John Kerry mocks Israel's 'pinpoint operation' in Gaza. - Polidicks

[quote=BBC]Before US Secretary of State John Kerry set off for the Middle East, he did a round of interviews on the US Sunday shows.That was not an unusual move during such a time of heightened global instability, except for one incident. While Kerry was waiting to go live on Fox News, he received word from an aide of new figures making that day - 20 July - the deadliest yet in Gaza. Caught on a microphone, Kerry replied sarcastically: [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28405443"]"It's a hell of a pinpoint operation,"[/URL], referring to Israel's offensive in Gaza. The tape was aired during his interview and called an [URL="http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/07/20/kerry-caught-mocking-israel-hot-mic-its-hell-pinpoint-operation"]"extraordinary moment of diplomacy"[/URL] by anchor Chris Wallace. The US was caught criticising its ally.[/quote] [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76584000/jpg/_76584584_76584583.jpg[/IMG] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28532866[/URL] Lets hope the relations continue on the downturn Israel needs.

It actually is a pinpoint operation, the Israeli military is practicing the Daihya doctrine against Palestinian civilians. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine[/url] [quote]The Dahiya doctrine is a military strategy put forth by the Israeli general Gadi Eizenkot that pertains to asymmetric warfare in an urban setting, in which the army deliberately targets civilian infrastructure, as a means of inducing suffering for the civilian population, thereby establishing deterrence.[1] The doctrine is named after a southern suburb in Beirut with large apartment buildings which were flattened by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the 2006 Lebanon War.[2] Israel has been accused of implementing the strategy during the Gaza War.[/quote]

I imagine Fox News jumped on it like a cat after a mouse.

What does he actually mean by "pinpoint" operation? What is a pinpoint op? I'm more interested in the fact he said "We've got to get over there" after he said that.

[QUOTE=Midas22;45529512]What does he actually mean by "pinpoint" operation? What is a pinpoint op? I'm more interested in the fact he said "We've got to get over there" after he said that.[/QUOTE] Im sure when he said pinpoint he was talking about it in sarcasm. At least one would assume considering State Departments stance on the war in gaza.

[QUOTE=Midas22;45529512]What does he actually mean by "pinpoint" operation? What is a pinpoint op? I'm more interested in the fact he said "We've got to get over there" after he said that.[/QUOTE] The IDF said it was conducting a 'pinpoint operation' to damage Hamas. John Kerry was told of that days causality statistics by his aid so he made a sarcastic dig about the Israeli statement.

I'm just Glad Kerry actually knows what's going on and is actually trying to do something about it and not just ignore it. I'm hoping we can come to some sort of agreement that we should stop supporting Israel if they're going to use our money for instruments for murder. [QUOTE=Lamar;45529442]It actually is a pinpoint operation, the Israeli military is practicing the Daihya doctrine against Palestinian civilians. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine[/url][/QUOTE] I'm sorry hang on a second, so it's an IDF strategy and [b]not supported, endorsed, or even used by any other government or military body?[/b] That's a really shitty argument. That's like me walking up to you and breaking your legs because I thought you were "scary looking" and as a result were an "immediate threat". Besides, smarter people have already made better rebuttals for this sort of thing anyway. [quote]The doctrine is defined in a 2009 report by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel as follows: "The military approach expressed in the Dahiye Doctrine deals with asymmetrical combat against an enemy that is not a regular army and is embedded within civilian population; its objective is to avoid a protracted guerilla war.[b] According to this approach Israel has to employ[highlight] tremendous force disproportionate to the magnitude of the enemy’s actions."[/highlight][/b][/quote] Straight from your own article. Not to mention [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Falk]this guy[/url] used to be a professor at Ohio State, Princeton, and Harvard. He is extremely outspoken on this issue and he's an American Jew so he's not necessarily out to get Israel for any particular reason, he's just calling them out on their bullshit. [quote]Richard Falk wrote that under the doctrine, "the civilian infrastructure of adversaries such as Hamas or Hezbollah are treated as permissible military targets, which is [b]not only an overt violation of the most elementary norms of the law of war and of universal morality, but an avowal of a doctrine of violence that needs to be called by its proper name:[/b][highlight] state terrorism."[/highlight][/quote] You may want to reconsider posting stuff that may disprove whatever point you were originally trying to make.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;45529606] Besides, smarter people have already made better rebuttals for this sort of thing anyway. Straight from your own article. Not to mention [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Falk]this guy[/url] used to be a professor at Ohio State, Princeton, and Harvard. He is extremely outspoken on this issue and he's an American Jew so he's not necessarily out to get Israel for any particular reason, he's just calling them out on their bullshit. You may want to reconsider posting stuff that may disprove whatever point you were originally trying to make.[/QUOTE] Those aren't rebuttals, those are criticisms of the doctrine itself.

well i mean when you look at how small gaza is, its a wonder they haven't leveled the place completely

[QUOTE=Lamar;45529800]Those aren't rebuttals, those are criticisms of the doctrine itself.[/QUOTE] Regardless of my misuse of the word, the fact of the matter is when the Israeli Defence Force creates a "military strategy" it isn't legitimate just because they say it is. Besides, this: [quote]the army deliberately targets civilian infrastructure, as a means of inducing suffering for the civilian population[/quote] Is just a fancy way of saying this: [quote]the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.[/quote]

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;45531056]Regardless of my misuse of the word, the fact of the matter is when the Israeli Defence Force creates a "military strategy" it isn't legitimate just because they say it is. Besides, this: Is just a fancy way of saying this:[/QUOTE] I don't understand your point of contention, I don't disagree that the two are not different.

i think lamar isn't condoning it but is saying that it is literally a tactic employed by the israeli government and military

Yeah, it is literally a tactic and it is literally pinpoint. Specifically, it pinpoints civilian groups. Why are you so hung up about whether it's "legitimate" or not when either way it's fucked up? It's not as if hypothetical endorsement by the USA, UK, Russia, or any combination of any states would make it ok. To the point, using massively excessive force on civilian populations to effect deterrence sounds pretty familiar. Like dropping nuclear bombs in Japan familiar. As fucked up and wrong as I think it was, it was effective. That makes the "Dahiya doctrine," which is kind of just a new name for a grizzly and brutal type of warfare that has existed since time immemorial, as legitimate a tactic as any, I think.

its really easy to be right on target if you just make everybody your target

[QUOTE=Most wanteD;45531193]Yeah, it is literally a tactic and it is literally pinpoint. Specifically, it pinpoints civilian groups. Why are you so hung up about whether it's "legitimate" or not when either way it's fucked up? It's not as if hypothetical endorsement by the USA, UK, Russia, or any combination of any states would make it ok. To the point, using massively excessive force on civilian populations to effect deterrence sounds pretty familiar. Like dropping nuclear bombs in Japan familiar. As fucked up and wrong as I think it was, it was effective. That makes the "Dahiya doctrine," which is kind of just a new name for a grizzly and brutal type of warfare that has existed since time immemorial, as legitimate a tactic as any, I think.[/QUOTE]The nuclear bomb wasn't just effective because it killed loads of civilians; it's because it was a single bomb that could flatten an entire city in an instant. It took the RAF and USAAF 2 days, over 1200 bombers and 3900 tons of bombs to leave Dresden in a similar state. More importantly, Russia was gearing up to steamroll them from the direction of Manchuria, and Japan had already failed to halt the American advance. It's not really comparable to this situation.