The end of NATO ?

[Fenris]

And racism will never go away, Trump calling people from Africa stinking, posting on X a picture of a former president and first lady as apes.

I had not heard anything about this. CNN covered it, apparently, but I do not watch CNN (or any other news channel). https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/06/politics/donald-trump-obamas-apes-truth-social

Doesn't change the fact that European leaders are garbage.

[ProDeo]

And racism will never go away, Trump calling people from Africa stinking, posting on X a picture of a former president and first lady as apes.

I had not heard anything about this. CNN covered it, apparently, but I do not watch CNN (or any other news channel). https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/06/politics/donald-trump-obamas-apes-truth-social

Doesn't change the fact that European leaders are garbage.

At times it is pathetic indeed.

[Fenris]

"NATO is ending and it's Trump's fault".

The UK is blocking American use of the airbase at Diego Garcia for potential strikes on Iran.

They're siding with the Mullahs of Iran and the slave masters of Qatar over the US and Israel.

[Athanasius]

No, that's not what the UK is doing.

[Fenris]

No, that's not what the UK is doing.

Ok. What is the UK doing?

[Athanasius]

No, that's not what the UK is doing.

Ok. What is the UK doing?

The UK is unsure if approving US use of RAF bases will breach international law (last year the UK decided not to participate in attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities).

[Fenris]

The UK is unsure if approving US use of RAF bases will breach international law (last year the UK decided not to participate in attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities).

Ohhhh. The UK is concerned with international law? Chuckle. Following a massive terrorist attack carried out by Palestinians, the PM couldn't recognize a Palestinian state fast enough. I don't recall any worries about international law then.

And you wonder why I think the European governments are full of losers? If this is NATO, I don't care if it dies.

[Athanasius]

Ohhhh. The UK is concerned with international law? Chuckle. Following a massive terrorist attack carried out by Palestinians, the PM couldn't recognize a Palestinian state fast enough. I don't recall any worries about international law then.

And you wonder why I think the European governments are full of losers? If this is NATO, I don't care if it dies.

What international law has the UK violated in doing so? And no, I don't wonder that at all.

[Fenris]

What international law has the UK violated in doing so?

I don't know what "international law" even is. Who wrote it? Who enforces it?

So according to the UK, America bombing Iran would be in violation against some "international law".

Is Iran in violation of an international law for shooting thousands of protesters? For funding terrorist proxies that have carried out attacks in Iraq, in Israel, in Argentina? For building nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT? Who knows! Who cares!

Hamas carried out a terrorist attack that murdered more Jews than at any other time since the Holocaust. Hamas was still holding hundreds of hostages. Did that violate any "international law"? And yet the UK decided that the time was ripe to recognize a "Palestinian state".

The truth is that there's no such thing as "international law". Iran is a bad actor that should be stopped. But Starmer is a coward. He'd rather stop America from doing the right thing than take a stand that might be difficult for him politically. He is the quintessential European politician.

[Athanasius]

I don't know what "international law" even is. Who wrote it? Who enforces it?

Yes you do. What international law did the UK violate in recognising a Palestinian state? Here is the government's statement:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-formally-recognises-palestinian-state

So according to the UK, America bombing Iran would be in violation against some "international law".

No. The UK's concern is article 16 of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts:

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf

Article 16
Aid or assistance in the commission of an
internationally wrongful act

A State which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by
the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if:

(a) that State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and
(b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State

The UK's concern is thusly, does the US have clear legal justification to strike Iran?

Is Iran in violation of an international law for shooting thousands of protesters? For funding terrorist proxies that have carried out attacks in Iraq, in Israel, in Argentina? For building nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT? Who knows! Who cares!

You should know, and you should care, and the answer, is most certainly. The US still needs to put together legal justification. Or, it can attack without the use of RAF bases, and really stand behind its "we can do what we want" bravado.

