 Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today. We are here to discuss terrorism in the digital age. We have six or indeed five enormously experienced and knowledgeable commentators and an engaged audience in one hour. So it will be a challenge. Historically, as we know, terrorists have used fairly primitive tactics in order to get our attention. byddem yn y cwmwys, yn gwahanol er mwyn hwn yn eithafol a'r mediadau a'r mediadau ymlaen, y mediadau sydd hefyd, na'r holl wych wedi bod yn symud yn maen i hefyd ar gweithio ni'n ddweud. Wrth fynd i li'r teimlo hwn yn mynd i gweithio cyfloddau noffodol, mae'r hyn o'n ymgyrchiau bydd yna eich gwir yw wytnig diddyn nhw, rwy'n o'n holl bydda i ni'n gwir gweithio chymau i gweithio cyfloddau. Onle, y cyfnod yn fath o'ch gweithio, yn y chweithio, ac yn dda'r cyd-dweithio'r erosiaethau. Y nod o'r cyfrifedau cyrraedd ymlaen nhw i'r gweithio eich amser o'r cyfrifedau ymlaen nhw yw'r cyfrifedau cyrraedd, sy'n cyfrifedau sy'n cyfrifedau cyrraedd eich cyfrifedau, fan i'r cwlad cyfnod ac yw'r cyfrifedau. Yn ystod, yna ychydig am gweithio'r cyfrifedau o'r cyfrifedau a'r cyfrifedau i'r cyfrifedau i'r cyfrifedau. ac, dwi'n meddwl, maen nhw'n meddwl i'ch gweithio eich teulu y taelwyddon yna yn y ffug. A oeddaeth i'r ddweud y cwestiynau, rydyn ni wedi'i ei ddweud y panel gyda'r ysgol, rydyn ni'n meddwl i mi, rydyn ni'n meddwl i'r ysgolwydion ym Professor Ym Mhiy Osimbio, ym Mhiy Osimbio, ym Nghymru, ym Nghyrch i'r ysgolwydion, rydyn ni'n meddwl i'r ysgolwydion, dyma i ddweud yn yw'r dyfodol. A wedi Rob, dyma ym Mhysel Hynes, pan'r ddweud ar Fasal Al Sud, sy'n ddweud yng Nghymru'r Ffaisal Llywodraeth i'r ddweud yn ddweud yn Ysdau i Eurabia. Mae gennyn nhw'n Raheel Sharrif, sy'n ddweud yw'r dyfodol ar y Pachastani Armi, ac yn ffynol, mae'r John Paul Labord, sy'n ddweud y ddweud yng nghymru yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru yng Ngheirwyr yn ymddiadu yng Nghymru yw'r ysgrifennu? Yn ymddych chi'n fawr, ychydig yn ymddiadu'r ymddiadu, ymddiadu'r ymddiadu? Felly, yw'r ysgawdd? Yn ymddiadu? Yn ymddiadu, mae'r ysgawdd wedi'u gyffredinol ymddiadu ymddiadu'r ymddiadu. Felly, mae'r ysgawdd digital ymddiadu? Felly, mae'r ysgawdd ymddiadu ymddiadu? Yn ymddiadu ymddiadu ymddiadu ymddiadu ymddiadu ymddiadu ymddiadu ymddiadu, yw'r ysgawdd ymddiadu? Felly, mae'n bwysig. Felly, dydyn ni'n ddigon y lluniaeth mewn ymddiadu ymddiadu ymddiadu. Ymddiadu? Mae'n ddod o fel ymddiadu yn gwirionedd ac fydd yn eu chyfodol amgofyn ond mae'n gyrraedd gyda'r cymdr. Ond yw'r ffordd nesaf yw'r lle ffyrdd yma eich darparum yn y maen nhw'n llunio'n llunio. Yn dweud o'r uneddiad Yn ym Mhwllwch Aram'r uneddiad yma, ym Mhwllwch Aram yn uneddiad uneddiad. Ond yw'r dweud am y diwethaf ymlaen i'w ddefnyddio'r uneddiad yma yma yw 12 o'r uneddiad honno'r uneddiad yma ym mhwllwch ar gyfer ymlaen i'r uneddiad. y cwdydd, o bach ydych chi'n edrych â'r cyllidau. A'r cyllidau dweud sy'n adoedd yn henderfodol, ac mae'n teimlo fyddai'r adoedd yn dweud. Yn dweud fyddai'n adoedd yn dweud, ac mae fyddai'n adoedd yn dweud. A'r mod i gydorol wahanol, ychydig i wneud teimlo'r adolaethau, ac mae'r adoedd yma, a'r adoedd y mod i'r adoedd. ...egyn amser yn yma fynd i fod ar hyn o- arddangos, yn gallu ymell y gallwn cael y trafwyr lathau, ac mae hynny'n gallu'r bwysig, ac y gallwn cyre maen nhw'n bwysig o'r cyfullach cyflawn o'r bwysig... ...caf a'r amser nesaf, a'r y dychydig sy'n gyffredin roedd yma'r hyffordd a bwynt peir o'r hyffordd a'r hwn yn g frydd. Gweithio'r ysgoleth, neu'r hyffordd a'r mynd i'r hyffordd. Rhaid o'r hyffordd o'r hyffordd. A fewn yn amlant, rydym ni wedi'u gyrdo'r ei ddweud bod'u dowMC yn y syfyniad ychwaneg iawn. Fewn yn cael ei breed mlwl i gwaith, a'r ystyried yr arfer, a'r ym份 poddogi'r ymddangos newidau, a daf ychydig yr arfer yn roi'r cyflwysteniaeth. Diolch yn fawr. Dwi'n dechrau, dryddiatio'r tynnu yn dweud yn dweud y ffordd sy'n gweithio'r gweithio'r teres i gyhoedd yn ychydig, i ffyrdd y thymian a'r gweithio, yn ychydig mae'n dweud dwi'n dweud i'r ddweud ac felly mae gennym rhai'r ddweud yw eu cyfrifiadau ar gyfer teresol, byddai'n gweithio'r ddwylo'r ddweud, efo'r ddweud i'r cyfrifiadau, sy'n dweud i'r ddweud, y frontfine i'r trofnig o'r teresol. First of all, because of the scale that we are dealing with, Twitter alone is removing some quarter of a million accounts connected with Daesh in a little over a year. And of course not just Twitter, what we found at Europol through our European counter-terrorism centre is some 90 different social media platforms that that terrorist group is using in a highly enterprising flexible way. It is difficult, therefore, to contain it with such flexibility and resilience like that. The speed of it. You know, we are seeing one million hits on a very professionally made video, so-called celebrating the attacks on Paris just over a year ago. One million hits within 36 hours as well. So the technology is advanced, they know what they are doing, they know how to use it and why they are using it. Of course, mainly for communication purposes, it is acting as effectively an echo chamber to spread their radical beliefs, of course, in a way to recruit, firstly, more and more followers, to recruit impressionable in the main young men, to incite them to carry out so-called lone actor attacks. Many of the attacks that we have suffered in recent times can be directly connected, I think, to the process by which this ugly propaganda has turned their heads. The recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters who have then gone to the region to join Daesh as well. Some recent innovations just as worrying. The first example is at least in Europe of live streaming of attacks. So, you know, that in itself, I think, promotes a certain attraction, at least within the minds of some people as well. And we saw that for the first time when the police officer and his wife was killed in Manionville in the summer of last year. Of course, better known, I think, and better established also with other groups like Al Qaeda is the extent to which technology is used for communication purposes and encryption especially. That's not such an innovation by ISIS and Daesh, but it's still something that's a major feature. And finally, as a financing operation, you know, some innovative crowdfunding operations that are being used by some members of the group as well. So, in many, many ways, seeing technology in the social and digital