• Zombie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yeah but that’s because you’re using logic, reasoning, and commonly understood meanings of words. In Kid Starver’s authoritarian mind none of those things matter.

    The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre.

    • 1984, George Orwell
    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Absolutely, the idea that “preemptive” strikes are defensive is Orwellian.
      Also how does UK know what target they will hit? Will it be a kindergarten killing innocent children? Will it be a refinery constituting chemical warfare on civilians? There is no plausible reason to believe these strikes are purely defensive.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Imagine the number of attacks the world could “morally” do on USA, if preemptive strikes were considered self defense.
          How many countries even allies has Trump threatened? Panama, Cuba, Denmark/Greenland, Canada. Are some that I remember for sure. Besides actually attacking Venezuela and now Iran.
          All these countries could legally perform strikes against USA by the logic of the current American Government. And then they wonder why so many people hate USA.