"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
The ship had been taking part in an exercise (an International Fleet Review) with India, and the Indians have said that the exercise required that the ship not be carrying any ammunition at the time. The ship was therefore not, at that time, capable of damaging anyone's interests. The US knew the rules of the Fleet Review, so they knew the ship was unarmed. It is thus questioned whether torpedoing it was appropriate. They could have just demanded its surrender.
The US is also accused of not helping survivors, which appears to be in breach of the Second Geneva Convention of 1949.
That's a bit academic in a submarine, when they were just off Sri Lanka, and there was another Iranian ship close by.
Israel’s opposition leader has called for Israel to create a “sterile zone” in southern Lebanon, similar to the Yellow Line in Gaza, by removing Lebanese villages there.
Yair Lapid, who heads the centrist Yesh Atid party, told a local television channel that Israel would “have no choice” but to create a “sterile zone” in southern Lebanon. “It might be unaesthetic, or unpleasant, to scrape away two or three Lebanese villages,” he said, “but they brought it upon themselves.”
Sounds like the usual Isrseli rhetoric we've come to know and love. As my friend who recently returned from a work trip there said, they've become a highly radicalised state.
The Israelis are wild animals. I have been texting some friends in Beirut and just when Lebanon gets its act together Israel bombs again. the irony is that the first time I went there to work Beirut was riddled with bullet holes and the Israelis weren't badly thought of.
The Lebanese are probably my favourite people in the world and they really don't deserve this. They are generous hospitable bright tri lingual and just very sweet in the most old fashined sense of the word.
The girls have too much plastic surgery but that's just something they do.My last ad for them was using Miss Lebanion who came in the top 3 of Miss World She was funny like a lot of Lebanese. When I think of all those really rounded attractive people and I see the arrogant self important Israelis it makes me want to vomit.
They tell the story of when their President went to visit President Xi in China he asked what the Lebanese population was? "Three million".He said. "
"Three million? Why didn't you bring them with you?"
"The Israelis are wild animals." They are not alone in this though Roger, are they? Oct 7th wasn't exactly a picnic for the victims. Tens of thousands of Iranians killed by their own government for the crime of protesting is not a great look.
How stupid are those people who assume that because someone condemns Bibi for indiscriminately flattening Gaza and now Beirut and Tehran that they are fanatical supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Mullahs?
Calling Israelis "Wild animals" is not the same as condemning Bibi. That's the point. I am sick and tired of the polarised extremes on here. There is a lot of nastiness on all sides. Israel has been under attack just for existing for decades. They were attacked to start the war in Gaza. Very much like the Nazi's calling Bomber Command "terror fliers" its a bit rich for people to call Israeli's wild animals after what was done to them.
I just want it all to stop. No more bombs, no more people being killed. Fuck knows how we get there but idiotic comments on PB are not the way.
But you are someone justifying Gaza and Beirut because of 7/10/23.
Now I have no problem with eradicating Hamas, Hezbollah and the Mullahs, although I believe making an effort to ensure women and children do not become collateral is a good idea. Neither Bibi nor Hegseth consider this. Now the idea of regime change and a free Iran is a fantastic idea, but that is not what Trump is targeting.
Perhaps if you read and watched alternatives to the Telegraph and GBNews you might have a broader view of what is going on.
I don't read the telegraph or any newspaper now (they are out of date in the modern age) and I have never watched GB news. Have you mistaken me for somebody else? I mean I know we are all SeanT and all that, but you are presuming rather a lot about me based on my objecting to Roger's constant anti Israeli bile.
It's also interesting to note the descriptions of entire nations/ethnic groups as arrogant or beautiful.
Reminds me of something, that does - the time I met the Nigerian Hitler fan at Lagos Airport.
It's always nonsense to attach individual human qualities, either positive (brave, warm, generous) or negative (humourless, uptight, lazy), to national or ethnic groups. In all cases the variation in those things within a group vastly exceeds that between groups.
Despite being nonsense it's very common (esp with men of a certain age and background). Usually, and thankfully, it's not down to racism (although it can be) it's more a conversationalist tic intended to signify (in the speaker) a sense of being well-travelled and worldy-wise.
It's fundamentally racist - see Edward Said and Orientalism. While I have disagreements with some of what he says in that book, the concept of "racial traits" is a pernicious one. Just because it is used positively doesn't change the fundamental problem with such thinking.
Agreed on that. But I was thinking of it more widely. Eg you go to Athens, have a nice trip, get back and say "the Greeks are such lovely people". That isn't racist but it's false - unless you mean most people are lovely and the Greeks are no exception. But if that's what you mean that's what you should say. Put that on your postcard - "Hi from Athens, having a fab time, weather great! And the Greeks are such lovely people, as are people in general of course".
But this isn't true. There really is such a thing as national character. It's Woke nonsense to deny it, just as it is weird Hitlery garbage to emphasise it above all else
eg the Jews are clever. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of 115, one standard deviation above the norm. Or, if you don't like IQ, look at their achievements per capita. eg Jews have won around 22% of all Nobel prizes. Yet they represent 0.2% of the global population. Cf chess grandmasters, Fields medals, CEOs etc etc
Is "cleverness" a characteristic? I'd say so. Jews are clever
Similarly, Italians as a people are on average way more garrulous and extrovert than, say, a Finn or a Swede, let alone an Inuit. Everybody knows this is true. The causes are opaque - climate? Genes? What? But it is obviously the case. That doesn't mean every Italian is an extrovert chancer, nor that every Swede tends to be colder and more introspective, but there is a clear tendency
Sure. But generally speaking with personalised characteristics such as clever/thick, brave/cowardly, warm/cold, diligent/lazy, etc, the variation within a nation's population is much much greater than the variation of the weighted average between nations. This belies the notion of a 'national character'. There's really no such thing. Or, to not be sweeping and dogmatic, since that's what I'm objecting to in the first place, let's say the term is massively overused. It's not a matter of wokery. It's just the bloodless fact of the matter.
There's also such a thing as personal character. eg you are an accountant, you act and think like an accountant, you are a quintessential accountant: you are pensive, quite thorough and intellectually cautious, and deeply averse to new ideas, especially ideas that challenge long held perceptions. You always prefer "bloodless facts" because those are safe and unthreatening to your weltanschauung; indeed, you prefer facts that are safe and consoling even if they are untrue, which is dangerous, and leads you into foolish opinions
On the upside, you have an occasional but agreeable dry wit which leavens the site, and you are slightly and weirdly gay; so on the whole I'd say you are a net positive in the PB audit
You're welcome!
That was a bit of a phrase, wasn't it, the 'bloodless fact of the matter'.
So anyway, sounds like we're agreed. National Character - a misleading grandiose term for relatively minor differences at aggregation level between populations. Used sometimes with unpleasant racist overtones and sometimes more innocently.
PB is a good forum for this sort of thing.
But there are cultural differemces, surely? The Amrricans are chatty, the Dutch are brusque, the Italians wave their hands around and emote. I can accept that that is cultural rather than genetic, but those differences are real. I've just watched a video about why American conpanies jeep failing in Europe,and it is because they persistently underestimate the ways in which Europeans are behaviourally different from a) Americans and b) each other. Or am I missing the point?
There are differences (between any set of goups you like to separate, anywhere) but they're not innate and likely becoming smaller in many ways.
Us Brits used to be characterised as terribly stiff-upper-lip, but I'm not sure that's particularly the case now, if it ever was. Like you, I'd say - in the round - that the Dutch as a whole are different to the Swedes and the French and so on. But northerners are also noticeably different to those in the south in England - in propensity to chat to random strangers, if nothing else.
It's all fine, but the within-group differences are generally much larger than the between group differences (as with things like racial profiling of intelligence etc - I've no doubt there are differences, there are bound to be in any groupings, even day of the week born etc - but it's bugger all practical use because the distribution on characteristic A between group B and group C will broadly overlap, even if the median and limits are different.
An interesting off topic that hit my awareness this morning, that someone is planning to use in the Mobility Aid consultation in some way I have not caught up with yet.
Apparently there is some evidence that Golf is more dangerous than Rugby (due to people standing too close to other people who are waving big sticks around with a metal lump on the end):
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
“ You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus”
Nonsense!
I’m the only one talking sense about Cyprus on this blog. You seem to be looking at these events today - and 1974 etc - with an awful, out of date, pro Greek bias. You can’t understand any of this correctly because of your pro-Greek bias IMHO.
Now you are being silly
I have no Greek or Turkish bias not least because the base is British sovereign territory
It has come under threat and the embarrassment of our inability to send our ship there is off the scale when even Greece and French ships are there
Secondly.
1974 What created the Turkish intervention in 1974 was the Greek government doing a very violent coo in Cyprus, attacking Presidential Palace nearly killing the democratically elected President Makarios and replacing him with a notorious anti Turkish Greek Nationalist gunman, who then went on a murder spree on Makarios supporters and other opponents, resulting in hundreds of murders. Turkey initially appealed to the UK for a joint intervention under Treaty of Guarantee they both shared responsibility for Cyprus independence, but UK Labour government sat on their hands and ignored Turkey’s concerns for Turkish minority - that’s what really caused partition of the island, to make Turkish minority safe. The pro Greek bias on PB makes it sound like a needless and unjustified Turkish invasion. 🤷♀️
Today. It’s very important that living in the past with your outdated views don’t allow you to see the situation properly today. Southern Cyprus absolutely don’t need UK for security, Greece, Israel, EU are certainly their preference for their security going forwards, UK not on Cyprus speed dial; the UK bases {19 currently active} old colonial reason for Cyprus vassal state status today, not only rubbing up against their own Greek nationalism now, UK are not needed because the EU is here, but in a very practical sense it places huge Bomb Here sign - a target in that dangerous region that not necessarily fault of horrid mistakes of their own Cyprus foreign policy, but because of those decisions made in London and Washington. Things are going to be moving on here, leaving you just as puzzled and bewildered as to why. As with identical situation in Indian Ocean I am so sure you equally don’t understand is exactly the same.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
I believe it's no ammunition on board. The Americans could have come along side and demanded surrender.
Risky business because if they are wrong about no ammo the sub is fucked.
The US could have just asked the Sri Lankan Navy to intern it as they did with the other Iranian ship. That would take it off the board without killing 80 mostly young sailors.
It wasn't about any military threat the Dena posed. It was about wanton cruelty (which MAGA and the tories love) and generating dramatic video for TV and social media (which MAGA loves and the tories would love if they were capable of generating it which they aren't).
Genuine question - what was your view at the time about sinking the Belgrano?
Israel’s opposition leader has called for Israel to create a “sterile zone” in southern Lebanon, similar to the Yellow Line in Gaza, by removing Lebanese villages there.