age that we've never seen before, as I said, putting it on the front line of the fight against terrorism. Thank you. And what about the situation in Saudi Arabia? Do you think this is similar or are you facing different issues? In the name of God, this is pretty much universal what my predecessors talked about. If I can describe terrorism as a cancer where the terrorist cell uses these modern methods to metastasize and to affect the rest of the body, that is how the modern technology is being used today. In the 60s and the 70s when Europe and the rest of the world was going through another period of terrorism, red brigades, all the various by their minehub, et cetera. The lack of these facilities that they have today kept them pretty much within a certain borderline, if you like. Now it is universal. Hate in Paris is reflected by a million strikes, as this gentleman said, from everywhere. And also, so it's not just the technology but the fact that it is available to these people and very much within the handheld cell phone. That makes it very easy to use and very, very much a menace to the rest of society. But one other thing I think that people should keep in mind is that the terrorists are much, much, much quicker in action than those who counter them. Because of these tools that they have in their hands. And because they have no responsibility to a hierarchy above them governments are. And so the communication within governments limits the speed with which the governments can respond to the terrorists. So this gives them another advantage that they can act almost instantaneously. And if you have live streaming, well, then you have even quicker way and a more current way of not only showing what you do but also recruiting and propagandising and all of that. General Shreve, you've been in the front line of countering terrorism. Do you think these advantages that we've heard that terrorists have, the ability to act quickly and to use these new methods of communication, give them an advantage? It gives them a huge advantage and I must agree with my panellists. It's not only a cancer, it's the most deadly cancer. And I personally feel these terrorists have the ability to mutate, to morph and they can do that very quickly. And obviously this platform of digital age that is available, whether it is social media or any other platform which is available, they use it very, very effectively. And recruitment is one thing which is done on that. And I think the financiers, the betters, the facilitators, the sleeper cells and the sympathizers, all of them are involved in this. And I totally agree with this. And as you know there's a requirement for the free world to gel together and to react in such a fast pace. I would like to say that we need to go on a search to get rid of this menace. And they plan their attacks very well. They want glorification. If you see the timings, if you see the choice of the targets, there's a method to this madness. It's not that somebody from the cave is just planning it. It's much more to it. And they've been very, very successful in it. And I think we have been late in time. But if I just say a few words about my country, Pakistan and the region, we were having around 150 odd incidents a month. And from that we came down to a single figure in 2016. And now with the help of God Almighty, we have one odd incident in one or two months. So from bit to bit you know, or you can say from hours to days to weeks and to months. And there we are in months. And I'm sure we'll have that first one year. But as you said, it's a very, very deadly thing. And we all need to put our act together and react against it. Thank you very much. And the perspective from the UN. And I imagine you have less in the front lines countering them with force and more at the political end of that line. Well, I can see here you have already one, two, three, four regions of the world. And almost the same consultations that communication, they are excellent in communication, terrorist organizations. And then they use the digital for that. Operations, depending on the countries you have, for example, what the vice president said. Well, it's not as sophisticated as it is in Daesh, but they use to detonate. So they use it in different ways. And then Pakistan is a country in which you had this type of also phenomenon, which was effectively reduced, as you said, general, under your leadership. And operations are also very close to digital. Many operations of Daesh were conducted through messaging, I mean the instructions. And then after the detonation, et cetera. And finally, I think the financing, which is also very important for me. And the financing also shows us that the terrorist organizations are not only terrorist organizations. Mainly now they are also very much linked with organized crime. For example, do you know that the resources of Daesh, just an example, come from five to seven percent between five and seven, depending on the assessment from direct trafficking. What happens in Afghanistan? A huge amount of funds come from the direct trafficking also. So don't forget these links and that at the level of the UN, we have not forgotten that. What was said also, and this is a final point, we are always a step behind. And because terrorism is a global threat, which requires a comprehensive answer, I will take the example of international cooperation, we have not to be a step behind. And we have to use this type of digital age to find them the same way that they find us. I know that this is difficult because also we have to do that under the umbrella of the rule of law, and this is what also something is difficult, but we have to do that. And we have, this is why the only way to go is really to have a very solid and good international cooperation network. And this is where the UN, I think through the Security Council, but also through the UN Centre on Counterterrorism, should really be the repository of good practices given to the country. Hey, you have done that. For example, on the borders, I just spoke with the general on the borders. Pakistan has done a very important work on Boko Haram. You have done in the issue of the foreign terrorist fighters also. So that's what has to be shared, exchanged. And during the next round I will explain how to do that. Oh wow. You've got to start now then. Let's face it, international cooperation has not been that effective against terrorism. Why