Do Britons think the UK government should praise or condemn the US for the Iran attacks?
Should condemn: 21% Should praise: 12% Should neither condemn nor praise: 45%
The UK prefers to sit on the fence.
45% of all UK voters and 47% of Labour voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks on Iran, so Starmer by sitting on the fence is actually close to what a plurality of UK voters and voters of his own party want.
44% of Green voters, again a plurality, think the strikes should be condemned, so Polanski also in line for his voters.
39% of Reform voters think the UK should praise the US strikes, tied for a plurality with neither condemn nor praise, so Farage also about right in terms of what his voters want.
Davey a bit out of line though, he has opposed the US attacks but 44%, a plurality of his voters, neither condemn nor praise them and 30% condemn them.
Most out of line with her voters though is Kemi surprisingly, 60% of Conservative voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks ie SKS's position, Kemi's praising the US attacks is backed by only 20% of Tory voters, even if only 8% of Tories condemn the US attacks Kemi might want to tone down the hawklike bomb the regime to bits line
I know I'm wasting my time with many, but anyway, a couple of comments:
1. Starmer hasn't 'changed his mind' or 'done a U-turn'. All he's done is respond, in my view quite wisely, to the changing situation. He was opposed to the initial Israel/US strike, and has been consistent on this. But he's got to deal with the fall out.
2. I find it utterly depressing how many on here, and elsewhere, are so scathing about 'international law' (or any other law, at times), and take pride in its breach. Laws, of all sorts, agreed by consensus between nations (and within nations), have been essential in securing a relatively peaceful world since 1945. That such laws are being called into question in the West by those who assert that they are less important than the power of brute force is not something to be proud of. It's something to be ashamed of, and is a setback to the progress that humanity had been making in respect of international relations. opening the door to tyrants and despots.
Do Britons think the UK government should praise or condemn the US for the Iran attacks?
Should condemn: 21% Should praise: 12% Should neither condemn nor praise: 45%
The UK prefers to sit on the fence.
45% of all UK voters and 47% of Labour voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks on Iran, so Starmer by sitting on the fence is actually close to what a plurality of UK voters and voters of his own party want.
44% of Green voters, again a plurality, think the strikes should be condemned, so Polanski also in line for his voters.
39% of Reform voters think the UK should praise the US strikes, tied for a plurality with neither condemn nor praise, so Farage also about right in terms of what his voters want.
Davey a bit out of line though, he has opposed the US attacks but 44%, a plurality of his voters, neither condemn nor praise them and 30% condemn them.
Most out of line with her voters though is Kemi surprisingly, 60% of Conservative voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks ie SKS's position, Kemi's praising the US attacks is backed by only 20% of Tory voters, even if only 8% of Tories condemn the US attacks Kemi might want to tone down the hawklike bomb the regime to bits line
She said we should have supported the US in the same way and crucially the same time as Canada
Apart from that, now Starmer has agreed the use of British bases there is not much difference in their position
Yes so she praised the US attacks, Starmer has only backed allowing US attacks on Iranian missile launch sites. Kemi wants to allow US jets to use UK airfields to fly from to bomb all regime buildings and bases in Iran
Do Britons think the UK government should praise or condemn the US for the Iran attacks?
Should condemn: 21% Should praise: 12% Should neither condemn nor praise: 45%
The UK prefers to sit on the fence.
45% of all UK voters and 47% of Labour voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks on Iran, so Starmer by sitting on the fence is actually close to what a plurality of UK voters and voters of his own party want.
44% of Green voters, again a plurality, think the strikes should be condemned, so Polanski also in line for his voters.
39% of Reform voters think the UK should praise the US strikes, tied for a plurality with neither condemn nor praise, so Farage also about right in terms of what his voters want.
Davey a bit out of line though, he has opposed the US attacks but 44%, a plurality of his voters, neither condemn nor praise them and 30% condemn them.
Most out of line with her voters though is Kemi surprisingly, 60% of Conservative voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks ie SKS's position, Kemi's praising the US attacks is backed by only 20% of Tory voters, even if only 8% of Tories condemn the US attacks Kemi might want to tone down the hawklike bomb the regime to bits line
We want the Iranian regime gone, but don't want to give Trump any credit for it - that probably best sums up the nations's mood.
And most people prefer there to be no war as opposed to there being a war in the abstract. Combine that with Rome prefers to pay the mercenaries by the end of its empire.
And opinion changes when the barbarians are at the gates.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
What a load of crap. If it wasn't for that attitude of exceptionalism we wouldn't have had an ethno apartheid state and we wouldn't have 80,000 dead in Gaza, 25,000 of them children. And yes I'm Jewish too but. before that I'm a human being
I don’t blame most Jews for thinking differently. Gandhi might have thought they would have won a great moral victory by submitting willingly to execution, but Gandhi was full of shit.
But they almost all did submit willingly, hence the collective psychological shame (misplaced imo) in their descendants and resultant massive over compensation in getting their hit in first.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
It would have also made zero, and I mean exactly zero, difference to any military outcome.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
For one thing it would have avoided Trump's explosion over the Chagos deal which would presumably have been in Starmer's interests and it would have avoided negative headlines in the US about the UK refusing to give permission.
