OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

Waaaay too many people are in denial about way too many things.

I ask again...’who’s in denial and about what’? How is this ‘massively counterproductive’ and hindering ‘resolution of the world’s/UK’s thorniest problems’?

So far you’ve come up with ‘waaay too many people’ and a possible example of Lilly Allen’s naive hypocrisy. Setting aside the example of a second rate singer, WHO and WHAT are you talking about?

[Andy_Faber]

I ask again...’who’s in denial and about what’? How is this ‘massively counterproductive’ and hindering ‘resolution of the world’s/UK’s thorniest problems’?

So far you’ve come up with ‘waaay too many people’ and a possible example of Lilly Allen’s naive hypocrisy. Setting aside the example of a second rate singer, WHO and WHAT are you talking about?

Obviously I can't name names because its 'ordinary Joe' (and Jane, better not upsetanyone)

But I'll ive you three examples without going remotely near the 'lefty-beating' you might expect

The US gun lobby.
Covid deniers
Hunting (ie fox hunting on horseback) supporters (one I've been on both sides of over the years)

And a fourth, the biggest of all

People who wont accept/admit there is fault on both/all sides, but not necessarily in equal measure

[MadAmster]

Covid deniers. Reported in the Dutch Press this morning that hospitals are getting ever more issues with people admitted who believe the virus doesn't exist and therefore refuse to be tested. Thos people are still being treated so kudos to the medical staff.

I understand the patients though, as someone who believes there isn't a virus at all, you'd really look stupid if you tested positive.

[ramAnag]

Obviously I can't name names because its 'ordinary Joe' (and Jane, better not upsetanyone)

But I'll ive you three examples without going remotely near the 'lefty-beating' you might expect

The US gun lobby.
Covid deniers
Hunting (ie fox hunting on horseback) supporters (one I've been on both sides of over the years)

And a fourth, the biggest of all

People who wont accept/admit there is fault on both/all sides, but not necessarily in equal measure

Wasn’t expecting ‘lefty beating’, although I was expecting something more specifically relevant to what we’d been talking about.

I guess the last one may fall into that category in which case I’ll attempt to explain my stance.
I completely accept that the worst examples of terrorism aimed at the West during the course of this century have been inspired/led by Islamic fundamentalists.
Equally, during the last thirty or so years of the twentieth century the worst examples of terrorism within the UK were inspired by a combination of Irish Catholic and Protestant fundamentalism.
Tbh I don’t care whether terrorism takes the form of an IRA attack on the centre of Birmingham/Warrington, the UDF ‘kneecapping’ Catholics, a gas attack on the Tokyo underground, the Hindutva in India or a fundamentalist Muslim attack on the Manchester Arena...I abhor it all, as I’m sure we all do.
I do though think that terrorism invariably has its roots amongst people who feel wronged, threatened and/or alienated. It doesn’t ever justify attacks on innocent people, imo...but it is something we have to recognise and address and is yet another example of the need for countries to act as a global community rather than as isolated ‘greed-mongers’.

Hope that’s cleared that up and I have every sympathy with your other three examples. Rev rA.

[Geoff Parkstone]

"and is yet another example of the need for countries to act as a global community rather than as isolated ‘greed-mongers’."

The problem with this perspective, which I endorse in principle, is that there is no necessary correlation between terrorist bodies and countries / states.

Example - did the provisional IRA represent the views of the country which they purported to act on behalf of, did the actions of Al Quaeda represent the views of Saudi Arabia (the nationality of bin Laden) of Pakistan or of Afghanistan (where the organisation had bases)?

Answer - no. So you could get total unanimity between countries to act as a global community, but that means absolutely nothing more than rhetoric if minority groups within those countries or pan national groups across 2 or more countries are the architects of the terrorist atrocity. Pretty much never do we see 100% state inspired terrorism - except maybe Russian cyber terrorism or North Korea.

If individual countries cannot control their nationals, what hope do we have?