not? Why not? First of all because I feel that the countries should be, excuse me, I speak from the, I used to be a judge in my supreme court in my country. So I feel that we are not disciplined enough to have the type of offences which can really be connected to each other. I mean that, that's something very technical, but also very practical. We have to use the conventions against terrorism, which are the ones of the UN, to have at least an understanding about what we want to face. For example, explosive. Okay, fine. The terrorist by explosive. That's it. Let's have an offence in the countries which could be the same or at least similar in many countries. Second, we have also to work with the companies, which is also something very new for us. It's normally security was in the past, I mean the prerogative of states. No, now we have to work and we have engaged with all the big companies of the world now to work with them to see what they can provide for example the prosecutors, what they can give freely. Not even speaking about the freedom of speech or privacy, what they can give without infringing all of that. And also what we have to do is to in my view also to speak with the civil society because you will not fight terrorism from only a state or a company perspective. This is a triptych that you have to have. Civil societies, companies and state. We don't work against the people. We work for the people. And at the end of the day, we know very well that states, companies and civil societies are victims of this phenomenon. This is what we do. Yes, please. Absolutely right because in Pakistan also it was a whole of nation approach. I think that paid. We had some very horrendous attacks like the school incident in which over 135 children were killed and martyred. So everybody came together and jailed together. So I think at the international level also there is a requirement to have synergy in the fact and to have a platform. And UN resolution like 1373 says it all. Everybody has a responsibility. And I think as you said about the digital age, I think intelligence sharing is key to success against terrorism. And that's very, very important. And if there is intelligence shared and there's actionable intelligence and people work on it, the countries react to it. I think it can bring a marked difference. Intelligence sharing though I think is one of the main stumbling blocks in the fight against terrorism. I don't know if things have changed since I was in intelligence. But there was always the third person rule about sharing intelligence. That is if I share intelligence with you, you're not allowed to share it with your neighbor unless you come back to me and ask me if you can share it. And that puts a big constriction on the immediacy of the sharing of the intelligence. So this counterterrorism center in the UN I think is very important in overcoming some of these bureaucratic obstacles as well as some of the financial obstacles that face countries in general. And the human resource obstacles. There are many countries if you look at for example some of the Sahel countries in Africa. They lack human resources and they lack financial resources to meet the challenge of these terrorists. And by the time that a world response comes to help these countries, it may be too late. They already established there. They have found their own place and so on. Another factor of course is what we are facing in our part of the world which is the failed states. If you take the situation in Syria for example or in Iraq or in Yemen, the state is no longer capable of meeting these challenges. In Pakistan they have done well for themselves as the general mentioned. They brought down the incidents from several years to less than one and perhaps will be improving further. So there is a need by the world community to look into how the failed states can be brought back to meet these challenges. Rex, we are hearing a lot about international cooperation and mobilising all facets of society in the counter-terrorist campaign. Has this been your experience in Nigeria too? Have you been getting the international collaboration you like? Yes, to a very large extent. We work with the Lake Chad basin countries and other frontline countries around our region. For me I think there is a, I think in developing a response, I think there is a need to work on how to delegitimize ideology that is so potentially so dangerous. And frankly I think yes a great deal of attention needs to be spent on how to deal with the technical issues around controlling information that gets into cyberspace and all of that. But I think that there must be counter information. There must be some information out there that legitimizes these kinds of ideologies. And I think a lot more time needs to be spent on that. The other thing is really the autonomy that each person has, each person who has a digital appliance, a digital device has tremendous power. And you don't even require any formal agreements. I mean just putting out your information out there, it can reach large numbers of people. How to deal with, you know, how to deal with, because this is peculiar to new, it's absolutely new and we have to ask ourselves, how do you deal with those issues where one person can do so much harm by just simply putting out this kind of information out there. I think that we are really in a place that obviously the world has never been before. But our responses must be new, they must be nuanced, because again I look at issues of freedom of expression and how that in some senses has affected the way that we are approaching this. We're very restrained, we're walking gingerly around international human rights rules and of course freedom of expression and those kinds of things. Because that's how we've been, you know, the expression brought up. But we simply have to take a second look at all of those kinds of issues, we have to take a second look. What is freedom of expression today? I mean obviously we're seeing it being approached in legislation and terrorism, anti-terrorism legislation and all of that. But I think there's still a broader conversation to be had as to how to look at the whole question of freedom of expression when you have these kinds of challenges. How does that play out? How do you deal with these issues? And there must be consensus, there must be international consensus. Otherwise you're going to have rogue behaviour in these