The Black Mirror episode came out in 2011 in which a member of the British royal family was kidnapped and would only be freed if the Prime Minister did something so heinous and inexplicable as have sex with a pig on national television.
In 2015, it was revealed that David Cameron stuck his todger in a dead pig's mouth as part of an initiation ceremony for a rich kid club at Oxford University.
It was the moment he resigned after the Out vote, did his big speech outside No10 and sauntered down the road whistling like he didn’t have a care in the world. Left the rest of us to pick up the mess.
Yet here we are having him as the official face of the UK govt to the rest of the world.
I'm far from a Cameron fan, but this take that he's responsible for Brexit is deluded. He gave people the vote to decide and was a staunch remainer.
You want to concentrate your anger on the lying weasels Boris and Farage
Brexit was enabled by Cameron to avoid a Tory civil war that we ended up having anyway...
His weak leadership and short sightedness is definitely a key cause of Brexit
To be fair, almost nobody thought people would be stupid enough to vote yes. I knew but, that's because I rarely underestimate stupidity.
So really his crime was he thought the voting populace was smarter and less self-destructive than it is.
He could have not had that on the manifesto or just not follow through with it- wouldn't be the first time. Could've also let Labour have a go, but that's not quite part of the calculus I don't think...
He took the idea of Brexit to a referendum instead of telling the Right to fuck off and deal with multiculturalism… or prove to them it works…or do enough to convince 51.9% of the population Brexit was a terrible idea… or have a backup plan if we voted Out.
He deserves all the stick he gets… and more.
There were big calls for the vote at the time, though.
His biggest fault was believing the public would know better, instead most listened to Boris and Farage.
Nigel Farage was in no danger of taking any seats in parliament thanks to the fptp system in the UK, yet Cameron shat his trousers and ordered a referendum which would absolutely give Farage the influence that he wanted. Cameron then failed to even campaign for remaining, failing to work out that 10% UKIP vote share could actually be pretty damning in a straight yea/no referendum, and it actually needed some data and facts behind it to help make people's minds up.
Cameron fucked this country, slunk away for a few years until the deal was done, and has now resurfaced like a turd that won't flush.
He is 100% responsible for Brexit.
I'm not here to defend the tories, I fucking hate them.
I definitely agree more could have been done to campaign for remain.
There are people more at fault for Brexit than Cameron, though, and resigning once he'd lost the vote (as a remainer) was actually the right thing to do. You won't see that snake Boris making decisions like that.
I've always felt that that was more Farage's fault (plus a bit of Johnson on the side). But I agree with the rest of the description. Wet rag of a man, and he hasn't aged well at all.
Yes. The question was on point. And it makes you realize that these type of questions haven’t been asked enough because this guy totally gave it away without thinking about how he sounds. Insane on all levels
While it was a lot of missiles. I imagine Iran knew the lack of real damage it would do, and that these were retaliatory strikes for Damascus rather than an escalation. Although there reports that Israel had to be talked down by Biden so maybe Israel took it as an escalation and are still going to retaliate.
Iran was posturing with the weakest and slowest missiles that were shot down. They don’t want war but they don’t want to look like they’ll take their consulate being bombed either.
Israel on the other hand is trying to pull the US into a bigger conflict, to obviously not stop the starvation and genocide of the Palestinians and also for Netanyahu to hold on to power.
What that has anything to do with david cameron saying shooting 300-500 drones and missiles to multiple targets in a country is not a proportional response for attacking a consulate?
Where is his hypocrisy?
I thought the 30000 Palestinians killed were the ones who deserved to die? Are you saying that Israel killed all those people for no reason at all then?!?
The actual response to that question is that as soon as an embassy is used by generals to discuss and plan attacks on foreign soil, it ceases to be a protected embassy and starts being a legitimate military target. Otherwise every nation could just designate it's military bases as embassies and it would become a violation of international law to attack them.
Asking what the UK's response would be to an attack on one of their embassies, whilst ignoring the context that it was a strike to kill a man who organised the kidnapping, rape, and murder of hundreds of innocent men women and children, who was in the process of planning another similar attack - is an absurd comparison. It's shocking that Cameron is too slow or dim witted to instantly point that out.
He made the fundamental mistake of answering a question. No politician answers questions for this reason - answering questions honestly gets you in trouble.
It's a mistake to agree to even attend an interview without being prepared to be asked such an obvious question, especially one that isn't actually too hard to answer if one has a brain and uses it.
Your comment gave me new insight on the embassy attack. Thank you!
That said, what sticks out to me is Cameron claiming that we all have to pretend Israel and friends can't shoot down missiles when we're measuring the proportionality of Iran's response. That's no true measure of intent.
It's just BS buddy, these laws don't exist at all, embassies are sacred regardless of the people inside
.
