Der er ingen tvivl om, at vi taler med terrorister. Vi er i krig mod en ny form for terror. Det er ligesom den gode gamle terrorisme, men tilpasset det 21. århundrede. Hvordan man opfatter terrorisme, spiller en stor rolle, når det kommer til bekæmpelse. For din opfattelse påvirker din håndtering. Så hvis du har en traditionel opfattelse af terrorisme, ser du det som en form for kriminalitet, en krig. Så hvordan håndterer du den? Naturligvis møder du den i krig. Du bekæmper den. Hvis du havde en mere moderne tilgang, og din opfattelse af terrorisme er mere årsag og virking, så vil dit svar helt naturligt være mere asymmetrisk.
We most certainly do talk to terrorists, no question about it. We are at war with a new form of terrorism. It's sort of the good old, traditional form of terrorism, but it's sort of been packaged for the 21st century. One of the big things about countering terrorism is, how do you perceive it? Because perception leads to your response to it. So if you have a traditional perception of terrorism, it would be that it's one of criminality, one of war. So how are you going to respond to it? Naturally, it would follow that you meet kind with kind. You fight it. If you have a more modernist approach, and your perception of terrorism is almost cause-and-effect, then naturally from that, the responses that come out of it are much more asymmetrical.
Vi bor i en moderne og global verden. Terroristerne har tilpasset sig. Det bør vi også, så de folk, der arbejder med kontraterrorisme, skal måske begynde at bruge deres Google-briller.
We live in a modern, global world. Terrorists have actually adapted to it. It's something we have to, too, and that means the people who are working on counterterrorism responses have to start, in effect, putting on their Google-tinted glasses, or whatever.
Jeg mener, at vi skal se terrorisme som et globalt brand, ligesom for eksempel Coca-Cola. Begge er ret dårlige for din helbred. (Latter) Hvis du ser på det som et brand, opdager du, at produktet er ret dårligt. Vi har allerede sagt, at det er dårligt for dit helbred, det er dårligt for dem, der påvirkes, og det er heller ikke særlig godt, hvis du er selvmordsbomber. Det giver ikke hvad det lover. Du får ikke 72 jomfruer i himmelen. Det tvivler jeg stærkt på. Og i 80erne ødelagde du ikke kapitalismen, ved at støtte disse grupper. Selvfølgelig ikke.
For my part, what I wanted us to do was just to look at terrorism as though it was a global brand, say, Coca-Cola. Both are fairly bad for your health. (Laughter) If you look at it as a brand in those ways, what you'll come to realize is, it's a pretty flawed product. As we've said, it's pretty bad for your health, it's bad for those who it affects, and it's not actually good if you're a suicide bomber either. It doesn't actually do what it says on the tin. You're not really going to get 72 virgins in heaven. It's not going to happen, I don't think. And you're not really going to, in the '80s, end capitalism by supporting one of these groups. It's a load of nonsense.
Du opdager nu, at det har svagheder. Dette brand har svagheder. Vi har nævnt helbredet, men det skal også tiltrække forbrugere. Forbrugerne er terroristernes støtter. Dem, der benytter sig af brandet, støtter dem, hjælper dem, og det er dem, som vi skal have fat i. Vi skal angribe brandet for øjnene af dem.
But what you realize, it's got an Achilles' heel. The brand has an Achilles' heel. We've mentioned the health, but it needs consumers to buy into it. The consumers it needs are the terrorist constituency. They're the people who buy into the brand, support them, facilitate them, and they're the people we've got to reach out to. We've got to attack that brand in front of them.
Fortsætter vi med brandtemaet, så kan vi angribe på to måder. Den ene er ved at reducere markedet. Altså er det deres brand mod vores. Vi skal konkurrere. Vi skal vise, at vi har et bedre produkt. Ønsker jeg at vise, at vi har et bedre produkt, så vil jeg nok ikke have noget som Guantanamo Bay. Det handler om at indskrænke det underliggende behov for produktet. Såsom fattigdom, uretfærdighed, og alle de ting, der afføder terrorisme.
There's two essential ways of doing that, if we carry on this brand theme. One is reducing their market. What I mean is, it's their brand against our brand. We've got to compete. We've got to show we're a better product. If I'm trying to show we're a better product, I probably wouldn't do things like Guantanamo Bay. We've talked there about curtailing the underlying need for the product itself. You could be looking there at poverty, injustice, all those sorts of things which feed terrorism.
