 Hello, and welcome to the special session on fighting e-extremism. This is a special Hubbard-Turk debate and conversation here at the World Economic Forum in Jordan. My name is Afshin Urdakul, and I'll be moderating the panel this afternoon. So over the next 50, 45 minutes, we'll do our best to tackle, which is one of the most pressing issues in our age. We read this in the news every day, how extremist groups are becoming more adept at using online platforms and electronic skills to recruit new members or plan violent attacks. So obviously this keeps many of our panelists here awake at night, thinking how we can tackle this problem. And especially given that there's a generation out there that grew up online, and it's more of an important issue to keep in mind that they have access to this technology, and so does these violent groups, the extremist groups. And there are many angles that we need to consider while talking about how this could be tackled, ranging from what governments can do to what NGOs can do, what individuals can do, so that perhaps in the next couple of years we do not have a session on fighting e-extremism. That's the hope, at least. I would like to introduce my panelists to you. It's a spectacular panel, I have to say. Mr. Bert Konders, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Netherlands. Ms. Maesh Shwaika, Minister of Information and Communications Technology of Jordan. Sir Mohamed Jaffa, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kuwaiti Danish Dairy Company, KDD. And Mr. Suleyman Bakhit, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Hero Factor here in Jordan. And he's also a young global leader. Welcome, all of you, once again. It's really great to have you. And a couple of notes about how we will do the debate today. After all, our speakers get a chance to present their perspectives. If we have enough time, we would like to turn to you, to our audience. And if we don't get the opportunity because of time constraints, please feel free to approach our speakers after the panel. I'm sure they'll be able to and they'll be happy to take your questions too. So without further ado, I would like to turn to Suleyman. Please draw us a picture, Suleyman. Let's start with that. What are we talking about when we're talking about e-extremism? Why is it such a pressing issue? And just give us a general sense of where we are. Sure. Very, very, very good question. Let me start by saying the following. Ideas do not bleed. Ideas cannot be killed. They're bulletproof. And this is the biggest problem that we're having today. The problem is with the ideology of extremism. All the narratives and everything that we've done in the last 10, 20 years has been focused on counter narratives, but that's not enough anymore. What are we for? What is the alternative narrative? And that's the problem that we're facing today. The ideology has spread thanks to the internet and the dark web to all over the globe and has been more accessible than ever. And that's the genius behind ISIS actually, is that they were able to package this new ideology and spread it all over the world. Now, the size of the problem, it's an interesting debate because I have a different perspective on this. Majority of Arabs and Arab extremists don't actually get recruited online. It's still the traditional offline approach. If you want to talk about online, the number one right now, the number one radicalization on the internet is white men and white supremacy groups. So for once we'll get to talk about that for a little bit. But it's a serious problem. And not just in Europe. We're talking about in America as well. So it's very important that when we discuss e-extremism or online radicalization and the communication and spreading of these ideas, not to limit ourselves just by blinders that it's only Muslims and it's only poor unemployed Muslims, the case is much more complex, much bigger than that. So it's important to have a total picture of what's really happening. And my biggest problem with what's going on and what I see over the next few years is they haven't run out of recruits and potential impossible recruits. We can't kill extremists fast enough. Every time we kill an extremist, we're producing 10 or 20 more. And look at the way we're raising our youth as well. One of the biggest problems we face in Jordan, for example, is in Jordan, one out of every four kids gets sexually abused by their parents or their neighbors. 90% of the youth in Jordan experience moderate to severe physical abuse. Just look at the UNESCO and research and some of the local NGOs research. We're creating recruits that are vulnerable to all these kind of ideologies and with them being accessible, so easily accessible, that literally just like on the shelf where you can take it, it's creating a serious problem and we have fallen short. We haven't been able to keep up. We haven't produced any really good positive alternative narratives. We're really good at telling the kids, don't do this, don't do that. But what's the alternative? So sadly that's the picture. I know it's a bleak picture, but Suleyman, thank you for giving us a sense of the dimensions of the problem. So it seems like when we're talking about e-extremism and given we have limited time to address such a multifaceted issue, maybe the practical way of doing this would be just focusing on the e-part and the extremism part, meaning the electronic world and why it is such an important platform that we have to worry about and what we can do to stop radicalization there and address the root causes of extremism itself, because after all, if we don't have an idea about how to do that, then why are we even talking about e-extremism? So we will try to focus on both those aspects and I suggest that we start with the former and I would like to turn to you, Minister, Minister Schwaeke, if you could tell us how radical groups are using online platforms, why is it useful to them and what strategies are they using and how can governments or governments alone