I don't understand why we don't just sell the islands to the US. Get $30-40bn and then it all stops being our problem.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
What a load of crap. If it wasn't for that attitude of exceptionalism we wouldn't have had an ethno apartheid state and we wouldn't have 80,000 dead in Gaza, 25,000 of them children. And yes I'm Jewish too but. before that I'm a human being
An absolutely ridiculous statement. Do you really believe that after the terror of the holocaust and a 1000+ years of persecutions by Christians and Muslims that allowing there to be a Jewish majority state was such a terrible idea? A state the size of Wales in a region the size of western Europe. How awful. Of course people were displaced at the time. But then how many Jews have been displaced from other parts of the middle east? Has there ever been much soul searching in the Arab world about that?
We all saw what happened on 7 October, a day which as Simon Schama pointed out reminded us why Israel was needed in the first place. Iran has been committed to Israel's destruction for decades. Qatar has bankrolled the genocidal lunatics of Hamas. Different types of Israeli governments have come and gone, some more forthright than others. Yet one thing never changes. The lack of a serious partner for peace. The Soviet Union didn't want it and helped Arafat die a billionaire. The mullahs have played the long game of surrounding Israel with terror and a death by a thousand cuts strategy. Perhaps it's backfired on them. I certainly have no sympathy.
You claim to be first and foremost a human being. I'm sure you are. Yet one who seems completely incapable of attaching any moral or practical agency to non-westerners. People in Gaza are dead but they wouldn't be if it wasn't for 7 October. If people across the region had learned to live with an Israeli state there wouldn't be much of a problem. But too many people can't largely because they are blinded by ancient theological hatred and bigotry.
There is really nothing shocking about being a zionist. It's effectively the world we are in. Jew or non-jew we should start to claim it as an identity.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
What a load of crap. If it wasn't for that attitude of exceptionalism we wouldn't have had an ethno apartheid state and we wouldn't have 80,000 dead in Gaza, 25,000 of them children. And yes I'm Jewish too but. before that I'm a human being
I don’t blame most Jews for thinking differently. Gandhi might have thought they would have won a great moral victory by submitting willingly to execution, but Gandhi was full of shit.
But they almost all did submit willingly, hence the collective psychological shame (misplaced imo) in their descendants and resultant massive over compensation in getting their hit in first.
Do Britons think the UK government should praise or condemn the US for the Iran attacks?
Should condemn: 21% Should praise: 12% Should neither condemn nor praise: 45%
The UK prefers to sit on the fence.
45% of all UK voters and 47% of Labour voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks on Iran, so Starmer by sitting on the fence is actually close to what a plurality of UK voters and voters of his own party want.
44% of Green voters, again a plurality, think the strikes should be condemned, so Polanski also in line for his voters.
39% of Reform voters think the UK should praise the US strikes, tied for a plurality with neither condemn nor praise, so Farage also about right in terms of what his voters want.
Davey a bit out of line though, he has opposed the US attacks but 44%, a plurality of his voters, neither condemn nor praise them and 30% condemn them.
Most out of line with her voters though is Kemi surprisingly, 60% of Conservative voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks ie SKS's position, Kemi's praising the US attacks is backed by only 20% of Tory voters, even if only 8% of Tories condemn the US attacks Kemi might want to tone down the hawklike bomb the regime to bits line
She said we should have supported the US in the same way and crucially the same time as Canada
Apart from that, now Starmer has agreed the use of British bases there is not much difference in their position
Yes so she praised the US attacks, Starmer has only backed allowing US attacks on Iranian missile launch sites. Kemi wants to allow US jets to bomb all regime buildings and bases in Iran
You are making things up
I listened to her response which centered on comparing Canada's immediate support for the US and the lack of ours
She did not say ' bomb the regime to bits' nor defined the scope of the US action
Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
I’m not so sure
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
The Epstein thing was getting very close to him in the last few days. This is a massive distraction. Job done.
If Epstein really is being hidden by Netanyahu as some suggest we'll wait for a rogue American bunker bomb to wipe out Tel Aviv
Your hatred of Jewish people is obnoxious as demonstrated by wanting Tel Aviv wiped out
I have been there and enjoyed their hospitality with lots of ordinary people getting on with their lives
I have Jewish blood
I despise Zionism
It is a stain on Judaism in the same way Fascism was A stain on German blood
Cleverly like Kemi backs the US strikes but also qualifies it by saying there are legitimate reasons to oppose the strikes while still opposing Starmer's fence sitting.
'John Healey was humiliated on the media this morning because the PM can’t make a decision.
There are legitimate arguments to support the military action against Iran, and legitimate arguments to oppose it (which I don’t agree with).
It’s not legitimate to have no position.
The job of the Prime Minister is mainly about making difficult decisions, effectively communicating those decisions, and ensuring the decisions get implemented.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
What a load of crap. If it wasn't for that attitude of exceptionalism we wouldn't have had an ethno apartheid state and we wouldn't have 80,000 dead in Gaza, 25,000 of them children. And yes I'm Jewish too but. before that I'm a human being
I don’t blame most Jews for thinking differently. Gandhi might have thought they would have won a great moral victory by submitting willingly to execution, but Gandhi was full of shit.
But they almost all did submit willingly, hence the collective psychological shame (misplaced imo) in their descendants and resultant massive over compensation in getting their hit in first.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
It would have also made zero, and I mean exactly zero, difference to any military outcome.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
For one thing it would have avoided Trump's explosion over the Chagos deal which would presumably have been in Starmer's interests and it would have avoided negative headlines in the US about the UK refusing to give permission.
I don't understand why we don't just sell the islands to the US. Get $30-40bn and then it all stops being our problem.
