3 ms·

Since this is a hacker crowd where data should count for something, consider that the entire Arab-Israeli conflict since 1948 so far caused less than half as ma

by nir 11y ago

Since this is a hacker crowd where data should count for something, consider that the entire Arab-Israeli conflict since 1948 so far caused less than half as many deaths as the current Syrian civil war, let alone the Iran-Iraq War or the Iraq invasion. So, claiming this nation of 7 million that is smaller in size than Lake Michigan to be "posing a threat to world peace" is pathetic, and frankly says much more about Grass than Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

littletimmy 11y ago
How about we rephrase your sentence a little: So, claiming this group [Al-Qaeda] of several thousand that is smaller in size than a football stadium to be "posing a threat to world peace" is pathetic, and frankly says much more about the US military than al-Qaeda. Still agree with me? Size has absolutely no relation whatsoever on the ability to threaten something, particularly when said party has nuclear weapons.
- nir 11y ago
  Of course I agree. Al Qaeda doesn't have the capacity to really threaten world peace except by provoking a shortsighted response, which they did. But the comparison is meaningless anyway. AQ is not a nation, it's an organization with a certain ideology. It's not comparable to a country, like Israel, which is a collection of various ideologies and worldviews.
  - nebolo 11y ago
    While I agree with you, I think what is claimed it that Israel and AQ are unique in their potential for destruction ("threaten world peace") not necessarily their previous actions in that regard. If that is the case, comparing their body count is almost meaningless.
    - rat87 11y ago
      That's ridiculous. In what way is it unique? Nukes are more likely to be used in a Pakistan-Indian conflict and now that the cold war is over there's no chance of a regional war spiralling into WWIII.
mikeash 11y ago
The deaths due to the Arab-Israeli conflict have nothing to do with the potential consequences of Israel's nuclear weapons. Likewise, the small population and small landmass doesn't reduce the threat. If anything, it increases the threat, because Israel has a much smaller capability to withstand conventional war than any other nuclear-armed country. Consider that Israel's stockpile, while unknown, is estimated to be larger than Pakistan's and India's combined, and that it is surrounded by enemies rather than merely being bordered by some as is India and Pakistan. Those two are a major threat to world stability and a likely source of a near to medium term nuclear war. We're really lucky that Israel's enemies have not managed to get their shit together since 1973 on the wiping-out-the-Jews front, because if they did or do, it could easily turn into a seriously devastating conflict.

by nir 11y ago

littletimmy 11y ago

How about we rephrase your sentence a little: So, claiming this group [Al-Qaeda] of several thousand that is smaller in size than a football stadium to be "posing a threat to world peace" is pathetic, and frankly says much more about the US military than al-Qaeda. Still agree with me? Size has absolutely no relation whatsoever on the ability to threaten something, particularly when said party has nuclear weapons.

nir 11y ago
Of course I agree. Al Qaeda doesn't have the capacity to really threaten world peace except by provoking a shortsighted response, which they did. But the comparison is meaningless anyway. AQ is not a nation, it's an organization with a certain ideology. It's not comparable to a country, like Israel, which is a collection of various ideologies and worldviews.
- nebolo 11y ago
  While I agree with you, I think what is claimed it that Israel and AQ are unique in their potential for destruction ("threaten world peace") not necessarily their previous actions in that regard. If that is the case, comparing their body count is almost meaningless.
  - rat87 11y ago
    That's ridiculous. In what way is it unique? Nukes are more likely to be used in a Pakistan-Indian conflict and now that the cold war is over there's no chance of a regional war spiralling into WWIII.

mikeash 11y ago

The deaths due to the Arab-Israeli conflict have nothing to do with the potential consequences of Israel's nuclear weapons. Likewise, the small population and small landmass doesn't reduce the threat. If anything, it increases the threat, because Israel has a much smaller capability to withstand conventional war than any other nuclear-armed country. Consider that Israel's stockpile, while unknown, is estimated to be larger than Pakistan's and India's combined, and that it is surrounded by enemies rather than merely being bordered by some as is India and Pakistan. Those two are a major threat to world stability and a likely source of a near to medium term nuclear war. We're really lucky that Israel's enemies have not managed to get their shit together since 1973 on the wiping-out-the-Jews front, because if they did or do, it could easily turn into a seriously devastating conflict.