maybe is not the answer? Who can do what in order to stop that? Thank you so much for your question. Actually, when I was called to this session, e-extremism, I said I was called for the e or for the extremism. I wasn't very sure. Actually, let me tell you about a personal story. When I first got recruited, appointed as a minister, I was shocked by one of my pictures with my daughters and my husband going viral in the country. And I was attacked for being a woman, for dressing a nightgown, and for no obvious reason, I heard all that, all sorts of insults and injuries you can be exposed to. To me, that was an eye-opener that while we are trying to drive technology and connectivity and internet for all, at the same time, there is a very big risk that this tool is being used or abused by radical or extremism or any, let's say, practice or psychological warfare that could be used over the cyber. My first mission was to make sure that we have the cyber crime law endorsed by the parliament because I said, if we don't have the rule of law to put an end to everything that could be damaging, everything that could destroy value to the country, to the nation, it will be something really hard to control. I was in denial because I was one of the first few people to join Twitter and I used to see it as a great tool to engage and to be up to date and to see what's happening and even to be engaged with the community. But when I saw that there is a huge shift that people are using it or abusing it to pass on hatred, speech of hatred, insults, and to me, that was something which, of course, we have to accept that everything should have the good and the bad and the ugly, but I thought that definitely rule of law should be there to stop anything that could be harmful because we are driving digitization, we are calling for digitization, we are calling for transformation, dependency on technology, on the Internet, it's part of our mission. By the same time, we need to keep thinking about the misuse and the abuse and what could be used for different reasons, especially after the last attack, which is Dawana Kri ransomware. That was another eye-opener. Sometimes we take security for granted, sometimes we take that our system's infrastructure is resilient, it's not the case. We have to keep updating and moving towards upgrading our system to be as resilient because the more creative the cyber attacks are, the more we have to be creative and innovative and up to date and resilient. The question is how can we do that though? I have a question because I'm sure we've all read in the papers that ISIS or similar radical groups are working on developing encrypted message platforms or their own platforms to spread their ideas or to recruit. I'm curious how you think as a minister this could be tackled. Is this the right tool set that we have? What is the right way of addressing it? Are we making sure that we're getting better and better technologically? We are also aware of this aspect of the problem, so what is to be done there? Can governments do this alone? That's the other question. Actually, I heard a few days ago that Twitter has disconnected 600,000 accounts for ISIS. I think a proper partnership because Facebook and Twitter are being definitely used as platforms to pass on the messages and being recruited, I mean being used by ISIS and similar groups. I felt that there is a huge responsibility on Facebook and Twitter to have their own algorithm to be able to identify groups such as ISIS and to make some controls. As a government, I remember that Prime Minister said, why don't you close Facebook in Jordan? Why don't you close Twitter in Jordan? Of course not. We are with freedom of speech. We are with freedom of expression. But at the same time, we have to have proper education, attentive, aware citizen to be able to identify the right content from the poisonous content. And Minister Kondras, I want to come to you right after Minister Shwecker because this is interesting about what governments can do and what form of cooperation can we expect to have with these giant online platforms and governments themselves. And it's interesting that she mentioned the point about why don't you shut down these platforms and she says it's not the right answer because we have to come up with other, obviously, formula that works for everyone and also keeping in mind that people have the right to be informed. So I'm curious what you think the right form of cooperation should be. What is your country doing to address this and what is being done in Europe in general? Maybe a few things about first what happens on the Internet, which is not so easy to say because it's constantly shifting and changing. But let me limit the problem at the moment not to the root causes and all these kind of things, but really on what happens on the Internet. First of all, it is a business model. It's a recruitment model. It's a targeted model. So it is something that is very well thought through. This is done by people who are highly sophisticated. They know how to appeal to very specific groups in our societies. And they are even, if you wish, specialized and earmarked to different groups in completely different countries. It's not only one message. Of course, you also have the general messages but also the targeting to very different groups and you see that shifting to, for instance, disillusioned groups in my society or people who feel discriminated against or people that they find out are pretty isolated in society or are, in terms of their psychopathology, vulnerable. It's highly sophisticated. That's number one. It's constantly changing. It's also changing in the means that they use. It's not only Facebook anymore. It's now also Telegram and all these kind of things which make it much harder to look at this. And then we have obviously, let's say, if I limit it again to the Internet, the offensive and the defensive measures. The defensive measures have always to be, in my view, around the issue of the law and legislation. That doesn't