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

[ramAnag]

You're on your usual 'divert by confusion' Crusade rA. You're damned right bankers, politicians, car salesmen, politicians play the game by their own rules, and we can agree freely about that, but what makes you scared to admit that such judgements apply to other 'groups' including geographical? - and I'm not sure by the way I ever mentioned 'national'. If you either choose to, or are wired up to be unable to, temper your interaction with people based on a hundred different factors including origin you are, as I've touched on before, 'different' to the rest of us and as naive as the negotiators with The Taliban. We've done the traveller one to death, but it does kinda prove a point of which this is another example.

Hmmm...that’s not really true is it, AF? Think back to what you initially wrote about your Iraqi ‘friend’.
I have, rightly or wrongly, interpreted your post as suggesting that ‘Middle Eastern/South Asian’ people conduct their behaviour by a different set of, perhaps more disingenuous, rules to their ‘European/Western’ counterparts.
I don’t get that and I have just provided examples of how others, totally undefined by national or - if you prefer - regional culture, are just as likely to play by different rules.
Of course there are cultural differences...I completely accept that...but you seem to have attached some sort of superior status to the way ‘European/Western’ people go about things and I think that is as massive an over simplification as you admit it is a ‘massive generalisation’.

[ramAnag]

I have this image of RA, as one the nicest persons in the world. Sunshine/rainbows/ lovely fluffy clouds.
If the world was like him, it would be a wonderful place.
But it isn't unfortunately. It is full of nasty/devious/vicious/evil people and regimes out there.
Come across as nice and weak all the time and you will get abused and bullied at some point.
Even his defense of Blair was in contradiction of Blairs own philosophy on it. WANT PEACE, GET READY TO FIGHT FOR IT.

Nicest thing you’ve ever said Tricky...completely untrue...but thanks.
Believe it or not I’ve had more than my fair share of scrapes and I’m fully aware that there are times when you have to stand and fight.
I’m also well aware that the world is full of those with an ‘older I get the better/tougher I was’ mentality. It’s usually bollux and I can only say that I share Swales’ view of the Afghan situation and am just bloody grateful that I’ve never been in a war zone situation or come face to face with terrorists.

Here’s a little conundrum for you. No trap...just an interesting (possibly) side issue amongst all this mess.
If and when the Taliban take over governmental control of Afghanistan...do the brave members of the population who take up arms against them simultaneously become terrorists?

[Trickytreesreds]

Nicest thing you’ve ever said Tricky...completely untrue...but thanks.
Believe it or not I’ve had more than my fair share of scrapes and I’m fully aware that there are times when you have to stand and fight.
I’m also well aware that the world is full of those with an ‘older I get the better/tougher I was’ mentality. It’s usually bollux and I can only say that I share Swales’ view of the Afghan situation and am just bloody grateful that I’ve never been in a war zone situation or come face to face with terrorists.

Here’s a little conundrum for you. No trap...just an interesting (possibly) side issue amongst all this mess.
If and when the Taliban take over governmental control of Afghanistan...do the brave members of the population who take up arms against them simultaneously become terrorists?

I'd compare them with the French resistance.
They never asked to be run like this and certainly shouldn't have a way of life inflicted on them by the barrel of a gun.
Elephant in the room here, is that the common religion in that region, seems to dictate the way a country is run.
Some enforce it to a perverse way, some follow it like a doctrine.
Either way it is the same religion and the rules of that religion seems to be where the cultural differences and decisions come from.

[ramAnag]

I'd compare them with the French resistance.
They never asked to be run like this and certainly shouldn't have a way of life inflicted on them by the barrel of a gun.
Elephant in the room here, is that the common religion in that region, seems to dictate the way a country is run.
Some enforce it to a perverse way, some follow it like a doctrine.
Either way it is the same religion and the rules of that religion seems to be where the cultural differences and decisions come from.