Why the fuck would the US give us $40bn to get what they already have? Are they stupid?
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
It would have also made zero, and I mean exactly zero, difference to any military outcome.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
For one thing it would have avoided Trump's explosion over the Chagos deal which would presumably have been in Starmer's interests and it would have avoided negative headlines in the US about the UK refusing to give permission.
I don't understand why we don't just sell the islands to the US. Get $30-40bn and then it all stops being our problem.
Why the fuck would the US give us $40bn to get what they already have? Are they stupid?
Their president put tariffs on a bunch of penguins because he got muddled between tariffs and balance of payments deficits.
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.
I know he said that but I haven't seen any Iranian naval ships destroyed featuring on the media
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
It would have also made zero, and I mean exactly zero, difference to any military outcome.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
For one thing it would have avoided Trump's explosion over the Chagos deal which would presumably have been in Starmer's interests and it would have avoided negative headlines in the US about the UK refusing to give permission.
I don't understand why we don't just sell the islands to the US. Get $30-40bn and then it all stops being our problem.
Why the fuck would the US give us $40bn to get what they already have? Are they stupid?
They'd get unilateral permission to use the base and yes, I think they can be convinced of the value of it.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
May I just draw attention to an oddity. You say that the leadership in Israel 'puts a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.'
But oddly the regime in Tehran (and a few others) seems not to put 'a target on the back of every Muslim, every Mosque on the planet.' Puzzling.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
It would have also made zero, and I mean exactly zero, difference to any military outcome.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
For one thing it would have avoided Trump's explosion over the Chagos deal which would presumably have been in Starmer's interests and it would have avoided negative headlines in the US about the UK refusing to give permission.
I don't understand why we don't just sell the islands to the US. Get $30-40bn and then it all stops being our problem.
Why the fuck would the US give us $40bn to get what they already have? Are they stupid?
Their president put tariffs on a bunch of penguins because he got muddled between tariffs and balance of payments deficits.
Your point being?
At least he hasn't bombed the shit out of the penguins, yet. They might be close to a nuke.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
It would have also made zero, and I mean exactly zero, difference to any military outcome.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
For one thing it would have avoided Trump's explosion over the Chagos deal which would presumably have been in Starmer's interests and it would have avoided negative headlines in the US about the UK refusing to give permission.
I don't understand why we don't just sell the islands to the US. Get $30-40bn and then it all stops being our problem.
Why the fuck would the US give us $40bn to get what they already have? Are they stupid?
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
WRT international law and war, there needs to be concern for mission creep. International law, agreements, conventions etc outlaw a number of diabolical wickednesses from poisoning the water to torture to the use of anthrax and plagues.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
It is a matter of life and death. That is not an overreaction.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
As my wife told me after October 7th, the ghost of the Holocaust haunts all Jewish people. Many, maybe even most, have seen the hatred in people's eyes and more than ever Israel is seen as the only place that Jewish people will ever be properly safe.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
Well then the question is how much should a perception be indulged? In your line of work what allowances are made for people who were abused becoming abusers themselves?
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
May I just draw attention to an oddity. You say that the leadership in Israel 'puts a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.'
But oddly the regime in Tehran (and a few others) seems not to put 'a target on the back of every Muslim, every Mosque on the planet.' Puzzling.
The Rohingya genocide (ongoing) hasn't put 'a target on the back of every Buddhist, every Buddhist Temple on the planet.'
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
As my wife told me after October 7th, the ghost of the Holocaust haunts all Jewish people. Many, maybe even most, have seen the hatred in people's eyes and more than ever Israel is seen as the only place that Jewish people will ever be properly safe.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Jewish people have become less safe, and part of that is because of the actions of the Israeli government since October 7th.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
What a load of crap. If it wasn't for that attitude of exceptionalism we wouldn't have had an ethno apartheid state and we wouldn't have 80,000 dead in Gaza, 25,000 of them children. And yes I'm Jewish too but. before that I'm a human being
I don’t blame most Jews for thinking differently. Gandhi might have thought they would have won a great moral victory by submitting willingly to execution, but Gandhi was full of shit.
But they almost all did submit willingly, hence the collective psychological shame (misplaced imo) in their descendants and resultant massive over compensation in getting their hit in first.
There was quite a bit of resistance. Submission mostly not willing, but rather at the point of a gun, or at least in the hope that the worst could be avoided.
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
Well then the question is how much should a perception be indulged? In your line of work what allowances are made for people who were abused becoming abusers themselves?
It can count in mitigation but not in guilt. Israel have been guilty of genocide and other war crimes in Gaza and what happened on October 7th, horrific as it was, is not an excuse. The evidence that there was any proper basis for this attack on Iran is thin to non existent. It makes the dodgy dossier look like a compelling fact based document. But Israel is not behaving rationally right now (and blaming Netanyahu is frankly a cop out). Trump never behaves rationally so he is at least being consistent.
Good to see that Trump has confirmed that he has no more idea what the real aims of Operation Epic Fury are than the rest of us.
It's Churchillian leadership.
"You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be."
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
Well then the question is how much should a perception be indulged? In your line of work what allowances are made for people who were abused becoming abusers themselves?
