Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Science Technology

Anti-Missile Laser Weapon Successfully Tested 636

xPertCodert writes "A latest attempt to build a futuristic laser weapon appears to be a success. Joint Israeli-US developed laser destroyed a large caliber rocket in a latest New Mexico test. The press release also contains links to some interesting video and photo material, related to THEL (Tactical High Energy Lasers) defense systems."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Missile Laser Weapon Successfully Tested

Comments Filter:
  • wow (Score:-1, Insightful)

    by narkotix ( 576944 ) on Saturday May 08, 2004 @11:44PM (#9097722)
    so hows this gonna stop some lunatic packing a car full of explosives n blowing up that section of a city anyway?

  • by boomgopher ( 627124 ) on Saturday May 08, 2004 @11:46PM (#9097732) Journal
    Why do peace-types protest defense systems like this so much?
    I've never understood the logic. Defensive weaponry helps reduce the threat of war.


  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 08, 2004 @11:51PM (#9097767)
    Glad you asked. I'm not a "peace type", but here is the logic:

    You waste lots of money making a defensive system that is kind of imperfect.

    I spend the same amount of money, or 10% of the money or so, and just make cheap rockets. Then I barrage you with rockets, while you waste the money.

    When are you guys gonna realize that you need to just use the laser on the enemy ground targets?

    Example - Airborne Laser Project - that might actually work great against ballistic missles.

    But at $1000 per laser shot, why not point it at trucks on the ground, enemy airplanes trying to shoot you down, satellites in space, flammable infantry manning a mortar...
  • by Blastercorps ( 762119 ) on Saturday May 08, 2004 @11:55PM (#9097793)
    This system defends against balistic missiles. The only countries that have missiles capable of reaching US soil are Russia and China. Both of these nations are friendly towards the US currently. This is an example of the military preparing to fight the last war.

    Now, don't look at me like I'm a peacenik, I am all for the developement of weapon technology for the obvious combat advantage and the spinoff technologies. BUT, this technology is completely irrelevent to counter-terrorism. Even if a terrorist group gets ahold of a nuclear bomb, it would be easier and cheaper to sneak it into the US than to develope and build ICBMs.

    And even then, this system can only shoot down missiles as they are launched by flying over the enemy's territory. This means that the government has spent billions on a gimmicky star wars program that only works if we invade another country's airspace, a.k.a. an act of war.
  • by hawkeyeMI ( 412577 ) <brock@NOsPaM.brocktice.com> on Saturday May 08, 2004 @11:57PM (#9097801) Homepage
    Some people see building defenses as giving us a tactical offensive advantage, which it does. That is to say, if we have a fleet of these while nobody else does, that delicate balance that existed during the cold war would be no more. The threat of retaliation in kind is reduced, if not eliminated.

    It's no big deal on its own, but as Dennis Leary once said, "We've got the bombs, okay people? Nuclear f*cking weapons!"

    That changes things some.

    I'm all for anything that actually improves our safety, but often a lot of money goes into things that are supposed to but don't. This could well end up being one of those things. It's also better if we don't piss off the neighbors in the process.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:00AM (#9097825)
    Because of the way people look at it. Nuclear weapons are a trump card, something that essentially makes you, in the limit, invulnerable - maybe that other nation can pound you with conventional forces, but you can always hit them with a nuke. It keeps things at arms length, in a sense. It has enforced, more or less, a military peace since the end of World War II where, despite armed conflict, there has been no significant territory change (except the fall of the USSR, which was non-military).

    Imagine you're Nation X. Nation Y, who you may or may not be on such good terms with - it doesn't matter, really - gets a 100% effective Nuclear Missile Shield (this is a theory). Suddenly, you realize that your nuclear weapons are useless. They are free to use their nuclear weapons - and conventional forces - against you with almost pure impunity. This is worrying.

    In a way, gaining a nuclear defense disarms everyone else in the world, and, as a result, presents them with a security threat.
  • Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by delong ( 125205 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:02AM (#9097831)
    It isn't. Neither is an F-16, does that mean an F-16 is worthless? The weapon isn't meant to counter car bombers, obviously.

