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.
Mi definitivno razgovaramo sa teroristima, to nije sporno. U ratu smo sa novom vrstom terorizma. To je verzija dobrog, starog, tradicionalnog oblika terorizma, ali upakovana za 21. vek. Jedna od bitnijih stvari u borbi protiv terorizma je, kako ga mi uopšte doživljavamo? Upravo percepcija utiče na vaš odgovor na terorizam. Ako imate tradicionalno shvatanje terorizma, on bi se poistovećivao sa kriminalitetom, sa ratom. Dakle, kako ćete da odgovorite na njega? Prirodno bi bilo da uzvratite istom merom. Da se borite protiv njega. Ako imate savremeniji pristup, i vaše shvatanje terorizma je skoro uzrok-posledica, onda iz toga sledi da su mere koje proizlaze iz toga mnogo više asimetrične.
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.
Živimo u modernom, globalnom svetu. Teroristi su se adaptirali na njega. To je nešto što i mi moramo da uradimo, a to znači da ljudi koji rade na protivterorističkim aktivnostima moraju bukvalno početi da koriste savremene metode.
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.
S moje strane, želeo sam da pogledam terorizam kao da je globalni brend, recimo, Koka Kola. Oba su prilično loša po vaše zdravlje. (Smeh) Ako ga posmatrate kao brend na takav način, ono što ćete shvatiti je, da je to faličan proizvod. Kao što smo rekli, prilično je loš po vaše zdravlje, loš je po one na koje utiče, a nije dobar po vas ni ako ste bombaš samoubica. Ne radi ono što obećava na pakovanju. Nećete zaista dobiti 72 device u raju. To se neće desiti, ne verujem. I nećete stvarno, u '80. da uništite kapitalizam podržavajući neku od ovih grupa. To je gomila besmislica.
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.
Ono što ćete shvatiti, je da ima Ahilovu petu. Taj brend ima Ahilovu petu. Pomenuli smo zdravlje, ali mu trebaju potrošači da poveruju u njega. Potrošači koji su mu potrebni su terorističke grupe. Oni su ljudi koji veruju u brend, podržavaju ga, snabdevaju ga i to su ljudi kojima moramo da se približimo. Moramo da napadnemo brend ispred njih.
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.
Postoje 2 suštinska načina da to izvedemo, ako nastavimo sa temom brenda. Prvi je da smanjimo njihovo tržište. To znači da je naš brend protiv njihovog. Moramo da se takmičimo. Moramo da pokažemo da smo bolji proizvod. Ako pokušavam da pokažem da smo bolji proizvod, verovatno se neću baviti stvarima poput zatvora Gvantanamo. Tamo smo pričali o suzbijanju osnovne potrebe za samim proizvodom. Tamo možete da vidite siromaštvo, nepravdu, sve te stvari koje hrane terorizam.
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.
Druga stvar koja treba da se uradi je da se uzdrma proizvod, da se napadne sam mit brenda, kao što smo rekli. Znate, nema ničeg herojskog u ubijanju deteta. Možda treba na to da se fokusiramo i da prenesemo tu poruku. Moramo da otkrijemo opasnosti u proizvodu. Naša ciljana publika nisu samo proizvođači terorizma, kao što sam rekao, teroristi. Nisu samo trgovci terorizmom, a to su oni koji ga finansiraju, koji ga snabdevaju, već korisnici terorizma. Moramo da se približimo tim državama. Tamo gde se regrutuju. Tamo gde dobijaju moć i snagu. Odatle njihovi korisnici dolaze. Mi moramo da pošaljemo našu poruku tamo. Osnovne stvari su, moramo da imamo interakciju u tim oblastima, sa teroristima, snabdevačima itd. Moramo da se angažujemo, moramo da edukujemo, i moramo da imamo dijalog.
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.
Sada, ako pratimo ovu ideju brenda još nekoliko sekundi, razmislite o sistemu dostavljanja. Kako ćemo da izvedemo ove napade? Pa, smanjenje tržišta je mera vlada i civilnog društva. Moramo da pokažemo da smo bolji. Moramo da pokažemo naše vrednosti. Moramo da praktikujemo ono što propovedamo. Ali kada dođe do rušenja brenda, ako su teroristi Koka Kola, a mi smo Pepsi, ja mislim da, sve što kao Pepsi kažemo o Koka Koli, niko neće verovati.