It can count in mitigation but not in guilt. Israel have been guilty of genocide and other war crimes in Gaza and what happened on October 7th, horrific as it was, is not an excuse. The evidence that there was any proper basis for this attack on Iran is thin to non existent. It makes the dodgy dossier look like a compelling fact based document. But Israel is not behaving rationally right now (and blaming Netanyahu is frankly a cop out). Trump never behaves rationally so he is at least being consistent.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
As my wife told me after October 7th, the ghost of the Holocaust haunts all Jewish people. Many, maybe even most, have seen the hatred in people's eyes and more than ever Israel is seen as the only place that Jewish people will ever be properly safe.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Jewish people have become less safe, and part of that is because of the actions of the Israeli government since October 7th.
What have the Palestinians gained from October 7th?
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.
Ships sailing freely through Hormuz now no Iranian navy?
Anyway, good to hear mission is accomplished. It will be as accomplished as last time.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
As my wife told me after October 7th, the ghost of the Holocaust haunts all Jewish people. Many, maybe even most, have seen the hatred in people's eyes and more than ever Israel is seen as the only place that Jewish people will ever be properly safe.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Jewish people have become less safe, and part of that is because of the actions of the Israeli government since October 7th.
That may be true. But two things I would point out:
Firstly the massive pro Gaza demonstrations, including in the UK, happened immediately after 7 October, not once Israel had launched a major offensive. Secondly if there are targeted attacks against muslim citizens, almost no-one in the mainstream sphere would indulge the idea that muslims have brought it upon themselves.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
As my wife told me after October 7th, the ghost of the Holocaust haunts all Jewish people. Many, maybe even most, have seen the hatred in people's eyes and more than ever Israel is seen as the only place that Jewish people will ever be properly safe.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Jewish people have become less safe, and part of that is because of the actions of the Israeli government since October 7th.
Maybe, yet Israel is still secure and one of Israel's regional enemies is on its knees. The Islamists in the west have also finally been noticed by ordinary people and most find themselves disgusted by them and it has resulted in a surge of parties who might do something about them. Israel has every right to defend itself and eliminate terrorists who wish to destroy them. If those terrorists use human shields then unfortunately it results in civilian casualties just as every war does.
I also find it interesting that the conflict in Sudan which has resulted many more civilian deaths got precisely three minutes of attention from the media and wider world. But I guess when the perpetrators are Islamists no one bats and eyelid and media companies are afraid of saying anything about it for fear of being beheaded.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
An element in this has been the perpetual war (mostly performative these days) from their neighbours, combined with the disgusting behaviour of just about every other regime in the Middle East towards minorities.
The Netanyahu line is "Right, let's do what the neighbours do. Why should we play politely?" - an immoral and wrong line to take. But a seductive one. Think of "Big boys rules", "Taking the gloves off".
I'm trying to remember the book - a character in it meets a Soviet General (Pertain?) - who was a cultured, decent man previously. In Afghanistan, he has devolved into a Kurtzian figure, personally using thermobaric weapons on civilians, to create terror. There is a scene where he describes his fall, how easy it was to take a step. Then the next.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
It would have also made zero, and I mean exactly zero, difference to any military outcome.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
For one thing it would have avoided Trump's explosion over the Chagos deal which would presumably have been in Starmer's interests and it would have avoided negative headlines in the US about the UK refusing to give permission.
I don't understand why we don't just sell the islands to the US. Get $30-40bn and then it all stops being our problem.
Why the fuck would the US give us $40bn to get what they already have? Are they stupid?
Their president put tariffs on a bunch of penguins because he got muddled between tariffs and balance of payments deficits.
Your point being?
Anyone who has watched the Madagascar documentaries knows penguins are not to be underestimated.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
It is a matter of life and death. That is not an overreaction.
Time to eliminate the evil at source.
You seem very keen on the notion of eradication of bad guys with no thought for mass collateral casualties.
Now Donald Trump has today confirmed that Starmer is a very bad man. Should Donald Trump determine that retribution for Starmer's evil is required, how do you feel about being collateral damage?
Starmer is the bad guy, I've done nothing wrong, why should I be collateral damage for the guilt of a politician?
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
It would have also made zero, and I mean exactly zero, difference to any military outcome.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
For one thing it would have avoided Trump's explosion over the Chagos deal which would presumably have been in Starmer's interests and it would have avoided negative headlines in the US about the UK refusing to give permission.
I don't understand why we don't just sell the islands to the US. Get $30-40bn and then it all stops being our problem.
Why the fuck would the US give us $40bn to get what they already have? Are they stupid?
Their president put tariffs on a bunch of penguins because he got muddled between tariffs and balance of payments deficits.
Your point being?
Anyone who has watched the Madagascar documentaries knows penguins are not to be underestimated.
Chilly Willy is the best ever documentary on penguins.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
It is a matter of life and death. That is not an overreaction.
Time to eliminate the evil at source.
You seem very keen on the notion of eradication of bad guys with no thought for mass collateral casualties.
Now Donald Trump has today confirmed that Starmer is a very bad man. Should Donald Trump determine that retribution for Starmer's evil is required, how do you feel about being collateral damage?
Starmer is the bad guy, I've done nothing wrong, why should I be collateral damage for the guilt of a politician?
Starmer has done nothing right.. that's the big problem.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
As my wife told me after October 7th, the ghost of the Holocaust haunts all Jewish people. Many, maybe even most, have seen the hatred in people's eyes and more than ever Israel is seen as the only place that Jewish people will ever be properly safe.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Jewish people have become less safe, and part of that is because of the actions of the Israeli government since October 7th.
That may be true. But two things I would point out:
Firstly the massive pro Gaza demonstrations, including in the UK, happened immediately after 7 October, not once Israel had launched a major offensive. Secondly if there are targeted attacks against muslim citizens, almost no-one in the mainstream sphere would indulge the idea that muslims have brought it upon themselves.
