37
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
37 points (100.0% liked)
World News
40142 readers
992 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean they are literally helping the US by working at the bases the US is using to attack Iran. You're trying to draw a weird distinction here between them providing support by operating at these bases and actively engaging in attacks. In both cases they are active participants in the war of aggression against Iran.
It's not a weird distinction between a goal (why they're going there) and a (side-)effect (what is something that's happening as a result of it), when someone seems to confuse the two lol
The only one confused here is you. The goal is to enable military operations against Iran. That's why those bases exist in the first place. These troops are part of the war of aggression, and whether they have an offensive role or not is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. To put it in terms you might understand easier, if you're a getaway driver for a bank robbery, you can't use that an excuse to claim that you weren't part of the robbery.
It doesn't look like that's why those troops are being send there right now though. These troops are for the Gulf allies and Cyprus.
You are angry about the British role in the Iran war and I feel you, but I'm just talking about why these troops are going there.
I'm not angry. I'm pointing out the simple fact that the reason those bases are being attacked by Iran is because they're used to wage a war of aggression against Iran. I'm just trying to explain to you why those troops are active participants in this war. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand that frankly.
It's just that you're talking about a different thing to me. You're explaining things that weren't under question and don't really relate to what I said. I was solely talking about why these troops were being sent there right now.
I appreciate the enthusiasm but it's just a bit off this topic and more a general discussion about the war.
And I was solely explaining how that makes them part of the war.
Nobody was questioning that though. The discussion was about the reason for their involvement... But doesn't hurt to mention I guess
Their involvement is the same as the one of the getaway driver's involvement in a robbery.
Do you mean the troops they now sent? What would the analogy be in their case?
here's an explanation from a former British diplomat for you https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/keir-starmer-agrees-to-deploy-5000
Pretty funny but not sure what you want me to take away from this. I still don't understand how your analogy fits these new troops being sent there.
You spend all your time nitpicking and rule lawyering and NONE on actually reading. Your posts REEKS of "UMH AKSHUALLY..."
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to upset you. I did read the post but it was just that sort of bizarre but funny stuff. If it made the analogy clear then I honestly missed it.