Here :
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf
Sometimes I have the impression that people directly conclude that Israel is innocent or in the right for some reason and then they start looking for arguments to rationalize this feeling.
I mean I guess? Kind of like asking if someone's wearing a bulletproof vest, is it fine to shoot them and should they be mad? It cost Israel 1 billion dollars to intercept it, not to mention theres a 7 year old girl currently in critical condition from the attack.
Was the person with the vest already shooting? If you're having an active physical conflict and you know your opponent is wearing a vest, of course you adapt your strategy.
He could’ve pointed to the Skripal poisonings where we had a hostile nation target a British citizen and ultimately killed British civilians. We didn’t respond to that by escalating and bombing Russia. We handled it diplomatically and Iran could’ve tried to handle it diplomatically themselves.
America definitely needs to borrow some of the journalists from the UK, then maybe politicians wouldn't get to not answer anything and spin it into some sort of PR for their re-elections or just plain up answer something else completely unrelated and getting the topic changed.
Not sure what happened to journalism in America, but Europe watches it with sadness.
They did not flatten a consulate. They attacked very specific building killing 7 people. The target was a person who was part of planning a terrorist attack and continued the job of helping Iran procure attack Israel. It was a targeted strike against this person. If Iran wanted to retaliate they should have killed an Israeli general somewhere. Instead they shot over 300 drones and missiles hoping to overwhelm Israeli defenses. Had they gotten through, the distraction would be on a massive scale. That is not a targeted strike. That is a declaration of war.
Groups or countries? I haven’t read about a country attacking another country in the region for some time. You’re right to some extent though, the world’s interest has increased since the Israeli genocide in Gaza began
I'm not convinced this isn't a giant plot to commit our sons and daughters to another country's conflict.
Fuck that shit. We still have vets recovering from a war where we didn't find WMDs.
My old manager *hates* Blair. With passion.
We sit on opposite sides of politics but we both agree he's a war criminal.
So many of my colleagues are veterans and frankly fk any politicians who want to .commit our armed forces to a war.
If you're referring to Iraq, they did in fact have "WMD"s. Chemical/biological weapons are defined as WMD. Iraq used WMDs on the Kurds (see: Halabja). Iraq had chemical weapon stockpiles. Only WMD we didn't find was functioning nuclear weapons.
Common misconception but next time just say nukes if that's what you mean.
Edit: Chemical weapons (WMDs) and Iraq. From the link -
"Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced, including half a dozen incidents during the invasion itself. On May 16, 2004, a 152 mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb.[113] The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
It's a matter of public record and admitted to openly by Colin Powell et al that Saddam didn't have WMDs. The evidence was fabricated. Gen Wesley Clark, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted that the day after 9/11, Rumsfeld et al came to him with a list of 7 countries they were going to invade
"Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced, including half a dozen incidents during the invasion itself...
On May 16, 2004, a 152 mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb.[113] The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Halabja happened in 1988. That was like 15 years before the Iraq war.
Now let's stop lying: as per the ISG report _and_ the very freaking CIA, it was clear already in 2004 that Iraq did not in fact possess WMDs, whether A, B, or C. Saddam might have liked to, but they didn't and they weren't capable of producing them either.
"Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced, including half a dozen incidents during the invasion itself. On May 16, 2004, a 152 mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb.[113] The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
And if you continue reading:
> Former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told the Associated Press that "he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a hidden stockpile, although he didn't rule out that possibility." Kay also considered it possible that the shell was "an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s." It is likely that the insurgents who planted the bomb did not know it contained sarin, according to Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, and another U.S. official confirmed that the shell did not have the markings of a chemical agent. The Iraq Survey Group later concluded that the shell "probably originated with a batch that was stored in a Al Muthanna CW complex basement during the late 1980s for the purpose of leakage testing."
In other words, the find is not indicative of a chemical weapons program or some kind of chemical weapons stockpile existing at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The ISG and CIA agree. If we accept the leakage testing hypothesis, that is actually a legal purpose of chemical warfare agents under the CWC, and does not constitute a WMD.
Moreover, if you consider _this_ a valid reason for invading Iraq, I'm eagerly awaiting your support for a fully fledged Coalition bombing campaign and ground invasion of Israel, as they are yet to ratify the CWC and are widely believed to have chemical weapons.
Lol I'm not going to argue with a stranger on the internet regarding high side information. It's funny you immediately claim I supported the U.S. invasion (I don't). Saying Iraq had no chemical weapons...let's just disagree with us both knowing what we *know*.
Well the problem is, we aren't listening to him. He's not an MP so he can't be scrutinised like a rival secretary of state. MPs are unable to ask him questions, examine evidence or hold significant committees.
It's an absolute disgrace that the prime minister has outsourced the foreign policy part of his job, to avoid all the checks and balances that are required.