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.
Zato moramo da nađemo drugi mehanizam, a jedan od najboljih mehanizama na koje sam naišao su žrtve terorizma. Oni su ti koji mogu zaista da stanu i kažu: "Ovaj proizvod je sranje. Uzeo sam ga i bio sam bolestan danima. I opekao sam se, šta god." Vi im verujete. Možete da vidite njihove ožiljke. Imate poverenja u njih. Bilo da su žrtve, bilo da su vlade, nevladine organizacije, pa čak i kraljica juče, u Severnoj Irskoj, moramo da sarađujemo sa tim različitim slojevima terorizma i zapravo, moramo da plešemo sa đavolom.
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.
Ovo je moj omiljeni deo govora. Hteo sam sve da vas dignem u vazduh i istaknem poentu, ali - (Smeh) su mi u TED-u iz bezbednosnih i zdravstvenih razloga rekli da moram da odbrojavam, tako da se osećam kao irski ili jevrejski terorista, neka vrsta zdravstvenog i bezbednosnog teroriste, i ja - (Smeh) moram da odbrojavam 3, 2, 1 i malo je uznemiravajuće, zato razmišljajući šta bi bio moj moto, bio bi: "Delovi tela, ne srčani udari." Zato 3, 2, 1. (Zvuk eksplozije) Vrlo dobro. (Smeh) Gospođa na mestu 15J je bombaš samoubica među nama. Svi smo žrtve terorizma. Nas je 625 u prostoriji. Nosićemo ožiljke ceo život. Otac i sin su sedeli na tom mestu tamo. Sin je poginuo. Otac je živ. Otac će verovatno godinama da se jede što nije seo na to mesto umesto svog deteta. Počeće da se opija i najverovatnije će se ubiti u roku od 3 godine. To je statistika. Jedna veoma mlada, atraktivna dama je bila ovde, i ona ima nešto za šta mislim da je najgori oblik psihološke, fizičke povrede koju sam ikad video kod bombaša samoubica: to je ljudski šrapnel. To znači da, kada ona sedne u restoran, u godima koje će doći, narednih 10, 15 godina, ili je na plaži, s vremena na vreme počeće da se češe i odatle će ispasti komadić tog šrapnela. A to je jako komplikovano mozgu da shvati. Tamo je žena koja je izgubila noge u ovom bombaškom napadu. Ona će da otkrije da će dobiti bednu količinu novca od naše vlade na osnovu toga što joj se desilo. Imala je kćerku koja je trebalo da ide na jedan od najboljih univerziteta. Ona će da odustane od univerziteta da bi se brinula o majci. Svi smo ovde i svi koji gledaju će biti istraumirani ovim događajem, ali svi vi koji ste žrtve ćete naučiti neke teške istine. A to je da naše društvo saoseća, ali posle nekog vremena, počne da ignoriše. Mi ne činimo dovoljno kao zajednica. Ne vodimo računa o žrtvama i ne omogućavamo im, i ono što ću pokušati da pokažem je da su zapravo, žrtve najbolje oružje koje imamo protiv još više terorizma.
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.
Kakav pristup će imati vlada, na prekretnici milenijuma? Pa, svi znamo. Ono što bi oni uradili je invazija. Ako je bombaš samoubica iz Velsa, doviđenja Vels, rekao bih. Ishitreni i zakoni u hitnim situacijama - koji kao što znamo, udaraju u samu osnovu našeg društva - su greška. Kroz Edinburg i Britaniju ćemo promovisati predrasude o Velšanima.
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.
Današnji pristup su vlade naučile kroz svoje greške. Gledaju na ono od čega sam ja počeo, na ove asimetričnije pristupe, modernije poglede, uzrok i posledicu. Ali greške prošlosti su neizbežne. To je ljudska priroda. Strah i pritisak da se nešto učini biće preveliki. Grešiće. Neće biti samo pametni.
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."