Can you remind me what happened after the US intervened following its promises of support for Iranian Protestors?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cj691w2e840t

So let's take all the moral outrage and ask: why hasn't the US acted yet? After all, the only thing stopped Donald is his own morality, right?

https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-morality-limit-global-power/story?id=129033900

Hamas carried out a terrorist attack that murdered more Jews than at any other time since the Holocaust. Hamas was still holding hundreds of hostages. Did that violate any "international law"? And yet the UK decided that the time was ripe to recognize a "Palestinian state".

Can you tell me what international law the UK violated in recognising a Palestinian state? 

The truth is that there's no such thing as "international law". Iran is a bad actor that should be stopped. But Starmer is a coward. He'd rather stop America from doing the right thing than take a stand that might be difficult for him politically. He is the quintessential European politician.

Ironically, Starmer has taken a stand that is difficult for him politically:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c309qqyer8yo

Iran should be stopped. That's not in question. The question is whether the US, which is currently doing a bad cosplay of Thrasymachus, can provide legal justification. If not, the US can play "who is going to stop us?" all it wants, but it doesn't get to complain that no one helped them.

And I haven't even touched how the US administration, under Donald, is treating its allies.

[Fenris]

Yes you do. What international law did the UK violate in recognising a Palestinian state?

They recognized an internationally designated terrorist group that invaded another state and carried out rape, pillage, and murder on a grand scale and took hundreds of hostages.

I don't believe in "international law" because it only appears to exist when one can blame Israel or America of violating it.

I do believe in doing the moral thing.

What the UK did regarding Hamas was not the moral thing.

Now they want to block the US from doing the moral thing.

The UK's concern is thusly, does the US have clear legal justification to strike Iran?

While you're worrying about "clear legal justification", people are dying.

You should know, and you should care, and the answer, is most certainly. The US still needs to put together legal justification. Or, it can attack without the use of RAF bases, and really stand behind its "we can do what we want" bravado.

It's more along the line of "we don't like bullies and we really don't like bullies who aspire to nuclear weapons.

So let's take all the moral outrage and ask: why hasn't the US acted yet? After all, the only thing stopped Donald is his own morality, right?

I am outraged that he hasn't acted yet. I don't know what the holdup is now, because the Mullahs are jerking him around with nonsense "negotiations".

Ironically, Starmer has taken a stand that is difficult for him politically:

How is this "difficult for him politically? He doesn't care what Americans think, obviously.

Iran should be stopped. That's not in question. The question is whether the US, which is currently doing a bad cosplay of Thrasymachus, can provide legal justification. If not, the US can play "who is going to stop us?" all it wants, but it doesn't get to complain that no one helped them.

I think the legal justification is obvious, but nobody else sems to want to do anything about it. The opposite, everyone seems to be running interference for Iran.

The world is a fallen place.

[ProDeo]

You are overreacting, anti-antisemitism exists and will never go away

I don't know what "anti-antisemitism" is. All I know is that Europe has always had a problem with its Jews.

But most where you live.

https://www.euronews.com/2025/05/08/antisemitic-incidents-surge-across-europe-and-the-world-adl-report-shows

Nobody is being prosecuted.

But of course.

[ProDeo]

I am outraged that he hasn't acted yet. I don't know what the holdup is now, because the Mullahs are jerking him around with nonsense "negotiations".

True that and Iran will never give up its nuclear aspirations.

https://caspianpost.com/iran/iran-russia-china-to-stage-joint-naval-drills-in-strait-of-hormuz

Warships of Russia and China are in the Strait of Hormuz.

They are there for a reason and we don't know what is happening behind the scenes.

Note the 2 weeks extra time Trump gave for the Iran regime, it's odd.

[Fenris]

https://www.euronews.com/2025/05/08/antisemitic-incidents-surge-across-europe-and-the-world-adl-report-shows

What are Europeans doing about this?

[RabbiKnife]

https://www.euronews.com/2025/05/08/antisemitic-incidents-surge-across-europe-and-the-world-adl-report-shows

What are Europeans doing about this?

Quietly applauding and collecting on their bets…