It's boggles the mind to think that such massive firepower and horse mounted infantry (dragoons) coexisted. It seems like a plot out of a time travel movie.

Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.

The Jewish population didn't want to be mixed, nor did the Arabs by then from my readings, so there was no chance of peaceful coexistence.

Wait...what?! So...after the Nazis were gone it was too late to go home?!? How do you figure? Many if not most of them were still in Europe then.
They didn't need a promise, they needed to return to their properties, then demand reparations. They weren't promised anything by Palestine either....right?

They should have said that when the Nazis showed up, not after they were defeated...and should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians.

Again, civil wars are between native populations, not immigrants. Immigrants fighting natives is called invasion. Period.

HA!!!!! So, when neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders, you call THEM invaders, but not the immigrant army. WTF, man?

EDIT: Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh? They were in the same boat as the Jews, being ostracized and destroyed around the globe, until they came together in an area where a small portion of the natives gave them support and the majorities ignored their rise to power, they grasped territories and power, formed their separate nation, and since then have simply 'defended' themselves from the aggressive natives....right? Um....no.

No...far from the most open place, Palestine was openly hostile to them, but incapable of stopping the invasion. The U.S. was open...if they could get here. There was no separate Jewish Palestine then. I have sympathy for the European Jews until the day they tried to become a separate nation by force. Since that day, they've been the aggressive invaders doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them without the gas chambers.

Perhaps you don't know that >90% of rockets are fired at expansionist settlements in Palestine, not Israel, met with exponentially more force against civilians. (And before you balk, there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian, they are all, 100%, military....by law).

Neighbors and allies fighting invaders of their allies are absolutely not more at fault than the invaders for the continuing tragedy...not that I support their rhetoric or actions.
The single cause of the conflict is foreign invaders taking territory by force and constant expansion ever since. Their continuing inhumanity towards the natives is another topic, morality.

Some refugees arrived during the war, but not that many. Before that, Jews were about 8%of the population, so barely "significant".
Invaders came in mass soon afterwards, ignoring local laws and wishes, causing major problems, they didn't assimilate, they grabbed land, then power from the natives, and ended the peaceful coexistence that had lasted centuries before they invaded. The Nazis were long gone when they did this in about 1948, and not a factor at all then, and certainly not in 1974 when the U.N. suggested the two state solution (as you suggest), which might have worked if not for Israel's insistence on not moving or stopping expansionist "settlers" (read invaders) in Palestinian territory and supporting them with the military, and has been supported by Palestinians since the mid 70's (and publicly by their 'leaders' since 82), while Israel and the U.S. veto to this day, (and get upset when it's even mentioned internationally).

When you steal the land and push the locals out, it's not a surprise that their allies and neighbors come to their defense, I hope ours would, and I'm sure the European Jews wish their neighbors had.

It was an invasion by European Jewish people after the war was over (not refugees) with militarily superior allies that helped them and sold/gave them vastly superior weaponry.

Talk about revisionist history BS.

I continue to think them violent invaders, and horrifically racist genocidal ones at that.

Edit: It's anti-Zionist hate mongering, btw. The religion has nothing to do with it.

I'll echo the video again and say you only have to read the qur'an. If you think, for example, 'unbelievers deserve to be tortured forever in the afterlife' is a belief that could be held by a good person, then I just don't know how to find common ground.

People are deceived into defending muslims because they don't like the kind of people they see attacking them. Obviously we don't like Donald Trump, obviously we don't like bible-thumping pastors and their qur'an burning parties, and islam doesn't have to be a race for racists to hate muslims.

None of that bigotry goes any way whatsoever toward excusing actual islamic doctrine. If you examine it objectively and without apology you will find you despise it.

Fear isn't a reasonable reaction to individual muslims, at least not if you meet them in a non-islamic country, but hate certainly is. I don't typically say of people I hate that I'm interested in peaceful coexistence or protecting them from radicalisation.

That's a much better statement than your first one and carries way more depth.
But is Islam a corrupt idea? Does it have to be? Even Penn admits that the chance a Muslim would become a terrorist is very, very small. Yet most terrorists are Muslim. Even still, millions of Muslims coexist peacefully with others through out the world. If you preach hate towards Islam then instead of pulling people away from the radicalized edge of Islam you risk pushing them straight over it. Unless your belief is that all Muslims should be eradicated since it is a corrupt idea and evil, just blink and eye and they are all ash and dust.

Your video, The big fight over Coexist, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Woah, I really dig some of his other poster designs. I'll take those please, you can keep the coexist stuff.

Polyamorous feelings are hardly learned. You only like one person at any given time? Lies. Not even speaking about SEX, which always seems to be the trigger word for our collective fears. Why does it come down to sex? Most of my romance is asexual, y'all (society, the royal y'all) are oversexed because you're afraid of your feelings. Either you can't free your feminine self or your masculine self because you are afraid or embarassed, or lack the ability to think beyond that into nonbinary worldviews. Removing negative values from sexual acts so that they become naturally flowing, and not repressed sudden bursts of violence. Practice being asexual around people you're deeply attracted to. Treat them like *gasp* people.

Group hugs, anyone? Holding hands in prayer? I can't be the only one that feels that built in polyamorous tingle, can I? Sporting collisions? Animals born in litters crawling all over each other. Ain't sexual, is just a deep rooted desire to be among life close up and in that shit; protected and secure; loved. Any concert goers out there like getting close to the stage? That's a lot of sweaty people you're being sandwiched between. I know not everyone likes these situations, but it's enough latent desire, again not just for sex, but to be VERY close with more than one other person.

Haha... anyway! It's not all about dirty, sexual acts. If someone I hardly knew asked me or my wife to hang out and tried to have group sex, it wouldn't work anyway. Friendship and asexual romance are higher powers of coexistence anyway; more honest, less messy and ancient mammalian.

But... what is so wrong with bonds that form out of such natural human need beyond the twosome -- also think of all the lonely people out there who you're depriving of human touch, and just because you irrationally believe it's wrong. Shame on society. Shame.

Again, this isn't about rights or principles. It's about reality. We live a world where many people don't care about your rights or the law. If you give them the opportunity, these people will exploit you. If you don't want to be exploited, you need to avoid creating such opportunities whenever it is practical to do so. Ideally, we wouldn't have to do this. Ideally, everyone would share the same principles and values and we would all coexist in harmony. But that's not the world we live in.

Also, your analogies are pretty silly. Sending nude pics of yourself to someone is in no way comparable to using online banking. Banks have exponentially more security than whatever messaging or e-mail service you're using to send pictures, not to mention that the person receiving the pics can do whatever they want with them.

His last point, the one they dubbed soft authoritarianism, was outlined rather nicely as inverted totalitarianism by Sheldon Wolin.

posted wolin/hedges interview from TRNN.thought you might be interested ...wolin is looking his age.might be the last interview with this great mind:
http://videosift.com/video/sheldon-wolin-can-capitalism-and-democracy-coexist

http://videosift.com/video/sheldon-wolin-can-capitalism-and-democracy-coexist
posted.only 5 parts up so far but its pretty interesting.

sheldon wolin-can capitalism and democracy coexist? has been added as a related post - related requested by enoch on that post.

The only thing that gives me hope is that sometimes people see the light:

Absolutely Uncertain (You Tube video by “Irina”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgvMGLdc908&list=PLC2A32D103123C08E#t=73
18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008

Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0
Join me as I wreck my last artifact of support for the war criminal-in-chief!! *I figured out the fraud a while back, but recently found this shirt in my closet

The problem with this country is it doesn't read. It doesn't inform itself on the issues. I'd probably still be a major nigger hating racist if it wasn't for books. If you want the skinny on that go to my Facebook Notes and read my "Racism Speech" which really isn't a speech so much as it is part of my memoirs to my two boys.

I wasn't really into this Islam thing until I happened to read The Haj by Leon Uris and Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle almost back to back. I'll submit the following to give you an idea of what happened.

“we may describe it, (jihad), as a surgeon's lancet and not a butcher's knife.” Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (I'm sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him. And this from the guy who's been called the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam.)

About two years ago I ordered some reading material, including Taha's "Second Message", and a “study” Koran to find out what this "Islam thing" was all about. When I was sixteen I was chanting nam yo ho renge kyo to a piece of paper, (gahonzen?), having NO idea what I was doing. A few years later, hair down to my ass and a knapsack on my back, I hitchhiked cross country, got saved in Nashville Tenn. and went to live on a Christian farm in Mansfield Ohio. (Not the prison.) My gra'mom called me a "seeker". As I said, there came a time when I wanted to understand this "religion of peace". It was Humaid's article on jihad I found in my Summarized Bukhari that decided “things” for me.

If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid's article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that's described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it's defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)

Compare Humaid's “jihad” and Emmet Fox' Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and “compassion”.

Lastly; would you pick Sheikh bin Humaid to sit on a Human Rights Commission? (That's a trick question by the way.)

Maybe you can throw in an explanation of the Jews are “monkeys, pigs and rats” on page 656 and the part where Mo says, “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” on page 613 in the chapter on Jihad.

Also, explain why Humaid's “jihad” shouldn't be “Exhibit A” in refuting the “religion of peace” claim.

I've posted this many times to many Muslims and have yet to get a single response. Well, I did receive a response from some goofball named “Dr.” Mohsen El-Guindy asking me to read his books. Instead I downloaded a bunch of his articles. Which were pure rants. An Imam, sidestepped it by telling me I had to “study Islam” to gain a greater understanding.

Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah by 'Sheikh Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?233460-Jihad-in-the-Qur-an-and-Sunnah&s=4df3fc2e4e0596eb3b38115ef4b8f506 ),

Subscribe to Jihad/Campus Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Gatestone Institue, FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker,The Clarion Project, Cross Muslims: Muhammad unveiled, Religion of Peace (dot com) and read Raymond Ibrahim, Efraim Karsh, Patrick Poole, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye'or and others.

“She's Buried Chest High”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Winston Churchill

“What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill

“While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi

@newtboy

On definitions, I recall a clip from The Atheist Experience where they made the distinction that while a/theism relates to what you believe, a/gnosticism relates to what you know. Colloquially it's all a bit of a wash but I think it's a good framework for outlining a specific belief.

You could be gnostic atheist, professing certain knowledge of no gods. Alternatively you could be an agnostic atheist, profession to not be able to know but choosing to believe in the lack of a god. Or you could be a gnostic theist, presuming to know by certainty that there is a god, although of course you would also be an atheist unless you believed religions coexisted simultaneously.

EDIT - D'oh, someone already said it.