Spain first western nation to outright reject the US and Israeli strikes.
'Spain openly rejected the strikes. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, "We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order." https://x.com/sanchezcastejon/status/2027707726738923754?s=20
China, Pakistan and Turkey also opposed to the strikes and Russia has sharply criticised the US led action but Zelensky welcomes the action saying Iran has supported Putin. Canada and Australia in favour. The UK joining France and Germany in the middle calling for a meeting of the UN SC while also saying Iran should not get a nuclear bomb. Norway has said the strikes breach international law, Lebanon that it does not want its country dragged into these operations. Saudi and the Gulf States have condemned Iranian strikes on their territory seeking US bases to hit
Most of us have no experience living under a repressive or oppressive Government.
We imagine it’s a state of perpetual fear and terror but as we know such regimes come in a number of flavours and all have their supporters whether from an ethnic or political standpoint.
In addition, you have the apolitical who simply want to work, live and provide for their families. In most oppressive regimes, there’ s enough realisation among the ruling elite to know an economy has to function even if it’s corrupt or just badly run or exploited for personal gain.
Thus, if you say nothing and keep your head down, you get paid, you can feed your family. You might have to publicly support the regime at work or at a rally but you can survive and if that’s all you know….
Anarchy means no work, no money and no food. It means no law and order so you can be attacked in the street with no consequences - for those who argue anarchy is better than repression, that’s the counter argument.
Can we stop the propaganda style posts that suggest anyone having reservations over suddenly declaring war on Iran means they support the Mullahs?
There's lots of governments that are abhorrent, and obviously Iran's are amongst them. That doesn't necessitate people to support declaring war on them or else be regime supporters.
There's clearly pros and cons of this attack. And, to be honest, without a clear idea of the intelligence and plan it's hard to say if it's a good idea or not. It could be a success or end up a disaster at this point.
Well said.
Defending our sovereign interests is right, sensible and should be applauded by all
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
It’s disgusting if you goad protesters to go out onto the streets and then do fxck all to support them.
As our self appointed resident expert on the Middle East please come back with further updates.
You’re happy to support this action but seem reluctant to go all in and support boots on the ground ! If people want regime change then that’s the best chance . You seem quite chilled that protesters might go out with the hope that the USA might support them and if they get slaughtered so be it !
I for one have said I would support sending boots into Tehran if it were to prove necessary, though hopefully it will not.
Protestors are already getting slaughtered and you are content to watch and tut and say "not my problem".
Out of interest, and it’s a fair set of questions, how old are you? How fit are you? How do you think you could mentally and physically stand up to fighting in war, how would your children feel about you having to go off and fight?
I ask because it’s very easy to call for “boots on the ground” when you think it’s not your boots but history shows us that it starts with professional soldiers and events can conspire to lead the average man on the street, maybe you, having their lives turned upside down and having to go and do the shooting and being the targets.
Now it might be that you are prepped mentally and physically. You are prepared to put your money where your mouth is and that’s fine, I have personally tried to joint the Militia/TA here and am just too old, I have no children, am fit and am a really good shot (although that is no guarantee of survival) but have you really thought about whether you are actually that keen for boots on the ground if suddenly you get drafted?
I genuinely would love to have an honest response from you but to think it’s ok because it won’t be you is a dangerous position.
43 and in reasonable health.
We have had plenty of conflicts without needing conscription and I would oppose conscription for any war overseas.
Anyone voluntarily joining the armed forces knows the risks they sign up for and I applaud their bravery.
Ridding the world of the Mullahs would make it a better place and improve our security and the security of our allies.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Iraq has turned out rather better than Afghanistan did, a new elected government replaced Saddam whereas the Taliban are back in power in the latter and even Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan
Israeli or US jets hitting targets just outside Baghdad today,
GPS not working?
Iraqi militant groups have attempted to launch drones today so its probably designed to knock that kind of thing on the head.
MAGA stood for no foreign wars. Trump's been captured by the neocons.
I doubt Trump has been reliably captured by anyone. That would imply an interest in policy and effects that is totally unlike him.
With him in charge it was always going to be "no foreign wars, except for ones I start because they suit me in some way or I feel like that day". When Bush or Obama starts a disastrous war in the Middle East, it's wrong, when Trump does so it's an heroic act of statesmanship.
It really is like having a malicious eight-year-old with ADHD in charge of the world's most powerful armed forces.
Most of us have no experience living under a repressive or oppressive Government.
We imagine it’s a state of perpetual fear and terror but as we know such regimes come in a number of flavours and all have their supporters whether from an ethnic or political standpoint.
In addition, you have the apolitical who simply want to work, live and provide for their families. In most oppressive regimes, there’ s enough realisation among the ruling elite to know an economy has to function even if it’s corrupt or just badly run or exploited for personal gain.
Thus, if you say nothing and keep your head down, you get paid, you can feed your family. You might have to publicly support the regime at work or at a rally but you can survive and if that’s all you know….
Anarchy means no work, no money and no food. It means no law and order so you can be attacked in the street with no consequences - for those who argue anarchy is better than repression, that’s the counter argument.
Yes, and anarchy is far superior.
Not ideal, better to come out of it and into liberalism.
However authoritarianism is worse. A boot stomping on a human face forever.