Yair Lapid, who heads the centrist Yesh Atid party, told a local television channel that Israel would “have no choice” but to create a “sterile zone” in southern Lebanon. “It might be unaesthetic, or unpleasant, to scrape away two or three Lebanese villages,” he said, “but they brought it upon themselves.”
Sounds like the usual Isrseli rhetoric we've come to know and love. As my friend who recently returned from a work trip there said, they've become a highly radicalised state.
The Israelis are wild animals. I have been texting some friends in Beirut and just when Lebanon gets its act together Israel bombs again. the irony is that the first time I went there to work Beirut was riddled with bullet holes and the Israelis weren't badly thought of.
The Lebanese are probably my favourite people in the world and they really don't deserve this. They are generous hospitable bright tri lingual and just very sweet in the most old fashined sense of the word.
The girls have too much plastic surgery but that's just something they do.My last ad for them was using Miss Lebanion who came in the top 3 of Miss World She was funny like a lot of Lebanese. When I think of all those really rounded attractive people and I see the arrogant self important Israelis it makes me want to vomit.
They tell the story of when their President went to visit President Xi in China he asked what the Lebanese population was? "Three million".He said. "
"Three million? Why didn't you bring them with you?"
"The Israelis are wild animals." They are not alone in this though Roger, are they? Oct 7th wasn't exactly a picnic for the victims. Tens of thousands of Iranians killed by their own government for the crime of protesting is not a great look.
How stupid are those people who assume that because someone condemns Bibi for indiscriminately flattening Gaza and now Beirut and Tehran that they are fanatical supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Mullahs?
Calling Israelis "Wild animals" is not the same as condemning Bibi. That's the point. I am sick and tired of the polarised extremes on here. There is a lot of nastiness on all sides. Israel has been under attack just for existing for decades. They were attacked to start the war in Gaza. Very much like the Nazi's calling Bomber Command "terror fliers" its a bit rich for people to call Israeli's wild animals after what was done to them.
I just want it all to stop. No more bombs, no more people being killed. Fuck knows how we get there but idiotic comments on PB are not the way.
But you are someone justifying Gaza and Beirut because of 7/10/23.
Now I have no problem with eradicating Hamas, Hezbollah and the Mullahs, although I believe making an effort to ensure women and children do not become collateral is a good idea. Neither Bibi nor Hegseth consider this. Now the idea of regime change and a free Iran is a fantastic idea, but that is not what Trump is targeting.
Perhaps if you read and watched alternatives to the Telegraph and GBNews you might have a broader view of what is going on.
I don't read the telegraph or any newspaper now (they are out of date in the modern age) and I have never watched GB news. Have you mistaken me for somebody else? I mean I know we are all SeanT and all that, but you are presuming rather a lot about me based on my objecting to Roger's constant anti Israeli bile.
It's also interesting to note the descriptions of entire nations/ethnic groups as arrogant or beautiful.
Reminds me of something, that does - the time I met the Nigerian Hitler fan at Lagos Airport.
It's always nonsense to attach individual human qualities, either positive (brave, warm, generous) or negative (humourless, uptight, lazy), to national or ethnic groups. In all cases the variation in those things within a group vastly exceeds that between groups.
Despite being nonsense it's very common (esp with men of a certain age and background). Usually, and thankfully, it's not down to racism (although it can be) it's more a conversationalist tic intended to signify (in the speaker) a sense of being well-travelled and worldy-wise.
It's fundamentally racist - see Edward Said and Orientalism. While I have disagreements with some of what he says in that book, the concept of "racial traits" is a pernicious one. Just because it is used positively doesn't change the fundamental problem with such thinking.
Agreed on that. But I was thinking of it more widely. Eg you go to Athens, have a nice trip, get back and say "the Greeks are such lovely people". That isn't racist but it's false - unless you mean most people are lovely and the Greeks are no exception. But if that's what you mean that's what you should say. Put that on your postcard - "Hi from Athens, having a fab time, weather great! And the Greeks are such lovely people, as are people in general of course".
But this isn't true. There really is such a thing as national character. It's Woke nonsense to deny it, just as it is weird Hitlery garbage to emphasise it above all else
eg the Jews are clever. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of 115, one standard deviation above the norm. Or, if you don't like IQ, look at their achievements per capita. eg Jews have won around 22% of all Nobel prizes. Yet they represent 0.2% of the global population. Cf chess grandmasters, Fields medals, CEOs etc etc
Is "cleverness" a characteristic? I'd say so. Jews are clever
Similarly, Italians as a people are on average way more garrulous and extrovert than, say, a Finn or a Swede, let alone an Inuit. Everybody knows this is true. The causes are opaque - climate? Genes? What? But it is obviously the case. That doesn't mean every Italian is an extrovert chancer, nor that every Swede tends to be colder and more introspective, but there is a clear tendency
Sure. But generally speaking with personalised characteristics such as clever/thick, brave/cowardly, warm/cold, diligent/lazy, etc, the variation within a nation's population is much much greater than the variation of the weighted average between nations. This belies the notion of a 'national character'. There's really no such thing. Or, to not be sweeping and dogmatic, since that's what I'm objecting to in the first place, let's say the term is massively overused. It's not a matter of wokery. It's just the bloodless fact of the matter.
There's also such a thing as personal character. eg you are an accountant, you act and think like an accountant, you are a quintessential accountant: you are pensive, quite thorough and intellectually cautious, and deeply averse to new ideas, especially ideas that challenge long held perceptions. You always prefer "bloodless facts" because those are safe and unthreatening to your weltanschauung; indeed, you prefer facts that are safe and consoling even if they are untrue, which is dangerous, and leads you into foolish opinions
On the upside, you have an occasional but agreeable dry wit which leavens the site, and you are slightly and weirdly gay; so on the whole I'd say you are a net positive in the PB audit
You're welcome!
That was a bit of a phrase, wasn't it, the 'bloodless fact of the matter'.
So anyway, sounds like we're agreed. National Character - a misleading grandiose term for relatively minor differences at aggregation level between populations. Used sometimes with unpleasant racist overtones and sometimes more innocently.
PB is a good forum for this sort of thing.
But there are cultural differemces, surely? The Amrricans are chatty, the Dutch are brusque, the Italians wave their hands around and emote. I can accept that that is cultural rather than genetic, but those differences are real. I've just watched a video about why American conpanies jeep failing in Europe,and it is because they persistently underestimate the ways in which Europeans are behaviourally different from a) Americans and b) each other. Or am I missing the point?
Cultural differences, yes. National character, no.
Let me illustrate with an example:
Acceptable assertion (whether true or not): Italians are more prone than most to waving their hands around whilst talking.
Unacceptable assertion: Italians are a warm and emotional people.
PS: I've never found Americans to be particularly chatty. Maybe it's me.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
“ You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus”
Nonsense!
I’m the only one talking sense about Cyprus on this blog. You seem to be looking at these events today - and 1974 etc - with an awful, out of date, pro Greek bias. You can’t understand any of this correctly because of your pro-Greek bias IMHO.
Now you are being silly
I have no Greek or Turkish bias not least because the base is British sovereign territory
It has come under threat and the embarrassment of our inability to send our ship there is off the scale when even Greece and French ships are there
Secondly.
1974 What created the Turkish intervention in 1974 was the Greek government doing a very violent coo in Cyprus, attacking Presidential Palace nearly killing the democratically elected President Makarios and replacing him with a notorious anti Turkish Greek Nationalist gunman, who then went on a murder spree on Makarios supporters and other opponents, resulting in hundreds of murders. Turkey initially appealed to the UK for a joint intervention under Treaty of Guarantee they both shared responsibility for Cyprus independence, but UK Labour government sat on their hands and ignored Turkey’s concerns for Turkish minority - that’s what really caused partition of the island, to make Turkish minority safe. Your bias makes it sound like a needless and unjustified Turkish invasion. 🤷♀️
Today. It’s very important that living in the past with your outdated views don’t allow you to see the situation properly today. Southern Cyprus absolutely don’t need UK for security, Greece, Israel, EU are certainly their preference for their security going forwards, UK not on Cyprus speed dial; the UK bases {19 currently active} old colonial reason for Cyprus vassal state status today, not only rubbing up against their own Greek nationalism now, UK are not needed because the EU is here, but in a very practical sense it places huge Bomb Here sign - a target in that dangerous region that not necessarily fault of horrid mistakes of their own Cyprus foreign policy, but because of those decisions made in London and Washington. Things are going to be moving on here, leaving you just as puzzled and bewildered as to why. As with identical situation in Indian Ocean I am so sure you equally don’t understand is exactly the same.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
G, there are some real lowlife degenerates about nowadays, as well as the Americans. It is a pitiful sight to see them so gleeful that people are murdered.
Now they are at the point of just lobbing in dumb bombs to wipe out Iranian kit, Trump can probably stand firm. If Iran is still able to send out material numbers of weapons to the Gulf states that the US/Israel can't knock down, it is certainly trickier. But a lot of effort is going in to making sure that doesn't happen.
The question arises now about sleeper cell martyrs. Are there any?
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
“ You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus”
Nonsense!
I’m the only one talking sense about Cyprus on this blog. You seem to be looking at these events today - and 1974 etc - with an awful, out of date, pro Greek bias. You can’t understand any of this correctly because of your pro-Greek bias IMHO.
Now you are being silly
I have no Greek or Turkish bias not least because the base is British sovereign territory
It has come under threat and the embarrassment of our inability to send our ship there is off the scale when even Greece and French ships are there
Secondly.
1974 What created the Turkish intervention in 1974 was the Greek government doing a very violent coo in Cyprus, attacking Presidential Palace nearly killing the democratically elected President Makarios and replacing him with a notorious anti Turkish Greek Nationalist gunman, who then went on a murder spree on Makarios supporters and other opponents, resulting in hundreds of murders. Turkey initially appealed to the UK for a joint intervention under Treaty of Guarantee they both shared responsibility for Cyprus independence, but UK Labour government sat on their hands and ignored Turkey’s concerns for Turkish minority - that’s what really caused partition of the island, to make Turkish minority safe. The pro Greek bias on PB makes it sound like a needless and unjustified Turkish invasion. 🤷♀️
Today. It’s very important that living in the past with your outdated views don’t allow you to see the situation properly today. Southern Cyprus absolutely don’t need UK for security, Greece, Israel, EU are certainly their preference for their security going forwards, UK not on Cyprus speed dial; the UK bases {19 currently active} old colonial reason for Cyprus vassal state status today, not only rubbing up against their own Greek nationalism now, UK are not needed because the EU is here, but in a very practical sense it places huge Bomb Here sign - a target in that dangerous region that not necessarily fault of horrid mistakes of their own Cyprus foreign policy, but because of those decisions made in London and Washington. Things are going to be moving on here, leaving you just as puzzled and bewildered as to why. As with identical situation in Indian Ocean I am so sure you equally don’t understand is exactly the same.