The immediate demonstrations were celebrations of the 7/10 attacks. They were seen as a matter for rejoicing.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
It is a matter of life and death. That is not an overreaction.
Time to eliminate the evil at source.
You seem very keen on the notion of eradication of bad guys with no thought for mass collateral casualties.
Now Donald Trump has today confirmed that Starmer is a very bad man. Should Donald Trump determine that retribution for Starmer's evil is required, how do you feel about being collateral damage?
Starmer is the bad guy, I've done nothing wrong, why should I be collateral damage for the guilt of a politician?
Starmer has done nothing right.. that's the big problem.
That wasn't my point. Barty is quite happy for civilians to die on an industrial scale because of the evil of their political masters. I am asking Barty if he is comfortable to be collateral as a result of Trump or Bibi deciding to,perhaps justifiably, decapitate the current UK Government.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
It is a matter of life and death. That is not an overreaction.
Time to eliminate the evil at source.
You seem very keen on the notion of eradication of bad guys with no thought for mass collateral casualties.
Now Donald Trump has today confirmed that Starmer is a very bad man. Should Donald Trump determine that retribution for Starmer's evil is required, how do you feel about being collateral damage?
Starmer is the bad guy, I've done nothing wrong, why should I be collateral damage for the guilt of a politician?
Starmer has done nothing right.. that's the big problem.
That wasn't my point. Barty is quite happy for civilians to die on an industrial scale because of the evil of their political masters. I am asking Barty if he is comfortable to be collateral as a result of Trump or Bibi deciding to,perhaps justifiably, decapitate the current UK Government.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
It is a matter of life and death. That is not an overreaction.
Time to eliminate the evil at source.
You seem very keen on the notion of eradication of bad guys with no thought for mass collateral casualties.
Now Donald Trump has today confirmed that Starmer is a very bad man. Should Donald Trump determine that retribution for Starmer's evil is required, how do you feel about being collateral damage?
Starmer is the bad guy, I've done nothing wrong, why should I be collateral damage for the guilt of a politician?
Starmer has done nothing right.. that's the big problem.
That wasn't my point. Barty is quite happy for civilians to die on an industrial scale because of the evil of their political masters. I am asking Barty if he is comfortable to be collateral as a result of Trump or Bibi deciding to,perhaps justifiably, decapitate the current UK Government.
No I am not.
1: It is not the same thing, having a civilised disagreement is not evil. Funding murder and terrorists and deliberately killing tens of thousands of civilians without any military objective at all is.
2: The way to prevent that is to invest in Defence, not wibble about law.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
As my wife told me after October 7th, the ghost of the Holocaust haunts all Jewish people. Many, maybe even most, have seen the hatred in people's eyes and more than ever Israel is seen as the only place that Jewish people will ever be properly safe.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Jewish people have become less safe, and part of that is because of the actions of the Israeli government since October 7th.
That may be true. But two things I would point out:
Firstly the massive pro Gaza demonstrations, including in the UK, happened immediately after 7 October, not once Israel had launched a major offensive. Secondly if there are targeted attacks against muslim citizens, almost no-one in the mainstream sphere would indulge the idea that muslims have brought it upon themselves.
I remember it differently.
I expected a reasonable response, the ruthless hunting down of the Oct 7 perpetrators would have been fantastic. My100% enthusiasm and support.
Immediately switching off the water supply was not on my list. That looked like a communal punishment. That tipped my thinking.
The ongoing ethnic cleansing and associated ecocide is not acceptable. Watching bulldozers uproot 1000 year old olive groves… is upsetting.
I may have reconstructed the timeline in my head ? The current deliberate escalation is what we feared. Our world is better than this.
I’m tempted to lay a lot of blame on the way fossil fuel interests in conjunction with Abrahamic belief systems twist justice and freedom, but that may be too paranoid ?
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.
I know he said that but I haven't seen any Iranian naval ships destroyed featuring on the media
If Trump says it has happened, it has happened. He would know.
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.
I know he said that but I haven't seen any Iranian naval ships destroyed featuring on the media
If Trump says it has happened, it has happened. He would know.
Sarwar rejects father's tribute to Iran's supreme leader
"Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar says he firmly disagrees with his father's tribute to the late supreme leader of Iran.
Mohammad Sarwar, a former Labour MP, posted a tribute to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei describing his death in a joint US and Israeli strike at the weekend, as a "martyrdom". "
SLab's freefall in the polls going to continue, at a guess.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
It is a matter of life and death. That is not an overreaction.
Time to eliminate the evil at source.
You seem very keen on the notion of eradication of bad guys with no thought for mass collateral casualties.
Now Donald Trump has today confirmed that Starmer is a very bad man. Should Donald Trump determine that retribution for Starmer's evil is required, how do you feel about being collateral damage?
Starmer is the bad guy, I've done nothing wrong, why should I be collateral damage for the guilt of a politician?
Starmer has done nothing right.. that's the big problem.
That wasn't my point. Barty is quite happy for civilians to die on an industrial scale because of the evil of their political masters. I am asking Barty if he is comfortable to be collateral as a result of Trump or Bibi deciding to,perhaps justifiably, decapitate the current UK Government.
No I am not.
1: It is not the same thing, having a civilised disagreement is not evil. Funding murder and terrorists and deliberately killing tens of thousands of civilians without any military objective at all is.