Starmer has condemned in the strongest possible terms Iran bombing US bases in the region.
You couldn't make it up! The sooner Starmer is booted into touch the sooner Labour can regroup. Any new leader will be an upgrade
He hasn't even openly supported the US and Israeli action but apparently you now want the UK PM to back Iran's bombing of US bases?
Come on HY. You are not as mad as some of PB's rampant war mongers like, er Barty, and you are smart enough to put the partisanship in your back pocket until the view becomes clearer.
This is not black and white particularly with Bibi running the show. The collateral damage both inside and outside Iran could escalate.
Notwithstanding Starmer being a useless Prime Minister I opine that so far he has not put a foot wrong today. Compare and contrast with Blair nearly a quarter of a century ago.
I think Starmer's fear of Muslim voters has probably done us something of a favour - or we would absolutely be in this up to our necks. It reminds me a bit of when Cameron refused to take any of the migrant queues - we had the forthcoming Brexit referendum to thank for that.
As I said, I'm not against the bases being used, but no contribution apart from that.
Happily, Starmer is deluded enough to think he still has a chance of winning something. If he read the room a little better, he might realise that there's really very little point in appeasing any voter groups at this point.
Like a stopped clock, that is one of your two correct assertions for the day. Well done!
If only Tony Blair had demonstrated a similar lack of self-awareness.
MAGA stood for no foreign wars. Trump's been captured by the neocons.
Trump was never an isolationist. He opposed fighting wars on behalf of abstractions rather than US interests.
He has always seemed squeamish about protracted wars - preferring a bit of shock and awe and a big explosion, then getting on with life. It is one of his better qualities. The Iran nuclear attack was very Trump. This feels like something more, and it feels like more of a Bibi agenda to get Iran as it stands off the map. What Trump is up to is a very open question.
Starmer has condemned in the strongest possible terms Iran bombing US bases in the region.
You couldn't make it up! The sooner Starmer is booted into touch the sooner Labour can regroup. Any new leader will be an upgrade
He hasn't even openly supported the US and Israeli action but apparently you now want the UK PM to back Iran's bombing of US bases?
Come on HY. You are not as mad as some of PB's rampant war mongers like, er Barty, and you are smart enough to put the partisanship in your back pocket until the view becomes clearer.
This is not black and white particularly with Bibi running the show. The collateral damage both inside and outside Iran could escalate.
Notwithstanding Starmer being a useless Prime Minister I opine that so far he has not put a foot wrong today. Compare and contrast with Blair nearly a quarter of a century ago.
I think Starmer's fear of Muslim voters has probably done us something of a favour - or we would absolutely be in this up to our necks. It reminds me a bit of when Cameron refused to take any of the migrant queues - we had the forthcoming Brexit referendum to thank for that.
As I said, I'm not against the bases being used, but no contribution apart from that.
Happily, Starmer is deluded enough to think he still has a chance of winning something. If he read the room a little better, he might realise that there's really very little point in appeasing any voter groups at this point.
What utter bullcrap.
Starmer has lost the support of Muslim voters long ago by not being tough enough on Israel.
Not for the first time he has shown that whatever his failings at home he is one of the most respected global statesmen for his calmness under pressure.
God forbid we have Badenoch or Farage right now because if we did we would have RAF planes taking off bomb laden for Iran.
I've absolutely no doubt that if the question was put to the British people do you support Starmer's defensive protection action or the bloodlust of Farage and Badenoch that 70% at least will strongly or partially support Starmer.
MAGA stood for no foreign wars. Trump's been captured by the neocons.
It is remarkable how many people have pivoted from opposing Trump's isolationism, to opposing Trump taking action.
Like Bolton, Carney, Albanese etc I dislike Trump. I opposed his isolationism.
When Trump turns his back on his own policies that I opposed, and starts doing what I support, then I am glad for that. I won't pivot to opposing him on this even though he's the one that already pivoted.
I have enough other issues to despise Trump on. Can set that aside when he is doing the right thing for once. Like Carney et al.
Starmer has condemned in the strongest possible terms Iran bombing US bases in the region.
You couldn't make it up! The sooner Starmer is booted into touch the sooner Labour can regroup. Any new leader will be an upgrade
He hasn't even openly supported the US and Israeli action but apparently you now want the UK PM to back Iran's bombing of US bases?
Come on HY. You are not as mad as some of PB's rampant war mongers like, er Barty, and you are smart enough to put the partisanship in your back pocket until the view becomes clearer.
This is not black and white particularly with Bibi running the show. The collateral damage both inside and outside Iran could escalate.
Notwithstanding Starmer being a useless Prime Minister I opine that so far he has not put a foot wrong today. Compare and contrast with Blair nearly a quarter of a century ago.
I think Starmer's fear of Muslim voters has probably done us something of a favour - or we would absolutely be in this up to our necks. It reminds me a bit of when Cameron refused to take any of the migrant queues - we had the forthcoming Brexit referendum to thank for that.
As I said, I'm not against the bases being used, but no contribution apart from that.
Happily, Starmer is deluded enough to think he still has a chance of winning something. If he read the room a little better, he might realise that there's really very little point in appeasing any voter groups at this point.
What utter bullcrap.
Starmer has lost the support of Muslim voters long ago by not being tough enough on Israel.
