6 ms·
>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" fo
by 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 agoIt 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 agoI 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 agoI 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.