    This is a tactical battlefield weapon meant for force protection. The article concerns the mobile THEL laser.

    The larger, immobile THEL theoretically will be able to shoot down *mortar shells*. It has already been tested to successfully shoot down Katyushka small caliber rockets. These are revolutionary weapons systems.
  • by beeplet ( 735701 ) <beeplet@gmail.com> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:04AM (#9097841) Journal
    In my opinion, this kind of missile defense system - which is ambitious yet still very far from reliable - gives a threatening impression to hostile countries while giving a false impression of security here. It could easily spark an arms race as other countries develop missiles than can penetrate the defense.

    A waste of money all around...
  • by delong ( 125205 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:11AM (#9097874)
    I wonder how long until these will be deployed domestically, around various government buildings (such as the White House, the US Capitol, or the Pentagon).

    It won't. This isn't a "missile defense system" per se, it is a tactical battefield weapon designed for force protection. To be used to defend troops and installations against short range tactical weapons like rockets, mortars, cruise missiles, etc. Not of much use in the continental US.

    However, these lasers, and especially the larger, immobile THEL version, are perfect for Israel. Israeli communities and the IDF are constantly being harrassed by hit and run Katushka rocket, mortar, and guided missile threats from HAMAS and other Pal terrorists in the Territories, and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
  • Mirrors? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Romancer ( 19668 ) <[moc.roodshtaed] [ta] [recnamor]> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:17AM (#9097912) Journal
    Couldn't you just coat or plate the missles with laser quality mirroring to get past the laser defense?
  • Read the article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ksheff ( 2406 ) * on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:19AM (#9097915) Homepage

    This is a tactical defensive weapon for use on a battlefield, not strategic defense. This is a mobile system meant to protect against small rockets like Katyusha class weapons. To understand why Israel is involved, you only have to look at the map on this page. [iris.org.il]

    They would also be useful in defending targets against rocket attacks like the ones that have occurred in Iraq.
  • Accuracy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fortress ( 763470 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:24AM (#9097933) Homepage
    The coolest thing about a laser weapon, IMHO, is not the power or range or even its technology..it's the accuracy.

    Aiming is the same as hitting with an energy weapon in most scenarios, the lightspeed lag only becoming a factor at high speed/long range, light an orbital target. Even then, a computer-aided targeting system should be able to compensate.

    Imagine if such a weapon system were mounted in a vehicle (I think I read something about a prototype of a different laser in a 737) where just having the target in the crosshairs is enough to guarantee its destruction. Gives a new perspective to sniping. Should also reduce civilian casualties.
  • Re:wow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zors ( 665805 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:25AM (#9097937)
    Thats like saying that because a handgun cant be effectively used against airborne targets, its useless.

    You need different defense systems for different offensive systems.

    This is for use againt missiles, mortar shells, and the like.
  • Re:Jesus Christ. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:27AM (#9097949)
    When will the US learn that trying to remove the "mutual" from mutually assured destruction will earn the hostility of any number of military powers the world over?

    You are being very inconsistent in your statement.
    The other guys are 'hostile', but it's the US's fault. hmmmm.

    As to the MAD part, MAD is presently kind of irrelvant. US, Britain, France, & Russia have nukes and the long range, accurate delivery systems. And currently, we are all more or less friendly. and building down the nuke inventories.

    Having a nuke, say Pakistan or Israel, is far different from being able to hit a particular spot on the globe with it.