There is a saying you protest too much . The problem for Starmer is the public perception he had not moved to send the navy earlier to Cyprus and in the public perception it is ridiculous
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
They were yeehawing and backslapping. The Trump Regime has made a Rock Video out of it, with their Ambassador to Israel playing lead guitar!
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
The ship had been taking part in an exercise (an International Fleet Review) with India, and the Indians have said that the exercise required that the ship not be carrying any ammunition at the time. The ship was therefore not, at that time, capable of damaging anyone's interests. The US knew the rules of the Fleet Review, so they knew the ship was unarmed. It is thus questioned whether torpedoing it was appropriate. They could have just demanded its surrender.
The US is also accused of not helping survivors, which appears to be in breach of the Second Geneva Convention of 1949.
That's a bit academic in a submarine, when they were just off Sri Lanka, and there was another Iranian ship close by.
Wasn't the other Iranian ship under the same rules, so again not a threat? (I don't know; none of it is very clear.)
I suggest that no submarine skipper would trust that enough to rely on it.
The WW2 practice came to an abrupt halt with the Laconia (which was carrying mainly Italian POWs) because an American patrol plane appeared, saw the several German subs and red cross flags, consulted with their superiors, then bombed them as instructed.
Israel’s opposition leader has called for Israel to create a “sterile zone” in southern Lebanon, similar to the Yellow Line in Gaza, by removing Lebanese villages there.
Yair Lapid, who heads the centrist Yesh Atid party, told a local television channel that Israel would “have no choice” but to create a “sterile zone” in southern Lebanon. “It might be unaesthetic, or unpleasant, to scrape away two or three Lebanese villages,” he said, “but they brought it upon themselves.”
Sounds like the usual Isrseli rhetoric we've come to know and love. As my friend who recently returned from a work trip there said, they've become a highly radicalised state.
The Israelis are wild animals. I have been texting some friends in Beirut and just when Lebanon gets its act together Israel bombs again. the irony is that the first time I went there to work Beirut was riddled with bullet holes and the Israelis weren't badly thought of.
The Lebanese are probably my favourite people in the world and they really don't deserve this. They are generous hospitable bright tri lingual and just very sweet in the most old fashined sense of the word.
The girls have too much plastic surgery but that's just something they do.My last ad for them was using Miss Lebanion who came in the top 3 of Miss World She was funny like a lot of Lebanese. When I think of all those really rounded attractive people and I see the arrogant self important Israelis it makes me want to vomit.
They tell the story of when their President went to visit President Xi in China he asked what the Lebanese population was? "Three million".He said. "
"Three million? Why didn't you bring them with you?"
"The Israelis are wild animals." They are not alone in this though Roger, are they? Oct 7th wasn't exactly a picnic for the victims. Tens of thousands of Iranians killed by their own government for the crime of protesting is not a great look.
How stupid are those people who assume that because someone condemns Bibi for indiscriminately flattening Gaza and now Beirut and Tehran that they are fanatical supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Mullahs?
Calling Israelis "Wild animals" is not the same as condemning Bibi. That's the point. I am sick and tired of the polarised extremes on here. There is a lot of nastiness on all sides. Israel has been under attack just for existing for decades. They were attacked to start the war in Gaza. Very much like the Nazi's calling Bomber Command "terror fliers" its a bit rich for people to call Israeli's wild animals after what was done to them.
I just want it all to stop. No more bombs, no more people being killed. Fuck knows how we get there but idiotic comments on PB are not the way.
But you are someone justifying Gaza and Beirut because of 7/10/23.
Now I have no problem with eradicating Hamas, Hezbollah and the Mullahs, although I believe making an effort to ensure women and children do not become collateral is a good idea. Neither Bibi nor Hegseth consider this. Now the idea of regime change and a free Iran is a fantastic idea, but that is not what Trump is targeting.
Perhaps if you read and watched alternatives to the Telegraph and GBNews you might have a broader view of what is going on.
I don't read the telegraph or any newspaper now (they are out of date in the modern age) and I have never watched GB news. Have you mistaken me for somebody else? I mean I know we are all SeanT and all that, but you are presuming rather a lot about me based on my objecting to Roger's constant anti Israeli bile.
It's also interesting to note the descriptions of entire nations/ethnic groups as arrogant or beautiful.
Reminds me of something, that does - the time I met the Nigerian Hitler fan at Lagos Airport.
It's always nonsense to attach individual human qualities, either positive (brave, warm, generous) or negative (humourless, uptight, lazy), to national or ethnic groups. In all cases the variation in those things within a group vastly exceeds that between groups.
Despite being nonsense it's very common (esp with men of a certain age and background). Usually, and thankfully, it's not down to racism (although it can be) it's more a conversationalist tic intended to signify (in the speaker) a sense of being well-travelled and worldy-wise.
It's fundamentally racist - see Edward Said and Orientalism. While I have disagreements with some of what he says in that book, the concept of "racial traits" is a pernicious one. Just because it is used positively doesn't change the fundamental problem with such thinking.
Agreed on that. But I was thinking of it more widely. Eg you go to Athens, have a nice trip, get back and say "the Greeks are such lovely people". That isn't racist but it's false - unless you mean most people are lovely and the Greeks are no exception. But if that's what you mean that's what you should say. Put that on your postcard - "Hi from Athens, having a fab time, weather great! And the Greeks are such lovely people, as are people in general of course".
But this isn't true. There really is such a thing as national character. It's Woke nonsense to deny it, just as it is weird Hitlery garbage to emphasise it above all else
eg the Jews are clever. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of 115, one standard deviation above the norm. Or, if you don't like IQ, look at their achievements per capita. eg Jews have won around 22% of all Nobel prizes. Yet they represent 0.2% of the global population. Cf chess grandmasters, Fields medals, CEOs etc etc
Is "cleverness" a characteristic? I'd say so. Jews are clever
Similarly, Italians as a people are on average way more garrulous and extrovert than, say, a Finn or a Swede, let alone an Inuit. Everybody knows this is true. The causes are opaque - climate? Genes? What? But it is obviously the case. That doesn't mean every Italian is an extrovert chancer, nor that every Swede tends to be colder and more introspective, but there is a clear tendency
Sure. But generally speaking with personalised characteristics such as clever/thick, brave/cowardly, warm/cold, diligent/lazy, etc, the variation within a nation's population is much much greater than the variation of the weighted average between nations. This belies the notion of a 'national character'. There's really no such thing. Or, to not be sweeping and dogmatic, since that's what I'm objecting to in the first place, let's say the term is massively overused. It's not a matter of wokery. It's just the bloodless fact of the matter.
There's also such a thing as personal character. eg you are an accountant, you act and think like an accountant, you are a quintessential accountant: you are pensive, quite thorough and intellectually cautious, and deeply averse to new ideas, especially ideas that challenge long held perceptions. You always prefer "bloodless facts" because those are safe and unthreatening to your weltanschauung; indeed, you prefer facts that are safe and consoling even if they are untrue, which is dangerous, and leads you into foolish opinions
On the upside, you have an occasional but agreeable dry wit which leavens the site, and you are slightly and weirdly gay; so on the whole I'd say you are a net positive in the PB audit
You're welcome!
That was a bit of a phrase, wasn't it, the 'bloodless fact of the matter'.
So anyway, sounds like we're agreed. National Character - a misleading grandiose term for relatively minor differences at aggregation level between populations. Used sometimes with unpleasant racist overtones and sometimes more innocently.
PB is a good forum for this sort of thing.
But there are cultural differemces, surely? The Amrricans are chatty, the Dutch are brusque, the Italians wave their hands around and emote. I can accept that that is cultural rather than genetic, but those differences are real. I've just watched a video about why American conpanies jeep failing in Europe,and it is because they persistently underestimate the ways in which Europeans are behaviourally different from a) Americans and b) each other. Or am I missing the point?
There are differences (between any set of goups you like to separate, anywhere) but they're not innate and likely becoming smaller in many ways.
Us Brits used to be characterised as terribly stiff-upper-lip, but I'm not sure that's particularly the case now, if it ever was. Like you, I'd say - in the round - that the Dutch as a whole are different to the Swedes and the French and so on. But northerners are also noticeably different to those in the south in England - in propensity to chat to random strangers, if nothing else.
It's all fine, but the within-group differences are generally much larger than the between group differences (as with things like racial profiling of intelligence etc - I've no doubt there are differences, there are bound to be in any groupings, even day of the week born etc - but it's bugger all practical use because the distribution on characteristic A between group B and group C will broadly overlap, even if the median and limits are different.
An interesting off topic that hit my awareness this morning, that someone is planning to use in the Mobility Aid consultation in some way I have not caught up with yet.
Apparently there is some evidence that Golf is more dangerous than Rugby (due to people standing too close to other people who are waving big sticks around with a metal lump on the end):
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
I believe it's no ammunition on board. The Americans could have come along side and demanded surrender.
Risky business because if they are wrong about no ammo the sub is fucked.
The US could have just asked the Sri Lankan Navy to intern it as they did with the other Iranian ship. That would take it off the board without killing 80 mostly young sailors.
It wasn't about any military threat the Dena posed. It was about wanton cruelty (which MAGA and the tories love) and generating dramatic video for TV and social media (which MAGA loves and the tories would love if they were capable of generating it which they aren't).
Genuine question - what was your view at the time about sinking the Belgrano?
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
I believe it's no ammunition on board. The Americans could have come along side and demanded surrender.
Risky business because if they are wrong about no ammo the sub is fucked.
The US could have just asked the Sri Lankan Navy to intern it as they did with the other Iranian ship. That would take it off the board without killing 80 mostly young sailors.
It wasn't about any military threat the Dena posed. It was about wanton cruelty (which MAGA and the tories love) and generating dramatic video for TV and social media (which MAGA loves and the tories would love if they were capable of generating it which they aren't).
Genuine question - what was your view at the time about sinking the Belgrano?
I was 14 and didn’t really have an opinion.
Would I have done it if ordered to like CWB? Absolutely yes. Would I have ordered it? Honestly don't know.
I would also have sunk the Dena without hesitation if ordered.
Now they are at the point of just lobbing in dumb bombs to wipe out Iranian kit, Trump can probably stand firm. If Iran is still able to send out material numbers of weapons to the Gulf states that the US/Israel can't knock down, it is certainly trickier. But a lot of effort is going in to making sure that doesn't happen.
