From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Dec 04 2002 - 12:57:04 MST
Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> Humania asked:
> <<So, speaking up for peace means bad vibes meanwhile. Did not think it was
> "that" bad.>>
>
> Peace must be a two-way street to work. Under the Wahabbis and Iranian
> Shiite Mullahs, Dar Es Salaam (The House of Peace) is apparently
> achieved when the world is brought under Sharia, which is Islamic Law.
>
> There is the peace of exhaustion/victory, which is what we experienced,
> last century in your neck of the woods. And that is what it might come
> to, because the Jihadi opponents deeply believes in their ultimate triumph.
>
> What you and the "peace movement" seem to be saying is that peace at any
> price is acceptable?
Did Martin Luther King or Gandhi teach "peace at any price"?
Did those who have been on the front lines of opposing social
injustice and working for the liberation of a people
non-violently support "peace at any price"? No, they put their
lives on the line for what they believed was right. They most
certainly did not accept the status quo or whatever the
non-peaceful wished without opposition in the name of "peace".
Peace is an aspect of what we wish to acheive as often as
possible. It is not a free-floating abstraction divorced from
all reality. However, working to maximize peace consciously can
lead to finding non-violent solutions more often than simply
assuming violence is the best answer as many seem too easily to
do.
Can we please stop the senseless smear campaigns against entire
groups that run rampant on this list?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:34 MST