mean you cannot shut down certain areas in which secret messages are being exchanged. They are. They are in my country. I think they are almost everywhere. That is the case that some extremist content is taken down when it's published. There is a risk who is actually doing this and on what basis. Because in the end, I'm a big proponent on freedom of line. Before you know it, you use an instrument and you don't attract something by it, but you make it worse. Nevertheless, I think in certain aspects when it is regulated, and we do regulate that, it is possible to do so and take certain content out. Then it's the other side, which is a much more difficult one and maybe a much more important one. That is how do we do, and I agree with my neighbour here, counter-messaging is not any more the right word. The resilience of our societies and so on, but we come to that later is much more important. But nevertheless, counter-messaging remains important in terms of answering to all this. I see at least progress. I still think it's very difficult, but if you look to a few years ago, there was no counter-messaging. Now, I think if you look at the figures and it's not only quantity but also quality, I realise that we have to make this relative, but it's now six to one in terms of the amount of answers that come back to people that are also recruited, that are pointed at, and which get messages which are of a counter-messaging nature. Now, the quality of that is something else and the convincing power of that is something else. I think we have a whole road to go there, but I think we'll discuss that a little later. And I'm also curious if there are different perspectives within, I shall say, your government or other governments, because I'm sure you talked to several other countries as well while trying to work on cracking these online propaganda or activities. What is the thinking there? Because there's one, I shall say, perspective which says that as long as that activity is out there, it's easier to track for intelligence or security officials, but at the same time taking it down is another way of tackling it because you don't let the message just spread. So what is the right way to approach that in your perspective? I'm curious how you think about it. There's no golden formula to begin with. I have to admit there isn't. That's the nature of the problem in itself. The internet and the issue of freedom of line online is something that you, when it concerns freedom, can only do with all stakeholders and together with other governments, and sometimes you disagree. And there are governments that want to stop the whole thing or Twitter accounts and so on and so forth. But I think the discussion is very important. We are actually with Turkey in the so-called Global Coalition against terrorism, which is much more around the type of messaging and the exchange of experiences to try to find out what works and doesn't work. I'm afraid there's not a golden formula, but the essence is that it remains in a setting in which you just don't shut down, but if it's necessary you can do it and therefore you need certain rules of the game. We are developing them in Europe, but I think this goes far beyond because the experiences are not just one of the law. It is really also of having a very deep realistic, also realizing that we make a lot of mistakes in our own societies to make the analysis what works and doesn't work. And I do want to turn to Mohammad Jaffer because you're involved in many initiatives yourself who have been moved by what you've seen in the news and what's happening in this region and that's what got you attracted to this work too. I do remember from our conversation. I want to ask you what your perspective is when it comes to online platforms and governments cooperating. What the challenges are there because you have been involved in these conversations and I'm curious what you think, for instance, what happens when governments want these online platforms, these encrypted message platforms, for instance, to have a sort of a backdoor and if need be, those messages sent by these extremists could be tracked. Obviously governments would have a different perspective on this and online platforms would probably have a different perspective on how to approach this. I'm curious, as an observer, whether you think there's a golden formula because the minister just said there isn't one. So I wonder if you think there is one. I think we need to be clear about the definition. When we talk about extremism and people having extremist views, there is no law that says that you'll be arrested because you have an extremist view. If it is a hate crime, if we are expressing something that is violent, then you move into the area we can get into trouble with the law. I think when Daesh, Fahesh, started their campaign, they went aggressively, as the minister said, it was a sustained campaign, they knew what they were doing and their objectives were twofold. A general objective was to poison the app, which they've managed to do, but they also wanted recruits to come to the fake caliphate. So in the old days in Vegas, they said build it and they will come. They built the fake caliphate and they asked people to come and join them, which they did. That was a threat because you were getting people from societies going to fight over that. And then the other thing that they were doing, they were enticing people maybe to do acts of violence in their home countries. So I want to be a bit optimistic because if you look at the situation two years ago or three years ago, you will see that actually, because the situation on the battlefield has changed, destroy it and they will leave. They can no longer advertise Mosul and say come to Mosul. Those who have gone to the battlefield may never return from the battlefield, whether they're alive or not. And so in a sense there has been progress in beating them on the battleground, which leads us to metrics. How do we know how successful the extremists are online in recruiting and how