The question arises now about sleeper cell martyrs. Are there any?
If a completely surrounded surveilled and blockaded Gaza can hold out for 2 years, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the Mullahs to surrender.
One of the paradoxical effects of the sanctions on Iraq between the Gulf Wars was to make the Baath Party more powerful as they controlled the rations. That was after major insurrection too. Totalitarian regimes are quite tolerant of their people's suffering.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
The ship had been taking part in an exercise (an International Fleet Review) with India, and the Indians have said that the exercise required that the ship not be carrying any ammunition at the time. That's how I've understood it; I don't know that we have any confirmation of this. The ship was therefore not (if these details are correct), at that time, capable of damaging anyone's interests. The US knew the rules of the Fleet Review, so they knew the ship was unarmed. It is thus questioned whether torpedoing it was appropriate. They could have just demanded its surrender.
The US is also accused of not helping survivors, which appears to be in breach of the Second Geneva Convention of 1949.
What is the big essential distinction between what they did and a premeditated mass murder?
My God, that's a whole new universe of Ultra-Cringe
Keir, I implore you, please: get some bloody voice training. It's like nails down a blackboard.
His nasal speaking voice is pure evil. He has Myra Hindley for a larynx!
He has the most annoying speaking voice to my ears of any PM since Thatcher. He is however prefetable to Rachel Reeves.
Not his fault. Just the way things are. He won the lottwry on hair, but not on voice.
Much as I felt about Brave Sir Boris. Goodness he was very affected and annoying.
Yes but your dislike for Boris is so great that he is literally the worst PM in every category. I'm sure you would have also found him the worst writer and the worst game show host and the worst after dinner speaker. His voice annoyed you because it was Boris's voice.
That is undoubtedly a fair comment. However just watch the Peppa Pig speech for confirmation that I am correct with regards to all those accusations you hurl at me.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
“ You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus”
Nonsense!
I’m the only one talking sense about Cyprus on this blog. You seem to be looking at these events today - and 1974 etc - with an awful, out of date, pro Greek bias. You can’t understand any of this correctly because of your pro-Greek bias IMHO.
Now you are being silly
I have no Greek or Turkish bias not least because the base is British sovereign territory
It has come under threat and the embarrassment of our inability to send our ship there is off the scale when even Greece and French ships are there
Secondly.
1974 What created the Turkish intervention in 1974 was the Greek government doing a very violent coo in Cyprus, attacking Presidential Palace nearly killing the democratically elected President Makarios and replacing him with a notorious anti Turkish Greek Nationalist gunman, who then went on a murder spree on Makarios supporters and other opponents, resulting in hundreds of murders. Turkey initially appealed to the UK for a joint intervention under Treaty of Guarantee they both shared responsibility for Cyprus independence, but UK Labour government sat on their hands and ignored Turkey’s concerns for Turkish minority - that’s what really caused partition of the island, to make Turkish minority safe. The pro Greek bias on PB makes it sound like a needless and unjustified Turkish invasion. 🤷♀️
Today. It’s very important that living in the past with your outdated views don’t allow you to see the situation properly today. Southern Cyprus absolutely don’t need UK for security, Greece, Israel, EU are certainly their preference for their security going forwards, UK not on Cyprus speed dial; the UK bases {19 currently active} old colonial reason for Cyprus vassal state status today, not only rubbing up against their own Greek nationalism now, UK are not needed because the EU is here, but in a very practical sense it places huge Bomb Here sign - a target in that dangerous region that not necessarily fault of horrid mistakes of their own Cyprus foreign policy, but because of those decisions made in London and Washington. Things are going to be moving on here, leaving you just as puzzled and bewildered as to why. As with identical situation in Indian Ocean I am so sure you equally don’t understand is exactly the same.
There is a saying you protest too much . The problem for Starmer is the public perception he had not moved to send the navy earlier to Cyprus and in the public perception it is ridiculous
I'd like to see some polling before accepting that the public have even noticed!
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
I believe it's no ammunition on board. The Americans could have come along side and demanded surrender.
Risky business because if they are wrong about no ammo the sub is fucked.
The US could have just asked the Sri Lankan Navy to intern it as they did with the other Iranian ship. That would take it off the board without killing 80 mostly young sailors.
It wasn't about any military threat the Dena posed. It was about wanton cruelty (which MAGA and the tories love) and generating dramatic video for TV and social media (which MAGA loves and the tories would love if they were capable of generating it which they aren't).
Don't get carried away, old boy. Quite a big difference between MAGA and "tories". Many on the Tory benches are ex-armed forces and will have empathised with the lost sailors and been disgusted by the comments of Hegseth, even if accepting that, maybe, the attack was justified. Or maybe not. There was certainly a big difference between the circs of the much-cited Belgrano and the Iranian boat.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
“ You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus”
Nonsense!
I’m the only one talking sense about Cyprus on this blog. You seem to be looking at these events today - and 1974 etc - with an awful, out of date, pro Greek bias. You can’t understand any of this correctly because of your pro-Greek bias IMHO.
Now you are being silly
I have no Greek or Turkish bias not least because the base is British sovereign territory
It has come under threat and the embarrassment of our inability to send our ship there is off the scale when even Greece and French ships are there
Secondly.
1974 What created the Turkish intervention in 1974 was the Greek government doing a very violent coo in Cyprus, attacking Presidential Palace nearly killing the democratically elected President Makarios and replacing him with a notorious anti Turkish Greek Nationalist gunman, who then went on a murder spree on Makarios supporters and other opponents, resulting in hundreds of murders. Turkey initially appealed to the UK for a joint intervention under Treaty of Guarantee they both shared responsibility for Cyprus independence, but UK Labour government sat on their hands and ignored Turkey’s concerns for Turkish minority - that’s what really caused partition of the island, to make Turkish minority safe. The pro Greek bias on PB makes it sound like a needless and unjustified Turkish invasion. 🤷♀️
Today. It’s very important that living in the past with your outdated views don’t allow you to see the situation properly today. Southern Cyprus absolutely don’t need UK for security, Greece, Israel, EU are certainly their preference for their security going forwards, UK not on Cyprus speed dial; the UK bases {19 currently active} old colonial reason for Cyprus vassal state status today, not only rubbing up against their own Greek nationalism now, UK are not needed because the EU is here, but in a very practical sense it places huge Bomb Here sign - a target in that dangerous region that not necessarily fault of horrid mistakes of their own Cyprus foreign policy, but because of those decisions made in London and Washington. Things are going to be moving on here, leaving you just as puzzled and bewildered as to why. As with identical situation in Indian Ocean I am so sure you equally don’t understand is exactly the same.
It was to.make the Turkush minority safe, but it wasn't only to make the Turkish minority safe. The Turkish troops also killed large numbers of Greeks, and the 1967 Greek Junta to which you refer had been propped up by the U.S. and U.K.
You now seem to be in a position of preferring a North Cyprus administration which is essentially Erdogan's regime, to over 50 years of democratic governmemts in Greece and Cyprus. You also wanted the Greek air force to stay away, who then shot diwn two drones heading for the airbase on Wednesday morning. It's very far from being in Britain's interests to favour a Turkish alliance in Cyprus over the sort of very large-scale European presence arriving, given that the Turkish regime id essentially a religious-authoritarian one supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. None of this makes any sense, which is what makes me wonder whether your anger about it comes from some other unidentified reason.
I would like to extend my thanks to the police, the security services, and everyone involved in keeping Britain safe.
People will be worried after today's arrests, especially those in our Jewish community. Our world-leading security services will not hesitate to protect you.
There are some who will use moments like this to divide people. It is vital that we now come together as a nation, united in our common purpose.
Now they are at the point of just lobbing in dumb bombs to wipe out Iranian kit, Trump can probably stand firm. If Iran is still able to send out material numbers of weapons to the Gulf states that the US/Israel can't knock down, it is certainly trickier. But a lot of effort is going in to making sure that doesn't happen.
The question arises now about sleeper cell martyrs. Are there any?
Apparently there's now a Farsi numbers station - but whether it's going in, out, or just shaking it all about is supposedly under debate.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
The ship had been taking part in an exercise (an International Fleet Review) with India, and the Indians have said that the exercise required that the ship not be carrying any ammunition at the time. The ship was therefore not, at that time, capable of damaging anyone's interests. The US knew the rules of the Fleet Review, so they knew the ship was unarmed. It is thus questioned whether torpedoing it was appropriate. They could have just demanded its surrender.
The US is also accused of not helping survivors, which appears to be in breach of the Second Geneva Convention of 1949.
That's a bit academic in a submarine, when they were just off Sri Lanka, and there was another Iranian ship close by.
Wasn't the other Iranian ship under the same rules, so again not a threat? (I don't know; none of it is very clear.)
I suggest that no submarine skipper would trust that enough to rely on it.
The WW2 practice came to an abrupt halt with the Laconia (which was carrying mainly Italian POWs) because an American patrol plane appeared, saw the several German subs and red cross flags, consulted with their superiors, then bombed them as instructed.
Yes, the Nazis stopped doing it. I'm not certain that copying the Nazis is something the US administration should be going for... although that ship has possibly sailed! Donitz was tried at Nuremberg for the order after the Laconia to stop rescuing survivors being a war crime: he was found guilty, but the court imposed no sentence given the events and that the Americans were doing the same in the Pacific.
I see the traitor is off to fellate Trump and try and get him to interfere on the Chagos Deal.
Which traitor? Kemi or Nigel?
Nigel . Kemi hasn’t quite got there !
Kemi got in to an argument at Check In.
Apparently
News Update
Kemi barred from accessing US
Web Hacking Falsifucation of US University Entry
link?
More like "drink?"
I don't see the Kemster getting on with DJT. He's a big mad racist and she doesn't have "Mar-a-Lago Face". She's got teeth like a row of urinals for a start and she should get them sorted.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
The US govt says they're not at war with Iran: it's a special operation.
Which, of course, is another parallel with the Belgrano.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
It was thousands of miles from the conflict. The sinking of the Belgrano was controversial as the ship was sailing away from the Falklands, but at least it was still in the general area. What the Americans did was sheer bloody murder.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
The ship had been taking part in an exercise (an International Fleet Review) with India, and the Indians have said that the exercise required that the ship not be carrying any ammunition at the time. That's how I've understood it; I don't know that we have any confirmation of this. The ship was therefore not (if these details are correct), at that time, capable of damaging anyone's interests. The US knew the rules of the Fleet Review, so they knew the ship was unarmed. It is thus questioned whether torpedoing it was appropriate. They could have just demanded its surrender.
The US is also accused of not helping survivors, which appears to be in breach of the Second Geneva Convention of 1949.
