Australians too

    And maybe the aliens ^idk^

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • [–] 98 points 8 months ago (25 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 8 months ago (21 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago (15 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (9 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (3 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
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (2 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The idea that preemptive strikes are defensive is Roman.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Every strike is a defensive strike

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • [–] 31 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Guys, I'm starting to think that the US is dropping bombs somewhere

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 79 points 8 months ago* (10 children)

    Goddam UK, didn't Starmer say he WOULDN'T allow this?
    This is participation in war crimes!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    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 🤷

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 27 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 19 points 8 months ago

    Those are "defensive" bombs!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 49 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    So UK bases are just a valid military targets now lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 17 points 8 months ago

    Those must be them defensive bombs that only fall on people who are attacking you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 14 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Soooo WWIII it is then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 10 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 13 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 14 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Imagine if all US miitary assets were targeted, globally

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Nobody could do this. 

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 5 points 8 months ago*

    Operation: grab em by the pussy is a go!

    🫲🍊🫱

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    Herr Schtarmer

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    But Britain says its not involved /s

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    Fascists helping fascists.  The new Axis of evil. 

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Another Starmer lie?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    These must be the defensive bombs they keep talking about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Is this because of AUKUS?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • 1 comment in c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk view that post
    [–] 18 points 8 months ago

    I hope we start doing this for Ukraine now then. At least defending Ukraine is a justifiable war.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •