Labour could not be any more pathetic at this point.
Oh, they could. They could have joined this cluster fuck of a war. The Tories 100% would have. So there’s that.
As many see it, the difference in joining and not joining is fuck all.
Every “democracy” appears to be functionally equivalent to capitalist dictatorship. When money owns the majority of the political class, the only difference is the illusion of choice.
The success of each countries corporations and 0.001% is the “national security”; not the lives of the actual population.
I’d like to see landowners, owners of property and owners of physical businesses given a “national security” tax. That’s what’s really being defended. But you can imagine the squealing they’d do if they were told to put their hands in their pockets.
Supposedly, Britain doesn’t use the same midair refuelling system as the US and Israel, so can’t refuel US and Israeli planes. However, we do have a lot of our own planes in the air to shoot drones and missiles down if they’re targeting allies. It seems pretty plausible that they might need fuel, and it’s a bigger disruption to air defense if they’ve got to land and take off again. Also, a lot of the UK’s allies in the area like Qatar and Saudi Arabia use a compatible refueling system, so it could be to refuel their planes, which are also in the air in the general region doing air defense, although it would be odd for any of them to be that close to Cyprus.
When Palestine Action vandalised that plane the press were saying “it’s not even the same refuelling system”. Like that was the point.
Just doing some sick doughnuts, nothing nefarious going on here.
Actually, refueling is indeed not an offensive action.
Refueling bomber* planes is a very offensive action.
I suppose a bombed plane is quite bad at flying in general.
The typo has been fixed as have the planes
The persons fixing the planes have also been fixed
Jokes aside, in military terms, refueling/supporting is not an offensive act. They are obviously part of a whole offensive command chain, but that makes their actions not automatically offensive, too.
Still a dick move by Britain, because they are trying to fool the public.
It’s very much an offensive act and makes the Cyprus base a valid military target for Iran.
Sure bud, I’m just gonna needlessly condescend to you whilst retreating from the argument because I’m unable to see how openly helping just one side of a battle with their munitions and operations isn’t the same as taking sides
I don’t think the point is whether it’s actually an offensive act or not in general terms, it’s “this is the technical definition they will weasel out on”. Which is almost certainly true - refueling is not inherently offensive.
Sure bud, go and believe whatever you want. Just here to inform the more open minded people how military defines the term “offensive”. And with that, I will not continue to argue with you on this topic.
By this logic Trump and Netanyahu aren’t undertaking any offensive action either because they’re not the people dropping the bombs
In the same way that doing admin for Auschwitz is not taking offensive action, sure…
That’s correct. It is NOT an offensive action. Does it make their actions innocent? Of course not, because the whole chain of command is responsible, not just the one pushing the button.
I would argue facilitating somebody else’s offensive action, is an offensive action. If I encourage my friend to punch somebody else, I have participated in the attack, and therefore have committed an offensive action. Debating over culpability here is ridiculous, the man who loads the bombs is just as culpable as the man who drops them.
Nope. You confuse “aggressive” with “offensive”. Telling your friend to punch someone is an aggressive action. Punching someone is an offensive action.
Wheeee!
