Please. The title of the talk was "fundamentalism" but why 100% focus on islamic fundamentalism? Not even a word about Christian funamentalism, Creationism, Zionism, Mormonism, etc etc..
The point, surely, is that fundamentalist attitudes to religion (actually, anything) are by definition rigid, intolerant, literal and ideological: traits which almost always suggest an arrogance underlying a "I know I'm right" attitude to the world.
If we have a look at the US for a moment we've got an extreme irony here: a country where Fundamental Christianity still guides much national policy (focus on funding for sex education vs abstinence, for example). Fundamentalism is a problem for all nations, all races. It implies a rigidity which simply doesn't match with our global view of the world.
The point about the current dangers of fundamentalism also miss the point in my opinion; this isn't about the fact that "technology now can kill people more quickly", it's about the fact that our world is better connected: we *encounter* this stuff far more, and with far more rapidity, than when our furthest mental or physical boundary was the next village. The dangers of fundamentalism haven't changed: our appreciation of fundamentalism has. Of course, this appreciation has been amplified in the US following the marketing campaign that sits behind the so called "war on terror". 400,000 people a year in the US die from being overweight. Now *that's* a problem that needs solving...
Fundamentalism means intolerance, and intolerance gets us nowhere.