What is the big essential distinction between what they did and a premeditated mass murder?
The US assertion that a state of war existed, and therefore all Iranian naval vessels would be a threat and a legitimate target?
Plus Rules of Engagement around it, which Pete Hegseth would make very gung-ho.
IIRC the debate around the Belgrano was about whether it fell within the UK Rules of Engagement, and parsing of those rules.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
The ship had been taking part in an exercise (an International Fleet Review) with India, and the Indians have said that the exercise required that the ship not be carrying any ammunition at the time. That's how I've understood it; I don't know that we have any confirmation of this. The ship was therefore not (if these details are correct), at that time, capable of damaging anyone's interests. The US knew the rules of the Fleet Review, so they knew the ship was unarmed. It is thus questioned whether torpedoing it was appropriate. They could have just demanded its surrender.
The US is also accused of not helping survivors, which appears to be in breach of the Second Geneva Convention of 1949.
What is the big essential distinction between what they did and a premeditated mass murder?
The US assertion that a state of war existed, and therefore all Iranian naval vessels would be a threat and a legitimate target?
Plus Rules of Engagement around it, which Pete Hegseth would make very gung-ho.
IIRC the debate around the Belgrano was about whether it fell within the UK Rules of Engagement, and parsing of those rules.
Even the captain of the Belgrano said it was a legitimate target.
It is to the UK and Argentina’s credit that we had a Red Cross box during the conflict.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
It was thousands of miles from the conflict. The sinking of the Belgrano was controversial as the ship was sailing away from the Falklands, but at least it was still in the general area. What the Americans did was sheer bloody murder.
There was a strong rumour for many years in Brum circles that documents taken from the British Ship that the Belgrano was being tracked by indicated UK Navy knew it was sailing away and were ordered by politicians to sink it.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
The US govt says they're not at war with Iran: it's a special operation.
Which, of course, is another parallel with the Belgrano.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
The ship had been taking part in an exercise (an International Fleet Review) with India, and the Indians have said that the exercise required that the ship not be carrying any ammunition at the time. That's how I've understood it; I don't know that we have any confirmation of this. The ship was therefore not (if these details are correct), at that time, capable of damaging anyone's interests. The US knew the rules of the Fleet Review, so they knew the ship was unarmed. It is thus questioned whether torpedoing it was appropriate. They could have just demanded its surrender.
The US is also accused of not helping survivors, which appears to be in breach of the Second Geneva Convention of 1949.
What is the big essential distinction between what they did and a premeditated mass murder?
The US assertion that a state of war existed, and therefore all Iranian naval vessels would be a threat and a legitimate target?
Plus Rules of Engagement around it, which Pete Hegseth would make very gung-ho.
IIRC the debate around the Belgrano was about whether it fell within the UK Rules of Engagement, and parsing of those rules.
The US are very good at premeditated mass murder. The boats they blew up in the gulf of Mexico was an indicator of this. It is something they learned from/ shared with the Israeli regime.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
It was thousands of miles from the conflict. The sinking of the Belgrano was controversial as the ship was sailing away from the Falklands, but at least it was still in the general area. What the Americans did was sheer bloody murder.
There was a strong rumour for many years in Brum circles that documents taken from the British Ship that the Belgrano was being tracked by indicated UK Navy knew it was sailing away and were ordered by politicians to sink it.
I’ll bet in your youth you went to The Dome and The tower !!
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
If you remember the Belgrano sinking, the reason was that it was thought to be threatening our taskforce, albeit outside the exclusion zone declared.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 40m CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 40m CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
Israel’s opposition leader has called for Israel to create a “sterile zone” in southern Lebanon, similar to the Yellow Line in Gaza, by removing Lebanese villages there.
Yair Lapid, who heads the centrist Yesh Atid party, told a local television channel that Israel would “have no choice” but to create a “sterile zone” in southern Lebanon. “It might be unaesthetic, or unpleasant, to scrape away two or three Lebanese villages,” he said, “but they brought it upon themselves.”
Sounds like the usual Isrseli rhetoric we've come to know and love. As my friend who recently returned from a work trip there said, they've become a highly radicalised state.
The Israelis are wild animals. I have been texting some friends in Beirut and just when Lebanon gets its act together Israel bombs again. the irony is that the first time I went there to work Beirut was riddled with bullet holes and the Israelis weren't badly thought of.
The Lebanese are probably my favourite people in the world and they really don't deserve this. They are generous hospitable bright tri lingual and just very sweet in the most old fashined sense of the word.
The girls have too much plastic surgery but that's just something they do.My last ad for them was using Miss Lebanion who came in the top 3 of Miss World She was funny like a lot of Lebanese. When I think of all those really rounded attractive people and I see the arrogant self important Israelis it makes me want to vomit.
They tell the story of when their President went to visit President Xi in China he asked what the Lebanese population was? "Three million".He said. "
"Three million? Why didn't you bring them with you?"
"The Israelis are wild animals." They are not alone in this though Roger, are they? Oct 7th wasn't exactly a picnic for the victims. Tens of thousands of Iranians killed by their own government for the crime of protesting is not a great look.
How stupid are those people who assume that because someone condemns Bibi for indiscriminately flattening Gaza and now Beirut and Tehran that they are fanatical supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Mullahs?
Calling Israelis "Wild animals" is not the same as condemning Bibi. That's the point. I am sick and tired of the polarised extremes on here. There is a lot of nastiness on all sides. Israel has been under attack just for existing for decades. They were attacked to start the war in Gaza. Very much like the Nazi's calling Bomber Command "terror fliers" its a bit rich for people to call Israeli's wild animals after what was done to them.
I just want it all to stop. No more bombs, no more people being killed. Fuck knows how we get there but idiotic comments on PB are not the way.
But you are someone justifying Gaza and Beirut because of 7/10/23.
Now I have no problem with eradicating Hamas, Hezbollah and the Mullahs, although I believe making an effort to ensure women and children do not become collateral is a good idea. Neither Bibi nor Hegseth consider this. Now the idea of regime change and a free Iran is a fantastic idea, but that is not what Trump is targeting.
Perhaps if you read and watched alternatives to the Telegraph and GBNews you might have a broader view of what is going on.
I don't read the telegraph or any newspaper now (they are out of date in the modern age) and I have never watched GB news. Have you mistaken me for somebody else? I mean I know we are all SeanT and all that, but you are presuming rather a lot about me based on my objecting to Roger's constant anti Israeli bile.
It's also interesting to note the descriptions of entire nations/ethnic groups as arrogant or beautiful.
Reminds me of something, that does - the time I met the Nigerian Hitler fan at Lagos Airport.
I'm especially amused by the descriptions of Lebanon and it's people as some kind of utopian idyll - such a place would clearly welcome thousands oh Hezbollan militants with gusto!
They 'welcomed' them because the alternative was Israeli settlers occupying half the country. Hezbollah is the product of the first Israeli invasion of Beirut and instrumental in preventing the second attempted invasion, I'd of thought this sort of blowback would have tempered Israeli land grabs but they’re still gallivanting round the west of Syria.
Do you not think they've overstayed their welcome?
For as long as there are Israeli ministers and Rabis advocating for 'Eretz Yisrael' i think the Lebanese have reason to defend their border and the de-fanged LA cannot do that.
The European Commission today rebuked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over remarks that Hungary interpreted as a threat against Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 40m CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
It was thousands of miles from the conflict. The sinking of the Belgrano was controversial as the ship was sailing away from the Falklands, but at least it was still in the general area. What the Americans did was sheer bloody murder.
There was a strong rumour for many years in Brum circles that documents taken from the British Ship that the Belgrano was being tracked by indicated UK Navy knew it was sailing away and were ordered by politicians to sink it.
I’ll bet in your youth you went to The Dome and The tower !!
More the Odeon gigs very night and Mayfair Suite saw some great bands there.
Reeves should have postponed her spring statement knowing what was coming
Her 20 billion headroom is evaporating with bond rates 4.66 and seemingly rises by the minute
Lol. There'd be people queuing outside RBS/fighting over peat stacks if Reeves suddenly cancelled a statement in the midst of the biggest energy crisis in decades.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 40m CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
If you remember the Belgrano sinking, the reason was that it was thought to be threatening our taskforce, albeit outside the exclusion zone declared.
I remember it well because in the 1983 election I was the late Wyn Roberts campaign driver and on arriving at a hustings in Bangor he was asked specifically about it
I took the gentleman to a table and drew the location of the islands, and the ships, and I will never forget his rsponse.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
It was thousands of miles from the conflict. The sinking of the Belgrano was controversial as the ship was sailing away from the Falklands, but at least it was still in the general area. What the Americans did was sheer bloody murder.
There was a strong rumour for many years in Brum circles that documents taken from the British Ship that the Belgrano was being tracked by indicated UK Navy knew it was sailing away and were ordered by politicians to sink it.
I’ll bet in your youth you went to The Dome and The tower !!
Fave was the old JBs behind Pathfinder King Street Dudley.
Classmate was Colin Kimberley, original Bass Player Diamond Head. I knew Brian Tatler very well Stourbridge lads.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
If you remember the Belgrano sinking, the reason was that it was thought to be threatening our taskforce, albeit outside the exclusion zone declared.
I remember it well because in the 1983 election I was the late Wyn Roberts campaign driver and on arriving at a hustings in Bangor he was asked specifically about it
I took the gentleman to a table and drew the location of the islands, and the ships, and I will never forget his rsponse.
'Thank you so much, you have my vote'
How accurate was your drawing? Were you in the war cabinet?
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
The US and Israel are going to bomb the residential areas of Tehran and Beirut killing civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure ( that is already clear from the photos from Beirut, which show residential apartment blocks destroyed ), just as Israel have levelled Gaza.
Pointless expecting them to observe other conventions of war, previous less-bloodthirsty administrations have routinely used torture.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 40m CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
“ You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus”
Nonsense!
I’m the only one talking sense about Cyprus on this blog. You seem to be looking at these events today - and 1974 etc - with an awful, out of date, pro Greek bias. You can’t understand any of this correctly because of your pro-Greek bias IMHO.
Now you are being silly
I have no Greek or Turkish bias not least because the base is British sovereign territory
It has come under threat and the embarrassment of our inability to send our ship there is off the scale when even Greece and French ships are there
Firstly.
Did UK government leave Cyprus unprotected? The Cyprus government and Kemi’s Tories and you, have been braying and shouty all week, it was left unprotected by the British government.