Vi kan også angribe brandet, altså gå imod brandets myte. Der er intet heroisk ved at dræbe børn, og det skal vi fortælle videre. Vi skal vise farerne ved produktet. Vores målgruppe er ikke kun producenterne, altså terroristerne. Det er ikke kun terrorismens sælgere, altså dem, der finansierer og støtter, men det er forbrugerne af terrorismen. Vi skal tage til deres hjemland. Dér finder de deres rekrutter. Dér får de magt og styrke. Det er dér, deres forbrugere kommer fra. Og det er dem, vi skal have fat i. Så vi bør være i kontakt med disse områder, med terroristerne, med hjælperne og så videre. Vi skal engagere os, oplyse folk og tage dialogen.
The other thing to do is to knock the product, attack the brand myth, as we've said. You know, there's nothing heroic about killing a young kid. Perhaps we need to focus on that and get that message back across. We've got to reveal the dangers in the product. Our target audience, it's not just the producers of terrorism, as I've said, the terrorists. It's not just the marketeers of terrorism, which is those who finance, those who facilitate it, but it's the consumers of terrorism. We've got to get in to those homelands. That's where they recruit from. That's where they get their power and strength. That's where their consumers come from. And we have to get our messaging in there. So the essentials are, we've got to have interaction in those areas, with the terrorists, the facilitators, etc. We've got to engage, we've got to educate, and we've got to have dialogue.
For lige at blive ved brandidéen, skal vi tænke på vores strategi. Hvordan angriber vi brandet? Egentlig bør regeringer og samfund reducere markedet. Vi skal vise, at vi er bedre. Vi skal vise vores værdier. Vi skal sætte handling bag ordene. Men når vi skal slå et brand, hvis terroristerne er cola og vi er pepsi, så vil folk ikke tro på, hvad vi, som pepsi, har at sige om cola.
Now, staying on this brand thing for just a few more seconds, think about delivery mechanisms. How are we going to do these attacks? Well, reducing the market is really one for governments and civil society. We've got to show we're better. We've got to show our values. We've got to practice what we preach. But when it comes to knocking the brand, if the terrorists are Coca-Cola and we're Pepsi, I don't think, being Pepsi, anything we say about Coca-Cola, anyone's going to believe us.
Derfor skal vi finde en anden strategi, og en af de bedste strategier, er terrorismens ofre. De kan stå frem og sige "Dette produkt er dårligt. Jeg har prøvet det og var syg i flere dage. Det brændte min hånd." Og du tror på dem. Du kan se deres ar. Du stoler på dem. Men hvad enten det er ofre, regeringer, NGO'er eller dronningen, så skal vi interagere med de forskellige lag af terrorisme, selvom det betyder, at vi tager en lille dans med djævelen.
So we've got to find a different mechanism, and one of the best mechanisms I've ever come across is the victims of terrorism. They are somebody who can actually stand there and say, "This product's crap. I had it and I was sick for days. It burnt my hand, whatever." You believe them. You can see their scars. You trust them. But whether it's victims, whether it's governments, NGOs, or even the Queen yesterday, in Northern Ireland, we have to interact and engage with those different layers of terrorism, and, in effect, we do have to have a little dance with the devil.
Vi kommer nu til min yndlingsdel. Planen var at springe jer alle sammen i luften for pointens skyld, men — (Latter) — TED har af helbreds- og sikkerhedmæssige årsager fortalt mig, at jeg skal tælle ned, så jeg føler mig lidt som en irsk eller jødisk terrorist, en meget ansvarlig terrorist, og — (latter) — jeg skal tælle 3, 2,1 og det er lidt skræmmende, så jeg tænker på mit motto, "Kropsdele, ikke hjerteanfald." Så, 3, 2, 1. (Eksplosionslyd) Rigtig godt. (Latter) Så, damen på sæde 15J var en selvmordsbomber. Vi er alle ofre for terrorisme. Vi er 625 personer. Vi vil alle være mærkede for livet. Der sad en far og en søn lige derovre. Sønnen er død. Faren er i live. Faren vil nok forbande sig selv i flere år, fordi han ikke tog sin søns plads. Han begynder at drikke, og begår nok selvmord om tre år. Det siger statistikken. Der er en meget ung og pæn dame herovre, med en af de værste slags psykologiske og fysiske skader, jeg har set fra en selvmordsbombe: Menneskelige granatsplinter. Så når hun om 10 og 15 år sidder på en restaurant eller ligger på stranden, gnubber hun sin hud, og pludselig kommer der en granatsplint ud. Det kan være utrolig svært for hjernen at forstå. Der er også en dame herovre, som mistede benene i eksplosionen. Hun finder ud af, at hun kun får en lille slat penge fra staten, for at tage sig af hende efterfølgende. Hendes datter gik på et af de bedste univesiteter, men dropper det for at passe sin mor. Vi er her alle sammen, og alle dem, der ser med, vil være traumatiserede af dette angreb, men alle jer ofre gør jer nogle bitre erfaringer. Derunder at samfundets sympati ikke varer ved. Vi gør simpelthen ikke nok som samfund. Vi holder ikke øje med ofrene, vi hjælper dem ikke, og jeg vil prøve at vise, at ofrene er vores bedste våben mod terrorisme.