    I'm glad I live in a country that's not run by a power mad dictator with a hard-on for World War III.

    too bad development on this was started long before Bush became president. Kind of blows a hole in your 'power mad dictator' theory.
  • by zors ( 665805 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:32AM (#9097977)
    For one thing, it could remove the assurance of mutual destruction in the event of a nuclear war, at least in theory, at least for a short while. It could also lead to another arms race, which is never a good thing.
  • by idsofmarch ( 646389 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {margnimp}> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:37AM (#9098003)
    Actually this system is not designed for ICBMs, but rather to take out the Katyusha rockets that are periodically tossed in the Israeli's midst from the Golan Heights. This would be most effective in theater against artillery and multiple-launch rockets and possibly against something as large as a Scud. Again, not Star Wars which is space-based anti-ICBM technology that would only be useful against those who actually have ICBMs, but not enough to overwhelm the system. Star-Wars has been a huge waste of money and the anti-ICBM crowd is deluded in thinking this is the big threat, but behind able to knock down a Katyusha, not that's something our military could use. Think of it also as the replacement for the close-in-defense guns currently on US ships which are very ripe targets for Exocets.
  • by Atryn ( 528846 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:46AM (#9098048) Homepage
    So picture this... Ground forces are stationed outside a small city (to protect the civilians). An incoming missile is detected and they shoot it down as it approaches with the laser. Unfortunately, the missile was a delivery system for chem/bio material and they just caused it to be release in the air above a populated city.

    That'll make a good press release! But at least the troops were safe.
  • by OgTheBarbarian ( 778232 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:49AM (#9098060)
    Not so much for a ground based laser, it just keeps going and picks off Hubble, or the ISS or (God No!) Fox. But mounted to an aircraft, if it either misses or punches right through the target object, anything within range before the beam hits it's dispersion threshhold could be toast. Homes, office buildings, people spontaneously combusting, yada yada... You get the idea. The tinfoil hat just don't cut it anymore I guess. Eep. jm2c
  • Re:wow (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 09, 2004 @01:16AM (#9098170)
    How does a bullet proof vest stop someone from plunging a knife into your head?

    How does a hiking boot protect your hands?

    How does your car bumper prevent a flat tire from a nail?

    To put it another way, you are a fucking dumbass.

  • by MJOverkill ( 648024 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @01:21AM (#9098187)

    That underlying social problem is something the rest of us call opinions

    No, not opinions, problems. Like poverty and famine for example. These specific issues are never seen in the western world, so we do not place them high on our priorities. We are more concerned with defending ourselves against threats that are not likely to come, or will only arise as a result of weapons development.

  • by red floyd ( 220712 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @01:27AM (#9098215)
    Ideally, you want to destroy it exoatmospheric, to avoid any issues with shrpanel, hazmat contents, etc...

    Second choice, you destroy soon after launch, so the crap falls on the guy who launched in the first case.

    Of course, from a "protect yourself first" POV, launch phase interception is better, but if you're concerned about the innocents the bad guy has placed around the launch site, exo is better.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 09, 2004 @01:28AM (#9098219)
    When are you guys gonna realize that you need to just use the laser on the enemy ground targets?

    Uh. We're not stupid. Tell people, "we're building a laser that will shoot down ballistic missiles. It will eventually be able to shoot down much smaller mortar fire. It's a defensive project that will make our troops in the field AND people here at home safer," and you get a budget. Tell people, "we want to build a laser to melt vehicles and armaments from the air. It'll eventually be able to melt people's brains if they're on the bottom floor of a three story building," and you don't get a budget. Most of the laser physics that apply to Project A will also apply to Project B, so you pitch Project A and you'll eventually end up with Project A and B completed.
  • Of course... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 09, 2004 @01:46AM (#9098287)
    there is a small flaw with the idea of a missle defense system: The laser is pretty much useless against any attack that uses "dummy" missles (and any one that can build an active missle can build dummies). During most of the US govt's tests the "active" missle was lit up a bit more then the dead missles. Which of course helps the computer decide which missle to take down. It's a decent idea, but it's not feasable just yet.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 09, 2004 @01:52AM (#9098308)
    Arabs don't want to nuke Israel because they want to actually be able to live there after they push the Jews into the water (go read the "Palestinian Covenant," which is basically the PA's manifesto)
  • In my crystal... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zarthrag ( 650912 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @01:53AM (#9098314)
    ...I see Bush on TV...