do we know how successful we are in countering them? Now governments work through their government agencies and they don't normally publish their work nor are they expected. So I'm sure that they are doing online what they can to contain those threats. In general I think I've said before that we have failed in owning the counter narrative because we have been, you know, the private sector hasn't been working in tandem with the government and there are certain things that the platforms could have done some time ago which they haven't done and they are now under pressure from the Home Office in England, under pressure. They're now starting to stuff their own organizations to remove whatever extremists or hate crimes there is. I mean, when the beheadings were airing online, many children in the schools, there was research done, more than 80% of the kids had been exposed to that. That's poison. And if there is not a law saying that you cannot air this, then there should be self-regulation within the industry that allow that to happen. So I think the battlefield has been one which is important, but there are two things that worry me and I think we need to think about going forward. The foreign fighters who will be returning are hardened people. You said earlier that, you know, you don't radicalize people online. Well, if these people are coming back and are they posing a risk because together with online recruitment, would that make things worse or not? And with the air that's been poisoned by ISIS calling for people, lone fighters to go and, you know, drive a car and ram through people. The other day, even, you know, when the incident happened in Times Square, top of mind you think that actually this must have been an act of terror. Then you find out it's not. But then I still wondered, has this person who was high apparently seen enough people driving cars through people that the first thing you could think of when he wanted to do something was to commit such an act? Maybe that's a long shot. But the point is that there's been enough poison out there. I think it's important either through self-regulation within the platforms to remove it, but most importantly is to empower the users, those who are vulnerable within society, the children and other vulnerable groups, to empower them to discern, you know, what's a valid message from a fake message or not to fall into that. But I think if you look at the numbers, is this extremism an existential threat for us today or not? I don't know how many would say that it is an existential threat anymore or has the potential unless they move away from, you know, driving cars to the population to actually conducting cyber warfare, unless ISIS starts having a thing saying, you know, let's go and do the sort of hacking and the serious damage to infrastructures that I think there are defenses against that as well. But something to keep in mind anyway. Would you like to add something, Slema? Yeah, I just want to remind everybody, the majority of people who leave to rejoin extremist groups don't get radicalized online. It's not as big of a problem as we really think it is. Two, it's not just Facebook and Twitter. Look at the dark web. Even if Facebook and Twitter tomorrow stopped, every single ISIS or extremist or somebody with a bad idea with some magical algorithm, there's still the dark web and they're using technologies that we don't even know about. Websites, et cetera. Just to give you an idea, ISIS, a few years in 2009, were working on a video game similar to Grand Theft Auto and they were publishing and talking to their people through offline, through the dark web. And last but not least, I think the real question that we should be asking ourselves is the following. What does it say about us, about our youth, that they're willing to give away their lives for a cult of death, whether it's spread through online or offline? What kind of youth are we raising here? That they're willing to adapt and take on such ideologies and choose murder over life? I think that's a very important question. We will get to that question, but since you made the point about the dark web and even if we monitor every available platform, there is still that dark side of the internet that we can't get into and we don't know what's happening there. I want to turn to Minister Shueika to see what your perspective on that is. Is it possible to actually address this question online then? If, like Soleil Man says, there are parts of the internet that you can't even access and you don't know what's happening there. So what do we do with the dark web question? Actually, while listening, I was thinking, what do we need? I strongly believe that a holistic, cohesive approach that starts with awareness, with education is highly needed, very highly needed. We need to have very aware society and community. We have to have the education plays a major, major, major role if you would like to fight this radical thinking or any poisonous thinking. That's why I strongly believe that because I never thought about it from this angle. I always worked out how can we have a very enabling technological environment. I never thought of it as a threat. I always thought about it as an opportunity to tell you the truth. That's why I still believe that having the right components working together towards enabling this platform, towards enriching, enabling countries rather than having it as a mean of threat. So I strongly believe it needs a very, let's say, I wouldn't say very collective thinking, but it needs proper thinking from all parties in order to be, to having very proper culture, very proper thinking, very proper youth that are enablers for enlargement, for bringing the best out of their thinking, out of this platform. So I strongly believe a collective, a cohesive, holistic approach is very important starting with education and awareness. So that approach, let's talk more about that approach because at the beginning of this session, and I said we would like to focus on both aspects of the