Not for the first time he has shown that whatever his failings at home he is one of the most respected global statesmen for his calmness under pressure.
God forbid we have Badenoch or Farage right now because if we did we would have RAF planes taking off bomb laden for Iran.
I've absolutely no doubt that if the question was put to the British people do you support Starmer's defensive protection action or the bloodlust of Farage and Badenoch that 70% at least will strongly or partially support Starmer.
I haven't seen statements from either Farage or Badenoch calling for British forces to be used in the campaign. If you have, by all means share them.
Forgetting the rights and wrongs of it all for a moment, you do just wonder if sometimes certain countries feel a pressure to fire off a load of missiles for no real reason other than to make space for new missiles in their stocks.
Spain first western nation to outright reject the US and Israeli strikes.
'Spain openly rejected the strikes. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, "We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order." https://x.com/sanchezcastejon/status/2027707726738923754?s=20
China, Pakistan and Turkey also opposed to the strikes and Russia has sharply criticised the US led action but Zelensky welcomes the action saying Iran has supported Putin. Canada and Australia in favour. The UK joining France and Germany in the middle calling for a meeting of the UN SC while also saying Iran should not get a nuclear bomb. Norway has said the strikes breach international law, Lebanon that it does not want its country dragged into these operations. Saudi and the Gulf States have condemned Iranian strikes on their territory seeking US bases to hit
Spain first western nation to outright reject the US and Israeli strikes.
'Spain openly rejected the strikes. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, "We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order." https://x.com/sanchezcastejon/status/2027707726738923754?s=20
China, Pakistan and Turkey also opposed to the strikes and Russia has sharply criticised the US led action but Zelensky welcomes the action saying Iran has supported Putin. Canada and Australia in favour. The UK joining France and Germany in the middle calling for a meeting of the UN SC while also saying Iran should not get a nuclear bomb. Norway has said the strikes breach international law, Lebanon that it does not want its country dragged into these operations. Saudi and the Gulf States have condemned Iranian strikes on their territory seeking US bases to hit
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
It’s disgusting if you goad protesters to go out onto the streets and then do fxck all to support them.
As our self appointed resident expert on the Middle East please come back with further updates.
You’re happy to support this action but seem reluctant to go all in and support boots on the ground ! If people want regime change then that’s the best chance . You seem quite chilled that protesters might go out with the hope that the USA might support them and if they get slaughtered so be it !
I for one have said I would support sending boots into Tehran if it were to prove necessary, though hopefully it will not.
Protestors are already getting slaughtered and you are content to watch and tut and say "not my problem".
Out of interest, and it’s a fair set of questions, how old are you? How fit are you? How do you think you could mentally and physically stand up to fighting in war, how would your children feel about you having to go off and fight?
I ask because it’s very easy to call for “boots on the ground” when you think it’s not your boots but history shows us that it starts with professional soldiers and events can conspire to lead the average man on the street, maybe you, having their lives turned upside down and having to go and do the shooting and being the targets.
Now it might be that you are prepped mentally and physically. You are prepared to put your money where your mouth is and that’s fine, I have personally tried to joint the Militia/TA here and am just too old, I have no children, am fit and am a really good shot (although that is no guarantee of survival) but have you really thought about whether you are actually that keen for boots on the ground if suddenly you get drafted?
I genuinely would love to have an honest response from you but to think it’s ok because it won’t be you is a dangerous position.
43 and in reasonable health.
We have had plenty of conflicts without needing conscription and I would oppose conscription for any war overseas.
Anyone voluntarily joining the armed forces knows the risks they sign up for and I applaud their bravery.
Ridding the world of the Mullahs would make it a better place and improve our security and the security of our allies.
So really you are calculating your position on there being no real risk to yourself, just professional soldiers.
What happens, based on your objection to conscription for wars overseas, if your desire for boots on the ground spirals into a big and wide war where we have to conscript to continue with our aims or fold and leave the mullahs or similar in control?
The thing is that there is no guarantee once it starts that it follows and “acceptable” path that would suit you. It’s sort of like people wanting higher taxes but the level is just above what they have because other people pay the price.
Most of us have no experience living under a repressive or oppressive Government.
We imagine it’s a state of perpetual fear and terror but as we know such regimes come in a number of flavours and all have their supporters whether from an ethnic or political standpoint.
In addition, you have the apolitical who simply want to work, live and provide for their families. In most oppressive regimes, there’ s enough realisation among the ruling elite to know an economy has to function even if it’s corrupt or just badly run or exploited for personal gain.
Thus, if you say nothing and keep your head down, you get paid, you can feed your family. You might have to publicly support the regime at work or at a rally but you can survive and if that’s all you know….
Anarchy means no work, no money and no food. It means no law and order so you can be attacked in the street with no consequences - for those who argue anarchy is better than repression, that’s the counter argument.
Yes, and anarchy is far superior.
Not ideal, better to come out of it and into liberalism.
However authoritarianism is worse. A boot stomping on a human face forever.
You can understand why some of those in the country living under oppression might not agree.
The certainty of work, money, food and order under a regime you are required to publicly support against no work, no food, no money and random acts of violence which go unpunished.
You’re not wrong but it’s nowhere near as simple as is sometimes made out. It’s little wonder societies who reject one form of oppression often end up with another as the certainty of what was looks more attractive than the uncertainty of what is while the promise of what could be looks unachievable.
