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.
毫无疑问,我们的确要与恐怖分子对话。 我们现在正在与一种新型恐怖主义作战。 有点类似于传统恐怖主义的形式, 但又裹着21世纪的新包装。 反恐的一大问题是 你怎样看待恐怖主义 因为观感决定了你的应对方式 因此如果你以传统的视角来看待恐怖主义 那恐怖主义就是犯罪,就是战争 如果是这样,你会如何应对? 很自然的,你会以牙还牙 你会与恐怖主义斗争。但如果你持一种更现代一点的方式 认为它几乎是一种因果效应 那你的应对就自然不会那么 针锋相对
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.
我们生活在现代化、全球化的时代里 实际上恐怖主义分子已经适应了这个时代 我们也应该去适应,这意味着那些 效力于反恐领域的人 不得不开始,确切地说,戴上 谷歌眼镜之类的东西。
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.
而我的论点,我想要大家做的只是 将恐怖主义看做一个全球性的品牌 比如,可口可乐 都对你的健康没什么好处(笑声) 如果你把它看成一个品牌 你就会发现这产品是有缺陷的 就像我们刚说到的,他对你的健康有害 对受它影响的人也有害 当然,自己去做人体炸弹也没什么好处 它通常言行不一 你死后到了天堂,不会有72个处女等着你 这不会发生,我认为不会 当然,在80年代,你也不会真的去终结资本主义 通过支持这些组织,这纯属胡说
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.
你要知道,恐怖主义有“阿基里斯的脚踝” 即是说,这个品牌具有致命缺陷 我们刚刚已经提及了它危害健康 但它也需要消费者 它需要的消费者就是恐怖主义的信徒 他们相信,并且支持这个品牌 他们会推动这个品牌的发展,而这些人 就是我们要去接触的人 我们需要在他们面前打垮这个品牌
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.
如果继续刚才的品牌话题,我们有两个途径来击垮它 一是缩小其市场,也就是说 拿我们自己的品牌和他们竞争 我们必须告诉消费者我们的产品更好 如果我想让人们相信我的产品更好 那么我就不会做出像关塔那摩虐囚事件那样(过分的事) 我们已经讨论了削减对产品的潜在需求 你也许已经注意到 贫穷、社会不公之类的问题 是有益于恐怖主义繁衍的
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.
另一个途径就是打击产品本身 就像我们所说的,打破品牌神话 众所周知,杀害儿童不是英雄该做的事 也许我们该关注这些事,并且把消息告诉人们 我们必须揭露这种产品的危害 我们的对象,不应该仅仅是恐怖主义的制造者 也就是那些恐怖分子 也不应仅仅是恐怖主义的推崇者 也就是那些赞助恐怖主义,为其提供便利的人 而应包含恐怖主义的受众 我们要进入恐怖主义滋生的地方 在这些地方,恐怖主义招揽信徒,不断壮大 这就是他们发展消费者的地方 我们必须给这些地方带去我们的信息 所以,关键就是在这些地方展开互动 和恐怖主义分子,和恐怖主义的支持者等进行接触 我们要做的就是接触、教育 和人们展开对话
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.
现在让我们继续将恐怖主义看成一个品牌 想想他们的传播机制 我们该怎样应对恐怖主义袭击呢? 当然,政府和公民都应参与来缩小恐怖主义的市场 我们必须向人们展示我们的产品更好 我们要传播自己的价值观 我们必须言行一致 但说到打击品牌自身 如果恐怖主义是可口可乐,我们自己是百事的话 那我们对于可口可乐的指责 基本上没人会信
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.
所以我们必须找到一种新的机制 而我见过最好的媒介 就是恐怖主义的受害者 他们可以理直气壮的告诉人们 “这产品烂透了,我用了之后,病了好几天” “我的手被烧伤了”,人们就会信 人们可以看见他们的伤疤,会信任他们 但不论是通过受害者、政府, 还是非政府组织,甚至是昨天在北爱尔兰的女王陛下 我们都必须接触所有和恐怖主义 有关的人,说实话 我们是得与狼共舞
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.
