Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is Israel or ISIS a greater threat to world peace? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metalfros)
    Sorry, I can sometimes become a little emotional about this subject. The answer to you question is yes. Just for the record, I do recognise Israel as a state. I am just one of the few people that is for a 2 state solution.
    Most people support a two-state solution.


    51% of Israelis support a two-state solution, funnily enough the exact same number as Palestinians. (Source.)


    Your views are reasonable, and align with mine, but where we diverge is you saying things like:

    [Israelis are the/Israel is among the] Worst terrorists to walk on this planet.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098udf89dsf)
    Source?
    USA ≠ Europe, regardless.Most countries in the world conduct missile tests.
    So?
    Turns out what I believed was false, but look how close on the map it is to another country, my gut feeling tells me that they're targeting other territories http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17698438

    No but if the USA are unhappy with North Korea, the EU and UK will most likely side with the USA, so we'd be targets as well.

    Kim Jong-Un is a maniac, he's starving and killing whoever he wants, cares little about human rights and is hacking networks in the west, how is that not worrying about the prospect of having a missed too
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrianMcEgg)
    Turns out what I believed was false
    How predictable...

    No but if the USA are unhappy with North Korea, the EU and UK will most likely side with the USA, so we'd be targets as well.
    Mere unsubstantiated speculation holds no sway in the court of public opinion.

    Kim Jong-Un is a maniac, he's starving and killing whoever he wants, cares little about human rights and is hacking networks in the west, how is that not worrying about the prospect of having a missed too
    He is a terrible dictator, yes, but how does that make North Korea "the biggest threat to world peace by far"? :confused:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098udf89dsf)
    How predictable...


    Mere unsubstantiated speculation holds no sway in the court of public opinion.


    He is a terrible dictator, yes, but how does that make North Korea "the biggest threat to world peace by far"? :confused:
    You don't need Sherlock to work out that the UK and EU will almost always stand by the USA.

    Israel? Only active in Palestine
    Terrorism? Will not be a thing in a few years time, I severely doubt that it would spread outside the Middle East and sections of Africa + Asia
    USA? Whether they are a threat is severely dependant on whether Mr Trump gets elected
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrianMcEgg)
    You don't need Sherlock to work out that the UK and EU will almost always stand by the USA.
    Did the UK "stand by" the USA during the Vietnam War?

    Israel? Only active in Palestine
    Terrorism? Will not be a thing in a few years time, I severely doubt that it would spread outside the Middle East and sections of Africa + Asia
    USA? Whether they are a threat is severely dependant on whether Mr Trump gets elected
    None of this substantiates your assertion that North Korea are "the biggest threat to world peace by far".
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think the biggest danger with North Korea is if they start to believe their own propaganda and resume the war with the South, which obviously leads to the USA getting involved on China's doorstep.

    A maniac with nukes is certainly a far greater threat than a bunch of religious crackpots largely confined the the Middle-East or a democratic state, which Israel is for all it's faults.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I think the biggest danger with North Korea is if they start to believe their own propaganda and resume the war with the South, which obviously leads to the USA getting involved on China's doorstep.

    A maniac with nukes is certainly a far greater threat than a bunch of religious crackpots largely confined the the Middle-East or a democratic state, which Israel is for all it's faults.
    They are not capable of delivering their nuclear "weapons" via missiles (despite their claims yesterday that they have managed to miniaturise their nuclear warheads - even if this is true, which it almost certainly isn't, it shows they are still not able to deliver a conventional nuclear strike).


    If NK attack South Korea no one will support them. South Korea have a far superior military, and North Korea don't have any reliable missiles that could target Europe/USA. Just yesterday even Russia told NK that they are creating justification under international law for a pre-emptive attack against NK with their rhetoric (threatening nuclear strikes against the USA), and a few days prior China agreed to more stringent sanctions on NK.


    NK are only really a threat to SK, and could do some serious damage with their Scud-based short-range missiles, and maybe a nuclear 'dirty bomb'. But they shouldn't be seen as this grave threat to world peace that could destroy the world whenever they decide they wish to do so.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098udf89dsf)
    Did the UK "stand by" the USA during the Vietnam War?


    None of this substantiates your assertion that North Korea are "the biggest threat to world peace by far".
    Hence I said "almost always"

    The point is that North Korea are a lot more likely than an average country to invade elsewhere(take out the Middle East of the equation). Israel are very unlikely to start on Western Europe, the USA are unlikely to invade another country at this team as well as the UK and EU. Terrorism is alone unsettling the Middle East and sections of Africa- can I see it spreading elsewhere? No.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrianMcEgg)
    The point is that North Korea are a lot more likely than an average country to invade elsewhere(take out the Middle East of the equation).
    I do not agree. What evidence do you have to support this assertion? Their empty rhetoric doesn't count.