[Andy_Faber]

Wasn’t expecting ‘lefty beating’, although I was expecting something more specifically relevant to what we’d been talking about.

I guess the last one may fall into that category in which case I’ll attempt to explain my stance.
I completely accept that the worst examples of terrorism aimed at the West during the course of this century have been inspired/led by Islamic fundamentalists.
Equally, during the last thirty or so years of the twentieth century the worst examples of terrorism within the UK were inspired by a combination of Irish Catholic and Protestant fundamentalism.
Tbh I don’t care whether terrorism takes the form of an IRA attack on the centre of Birmingham/Warrington, the UDF ‘kneecapping’ Catholics, a gas attack on the Tokyo underground, the Hindutva in India or a fundamentalist Muslim attack on the Manchester Arena...I abhor it all, as I’m sure we all do.
I do though think that terrorism invariably has its roots amongst people who feel wronged, threatened and/or alienated. It doesn’t ever justify attacks on innocent people, imo...but it is something we have to recognise and address and is yet another example of the need for countries to act as a global community rather than as isolated ‘greed-mongers’.

Hope that’s cleared that up and I have every sympathy with your other three examples. Rev rA.

Thanks and yes, totally fair response although it wasn’t actually added as a dig at you

I’ve read gp’s response too, and therein lies the problem (or one of them) with the issue at hand

[ramAnag]

"and is yet another example of the need for countries to act as a global community rather than as isolated ‘greed-mongers’."

The problem with this perspective, which I endorse in principle, is that there is no necessary correlation between terrorist bodies and countries / states.

Example - did the provisional IRA represent the views of the country which they purported to act on behalf of, did the actions of Al Quaeda represent the views of Saudi Arabia (the nationality of bin Laden) of Pakistan or of Afghanistan (where the organisation had bases)?

Answer - no. So you could get total unanimity between countries to act as a global community, but that means absolutely nothing more than rhetoric if minority groups within those countries or pan national groups across 2 or more countries are the architects of the terrorist atrocity. Pretty much never do we see 100% state inspired terrorism - except maybe Russian cyber terrorism or North Korea.

If individual countries cannot control their nationals, what hope do we have?

I wasn’t actually referring to the countries where terrorism has its roots...rather more the G20...United Nations...acting together to eradicate the conditions which allow terrorism to thrive.

You say, ‘what hope do we have?’ I’ll say, ‘what choice do we have?’ If we are to overcome terrorism, famine, global warming etc we have to act with a common aim and stop relying on the U.S. - with us hitching a lift on their shoulders - acting as the World’s (often corrupt) ‘policeman’...imo.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I somehow don't think we can have been relying on the USA as regards global warming in the past 5 years under Sir Donald

I fear however that we will never overcome famine and global warming, leading to more mass migrations, more border closing, more disharmony and as a knock on effect, more terrorism as society slowly breaks down.

On which optimistic note I will get back to work

[Andy_Faber]

...acting together to eradicate the conditions which allow terrorism to thrive.

But how's that possible when the only condition required is the proximity of the fundamentalist and the impressionable? and assuming you mean eradicating poverty/depravation, that is no solution when the purpose of the fundamentalism is as straightforward as imposition of a single belief system no matter what the social conditions

[ramAnag]

I don’t pretend to know how, AF...but simple acceptance of GP’s second paragraph as representing the inevitable future is too bleak and depressing to allow.

We have to look beyond just shrugging our shoulders and washing our hands of the problems posed in poorer more troublesome parts of the world. We wouldn’t do that with our own families and one only has to look at the reaction to Covid to realise what is possible.
A year ago we’d all have been saying...but how can we do anything about this...it’ll be years before we have a vaccine...but then the scientific world got its arse in gear and, despite the best efforts of certain politicians across the world, the impossible became possible.

At the risk of sounding like a vicar again...where there’s a will, there’s a way...but first we have to get rid of the ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality which, coincidentally, is exactly what the pandemic vaccination strategy acknowledged.