2: The way to prevent that is to invest in Defence, not wibble about law.
1. Of course it is. In Trump's mind Starmer traitorously undermined Trump's operation, and Stephen Miller wants Ewok Powell as Prime Minister. So in Trump and Miller's mind they would be entitled to remove Starmer by force. Why shouldn't you and I be collateral if children in Gaza and Tehran are justifiable casualties in Bibi's war?
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.
I know he said that but I haven't seen any Iranian naval ships destroyed featuring on the media
If Trump says it has happened, it has happened. He would know.
“In the end, the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.”
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
Where did October 7th ( which I assume you meant) flow from? Did it just pop up out of the blue?
No, it drove Israel to overreact in a way that has become frankly horrific. And it has driven the aggression against Iran as well. They have driven the US into this because for them, in their perception, this is a matter of life and death.
It is a matter of life and death. That is not an overreaction.
Time to eliminate the evil at source.
You seem very keen on the notion of eradication of bad guys with no thought for mass collateral casualties.
Now Donald Trump has today confirmed that Starmer is a very bad man. Should Donald Trump determine that retribution for Starmer's evil is required, how do you feel about being collateral damage?
Starmer is the bad guy, I've done nothing wrong, why should I be collateral damage for the guilt of a politician?
Starmer has done nothing right.. that's the big problem.
That wasn't my point. Barty is quite happy for civilians to die on an industrial scale because of the evil of their political masters. I am asking Barty if he is comfortable to be collateral as a result of Trump or Bibi deciding to,perhaps justifiably, decapitate the current UK Government.
No I am not.
1: It is not the same thing, having a civilised disagreement is not evil. Funding murder and terrorists and deliberately killing tens of thousands of civilians without any military objective at all is.
2: The way to prevent that is to invest in Defence, not wibble about law.
1. Of course it is. In Trump's mind Starmer traitorously undermined Trump's operation, and Stephen Miller wants Ewok Powell as Prime Minister. So in Trump and Miller's mind they would be entitled to remove Starmer by force. Why shouldn't you and I be collateral if children in Gaza and Tehran are justifiable casualties in Bibi's war?
A: Because you are being preposterous. B: Because we should be investing in Defence.
Only B ultimately matters. It is the only thing that deters attacks.
Sarwar rejects father's tribute to Iran's supreme leader
"Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar says he firmly disagrees with his father's tribute to the late supreme leader of Iran.
Mohammad Sarwar, a former Labour MP, posted a tribute to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei describing his death in a joint US and Israeli strike at the weekend, as a "martyrdom". "
SLab's freefall in the polls going to continue, at a guess.
In Muslim heavy seats in Scotland most likely the opposite and it might even win back a few anti war voters in Scotland they have lost to the Greens and SNP, though Sarwar had to disown the tribute from his father
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.
I know he said that but I haven't seen any Iranian naval ships destroyed featuring on the media
If Trump says it has happened, it has happened. He would know.
You can't analyse this stuff. It's the foreign policy equivalent of free jazz.
Hopefully one thing we can all agree on is whatever the rights and wrongs, actually settling on a war aim before you go to war is usually a helpful prerequisite.
Sarwar rejects father's tribute to Iran's supreme leader
"Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar says he firmly disagrees with his father's tribute to the late supreme leader of Iran.
Mohammad Sarwar, a former Labour MP, posted a tribute to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei describing his death in a joint US and Israeli strike at the weekend, as a "martyrdom". "
SLab's freefall in the polls going to continue, at a guess.
All we need to know now is Mohammad Sarwar's opinion of Starmer.
You can't analyse this stuff. It's the foreign policy equivalent of free jazz.
Hopefully one thing we can all agree on is whatever the rights and wrongs, actually settling on a war aim before you go to war is usually a helpful prerequisite.
A few aims is probably a good idea to have. A spectrum of "need to get" and "would be nice to get".
Broadcasting it to your enemies might not be wise though.
Sarwar rejects father's tribute to Iran's supreme leader
"Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar says he firmly disagrees with his father's tribute to the late supreme leader of Iran.
Mohammad Sarwar, a former Labour MP, posted a tribute to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei describing his death in a joint US and Israeli strike at the weekend, as a "martyrdom". "
SLab's freefall in the polls going to continue, at a guess.
I’m sure Anas wrestled long and hard with his conscience on this one, once he’d consulted the Sir Keir Please No One manual.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
It would have also made zero, and I mean exactly zero, difference to any military outcome.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
For one thing it would have avoided Trump's explosion over the Chagos deal which would presumably have been in Starmer's interests and it would have avoided negative headlines in the US about the UK refusing to give permission.
I don't understand why we don't just sell the islands to the US. Get $30-40bn and then it all stops being our problem.
Why the fuck would the US give us $40bn to get what they already have? Are they stupid?
Now that Sir Fuckwit has tried to sell them to someone else for minus £30-40bn, no reason.
You can't analyse this stuff. It's the foreign policy equivalent of free jazz.
Hopefully one thing we can all agree on is whatever the rights and wrongs, actually settling on a war aim before you go to war is usually a helpful prerequisite.
Indeed.
Vietnam stands as an object lesson of what happens when you don’t.
You can't analyse this stuff. It's the foreign policy equivalent of free jazz.
Hopefully one thing we can all agree on is whatever the rights and wrongs, actually settling on a war aim before you go to war is usually a helpful prerequisite.
You can't analyse this stuff. It's the foreign policy equivalent of free jazz.
