4 ms·

Iran has the right to defend itself.

by specproc 7mo ago

echoangle 7mo ago
From who? Did the UK attack Iran?
- alphager 7mo ago
  The UK supports the attacks by giving logistical support to the US through the use of UK airbases.
  - breppp 7mo ago
    It seems this was not the case, but this has all changed now for sure https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj98egkl7l1o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj98egkl7l1o https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/20/what-are-chagos-islands-uk-mauritius-explainer https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/20/what-are-chago...
    - andrewflnr 7mo ago
      Those articles are both out of date.
      - breppp 7mo ago
        Yes, they both show the UK had an interest in not participating or reducing their participation. This is probably military strategy 101 not to push your enemies together when they are having a rift
- derelicta 7mo ago
  Well, actually yes they did contribute to the attack on the Republic. See[1]. [1] : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20l1v0ldqzo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20l1v0ldqzo
  - breppp 7mo ago
    Your link actually says they were contributing to the defense not the attack > The US-Israeli strikes were launched after negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear programme ended without a deal. The UK did not participate.
    - derelicta 7mo ago
      Yes that is true. The UK contributes to the defense operations of the imperial aggressors against the Republic.
      - breppp 7mo ago
        What's your view on the Republic's imperial aggression against Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen?
        derelicta 7mo ago
        Which Republic are we talking about? The Islamic Republic or the western "republics"?
        breppp 7mo ago
        I am talking about the Islamic Republic setting up local mercenary forces in order to extract resources from the local government in Iraq and Lebanon. That's called Imperialism and was common among european powers in the 19th century
        derelicta 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        breppp 7mo ago
        Citizen armies? You haven't talked to a Lebanese lately haven't you?
- ekjhgkejhgk 7mo ago
  Yes, they did.
- specproc 7mo ago
  From a coalition of which the UK is a part. Hideous double-speak in this article. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/01/uk-to-allow-us-to-use-british-bases-for-defensive-strikes-against-iran https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/01/uk-to-allow... We're already seen those "defensive strikes" wipe out a school. This is an unprovoked, reckless, criminal attack, the perpetrators of which should be sent to the Hague.
bluegatty 7mo ago
This is North Korean logic. Who is Iran? The tiny minority of people with guns to everyone's heads? The entity acting right now is a small ruling clique presenting themselves as 'Iran'. A regime loses legitimacy to act when they don't have internal legitimacy - or does not act with legitimacy either. Iran is supporting massive conflicts in Yemen, and is building non-defensive weapons capabilities. That does not make US or Israel automatically 'the good guys' as they have their own lack of legitimacy problems. US president started a war without Congressional approval, against wishes of allies. Unclear objectives, zero popular support. Israel illegally colonizes West Bank, kills civilians etc. It's all shades of grey, but there are lighter and darker shades. And to make more complicated, lighter and darker given context as well.
- Covenant0028 7mo ago
  > The tiny minority of people with guns to everyone's heads? Yes, I am sure the patients in this hospital were holding guns to Trump's head. https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/3/2/baby-and-patients-evacuated-as-israel-attacks-tehran-hospital https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/3/2/baby-and-p... And while we're speaking of people that hold guns to everyone's heads, there is one country that is waging war all over the world. It's govt also executed people in broad daylight for the crimes of taking their kid to school and helping a person beaten up by the administration's goons. Would you entertain the idea of similar airstrikes against the head of that country? > Iran is supporting massive conflicts in Yemen, and is building non-defensive weapons capabilities. You know who else is supporting that massive conflict in Yemen? The United States of America. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/06/04/yemen-us-strikes-on-port-an-apparent-war-crime https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/06/04/yemen-us-strikes-on-port... > It's all shades of grey, but there are lighter and darker shades. I'm guessing they correlate 100% with the shade of the skin of the people involved.
  - bluegatty 7mo ago
    None of THIS rhetoric even responded to the quotes you highlighted. You'll have to do better than calling people racist for no apparent reason. If there is one tiny, little barely a sliver of a silver-lining out of all of this Trump insanity, is that we don't hear a lot of people getting called racist for being disagreeable anymore, there are real issues to deal with.