This is my favorite part of my speech. I wanted to blow you all up to try and make a point, but — (Laughter) — TED, for health and safety reasons, have told me I've got to do a countdown, so I feel like a bit of an Irish or Jewish terrorist, sort of a health and safety terrorist, and I — (Laughter) — I've got to count 3, 2, 1, and it's a bit alarming, so thinking of what my motto would be, and it would be, "Body parts, not heart attacks." So 3, 2, 1. (Explosion sound) Very good. (Laughter) Now, lady in 15J was a suicide bomber amongst us all. We're all victims of terrorism. There's 625 of us in this room. We're going to be scarred for life. There was a father and a son who sat in that seat over there. The son's dead. The father lives. The father will probably kick himself for years to come that he didn't take that seat instead of his kid. He's going to take to alcohol, and he's probably going to kill himself in three years. That's the stats. There's a very young, attractive lady over here, and she has something which I think's the worst form of psychological, physical injury I've ever seen out of a suicide bombing: It's human shrapnel. What it means is, when she sat in a restaurant in years to come, 10 years to come, 15 years to come, or she's on the beach, every so often she's going to start rubbing her skin, and out of there will come a piece of that shrapnel. And that is a hard thing for the head to take. There's a lady over there as well who lost her legs in this bombing. She's going to find out that she gets a pitiful amount of money off our government for looking after what's happened to her. She had a daughter who was going to go to one of the best universities. She's going to give up university to look after Mum. We're all here, and all of those who watch it are going to be traumatized by this event, but all of you here who are victims are going to learn some hard truths. That is, our society, we sympathize, but after a while, we start to ignore. We don't do enough as a society. We do not look after our victims, and we do not enable them, and what I'm going to try and show is that actually, victims are the best weapon we have against more terrorism.
Hvordan ville regeringen fra år 2000 håndtere i dag? Det ved vi alle. De ville have startet en invasion. Hvis selvmordsbomberen kom fra Wales, så ville Wales stå for skud. Hastelovgivning og nødlove -- der som bekendt rammer kernen af vores samfund -- er en fejl. Vi fylder hele Storbritannien med had til walisere.
How would the government at the turn of the millennium approach today? Well, we all know. What they'd have done then is an invasion. If the suicide bomber was from Wales, good luck to Wales, I'd say. Knee-jerk legislation, emergency provision legislation -- which hits at the very basis of our society, as we all know -- it's a mistake. We're going to drive prejudice throughout Edinburgh, throughout the U.K., for Welsh people.
I dag har regeringer lært af deres fejl. De holder øje med det, jeg nævnte tidligere, de mere asymmetriske tilgange, mere moderne indgangsvinkler med årsag og virkning. Men man kan ikke undgå fortidens fejl. Det er menneskets natur. Frygten er stor og de vil blive presset til at reagere. De laver fejl. De er ikke kun kloge.
Today's approach, governments have learned from their mistakes. They are looking at what I've started off on, on these more asymmetrical approaches to it, more modernist views, cause and effect. But mistakes of the past are inevitable. It's human nature. The fear and the pressure to do something on them is going to be immense. They are going to make mistakes. They're not just going to be smart.
En berømt irsk terrorist sagde det engang meget præcist. Han sagde, at "Den britiske regering skal være heldig hver gang. Vi skal kun være heldige én gang."
There was a famous Irish terrorist who once summed up the point very beautifully. He said, "The thing is, about the British government, is, is that it's got to be lucky all the time, and we only have to be lucky once."
Så vi skal sørge for at gøre det ordentligt. Vi skal blive mere proaktive. Vi skal opbygge et arsenal af fredelige våben til denne krig mod terror. Men det er selvfølgelig idéer, som regeringer generelt ikke er gode til.
