Starmer's treachery

[King Billy]

Iran is/was a danger to the whole world. They sponsored terrorism left, right and centre. If they achieved their goal of making a nuclear weapon, it would be a huge direct and indirect threat to us.

I'll ask the same question I've asked of numerous others:
What do you, or the Iranians, think would happen if they used a nuclear weapon on another, any other country?

It doesn't make the world a safer place by joining in with an illegal, unprovoked and unjustifiable attack on another country.

 

[King Billy]

I have no idea why Starmer is refusing to support our ally, Donald Trump, in his actions in Iran.

You have no idea why Starmer is refusing to be complicit in an irresponsible, unjustifiable, illegal attack on another country?
That says more about your intellect than it does about anything else.

 

[ellal]

By not providing support to the US he has p!ssed off our biggest ally.

The US may be the biggest ally in terms of military might, but whilst the US is ruled by the orange rapist it is one of the least reliable...

Who are the countries sending military assets to help out in Cyprus?

The most reliable ones - European countries!

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

They're all in the wrong. It's all crap, there's no "right" in any of them.

The Iranian government are awful mass-murderers, so are those who are dropping bombs all over the place. Israel wants the land, USA wants the oil.

Despite my hatred of Starmer, he's done the right thing here. We're just a crappy little country, we should be right behind Holland, Ireland, Belgium and every other minor country in international warfare away from home, i.e. stay the hell out of it.

 

[pete01]

Starmer is right for once OMG

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Starmer's too busy talking at events like this, which in my opinion should not be taking place anywhere near our corridors of power.

PM says UK 'not involved' with Iran attacks despite Trump jibe

Keir Starmer made his latest attempt to wash his hands of the US president's military campaign in a speech to Muslims breaking Ramadan fast last night.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[pete01]

I posted this on another thread earlier but he will probably also be credited one day.

 

[King Billy]

Not only that, sitting on the fence didn't stop Iran attacking RAF Akrotiri and he's had to u-turn. So he's ended up having support the US anyway but has managed to royally p!ss them off in the process.

Clandestine support for the USA attack, with 300 British military personnel stationed in a US base, is not only justification for Iran to attack UK, it's also blatant misdirection by Starmer.
The media admitted the 300 British personnel in the Bahrain US base on Sunday, following the Iran attack on the base on Saturday. They didn't just drop in for coffee.
UK Military were complicit in the illegal attack on Iran.

In addition, assisting your ally by claiming to be acting purely defensively is nonsense. It frees up your ally's resources for its offensive attack.
Iran is fully justified in its attack on Britain now.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Trump was mostly annoyed by the Chagos nonsense, not any inactivity relating to Iran.

That can and should be dealt with, by Starmer adding just one more U-turn to his long list. But then he wouldn't be getting any back-handers from his lawyer mates so he probably won't.

 

[King Billy]

Harold Wilson didn't join the Americans in Vietnam.
Was Harold Wilson a traitor.

Harold Wilson didn't join in an illegal attack against the so-called common enemy - Communism, despite the years long propaganda exercise to vilify communism.
Starmer should not have joined in this so-called common enemy - Islam, despite the decades long propaganda exercise to vilify Islam.

 

[King Billy]

There was no risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. You have fallen for Trump's lies. I bet you supported the Iraq War.

Even if they did, what would have happened to them if they used a nuclear weapon against any other country?

Why hasn't North Korea unleashed armageddon on the world?
They were supposed to be dangerous, devious villains

 

[ellal]

Trump was mostly annoyed by the Chagos nonsense, not any inactivity relating to Iran.

That can and should be dealt with, by Starmer adding just one more U-turn to his long list. But then he wouldn't be getting any back-handers from his lawyer mates so he probably won't.

So how many u-turns over Chagos did the orange one do?

Trump gets upset when he doesn't get it all his own way...

I think you'll find it's more to do with Starmer and our true allies standing up to him over Greenland!

 

[ellal]

Even if they did, what would have happened to them if they used a nuclear weapon against any other country?

Why hasn't North Korea unleashed armageddon on the world?

The islamaphobes don't get the idea of deterrence do they

 

[King Billy]

Which bit of my post is nonsense?

All of it.

Did Starmer **** of the Americans by not allowing them to use our bases?
Yes

Who cares, it was an unprovoked, illegal unjustified attack.
It was morally and legally the right thing to do, to refuse to be complicit with yet another of USA's illegal operations.

Did Iran attack RAF Akrotiri?
Yes

Yes, because there were British military there assisting the USA, despite Starmers refusal to be involved.

Has Starmer ended up allowing the Americans to use our bases anyway?
Yes

Because he's been exposed for having been complicit from the outset.

I'd say i was pretty factually accurate.

Factually accurate maybe, but without exposing Starmer's deceit behind his public statements.

 

[Lower]

Trump was mostly annoyed by the Chagos nonsense, not any inactivity relating to Iran.

That can and should be dealt with, by Starmer adding just one more U-turn to his long list. But then he wouldn't be getting any back-handers from his lawyer mates so he probably won't.

Trump is annoyed that the UK wouldn't allow the US to use Diago Garcia or US bases in the UK to launch strikes on Iran so their bombers had to fly marathon round trips.

Starmer could have just declined to involve UK forces directly, and the US would have accepted that. But no, he also had to tell the US that they couldn't use the long established bases that they pay us a considerable amount to use. He knew it wouldn't prevent the US from attached Iran anyway, so all he did was succeed in ****ing of our ally, and then had to U-turn when Iran attacked us anyway.

I don't think the ongoing dispute over the Chagos islands had any actual bearing on whether we allowed the US to use them or not. That was traitorous, spineless Stamer's decision.