Spain first western nation to outright reject the US and Israeli strikes.
'Spain openly rejected the strikes. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, "We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order." https://x.com/sanchezcastejon/status/2027707726738923754?s=20
China, Pakistan and Turkey also opposed to the strikes and Russia has sharply criticised the US led action but Zelensky welcomes the action saying Iran has supported Putin. Canada and Australia in favour. The UK joining France and Germany in the middle calling for a meeting of the UN SC while also saying Iran should not get a nuclear bomb. Norway has said the strikes breach international law, Lebanon that it does not want its country dragged into these operations. Saudi and the Gulf States have condemned Iranian strikes on their territory seeking US bases to hit
PB is in absolute heaven. Within the space of a few days, a thrilling by-election, a forensic discussion of the social class of the winner and, to cap it all, a war in the Middle East to let Bart post irrepressibly, all guns blazing. Whatever next?
PB is in absolute heaven. Within the space of a few days, a thrilling by-election, a forensic discussion of the social class of the winner and, to cap it all, a war in the Middle East to let Bart post irrepressibly, all guns blazing. Whatever next?
What is becoming evident is that Israeli strikes in particular have been concerned with trying to reduce the missile threat right from the get go. The initial targets have been focussed around
1. Leadership 2. C4i 3. Surface to surface missiles
Whilst other elements have been hit such as air defence related aseets, it appears the Israelis and US have not merely achieved air superiority but potentially have air supremacy after about 3-4 hours of starting. If so, Iran has not recovered that side of its business from the 12 Day War and it didnt have a lot to start with. When it comes to the surface to surface missiles, some Israeli claims are that they knocked out 2/3s of the launcher capacity in that conflict. Whilst that can be rebuilt in Iranian factories, anywhere near that strike rate is going to take more than a year to recover. No TELS, no launches.
If this turns out to be the case, the problem for Iran gets really acute. Its main long range retalitation is weak, its defences against incursion are weak and that means the enemy can pretty much bomb what it likes.
Just as contrast., Russia doesnt even have air superiority over most of Ukraine four years on. Advantage yes but they had that day 1 and should have had air superiority from Day 1 too.
PB is in absolute heaven. Within the space of a few days, a thrilling by-election, a forensic discussion of the social class of the winner and, to cap it all, a war in the Middle East to let Bart post irrepressibly, all guns blazing. Whatever next?
AV referendum?
A new train service connecting a grammar school to a cricket match. And the train will be steam powered.
PB is in absolute heaven. Within the space of a few days, a thrilling by-election, a forensic discussion of the social class of the winner and, to cap it all, a war in the Middle East to let Bart post irrepressibly, all guns blazing. Whatever next?
TSE is back from holiday soon so presumably life will quieten down again.
Seeing more reports of visible explosions and fires in Dubai. If so, Iran may be moving from cut-and-dry military targets to high-profile civilian targets it knows will exact a psychological and economic toll on the most pro-Israel Gulf state
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
It’s disgusting if you goad protesters to go out onto the streets and then do fxck all to support them.
As our self appointed resident expert on the Middle East please come back with further updates.
You’re happy to support this action but seem reluctant to go all in and support boots on the ground ! If people want regime change then that’s the best chance . You seem quite chilled that protesters might go out with the hope that the USA might support them and if they get slaughtered so be it !
I for one have said I would support sending boots into Tehran if it were to prove necessary, though hopefully it will not.
Protestors are already getting slaughtered and you are content to watch and tut and say "not my problem".
Out of interest, and it’s a fair set of questions, how old are you? How fit are you? How do you think you could mentally and physically stand up to fighting in war, how would your children feel about you having to go off and fight?
I ask because it’s very easy to call for “boots on the ground” when you think it’s not your boots but history shows us that it starts with professional soldiers and events can conspire to lead the average man on the street, maybe you, having their lives turned upside down and having to go and do the shooting and being the targets.
Now it might be that you are prepped mentally and physically. You are prepared to put your money where your mouth is and that’s fine, I have personally tried to joint the Militia/TA here and am just too old, I have no children, am fit and am a really good shot (although that is no guarantee of survival) but have you really thought about whether you are actually that keen for boots on the ground if suddenly you get drafted?
I genuinely would love to have an honest response from you but to think it’s ok because it won’t be you is a dangerous position.
43 and in reasonable health.
We have had plenty of conflicts without needing conscription and I would oppose conscription for any war overseas.
Anyone voluntarily joining the armed forces knows the risks they sign up for and I applaud their bravery.
Ridding the world of the Mullahs would make it a better place and improve our security and the security of our allies.
So really you are calculating your position on there being no real risk to yourself, just professional soldiers.
What happens, based on your objection to conscription for wars overseas, if your desire for boots on the ground spirals into a big and wide war where we have to conscript to continue with our aims or fold and leave the mullahs or similar in control?
The thing is that there is no guarantee once it starts that it follows and “acceptable” path that would suit you. It’s sort of like people wanting higher taxes but the level is just above what they have because other people pay the price.
No, I am not. I am calculating my position based on principles.
If you knew a violent gang of armed thugs were brutally killing and raping people, would you support the Police being sent in to stop that? Even if it meant risk to the Police officers concerned?