The protection in place all week, In the air: Six F-35B Lightning II Stealth Jets, 10 Eurofighter Typhoon FGR4, Two Wildcat HMA2 Helicopters equipped with Martlet, three Shadow R1 surveillance aircraft and two MQ-9B Protector RG1 - on the ground the Sky Sabre Missile System, Giraffe AMB radar and CAMM missiles {capable of tracking multiple targets and intercepting threats at ranges of up to 25km} ORCUS Counter-UAS System {specialized electronic warfare suite specially designed to detect and jam drones}
If we are playing this straight, not over excited silly buggers looking for party political angles all time during time of war and peril - all that already in place is hardly nothing - how can you possibly push the line the UK government left British bases on Cyprus unprotected and unable to defend themselves, until Dragon gets there?
And, of course, add to all that already in place from UK government, how Cyprus quickly had additional help in the water, air and on land from UKs European Allies who live locally - so what on earth creates such a panic for Dragon to get there? It’s already likely the best protected runway in the whole Middle East right now even without Dragon.
This is nothing more than semantics and political spin, building up the trivial into something it really isn’t. Isn’t it? Technically, there is, and never has been, an issue here, has there?
" It’s already likely the best protected runway in the whole Middle East right now even without Dragon." - no, it isn't. Among other things, no long range SAMs, and no ABM systems.
The European Commission today rebuked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over remarks that Hungary interpreted as a threat against Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
The Ukrainian domestic audience expects a certain amount of nonsensical nationalist swagger from Z but when it breaches containment and leaks into the normally biddable Western media, he's got a problem. He may have to do a tactical clarification of the remarks
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
If you remember the Belgrano sinking, the reason was that it was thought to be threatening our taskforce, albeit outside the exclusion zone declared.
I remember it well because in the 1983 election I was the late Wyn Roberts campaign driver and on arriving at a hustings in Bangor he was asked specifically about it
I took the gentleman to a table and drew the location of the islands, and the ships, and I will never forget his rsponse.
'Thank you so much, you have my vote'
How accurate was your drawing? Were you in the war cabinet?
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 40m CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
Thoughts and prayers for Allistair Heath, Allison Pearson and Sean Thomas.
RIP the unhinged headline.
Phrasing this as kindly as I can, Mr Thomas's contributions to the Telegraph are more state-of-the-world thought pieces rather than full-on Allistair insanity, so I'd expect he'd survive a sanity cull.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
Thoughts and prayers for Allistair Heath, Allison Pearson and Sean Thomas.
RIP the unhinged headline.
I doubt we’ll see much change as they won’t want to alienate their readership. Similarly you might be surprised to see that the owners of the i Newspaper are the same as the Daily Mail .
Thoughts and prayers for Allistair Heath, Allison Pearson and Sean Thomas.
RIP the unhinged headline.
I doubt we’ll see much change as they won’t want to alienate their readership. Similarly you might be surprised to see that the owners of the i Newspaper are the same as the Daily Mail .
The Mirror owning the Express too.
Although returning the Telegraph from a comic to a reliable broadsheet will mean culling the absolute moon howlers.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
The US and Israel are going to bomb the residential areas of Tehran and Beirut killing civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure ( that is already clear from the photos from Beirut, which show residential apartment blocks destroyed ), just as Israel have levelled Gaza.
Pointless expecting them to observe other conventions of war, previous less-bloodthirsty administrations have routinely used torture.
I believe the Iranian death toll is currently at c.1200, almost an Oct 7. On the Israeli disproportionate bloodlust ratio of at least 20/1, there’s a bit to go.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 40m CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 40m CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
We - the United Kingdom - are not in this war.
Hopefully it will continue that way.
Prime Minister in waiting Farage has a Papal (autocorrected to PayPal) style audience with Il Duce this evening at Mar a Lago.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 40m CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 40m CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
We - the United Kingdom - are not in this war.
Hopefully it will continue that way.
Prime Minister in waiting Farage has a Papal (autocorrected to PayPal) style audience with Il Duce this evening at Mar a Lago.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
It was thousands of miles from the conflict. The sinking of the Belgrano was controversial as the ship was sailing away from the Falklands, but at least it was still in the general area. What the Americans did was sheer bloody murder.
There was a strong rumour for many years in Brum circles that documents taken from the British Ship that the Belgrano was being tracked by indicated UK Navy knew it was sailing away and were ordered by politicians to sink it.
I’ll bet in your youth you went to The Dome and The tower !!
Fave was the old JBs behind Pathfinder King Street Dudley.
Classmate was Colin Kimberley, original Bass Player Diamond Head. I knew Brian Tatler very well Stourbridge lads.
I used to go to the new JBs in Dudley. Saw a few tribute bands there.
"Qatar’s energy minister, Saad al-Kaabi, also forecast that crude prices could soar to $150 a barrel in two to three weeks if tankers and other merchant vessels were unable to pass through the strait of Hormuz."
Although it is hard to be optimistic at the moment, there is plausibly an end to this where Trump has degraded the US’s role in international affairs so badly, and his second term is considered so egregiously appalling, that the US political class actually do come up with a way to constrain future exercise of executive power.
I know that the US political system is in a really depressing state right now and it has really failed in the past, but that is not to say it will continue to do so.
There is plausibly a meeting of minds between the isolationalist MAGA types and the Democrats around executive authority right now. MAGA were totally on board with Trump doing what he wanted when it aligned with their goals - I’m not quite sure that will continue to hold.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
“ You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus”
Nonsense!
I’m the only one talking sense about Cyprus on this blog. You seem to be looking at these events today - and 1974 etc - with an awful, out of date, pro Greek bias. You can’t understand any of this correctly because of your pro-Greek bias IMHO.
Now you are being silly
I have no Greek or Turkish bias not least because the base is British sovereign territory
It has come under threat and the embarrassment of our inability to send our ship there is off the scale when even Greece and French ships are there
Secondly.
1974 What created the Turkish intervention in 1974 was the Greek government doing a very violent coo in Cyprus, attacking Presidential Palace nearly killing the democratically elected President Makarios and replacing him with a notorious anti Turkish Greek Nationalist gunman, who then went on a murder spree on Makarios supporters and other opponents, resulting in hundreds of murders. Turkey initially appealed to the UK for a joint intervention under Treaty of Guarantee they both shared responsibility for Cyprus independence, but UK Labour government sat on their hands and ignored Turkey’s concerns for Turkish minority - that’s what really caused partition of the island, to make Turkish minority safe. The pro Greek bias on PB makes it sound like a needless and unjustified Turkish invasion. 🤷♀️
Today. It’s very important that living in the past with your outdated views don’t allow you to see the situation properly today. Southern Cyprus absolutely don’t need UK for security, Greece, Israel, EU are certainly their preference for their security going forwards, UK not on Cyprus speed dial; the UK bases {19 currently active} old colonial reason for Cyprus vassal state status today, not only rubbing up against their own Greek nationalism now, UK are not needed because the EU is here, but in a very practical sense it places huge Bomb Here sign - a target in that dangerous region that not necessarily fault of horrid mistakes of their own Cyprus foreign policy, but because of those decisions made in London and Washington. Things are going to be moving on here, leaving you just as puzzled and bewildered as to why. As with identical situation in Indian Ocean I am so sure you equally don’t understand is exactly the same.
There is a saying you protest too much . The problem for Starmer is the public perception he had not moved to send the navy earlier to Cyprus and in the public perception it is ridiculous
“ in the public perception it is ridiculous”
On that we agree. Yes.
It’s good you admit, the public perception of this doesn’t quite align with the truth. But for that, leading parliamentarians, UK media, even yourself, hasn’t helped public perception to be correct.
"Qatar’s energy minister, Saad al-Kaabi, also forecast that crude prices could soar to $150 a barrel in two to three weeks if tankers and other merchant vessels were unable to pass through the strait of Hormuz."
This will be a wake up call for a lot of countries. When the tide goes out you find out who's been swimming naked.
"Qatar’s energy minister, Saad al-Kaabi, also forecast that crude prices could soar to $150 a barrel in two to three weeks if tankers and other merchant vessels were unable to pass through the strait of Hormuz."
This will be a wake up call for a lot of countries. When the tide goes out you find out who's been swimming naked.
The world is heading towards a Depression, the 1930s version 2...
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 40m CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Do you have a clear defintion of that "unarmed"?
AIUI it would be "gun not loaded today" rather than "all the shells left back in Iran".
As I read it, everyone in the show - like Cruffts for Warships - had to hand all their bullets in to organisers who locked them in a safe. And obviously I expect gave you a numbered ticket you handed over to get them back.
“Up next in the arena, ladies and gentlemen… to think, some countries around the world use shiny new little models like this, as target practice.”
You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus
We are in a war, not of our choosing, but war it is and that ship was a very real danger
“ You do talk some nonsense at times including on Cyprus”
Nonsense!
I’m the only one talking sense about Cyprus on this blog. You seem to be looking at these events today - and 1974 etc - with an awful, out of date, pro Greek bias. You can’t understand any of this correctly because of your pro-Greek bias IMHO.
Now you are being silly
I have no Greek or Turkish bias not least because the base is British sovereign territory
It has come under threat and the embarrassment of our inability to send our ship there is off the scale when even Greece and French ships are there
Secondly.
1974 What created the Turkish intervention in 1974 was the Greek government doing a very violent coo in Cyprus, attacking Presidential Palace nearly killing the democratically elected President Makarios and replacing him with a notorious anti Turkish Greek Nationalist gunman, who then went on a murder spree on Makarios supporters and other opponents, resulting in hundreds of murders. Turkey initially appealed to the UK for a joint intervention under Treaty of Guarantee they both shared responsibility for Cyprus independence, but UK Labour government sat on their hands and ignored Turkey’s concerns for Turkish minority - that’s what really caused partition of the island, to make Turkish minority safe. The pro Greek bias on PB makes it sound like a needless and unjustified Turkish invasion. 🤷♀️
Today. It’s very important that living in the past with your outdated views don’t allow you to see the situation properly today. Southern Cyprus absolutely don’t need UK for security, Greece, Israel, EU are certainly their preference for their security going forwards, UK not on Cyprus speed dial; the UK bases {19 currently active} old colonial reason for Cyprus vassal state status today, not only rubbing up against their own Greek nationalism now, UK are not needed because the EU is here, but in a very practical sense it places huge Bomb Here sign - a target in that dangerous region that not necessarily fault of horrid mistakes of their own Cyprus foreign policy, but because of those decisions made in London and Washington. Things are going to be moving on here, leaving you just as puzzled and bewildered as to why. As with identical situation in Indian Ocean I am so sure you equally don’t understand is exactly the same.
It was to.make the Turkush minority safe, but it wasn't only to make the Turkish minority safe. The Turkish troops also killed large numbers of Greeks, and the 1967 Greek Junta to which you refer had been propped up by the U.S. and U.K.