下面到了我最喜欢的部分了 我原来想把大家都炸飞,来阐释我的观点 但是…(笑声) TED告诉我说考虑到健康安全因素 我必须先倒数计时 所以我觉得自己像个爱尔兰或者是犹太恐怖主义分子 一个注重健康安全的恐怖主义分子…(笑声) 我必须先数3,2,1 声音会有点响,所以我觉得我的宣言该是 “炸死而非吓死” 3,2,1(爆炸声) 很好(笑声) 现在,假设坐在15J的女士是恐怖主义分子 我们都是受害者 屋里有625个人,我们一辈子都会带有各种伤痕 有一对父子坐在那边 儿子死了,父亲还活着 父亲很可能会自责好几年 怪自己让儿子坐在那个位子上 他会开始酗酒,很可能 3年内就自杀,这是统计结果 有位年轻迷人的女士 她受的伤是我见过自杀式爆炸导致的 最严重的心理和生理伤害 叫做人体弹片 也就是说,她在今后10年,15年 坐在一家餐馆里 或是是坐在沙滩上的时候,她会开始 摩擦自己的皮肤,然后发现 有零星的弹片出现 这是件让人难以接受的事 另一位女士在爆炸中 失去了双腿 她会发现自己只能得到 政府为这起爆炸事件 支付的微薄的赔偿金 她的女儿本可以上最好的大学 而现在却不得不 留在家里照顾母亲 我们都经历了爆炸事件,还有所有看到事件发生的人 都会受到创伤 但你们,也就是所有受害者不得不 接受一个残酷的事实 那就是,我们的社会一开始会同情受害者,但不久后 我们就会遗忘他们,社会是无情的 我们不会照顾受害者,赋予他们应得的权利 但我想要说的是,其实 受害者是我们拥有的 最好的反恐武器
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.
政府从21世纪伊始到今天 是怎么做的?我们都知道 政府选择了入侵 如果自杀式炸弹来自威尔士 那我只能说,祝你好运,威尔士 膝跳反应法案、应急法案 打击了我们社会的基础,众所周知 就是个错误 我们正让偏见蔓延整个爱丁堡 对威尔士人来说,偏见存在于整个英国
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.
现在的办法是,政府从中吸取教训 他们开始研究我一开始提出的那种方法 用这些非对称的方法去应对 以更现代的视角,去研究因果关系 但是过去的错误是不可避免的 这是人性使然 在做这些事所背负的恐惧和压力 是巨大的,他们会犯错 他们就是无法变聪明
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."
曾有个著名的爱尔兰恐怖分子 总结的很恰当。他说, “对于英国政府而言,他们必须一直幸运 而我们只要时来运转一次就够了”
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.
所以我们要做的是去影响它 我们应该试着更具前瞻性 我们需要建造非爆炸性的武器 用于反恐的斗争 当然,这只是一些想法——而非政府擅长的常规做法
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.
我转回来谈谈刚才弄出爆炸之前那些关于品牌的想法 我说起了可口可乐和百事可乐之类的事情 我们将恐怖主义和民主的对垒看成品牌之战 恐怖分子却认为是自由主义斗士与真相 打击不公正和帝国主义的范畴
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.
我们确实该将这看成殊死搏斗的战场 恐怖分子不仅仅想要我们的血肉 他们事实上想要我们的文化之魂,这也是为什么 品牌的类比是看待这问题的一个新颖的方式 我们来看看基地组织,他一开始仅仅是 (穆斯林国家的)露天市场里某个货架上 不太有人问津的产品 911袭击发生时,就是它最好的市场活动日 他们也为21世纪做了新包装,他们知道自己在做什么 他们在品牌形象上做了一些卓有成效的事 即创造了能在全球授权的品牌 在那些贫穷、愚昧和不公正的地方
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.
正如我说过的,我们应该打击那个市场 但是我们应该运用我们的头脑而不是气力 若我们将之看做品牌,或以其他类似的方式看待 我们将不会严厉打击恐怖主义而造成完全对峙
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.
我要简单回顾一些例子 这些例子都来自我的工作领域,我们试图用不一样的方式处理问题 第一个例子被叫做“法律费” 是想使用一个更好的词 当我们最初对恐怖分子采取民事诉讼时 每个人都认为我们疯了或者误入歧途了 现在师出有名,大家都在这么做 哪有炸弹,人们就会控诉 但是其中最早的例子是奥马炸弹事件 从1998年民事诉讼被引进 在奥马,炸弹被引爆, 真爱尔兰共和军 处于和谈过程中 这意味着罪犯不可能真的被起诉 因为一系列原因,大部分与和平进程 和正在发生的事有关,为了更大的利益 这也意味着,如果你能想象 那个炸死你孩子 和丈夫的人正在逛商场 而你就住在里面 其中一些受害者说够了够了 谢天谢地,在10年后我们引入了私人诉讼, 实际上我们也赢了,目前也有些不起眼的呼吁 所以我要特别小心谨慎 但也相当自信
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.
