Skip to main content

š—”š—»š˜† š—°š—µš—®š—»š—°š—² š˜†š—¼š˜‚ š—°š—®š—» š˜€š—¶š˜ š—®š—»š—± š˜š—µš—¶š—»š—ø š—³š—¼š—æ š—® š—ŗš—¶š—»š˜‚š˜š—²?
If you think it's OK for Israel to fire missiles at Lebanon and Iran because those countries fired rockets at Israel, then Russia has every right to fire missiles at the UK and US targets in Europe, given they fired on Russia via their proxy #Ukraine.

bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62j1gā€¦


Ukraine war: After days of escalation, what will Russia's Putin do next?

BBC Russia editor Steve Rosenberg assesses the Russian leader's next move.
Steve Rosenberg (BBC News)
#ukraine

Ukraine Invasion Feed reshared this.

in reply to dick_turpin

Chuck
Chuck
• •
The problem with this argument Dick is that it ISN'T the US and UK firing missiles at Russia, its Ukraine. Israel is getting fired upon and it fires back, Ukraine is getting fired upon and it fires back. The entity that sold you the weapon you are using isn't the aggressor. By your logic every African country could bomb Russia because of the T-72's their enemies use. It is nonsense.
in reply to dick_turpin

dick_turpin
dick_turpin
•

That's a cop-out. The US supplied the missiles, and the US (The same as the UK) had to give permission to fire them, so your argument is it's the one who pushed the button or pulled the trigger is to blame.

By your definition, if we or the US, for that matter, give Zelenskyy Trident II SLBM and he fires them, it wouldn't it be our fault?

If you give someone a weapon and they go out and wound or kill someone, even in self-defence, you are complicit.

ā‡§