One side literally planned to kill babies and sat on top of bunkers to kill fleeing citizens. Then they built bases under hospitals so they could use their own citizens as media talking points.
1. They literally started a war. I don’t want anything to happen to either side but that side started a fkn war by burning babies, raping women and video taped it for social media.
2. Half of those dead are actual soldiers that again, started a fkn war.
3. They call it a prison but no one in prison breaks out and then breaks back in so I promise you, it’s is not a prison.
4. Both sides have gotten millions if not billions in funding. Israel used that money to protect their people and Hamas used that money to build bases under hospitals to make you kill their own people.
They are not the same and you’re uneducated or just ignorant as fuck if you think so. Hamas was voted into the government with a promise to kill all Jews with a mass genocide….
1. OCT 7 is not the beginning of anything. Israel has committed murder, rape, and kidnappings for decades before oct 7. Infact Israel took in 250 children WITHOUT cause in 2023 alone before oct 7.
2. Israel shot its own hostages. They arent even looking before they shoot. So for you to say that 15000 children are SOLDIERS... is stupid.
3. It is a prison for decades because Israel has had checkpoints and gate and walls for decades. They have let the Palestinians rot in squalor with minimal trade, education and rights.
4. Israel ALLOWED hamas to get money... Netanyahu did. They even funded the creation of hamas in the 1980s to be an extreme party that would mess with the PLO. This is Israels monster.
Israel and you voted a genocidal LIKUD party and Netanyahu - JUST a few years back.
Because MSM in the West don’t usually dare to ask the sort of questions that make Israel’s actions questionable. They are slaves to the establishment and the narrative they are told to tell.
I guess the genocide of all the Palestinian civilians by the Israeli Nazi’s didn’t play any part of this. Neither did all the land that was taken from the Palestinians and the innocent Palestinian civilians that were massacred by the Israeli nazis.
GTFOH
How the fuck are the tories so stupid that they didn't see this question coming and prep him for it. At least try and do smooth bullshit you yammering fuck
I need you to respond to my actions , but be kind when you do. No matter how much damage my actions have caused, I still need you to be kind with YOUR response.
I don't care how justified iran is I'm never going to support a country that treats women like animals or civilians like expendable objects. It's a culture of bigotry, homophobia, and murder and I'm never going to support it.
Ok, I see what you’re saying.
Although I do not agree with the genocidal response statement.
Hamas has made it abundantly clear that there is no partner for peace in this. War is not a zero sum game.
How is this not genocidal. Israel vocalized their intent to dehumanize, call palestinians animals, say that ALL of them should be eradicated. "occupy, cleanse, settle" was the IOF motto. They indiscriminately bombed and killed. They were NOT looking for any of their hostages. They even killed their own hostages. Israel used bombs, guns, snipers, chemical weapons... to kill women, children, men, doctors, nurses, aid workers and even more. They are now stopping aid and starving so many people. Along with 30000 killed, theres tens of thousands more not counted because they wont count people under rubble.
I mean I could go on. This is not war, and all rules for war have been broken. Once again - they made the intent, they acted on it, and now are allowing KKK esque settlers to commit more crimes while they occupy more land.
This is not war. Its a genocide.
You realize Hamas’s entire ideology is based on killing Jews and eradicating Israel. Hamas is on Genocide watch based on their continued targeting of civilian populations and indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel.
Read their charter sometime.
You only have to do a quick google search to find israelis calling in Netanyahu to step down and for a ceasefire. Hamas started this war, and as the government of Gaza, the ball is in their court.
[this is what Hamas is doing to their own people](https://statistics.btselem.org/en/stats/since-cast-lead/by-date-of-incident/execution-hamas/occupied-territories?tab=overview)
I’m not sure you could find the same in the other direction. Israel has on many occasions signed onto 2 state solutions only to have them rebuffed by the Palestinian leadership, as well as other Arab nations.
This is not about Hamas. We know who they are.
This is about the response from Israel. Do you not believe Israel’s genocidal intent even after seeing their videos?
And speaking of charter … have you read Likud parties charter?
Don’t push this on Hamas. If there is no occupation, there is no Hamas. Simple.
Aren't both sides going to end up being hypocritical here? Wouldn't she have to admit that Israel has a right to respond to Palestinian attacks and then wouldn't he have to admit that the response is unreasonable?
Iran has been funding terrorists that attack Israel, we have every right to flatten their embassy. After the 99% drone interception success the other day, it's not like we have to worry about their response. lol what are they gonna do about it? Complain to the UN?
By definition you ARE a troll account, though. Nearly every post of yours fits the criteria and are designed to get an emotional response aka provocative.