If you knew a building with a raging fire had innocents who would die if left alone, would you support Firefighters being sent in to rescue them? Even if it meant risk to the Firefighters concerned?
I oppose conscription. Nobody should be forced to take arms against their will.
I support taking action where its right.
I applaud those who voluntarily choose to serve in careers with risk, whether it be Police, Fire or Military or others. They know the risks and choose to take them and that is commendable.
MAGA stood for no foreign wars. Trump's been captured by the neocons.
Trump was never an isolationist. He opposed fighting wars on behalf of abstractions rather than US interests.
Stop sane-washing the madness!
I see Trump's foreign policy always through the prism of them seeing China as an existential threat. If something can be done to disadvantage China, it will be.
Most of us have no experience living under a repressive or oppressive Government.
We imagine it’s a state of perpetual fear and terror but as we know such regimes come in a number of flavours and all have their supporters whether from an ethnic or political standpoint.
In addition, you have the apolitical who simply want to work, live and provide for their families. In most oppressive regimes, there’ s enough realisation among the ruling elite to know an economy has to function even if it’s corrupt or just badly run or exploited for personal gain.
Thus, if you say nothing and keep your head down, you get paid, you can feed your family. You might have to publicly support the regime at work or at a rally but you can survive and if that’s all you know….
Anarchy means no work, no money and no food. It means no law and order so you can be attacked in the street with no consequences - for those who argue anarchy is better than repression, that’s the counter argument.
Yes, and anarchy is far superior.
Not ideal, better to come out of it and into liberalism.
However authoritarianism is worse. A boot stomping on a human face forever.
Generally people fear lawlessness more than authoritarianism. Countries with very weak central government, such as Haiti or Congo, tend to be worse places to live then those with authoritarian regimes. There is a limit - the current regime in Afghanistan is possibly worse than a state of anarchy - but the bar is pretty low.
What is becoming evident is that Israeli strikes in particular have been concerned with trying to reduce the missile threat right from the get go. The initial targets have been focussed around
1. Leadership 2. C4i 3. Surface to surface missiles
Whilst other elements have been hit such as air defence related aseets, it appears the Israelis and US have not merely achieved air superiority but potentially have air supremacy after about 3-4 hours of starting. If so, Iran has not recovered that side of its business from the 12 Day War and it didnt have a lot to start with. When it comes to the surface to surface missiles, some Israeli claims are that they knocked out 2/3s of the launcher capacity in that conflict. Whilst that can be rebuilt in Iranian factories, anywhere near that strike rate is going to take more than a year to recover. No TELS, no launches.
If this turns out to be the case, the problem for Iran gets really acute. Its main long range retalitation is weak, its defences against incursion are weak and that means the enemy can pretty much bomb what it likes.
Just as contrast., Russia doesnt even have air superiority over most of Ukraine four years on. Advantage yes but they had that day 1 and should have had air superiority from Day 1 too.
We must just hope it's all over very quickly and a more benign regime put in place in Iran.
FWIW the Iranian protestors in Cambridge City Centre who have been out since the uprising started 7-8 weeks ago, have placards that are pro-air strikes.
Spain first western nation to outright reject the US and Israeli strikes.
'Spain openly rejected the strikes. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, "We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order." https://x.com/sanchezcastejon/status/2027707726738923754?s=20
China, Pakistan and Turkey also opposed to the strikes and Russia has sharply criticised the US led action but Zelensky welcomes the action saying Iran has supported Putin. Canada and Australia in favour. The UK joining France and Germany in the middle calling for a meeting of the UN SC while also saying Iran should not get a nuclear bomb. Norway has said the strikes breach international law, Lebanon that it does not want its country dragged into these operations. Saudi and the Gulf States have condemned Iranian strikes on their territory seeking US bases to hit
PB is in absolute heaven. Within the space of a few days, a thrilling by-election, a forensic discussion of the social class of the winner and, to cap it all, a war in the Middle East to let Bart post irrepressibly, all guns blazing. Whatever next?
AV referendum?
A new train service connecting a grammar school to a cricket match. And the train will be steam powered.
Deltic Diesel
Our Penwarden, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy crankshaft cycle will be done; on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily startup. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us And lead us not into four stroke; but deliver us from gas turbines. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
PB is in absolute heaven. Within the space of a few days, a thrilling by-election, a forensic discussion of the social class of the winner and, to cap it all, a war in the Middle East to let Bart post irrepressibly, all guns blazing. Whatever next?
Incontrovertible proof that the Iranians are using elephants to attack over the Alps?
PB is in absolute heaven. Within the space of a few days, a thrilling by-election, a forensic discussion of the social class of the winner and, to cap it all, a war in the Middle East to let Bart post irrepressibly, all guns blazing. Whatever next?
Incontrovertible proof that the Iranians are using elephants to attack over the Alps?
Incontrovertible proof that the door on the Pantheon in Rome are the originals and that the attempted servicing of them in medieval times was a classic bodged government contract to imbeciles.
The lads at Matcal Tower are reportedly increasingly confident they have taken out some big fish in Iran. We know at least a couple of senior IRGC commanders have been killed but the rumours are, they've successfully gone somewhat up the tree. I think that might take a little time to get the full picture.
