backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by nstott.. on Mar 18 at 11:40 PM


Nautilus Tactical High Energy Laser  (Source: Northrop Grumman)

Effective range of Kassam and Katyusha rockets.  (Source: Koret Communications Ltd.)
Residents in Sderot have had enough of rocket attacks and want the laser-based Nautilus system in place

DailyTech recently discussed the use of military-grade laser used as weapons in a number of articles. Boeing installed a 12,000-pound, high-energy laser into its C-130H Gunship and Northrop Grumman has similar "laser ambitions" with the Guardian anti-missile system installed in an MD-10 cargo jet.

While Americans are typically apathetic to the use of such technology for military duties, some residents in Israel are clamoring to have laser-based weapons as a safety net for their towns. Sderot residents have gone so far as to sue the Israeli government -- more specifically, they named Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as defendants in the civil suit.

The Sderot residents want the Israeli government to install the Nautilus Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) system to protect the region from Kassam and Katyusha rockets. Sderot has been heavily bombarded with such rockets over the years which have resulted in numerous deaths. The residents feel that suing the government may be its only chance for protection against further attacks.

"Israel could bring the system to Sderot and use it to protect the people there from Kassam rockets," said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner who heads the Israel Law Center which represents the Sderot residents. "In 1996, when Israel was under threat from Lebanon, Israel asked the United States to help them establish a system to protect northern settlements from Katyusha rockets. This system, called Nautilus, shot down Katyushas, Kassams and bombs with 100 percent success."

Unfortunately for the Sderot residents, the Nautilus program stalled in 2005 after ten years of development and $400 million USD spent between Israel and the United States. Since that time, rocket fire has increased which has led the Israeli government to develop yet another system dubbed "Iron Dome." The Iron Dome system will cost the government $100,000 for each incoming rocket it destroys – if it destroys them at all. Recent tests show that Iron Dome is incapable of protecting Sderot from incoming Kassam rockets.

"[Nautilus is] just sitting there in New Mexico. There is a way to take it apart, bring it to Israel and rebuild it," Darshan-Leitner continued. "A company told me that it would take no longer than five or six months. It would cost around 50 million dollars to rebuild it, but there would be unlimited protection against Katyushas, Kassams, and bombs."

Despite Darshan-Leitner's optimism of the performance of the Nautilus system -- she quotes an extremely optimistic 100 perfect effective rate -- a spokesman for the Israeli Defense Ministry says that such claims are preposterous. "As long as there was a chance that the results would lead to a functional, effective missile defense system we stuck with the program. But in 2005 the US military backed out of the program because it wasn't working, and we decided to end our involvement as well," said spokesman Shlomo Dror.

Despite the concerns from Sderot residents, Dror tried to express that the government is working hard to provide protection for its citizens.

"There is no way to put a price tag on the trauma caused by living with the ongoing threat from, and even more for people injured or even killed by Kassam attacks, God forbid," said Dror. "We are spending as much as we need to in order to develop the most effective system we can to protect residents of Sderot and the entire western Negev region."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Peace
By mdogs444 on 3/13/2008 2:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hello! McFly! Is anyone home?

Wake up from your dreamworld hippy man, peace hasn't been an option in the middle east since Kane & Abel for god sake. Your flowing waving is not going to stop the wars of Holy Lands.


RE: Peace
By abzillah on 3/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Peace
By mdogs444 on 3/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Peace
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 4:06:22 PM , Rating: 5
Please see my post below in the other thread. There's the media version of what's going on, and then there's the actual version that shows up in history books, peace negotiations, etc. You're referring to the media version.


RE: Peace
By FITCamaro on 3/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 4:29:57 PM , Rating: 5
No one was kicked out of anywhere. The Palestinians left on their own accord after the neighboring Arab nations told them that they are going to annihilate Israel and they should leave until the job is done. The resulting wars against the Arab nation were all handedly won by Israel. The Arabs who stayed are now all citizens of Israel with Arab representation in the parliament. The ones who left were kicked out of Jordan or Egypt or where ever they fled to and now rest in Gaza and the West bank.


RE: Peace
By derwin on 3/13/2008 5:27:01 PM , Rating: 4
"kicked out" is a very subjective term. Perhaps the leadership of palestine agreed due to pressure from their neigbhors, but i doubt the people who actually lived there, the citizens of palestine, agreed with this plan. Hence the sensation of being "kicked out." Perhaps their own gov't is to blame, but these people none the less feel as if they were removed from their home land.

Ask a native american who removed them from their land. Was it the US gov't or was it their leaders who agreed to the deals to sell the US land. I doubt many would blame their own leaders.