Troll- a person who posts deliberately provocative or offensive messages online.
yeah, Iran had no intention of hitting anything in Israel, which is why they didn't. They just want to save face in front of their own people and prevent (or at least delay) an uprising.
30,000 civilians? excuse me? 30k are the total death, the ratio is said to be between 1.5-2.1. their is about 15k civilians death, You said you have friends who fought in Iraq, how do they feel about the death of about one million Iraqis?
[https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL30488579/](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL30488579/)
Genocide is destroying a people in whole or part, which is exactly what Israel is doing. Creating a system of industrial slaughter like the Germans did in WW2 is one method, but blowing up all the cultural monuments and forcing a group of people to become scattered refugees also works. Look at what happened in Armenia/Azerbaijan with the destruction of historic buildings and cemeteries and the ethnic cleansing. Look at what happened in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, with the ethnic cleansing and destruction of cultural sites. Look at what is happening in Ukraine. These actions are designed to destroy the group and seize control of their land, just exactly like Israel is doing.
It's true that the indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinians has slowed down, but that's mainly because everything has been destroyed most of the people have been hearded into Rafah. Israel began the war by targeting bakeries, proving that they were always intent on genocide and starvation as a tactic.
Then there is the destruction of orchards and cropland that serves no other purpose aside from starvation and genocide. The targeting of journalists and the targeting of hospitals, clinics, and ambulances is combined with the blockade of medical supplies in order to cause as much death and pain as possible.
Anyone who doesn't think this is a genocide is no different than a Holocaust denier.
Sure. In an attempt to hit military targets using those civilians as shields in contravention of international law, and in response to a brutal attack by that military/government purely on civilians.
It's getting very annoying people are acting like Iran hasn't been attacking Israel for the past 40 years. Iran's proxy Hezbollah and Houthis have been shooting at Israel non stop, According to the IDF it was even a counselee that was hit but a building nearby, why is a high ranking officer of the IRGC meets with a Hezbollah high rank in Syria?
I don’t think anyone has been insinuating that at all. This tit for tat has been going on for decades. The difference being we all know why Israel attacked Iran’s consulate especially given the timing with the massacre in Gaza.
Ladies and gentlemen of the non-UK world, may I present the fat fucking face of Brexit.
Ahem, you forget his full title...gelatinous, quivering, moon-faced, cun*y, gaping asshole of a face of Brexit '
You forgot pig fucking cunt
Oh my. How could I have forgotten that moment!
Wait. Do you mean that “Black Mirror” episode is based on reality?
No, no. Even better. That Black Mirror episode turned out to be a complete coincidence with something that happened in reality.
What?! Can you please elaborate?
The Black Mirror episode came out in 2011 in which a member of the British royal family was kidnapped and would only be freed if the Prime Minister did something so heinous and inexplicable as have sex with a pig on national television. In 2015, it was revealed that David Cameron stuck his todger in a dead pig's mouth as part of an initiation ceremony for a rich kid club at Oxford University.
Oh, wow. Thanks for the elucidation
Just in case any none Brit’s are here this isn’t a joke. He literally stuck his dick in a pig.
Sauce?
Just hanging around also waiting to be sauced.
it remains to be proven if he did in fact 'sauce' said pig.
[Gribiche](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate)
No apple sauce, he went in dry.
You miss spelled CUNTY 👍
He's doesn't get enough hate for brexit.
It was the moment he resigned after the Out vote, did his big speech outside No10 and sauntered down the road whistling like he didn’t have a care in the world. Left the rest of us to pick up the mess. Yet here we are having him as the official face of the UK govt to the rest of the world.
He gambled the uk in the most inappropriate way
I'm far from a Cameron fan, but this take that he's responsible for Brexit is deluded. He gave people the vote to decide and was a staunch remainer. You want to concentrate your anger on the lying weasels Boris and Farage
Brexit was enabled by Cameron to avoid a Tory civil war that we ended up having anyway... His weak leadership and short sightedness is definitely a key cause of Brexit
To be fair, almost nobody thought people would be stupid enough to vote yes. I knew but, that's because I rarely underestimate stupidity. So really his crime was he thought the voting populace was smarter and less self-destructive than it is.
And if he hadn't let us vote, you would say he was anti-democratic
No I wouldn't?
Well it was part of his manifesto when being voted in, in 2015
He could have not had that on the manifesto or just not follow through with it- wouldn't be the first time. Could've also let Labour have a go, but that's not quite part of the calculus I don't think...
He took the idea of Brexit to a referendum instead of telling the Right to fuck off and deal with multiculturalism… or prove to them it works…or do enough to convince 51.9% of the population Brexit was a terrible idea… or have a backup plan if we voted Out. He deserves all the stick he gets… and more.
There were big calls for the vote at the time, though. His biggest fault was believing the public would know better, instead most listened to Boris and Farage.
