To Be Confused Over The Bombing Of RAF Akritiri?

[Arraminta]

My father was stationed at RAF Akritiri back in the 1960s and back then it was considered British Sovereign land, so legally exactly the same as say London or Yorkshire.

So, presumably now that Iran has bombed RAF Akritiri it's no different to Iran bombing an RAF base here in Lincolnshire etc?

But Keir Starmer has made it clear that the UK won't retaliate by attacking sites in Iran to stop their bombing capabilities.

So, am wondering if our bases in Cyprus are no longer sovereign land?

We had more autonomy then certainly. Our defence is heavily reliant on the US.

Well I'm sorry, if you can't comprehend simple information in a newspaper, I can't help. Let me ask you a simple question: if two individuals (A and B) are trading blows and a third one (C) is blocking the blows from A onto B, but doesn't strike A directly - is C involved in the fight between A and B?

That would be on account of being a bit busy in the UK's own "Vietnam wars" in the 12 year Malayan Emergency against communists plus the 4 year Aden Emergency and the 13 year Dhofar Emergency again against communists.

Note: the British Government preferred the catchy name of "Emergency" rather than "war" in order to not upset the British public.

You stated that British forces had struck Iran. Now back it up. Because you haven't so far.

Yes, but Iran isn't. They've struck a uk base when we wasn't involved.

I said that UK forces are "already involved in strikes on Iran". Which they are. Now you are just misquoting me in bad faith. Good bye.

The area that matters is the straight of Hormuz. A choke point in the Arabian gulf. All oil from the middle east is shipped there. It is within firing rage of Iran. Assuming your car needs petrol, your larder and fridge needs food - delivered by diesel lorry and likewise medicines, and other items, the shipping lanes will need to be kept open. That will require Someone's navy escorting merchant shipping, Someone's aircraft and weapons neutralising hostile weaponry.

Here's what you said:

Not to get involved in the politics of it, but UK air forces have ALREADY taken part in the strikes on Iran. Just FYI.

Defence is not striking. FYI.

The UK has been involved almost from the beginning. From The Times: "Britain had already scrambled fighter jets to defend allied airspace from waves of attack drones and cruise missiles. It is now also facilitating US airstrikes against Iranian storage depots and missile launchers by allowing American aircraft to use joint bases as launchpads." Note the use of the tenses in the first sentence.

Scrambled to defend, which we should. We didn't attack.

Sorry to be crude, but you don't understand sh1t. "Defence is not striking". In what world is that? Once bullets start flying, defence and offence are two sides of the same coin.

If A and B are trading blows and C is defending B against A's strikes (but doesn't land direct blows on A), is C involved in the fight between A and B? Yes or No please.

"Taking out an Iranian drone" is not the same as "striking Iran". HTH.

That is a bit of a stretch! A British base was attacked. Thank goodness there were no casualties.

Can you comprehend the difference between "taking part in the strikes on Iran" (in a supporting capacity in the UK's case) and "striking Iran" directly? Both are acts of war.

Hang on your original post of 17:37 stated:

"UK air force have already taken part in strikes against Iran"

This is categorically not true.

Yes the UK has had a fighter jet shooting down a drone attack on Qatar. But this is not an attack on Iran.

Yes the UK has stopped some drone attacks against the RAF Akrotiri base but this is not an attack on Iran.

Rather than some secret nefarious plot the planes turn off their transponders whilst in a war zone because it's deemed not best operational practice to advertise to your potential enemy exactly where your planes are (kinda defeats the whole point of stealth aircraft).

You've already posted this as though it's some big aha moment. If Iran hadn't have attacked RAF Akrotiri then Starmer wouldn't have justification for allowing the US to use our bases.

We have citizens and service personnel in the areas Iran has attacked we had no choice but to defend them.

OK got it - so Iran fires a drone or missile against RAF Akrotiri, but the British military should not attempt to shoot down the drone or missile as this would be "attacking Iran" or at the very least considered impolite.

I think this is a bit different. Israel and the US are carrying out a very well planned campaign against regime government and military sites. Iran is bombing back very indiscriminately against sites across the Middle East. And by 'Iran' at this point nobody even knows who is in charge of the various strikes - leaders are killed as quickly as they are made and comms are largely down.

The last thing anyone wants is for all the counties that Iran has sent missiles to, is for them to start firing back as that greatly increases the risks to Iranian citizens. Support the US and Israel yes, but not retaliate directly.

https://spectator.com/article/international-law-is-not-a-suicide-pact/

Some good points.

Will you quit making shit up? I am not discussing the rights or wrongs here (the "should they?" conversation) - just making some factual statements about Britain's involvement (the "did they?" conversation. Not to sound condescending but this really isn't the right venue to discuss geopolitics and international law. Was Britain involved from the very beginning by supporting the US and Israel in their strikes? YES. Was that always going to result in Iran striking UK targets if it could physically reach them? VERY LIKELY. The rights and wrongs of it are a separate conversation that I am not willing to have here. Not sure how much clearer I can make this.

I simply wish to point out and correct misinformation:

In your post of 17:37 you stated that the UK airforces had already taken part in strikes on Iran.

This is factually incorrect.