It is a subjective question, and the answer varies not just by what side of it you are on, but even by who you ask regardless of side.

In all fairness, I think a just world would not have given Isreal that land, but then again, in a just world, the Jews would have been protected from Hitler... and in a just world Hitler would not have rose to power... and I can go on. The matter of fact is that Isreal is where it is, and it is not going anywhere.

That statement has to mean both implyied meanings. It is not leaving, nor is it spreading out.

That is the one point that Isreal must take the high road on for anything to work. Religious values are not worth the lives of your citizens. Period. If taking more of the holy land costs you 1000 civilian deaths, just don't do it.

As for the other side, how does the extremist muslim side become quelled? That is the harder question. The US has in recent years tried a new solution "proactive war." Arguably it has reduced attacks again US facilities (beyond Iraq) and has given other extremist (not to neccisarily argue Sadam was anything of the sort, but I digress...) groups in the region a second thought if they intend to act beyond their boarders or against a civilian population. This strategy however may have untold consequences. What of those who's lives were ruined by the results of fighting due to US occupation? Will they blame Sadam for briging us here, or will they more likely blame us for being there? What will they do to retaliate? More than likely they will not take any action against us, out of both fear and civility, but I am sure of the thousands of lives ruined, there will be a hand full who will attempt to take action. What then?

This leaves us where we started. What to do about the at-best loosely affiliated and very feverant muslim groups?

I for one feel that killing them, even if an effective solution could not be the right one, so we still have some work to do.


RE: Peace
By os008 on 3/14/2008 3:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
Good point of view really, I've always tried comparing the Native Americans to the Palestinians, with an exception, Israelis actually were living in peace with Arabs, they weren't occupants. But they took advantage of the Arabs as soon as they got the green light.

Unfortunately, extremists will always make us look as if we're all terrorists. It's up to anyone to take a closer look and stop generalizing. Just an example ... KKK.


RE: Peace
By HrilL on 3/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Peace
By os008 on 3/14/2008 3:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
We're not fighting anything currently, every single nation of us is in its own world, we're just taking the safe road and not actually doing anything effective (however you may interpret that is up to you).

There're no Holy Wars going on, we're just being passive, and seems to not consider uniting ourselves anytime soon, THAT's our main problem.

Plus, i would consider the Iraq war to be a holy war from the USA point of view, don't you think? You're freeing the people there from their oppressor in the name of ... freedom?! (I won't go into the real motivation for the Iraq war here of course, that's up to you to research for).


RE: Peace
By Alexstarfire on 3/13/2008 4:50:43 PM , Rating: 1
I think that all religion is wrong, though what they practice may be useful, so I'll answer yes to your question. I'm pretty sure that no religious text is going to tell you it's all right to kill people as long as it's in the name of God. There is no such thing as a Holy War IMO because of this. Sounds more like it's two bickering kids who can't share a toy and Mom/Dad aren't doing anything to stop them. Of course, there is no Mom/Dad in this situation, but I think you get the point.


RE: Peace
By Obsoleet on 3/13/2008 11:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
You would give up on peace??

You are a damn fool. Your mentality is exactly what's wrong with our world and why we're at war.

Peace IS possible if you take up the real, daily work that peace requires. See Northern Ireland if you don't quite understand how peace can "just happen" through effort.

You disgust me and you didn't study hard enough in school, start using your head.


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 3:23:23 PM , Rating: 3
Your personal take on history needs revising. Plus you should also understand that "peace" is relative. There hasn't been "peace" in the region since well, I can't say exactly but definitely since before WWII. The Ottomans had a pretty brutal occupation of Palestine before the British took over in WWI. I wouldn't call British occupation peaceful, all the lands they've occupied in Asia and Africa (not to mention America) have had or have now lots of issues as a result.


RE: Peace
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 4:04:30 PM , Rating: 5
You sure about that?

The Ottomans didn't even have a name for the region, it was largely dismissed as a backwater nowhere in the empire.

And you can't say that the Ottomans were particularly brutal to just the residents of the region, since they ended up being particularly brutal to residents in all of its regions *cough*Armenia*cough* before the empire fall apart.

But find me an example of genocide or war over the region during the Caliphs? The Romans and Byzantians completely banned Jews from the area for the previous 700 years -- the Caliphs not only removed the ban, but encouraged Jewish pilgrams to resettle the area.

Sounds like peace to me.


