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

[itsmabeline]

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?

"It is like if Norway destroys the London Eye we destroy France because a Parisian waiter was rude to Starmer’s wife and then half heartedly dropping a few bombs on Oslo."

It really isn't.

No, because invading other countries isn’t defending your own. It’s invading other countries and escalating the original problem. Also the UK no longer does as it likes in other countries and does not insist it is above reproach or decide any criticism of its actions as a country is anti-christian.

Sorry, are you referring to the terrorist attacks of 7th October, or Israel's subsequent attacks in Gaza and Lebanon?

Because if it's the former, I think if we'd taken most of Norway's land and annexed them in a tiny area by the Swedish border in addition to a long list of atrocities we've seen against the Palestinian people, International Law would have stepped in to condemn that a long time ago and be unsurprised when the remaining Norwegians reacted.

I think if it's the latter, I think if British terrorists had turned up in Norway and brutally murdered a load of completely innocent young people at a festival, and continually advocated for destroying Norway as a country, we'd have to accept some responsibility for our terrorist problem and I'd hope we'd deal with that ourselves before Norway had to.

Both parties have behaved terribly in this situation, and international input seems to have only made matters worse.

The only people who are blameless are the kids and innocent civilians caught in the middle, and the more it escalates the more they suffer.

It s the how.
Yes we would condemn.
Uk bombed iraq war on terror etc for what purpose?

Both sides continue to instill "other" in the next generation . War crimes aplenty. It isn't going to end til both sides think peace. See northern Ireland peace process.

Well we all know that Keir would do absolutely nothing to stop innocent children from being slaughtered, protect elderly and vulnerable people or indeed do anything that he has promised to do.
So we can safely assume that whatever the Norwegians get up to would be absolutely A OK with Keir.

It's like if the government of Norway had sent the Norwegians to attack the UK. Not individual terrorist actors considered terrorists in their own country, put on trial in their own country or presented by their own country to any higher court for human rights violations.

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.

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 ?

Ireland isn't in NATO @RadioBamboo.

The British did invade Ireland.
Took the land from the Irish forcibly.
Didn't allow them to speak their language, practice the majority religion and put settlers from England and Scotland on the land they took from the native Irish @itsmabeline.
They eventually gave most of Ireland back (81.25%) to be self ruled after numerous rebellions by the Irish.

I am a descendant of both the native Irish and the settlers.

You mean Vikings from Norway? I think we would defend like we did before and not go and invade Norway.

Do you think he'd try to kill as many Norwegians as possible because he thinks they are sub-human?

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

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'

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!

Are you thinking of the Vikings, OP?

Otherwise, this is batty.

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

How can you think these are good values to have?

“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.

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

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.

Like Thatcher and the Falklands?

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

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

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.

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.

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.