Page 5 | What would Keir Starmer do if a group of Norwegians supported by the Norwegian government invaded tomorrow killing thousands?

Sundaymorningatwork2 · 10/10/2024 11:22

Zimunya · 09/10/2024 12:55

Thank you for asking this! I also wondered what the point of brining the kids was. Also, as an invading force, you'd have to carry an awful lot of salt for that......

Show quote history

Ha ha, that's really funny! Because actually it was quite clearly a reference to kids being burned alive. Awful taste.

GermanBite · 10/10/2024 10:02

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 21:02

@Dubaiinception the Flaklands war ended because after 6 weeks, Argentina surrendered.

Do you actually understand that even Israel does not think they are fighting a separate sovereign state?

Palestine is not a country according to Israel, US and the UK so absolutely none of your analogies make sense.

Dubaiinception · 10/10/2024 04:00

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 21:02

@Dubaiinception the Flaklands war ended because after 6 weeks, Argentina surrendered.

And?

Exactly what part of Israel are the Lebanese occupying?

Original poster

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 21:02

@Dubaiinception the Flaklands war ended because after 6 weeks, Argentina surrendered.

OP posts:

GermanBite · 09/10/2024 20:13

The analogy doesn't really work as the UK doesn't recognise Palestine as a sovereign state.

NI and the IRA bombings would have made more sense.

Dubaiinception · 09/10/2024 20:11

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 20:03

@SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice
My point about the Falklands was that when another nation invaded sovereign territory we did not "give it back" we mobilised and defended it militarily.

Did we carpet bomb Argentina though?

This is just ridiculous. If in the situation you described Starmer decided to carpet bomb Norway, committing war crimes and killing civilians, and then decide that wasn't enough and move onto Sweden, I hope to god that a good proportion of the international community and the UK population would be screaming at him.

War crimes are war crimes. Just because a government thinks they're necessary in those particular circumstances doesn't change anything.

Elopelo · 09/10/2024 20:10

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 19:56

War is declared against state actors. Terrorist acts from people crossing the border from other countries can be treated as a criminal matter not an act of war if the government of country they came from have not been the ones who sent them, armed them, tell the country they went to that they want to destroy them and have openly claimed for decades that this is their purpose.

Gaza is not another country to Israel so that is a difference between that and my analogy. But as far as I know it is self governing. It is treated as a separate state. Its government sent people into a neighbouring state to torture, abuse and kidnap and still holds citizens of that country captive.
But any retaliation of any kind has been treated as if Israel solely in the world is not allowed to defend itself. The international response to people basically enlisting as state actors (usually would be considered soldiers) to go and attack another country and terrorise its citizens and do things like rape babies is to say "not in a vacuum".

9/11 wasn't in a vacuum and the international community didn't generally do oh well ok then as it didn't happen in a vacuum it's just to be expected how dare America defend itself. Obviously a lot of people did oppose their repsonse. And none of the 9/11 bombers raped babies, pregnant women, put babies in ovens anything remotely like it.

"Not in a vacuum" is a completely morally vacuous response as no war in history has ever been fought in a vacuum and there are thousands of people in countries right now that have been taken by force by other countries and more recently.

Show quote history

You just proved my point.

Israel has a right to defend itself.
So do the Palestinians.

Innocent Israelis have faced suffering, terrorism and loss of their loved ones.
So have innocent Palestinians (and actually, in terms of sheer numbers, more Palestinians have been affected and for much longer)

See the problem is- I can condemn the horror on both sides. You clearly can’t. If you’re so aghast by the terror of 9/11 and Oct 7- surely you can’t be that insincere to have the same reaction for what the Palestinians have been going though BEFORE and AFTER 7/10/2023.

MrsSchrute · 09/10/2024 20:08

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 19:56

War is declared against state actors. Terrorist acts from people crossing the border from other countries can be treated as a criminal matter not an act of war if the government of country they came from have not been the ones who sent them, armed them, tell the country they went to that they want to destroy them and have openly claimed for decades that this is their purpose.

Gaza is not another country to Israel so that is a difference between that and my analogy. But as far as I know it is self governing. It is treated as a separate state. Its government sent people into a neighbouring state to torture, abuse and kidnap and still holds citizens of that country captive.
But any retaliation of any kind has been treated as if Israel solely in the world is not allowed to defend itself. The international response to people basically enlisting as state actors (usually would be considered soldiers) to go and attack another country and terrorise its citizens and do things like rape babies is to say "not in a vacuum".

9/11 wasn't in a vacuum and the international community didn't generally do oh well ok then as it didn't happen in a vacuum it's just to be expected how dare America defend itself. Obviously a lot of people did oppose their repsonse. And none of the 9/11 bombers raped babies, pregnant women, put babies in ovens anything remotely like it.

"Not in a vacuum" is a completely morally vacuous response as no war in history has ever been fought in a vacuum and there are thousands of people in countries right now that have been taken by force by other countries and more recently.

Show quote history

October 7th was an atrocity

Israel's response to October 7th is also an atrocity

No one wins here.

Original poster

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 20:04

midgetastic · 09/10/2024 20:03

Gaza is part of Palestine - a country in its own right with as much right to exist as Israel

So the analogy with another country then, like Norway, works.

OP posts:

Original poster

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 20:03

@SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice
My point about the Falklands was that when another nation invaded sovereign territory we did not "give it back" we mobilised and defended it militarily.