    ...addressing the nation...

    lasers....

    satellites...

    Oh wait, my bad. That was Reagan! Or was it?

  • by ReTay ( 164994 ) * on Sunday May 09, 2004 @02:09AM (#9098388)
    "So a U.S.-Isreal team develops. Now. someone will develop energy absorbing /reflecting /deflecting/whatever missiles."

    Right.... I don't know I personally would like to have the most updated hardware I can if I have to go into battle. You can carry sticks and stones if you want I want the most deadly equipment and as much of it as I can carry.

    And to your second point.
    No amount of money will help religious fever.
    Remember anyone who tells you that tying a bomb to your chest and blowing up civilians will get you attended in the next world by a pack of virgins and they will give lots of money to your family is..

    A Not your friend
    B Probably lying on at least one count
    C Certifiable
    D Someone who is always happy to sacrifice someone
    else

    I don't know just my two bits
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 09, 2004 @02:10AM (#9098389)
    "Airplanes can barely keep themselves in the air. How can they then carry any kind of load?"
    - William Pickering, Astronomer (1908)

    "Airplanes suffers from so many technical faults that it is only a matter of time before any reasonable man realizes that they are useless!"
    - Scientific American (1910)

    "No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris."
    - Orville Wright.

    "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
    - Marshal Ferdinand Foch [Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre] (circa 1911)
    He was Supreme Commander of Allied forces, 1918

    "Aviation is good for sport, but for the Army it is useless!"
    - Marshal Ferdinand Foch

  • by Serious Simon ( 701084 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @02:15AM (#9098407)
    I saw a "home shopping" program advertising some kind of miracle car polish. They demonstrated its protection by firing a powerful laser on the car body. However, probably not coincidentally, a white car was used for the test, so the laser would not be able to warm it up much anyway.

    I wonder if the missile used in this test had a finishing that easily absorbs the laser energy. If it would be made of a highly reflective material, almost all energy would be reflected, and it would not be affected.

  • by kinnunen ( 197981 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @02:16AM (#9098409)
    Defensive weaponry helps reduce the threat of war.

    Actually, this system lowers the threshold of going to war. You can bet they will try to make mobile versions of these lasers that can be shipped to other countries to protect deployed troops. That means lower US casualties, which means Jeb Bush may be little less hesitant to invade Iraq.

  • by Darby ( 84953 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @02:24AM (#9098438)
    PR or no I think the root cause is Islam and the us vs. them mentality that it promotes.

    Now, add Christianity and Judiasm as well, and you will be (mostly) correct.

  • by S3D ( 745318 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @02:40AM (#9098494)
    Existing THEL is about six buildings, and that is not quite a mobile platform.
    THEL description [israeli-weapons.com]
    Mobile THEL prototype is not close yet (2007 optimists telling ) and will take about three trucks. Looks like existing THEL could be useful only for static defence positions in Isreal and South Korea.
  • by Obyron ( 615547 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @02:50AM (#9098516)
    Most scholars of history agree that the arms race you warn about was what brought about the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. The United States is the richest country in the world, and it's got more than its fair share of brilliant minds.

    We develop a laser that can shoot down ICBMs. In response potentially hostile nations (PHNs) begin spending money like a housewife on holiday to develop a weapon that (they hope) can penetrate the defense... Maybe... in the event of a war that may not happen. In the end game we've still got a laser capable of shooting down artillery, cruise missiles, and (I've not seen anyone else mention this yet) enemy aircraft. What do the PHNs have? Debt in the billions-to-trillions of dollars range that they probably can't afford that will play its part in collapsing their economy.

    The best weapons platform you'll ever develop is the one that scares your enemy so much he spends himself into oblivion to counteract it. At the end of the day he's gone, and you haven't really had to do anything. It worked for Reagan with Star Wars, and by the sound of things it might just work again.

