3 ms·

I mean, this is a technical analysis on the situation. How the Ammonium Nitrate was stored, why the way it was stored was suboptimal at best, how the explosion

by 4ggr0 3y ago

I mean, this is a technical analysis on the situation. How the Ammonium Nitrate was stored, why the way it was stored was suboptimal at best, how the explosion happened etc. It doesn't mention corrupt leaders who ignored warnings about this situation, cypriot/russian businessmen who abandoned a ship, and as you mentioned, Hezbollah. But that's not the goal of this thing, isn't it. You ask why, they explain how.

dogma1138 3y ago
https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/destruction-of-medical-infrastructure-in-gaza https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/destruction-... No issues calling the Israeli military forces “IOF”, as well as using video footage with tampered time stamps like some of the AJ coverage that was going around Twitter and YouTube. At least they have walked back on their hospital parking lot explosion analysis after a few weeks. That one was just as flashy and high tech as the Beirut one. Much of their coverage of other events is also very politically biased. So it doesn’t seem that your explanation actually works here.
- pandeiro 3y ago
  One man's politically biased is another's politically astute.
  - dogma1138 3y ago
    Not really bias is a neutral term, so biased is biased regardless of your views. If you can’t see that then your judgment is clouded and you’re about as far from being astute as you can be.
- boffinAudio 3y ago
  >No issues calling the Israeli military forces “IOF”, To an Israeli, they are "Defense" forces, from the perspective of the victims, they are an "Occupying" force. Either use of the phrase is appropriate, depending on which side of the bombs you are viewing the scene. The use of "IOF" instead of "IDF" by an author just means their world views are not aligned with those of an occupying force.
  - dogma1138 3y ago
    It still means that what they do goes well beyond “a technical analysis on the situation”. And considering they had to retract at least one analysis piece completely already their overall competency can be put into question also. The IDF isn’t a descriptive term it’s the official name Israel has given it’s military, regardless of what position when you hold if you call it by a different name it does not lends credibility to your arguments. I do appreciate the mental gymnastics tho.
    - boffinAudio 3y ago
      I think if you are operating on your kid without anaesthetic to remove a limb that was smashed to pieces by a bomb, it won't matter much what any official has to say about your tormentors name .. It speaks more of the person who cannot get past "IDF vs. IOF" in the discussion. If this is the issue that breaks the argument for them, while ignoring those smashed limbs, then it may be worthwhile dismissing them entirely ..
      - dogma1138 3y ago
        I can see that you’re trying to move the goal posts and turn this into an emotional argument but the issue at hand is still is “forensic architecture” and non biases and purely technically objective source? and the answer to that is overwhelmingly no.

by 4ggr0 3y ago

dogma1138 3y ago

https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/destruction-of-medical-infrastructure-in-gaza https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/destruction-... No issues calling the Israeli military forces “IOF”, as well as using video footage with tampered time stamps like some of the AJ coverage that was going around Twitter and YouTube. At least they have walked back on their hospital parking lot explosion analysis after a few weeks. That one was just as flashy and high tech as the Beirut one. Much of their coverage of other events is also very politically biased. So it doesn’t seem that your explanation actually works here.

pandeiro 3y ago
One man's politically biased is another's politically astute.
- dogma1138 3y ago
  Not really bias is a neutral term, so biased is biased regardless of your views. If you can’t see that then your judgment is clouded and you’re about as far from being astute as you can be.
boffinAudio 3y ago
>No issues calling the Israeli military forces “IOF”, To an Israeli, they are "Defense" forces, from the perspective of the victims, they are an "Occupying" force. Either use of the phrase is appropriate, depending on which side of the bombs you are viewing the scene. The use of "IOF" instead of "IDF" by an author just means their world views are not aligned with those of an occupying force.
- dogma1138 3y ago
  It still means that what they do goes well beyond “a technical analysis on the situation”. And considering they had to retract at least one analysis piece completely already their overall competency can be put into question also. The IDF isn’t a descriptive term it’s the official name Israel has given it’s military, regardless of what position when you hold if you call it by a different name it does not lends credibility to your arguments. I do appreciate the mental gymnastics tho.
  - boffinAudio 3y ago
    I think if you are operating on your kid without anaesthetic to remove a limb that was smashed to pieces by a bomb, it won't matter much what any official has to say about your tormentors name .. It speaks more of the person who cannot get past "IDF vs. IOF" in the discussion. If this is the issue that breaks the argument for them, while ignoring those smashed limbs, then it may be worthwhile dismissing them entirely ..
    - dogma1138 3y ago
      I can see that you’re trying to move the goal posts and turn this into an emotional argument but the issue at hand is still is “forensic architecture” and non biases and purely technically objective source? and the answer to that is overwhelmingly no.