Maybe...except the Resistance were fighting against an occupying force from a neighbouring country.
For me the ANC may be a better parallel, where the downtrodden rose up against their more ruthless ‘overlords’...although I doubt they actually will and Afghanistan looks set to become another hotbed of fundamentalism.
Either way, I suppose it’s another case of ‘one man’s terrorist being another man’s freedom fighter’.

[Trickytreesreds]

Maybe...except the Resistance were fighting against an occupying force from a neighbouring country.
For me the ANC may be a better parallel, where the downtrodden rose up against their more ruthless ‘overlords’...although I doubt they actually will and Afghanistan looks set to become another hotbed of fundamentalism.
Either way, I suppose it’s another case of ‘one man’s terrorist being another man’s freedom fighter’.

The fundamentalism though, isn't just there and never was.
It is why I mentioned Pakistan and Saudi. Although Iran is probably the biggest **** stirrer in that region.

[ramAnag]

The fundamentalism though, isn't just there and never was.
It is why I mentioned Pakistan and Saudi. Although Iran is probably the biggest **** stirrer in that region.

Probably a very fair point and I claim no first hand knowledge of that part of the world, but let’s not pretend that fundamentalism is only associated with the Muslim religion.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Probably a very fair point and I claim no first hand knowledge of that part of the world, but let’s not pretend that fundamentalism is only associated with the Muslim religion.

What a fascinating observation. Aside from, for example, the Baptist churches in the deep south of the USA, in what other religions do you see fundamentalism in open sight? Even in said deep south it doesnt extend to jihads against non believers or wars being fought between Sunni Baptists and Shiite Baptists? Even orthodox Jews do not squabble over beliefs, just over land grabs .

I would love to know the basis for your assertion

[Andy_Faber]

Probably a very fair point and I claim no first hand knowledge of that part of the world, but let’s not pretend that fundamentalism is only associated with the Muslim religion.

But lets not pretend either that fundamentalism doesn't breed terrorism and in UK (and these are gov figures), 88% of arrests due to terrorism, where a religion could be established, was initiated by Muslims

interestingly, there was no published analysis by religion until the Muslim community complained that they were being 'targetted'. The subsequent independant investigation found that not to be the case

If you want me to extrapolate those numbers to a 'per capita' percentage I'm happy to

[ramAnag]

What a fascinating observation. Aside from, for example, the Baptist churches in the deep south of the USA, in what other religions do you see fundamentalism in open sight? Even in said deep south it doesnt extend to jihads against non believers or wars being fought between Sunni Baptists and Shiite Baptists? Even orthodox Jews do not squabble over beliefs, just over land grabs .

I would love to know the basis for your assertion

Fundamentalism may, I think, be defined as, ‘the militant rejection of secular modernity by conservative religious movements typified by strict and literal adherence to beliefs and/or sacred texts.’

With that in mind I don’t really understand how you can sensibly question the existence of Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh fundamentalism.

P.S. Andy...you do seem to specialise in shifting the goal post these days. Where have I ever suggested that fundamentalism doesn’t breed terrorism? That actually was my initial point about what seems likely to happen now in Afghanistan.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Fundamentalism may, I think, be defined as, ‘the militant rejection of secular modernity by conservative religious movements typified by strict and literal adherence to beliefs and/or sacred texts.’

With that in mind I don’t really understand how you can sensibly question the existence of Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh fundamentalism.

P.S. Andy...you do seem to specialise in shifting the goal post these days. Where have I ever suggested that fundamentalism doesn’t breed terrorism? That actually was my initial point about what seems likely to happen now in Afghanistan.

Actually I can and do question it solely because I have not seen or been exposed to it. Now you may (even perhaps rightly) blame that on media bias, but one man's fundamentalism takes the form of terrorism and warfare, whereas another may take the form of Gandhi on a salt march, nuns and monks not talking to each other, lamas living in isolation in the Himalayas or even Diogenes living in a barrel up a pole.

There is a world of difference out there