  • by oimachidave ( 767389 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @02:59AM (#9098553)
    Has the success of this test been verified by any third parties? The US Military tends to declare every test a success, regardless of the actual results. Sometimes the tests are rigged to create an illusion of success [fas.org] and other times they just simply lie [worldpolicy.org].
  • by N1KO ( 13435 ) <nico@bonada.gmail@com> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @03:12AM (#9098592)
    Germany and Japan post WWII. The States spent a lot of money helping them rebuild.

    Also, a counter example, after losing WWI Germany had extreme penalties placed on it causing an economic depression. Hilarity ensued.
  • by boomgopher ( 627124 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @04:02AM (#9098726) Journal
    Just because you disagree with me does not make it flamebait or a troll you retards. I hope you're meta-modded appropriately.

  • this is silly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rebelcool ( 247749 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @04:12AM (#9098759)
    I thought slashdot was full of nerds? What kind of nerds don't understand simple physics?

    These lasers emit energy in the megawatt region. A mirror takes photons - absorbs them - and then reemits them. There aren't many mirrors that can absorb 10 million watts of energy.

    In fact, that very problem is what makes laser weaponry so damn expensive and difficult to do. They need very heavy, exotic and expensive mirror systems to focus and aim the laser energy without being destroyed by the laser themselves. You can't just go down to home depot and buy a big mirror. You can't just coat a missile in some silly bike reflectors or shiny foil.

    Even if you were to somehow invent a reflective coating that could handle megawatts of energy - and still be light enough to just paint on a missile - you'd have to deal with the coating becoming marred in flight, as anything the laser comes in contact with (ie, birdshit or what have you) its going to superheat to thousands of degrees and burn right through and destroy the missile.

  • Re:wow (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 09, 2004 @04:14AM (#9098764)
    Meagre resources? You mean the entire Arab world and their sympathetic allies in Europe? Yes, two continents is pretty meagre vs. a super power like Israel.

    Or were you talking about the Israelis having meagre resources as the only democracy in the Middle East surrounded by hostile states intent on her complete destruction, only held at bay by fear of nuclear annhiliation?
  • by gnu-generation-one ( 717590 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @07:40AM (#9099213) Homepage
    "Why do peace-types protest defense systems like this so much?"

    Because they allow you to attack with impunity.
  • by Avihson ( 689950 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:41AM (#9099749)
    If we just hold hands and sing Kumbya all the world's problems will go away.

    The underlying social problem is human nature! Greed, jealousy, avavice, have been problems since the dawn of man.
    If I keep my "riches" you will hate me for having more than you.
    If I give you some of my posessions, you will hate me for making you feel inferior.
    If I destroy all my wealth and become like you you will hate me for wasting what I had.
    If I help you to be like me, you will never like me until you have ground me under your boot heels.

    So I may as well just live my life my way and keep you at arms length.

    Q: Why do you think it is called a social ladder?

    A: You look down, all you see are smiling faces, and you look up and all you see are assholes.
  • Re:Uh Huh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:19AM (#9099971)
    I was thinking about the retroreflector a bit, and then I suddenly realised you could also put it on the laser installation and personell. That should be good enough to rereflect away any laser light bounced back to the laser and personell. Thus making the entire scheme useless in killing a laser system.

    The laser's still bright enough to kill the missile with or without the retroreflective coating (reflection isn't perfect). That means it's bright enough to harm itself, with or without a reflective or retroreflective coating on the installation.

    Putting a reflective or retroreflective coating on the laser installation turns out to have other drawbacks too, though it's probably still tolerable if your laser is in an area you control.
  • by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee@@@ringofsaturn...com> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:27AM (#9100006) Homepage
    I think the fact that there was a WAR right before the reconstruction projects makes your argument a poor one.

    War is part of the human condition. It is inevitable. So far, the only effective way to prevent war has been to make it too horrible to imagine fighting. Th second most effective way (which hasn't been too effective) is to be so incredibly GOOD at fighting war, nobody wants to fuck with you.