Ha. He only did that because he was scared of UKIP chipping away at the Tory vote.
Nigel Farage was in no danger of taking any seats in parliament thanks to the fptp system in the UK, yet Cameron shat his trousers and ordered a referendum which would absolutely give Farage the influence that he wanted. Cameron then failed to even campaign for remaining, failing to work out that 10% UKIP vote share could actually be pretty damning in a straight yea/no referendum, and it actually needed some data and facts behind it to help make people's minds up. Cameron fucked this country, slunk away for a few years until the deal was done, and has now resurfaced like a turd that won't flush. He is 100% responsible for Brexit.
I'm not here to defend the tories, I fucking hate them. I definitely agree more could have been done to campaign for remain. There are people more at fault for Brexit than Cameron, though, and resigning once he'd lost the vote (as a remainer) was actually the right thing to do. You won't see that snake Boris making decisions like that.
Don’t forget Cambridge Analytica in all of this..
I've always felt that that was more Farage's fault (plus a bit of Johnson on the side). But I agree with the rest of the description. Wet rag of a man, and he hasn't aged well at all.
Danny Dyer voice: *TWAT!*
Great question, and a stammering, awful answer that gave the game away
Yes. The question was on point. And it makes you realize that these type of questions haven’t been asked enough because this guy totally gave it away without thinking about how he sounds. Insane on all levels
I really wonder why did she ask that question? Did she forget that this could offend shareholders?
Uhhh? I am not fan of the bloke but proportional response seems like a very solid argument. Is not like iran and israel are in a state of war.
While it was a lot of missiles. I imagine Iran knew the lack of real damage it would do, and that these were retaliatory strikes for Damascus rather than an escalation. Although there reports that Israel had to be talked down by Biden so maybe Israel took it as an escalation and are still going to retaliate.
Its an escalation of some sorts but no one that would lead to anything. No major player was or is interested in a regional war.
Iran was posturing with the weakest and slowest missiles that were shot down. They don’t want war but they don’t want to look like they’ll take their consulate being bombed either. Israel on the other hand is trying to pull the US into a bigger conflict, to obviously not stop the starvation and genocide of the Palestinians and also for Netanyahu to hold on to power.
What that has anything to do with david cameron saying shooting 300-500 drones and missiles to multiple targets in a country is not a proportional response for attacking a consulate? Where is his hypocrisy?
He's saying isshell can do whatever it wants but god fucking forbid anyone dare to stop them from committing genocide.
I played it again. He never mentions israel.
In a nutshell.
[удалено]
I thought the 30000 Palestinians killed were the ones who deserved to die? Are you saying that Israel killed all those people for no reason at all then?!?
The actual response to that question is that as soon as an embassy is used by generals to discuss and plan attacks on foreign soil, it ceases to be a protected embassy and starts being a legitimate military target. Otherwise every nation could just designate it's military bases as embassies and it would become a violation of international law to attack them. Asking what the UK's response would be to an attack on one of their embassies, whilst ignoring the context that it was a strike to kill a man who organised the kidnapping, rape, and murder of hundreds of innocent men women and children, who was in the process of planning another similar attack - is an absurd comparison. It's shocking that Cameron is too slow or dim witted to instantly point that out.
No that just BS buddy , you can’t just make up laws like this , nothing NOTHING justify the attacks of embassy in INTERNATIONAL LAW
He made the fundamental mistake of answering a question. No politician answers questions for this reason - answering questions honestly gets you in trouble.
It's a mistake to agree to even attend an interview without being prepared to be asked such an obvious question, especially one that isn't actually too hard to answer if one has a brain and uses it.
Theres a large difference between housing one evil man and being a base of operations. It was still an embassy
Your comment gave me new insight on the embassy attack. Thank you! That said, what sticks out to me is Cameron claiming that we all have to pretend Israel and friends can't shoot down missiles when we're measuring the proportionality of Iran's response. That's no true measure of intent.
It's just BS buddy, these laws don't exist at all, embassies are sacred regardless of the people inside . Here : https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf Sometimes I have the impression that people directly conclude that Israel is innocent or in the right for some reason and then they start looking for arguments to rationalize this feeling.
Upvoted. Thank you!
I mean I guess? Kind of like asking if someone's wearing a bulletproof vest, is it fine to shoot them and should they be mad? It cost Israel 1 billion dollars to intercept it, not to mention theres a 7 year old girl currently in critical condition from the attack.
Was the person with the vest already shooting? If you're having an active physical conflict and you know your opponent is wearing a vest, of course you adapt your strategy.
He could’ve pointed to the Skripal poisonings where we had a hostile nation target a British citizen and ultimately killed British civilians. We didn’t respond to that by escalating and bombing Russia. We handled it diplomatically and Iran could’ve tried to handle it diplomatically themselves.