Jedan poznati irski terorista je to jednom divno sročio: "Stvar sa britanskim vladom je da mora stalno da ima sreće, a nama treba da se posreći samo jednom."
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.
Mi moramo da utičemo. Da postanemo proaktivniji. Da izgradimo arsenal neborbenog oružja u ovom ratu protiv terorizma. Ali naravno, to su ideje - ne nešto u čemu su vlade baš dobre.
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.
Želim da se vratim neposredno pre eksplozije, na ideju brenda, govorio sam o Koka Koli i Pepsiju itd. U tom ratu brendova mi to vidimo kao terorizam protiv demokratije. Oni to vide kao borce za slobodu i istinu protiv nepravde, imperijalizma itd.
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.
Moramo to shvatiti kao smrtonosno bojno polje. Oni ne žele samo našu krv. Žele duše naše kulture, i zato je analogija sa brendom veoma zanimljiv način posmatranja. Pogledajmo Al Kaidu koja je bila proizvod negde na nekoj polici, na nekoj pijaci za koju mnogi nisu čuli. 11. septembar ju je lansirao, bio je to veliki marketinški dan, i bila je upakovana za 21. vek. Znali su šta rade. Oni su bukvalno stvarali brend koji može da se proširi u svet gde ima siromaštva, neznanja i nepravde.
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.
Kao što sam rekao, moramo da izađemo na to tržište, ali da koristimo um, pre nego snagu. Ako to posmatramo kao brend ili na sličan način, nećemo razrešiti ili zaustaviti terorizam.
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.
Želim da ukratko predstavim primere iz svog posla gde drugačije pristupamo ovim stvarima. Prvi je nazvan "zakonovanje", u nedostatku bolje reči. Kad smo prvo razmišljali o građanskim parnicama protiv terorista, svi su mislili da smo pomalo ludi ili drogirani. To sad ima naziv. Svi to rade. Postoji bomba, ljudi počnu da tuže. Ali jedan od ranih slučajeva ovoga je bila eksplozija u Omagu. Građanska parnica je doneta 1998. U Omagu je Prava IRA aktivirala bombu u sred mirovnog procesa. To je značilo da počinitelji ne mogu da se gone, iz mnogo razloga, uglavnom zbog mirovnog procesa i onoga što se dešavalo, zbog opšteg dobra. To je takođe značilo, ako možete da zamislite, da su ljudi koji su bacili bombu na vašu decu i vaše muževe, šetali supermarketom u kom vi živite. Neke od žrtava su rekle da je dosta. Pokrenuli smo privatnu parnicu, i hvala bogu, 10 godina kasnije, dobili smo je. U toku je mala žalba, pa moram da budem oprezan, ali prilično sam siguran.
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.
Zašto je bilo učinkovito? Ne samo zato što je učinjena pravda tamo gde je bila velika praznina. Nego i zato što je snaga Prave IRA i drugih terorističkih grupa u činjenici da su gubitnici. Kada smo žrtve predstavili kao gubitnike, obrnuli situaciju, nisu znali šta da rade. Bili su osramoćeni. Regrutacija im je opala. Bombe su prestale zbog ove akcije, to je činjenica. Postali smo, žrtve su postale, što je važnije, duh koji je pohodio terorističku organizaciju.
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.
Ima još primera. Imamo slučaj Almog, što ima veze sa bankom koja je, navodno, iz naše perspektive, nagrađivala bombaše samoubice. Sprovođenjem akcije, banka je prestala sa tim i zaista, moćnici širom sveta, koji zbog političkih razloga ranije nisu mogli da se bave ovim problemom, jer je bilo mnogo sukobljenih interesa, zatvorili su te rupe u bankarskom sistemu. Postoji još jedan slučaj, Mekdonald slučaj, gde su neke od žrtava Semteksa, napada privremene IRA-e koje je pomogao Gadafi, tužile, i ta akcija je dovela do izuzetnih stvari za novu Libiju. Nova Libija je saosećala sa tim žrtvama što je započelo potpuno nov dijalog tamo. Problem je što nam je potrebno sve više podrške za ove ideje i slučajeve.
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.