OP posts:

midgetastic · 09/10/2024 20:03

Gaza is part of Palestine - a country in its own right with as much right to exist as Israel

Original poster

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 20:02

CitrineRaindropPhoenix · 09/10/2024 19:56

It was a while ago, but what we actually did when the Norwegians invaded was give them money and land and allowed them to settle in East Anglia and along the east coast in what became their own kingdom for a while.

However when the Viking's invaded they were the stronger force, and we did not have modern warfare or technology so as far as I know, various places simply got conquered.

Many Brits have Norwegian ancestry along the patrilineal line but not the matrilineal because the Vikings raped and pillaged.

I didn't pick Norway for the analogy due to the Vikings but simply because it is a neighbouring country. France or Denmark would have worked just as well.

OP posts:

Original poster

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 19:56

Elopelo · 09/10/2024 19:12

According to people like the OP, October 7th justifies everything but nothing justifies October 7th.

War is declared against state actors. Terrorist acts from people crossing the border from other countries can be treated as a criminal matter not an act of war if the government of country they came from have not been the ones who sent them, armed them, tell the country they went to that they want to destroy them and have openly claimed for decades that this is their purpose.

Gaza is not another country to Israel so that is a difference between that and my analogy. But as far as I know it is self governing. It is treated as a separate state. Its government sent people into a neighbouring state to torture, abuse and kidnap and still holds citizens of that country captive.
But any retaliation of any kind has been treated as if Israel solely in the world is not allowed to defend itself. The international response to people basically enlisting as state actors (usually would be considered soldiers) to go and attack another country and terrorise its citizens and do things like rape babies is to say "not in a vacuum".

9/11 wasn't in a vacuum and the international community didn't generally do oh well ok then as it didn't happen in a vacuum it's just to be expected how dare America defend itself. Obviously a lot of people did oppose their repsonse. And none of the 9/11 bombers raped babies, pregnant women, put babies in ovens anything remotely like it.

"Not in a vacuum" is a completely morally vacuous response as no war in history has ever been fought in a vacuum and there are thousands of people in countries right now that have been taken by force by other countries and more recently.

OP posts:

CitrineRaindropPhoenix · 09/10/2024 19:56

It was a while ago, but what we actually did when the Norwegians invaded was give them money and land and allowed them to settle in East Anglia and along the east coast in what became their own kingdom for a while.

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 09/10/2024 19:53

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 19:45

The hurt or perceived harm is irrelevant - look at 9/11. There was plenty of hurt or perceived harm from the attackers or they wouldn't have done it. The USA still invaded another country.

Show quote history

And made things infinitely worse for Afghanistan and Iraq and themselves, and us because Blair got dragged in under false intelligence.

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 09/10/2024 19:52

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 19:47

Like Thatcher and the Falklands?

Show quote history

Well not exactly like. Scotland annexed Orkney as a debt collection on a dowry that was never paid.

Original poster

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 19:47

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 09/10/2024 18:42

Starmer might give Orkney back to Norway…if their attack was about getting it back?

Like Thatcher and the Falklands?

OP posts:

Original poster

itsmabeline · 09/10/2024 19:45

midgetastic · 09/10/2024 17:56

If the government of Norway had done violence without any prior hurt or harm done to them ?

So nothing like the current Middle East conflict then? A sort of random story ? Without purpose ?

The hurt or perceived harm is irrelevant - look at 9/11. There was plenty of hurt or perceived harm from the attackers or they wouldn't have done it. The USA still invaded another country.

OP posts:

YellowAsteroid · 09/10/2024 19:19

Batmanisaplaceinturkey · 08/10/2024 20:19

What a stupid strawman argument. IGNORING all the history of the Palestinians and what they have been through to start with.

Oh, like a deliberate planned genocide to kill every Jew on the earth? A La Hitler?

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 09/10/2024 19:18

“I mean if the government of Norway sent people to UK to brutally attack civilians, and said that if they had the power and opportunity they would repeat it over and over again. If they instructed citizens to bear arms and murder as many Brits as they could and rewarded their families if they died murdering Brits. Then we'd have a problem with the government of Norway and when you have a problem with a government like that with continuous, murderous intent against your citizens that just invaded, you declare war.”

Lebanon has had this happen, more civilians have been killed than were killed by Hamas in Israel. Lebanon hasn’t declared war, it is pleading for a ceasefire and international aid. Are you saying Brits are more bloodthirsty than Lebanese?

This whole thread is confusing. I can’t get what your point is whether I take it literally as a hypothetical, or as an allegory for a real conflict elsewhere.

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 09/10/2024 19:14

mm81736 · 09/10/2024 19:05

No I think it is a good analogy, and I would expect us and our allies to carpet bomb them back to the stone age!

Show quote history

How can you think these are good values to have?

Elopelo · 09/10/2024 19:12

According to people like the OP, October 7th justifies everything but nothing justifies October 7th.

DadJoke · 09/10/2024 19:09

Are you thinking of the Vikings, OP?

Otherwise, this is batty.

mm81736 · 09/10/2024 19:05

itsmabeline · 08/10/2024 20:17

Raping them, brining children, taking hostages then held them for a year. Then promised they would do it again and again any time they had the power or chance.

Do you think we'd invade Norway?

Do you think we'd have domestic or international support?

No I think it is a good analogy, and I would expect us and our allies to carpet bomb them back to the stone age!

puttyinboots · 09/10/2024 19:02

Commence indiscriminate killing of all Norwegians at once including denying them all aid and resources necessary for life and targeting hospitals and refugee camps in particular - 'self defence'