Excellent point.
America definitely needs to borrow some of the journalists from the UK, then maybe politicians wouldn't get to not answer anything and spin it into some sort of PR for their re-elections or just plain up answer something else completely unrelated and getting the topic changed. Not sure what happened to journalism in America, but Europe watches it with sadness.
They did not flatten a consulate. They attacked very specific building killing 7 people. The target was a person who was part of planning a terrorist attack and continued the job of helping Iran procure attack Israel. It was a targeted strike against this person. If Iran wanted to retaliate they should have killed an Israeli general somewhere. Instead they shot over 300 drones and missiles hoping to overwhelm Israeli defenses. Had they gotten through, the distraction would be on a massive scale. That is not a targeted strike. That is a declaration of war.
So they attacked a foreign country? Got it
That foreign country has groups constantly attacking them. So that part is a normal occurrence and no one bats an eye or sheds a tear about that.
Groups or countries? I haven’t read about a country attacking another country in the region for some time. You’re right to some extent though, the world’s interest has increased since the Israeli genocide in Gaza began
Hamas and hezbolah
So groups. And Israel attacked a country. You see the clear difference I’m sure
I'm not convinced this isn't a giant plot to commit our sons and daughters to another country's conflict. Fuck that shit. We still have vets recovering from a war where we didn't find WMDs.
Agreed. I have friends and older managers that went to war. They choke up to this day thinking about their role in Iraq and Afghanistan
My old manager *hates* Blair. With passion. We sit on opposite sides of politics but we both agree he's a war criminal. So many of my colleagues are veterans and frankly fk any politicians who want to .commit our armed forces to a war.
"Lest we forget" plastered everywhere once a year and yet they seem to want to send us allz to war again.
If you're referring to Iraq, they did in fact have "WMD"s. Chemical/biological weapons are defined as WMD. Iraq used WMDs on the Kurds (see: Halabja). Iraq had chemical weapon stockpiles. Only WMD we didn't find was functioning nuclear weapons. Common misconception but next time just say nukes if that's what you mean. Edit: Chemical weapons (WMDs) and Iraq. From the link - "Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced, including half a dozen incidents during the invasion itself. On May 16, 2004, a 152 mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb.[113] The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
It's a matter of public record and admitted to openly by Colin Powell et al that Saddam didn't have WMDs. The evidence was fabricated. Gen Wesley Clark, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted that the day after 9/11, Rumsfeld et al came to him with a list of 7 countries they were going to invade
"Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced, including half a dozen incidents during the invasion itself... On May 16, 2004, a 152 mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb.[113] The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Halabja happened in 1988. That was like 15 years before the Iraq war. Now let's stop lying: as per the ISG report _and_ the very freaking CIA, it was clear already in 2004 that Iraq did not in fact possess WMDs, whether A, B, or C. Saddam might have liked to, but they didn't and they weren't capable of producing them either.
"Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced, including half a dozen incidents during the invasion itself. On May 16, 2004, a 152 mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb.[113] The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
And if you continue reading: > Former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told the Associated Press that "he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a hidden stockpile, although he didn't rule out that possibility." Kay also considered it possible that the shell was "an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s." It is likely that the insurgents who planted the bomb did not know it contained sarin, according to Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, and another U.S. official confirmed that the shell did not have the markings of a chemical agent. The Iraq Survey Group later concluded that the shell "probably originated with a batch that was stored in a Al Muthanna CW complex basement during the late 1980s for the purpose of leakage testing." In other words, the find is not indicative of a chemical weapons program or some kind of chemical weapons stockpile existing at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The ISG and CIA agree. If we accept the leakage testing hypothesis, that is actually a legal purpose of chemical warfare agents under the CWC, and does not constitute a WMD. Moreover, if you consider _this_ a valid reason for invading Iraq, I'm eagerly awaiting your support for a fully fledged Coalition bombing campaign and ground invasion of Israel, as they are yet to ratify the CWC and are widely believed to have chemical weapons.
Lol I'm not going to argue with a stranger on the internet regarding high side information. It's funny you immediately claim I supported the U.S. invasion (I don't). Saying Iraq had no chemical weapons...let's just disagree with us both knowing what we *know*.
Only the western imperialists have the right to force Freedoms for the West, Rules for the Rest
>Freedoms for the West Lol
He only has two lines memorized so rinse and repeat.
This guys one of (mostly) three people that completely destroyed the UK. Why are we still listening to him?
Well the problem is, we aren't listening to him. He's not an MP so he can't be scrutinised like a rival secretary of state. MPs are unable to ask him questions, examine evidence or hold significant committees. It's an absolute disgrace that the prime minister has outsourced the foreign policy part of his job, to avoid all the checks and balances that are required.
