Philip Winestone wrote: > Hmmmm.... I didn't say that meaningful change only happens through > violence. If you read that into my note, you're simply reading your own > fantasies... > > When people say a "stable world" it could mean many things. I deliberately > spoke about "scientific dogma," as this "scientific stability", is, > apparently, what the Vorts are continuously fighting against. > > There is no such thing as stabiity either in the external or internal > worlds, and so far, it seems to me that all those who have tried to create > a stable world, have tried to force stability on "the masses." Take a look > at a number of dictatorships and see if all the dictators of the world were > or were not prepared to use violence to enforce stability, because they > knew that instability could be their downfall. So it seems in fact that > stability is often gained - or attempted - through violence, the overall > idea being "If only everybody believed and behaved as I do, we would have a > nice, stable world."
The goal is for everyone to live in peace, freedom and prosperity. If the goal is a combination of stability and instability that is a disgusting mix of opportunism and pragmatism. > Our enemies - and we do have enemies - would like to impose their type of > stability on us; they've said as much: that eveyone should think and dress > and behave (and pray, if you're into that) one way only - their > way. Stability. > > You want a reasonable way to unseat the terrorists? Make their lives > continuously unstable. > > P. For the first time in its history Israel did not achieve its military objectives. It seems from media accounts that many Muslims and Arabs consider it a victory are more ready to talk peace than ever before. Harry
