Our forces are active and British planes are in the sky today as part of coordinated regional defensive operations to protect our people, our interests, and our allies - as Britain has done before, in line with international law.

[–] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 37 points 3 months ago

If it’s in line with international law they should be defending Iranians against the illegal aggression of the USA. Though obviously that’s not kid starver’s meaning

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

How is that joining with what the US and Israel did?

It's protecting British personnel from any attacks that may come as a response to the US/Israel action.

But the statement explicitly says "The United Kingdom played no role in these strikes."

Starmer is also catching criticism from the Conservatives and Reform because the UK hasn't been involved

On the UK 's response to the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel told the BBC she found it "absolutely astonishing" Sir Keir had not been more proactive in its support.

And from here

Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, wrote on X: "The Prime Minister needs to change his mind on the use of our military bases and back the Americans in this vital fight against Iran!"

Meanwhile Emily Thornberry, a senior Labour MP and often critic of Starmer said:

"I am pleased to see the UK is not involved in these strikes on Iran. They are ill-advised and illegal.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What the personels are doing there to begin with and by allies they means israel and the usa

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Those are fair questions - but neither of them make it the case that Britain "joined" this attack.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think you can join an attack indirectly. I think defense is part of offense . For example Germany , France and Canada did assist the USA in Iraq war while claiming to oppose it . They sharing intelligence about the resistance groups and grant overflight rights to U.S. military transport planes

[+] sanguinepar@lemmy.world -6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ok, but other than just making assumptions, we have no evidence that the UK did even that here.

My main point is that OP seems to think that trying defend troops already stationed in the region (whether they should be there or not) counts as being part of this attack. Which it really doesn't. As far as I know, American planes didn't even get to take off from any UK bases.

The UK government/military has done plenty of heinous shit over the years, not least Iraq. I'm not pretending otherwise - but on this one, so far, it doesn't seem like they've really done anything.

They haven't condemned it either, of course, but from what we know so far, it's simply factually incorrect to say the UK joined in on this particular attack.

I think defense is part of offense

It certainly can be. But it can also just be defence - if they're sitting there with Iranian missiles heading at them, it's hardly surprising or unreasonable for them to try and intercept and prevent.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

As far as I know, American planes didn't even get to take off from any UK bases.

And now they are to be allowed to do that. FFS.

BBC News - UK will allow US to use bases to strike Iranian missile sites, PM says https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj9g11p1ezo