So what we need to do is we have to effect it. We've got to start thinking about being more proactive. We need to build an arsenal of noncombative weapons in this war on terrorism. But of course, it's ideas -- is not something that governments do very well.
Jeg vil lige gå tilbage til idéen om brands, hvor jeg nævnte Coca-Cola og Pepsi. Vi ser det som en brandkrig mellem terror og demokrati. De ser det som frihedskæmpere og sandhed imod uretfærdighed, imperialisme osv.
I want to go back just to before the bang, to this idea of brand, and I was talking about Coke and Pepsi, etc. We see it as terrorism versus democracy in that brand war. They'll see it as freedom fighters and truth against injustice, imperialism, etc.
Vi skal se det som en kamp om døden. De er ikke kun efter [vores] kød og blod. De ønsker vores kulturelle sjæle, så brandanalogien er en meget interessant tilgang. Hvis vi ser på al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda var et produkt på en hylde i en basar, som ikke mange havde hørt om. De blev lanceret d. 11. september. Det var deres marketingsdag, og de var klar til det 21. århundrede. De vidste, hvad de havde gang i. De var gode til branding, og oprettede et brand, der kan markedsføres overalt i verden, hvor der er fattigdom, uvidenhed og uretfærdighed.
We do have to see this as a deadly battlefield. It's not just [our] flesh and blood they want. They actually want our cultural souls, and that's why the brand analogy is a very interesting way of looking at this. If we look at al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was essentially a product on a shelf in a souk somewhere which not many people had heard of. 9/11 launched it. It was its big marketing day, and it was packaged for the 21st century. They knew what they were doing. They were effectively [doing] something in this brand image of creating a brand which can be franchised around the world, where there's poverty, ignorance and injustice.
Vi skal ind på dette marked, men vi skal bruge vores hjerner mere end vores magt. Vi løser eller bekæmper ikke terrorisme, ved at se det som et brand.
We, as I've said, have got to hit that market, but we've got to use our heads rather than our might. If we perceive it in this way as a brand, or other ways of thinking at it like this, we will not resolve or counter terrorism.
Lad mig give jer nogle eksempler fra mit arbejde, hvor vi forsøger at håndtere tingene anderledes. Den første kalder vi "lovførsel" af mangel på bedre ord. Da vi begyndte at sagsøge terrorister, syntes alle, at vi var nogle skøre enspændere. Nu har det fået en titel. Nu gør alle det. Sker der en eksplosion, lægger folk sag an. En af de første sager, var eksplosionen i Omagh. Der blev anlagt et civilt søgsmål i 1998. En bombe fra Real IRA gik af i Omagh under en fredsforhandling. Gerningsmændene kunne ikke retsforfølges af flere forskellige årsager. Mest på grund af fredsprocessen og det gode, man forsøgte at opnå. Det betød derfor også at personen, der bombede dine børn og din mand, gik rundt i det supermarked, hvor du normalt handlede. Nogle af disse ofre havde fået nok. Vi lagde en privat sag an og efter 10 år vandt vi. Resultatet er blevet appelleret, så jeg skal være lidt forsigtig, men jeg er ret sikker.
What I'd like to do is just briefly go through a few examples from my work on areas where we try and approach these things differently. The first one has been dubbed "lawfare," for want of a better word. When we originally looked at bringing civil actions against terrorists, everyone thought we were a bit mad and mavericks and crackpots. Now it's got a title. Everyone's doing it. There's a bomb, people start suing. But one of the first early cases on this was the Omagh Bombing. A civil action was brought from 1998. In Omagh, bomb went off, Real IRA, middle of a peace process. That meant that the culprits couldn't really be prosecuted for lots of reasons, mostly to do with the peace process and what was going on, the greater good. It also meant, then, if you can imagine this, that the people who bombed your children and your husbands were walking around the supermarket that you lived in. Some of those victims said enough is enough. We brought a private action, and thank God, 10 years later, we actually won it. There is a slight appeal on at the moment so I have to be a bit careful, but I'm fairly confident.
Hvorfor virkede det? Til dels fordi der endelig var retfærdighed, hvor der ellers ikke havde været nogen. Og fordi Real IRA og andre terrorgruppers styrke ligger i, at de er de undertrykte. Når vi gjorde ofrene til de undertrykte vidste grupperne ikke, hvad de skulle gøre. De blev flove. De fik svært ved at få nye medlemmer. Deres bomber stoppede på grund af denne sag. Vi og især ofrene blev et spøgelse, der forfulgte terrororganisationen.