Inicijative civilnog društva i mirovnih snaga. Dobar primer je Somalija. Tamo je u toku rat protiv pirata. Ako mislite da taj rat možete voditi kao rat protiv terorizma i dobiti ga, varate se. Mi pokušavamo da pirate preobratimo u ribolovce. Oni su, naravno, to i bili, ali mi smo im ukrali ribu i bacili gomilu otrovnog otpada u njihove vode, pa pokušavamo da stvorimo sigurnost i zaposlenost, dovodeći obalsku stražu zajedno sa ribolovnom industrijom, i garantujem vam, dok se to dešava, al Šabab i slični neće moći siromaštvom i nepravdom da privlače ljude. Ove inicijative koštaju manje od projektila i sigurno manje od života jednog vojnika, ali sto je važnije, prenosi rat na njihovu teritoriju, a ne na našu, a mi tražimo uzroke.
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.
Poslednje o čemu sam želeo da govorim je dijalog. Njegove prednosti su očigledne. Edukuje obe strane, omogućava bolje razumevanje, otkriva snage i slabosti, i da, kao i neki prethodni govornici, podeljena osetljivost vodi poverenju i taj proces onda postaje deo normalizacije. Ali to nije jednostavan put. Posle bombe, žrtvama nije do ovoga. Postoje praktični problemi. Politički je rizično za protagoniste i učesnike u dijalogu. Jednom prilikom, kad bih istakao nešto što im se nije dopalo, stvarno su me gađali kamenjem, a kada im se nešto što sam rekao dopalo, počeli bi da pucaju u vazduh, što takođe nije bilo sjajno. (Smeh) Šta god da je u pitanju, pogađa srce problema, vi to radite, pričate sa njima.
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.
Želim da završim mišlju da, ako pratimo razum, mislim da bismo svi rekli da želimo da imamo percepciju o terorizmu koja nije samo vojna. Moramo da stvorimo modernije i asimetrične odgovore na terorizam. Ne radi se o tome da budemo blagi prema terorizmu. Nego o tome da se borimo na savremenim bojnim poljima. Kao što sam rekao, moramo da podstičemo inovacije. Vlade su prihvatajuće i to od njih neće doći. Privatni sektor ima ulogu. Ono što odmah možemo da uradimo je da odemo i vidimo kako da podržimo žrtve širom sveta da započnu inicijative.
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?
Ako bih želeo da vas ostavim sa nekim velikim pitanjima koja mogu promeniti shvatanje, a ko zna kakve misli i odgovori će proizaći iz toga, da li je bilo potrebno da vas ja i moja teroristička grupa raznesemo, da bismo dokazali poentu? Moramo sebi postaviti ova pitanja, koliko god da su neprijatna. Da li negde u svetu ignorišemo nepravdu ili humanitarnu borbu? Šta je ako je, u stvari, hvatanje u koštac sa siromaštvom i nepravdom upravo ono što teroristi žele da radimo? Šta ako su bombe poziv da se probudimo? Šta se dešava ako je ta bomba eksplodirala jer nemamo nikakve misli ili procedure da dozvolimo dijalog koji se bavi ovim stvarima i interakcijom?
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.
Ono što je nekontroverzno je, kao što sam rekao, moramo da prestanemo da budemo reaktivni a postanemo proaktivni, i želim da vas ostavim sa jednom idejom, a to je da razmišljate o jednom provokativnom pitanju, a odgovor će zahtevati udruživanje sa đavolom. O tom pitanju mislili su mnogi veliki mislioci i pisci: šta ako je društvu potrebna kriza, da bi se promenilo? Šta ako mu je potreban terorizam da bi se promenilo i prilagodilo boljem? To su one bulgakovljevske teme, ona slika Isusa i Đavola kako ruku pod ruku u getsemanskom vrtu šetaju po mesečini. To bi značilo da svi ljudi, da bi preživeli razvoj, u darvinovskom duhu, u suštini moraju da zaigraju sa đavolom.
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)
Mnogi ljudi kažu da su komunizam pobedili Roling Stonsi. Dobra teorija. Možda imaju ulogu i ovde. Hvala vam. (Muzika) (Aplauz) Bruno Đuzani: Hvala vam. (Aplauz)