为什么诉讼是有效的? 它有效不仅仅因为正义 在那些的法外之地被伸张 也因为真爱尔兰共和军和其他恐怖组织 他们所有的力量都来自于他们是弱势群体这个事实 当我们把恐怖袭击的受害者作为弱势群体 轻轻掷出这张牌,他们就不知所措了 他们很尴尬,继而就招不到人 而且因为这些措施,恐怖袭击事实上也停止了 我们,或者说这些受害者 成了这些恐怖组织无法摆脱的冤魂
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.
再举另外一个我们称之为阿尔莫哥的案例 有一家银行 从我们的角度来看 据称为那些自杀式炸弹袭击者提供奖励 只是揭发了这项行为 那家银行就已不再继续 这种力量在全球确实存在,而之前由于一些纯粹的政治原因, 我们无法真正切实地解决问题 由于其中有太多的利益纷争 事实上已经在堵住了银行系统的这个漏洞 有另一个叫麦克唐纳的案例 在塞姆汀塑胶炸药,爱尔兰共和军的临时炸药的受害者中, 它是由卡扎菲提供的 那些行动导致新利比亚发生了令人震惊的事 新利比亚现在很同情这些受害者 也开始接受他们,所以这开启了新的对话 但是问题是,我们需要更多地去支持 这些想法和案例
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.
民族事务和国内社会动议 一个好例子是索马里对海盗的战争 如果有人认为能向海盗宣战 就像向恐怖主义宣战并夺取胜利那样,你就错了 我们想做的是把海盗变成渔民 当然,他们曾经都是渔民 但是我们偷走了他们的鱼,还向海里倾倒了大量有毒废料 所以我们现在尝试去创造安全环境和就业机会 方式是通过海岸警卫队来配合渔业 我可以向你们保证 如果上述系统能够建立成功,青年党这类的组织 就不再能够招罗那些穷人和饱受不公待遇的人 这些方案的成本比发射一个导弹要低 代价也远远不像士兵的生命那样高昂 更重要的是,这样战争就能滚回自己的老家 而不是发生在我们的海岸 我们正在了解其中的原因
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.
最后我想谈的是对话 对话的好处是明显的 对话对双方来说都是自我教育,使互相之间产生更好的理解 揭示优势和劣势 当然,就像之前的一些讲者提及的 共同的脆弱能带来信任 这个过程之后就能演变成常态 但这并不容易,在爆炸事件之后 受害者并不热衷于参与抗议 这里有一些实际问题 这对主角和对话者来说都具有政治风险 某一次我正亲身实践 当我做的事是他们不喜欢的 他们就猛烈攻击我 而当我做的事是他们喜欢的 他们就朝天开枪,同样也不好(笑声) 无论做到哪一步,接触到问题的核心 你正在努力,你在和他们对话
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.
现在我即将结束演讲,如果我们去寻找原因 我们意识到我们要 对恐怖主义有新的认知 它不仅仅是一个军事问题 我们需要发展更多 现代和非对称的方式去回应 这并不是对恐怖主义软弱 这是在当代的战场上和他们斗争 正如我说的,我们必须鼓励创新 政府会接受的,它并不来自肮脏的角落 私人部门也有自己的作用 我们所起的作用就是现在不要走开 然后看看我们能如何帮助那些世界范围内的受害者 更加主动地去(帮助他们)
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?
如果我打算留给你们一些重要的问题 这问题会改变一个人的看法,谁知道 会有什么想法和应对措施会被提出 但是我自己和我的恐怖分子小组实际上需要 把你们炸飞以达到我们的目的吗? 我们需要问我们自己这些问题,虽然这会不好受 我们是不是忽略了不公正 或是世界某处的人道主义斗争? 如果,对贫困和不公正的关注 正是恐怖分子想让我们做的? 如果炸弹只是想把我们叫醒? 如果炸弹爆炸了又怎样? 因为我们没有想法,也没有措施 来用对话和互动去应对(贫穷和不公正)
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.
毫无疑问的是 正如我说过的,我们应当停止单纯的回击 而应更具主动性 我想让你们记住一个观点 对你们来说,这是个挑战性的问题 答案需要我们对魔鬼也抱有同情 这是个许多伟大的思想家和作家都苦苦思索过的问题 社会是否真的需要大难临头才能改变? 社会是否真的需要恐怖主义 才能变得更好? 这是布尔加科夫的主题 这是耶稣和魔鬼在客西马尼(蒙难地)的月光下 携手前行的景象 这就意味着 人类为了在发展中生存 体现了达尔文的精神 生来就必须与魔鬼共舞
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)
许多人说共产主义被滚石乐队打败了 这真是个好的理论 也许滚石(在反击恐怖主义方面)也有一席之地 谢谢 (音乐)(掌声) 布鲁诺.邱桑尼:谢谢(掌声)