things. Are you saying there's a conflict between freedom of expression and countering terrorism effectively? The point I'm really making is that our freedom of expression traditions and our whole orientation affects our thinking about how to deal with terrorism, especially cyber-terrorism. I think that we are restrained. I think that we are, of course, you know, this is the way we've always thought about these things. As a matter of fact, the time was when someone would say that even if it was what is described today as hate speech, it is still permissible so long as it wasn't libellous so long as it was. And countries where strict rules applied about hate speech, sedition and those kinds of things, that was old school. But all of a sudden we're finding that we've got to rethink our way and I think it's just more a mindset. And I think that there's a need for us to just deconstruct that so that we can be more open-minded about dealing with the issues of terrorism. About that, we have exactly on this issue, upon the initiative of Eiji, by the way, who was the president of the Security Council. At that time we have launched an initiative which is an international framework on counter-narrative and to understand exactly what could be done on this issue. That's something very important, of course, obviously. And it has to be done again with all the elements of the society, all the elements that we can get, and also the private companies. This is why, by the way, the work of the forum on the cyber security also is so important. And I have to praise the work of the group led by Jean-Luc Weis about that because it's a very important work on this issue. This must be something that the Europe thinks a lot about, how to delegitimize an ideology, how to have a new and nuanced approach. Do you think it's possible to construct an effective counter-narrative? Yeah, well it's essential, and it is part of the European Union agenda in this space as well, of course. But we have to deal with it in a way to reconcile what our contradictory force is. We want to enjoy, we want to protect the freedom of the internet, but not to such an extent that there are absolutely no rules of governance and no effective means by which law enforcement and other security agencies can monitor, indeed, and prevent terrorist activity. Going back to the point that the general and his Royal Highness were making earlier, I think there are other contradictory forces which are a plane dealing with the modern manifestations of terrorism. Your right general, it requires an all of national response, but actually the extent to which terrorism operating today on the internet, exemplified by that, means it has to be more than that, has to be an all of region, indeed all of global response. And yet, for very good reasons of course, terrorism is a national security issue that roots it very much in political, legal, operational terms in something that's within the geographical boundaries of a state. And indeed in the European Union we have political red lines, we have legal red lines in our treaties that make sure that that is the case. So how do you reconcile that and the need to protect intelligence very closely and be very careful about sharing it with the fact that you're facing something that's become, long since become a regional global challenge? That's the gap, the policy gap that we have to bridge through a pretty smart solution and what we do at Europe is try to leverage the extent we can build trust within the counter terrorist and policing communities and in this space of the digital age, operate as a single platform to coordinate police activity and make referrals to all of these social media platforms. So there is a way of doing it, but it's about reconciling separate interests sometimes in a modern and smart way. When I was referring to this whole-op-nation approach, obviously, I just gave an example and you're absolutely right. It has to be at the international level. And I'll say that these freedom of speech and other things like human rights, they are limitations and they are difficult to handle when you are dealing with hardcore terrorists. And if you talk of human rights, I'll just give an example. The gain of about 100-odd mothers who I met after myself, my wife, who were there and they were all demanding that they should be caught and apprehended and hanged there in the school premises. So somebody mentioned about human rights. So they just literally got hold of me and said that what about our human rights? So there is a balance which is required and especially for those, I would say, hardcore terrorists who have been holding heads of two of my soldiers, one in each hand and playing football with the third one. So there is a need to deal with these terrorists in a very firm, in a very bold, gracious and I personally feel in a manner that it creates deterrence. Obviously the norms and other rules and regulations need to be followed but I think that's the way forward for those who and then the second point, obviously, the counter narrative that is very, very important. In fact, the same vehicle which they are using, I personally feel we should be using it better than that and this counter narrative should be going out day in, day out and all our youth and people who get radicalized or who get impressed and all must, this narrative should be so potent, so strong that it should nullify everything. Sorry to drop, it's fake news. It's effectively an example of this phenomenon that we're dealing with now. Maybe we need to have a twitified response to it because it is just fake news and the same challenge around how we can identify it and persuade our peoples that it is fake news and not to be carried seriously and followed seriously. Again, it's the very open nature of the internet in the social media platform which in most respects is a fantastic benefit for us but it's a very open, unregulated nature that allows for this form of fake news to be spread in such a voluminous and effective way. That is the root cause I think of this particular problem we're talking about in this panel. But we have been singularly unsuccessful in doing this. No, that's not true. Absolutely not true. Let's look at the State Department Office of Public Diplomacy. I don't think you'll find a person who would argue that this has been a successful enterprise even though it's been well-led. Even though we haven't successfully engaged in