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 4:24:36 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not talking about wars or genocide. Basically I'm referring to the fact that Palestine has been "occupied" by a foreign power for a very long time. It was only until the birth of Israel do we have a true nation there. The land is being developed and an economy is hoping to flourish. The Ottomans may not have been brutal in the sense of murders and prosecution but they sure were not a catalyst for prosperity, nor were the British.

To the OP, don't just say the Israeli's need to practice human rights with a perfect sense of understanding of what is going on there. For quick example: What happened after the Israelis unilaterally completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip? An increase in violence is what. Militants took over the area and started launching more rocket attacks, now the militant Hamas are completely in charge of that region. That is the result of Israeli withdrawal, forgive them if they are a little hesitant to withdraw some more at the moment.


RE: Peace
By WelshBloke on 3/13/2008 7:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Basically I'm referring to the fact that Palestine has been "occupied" by a foreign power for a very long time.


According to the Palestinians it still is.


RE: Peace
By JustTom on 3/14/2008 11:32:55 AM , Rating: 2
If you define peace in the narrowest terms then after the initial Islamic conquests -which were very often horrific - the area certainly was peaceful. What it was not is just. There legal system existed specifically to benefit Muslims. Any other religious group was treated as a second tier citizen.

Also, you are ignoring the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim who ordered the destruction of churches and synagogues along with forced conversion to Islam. While these actions probably did not merit being called genocidal they dance around the edge of it. Most of the Fatimid Caliphs were religiously tolerant-especially in historical context-but there were certainly exceptions.

As far as war over the region during the rule of the Caliphate, certainly you are not indicating your belief that the area was peacefully acquired? I won't point out the Christian Crusades since legitimately the Caliph was not in control of them. However, there are ample examples of warfare among Muslims during the rule of the Caliphs. The Mamluk conquest of Egypt is an obvious example.
And specifically, how do you think a Caliph would respond to rockets raining down on his villages? I am pretty sure his actions would make the Israeli's appear to be scared little school girls.



RE: Peace
By eye smite on 3/13/2008 5:11:12 PM , Rating: 4
Here, you need to read the sites information on the link below first.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/w...

For a modern day history of that same story and reasoning behind it read this next link below.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_col...

and then to add to this mix let me put a quote and a link that will tie it all up for you and possibly clear up your perception issues. Here's the quote:
The Human Animal which accompanies a major six-part series, shows that, however much we may think we have evolved from our animal ancestors, our instincts and behaviour are still rooted in our animal past. By denying this inheritance we are in danger of destroying everything we have strived so hard to create.
Now let me give you the link for that.

http://www.tvfactual.co.uk/human_animal.htm

Now after you've studied all that my young college fellow, I'd like to see you continue to rattle off the idealistic and unrealistic propoganda of peace.


RE: Peace
By encryptkeeper on 3/13/2008 8:52:25 PM , Rating: 1
See my post above. Basically, the root of the most current series of problems is because the UN took land that BELONGED to the Palestinians and turned it into what is now Israel. Why the UN thought the Palestinian people would be all yippie skippy about giving up their homes to live in tents is beyond me...


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 9:16:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
BELONGED


That's the big problem. The land never belonged to any sovereign native population. Have a look. Throughout all this time there were Arabs and Jews living on the land. Before WWII Arab population was the majority however.

UN partition
British Mandate (1920–1948)
Ottoman Rule (1841-1917)
Mamluk rule (1270–1516 CE)
Crusader rule (1099–1187 CE)
Fatimid rule (969–1099 CE)
Abbasid rule (750–969 CE)
Umayyad rule (661–750 CE)
Arab Caliphate rule (638–1099 CE)
Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) rule (330–640 CE)
Roman rule (63 BCE)
Hasmonean Dynasty (140 BCE)
Hellenistic rule (333 BCE)
Persian rule (538 BCE)
Hebrew Bible period


RE: Peace
By onereddog on 3/13/2008 9:27:33 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but I must be a picky bastard with your post.

Firstly: You're probably a college student...not a collage student, although that would explain your claim that being a hippy comes with the title.

Secondly: Your arguement against this laser is akin to saying let's not produce better ways of producing condoms and give them to those who need them and spend more time on a cure. Sure, if a solution to the conflict or a cure for aids was just around the foreseeble coner, then that arguement would hold (barely), but since that isn't the case, missile defense systems are a good idea.


RE: Peace
By 91TTZ on 3/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Peace
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 3:11:02 PM , Rating: 3
You sure about that? The Abbasid Empire ruled the region for 500 years resulting in one of the most prosperous empires in history while Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages.

And believe it or not the Muslims and Jews got along just fine back then; the empire encouraged Christians, Jews and Muslims to respect each other since it was profitable for everyone to cooperate.

