6 ms·
1. Calling it the "defense sector" is already quite biased. Almost all of that sector's activity involves offensive activity. Or just call it the "arms industry
by einpoklum 5mo ago
1. Calling it the "defense sector" is already quite biased. Almost all of that sector's activity involves offensive activity. Or just call it the "arms industry" etc. If we were less charitable, we could well call it the "war industry".
2. Reading the article we note there's quite some overlap between arms industry links and links to Israel's fundraising and lobbying circles. I wonder whether UK media discloses those links.
- tempfile 5mo ago"war industry" is still very charitable! If you have any standards that distinguish a war from indiscriminate killing, they probably violate those standards in a large proportion of their business.
- philipallstar 5mo agoWhat informs your "probably"?
- constantius 5mo ago[flagged]
- tempfile 5mo agoWhen I said "If you have standards" I did not specify what those standards are. So I said "probably", because I have to guess you have similar standards to me. If you do, then you can drop the "probably". As the other commenter correctly guesses, you only have to open the news to find examples. Iran, Palestine, Iraq (way back when). Most "wars" are not really wars these days, they're just exercises in western aggression.
- philipallstar 5mo agoOkay - I see. I thought it was a qualifier of "in a large proportion of their business". In that case - why do you think it's "in a large proportion of their business"?
- philipallstar 5mo ago> Almost all of that sector's activity involves offensive activity. What do you mean? As in invading other countries?
- defrost 5mo agoJust on the facts, * assisting US offensive actions, * weapons sales for offensive usage (eg: The UK government admits that Saudi Arabia has used UK weapons, made by companies around the UK, in its attacks on Yemen.)
- philipallstar 5mo agoHow is that "almost all"?
- defrost 5mo agoDid I say that? Perhaps direct your Socratic Simplicio more accurately.
- philipallstar 5mo agoYou were answering this: > > Almost all of that sector's activity involves offensive activity. > What do you mean? As in invading other countries?
- defrost 5mo ago[flagged]
- shevy-java 5mo agoHe is quite correct though. By calling it "defence" industry, it is insinuated that this is always a moral right use of arms. In reality one would have to look on a case by case basis to see which use really qualifies as defence. In many cases I would not call it defence, for instance, if money is used to overthrow other governments and so forth. Or the Falklands War as an example - technically one could claim the UK had to "defence" its territory, but at the same time one has to question the use of colonies in the first place.
- flumpcakes 5mo agoThe UK doesn't have some imperialist policy of land grabs like Russia, or diplomacy through violence. In the current Iranian war the UK is only allowing it's bases to launch defensive missions, i.e. strike offensive capability or incoming missiles. So no, it is in fact the defense sector. What countries have a defense sector, if the UK doesn't?
- CrzyLngPwd 5mo agoIran. It didn't attack anyone until it was attacked. It has been defending itself.
- cryo32 5mo agoThey have been trying to kill people in the UK for years. And have been funding proxies everywhere, some of whom have attacked the UK. We're not really even involved and I find it hard to agree with this point. However it should have been dealt with earlier rather than latent bombing.
- CrzyLngPwd 5mo agoYou could easily be describing the UK, Israel, and the USA, lol. Anyway, I live in the UK, and I don't swallow the same propaganda as you.