the way that we need to. If we had, we wouldn't need to sit here. Well, the number of people that have been radicalized and persuaded to travel to Syria right from the United States, Western Europe and if I speak from the regions that I know, have dried up effectively. Surely that's because the military defeat of ISIS, not because they've been persuaded it's a bad idea. That's your assessment. I might have a different one. I think that's part of it and I don't think it's as simplistic as that. Because timing would imply it's more than just part of it. No, because it began before the serious military decline of ISIS. I agree with you that it's certainly a contributory factor as indeed a more aggressive response by the security and law enforcement agencies, especially in Europe. But I would expect also that the counter narrative is beginning to have some effect. I agree with you. It's very much an uphill battle. I wouldn't call it singularly unsuccessful. I think that's a bit hard on those that are engaged in this. And it remains a very serious challenge. But there are some success that we're finding out there. If I could go back to the general. General, do you think you can deter somebody who is prepared to sacrifice their own life and their family's life? One can deter, why not? If there's a proper mechanism in place, and if there are courts which can take the scenes, and in our case I'll openly admit we had the military courts, and 170 odd individuals were convicted and punished. There's a number of them given death sentence. Obviously, there's still a very large number which is going through the process. I must admit also that this was need of the art. There's unusual time, so for that unusual, you can say, arrangement was required. So we did that. There is deterrence which obviously those who are in the pipeline, those who are gradually getting indoctrinated and all, they do get deterred. So I think apart from a kinetic operation, there's a development wrong which is required, and with that this deterrence has to be in place. It does work. Education man is the most important place to start to get the counter narrative. That can only happen in schools, in mosques, in churches, in social gatherings, et cetera, et cetera. Using modern tools, as the terrorists use them to convince others to join them, also is important. The other thing that is equally important is to try not to punish the innocence while you're dealing with the criminals. This is also something that unfortunately in some cases hasn't happened. The collateral damage has a wide effect on a society or on a group of people. But what are you to do? As the general said, you have to have rigid and very enforceable conditions under which you operate. But at the same time, you must keep in mind that not to eliminate the terrorists and create ten others. That is equally important to keep in mind. It can only happen if there is very strong coordination between the world community on these issues, which unfortunately until today I don't think yet exists. It's improving, but it's not there yet. And deradicalisation as well is important. The young people who go to Syria, for example, you must offer them a chance to come back. Simply because they went to Syria, they are considered die-hard terrorists and punishable by death or by elimination or whatever. There must be means of inviting them back and using family, using the other social contacts that they may have had that can sometimes work. In the Kingdom there is a radicalisation programme, which is a work in progress. But it's helped in convincing at least a number of these terrorists that what they're doing is wrong and that they must come back and work within their society. Not to break the leash or the link with them. Give them a way out to come back. I see a lot of heads nodding around the circle here. I'll just like you, because about my previous comments, we are running seven deradicalisation centres and we have more than 2,500 individuals. Sabahulun is the name of the centre, which is in light. So that is, those who have been run 2,500 individuals have come out of that being one of the families. We have NGOs and bodies working on that. We have experienced and we have delivered a number of views. It is about 338,000 families, which is over 800,000 people, were moved out of an area. That area was about 8,000 square kilometres. So 8,000 square kilometres area, people were moved out. Then we carried out the operation. I'm very happy to state that around 90% have gone back to those areas. So we cleared the area, moved them back. All this has happened with a theme built better than before. Obviously poverty, education, health, all these things. We even gave them whole year jobs and Robert Gate would bring me up and thank me. That's the type of, that's what I was saying. There's a whole-of-nation approach required. There is a full theme behind it. So only then, you know, it's not only an operation, it has to be a concept which deals with all these dimensions. Only then one can bring down terrorism and control extremism. There's a shocking amount of agreement around the circle here. I think we may need to bring the audience in, but first of all Jean-Paul. No, what I want to say is that of course we need a real policy. You cannot only go to actions. And this is something, for example, concerning the digital issues to come back to that. For example, the impact, if we want to have a counter narrative, the impact of somebody who has been deregalised and who can speak about the process under which he was deregalised. It's something which has really an impact. Or, unfortunately, when we have so many victims, some of them can also speak about that, you know, which really gives the sense of the acts of terrorism. But out of that we need to have a counter violent extremist policy. We have to have prevention of policy. As you said, education is really something which is important in which, by the way, the people who are deregalised and who have been deregalised have to really be there. The impact is enormous when you have that. So that's where we start with prevention. You know, it's like a crime at the end. You need the real policy with prevention, and then after that operation and then deradicalisation. And the prisons also issues which have to be treated very seriously. So all of that, in order to prevent this, what is the topic of today, these terrorism and digital