Just a note on Khamenei. He is a religious leader within the global Shia community. Worth noting.
PB is in absolute heaven. Within the space of a few days, a thrilling by-election, a forensic discussion of the social class of the winner and, to cap it all, a war in the Middle East to let Bart post irrepressibly, all guns blazing. Whatever next?
Incontrovertible proof that the Iranians are using elephants to attack over the Alps?
What is becoming evident is that Israeli strikes in particular have been concerned with trying to reduce the missile threat right from the get go. The initial targets have been focussed around
1. Leadership 2. C4i 3. Surface to surface missiles
Whilst other elements have been hit such as air defence related aseets, it appears the Israelis and US have not merely achieved air superiority but potentially have air supremacy after about 3-4 hours of starting. If so, Iran has not recovered that side of its business from the 12 Day War and it didnt have a lot to start with. When it comes to the surface to surface missiles, some Israeli claims are that they knocked out 2/3s of the launcher capacity in that conflict. Whilst that can be rebuilt in Iranian factories, anywhere near that strike rate is going to take more than a year to recover. No TELS, no launches.
If this turns out to be the case, the problem for Iran gets really acute. Its main long range retalitation is weak, its defences against incursion are weak and that means the enemy can pretty much bomb what it likes.
Just as contrast., Russia doesnt even have air superiority over most of Ukraine four years on. Advantage yes but they had that day 1 and should have had air superiority from Day 1 too.
We must just hope it's all over very quickly and a more benign regime put in place in Iran.
Can an Iranian missile take out Netanyahu and his cabinet no one else and do Israel and the world a massive favour.
PB is in absolute heaven. Within the space of a few days, a thrilling by-election, a forensic discussion of the social class of the winner and, to cap it all, a war in the Middle East to let Bart post irrepressibly, all guns blazing. Whatever next?
AV referendum?
Exile the Villa scum to Scotland I'm all up for thst
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
It’s disgusting if you goad protesters to go out onto the streets and then do fxck all to support them.
As our self appointed resident expert on the Middle East please come back with further updates.
You’re happy to support this action but seem reluctant to go all in and support boots on the ground ! If people want regime change then that’s the best chance . You seem quite chilled that protesters might go out with the hope that the USA might support them and if they get slaughtered so be it !
I for one have said I would support sending boots into Tehran if it were to prove necessary, though hopefully it will not.
Protestors are already getting slaughtered and you are content to watch and tut and say "not my problem".
Out of interest, and it’s a fair set of questions, how old are you? How fit are you? How do you think you could mentally and physically stand up to fighting in war, how would your children feel about you having to go off and fight?
I ask because it’s very easy to call for “boots on the ground” when you think it’s not your boots but history shows us that it starts with professional soldiers and events can conspire to lead the average man on the street, maybe you, having their lives turned upside down and having to go and do the shooting and being the targets.
Now it might be that you are prepped mentally and physically. You are prepared to put your money where your mouth is and that’s fine, I have personally tried to joint the Militia/TA here and am just too old, I have no children, am fit and am a really good shot (although that is no guarantee of survival) but have you really thought about whether you are actually that keen for boots on the ground if suddenly you get drafted?
I genuinely would love to have an honest response from you but to think it’s ok because it won’t be you is a dangerous position.
You are far too polite. Reading him is like opening the mind of a seven year old and finding a water melon that's gone off.
MAGA stood for no foreign wars. Trump's been captured by the neocons.
Maybe. But I think it's more likely he simply wants the buzz and attention an episode like this affords. He gets to use his big military, say menacing things in a menacing voice, looking tough as hell in his USA cap, this is not an aspect of the presidency that he is about to deny himself. Vanity is all.
Starmer has condemned in the strongest possible terms Iran bombing US bases in the region.
You couldn't make it up! The sooner Starmer is booted into touch the sooner Labour can regroup. Any new leader will be an upgrade
He hasn't even openly supported the US and Israeli action but apparently you now want the UK PM to back Iran's bombing of US bases?
Yes he has. It was reported on Al Jazeera.
No he hasn't, he has said he wanted peace and security in the Middle East, that Iran should not retaliate and give up their weapons programme but he has not said a single sentence saying he fully supported the US and Israeli strikes on Iran as Kemi and Farage have. Indeed senior Labour MPs like Emily Thornberry are already calling the US and Israeli strikes 'unlawful'
Starmer has condemned in the strongest possible terms Iran bombing US bases in the region.
You couldn't make it up! The sooner Starmer is booted into touch the sooner Labour can regroup. Any new leader will be an upgrade
He hasn't even openly supported the US and Israeli action but apparently you now want the UK PM to back Iran's bombing of US bases?
Yes he has. It was reported on Al Jazeera.
No he hasn't, he has said he wanted peace and security in the Middle East, that Iran should not retaliate and give up their weapons programme but he has not said a single sentence saying he fully supported the US and Israeli strikes on Iran as Kemi and Farage have
PB is in absolute heaven. Within the space of a few days, a thrilling by-election, a forensic discussion of the social class of the winner and, to cap it all, a war in the Middle East to let Bart post irrepressibly, all guns blazing. Whatever next?
I mentioned roundabouts once, but I think I got away with it...
Starmer has condemned in the strongest possible terms Iran bombing US bases in the region.