problem, the E-part and the extremism part. And since we are running out of time, I would love to hear my panelist's perspective on that too. I want to go back to you, actually, because you started talking about that and how we're raising these young people and why they're more attracted to the idea of death than actually living for a future where we can all prosper and benefit from. So I want to hear more from you, the work that you do at Hero Factor and this counter-narrative that we keep hearing, but someone needs to define us, that great counter-narrative and what it needs to be. What are the components of it supposed to be? How can we, and what can we do to make young people think that this isn't the way to go and to save them from the arms of these extremist groups? But what is the way to do it? What is that counter-narrative? Well, first of all, let's start with why do people join extremist groups? Finally, we have enough research from all over the globe that we can actually identify the root causes. It's because the kids lack a sense of identity, a sense of belonging, they're seeking acceptance, heroism, social status. Now, this changes depending on where you are. In the Middle East, for example, for Arab extremists, social status is number one. Identity and integration is not that big of a deal for them. Heroism is. For the most part, it was identity and lack of integration was a big thing. However, the latest research from Belgium and France recently shows that that's changing. The average age of a jihadi from Europe has gone down from 27 to 35 all the way down from 18 to 22. They don't even have time to know the religion. Most of them don't pray, most of them have never read the Quran, et cetera, et cetera. And the latest research shows, surprisingly, they're all suicidal. There's a very strong mental health component here with the recent lone wolves in Europe that we're not even discussing. In the Middle East, same thing, but this is something at Taboo that nobody wants to talk about. I mentioned to you the statistics that shocked some of you earlier. I'm going to say them again. One out of four children in Jordan gets sexually harassed or abused by their parents or neighbors or the people who know them. It's 90% moderate to severe physical abuse in schools and homes. We have a public health crisis here. We're creating youth who are narcissistic, who are wounded, who are more willing to believe in denying the other, dehumanizing the other rather than accepting the other. And until we stop that, start in schools, have a total comprehensive thing, and we can solve this problem. This problem is on us. This doesn't have to do with geopolitical or America invading Iraq or anything. This is us. And this is something we can solve in a relatively short amount of time. Education, awareness, but more importantly, we need the problem to be visible. We didn't know the size of the problem. We've had some research. We need to invest more research into discussing this. We need to empower teachers. Where are the social counselors? We don't have social counselors in Jordan. These youth don't have any recourse whatsoever to seek for any of their problems. Even radicalization. Let's say somebody is approached by somebody. They don't have anybody to talk to. They're fending out there for themselves. So we need these kind of initiatives. So how do you develop these kind of counter-narratives? Do you think that we don't quite even understand the nature of the problem yet? Because from what you're saying, I gather that we're also failing to see certain aspects, which you think is critical to even the understanding of the issue itself. And why are we failing to do that? In Jordan, in the very least, we don't have enough data. We don't have enough research to go into these areas to find out. And the biggest problem here is we still ask most government officials to still tell you poverty and unemployment of the root causes of extremism. Till today. I still hear that till today, even though we have enough research. And guys, we tried that approach. We killed Muladan. And have things gotten any better? That's because we haven't done anything on the ideology or the narrative part that was able to really replace or offer the kids an alternative narrative, something better. What are those alternative narratives? Let the kids decide. But here's what matters to me. They have to be based on gender equality. They have to be based on acceptance of the other regardless of sex, religion, ethnicity, or way of life. They have to be based on service to others. You want to be a hero? Fine. They want to have social status. Great. Well, why don't we model that, use the school system in a way to teach the youth what you can achieve that kind of heroism, be a hero against poverty, against inequality in your own country, those kind of things. But we don't have any of that. We don't have any positive social movements that can replace this ideology in the country, especially targeted for youth. And you know what? It's an HR problem at the end of the day, like I said earlier. You can kill every terrorist tomorrow with a press of a button. As long as we're producing youth who are vulnerable at places that we've never seen before, really. And by the way, in Europe, it's also a similar problem. Does any of you know about the 10 or 20,000 kids under the age of 16 who have been kidnapped by European sex traffickers, Syrian kids, five to 10,000 in Italy? Nobody talks about that. But that's a problem. How do you come through that narrative? Because on the dark web, ISIS and all these groups are starting to use that. They say, hey, look, they only care about you if you're at sex slaves. Where's the European leadership there? So this is where offline online... Let's ask where the European leadership is. Mr. Kunders, how does Europe understand this problem? And how do you define that problem? And do you think that we're failing to see these aspects that Suleiman just outlined for us? Maybe some of them. Let me say a few