    The only country they could ever feasibly invade is South Korea, and they know that doing this would lead to their downfall, which is the one thing even Supreme Kimmy won't risk.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098udf89dsf)
    They are not capable of delivering their nuclear "weapons" via missiles (despite their claims yesterday that they have managed to miniaturise their nuclear warheads - even if this is true, which it almost certainly isn't, it shows they are still not able to deliver a conventional nuclear strike).


    If NK attack South Korea no one will support them. South Korea have a far superior military, and North Korea don't have any reliable missiles that could target Europe/USA. Just yesterday even Russia told NK that they are creating justification under international law for a pre-emptive attack against NK with their rhetoric (threatening nuclear strikes against the USA), and a few days prior China agreed to more stringent sanctions on NK.


    NK are only really a threat to SK, and could do some serious damage with their Scud-based short-range missiles, and maybe a nuclear 'dirty bomb'. But they shouldn't be seen as this grave threat to world peace that could destroy the world whenever they decide they wish to do so.
    While they are obviously exaggerating their capabilities their repeated rocket launches and nuclear tests show that they aren't to be taken lightly, only they themselves really know what they are due to the secretive nature of the country.

    Aside from the direct threat they pose, if a terrorist organisation was going to get nuclear material from anywhere I'd wager that North Korea would be the most likely. All the other nuclear armed countries are led by sane people.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098udf89dsf)
    I do not agree. What evidence do you have to support this assertion? Their empty rhetoric doesn't count.


    The only country they could ever feasibly invade is South Korea, and they know that doing this would lead to their downfall, which is the one thing even Supreme Kimmy won't risk.
    It's a genuine gut feeling, we have no idea where these missiles can get to, we don't know their intentions, all we can be certain about is the fact that they have a maniac in change

    Well yes in the short term, but if we don't do something now they'll catch us sleeping, just like ISIS did with the Paris attacks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    While they are obviously exaggerating their capabilities their repeated rocket launches and nuclear tests show that they aren't to be taken lightly, only they themselves really know what they are due to the secretive nature of the country.
    Many countries routinely conduct missile tests.


    Their missiles do not allow them to realistically reach beyond South Korea, and even SK is heavily protected by US air-defences.

    Aside from the direct threat they pose, if a terrorist organisation was going to get nuclear material from anywhere I'd wager that North Korea would be the most likely. All the other nuclear armed countries are led by sane people.
    This is complete nonsense. Pakistan are clearly the least stable country to possess nukes, and any proliferation of nuclear weapons into terrorist hands will most likely emanate from Pakistan.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    World peace exists?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrianMcEgg)
    It's a genuine gut feeling, we have no idea where these missiles can get to, we don't know their intentions, all we can be certain about is the fact that they have a maniac in change

    Well yes in the short term, but if we don't do something now they'll catch us sleeping, just like ISIS did with the Paris attacks
    You have no real argument.


    Not worth my time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    They are gradually losing territory, but I think it's a bit early to say they won't be a long term threat. There is a good chance that if they lose control of their strongholds that they'll revert back to an insurgency, with massacres and hit and run attacks taking place. A bit like the Taliban, who went back to insurgency after they were removed from power and continue to pose some threat.

    These sort of attacks have already happened in areas held by the YPG in Syria, with a mass shooting at Kobane last year (around the time that the YPG captured Tall Abyad from ISIS) and a recent attack at Tall Abyad and some of the surrounding villages. Insurgency attacks well behind the front lines. So that possibility isn't me making up unrealistic conspiracy theories.

    That's before we get onto their overseas expansion. They may be defeated in one country but they can turn up somewhere else - like their recent expansion in Libya.

    And with Israel, diplomacy is an option - the success of that sort of thing really depends on which governments are in power in Israel and their allies. It is 100% not an option with groups like ISIS.
    Israel is a country that possesses nuclear weapons, the only country in the middle east, which by itself poses a massive threat, however small the chances that they actually use it. This alongside a powerful military shows that a country that has actively ignored the values of the UN and their atrocities against Palestine has this much power and international support (From even the USA)

    ISIS haven't got any form of power in the air and are only strong on the ground and are losing soldiers as we speak. It is weakening and the whole world are against them.

    In terms of 'peace', ISIS has done the worst it can in Paris, but no one can really tell what can happen with Israel.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    OP,I think you should include a poll to go with this thread
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    OP,I think you should include a poll to go with this thread
    Indeed, stupid thread should end with stupid poll. :cool:
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.