    So. In any case, investment in weapons development is a better bet than investing in hugs and teddy bears.
  • Re:A few flaws (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SemperFiDownUnda ( 661388 ) <(moc.liamtoh) (ta) (sicnarfenyaw)> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:25PM (#9103303)
    While I agree that the speed of processing is not a issue I do see a problem. Do you know what radar does to the body? I worked with a Navy officer that has medical exams every 3 months because he walked into a crain way where they where testing a radar and his lower half was basically zapped by the radar. Now you would have to also work out how to sheild your fellow soldiers from your scanning. This is the bigger hurdle that I see.
  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @12:24PM (#9107706)
    Lets break it down a little shall we.

    You say that Israelis are richer and more educated then it's neighbors. Ok. So what? How does that help America? Is this really surprising given the amount of money We give to israel? If you were to add up the money the US govt gives israel and the private US citizens give israel it would be hundreds of billions of dollars.

    So they take this money, educate their kids, invent stuff, manufacture stuff, and sell it to us. How does that help us? I can see why it's great for israel but why is it great for me?

    "Did you miss what I said about security? Israel is the buffer zone between us and the terrorists."

    This is a flat our lie. Israel is the cause of terrorism. It's the reason arabs hate us. It's the number one reason there has not been peace in the middle east.

    "Also, the squalid "refugee" camps of poor Arabs must be sustained and kept in such condition to keep international pressure on Israel's "oppression and occupation.""

    Israel should lift it's occupation. It's illegal, immoral and evil to occupy people against their will. There is no justification for it.

    "Also, it should be noted that a lot of the money the U.S. gives to Israel are loans. "

    This is a lie. The US gives around 12 billon dollars of AID to israel not loans. We also spend billions more in developing technology to defend them. They don't pay back a cent of that.

    "You're not understanding the geopolitical ramifications of having a liberal democracy in the heart of the Middle East"

    I understand perfectly. I am under no delusion that Israel is a benefit to the middle east or to the world at large. Everyboy hates is israel ecept the US. They are lawless country. They have given themselves to kill anybody they want any time they want for any reason they want. They have a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, they have a state policy of turture and incarceration without charges or trials. Israel is a rogue state with hundreds of nuclear weapons. One day they will turn on us.

    "Maybe Intel chips designed by a few engineers in Israel provide millions of jobs in America in other sectors of the computer industry."

    Or maybe it would provide even more jobs if all the work is done here, have you thought of that.

    "It is good for America that our staunchest ally be strong and prosperous."

    Israel is not our staunches ally, it's the other way around. The relationship between the Israel and the US is parasitic. Nothing you have told me contradicts that.

    You love israel, the israelis are rich and educated, the israelis manufacture stuff and sell it to us. None of this helps me.

    Why don't we give that money taiwan instead. They too are educated, rich, make cool stuff and sell it to us. As a bonus they don't invade and occupy countries and kill thousands of people every year.

  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @05:50PM (#9111105)
    "This is a gross exageration"

    No it's not. They hate israel because israel was formed in their land. There was no israel and then there was one. The people that used to live there got fucked.

    They also hate israel because israel is currently occupying 3.5 million people. These people are for all practical purposes domesticated animals to the state of israel. They live within Israeli borders and yet they have no legal rights whatsoever.

    They also hate israel because israel kills around a thousand people per year like clockwork. They also destroy hundreds of homes and wound thousands of people.

    They also hate israel because israel routinely rounds up men and tortures them in prisons without access to lawyers and without charging them with a crime.

    They hate the US because the US approves, condones, and helps israel occupy palestenians.

    The arabs don't hate everyone. They don't hate the chinese, they don't hate canadians, they don't hate germans, they don't hate swedes, they don't hate finns, they don't hate russians, they don't hate turks etc. They hate israel because they have reason to hate israel. They hate the US because they have reason to hate the US. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise but that's the reality.

    I'll say it again.

    What israel is doing is illegal, immoral and uncivilized. In no framework of justice or morality is it acceptable to keep 3.5 million people under such opression. It's not right and you can't justify it.

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Working...