Why was it effective? It was effective not just because justice was seen to be done where there was a huge void. It was because the Real IRA and other terrorist groups, their whole strength is from the fact that they are an underdog. When we put the victims as the underdog and flipped it, they didn't know what to do. They were embarrassed. Their recruitment went down. The bombs actually stopped -- fact -- because of this action. We became, or those victims became, more importantly, a ghost that haunted the terrorist organization.
Der er andre eksempler. Vi har en sag, Almog, som handler om en bank, der ifølge os gav penge til selvmordsbombere. Da vi lagde sag an stoppede banken denne praksis, og kræfter rundt om i verden, der af politiske årsager ikke før kunne håndtere problemet på grund af modstridende interesser, har lukket hullerne i banksystemerne. En anden sag, McDonald-sagen, hvor ofre fra Semtex, et Provisional IRA angreb med våben fra Gaddafi, lagde sag an, og den sag har haft stor betydning for det nye Libyen. Det nye Libyen er mere venligt overfor disse ofre, så det har startet en helt ny dialog der. Men vi har brug for mere og mere støtte til disse ideer og sager.
There's other examples. We have a case called Almog which is to do with a bank that was, allegedly, from our point of view, giving rewards to suicide bombers. Just by bringing the very action, that bank has stopped doing it, and indeed, the powers that be around the world, which for real politic reasons before, couldn't actually deal with this issue, because there was lots of competing interests, have actually closed down those loopholes in the banking system. There's another case called the McDonald case, where some victims of Semtex, of the Provisional IRA bombings, which were supplied by Gaddafi, sued, and that action has led to amazing things for new Libya. New Libya has been compassionate towards those victims, and started taking it -- so it started a whole new dialogue there. But the problem is, we need more and more support for these ideas and cases.
Civile sager og samfundsinitiativer. Et godt eksempel er Somalia, hvor man kæmper mod pirateri. Hvis man tror, at man kan bekæmpe pirateri som terrorisme og vinde, tager man fejl. Vi prøver i stedet at gøre piraterne til fiskere. De plejede selvfølgelig at være fiskere, men vi stjal deres fisk og fyldte deres vand med giftigt affald. Så vi prøver nu at øge sikkerheden og beskæftigelsen ved at medbringe en vagt sammen med fiskerne, og jeg kan garantere, at efterhånden som det vokser, vil al-Shabaab og lignende grupper ikke kunne bruge fattigdom og uretfærdighed til at rekruttere folk. Disse initiativer er billigere end et missil, og meget billigere end en soldats liv. Men endnu vigtigere, det tager krigen til deres hjemland og ikke til vores territorium, og vi ser efter årsagerne.
Civil affairs and civil society initiatives. A good one is in Somalia. There's a war on piracy. If anyone thinks you can have a war on piracy like a war on terrorism and beat it, you're wrong. What we're trying to do there is turn pirates to fisherman. They used to be fisherman, of course, but we stole their fish and dumped a load of toxic waste in their water, so what we're trying to do is create security and employment by bringing a coastguard along with the fisheries industry, and I can guarantee you, as that builds, al Shabaab and such likes will not have the poverty and injustice any longer to prey on those people. These initiatives cost less than a missile, and certainly less than any soldier's life, but more importantly, it takes the war to their homelands, and not onto our shore, and we're looking at the causes.
Til sidst vil jeg nævne dialog. Fordelen ved dialog er tydelige. Den uddanner begge sider, forbedrer forståelsen, viser styrker og svagheder, og ligesom nogle af de tidligere talere, fører den delte sårbarhed til tillid, hvilket bliver en del af processen, en del af normaliseringen. Men det er ikke nemt. Efter en bombe, er ofrene ikke interesserede. Der er praktiske problemer. Det er politisk risikabelt for hovedpersonerne og for kontaktpersonerne. Engang da jeg var kontaktperson, smed de sten på mig, hver gang jeg sagde noget, de ikke kunne lide, og når jeg sagde noget, de kunne lide, begyndte de at skyde op i luften, hvilket heller ikke var optimalt. (Latter) Hvad end pointen er, så når det problemets kerne. Du er i gang, og du snakker med dem.