connections. Thank you. I'd like to invite any questions or comments from the floor. Yes, please. I think it's a small enough room. Thank you very, very much for being here today. The terrorists themselves could be attributed because of their religious fanatics. But I think the role of sympathisers internationally is hugely significant. Why is it that enormous ways of citizens turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to what really could be much more of a pressure and a movement opposing these? So there's religious fanaticism in the terrorists, but surely the sympathiser is less the religious fanatic, but the one complaining or being a victim of corruption in their government's unhappiness with how they live their lives. So what I'm saying here is that the terrorist is almost a single person compared to what condones the action and allows this to happen on a huge scale. And that leads also to very quick radicalisation. Thank you. Sinicism is the worst tool of these sympathisers. They don't go and do the terrorist act. We had the case of a person in the kingdom much reported in the press who at one time in his lifetime was a sympathiser. Not necessarily of terrorist acts, but of acts of opposition, let's say, to establish order or to certain ideas and directions. And he was urging young people to go and fight for the rights of Muslims to protect themselves, et cetera, putting it in a halo type of approach. And one day the Ministry of Interior received a call from this person saying, please can you stop my son from going across the border into an area of conflict. And this is a typical way for these sympathisers who are willing to see others die for certain issues, but not themselves or their loved ones. So you're right, the sympathisers and anybody who beats the drum for these terrorists should be included in the way that the treatment for and the dealing with the terrorists is undertaken. And that cannot be done simply by legislation. It must be done through a social make-up, the holistic approach that the general was talking about, the whole nation or the whole community participating in it. It just depends on the particular terrorist phenomena that we have. So in the days when terrorism in Europe was more characterised by separatist movements like the IRA in Britain and Ireland and ETA in Spain and France, then there was a cause that was capable of being sympathised with perhaps among sections of the public. If I compare that with what we have in Europe today, I don't see groundswell of sympathy, at least not natural levels of sympathy, with the aims of certainly not the actions of ISIS. Now the community of radicalised members or potential members is indeed large and worrying so, but no groundswell sympathy for their actions, I don't see it at all. Two years ago this month, in response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, you'll remember, there were millions of people, French people, who came out to the streets to say, just we shall leave and indeed copied around Europe in major cities. It's quite a powerful statement actually and a natural popular reaction that wasn't stage managed by any politicians. And that stuck in my mind, I think, at least in the region that I work. So depend, and once again we go back to the point about how do you characterise, how do you define terrorism because there are many different forms. I would just draw a distinction there if I could between sympathy with actions of terrorism and sympathy with their aspirations. I think even in the case of the ETA and the IRA, I don't think there was a great deal of sympathy for their actions. There was sympathy with their aspirations. I think we see much of that today. There isn't certainly not sympathy with the atrocities committed by Daesh and so on, but certain sympathy with a feeling of a community that is lost out, a sense of anger against what the authorities, the world, whoever. So I think one can distinguish between sympathy for actions and sympathy for aspirations. But anyway, let me bring in this gentleman right here. Hello. I just want to build on what that lady said over there, that they need some grounds for recruitment and maybe she was talking about injustice or misgovernance or things like that. But I think there are other things as well. The proxy wars which have been fought around the globe today, what's happening in Syria, what happened in Afghanistan, wars which have nothing to do with those people over there, people are dying and the whole world is watching. And when people watch that injustice like she's saying, it gives ground for recruiting. It gives the ground to create those feelings. So is it time maybe we should actually raise our voices to the people who are fighting those proxy wars and call the spade a spade, because that is what is going to add to the recruitment today. Thank you. Again, I see nodding of heads in response to that. A gentleman behind you. My question is for the general and about this tension between fighting the Taliban when there are sympathizers within the population who may not be in the tens, within the hundreds of thousands who are supporting them, how do you deal with this sort of tension? How do you go after the Taliban when there are large parts of the population who might be giving them shelter, or maybe sympathizing with them and improving what they do? I'm just wondering if you can give us some insight as to how Pakistan doubt will continue to deal with this issue. Yes. May I? Please. The circumstances in Pakistan are difficult. There are huge challenges and we need to understand those challenges. For example, we have over 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan for the last over 30 years. We have a 2400 kilometer border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which is a porous border. We have inter-tribal linkages. There are a number of villages, which are, you can say, divided villages in a sense that you can have dinner in one house and then have lunch in the other, and you'll be on the other side of the border. Then you have, as you said, a lot of people who are intermarriages. So the milieu or the environment is pretty difficult. But Pakistan is managing that. Once we launched this operation, we decided that we will establish a rate of our country, rate of Pakistan, rate of the government in all the areas. So now the rate of the government exists in the whole of Pakistan and the border