Hopefully one thing we can all agree on is whatever the rights and wrongs, actually settling on a war aim before you go to war is usually a helpful prerequisite.
War aim: Get me on the front pages.
War Aim: Get the Epstein Files off the front page!
You can't analyse this stuff. It's the foreign policy equivalent of free jazz.
Hopefully one thing we can all agree on is whatever the rights and wrongs, actually settling on a war aim before you go to war is usually a helpful prerequisite.
Indeed.
Vietnam stands as an object lesson of what happens when you don’t.
Wonder how Kemi is feeling tonight?
She's tied herself to the worst shitshow bandwagon in decades.
You can't analyse this stuff. It's the foreign policy equivalent of free jazz.
Hopefully one thing we can all agree on is whatever the rights and wrongs, actually settling on a war aim before you go to war is usually a helpful prerequisite.
War aim: Get me on the front pages.
War Aim: Get the Epstein Files off the front page!
I rather suspect both are true. The Epstein files may hold stuff not to Mr Trump's advantage, but even so they are/were sucking up all the oxygen and taking the focus off Mr Trump & his present activities.
"I don't understand what the confusion is," Secretary Rubio says regarding objective behind the war in Iran. He says it's to: "eliminate the threat of Iran's short range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their Navy, particularly to naval assets."
You can't analyse this stuff. It's the foreign policy equivalent of free jazz.
Hopefully one thing we can all agree on is whatever the rights and wrongs, actually settling on a war aim before you go to war is usually a helpful prerequisite.
War aim: Get me on the front pages.
War Aim: Get the Epstein Files off the front page!
Epstein is still (allegedly) working for Israel beyond the grave.
"I don't understand what the confusion is," Secretary Rubio says regarding objective behind the war in Iran. He says it's to: "eliminate the threat of Iran's short range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their Navy, particularly to naval assets."
"Eliminate the threat" of short ranged missiles to things like Iran closing the Hormuz straight, bombing allied nations in the region and killing US soldiers by, well, allowing them to do exactly that.
"I don't understand what the confusion is," Secretary Rubio says regarding objective behind the war in Iran. He says it's to: "eliminate the threat of Iran's short range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their Navy, particularly to naval assets."
Probably the bit where they started with taking out the Supreme Ayatollah got everyone a bit confused, their bad.
"I don't understand what the confusion is," Secretary Rubio says regarding objective behind the war in Iran. He says it's to: "eliminate the threat of Iran's short range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their Navy, particularly to naval assets."
Probably the bit where they started with taking out the Supreme Ayatollah got everyone a bit confused, their bad.
Or the bit where they said regime change was the objective.
BREAKING: Credible whistleblower discloses that FBI forensic experts were ordered to stand down from processing the scene where Renee Good was killed, because Kash Patel did not want Good referenced as a “victim” in the warrant.
You can't analyse this stuff. It's the foreign policy equivalent of free jazz.
Hopefully one thing we can all agree on is whatever the rights and wrongs, actually settling on a war aim before you go to war is usually a helpful prerequisite.
War aim: Get me on the front pages.
"“War educates the senses, calls into action the will, perfects the physical constitution, brings men into such swift and close collision in critical moments that PBer measures PBer.”
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.
I know he said that but I haven't seen any Iranian naval ships destroyed featuring on the media
If Trump says it has happened, it has happened. He would know.
“In the end, the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.”
George Orwell has a lot to answer for.
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted"
There are many authors who should be sitting on the naughty step now.
@chadbourn.bsky.social Two senior Iranian Shiite religious leaders, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Nouri Hamedani and Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi, have issued fatwas calling on Muslims worldwide to take revenge for the killing of Khamenei.
Comments
She said we should have supported the US in the same way and crucially the same time as Canada
Apart from that, now Starmer has agreed the use of British bases there is not much difference in their position
1. Starmer hasn't 'changed his mind' or 'done a U-turn'. All he's done is respond, in my view quite wisely, to the changing situation. He was opposed to the initial Israel/US strike, and has been consistent on this. But he's got to deal with the fall out.
2. I find it utterly depressing how many on here, and elsewhere, are so scathing about 'international law' (or any other law, at times), and take pride in its breach. Laws, of all sorts, agreed by consensus between nations (and within nations), have been essential in securing a relatively peaceful world since 1945. That such laws are being called into question in the West by those who assert that they are less important than the power of brute force is not something to be proud of. It's something to be ashamed of, and is a setback to the progress that humanity had been making in respect of international relations. opening the door to tyrants and despots.
Combine that with Rome prefers to pay the mercenaries by the end of its empire.
And opinion changes when the barbarians are at the gates.
We all saw what happened on 7 October, a day which as Simon Schama pointed out reminded us why Israel was needed in the first place. Iran has been committed to Israel's destruction for decades. Qatar has bankrolled the genocidal lunatics of Hamas. Different types of Israeli governments have come and gone, some more forthright than others. Yet one thing never changes. The lack of a serious partner for peace. The Soviet Union didn't want it and helped Arafat die a billionaire. The mullahs have played the long game of surrounding Israel with terror and a death by a thousand cuts strategy. Perhaps it's backfired on them. I certainly have no sympathy.
You claim to be first and foremost a human being. I'm sure you are. Yet one who seems completely incapable of attaching any moral or practical agency to non-westerners. People in Gaza are dead but they wouldn't be if it wasn't for 7 October. If people across the region had learned to live with an Israeli state there wouldn't be much of a problem. But too many people can't largely because they are blinded by ancient theological hatred and bigotry.