The last one I wanted to talk about was dialogue. The advantages of dialogue are obvious. It self-educates both sides, enables a better understanding, reveals the strengths and weaknesses, and yes, like some of the speakers before, the shared vulnerability does lead to trust, and it does then become, that process, part of normalization. But it's not an easy road. After the bomb, the victims are not into this. There's practical problems. It's politically risky for the protagonists and for the interlocutors. On one occasion I was doing it, every time I did a point that they didn't like, they actually threw stones at me, and when I did a point they liked, they starting shooting in the air, equally not great. (Laughter) Whatever the point, it gets to the heart of the problem, you're doing it, you're talking to them.
Jeg vil slutte med at sige, hvis følger vi vores fornuft, opdager vi, at vi alle ønsker at have et indtryk af terrorisme, der ikke kun er militært. Vi skal skabe mere moderne og assymmetriske svar. Det handler ikke, om at sympatisere med terrorister. Det handler om moderne bekæmpelse. Vi skal skabe innovation. Regeringerne er lydhør, men de har ikke løsningerne. Den private sektor har en betydning. Det betyder noget, hvis vi går ud herfra og ser, hvordan vi kan støtte ofre i hele verden med nye initiativer.
Now, I just want to end with saying, if we follow reason, we realize that I think we'd all say that we want to have a perception of terrorism which is not just a pure military perception of it. We need to foster more modern and asymmetrical responses to it. This isn't about being soft on terrorism. It's about fighting them on contemporary battlefields. We must foster innovation, as I've said. Governments are receptive. It won't come from those dusty corridors. The private sector has a role. The role we could do right now is going away and looking at how we can support victims around the world to bring initiatives.
Hvis jeg ville forlade jer med nogle store spørgsmål, der kan ændre ens opfattelse, og måske afføde nye tanker og svar, havde jeg og min terrorgruppe egentlig behøvet at springe jer i luften for pointens skyld? Vi skal stille os selv disse ubehagelige spørgsmål. Har vi ignoreret en uretfærdighed eller en humanitær kamp et sted i verden? Hvad hvis terroristerne vil have os til at fokusere på fattigdom og uretfærdighed? Hvad hvis bomberne blot er for at vække os? Hvad sker der, hvis bomben gik af fordi vi ikke overvejede at håndtere disse ting og begivenheder med dialog?
If I was to leave you with some big questions here which may change one's perception to it, and who knows what thoughts and responses will come out of it, but did myself and my terrorist group actually need to blow you up to make our point? We have to ask ourselves these questions, however unpalatable. Have we been ignoring an injustice or a humanitarian struggle somewhere in the world? What if, actually, engagement on poverty and injustice is exactly what the terrorists wanted us to do? What if the bombs are just simply wake-up calls for us? What happens if that bomb went off because we didn't have any thoughts and things in place to allow dialogue to deal with these things and interaction?
Helt ukontroversielt skal vi stoppe med at være reaktive, men blive mere proaktive. Jeg vil forlade jer med et provokerende spørgsmål, hvor svaret kræver sympati med djævelen. Det er udbredt spørgsmål blandt tænkere og forfattere. Hvad hvis samfundet har brug for kriser, for at forandre sig? Hvad hvis samfundet har brug for terrorisme for at ændre og forbedre sig? Det er Bulgakov-temaerne, det er billedet af Jesus og djævelen går hånd i hånd i Gethsemane i måneskinnets skær. Det vil betyde, at mennesker for at udvikle sig, nu bliver det helt darwinistisk, bliver nødt til at danse med djævelen.
What is definitely uncontroversial is that, as I've said, we've got to stop being reactive, and more proactive, and I just want to leave you with one idea, which is that it's a provocative question for you to think about, and the answer will require sympathy with the devil. It's a question that's been tackled by many great thinkers and writers: What if society actually needs crisis to change? What if society actually needs terrorism to change and adapt for the better? It's those Bulgakov themes, it's that picture of Jesus and the Devil hand in hand in Gethsemane walking into the moonlight. What it would mean is that humans, in order to survive in development, quite Darwinian spirit here, inherently must dance with the devil.
Mange siger, at Rolling Stones besejrede kommunismen. Det er en god teori. Måske Rolling Stones spiller en rolle her. Tak. (Musik) (Bifald) Bruno Giussani: Tak. (Bifald)
A lot of people say that communism was defeated by the Rolling Stones. It's a good theory. Maybe the Rolling Stones has a place in this. Thank you. (Music) (Applause) Bruno Giussani: Thank you. (Applause)