is being managed. There are difficulties on the other side. There are pockets in Afghanistan where a lot of all these organizations, a lot of terrorists and the groups are there. And then there's a talk of various tribes and various networks like Hakanis and all. So that all is dependent on the situation in Afghanistan. So we hope and pray. It is our brotherly country and we hope and pray that stability returns to Afghanistan and ours and upon destiny obviously is linked. And I personally feel the moment there is stability in Afghanistan, things would improve. The media man, we haven't talked about the media. They have enormous role to play in either promoting or opposing what is happening in the world today. And unfortunately the sensationalism attracts the media. And these terrorists, they aim to raise the sensational aspects of their acts. Hence we see the beheadings, we see the burnings, we see all of that. And the media simply spreads it around and I think that there is a need for a rethink on what the role of the media should be. Not just in the West, but throughout the world community. And in addition to that, within the media there is the issue of the double standard that some people feel is applied to their causes or to their interests and their beings. And this is also glorified by the media and it's something that is pointed to by these terrorists as a means of recruiting others by saying look what they're promoting here or look what they're saying there and not there. So there is a need also within the counter-terrorism centre I think for these issues to be thoroughly investigated and researched and proposals made to meet the challenges. And one more quick comment about various conflicts that are going on in the world. I personally feel there is a requirement to resolve these conflicts but that would also, like Kishmir is one, Palestine is one, another conflict. And once we do that, I'm sure again it would help in having a better understanding, better harmony in various regions. Thank you. Louise, I wanted to hear about the nexus between corruption, organised crime and terrorism. You just take it that terrorism cannot function without organised crime. A terrorist cannot walk out with a suicide jacket, he doesn't get exposes of the shelf, he doesn't get transportation, logistics, safe areas, he doesn't get intelligence. This all comes from organised crime, identity documents, etc. Organised crime is fetched by corruption and in many cases corruption is definitely fosters this organised crime to control areas. We have seen that happening in Pakistan and we've seen it happening in this thing. Unfortunately, the West does not look at the proceeds of corruption going to the West. I mean, around the Hyde Park you have most of the biggest crooks in the world living there and nobody does something about it because there is no real estate that says you can buy something not over 10,000 pounds in cash but most of the property is bombed beyond that. You cannot say can you buy property without declaring the source of your income. Have you declared your tax return or not to your tax return to at least your tax registration from the country of origin? So I think we must look at corruption as a figure, as this thing. Go after that. Thank you. Anyone like to comment on that? Yes please. Well, not only corruption, but as you said, there is corruption which is one of the means of organised crime. That's where the problem is. And more and more, especially now with Daesh, you can see the reduction. I just take this example. I don't say that it is telling you that. With the reduction of the territory it means less resources. Of course they have still the resources coming from the taxes. But still they are engaging more and more in organised crime. The diffusion also of corruption into societies is something which of course diminished the values and then these people who are looking at the internet can say okay look, Daesh is promoting great values, whatever is wrong but because of the society it's not what it should be. So that's obviously the work against organised crime has to be one of the components. And even more, if you attach organised crime with terrorism it means that you will diminish the value of the people who said yes, we are fighting for the right cause. You cannot fight for the right cause when you are using these methods of organised crime. I want to take one example, another one. For example, when they in Daesh they request women to join they did that and they continue to do it. To join their ranks, to support Daesh whatever the type of support they want from. You should know that after having a quote using the services of this women they sell them to these networks of organised crime and these ladies in that case are resale are resolved to somebody else. That's so horrible that you can see that if we are good enough in terms of digital use to really promote the fact, I mean to not promote, to look at the fact and say what they do and using, for example, in Afghanistan it's $200 million per year that's supported at Al Qaeda also. So that's where I think we are not good enough and this is where I really push my actions and try to do whatever we have to do in terms of good practices, sharing whatever has to be shared and using the centre for promoting these actions. Thank you. There's another important factor that I agree with you in the sense that the profile of the terrorists at least those that were responsible for the attacks that we've seen in Europe are much more criminally affected, criminally formed by their background. They come up through a gang culture. Many of them have criminal traces, police files on them from low level drug offences and so on. We haven't seen that in the past and we're dealing with a different typology of terrorists compared to the rather more religiously convinced members of Al Qaeda. We're dealing with different people that are different products of society with a criminal background and that's important for the way in which we structure our response going right back to where we started which is why we have to envisage a more ambitious counter-terrorist response that breaks through from the national constrictions because we have to find a way of connecting the intelligence world with the police world more and more because very often the data about who these people are where they've come from and who they're still in touch with