things around this issue, how we can deal with it, and how we are trying to deal with it in the Netherlands. Let me be very practical. Because I realize that in each country there is a little bit of a different profiling of people who get attracted to this very violent, suicidal, apocalyptic extremism. That's the one we're talking about. Not everybody who is poor or even, frankly, everybody who is sexually disadvantaged is going to be an extremist. It is something that really has to be researched, as you said, more carefully in that sense. What I think there are a few things that are important in this. One is that you have to make sure that you build a social fabric in your society very clearly with the teachers, with people who are in prison, with your police, so that people trust actually their authorities to open up when these kind of things are developing. If it is a closed structure in which people are not... A mother who sees a boy or a father that sees a daughter or a mother that sees a daughter going in an extremist direction, or friends, what do they do? They normally don't talk about it. They don't trust their police. They don't trust... Or there are no social workers. In schools there is no response to this. There is not a real approach to dealing with this issue. This is very much where we are, you know, working on in the Netherlands. In some of the areas where I know some of the foreign fighters come from, in certain cities, they are not from all cities. Sometimes it's in specific neighborhoods, in specific places. There are also the lone wolves, frankly, so there is not one profile. But I think you can work on that. You can work with the Imams, and we have people who are vulnerable because they feel between two identities. They feel discriminated in my country. They don't feel a place. Some might be vulnerable to this kind of extremist thinking for understandable reasons. And you have to invest, I think, in all these things. It's very labor-intensive work. Of course, there is the more general issue. People have to feel at home, have to feel that they have a future. But that you cannot confront in two or three years. Before you know it, the business model recruits. So I think that is one thing. Second, you need to work with role models. Very much with people who have been radicalized. You should have no taboos. You should even understand why people do this, even if you disagree with them. Don't put them in a corner of isolation. I think that is a second very important point to do it. So the credible voices in your societies that come up that are credible for young guys or young women, then you have to be very... I agree with the point of research, because it is fortunately not all young people, but the size of attraction is large also after ISIS, frankly. I'm not sure if there is going to be a functional equivalent for this. So this issue of recently converted people. We see that in Europe. That's not so much an issue here, I think. Young people is recently converted. They don't know anything about religion. You know, there are people who are converted for three weeks and go to Syria. Young men as well as women. You see more and more a relationship with organized crime. So that is also a signal in which you can work. You shouldn't deny this. That means they're working in the prisons. Prisons are normally a recruitment agency for extremism. So how do you ensure that if you work with the prison workers, the people who work, that you don't do exactly what you shouldn't do. Then I think we can learn from each other in an international setting. Look, there are countries that have very big suppliers of foreign terrorist fighters, including unfortunately this country, but also Tunisia. My country less so, but still it is, you know, even small numbers. And I'm not talking about the rest of radicalization, because there are more issues to radicalization than only foreign terrorist fighters. But we exchange. I had just a program done with Tunisian social workers with some of the communities in the Netherlands. You see, where can we learn from? We can be blind. It's not so easy to understand. It's radicalization is not so difficult to understand. Any young generation wants to change. I was a radical when I was young. There's nothing wrong with that. It is the format in which it is becoming suicidal or so extremist that, you know, and that brings me in the end back to the issue of the internet. It is one element of that. Maybe not the biggest, but we should keep it under control as well in the good way that I mean under control, so not let it stop the internet and stop the free internet. And that's a tricky one, frankly. It is a very tricky one. But I think even there I have seen possibilities of engaging young people on the internet who might be ready to be recruited in other activities, not just social activities of soccer or so. I don't want to be overly naive on this. We have worked with certain groups that work on communities that are very vulnerable and where you teach not so, you're not targeting the person who might be radicalized but the surroundings. What would you do if I would become radical? You see that I'm drifting away. Most of the people, I mean, you can see it would probably do nothing. The friends would probably say, it's crazy or there would be circles of solidarity that we don't know. I think there is the way we can ensure work as part of the solution of the problem. Unfortunately, it's always prevention and sometimes you have to be repressive as well. We don't like it, but sometimes you simply have to take somebody out and arrest if they are, you know, preparing all kinds of things. There is no solution to that in terms of finding that right balance. Mohammad Raffer, go ahead. I think as a society, you have responsibility to protect the vulnerable but you cannot prevent crime. So I think if someone is a psychopath and we're going to join a gang or end up joining a dyes, can you stop them? Is it possible to stop someone from committing a crime? I think this