There is really nothing shocking about being a zionist. It's effectively the world we are in. Jew or non-jew we should start to claim it as an identity.
I listened to her response which centered on comparing Canada's immediate support for the US and the lack of ours
She did not say ' bomb the regime to bits' nor defined the scope of the US action
'John Healey was humiliated on the media this morning because the PM can’t make a decision.
There are legitimate arguments to support the military action against Iran, and legitimate arguments to oppose it (which I don’t agree with).
It’s not legitimate to have no position.
The job of the Prime Minister is mainly about making difficult decisions, effectively communicating those decisions, and ensuring the decisions get implemented.
Starmer seems incapable of any of those functions.'
https://x.com/JamesCleverly/status/2028099013279433151?s=20
https://x.com/CENTCOM/status/2028553001644736808
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.
Your point being?
This year's harvest looks fantastic as well.
But oddly the regime in Tehran (and a few others) seems not to put 'a target on the back of every Muslim, every Mosque on the planet.' Puzzling.
Time to eliminate the evil at source.
"You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be."
Listen to Carney.
https://youtu.be/ypl_w3LGqyc?si=WBWzymjmFUL2TWcA
Anyway, good to hear mission is accomplished. It will be as accomplished as last time.
More troops being sent to the Gulf, while boots on the ground "can't need ruled out". All going to plan.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/03/02/additional-troops-to-deploy-to-middle-east-as-gen-caine-says-to-expect-additional-losses/
Firstly the massive pro Gaza demonstrations, including in the UK, happened immediately after 7 October, not once Israel had launched a major offensive. Secondly if there are targeted attacks against muslim citizens, almost no-one in the mainstream sphere would indulge the idea that muslims have brought it upon themselves.
I also find it interesting that the conflict in Sudan which has resulted many more civilian deaths got precisely three minutes of attention from the media and wider world. But I guess when the perpetrators are Islamists no one bats and eyelid and media companies are afraid of saying anything about it for fear of being beheaded.
The Netanyahu line is "Right, let's do what the neighbours do. Why should we play politely?" - an immoral and wrong line to take. But a seductive one. Think of "Big boys rules", "Taking the gloves off".
I'm trying to remember the book - a character in it meets a Soviet General (Pertain?) - who was a cultured, decent man previously. In Afghanistan, he has devolved into a Kurtzian figure, personally using thermobaric weapons on civilians, to create terror. There is a scene where he describes his fall, how easy it was to take a step. Then the next.
Now Donald Trump has today confirmed that Starmer is a very bad man. Should Donald Trump determine that retribution for Starmer's evil is required, how do you feel about being collateral damage?
Starmer is the bad guy, I've done nothing wrong, why should I be collateral damage for the guilt of a politician?
https://warontherocks.com/2026/02/twice-bombed-still-nuclear-the-limits-of-force-against-irans-atomic-program/
1: It is not the same thing, having a civilised disagreement is not evil. Funding murder and terrorists and deliberately killing tens of thousands of civilians without any military objective at all is.
2: The way to prevent that is to invest in Defence, not wibble about law.
I expected a reasonable response, the ruthless hunting down of the Oct 7 perpetrators would have been fantastic. My100% enthusiasm and support.
Immediately switching off the water supply was not on my list. That looked like a communal punishment. That tipped my thinking.
The ongoing ethnic cleansing and associated ecocide is not acceptable. Watching bulldozers uproot 1000 year old olive groves… is upsetting.
I may have reconstructed the timeline in my head ? The current deliberate escalation is what we feared. Our world is better than this.
I’m tempted to lay a lot of blame on the way fossil fuel interests in conjunction with Abrahamic belief systems twist justice and freedom, but that may be too paranoid ?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd03yz2dj4go
Sarwar rejects father's tribute to Iran's supreme leader
"Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar says he firmly disagrees with his father's tribute to the late supreme leader of Iran.
Mohammad Sarwar, a former Labour MP, posted a tribute to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei describing his death in a joint US and Israeli strike at the weekend, as a "martyrdom". "
SLab's freefall in the polls going to continue, at a guess.
George Orwell has a lot to answer for.
U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE RUBIO SAYS REGIME CHANGE IS NOT AN EXPLICIT OBJECTIVE OF THE MISSION
@gabrielmilland.bsky.social
You can't analyse this stuff. It's the foreign policy equivalent of free jazz.
B: Because we should be investing in Defence.
Only B ultimately matters. It is the only thing that deters attacks.
74% of Democrat voters opposed, 55% of Republican voters in favour
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/just-one-four-americans-support-us-strikes-iran-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2026-03-01/
Broadcasting it to your enemies might not be wise though.
Vietnam stands as an object lesson of what happens when you don’t.
She's tied herself to the worst shitshow bandwagon in decades.
Kaitlan Collins
@kaitlancollins
"I don't understand what the confusion is," Secretary Rubio says regarding objective behind the war in Iran. He says it's to: "eliminate the threat of Iran's short range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their Navy, particularly to naval assets."
Monday: There's a couple of boats in the Iranian navy we didn't like the look of.
BREAKING: Credible whistleblower discloses that FBI forensic experts were ordered to stand down from processing the scene where Renee Good was killed, because Kash Patel did not want Good referenced as a “victim” in the warrant.
https://bsky.app/profile/judiciarydems.senate.gov/post/3mg4546v5wc2h
There are many authors who should be sitting on the naughty step now.