So peace hasn't been an option in the middle east since relatively recently. And to dismiss the thought that it could not return to peace as proposed by the great thinkers of Jewish and Muslim faith seems pretty shortsighted.


RE: Peace
By mdogs444 on 3/13/2008 3:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think you fail to see the real reason in this case. Its not necessarily that the Muslims hated the Jews. The problem is the Gaza Strip & holy land, and one side trying to take sole ownership of that land. Thats what is creating a conflict between religions because neither side is going to give up their faith and need for the land for their people.


RE: Peace
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 3:47:44 PM , Rating: 4
That is a perceived threat on both sides, I understand. However there is considerably more to the conflict, and the debate over religious relics and temples is a "here look at this shiny ball and ignore the core issues" sort of thing.

Much of the Palestinian resentment, for example, focuses around collective retribution, settlements and refugee status. The Israeli resentment focuses on security and international status. And then both sides dispute resources like water for irrigation.

The media spin that Jewish holy places will be in Palestinian territory, and that Muslim holy places will be in Israeli territory is a cheap tactic to easily infuriate both sides, though from what I remember it doesn't even garner recognition in the Oslo accords.

Tourism a GREAT thing, do you think the people who live near those relics honestly care who officially owns it? Seems to me they'd rather just let things cool and continue to make money of pilgrams, like they've done for thousands of years -- OK 1200 years in the case of the Muslim holy places.


RE: Peace
By UzairH on 3/13/2008 4:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
All well stated, Kristopher. I knew you were a smart guy in tech and science and all that jazz, but had no idea you were so well-read on (non-USA) history :) Anyways I have no affiliation with either side of the conflict but as an impartial observer I just ask the question: why was Israel formed by kicking out those who were already living there for centuries, when it was not the Arabs and Muslims who had tormented them in WW2 and the centuries before but the German Nazi regime and before that the Roman empire, the Christians in the crusades etc. The point is that, as you pointed out, the Muslims had always been nice to the people of Judaism, there never was any anti-semitism in the Muslims. Now the world has been turning to a blind eye while Israel openly threatens (and in fact carries out), a new holocaust on the people of Palestine.

Anyway, there is a saying that Might is Right, and obviously the people of Palestine are but a midget next next to the mighty American backed Israeli juggernaut.

Peace for all,
Uzair


RE: Peace
By FITCamaro on 3/13/2008 4:22:48 PM , Rating: 1
You forget that the Jews lived in that region long before the Muslims. Compared to Judaism, Islam is an extremely young religion.


RE: Peace
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 4:31:17 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, but it was the Roman and Christian empires that banned Jews from living in the area until Muslim rule in 750. This is well documented from Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Roman accounts too.


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 4:42:32 PM , Rating: 4
Impartial observer? lol you must be kidding me. You state that Israel is conducting a "Holocaust" on Palestinians. Don't insult people's intelligence by claiming no bias.

Most of your information is incorrect. No one was kicked out of any land as a result of the formation of Israel. As I have mentioned the Palestinians who left, left on they own because they wanted to flee the upcoming Arab-Israeli wars. There are over 1,000,000 Arab-Israeli citizens in the country and those are the ones who stayed with the new nation.

Trust me the people of Israel want peace. They are fed up with the circle of violence.


RE: Peace
By bigpimpatl on 3/13/2008 6:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
the circle goes around and back, just to clear that up. The israelis are just as culpable as the palestinians. And yes, I would say that the current events do dictate a "catastrophe" on Palestinians as the gaza blockade has resulted in over 1 million people on the brink of starvation, with no access to food, water, supplies etc.

I absolutely admire the israeli tactic: Make everyone suffer for the actions of a few...


RE: Peace
By encryptkeeper on 3/13/2008 9:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
As I have mentioned the Palestinians who left, left on they own because they wanted to flee the upcoming Arab-Israeli wars.

Those wars wouldn't have happened if the Jews weren't promised the land...why do you think there is so little care for international cooperation, particularly with the UN? Besides, on most matters in the UN concerning Israel's violence against Palestine, Israel holds a veto power. That's a huge load of steaming crap if I ever saw one.

Trust me the people of Israel want peace. They are fed up with the circle of violence.


This part of your argument is just laughable. If they really wanted to extend an olive branch, why would they want a laser defense system?????


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 9:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not one inch of truth in that post. Israel holds no veto power in the UN. Have a look at how many resolutions are passed in the General Assembly against Israel the answer is quite a bit.

quote:
This part of your argument is just laughable. If they really wanted to extend an olive branch, why would they want a laser defense system?????