needs to be distinguished from someone who might be lost because they have an identity crisis because they don't know if they belong to their host country or they belong to their country of origin. They're lost between the two cultures and then someone comes and offers them, you know, a solution. Is there a role for the state there to protect them because they are vulnerable and to integrate them, whatever that may exactly mean? I think the first element of protection is don't blame a religion or a group as being the source of extremism. That's the biggest thing because people will easily say, okay, listen, is that group or it's all those immigrants or all those people who come from there and there? That would be absolutely wrong because 99% of those people don't want to have anything to do with it. It doesn't mean that it cannot be a vulnerability as one of the elements of recruitment but as we just said, I wouldn't even dare to say that this issue of migration and integration is the key reason for recruitment. It can contribute to it and there where our societies are at wrong, we should make sure that people feel at home in our societies. Let's make no mistake about that. At the same time, we see influences also that are very bad. I mean, people who are ascending with money, imams with very extremist views are able to recruit in different centers in our societies and we have to defend ourselves to that. That has nothing to do with xenophobia or freedom of speech. That's simply being alert to something that is a very, very violent group. So the naivete is also not something that we should have. It's not only soft politics. It is understanding what's happened, what happens and work on this better balance between prevention and repression. What do you do with... It's very difficult to find very recent converts that might just go in two to three weeks. You cannot prevent everything. You can start working on it, have also a counter-narrative, in a broader sense of the world, that you discuss this issue openly in your society. We have a problem with extremism. I don't think denying the issue of being afraid that you insult a religion or are too arrogant about somebody else. Let's discuss it in our societies openly. If people disagree, it's better that it comes out in the open, that it becomes a secret and some people can nestle themselves in this sense of injustice that might be very justified sometimes. We have about four minutes left and I want to make sure that we have an idea about what to expect from the future. Mohammed, I want to turn to you because I remember we talked about the military offensive in Mosul and the one that's underway, let's say, in Raqqa and what is going to happen in the aftermath. Do we know what kind of an impact is it going to have when it comes to online radicalization, whether we're talking about ISIS, but also other radical organizations, whether they're likely to perhaps adapt their strategy and exploit that area more as military or political pressure becomes something that they can no longer ignore. I wonder if you think how we can think about the future of online radicalization given the sociopolitical developments as well and also the situation in Iraq and Syria, whether you think it's going to be more of a platform that we should be carefully watching. I think for those fighters who have joined and who have survived the attacks by the legitimate armies, I think what was it? 60,000 fighters had gone to Iraq and Syria. How many have been obliterated? A large number, I would say. Let's say that some of them have survived and want to go back to Holland, to England, to France, to America. Well, they may be able to cross the Syrian border into somewhere, but then they'll need to use a passport somewhere else. I think the first thing to do is to be alert that they may be coming and to expect them. If they do get home, then they'll be protected by certain laws. These laws differ from Denmark to Holland to America. They may have different rights and different jurisdictions. If you can detect them, I think you need to keep an eye on them because they are very battle-hard and they may, in conjunction with, you know, online recruitment pose a bigger threat than if they didn't exist there. How to quantify that? How large a threat it is is an open question. I think that it's something to be concerned about. I don't think it's going to turn up to be a huge, huge threat. The other thing of them turning from the traditional tools of telling people to go and commit certain lone wolf acts in moving into something more substantial, that's also something to look for. I don't think it is presently a real, real threat. It's something to worry about. I don't think they have the capacity to do that presently. Minister Schwecke, I would like to get your final words as well since you are our host here in Jordan and then we will have to end the debate here because of time constraints, but I also want to hear from you in the future perspective. Basically, while we are driving digitization and trying to have internet for all, I think extremism should not be ignored and should be in the back of our minds, but to me we need to know the reasons behind it first, to understand, to fully understand the reasons behind whatever radical thinking or trying to entice violence over the internet or using the social media. So understanding it and finding the means and the ways and collaboration between countries because honestly I don't see many collaboration between countries to share experiences and to share views on how to defeat such extremism which we are facing and probably tomorrow we will have new ways of extremism since there is evolution in the technology, but as well people are being more creative in trying to find ways to destroy value and to have some damage from spreading violence. Many thanks to all of you, to all our panelists for their perspectives and for you for watching this joint Haber-Türk World Economic Forum debate here in Jordan. We'll end it here. Thanks again.