Iran has the right to defend itself.

echoangle 7mo ago

From who? Did the UK attack Iran?

alphager 7mo ago
The UK supports the attacks by giving logistical support to the US through the use of UK airbases.
- breppp 7mo ago
  It seems this was not the case, but this has all changed now for sure https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj98egkl7l1o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj98egkl7l1o https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/20/what-are-chagos-islands-uk-mauritius-explainer https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/20/what-are-chago...
  - andrewflnr 7mo ago
    Those articles are both out of date.
    - breppp 7mo ago
      Yes, they both show the UK had an interest in not participating or reducing their participation. This is probably military strategy 101 not to push your enemies together when they are having a rift
derelicta 7mo ago
Well, actually yes they did contribute to the attack on the Republic. See[1]. [1] : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20l1v0ldqzo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20l1v0ldqzo
- breppp 7mo ago
  Your link actually says they were contributing to the defense not the attack > The US-Israeli strikes were launched after negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear programme ended without a deal. The UK did not participate.
  - derelicta 7mo ago
    Yes that is true. The UK contributes to the defense operations of the imperial aggressors against the Republic.
    - breppp 7mo ago
      What's your view on the Republic's imperial aggression against Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen?
      - derelicta 7mo ago
        Which Republic are we talking about? The Islamic Republic or the western "republics"?
        breppp 7mo ago
        I am talking about the Islamic Republic setting up local mercenary forces in order to extract resources from the local government in Iraq and Lebanon. That's called Imperialism and was common among european powers in the 19th century
        derelicta 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        breppp 7mo ago
        Citizen armies? You haven't talked to a Lebanese lately haven't you?
ekjhgkejhgk 7mo ago
Yes, they did.
specproc 7mo ago
From a coalition of which the UK is a part. Hideous double-speak in this article. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/01/uk-to-allow-us-to-use-british-bases-for-defensive-strikes-against-iran https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/01/uk-to-allow... We're already seen those "defensive strikes" wipe out a school. This is an unprovoked, reckless, criminal attack, the perpetrators of which should be sent to the Hague.

bluegatty 7mo ago

This is North Korean logic. Who is Iran? The tiny minority of people with guns to everyone's heads? The entity acting right now is a small ruling clique presenting themselves as 'Iran'. A regime loses legitimacy to act when they don't have internal legitimacy - or does not act with legitimacy either. Iran is supporting massive conflicts in Yemen, and is building non-defensive weapons capabilities. That does not make US or Israel automatically 'the good guys' as they have their own lack of legitimacy problems. US president started a war without Congressional approval, against wishes of allies. Unclear objectives, zero popular support. Israel illegally colonizes West Bank, kills civilians etc. It's all shades of grey, but there are lighter and darker shades. And to make more complicated, lighter and darker given context as well.

Covenant0028 7mo ago
> The tiny minority of people with guns to everyone's heads? Yes, I am sure the patients in this hospital were holding guns to Trump's head. https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/3/2/baby-and-patients-evacuated-as-israel-attacks-tehran-hospital https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/3/2/baby-and-p... And while we're speaking of people that hold guns to everyone's heads, there is one country that is waging war all over the world. It's govt also executed people in broad daylight for the crimes of taking their kid to school and helping a person beaten up by the administration's goons. Would you entertain the idea of similar airstrikes against the head of that country? > Iran is supporting massive conflicts in Yemen, and is building non-defensive weapons capabilities. You know who else is supporting that massive conflict in Yemen? The United States of America. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/06/04/yemen-us-strikes-on-port-an-apparent-war-crime https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/06/04/yemen-us-strikes-on-port... > It's all shades of grey, but there are lighter and darker shades. I'm guessing they correlate 100% with the shade of the skin of the people involved.
- bluegatty 7mo ago
  None of THIS rhetoric even responded to the quotes you highlighted. You'll have to do better than calling people racist for no apparent reason. If there is one tiny, little barely a sliver of a silver-lining out of all of this Trump insanity, is that we don't hear a lot of people getting called racist for being disagreeable anymore, there are real issues to deal with.