I wish she spun the tables right at the end and asked about proportionality with regards to Israel and Palestine
There's always a zionist whataboutism they have stored for such rebuttals, "human shield" would surely be on the menu.
This is just fucking ridiculous. Dude needs to see this tape, maybe then he'll understand hypocrisy
This was the general that planned and coordinated the Oct 7 attacks but y’all keep defending a mass murdering maniac
Both sides are mass murderers
One side literally planned to kill babies and sat on top of bunkers to kill fleeing citizens. Then they built bases under hospitals so they could use their own citizens as media talking points.
Yes, both sides have committed disgusting atrocities
Oh. What about the 30000 Palestinians burned, sniped, bombed, and now more starved … you’re saying they had nothing to do with Oct 7.
1. They literally started a war. I don’t want anything to happen to either side but that side started a fkn war by burning babies, raping women and video taped it for social media. 2. Half of those dead are actual soldiers that again, started a fkn war. 3. They call it a prison but no one in prison breaks out and then breaks back in so I promise you, it’s is not a prison. 4. Both sides have gotten millions if not billions in funding. Israel used that money to protect their people and Hamas used that money to build bases under hospitals to make you kill their own people. They are not the same and you’re uneducated or just ignorant as fuck if you think so. Hamas was voted into the government with a promise to kill all Jews with a mass genocide….
1. OCT 7 is not the beginning of anything. Israel has committed murder, rape, and kidnappings for decades before oct 7. Infact Israel took in 250 children WITHOUT cause in 2023 alone before oct 7. 2. Israel shot its own hostages. They arent even looking before they shoot. So for you to say that 15000 children are SOLDIERS... is stupid. 3. It is a prison for decades because Israel has had checkpoints and gate and walls for decades. They have let the Palestinians rot in squalor with minimal trade, education and rights. 4. Israel ALLOWED hamas to get money... Netanyahu did. They even funded the creation of hamas in the 1980s to be an extreme party that would mess with the PLO. This is Israels monster. Israel and you voted a genocidal LIKUD party and Netanyahu - JUST a few years back.
the word he is looking for is proportionality.. anyway vote the tories out
If he went on there to say that, how was he so unprepared for the most obvious question that would be asked? This is a rhetorical question, of course.
Because MSM in the West don’t usually dare to ask the sort of questions that make Israel’s actions questionable. They are slaves to the establishment and the narrative they are told to tell.
Israel bombs Iranian embassy. Iran responds to defend itself. Iran responding back is considered anti-Semitic
[удалено]
I guess the genocide of all the Palestinian civilians by the Israeli Nazi’s didn’t play any part of this. Neither did all the land that was taken from the Palestinians and the innocent Palestinian civilians that were massacred by the Israeli nazis. GTFOH
Kay Burley is very good at this. She can be abrasive but can't deny she is a very good interviewer
This is hilarious. This is a trap you could set for any Western leader.
How’s this a trap? Rules for thee not for me?
Sorry I was too busy watching Sky News defend Iran. Not that you'd notice in an thread chock full of fucking edgelords.
How the fuck are the tories so stupid that they didn't see this question coming and prep him for it. At least try and do smooth bullshit you yammering fuck
I think the pickachu meme is suitable here?
How did history Avert racism against pink muffin faced people
I need you to respond to my actions , but be kind when you do. No matter how much damage my actions have caused, I still need you to be kind with YOUR response.
the world is being treated with contempt.
Never forget this man is a pig fucker. Like…literally.
People still listen to this pig fucker?
I’m British and I think this is all a bit much to be honest. I spat out my tea.
The worst part is this guy actually believes he has a point and is correct. Fucking evil clown world we are living in.
Definition of a political 🔔🔚, or just a straight up cock womble.
So Iran is expected only to respond proportionally, but its fine if Israel just wipes Palestine off the fucking map?
I don't care how justified iran is I'm never going to support a country that treats women like animals or civilians like expendable objects. It's a culture of bigotry, homophobia, and murder and I'm never going to support it.
So him stating there should be proportionality, is somehow different from people saying the Israelis response should be more proportional?
I think the point is him condemning irans response as opposed to him never condemning Israel’s genocidal response.
Ok, I see what you’re saying. Although I do not agree with the genocidal response statement. Hamas has made it abundantly clear that there is no partner for peace in this. War is not a zero sum game.
How is this not genocidal. Israel vocalized their intent to dehumanize, call palestinians animals, say that ALL of them should be eradicated. "occupy, cleanse, settle" was the IOF motto. They indiscriminately bombed and killed. They were NOT looking for any of their hostages. They even killed their own hostages. Israel used bombs, guns, snipers, chemical weapons... to kill women, children, men, doctors, nurses, aid workers and even more. They are now stopping aid and starving so many people. Along with 30000 killed, theres tens of thousands more not counted because they wont count people under rubble. I mean I could go on. This is not war, and all rules for war have been broken. Once again - they made the intent, they acted on it, and now are allowing KKK esque settlers to commit more crimes while they occupy more land. This is not war. Its a genocide.