You now seem to be in a position of preferring a North Cyprus administration which is essentially Erdogan's regime, to over 50 years of democratic governmemts in Greece and Cyprus. You also wanted the Greek air force to stay away, who then shot diwn two drones heading for the airbase on Wednesday morning. It's very far from being in Britain's interests to favour a Turkish alliance in Cyprus over the sort of very large-scale European presence arriving, given that the Turkish regime id essentially a religious-authoritarian one supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. None of this makes any sense, which is what makes me wonder whether your anger about it comes from some other unidentified reason.
I’m not in favour of Turkish rule in Cyprus. What nonsense. They are a minority.
The 1974 example is about an agreement on Cyprus neutrality, between UK, Turkey, Greece. Greek Nationalism didn’t want Cyprus independence, they wanted unification. UK government deaf to Turkish fears for minority.
My bias is purely towards minorities, everywhere, because throughout world today, and throughout history, they do get a hard time. I have got a lot of these sensitivities reading PB the last couple of years. The ethnic wars and murders in Ukraine during Second World War was illuminating discussion and links. Town with 75% Ukraine Nationalist, 25% poles, here ethnic cleansing the poles who haven’t fled, towns with 80 poles, 20 Ukrainian, the Ukrainians fleeing or killed.
It’s so often legitimate concern for minorities that causes invasions and wars by neighbours, And ethnic wars and ethnic cleansing undercover of the chaos of wars, or in chaos after wars - perhaps very much where Trump Regime is taking Iran, where all Trump can see is oil barrels and dollar signs.
We need these sensitivities for the minorities. And we need to stand against the threats to minority communities. Everywhere.
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
Yeah. Okay.
But the bombing of the French fleet, the belgrano, this one the other day, it’s always going to give some controversy around them because of the deaths involved in the surprise duck shoot, isn’t it? Though each case individual at the same time.
I suppose it’s a bit like a death in police custody or arrest, where it’s asked, was such force really necessary in the situation around it.
You have to concede Big G, the US and Israeli administrations you and Kemi want to hand the British Military over to, regard any sort of rules of engagement as woke nonsense, don’t they?
I reject your last paragraph entirely
Kemi from day one has said we should be able to attack missile bases that threaten our military in the arena and now Lammy has said the same thing
It has been obvious since the onset that if our middle east bases come under attack our first duty is to eliminate the source of that attack
To hand over this action to the US to do on our behalf is absurd
I am sure the military will know our capabilities and engage accordingly
You mention the Belgrano which was sunk as it was a threat to our own navy
If there were Australians on board the Iranian warship at a time Australia had backed the US then they should not have been on it anyway
The AUSTRALIANS are on the US sub! 🙄 hence the phrase “cry your eyes out Kemi”.
The Australians were on the US sub joining in the yeehaaa’s and back slapping. And we both know, Patel would have LOVED to have been in there with them.
I misunderstood you and to be honest if you think any mariner celebrates the sinking of a ship you are wrong
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
As I've pointed out to you before, Big_G, and as Dura has today, this isn't just something that happened, or a "circumstance to regret", it was a deliberate choice.
And a piece of barbarism.
It wasn't sunk by us but by the US who is at war with Iran and vowed to eliminate it's navy
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
It was thousands of miles from the conflict. The sinking of the Belgrano was controversial as the ship was sailing away from the Falklands, but at least it was still in the general area. What the Americans did was sheer bloody murder.
There was a strong rumour for many years in Brum circles that documents taken from the British Ship that the Belgrano was being tracked by indicated UK Navy knew it was sailing away and were ordered by politicians to sink it.
I’ll bet in your youth you went to The Dome and The tower !!
Fave was the old JBs behind Pathfinder King Street Dudley.
Classmate was Colin Kimberley, original Bass Player Diamond Head. I knew Brian Tatler very well Stourbridge lads.
I used to go to the new JBs in Dudley. Saw a few tribute bands there.
Israel’s opposition leader has called for Israel to create a “sterile zone” in southern Lebanon, similar to the Yellow Line in Gaza, by removing Lebanese villages there.
Yair Lapid, who heads the centrist Yesh Atid party, told a local television channel that Israel would “have no choice” but to create a “sterile zone” in southern Lebanon. “It might be unaesthetic, or unpleasant, to scrape away two or three Lebanese villages,” he said, “but they brought it upon themselves.”
Sounds like the usual Isrseli rhetoric we've come to know and love. As my friend who recently returned from a work trip there said, they've become a highly radicalised state.
The Israelis are wild animals. I have been texting some friends in Beirut and just when Lebanon gets its act together Israel bombs again. the irony is that the first time I went there to work Beirut was riddled with bullet holes and the Israelis weren't badly thought of.
The Lebanese are probably my favourite people in the world and they really don't deserve this. They are generous hospitable bright tri lingual and just very sweet in the most old fashined sense of the word.
The girls have too much plastic surgery but that's just something they do.My last ad for them was using Miss Lebanion who came in the top 3 of Miss World She was funny like a lot of Lebanese. When I think of all those really rounded attractive people and I see the arrogant self important Israelis it makes me want to vomit.
They tell the story of when their President went to visit President Xi in China he asked what the Lebanese population was? "Three million".He said. "
"Three million? Why didn't you bring them with you?"
"The Israelis are wild animals." They are not alone in this though Roger, are they? Oct 7th wasn't exactly a picnic for the victims. Tens of thousands of Iranians killed by their own government for the crime of protesting is not a great look.
How stupid are those people who assume that because someone condemns Bibi for indiscriminately flattening Gaza and now Beirut and Tehran that they are fanatical supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Mullahs?
Calling Israelis "Wild animals" is not the same as condemning Bibi. That's the point. I am sick and tired of the polarised extremes on here. There is a lot of nastiness on all sides. Israel has been under attack just for existing for decades. They were attacked to start the war in Gaza. Very much like the Nazi's calling Bomber Command "terror fliers" its a bit rich for people to call Israeli's wild animals after what was done to them.
I just want it all to stop. No more bombs, no more people being killed. Fuck knows how we get there but idiotic comments on PB are not the way.
But you are someone justifying Gaza and Beirut because of 7/10/23.
Now I have no problem with eradicating Hamas, Hezbollah and the Mullahs, although I believe making an effort to ensure women and children do not become collateral is a good idea. Neither Bibi nor Hegseth consider this. Now the idea of regime change and a free Iran is a fantastic idea, but that is not what Trump is targeting.
Perhaps if you read and watched alternatives to the Telegraph and GBNews you might have a broader view of what is going on.
I don't read the telegraph or any newspaper now (they are out of date in the modern age) and I have never watched GB news. Have you mistaken me for somebody else? I mean I know we are all SeanT and all that, but you are presuming rather a lot about me based on my objecting to Roger's constant anti Israeli bile.
It's also interesting to note the descriptions of entire nations/ethnic groups as arrogant or beautiful.
Reminds me of something, that does - the time I met the Nigerian Hitler fan at Lagos Airport.
It's always nonsense to attach individual human qualities, either positive (brave, warm, generous) or negative (humourless, uptight, lazy), to national or ethnic groups. In all cases the variation in those things within a group vastly exceeds that between groups.
Despite being nonsense it's very common (esp with men of a certain age and background). Usually, and thankfully, it's not down to racism (although it can be) it's more a conversationalist tic intended to signify (in the speaker) a sense of being well-travelled and worldy-wise.
It's fundamentally racist - see Edward Said and Orientalism. While I have disagreements with some of what he says in that book, the concept of "racial traits" is a pernicious one. Just because it is used positively doesn't change the fundamental problem with such thinking.
Agreed on that. But I was thinking of it more widely. Eg you go to Athens, have a nice trip, get back and say "the Greeks are such lovely people". That isn't racist but it's false - unless you mean most people are lovely and the Greeks are no exception. But if that's what you mean that's what you should say. Put that on your postcard - "Hi from Athens, having a fab time, weather great! And the Greeks are such lovely people, as are people in general of course".
But this isn't true. There really is such a thing as national character. It's Woke nonsense to deny it, just as it is weird Hitlery garbage to emphasise it above all else
eg the Jews are clever. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of 115, one standard deviation above the norm. Or, if you don't like IQ, look at their achievements per capita. eg Jews have won around 22% of all Nobel prizes. Yet they represent 0.2% of the global population. Cf chess grandmasters, Fields medals, CEOs etc etc
Is "cleverness" a characteristic? I'd say so. Jews are clever
Similarly, Italians as a people are on average way more garrulous and extrovert than, say, a Finn or a Swede, let alone an Inuit. Everybody knows this is true. The causes are opaque - climate? Genes? What? But it is obviously the case. That doesn't mean every Italian is an extrovert chancer, nor that every Swede tends to be colder and more introspective, but there is a clear tendency
Sure. But generally speaking with personalised characteristics such as clever/thick, brave/cowardly, warm/cold, diligent/lazy, etc, the variation within a nation's population is much much greater than the variation of the weighted average between nations. This belies the notion of a 'national character'. There's really no such thing. Or, to not be sweeping and dogmatic, since that's what I'm objecting to in the first place, let's say the term is massively overused. It's not a matter of wokery. It's just the bloodless fact of the matter.
There's also such a thing as personal character. eg you are an accountant, you act and think like an accountant, you are a quintessential accountant: you are pensive, quite thorough and intellectually cautious, and deeply averse to new ideas, especially ideas that challenge long held perceptions. You always prefer "bloodless facts" because those are safe and unthreatening to your weltanschauung; indeed, you prefer facts that are safe and consoling even if they are untrue, which is dangerous, and leads you into foolish opinions
On the upside, you have an occasional but agreeable dry wit which leavens the site, and you are slightly and weirdly gay; so on the whole I'd say you are a net positive in the PB audit
You're welcome!
That was a bit of a phrase, wasn't it, the 'bloodless fact of the matter'.
So anyway, sounds like we're agreed. National Character - a misleading grandiose term for relatively minor differences at aggregation level between populations. Used sometimes with unpleasant racist overtones and sometimes more innocently.
PB is a good forum for this sort of thing.
But there are cultural differemces, surely? The Amrricans are chatty, the Dutch are brusque, the Italians wave their hands around and emote. I can accept that that is cultural rather than genetic, but those differences are real. I've just watched a video about why American conpanies jeep failing in Europe,and it is because they persistently underestimate the ways in which Europeans are behaviourally different from a) Americans and b) each other. Or am I missing the point?
Cultural differences, yes. National character, no.
Let me illustrate with an example:
Acceptable assertion (whether true or not): Italians are more prone than most to waving their hands around whilst talking.
