CaptSquid

I dont understand the MAGA idiots take on MH17, their narrative is that Ukraine has been attacking Russian civilians in eastern Ukraine since 2014. So they just happened to have a buk air defense system & shot a civilian airliner down with it?? It directly proves Russian interference but NATO bad 😂

Yes 100%. These aging tankers shouldn't be anywhere near rough seas. Bad weather exposes flaws, but the real fault lies in putting unfit ships and crews at risk

River-sea tankers like Volgoneft aren't built for rough open waters. They're designed for calmer inland routes, so bad weather + structural neglect = disaster waiting to happen.

Or lack thereof

Assads reliance on external backing from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah has been a key factor in his ability to remain in power throughout the civil war. However, this external support was never guaranteed to be permanent so it looks like his chickens are finally coming home to roost

Thank you, I didn't see this initially

Such weapons I feel should always be announced by their first use on the battlefield but the morale boost is probably needed rn too 🙏

While there may be reports of only skirmishes in Latakia, Russia's evacuation of ships from Tartus suggests they anticipate a larger escalation in the region very soon, it's only a matter of time at this point

Moscow's expectation of imminent, large-scale conflict potentially reaching Damascus is clear, prospects for the SAA not looking good 😂

The escalation in Latakia suggests the conflict is shifting toward key regime strongholds, potentially setting the stage for a decisive battle that could severely weaken Assad's grip on power. After Latakia Damascus will likely become the next major target as the regime is increasingly vulnerable

Hopefully they can scale production to a point where they can have a real impact for Ukraine

For sure. With so many moving parts and so many parties with vested interests, it's incredibly hard to predict how things will unfold. The interplay of alliances, shifting strategies, and competing objectives makes any outcome uncertain right now

The practical control and decision-making power will always remain with Russia even if Lukashenko walks around with a fancy briefcase 😂

While the SDF may play an important role in Syria's future, they are unlikely to dictate its future course without external backing

Given the harsh conditions in North Korea and the fact that desertion seems relatively common among Russian soldiers, how likely is it that North Korean troops might desert once deployed outside their country?

Flagging isn't censorship. The FBI didn’t tell Twitter to block the story; Twitter independently acted on incomplete info from public statements. If you’ve got actual evidence of coercion or proof the FBI dictated bans, let’s see it—not just assumptions

Who decides? Misinformation is flagged based on available evidence at the time, not just ‘inconvenient facts.’ The left isn’t batting .000%, and right-wing narratives aren’t always truth bombs. Got proof Twitter wasn’t acting independently? Still waiting.

Censorship isn’t the same as moderation. Biden’s laptop story was flagged amid unverified info, not silenced permanently. Twitter made decisions independently, not under coercion. Got evidence proving a conspiracy, or just recycling baseless talking points?

Oh yes, 'free speech is bad'—except no one actually said that. Moderating disinfo doesn’t mean opposing free speech. If you have evidence of real censorship, present it. Or just keep screaming 'DURRR' to distract from your lack of facts.

Hilldog' lost control, so your theory is that everyone joined Twitter to push 'state propaganda'? Career shifts happen for countless reasons; your narrative assumes conspiracy without evidence. Got proof it wasn’t coincidence? Or just more DURRRRs?

Career changes to private companies like Twitter aren’t 'magic' or proof of conspiracy—they happen often, especially in tech. If you have evidence these 'former' agents directly followed orders to censor, show it. Wild guesses don’t count as facts.

"Magically" taking a job at Twitter isn’t proof of conspiracy; career shifts happen for a variety of reasons. The burden’s on you to show these agents weren’t acting independently. Repeatedly insisting without evidence doesn’t strengthen your case.

Taibbi’s work shows Twitter made its own calls despite flagged content, even if former agents were involved. You've yet to provide direct evidence of coercion or narrative control, just more conjecture. Hard facts beat unsupported claims every time.

You don't exist in reality. Everyone who has had access to the related information such as Matt Taibi and the twitter files journalists came to a completely different conclusion than yourself yet you refuse to provide any evidence to back your claim beyond misrepresenting others. This is pointless.

FBI said it was "disinfo," but they never ordered Twitter to block it. Twitter made its own call. Flagging content doesn’t mean censorship. If the FBI thought it was real, why wasn’t it reported differently? Twitter’s actions were their own, no matter who was involved.

Former FBI agents or not, Taibbi’s testimony shows that Twitter made its own moderation decisions. They flagged content, but Twitter had the final say. That’s the difference between influence and control. But hey, feel free to keep ignoring the facts.

Funny how Taibbi’s testimony shows that even when agencies flagged content, Twitter made its own decisions. No 'coercion,' no 'orders.' Just facts. Feel free to read for yourself:

docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/...

twitter.com/mtaibbi/stat...

Here is the evidence, feel free to point out anywhere i have misquoted or misrepresented what was said

I’m not just giving my word here—Taibbi’s testimony and the publicly available Twitter Files are the sources backing up the claim that Twitter made independent decisions regarding flagged content. If you’re asking for 'receipts,' the hearings and documents are all available for review.