You couldn't make it up! The sooner Starmer is booted into touch the sooner Labour can regroup. Any new leader will be an upgrade
He hasn't even openly supported the US and Israeli action but apparently you now want the UK PM to back Iran's bombing of US bases?
Yes he has. It was reported on Al Jazeera.
No he hasn't, he has said he wanted peace and security in the Middle East, that Iran should not retaliate and give up their weapons programme but he has not said a single sentence saying he fully supported the US and Israeli strikes on Iran as Kemi and Farage have
Al Jazeera as a source !!!!!!!
Indeed, not one line where SKS says 'I fully support the US and Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian regime and have absolutely no concerns at all that this is fully in accordance with international law'
Are these brave freedom fighters being massacred by a despotic and bloodthirsty regime the same people that St Lucy wanted to burn out of their hotels? The same ones that Farage wants to deport straight back to Iran?
I am struggling to keep up with whether we are at war with Eastasia still.
MAGA stood for no foreign wars. Trump's been captured by the neocons.
Trump was never an isolationist. He opposed fighting wars on behalf of abstractions rather than US interests.
Stop sane-washing the madness!
I see Trump's foreign policy always through the prism of them seeing China as an existential threat. If something can be done to disadvantage China, it will be.
I don't think the US is promoting far-right populism in European countries to disadvantage China.
OK, who is going to be the first to "do a Robin Cook" and resign from the Cabinet on a matter of principle related to an ethical foreign policy, or lack thereof?
Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed... And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that.
MAGA stood for no foreign wars. Trump's been captured by the neocons.
Maybe. But I think it's more likely he simply wants the buzz and attention an episode like this affords. He gets to use his big military, say menacing things in a menacing voice, looking tough as hell in his USA cap, this is not an aspect of the presidency that he is about to deny himself. Vanity is all.
Bigger issues at stake, but he looks like a tourist from a cruise ship with good life support.
British planes in the sky protecting our interests
Nooooo, not the refurbished Mosquito!
We had the dingy out this morning... Noooooo too, not the flagship!
If the army deploy their ballista then we really are all in.
However after the occupation we can run bus services for our overlords in the new Ajax armoured vehicles. (Note to PM: ask Dyson about vacuuming out the Ajax corpses)
Comments
'Spain openly rejected the strikes. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, "We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order."
https://x.com/sanchezcastejon/status/2027707726738923754?s=20
China, Pakistan and Turkey also opposed to the strikes and Russia has sharply criticised the US led action but Zelensky welcomes the action saying Iran has supported Putin. Canada and Australia in favour. The UK joining France and Germany in the middle calling for a meeting of the UN SC while also saying Iran should not get a nuclear bomb. Norway has said the strikes breach international law, Lebanon that it does not want its country dragged into these operations. Saudi and the Gulf States have condemned Iranian strikes on their territory seeking US bases to hit
https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-leaders-split-over-military-action-us-israel-strike-iran-coordinated-operation
We imagine it’s a state of perpetual fear and terror but as we know such regimes come in a number of flavours and all have their supporters whether from an ethnic or political standpoint.
In addition, you have the apolitical who simply want to work, live and provide for their families. In most oppressive regimes, there’ s enough realisation among the ruling elite to know an economy has to function even if it’s corrupt or just badly run or exploited for personal gain.
Thus, if you say nothing and keep your head down, you get paid, you can feed your family. You might have to publicly support the regime at work or at a rally but you can survive and if that’s all you know….
Anarchy means no work, no money and no food. It means no law and order so you can be attacked in the street with no consequences - for those who argue anarchy is better than repression, that’s the counter argument.
Two-year mass surveillance project commissioned by Department for Transport under Tories
Millions of electric car drivers in Britain were spied on by the government through their mobile phones as part of a “bizarre nanny state” plan
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/27/electric-car-drivers-spied-on-by-government-through-phones/
As it's a slow news day.
Defending our sovereign interests is right, sensible and should be applauded by all
Let others break international law.
We have had plenty of conflicts without needing conscription and I would oppose conscription for any war overseas.
Anyone voluntarily joining the armed forces knows the risks they sign up for and I applaud their bravery.
Ridding the world of the Mullahs would make it a better place and improve our security and the security of our allies.
https://x.com/WarMonitor3/status/2027770552312533487
Video the Palm Jumeirah being attacked by an Iranian Shahed 136 drone.
With him in charge it was always going to be "no foreign wars, except for ones I start because they suit me in some way or I feel like that day". When Bush or Obama starts a disastrous war in the Middle East, it's wrong, when Trump does so it's an heroic act of statesmanship.
It really is like having a malicious eight-year-old with ADHD in charge of the world's most powerful armed forces.
Not ideal, better to come out of it and into liberalism.
However authoritarianism is worse. A boot stomping on a human face forever.
If only Tony Blair had demonstrated a similar lack of self-awareness.
Peace and diplomacy was possible. Instead, Israel and the United States chose war.
This is the behaviour of rogue states — and they have jeopardised the safety of humankind around the world with this catastrophic act of aggression.
Our government must condemn this flagrant breach of international law, and urgently pursue a foreign policy based on justice, sovereignty and peace.'
https://x.com/jeremycorbyn/status/2027673013697552881?s=20
Starmer has lost the support of Muslim voters long ago by not being tough enough on Israel.