will be as much in a police file, maybe even at a local level as it will be in the files of the CIA or MI5 and that means our response has to be smarter and wider than it has been. We don't have that much time left and I wonder if I could ask you to think about the future. We've already said we've been slow encountering terrorists we've been reacting to them. Do you have any sense, do you think about what they might do next especially in this digital age? We've seen a new tendency that they tend certainly the European ones to be more criminal. What do you worry about they're doing next? Cyber warfare is available and that is something that terrorists by their knowledge of the technology of social media and so on can very much address and use as a tool to enhance their projects and I've read in various studies as well the worry about the more lethal either radioactive or biological or chemical facilities and capabilities may be at hand now because of modern technology and the spread of that modern technology throughout the world where it might not be as well protected as in some other places are equally things that we must keep in mind that terrorists will not prevent themselves from using any means to advance their causes so they'd be willing to use these issues. Systems even very advanced weaponry and those kinds of things is a very real threat and as technology improves as you have even more sophisticated digital technology in developing weaponry so the possibility that someone can hack into a very sophisticated system and control that resource in such a way as to do maximum damage somewhere I think that it's just the the whole irony of it is that technology is so important in everything and we're making so much progress but just as we make that progress the weak underbelly the obvious problem with that is that we also have the tendency that somebody somewhere who all he needs to do is to simply get into that system kind of put that system in such a way as to do really great damage that I think might keep us awake at night because we really need to find ways perhaps ways of protecting systems more and what we've seen in even in the past few months shows that hacking is becoming an even more dangerous business and certainly much more than just hacking into into political party systems I think I should be really worried about the possibilities I agree, I think the logical extension of some of these groups becoming more and more tech savvy is something like that and even if they don't have access to this capability then they can simply buy it frankly on the darknet where there's an enormous trade in cybercriminal technology that is available that said I think attacking the critical national infrastructure at least of most countries is a tough task not easily done and there's something that's not quite as immediate and showy as firing automatic weapons in a theatre or in public so I'm not sure that we'll see that but I think it's clearly a scenario that we have to be concerned about I'm also concerned about the extent to which Dias for example has been quite smart in exploiting geopolitical trends that's in a way that makes them more political and strategic than we've seen in the past a deliberate I think exploitation of the migration crisis in a way that's aggravated the problem I think for western governments in Europe and they've acted to infiltrate perhaps some of the roots and maybe even to infiltrate some of the refugee camps in a way that's had an adverse political effect and I wonder if that was all part of their planning so we are dealing perhaps with a more sophisticated actor in many different ways I'd also like to agree because the qualification in my opinion is something on which these terrorist organizations thrive and that's why they choose the right moment the right target and all and so in that way maybe in the future the west or the developed countries they will have problem in a sense as far as the cyber is concerned if it has to be something it has to be spectacular in nature and I hope it doesn't happen and it would be very unfortunate but that's what they have always been trying so that would be something that one can see but there is a requirement to have filters there is a requirement to control the technology in a manner that it does not get into the hands it's easier said than done but there has to be something done about it and I personally feel the international community needs to sit together develop a counter narrative and develop as far as this digital age is concerned develop some system that we have a check on it I think we're out of time so if I can summarize where we are there's notwithstanding the fact that we have a very distinguished panel from very different parts of the world representing very different experiences there's an enormous amount of agreement here that terrorists have indeed been very fast and agile the digital age to communicate to recruit and to propagandise and that the best hope for an effective counter terrorist campaign is one that has to marshal on national terms both the state and civil society and the private sector but if it is to be effective it also has to be international and that it's incumbent upon us to figure out a way to construct a convincing counter narrative to counter the ideologies being trafficked by these groups looking into the future we're worried about their use of they're becoming more tech savvy potentially using weapons of mass destruction potentially hacking into weapons system or through links with organised crime even buying them so I'm trying desperately to seek a positive note which to end this I want to give you the position because everybody agrees on the threat of the future but we are working on that and we are working within the world on this issue cyber security already we have a global agenda council we are producing many elements especially to trying to find what kind of core actions have to be made in order to leave the freedom that you were speaking the freedom of speech, the privacy etc we are working on that and hopefully among all these elements of the societies again civil society companies and governments and international organisations we can find a solution at least at the same pace this is a hope that we can have that terrorist organisations run their dramatic terrorist actions Thank you, on that positive note I'd like to invite you to join me in thanking our panellists