Unacceptable assertion: Italians are a warm and emotional people.
PS: I've never found Americans to be particularly chatty. Maybe it's me.
Er, what? Americans are incredibly chatty. Almost to a fault
"The Kremlin has reportedly passed information on the locations of several US assets since the start of the war on Saturday, according to the Washington Post who spoke to three intelligence officials."
Worrying stuff, if true.
Britain’s Oil Companies had monopoly over Irans oil. Britain also had a special relationship with the USA. Behind that special relationship, the US was doing everything it could do to take away Britains monopoly of Irans Oil and get it for US oil companies. And in this fight the USA won. Yet outwardly, everyone is smiling and shaking hands as though the special bit of the relationship is good will.
Why think of and mention only Russia? If Trump is on verge of getting Irans oil, history books in 70 years time might explain, behind the scenes, China, France, UK, just about everybody, all working together to stop US getting Irans oil, that we were effectively belligerent against the USA and Australia during this crisis.
AUSTRALIANS were ON BOARD the US sub which, without warning, blew up an unarmed {for the show it was like a gun with all it bullets removed} Iranian ship the other day. Cry your eyes out Priti and Kemi. and Big G.
Why
This was a sophisticated Iranian warship that in a war could have seriously damaged British interests, military and people
War causes untold innocent casualties and it is regrettable
The ship had been taking part in an exercise (an International Fleet Review) with India, and the Indians have said that the exercise required that the ship not be carrying any ammunition at the time. That's how I've understood it; I don't know that we have any confirmation of this. The ship was therefore not (if these details are correct), at that time, capable of damaging anyone's interests. The US knew the rules of the Fleet Review, so they knew the ship was unarmed. It is thus questioned whether torpedoing it was appropriate. They could have just demanded its surrender.
The US is also accused of not helping survivors, which appears to be in breach of the Second Geneva Convention of 1949.
What is the big essential distinction between what they did and a premeditated mass murder?
Comments
In war it happens but seeing any ship sink is something to regret and wish circumstances were different
My favourite a while back was the Iranians would nuke Jerusalem.
I don’t think the terminally stupid realised it contains Islam’s third holiest site.
Wasn't the other Iranian ship under the same rules, so again not a threat? (I don't know; none of it is very clear.)
Us Brits used to be characterised as terribly stiff-upper-lip, but I'm not sure that's particularly the case now, if it ever was. Like you, I'd say - in the round - that the Dutch as a whole are different to the Swedes and the French and so on. But northerners are also noticeably different to those in the south in England - in propensity to chat to random strangers, if nothing else.
It's all fine, but the within-group differences are generally much larger than the between group differences (as with things like racial profiling of intelligence etc - I've no doubt there are differences, there are bound to be in any groupings, even day of the week born etc - but it's bugger all practical use because the distribution on characteristic A between group B and group C will broadly overlap, even if the median and limits are different.
Apparently there is some evidence that Golf is more dangerous than Rugby (due to people standing too close to other people who are waving big sticks around with a metal lump on the end):
https://golfsupport.com/blog/sports-injury-statistics-suggest-golf-is-more-dangerous-than-rugby-ba3f55/
1974
What created the Turkish intervention in 1974 was the Greek government doing a very violent coo in Cyprus, attacking Presidential Palace nearly killing the democratically elected President Makarios and replacing him with a notorious anti Turkish Greek Nationalist gunman, who then went on a murder spree on Makarios supporters and other opponents, resulting in hundreds of murders. Turkey initially appealed to the UK for a joint intervention under Treaty of Guarantee they both shared responsibility for Cyprus independence, but UK Labour government sat on their hands and ignored Turkey’s concerns for Turkish minority - that’s what really caused partition of the island, to make Turkish minority safe.
The pro Greek bias on PB makes it sound like a needless and unjustified Turkish invasion. 🤷♀️
Today.
It’s very important that living in the past with your outdated views don’t allow you to see the situation properly today. Southern Cyprus absolutely don’t need UK for security, Greece, Israel, EU are certainly their preference for their security going forwards, UK not on Cyprus speed dial; the UK bases {19 currently active} old colonial reason for Cyprus vassal state status today, not only rubbing up against their own Greek nationalism now, UK are not needed because the EU is here, but in a very practical sense it places huge Bomb Here sign - a target in that dangerous region that not necessarily fault of horrid mistakes of their own Cyprus foreign policy, but because of those decisions made in London and Washington.
Things are going to be moving on here, leaving you just as puzzled and bewildered as to why. As with identical situation in Indian Ocean I am so sure you equally don’t understand is exactly the same.
Let me illustrate with an example:
Acceptable assertion (whether true or not): Italians are more prone than most to waving their hands around whilst talking.
Unacceptable assertion: Italians are a warm and emotional people.
PS: I've never found Americans to be particularly chatty. Maybe it's me.
NATO protected
One piddly little drone fell.
It's not El Almein
Benefit to the UK?
Are there any?
.
The problem for Starmer is the public perception he had not moved to send the navy earlier to Cyprus and in the public perception it is ridiculous
And a piece of barbarism.
The WW2 practice came to an abrupt halt with the Laconia (which was carrying mainly Italian POWs) because an American patrol plane appeared, saw the several German subs and red cross flags, consulted with their superiors, then bombed them as instructed.
No need to postpone, it's a moment in time
Your unbridled glee is something to behold
Same old Tories
Unpatriotic
Talking UK down
Can't even beat Farage at that.
And there ended my 60 years in the sport largely off a handicap of 9
Apparently
Kemi barred from accessing US
Web Hacking
Falsifucation of US University Entry
Would I have done it if ordered to like CWB? Absolutely yes. Would I have ordered it? Honestly don't know.
I would also have sunk the Dena without hesitation if ordered.
One of the paradoxical effects of the sanctions on Iraq between the Gulf Wars was to make the Baath Party more powerful as they controlled the rations. That was after major insurrection too. Totalitarian regimes are quite tolerant of their people's suffering.
You now seem to be in a position of preferring a North Cyprus administration which is essentially Erdogan's regime, to over 50 years of democratic governmemts in Greece and Cyprus. You also wanted the Greek air force to stay away, who then shot diwn two drones heading for the airbase on Wednesday morning. It's very far from being in Britain's interests to favour a Turkish alliance in Cyprus over the sort of very large-scale European presence arriving, given that the Turkish regime id essentially a religious-authoritarian one supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. None of this makes any sense, which is what makes me wonder whether your anger about it comes from some other unidentified reason.
I would like to extend my thanks to the police, the security services, and everyone involved in keeping Britain safe.
People will be worried after today's arrests, especially those in our Jewish community. Our world-leading security services will not hesitate to protect you.
There are some who will use moments like this to divide people. It is vital that we now come together as a nation, united in our common purpose.
You could compare it with the Belgrano as it was an enemy warship
It would seem a legitimate target from a US point of view
I don't see the Kemster getting on with DJT. He's a big mad racist and she doesn't have "Mar-a-Lago Face". She's got teeth like a row of urinals for a start and she should get them sorted.
Which, of course, is another parallel with the Belgrano.
Plus Rules of Engagement around it, which Pete Hegseth would make very gung-ho.
IIRC the debate around the Belgrano was about whether it fell within the UK Rules of Engagement, and parsing of those rules.
It is to the UK and Argentina’s credit that we had a Red Cross box during the conflict.
And America's in Vietnam.
@atrupar
·
40m
CNN's Dana Bash reports on a conversation she just had with Trump: "He quickly turned to Cuba. He said without being asked, 'Cuba is going to fall pretty soon.'"
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2029922464218656980
Quite simple
We ARE NOT at war.
Kemi and Nigel are desperate for us to be.
We are NOT at War
Thank God we have sane leadership.
The European Commission today rebuked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over remarks that Hungary interpreted as a threat against Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Occasionally Rum Runner and Barbarellas
I was in to Rock and Prog Rock not metal.
I took the gentleman to a table and drew the location of the islands, and the ships, and I will never forget his rsponse.
'Thank you so much, you have my vote'
Classmate was Colin Kimberley, original Bass Player Diamond Head. I knew Brian Tatler very well Stourbridge lads.
Pointless expecting them to observe other conventions of war, previous less-bloodthirsty administrations have routinely used torture.
https://www.cvt.org/what-we-do/advocating-for-change/legacy-of-us-torture/
1994 https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/i/israel/israel946.pdf
2001 https://www.omct.org/en/resources/urgent-interventions/israel-palestinian-children-still-being-tortured-in-israeli-prisons
2024 https://www.btselem.org/publications/202408_welcome_to_hell
RIP the unhinged headline.
Although returning the Telegraph from a comic to a reliable broadsheet will mean culling the absolute moon howlers.
Putin’s Ukraine policy was incredibly successful in 2014.
If you were looking for that 51st state...
https://x.com/luketryl/status/2029935209454420141?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Reporter: The president called you a loser.
Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) : “I am thrilled about that. That makes me qualified to be homeland security secretary and senior adviser to the president.”
https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/2029663513904292340
Plaid - Green coalition ?
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2029921987334918248?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
I even did bar work at Hagley Country club
I know that the US political system is in a really depressing state right now and it has really failed in the past, but that is not to say it will continue to do so.
There is plausibly a meeting of minds between the isolationalist MAGA types and the Democrats around executive authority right now. MAGA were totally on board with Trump doing what he wanted when it aligned with their goals - I’m not quite sure that will continue to hold.
On that we agree. Yes.
It’s good you admit, the public perception of this doesn’t quite align with the truth. But for that, leading parliamentarians, UK media, even yourself, hasn’t helped public perception to be correct.
NEW THREAD
The 1974 example is about an agreement on Cyprus neutrality, between UK, Turkey, Greece. Greek Nationalism didn’t want Cyprus independence, they wanted unification. UK government deaf to Turkish fears for minority.
My bias is purely towards minorities, everywhere, because throughout world today, and throughout history, they do get a hard time. I have got a lot of these sensitivities reading PB the last couple of years. The ethnic wars and murders in Ukraine during Second World War was illuminating discussion and links. Town with 75% Ukraine Nationalist, 25% poles, here ethnic cleansing the poles who haven’t fled, towns with 80 poles, 20 Ukrainian, the Ukrainians fleeing or killed.
It’s so often legitimate concern for minorities that causes invasions and wars by neighbours, And ethnic wars and ethnic cleansing undercover of the chaos of wars, or in chaos after wars - perhaps very much where Trump Regime is taking Iran, where all Trump can see is oil barrels and dollar signs.
We need these sensitivities for the minorities. And we need to stand against the threats to minority communities. Everywhere.
Hagley Country Club very nice..
So, it's you. Soz