Not for the first time he has shown that whatever his failings at home he is one of the most respected global statesmen for his calmness under pressure.
God forbid we have Badenoch or Farage right now because if we did we would have RAF planes taking off bomb laden for Iran.
I've absolutely no doubt that if the question was put to the British people do you support Starmer's defensive protection action or the bloodlust of Farage and Badenoch that 70% at least will strongly or partially support Starmer.
Like Bolton, Carney, Albanese etc I dislike Trump. I opposed his isolationism.
When Trump turns his back on his own policies that I opposed, and starts doing what I support, then I am glad for that. I won't pivot to opposing him on this even though he's the one that already pivoted.
I have enough other issues to despise Trump on. Can set that aside when he is doing the right thing for once. Like Carney et al.
Well I’m not too worrried anyway, Mrs Sandpit is packing her emergency bag!
What happens, based on your objection to conscription for wars overseas, if your desire for boots on the ground spirals into a big and wide war where we have to conscript to continue with our aims or fold and leave the mullahs or similar in control?
The thing is that there is no guarantee once it starts that it follows and “acceptable” path that would suit you. It’s sort of like people wanting higher taxes but the level is just above what they have because other people pay the price.
The certainty of work, money, food and order under a regime you are required to publicly support against no work, no food, no money and random acts of violence which go unpunished.
You’re not wrong but it’s nowhere near as simple as is sometimes made out. It’s little wonder societies who reject one form of oppression often end up with another as the certainty of what was looks more attractive than the uncertainty of what is while the promise of what could be looks unachievable.
Whatever next?
Regardless there’s more evil leaders on the conveyor belt to take his place .
1. Leadership
2. C4i
3. Surface to surface missiles
Whilst other elements have been hit such as air defence related aseets, it appears the Israelis and US have not merely achieved air superiority but potentially have air supremacy after about 3-4 hours of starting. If so, Iran has not recovered that side of its business from the 12 Day War and it didnt have a lot to start with. When it comes to the surface to surface missiles, some Israeli claims are that they knocked out 2/3s of the launcher capacity in that conflict. Whilst that can be rebuilt in Iranian factories, anywhere near that strike rate is going to take more than a year to recover. No TELS, no launches.
If this turns out to be the case, the problem for Iran gets really acute. Its main long range retalitation is weak, its defences against incursion are weak and that means the enemy can pretty much bomb what it likes.
Just as contrast., Russia doesnt even have air superiority over most of Ukraine four years on. Advantage yes but they had that day 1 and should have had air superiority from Day 1 too.
Seeing more reports of visible explosions and fires in Dubai. If so, Iran may be moving from cut-and-dry military targets to high-profile civilian targets it knows will exact a psychological and economic toll on the most pro-Israel Gulf state
https://bsky.app/profile/nickjbrumfield.bsky.social/post/3mfwl7l5f3225
If you knew a violent gang of armed thugs were brutally killing and raping people, would you support the Police being sent in to stop that? Even if it meant risk to the Police officers concerned?
If you knew a building with a raging fire had innocents who would die if left alone, would you support Firefighters being sent in to rescue them? Even if it meant risk to the Firefighters concerned?
I oppose conscription. Nobody should be forced to take arms against their will.
I support taking action where its right.
I applaud those who voluntarily choose to serve in careers with risk, whether it be Police, Fire or Military or others. They know the risks and choose to take them and that is commendable.
If something can be done to disadvantage China, it will be.
Spain to check Gibraltar arrivals under post-Brexit deal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgjz1x5e1xyo
The President, Defense Secretary, Joint Chiefs, etc, are all watching this from a
secure, highly defensible bunkerfucking ballroomOur Penwarden, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy crankshaft cycle will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily startup.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into four stroke;
but deliver us from gas turbines.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.
Now let us contemplate the Holy Trinity
Video shared on social media shows the moment a falling missile crashed and exploded in a residential area in Doha, Qatar.
It happened as Iran was firing retaliatory strikes at US bases in the Middle East following American and Israeli attacks this morning.
https://x.com/Channel4News/status/2027774844910092473?s=20
Incontrovertible proof that the door on the Pantheon in Rome are the originals and that the attempted servicing of them in medieval times was a classic bodged government contract to imbeciles.
Just a note on Khamenei. He is a religious leader within the global Shia community. Worth noting.
Sure OGH would be pleased.
Please come back off holiday @TSE
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/02/28/trump-iran-invasion-unlawful-say-uk-politicians/
https://x.com/faytuks/status/2027785747466465531
Bahrain’s Interior Ministry says multiple residential buildings in the capital were struck.
I am struggling to keep up with whether we are at war with Eastasia still.
It’s our wedding anniversary in April, with any luck the Burj-Al-Arab will be less than the $1,500 it usually costs to stay there!
Can't cheer for anything without waiting 5 minutes first, it seems.
Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed... And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that.
British planes in the sky protecting our interests
It's called statesmanship
.. Would you like a room with windows or not.
We had the dingy out this morning... Noooooo too, not the flagship!
If the army deploy their ballista then we really are all in.
However after the occupation we can run bus services for our overlords in the new Ajax armoured vehicles. (Note to PM: ask Dyson about vacuuming out the Ajax corpses)