To shield themselves from rocket attacks. It's called a circle of violence it's not easy to break. Israel unilaterally withdrew 100% from Gaza in an attempt to "extend and olive branch". It had the opposite effect of allowing a militant organization with a platform of war to gain control.


RE: Peace
By kyleb2112 on 3/14/2008 1:27:10 AM , Rating: 2
Israel offered Arafat 98% of the land they wanted and Arafat walked away. It's not about land, it's about killing Jews. If they got all of Israel tomorrow they would still want to kill Jews. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they can't be evil.


RE: Peace
By charliee on 3/15/2008 9:51:22 PM , Rating: 1
Zachariah 14:1-4,9
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh....
For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle...
Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west....
And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

Zachariah 13:6
And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

Ezekiel 28:25-26
Thus saith the Lord God; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob.
And they shall dwell safely therein...when I have executed judgments upon all those that despise them round about them; and they shall know that I am the Lord their God.


RE: Peace
By boogle on 3/14/2008 10:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Abbasid Empire ruled the region for 500 years resulting in one of the most prosperous empires in history while Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages.


The 'Dark Ages' are only so-called because religious scholars labelled them as such. In essence there was no major religion at the time, instead science was starting to become dominant. Well, until Christianity came along anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/14/2008 11:34:04 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the 'Dark Ages' were labeled by modern day historians to reflect the small amount of historical information we have from that period. i.e. we can't really see what went on back then, hence dark.

The term has nothing to do with the societies or religions of the time.


RE: Peace
By JustTom on 3/14/2008 11:44:44 AM , Rating: 2
The Abbasid did not rule the geographic area of modern Israel for 500 years.


RE: Peace
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/13/2008 3:18:36 PM , Rating: 5
Well, in the old days these problems were avoided by the simple concept of one side annihilating the other. Thus preventing long drawn out crap like this.


RE: Peace
By DigitalFreak on 3/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Peace
By FingerMeElmo87 on 3/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Peace
By blowfish on 3/13/2008 4:30:44 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah - the bronze age old days talked about in the Old Testament, and then copied from that for the Koran - ancient primitve tribes exterminating each other, killing all men and male children, only keeping the females who had not "known" men.

Strange then that so many people, especially in the USA, look to the bible for their morals.Yet those same people, morally locked in the bronze age, happily drive cars, fly on planes and generally enjoy the benefits of scientific progress.

As for the larger issue of peace in the middle east - conflict seems inevitable when a country is created by the simple expedient of grabbing land and expelling its existing residents. I wonder about the ancestry of eastern european jews who've moved to israel - they can hardly claim any connection to the land.

I suspect there'd be conflict in the USA if Mexico decided to invade and deport all US residents, although they would be taking back some of their old land in the process.


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 4:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone seems to be under the impression that Palestinians were "kicked" out as a result of the creation of Israel. This is hogwash.

Land wasn't grabbed. In fact before the British left the Jews there were buying land from the Palestinians. They only "land grabbing" happened as a result of Israeli victories in the Arab-Israeli wars. Much of this land has been given back to secure peace ie. Sinai.

There is so much incomplete and misinformation about this conflict that it's pretty irresponsible to discuss the whole issue around here.


RE: Peace
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 4:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone seems to be under the impression that Palestinians were "kicked" out as a result of the creation of Israel. This is hogwash.

You're right. Most never left.


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 5:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
The ones who had always lived in Gaza and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan before any Israeli occupation. The land was captured by Israel after they won the wars. Gaza has been completely withdrawn from.


RE: Peace
By andrinoaa on 3/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 6:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not laying any blame. Just pointing out misinformation.


RE: Peace
By andrinoaa on 3/14/2008 12:08:31 AM , Rating: 1
If thats your intention, I apologize for the language, but you come across as one sided.
Just look at how many resources have been thrown at the problem by everyone. Surely , the same mistakes cannot continue to be made? Can they?
Israel plays a damn hard game as everyone will tell you, but they have to understand that the Palestinians will never give up. Therefore, another path must be taken.
The fact that neither side gives an inch suggests to me they should both have the BOMB. Its amazing how MAD can focus the mind.
Both sides are arsholes, let there be no mistake about it. Therefore don't take sides, don't have simpathy for either since they both want to play this fucking childs game.


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/14/2008 11:36:59 AM , Rating: 2
I may come off as one sided, I agree. But I'll not lay blame on any one sided for starting the conflict or failing to put an end to it. People in the region have been running around in this circle of violence for so long, everyone is pretty dizzy by now.


RE: Peace
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/13/08, Rating: 0
"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki