Foxy thinks that HermanYutic is David Boaz,
But HermanYutic thinks that Foxy is Janet Incompetano.

Foxy thinks that HermanYutic/David Boaz is a dangerous extremist,
but Islamic fundamentalists are misunderstood voices for progress.
Janet Incompetano thinks that conservatives are dangerous right wing extremists
and that Islamic fundamentalists don’t exist.
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
Very similar.

Foxy/Incompetano should be aware that the overwhelming majority of terrorist incidents and threats
in the world today involve Islamists but she only see's danger from those who criticise Islam,
because this is Islamophobia which is the root cause of terrorism.

Foxy/Incompetano is blinded by ideology.

There is hope however.

As her cognitive dissonance is heightening at increasingly futile attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable
within the constraints of her paradigm, her voice is becoming ever more shrill.

Will this lead to an awakening or a breakdown?

Stay tuned.

HermanYutic is the latest incarnation of KMB. His few lines of argument were so weak that he went away, reviewed the factual basis of his statements, and came back with a more logical, rational...wait, wait, wait. Sorry. I drifted into fantasy for a moment.

I meant to say that KMB got so roundly trounced, and he failed to defend and justify his statements so often, that he had to choose between being a laughing-stock and registering a new user name.

Guess which option he took.

BOAZ IS banned, though. Regrettably, I don't know the particulars of why. I'll email GrahamY to ask if the ban is still in effect.

Dear Sancho,

I believe Boaz David was banned because he was posting under
two different names, (what a surprise), which is not allowed.
Anyway, check with Graham and ask if he is banned still,
how come he posted on this thread?

And yes, he could have been KMB - Boaz David has had
several re-incarnations - including his latest.

"Walks like a duck, talks like a duck..."

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about
extremists such as Boazy/Herman is that they think
that communication means agreeing with them.
They are haters. They always hate people on the
other side of THEIR scale."

I think we should be focusing on this from now on- what there is for the Western and Fundamentalist Islamic worlds to actually communicate about.
I'm ignoring the issue regarding the moderate/secular Islamic societies for the simple fact that we can simply communicate as normal, and religious sensibilities don't even factor in.

But for the Fundie world, sadly I think the only communication we should be having is a mutual agreement over how to REDUCE each other's presence in the other's world.
As our presence only seems to ignite hostilities there- and seemingly, vise-versa.
We have to admit we have very little that they want (beyond our modern products and our money), and they have absolutely ZERO to offer us (even, arguably their oil has little use that numerous other products, fuels and technology we currently possess can't do also).

Also, an interesting study by the Gallup polls found that most people in the Islamic world (and USA) believed more interaction between Islamic and Western worlds was a good thing- while an overwhelming majority in Europe considered it a massive negative.

Why has Islamic fundamentalism intensified?

It’s so obvious.

Global warming!

Think about it.

Most Islamic countries are already pretty hot.

Global warming has made them even hotter.

We all know how cranky we get when we’re hot and bothered.

Who’s responsible for global warming?

The West.

So who’s responsible for increasing Islamic fundamentalism.

The West.

Problem solved.

Reduce global warming to reduce Islamic fundamentalism.

Foxy, and others
One can use two names but there are limitations.
My reading of the rules,Polycarp/Boaz what ever, probably got banned more for the intrusive and aggressive behaviour.

I don't think enough commenter fully understand the depth of alienation/identity (a need to belong) and its subsequent effects/vulnerabilities to its 'victims' those offer them an emotional purpose. Particularly if the dominant force is a cause.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8441193.stm

One only need to look at the underlying needs that show in Stockholm syndrome. the test giving electric shocks on command, Branch Davidians, Heavens Gate, Jones town. All these give an identity, emotional security, commonality etc.

One could group religion, congregations, even street or culdersac. cultural, gangs, nationalism, football allegiances and even rusted on Political affiliations.

This can be triggered by deprivation/excluded and a *perception* there of. We tend to see our selves in terms of groupings we belong to. This can also be true if people don't feel they're getting their fair share. One only needs to look at the apparent selfishness of some of the OLOers comments. Many are fighting for 'their share/identity' although they wouldn't see it that way.

We give to charity largely because it enhances the self image.

What I'm suggesting is a variation based on Maslow's hierarchy of *needs*.
My view is if we ignore those needs in others we do so at our own peril.
Being human I do this somewhat imperfectly. As an observation you do this better than most. :-)