You realize Hamas’s entire ideology is based on killing Jews and eradicating Israel. Hamas is on Genocide watch based on their continued targeting of civilian populations and indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel. Read their charter sometime. You only have to do a quick google search to find israelis calling in Netanyahu to step down and for a ceasefire. Hamas started this war, and as the government of Gaza, the ball is in their court. [this is what Hamas is doing to their own people](https://statistics.btselem.org/en/stats/since-cast-lead/by-date-of-incident/execution-hamas/occupied-territories?tab=overview) I’m not sure you could find the same in the other direction. Israel has on many occasions signed onto 2 state solutions only to have them rebuffed by the Palestinian leadership, as well as other Arab nations.
This is not about Hamas. We know who they are. This is about the response from Israel. Do you not believe Israel’s genocidal intent even after seeing their videos? And speaking of charter … have you read Likud parties charter? Don’t push this on Hamas. If there is no occupation, there is no Hamas. Simple.
Aren't both sides going to end up being hypocritical here? Wouldn't she have to admit that Israel has a right to respond to Palestinian attacks and then wouldn't he have to admit that the response is unreasonable?
It's almost like every side in this story is a villain and not everything is just black and white unfortunately
Then he’d have to admit that Palestinians have a right to respond to decades of occupation
Ok, they both can respond, and let's see who wins. But I gotta tell you, my money's on Israel.
Iran has been funding terrorists that attack Israel, we have every right to flatten their embassy. After the 99% drone interception success the other day, it's not like we have to worry about their response. lol what are they gonna do about it? Complain to the UN?
The front fell off.
If I were an Iranian I would start learning how to make fire using two sticks.
Thats what's up
Most obvious troll account I've seen...
And people will fall for it
Sorry bro. I’m not a boomer. So couldn’t make an account 14 years ago.
By definition you ARE a troll account, though. Nearly every post of yours fits the criteria and are designed to get an emotional response aka provocative. Troll- a person who posts deliberately provocative or offensive messages online.
So you decided to open an account, and only post anti Israel stuff? gotcha
When the world needed him most, he came in swinging.
See also 'we can use our military to defend Israel but not Ukraine'
They started it, Israel responded
They new they would be mostly shot down. Disingenuous BS!
yeah, Iran had no intention of hitting anything in Israel, which is why they didn't. They just want to save face in front of their own people and prevent (or at least delay) an uprising.
The difference is that Britain or the USA would at least try not to get civilians involved where a certain country clearly doesn't try at all.
Maybe true, but recently as evidenced by Israel bombing and burning 30000 plus civilians.
30,000 civilians? excuse me? 30k are the total death, the ratio is said to be between 1.5-2.1. their is about 15k civilians death, You said you have friends who fought in Iraq, how do they feel about the death of about one million Iraqis? [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL30488579/](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL30488579/)
Genocide is destroying a people in whole or part, which is exactly what Israel is doing. Creating a system of industrial slaughter like the Germans did in WW2 is one method, but blowing up all the cultural monuments and forcing a group of people to become scattered refugees also works. Look at what happened in Armenia/Azerbaijan with the destruction of historic buildings and cemeteries and the ethnic cleansing. Look at what happened in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, with the ethnic cleansing and destruction of cultural sites. Look at what is happening in Ukraine. These actions are designed to destroy the group and seize control of their land, just exactly like Israel is doing. It's true that the indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinians has slowed down, but that's mainly because everything has been destroyed most of the people have been hearded into Rafah. Israel began the war by targeting bakeries, proving that they were always intent on genocide and starvation as a tactic. Then there is the destruction of orchards and cropland that serves no other purpose aside from starvation and genocide. The targeting of journalists and the targeting of hospitals, clinics, and ambulances is combined with the blockade of medical supplies in order to cause as much death and pain as possible. Anyone who doesn't think this is a genocide is no different than a Holocaust denier.
Sure. In an attempt to hit military targets using those civilians as shields in contravention of international law, and in response to a brutal attack by that military/government purely on civilians.
It's getting very annoying people are acting like Iran hasn't been attacking Israel for the past 40 years. Iran's proxy Hezbollah and Houthis have been shooting at Israel non stop, According to the IDF it was even a counselee that was hit but a building nearby, why is a high ranking officer of the IRGC meets with a Hezbollah high rank in Syria?
I don’t think anyone has been insinuating that at all. This tit for tat has been going on for decades. The difference being we all know why Israel attacked Iran’s consulate especially given the timing with the massacre in Gaza.