andrew_bidlaw

That's its snowballing. You know you'd be pretty obligated to use one channel of communication if everyone uses it becauae you need to stay in touch. The same works in leaving it because you feel like ditching former Tweeter is leaving the place everyone is, even politicians.

Didn't DOJ just recently insisted that RT is controlled by russian gvnmt? That was probably a big red stop sign for Meta to avoid real problems by ditching it.

While I get that security certifications (and existing contracts with the right people!), the slowness of such laws ans disdain for prisoners, especially doing their law research, are big factors, I see a point that even prison admins shall consider. Besides big cuts in spending on capable clients, opening the ability for inmates to write whatever they want in a word processor as easily as it can be is a plus to the surveiliance. Authocracies of today don't ban their own social medias because an illusion of privacy makes people snitch on themselves.

Better, it drinks you.

Is your link okay? Seems like it misses punctuation.

MEEE VEEECTEEEM

Yep, moreso after Balkans and after US leaving Afghan. No one wants to take responsibility and send their guys as a mere body shield, especially as other countries are not prepared to react on their troops being killed by either side, especially Israel. That, though, is the only way I see these attrocities getting stopped, because I don't see any economical mechanism slowing down the genocide of gazans. In spite of all shit US and UN had for being involved in foreign politics, that's the time they can do good and save people, and it's kind of dishearting that it's the time they'd not as long as it's possible.

Technically, yes, the offensive does consume like 3x of what is needed for defense the same position, but it works right only if that's a war of equals. Ukraine was and is underpowered on it's own, and even with the stuff other countries donated. Them gaining an edge in the warzone in the last years often involved either technological trickery or great insights and tactics using their limited resources.

One other thing that breaks that rule and makes this change in the narrative significant - is that russians could deploy their bombers, fuel, supply centers near the border, thinking they can't get effecrively hit, that giving them a big boost whatever they do, and if this handicap gets denied, they'd have a harder time supplying another operation from further away.

Gazans are disposables for every party involved besides gazans themselves. Both Hamas heads elsewhere and Bibi's admin had a streak of luck with these attack and response since it gave them a reason to be and get international support. Although this situation wasn't okay since the formation of Israel as a state, I don't side with people who want either Palestine or Israel to become undone since both exist for longer than I'm here, but what I miss is a peacekeeping mission that'd at least stop the bloodshed and it's funding.

What analogy? I didn't draw any direct comparison, I think. Was there one?

Arms are given to Ukraine with every state dictating how they should not be used, with Ukraine being autonomous in their decision-making – as it sounds, they consult other countries, but decide things themselves. To my brief knowledge of past wars it was usually a 'use how you want' deal or a direct involvement and control from other party with boots on the ground, both don't fit this exact situation. And it becomes even more unique since there are not one party, but a lot of them, all citing their own conditions on exact shipments, adding even more confusion to the situation.

I want to highlight the fact it's one of the first very public case of countries donating weapons with such policies limiting their usage against enemy troops.

He's like Trump if you respec all points from Grift and Lie to spread them on various mental disorders.

Yep. But half way through it I don't see him mentioned.